US Navy Sailor Sentenced To Nearly 17 Years In Prison For Selling Military Secrets To China

Authored by Dorothy Li via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A former U.S. Navy sailor who had been found guilty of providing the Chinese communist regime with sensitive U.S. military information in exchange for money was sentenced to 200 months in prison, the Justice Department said on Monday.

The Department of Justice in Washington on Feb. 12, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Wei Jinchao, also known as Patrick Wei, was arrested on espionage charges in August 2023 after reporting for duty aboard the USS Essex, an amphibious assault ship based in San Diego.

Wei, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was convicted by a federal jury in San Diego of espionage and five other criminal counts, including conspiracy to commit espionage, and unlawful export of, and conspiracy to export, technical data related to defense articles in violation of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, after a five-day trial in August 2025.

Prosecutors had asked the court to sentence Wei to 21 years and 10 months in prison, arguing that his actions jeopardized U.S. national security and betrayed the country that granted him citizenship.

“Defendant compromised the U.S. Navy’s entire fleet of amphibious assault ships by sending the Chinese Government thousands of pages of technical information about the fleet’s complex ship systems and how the U.S. Navy operates and maintains those systems,” Assistant U.S. Attorney John Parmley wrote in a government sentencing memorandum filed earlier this month.

“It is a betrayal of America and its people, and it often puts real lives at risk. It also can cost the Government huge amounts of money when it must adjust its military planning, operations, and tactics to account for compromises in informational security.”

In a letter submitted to the court before sentencing, his mother, Wei Mingli, appealed for leniency, recounting the hardships her son faced growing up. She said that he was raised without a father and left home around age 10 to attend boarding school because she had to care for her ailing mother at the time. She portrayed her son as a “devoted Christian” and a kind person who continued to help others, even while in custody.

Patrick Wei’s attorney had sought a much lighter sentence of two years and six months. Wei also wrote a letter to the court expressing remorse for sharing information with an individual he said he once considered a friend.

Now 25 years old, Wei apologized for “wasting taxpayers’ money and eroding people’s trust” in him, and pleaded for “love and mercy” in determining the sentence.

“Yes, I screwed up,” he wrote. “If you could find in yourself to be able to show me some love and mercy in your Honorable conclusion, I would, without fear of contradiction, pay it forward and help others for the rest of my life.”

Details

According to the indictment, Wei was recruited through social media by a Chinese intelligence officer posing as a naval enthusiast affiliated with China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, a state-owned giant shipbuilder, in February 2022.

About a week later, Wei confided in a friend in the U.S. Navy that the Chinese officer had offered him $500 for daily information on which ships were docked at the San Diego base. Wei told his friend that he was “no idiot” and that what he was being asked to do was commit espionage.

At the time, Wei was a petty officer and worked as a machinist’s mate, which gave him access to sensitive national defense information, including data on U.S. Navy ships and their weapons, according to court documents.

Prosecutors said that, starting in March 2022, Wei sent the Chinese intelligence officer multiple photos and videos of the Essex, along with information about the ship’s defensive weapon systems.

In May 2022, the Chinese officer sent him money and congratulated him on becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen.

In June 2022, Wei provided 30 technical and mechanical manuals containing export-control warnings and details of various operational systems aboard the Essex and similar U.S. Navy vessels, including power, steering, aircraft, and deck elevators, as well as damage and casualty control.

In return for transmitting these documents, Wei received $5,000. The Chinese officer informed Wei that 10 of the manuals he provided had not been seen before and were “proved useful,” according to his indictment.

During that same month, the Chinese officer specifically requested that Wei provide information about the number and training of U.S. Marines participating in an international maritime warfare exercise, as well as photographs of military equipment. Wei complied by sending several images of military hardware.

In August 2022, Wei received $1,200 from the Chinese intelligence officer after passing along another 26 documents detailing the power structures and operations of the Essex and similar vessels, which contained data subject to export controls and information classified as “critical technology” by the U.S. Navy.

Wei continued to transmit other sensitive data to the officer throughout 2023, including information about the layout and location of weapons systems, repairs to the Essex, and mechanical vulnerabilities of similar vessels. The officer instructed Wei to keep their relationship discreet and to destroy any evidence that could reveal their activities.

In the press release announcing the sentence against Wei, Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Eisenberg said: “Wei swore loyalty to the United States when he joined the Navy and reaffirmed that oath when he became a citizen. He then accepted the solemn responsibility of protecting this Nation’s secrets when the United States entrusted him with sensitive Navy information.

“He made a mockery of these commitments when he chose to endanger our Nation and our servicemembers by selling U.S. military secrets to a Chinese intelligence officer for personal profit. Today’s sentence reflects our commitment to ensuring those who sell our Nation’s secrets pay a very high price for their betrayal.”

Roman Rozhavsky, assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, said the sentencing served as “a reminder that those who choose to put personal gain above their oath and the safety of our nation will be brought to justice.”

FBI Director Kash Patel also pledged to collaborate with other agencies to defend the United States against foreign intelligence threats.

“If you betray the United States, endanger our warfighters, and put personal profit over your oath, you will be found, you will be exposed, and you will pay a heavy price,” Patel wrote on X.

On the same day Wei was arrested, another U.S. Navy sailor, Zhao Wenheng, who was based out of Naval Base Ventura County in California, was also taken into custody. Zhao, also found guilty of selling military secrets to China, was sentenced to 27 months in prison in January 2024.

Frank Fang and Eva Fu contributed to this report. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 07:15

Are Deportations Making Affordability A Winning Issue For The GOP?

Democrats entered 2026 confident they could make “affordability” the rallying cry that would win back suburban voters and propel them back into the majority. But an inconvenient political twist has upended that plan: Donald Trump is the one actually delivering on affordability - and doing it in ways his opponents are almost certain to despise.

The foundation of this shift is the administration’s aggressive crackdown on immigration. ICE deportations under Trump have sharply reduced the number of illegal migrants in the country - which, according to the White House - is easing the enormous housing demand that exploded under Joe Biden thanks to his open borders policies. 

In short, rents and home prices in many major metro areas are becoming more affordable. Though we would of course note that correlation is not necessarily causation.

FACT: In 14 of the top 20 metro areas with the largest illegal migrant populations, home list prices DECLINED year-over-year in December.

The three metro areas that saw modest price increases are all "sanctuary cities."

Mass deportations = lower housing costs for Americans. pic.twitter.com/63BLWCYhnF

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 12, 2026

According to new estimates from Brookings Institution economists, more immigrants left the United States than entered last year - the first time that’s happened in at least five decades. Net migration fell by between 10,000 and 295,000 in 2025, driven by everything from a near-closure of the southern border to tightened visa limits, new fees, and the suspension of nearly all refugee programs. 

