Leftist Protesters Attempting "Global March To Gaza" Get Beaten And Arrested In Egypt

There is perhaps no group more tiresome and naive than western progressives; constantly seeking to socially engineer not just their own nations, but nations on the other side of the world.  If they can't do it through the monetary manipulation of subversive bureaucratic institutions like USAID, then they will try to do it directly with protests, marches and mobs.  The problem is, no one likes them and no one wants them around.  The tolerance they enjoy in Europe and the US does not exist in other countries and they don't seem to get it.

Just as leftists ignorantly demand multiculturalism without understanding the inevitable and violent consequences of inviting the third world into the west, they also tend to invite themselves overseas into the backyards of civilizations that despise everything the political left supposedly stands for.

Thousands of activists, primarily from western countries, have descended on Egypt this week for a “Global March to Gaza,” a movement aiming to break the Israeli blockade that they argue has pushed the region to the brink of famine.  Some 4,000 volunteers from over 80 countries joined the protest, according to organizers.  This number is unconfirmed and footage of arriving protesters shows much smaller groups.

They planned to land in Cairo, take buses to the city of Arish in northern Sinai, and then march around 30 miles through the desert peninsula to the Egyptian side of the Gaza border at Rafah. Organizers said the activists would sleep in tents along the route and expected to arrive at the border on Friday.

The idea was clearly ill conceived from the beginning, with protesters believing they have the ability to march 30 miles across the Egyptian desert towards a war zone without interference, but the group never actually made it beyond Cairo.  Egyptian authorities detained at least 200 pro-Palestinian activists in Cairo on Thursday (with more reportedly being held).  Among the detainees were people from Australia, France, Morocco, the Netherlands, Spain and the United States.

Footage shows activists being beaten by an angry mob of Egyptians (possibly security forces) after they attempted a sit down protest and locked arms.

FAFO: Democrats arriving in Egypt planning to ‘March to Gaza’ in solidarity with the Palestinians are being attacked and thrown out by Egyptians who won’t tolerate Palestinian sympathizers. pic.twitter.com/mTWLMiTDa0

— @amuse (@amuse) June 14, 2025

They also claimed to have been beaten by Egyptian police after they were arrested.  Most of the activists are now being deported back to their countries of origin.

As Israel’s war in Gaza enters its 21st month, high-profile international campaigners are becoming increasingly active in their attempts to "break the siege" (or steal the spotlight).  Recently Israel intercepted a Gaza-bound aid ship, the “Madleen,” detaining its passengers and taking them to Israel.  Among the activists on board was Swedish climate and human rights activist Greta Thunberg and French member of the European Parliament Rima Hassan.

At bottom, the events in Gaza and the Middle East have nothing to do with the western populace and the circumstances go well beyond the limited understanding of first-world progressives.  These are not places or cultures where civil protest is permitted.  These are cultures where violence is the first and only means of societal change.  One cannot effectively intervene if one foolishly believes first world strategies can be applied to third world problems.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/15/2025 - 16:55

 

 

I brought the electric 9/11 to the Locust Valley Cars & Coffee last week. It’s not overstating it to say she was the star of the show (see photo above). I stayed about 2 hours (until it began to rain) and answered endless questions about the conversion process, drive experience, etc. It reminded me it’s been a while since I’ve done an update, so here are some thoughts for those who are interested.

The car arrived last July, but I didn’t start driving it until the end of August (due to book-writing duty and travel). I’ve since spent a considerable amount of time behind the wheel.

It has been a delight, along with some minor hiccups.

I did have more work to do: I had a local Porsche restorer add some screens ahead of the dual battery cooling fans to keep road debris, gravel, and leaves out. They also figured out the issue with the “Sport” mode, which unlocked another 100 horsepower. It now goes Wheeeee! really quickly.

We also tweaked the new suspension, which was not sitting quite right, and that improved the ride and eliminated any squeaks. Some of the bolts that hold the motor/battery in place were shorter than ideal, and so we replaced those with longer, galvanized versions. The only items waiting to be fixed from the original conversion are the heat and AC, which aren’t running quite right.

But the drivetrain continues to impress.

It’s fun pulling up next to a new Porsche 911 GT3, and getting the “Hey old man, thumbs up” from the young turk driving what is essentially a track car. The light turns green, and my only wish is I had photos of the faces agape in wonder. The license plate gives the secret away, but you can’t see them when I slide up next to you at a light, and your flat-6, twin turbo, burble drowns out my silent drivetrain.

It’s stupid fun.

The conversion added lots of “go” but no “stop.” After the heat and AC, my next steps are the brakes and tires. Early 1990s Carreras shared the same suspension set-up as my ‘87, but received upgraded brakes. The hope is these can be retrofitted to my 1987. I look forward to the larger discs and 4 caliber (versus 2) for added stopping power of the 90s cars.

Once the brakes are done, the weakest link in the chain will be the tires. I am thinking of replacing the stock all-season Pirellis with stickier Yokohamas.

But that’s pretty much it. The car has been a blast to drive; I get thumbs up from other 911s or anybody who plays with me on the road. Even the police have given me a thumbs up.

It’s been a fun project. I can’t wait to figure out what the next one is going to be. (more photos after the jump)

 

 

More photos…

The post 911 EV Update: 10 Months In appeared first on The Big Picture.

Two Hot Wars And Counting... And The Fed On Wednesday

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

On Shaky Ground

Let’s start by wishing everyone a happy Father’s Day, or more broadly, let’s just keep family and friends in mind as the world takes a turn for the worse. Two hot wars. There is probably more fighting going on than just in Ukraine/Russia and Israel/Iran (and certainly death and devastation is occurring in parts of Africa), but that has been where everyone’s attention has turned.

Academy will continue to keep you updated on the events in the Middle East and our projections (that this will potentially last several weeks, not days) via our Geopolitical Analysis. If you don’t have access to our full history of SITREPs and Macro Strategy Reports, please reach out to your contact at Academy.

The latest SITREP was Friday evening – “Iran Commences Missile Strikes on Israel.”

Today, in an effort not to inundate you with missives from Academy, we will keep this contained as we will certainly have more SITREPS in the coming days and are planning a webinar for Tuesday (registration invite to follow).

Macro in a Minute

Last weekend we took stock of the current situation in Where Are We Now?

We followed up midweek, ahead of the auctions, with the view to Continue to Add Duration. We had hypothesized that the auctions would be strong, and they were.

The rates trade was derailed, sometime in the middle of Thursday night, when global yields went from trading as a “flight to safety” to seeing the risk of higher energy prices and larger deficits due to military spending. That is how we expected them to trade in the event of more war, but we just missed the timing of the escalation.

Into the close on Friday, we reiterated our bullish stance on Treasuries and expectations that ongoing conflict (where we are now) would hit the “safety” trade.

The Fed

The Fed decision comes out on Wednesday, just ahead of the Juneteenth holiday.

When I pull up the Bloomberg WIRP Function (World Interest Rate Probability), I see that a full cut isn’t priced in until October (86% in September). The market is pricing in exactly two cuts for the year.

We continue to take the under on timing and the over on number of cuts.

• Inflation has been contained.
  • More importantly, at current tariffs rates (call it 10% with the rest of the world), there will be some inflationary pressures, but they will take time to bleed into the economy.
  • Many even question whether they will ever be passed on to prices. Our base case is that they creep into the economy, but slowly, as it takes time to pass on price increases, and many will wait to see how it plays out before even trying, and yes, exporters will face some pressure to cut prices, which in a slowing global economy, they will likely do.
  • U.S. tariff policy could change on a dime, but more pauses seem likely and we can manage through that (with regards to inflation).
  • Our view incorporates the risk that tariffs will slow the economy somewhat, also dampening the potential for inflation.
  • Aside from the Headline Establishment NFP number, it is difficult to find other signs of economic strength. Yes, we are conditioned to react to the headline number that is published. Who cares about revisions? The awful Household Survey? The fact that response rates are abysmal – even on the “admired” Establishment Survey? Who cares that ADP (presumably with some real-time access) doesn’t see jobs being created like that? While we have “maligned” the Birth/Death adjustment for some time, more and more people are doing serious work on this. This is contrasted against our “finger in the air” approach, which is coming up with similar conclusions – the Birth/Death model has not kept up with the changing job world (especially the GIG economy). JOLTS doesn’t seem to be signaling job growth? Oh, and let’s not forget the very large downward revision.
    • The Fed will almost certainly acknowledge a cooling job market.
• Oil is “transitory.”
  • The fear that the Fed will be cautious to cut because oil is rising (because of a war) seems very misplaced.
    • Oil is the definition of transitory in Fedspeak (they constantly talk about looking through oil prices and focusing on the labor market). We have EX-FOOD & ENERGY for a reason.
    • It would seem out of Powell’s nature to not admit that yes, we have higher oil prices currently, but that we also have higher uncertainty in the global economy.

Maybe the press conference won’t put July on the table, but that is a bet we like!

It would also take some pressure off the administration. Not that the Fed is political, but the narrative they are facing – weaker jobs, manageable tariffs, and a weaker dollar, even as other central banks cut, should give the Fed the ammunition to “unbalance” the risks and at least hint to markets that they are leaning back towards cutting.

While July might not get priced in this week, there is plenty of room for the curve to price in more cuts, sooner.

Now that interest expense is such a large portion of our spending, any move forward in cuts should help the long end as it can reduce deficits. That is so contrary to how I’ve been trained to think, it almost hurts to write, but we’ve never had interest expense as such a big part of the annual deficit before.

Remain bullish on bonds this week, between war and the Fed.

Deals

The equity market in particular seems to be looking for more “deals.” That we will ratify what has been “agreed” to with China, etc. The status quo of “more pauses” isn’t bad, but that, or better, is already priced into equities.

Expect a slowdown on the potential announcement of deals.

