To live without faith, without a patrimony to defend, without a steady struggle for truth – that is not living, but existing.
Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds
-
Site: Mises Institute
-
Site: Zero HedgeNetanyahu Charges Macron With 'Despicable' Support For Hamas As Spat DeepensTyler Durden Thu, 05/15/2025 - 02:45
A new Gaza-related spat is now raging between the leaders of France and Israel, amid new reports that famine is hitting the Palestinian population, which is said to be impacting 500,000 people.
French President Emmanuel Macron has called the military policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "shameful" and "unacceptable" in a fresh interview with a national broadcaster.
"What the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is doing is unacceptable," Macron began in a Gaza segment of the interview. "There is no water, no medicine, the wounded cannot get out, the doctors cannot get in. What he is doing is shameful," he continued.
Via Associated Press
He then interestingly appeared to leverage recent reports saying that Trump-Netanyahu relations have reached a low point, and that the White House is fed up with Bib.
"We need the United States. President Trump has the levers. I have had tough words with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I got angry, but they [Israel] don't depend on us, they depend on American weapons," Macron said.
Macron here seemed to be calling on Washington to essentially put the Netanyahu government in its place, as Trump has sidelined Tel Aviv on everything from the Houthi ceasefire to gaining the freedom of Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander. And more:
"My job is to do everything I can to make it stop," Macron said, adding that the possibility of revisiting the EU trade cooperation agreements with Israel is on the table.
Never one to back down from a diplomatic war of words, Netanyahu hit back on Wednesday, going so far as to say that Macron stands with Hamas.
"Macron has once again chosen to stand with a murderous terrorist organization and echo its despicable propaganda, accusing Israel of blood libels," a statement from the Israeli prime minister's office said.
"Instead of supporting the Western democratic camp fighting the Islamist terrorist organizations and calling for the release of the hostages, Macron is once again demanding that Israel surrender and reward terrorism," the blistering Netanyahu statement added.
The NY Times has issued an alarming report this week which said "Some Israeli military officials have privately concluded that Palestinians in Gaza face widespread starvation unless aid deliveries are restored within weeks, according to three Israeli defense officials familiar with conditions in the enclave."
The report continued by saying "Israeli military officers who monitor humanitarian conditions in Gaza have warned their commanders in recent days that unless the blockade is lifted quickly, many areas of the enclave will likely run out of enough food to meet minimum daily nutritional needs, according to the defense officials."
Shocking statement from French President Macron: Netanyahu’s blocking of aid to Gaza is shameful. • What is happening in Gaza is an unacceptable and horrific humanitarian tragedy that must be stopped. • Pressure must be put on Israel pic.twitter.com/D4efgGNWAu
— Furkan Gözükara (@GozukaraFurkan) May 13, 2025Currently a US-backed aid plan is being worked on, which is said to be 'independent' amid accusations that Hamas has been stealing and reselling inbound aid. Others have accused Israel of blocking it, in pursuit of a total siege policy.
What's clear is that Netanyahu is increasingly in the political hotseat not just at home, but on the international stage as well - where his closest ally the United States has appeared to grow somewhat cool on the previously enthusiastic support and relationship.
-
Site: Zero HedgeYemen Taught Trump Some Lessons That He'd Do Well To Apply Towards UkraineTyler Durden Thu, 05/15/2025 - 02:00
Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,
The lessons from Trump’s Yemeni debacle could inform his future decisions on Ukraine...
Five New York Times (NYT) journalists collaborated to produce a detailed report earlier this week about “Why Trump Suddenly Declared Victory Over the Houthi Militia”. It’s worth reading in full if time permits, but the present piece will summarize and analyze its findings. To begin with, CENTCOM chief General Michael Kurilla proposed an eight- to -10-month campaign for degrading the Houthis’ air defenses before carrying out Israeli-like targeted assassinations, but Trump decided on 30 days instead. That’s important.
The US’ top regional military official already knew how numerous the Houthis’ air defenses were and how long it would take to seriously damage them, which shows that the Pentagon already considered Houthi-controlled North Yemen to be a regional power, while Trump wanted to avoid a protracted war. It’s little wonder then that the US failed to establish air superiority during the first month, which is why it lost several MQ-9 Reaper drones by then and exposed one of its aircraft carriers to continued threats.
The $1 billion in munitions that were expended during that period widened preexisting divisions within the administration over whether this bombing campaign was worth the mounting costs. New Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Caine was concerned that this could drain resources away from the Asia-Pacific. Seeing as how the Trump Administration’s grand strategic goal is to “Pivot (back) to Asia” for more muscularly containing China, this viewpoint was likely decisive in Trump’s final calculations.
Oman reportedly provided the “perfect offramp” for him by proposing to his envoy Steve Witkoff, who was visiting them as part of the US’ nuclear talks with Iran, that the US could stop bombing the Houthis while they’ll stop targeting American ships but not ships that they deem helpful to Israel. This draws attention to that country’s outsized diplomatic role in regional affairs, but it also shows that the US was hitherto unsure of how to end its campaign in a face-saving way despite already realizing that it failed.
Two pathways were considered:
-
ramping up operations for another month, carrying out a “freedom of navigation” exercise, and declaring victory if the Houthis didn’t fire on them;
-
or continuing the campaign while strengthening the capacity of local Yemeni allies to start another offensive in the North.
Both were reportedly scrapped in favor of Trump’s sudden victory announcement after another US jet fell off of an aircraft carrier, a US attack killed dozens of migrants in Yemen, and the Houthis hit Ben Gurion Airport.
Five conclusions can be drawn from the NYT’s report.
For starters, Houthi-controlled North Yemen is already a regional power and has been so for some time, the status of which they achieved despite the Gulf coalition’s previous years-long bombing campaign and ongoing partial blockade. This impressive feat speaks to their resilience and the effectiveness of the strategies that they’ve implemented. North Yemen’s mountainous geography indisputably played a role in this, but it wasn’t the sole factor.
The second conclusion is that Trump’s decision to authorize a very time-limited bombing campaign was therefore doomed from the get-go. He either wasn’t fully informed of the fact that North Yemen had already become a regional power, perhaps due to military officials self-censoring for fear of getting fired if they upset him, or he had ulterior motives in having the US bomb them for only a brief time. In any case, there was no way that the Houthis were going to be destroyed in just several months’ time.
Optics are important for every administration, and Trump’s second one prioritizes them more than any other in recent memory, yet the third conclusion is that he still beat a hasty retreat once the strategic risks started spiraling and the costs began piling up instead of doubling down in defiance. This shows that ego- and legacy-related interests don’t always determine his policy formulations. Its relevance is that no one can therefore say for sure that he won’t cut and run from Ukraine if peace talks collapse.
Building upon the above, the Trump Administration’s acceptance of Oman’s unsolicited proposal that led to the “perfect offramp” shows that it’ll listen to proposals from friendly countries for defusing conflicts in which the US has become embroiled, which could apply towards Ukraine. The three Gulf states that Trump is visiting this week have all played roles in either hosting talks or facilitating exchanges between Russia and Ukraine so it’s possible that they’ll share some peace proposals for breaking the impasse.
And finally, the China factor looms over everything that the US does nowadays, ergo one of the reported reasons why Trump suddenly ended his unsuccessful bombing campaign against the Houthis after being informed by his top brass that it was wasting valuable munitions that would be better sent to Asia. Likewise, Trump might be convinced by similar arguments with regard to the strategic costs of defiantly doubling down in support of Ukraine if peace talks collapse, which the Gulf states might convey to him.
Connecting the lessons from Trump’s Yemeni debacle with his ongoing efforts to end the Ukrainian Conflict, it’s possible that he might at first instinctively double down in support of Ukraine if peace talks collapse only to soon thereafter be dissuaded by his top brass and/or friendly countries. Of course, it would be best for him to simply cut his country’s losses now instead of continuing to add to them, but his increasingly emotional posts about Putin hint that he might blame him and overreact if talks collapse.