Economists and industry experts say the housing impact is already being felt. 

For example, in San Antonio, developers built aggressively in 2025, expecting another surge of migrant renters. That didn’t happen, so landlords began slashing prices to fill new units. Kevin Lynn, founder of U.S. Tech Workers and a long-time critic of large-scale visa programs, called it basic economics. “When you crack down on immigration, legal and illegal, housing costs naturally drop,” he told Breitbart, describing the decline as a textbook case of supply and demand.

Lynn pointed to Lancaster County, Pennsylvania - a community once labeled “the refugee capital of America.” There, he said, newly renovated apartments are now being advertised with three months of free rent because demand from immigrants has vanished. “This is what happens when you take the immigrants out of the equation,” Lynn said.

It’s a stark reversal from the years under Joe Biden, when roughly 14 million legal and illegal migrants entered the country, coinciding with surging rents and home prices that outpaced wage growth. Now that the pressure is easing, the administration has an answer ready for Democrats hoping to campaign on “affordability.” Trump’s team is framing border enforcement not only as a public-safety measure but as a direct economic benefit for working households.

“Rents are down. You know the story that the Biden administration doesn’t want to talk about: The mass unfettered immigration that pushed up rents, especially for working Americans,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last month. “The connection between illegal immigration and skyrocketing housing costs is as clear as day.” 

The White House clearly believes this narrative could neutralize one of the Democrats’ key talking points heading into the midterms. 

Falling rents, rising wages, and higher labor participation are giving younger voters something they’ve struggled to find for years: a sense of stability. Lower immigration is also contributing to reduced crime and drug deaths, further tying economic security to Trump’s immigration policies.

And then there’s the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which the administration believes will play a huge role in giving Americans the relief they’ve been craving. The legislation aims to lock in lower individual and corporate tax rates, expand full business expensing, and let voters see more of their paychecks. The administration describes it as a direct strike on the cost-of-living crisis.

Other key provisions include higher SALT deduction caps for homeowners, no tax on tips and overtime, and a modest expansion of charitable deductions. Seniors will also see new tax breaks on Social Security income. Buyers of U.S.-made vehicles would get fresh incentives. Each piece will show that while Democrats talk the talk on “affordability” the GOP walks the walk.

Democrats built their midterm plans around the assumption that they could own the affordability issue. Trump is instead redefining it on his terms: fewer migrants competing for jobs and housing, stronger wages, cheaper rents, and more disposable income. Republicans hope that by the time voters head to the polls, “affordability” may no longer be a Democratic talking point. And it might just work.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 06:45

My morning train WFH reads:

• For Years, Powell Avoided Fighting Trump. That’s Over. After receiving grand jury subpoenas Friday, Powell spent the weekend deciding how to respond. By Sunday, he had his answer. (Wall Street Journal)

• The golden handcuffs are slipping in the U.S. housing market: For the first time since 2020, the share of U.S. homeowners with mortgages set at 6% and higher, exceeds those with mortgages below 3%. (Axi0s) but see also Why almost none of the homes burned in LA have been rebuilt since last year’s fires: The wildfires destroyed 13,000 homes. In Los AngelesCounty, just seven have been rebuilt; of the 22,500 homes lost in the most destructive fires between 2017 and 2020, only 38% have been rebuilt to date. (Grist)

• U.S workers just took home their smallest share of capital since 1947, at least: Decades of Tax Cuts and Oligopoly rule have undone all of the post World War Two MiddleClass economic gains. (Fortune)

• How have prices changed in a year? NPR checked 114 items at Walmart: The past year also brought a global trade war, as President Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on nearly all imports. And the world continued to grapple with extreme weather, from droughts to downpours. (NPR)

• The Curious Cult of Aldi: How an 80-year-old German discount chain became America’s hottest grocer. (Businessweek)

• Florida Explores Ditching Property Tax as Home Prices Soar: State lawmakers have filed a raft of bills aimed at reducing property taxes—or gutting them altogether (Wall Street Journal)

• Crispr Pioneer Launches Startup to Make Tailored Gene-Editing Treatments: Aurora Therapeutics, cofounded by Nobel Prize–winning scientist Jennifer Doudna, plans to use gene editing and a new FDA regulatory pathway to commercialize treatments for rare diseases. (Wired)

• The Biggest Myth About Trump’s Base (And Why Many Believe It): The MAGA faithful aren’t deserting their leader. (The Atlantic)

• Here’s Why the Iranian Regime Seems Invincible: And why it shouldn’t stop the citizens currently fighting for freedom. (Persuasion)

• Peter Gabriel Lines Up a New Year of Lunar Releases: With o\i The singer will drop a new single every month in 2026. (Pitchfork)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Nobel laureate Richard Thaler and his University of Chicago Booth School colleague Alex Imas on the update and reissue of his classic book The Winner’s Curse.

My Favorite Performance Chart For 2025

Source: A Wealth of Common Sense

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Thursday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

President To Sign Bill Allowing Return Of Whole Milk In Schools

Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump will sign the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act on Wednesday, overhauling previous U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines that required milk served in school cafeterias to be fat-free or low-fat.

President Donald Trump speaks as Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. looks on during a Make America Healthy Again Commission Event in the White House on May 22, 2025. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

Now, schools have the freedom to serve whole milk, flavored or unflavored, as well as organic milk.

The Senate passed the bill unanimously in November; it easily cleared the House a month later. It was sent to Trump on Jan. 6.

A 2 p.m. signing ceremony is planned in which the president will reverse an Obama-era policy that banned whole milk in public schools, White House officials confirmed to NTD, sister media outlet of The Epoch Times.

“This is common sense and great news for America’s children, dairy farmers, and parents who deserve choice, not big government mandates. President Trump is delivering on his commitment to Make America Healthy Again,” said Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman.

The legislation also stipulates that schools must provide milk substitutes to students with dietary restrictions upon presentation of a letter from a parent or licensed physician.

Additionally, liquid milk no longer counts toward the 10 percent maximum allowance of saturated fat calories.

Rep. John Mannion (D-N.Y.), who sponsored the House bill, previously said this legislation goes a long way in helping U.S. dairy farmers while also providing students the diets they need to “thrive in the classroom.”

“As a teacher for almost 30 years, I saw firsthand how proper nutrition supports student success,” said Mannion, whose district contains many dairy farms.

A 2012 federal law prohibited school cafeterias from serving whole milk, which led to a significant decline in student milk consumption in the past decade, according to Mannion’s Dec. 15 news release.

In the two years between 2014 and 2016 alone, schools served 213 million fewer half pints of milk despite rising public school enrollment.