• The administration relies on a handful of people to carry out policy. Maybe there is a lot going on behind the scenes, but this administration (even more than some others) seems to rely heavily on high level negotiations. It doesn’t seem like teams of “worker bees” are sent out to negotiate a deal that is then ratified by the senior advisors. Or maybe tweaked, but the bulk of the work is still being done by relatively junior people. The hands-on approach, with President Trump often very involved, is one of the pillars that the administration believes makes them successful. It will be difficult for the handful of advisors to focus on so many deals, as this escalation has occurred and they get pulled in multiple directions. That is the risk of this sort of strategy (and maybe why so many hockey teams with star players do well in the regular season, but fade in the playoffs – I’m thinking of the Leafs, but I’m sure many fans have similar thoughts).
• It is difficult to argue that the U.S. is winning a lot of deals. If the U.S. was winning negotiation after negotiation, it would be easy for others to fall in line. Success breeds success. While I think the administration has “pivoted” from the disastrous Liberation Day tariffs, you can also see why some (many) people talk about the TACO trade (Trump Always Chickens Out). While that has once again put “Taco, Taco man, I wanna be a Taco man” into my head, I think it is at least somewhat unfair. He tried, people didn’t respond the way he expected, and he avoided clinging to potentially disastrous policy. Having said that:
  • No Peace in Russia/Ukraine. While “24 hours” was hyperbole, it is now well past that. Probably more importantly, the “plan” of pushing on Ukraine and catering to Putin seems to be reversing course.
  • Iran. Ongoing, and already escalated beyond where it was, rather than moving rapidly to deal stage.
  • U.K. trade deal. So far that is it. Somewhat vague, some promises to buy things they were already likely to buy, and not at the top of most people’s list of 5 most important trade counterparties.
  • China. The main thing we can hope for is that the realization that we NEED to refine and process rare earths and critical minerals is finally top of mind! If this can drive National Production for National Security as the main talking points (and action items in the coming months) that would be great for markets and seems both obvious and absolutely necessary.

I’m very worried that deals will take longer to get and that could be disappointing for equities.

A push to accelerate National Production for National Security would be great for markets (it would be more effective, we believe, with the involvement of close allies, but that might be a step too far for this admin to pivot to, just yet).

Bottom Line

If it is possible to like energy (and commodity related stocks) and bonds at the same time, then that is our position.

It sounds weird, but we think the confluence of events supports both (more comfortable on the stocks and credit spreads than the commodities themselves).

Escalation risk and the potential to see deals “sidelined” or “delayed” for a variety of reasons could weigh on equities, though a dovish Fed could offset that (I don’t like the concept, but it has played out time and again).

Enjoy time with friends, family, and colleagues and it is okay to reach out and call someone, even if it isn’t their “day.” Though calling your parents might not be a bad idea today!

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/15/2025 - 16:20

Trump Vetoed Israeli Plan To Assassinate Ayatollah Khamenei: Report

And just like that, Washington is very close to involvement in yet another half-baked regime change war in the Middle East, as Israel has been requesting United Statess direct involvement in the Israeli aerial campaign against Iran. Crucially, Reuters has revealed Sunday that President Trump vetoed an Israeli plan in recent days to kill Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, citing two unnamed US officials.

"Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do we're not even talking about going after the political leadership," said one of the sources, only identified by Reuters as a senior US administration official.

On Sunday Israel struck the Iranian Ministry of Justice building in Iran, and has clearly been targeting the country's top military leadership...

Iranian Ministry of Justice building hit by Israeli airstrikes. pic.twitter.com/GicmR1fs7o

— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 15, 2025

According to a key revelation in the new Reuters report:

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said top U.S. officials have been in constant communications with Israeli officials in the days since Israel launched a massive attack on Iran in a bid to halt its nuclear program.

They said the Israelis reported that they had an opportunity to kill the top Iranian leader, but Trump waved them off of the plan.

The officials would not say whether Trump himself delivered the message. But Trump has been in frequent communications with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested the reports are not accurate, but did not refute the specifics. He only said in a Sunday media interview, "But I can tell you, I think that we do what we need to do, we'll do what we need to do. And I think the United States knows what is good for the United States."

Trump on Friday claimed that the US "knew everything" about the Israeli attack on Iran before it happened, which does seem consistent with the fact that last week the US began evacuating non-essential embassy staffers and their families from diplomatic compounds in Iraq, Kuwait, and Bahrain.

The Israelis are waging what is likely a full war for regime change against the Islamic Republic, and not just the degradation of nuclear facilities, and Tel Aviv is now actively trying to drag Washington into it. Will Trump cave to the demands for US intervention?

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/15/2025 - 15:45

Tipping The Scales: Why So Many Cases Against Trump Are Heard By Democrat-Appointed Judges

Authored by Benjamin Weingarten via RealClearInvestigations,

As the Trump administration faces substantial pushback in the courts, including an unprecedented wave of nationwide injunctions halting its policies, some are claiming that his opponents are tilting the scales of justice by selectively bringing their lawsuits before sympathetic courts in a practice called “forum shopping.” They note that three-quarters of the lower court justices who have blocked Trump policies were appointed by Democrats.

Gaming the federal justice system, however, is harder than it sounds because plaintiffs bring cases before courts rather than judges. Most federal courts have a mix of judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans. The plaintiff’s goal in forum shopping is to launch their suit in a district where they are more likely to draw a sympathetic justice – ideally, this district would also include an appellate court stacked with like-minded judges.

To see whether Trump’s adversaries are engaging in forum shopping, RealClearInvestigations analyzed 350 cases brought against the administration. We found that plaintiffs have brought 80% of those cases before just 11 of the nation’s 91 district courts. While Democrat presidents have appointed roughly 60% of all active district court judges, each of the 11 district courts where the anti-Trump challenges have been clustered boasts an even higher percentage of Democrat appointees. In several of these venues, the administration’s challengers are almost guaranteed that a judge picked by Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton will preside over their case.

The analysis of these 350 cases, which covers all those identified in popular litigation trackers and RCI’s independent research as of this week, lends credence to claims that anti-Trump litigants may be strategically filing suit in courts where they are most likely to receive a favorable ruling – a practice that has been both pursued and decried by Democrats and Republicans.

RCI also analyzed three dozen cases in which judges imposed the most extreme restraint on the Trump administration by entering a nationwide or universal injunction – prohibiting the administration from enforcing its policy not only against the party bringing the case, but anyone, everywhere. The analysis shows that these injunctions have disproportionately emerged from Democrat-leaning courts where plaintiffs have brought the lion’s share of suits, and that Democrat-appointed judges are overwhelmingly responsible for ordering them.

This is consistent with other analyses indicating that Democrat-appointed judges have handed down the bulk of all adverse rulings against the Trump administration.

Trump critics note that Republican-appointed judges have also ruled against the administration. They contend that the courts have halted Trump’s policies at an unprecedented scale because of his administration’s unprecedented overreach.

Nevertheless, evidence shows that the anti-Trump cases used to stymie policies in areas ranging from immigration to DEI and the administrative state have overwhelmingly come before courts that, on their face, would appear unfriendly. Plaintiffs have brought roughly 60% of all cases against Trump in three district courts with a disproportionate number of active judges appointed by Democratic presidents: the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

Plaintiffs filed 41% of all cases RCI identified – 143 in all – in the D.C. District Court, where Democratic presidents appointed 73% of active judges.

Given that the federal government is located within its jurisdiction, it is not surprising that plaintiffs would disproportionately bring cases in the D.C. District. The court, however, is seen by some on the right as hostile to President Trump. It includes several prominent judges – including Chief Justice Jeb Boasberg, Tanya Chutkan, and Beryl Howell – who have a history of issuing adverse rulings against the president and some of his confidantes, including Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, and Peter Navarro. The court also conducted the Jan. 6 trials.

After the D.C. District Court, plaintiffs have brought the most cases before the Districts of Massachusetts and Maryland, whose rosters of active judges are each 90% or more Democrat-appointed.

The clash between the courts and the president has only intensified as Trump and his allies have publicly panned certain rulings, with some in Congress calling to impeach the judges who issued them.

There are several nuances to RCI’s analysis.

Though district courts generally assign cases randomly, each court has its own practice for divvying up cases.

Additionally, the pool of judges who may hear such cases extends beyond the nearly 680 active district court judges to include several hundred long-tenured judges, 65 years of age or older, who have taken senior status and work part-time. In 2024, such judges presided over 25% of all completed trials.

Some of the district courts in which plaintiffs have brought cases against Trump have a significant percentage of Republican-appointed judges on senior status. In the Western District of Washington, for example, where plaintiffs have filed 14 cases, Democratic presidents appointed all seven active judges. But 11 more judges in that district have taken senior status, eight of whom were appointed by either George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Two such judges have entered universal injunctions in cases challenging President Trump’s policies. In Shilling v. U.S., Senior U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, a Bush appointee, ordered a preliminary injunction barring the administration from implementing its executive order “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which found gender dysphoria presumptively disqualifying for those in the armed services. And in Washington v. Trump, Reagan-appointed Senior District Judge John C. Coughenour issued a universal injunction in the form of a temporary restraining order barring the administration from implementing its executive order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which would curtail the practice of birthright citizenship.

Nevertheless, in the nearly 40 cases RCI identified in which judges entered a universal injunction, Democratic presidents appointed more than four in five of those presiding:

Democrat and Republican administrations alike have faced challenges from plaintiffs in courts perceived to be favorably inclined towards their challengers.

In 2022, plaintiffs sued the Biden Food and Drug Administration over its approval of the abortion drug mifepristone in federal court in Amarillo, Texas. The odds were overwhelmingly in their favor that the case would come before the single presiding judge there, based upon the way the District Court for the Northern District of Texas assigns cases. The judge, an opponent of abortion, entered a nationwide injunction halting the policy.

Texas’ courts, alongside some others, often assign cases to divisions – or subdistricts – which may leave a single judge handling more than 50% of cases. Judges in that state reportedly entered injunctions blocking “immigration programs, transgender rights and labor policies from the Obama era,” the New York Times reported last year, which Democrats see as evidence of forum shopping.

Lamenting Texas’ Northern District practice, in April 2023, then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote to the district’s chief judge that it should randomly assign cases.

“Currently, a federal statute allows each district court to decide for itself how to assign cases. This gives courts the flexibility to address individual circumstances in their districts and among their judges. But if that flexibility continues to allow litigants to hand-pick their preferred judges and effectively guarantee their preferred outcomes, Congress will consider more prescriptive requirements,” Sen. Schumer warned.

Last year, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body for the federal judiciary, issued guidance encouraging the district-wide random assignment of cases. That that guidance is non-binding speaks to Sen. Schumer’s point – a point Republicans are now emphasizing – that Congress ultimately controls the Article III courts.

To that end, federal lawmakers, sometimes on a bipartisan basis, have introduced legislation to curtail forum shopping – to no avail.

District court judges’ increasing willingness to provide universal relief – starting during the first Trump administration – has only further incentivized the practice for those who want to hamstring a president’s agenda.

With the Supreme Court poised to rule within weeks on the legitimacy of universal injunctions, an opinion reining in that remedy could decrease the impact of forum shopping.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/15/2025 - 15:10

Zelensky Says Iran Poses 'Serious Threat' To Ukraine, Amid Israel War

Once again another major Middle East conflict is taking much of the West's attention away from the long war in Ukraine, but President Volodymyr Zelensky is speaking up (or rather inserting himself), suggesting that events in Iran have a direct impact on Ukraine.