It's therefore more important than ever that peace-loving countries which have influence with the US immediately share whatever creative diplomatic proposals they might have in mind for breaking the impasse between Russia and Ukraine.
Trump is creeping towards a Yemeni-like debacle in Ukraine, albeit one with potentially nuclear stakes given Russia’s strategic arsenal, but there’s still time to avert it if the “perfect offramp” appears and he’s convinced that accepting it would assist his “Pivot (back) to Asia”.
-
-
Site: Real Jew News
Won’t Back Down
May 14 2025___________________________________
More Vids!
+BN Vids Archive! HERE!
___________________________________
Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!
Br Nathanael Fnd Is Tax Exempt/EIN 27-2983459
Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, POB 547, Priest River, ID 83856
E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com
Scroll Down For Comments
-
Site: The Unz ReviewWhat passes for International Justice is a sham, propped up by a vocabulary stripped of its original meaning. If ever there was miscarriage of justice, it was the so-called Nuremberg Tribunal. Though it was essentially a kangaroo court, a shameful charade no different from the sessions held by Judge Roy Bean in 19th-century Texas, it...
-
Site: RT - News
The Islamic Republic has reportedly proposed an alternative to Trump’s demand that it halt uranium enrichment
Iran has proposed setting up a joint nuclear enrichment venture with Arab countries and US investment, The New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing four Iranian officials familiar with the matter.
The plan, reportedly presented by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during a meeting with American envoy Steve Witkoff in Oman on Sunday, was intended as an alternative to US President Donald Trump’s demand that Tehran completely dismantle its nuclear facilities.
A spokesman for Witkoff, Eddie Vasquez, denied the report, telling the NYT that a joint venture “was never floated or discussed.” The US and Iran have had no formal diplomatic relations since 1980.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reaffirmed this week that demands for a complete shutdown of the country’s nuclear program were “unacceptable.”
“From our perspective, (uranium) enrichment is something that absolutely must continue, and there’s no room for compromise about that,” Araghchi said earlier this month.
Read moreTrump issues nuclear deal threat to Iran
Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 UN-backed nuclear deal during his first term in office, accusing the Islamic Republic of secretly violating the agreement. Tehran has denied any wrongdoing but has since rolled back its own commitments and increased its stockpile of enriched uranium.
Although both sides described the four rounds of Omani-mediated talks as a positive step, tensions remain as the US and Iran continue to clash over the war in Gaza, as well as attacks on international shipping and on Israel by Yemen’s Houthis.
During his Middle East tour on Tuesday, Trump called Iran the “most destructive force” in the region and insisted that it must never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.
-
Site: The Unz ReviewIntroductory Note I recently read an old pamphlet titled Facts Are Facts by Benjamin Freedman. I felt intrigued enough to research about the author and found a trove of fascinating history. I wrote about one of the Jew practices he discussed to explain Israeli behavior in Gaza “ceasefire” – the Kol Nidre. The pamphlet itself...
-
Site: AntiWar.comOn May 11, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to restart direct negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul. Reuters responded by reminding its readers what happened in the first round of Istanbul talks in the first weeks of the war. The article, entitled “What happened the last time Russia and Ukraine held peace talks?” is a tour … Continue reading "Western Media Continues to Lie About the Ukraine War"
-
Site: AntiWar.comAmong the lesser-known holes in the Constitution cut by the Patriot Act of 2001 was the destruction of the “wall” between federal law enforcement and federal spies. The wall was erected in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which statutorily limited all federal domestic spying to that which was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence … Continue reading "Holes in the Constitution"
-
Site: non veni pacem
-
Site: Zero HedgeAdapt Or Die: Redefining Wargaming For The Age Of Algorithmic WarfareTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 23:25
Authored by S.L. Nelson via RealClearWire (emphasis ours),
Commentary
“Adapt or die.” This isn’t just a cliché; it’s a fundamental truth of human survival. Security—the psychological need for stability and protection—is second only to food and water in Maslow’s hierarchy. War directly threatens this security, so understanding war is essential for preserving peace.
One of the oldest tools for grasping the nature of war is wargaming. It is, in essence, a rehearsal—an intellectual simulation that helps leaders make sense of complex, high-stakes decisions before lives and national resources are on the line. But while its utility has persisted, its form has not evolved fast enough to meet the demands of the modern battlefield.
The Problem With Today’s Wargaming
Wargaming is indispensable, but too often, it’s outdated, misused, or misunderstood. In some defense circles, it functions as little more than a stage for confirmation bias, where senior leaders seek validation for preconceived notions rather than insight into novel threats. Worse, wargames frequently remain trapped in analog formats: players huddle around maps, move tokens, make subjective choices, and imagine the rest.
This traditional model assumes that human decisions lie at the heart of conflict. That remains true. But the battlefield is rapidly changing—and the human element is no longer acting alone. As militaries increasingly rely on uncrewed systems, autonomous platforms, and AI-driven operations, our method of simulating war must evolve accordingly.
To prepare for war in 2030, NATO and its allies cannot afford to rely on wargaming methods from 1980. The urgency of modernizing wargaming is not a choice but a necessity for our collective security.
The Rise of Algorithmic Warfare
Consider this: some forecasts suggest that by the 2030s, one-third of militaries could consist of robotic systems. In Ukraine, drone production is trending toward over 2.5 million units annually. This isn’t speculation—it’s already reshaping how war is fought.
In such a world, the idea of a wargame that exclusively simulates human decision-making is dangerously incomplete. Swarms of autonomous drones executing algorithm-driven tactics change not only the character of war but also the speed, scale, and unpredictability of combat. Abstracting these developments away misses the point entirely. A game without machines is a game divorced from reality.
Critically, decision-making itself is changing. While senior leaders continue to anchor their intuition in past experiences, research shows that overconfidence increases in situations involving more chance and ambiguity. Gut instinct, seasoned though it may be, will not suffice when confronted with system-level interactions between thousands of autonomous platforms and sensors.
Technology as a Catalyst, Not a Crutch
The tools to modernize wargaming already exist. Digital environments can now simulate everything from force placement to logistics flows to legal compliance, with users interacting via natural language, voice, or keyboard. This technological advancement offers a beacon of hope for the future of wargaming, allowing commanders to stress-test strategies in real time and track every decision across a replicable digital thread.
This is not science fiction. It is an underused science fact.
Yet many in the defense establishment cling to narrow definitions of wargaming. A leading DoD-affiliated practitioner recently declared, “If the players or sponsors are better equipped at the end of the wargame to do the things they need to do, then there is value. Nothing else matters.” Another dismissed the importance of outcomes altogether, stating that “wargames are about ideas, not facts.”
That’s a dangerous mindset. Strategy may be rooted in ideas, but execution lives in facts. As Churchill famously warned, “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.”
Toward a New Definition of Wargaming
Commanders’ expectations have evolved, even if the tools haven’t. In 1945, General Eisenhower might have asked his staff for a logistics overlay of the European theater—delivered with pen, paper, and pins. In 2025, General Cavoli might make the same request—but with the expectation of a digital interface offering dynamic updates, AI-enhanced forecasting, and real-time operational feedback.
Unfortunately, EUCOM and NATO commanders still rely too heavily on analog tools. What they need are decision-support systems embedded in the planning process—not adjuncts or afterthoughts.
This calls for a redefinition of wargaming.
A New Definition
Wargaming must be understood not as a parlor game of human strategy but as a rigorous, replicable method of exploring conflict at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. This includes human decisions and system-level interactions conducted in a synthetic digital environment.
A proposed new definition: “Wargames represent human actions and system-level interactions of conflict or competition in a synthetic environment from the strategic to the tactical level.”
This definition bridges the gap between cognition and computation, people and platforms, gut instinct and algorithmic feedback. It accounts for the growing role of autonomy and artificial intelligence without excluding the indispensable human element.
The Stakes
Wargames must evolve not only because they can but because they must. Definitions matter. The current models fall short of providing leaders with the clarity they need to design force structures that are effective, affordable, and aligned with future threats.