Mannion also said children over the age of 4 are not getting the recommended daily dairy as outlined by federal dietary guidelines aimed at promoting stronger bone health, lower blood pressure, and reduced risks of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

By contrast, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit agency represented by about 17,000 physicians, has criticized this legislation, saying that more saturated fats are unhealthy options for children.

Instead, the committee said, Congress should push soy milk as a healthier source of protein, and alternative healthy calcium sources such as nuts, kale, broccoli, and fortified orange juice.

In a related action last week, the federal departments of agriculture and health and human services unveiled a new “upside-down” food pyramid that reduces the recommended amount of grains and healthy fats and oils while increasing the amount of meats and vegetables.

Those guidelines, which will be updated every five years, also provide a stronger stance against sugar and alcohol consumption while promoting unprocessed or lesser-processed foods with saturated fats like yogurt, cheese, and whole milk.

Previous guidelines contained more sweeping generalizations against all types of saturated fats, federal officials said.

“These guidelines replace corporate-driven assumptions with common-sense goals and gold-standard scientific integrity,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Jan. 7.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 06:15

Senators Want To Ban Chinese Students From Government Labs

Eleven US senators wrote to Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Tuesday seeking to ban Chinese nationals from US national labs - contending that their access undermines the United States' position in the artificial intelligence (AI) race. 

The Department of Energy building in Washington on Nov. 13, 2023. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The DOE notably oversees 17 national laboratories and funds research to advance various technologies, including energy, environmental, nuclear, and others. In November, President Donald Trump ordered the DOE to launch 'Genesis Mission,' with a goal of coordinating a national effort to accelerate AI innovation "comparable in urgency and ambition to the Manhattan Project."

In their letter, the Senators expressed concern over the thousands of Chinese nationals who have access to these national lab sites, which contain sensitive information and technology. In FY2024, around 3,200 Chinese nationals were approved for such access, which the lawmakers noted does not include lawful permanent residents of the United States, "which means there are likely hundreds, perhaps thousands, more individual Chinese citizens working in our labs," they wrote.

"Continuing to give access to the cutting-edge work performed at these laboratories to Chinese nationals who will turn everything they know over to the [Chinese Communist Party] directly undermines the purpose of Genesis Mission," reads the letter, which was co-signed by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), James Risch (R-Idaho), Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Dave McCormick (R-Pa.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), and Ted Budd (R-N.C.).

The Senators recommend that the department implement a policy to prohibit access by Chinese nationals to national laboratory sites, information, and technology. 

As the Epoch Times notes further, underpinning the espionage concern is the fact that Beijing has passed laws to require all Chinese citizens to assist in the state’s intelligence efforts, as well as the regime’s practice of transnational repression.

Human rights organization Freedom House ranks the Chinese regime among the worst transnational repressors, using tactics such as threatening family members residing in China in order to coerce overseas Chinese to participate in state operations.

The lawmakers cite such coercion as one reason that even proper vetting of these scientists is “not a sufficient safeguard.”

Additionally, the volume of individuals outpaces the department’s capacity to vet them, and China has made efforts to obfuscate links to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the lawmakers said.

“The best way to protect Genesis Mission, and the rest of the important work done throughout the labs, is to put an end to Chinese national scientists and researchers working at them,” the letter reads.

The request comes on the heels of a December House report that found the Energy Department funded research in AI, quantum, and other advanced technologies with defense applications, conducted in partnership with Chinese researchers and institutes, citing more than 4,000 research papers published between June 2023 and June 2025.

The report found that 2,000 Chinese nationals worked at national laboratories as of 2025. The lawmakers behind the report said they had interviewed department executives and found their rationale “naive.”

“Multiple DOE executives ... defended [the Chinese nationals’] continued presence ... by claiming, in effect, that we want them in our labs so they can see how advanced we are—and go back to China telling their colleagues, thus giving up on beating the United States,” the report reads.

The House Select Committee on the CCP has also published reports that show funding for Chinese defense research through grants from other government agencies, including the Pentagon.

The Department of Energy did not respond to an inquiry from The Epoch Times by the time of publication.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 05:45

Tyrants

Authored by Lars Møller via American Thinker,

History is replete with revolutionary figures who transformed society through “vision”, “vanity”, and “violence” - a vicious triad covering the strategy of being ideologically uncompromising, outmaneuvering rivals, and eliminating political opposition, respectively.

From Wikimedia Commons: Execution of Louis XVI (Charles Monnet, 1794)

Maximilien Robespierre and Vladimir Lenin stand out as architects of radical political transformation. Bridging the cultural divide, their leadership styles and psychological profiles show striking similarities. Both men were pedantic ideologues driven by an unshakable belief in their own moral and intellectual superiority.

A comprehensive personality profiling of Robespierre and Lenin requires an analytical framework that transcends ideological taxonomy and historical contingency. While both men operated under conditions of revolutionary crisis, their responses to this strain were neither inevitable nor merely situational. Rather, the extremes of savagery that they authorized, rationalized, and sustained reflect enduring psychological structures that shaped their political conduct. Revolutionary atrocity, in this sense, is best understood, not as an accidental excess of upheaval but as an expressive manifestation of personality under pressure.

At the center of both profiles lies a distinctive form of narcissism, albeit one that diverges from popular caricature. Neither Robespierre nor Lenin cultivated flamboyance or sensual excess. Instead, they embodied a restrained and severe narcissism, grounded in ascetic discipline and intellectual or moral exclusivity. This “austere narcissism” is particularly insidious, as it disguises grandiosity beneath the rhetoric of sacrifice and historical necessity. Both men perceived themselves as uniquely attuned to the demands of history, endowed with a clarity unavailable to others. This conviction constituted the psychological foundation of their authority and simultaneously foreclosed the possibility of self-doubt.

Robespierre’s personality was organized primarily around moral absolutism. His self-conception as l’Incorruptible was not a mere political posture but a deeply internalized identity. Personal frugality, emotional restraint, and rhetorical solemnity served as symbolic reinforcements of moral superiority. From a psychological standpoint, this configuration suggests a rigid superego structure in which ethical norms were internalized as categorical imperatives rather than negotiable principles. Moral conflict could not be accommodated; it had to be eradicated.

This psychic architecture is indispensable for understanding Robespierre’s embrace of terror during 1793–94. The Law of Suspects, enacted on September 17, 1793, dramatically expanded the definition of counter-revolutionary guilt to include vague categories such as “enemies of liberty” and those lacking “civic virtue”. In practice, this legislation enabled the arrest of tens of thousands on the basis of suspicion alone. The resulting mass incarcerations and executions were not only tactical responses to military threats but also expressions of Robespierre’s moralized worldview. Political ambiguity itself became criminal.