He has told Newsmax the Islamic Republic poses a "serious threat" to Ukraine, given that it has for years supplied military arms and technology to Russian forces, which are then used against Iranian cities. There have been more recent reports that Tehran might be supplying short-range ballistic missiles.

File image: Office of the President of Ukraine

It is the Iranian-produced Shahed Kamikaze drone which has wreaked havoc on Ukraine from since the war's start. Zelensky claimed in the comments that Iran is "actively working" against his country.

"Iran is, in fact, actively working against us by supplying weapons and technology to Russia. That makes them a serious threat. Even so, we do not seek escalation," Zelenskyy said. "We understand all too well the devastating consequences such a conflict can bring. The human cost, the losses, the potential outcomes of a full-scale war. But Iran continues to support Russia."

"This regime is enabling Russia's aggression by providing arms and technological support. Iran uses its oil revenues to fund war efforts. That is the harsh reality we are dealing with," he added.

The last 48 hours have seen open war explode between Iran and Israel after the Israeli Air Force began attacking Iranian nuclear sites, as well as ballistic missile batteries. Nuclear scientists and military leaders have also been killed in Iran.

Iran has responded by launching unprecedented numbers of ballistic missiles and drones against Israel, in a serious tit-for-tat which is now ongoing.

"Let me be frank. We don't want escalation in any part of the world. But if this continues, if there is another wave of conflict, more missile strikes, more collaboration between Russia and Iran, then the situation could grow even more dangerous," Zelensky said.

Washington is the biggest funder of both the Ukrainian and Israeli militaries...

Israel appears to have achieved total air supremacy in Iran after one day, while Russia has been unable to gain air superiority, let alone supremacy, in Ukraine in three and a half years. Also, about those Su-35s that Russia never delivered to Iran…

— Yaroslav Trofimov (@yarotrof) June 14, 2025

While Russia and Iran have indeed stepped up their defense relationship over the last several years, Moscow is not expected to come to Iran's aid in this current emerging war.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/15/2025 - 09:55

No Climate, No Gender: Canada’s G7 Summit Agenda Shows Shift In Priorities

Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

WASHINGTON—When President Donald Trump joins world leaders at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Canada on June 15, he’ll find a different agenda awaiting him. In a significant departure from recent years, the host nation is sidelining climate action and gender equality, issues that were once central to the summit’s mission.

U.S. President Donald Trump greets Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the White House in Washington on May 6, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

This year’s gathering will prioritize issues such as energy security, artificial intelligence (AI), critical mineral supply chains, and global economic stability, reflecting a shift in priorities driven by Trump’s return to the White House and a renewed focus on the G7’s original mission, according to experts.

Trade tensions, heightened by recent U.S. tariffs, along with geopolitical crises like the Israel–Iran escalation, the Russia–Ukraine war, and the Gaza conflict, will also be key topics in the leaders’ discussions.

Many believe Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, as the host of this year’s summit, is adopting a pragmatic approach to ensure the meeting addresses the most pressing challenges that resonate with all member countries.

If topics such as climate change or gender are raised, leaders are unlikely to go beyond existing agreements or make new commitments, Paul Samson, head of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, a Canada-based think tank, told The Epoch Times.

Many organizations and even some countries are hoping for new commitments on gender and climate, he noted, “but it’s not going to happen at this table.”

“They wouldn’t even be able to get it in the communiqué with President Trump there,” he said.

The upcoming meeting, which marks the 50th anniversary of the G7, will be held in Kananaskis, Alberta, from June 15 to 17.

The group—which comprises the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the European Union—represents more than half of global GDP.

“We applaud the back-to-basics approach the Canadians have taken on the G7, focusing on core economic issues and actionable issues where the G7 can have a meaningful, measurable impact,” a U.S. official told The Epoch Times.

Summit Agenda

Canada’s priorities for this year’s summit focus on three main areas. The first one is protecting communities and the world by addressing issues such as “foreign interference and transnational crime,” according to the agenda, and improving joint responses to wildfires.

The second priority is enhancing energy security and accelerating the use of AI and quantum technologies. This involves strengthening critical mineral supply chains.

Lastly, Canada aims to discuss future partnerships by increasing private investment in infrastructure, creating high-paying jobs, and opening dynamic markets.

“The G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis is a moment for Canada to work with reliable partners to meet challenges with unity, purpose, and force,” Carney said in a statement. “Canada is ready to lead.”

The leaders will focus on areas where common ground is possible, according to Samon, particularly around energy supply chains and how to power the AI and data revolution. Discussions may include joint projects, shared data centers, and ways to strengthen supply chains, possibly through partners like India.

The first Trump administration believed the G7 had strayed from its original mission by focusing too much on controversial issues, according to Caitlin Welsh, director of the Global Food and Water Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Welsh previously served on the National Security Council and National Economic Council during Trump’s first term.

Speaking at a recent CSIS press briefing, she said that this year’s agenda appears to align with the G7’s original mission of promoting global economic stability and growth.

“You can note the absence of terms like ‘climate change’ and ‘gender’ and other things from this leaders’ summit agenda,” she said. “This list of priorities conveys to me that Canada knows its audience.”

Trump’s First Canada Summit

The last time Canada hosted the G7 summit in 2018, during Trump’s first term, relations between then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Trump were notably strained. The summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, ended with heightened tensions over trade. Trump left early and declined to endorse the joint communiqué. It was the first time in G7 history that the final statement was not unanimously backed by all leaders.

A widely circulated photo from the 2018 summit captured the tension of the moment with Germany’s then-Chancellor Angela Merkel leaning over a table, speaking to Trump, who sat with his arms crossed, looking up at her.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks to President Donald Trump in front of other world leaders in Charlevoix, Canada, at the G7 summit on June 9, 2018. Jesco Denzel /Bundesregierung via Getty Images

CSIS experts believe such drama is unlikely in 2025.

“For most European leaders, the political incentives really aren’t there to sort of manufacture a confrontation with Trump,” Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the CSIS, said during the briefing.

As seen in recent months, most leaders are expected to take a cordial approach similar to their one-on-one meetings with Trump at the White House, he said.

China Looms Large

China will be a central focus at the summit.

Leaders are expected to express concerns over rising tensions in the East and South China Seas and China’s ongoing military build-up. As in past years, they will likely emphasize what the G7 has said is the need for “peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

According to Samon, China will be an underlying theme across the summit’s discussions, even if not named in the final communiqué. He noted that key agenda items like transnational crime, critical minerals, and advanced technologies are designed to counter the Chinese regime’s growing global influence.

Meanwhile, Carney’s interactions with Trump will draw close attention, particularly amid trade tensions. The United States recently doubled tariffs on steel and aluminum, citing the flood of low-cost Chinese metals into global markets.

Trump has also pressed Canada and Mexico on fentanyl trafficking and suggested Canada should become the 51st U.S. state to get free “golden dome” protection—a proposed multilayered defense system.

In contrast to the retaliatory measures of previous years, Carney has adopted a measured approach, exempting certain products from counter-tariffs to protect Canadian businesses and consumers from rising costs. He is also engaged in direct talks with Trump to finalize a trade agreement, according to the Canadian media.

While no deal has been finalized, it remains to be seen whether an agreement will be reached before Carney and Trump meet one-on-one on the summit’s sidelines.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/15/2025 - 08:10

Europe's Populist Parties Keep Gaining Ground, But Cannot Get Into Power

Authored by Owen Evans via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Across the European continent, despite gaining considerable proportions of the vote, populist parties are increasingly being frozen out of governing in coalitions by political opponents who regard them as extremist.

Police block the road access to an AfD campaign meeting during a demostration under the motto "Block Alice Weidel," co-leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, in Neu-Isenburg near Frankfrurt am Main, western Germany, on Feb. 1, 2025. Kirill Kudryavtsev / AFP

Proponents of the tactic known as a “cordon sanitaire” or “firewall” say it’s not an attack on democracy but a defense of it. But one war expert said the tactic will only arouse anger in voters and that “there is no potential for peaceful political change.”

Coalitions are part and parcel of political life in many European countries.

But the cordon sanitaire, a measure normally directed at keeping out fringe outliers, is now being used to keep out parties that are gaining majority-level support.

Such parties include the Alternative for Germany, France’s National Rally, Austria’s Freedom Party, Spain’s Vox, and the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom.

They all deny being “far-right” as they are often dubbed by media, opponents, or academics, but their political opponents regard them as beyond the pale and have formed coalitions on the promise of shutting them out of governance.

AfD

The AfD, an anti-mass immigration party, which came second in Germany’s national parliamentary elections, earning nearly 21 percent of the vote, was recently denied allotted committee chairmanships and vice-chairmanships.

The party is locked in a legal battle with the state to avoid being branded an “extremist” right-wing movement by Germany’s domestic intelligence agency.

AfD’s policies include strong support for traditional marriage between a man and woman and the nuclear family, the preservation of national independence in the face of the European Union’s increasing power, the preservation of German culture amid “European integration” and Islamization, and border security, including the expulsion of illegal immigrants.

But this doesn’t seem to have dented the party’s popularity in the polls. According to a recent INSA survey, the AfD is at 24.5 percent, hot on the heels of the CDU at 26 percent.

A similar pattern is being seen in other countries.

Early in June, the Dutch government collapsed after Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders said his party would pull out of the governing coalition.

Wilders asked coalition partners to sign up to a plan to cut illegal immigration, which included using the army to protect Dutch borders, rejecting all illegal immigrants, sending Syrian refugees back to their country, and closing asylum shelters.

At the time, he said that if the country’s immigration policy was not strengthened, the PVV would be “out of the Cabinet.” He followed through on the threat.

In Austria, conservatives, Social Democrats, and liberals formed a coalition in March to block the anti-immigration and euro-skeptic Freedom Party from taking power, even after it won an electoral victory with 29 percent of the vote last September.

The party was founded in 1956 by Anton Reinthaller, a former SS officer and member of the Reichstag.

Last year, French President Emmanuel Macron called a surprise snap election on June 9, following his centrist Renaissance party’s poor performance in European Parliament elections when the populist and nationalist party National Rally (RN) performed very strongly.

But RN has increased its voter share ahead of the French presidential elections, which are scheduled to be held in or around April 2027, and is currently polling at 35 percent.

In 2023, Socialist Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez called a snap national election after his party was beaten in local government polls by the conservative People’s Party (PP) and the nationalist Vox.