Failure to modernize wargaming risks misinforming critical decisions, wasting resources, and, worst of all, misjudging the very nature of the next fight. The stakes are high, and the battlefield of 2030 will not wait for the analog mind to catch up.
To prepare, we must simulate what war has been and what war is becoming.
-
Site: RT - News
Boris Pistorius says the Bundeswehr needs to boost enlistment amid tensions with Russia
Germany may be forced to revive conscription if not enough people join the army voluntarily, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has said.
Berlin abolished conscription in 2011 but has recently considered bringing it back, citing “threats” from Russia. According to the broadcaster N-tv, the Social Democrats and Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democrats agreed in their coalition deal to introduce the so-called “Swedish model,” which combines selective mandatory and voluntary service.
“We have agreed that we will initially rely on voluntarism – a service that is initially voluntary and intended to encourage young people to serve their country,” Pistorius said in an address to the Bundestag on Wednesday.
“And I say this quite deliberately and honestly: the emphasis is also on ‘initially,’ in case we cannot recruit enough volunteers,” he added.
“In the medium and long term, we will strengthen personnel levels to ensure that the Bundeswehr is sustainably positioned for both homeland security and alliance defense,” the minister said.
Read moreBerlin refuses to discuss missile deliveries to Kiev
According to Pistorius, applications for military service increased by more than 20% in the first quarter of 2025. Germany plans to raise the number of active soldiers from 180,000 to over 200,000 by 2031.
Enlistment had previously dropped by 7% in 2023, as the Bundeswehr struggled to attract younger recruits, prompting some politicians to describe the recruitment goals as unrealistic.
Although Germany has supplied Ukraine with heavy weapons, including Leopard 2 tanks, Berlin denies that the country is directly involved in the conflict with Russia. Carsten Breuer, Germany’s top general, told Deutsche Welle in March that the country was living in a “grey zone” between full-scale war and complete peace.
During a visit to Lithuania in January, Pistorius claimed that Russia could prepare its army for a “theoretical attack” on NATO in 2029 or 2030.
Moscow has denied any plans to attack NATO member states and accused Berlin of dangerous escalation after Merz voiced support for supplying Kiev with Taurus long-range cruise missiles. Russia argued that the shipment of such sophisticated weapons would make Germany a de facto direct participant in the conflict.
-
Site: Zero HedgeThe Pandemic Agreement: Surveillance, 'One Health', & A New Industry Of Government Grift
After three years of negotiation, the delegates of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) agreed on the text of the Pandemic Agreement, which now goes for vote at the 78th World Health Assembly (WHA) at the end of May 2025. This text comes after the negotiations were extended for an additional year due to ongoing disagreements about intellectual property and technology transfers (Article 11), access to ‘pandemic-related health products’ (Article 12), and One Health.
After extending the negotiations into a series of last-minute 24-hour sessions in April 2025, a draft was ‘greenlined’ with many countries suggesting that they had gone as far as they could via negotiation, and it was now time to bring it to vote.
There are several interesting elements within the new draft of the Pandemic Agreement. For example, the Pandemic Agreement foresees ‘participating manufacturers’ (yet to be determined) to make 20% of their related pharmaceutical production available to the WHO, half as a donation, and half at ‘affordable prices’ (also to be determined). The expectation is that the WHO and other international partners will pool these and other resources for distribution (in an improved COVAX-like mechanism yet to be determined). In addition, a still relatively undefined ‘Coordinating Financial Mechanism’ (CFM) will be established to support the implementation of both the Pandemic Agreement and the amended International Health Regulations (IHRs), as well as to disburse surge funding to developing countries in the event of a pandemic.
These commitments build on the IHR amendments that come into force in September 2025, which authorise the WHO Director-General to declare a ‘Pandemic Emergency.’ This represents an escalation of the Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), with a ‘Pandemic Emergency’ now representing ‘the highest level of alarm,’ which is meant to trigger a host of national and international responses. The PHEIC has been declared eight times since 2005, including for the ongoing Mpox outbreak in Central Africa, and there remains ambiguity about whether an outbreak like Mpox would now also qualify as a Pandemic Emergency. The Pandemic Agreement also now defines the first somewhat tangible effects of declaring a Pandemic Emergency, although these triggering effects are currently most clear regarding the mobilization of ‘pandemic-relevant health products.’
In general, the text reads as one might expect when diplomats from almost 200 countries spent years negotiating and scrutinising every sentence. Although the United States and Argentina withdrew from these negotiations earlier this year, the document still had to navigate the manifold and often conflicting interests of delegates from Russia and Ukraine, Iran and Israel, India and Pakistan; not to mention members of the Africa Group who largely saw the Pandemic Agreement as a raw deal for Africa (see below). The result is therefore 30 pages full of vague declarations of intent, often qualified by references to the preservation of national sovereignty in an attempt to neutralize opposition. As it stands, the ‘Agreement’ looks primarily of symbolic importance, since a failure to reach an agreement would have been embarrassing for everyone involved.
Yet, it would be churlish not to understand that the Pandemic Agreement consolidates ‘pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response’ as a definitive ‘space’ of global political action, for the purpose of which numerous new institutions and funding streams have already been created. Its potential passage into international law is unusual in global health and represents only the second time such a global health covenant has been created (the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control being the first), with the potential to mobilize substantial resources and policies.
For example, according to estimates by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), expenditure on preparing for future pandemics had already more than quadrupled between 2009 and 2019 before the Covid-19 pandemic unmistakably moved the topic into international ‘high politics.’ In the Agreement, governments pledge to ‘maintain or increase’ this funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response and to support mechanisms for its execution. As reported elsewhere by REPPARE, the requested funds for pandemic preparedness are $31.1 billion a year (for comparison, about 8 times global expenditure on malaria), of which $26.4 billion must come from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), while $10.5 billion in new overseas development assistance (ODA) would need to be raised. Presumably, the WHO’s preferred mechanism for the distribution of this ODA is via the yet-to-be-defined CFM.
Vaccine Equity
The declared guiding principle of the Pandemic Agreement is ‘equity.’ The focus on ‘equity’ is driven largely by the WHO and associated philanthropists, NGOs, scientific advisers, and several LMICs (particularly in Africa), who view a lack of equity, primarily ‘vaccine equity,’ as the main failure of the Covid response. Representatives of poorer countries, but also important donors, have criticised the inequitable access to vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 as a key failure of the Covid response and the reason for increased Covid mortality. This inequitable access has been labelled ‘vaccine nationalism,’ which refers to the stockpiling of Covid vaccines in high-income countries (HICs) during the pandemic, limiting availability to vaccines by LMICs. The World Economic Forum, for example, claims that a fairer distribution of vaccines would have saved over a million lives.
While enough Covid vaccine doses were ordered in Europe to immunise the entire population from infants to the elderly more than three times over, and are now being destroyed, many African countries were denied access. In fact, developing countries only received large quantities of coronavirus vaccines months after richer countries had been ‘fully vaccinated.’ Even after vaccination had been universally available in most HIC countries by summer 2021, under 2% in low-income countries had been vaccinated, many of them with Chinese vaccines that Western countries deemed inferior and thus not qualifying for travel clearance.
The proponents of the Pandemic Agreement do not question the success of universal vaccination despite its limited and rapidly declining protective effect, nor the numerous reported adverse effects. But even if we assume that coronavirus vaccines are safe and effective, global comparisons of vaccination rates remain nonsensical. In HICs, most Covid-19 deaths occurred in people over 80, suggesting the need for context-specific interventions in the case of the most vulnerable.
In most low-income countries (LICs), this risk group comprises only a tiny fraction of the population. For example, the average age in Africa is 19, presenting an entirely different pandemic risk and response profile. In addition, a meta-analysis of blood tests by Bergeri et al. suggests that by mid-2021 most Africans had already had post-infection immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Yet, despite these variables, the manufacturers of the vaccines were encouraged to mass produce vaccines for global rollout, were given emergency authorisation, were released from liability, cashed in on advanced purchasing commitments, and were able to make record profits at the expense of taxpayers.