The Revolutionary Tribunal exemplified this moral reductionism. Legal safeguards were progressively dismantled, culminating in the Law of the Great Terror, enacted on June 10, 1794, which eliminated defense counsel and limited verdicts to acquittal or death. The acceleration of executions—over 1,300 in Paris alone within six weeks—reflected not panic but moral certainty. Violence functioned as ethical enforcement. The guillotine, with its mechanical regularity, transformed killing into procedure, allowing Robespierre to experience mass death as impersonal justice rather than cruelty. Psychologically, such depersonalization constitutes a dissociative defense: suffering is abstracted, responsibility displaced, and violence reclassified as virtue.

Robespierre’s increasing hostility towards former allies further reveals the fragility underlying his moral absolutism. The executions of Georges Danton and Camille Desmoulins—longstanding revolutionaries accused of “indulgence”—illustrate how moral rigidity devolved into paranoid purification. Dissent was no longer external but internal. The purges thus served not only political consolidation but also psychic stabilization. Each execution reaffirmed Robespierre’s self-image as guardian of revolutionary purity against an ever-expanding field of corruption.

Lenin’s psychological profile, though equally absolutist, was structured along a different axis. His narcissism was intellectual rather than moral. Lenin did not portray himself as virtuous but as scientifically correct. Authority derived from his conviction that he alone grasped the objective laws of historical development. This intellectual narcissism produced profound disdain for spontaneity, pluralism, and moral hesitation.

Lenin’s approach to violence during and after the October Revolution exemplifies this orientation. The establishment of the Cheka in December 1917 marked the institutionalization of terror as a permanent instrument of governance. Unlike the revolutionary tribunals of 1793, the Cheka operated extrajudicially from the outset. Its remit included summary execution, hostage-taking, and mass repression. Lenin explicitly endorsed these measures. In correspondence from 1918, he called for “merciless mass terror” against class enemies, insisting that hesitation would doom the revolution.

The Red Terror of 1918–22 provides stark illustration. Following the attempted assassination of Lenin in August 1918, the regime launched widespread reprisals. Thousands were executed without trial, often selected, not for actions but for social origin. Former nobles, priests, merchants, and officers were targeted as categories rather than individuals. The mass shootings at Petrograd and Moscow, as well as the use of concentration camps—precursors to the Gulag system—demonstrate how violence was bureaucratized and de-personalized. Psychologically, this categorical annihilation reflects cognitive reductionism: human beings were reduced to structural obstacles to be removed. 

The suppression of the Tambov peasant uprising (1920–22) further illustrates Lenin’s instrumental rationality. When peasants resisted grain requisitioning, the Red Army deployed poison gas, mass deportations, and hostage executions. Lenin personally authorized these measures, framing them as necessary to break “kulak resistance”. The scale and severity of the repression—tens of thousands killed or interned—underscore his willingness to annihilate entire populations in pursuit of economic and ideological objectives. Emotional detachment was not incidental but functional: empathy would have impeded efficiency.

Similarly revealing was the crushing of the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921. The sailors, once celebrated as heroes of the revolution, demanded free elections and an end to Bolshevik repression. Lenin and Trotsky responded with overwhelming force. Thousands were executed or sent to labor camps. The psychological significance lies in the readiness to destroy former allies once they ceased to serve the ideological script. Dissent, regardless of origin, was pathologized as counter-revolution.

Despite stylistic differences, Robespierre and Lenin shared a fundamental incapacity to recognize others as autonomous moral agents. From a developmental psychology perspective, this suggests impaired “mentalization”. Opposition was interpreted, not as disagreement but as moral corruption or structural deviance. Consequently, violence acquired an air of inevitability.

Both leaders also exhibited marked emotional austerity and social withdrawal. Their reluctance to engage in ordinary social life reinforced authority but deepened isolation. Isolation intensified suspicion. Deprived of corrective feedback, both increasingly relied on internal narratives of betrayal. Terror became self-reinforcing: fear confirmed paranoia, paranoia justified repression, and repression entrenched power.

This dynamic accords with established models of authoritarian personality, which emphasize the interplay between dominance and insecurity. Such leaders are not psychologically secure. Their need for absolute control compensates for internal fragility. Power functions as an external stabilizer, imposing order upon both society and the self. 

The handling of failure further illuminates these personalities. Neither Robespierre nor Lenin demonstrated genuine self-criticism. Military setbacks, economic collapse, or popular resistance were invariably attributed to insufficient repression. Violence thus substituted for reflection. Rather than revising assumptions, both escalated coercion. 

The persistence of terror beyond immediate necessity underscores its expressive function. Once institutionalized, violence became ritualized, reaffirming alignment with virtue or history. Each execution symbolized inevitability and correctness. Atrocity communicated omnipotence.

The contrast between Robespierre’s “moralized terror” and Lenin’s “instrumental terror” reflects divergent emotional economies within a shared absolutist framework. Robespierre’s violence was theatrical and ethical; Lenin’s procedural and technical. Yet both converged in their effect: the annihilation of individuality and the normalization of death as a political tool.

Ultimately, the personality profiling of Robespierre and Lenin demonstrates how revolutionary leadership magnifies latent psychological traits. Ideology supplied justification; crisis provided opportunity; personality determined execution. Their atrocities were not historical aberrations but behavioral culminations of rigid cognition, narcissistic self-identification, emotional detachment, and intolerance of uncertainty.

The broader implication is sobering. Extreme political violence need not arise from overt sadism. It often emerges from moral certainty, intellectual arrogance, and the refusal to acknowledge human complexity. Robespierre and Lenin exemplify how revolutionary ideals, when filtered through psychologically brittle leadership, can transmute aspirations of emancipation into systems of terror. Their legacies endure as warnings of what occurs when conviction eclipses conscience and abstraction supplants humanity. 

Without any mitigating self-irony, Robespierre and Lenin embodied an unlimited commitment to ideology, indifferent to the concerns of ordinary people, their lives and freedoms.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/15/2026 - 05:00

Risk For Thee, Safety For Me: Celebrity Activism

Authored by Christian Vezilj via American Thinker,

Hollywood has mastered the art of moral performance. Award shows have become political stages where actors speak with the confidence of prophets and the certainty of philosophers. But beneath the applause lines and emotional crescendos lies a contradiction that becomes impossible to ignore: the courage they demand from others is courage they themselves will never have to summon.

This contradiction was unmistakable at the recent Golden Globe Awards. The ceremony quickly transformed into a coordinated tribute to Renee Nicole Goode, who was shot and killed by an ICE agent. Mark Ruffalo dedicated his award by saying, “This is for Renee Nicole Goode, who was murdered,” adding, “I don’t know how I can be quiet.” Wanda Sykes echoed the sentiment on the red carpet, declaring, “Of course, this is for the mother who was murdered by an ICE agent, and it’s really sad.” She went further, urging confrontation: “We need to be out there and shut this rogue government down, because it’s just awful what they’re doing to people.”