Sanchez managed to retain power but only after months of wrangling with regional parties and a controversial power deal with Catalan separatists.

Vox, founded in 2013, is now the third-largest force in the Spanish Parliament.

‘We Were Excluded’

Explaining the AfD situation in Germany, Richard Schenk, research fellow at MCC Brussels, told The Epoch Times that freezing out the AfD will have “certain consequences.”

“AfD can now just exactly claim: ‘We were excluded from the decisions that led to this chaos. You excluded us. We wanted to participate, to put forward proposals, to take responsibility, but you excluded us. So we really do not have to do anything with the mess that’s currently going on,'” said Schenk.

“This is, in the long run, making the AfD more powerful than any committee chairmanships.”

Efforts in the European Parliament have also seen the Greens and liberal Renew Europe groups join forces with the pro-European EPP (European People’s Party) to enforce the cordon sanitaire.

Members of Patriots for Europe, which includes the parties of France’s Marine Le Pen and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and the ESN (Europe of Sovereign Nations), in which the AfD plays a leading role, were sidelined last year without gaining any senior committee posts, according to The Parliament magazine.

‘Militant Democracy’

Some analysts say the cordon sanitaire is rooted in democracy’s built-in safeguards.

The think tank German Marshall Fund said in a report last year that it believes mainstreaming such parties will further legitimize “the far right and normalize previously marginal or unacceptable policy positions, including ones contrary to European values.”

David Ucko, nonresident senior fellow at the Global and National Security Institute (GNSI) at the University of South Florida, told The Epoch Times that it is a long-running tradition “to set out certain rules of the game” within democratic institutions.

“If you don’t follow [the rules], you don’t get to play the game,” he said.

“What you’re seeing with the various efforts, sometimes called ‘militant democracy,’ is simply an attempt by the state, albeit through the serving government, to ensure that the constitutional rules of democracy are being followed.”

He said the targeted party could be “left wing or right wing,” but if they abrogate the rules of the game, then they “break the constitutional entry requirement to be a democratic contender. “

“The notion of shutting a party out or sanctioning a party for values or speech or for actions that go against a constitutional setup of that democratic system is neither unprecedented nor, I think, inherently wrong,” he said.

‘No Potential for Peaceful Political Change’

Others say that such a high-stakes tactic could encourage a drift toward confrontation.

David Betz, professor of war in the modern world in the department of war studies at King’s College London, has discussed in his studies that forces are driving the West toward civil war.

“I’m not going to say it leads; I'd say it is part of the overall picture,” he told The Epoch Times.

He said that governments are “closing off other political voices.”

“We’re not doing natural politics anymore, and all it does is it convinces people that the system itself is invidious, and that there is no potential for peaceful political change.”

Betz has noted in his work that approximately 75 percent of post-Cold War civil conflicts have been fought by ethnic factions, and that immigration is a central bone of contention for the populist parties.

“The two things are deeply interrelated,” he said.

“These are movements which are almost completely animated by people’s sense of frustrated nationalism, essentially frustrated patriotism.

“They are movements which are animated by a perception of being displaced in their own lands, but also at the same time of having been betrayed by their own political elite. So you have both an ethnic conflict and a conservative revolt or a nationalist revolt at the same time.”

Demetrius Floudas, a former policy and geopolitical adviser to cabinet-level decision-makers for several governments, including the British Foreign Office, warned of a potential backlash.

Floudas told The Epoch Times by email that “historically, political exclusion has often led to increased radicalisation and occasionally to a surge in popularity for the excluded parties. Besides, such tactics may backfire by eroding public trust in democratic systems.”

Guy Birchall contributed to this report. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/15/2025 - 07:35

The Heart Behind The US Army’s 250 Years Of Service

Authored by Dustin Bass via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

“For God’s sake, fire!” A return volley of musket and rifle fire boomed across the Concord River near the North Bridge. “The shot heard round the world” had just been unleashed upon the 220 British soldiers by the colonial militia and minutemen. The volley sent the British retreating to Concord and then to Lexington, where they had earlier fired upon and dispersed the 70 local militia, killing eight and wounding 10. Their return to Lexington would be the start of a 12-mile scramble back to Boston.

Cadets from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in the New York Veterans' Day Parade on Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, on Nov. 11, 2014. All graduates become 2nd lieutenants in the U.S. Army. Samira Bouaou/Epoch Times

Throughout the night of April 18 and the early morning hours of April 19, 1775, word had spread in the Boston area that the British were coming to confiscate or destroy the locals’ gunpowder and materiel in Concord. By the time British soldiers reached the North Bridge, hundreds of militia members were out in force. By the time the British began their retreat back to Boston, thousands descended upon them, firing from behind trees, stone walls, houses, and buildings. What began as an act of suppression by imperial troops turned into a route by a mass of colonial volunteers.

This was the beginning of arguably the greatest military upset in history. Four days later, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress attempted to organize the disjointed militias across several colonies to create the Army of Observation. It was not until June 14 that the 13 colonies agreed to combine their disparate militias into one fighting force: the Continental Army.

This decision to combine militias marked the beginning of what would become known as the United States Army. Though originating from very humble beginnings, the Army would end the Revolutionary War with quite a first feather in its cap: defeating the British—the most powerful military at the time. To witness its rise from scrappy underdog during the 18th century to becoming a peer of imperial states in the 19th century to becoming the greatest military power the world has ever witnessed by the 20th century is to witness the rise of America itself.

Indeed, just as neither could have existed without the other, the heart behind their existence was mutual. To understand that mutuality, one must recall the volunteers who arrived in Lexington and Concord and all along the 12-mile strip now known as Battle Road.

Worth Fighting For

Before the start of the American Revolution, the colonies had successfully practiced self-government for 150 years by way of Great Britain’s unofficial policy of salutary neglect. The British Americans had established a way of life in the colonies, and it was believed that, although living 3,000 miles from London, they were represented fairly in Parliament. The colonists—-despite the name and despite the distance from the mother country—believed they were English citizens, and therefore subject to all the rights and privileges thereof. These—though certainly not at the same level as we appreciate today—included freedom of movement, religion, and trade; equality before the law; and political participation. In 1765, when the colonists were informed that Parliament passed the Stamp Act, it began a decade of changing perspectives and, eventually, a change of loyalty.

This change of loyalty to Parliament, and eventually the monarchy, however, was never directed toward what the colonists believed were rightfully theirs: the rights and privileges of British subjects. The heart behind what led to the commercial boycotts and the political gatherings and pamphleteering of the late 1760s and early 1770s was the same as that which led to their taking up arms in 1775. What had been gained by their ancestors over the past 150 years was much too precious to relinquish.

A 250-Year Legacy

Undoubtedly, those who hurried toward Lexington, Concord, and the road to Boston, had their beliefs summarized precisely by Patrick Henry, less than a month before that historic day. He stated, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

This sense of urgency to protect what Americans have viewed as their most precious commodities—the right to be free in their persons, equality before the law, and the power of consent—has fueled the purpose behind the United States Army for 250 years.

The U.S. Army has long served to protect its people and the core values of this nation. It befriended the French and the Spanish to defeat the British during the Revolution. It sailed with the Navy to humble the Barbary pirates. It fought to fend off the British again during the War of 1812. For nearly a century, it protected settlers against tribal attacks. It defeated the Mexicans and opened the path across the continent. It fought, defeated, and forgave its southern compatriots in the War Between the States. It enforced the Monroe Doctrine by ousting the Spanish from the Western hemisphere. It rescued the world from militarism—twice. It bled and died in the struggle against communism, resulting in the ultimate fall of the Soviet Union. It has pursued terrorists around the globe.

American and Soviet tanks face off at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin, in 1961. Public Domain

The American conviction that people generally should be free and equal has led the U.S. Army across the continent and across the globe. As with America itself, there have been missteps. In step with its nation’s geostrategic goals, the Army has often followed an idealistic and, at times, wrongheaded approach in the name of freedom and equality, and at times more crudely for reasons of trade and expansion.

Even in these missteps, this now greatest military power in the world has never been subject to itself, but to the American people. Consider that during its 250 years—a year longer than its nation’s existence—it has never attempted a coup. What nation—powerful or weak—can make such a boast?

A Promise Kept

When it comes to the pride of America, what is more prominent in our minds than the military? And this pride does not simply stem from its incredible victories across two and a half centuries, from Trenton to Baghdad. Or its brilliant soldiers and commanders—certainly far too many to name. Furthermore, a third of our 45 presidents—George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower—served in the Army. The fact that none of those presidents gained the highest political office via a coup only further highlights that aforementioned shared purpose between the state and the military. Washington’s resignation from his military position at the end of the Revolutionary War set this high and noble standard.

Supreme Allied Cmdr. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower at his desk in the Marly headquarters, near Paris. Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Yes, the United States stands for freedom and equality. “All men are created equal,” wrote our famous statesman, Thomas Jefferson. “They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But those rights must be defended. The initial disdain the Founders, among them Jefferson, had for standing armies soon melted away. The initial understanding the militia and minutemen volunteers possessed in April 1775, that what they held most dear—the rights and privileges of English subjects—was worth fighting and dying for, matured into the Continental Army on June 14, and became, through thick and thin, the United States Army—the greatest military power on Earth and, since 1973, an all-volunteer army—endeavoring to protect, through great sacrifice, what we hold most dear—the rights and privileges of American citizens.

