Authored by Turner Wright via CoinTelegraph.com,
The early crypto investor, often called ‘Bitcoin Jesus,’ faces extradition to the U.S. after being charged with evading nearly $50 million in taxes.
Officials with the United States Department of Justice announced charges against early Bitcoin investor Roger Ver, known by many as ‘Bitcoin Jesus.’
In an April 30 notice, the Justice Department said authorities in Spain had arrested Ver based on criminal charges in the United States, including mail fraud, tax evasion and filing false tax returns.
The U.S. government alleged Ver defrauded the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) out of roughly $48 million with his failure to report capital gains on his sale of Bitcoin and other assets.
According to the indictment filed on Feb. 15 but unsealed on April 29, Ver allegedly took control of roughly 70,000 BTC in June 2017 - before the now famous bull run - and sold many of them for $240 million. U.S. officials said they planned to extradite Ver from Spain to the United States to stand trial.
Reactions to Ver’s arrest on social media were mixed.
However, Bitcoiner Dan Held, the former growth lead at Kraken, claimed Ver “deserves everything that he’s about to get” after he “nearly destroyed Bitcoin.”
“Roger attacked my livelihood by trying to get me fired, called up others to hurt my relationships, and attacked my reputation,” said Held on X.
“He misaligned expectations around Bitcoin so much that it led to a civil war.”
A cryptic message was Ver's most-recent post on X, reading:
Source: Roger Ver
Ver was also a proponent of Bitcoin Cash.
In 2022, he became embroiled in a scandal with crypto investment platform CoinFlex, which claimed he owed them $47 million in USD Coin.
He had not commented on social media regarding the Justice Department charges at the time of publication.
Ver has previously pleaded guilty and served time for selling explosives on eBay.
At the start of April, we penned a lengthy report for premium subs discussing why artificial intelligence data centers, the electrification of the economy, and onshoring trends will result in a major upgrade of the nation's power grid. We followed the note up on Monday with a report titled Everyone Is Piling Into The "Next AI Trade."
Now , BlackRock Chairman and Chief Executive Larry Fink has jumped on the "Next AI Trade" theme at a World Economic Forum event on Monday.
"I do believe to properly um build out AI. We're talking about trillions of dollars of investing. So data centers today could be as much as 200 megahertz - and they're now talking about data centers being one gigawatt. That powers a city," Fink told the audience.
He pointed out that he spoke with the head of one tech company, who said their data centers currently require about 5 gigawatts of power. By 2030, the person told Fink that number could jump to 30 gigawatts.
"The amount of power that's needed to use AI has a huge impact on society," Fink said.
He then asked: "So where's that power going to come from? Are we going to take it off the grid? What does that mean for elevated energy prices?"
Fink then said the surge in power demand because of AI data centers is a "huge investment opportunity."
He warned: "The world is going to be short power - short power - and to power these data companies you cannot have this intermittent power like wind and solar."
"You need dispatchable power because they can't turn off and on these data centers," he continued.
So what kind of clean, reliable energy could Fink be hinting at?
Well, nuclear, as we've explained to readers as early as December 2020: "Buy Uranium: Is This The Beginning Of The Next ESG Craze."
This week, the nuclear power industry appears to be gaining a major comeback. The federal government is expected to continue restarting shuttered nuclear power plants in the coming years, according to Jigar Shah, director of the US Energy Department's Loan Programs Office, who spoke with Bloomberg on Monday.
In March, Shah's office approved a loan to Holtec International Corp. to reopen the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan. This was a historical shift, and it was the first nuclear power plant to be reopened in the US, setting a precedent for atomic energy to make a triumphal comeback. The plant could begin producing power as early as the second half of 2025.
Shah said, "A lot of the other players that have a nuclear power plant that has recently shut down and could be turned back on are gaining that confidence to try." He declined to give specifics about which plants were slated to reopen.
Now, the head of the world's largest asset manager, with $10 trillion in assets under management, is a believer in the "Next AI Trade," as everyone is seriously piling in.
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,
World reserve status allows for amazing latitude in terms of monetary policy. The Federal Reserve understands that there is constant demand for dollars overseas as a means to more easily import and export goods. The dollar’s petro-status also makes it essential for trading oil globally. This means that the central bank of the US has been able to create fiat currency from thin air to a far higher degree than any other central bank on the planet while avoiding the immediate effects of hyperinflation.
Much of that cash as well as dollar denominated debt (physical and digital) ends up in the coffers of foreign central banks, international banks and investment firms where it is held as a hedge or used to adjust the exchange rates of other currencies for trade advantage. As much as one-half of the value of all U.S. currency is estimated to be circulating abroad.
World reserve status along with various debt instruments allowed the US government and the Fed to create tens of trillions of dollars in new currency after the 2008 credit crash, all while keeping inflation under control (sort of). The problem is that this system of stowing dollars overseas only lasts so long and eventually the consequences of overprinting come home to roost.
The Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 established the framework for the rise of the US dollar and while the benefits are obvious, especially for the banks, there are numerous costs involved. Think of world reserve status as a “deal with the devil” – You get the fame, you get the fortune, you get the hot girlfriend and the sweet car, but one day the devil is coming to collect and when he does he’s going to take EVERYTHING, including your soul.
Unfortunately, I suspect the time is coming soon for the US and it may be in the form of a brand new Bretton Woods-like system that removes the dollar as world reserve and replaces it with a new digital basket structure. Global banks are essentially admitting to the plan for a complete overhaul of the dollar-based financial world and the creation of a CBDC-centric system built on “unified ledgers.”
There have been three recent developments all announced in succession that suggest the dollar’s replacement is imminent (before this decade is over).
The IMF’s XC platform was released as a theoretical model in November of 2022 and matches closely with their long discussed concept of a global Special Drawing Rights basket, only in this case it would tie together all CBDCs under one umbrella along with “legacy currencies.”
It’s promoted as a policy structure to make cross-border payments in CBDCs “easier” and this model is focused primarily on currency exchanges between governments and central banks. Of course, it places the IMF as the middle-man in terms of controlling the flow of digital transactions. The IMF suggests that the XC platform would make the transition from legacy currencies to CBDCs less complicated for the various nations involved.
As the IMF noted in a discussion on centralized ledgers in 2023:
“We could end up in a world where we have connected entities to some degree, but some entities and some countries that are excluded. And as a global and multilateral institution, we’re sort of aiming to, you know, provide a basic connectivity, a basic set of rules and governance that is truly multilateral and inclusive. So, I think that is—the ambition is to aim for innovation that is compatible with policy goals and that is inclusive relative to the broad membership of, say, the IMF.”
To translate, decentralized systems are bad. “Inclusivity” (collectivism) is good. And the IMF wants to work in tandem with other globalist institutions to be the facilitators (controllers) of that economic collectivism.
Not more than a day after the IMF announced their XC platform goals, the BIS announced their plans for a unified ledger for all CBDCs called the ‘BIS Universal Ledger.’ The BIS specifically notes that the project is meant to “inspire trust in central bank digital currencies” while “overcoming the fragmentation of current tokenization efforts.”
While the IMF is focused on international policy control, the BIS is pursuing the technical aspects for the globalization of CBDCs. They make it clear in their white papers that a cashless society is in fact the end game and that digital transactions need to be monitored by a centralized entity in order to keep money “secure.” As the BIS argues in their extensive overview of Unified Ledgers:
“Today, the monetary system stands at the cusp of another major leap. Following dematerialisation and digitalisation, the key development is tokenisation – the process of representing claims digitally on a programmable platform. This can be seen as the next logical step in digital recordkeeping and asset transfer.”
“…The blueprint envisages these elements being brought together in a new type of financial market infrastructure (FMI) – a “unified ledger”. The full benefits of tokenisation could be harnessed in a unified ledger due to the settlement finality that comes from central bank money residing in the same venue as other claims. Leveraging trust in the central bank, a shared venue of this kind has great potential to enhance the monetary and financial system.
There are three major assertions made by the BIS in their program – First, the digitization of money is unavoidable and cash is going to disappear primarily because it makes moving money easier. Second, decentralized payment methods are unacceptable because they are “risky” and only central banks are qualified and “trustworthy” enough to mediate the exchange of money. Third, the use of Unified Ledgers is largely designed to track and trace and even investigate all CBDC transactions, for the public good, of course.
The BIS system deals far more in the realm of private transactions than the IMF example. It is the technical foundation for the centralization of all CBDCs, governed in part by the BIS and the IMF, and it is scheduled to go into wider use in the next two years. There are already multiple nations testing the BIS ledger today. It’s important to understand that whoever acts as the middle-man in the process of the global exchange of money is going to have all the power, over governments and over the populace.
If every movement of wealth is monitored, from the shift of billions between governments to the payment of a few dollars from an individual to a retailer, then every aspect of trade can be throttled on the whims of the observer.
As we’ve seen with the attempt to use the SWIFT payment network as a bludgeon against Russia, there is an ulterior motive for globalists to have a high speed large scale monetary transaction hub. Again, this is all about centralization, and whoever controls the hub has the means to control trade…to a point.
Locking Russia out of SWIFT has done minimal damage to their economy exactly because there are alternative methods for transferring money to keep the flow of trade running. However, under a CBDC based global monetary umbrella, it would be impossible for any country to work outside the boundaries. It’s not only about the ease of shutting a nation out of the network, it’s also about having the power to immediately block the transfer of funds on the receiving end of the exchange.
Meaning, any funds from any Russian source could be tracked and cut off before they are allowed to get into the hands of, say, a recipient in China or India. Once all governments are completely under the thumb of a centralized monetary system, a centralized ledger and a centralized exchange hub, they will never be able to rebel and this control will trickle down to the general population.
I would also remind readers that the majority of nations are going right along with this program. China is most eager to join the global currency scheme. Russia is still part of the BIS, but their involvement in CBDCs is still unclear. The point is, don’t expect the BRICS to counteract the new monetary order, it’s not going to happen.
So what do all these globalist projects with CBDCs have to do with the dollar and its venerated position as the world reserve currency? The bottom line is this: A unified CBDC system completely excludes the need or use-case for a world reserve currency. The Unified Ledger model takes all CBDCs and homogenizes them into a puddle of liquidity, each CBDC growing similar in characteristics over a short period of time.
The advantages of using the dollar disappear in this scenario and the value of currencies becomes relative to the middle-man. In other words, the IMF, BIS and other related institutions dictate the properties of CBDCs and thus there is no distinguishing aspect of any CBDC that makes one more valuable than the others.
Sure, some countries might be able to separate their currency to a point with superior production or superior technology, but the old model of having a big military as a way to ensure Forex and trade favors is dead. Eventually the globalists will make two predictable arguments:
1) “A world reserve currency under the control of one nation is unfair and we as global bankers need to make the system “more equal.””
2) “Why have a reserve currency at all when all transactions are moderated under our ledger anyway? The dollar is no longer any more easy to use for international trade than any other CBDC, right?”
Finally, the dollar has to die because it’s an integral part of the “old world” of material exchange. The globalists desire a cashless society because it is an easily controlled society. Think of the covid lockdowns and the attempts at vaccine passports – If they had a cashless system in place at that time, they would have gotten everything they wanted. Refuse to take the experimental vaccine? We’ll just shut off your digital accounts and you will starve.
This was even partially attempted (think Canadian trucker protests), but with physical cash there’s always a way around a digital embargo. Without physical cash you have no other options unless you plan to live completely off the land and barter goods and services (a way of life most people in the first world need a lot of time to get used to).
I believe that a sizable percentage of the American populace will go to war before they accept a cashless society, but in the meantime, there is still the inevitability of a dollar crash to deal with. Globalist organizations are pushing CBDCs to go active VERY quickly, and as this happens along with the centralized ledgers the traditional dollar will swiftly lose favor. This means that those trillions in greenbacks held overseas will start flooding back into America all at once causing an inflationary disaster well beyond what we are witnessing today.
As much as the economy has benefited from world reserve status in the past it will suffer equally as the dollar fades, only to be replaced by a framework even worse than fiat. That is, unless there’s a dramatic upheaval that removes the globalist order from the equation entirely…
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
While hiring rates for those in the bottom-third of US income distribution has been on a tear (and largely going to part time workers, most of whom are illegal immigrants), white collar jobs hiring is stalling out across much of the US, with industries such as finance, technology, media, and professional services such as law and accounting all suffering despite the national unemployment rate hovering near historic lows.
To wit, nearly 120,000 corporate positions have vanished from San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago combined over the past year, according to an analysis by Bloomberg. White-collar payrolls have also declined in various metros such as Phoenix and Seattle, as well as in pandemic boomtowns such as Miami and Austin, which have seen white-collar growth flatline.
Nationally, payrolls for white-collar types of jobs were up just 0.6% from a year ago in March, about a third of the overall pace of job creation, according to data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wage growth for high-paid workers has also largely cooled from its peaks.
Banks, consulting firms and tech companies all went on hiring sprees at the height of the pandemic, when low interest rates, easy access to credit and government support made it easier to expand. Many of those incentives have since faded, paving the way for layoffs. Citigroup, McKinsey and Tesla are among the high-profile employers slashing jobs in recent weeks. -Bloomberg
"We’re not seeing the big post-Covid booms anymore," said Alexandra-Dana Gusita, who heads the New York office of Tiger Recruitment. "Employers are more cautious in hiring."
"Even though the labor market looks strong, there’s a lack of job security, especially in tech," said Jack Benedict, 25, who learned that he and 42 other YouTube Music employees had been laid off in February. "All these massive companies are trying to downsize or replace people with AI," he continued, adding that he worries college degrees are "not enough when companies are asking for 10 years of experience."
According to jobs website Indeed, the number of openings in banking, finance, media / communications, and software development are all running below levels seen in February 2020, as the pandemic was kicking into high gear.
Part-time white collar?
According to the report, part of the white-collar weakness is the result of a large pullback in 'temporary-help employment' according to the BLS. The category, considered something of an economic bellwether, indicates that businesses are shedding part-time positions before full-time ones. Since the sector peaked two years ago, 420,000 of those jobs have vanished.
In March note, Vanguard's chief global economist, Joe Davis, wrote that demand is greatest for workers making under $55,000 per year, as hiring rates for those in the bottom-third of the US income distribution far outpaced that of higher-income workers.
Source: Vanguard, as of October 2023.
"Many higher-income workers accepted slower wage growth as a trade-off for remote work flexibility," wrote Davis. "These dynamics have all contributed to the faster rise in wages for lower-income workers."