Celebrities wore coordinated pins reading “BE GOOD” and “ICE OUT,” signaling solidarity and moral urgency. The messaging was unified, emotional, and unmistakably political. The narrative was clear: this was a moment to resist, to rise up, to confront injustice.

But what was equally clear — and far more revealing — was what they chose not to say.

While the Golden Globes stage was filled with speeches about ICE, not a single celebrity mentioned the mass slaughter, imprisonment, and torture taking place in Iran at that very moment - Hundreds of protesters have been killed by the Iranian regime. Thousands have been dragged into prisons. Torture, rape, and forced confessions have been documented by human rights groups. The government has imposed sweeping internet blackouts to hide the brutality from the world. [ZH: regardless of whether this is yet more 'regime change paint by numbers' - it was completely ignored].

And yet, on one of the most visible cultural platforms in America, the silence was absolute.

• No speeches.
• No pins.
• No hashtags.
• No calls to “shut down” the Iranian government.
• Nothing.

The contrast is staggering. When the villain is a U.S. agency, outrage is immediate, coordinated, and emotionally charged. When the villain is a foreign authoritarian regime slaughtering its own people, the outrage evaporates. The issue is not the moral weight of the cause. The issue is whether the cause is useful to the narrative they want to tell.

But the hypocrisy runs even deeper. It extends to the way Hollywood reacts to domestic events that do not fit its preferred storyline. When Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed inside the Capitol, there were no celebrity tributes. No emotional speeches. No coordinated pins. No calls for accountability. Instead, the officer who shot her was widely described as a hero. The shooting was framed as necessary, justified, even praiseworthy.

Whether one agrees with either shooting is not the point. The difference in reaction reveals the deeper truth: Hollywood’s activism is not driven by universal moral principles. It is driven by selective outrage, selective empathy, and selective courage.

This brings us to the heart of the matter: the asymmetry of risk. Celebrities routinely encourage ordinary people to “stand up,” “fight back,” or “put your body on the line.” Sykes’s call to “shut this rogue government down” is a perfect example. These are not metaphorical suggestions. They imply confrontation, danger, and the possibility of violence.

Yet the people delivering these messages do so from behind layers of insulation that ordinary Americans do not have. They live in gated communities. They travel with private security. Their homes are protected by surveillance systems, controlled access, and armed guards. They are not wrong for wanting safety — everyone wants safety — but they are wrong for preaching danger for others while choosing safety for themselves.

A working‑class person who confronts ICE or police in the street faces real, immediate, physical danger. A celebrity who posts a hashtag or makes a speech faces none. Their activism is symbolic, not sacrificial. It costs them nothing. And yet they speak as though they are shoulder‑to‑shoulder with the people they are urging into the streets.

This is where the phrase “We’re in it together” collapses. When celebrities use it, they rarely mean shared sacrifice. They mean shared sentiment. They mean shared optics. But they do not mean shared risk. Their version of solidarity is digital, not physical.

The deeper civic insight is this: selective outrage and selective courage are symptoms of a broader cultural problem. We have built a society where moral authority is often claimed by those who bear none of the consequences of their own prescriptions. Hollywood’s activism is not dangerous to Hollywood. It is dangerous to the people they encourage to act on their behalf.

True solidarity requires more than a speech, a pin, or a social media post. It requires standing in the same place, facing the same risks, and sharing the same consequences. Anything less is performance.

And performance, no matter how passionate, is not courage.

Tyler Durden Wed, 01/14/2026 - 22:30

Mark Harris, Ihab Khalil, Nolan Harte, Johannes Glugla, Christy Carter, and Andrew Claerhout of BCG wrote an insightful comment on how private equity’s advantage is shifting, not shrinking:

The past three years of public-market strength have made private equity an easy target. Returns from a small group of mega-cap stocks have driven public indexes sharply higher, giving investors both stronger short-term performance and full liquidity. That combination has widened the gap with private markets and renewed debate about PE’s value proposition.

Long-term investors might wonder why they should stay committed to an asset class that has lagged public markets and offers less flexibility in reallocating capital. The question is not without merit. Measured on a money-weighted basis, PE has only modestly outperformed broad public benchmarks over the past five and ten years.

PE marks also tend to move more slowly than public valuations, especially on the downside. That lag can make the asset class look artificially stable during market reversals, as seen in 2021 and 2022. In economic terms, true volatility likely sits between the smoother reported marks and the sharper swings of listed equities.

Yet, despite the skepticism, the case for PE remains strong, and may even be getting stronger. What’s changing is how value is identified, measured, and shared. This article explains why the playbook for institutional investors and managers is due for an update. 

I invite my readers to click here to read the full comment, well worth it. 

Below, you can read the key takeaways:

The big change in PE is that returns can finally be taken apart—growth, margin, leverage, multiple—and investors can choose managers who excel on those fundamentals.

• Returns are becoming easier to read. Investors can now break performance into growth, margins, leverage, and multiple to separate operating skill from market lift with tools that did not exist five years ago.
• Manager selection is getting sharper. Managers in the top quartile repeat that level of performance about 45% of the time and stay in the top half about 80% of the time. Moreover, top-quartile funds outperform those in the bottom quartile by 13 points in annual internal rate of return.
• Steady allocation still wins. Avoiding the three worst vintages adds just 0.8 points, while disciplined pacing and backing proven operators protects diversification and positions programs for recovery.

Let's dive into these key takeaways beginning with how data-enabled manager selection is finally practical:

Allocators now have the tools to evaluate managers with a level of precision that was impossible even five years ago. They can analyze deal-level value bridges, tracing realized multiples on invested capital back to their drivers such as growth, margin expansion, multiple change, and deleveraging. These methods separate true operating skill from market lift. Public market equivalent (PME) and direct alpha analyses place PE cash flows on the same timeline as public indices, converting outperformance into clean measures of multiple and annualized excess return. With richer data and model-assisted screens, it’s now possible to identify strong operators and at minimum, systematically avoid the bottom quartile.

A handful of factors consistently predict whether a PE firm avoids the bottom quartile. These include clear sector focus and specialization, disciplined fund growth of no more than 25% from one vintage to the next, and a healthy pace and breadth of distributions to paid-in capital rather than reliance on a few big wins. Strong performers also tend to show tighter deal dispersion with fewer tail losses and outliers, and more accurate underwriting, reflected in closer alignment between expected and realized value.