Throughout this 250-year existence, side-by-side with its country, has been the motto, a practical statement of faith, that encapsulates the purpose, the heart, behind the Army’s existence: “This We’ll Defend.” It is the “This”—freedom, equality, and national sovereignty—that makes such a promise worth keeping.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/15/2025 - 07:00

My Sunday morning look at incompetency, corruption and policy failures:

• Moody’s Sounds Alarm on Private Funds for Individuals: Chasing retail money could pose risks to investors, private funds and financial system, Moody’s says. (Wall Street Journal)

• Bitcoin Goes All In on MAGA, Shedding Its Antigovernment Slant: Despite wins under Trump, some crypto factions are wary of politicizing industry; Las Vegas extravaganza becomes ‘a right-wing rally’. (Wall Street Journal) see also What World Does Bitcoin Want To Build For Itself? This year’s Bitcoin Conference takes place amid a boom, the same month the price of a single coin stabilized above $100,000 for the first time. More than 35,000 people have descended on Las Vegas in the final week of May for the conference: bitcoin miners, bitcoin dealers, several retired athletes, three U.S. senators, two Trump children, one U.S. vice president, people who describe themselves as “content creators,” people who describe themselves as “founders,” venture capitalists, ex-IDF bodyguards, tax-dodging experts, crypto heretics, evangelists… (Defector)

• Lawmakers Traded Stocks Heavily as Trump Rolled Out ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs Buying and selling of stocks spur new push to further restrict lawmakers’ market activities. (Wall Street Journal)

• Senators Demand Meta Answer For Facebook AI Chatbots Posing as Licensed Therapists: Samantha Cole Samantha Cole: Following 404 Media’s investigation into Meta’s AI Studio chatbots that pose as therapists and provided license numbers and credentials, four senators urged Meta to limit “blatant deception” from its chatbots. (404 Media)

• Trump’s $12 Billion Tourism Wipeout: Four months into the president’s second term, his policies are upending tourism worldwide. Nine charts show the toll on global travel. (Bloomberg)

• How the Farm Industry Spied on Animal Rights Activists and Pushed the FBI to Treat Them as Bioterrorists: For years, a powerful ‘Big Ag’ trade group served up information on activists to the FBI. Records reveal a decade-long effort to see the animal rights movement labeled a “bioterrorism” threat. (Wired)

• Airlines Don’t Want You to Know They Sold Your Flight Data to DHS: A contract obtained by 404 Media shows that an airline-owned data broker forbids the feds from revealing it sold them detailed passenger data. (404 Media) see also In 23andMe case, a fight brews over who can sell your genetic code: More than two dozen states seek a ruling in the 23andMe bankruptcy case that customers own the rights to their DNA. (Washington Post)

• The Silence of the Generals: As the President crossed a dangerous line at Fort Bragg, the brass failed to speak out in the Army’s defense. (The Atlantic)

• Collections: Nitpicking Gladiator’s Iconic Opening Battle, Part I. Arguably the most famous and recognizable Roman battle sequence in film: the iconic opening battle from Gladiator (2000).1 Despite being a relatively short sequence (about ten minutes), there’s actually enough to talk about here that we’re going to split it over two weeks, talking about the setup – the battlefield, army composition, equipment and battle plan – this week and then the actual conduct of the battle next week. (A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry)

• Brian Wilson Found a Sound Only He Could Hear: The Beach Boys bandleader suffered for his art and left an incomparable musical legacy. (The Ringer)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business this week with William J. Bernstein, Ph.D., M.D. He is a retired neurologist, principal in the money management firm Efficient Frontier Advisors, and author of several best-selling books on finance and history. He was the winner of the 2017 James R. Vertin Award from CFA Institute. His latest book is The Delusions Of Crowds: Why People Go Mad in Groups.

 

Lawmakers Traded Stocks Heavily as Trump Rolled Out ‘Liberation Day’

Source: Wall Street Journal

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Sunday Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

5 Ways To Build Extraordinary Resilience, According To An Ex-Navy SEAL And Paralympic Champion

Authored by Walker Larson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

When Dan Cnossen opened his eyes, he saw the sterile walls and beeping medical devices of a hospital room. He also saw his mother’s face, just a few feet from him, looking into his own. How could she be here, in Afghanistan? But then Cnossen realized he wasn’t in Afghanistan anymore. He was back in the United States. Then the memories began to flood.

U.S. Navy SEALs emphasize honor, courage, and commitment to the mission. petesphotography/Getty Images

In 2009, during a nighttime operation in Afghanistan, Cnossen stepped on a pressure plate, igniting an IED that cost him both his legs. His comrades-in-arms transported him down the rocky face of a craggy hill, each step they took jarring his body, engulfing him in indescribable pain. The last thing he remembered before waking up in the hospital was being loaded onto a chopper.

Cnossen chose to tackle his recovery with the same determination and grit that had carried him through the notoriously grueling training to become a U.S. Navy SEAL and subsequent deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Cnossen not only recovered from his wounds, but went on to become a Paralympic athlete of the highest order, winning multiple gold medals in skiing. All these experiences have honed Cnossen’s resilience to a diamond-hard edge. Drawing on his past, Cnossen shared five rules for resiliency.

Courtesy of Dan Cnossen 1. Find Your Cohort

Surrounding yourself with likeminded individuals who share your goals is a key to getting through challenges. 

Cnossen’s always been a planner. When he was just a high school freshman, he’d already established a plan to get into the Naval Academy. Once there, he developed an interest in becoming a Navy SEAL. Cnossen knew that to achieve his goal, he needed to improve his swimming. Even basic swimming drills unleashed the butterflies in his stomach. 

But at the Naval Academy, he gravitated toward other students with similar interests and goals, many of whom were excellent swimmers. By building relationships with these friends and learning from them, Cnossen was able to improve his swimming skills and eventually enter BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training). Similarly, during this notoriously difficult training—with an attrition rate of 70-80 percent—Cnossen’s cohort of comrades helped him get through and become a SEAL. The mutual support provided by a strong social network of likeminded individuals forms one of the pillars of resiliency.

U.S. Navy SEAL candidates perform a 50-meter underwater swim in the combat training tank during the first phase of Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training. U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Benjamin K. Kittleson 2. When Things Get Tough, Sharpen and Narrow Your Focus

From being pushed to his mental and physical limit in BUD/S to facing an interminable uphill climb to recovery, including 40 surgeries, after his injury in Afghanistan, Cnossen has returned again and again to a simple principle of interior strength: Break it down.

Mentally tackling the entirety of BUD/S or all the training needed for a Paralympic race at once is a recipe for discouragement and failure. Instead, Cnossen says, when things get difficult, “sharpen and narrow your focus.” Set a simple goal or a small milestone and reach that. Then set another.

In BUD/S, that might mean reaching the next landmark during an arduous run. During rehab, that might look like regaining some arm mobility. This process of “segmentation” turns insurmountable tasks into smaller, achievable ones. Over time, small steps like these lead to bigger and bigger results, like becoming a Navy SEAL or running on prosthetic limbs.

The temptation in a stressful situation is to “think big”—to try to obliterate our difficulties in one stroke. But instead, we need to “think small.” What can I do right now? What’s the next step, the next thing to work on?

East Coast-based SEALs and Norwegian naval special operations commandos conduct arctic long-range ski training to bolster skills in an extreme Arctic environment. U.S. Navy/Chief Mass Communication Specialist Jeff Atherton 3. Shatter Negative Perspectives

Every situation can be viewed from a huge number of perspectives, according to Cnossen. There are as many perspectives on a situation as the 360 degrees of a circle. Each point of view yields a different view of the issue. To build mental toughness, we have to learn to break out of a single, narrow perspective of some difficult or tragic circumstance. So often, this knee-jerk perspective is a negative one, which can dominate us if it goes unchecked.

Instead, Cnossen explains, we have to break out of that negative perspective to unveil the hundreds of other ways of looking at the situation. Cnossen’s initial reaction to losing his legs was understandably negative. But he forced himself to consider his circumstance in a different light. He decided to look at it as something to overcome. He also expressed gratitude that his life had been spared, that he still had two working arms, and that no one else on the hill that night had been injured.

Furthermore, he began to look at his experience as a means to inspire others. These shifts in perspective allowed him to find meaning in what happened. They helped him rise above adversity, climb higher, and perform the most heroic of human maneuvers: turning something tragic into something glorious.

Navy SEALs participate in the capabilities exercise portion of the 43rd annual Underwater Demolition Team-Sea, Air and Land East Coast Reunion at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story in this file photo. Stocktrek Images/Getty Images 4. Let Go of What You Can’t Control, Focus on What You Can

A positive perspective doesn’t mean refusing to face reality, however. Cnossen knew right away that there were some things he’d never be able to do after his injury. He wasn’t going to be able to continue a career as a Navy SEAL. He wasn’t going to become a champion long-jumper. He had to process and accept these realities as part of the journey toward healing and resiliency.

Instead of indulging in self-pity over these lost opportunities, Cnossen focused on what he could do, if he set his mind to it. He became a Paralympic skier and won multiple gold medals. To do it, he doubled-down on the things he was good at, the things that were still under his control: putting in the work, developing a new skill, practicing discipline and determination. At first, this applied to relatively small things like the daily physical therapy sessions, which he threw himself into wholeheartedly. Eventually, it transformed into bigger things, like training for races. Capitalizing on his abilities paid off in the long run.

LILLIAN SUWANRUMPHA/AFP/ Getty Images 5. Focus on Your Impact on Others

Facing extraordinarily difficult situations is often overwhelming, especially when those situations seem meaningless. Yet meaning is often hidden under the veils of suffering. Learning to see this is one of the most powerful ways to be resilient. 

Cnossen found meaning in what happened to him through many avenues, but one of the most important was helping others. He focused on the fact that his detonation of the IED may have spared the other men on his team. In recovery, he set a good example for other injured veterans by putting in long hours of physical therapy. Today, he’s a public speaker who uses his life’s trials to inspire others with hope, determination, and resiliency.

Cnossen summed up his message at the end of a TED talk: “There is a very real and powerful sense of self ownership and agency in acknowledging that despite all the uncertainty and risk in life … you do indeed control your reaction, your attitude, your mindset, your perspective.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/14/2025 - 23:20

These Are The Best College Degrees For Finding A Job In The US

Which college degrees are the best for finding a job?

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, uses recent data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to examine the careers that offer the best prospect and their respective median salaries.

Scarcity Meets Earning Potential

Nutrition Sciences tops the list, with only 0.4% unemployment rate. Graduates can expect a median salary of $75,000 by age 35-45.

Construction Services and Animal & Plant Sciences follow, also with low unemployment rate (0.7% and 1.0%, respectively), but diverge significantly in earnings—$100,000 versus $70,000 per year.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics-related degrees (STEM) tend to yield high returns.

Aerospace Engineering, for example, ranks eighth in unemployment rate but first in compensation within this list at $125K. Similarly, Mechanical, Electrical, and Chemical Engineering all boast six-figure salaries while having unemployment rates between 1.5–2.2%.

Rank Field of Study Unemployment Rate (%) Median Salary 1 Nutrition Sciences 0.4% $75K 2 Construction Services 0.7% $100K 3 Animal & Plant Sciences 1.0% $70K 4 Civil Engineering 1.0% $100K 5 Special Education 1.0% $55K 6 Agriculture 1.2% $75K 7 Early Education 1.3% $49K 8 Aerospace Engineering 1.4% $125K 9 Nursing 1.4% $84K 10 Earth Sciences 1.5% $88K 11 Mechanical Engineering 1.5% $115K 12 Social Services 1.7% $54K 13 Elementary Education 1.8% $53K 14 Accounting 1.9% $88K 15 Engineering Technologies 1.9% $100K 16 Chemical Engineering 2.0% $120K 17 Electrical Engineering 2.2% $120K 18 Health Services 2.2% $65K 19 Business Analytics 2.4% $100K 20 General Engineering 2.4% $100K 21 Miscellaneous Education 2.5% $60K 22 Environmental Studies 2.6% $75K 23 Ethnic Studies 2.6% $83K

Education-related fields like Early Childhood Education (1.3%, $49,000) and Special Education (1.0%, $55,000) show lower median earnings despite low unemployment rate, highlighting the income disparity across academic disciplines.