Authored by Turner Wright via CoinTelegraph.com,
United States House Financial Services Committee Chair Patrick McHenry has alleged Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler “knowingly misled Congress” over the regulator’s alleged attempts to classify Ether as a security.
In an April 30 X post, Representative McHenry claimed that Gensler intentionally misled lawmakers in testimony before the Committee.
The U.S. lawmaker referred to claims made in a recent court filing by software development firm Consensys, which filed a lawsuit against the SEC on April 25.
Source: Representative Patrick McHenry
Consensys’s initial complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas highlighted public inconsistencies in the SEC’s approach to digital assets as securities, specifically Ether. Unredacted sections of the filing appeared on the court docket on April 29, suggesting that the SEC launched an investigation into ETH as security in March 2023.
Gensler appeared before the House Financial Services Committee in April 2023, pivoting or ducking direct questions from McHenry on whether Ether fell under the SEC’s or Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC’s) purview. The timing of his testimony suggested that the SEC may have already considered Ether a security.
“Clearly, an asset cannot be both a commodity and a security,” said McHenry in the Committee hearing.
“I’m asking you, sitting in your chair now [...] is Ether a commodity or a security?”
If the SEC is pursuing a path that could put it at odds with the CFTC over Ether, it could have ramifications for approving or denying spot Ether exchange-traded funds on U.S. exchanges. The SEC began approving investment vehicles tied to ETH futures in October 2023, with many experts speculating that the Commission will decide on a spot Ether ETF in May.
McHenry used the opportunity to urge lawmakers to support the passage of the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21) to establish clear rules of the road between the CFTC and SEC.
The legislation moved out of Committee in July 2023 and is set for a full floor vote in the House.
The ACLJ’s ongoing fight to uphold the free speech rights of sidewalk counselors is now at the U.S. Supreme Court. Our case, Turco v. City of Englewood, N.J., poses a critical constitutional question: Do buffer zones around abortion clinics infringe on the First Amendment rights of sidewalk counselors?
That’s the very issue we’ve brought to the Court today in our petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition asks the Court to resolve two questions: (1) Whether Englewood’s speech-free buffer zone ordinance violates the First Amendment, and (2) Whether the Court should overrule Hill v. Colorado (an oft-criticized decision of the Supreme Court that upheld floating bubble zones around persons within 100 feet of a healthcare facility).
From the start, the ACLJ has fervently defended pro-life speech, especially the free speech rights of sidewalk counselors. Our client, Jeryl, and counselors like her engage in gentle, personal dialogues with women entering abortion clinics, providing them with alternative options and support. These counselors operate from a place of deep concern for women and the unborn, striving to present information and care that are not available within abortion clinics.
This case began in 2013 when Englewood (“City”) adopted an ordinance regulating speech activities in buffer zones near health care and transitional facilities. The ACLJ challenged the City’s ordinance in 2014, arguing that the law was excessively broad and unconstitutional, drawing on the Supreme Court’s ruling in McCullen v. Coakley, which unanimously struck down a similar law.
HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
Our case saw an initial win in the trial court, but that decision was overturned by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, leading to a bench trial in February 2022. During the trial, Jeryl highlighted the challenges the buffer zones created for her counseling efforts. The City, however, justified its ordinance on grounds of financial constraints and confidentiality. The district court ruled in favor of the City in August 2022, a decision later upheld by the Third Circuit, citing the Supreme Court’s Hill decision as a basis for its ruling. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Third Circuit failed to note that the Supreme Court described Hill as a distortion of First Amendment doctrines just a year before.
The Third Circuit also failed to consider another federal court of appeals’ decision involving a similar law. In Sisters for Life v. Louisville-Jefferson County, a case where the ACLJ represents two sidewalk counselors, the Sixth Circuit ordered the district court to enter a preliminary injunction against Louisville’s buffer zone law around all health care facilities.
As we argue in our petition, the Third Circuit’s decision cannot be allowed to stand. The government’s authority to regulate protected speech activities on public sidewalks is sharply circumscribed. Before the government can enforce speech-free zones in public areas, it must first try other ways to address its concerns, such as prosecuting lawbreakers, seeking injunctions against bad actors, and enforcing conduct-based laws already on the books. As the Sixth Circuit said in Sisters for Life, “Solving policy problems by regulating speech is a means of last resort, not first resort.” The Supreme Court in McCullen was also clear: “A painted line on the sidewalk is easy to enforce, but the prime objective of the First Amendment is not efficiency.”
In this case, where Englewood has sacrificed the right to free speech in the name of efficiency, the Supreme Court must intervene. Jeryl is not alone. Other federal courts, in addition to the Third Circuit, have dismissed challenges against speech-free zones outside abortion clinics. The problem is that those courts are hamstrung by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hill. While that decision has been criticized by Justices over the years, including current Justices, the Court has yet to overturn the decision. Our petition argues that now is the time, and this is the case, for the Court to do just that.
The Supreme Court is not required to grant our petition, and the Court rarely grants them. Here, however, considering the conflict among the lower courts and the ongoing mischief Hill continues to create, we believe our petition is more than worthy of Supreme Court review.
The ACLJ has always been committed to protecting the right to free speech, advocating not only for clients like Jeryl but also for all individuals engaged in peaceful expression in public spaces. Should the Court grant our petition, a decision on the merits will have far-reaching implications for how free speech is protected across the country. And that is not all. A positive decision from the Court in this case will allow sidewalk counselors to continue their important mission of supporting women and their unborn children at the very spot where that message can have its greatest power.
Once the City files its opposition to our petition and we file our reply, the Court will decide whether to take the case. We will keep you posted on when that happens.
LifeNews Note: Jordan Sekulow is the Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). Geoffrey Surtees is an attorney with the ACLJ and specializes in religious civil liberties.
The post Pro-Life Group Heads to Supreme Court to Defend Right to Pray Outside Abortion Centers appeared first on LifeNews.com.
WTI ended April on a down-note (closing lower on the month, as opposed to Brent which saw its fourth straight monthly gain) as hopes for cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas dampened fears of a wider conflict that could threaten crude supplies.
The recent declines come as a "relief to both central bankers and consumers alike," Stephen Innes, managing partner at SPI Asset Management, told MarketWatch.
There's been a notable decrease in speculation about the possibility of U.S. benchmark WTI surpassing the $100-a-barrel threshold, at least for now, he said. This shift in sentiment can be attributed, in part, to "reduced concerns about disruptions to Iranian production, following Israel's measured response to previous drone attacks."
Meanwhile, "attention should also be directed towards peace talks, as progress in this area could further contribute to a decrease in oil prices," said Innes.
But, after last week's big crude draw, analysts expect another drawdown in stocks this week.
API
Crude +4.91mm (-1.5mm exp)
Cushing +1.48mm
Gasoline -1.48mm (-1.2mm exp)
Distillates -2.19mm (+400k exp)
Crude stocks unexpectedly rose almost 5mm barrels last week while distillates inventories declined notably...
Source: Bloomberg
WTI was hovering around $81.65 ahead of the API print and extended losses modestly after...
Despite the reprieve in oil prices, crude-oil markets are expected to remain volatile, said Innes, partly due to uncertainty surrounding the pace of global oil demand growth, the rise in non-OPEC+ and U.S. oil production, the potential for supply disruptions in regions like Russia and the Middle East and, critically, OPEC+'s future production strategy.
"These dynamics underscore the ongoing challenges and complexities within the oil market landscape," Innes said.
Heading into Amazon's Q1 earnings, we said earlier that the investment thesis is driven by i) ecommerce share, ii) margin expansion and iii) the potential for AWS growth recovery through the year. We also noted that the key bogeys for this extremely popular - among hedge funds - position were the following:
So with that in mind here is what Amazon - whose stock first tumbled then spiked after hours, reported moments ago:
Turning to operating results we get an even stronger tally:
The operating margin has to be seen to be believed: at 10.7%, it appears to be the highest in AMZN history.
As for expenses, these were generally in line with estimates:
Of the above, the most notable highlight was AWS which not only grew revenue by a whopping 17% (ex. FX) and 16% including FX, both of which handily beat estimates of 14.5%, and were the strongest growth in a a year, but whose Q1 operating income of $9.42BN on revenue of $25.04BN, meant that margin surged to 37.6%, which was the highest AWS margin in history!
Sales growth at the cloud unit slowed to a record low last year as businesses cut back on technology spending and sought to curb computing bills that ballooned during the pandemic. Investors have been banking on a rebound this year, particularly after strong results last week from Microsoft and Google, Amazon’s two main rivals in the business of renting computing power and data storage. And, in the case od AMZN, they were right to do so.
The results are the first since Amazon introduced video advertising to the Prime Video streaming service, creating a new revenue source. Advertising revenue rose 24% to $11.8 billion.
Looking ahead, the company's guidance which was soft on the top line but disappointed on earnings:
If accurate, that would mean Q2 revenue will grow at the slowest pace sine Dec 2022.
So turning the abovementioned bogeys, this is how AMZN did:
CEO Andy Jassy has been cutting costs in recent years as he refocused on profitability in Amazon’s central retail business, laying off thousands of people and touting a more efficient warehouse network. At the same time, he’s backed big investments in artificial intelligence services that Amazon expects to generate tens of billions in revenue in the coming years.
"The combination of companies renewing their infrastructure modernization efforts and the appeal of AWS’s AI capabilities is reaccelerating AWS’s growth rate (now at a $100 billion annual revenue run rate),” Jassy said in the statement.
The results are also the first since Amazon introduced video advertising to the Prime Video streaming service, creating a new revenue source. Advertising revenue rose 24% to $11.8 billion.
The stock initially tumbled, only to rebound sharply and then fade, closing roughly unchanged with where it was for much of the day around $180.
In Acts, which we read in Eastertide the missionary journeys of St. Paul are set before us. Unfortunately, in important lines are cut out lectionary that describe why Sts. Paul and Silas were in jail. The whole story serves as a metaphor for the radical nature of true Christianity and explains why it so perturbs many in this world. The Christian faith, its message, and the transformation it can effect can be very unsettling to a world that literally and figuratively “banks on” sin. Let’s consider this lesser-known story of Paul and see what it ought to mean for us if we take the Christian faith seriously and do not try to “tame” it. We pick up the story just after the baptism of Lydia, when Sts. Paul and Silas encounter a possessed slave girl, whom tradition sometimes calls “Pythonissa the Soothsayer.”
Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so troubled that he turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.
When the owners of the slave girl realized that their hope of making money was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to face the authorities. They brought them before the magistrates and said, “These men are Jews, and are throwing our city into an uproar by advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice.”
The crowd joined in the attack against Paul and Silas, and the magistrates ordered them to be stripped and beaten. After they had been severely flogged, they were thrown into prison, and the jailer was commanded to guard them carefully. Upon receiving such orders, he put them in the inner cell and fastened their feet in the stocks (Acts 16:16-24).
Note the heart of the problem: St. Paul, in setting the slave girl free of her demon, has deprived her “owners” of the income they were deriving from her sad state. They were banking on her sad condition and profiting from her trouble. In the name and power of Jesus Christ, St. Paul sets her free. His action draws deep anger from the “owners.” He has rocked their world and touched their pocketbooks. They see the Christian message as revolutionary, disconcerting, threatening, and deeply unsettling.
It is a threat not only to profit but to power. In having Paul arrested, they stir up the hatred and fear of others as well, indicating that Paul is not merely preaching some “strange new religion” but is advocating customs forbidden to Romans. The word “customs” here in Greek is ἐθη (ethe) and refers to “religious rites or forms of worship.” Cicero, in De Legibus ii. 8, wrote, “No person shall have any separate gods, or new ones; nor shall he privately worship any strange gods, unless they be publicly allowed.” While the Romans often overlooked the private worship of unapproved gods, they were strictly forbidden from publicly proclaiming new and unapproved deities, as this provided an occasion for dissension and controversy.
And, frankly, the charges against Paul and Silas were true enough. In the healing they brought about, they hindered profit. Further, they were openly proclaiming that Jesus was Lord. To our ears that is a religious proclamation, but to Roman ears it was a provocative and revolutionary statement. It was directly contrary to their proclamation that Caesar was Lord. Yes, Paul, Silas, Luke, and the others were shaking the ground in Philippi. While they were not advocating the overthrow of any government, they were announcing a power greater than Caesar, a higher King who demanded first loyalty: Jesus!
This is not the tame and domesticated proclamation of the faith that is so common today. This is not the faith that is trimmed to fit into worldly categories and to be tucked under political, philosophical, and moral preferences. This is the faith that shakes the world and brings a revolutionary challenge to the world’s priorities. Yes, Paul and Silas were a serious threat.
And what of us today? We have gone through a long period during which the faith could be lived quietly and generally fit quite well into the world in which we lived. Harmony and “getting along” were highly prized. Particularly here in America, Catholics wanted to reassure the general populace that our faith in no way hindered us from being full participants in the American scene and that we could fit right in and be just like everyone else. With the election of the first Catholic president back in 1960, we could say that we had finally made it and had been fully accepted. Finally we fit in.
Of course the culture was not in such disrepair in those days and there was a fairly wide moral consensus rooted in the Judeo-Christian vision. Now that we have finally “made it,” the fire of our distinctively Catholic culture seems to have faded away. At the same time, Western culture has also largely died. (Is it a coincidence?)
In recent years, so-called Catholic universities and other institutions have been caving in to pressure. They are affording marriage benefits to same-sex bedfellows and succumbing to the HHS mandates to provide contraceptives and abortifacients. This is sad, pathetic, wrong, and cowardly—hardly the revolutionary faith that got Paul arrested.
And now we are coming full circle. We must rediscover how revolutionary our Catholic faith truly is to this world gone mad. And as we proclaim healing and profess an allegiance to something other than this world, we will become increasingly repugnant to the world around us.
Let’s consider more thoroughly the two offenses for which Paul and Silas were beaten and imprisoned:
1. They ate into profits. Paul drove a terrible demon out of a slave girl, a demon that afflicted her but profited her “owners.” In this world today there is a lot of trafficking in sin and addiction. Terrible demons afflict many people in the areas of sexuality, drugs, and alcohol. But there’s a lot of money to be made. Sex sells. Hollywood movie producers, pornographers, purveyors of contraceptives, pimps, escort services, abortionists, and even traffickers in the sex-slave industry feed at the trough. Drugs and alcohol are big money-makers as well. Huge numbers of products are sold using the demon of fear that says things like, “You’re not pretty enough,” “You’re not healthy enough,” “You’re getting old,” “You don’t drive the right car,” “You haven’t impressed your friends enough,” “You need to buy our product right away so you’re not so pathetic.” And thus the demon of fear and low self-esteem is exploited along with the demon of greed.