To turn these insights into process, LPs can formalize a few practical tools, such as a value-creation audit that dissects realized deals to separate operating contribution versus market lift. A performance-persistence matrix can track how managers sustain results across vintages, and a selection-uplift model can help companies estimate top-half direct alpha based on operating and process features. Overlaying these with access and pacing maps, spanning co-investments, separately managed accounts (SMAs), and re-ups helps determine how much capital to allocate to repeatable operators while maintaining diversification. 

Next, steady PE allocation preserves diversification and returns potential:

Reducing PE exposure now would effectively trade lower-multiple private businesses for higher-multiple public mega-caps. Skipping 2025 and 2026 vintages would further overweight the weaker 2021 and 2022 cohorts, eroding time diversification and creating a vintage hump that concentrates risk in the least attractive entry years.

Maintaining disciplined pacing, re-upping into proven franchises, and using co-investments or separately managed accounts to scale repeatable operators preserves program balance and improves the odds of capturing the next upcycle.

History shows that attempting to time the PE market by skipping vintages rarely works. For example, an investor who avoided the three worst vintages over the past 20 years would generate a gain of just 0.8 percentage points over one who invested steadily. (See Exhibit 2.) Considering how difficult it is to identify the “worst” vintages in advance, that lift is simply too low to justify the risk.

Contrast this performance with the lift that an investor would accrue by deploying capital in the top quartile versus the median over the past 20 years (20.7% compared with 13.7%, annually), and it becomes clear that the focus of allocators should be building long-term relationships with the best, most repeatable operators. Given that capital is relatively scarce right now, this is likely one of the best moments to go build some of those new relationships with general partners (GPs) who can identifiably generate repeat outperformance.

Our experience shows that pacing discipline is about doing enough, consistently, so that time diversification can work. That means codifying pacing bands so they do not oscillate with last quarter’s marks, anchoring underwriting on method, and using liquidity tools judiciously so optics do not prompt selling at a loss. 

What else? PE-backed firms may be positioned to capitalize on AI faster:

Many smaller companies see opportunities to apply AI across their value chains to boost efficiency and profitability. The investment case is often clear on paper, but execution usually falters. Most lack the internal expertise to pinpoint where AI creates impact, the capital to fund upfront development, and the discipline to sustain change once pilots begin.

Private equity sponsors, by contrast, can approach AI adoption through a portfolio lens. They underwrite both the operating gains and the valuation lift. Every additional $10 million in earnings before EBITDA can translate into roughly $100 million to $120 million in equity value at exit. They also bring fund-level operating partners, standardized playbooks, and access to specialist advisors who can identify and scale AI use cases across multiple portfolio companies.

That combination of capital, expertise, and operating discipline gives PE-backed firms a measurable edge over comparable small and midsize businesses. They cannot match the investment firepower of global technology giants, but within their segments they can move faster and more consistently. The pattern resembles earlier periods when PE sponsors institutionalized new disciplines such as structured pricing or systematic add-on M&A. Today, leading firms are taking the same approach to AI and embedding it portfolio-wide. As the early returns come in, we expect this trend will accelerate.

The comment concludes with what investors and managers should do now:

The insights we’ve just described offer leaders a practical way to evaluate performance. The goal is the same on both sides of the table: build conviction through evidence, and stay disciplined when conditions change.

For principal investors: The task is to identify managers whose methods are consistent, transparent, and proven to work through different cycles.

• Underwrite the GP’s method, not just marks. Require deal-level value bridges that separate operating improvement (EBITDA growth, margin expansion, multiple change, and deleveraging) from market lift. Tie these to a repeatable operating playbook that travels across sectors and vintages. Compare managers to the right public benchmarks using PME and direct alpha, not pooled IRR. Include attribution by source of value, so selection focuses on operating capability, not timing.
• Use access to back repeatable operators. Re-up into managers who demonstrate operating discipline and team continuity. Use co-investments and SMAs to scale exposure to the strongest deals without crowding risk.
• Engineer liquidity without destroying value. Keep pacing on track by planning for secondaries, continuation vehicles, and net asset value finance as tools of last resort. When they are used, lay out the full cost, conflict protections, and the path for distributions to paid-in capital to avoid being forced into selling at the wrong time.
• Model risk with clarity. Adjust for the smoothing inherent in private-market marks when setting policy limits and asset-liability models. Codify pacing bands so commitment levels do not rise and fall with recent performance, and clearly separate short-term optics from underlying economics in board materials so temporary drawdowns don’t trigger reactive selling.
• Concentrate where conviction is highest. Write larger checks with fewer GPs who demonstrate repeated capability. In exchange, seek not just lower fees but higher access, including advisory seats, operating seminars, or structured insights into deal flow. 

For GPs: Investor expectations are rising in parallel. Managers now need to show, not just say, how they create value, prove that it’s repeatable, and give LPs confidence that results can endure across cycles.

• Sharpen areas of focus. Many PE firms have already narrowed their sector priorities. But those that push one level deeper into specific subsectors can outperform. Specialized funds deliver returns that are roughly 200 basis points higher than others. LPs increasingly favor knowing more precise exposures in portfolio construction as their risk models become more nuanced.
• Build differentiated value-creation capabilities. Identify the value-creation levers that matter most within each subsector of focus and develop real strength in those areas. Build capability directly or through recurring partnerships. Make these capabilities part of your offer to management teams so the value is visible and credible, and incorporate them into deal sourcing. Target companies that would benefit from these levers rather than limiting the work to diligence and portfolio management.
• Make value creation measurable and auditable. Standardize deal-level value bridges, publish 100-day plans with milestones, and report hit rates. Demonstrating how the playbook holds across sectors and rate environments converts narrative into evidence.
• Open the data room for real diligence. Offer cash-flow information that will allow investors to compare direct alpha with PME. For example, managers that adopt standard cash flow and performance templates and provide replicable analyses such as PME-ready cash flows, entry-year cohorts, and value-creation breakdowns report materially shorter diligence cycles because LPs can validate performance more efficiently. This matters in a market where average fund closings now take about 21 months.
• Be a true partner on access. Offer co-investment opportunities that are reliable, timely, and easy to execute, something nearly 70% of LPs now expect, according to a recent Private Equity International survey. Consistency here builds credibility and strengthens alignment, often paving the way for earlier or larger commitments in future funds. Where possible, design fee and term structures that reward longer holds rather than financial engineering alone.
• Create deeper connection with critical LPs. Help LPs upskill their teams and include them earlier in diligence. Some managers now host semiannual operating workshops or portfolio-level data reviews. Those efforts often lead to larger re-ups as LPs concentrate commitments with managers they trust. Shared insight reinforces partnership and helps both sides defend the asset class in board discussions.

Great insights here, one of BCG's best comments because it was short and to the point.

I thank Andrew Claerhout for sending it over and recommend my readers go over it again here. 