Fields like Business Analytics and General Engineering have 2.4% unemployment rate, with both yielding strong salaries of $100,000.

Meanwhile, areas such as Ethnic Studies and Environmental Studies offer moderate pay ($83,000 and $75,000, respectively) with 2.6% unemployment rate.

These Are the Worst Degrees for Finding a Job

In a previous graphic, we listed the worst degrees for finding a job. At the top of the list is anthropology, with an unemployment rate of 9.4%, the highest rate analyzed.

Fine arts and sociology follow closely, with unemployment rates of 7.0% and 6.7%, respectively. These degrees tend to offer mid-career salaries around $70,000, placing them on the lower end of the earnings spectrum.

Interestingly, some of the highest-paying degrees also have relatively high unemployment rates.

For instance, computer engineering majors earn a median of $122,000 mid-career, but face a 7.5% unemployment rate. Physics ($100,000) and computer science ($115,000) also show above-average jobless rates, at 7.8% and 6.1%, respectively.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out the Highest Paying College Majors on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/14/2025 - 22:45

Clouds Over Bluesky: The Left's Social Media Safe Space Under Fire For Intolerant And Hateful Postings

Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org,

Bluesky has become a safe space for liberals seeking to avoid the triggering presence of opposing views since the Trump reelection. The relatively small site now has over 30 million followers (in comparison 260 million for X and 3 billion on Facebook). Now, however, users like billionaire Mark Cuban are complaining that Bluesky is just another intolerant echo chamber on the left and some are reportedly returning to X.

Jaap Arriens / Sipa USA via AP

Billionaire Mark Cuban was one of the early champions of the site, writing “Hello Less Hateful World” in joining the site in November 2024.

At the time, some of us criticized the premise of the Bluesky devotees. Many supported the anti-free speech and censorship efforts during the Biden Administration. Bluesky offered a replication of the echo chamber in higher education, where liberals can go unchallenged or uncontradicted. This included some of the most intolerant figures in media, academia, and the government.

Now, Cuban and others are experiencing what many of us have lived through in higher education for years, an orthodox environment where even marginal disagreements are treated as litmus tests.

Cuban this week decried that “Even if you agree with 95% of what a person is saying on a topic, if there is one point that you might call out as being more of a gray area, they will call you a fascist etc.”

In his post on Monday, Cuban notes that “the replies on here may not be as racist as Twitter, but they damn sure are hateful. Talk AI: FU, AI sucks go away. Talk Business: Go away. Talk Healthcare: Crickets.”

“Because the Musk and Trump haters are the largest and most passionate group, the result is something of an echo chamber where it’s hard to get positive engagement unless you’re saying things progressives want to hear — and where the negative engagement on things they don’t want to hear can be intense.”

The problem is that many users went to Bluesky because they did not want to be challenged in a free-speech environment. It is a site for those who do not wish to be “triggered” by opposing views. If you only watch MSNBC and post on Bluesky, you can live within a hermetically sealed liberal space without the fear of contradiction or opposition.

Ultimately, 30 million users are not a significant threat to social media companies like X or Facebook. The hope that Bluesky would drain X of revenue has not materialized. Analysts are reporting that X appears to be rebounding after years of boycotts and ad revenue could grow by 17.5% to $1.31 billion, with global ad sales expected to rise by 16.5% to $2.26 billion.

Bluesky will still be able to capitalize off the draw as a safe space draw for the left with uniformly favorable media coverage. It also offers a concentrated membership of liberal users for Democratic politicians and pundits. However, it does little in terms of impact outside of that space.

That is the reason why most liberal politicians and pundits are still actively posting on X. Some belong to both — engaging a broader audience on issues on X while retreating to the safe space of Bluesky for reaffirmation.

However, it is harmful to the left in further insulating themselves from reality. Take a typical user like a Harvard professor who watches MSNBC and reads the New York Times. She then goes to work at a university with a faculty that has less than three percent of conservatives or Republicans and less than ten percent conservative or Republican students. She then goes to Bluesky to converse within a liberal ecosystem on social media. It is a virtual bio-containment tent that filters out any discordant elements.

The reason that many on the left were shocked by the election results is that they lived within these protected spaces. They have removed themselves further from the majority of this country, disengaging with anyone who objects to their priorities and values. Within that echo chamber, opposing views become more intolerable and shocking.

Bluesky will continue to be a draw for free-speech-phobic and viewpoint-intolerant users. Fortunately, most people want to be part of a larger discourse and engage with the world around them, despite the presence of trolls and hateful commentators.

Cuban’s call for greater diversity of thought on Bluesky is unlikely to alter the culture of a site that is maintained as a safe space for liberals. That cloistered environment only increases sensitivity and intolerance for opposing views. It is akin to developing an immune deficiency from a lack of exposure to certain elements.

If Cuban and others want robust debate, they will not find it in digital safe spaces like Bluesky.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/14/2025 - 22:10

Sanctuary State Governors Double Down On Illegal Immigration In Tense Capitol Hearing

The conflict surrounding the Trump Administration's deportation of illegal aliens is driven by a complex web of NGOs and astroturf activist groups, but Democrat politicians continue to play a considerable role in fomenting civil unrest.  State leaders were a key element of the BLM riots in 2020, providing a governmental green light for the mobs by exempting them from covid mandates.  City officials ensured that rioters and looters were released without charges, cycling them back out onto the streets to wreak havoc day after day.  Other Democrat leaders hobbled local law enforcement and prevented them from intervening in the riots.

The pattern seems to be repeating, with Democrats doubling down on their defense of illegal immigration and interfering in ICE operations.  The law, once again, is only important to progressives when it works in their favor.  When it doesn't, they ignore it.

This week multiple Democrat governors defended their sanctuary state policies in a hearing on illegal immigration on Capitol Hill.  Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and New York Governor Kathy Hochul testified at the hearing, asserting that the immigration issue was being overblown by the Trump Administration and diminishing concerns over violent migrant crimes. 

Tim Walz argued that Trump was using the DHS as his personal "gestapo" and Kathy Hochul called deportations an "assault on American values".

Keep in mind that both Walz and Hochul implemented some of the most draconian covid restrictions in the country during the pandemic hysteria, oppressing citizens and rendering their supposed concerns over freedom and "American values" irrelevant.  

The three governors defended themselves, claiming that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, not a state one, and suggested that Republicans on the panel were creating a political spectacle to impress Trump.  House Democrats led the criticism of Trump directly, with some calling him a “gangster” or a “dictator” and others lambasting his decision to deploy National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles to maintain control of protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. 

“No one here wants to hear these horrific stories. But we have a job to do on limited resources,” Walz said in reference to migrant crimes. He added that it was a mistake for Republicans to say “that not doing ICE’s job means we’re not cooperating.” 

“Nothing we do precludes them from doing their job,” Walz said. “We have the responsibility of the American public to work together, and I think threatening arrests on elected officials … doesn’t help any of us.”

Democrats have continued to deny that the protests are violent, despite an endless supply of video evidence on social media showing activists looting businesses, burning cars, attacking police and assaulting any counter-protesters that dare to come close to them.  After four years of the Biden Administration, leftist protesters are now under the impression that they can do whatever they please without repercussions. 

The sanctuary efforts of blue states go well beyond the notion of refusing to aid the federal government in deportations.  Democrat officials have been caught trying to hide illegal immigrants from DHS.  They have attempted to warn migrants when ICE agents are operating in the vicinity.  They have even openly encouraged activists and migrants to obstruct or fight ICE agents when they are trying to carry out their duties. 

Events in Los Angeles this week are the most egregious example so far, with California Governor Gavin Newsom claiming that Trump was "manufacturing a crisis" in LA by trying to enforce immigration laws, but petty interference has been ongoing for many years.  

The bottom line is this:  The majority of voters backed Donald Trump's campaign based in large part on his deportation promises.  Not just the deportation of violent criminals, but the deportation of all illegal aliens in the US.  The law is the law yet Democrat leaders continue to obstruct, which means they are obstructing the will of the voters, not the will of the Trump Administration.   

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/14/2025 - 21:35

Making The Power Grid Great Again

Authored by Diana Furchtgott-Roth via RealClearEnergy,

Last week, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the proposed repeal of the Biden-era’s Clean Power Plan 2.0, which ruled that coal-fired and many new natural gas power plants must capture and store over 90% of their carbon emissions by the 2030s—or shut down by 2040. It’s a costly mandate, resting on shaky legal and technical foundations. Americans would be fortunate to have it repealed.

President Biden issued his Clean Power Plan 2.0 after the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency that President Obama’s Clean Power Plan 1.0 exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) statutory authority. The Court’s 2022 decision concluded that the EPA had overstepped by attempting to reshape the nation’s energy grid without clear congressional approval.

In a world where energy security and affordability are paramount, one might assume that when the Supreme Court strikes down a sweeping environmental regulation, the EPA would reconsider its approach. But in Washington, ideology often trumps reason, and undeterred, the Biden administration returned in 2024 with a sequel that EPA now proposes to end.

The Clean Power Plan 1.0 attempted to force states to overhaul their energy systems entirely, compelling them to adopt renewable energy and shutter fossil fuel plants, regardless of local needs or economic consequences.

Its successor, the Clean Power Plan 2.0, imposed an estimated $15 billion in regulatory costs over 20 years, and greater costs through increases in prices of electricity and slower economic growth. EPA argues “that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.”

Just as Chief Justice John Roberts warned in 2022 that the EPA had claimed “an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority,” the EPA was trying to do through regulation with the Clean Power Plan 2.0 what Congress had repeatedly declined to do through legislation.

Fifteen years ago similar legislative proposals—the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Lieberman bills—failed in the U.S. Congress even when Democrats held strong majorities. That should have signaled to regulators that such sweeping changes lacked democratic legitimacy.

Yet ideology brooks no dissent, and the Biden administration’s Clean Power Plan 2.0 pressed ahead, relying on technologies that are neither commercially viable nor widely demonstrated. Carbon capture and storage, the linchpin of the Biden plan, remains prohibitively expensive and technically uncertain. Hydrogen, another favored solution, is not cost-effective. The EPA’s cost-benefit analysis glossed over these realities, assuming generous tax subsidies and benefits from reduced CO2 emissions would bridge the gap.