But what would happen if the Church were to start preaching unabridged Christianity effectively? You don’t need to be afraid of your health, your age, or what people think of you. You can find serenity in Christ so that you won’t need all that extra alcohol and those drugs. You can be set free from your enslavement to sex. You can take authority over your passions and discover the beauty of traditional marriage. What if we got back in the business of driving out demons?
Of course the answer is that we, like Paul, would be (and are) under attack. We are especially hated by the sex industry and the abortionists since those are hot-button issues these days. To them we are public enemy number one. We threaten the vision, the addiction, and the despair that fills their coffers. If we are too successful (and for now our successes are meager) their profits may go away. Yes, we must be dealt with.
But we will only be effective if we preach the unabridged faith, not the faith that is tailored and tucked under worldly priorities, not the faith that insists on being “realistic,” not the faith that makes endless apologies to the inevitable objections of the world no matter how much we water things down. The true faith is revolutionary in the freedom it offers from sin and demons.
Paul and Silas didn’t end up in prison by preaching a watered-down, tamed moral vision. They unabashedly drove out a demon that was afflicting a girl and in so doing they engaged in a revolutionary threat to a world that profits from sin.
2. They threatened power. Calling Jesus, “Lord,” was a revolutionary threat to incumbent power, which demands full loyalty. And thus today, many strive to make Catholics fit into neat little political categories. Both Republicans and Democrats want the Church to fit into their narrow little categories and to march in lockstep with their party platform. Even many Catholics want the Church to conform. Many Catholics in fact are more loyal to their party than to the Church and are more passionate about their political views than their faith. If there is a conflict between a Church teaching and the party line, guess which one usually gives way!
But in the end, the Church will not fit into some neat and tidy political category. The true faith is too revolutionary to fit into some worldly box.
And thus there is a lot of hatred and anger directed at the Church. Republicans say we’re too liberal; Democrats say we’re too conservative. More and more we are being kicked to the curb; our very right to religious liberty is being threatened. Religious exemptions to increasingly pernicious laws are slowly being removed and the number of lawsuits against Catholic institutions is increasing. And it will surely get worse as secular systems demand increasing loyalty. The Church must refuse that loyalty.
Jesus is Lord; the government is not. Jesus is not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. He is God, and the faith He announces cannot be watered down or compromised to fit into a friendship with the world.
Tame, domesticated Christianity will not threaten or change this world. When Paul preached, the people rioted. Modern preaching too often incites only yawns and indifference.
What should we learn from St. Paul’s arrest at Philippi? That the true faith is revolutionary and hits the world right where it hurts: in the profit and power centers. As the world becomes increasingly secular, the revolutionary aspect of the faith will become more evident.
Are you ready?
Photo Credit: The Bible in Pictures
In this video Fr. Barron comments on the movie “The Matrix,” which depicts an interesting Christian motif. The Matrix is a machine from which people need liberation. The solution can only happen when someone from outside the Matrix (Neo) enters in and announces liberty, dies, rises, and defeats the Matrix.
The post What Does the Arrest of St. Paul at Philippi Teach a Sometimes-Timid Church? appeared first on Community in Mission.
Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said on April 28 that he believes that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump could fail because prosecutors have charged the former president with fake crimes.
Alan Dershowitz and former President Donald Trump in file photos. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
“There is no crime,” Mr. Dershowitz said during an interview on Fox News on April 28, referring to the case in which Mr. Bragg’s office has charged the former president with 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide so-called hush money payments that prosecutors allege amounted to a criminal conspiracy to influence the 2016 presidential election.
Mr. Dershowitz argued that making nondisclosure payments is not a crime and that neither is paying for the non-publication of potentially embarrassing stories (the so-called catch-and-kill dimension of the case), both of which prosecutors have alleged were part of a conspiracy to sway voters.
The retired law professor argued that Mr. Bragg’s office is in danger of having the case thrown out on grounds similar to those on which the conviction of Harvey Weinstein was recently overturned, namely that prosecutors prejudiced the case by a number of “egregious” improper rulings, including allowing testimony that was unrelated to what Mr. Weinstein was charged with.
“They ought to be very careful about this because the Supreme Court of the Appellate Court in Albany just reversed Harvey Weinstein’s conviction on the ground that they put in too much information that wasn’t really relevant to the case,” Mr. Dershowitz said, adding that this is “what’s happening” in the trial against President Trump.
“There is no crime in Manhattan. You cannot figure out what the crime is. That’s why they’re putting on all this evidence of non-crimes,” Mr. Dershowitz said.
“Trying to persuade the jury that ‘catch-and-kill’ is a crime—it’s not. Paying hush money is a crime—it’s not. Putting a corporate statement is a misdemeanor barred by the statute of limitations. You can’t suddenly resurrect that and turn that into a crime by invoking a federal statute which the federal government refused to invoke—the Federal Election Commission refused to invoke.”
The former Harvard law professor has repeatedly criticized Mr. Bragg for elevating the charges against President Trump from misdemeanors to felonies on what Mr. Dershowitz has argued was an invalid legal premise because the Manhattan district attorney invoked federal statutes over which New York has no jurisdiction.
Republicans have accused Mr. Bragg of bringing the case against the former president for political reasons.
Mr. Bragg’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Bragg indicted President Trump on 34 counts of allegedly falsifying business records in order to conceal $130,000 in payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in exchange for keeping quiet about her allegations of an affair she had with President Trump.
President Trump has maintained his innocence and has denied the affair.
“There is no case here. This is just a political witch hunt,” the former president said before court in brief comments to reporters on April 25.
Under New York state law, falsifying business records is a misdemeanor. However, if the records fraud was used to cover up or commit another crime, the charge could be elevated to a felony, though a number of legal experts—including Mr. Dershowitz—have challenged the way that has been done in this case.
“In order to turn the state statute into a felony, you have to borrow a federal statute,” Mr. Dershowitz told The Epoch Times in March 2023. He said that this combining of laws “seems to raise real serious legal questions.”
“In Bragg’s case, what they’re trying to do is add one and one and come up with 11,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “No rational person would look at these two statutes and say that Trump violated them.”
The prosecution’s first witness in the case was former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. Prosecutors alleged that he participated in a catch-and-kill scheme to suppress unflattering stories about President Trump and help him get elected.
President Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, said in court that the catch-and-kill that the jury heard about from prosecutors was not part of the charges against the former president because it was not illegal and happens regularly.
“The reality is that there is nothing illegal about what happened,” Mr. Blanche argued. He added that testimony would be about things from 2015 to 2017 and asked the jury to “think about whether it rings true and whether what they’re saying is accurate.”
“Use your common sense. We’re New Yorkers; that’s why we’re here. You told the court you would put aside whatever view you have about President Trump, the fact that he’s running,” he said. “If you do that, there will be a very swift non-guilty verdict.”
Mr. Dershowitz has said in the past that he believes that New York prosecutors are violating voters’ rights with the case, alleging that the law is being “abused for partisan political purposes and to constitute election interference.”
The former law professor went further in his remarks on Fox News on April 28, arguing that the case is about whether basic civil liberties are protected or undercut.
“If it’s Donald Trump today, they can go after you tomorrow, and your relatives tomorrow, for something that isn’t a crime,” he said.
“That’s why every American, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, should be opposed to what’s going on in that Manhattan courtroom.
“It’s a scandal and it’s a destruction of America’s rule of law.”
A premature baby boy from Fife has come home for the first time after spending 81 days in hospital.
Stephanie Auchterlonie was first made aware that there might be a problem with her unborn baby at her 20 week scan. Medics identified a right aortic arch, a potential symptom of a genetic disorder called DiGeorge Syndrome.
Following this, doctors discovered at Stephanie’s first growth scan that baby Charlie was not growing properly due to a problem with her placenta.
Shortly afterwards, Stephanie was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at Wishaw due to concerns about baby Charlie’s condition.
“None of us thought he would make it”
Two days after Stephanie arrived in hospital, Charlie was born by emergency caesarean section.
“It was a terrifying time and to be honest none of us thought he would make it”, Stephanie said.
“[Doctors] told me to be prepared for him going on a ventilator and they also told me he wouldn’t cry when he came out”, she went on.
Get the latest pro-life news and information on X (Twitter). Follow @LifeNewsHQ//
Charlie was born at 28 weeks gestation, weighing just 1lb 6oz. He was taken immediately to the intensive care unit but brought back to see his mother about half an hour later.
Stephanie said “As crazy as it sounds when I first saw him my first words were ‘oh my god it’s a real baby – it looks like a real baby! I don’t know how to describe what I was expecting because I knew he was going to be so small”.
“Tiny wee thing in this big incubator”
In intensive care, Charlie was attached to a machine to keep his lungs open and had to be tube-fed.
Stephanie remembered “Later after I had spent some time in recovery, I was able to go see Charlie. He was this tiny wee thing in this big incubator”.
Charlie spent his first Christmas in hospital, with Stephanie and her parents visiting him.
“Staff tried to make it extra special for the parents of babies in the intensive care unit”, she said. “One of the local schools had filled a box with gifts for Charlie and we got little presents. These included Christmas tree ornaments with Charlie’s footprints”.
“It was nice having those things to keep and really made it special”, she shared.
Stephanie’s parents also shared their feelings around Charlie’s birth. Her mother Bernadette said “We felt worried and terrified for Charlie – about what might happen to him – and what it would do to Stephanie if he didn’t survive”.
“When Charlie was born we were over the moon that he was breathing on his own, but terrified thinking how could someone with his tiny weight and size survive”, she continued. “Watching him grow with no complications and watching Stephanie and Sandy start to have some hope made us feel better”.
“He is a little fighter”
Charlie was able to go home after his weight hit 4lb 10oz, a few days before his original due date.
Stephanie said, “I was really excited to get Charlie home but it was also a bit daunting because he was still very small. But they were very good at encouraging me to do things myself for him while in the hospital like changing his nappies and feeding him”.
She shared that it felt “surreal” to have Charlie at home.
“Charlie has been on an incredible journey – he is a little fighter”, she said. “It was especially nice to wake up on Mother’s Day this year and seeing Charlie knowing how special it was to finally have him home”.
Her mother Bernadette agreed, saying “Everyday we look at Charlie and see what a little miracle he is to the whole family and how loved he is”.
Over 30 years since the time limit for abortion last updated
Baby Charlie was born at 28 weeks gestation, which was the original abortion limit in the UK. The current time limit of 24 weeks for abortions performed under section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 was introduced in 1990.
Prior to this change, the abortion limit had, de facto, been 28 weeks gestation set by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.
Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “It is amazing to hear about baby Charlie’s tremendous improvements and it is wonderful that he has been able to go home with his mother. Stories like this highlight the resilience of preborn and premature babies and demonstrate their value and humanity”.
LifeNews Note: Republished with permission from Right to Life UK.
To go with story by Deborah Clarke. Fife miracle baby Charlie spent his first Christmas in the Wishaw neonatal unit. Image: Stephanie Auchterlonie Picture shows; Baby Charlie Auchterlonie. Wishaw neonatal unit. Supplied by Stephanie Auchterlonie Date; 05/04/2024
The post Baby Born Prematurely at 28 Weeks and Weighing Just 18 Ounces Heads Home From Hospital appeared first on LifeNews.com.
The final day of April was really ugly: ECI way hotter than expected (spooked markets), Case-Shiller home prices soared far more than expected (spooked markets more), Chicago PMI puked (while prices paid increased), Consumer Confidence crashed, and Dallas Fed Services slumped... all of which left stocks, bonds, gold, crude oil, and bitcoin all languishing into month-end while the dollar rallied.
Stocks puked into the month-end close today ahead of AMZN earnings...
Source: Bloomberg
...with soft survey data collapsing while 'hard' data limped modestly higher...
Source: Bloomberg
...and worse still growth surprises slumped as inflation surprises soared - screaming stagflation so loud no one could ignore it...
Source: Bloomberg
Against the backdrop of US 10Y yields up ~45 bps in the month of April...
Source: Bloomberg
... and the market taking another rate-cut off the board...
Source: Bloomberg
...price action in April is perhaps not overly surprising with Equities broadly lower, albeit, with NDX / Quality / Mag7 continuing to outperform.
Source: Bloomberg
Goldman's Peter Callahan notes that since 2006, the S&P 500 has fallen by an avg of 4% when real yields rose by more than 2 stdev in a month.
April was the first down-month for stocks since The Fed Pivot (Oct 2023). This was the worst month for The Dow since Sept 2022. Nasdaq suffered its worst month since Sept 2023.
Interestingly, while US majors and sectors were red (broadly speaking) in April, Chinese Internet stocks soared back to life (+9.5% vs US MegaCap -2%)...
Source: Bloomberg
Sectors were very mixed in April with Energy and Utilities outperforming (the latter on AI energy use, since its typical relationship to rates decoupled) and Real Estate lagged (along with Tech)...
Source: Bloomberg
The basket of Magnificent 7 stocks saw red in April for its first monthly loss since October and worst monthly loss since September. The last week has been tempestuous to say the least as TSLA (win), META (lose), MSFT and GOOGL (win) all hit...
Source: Bloomberg
Still, stocks have a long way to catch down to the new reality priced into the short-end of the bond market...
Source: Bloomberg
As we noted above, the TSY curve was up relatively uniformly on the month, but perhaps most notably was the 2Y yield which tested 5.00% numerous times and broke out today...
Source: Bloomberg
One more notable event in April was the tightening of financial conditions (admittedly only marginally), but definitely more what The Fed wants relative to the extreme 'easiness' that had been priced in after Powell's pivot...
Source: Bloomberg
The dollar rallied for the fourth month in a row with the big gains coming mid-month....
Source: Bloomberg
Despite taking a battering today, Gold managed solid gains on the month, topping $2400 at its record highs...
Source: Bloomberg
Oil prices ended the month marginally lower, thanks to today's selloff...
Source: Bloomberg
Copper was the outstanding commodity in April, soaring around 14% to two year highs with practically no drawdown as the reflation trade came back to life (on the back of AI demand)...