I spoke briefly with Andrew tonight and he explained how it's much easier nowadays to conduct a deep dive in terms of performance attribution to separate EBITDA growth from leverage and multiple expansion. 

So if a GP buys a deal day at 1X and sells it later at 2.5X, you can easily understand what percentage came from debt, multiple expansion and value creation (EBITDA growth).

The trick is to identify the people who are driving EBITDA growth to see if they are able to repeat in different cycles. 

Writing larger tickets to fewer managers makes sense, it's been done for many years but with mixed results.

Vintage year diversification and pacing allocations is critically important.

On Monday, I discussed why Canada's top pension funds are rethinking their approach to private equity and discussed some of these issues but this paper goes into a lot more depth and offers great insights.

It is also worth noting BCG isn't the only shop discussing these issues. 

Below, some examples:

• JPMorgan: No, private equity has not lost its way  
• McKinsey: Braced for Shifting Weather
• Harbourvest 2026 Market Outlook 
• Bain 2025 Global PE Report 

Alright, going to wrap it up there and once again thank Andrew Claerhout for sending me this comment.

Below, Henry McVey, KKR CIO of balance sheet, joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the firm's 2026 outlook. Great discussion, listen to his insights.

What GAO Found Scams occur in a variety of forms and are a growing risk to consumers. Examples of a Scam Execution Process Note: Other types of contact methods, scams, and payment methods exist. At least 13 federal agencies engage in a range of activities related to countering scams. The agency activities cover a spectrum of roles intended to prevent, detect, and respond to scams. However, each agency largely carries out these activities independently. None of the 13 federal agencies that GAO spoke with were aware of a government-wide strategy to guide efforts to combat scams, nor did GAO independently identify such a strategy. In its April 2025 report, GAO recommended that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) lead a federal effort, in collaboration with other agencies, to develop and implement a government-wide strategy to counter scams and coordinate related activities. The FBI recently outlined actions to address this recommendation. The Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CFPB), the FBI, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) collect and report on consumer complaints both directly and from other agencies. Data limitations prevent agencies from determining a total number of scam complaints and financial losses. Accordingly, there is no single, government-wide estimate of the total number of scams and financial losses. Similarly, federal agencies have not produced a common, government-wide definition of scams. A government-wide estimate would capture the scale of scams, and a common definition is necessary for producing such an estimate and for developing a government-wide strategy. In its April 2025 report, GAO made separate recommendations to CFPB, the FBI, and FTC to (1) develop a common definition of scams, (2) harmonize data collection, (3) report an estimate of the number of scam complaints each receives and (4) produce a single, government-wide estimate of the number of consumers affected by scams. In a recent update, the FBI and FTC outlined various concerns with these recommendations, such as differing authorities and mandates among agencies. However, GAO maintains that these recommendations remain valid. In October 2025, CFPB stated that it will monitor FBI and FTC actions before determining if any actions of its own are warranted. Why GAO Did This Study Scams, a method of committing fraud, involve the use of deception or manipulation intended to achieve financial gain. Scams often cause individual victims to lose large sums—in some cases their entire life savings. Federal agencies such as the FBI and FTC have responsibilities that include preventing and responding to scams against Americans. This statement discusses (1) federal agencies’ activities to prevent and respond to scams and the need for a comprehensive, government-wide strategy to guide their efforts and (2) federal agencies’ activities to compile scam-related consumer-complaint data and estimate the total number of scams and related financial losses. It also provides updates on the status of 3 agencies’ actions to address applicable recommendations. This statement is based on GAO’s April 2025 report on federal efforts to combat scams (GAO-25-107088). For that report, GAO analyzed publicly available information (including prior GAO reports) and relevant agency documents. GAO also interviewed officials from 13 different federal agencies involved in countering scams.

What GAO Found Before the Civil War, the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole Nations—known as the Five Tribes—had citizens who enslaved people. In 1866, each Tribe entered a treaty with the U.S. that abolished slavery and addressed tribal citizenship rights of the formerly enslaved people living among the Tribes. Historically, these people are referred to as “Freedmen.” Territories of the Five Tribes and Oklahoma, 1890 GAO estimates that the population of descendants of the Freedmen could have ranged from 146,400 to 395,400 in 2022. Since the 1800s, several courts have considered whether the Freedmen and their descendants are entitled to tribal citizenship or other rights under the 1866 treaties. In part because of those cases, Freedmen descendants are eligible to enroll as tribal citizens in the Cherokee and Seminole Nations, but not the Chickasaw or Choctaw Nations. Further, the Muscogee (Creek) Supreme Court recently ruled that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation must begin to permit its Freedmen descendants to enroll. Federal agencies administer a range of services, such as health care, education, and housing assistance, for the benefit of Tribes and their citizens, including enrolled Freedmen descendants. However, most of the 19 enrolled Freedmen descendants GAO interviewed said they encountered barriers accessing such services. Agencies have taken some actions to address these barriers, such as by clarifying enrollment eligibility. In addition, enrolled Freedmen descendants are regarded differently than other tribal citizens under certain federal statutes concerning land ownership and criminal jurisdiction. Why GAO Did This Study To better understand the status of Freedmen descendants, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing in 2022 on selected provisions of the 1866 treaties between the U.S. and the Five Tribes. The committee subsequently requested that GAO provide related information. This report (1) estimates the population of Freedmen descendants of the Five Tribes, (2) describes key court decisions on Freedmen descendants’ eligibility for tribal citizenship, (3) describes barriers to certain federal services identified by enrolled Freedmen descendants and agency actions to address them, and (4) describes how Freedmen descendants are regarded differently than other citizens of the Five Tribes under certain federal statutes. GAO conducted demographic modeling to estimate the population of Freedmen descendants of the Five Tribes as of 2022, the most recent year for which data were available. GAO reviewed the 1866 treaties, the Five Tribes’ constitutions, federal statutes, and key court cases from tribal and federal courts related to the tribal citizenship rights of the Freedmen descendants. GAO interviewed officials from the Cherokee Nation, an association that represents Freedmen descendants, 19 Freedmen descendants enrolled as tribal citizens in the Cherokee and Seminole Nations, and federal agency officials. For more information, contact Anna Maria Ortiz at ortiza@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The problems of sexual assault and sexual harassment at the U.S. Coast Guard are not new. In its most recent report to Congress on this issue, covering fiscal year 2022, the Coast Guard reported 226 incidents of sexual assault and 88 incidents of sexual harassment. This report is required by law but fully included only 5 of the 11 required elements, partially included 4 of them, and did not include 2. Further, the Coast Guard submitted this report about 1 year late. The report covering fiscal year 2023 was due on January 15, 2024 and the report covering fiscal year 2024 was due on January 15, 2025. Both remained unissued, as of December 2025. Comparison of U.S. Coast Guard’s Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Report on Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment to Statutory Reporting Requirements The Coast Guard’s process for compiling the annual report did not fully follow its own procedures. According to these procedures, cognizant program and legal offices are to conduct reviews. The service used outdated statutory language and templates with deficiencies over multiple years, raising questions about whether the legal review was sufficient. By ensuring that it addresses all required sexual assault and sexual harassment reporting requirements and meets the statutory deadline, the Coast Guard could better communicate complete and quality information for decision-making and oversight, and increase transparency to Congress on incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Why GAO Did This Study Since 2010, the Coast Guard has been required by law to submit an annual report to Congress on reported incidents of sexual assault and, since 2018, sexual harassment involving members of the Coast Guard. GAO was asked to review the Coast Guard’s process for annually reporting on sexual assault and sexual harassment to Congress. This report examines (1) the Coast Guard’s processes to identify and compile sexual assault and sexual harassment data, and (2) the extent to which the Coast Guard ensures that it reports on instances of sexual assault and sexual harassment to Congress as required. GAO reviewed Coast Guard documentation on its processes for identifying and compiling sexual assault and sexual harassment data. GAO analyzed the extent to which the sexual assault and sexual harassment report for fiscal year 2022—the most recent year available—incorporated required elements by comparing them to the law (14 U.S.C. § 5112). GAO also interviewed Coast Guard officials from headquarters and from 5 of 9 Coast Guard districts.