The consequences of this regulatory ambition are stark. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation warned in 2024 that the Biden plan’s disincentives for baseload power would destabilize the electricity grid, increasing the risk of blackouts. Spain’s recent 12-hour blackout offers a cautionary tale: rapid transitions to solar without reliable baseload power can lead to lack of backup power, causing the grid to crash.

Moreover, the Biden plan was regressive. It would raise electricity prices, disproportionately affecting low-income households, farmers, and small businesses. It would also undermine a reliable electricity grid and economic growth. By constraining energy supply and inflating costs, it would drive economic activity and jobs offshore, where goods would be manufactured with coal-fired energy in China.

The dirty secret, which Mr. Zeldin forced into the open, is that the Biden plan would not have helped the climate. The greenhouse gases emitted by the power sector do not significantly affect human health, and moving energy intensive manufacturing overseas where it is made with coal-fired power using older technology would have raised emissions, not lowered them.

There is also a deeper constitutional issue at play. The EPA is misusing its authority under the Clean Air Act to pressure states into adopting policies that lie outside its jurisdiction. The plan’s emissions targets are so stringent that no state has voted them into law.

The Clean Power Plan 2.0 amounts to a form of federal commandeering. States are faced with a loss of a significant portion of their electricity generation capacity, and their manufacturing base, by restructuring their energy systems to align with the EPA’s vision. This is not cooperative federalism; it is coercion.

And it is unnecessary. America’s carbon emissions have declined by about a billion metric tons over the past 15 years without such mandates. This progress has been driven by technological innovation, not federal diktats. Cleaner air and efficient power generation are worthy goals, but they must be pursued within the bounds of the law and with respect for democratic processes.

The lesson from West Virginia v. EPA is clear: transformative policy changes require legislative backing. Agencies cannot conjure sweeping powers from ambiguous statutes. The rule of law demands clarity, accountability, and restraint.

As America grapples to ensure grid reliability, there is a cautionary tale here. The path to a reliable energy future lies not in top-down mandates, but in innovation, cooperation, and respect for the institutions that safeguard our freedoms. Administrator Zeldin should be congratulated.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth is director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/14/2025 - 21:00

Large Numbers In Congress Back Israel's Attack On Iran

By Kyle Anzalone via The Libertarian Institute

Following the opening salvo in Israel’s bombardment of Iran, many members of Congress rushed to declare their support for the Jewish state. Some went further, demanding the White House defend Tel Aviv from retaliation. A small number of lawmakers criticized Israel and urged Washington to stay out of the conflict.

Shortly after the start of the Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, military bases, and residential buildings early on Friday morning, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) posted on X, “Game on. Pray for Israel.”

Graham led a chorus of largely Republican lawmakers who called for prayers for Israel as it attacked Iran.

Some lawmakers hoped the war would bring down the Iranian government. “The threat from Iran will only stop when the regime is destroyed,” Rep. Carlos A. Gimenez (R-FL) said. “Anything less is just a temporary respite from the existential threat Iran poses to our allies and the free world.”

Many US lawmakers claimed that Israel’s preemptive attack on Iran was an act of defense. “Make no mistake: Israel is not the aggressor. It is defending itself against an existential threat that long predates the present preemptive strike. The true aggressor is the Islamic Republic and its empire of terror—an empire stained with the blood of innocent Israelis,” New York Democrat Ritchie Torres wrote on X. 

Other members of Congress, including Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), framed the Israeli strikes as “defensive.”

Rep. Mike Lawler said the Israeli strike was “justified,” but added that the US should attack Iran should it retaliate. “Let there be no doubt, we will defend our ally Israel, our other partners in the region, and our military and diplomatic personnel. Iran should understand that there will be grave consequences for any actions they take in response to this justified strike on their nuclear facilities,” he said. 

A frequent argument made by members of Congress is that the Israeli attacks are justified by the supposed nuclear weapons threat posed by Tehran.

“Iran has greatly expanded its uranium enrichment with the goal of producing nuclear weapons that pose an existential threat to Israel,” Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins wrote. “Our country too is at risk as Iran continues its development not only of fissile material but also of ballistic missiles. I hope the Israeli operation to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability is successful.”

However, top intelligence officials in both the Trump and Joe Biden administrations repeatedly stated that Iran was not attempting to develop a nuclear weapon. During recent nuclear talks with Washington, Tehran said it was willing to agree to caps on its energy program to ensure it was only used for civilian purposes.

Though the director of national intelligence affirmed in March that Iran was not making a nuclear weapon, that did not stop Rep. Nancy Mace from asserting that the Islamic Republic was just “days” from building a bomb.

“We stand with Israel, fully and without hesitation. Iran was days away from a nuclear weapon. They fund terror and want Israel wiped off the map. Israel has the right, and the duty, to fight back,” she wrote on X. “America must never flinch.”

One of the most vocal Democrats supporting Israel is Sen. John Fetterman, who demanded that the White House aid the Israeli assault. “Our commitment to Israel must be absolute and I fully support this attack. Keep wiping out Iranian leadership and the nuclear personnel.” The post continued, “We must provide whatever is necessary – military, intelligence, weaponry – to fully back Israel in striking Iran.”

A handful of lawmakers did oppose the Israeli strikes, however. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) argued that Tel Aviv’s war interfered with Trump’s effort to strike a new nuclear deal with Iran. “Netanyahu wasn’t trying to help diplomacy; he was trying to destroy diplomacy. How do we know? They reportedly targeted and killed Iran’s chief negotiator with Trump,” he wrote. 

Additionally, Democratic Reps. Hank Johnson and Rashida Tlaib called on Congress to exercise its war-making authorities. “As America is mired in internal turmoil – and with Hegseth, Gabbard, and Rubio at the controls – foreign leaders like Netanyahu are emboldened to achieve their narrow objectives at America’s expense.” Johnson continued, “Before it’s too late, Congress must stop being a rubberstamp and start exercising oversight to prevent America from being dragged into another war.”

Among Republicans, Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Thomas Massie called on Trump to avoid direct US involvement in the war. “War with Iran is not in America’s interest. It would destabilize the region, cost countless lives, and drain our resources for generations,” Paul explained. “We should pursue diplomacy, not destruction. Engaging in dialogue with adversaries is not weakness; it’s the strength of a confident nation seeking peace. Our primary responsibility is to protect American lives.”

Rep. Massie was the only member of Congress to point out that the attack Israel launched on Friday was an offensive war of aggression. “Israel doesn’t need US taxpayers’ money for defense if it already has enough to start offensive wars.” His X post added, “I vote not to fund this war of aggression.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/14/2025 - 20:25

California Retail Theft Rose 11 Percent From 2014 To 2023: Report

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

California’s soft-on-crime approach, along with pandemic-era actions, may have contributed to a rise in retail theft from 2014 to 2023, according to a report published by the state Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) on June 12.

A man with a face covering flees a T-Mobile store in Oakland, Calif., on Nov. 25, 2014. Noah Berger/AP Photo

In the report, “Retail Theft in California: Looking Back at a Decade of Change,” the LAO found that retail theft in the state rose after a slight decline during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in an overall increase of 11 percent during the nine-year timeframe.

Despite the statewide increase, however, the numbers reported are still below the historical highs seen in the 1980s, the report found.

“Concerns about theft from retail businesses have become more prominent in recent years,” the analyst’s office wrote in the report. “Retail theft has implications for economic outcomes, as well as a sense of safety, well-being, and fundamental quality of life for Californians.”

In 2021, nearly two in three California voters said crime in the state was getting worse, while 23 percent said it was staying the same and 6 percent said it was getting better, according to a survey conducted that year by David Binder Research.

The report finds that the statistics have fluctuated greatly in the past decade.

From 2014 and 2015, retail theft increased slightly, going up 5 percent before declining 20 percent during 2015 and 2012. Nearly half of the drop happened between 2019 and 2020, when the state was placed on lockdown during the pandemic.

“Pandemic-related factors—such as temporary stay-at-home orders and closure of nonessential retail businesses in the early part of the pandemic—likely contributed to the decline over this period,” the report stated.

After the decline, statistics show that retail crime increased by 32 percent from 2021 and 2023.

The crime numbers may not represent the full picture, however, according to the analysis.

A large portion of law enforcement agencies—representing about 10 percent of the state’s population—did not report crime numbers for some or all of 2023 when reporting methods were changed nationwide during the Biden administration..

“Accordingly, crime data may understate the actual increase in retail theft that occurred in 2023,” the report stated.

Bucking the trend were smaller counties in the state that were reporting declines in retail theft from 2019 to 2023.

Union Square visitors look at damage to a Louis Vuitton store in San Francisco on Nov. 21, 2021. Danielle Echeverria/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

“The reason for these differences is unclear but could be tied to factors such as the concentration of retail establishments in each county,” according to the report.

The analysis pointed to Proposition 47, passed in 2014, and changes in the state’s criminal justice system after 2020 as possible reasons for crime to have risen. The proposition reduced several felonies to misdemeanors, limiting the authority to arrest people for some crimes.

The public has criticized the proposition, claiming the law allowed shoplifters to walk away with up to $950 in goods, mandating law enforcement to issue a ticket to suspected thieves instead of arresting them.

“Researchers found that Proposition 47 increased larceny (a category of crime that includes some forms of retail theft), though they were unable to determine the impact on retail theft specifically,” the analyst’s office, which provides fiscal and policy advice to the state Legislature, stated in the report’s executive summary.

Shoppers browse in a Hollywood mall in Los Angeles on Oct. 26, 2023. Mario Tama/Getty Images

“Generally, research on crime rates suggests that people are less likely to commit a crime when they perceive that they have a higher chance of being apprehended,” according to the report.

The state also changed several crime policies in response to the COVID-19 health crisis, including releasing convicted criminals early from prison, implementing zero-bail policies, and reducing probation term lengths.

“[Researchers] found that pandemic-era changes to the criminal justice system increased nonresidential burglary (a measure of some forms of retail theft) by reducing jail populations and the likelihood of arrest,” according to the LAO. “However, the researchers were only able to explain about one-third of the pandemic-era increase in nonresidential burglaries.”

The findings suggested that factors outside the criminal justice system, such as changes in the retail environment, also likely contributed to retail theft trends in California.

Possible changes to the retail environment may also have affected retail theft rates, the report said. For example, many stores have expanded shelf-checkout lines and store policies that direct staff not to physically confront shoplifters.