As reported elsewhere, committing large resources to pandemic preparedness, particularly expensive surveillance, diagnostic, R&D, and the manufacturing of biomedical countermeasures, threatens to produce high opportunity costs since many LMICs must confront other more pressing and destructive disease burdens. This was at least implicitly recognised by many African countries during the Pandemic Agreement negotiations. Many resisted the inclusion of One Health into the Agreement, arguing that it was unaffordable and not a priority within their national strategic health plans.
To paraphrase an African delegate on the INB, ‘We have difficulty doing coordinated surveillance within the health sector, let alone integrated surveillance across sectors.’ This concern not only suggests the need for more locally owned strategies to assure the efficient use of scarce resources, but also the need for strategies that better capture contextualised need to deliver greater effectiveness and true health equity, not just ‘product equity.’
Yet, even if product equity is a desired and justified outcome in particular cases, there is nothing in the Pandemic Agreement that guarantees this, since, in practice,e poor countries without their own production capacities will always be last in line. Although the ‘pathogen access and benefit system’ (PABS) in Article 12 of the Pandemic Agreement seeks to improve product equity, it is reasonable to expect wealthy countries to meet their own demand before making larger quantities available to LICs or the WHO for distribution (leaving it reliant on donations – which proved problematic during COVAX). As a result, it is hard to see what the Pandemic Agreement has improved in this regard, other than the codification of extremely loose normative commitments aiming to improve equitable access to pandemic products – an area on which countries would already broadly agree.
The Pandemic Agreement also calls for more transparency for contracts between countries and manufacturers. This measure is seen as a mechanism that can expose rampant vaccine nationalism and profiteering, albeit only ‘as appropriate’ and ‘in accordance with national regulations.’ Thus, it is questionable whether such flimsy wording would have stopped EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen from fixing billion-dollar deals with the Pfizer CEO through undisclosed text messaging nor stopped other countries from engaging in their own bilateral pre-purchasing and stockpiling activities.
Of course, LMIC negotiators in the INB were aware of all this, which is why the fault line in the Pandemic Agreement negotiations mainly centred on issues of intellectual property and technology transfer. In essence, developing countries do not want to rely on handouts and want to produce vaccines and therapeutics themselves without having to pay expensive licensing fees to the pharmaceutical giants of the North. In contrast, the North has been steadfast in their commitments to intellectual property protections as outlined in TRIPS and TRIPS-Plus, seeing these legal mechanisms as important protections for their pharmaceutical industries.
As a ‘compromise,’ the Pandemic Agreement contains provisions for ‘geographically diversified local production’ of pandemic products and closer international cooperation in research and development, with simplified licensing procedures intended to ensure technology transfer. However, the wording within the Pandemic Agreement is nonspecific and the EU insisted on adding last-minute footnotes to the technology transfer provision to ensure they only take effect ‘as mutually agreed.’ Thus, the Pandemic Agreement looks like the solidification of business as usual.
Surveillance and One Health
Whereas a lack of ‘equity’ is understood by advocates of the Pandemic Agreement as the main failure of the Covid response, a ‘failure of preparedness’ is also seen as allowing the emergence and subsequent global spread of the novel coronavirus in the first place. The goal of eliminating the ‘existential threat’ of emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) is dominant within the policy lexicon, endorsed by the G20 High Level Independent Panel, the World Bank, the WHO, The Elders’ Proposal for Action, and the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. As we have argued elsewhere, these assessments are largely based on weak evidence, problematic methodologies, the use of political eminence over expertise, and simplified modelling, yet they remained unquestionable mainstays within INB negotiations.
In response to future zoonoses, the Pandemic Agreement calls for a ‘One Health’ approach. In principle, One Health reflects the self-evident fact that human, animal, and environmental health are closely connected. Yet, in practice, One Health requires the targeted monitoring of soil, water, domestic animals, and farm animals with the view to identifying possible spillover to humans. As highlighted above, implementing One Health necessitates integrated systems across sectors with sophisticated laboratory capacities, processes, information systems, and trained personnel. As a result, the costs of implementing One Health are estimated by the World Bank to be approximately $11 billion a year, which would be in addition to the $31.1 billion currently estimated as required to finance the IHRs and Pandemic Agreement.
With more laboratories looking for pathogens and their mutations, it is guaranteed that more will be found. Given the current practice of over-securitized knee-jerk risk assessments, it is foreseeable that more discoveries will be deemed ‘high risk,’ even though humans have coexisted with many of these pathogens without major incident for centuries, and even though the risk of geographical spread is low (e.g., reactions to Mpox). The logic of the Pandemic Agreement is that, based on genomic advancements, ‘pandemic-related health products’ can then be quickly developed and distributed via the ‘WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System’ (PABS).
This is disquieting for at least three reasons. First, large resources will be poured into responding to these low-burden potential risks while everyday killers like malaria will continue to receive an underwhelming response. Second, this aspect of the Pandemic Agreement will undoubtedly engross under its own momentum, where new perceptions of threat legitimate ever-more surveillance, which will uncover even more potential threats in a self-perpetuating regress of securitization and over-biomedicalization. Lastly, nowhere in the Pandemic Agreement is there any mention of the fact that dangerous gain-of-function research will continue to be conducted to develop the ‘pandemic benefits’ expected under PABS, although biosafety and biosecurity obligations are mentioned in passing.
This suggests that the risk assessments associated with the Pandemic Agreement are singularly focused on natural zoonosis spillover events, ignoring an area of risk that may have actually been responsible for the worst pandemic in the last 100 years. Thus, the recent Covid-19 pandemic is likely irrelevant to the Pandemic Agreement in terms of pandemic preparation and prevention.
Infodemics
The calamities of the Covid response have eroded trust in the WHO and other public health institutions. This has manifested in a clear scepticism of pandemic preparedness. For example, hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions warning of the WHO’s ‘power grab’ to undermine national sovereignty. These messages arose primarily after the proposed amendments to the IHR started to circulate, which contained original language allowing the WHO to issue binding recommendations to national governments during a pandemic. Ultimately, such plans did not materialise.
The drafters of the Pandemic Agreement have seemingly agreed with such concerns. Article 24.2 states in unusually clear terms: ‘Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the WHO Secretariat, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the national and/or domestic laws, as appropriate, or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.’
In practice, this clause has no effect, as there is no way of arriving at the interpretations Article 24.2 rules out, since the WHO simply does not have legal jurisdiction to force compliance. Regarding non-pharmaceutical measures, the signatories to the Pandemic Agreement merely agree to conduct research into their effectiveness and adherence. This includes not only epidemiology, but also ‘the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement.’
In addition, states agree on taking ‘measures to strengthen science, public health, and pandemic literacy in the population.’ Here, nothing is binding nor specified, leaving sufficient room for countries to determine how and to what degree to deploy non-pharmaceutical measures (for better or worse). It is just putting (again) in writing what States are already doing – an arguably pointless exercise.
That said, references to the behavioural sciences are likely to trigger suspicion from those critical of the WHO. In particular, those concerned about the Covid response remember how behavioural scientists advised the British government to make people feel ‘sufficiently personally threatened’ and how UK Secretary of Health Matt Hancock shared WhatsApp chats about how he planned to ‘deploy’ the announcement of a new variant to ‘frighten the pants off everyone.’ Although it is the job of public health authorities to issue recommendations to guide the public, there are honest and more effective methods of doing so. Otherwise, public perceptions of disingenuousness undermine trust, something advocates of the Pandemic Agreement suggest is crucial for an effective pandemic response.