Source: Bloomberg
Bitcoin had an ugly month, down 15% after seven straight months of gains...
Source: Bloomberg
As BTC ETF flows started to ebb - Net Flows (including GBTC): April -$183mm, March +$4.62bn, February +$6.03bn, January +1.47bn...
Source: Bloomberg
Finally, the ultimate analog remains in play...
Source: Bloomberg
...with NVDA bouncing back, just like CSCO did.
And bear in mind, as Goldman's Peter Oppenheimer points out, US equity market valuation is currently at an extreme level relative to history...
...also a condition that typically means higher rates weigh more heavily on stocks.
And while April showers are over...
The S&P 500's vol term structure suggests the storm is not over yet.
10,372,100* unborn babies have lost their lives to abortion in England, Wales and Scotland since 1968 when the Abortion Act 1967 came into effect.
Last Saturday, 27 April, marked 56 years since the abortion law came into force.
In 2021, (the last full year for which abortion statistics are available) more than one baby was lost to abortion every two and a half minutes; 26 lives were ended every hour.
The number of abortions in England and Wales has reached a record high with 214,869 taking place in 2021, while in Scotland in 2022, there were a record 16,596 abortions, 2,659 more than in 2021 or a 19.08% increase from 13,937 in the previous year.
This significant rise in abortions in England and Wales has accompanied the introduction of ‘DIY’ home abortion services that have been operating in England and Wales since March 2020. Since ‘DIY’ home abortions were introduced, a number of significant problems have arisen.
Get the latest pro-life news and information on X (Twitter). Follow @LifeNewsHQ//
Abortion statistics released by the Department of Health and Social Care show that in England and Wales, there was a total of 214,869 abortions in 2021, an increase of 4,009 abortions from 2020 when there were 210,860 abortions. This is the highest ever number on record.
Opinion polls repeatedly show that the public wants increased protections for unborn babies and more support for mothers facing unplanned pregnancies – rather than the wholesale removal of legal safeguards around abortion.
Only 1% of the population want abortion to be available up to birth and 70% of women want the abortion limit to be reduced to 20 weeks or lower.
Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “The UK’s abortion law is failing both women and unborn babies. It is a national tragedy that 10,372,100 lives have been lost since the Abortion Act 1967 came into effect, each one a unique and valuable human being who was denied the right to life”.
“Every one of these abortions represents a collective failure of our society to protect the lives of babies in the womb and a failure to offer full support to women with unplanned pregnancies”.
“While we may pause to commemorate this tragedy, this day also serves as a call to action for people around the country to renew their efforts to do everything they can to help ensure more lives are saved from abortion in the future”.
“This includes contacting MPs and asking them to ensure that protections for unborn babies are introduced and safeguards are strengthened to protect both mothers and babies – along with volunteering with pregnancy support centres and undertaking other pro-life activities that support mothers and their children in pregnancy and beyond”.
“By being proactive and taking action, every single one of us can be part of building a pro-life nation where we protect and defend the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death”.
*This figure is a projection for England, Wales and Scotland through to midnight on 27/4/2024 and has been calculated based on the following assumptions:
Please note, we have not included data for abortions that have occurred in Northern Ireland since 2020 because it has not been made clear on which day abortions began being performed in Northern Ireland and it is therefore unreliable to model a projection for the remainder of the year using this.
LifeNews Note: Republished with permission from Right to Life UK.
The post 10,372,100 Babies Killed in Abortions Since UK Legalized Abortion 56 Years Ago appeared first on LifeNews.com.
If Joe Biden thinks he can win Florida in the presidential election by running a campaign for abortions up to birth, he’s got another thing coming.
That’s the message from pro-life Gov. Ron DeSantis, who laughed heartily today when asked if Biden will win his state by pushing more abortions.
Initially when asked, DeSantis gave a non-verbal answer: A snort, a laugh and a shaking head.
Clearly, his answer was “no.”
DeSantis said he would love to see the Biden campaign waste money campaigning in Florida, which is a much more Rpeublican state now than before DeSantis became governor.
“When I became governor, this state had almost 300,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans. Today, we have 900,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats. So I mean just in that, just those demographics, I think it’s a very uphill climb,” DeSantis said.
LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news
“We welcome Biden-Harris to spend a lot of money in Florida. Light up the airwaves, do it, light it on fire. We are fine with you doing that here. But I can confidently predict that you’ll see Republican victories not just at the top of the ticket but up and down the ballot and I think that’s a good thing.”
And DeSantis said Biden’s “failed leadership and failed policies” would make it impossible to overcome that difference.
DeSantis suggested the Democrats are focusing on abortion to distract voters from Biden’s horrible record.
“I understand they would try to figure out anything they could to try to, to try to change the dynamic or to try to change the focus from the failed leadership, but they failed on fiscal, they failed on inflation, they failed on interest rates, they failed on the border,” DeSantis said. “And, oh, by the way, is this world more peaceful than it was when (Donald) Trump was president? Not even close.”
The post Ron DeSantis Says Joe Biden Won’t Win Florida by Campaigning for Abortions Up to Birth appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Florida’s Heartbeat Law will take effect on Wednesday, May 1 and will protect unborn children and their mothers at six weeks of pregnancy. The law, titled SB300 – Pregnancy and Parenting Support, makes Florida one of the most pro-life states in the nation.
At midnight, Florida will join Georgia and South Carolina in having an active law with six-week heartbeat protections. The law will increase widespread protections in the Southeast since Florida’s other closest neighbors of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana all have laws that protect unborn babies from the moment of conception.
According to 2023 data from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, about one-third of all abortions in the South occurred in Florida. The data showed more than 9,300 of those abortions involved people who traveled from other states.
The law’s implementation follows the Florida Supreme Court which recently ruled 6-1 that there is no right to abortion in the Florida Constitution. The decision upheld the state’s current 15-week abortion law and allowed the Heartbeat Law to go into effect. Both the Heartbeat Law and the state’s 15-week law will be enforced together.
The Heartbeat Law includes exceptions, such as rape, incest, and human trafficking, all of which must be officially documented. The law retains the exceptions from the 15-week law, such as: to preserve the life of the mother, which includes ectopic pregnancies; fatal abnormalities where the unborn baby is unexpected to survive outside the womb; and to “avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment or a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition.”
In addition, before an abortion is performed under any of the exception categories, Florida abortion laws require giving a pregnant woman an option to view an ultrasound, a 24-hour reflection period unless there is an emergency, and informed consent.
The law also requires doctors to use more than just an ultrasound to determine the gestational age of an unborn child. Doctors are now required to utilize a more objective physical measurement with calipers to measure “crown to rump” length, or top of the head (crown) to the bottom of the buttocks (rump), which can more accurately determine the unborn child’s gestational age.
In Florida, the penalty for health care providers performing an illegal abortion can result in the loss of their licenses to practice medicine.
The Heartbeat Law will also provide $30 million in reoccurring state funding to support pregnant women and their families. This support includes:
Florida also has 167 pregnancy centers across the state where pregnant women and their families can receive aid and support.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “On May 1, Florida will become a sanctuary for life. The Heartbeat Law will save countless lives, some of whom may become world leaders in science, medicine, and technology that will benefit the world. The Heartbeat Law protects the valuable lives of both the unborn child and the mother and provides a wide range of options and support for women. The Heartbeat Law will provide $30 million in public funds to help pregnant women and their children. Florida is now on the side of life.”
The post Florida Heartbeat Law Starts Tomorrow, Saving Babies From Abortion and Helping Pregnant Women appeared first on LifeNews.com.
After the solid results from Microsoft - the world's largest company whose market cap is now flirting with $3 trillion - investors have been incrementally more positive on the Amazon's AWS cloud setup into today's earnings, with the investment thesis driven by ecommerce share, margin expansion and the potential for AWS growth recovery through the year.
Of course, since everyone is well-aware of this thesis, UBS trader Kelsey Perselay notes that "the amount of debate/dialogue has really died down."
Not surprisingly, everyone and their kitchen sink, is long the stock: according to Goldman, client positioning is a 9 on the bank's 1-10 scale, and "most investors feel relaxed/confident into this quarter."
Goldman thinks that people expect a beat and further acceleration on AWS (vs cons ~13% y/y and ~13% y/y last qtr), a slight beat on online sales (vs cons 7%) and a solid beat on EBIT vs cons ~$11bn (for ref, AMZN been beating by $2-4bn last few qtrs). Looking ahead, investors looking for high-end of guide to land near street numbers for Revs (cons ~$150 bn) / OI (~$12.5 bn).
Summarized, here are the top bogeys for the quarter:
Q1 Total Sales: high end of guide $138-$143.5 bn
Q2 Total Sales: $150 bn high end
Q1 AWS Growth: 15%-16%+
Q1 EBIT: $13 bn
Q2 EBIT: $14 bn high end
Key questions for the 1Q call include:
overall EBIT for 2Q as they are expected to show ongoing efficiency this year;
cadence of enterprise cloud optimization efforts and signs of growth acceleration for AWS in 2Q;
pace of retail margin improvement and medium-term targets for retail;
capex outlook for 1Q and for 2024;
impact of Amazon Bedrock and any disclosures around growth contribution from GenAI workloads;
margin improvements from regionalization of fulfilment operations and broader cost control efforts;
the outlook and incremental margins associated with video advertising in Prime content and advertising more generally; and
competitive dynamics from Shein, Temu, TikTok, etc.
Catch-Up or Catch-Down...
Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report highlighted increased activity in the U.S., including 1.05 million patients, 9.13 million services, 2.25 million birth control services, 392,715 abortions, and another 1.7 million appointments booked online. But to the dismay of pro-life activists, what may be the most shocking aspect of the data from the report was not the national impact, but the international effect Planned Parenthood has had — a mission they use taxpayer dollars to fund.
As emphasized by two of Family Research Council’s experts, Arielle Del Turco and Mary Szoch, the abortion organization “has access to the $699,300,000 in U.S. taxpayer dollars that Planned Parenthood received in Fiscal Year 2022.”
On Friday’s episode of “Washington Watch,” guest host and former Congressman Jody Hice pointed out, Planned Parenthood is not “using all of that to profit from killing babies here in the United States. … They are also promoting abortion internationally with special attention [given] to infiltrate very poor, vulnerable countries that have legitimate needs.” Specifically, he added, “[T]hey’re going there in order to dismantle all the pro-life protections that many of those countries have.” And Hice noted that the authors of the report are “bragging about all of this.”
Del Turco, who serves as FRC’s director of the Center for Religious Liberty, agreed. “[T]hey’re targeting these poorer countries,” she said, “and they’re going in and … training tens of thousands of [locals] … essentially to be activists for abortion, to change these laws from the inside out and remove pro-life protections.”
LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news
Del Turco continued, “Planned Parenthood, in … its most recent annual report, bragged that they had overturned in the last calendar year 112 pro-life policies in these countries.” Which, as she emphasized, is “112 places across eight different countries where unborn babies had their protections stripped from them, in large part because of the work of Planned Parenthood.” What we should be asking, Del Turco continued, is “[w]hy are we funding an organization that is doing that?” Hice noted that’s not only “a great question,” but it’s one that “demands an answer.”
As stated in the article by Del Turco and Szoch, who is the director of FRC’s Center for Human Dignity, the duo restated that Planned Parenthood “is the perfect picture of ideological colonialism,” the irony of which she commented on to Hice. “The Left supposedly hates colonialism, where the West goes into other countries and imposes its norms,” she observed. “But this is exactly what Planned Parenthood is doing. Planned Parenthood is going into countries where both the law and the culture are very pro-life, where they completely reject abortion, and they are trying to change these countries from the inside out. It’s not organic. It’s coming from the outside, from Planned Parenthood, and from the millions of dollars that they are funneling into these countries.”
Hice posed the question: “[W]hat do we need to do to try to … ensure that no U.S. tax dollars go to fund … organizations … that promote abortions?” Most obviously, Del Turco replied that we need to recognize it’s “common sense” not to use the dimes of Americans to fund a radical leftist ideology — many of whom are pro-life. “No American taxpayer dime should be going to Planned Parenthood,” she insisted. “This should be a priority of Republican politicians completely defunding Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform or support abortion … at home, but especially overseas.” Most Americans, Del Turco emphasized, don’t want their money being used to support abortion.
“And we need to be listening to the American people on that,” Del Turco concluded. “[W]e as Americans should be focused on really funding organizations that do support life and that support life abroad, and investing in pro-lifers who are having to now fight off these pro-abortion attacks from Planned Parenthood.”
LifeNews Note: Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand, where this originally appeared.
The post Planned Parenthood Doesn’t Just Kill Babies in America, It’s Overturning Pro-Life Laws Worldwide appeared first on LifeNews.com.
The Associated Press has learned the US Drug Enforcement Administration is moving to reclassify marijuana to a less dangerous drug category. Shares of cannabis-related companies erupted on the news.
Here's more from AP news:
The DEA's proposal, which still must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, would recognize the medical uses of cannabis and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation's most dangerous drugs. However, it would not legalize marijuana outright for recreational use.
The agency's move, confirmed to the AP on Tuesday by five people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive regulatory review, clears the last significant regulatory hurdle before the agency's biggest policy change in more than 50 years can take effect.
Once OMB signs off, the DEA will take public comment on the plan to move marijuana from its current classification as a Schedule I drug, alongside heroin and LSD. It moves pot to Schedule III, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids, following a recommendation from the federal Health and Human Services Department. After the public-comment period the agency would publish the final rule.
Following the news, Tilray Brands Inc. shares jumped 22%, while Canopy Growth Corp shares are up 26%.
Tilray's float is about 15% short, equivalent to about 118 million shares short.
Canopy's float is 12% short, equivalent to 9 million shares short.
Meanwhile, AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETF and Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF are broadly higher and appear to be rounding a multi-year bottom.
It's an election year, and the Biden administration is getting desperate.
Hamas considers Israeli offer - 40 day ceasefire, release of prisoners in exchange for hostages
Brother Nathaniel promotes white resistance
Global Digital Gulag Imminent, Brought to You by UN & Bill Gates - Alex on Glenn BeckThe Biden administration has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a state pro-life protection by arguing that a federal law designed to protect the “unborn child” requires doctors to carry out abortions.
In arguments before the Supreme Court, the administration’s top legal advocate asked justices to strike down an Idaho law protecting most children from abortion on the grounds that it conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA).