A customer uses a self-checkout lane at a Home Depot store in San Rafael, Calif., on July 25, 2023. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Pandemic-era changes, such as the use of protective face masks that could also be used to conceal identities, may have further emboldened shoplifters, according to the analysis.

The report also stated that a change in societal factors, such as homelessness prompting the stealing of necessities like food, and increased drug use disorders, could have impacted retail theft rates.

Voters responded last year to the state’s growing retail theft problem, passing Proposition 36 and various other bills, including Assembly Bill 2943, which made it a crime for anyone to possess stolen property that was acquired through shoplifting, theft, or burglary. The bill also allows prosecutors to aggregate thefts in different counties to charge suspects with more severe crimes.

The changes have bolstered the ability of law enforcement to arrest and detain shoplifters, elevated retail theft from a misdemeanor to a felony in some cases, increased punishment for retail crime, and broadened the capacity to detect and respond to retail crime, the report stated.

“This change could also make it more likely for people to be arrested, given that law enforcement generally has greater authority to arrest people for felonies,” according to the report. “This, in turn, could help deter people from engaging in retail theft if it causes them to perceive a higher likelihood of apprehension.”

State and local law enforcement also implemented several programs to target organized retail crime in the past three years.

In March, Gov. Gavin Newsom reported the state’s Organized Retail Crime Task Force had conducted 879 investigations, leading to 1,707 arrests and the recovery of 676,227 stolen goods valued at $13.5 million.

“As public safety continues to be a priority for California, this ongoing retail theft crackdown shows the continuous work of our strengthened efforts on organized crime,” Newsom said in March.

The analysis recommends that legislators ask several key questions to provide oversight of recently passed laws.

The questions include asking whether officials are using the new crime-fighting tools available to them, and to report whether the new laws are resulting in a decrease in crime.

Overall, the analysis showed that while retail theft has increased in the state, the latest available numbers remain below historical levels.

From 1985 to 2023, the retail theft rate declined by 54 percent. A similar decline was recorded for all types of property crime during that time, including residential burglary and motor vehicle theft.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/14/2025 - 19:50

Can AI Improve Election Integrity?

Authored by Thaddeus G. McCotter via American Greatness,

I have not been one to embrace artificial intelligence (AI)—the term “Luddite” comes to mind. I warned at length about the pending perils of our prospective cyber overseer on this august site, American Greatness, including my dark ruminations about how AI could “eat me.” Admittedly, then, it is difficult for this quantum Cassandra to wax Pollyannaish about AI and its impact upon humanity.

Yet, never let it be said this Debbie Downer can’t find the upside in the impending advent of computer rule. As is usual these days, we find our solace in unusual places: regarding AI, our silver lining lurks in the miasmatic fever swamps of politics.

To the cynics, let me be clear: I am not trying to curry favor with our future AI rulers. I am aiming to ensure the legitimacy of our present mortal officials. Specifically, can AI improve election integrity?

From the earliest to the latter stages of elections, the speed with which AI can aggregate and disseminate data could prove a boon to preventing fraud and error within elections.

If Congress acts and constitutional questions are resolved, AI can help separate citizens from non-citizens in the census and, perhaps, help—within the fullest extent of the law—redraw congressional, state legislative, and local districts based solely on citizen representation.

Regardless of the above, AI can help clean voter rolls by removing deceased individuals and those who have moved; rectify duplicate entries for both intrastate and interstate residents (such as college students); and, of course, purge those ineligible to vote based upon their citizenship status.

Further, with the proper and alacritous accumulation of pertinent data, the speed of AI can facilitate the reconciliation between voter rolls and “mail-in” ballots—both outgoing and incoming—to guard against voter fraud and to detect individuals who vote multiple times or in multiple locations, whether during early voting or on election day.

Many other possibilities abound for discussion, debate, and adoption.

At this point, I must be clear: the potential role of AI in promoting election integrity is not my own novel musing. I only raise the matter to spur the presumed exertions by the Republican National Committee (RNC), National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) to devise the legal and technological means by which AI can improve election integrity.

Hopefully, insights into how AI can improve election integrity are being actively pursued (as far as is permissible) from individuals and grassroots organizations that have long been in the vanguard of promoting electoral outreach and election integrity, such as Ned Ryun and American Majority.

Granted, the crush of political exigencies with which they must deal will impact the amount of time and resources these entities can devote to this critical task. Consequently, one hopes the matter is also being explored by populist and/or conservative think tanks, such as the America First Policy Institute and The Heritage Foundation.

While possibilities abound, significant challenges remain in implementation, including the obstinacy of Democrats to facilitating the requisite data collection, specifically, and their broader opposition to the project.

It would be most beneficial, of course, if the Democrats were to collaborate with Republicans to ensure election integrity. This is a remote possibility, with a significant number of Democrats who favor non-citizens voting in American elections. Likely, the Democrats will continue their vehement opposition to any measures to enhance election integrity, which they claim constitutes “voter suppression.”

Given the left’s opposition, it presently falls upon the right to pursue the possibilities. For, sadly, no algorithm known to man or machine can yet bridge the partisan divide over election integrity. (Hey, when it comes to AI, you didn’t expect me to play Pollyanna forever, did you?)

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/14/2025 - 18:40

Taiwan Imposes Export Controls On China's Huawei, SMIC

In what Beijing may view as a sharp escalation in the tech trade war, Taiwan blacklisted Chinese tech giants, Huawei and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC), dealing a major blow to the two companies spearheading China’s efforts to develop cutting-edge AI chip technologies.

As Bloomberg first reported, Taiwan’s International Trade Administration included Huawei, SMIC and several of their subsidiaries in an update of its so-called strategic high-tech commodities entity list, according to the latest version that was made available on its website on Saturday, although the organization didn’t publicly announce the change.

According to Taiwan’s existing regulations, local companies will require approval from the island’s government before they can ship anything to users on the entity list. 

The new restrictions imposed by Taiwan will at least partially cut off Huawei and SMIC’s access to Taiwan’s plant construction technologies, materials and equipment essential to build AI semiconductors, like those made by Taiwan Semi for the likes of Nvidia. 

In Huawei’s case, several of its overseas units including in Japan, Russia and Germany were also captured in the update to Taiwan’s entity list. Both Huawei and SMIC, and some of their subsidiaries, are already on the US entity list, which has significantly limited the companies' ability to acquire foreign technology.

In 2023, Bloomberg News reported that several Taiwanese companies were helping Huawei build infrastructure for an under-the-radar network of chip plants across southern China. 

While Taiwan has for years imposed certain blanket bans on the shipments of critical chipmaking equipment including lithography machines to China, it hasn’t included leading Chinese tech companies or chipmakers on its entity list previously. TSMC, the go-to chipmaker for Apple Inc. and Nvidia, cut off its supplies to Huawei in 2020 because of US export controls.

Huawei, together with SMIC, shocked American politicians in 2023 by releasing an advanced, made-in-China 7-nanometer chip. While the two are struggling to improve their technologies due to various curbs, they are still China’s best hope to help fill in the AI chip gap left by a lack of Nvidia’s most sophisticated semiconductors.

Tensions between Taiwan and China also stepped up a notch earlier this year after Taiwan President Lai Ching-te labeled China a “foreign hostile force” for the first time and unveiled wide-ranging measures to counter infiltration efforts.
China claims the self-governing democracy is its territory and has vowed to unify with Taiwan, using force if necessary.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/14/2025 - 18:05

Supreme Court: US Gun Makers Not Liable For Cartel Violence

Authored by James Eustis via RealClearPolitics (emphasis ours),

Commentary

In a unanimous blow to gun control advocacy groups, the Supreme Court shut down Mexico’s $10 billion claim targeting U.S. gun makers in a cross-border lawsuit.

Mexico originally filed the suit in 2021, arguing that U.S. gun companies were responsible for the weapons that fueled cartel violence. Mexico received support in its lawsuit from American gun control advocacy groups such as Everytown and March for our Lives Action Fund.

The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan, found that the manufacturer’s alleged failure to exercise “reasonable care” does not meet the standard necessary to be found liable for “aiding and abetting” the sale of illegal firearms in Mexico.

Mexico had asked the court for $10 billion in damages and additional court-imposed injunctive relief in the form of restrictions on manufacturers. According to a lawyer who spoke to RCP, siding with Mexico on the injunctive relief “would have likely severely prohibited the distribution of the manufacturer’s products” within the United States.

A federal district court judge initially ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act protected the gun manufacturers from the suit. In 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals revitalized the lawsuit. In response, gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The PLCAA, signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush, shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when crimes are committed with their products. The law includes exceptions which Mexico’s lawyers sought to invoke.

The original suit by Mexico, which named multiple U.S.-based gun manufacturers as defendants, claimed that Mexicans “have been victimized by a deadly flood of military-style and other particularly lethal guns that flows from the U.S. across the border.” It also argued that U.S. companies were negligent in their sales practices, claiming that the gun companies “are not accidental or unintentional players in this tragedy; they are deliberate and willing participants, reaping profits from the criminal market they knowingly supply.”

In response, lawyers for Smith & Wesson argued in a filing that the lawsuit “faults the defendants for producing common firearms” and for “failing to restrict the purchase of firearms by regular citizens.” They made the case that “aiding and abetting criminal activity must involve something more than making products generally.” Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning.

In reference to the injunctive relief that Mexico asked the court to grant, lawyers for Smith & Wesson asserted that the lawsuit was “inflicting costly and intrusive discovery at the hands of a foreign sovereign that is trying to bully the industry into adopting a host of gun-control measures that have been repeatedly rejected by American voters.”

According to some estimates, more than 250,000 firearms are smuggled from the United States into Mexico each year. In contrast, Mexico has one gun store and issues fewer than 50 new gun permits each year. The U.S. is the largest firearm exporter in the world, partly due to relaxed gun laws within the country.

The unanimous decision marks the first ruling by the Supreme Court where the PLCAA is cited and could serve as precedent for protecting weapons manufacturers in future cases. The 9-0 ruling suggests strong judicial consensus on the limits of civil liability for gun manufacturers under federal law. It is seen as a win by gun rights activists, with the NRA arguing in their amicus brief on the case that “Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish America’s.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson each issued concurring opinions, with Jackson writing that Mexico’s lawsuit targeted industry-wide practices that Congress has chosen not to prohibit and Thomas arguing that violations of U.S. law must be established in court for the PLCAA exceptions to be valid.

James Eustis is an intern at RealClearPolitics. He studies politics at Washington & Lee University. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/14/2025 - 17:30