In some ways, the explicit ruling out of WHO-imposed lockdowns or vaccine mandates is an excellent example of what the WHO calls ‘infodemic management.’ In the WHO’s ‘Managing Epidemics’ handbook, an infodemic is defined as ‘an overabundance of information, accurate or not, in the digital and physical space, accompanying an acute health event such as an outbreak or epidemic.’ Infodemic management also made it into the revised IHR, where “risk communication, including addressing misinformation and disinformation” is defined as a core capacity of public health.
It is understandable that critics of infodemic management understand ‘addressing misinformation’ as a euphemism for censorship, especially given how scientists who spoke against mainstream narratives during Covid were sidelined and ‘cancelled.’ However, the first principle of infodemic management highlighted in ‘Managing Epidemics’ is ‘listening to concerns,’ which the Pandemic Agreement appears to have done by proactively ruling out lockdowns that they could not legally impose anyway. While the ‘zero draft’ three years ago still foresaw countries being expected to ‘tackle’ misinformation, this is now only mentioned in the preamble, where the timely sharing of information is said to prevent the emergence of misinformation.
Nonetheless, the language around infodemics raises several concerns that remain unaddressed and require greater reflection.
First, the criteria by which information is meant to be judged as accurate, and by whom, are unclear. Although this leaves the process undefined, allowing countries to design their own control mechanisms, it also leaves room for abuse. It is entirely feasible that some countries (with WHO support) could silence dissenting views under the guise of infodemic management. It is also not beyond imagination that mission creep will occur, where non-health-related information is also controlled under the pretext of ‘maintaining peace and security’ during a health or other emergency.
Second, there is a serious risk that the poor management of information will exclude good science by accident, undermining overall public health. As witnessed during Covid, messages proclaiming that ‘the science is settled’ proliferated, and were often used to discredit credible science.
Third, there is an underwritten presumption within the logic of infodemics that public health authorities and their affiliates are correct, that policies are always based entirely on the best evidence available, that those policies are free of conflicts of interest, that information from these authorities is never filtered nor distorted, and that people should not expect reason-giving from authorities via immanent critique or self-reflection. Clearly, public health institutions are like any other human institution, subject to the same potential biases and pitfalls.
The Future of Pandemics and This Agreement
Wenham and Potluru from the London School of Economics estimate that the protracted negotiations on the Pandemic Agreement had already cost over $200 million by May 2024. Of course, this is only a fraction of the public expenditure on preparing for hypothetical future pandemics. The amount of ODA that the WHO, World Bank, and G20 have called for annually would correspond to about five to ten times the annual expenditure on combating tuberculosis – a disease that, according to WHO figures, has killed about as many people in the last five years as Covid-19, and at a much lower average age (representing higher years of life lost).
Although the $10.5 billion a year in development aid for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response is unlikely to materialise, even a more cautious increase will come with opportunity costs. Moreover, these financial demands come at an inflection point in global health policy, where development assistance for health (DAH) is under massive pressure from serious stoppages and reductions from the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Japan. Thus, increase in scarcity requires the better use of health financing, not simply more of the same.
Furthermore, as REPPARE has shown, the alarming statements of pandemic risk by the WHO, World Bank, and G20 are not well-grounded in empirical evidence. This means that the entire basis for the Pandemic Agreement is questionable. For example, the World Bank claims millions of annual deaths from zoonotic diseases, although the figure is less than 400,000 per year in the half-century before the Covid-19 pandemic, extrapolated to the current world population, 95% of which is attributable to HIV. The fact that many more new pathogens are being found today than just a few decades ago is not necessarily evidence of an increased risk, but rather the consequence of increased interest in research and, above all, the use of modern diagnostics and reporting processes.
In many ways, the Pandemic Agreement is just a figurehead of a new pandemic industry that has already grown more robust in the last five years. This includes, for example, projects for pathogen surveillance, for which the Pandemic Fund set up at the World Bank in 2021 has already received $2.1 billion in donor commitments while raising almost seven billion for implementation (when additionality is calculated). In 2021, the WHO Pandemic Hub was opened in Berlin, where data and biological material from all over the world are collated as an early warning system for pandemics. In Cape Town, the WHO mRNA hub seeks to promote international technology transfer.
And the 100 Days Mission, driven primarily by the public-private partnership CEPI, aims to ensure that vaccines are available in just 100 days during the next pandemic, which not only requires substantial investment in R&D and production facilities, but also a further speeding up of clinical trials and emergency use authorisation, posing potential risks regarding vaccine safety
To coordinate the complex ecosystem of different pandemic initiatives, the signatories to the Pandemic Agreement will need to develop ‘whole-of-society’ pandemic plans that will presumably be ignored in the event of a real crisis, as happened with the existing plans in 2020. They are further expected to ‘report periodically to the Conference of the Parties, through the Secretariat, on their implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.’ The WHO Secretariat, in turn, publishes ‘guidelines, recommendations and other non-binding measures.’ This suggests that the Pandemic Agreement will set global norms and seek compliance through the usual mechanisms of nudging, naming, and shaming, and through conditionalities imposed by the CFM or through other World Bank development loans. It is in the case of the latter where policy choices designed within the Conference of Parties could become more coercive on low-income countries.
However, the importance of this new global pandemic bureaucracy should also not be overestimated, and the potency of the Pandemic Agreement is not immediately clear. After all, it is just one in a long list of United Nations agreements, only a few of which, such as the Climate Change Conference or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, receive any broader attention. Thus, it is feasible that both the Conference of Parties and Pandemic Agreement will become politically inert.
Nevertheless, what tempers this moderate view is a key similarity between the three aforementioned policy areas. Namely, nuclear proliferation, climate change, and pandemics are all continually presented as an ‘existential threat,’ which drives media coverage, consequent political motivation, and continued investment. In the case of pandemic risk, the official narratives project an apocalyptic vision of ever-increasing pandemics (e.g., every 20 to 50 years), with ever-increasing severity (2.5 million dead per year on average), and ever-increasing economic costs (e.g,. $14 to $21 trillion per pandemic if investments are not made). Therefore, it is to be expected that the Pandemic Agreement will continue to enjoy a status of high politics and increased investment through perpetual fear and vested interests.
Consequently, if the draft Pandemic Agreement is adopted at the 78th WHA and subsequently ratified by the required 60 countries, the key to its potency will be how various legal obligations, governance processes, financial instruments, and ‘partner’ commitments are defined and implemented into policy via the Conference of Parties (COP). In many ways, the drafters of the Agreement merely ‘kicked the can down the road’ regarding the most difficult and contentious disagreements in hopes that future consensus will be found during the COP.
Here, comparisons and contrasts between the Climate COP and Pandemic COP could help to glean some useful insights on how the politics of the Pandemic Agreement might play out.
Both have become industries with significant levels of vested governmental and corporate interest, both use fear to motivate political and fiscal action, and both rely heavily on the natural proclivities of the media to propagate fear and justify states of exception as dominating narratives.
-
Site: Zero HedgeParallel Peace Blitz: New Pope & Trump Are Saying Similar Things As Conflicts RageTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 22:10
The newly installed Pope Leo XIV is making clear that he's preparing to go on a peacekeeping blitz at a moment of several hotspots and major war zones across the globe.
Leo this week quoted the late Pope Francis in denouncing the multiple raging conflicts, from Ukraine to Gaza to Yemen to India-Pakistan to Syria to Sudan to Ethiopia to Libya, saying it was a "third world war in pieces." He's already been making phone calls to Kiev and Gaza.
"I carry in my heart the sufferings of the beloved Ukrainian people," he said. "Let everything possible be done to achieve genuine, just and lasting peace as soon as possible," he added, just ahead of Russia-Ukraine peace talks set for Thursday. President Trump is not expected attend these negotiations in person, despite earlier teasing the idea.
Getty Images
In a fresh message this week, the Pope has also called for the release of all prisoners of war (POWs) and further praised the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, reportedly brokered by President Trump, it should be noted.
“I, too, address the world's great powers by repeating the ever-present call ‘never again war,’” Leo had also said starting Sunday.