But “EMTALA doesn’t address abortion. EMTALA addresses the issue of whether access to health care is available to people who are indigent, whether hospitals can turn away people who don’t have the means to pay for hospitalization or ER services,” Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador (R) told “Washington Watch” on Thursday. The Biden administration’s argument “turns EMTALA on its head. It turns jurisprudence for the last 40 years on its head.”
The EMTALA law, signed into law by pro-life President Ronald Reagan in 1986, intended to prevent hospitals from refusing to care for sick people who are uninsured or cannot pay for bona fide medical care. The text of EMTALA states four times that doctors must care for a pregnant woman or her “unborn child.” For instance, the law bars physicians from any action that “may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.”
“When President Reagan signed EMTALA, he never intended that it would be used as a Trojan horse for mandatory abortion,” stated Blaine Conzatti, president of the Idaho Family Policy Council, which filed two amici briefs in the case. “The language of EMTALA is clear: Emergency room physicians are required to do everything possible to save the lives of both mother and baby.”
LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news
Justices noticed the incongruity during oral arguments in Moyle v. United States, which ran an exceptionally long one hour and 53 minutes on Wednesday, April 24. “Isn’t that an odd phrase to put in a statute that imposes a mandate to perform abortions? Have you ever seen an abortion statute that uses the phrase ‘unborn child?’” asked Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the Dobbs decision.
“It seems that the plain meaning is that the hospital must try to eliminate any immediate threat to the child,” Alito continued. But carrying out an “abortion is antithetical to that duty.”
Protecting life motivated the statute at the heart of the lawsuit. After the Dobbs decision returned abortion to democratic control, Idaho enacted the Defense of Life Act, which would punish abortionists who take the life of an unborn child with two to five years in prison; they could also have their medical license suspended on the first offense and revoked for carrying out any subsequent criminal abortion. But the statute specifically states the law does not apply if an emergency doctor decides in good faith that an “abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Furthermore, the law does not apply to “[m]edical treatment provided to a pregnant woman by a health care professional” that “results in the accidental death of, or unintentional injury to, the unborn child,” such as treating an ectopic pregnancy or caring for a miscarriage.
Yet the Biden White House took pains to blunt Americans from taking any actions that undermined the abortion industry, which is a major donor to Democratic causes in general and the Biden campaign specifically. “Right after the Dobbs decision, they sent a letter to every hospital in the United States saying that if they receive any federal funding, that they must provide abortions,” said Labrador. “And they make the claim in that letter that that the abortion laws of the various states was actually preempted by EMTALA.” Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a July 2022, guidance claiming that, under EMTALA, “Stabilizing treatment could include medical and/or surgical interventions,” specifically including “abortion … irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to specific procedures.”
The Biden administration won a judgment blocking Idaho’s pro-life law from taking effect from U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill — a Clinton appointee with a history of controversial opinions, such as the 2018 Edmo v. Idaho Department of Corrections case, which ordered the state of Idaho to furnish male prison inmate Adree Edmo with a taxpayer-funded transgender surgery. (Winmill opted to move into semi-retirement by taking senior judge status in August 2021 — which allowed President Joe Biden to appoint one of Idaho’s two judges.) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals put his decision on hold while the case makes its way through the courts.
Critics say the Legal Left is trying to shoehorn abortion into any existing statute and override state lawmakers through presumption. “It’s the other side that is extreme, that they want abortions available at all instances of the stages of pregnancy,” said Labrador. “I think most people are closer to the Idaho position than they are to the more extreme position” — a position borne out by decades of polling data.
To offset an unpopular abortion position in an election year, pro-life advocates state, Democrats portray Republicans as willing to let women die without miscarriage treatment — a revival of its “war on women” rhetoric. “The Biden administration’s attack on Idaho’s Defense of Life law is more of a PR stunt to spread abortion lobby misinformation than it is a valid legal strategy to take down states’ pro-life laws,” said SBA Pro-Life America’s State Public Affairs Director Kelsey Pritchard in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand. “Pregnant women can receive miscarriage care, ectopic pregnancy care and treatment in a medical emergency in all 50 states. Every pro-life law allows this.”
Vice President Kamala Harris has repeatedly blamed pro-life laws for compelling pregnant women to have “miscarriages in toilets” — ironically, the outcome produced by chemical abortion, which the Biden-Harris administration promotes. In August 2022, Karine Jean-Pierre claimed that, due to a Texas pro-life law, pregnant women “can now be denied this same life-saving care” and “may die as a result.” Pro-abortion activists held signs outside the High Court during oral arguments alleging, “Abortion saves lives.”
Some in the legacy media have parroted these claims. “Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat or stabilize patients who are in active labor and provide a medical transfer to another hospital if they don’t have the staff or resources to treat them. … The case before the Supreme Court today could weaken those protections,” asserted the Associated Press without proof. Pro-life advocates point out that all state protections have exceptions to preserve the mother’s life and that abortion activists’ claims may be confusing doctors and discouraging women from getting needed care.
Abortion lobbyists say their interest is in using the courts against pro-life doctors, nurses, and institutions that resist carrying out abortions. Molly Duane of the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights told reporters on a press call that the abortion industry wants the federal government to use EMTALA, in Politico’s words, “to go after hospitals in other states.” Pro-abortion activists with the Women’s National Law Center chanted “Whose courts? Our courts!” during oral arguments.
At the Supreme Court Wednesday, the Biden administration raised the link between accepting federal funds and carrying out “emergency” abortions. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds comes with strings attached. “Could the federal government condition the receipt of funds on hospitals that they comply with medical ethics rules provided for by the federal government?” asked Justice Neil Gorsuch, even if such conditions required abortion.
“I think that very likely Congress could make those kinds of judgments and attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds,” replied Prelogar.
“If you’re unclear whether abortion is a federal and state issue, today’s hearing at the Supreme Court should remove all doubt,” said Students for Life Action Government Affairs Coordinator Savanna Deretich outside the court as oral arguments took place. “EMTALA has been twisted by Biden’s abortion radicals to demand that in states with protective laws that embrace the preborn be forced to allow abortions in an ER.”
Inside the courtroom, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, part of the court’s liberal bloc, likened banning abortion to a theoretical state law instructing doctors, “Don’t treat diabetics with insulin. Treat them only with pills, Metformin.”
But forbidding any state regulation would turn the emergency room into a Wild West, argued Josh Turner, who represented the state. “If ER doctors can perform whatever treatment they determine is appropriate, then doctors can ignore not only state abortion laws but also state regulations on opioid use and informed consent requirements,” he told justices. “The answer doesn’t change just because we’re talking about abortion.”
“Nothing in EMTALA requires doctors to ignore the scope of their license and offer medical treatments that violate state law,” said Turner. “Section 1395, the Medicare Act’s opening provision, forbids the federal government from controlling the practice of medicine. That’s the role of state regulation.”
Turner highlighted the fact that leading medical groups do not endorse abortion as emergency treatment for many conditions. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) “doesn’t just knee-jerk say an abortion is the standard of care” in all pregnancy-related complications, he said. “ACOG itself says that expectant management” — medically monitoring a pregnant mother’s health to observe any future changes — “is oftentimes the appropriate standard of care.”
“Idaho does not require that doctors wait until a patient is on the verge of death,” clarified Turner, citing the Idaho Supreme Court’s Planned Parenthood v. Wasden ruling.
The Biden administration seemed to make one significant, if legally questionable, concession during oral arguments. Under questioning, Prelogar said abortion could not be used as an emergency treatment for mental health conditions, because it “wouldn’t do anything to address the underlying brain chemistry issue that’s causing the mental health emergency in the first place.” A distraught mother demanding an abortion “might not be in a position to give any informed consent. Instead, the way you treat mental health emergency is to address what’s happening in the brain.”
Abortion “is not the accepted standard of practice to treat any mental health emergency,” Prelogar said.
But she may merely be attempting to downplay the impact of folding abortion into EMTALA coverage. The American Psychiatric Association has declared, “Freedom to act to interrupt pregnancy must be considered a mental health imperative with major social and mental health implications” in a 2023 position paper. “That sounds like a necessity to me,” countered Turner.
The APA opposes “all constitutional amendments, legislation, and regulations curtailing family planning and abortion services to any segment of the population.” Such broad language might be cited “if a woman presents at seven months pregnant in an Idaho emergency room and says, ‘I’m experiencing severe depression from this pregnancy, I’m having suicidal ideation from carrying this pregnancy,’” Turner told Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The mother’s psychological care has justified abortion in the past under the broad “health” exception created by Roe v. Wade’s 1973 companion case, Doe v. Bolton. Doe held that “all factors physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age relevant to the well-being of the patient … may relate to health.”
Failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton posted her own dubious jurisprudential argument on X, claiming that emergency or non-emergency cases would contradict the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (which is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). She chided the “MAGA Supreme Court majority,” adding, “This is horrifying, and it is because of Donald Trump.”
Based on arguments and the law, legal experts say, the justices should side with Idaho on the merits. “The Supreme Court should uphold Idaho’s law and ensure that emergency room doctors are not forced to end lives,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch in a statement emailed to The Washington Stand last month.
The EMTALA case is one of two abortion cases the Supreme Court will address this term. The other dealt with FDA approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. Justices will likely rule in June or July.
“One thing is certain,” said Conzatti: “Whatever their decision is, it will have a far-reaching impact for pro-life protections across the country.”
LifeNews Note: Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.
The post Joe Biden is So Radically Pro-Abortion He Wants to Turn a Pro-Life Law Into an Abortion Mandate appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Read at Choosing-him.blogspot
Bergoglio Promoter of Sodomy
One can listen to, and believe, the government's lies about the miraculous growth of the economy and the stellar job that Bidenomics is doing... or one can listen to the truth straight from the countless small companies that make up the economy. We prefer the latter, which is why we love the monthly responses to the Dallas Fed survey, where unlike the other regional Feds, the respondents actually get a fair forum.
So without further ado, here are all the comments in the April Dallas Fed Service Sector Outlook Survey presented unedited and without commentary. Trust us, none is needed (but the highlights are ours).
Truck transportation
Support activities for transportation
Publishing industries (except internet)
Credit intermediation and related activities
Securities, commodity contracts and other financial investments and related activities
Insurance carriers and related activities
Real estate
Rental and leasing services
Professional, scientific, and technical services
Management of companies and enterprises
Administrative and support services
Texas Retail Outlook Survey
Accommodation
Food services and drinking places
Motor vehicle and parts dealers
Electronics and appliance stores
Dr. John Haas, a professor of moral theology, criticized Bergoglio's-approved Fiducia Supplicans for seeming to be 'entirely removed from the realm of human action' and representing a 'significant endorsement and advancement' of the 'gay agenda.'
Read at LifeSiteNews
Authored by Eric Lundrum via American Greatness,
On Monday, the Chinese government threatened to retaliate against the United States after a $95 billion foreign aid package was signed into law, which included aid for Taiwan and a provision to ban the Chinese social media app TikTok.
As reported by Fox News, the bill signed into law by Biden on Wednesday included $2 billion to restock American weapons provided to Taiwan and other allies in the Indo-Pacific, in a direct attempt to deter Chinese aggression in the region. Additionally, the law demands that TikTok’s parent company ByteDance sell the popular app to another company within nine months, or else the app will be banned from use in the United States.
“China firmly rejects the U.S. passing and signing into law the military aid package containing negative content on China,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian in a briefing.
“We have lodged serious representations to the U.S.”
“This package gravely infringes upon China’s sovereignty. It includes large military aid to Taiwan, which seriously violates the one-China principle, and sends a seriously wrong signal to ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces,” Lin continued.
“The legislation undermines the principles of market economy and fair competition by wantonly going after other countries’ companies in the name of ‘national security,’ which once again reveals the U.S.’s hegemonic and bullying nature.”
The issue of Taiwan has remained a contentious point in U.S.-China relations, with some considering Taiwan to be a free and independent nation, while others believe it to be part of China. The federal government has never taken a clear stance on the question, thus highlighting the significance of the decision to provide direct aid to Taiwan.
TikTok has faced widespread scrutiny from both sides of the political aisle, with Republicans pointing out its threat to national security by virtue of it being a Chinese company preying on American users, while Democrats have raised concerns about users’ private information being easily accessed and sold by the company.
TikTok is most popular among younger Americans such as Generation Z, or “Zoomers,” and the ban being signed into law has sparked outrage against Biden among younger voters.
After years of enriching himself to the tune of billions from his failed company WeWork, co-founder Adam Neumann is finally getting a small dose of karmic payback.
It was reported yesterday by Bloomberg that WeWork and its main backers, including SoftBank, have reached a new agreement to pull the struggling workspace provider out of bankruptcy, rejecting a rival proposal from co-founder Adam Neumann to buy back the company.
Under the deal, senior lenders will provide about $450 million in financing, gaining equity in the reorganized business. Additionally, SoftBank and other creditors may convert their debt into stock post-bankruptcy. This marks a significant step for WeWork, aiming to emerge from court protection with reduced debt and more efficient leases.
And to not be at the behest of, or enriching, Adam Neumann, will really mark a shift in strategy for WeWork...
A lawyer backing the deal told Bloomberg the deal “is some of the best news we’ve had in this case,” and said the company is on a “fast and reliable path out of bankruptcy.”
WeWork aims to exit bankruptcy swiftly due to the high costs and unsustainable administrative expenses of the Chapter 11 proceedings. The proposed restructuring, backed by most senior debt holders and unsecured creditors, sidelines co-founder Adam Neumann's bid to repurchase the company.
Neumann's offer, valued at $650 million, hinges on winning support from senior lenders, who are crucial to the deal's success. However, WeWork's advisors have rebuffed Neumann's attempts to negotiate and have proceeded with the restructuring without public bidding on the company's assets.
Bloomberg reported that US Bankruptcy Judge John K. Sherwood emphasized the lenders' prerogative to decide on negotiations with Neumann based on their economic interests. If executed, the restructuring would result in majority ownership by Yardi's investment arm and involvement from WeWork bondholders.
SoftBank would retain ownership stake, initially at least 16.5%, potentially increasing to 36% depending on the treatment of letters of credit. WeWork must finalize the proposed deal into a contract and seek creditor approval for its broader reorganization plan.
The report notes that Neumann could still contest the deal by petitioning Sherwood to reject the reorganization proposal.