What GAO Found The Coast Guard identified 49 actions to implement as part of its reform effort to address sexual misconduct since July 2023. As of September 2025, the service reported implementing 32 of them. These actions include revising policy to improve accountability for sexual misconduct and developing new training. Coast Guard officials cited several reasons why the 17 remaining actions are incomplete, including their complexity and transitions in the service’s leaders. The Coast Guard has taken steps to incorporate aspects of leading practices to support its reform efforts, but gaps in key areas may affect its ability to maintain progress and achieve lasting results to address sexual misconduct. Extent to Which the Coast Guard’s Reform Effort to Address Sexual Misconduct Followed Selected Leading Practices for Agency Reforms Specifically, GAO identified gaps in these areas: Involving employees and key stakeholders. The Coast Guard engaged employees and stakeholders (e.g., the Department of Defense) when developing its reforms but does not have a dedicated method for collecting feedback from its personnel. Establishing a two-way communication strategy would better ensure the Coast Guard has opportunities to collect and respond to employee feedback regarding the effects of the reforms. Leadership focus and attention. The service established a steering committee, but it has not met since November 2024. An active reform implementation team would help the Coast Guard maintain momentum. Managing and monitoring. The Coast Guard has not updated timelines or outlined clear next steps for incomplete reform actions. Developing a clear implementation plan with key milestones and updated time frames could help the Coast Guard pinpoint performance shortfalls and address challenges. Establishing goals and outcomes. The Coast Guard has not developed an evaluation plan to assess the effectiveness of its efforts, as GAO recommended in March 2024. Officials have begun to develop a service culture index to measure progress; however, it is incomplete. Strategic workforce planning. The service has added staff to support its reform efforts (e.g., 16 personnel at the Academy) but has not fully assessed workforce needs. Addressing GAO’s 2020 recommendation on workforce assessment planning would better ensure the Coast Guard has the right people in the units responsible for implementing the reform efforts. Why GAO Did This Study Sexual assault and sexual harassment (i.e., sexual misconduct) are serious offenses that can have lasting, harmful effects on victims. Incidents of sexual misconduct in the Coast Guard—a maritime military service within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—have generated congressional and media attention for nearly 2 decades. In July 2023, after media reporting on the mishandling of sexual assault cases, the Coast Guard directed a review to identify areas for organizational improvement and to counter sexual misconduct. GAO was asked to review the Coast Guard’s effort to address sexual misconduct. This report examines (1) the reform actions the Coast Guard has taken since July 2023 to address sexual assault and harassment and (2) the extent to which the Coast Guard has followed selected leading agency reform practices to implement and sustain its reform efforts. GAO reviewed Coast Guard documentation on its reform actions and assessed them against selected leading practices for agency reform. GAO also interviewed Coast Guard officials from headquarters and from five of nine districts (selected based on size and geography) and visited one of these districts (New England) as well as the Coast Guard Academy.

What GAO Found In 2015, GAO issued A Framework for Managing Fraud Risks in Federal Programs (Fraud Risk Framework). The Fraud Risk Framework provides a comprehensive set of leading practices, organized into four components, for program managers to use when developing or enhancing efforts to combat fraud in a strategic, risk-based manner. These four components include (1) committing to combat fraud by creating an organizational culture, (2) planning and conducting risk assessments, (3) designing and implementing a strategy with specific control activities, and (4) evaluating and adapting fraud risk management activities. As noted in the Fraud Risk Framework, program managers need to understand the effectiveness of their fraud risk management activities and adjust their efforts to better protect their resources against fraud. However, our work has shown that agencies face challenges in effectively implementing leading practices, particularly those found in Component 4 of the Fraud Risk Framework. Agencies continue to face these challenges, despite requirements to use the Fraud Risk Framework's leading practices to manage fraud risks. To aid program managers in these efforts, we developed this technical appendix to GAO's Fraud Risk Framework, which focuses on the implementation of Component 4: Evaluate Outcomes Using a Risk-Based Approach and Adapt Activities to Improve Fraud Risk Management. This appendix highlights various approaches that program managers have used, or could use, to evaluate and adapt fraud risk management activities described in the first three components of the Framework. These approaches can be modified to fit the circumstances and conditions relevant to different programs and activities. While the primary target audience is program managers in the U.S. federal government, the approaches may also be applicable to state, local, and foreign government agencies, as well as nonprofit entities, that are responsible for fraud risk management. Why GAO Did This Study Demonstrating strong internal controls and program integrity is important to protect taxpayer dollars and maintain public trust. In this way, evaluations can help agencies show the value of their fraud risk management activities. Program managers also need to understand the effectiveness of their fraud risk management activities so they can adjust their efforts to better protect their resources against fraud. Component 4 of GAO's Fraud Risk Framework describes how agencies can use robust evaluations that are comprehensive in scope, incorporate a range of metrics and outputs beyond financial returns, and use stakeholder input to better understand program outcomes. While agencies may have varying levels of resources, program managers can tailor evaluations to align with available capacity and the specific activities being assessed. To assist program managers with these efforts, we developed this technical appendix, which supplements and complements the Fraud Risk Framework. Specifically, we identified examples, methods, and considerations that can be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of fraud risk management activities. For more information, contact Rebecca Shea at shear@gao.gov.

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.

We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.