President Zelensky has invited the new Pope to visit Ukraine and see the war-ravaged country in person. Currently, the Pope is preparing to travel to Turkey at a later date, to mark the 1,700th anniversary of the First Council of Nicaea (in Asia Minor).
In Wednesday audience remarks, Leo also highlighted the plight of the suffering Christians of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle East.
He acknowledged that that the region's ancient Christian populations have been forced to flee their homelands because of "war and persecution, instability and poverty."
"It was a reference to the exodus of Christians from the Middle East, Iraq and Syria especially, where entire communities have been displaced by years of Islamic extremist violence," The Associated Press writes. "Many of these communities in northern Iraq were some of the oldest of the faith, where the dialects of Aramaic – the language of Jesus – are still spoken."
The newly installed pontiff said he is ready to "help bring enemies together, face to face" as a peacemaker.
"Who better than you can sing a song of hope even amid the abyss of violence?" he declared. "From the Holy Land to Ukraine, from Lebanon to Syria, from the Middle East to Tigray and the Caucasus, how much violence do we see!"
Trump putting the world on notice that the new leadership and alliances will be based on friendship and commerce; “not chaos.” The Saudi Crown Prince with a smile in agreement and appreciation.pic.twitter.com/koZ9MFh0H2
— Based Infidel (@SouthernSwag_) May 13, 2025Interestingly, Trump too has begun to present himself as a 'peacemaker' - and his message to the Middle East this week has been one of 'deal-making, not chaos' - and so the timing of this dual messaging from the Vatican as well as Washington could make for better chances at peace in the various conflict zones. However, it remains that Trump has been in the Gulf overseeing hundreds of billions of dollars in new weapons sales... so there's that.
On Iran, Trump said at a state dinner in Doha to his Qatari hosts on Wednesday, "You’re also working with us very closely, with respect to negotiating a deal with Iran, which is the far friendlier course that you would see."
"I mean, two courses, there’s only two courses. There aren’t three or four or five, there’s two. There’s a friendly and a non-friendly, and non-friendly is a violent course, and I don’t want that. I’ll say it up front. I don’t want that, but they have to get moving," the president added, as he attempts to forge ahead on a new nuclear agreement with Tehran.
-
Site: Zero HedgeEnd Of Ranching In Iconic California Community Signals Bigger War On Land Use In WestTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 21:45
Authored by Beige Luciano-Adams via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
POINT REYES STATION, Calif.—The buffalo milk soft serve here is an open secret, found near the butcher’s counter at the back of the local market. Like everything else in this tiny farm town, nestled in the coastal grasslands about an hour north of San Francisco, it’s made with milk from a nearby dairy.
Cows walk out to pasture after being milked at a dairy in Point Reyes Station, Calif., on June 12, 2007. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
California’s Marin County is a pioneer in organic ranching, known for its gourmet cheeses, multi-generational dairies and pasture-raised beef. The legacy of more than 150 years of agricultural production is baked into its contemporary rural charms, which, along with the nearby Point Reyes National Seashore, make it a popular tourist destination.
It’s also a corner of the country where locals tend to see ranching and environmentalism as symbiotic pursuits.
But after years of conflict among preservationists, ranchers, and the federal government, a recent deal to end most ranching—all of it organic—on the Seashore has incensed locals and revealed a deep chasm between competing visions of environmental stewardship.
The agreement between three environmental groups—the Resource Renewal Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Western Watersheds Project—the National Park Service, and the Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association saw 12 of 14 ranches on Point Reyes agree to cease ranching within 15 months.
On one side, preservationists say cattle and dairy ranching at Point Reyes has led to environmental degradation that threatens the future of the park and biodiversity in the state; on the other, family ranchers see themselves as stewards of the land, their practices as the future of conservation—and as a bulwark against the ravages of Big Ag.
As the Trump administration moves to roll back Biden-era reforms, the high-profile case has become a flashpoint in the broader fight over land use in the West—where the federal government owns nearly half of all public land, and where ranching is considered a living legacy, part of the cultural heritage that built the West itself.
Now, a congressional investigation and two new lawsuits against the park are giving hope to critics of the Point Reyes deal that a policy shift could again be on the table, making the future of the park anything but settled.
What’s at stake, insiders say, is more than the dozen family ranches set to leave the park by next year. The questions Point Reyes raises will determine more than the fate of the National Seashore.
Multiple Use Mandate
While national forests and lands overseen by the Bureau of Land Management have long been governed by a multiple-use mandate, which includes grazing, timber, resource extraction, and recreation, national parks are typically more focused on preservation.
Point Reyes, a spectacularly beautiful coastal peninsula where ranching predates the park itself by a century, is an unusual case—and one bound to attract scrutiny from activists who oppose ranching on public lands.
A cow runs past a corral of cows waiting to be milked at the Kehoe Dairy in Point Reyes Station, Calif., on June 12, 2007. In a landmark January 2025 settlement, most ranching operations within Point Reyes National Seashore are set to end within 15 months, following a long legal battle between environmental groups and ranchers. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
“ I’ve never seen a private grazing lease on public lands that wasn’t doing environmental damage, whether it’s to salmon or to sage grouse, it doesn’t matter what ecosystem you’re in,” said Jeff Miller, a senior conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the organizations that sued the National Park Service over its ranching leases in 2014 and 2022, resulting in the current agreement.
In the West, damage from private cattle grazing leases is “immense,” Miller said, second only to logging. Preservationists cite water pollution, soil erosion, and habitat loss, among other concerns.
The organization has focused on the issue since its founding in 1989, routinely intervening with National Forest and Bureau of Land Management plans and suing over grazing leases in cases where there is explicit and documented environmental damage, Miller said.
Over the past several years, the Biden administration advanced an agenda broadly favorable to conservationists, with national monument expansions and an initiative to conserve 30 percent of the nation’s land and water by 2030, as well as the 2024 Public Lands rule that allows prioritizing conservation above established multiple uses.
The Trump White House has indicated its intent to rescind the Bureau of Land Management’s Public Lands Rule, a move lambasted by environmental groups, who argue the administration is ushering in an era of unrestrained exploitation.
Congressional Republicans contend Biden’s upending of the multiple use doctrine has been a disaster both for rural communities and the country, driving up housing prices in Western cities surrounded by federal land and gutting local economies.
“President Biden left America’s public lands and natural resources in a sorry state,” Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) told the House Natural Resources Committee during a February hearing on restoring multiple use.
“For four long years President Biden and his federal land managers have abandoned the longstanding and previously uncontroversial principle of multiple use. Instead, they adopted top-down, preservationist schemes designed to placate extreme environmentalists.”
In the same hearing, Tim Canterbury, president of the Public Lands Council, an organization representing cattle and sheep producers who hold 22,000 grazing permits across the West, highlighted challenges for ranchers, and urged Congress and federal agencies to recognize public lands ranching as an essential part of the multi-use framework.
“I manage these lands and waters, and the wildlife and multiple uses they sustain, as if they were my own,” Canterbury said. He said the infrastructure, ecological stewardship and investments that ranchers provide benefit the public and environment, not just privately owned livestock.
“My family has managed the lands we utilize since 1879. Our commitment to these lands is baked into our way of life,” Canterbury said of his Colorado ranch operation, adding that “deep historical and ecological knowledge of the working landscape” are handed down through generations.
Point Reyes Lighthouse in Inverness, Calif., on March 16, 2025. Keegan Billings/The Epoch Times
Ivan London, a senior attorney with the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which frequently intervenes pro-bono on behalf of ranchers facing challenges to their grazing permits, said regulatory interpretations may shift with the balance of power in Washington, but the law governing grazing rights hasn’t changed.
“Congress actually said, ‘Here are some priority uses of public land—grazing, timber, harvesting, mineral production.’ And that law hasn’t changed. But from administration to administration the various regulators find ways to read it differently,” London said, pointing to President Bill Clinton’s attempts to increase grazing fees in the 1990s, and President Joe Biden’s embrace of conservation easements.