And, normally taking the punchbowl away from someone who has already "earned" billions he didn't deserve shouldn't be of any concern, but we're sure Neumann's ego won't let that be the case. We're certain protest and prolonged litigation from Neumann will come from this, claiming he was "unfairly" snubbed...
*WEWORK CUTS BANKRUPTCY EXIT DEAL THAT LEAVES OUT ADAM NEUMANN
But how will the world's biggest grifter become the world's first trillionaire
As the Biden campaign continues to push abortion as its primary focus ahead of the November elections, the administration made yet another move to ensure that abortion remains front and center by moving to insert the issue into the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act earlier this month — a move that earned a strong rebuke and lawsuit from a group of 17 Republican state attorneys general.
In mid-April, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it was controversially adding abortion into its draft rules for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, allowing workers to “ask for time off to obtain an abortion and recover from the procedure.” But critics say the legislation was never intended to address abortion and was merely meant to give pregnant women commonsense accommodations in the workplace, including time off for medical appointments, options to sit down and stand up while working, exemptions from heavy lifting, time off for postpartum recovery, bathroom, breastfeeding, food, and water breaks, considerations for morning sickness, and more.
In response, a coalition of 17 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit last week against the EEOC, claiming that the abortion rule is unconstitutional, among other concerns. “[U]nelected commissioners at the EEOC seek to hijack these new protections for pregnancies by requiring employers to accommodate elective abortions — something the Act clearly did not authorize,” said the AG coalition in a statement. “The EEOC’s rule constitutes an unconstitutional federal overreach that infringes on existing state laws and exceeds the scope of the agency’s authority.”
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
State attorneys general who signed onto the lawsuit include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
Last week, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) joined “Washington Watch” to discuss why he joined the lawsuit against the EEOC’s actions.
The original text “is a wonderful, bipartisan supported [bill] — and we don’t say that very often with things that come out of Washington — to make sure that we accommodate pregnant women in the workplace because we want to have healthy pregnancies and children that come to birth,” he noted. “[L]et’s make sure that we fill a gap in federal law to ensure that pregnant women have those accommodations. … And now, the EEOC that was tasked by Congress to come out with some very specific aspects of what that looks like, now want to make sure that states like Alabama would have to violate state law to somehow or another accommodate a woman who wants an abortion. Alabama is not going to stand for that, along with the [16] other states that are a part of this coalition.”
Marshall went on to point out that even pro-abortion Democrats explicitly stated that the bill had nothing to do with abortion when it was passed, which still hasn’t stopped the Biden administration’s actions.
“One of the Democratic sponsors of this bill made it very clear on the floor of the Senate that this bill had nothing to do with abortion [and] assured his colleagues on both sides of the aisle the intention of this bill,” he observed. “And yet, despite its clear language, what we see is [the] Biden administration co-opting a valid, appropriate law to be able to enforce this pro-abortion agenda. I know we shouldn’t be surprised, but it’s one of the reasons why I’m so proud of my colleagues across the country on many pro-life issues, because we’re standing in that gap that we need in this country to make sure that we can push back on an administration that’s just simply gone too far.”
Marshall further made it clear that state attorneys general have a particularly important role to play in pushing back against the Biden administration’s tendency to try unconstitutional tactics to get its policies into place.
“This is an unelected, unaccountable group,” he underscored. “… [W]e’ve seen this on multiple fronts with this administration, whether it be attacking pro-life states like Alabama. We’ve seen it with this radical gender ideology that’s being pushed through multiple federal programs. It’s why, uniquely, attorneys general in this important time in our nation have the opportunity to be able to hold [the administration] in check.”
The Alabama attorney general additionally pointed to how state law will have strong legal footing against the measure in court.
“[W]hat we see also with this particular rule is an effort to impose a federal policy of this administration on a state like Alabama, whose law is abundantly clear that we are a pro-life state in our Constitution,” Marshall explained. “… [T]o somehow or another use an unaccountable body like the EEOC to circumvent valid state law and constitutional provisions, we think we’re on solid legal footing to be able to push back and to win. … The key right now is attempting to get that initial injunctive relief, to be able to hold this rule in abeyance before its full implementation. But we feel very confident about the work of our colleagues, grateful for the efforts of Tennessee and Oklahoma to lead this charge, but do feel strongly that we’re going to prevail.”
LifeNews Note: Dan Hart writes for the Family Research Council. He is the senior editor of The Washington Stand.
The post 17 States Fight Joe Biden’s Plan to Force Employers to Fund Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,
Over the last two weeks, the bullish sentiment index has reversed from extreme greed to fear. The composite net bullish sentiment index, comprised of professional and retail investors, fell from 38.15 to 9.9 in two weeks. The previous drop between July and October last year was similar and marked the bottom of the correction.
While the bullish sentiment index can indeed fall further, what is notable is the sharp reversal of market “exuberance” in such a short span. However, as discussed in “Just A Correction,” there was a significant gap between buyers and sellers.
“However, at some point, for whatever reason, this dynamic will change. Buyers will become more scarce as they refuse to pay a higher price. When sellers realize the change, they will rush to sell to a diminishing pool of buyers. Eventually, sellers will begin to “panic sell” as buyers evaporate and prices plunge.”
Like clockwork, that correction came quickly, with the market finding initial support at the 100-DMA. With solid earnings from GOOG and MSFT, the market rallied to initial resistance at the convergence of the 20- and 50-DMA. It would be unsurprising if the market failed this initial resistance test and ultimately retested the 100-DMA soon. Such a pullback would solidify that support and complete the reversal of the bullish sentiment index.
“Whatever trigger causes a reversal in the bullish signals, we will act accordingly to reduce risk and rebalance exposures. But one thing is sure: investor sentiment is extremely bullish, which has almost always been a good “bearish signal” to be more cautious.
While we have warned of a potential correction over the past few weeks, it reminds us much of June and July last year, where similar warnings for a 10% correction went unheeded. We are now seeing many individuals ‘jumping into the pool’ in some of the most speculative areas of the market. Such is usually a sign we are closer to a market peak than not. As such, we want to make adjustments before the correction comes.”
Very quickly, as supported by the bullish sentiment index, those bulls are turning bearish and are now calling for a more profound decline.
While such is possible, I suspect most of this correction is complete for two reasons.
The first reason is that despite higher interest rates, earnings growth continues to remain robust, at least among the “Magnificent 7,” where Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT), in particular, exceeded estimates by a wide margin. However, overall, and most importantly, earnings growth has continued since the October lows of 2022. Notably, the support for improving earnings comes from the increased fiscal policies such as the Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS Act.
While those policies will eventually fade, making forward estimates subject to downward revisions, the current earnings environment remains relatively robust. Furthermore, forward estimates remain optimistic that the Federal Reserve will cut rates later this year, lowering borrowing costs and supporting economic activity.
Notably, the increase in earnings, at least for now, remains a strong indicator of rising asset prices. The risk of a deeper market correction (greater than 10%) is significantly reduced during previous periods of improving earnings. While such does not mean a deeper correction can not happen, historically, corrections between 5% and 10% in an earnings growth environment tend to be buying opportunities and limit deeper reversal in the bullish sentiment index.
Improving earnings also precedes improving CEO confidence, which has provided pivotal support to financial markets since 2000.
We discussed the most critical reason we expected a market correction in mid-March. To wit:
“Notably, since 2009, and accelerating starting in 2012, the percentage change in buybacks has far outstripped the increase in asset prices. As we will discuss, it is more than just a casual correlation, and the upcoming blackout window may be more critical to the rally than many think.” – March 19, 2024
Furthermore, the “blackout” of corporate buybacks coincided with more extreme readings in the bullish sentiment index. Buybacks are crucial to the market because corporations have accounted for roughly 100% of net equity purchases over the last two decades.
Here is the math of net flows if you don’t believe the chart:
Pensions and Mutual Funds = (-$2.7 Trillion)
Households and Foreign Investors = +$2.4 Trillion
Sub Total = (-$0.3 T)
Corporations (Buybacks) = $5.5T
Net Total = $5.2 Trillion = Or 100% of all equities purchased
Unsurprisingly, that blackout window coincided with a sharp contraction of more than $367 billion in buybacks over the last 4-weeks. Consequently, when you remove a critical “buyer” from the market, the ensuing correction is unsurprising.
However, corporate share buybacks will resume in the next couple of weeks, and with more than $1 trillion slated for 2024, many buybacks remain to complete. Such is particularly the case with Google adding another $70 billion to that total.
As noted above, improving earnings and a decent outlook for the rest of this year also boost CEO confidence. (If you don’t understand why buybacks benefit insiders and not shareholders, read this.)
With robust economic activity supporting earnings growth, that improvement boosts CEO confidence. As CEOs are more confident about their business, they accelerate share buybacks to increase executive compensation.
The liquidity boost from buybacks and stronger earnings will likely provide a floor below the market. This doesn’t mean the current correction doesn’t have more work to do. However, it is unlikely that it will resolve into something more significant.
At least for now.
It's not just US and Western defense contractors and arms makers that have been raking in the billions as a result of Washington's mammoth defense aid handed over to Ukraine, but Ukrainian defense companies are also enjoying the largesse at US taxpayers' expense.
"A total of $1.6 billion of the recent US aid to Ukraine would go to the purchase of Ukraine-made weapons, said a senior Kyiv official," Defense Post reports of the $61 billion in US aid just approved.
Image via Reuters
G7 countries have been planning broader assistance to Ukraine which would develop and prop up a Ukrainian domestic military-industrial complex for the long-term, in order to ensure the country's independence from Russia well into the future.
Ukraine parliamentarian and foreign policy committee member Arseniy Pushkarenko has said, "This is very important today, because it is about the creation of joint defense enterprises that will be located on the territory of Ukraine or in neighboring countries, taking into account security aspects."
The funds will be taken from the $14 billion apportioned by Congress for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), allowing the DoD to purchase new weapons for Ukraine.
Interestingly, Pushkarenko admitted that all of this is about more than just defending Ukraine from the Russian military onslaught, but is also about 'testing' new weapons systems in real combat.
"This is one of the factors in the development of the Ukrainian economy. Today, the military technologies that we have are tested in combat conditions, which makes our military-industrial complex attractive enough for many countries of the world," he said.
Other Western countries, including the United Kingdom and Denmark, are expected to establish programs ensuring the purchase of Ukrainian-made weapons.
As we've long documented, over the course of more than two years of war in Ukraine, American defense firms are making a killing, with four US-based companies having been ranked as among the world’s five largest military companies.
Zelensky promises more Ukraine-made weapons in new year speech https://t.co/7UCb6pLX17
— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) January 1, 2024The legendary early 20th century US Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler said it best:"War is a racket. It always has been... It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."
An article published in The Washington Post Monday morning appeared to acknowledge “errors” in the process of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) which “are rarely made public.”
The analysis piece titled “Most IVF errors go unreported, experts say,” described IVF practices as “opaque.”
“When a storage tank at a San Francisco fertility center imploded, 4,000 human eggs and embryos were damaged or destroyed,” wrote the article’s author McKenzie Beard.
“A subsequent jury ruling attributed much of the disaster to a manufacturing flaw while also implicating the center itself,” Beard added.
She continued:
A subsequent jury ruling attributed much of the disaster to a manufacturing flaw while also implicating the center itself …
The lab director had unplugged a malfunctioning computer, muting 128 alarms that warned of trouble. Lab personnel didn’t transfer the tank’s contents to a backup vessel after the computer failed.
LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news
Beard noted that the news of the civil lawsuit filed after the tragic 2018 incident gave the public “a rare glimpse into the insular world of U.S. fertility care.”
“Experts say errors and accidents often go unreported in the burgeoning industry, which is largely self-policed,” the Post writer indicated.
Per Gibbs Law Group, a jury in 2021 “awarded $14.975 million in aggregate damages to five” families who lost human embryos and eggs as a result of tank failure.
“Without data on errors, experts say it’s impossible to measure the quality of U.S. reproductive care,” Beard wrote later in her piece:
While states license clinics and professional bodies oversee practitioners, inspection and accreditation of labs primarily fall to private, voluntary organizations. Many inspectors are lab directors themselves who review one another’s work looking for systemic problems, not lost reproductive material
“[T]he federal government generally stays out of fertility clinics because of the fraught politics, for both Democrats and Republicans, of regulating the creation and destruction of embryos,” Beard stated at the end of her analysis.
The same day, left-wing outlet Vox published another article appearing to criticize the so-called “fertility industry.”
In the piece titled, “The failed promise of egg freezing,” author Anna North wrote: “[F]ar from ushering in a new era of gender equality, some experts say, the procedure serves as another way for companies to make money from stoking women’s anxieties.”
North continued: “Sales pitches about egg freezing, rather than liberating women from their biological clocks, simply became another way to put pressure on them, says Jody Madeira, a law professor at Indiana University Bloomington.”
The Vox article concluded that egg freezing “has done little … to materially change women’s lives.”
Later Monday morning, Heritage Foundation Senior Research Associate Emma Waters wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that she is “thrilled” that two left-of-center outlets simultaneously “published stories digging into the Wild West of the fertility industry.”
“Despite many bold promises to women, egg freezing fails many while negligence in IVF is rarely publicly or legally addressed,” added Waters, a prominent critic of so-called “reproductive technology.”
“Women deserve better!” she emphasized.
LifeNews Note: Joshua Mercer writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.
The post Liberal Media Admits IVF Has “Errors” That are “Rarely Made Public” appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,
New HUD energy rules will raise the cost of home construction by imposing stricter building codes. Payback time is 90 years...
The Wall Street Journal comments on Biden’s New Plan for Unaffordable Housing.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is mandating costly new energy standards for new homes insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which will become de facto nationwide building codes.
HUD last Thursday announced that it will require new homes financed or insured by its subsidy programs to follow the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code standard.
Many governments have declined to adopt the 2021 standards because of their higher costs. The National Association of Home Builders says the energy rules can add as much as $31,000 to the price of a new home. It can take up to 90 years for a buyer to realize a payback on the higher up-front costs through lower energy bills.
Not to worry, HUD says taxpayers will help cover the cost. It “is anticipated that many builders will take advantage” of numerous tax incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act “as well as rebates that will become available in 2025 or earlier for electric heat pumps and other building electrification measures,” the rule says.
These incentives include a $5,000 per unit tax credit for “zero energy” multifamily construction that meets prevailing-wage requirements that also raise building costs. HUD adds that builders may also “take advantage of certain EPA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund programs, especially the Solar for All initiative” and an investment tax credit that can offset 50% of a solar project’s cost.