“According to the Taylor Grazing Act—an actual law, unlike the conservation leases—grazing and ranching are the highest use of public lands,” London said. That regulations allowing conservation leases to “lock up land away from ranchers” might be ending under the Trump administration is “huge,” he said.
The Mountain States Legal Foundation in 2023 successfully intervened on behalf of Wyoming ranchers when the Center for Biological Diversity, the Western Watersheds Project, and other groups alleged that one of the oldest cattle drives in the country threatened grizzly bear populations in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
Recognized as a Traditional Cultural Property on the National Register of Historic Places, the Green River Drift cattle drive is still operated by descendants of families that homesteaded the area in the 19th century.
It’s a familiar narrative, often reduced in court to a zero-sum game between preserving either vulnerable animal or plant species, or prized human cultural practices with histories that pre-date the authority managing the lands.
The families in question, their lawyers argued, cared for the land longer and better than any agency or activist, their continued existence providing “124 years of evidence that ranchers are the real conservationists.”
In other cases, such as Santa Rosa Island—now part of California’s Channel Islands National Park—the outlines of which presaged the fate of Point Reyes, environmental activists have succeeded in bringing nearly a century of ranching to a close.
In 1986, the federal government purchased Vail & Vickers Ranch, run by four generations of cattle ranchers on what was known as “Cowboy Island.” In 1998, the last working island cattle ranch in the United States shuttered for good.
“Cowboys versus environmentalists” is a common tableau throughout the West, with infamous spectacles such as Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s militarized standoff with the federal government.
In Point Reyes, the fight has pitted environmentalist against environmentalist in one of the most liberal enclaves in the country, exposing an existential schism within the conservation movement.
Ranchers Say They Were Pressured
In a protracted battle over the park’s ranch management plan that culminated in lawsuits in 2016 and 2022, both ranchers and the organizations who sued the park service accuse the agency of bias.
After years of studies and thousands of public comments, the park service in 2021 decided to issue 20-year leases, finally following through on a 2012 directive. Environmentalists filed a new lawsuit, ranchers intervened on behalf of the park, and the parties entered private negotiations.
Point Reyes North Beach in Marin County, Calif., on March 16, 2025. Keegan Billings/The Epoch Times
But the settlement, completed just before the Trump administration took office, was celebrated internally among Department of Interior senior staff as a “win” for the department, the park, and for conservation—a “nice one to go out on” in the final hours of the Biden administration, according to emails unearthed in a Freedom of Information Act Request and published on Substack.
“These emails prove they were totally in on it and celebrating this victory against ranching,” said Andrew Giacomini, a San Francisco attorney representing pro-bono more than 60 ranch workers and subtenants who are set to be displaced by the Point Reyes settlement.
Despite apparent neutrality, Giacomini accused the government of conspiring with the conservationist organizations, which brought in a third party to mediate a settlement behind closed doors, all in an effort to push out ranchers.
“They could have defended that lawsuit and won,” Giacomini said. Instead, he alleges, the park service entered secret negotiations, overturned the results of a public process, and kowtowed to a “handful of special interests.”
“It’s exactly as our lawsuit says. The way it was handled violates the law in multiple ways and it can’t stand.”
Even before the case begins moving through the courts, Giacomini said he thinks shifting priorities in the new administration may result in a reversal of the decision to end ranching at Point Reyes.
Miller, of the Center for Biological Diversity, said the idea of any collusion between his organization, fellow plaintiffs, and the park service is “absolute nonsense,” calling the park’s 2014 ranch management plan a “wish list” from the ranchers, developed in secret without input from conservationists or the public.
Particularly egregious to conservationists was a request to cull once-endangered tule elk herds, which compete with cattle for food during periods of drought.
“They rolled this thing out in 2014 and said, ‘Guess what? We’re going to shoot tule elk. We’re going to expand ranches, and we’re going to enshrine private commercial ranching forever in the park.’ That was the park service’s first bite at the apple,” Miller said.
“That is not conservation, that’s collusion with the ranchers, which is what the park service has been doing for half a century.”
The Department of the Interior and its National Park Service did not respond to inquiries.
Miller contends the park service “has never taken an environmental position in their entire history—we’ve had to sue them the entire way.”
The Center for Biological Diversity, he said, will intervene in two new lawsuits against the park: one brought by ranch workers set to be evicted due to the recent settlement, and another brought by remaining ranchers seeking to preserve agricultural use in the park. “We are not going to allow a settlement between them and Trump’s Department of Interior.”
But ranchers say they were pressured to accept the January settlement and keep quiet about the process, which they say was negotiated behind closed doors by The Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit powerhouse that raised a reported $30 million for the buyout. Once ranchers agreed to leave, the Park Service rezoned 16,000 acres of land originally set aside for ranching as a new Scenic Landscape Zone, and handed over management of it to the Conservancy.
In a March letter to the Center for Biological Diversity and other plaintiffs, Republican members of the House Committee on Natural Resources alleged a “lack of transparency surrounding the settlement,” as well as potential environmental and legal consequences. The lawmakers requested extensive discovery information.
Read the rest here...
-
Site: Zero HedgeBuying A John Deere Tractor? Leading Indicators Signal Supply-Side Inflection Point For Used MarketTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 21:20
Goldman analysts point to a bullish supply-side inflection point in the heavy machinery market, emphasizing that shrinking used equipment inventories have historically led to price increases in used machinery within 6–9 months and in new equipment within roughly 12 months. This inflection point suggests that a strategic window to purchase used heavy machinery has likely opened.
Goldman's Jerry Revich and Clay Williams reiterated their "Buy" ratings on Deere (DE), Caterpillar (CAT), and United Rentals (URI), citing a bullish supply-side inflection point in the machinery cycle. According to their Machinery Supply tracker, declining used equipment inventories—a leading indicator—signal tightening supply and a capital stock drawdown for the first time in three years.
Here are the key highlights of the note:
-
Shifts in used equipment inventories lead used values by ~6-9 months, new equipment production by ~12 months, with coincident performance vs. stocks. Jerry makes a purely supply-side call that points to upside beyond the economic cycle; he sees (i) declining capital stock for the first time in three years, (ii) under-production over the past year amid dealer inventory destocking, (iii) estimates that embed full tariff headwinds, and (iv) valuation upside on mid-cycle earnings.
-
Previously in 2016, the used market inflection marked the start of a multi-year recovery in ag equipment demand despite relatively soft farmer incomes. We are now seeing used inventories declining on a year-over-year basis for consecutive months which supports jerry's bullish DE view. Used values have historically been coincident wih DE stock price and histroically lead used equipment values by 6 to 9 months.
Our focus is less on individual names like DE, CAT, and URI and more on the underlying equipment used and new values charted by Goldman analysts, which points to a clear supply-side inflection point in the heavy machinery market.
The analysts show tightening inventories of used construction equipment, with used values appearing to bottom out and begin an upward trend.
"As the inflation environment has normalized, we believe the relationship will revert to past cycles," the analysts said.
Exhibit 17 illustrates the full history of supply imbalances in the heavy machinery market—highlighting how periods of under- and oversupply have consistently driven pricing trends in the secondary market.
Similar dynamics are underway for the used ag equipment market.
Is a 2016-like reversal ahead for the 100 horsepower used tractor market?
Ag used inventories vs Deere dealer inventories...
This insight is particularly valuable for business owners and operators weighing the decision to purchase used or new heavy machinery or ag equipment, offering a clearer view of where prices are likely headed in the quarters ahead.
-
-
Site: Zero HedgeDon't Be A Panican, But Question Government ShenanigansTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 20:05
Authored by Matthew Williams via The Mises Institute,
“Don’t Be A Panican” is a memeable mantra adapted from a Truth Social post released by the President during the market turmoil triggered by the threat of a broad-sweeping tariff policy. While the panican meme is comical and jovial, its sentiment carries a more insidious undertone.