Even with the subsidies, HUD estimates the price of a new home will go up by $7,229.
You get a $5,000 credit but only if the builder pays union wages for everything. How much will that cost?
My general rule of thumb is to take government estimates and triple them. That’s for short projects like building a home. But 10x would not be surprising. And this is with subsidies.
Home ownership rates courtesy of Apartment List
The answer is younger voters and blacks.
Generation Z homeownership is dramatically lower than the home ownership rate of millennials.
And according to the National Association of Realtors, the homeownership rate among Black Americans is 44 percent whereas for White Americans it’s 72.7 percent.
That’s the largest Black-White homeownership rate gap in a decade.
Case-Shiller, OER and CPI data from St. Louis Fed, chart by Mish
The latest Case-Shiller housing data shows home prices hit a new record high. Adding insults and costs, the 30-year mortgage rate ended last week at 7.50 percent
On April 20, I commented People Who Rent Will Decide the 2024 Presidential Election
Q: What is it that young voters really have on their minds?
A: Rent
Many with rent as their top concern will switch to Trump. They are fed up with rising inflation. Rent is up at least 0.4 percent per month for 30 months.
Young voters propelled Biden over the top in 2020. Things look very different today. Many voters who do not like either Trump or Biden will sit this election out.
Walmart executives must be paying attention to Gen Z consumers bitching on TikTok and X about the failures of Bidenomics, as many of them have to work multiple jobs and still can't afford to put food on the table, pay shelter costs, and buy gasoline at the pump. That's why America's largest retailer is launching a new line of cheap store-brand groceries for consumers, more importantly, targeting lost and hopeless youngsters.
Bettergoods is Walmart's "largest private brand food launch in 20 years and the fastest food private brand Walmart has brought to market," according to the retailer in a press release published Tuesday morning.
The new brand targets young consumers and will offer them 300 items, including frozen, dairy, snacks, beverages, pasta, soups, coffee, chocolate, and more. Prices of the goods range from under $2 to under $15, with most products available for under $5.
"Today's customers expect more from the private brands they purchase – they want affordable, quality products to elevate their overall food experience. The launch of bettergoods delivers on that customer need in a meaningful way," said Scott Morris, senior vice president of private brands, food and consumables.
Morris continued, "Bettergoods is more than just a new private brand. It's a commitment to our customers that they can enjoy unique culinary flavors at the incredible value Walmart delivers."
Over the last few years, retailers have made a major push to expand private label brands that offer consumers a cheaper option amid persistent high inflation. This has forced many to drain personal savings and max out credit cards—just to survive the ongoing inflation storm.
We have been documenting the countless number of Gen-Zers who have taken to various social media platforms to complain about how liberal colleges and Bidenomics are scams. Many of these youngsters seem more miserable than millennials who entered the workforce after the 2008 financial crash. At least back then, millennials weren't battered by high inflation.
The latest Gallup poll numbers show youngsters are at a breaking point with Democrats who have promised them nothing but rainbows and unicorns, only to step foot in the real world after obtaining a worthless liberal arts college degree to realize affording rent, $1,000 car payments, and $15 avocado and toast is not what they signed up for.
Walmart is smart. They're reading the crowd's outrage about 'Biden-flation' hitting supermarket items.
And it's only a matter of time before Gen-Zers have to make the difficult decision to trade down from Walmart to Dollar General as the inflation storm heats up (read here). What comes next? Well, it's dumpster diving.
In a new interview with Time magazine, former President Donald trump reaffirmed his new states’ rights position on abortion. The GOP presidential hopeful said he fully supports states making the legislative policy decisions when it comes to abortion.
He confirmed he would not intervene when states protect babies from abortions.
Asked about the specifics of abortion policy, Trump said his views don’t matter because he’s leaving it up to the states.
“It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not,” Trump said. “It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.”
When asked about a federal bill to protect babies from abortion, Trump repeated the same refrain.
“I’m leaving everything up to the states,” he said.
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
Trump declined to say whether he would sign or veto a Congressional bill protecting babies from abortions – repeating a third time that abortion is “back in the states.”
“Again, you’ll have to speak to the individual states,” he said.
Trump declined to discuss the dangerous abortion pill mifepristone that kills babies and has killed or injured women – saying he will issue a position on that in the coming weeks.
“Well, I have an opinion on that, but I’m not going to explain. I’m not gonna say it yet.” He said he would announce his position “probably over the next week.” When pressed for an answer, Trump sought more time. “I will be making a statement on that over the next 14 days.”
The post Trump Says He Won’t Intervene When States Protect Babies From Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Representatives of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) Fatah party met recently in Beijing and held talks on reconciliation, the Chinese Foreign Ministry announced Tuesday. "Representatives of the Palestine National Liberation Movement and the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] recently came to Beijing," China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said.
"The two sides fully expressed their political will to achieve reconciliation through dialogue and consultation, discussed many specific issues, and made positive progress," he added. The spokesman did not clarify exactly what day the meeting took place.
Prior intra-Palestinian talks in Moscow, via Reuters
China, Hamas, and Fatah confirmed beginning last Friday that intra-Palestinian talks would be held in the Chinese capital.
"They agreed to continue the course of talks to achieve the realization of Palestinian solidarity and unity at an early date," Jian went on to say, adding that the two sides thanked China for efforts to "promote Palestinian internal unity and reached an agreement on further dialogue."
China has continued to call for a ceasefire and an end to the war in the Gaza Strip and has long been an advocate of Palestinian unity and a two-state solution between the Palestinians and Israelis.
Chinese diplomat Wang Kejian met with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Qatar last month, where they both called for an end to the war in Gaza and the achievement of "political goals and aspirations of establishing an independent Palestinian state."
Hamas assumed leadership of Gaza in 2006 after a political victory against Fatah in local elections. The Beijing talks come as Hamas has yet to deliver an official response to a new Israeli–Egyptian initiative for a ceasefire and prisoner release deal.
While the initiative reportedly reflects an Israeli openness for the return of the displaced to northern Gaza and the establishment of a sustainable ceasefire, a Hamas official told Al-Mayadeen on Sunday that the proposal "does not reflect a fundamental shift" in Tel Aviv’s position.
Washington has been promoting the idea of a reformed PA assuming control over post-war Gaza, something Hamas has rejected.
Prior file image: Chinese diplomat Wang Kejian met with Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Qatar on March 17.
US–Israeli efforts to "create bodies to manage Gaza is a failed conspiracy that will not come to fruition," a Hamas official said last month.
Dozens of Columbia University students broke into Hamilton Hall on the New York campus early Tuesday and barricaded themselves inside, hours after the school began suspending students who violated a deadline to disperse from a pro-Palestinian encampment.
Demonstrators supporting Palestinians in Gaza barricade themselves inside Hamilton Hall, an academic building which has been occupied in past student movements, in New York on April 30, 2024. (Alex Kent/Getty Images)
"The safety of every single member of this community is paramount," said Ben Chang, vice president for communications at Columbia University, in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times, adding "In light of the protest activity, we have asked members of the University community who can avoid coming to the Morningside campus to do so; essential personnel should report to work according to university policy."
Holy…. pic.twitter.com/42Lw4kaRHY
— Jessica Schwalb (@jessicaschwalb7) April 30, 2024Taking over Hamilton Hall as done in 1968, Columbia students unfurl a banner that reads "Hind's Hall," in reference to Hind Rajab, a six-year-old girl killed by Israeli forces.
Hundreds of students cheer as the banner is revealed, erupting into chants to "Free Palestine." pic.twitter.com/Oi8WgdZmqf
As the Epoch Times' Katabella Roberts notes further; According to The New York Times, the students began occupying the hall at around 12:35 a.m.
The protesters linked arms and blocked off the main entrance to the building at the Ivy League institution after previously marching around campus to chants of “free Palestine,” according to the publication.
A statement shared on the social media platform Instagram by student groups said the protesters had “taken matters into their own hands,” and would remain in the building until the university “divests from death.” Protesters have been urging the university to pause its investments in companies that, they claim, are profiting from Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.
The statement included video footage that appeared to show the students carrying metal barricades into Hamilton Hall as other students cheered them on.
“This escalation is in line with the historical student movements of 1968, 1985, and 1996 which Columbia repressed then and celebrates now,” the statement read. “This action will force the university to confront the blood on its hands.”
In the statement, the student group further accused the university of having been “complicit” in “Israel’s ongoing genocidal assault on the Gaza strip” for the past seven months.
“The students are on the right side of history,” the statement continued. “We know that the university will remember them as anti-apartheid, anti-genocide activists with moral clarity.”
Protesters Make Demands
According to Politico, protesters hung a sign reading “intifada,” which is Arabic for uprising, from the front of the building.
A spokesperson for the New York Police Department told Politico that law enforcement officers were outside the university campus as of Tuesday; however, they declined to elaborate further on exactly how many officers were on site or whether they had authorization to enter the school grounds.
The Epoch Times has contacted a spokesperson at Columbia University and the New York Police Department for further comment.
The takeover of Hamilton Hall occurred just hours after the university confirmed that it had begun suspending some students. The pro-Palestinian students failed to disband before Monday’s 2 p.m. deadline.
Students/protestors lock arms to guard potential authorities against reaching fellow protestors who barricaded themselves inside Hamilton Hall, an academic building which has been occupied in past student movements, in New York on April 30, 2024. (Alex Kent/Getty Images)
Students have occupied the lawn in the middle of campus—in which graduation ceremonies are scheduled to take place for roughly 15,000 students on May 15—for nearly two weeks while calling on the university to disclose and divest from any of its financial ties to Israel.
They are also calling for an end to alleged “land grabs” in the Harlem neighborhood of New York City and Palestine, no more policing on the university campus, and no academic ties with Israeli universities.
However, negotiations between university officials and student protest leaders broke down earlier in the day when the university rejected their demands, prompting officials to issue the 2 p.m. deadline.
In a statement, Minouche Shafik, Columbia’s president, said that ultimately, the university will not divest from Israel, adding that the school is committed to maintaining its core principles and shared values, which include ensuring no students suffer from harassment and discrimination and no anti-Semitic language is used.
Columbia University students protest the Israel-Gaza conflict at Columbia University in New York City, on April 27, 2024. (Emel Akan/The Epoch Times)
School, Students Fail to Reach Agreement
“Both sides in these discussions put forward robust and thoughtful offers and worked in good faith to reach common ground,” Ms. Shafik said. “We thank them all for their diligent work, long hours, and careful effort and wish they had reached a different outcome.”
While the University will not divest from Israel, it has offered to “develop an expedited timeline for review of new proposals from the students by the Advisory Committee for Socially Responsible Investing, the body that considers divestment matters,” Ms. Shafik noted.
“The University also offered to publish a process for students to access a list of Columbia’s direct investment holdings, and to increase the frequency of updates to that list of holdings,” she added.
Ben Chang, vice president for communications at Columbia University, confirmed the suspensions had begun in a press conference late Monday, USA Today reports.
He added that students had been notified in advance that they would face disciplinary action, including suspension if they did not vacate the encampment by 2 p.m. ET and sign a form committing to abide by student politics until either June 30, 2025, or until their graduation, whichever came first.
The site of the protests has created an unwelcoming environment for many Jewish students and faculty members, he said. It has also been a source of loud noise.
“We’ve been suspending students as part of this next phase of our efforts to ensure safety on campus,” Mr. Chang said.
Mr. Chang did not provide further details regarding how many students from Columbia and its affiliate Barnard College have been disciplined. However, he confirmed that those suspended would not be able to finish the semester or graduate, Axios reports.
They will also be banned from entering any campus housing or academic buildings, he added.
Juliette Fairley contributed to this report.
An employee of Access Health Center, more commonly known as American Women’s Center, in Des Plaines, Illinois, called 911 at 1:13 p.m. on November 2, 2023. The 911 records were provided courtesy of Illinois-based Pro-Life Action League.
When the dispatcher asked specific questions about the emergency, the caller transferred the call to the abortionist, believed to be Cheryl Chastine.
“Hello,” she said cheerfully, as if she was clueless that she was on the line with 911.
“Hi, this is the fire department. Tell me exactly what happened,” the dispatcher asked.
“Hey, what’s up? So we are doing a procedure, an intrauterine procedure, and then she just won’t stop bleeding,” she responded.
Her tone of voice more closely resembled that of an adolescent observing the situation than the voice of someone with the knowledge and professionalism expected of a medical “doctor.”
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
The abortionist went on to explain that the hemorrhaging woman had been given meds but refused the insertion of a Bakri balloon into her uterus to slow the bleeding. Apparently, the patient had lost all confidence in the abortionist by this time and requested immediate transfer to a legitimate hospital.
When the dispatcher asked the abortionist the age of the patient, she seemed to have no idea: “Probably around 30 or something like that,” she responded. However, later during the call, the abortionist was informed the patient was 39 years of age – much closer to 40. One can only wonder if the abortionist reviewed the woman’s chart before entering the room. Did the woman have risk factors that needed to be considered, such as past c-sections, multiple abortions, advanced age, etc.?
The abortionist seemed to have little concern over the patient’s blood loss, stating, “She’s lost maybe like a hundred milliliters of blood overall…” However, according to the computer-aided dispatch transcript, the transfer was coded a priority 2 major emergency and required advanced life support.
Two more incredibly disturbing 911 calls were documented in 2023 from this facility.
On April 26, 2023, Chastine overdosed a patient on Fentanyl and Versed. She considered calling off the ambulance, just before exclaiming, “Oh my God!” and having to administer resuscitative breaths.
Then, on October 7, 2023, a woman hemorrhaged for five hours before the staff bothered calling 911.
Back to the November emergency, it is not known how long this woman also had been hemorrhaging before the patient insisted on being transferred to a hospital emergency room where she would receive appropriate care for her critical condition.
“People who kill for a living have seared consciences. They simply cannot have a normal degree of empathy and concern for a suffering patient, like that of a sincere caregiver,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
“We do not know if the child survived the attempted murder, though it is highly unlikely. Still, we are thankful the mother remained conscious and was alert enough to demand emergency intervention. We pray that this frightening ordeal will wake her up and lead her repentance.”
LifeNews Note: Anne Reed writes for Operation Rescue.
The post LISTEN: Abortion Clinic Acts Like Nothing’s Wrong on 911 Call After Botched Abortion, “Hey, What’s Up?” appeared first on LifeNews.com.
By Michael Every of Rabobank
Yesterday’s JPY slump from 158 to 160, surge to 155 on BOJ intervention, and stop over 156 underlines how volatile markets are as long-run fundamentals finally reach tipping points. Tomorrow’s FOMC decision should make that clear for all asset classes: especially with the Treasury’s quarterly refunding announcement the same day, and as the US borrowed a net $748bn in Q1, expects another $243bn in Q2, $41bn higher than seen in January due to lower receipts, and then $847bn in Q3. As a potential warm-up of sorts, albeit due to traditional overbought dynamics, was a 15% collapse in cocoa.
Today we have a sizeable packet of economic data: we already saw the Chinese official manufacturing PMI at 50.4 vs. 50.3 expected and 50.8 last month, and services at 51.2 vs. 52.3 consensus and 53 in March. Will the rest of today’s numbers show disinflation, inflation, or stagflation? That answer is fundamentally related to a subject which markets understand little and dislike lots: the intersection of political economy and the global economic architecture reductively known as either “geopolitics” or “populism”. There, we are also reaching tipping points.
Example 1: The Rhodium Group says for Europe to compete with Chinese EVs would require it to impose ‘Trump 2’ tariffs of at least 50%. However, they expect the EU will make a typically rear-view mirror decision to raise tariffs to the ‘Trump 1’ range of 15-30%. That would push up prices while allowing Chinese EVs to push EU auto production off the market. In short, we either get higher inflation and protectionism; or we get stagflation as prices rise somewhat less, yet Europe loses its key auto sector, taking 7% of GDP, 6% of (well-paid) jobs, the muscle-memory for sideways moves into defence production, and hopes for “strategic autonomy” with it.
Example 2: The White House is trying to ban imports of Russian processed uranium, which currently make up 25% of the supply for the 90 US commercial nuclear reactors. Of course, this means inflation. And it can mean stagflation if local supply isn’t brought on-line.
Example 3: In the Financial Times, Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz: (i) argues neoliberalism produces “demagogues”; (ii) implies liberty is not something which can be easily maximized for all, as I alluded to recently via the Quadragesimo anno; and (iii) says the US needs to be like the EU, with higher regulation, state spending, and taxation – yet, in the absence of protectionism, with the same loss of strategic industries? So, again, it’s still inflation or stagflation.
Example 4: in an unwitting riposte to Stiglitz, former UK PM Gordon Brown warns, ‘There’s a hard-right tidal wave about to hit Europe – and it will only make the economic crisis worse’ as “near-zero growth has crushed living standards, sending voters to populist demagogues” -- the D word again -- but “they have no solutions to offer.” Brown concludes: “The nationalist timebomb is ticking. Across the continent, Europeans need a plan for better jobs through economic and environmental transformation. When the Polish trade union Solidarity was first formed, its anti-Soviet slogan was “No solidarity without freedom”. But soon many realized that free-for-all neoliberal economics would mean rising inequality and low living standards for the mass of people, and so a new slogan soon rang out: “There is no solidarity in freedom.” If progressives want to prevent an election campaign dominated by anti-immigrant propaganda, they will have to stand up to protectionism and xenophobia by showing the benefits of cooperation.”
But how could Europe do Brown’s Green Keynesianism, with expanded issuance of Eurobonds to fund vast fiscal deficits, without higher inflation? And, absent protectionism, how does it do it without importing the key inputs from China, so running large balance of payments deficits? Moreover, does mass immigration not lower wages or push up rents and house prices via supply vs. demand, as Marx argued, and voters see around them? Must governments boost investment to reduce housing supply pressures (how?) and regulate for higher wages (how?) and build Green Keynesianism and rearm Europe? That implies double-digit fiscal deficits as far as the eye can see. Absent new, hybrid tighter AND looser fiscal-and-monetary policy to match domestic demand to new domestic supply, with inflationary tariffs and industrial policy, that backdrop implies a drift towards becoming a deindustrialised, macro-destabilised, stagflationary emerging market-style economy that certainly produces demagogues.
Allow me to share two related quotes from Classical ‘free market’ economists that are likely to upset Stiglitz and Brown as much as they do those who think we live solely in financial times:
“If any particular manufacture was necessary, indeed, for the defence of the society, it might not always be prudent to depend upon our neighbours for the supply; and if such manufacture could not otherwise be supported at home, it might not be unreasonable that all the other branches of industry should be taxed in order to support it.” – Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (Book IV, Chapter V)
* * *
“It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England, and to the consumers in both countries, that under such circumstances, the wine and the cloth should both be made in Portugal, and therefore that the capital and labour of England employed in making cloth, should be removed to Portugal for that purpose... Experience, however, shews, that the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connections, and entrust himself with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, check the emigration of capital.” - David Ricardo, ‘Principles of Political Economy and Taxation’ (Chapter VII: ‘On Foreign Trade’)
That, dear readers, is the sound of the two great ‘free market’ and ‘free trade’ champions supporting protectionism for national security purposes.
We have long lived in an environment where central banks saying “whatever it takes” was what mattered most to markets (apart from playing ‘higher/lower’ on a daily basis, without which there can be little to do). A well-known idiom for doing whatever it takes is to ‘beg, borrow, or steal’. When looking at China’s mercantilist EV --and steel-- production, as just two examples, and the geopolitical / national security backdrop they are tightly wrapped up in, then the choice of outcomes for Western economies is abundantly clear for those who want to see it:
Beg, borrow, or steel – literally and metaphorically.
The first and second choices imply short-term market-friendly disinflation, then followed by long-term EM-style stagflation. The third choice implies near-term inflation and radical policy framework and market shifts, if done correctly, then disinflation, and near and long-term stagflation if done wrong.
Which will it be?
Last week, Joe Biden came under heavy criticism for making the sign of the cross during an abortion rally. He was soundly condemned on social media after essentially giving his blessing to killing babies in abortions.
Now, a Catholic bishop from Spain has joined in the criticism.
José Ignacio Munilla, the bishop of Orihuela-Alicante in Spain, called Biden’s gesture a “sacrilege.”
As the Catholic News Agency reports:
On his weekday radio program on Radio María España, Munilla said that making the sign of the cross in support of abortion constitutes a “sacrilegious” gesture and “the desecration of the sign of the cross.”
“Invoking Jesus Christ in support of abortion” has drawn strong criticism “in many pro-life and Catholic circles,” the bishop pointed out.
Crossing oneself, Munilla said, is meant to be used as a sign “in which we remember that Jesus gave his life for us, he gave his life for all the innocents, he gave his life to restore innocence and to make us saints.”
To use the sign of the cross as Biden did, however, is to “invoke the cross in a sacrilegious manner.”
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
Referring to the incident, the Spanish prelate warned of the risk that a Catholic might publicly show his faith by crossing himself while at the same time twisting its meaning “in a sacrilegious manner.”
Biden made the Sign of the Cross in response to pro-abortion comments made by Democrat Nikki Fried, who was standing next to Biden. The gesture came while Biden was listening to Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Nikki Fried slam her state’s pro-life law.
“And then we come back here to [the] state of Florida,” Fried said, as Biden stood next to her. Behind the two Democrats was a backdrop of Biden/Harris 2024 campaign signs.
“Where … 15 weeks wasn’t good enough so we had to go to six weeks,” Fried said, referring to the gestational limit up until abortion is allowed under state law.
As soon as Fried said “wasn’t good enough,” Biden began to make a slow sign of the cross.
The post Catholic Bishop Slams Biden: Invoking Jesus Christ to Support Abortion is Sacrilegious appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan has held Donald Trump in contempt of court for 'repeatedly violating' a gag order in his so-called hush money trial in New York.
According to Merchan, Trump violated the gag order nine times in online posts which targeted jurors or likely witnesses in the trial. The former president was fined the maximum of $1,000 per violation, or $9,000 - and was ordered to remove all of the offending posts by 2:15 p.m. ET on Tuesday.
What's more, Merchan threatened to toss Trump in jail if he willfully violates court orders again.
"Defendant is hereby warned that the Court will not tolerate continued willful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it will impose an incarceratory punishment," wrote Merchan in his ruling, CNBC reports.
Merchan read the order aloud before the trial resumed with more testimony from a banker who worked with the former president’s lawyer on a $130,000 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.
That payment is at the heart of Manhattan prosecutors’ case accusing Trump of falsifying business records as part of a scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election.
Gary Farro, a former senior managing director at First Republic bank, took the stand Friday and continued testifying Tuesday.
On his way into the courtroom, Trump repeated his call for Merchan to both recuse himself from the case and dismiss it entirely. -CNBC
"The judge should terminate the case because they have no case," said Trump in response, adding that he's been unable to campaign for president because he's stuck in court.
That said, Merchan is allowing Trump to attend his son Barron's high school graduation on May 17.
The historic trial began last week, which has included testimony from former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, as well as Trump's longtime personal secretary, Rhona Graff.
Pecker testified to his efforts to "catch and kill" stories that could be damaging to Trump - including one instance in which his company American Media paying $30,000 for the rights to a former Trump Tower doorman's story about Trump having a secret love child - though Pecker believes the story is untrue.
The company also inked a $150,000 deal with former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had an extramarital affair with Trump, according to Pecker.
Pecker said he did not pay to silence Daniels, who claims she had sex with Trump.
As the Epoch Times notes further, Court was resuming Tuesday with Gary Farro, a banker who helped President Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen open accounts, including one that Mr. Cohen used to send a payment to adult film performer Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. She alleged a 2006 affair with President Trump, which he denies.
...
Outside the courtroom Tuesday, President Trump criticized prosecutors again. “This is a case that should have never been brought,” he said.
“Our country’s going to hell and we sit here day after day after day, which is their plan, because they think they might be able to eke out an election,” he declared last week in the courthouse hallway.
Authored by Simon White, Bloomberg macro strategist,
The Federal Reserve’s next move this year is likely to be a rate cut - despite the re-emergence of inflation - leaving markets at risk of a dovish repricing.
When it comes to the Fed, it’s easy to get hung up on what they should do, and neglect what they actually will do. From an inflation perspective, it’s becoming increasingly clear the central bank needs to raise rates further to quell resurgent price growth. But that’s unlikely. Instead, the risks to government funding costs and mounting pressure on liquidity are likely to tilt the Fed in favor of cutting rates, even as inflation is making an unwelcome return.
This week again draws focus to the greater entanglement of monetary and fiscal policy. The Fed meets on Wednesday, but the Treasury’s QRA (quarterly refinancing announcement) is just as consequential for the path of monetary policy. We found out the Treasury’s borrowing requirements on Monday.
The amounts are eye-watering - $243 billion in 2Q and $847 billion in 3Q - and unthinkable outside a recession only a few years ago. The market is gradually waking up to the Treasury put and the realization the fiscal deficit is unlikely to go back to a non-recessionary norm any time soon. Term premium is rising as lenders demand greater compensation for holding longer-term debt.
The chart below shows a tradeable proxy for term premium - the difference between the 10-year yield and the 1-month OIS rate 10-years forward - that is as high it’s been since the GFC.
Other measures of term premium are also rising. The ACM term premium has gone back into positive territory, while implied measures of term premium based on forecasters’ estimate of the 10-year bill rate are already 150 bps higher than the OIS-based term premium shown above. Even if Treasuries are not as overpriced as this infers, the government still has a problem.
As important for yields as how much the Treasury wants to borrow is how it intends to borrow it. On Wednesday, we will find out the proportion of longer-term versus shorter-term debt (i.e. bills) Treasury expects to issue over the next two quarters.
The increase in bill issuance over the last year or so has been of immense importance to markets. The “Yellen pivot” meant that liquidity lying idle in the RRP could be used by money market funds to buy bills and thus help fund the government.
Without this, there’s a strong likelihood the mass of sovereign issuance would have crowded out other assets, and markets would be considerably weaker. The Treasury thus – implicitly or otherwise – aided the Fed by allowing it to keep rates higher for longer and proceed with quantitative tightening.
Wednesday’s announcement will shed further light on whether the Treasury will stick to its stated aim and not significantly increase coupon (i.e. non-bill) issuance for now. A look at the nominal amounts of coupons and bills issued appears to confirm this has been the case.
But in duration-adjusted terms the picture is already changing. The amount of coupons issued adjusted for duration is rising. That will amplify the move higher in term premium and ultimately jeopardize support for risk assets.
USTs are simply not in high demand at current prices. Foreigners are more wary due to reserve-confiscation risks, or put off by high FX hedging costs; banks have on net been reducing their ownership of USTs as policy has been tightened; multi-asset managers have less need when Treasuries are a poor recession hedge when inflation is elevated, and a poor portfolio hedge when the stock-bond ratio is positive; and the Fed is busy trying to offload its UST inventory.
Households have become the de facto buyer of last resort for Treasuries. But there’s nothing to suppose they’ll be happy to continue to do so at any price. As the chart below shows, consumers’ long-term inflation expectations typically lead term premium. The market’s view of longer-term inflation, i.e. breakevens, is about 150-200 basis points lower than households’ outlook. As the UST buyer of last resort, households will increasingly set the price, one that’s likely to be lower than it is now.
Higher long-term yields will lead to the government having to borrow yet more to pay its spiraling interest-bill on its outstanding debt. But that points to fewer reserves and falling reserve velocity – effectively undoing the work of the Yellen pivot and leaving the stock market in a precarious spot.
The Fed is thus likely to cut rates in a quid pro quo with the Treasury. This would not only help the government fulfill its borrowing requirements at a non-usurious cost, it also helps the Fed with its responsibility for financial stability by taking the pressure off risk assets and reducing the likelihood of a funding squeeze.
Even though such a move would be unwise, it doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Cutting rates before inflation has been snuffed out threatens to intensify structural risks for price growth.
But in the heat of liquidity drying up, funding risks rising, markets on increasingly shaky ground, and the government locked in an issuance doom-loop as its interest costs soar, the Fed is likely to cut rates as an easy first move to ease the pressure — an outcome made even more likely with an election looming.
In the short-to-medium term, it’s hard to see how quantitative tightening isn’t soon tapered or curtailed. But the Fed is unlikely to want to go full tilt into easing again, or engage in yield curve control. That’s why in the longer term some sort of financial repression – where private cash flows are directed into public debt markets – is very likely.
This would be yet another chip in the de facto erosion of Fed independence. In such an environment, gauging the central bank’s next move needs to consider the spending whims of the government as much as the outlook for inflation and unemployment.