Voting conservatives have given lip service to the classical liberal tenet that a smaller government is the most effective way to run a country—though we will not delve into how this desire fails to manifest in Washington, D.C. Traditionally, conservatives are supposed to question government, support free markets, condemn government overreach, and uphold constitutionalism.
On April 2, 2025—“Liberation Day”—Trump announced a litany of tariffs. However, they were not genuine tariffs but pseudo-tariffs. The calculations relied on the ratio of trade deficits to US imports, producing a falsely-inflated tariff percentage. In response, Trump introduced retaliatory tariffs based on this misleading figure. Critics argued that the tactic was inherently dishonest. Yet, when confronted with this faulty approach, many of President Trump’s most ardent followers retorted, “trust the process” or “it’s going to hurt in the short term”—believing that the ends justify the means.
Tariffs sent the markets into a frenzy. Both Trump and representatives from his administration conveyed conflicting messages about the tariffs’ ultimate purpose. Meanwhile, obsequious conservative think tanks scrambled to justify the policy, often issuing paradoxical interpretations of tariffs as a strategy.
A Euthyphro’s dilemma of sorts emerged. Were tariffs sound policy—capable of paying debt, replacing taxes, and bolstering American exceptionalism—or were they valuable solely because they could be leveraged to bargain for free trade with other nations? Rather than reconciling this dilemma or acknowledging the inherent contradictions, followers and messengers embraced all premises, frequently conflating disparate ideas. The goal was clear: to cast Trump’s decision in a positive light. Even more disheartening was the fact that many of these trusted intellectuals compromised their foundational values, such as the commitment to free trade, in an effort to justify an enigmatic presidential move.
Put bluntly, “Don’t Be A Panican” was less about avoiding panic and more a euphemism for “trust Donald Trump.” This message—emerging from traditionally skeptical conservatives—is particularly troubling given the garbled communications from the Trump administration. There were ample reasons to be skeptical—regardless of the ultimate outcome or one’s political leanings. Unfortunately, this blind trust had already taken root before April 2, and it is not a phenomenon confined solely to the Right.
Don’t Be A Panican: Bias Media and Public Health Figures
Five years ago, a novel virus swept the globe. Covid was a highly-contagious threat, particularly dangerous to high-risk individuals, and it cost over one million American lives. Public health figures urged citizens to confine themselves at home—no visiting family or friends, mask up, and even avoid hiking outdoors. Media outlets broadcast death counters alongside the latest news, and images of people isolated at home—waving from behind windows or hugging through plastic barriers—became ubiquitous. Commercials urging citizens to mask up and do their part to stop the contagion inundated every broadcast, fostering an environment of pervasive fear.
A vaccine was developed in record time and though—sometimes a controversial point—data showed the vaccine safe; its efficacy in containing the spread of the contagion was questionable. Regardless, many companies and institutions pushed mask and vaccine mandates on the public at the discretion of government entities like the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
These mandates were poorly managed and infringed on many American freedoms. Questioners or dissenters were frequently excluded from public discourse, their concerns dismissed without proper debate; in some instances, individuals even faced career-ending repercussions. Worries about vaccine side effects were labeled as “conspiracy theories.” When side effects became public knowledge, there was neither an apology nor an admission of error. Covid policy and response was a complete disaster.
The panican narrative was quite different in this situation. It was the panicans urging the public to blindly trust authorities and the “science,” while non-panicans exercised caution and rejected that narrative.
Non-panicans fervently detested and rejected the technocratic establishment.
Fast forward to 2025, and new faces have supplanted the technocrats in institutions of public health, such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Many non-panicans—once adamantly opposed to bureaucrats lecturing us on health decisions—now welcome these new figures as leaders in public health. Some even call for them to use bureaucratic power to remove additives or unwanted ingredients from foods and baby formula. Such calls are often embellished with justifications like, “They are poisoning us!”—a claim that sounds awfully like an appeal to panic.
In this scenario, there are several reasons to reject—or at least protest—the advocacy for government intervention as a panacea that should be obvious to government minimalists—and non-panicans. First, the idea that government regulations will hold corporations accountable is debatable, as evidence suggests that such measures can instead embolden corporate entities. Second, emboldening the market, by decreasing regulations and bureaucratic controls, to apply pressures on corporations is the orthodox conservative approach. What happened?
Conversely, the panicans have reacted in an entirely opposite manner. Now, it is the panicans telling us to no longer trust the experts—blaming them for measles outbreaks and for wasting taxpayer money on frivolous experiments like investigating a cause for autism. This stance seems excessive and misleading, especially since anti-vaccine sentiments had been on the rise before figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. came to prominence. Ironically, this anti-vaccine trajectory appears largely as a reaction to the panican response during covid. It is bewildering that the covid panicans failed to assume any responsibility for this trend, choosing instead to project blame onto figures like RFK Jr. and Dr. Bhattacharya for the growing movement against established scientific thought.
The polarization surrounding nearly every policy decision leaves one questioning the appropriate course of action.
To Be or Not to Be a Panican
It seems the American public is constantly instructed on when to be—and not to be—a “panican” by the powers that be. While only two scenarios have been outlined above, recent years have presented a plethora of examples: Russian collusion, Biden’s mental health decline, “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor,” etc. The list is extensive.
It is good advice not to be a panican. Panic induces strong emotions of fear and uncertainty, rendering individuals more susceptible to short-sighted solutions that promise comfort or security. Typically, these solutions manifest as government interventionism—leading to rigid legislation and eventual bureaucratic expansion. In the words of V from V for Vendetta, “Fear got the best of you and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor [the government].... Fear became the ultimate tool of this government.”
However, a more troubling message accompanies the panican mantra. Whether one is labeled a panican or not often depends on partisan politics rather than objective analysis. Although panicans are generally associated with the Left and non-panicans with the Right, this alignment is not absolute. Both camps tend to place their trust in government solutions solely based on who is in power—a stance that builds a house on a foundation of sand. At its core, this philosophy assumes that the government will, or is, acting in the best interests of the people.
Demagoguery has become commonplace in political discourse and in approach to policy. This trend sets a dangerous precedent by encouraging the abandonment of the very ideals on which our nation was founded. The Founders believed strongly in rights endowed by an extrinsic, all-powerful Creator, not government. This belief is potent precisely because it shifts power away from a flawed human institution and places it in individual rights, which transcend human authority. Thomas Jefferson famously averred, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.”
On the other hand, President Trump has taken significant steps to reduce government power in some areas through initiatives such as DOGE, executive orders implementing sunsetting legislation, and crackdowns on illegal immigration—actions that support a smaller government framework. These decisions should be lauded, as they position Trump as a champion of reducing government overreach. Trump excels when held accountable and listens to his base—a notable strength—it is all the more important that conservatives uphold their values rather than succumb to populist rhetoric and defenses.
We must remember that America’s values do not originate from those in power but from a set of ideals that exceed human authority. When the administration pursues actions that contradict these values, it is our duty to question and hold them accountable. Excusing or attempting to justify poor policy sets a dangerous precedent. With that being said, don’t be a panican.
-
Site: Public Discourse
The new pope recently explained to his brother cardinals why he took the name Leo XIV:
[It was] mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution. In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defense of human dignity, justice and labour.
May 15 is the anniversary of the 1891 encyclical the new Holy Father referenced. Latin for “Of New Things,” Rerum Novarum is about the rights and conditions of workers that addressed the new social and economic challenges brought about by the Industrial Revolution.
It is hard to overstate Rerum Novarum’s significance and impact. The 1891 encyclical consolidated the response of the Church to the modern world. From the time of the French Revolution, Catholicism was under attack and on the defensive. The motto of the revolutionaries was Diderot’s dictum: “Man will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” The spirit of revolutionary change swept through Europe in the nineteenth century. Waves of violent protest spread across the continent, for example, in 1789, 1815, 1830, 1848, and 1870.
Pope Leo XIII’s pontificate was significant in that he developed a voice for a positive response to the modern revolutionary spirit. Retrieving the intellectual framework of Thomism, Pope Leo issued a series of encyclicals on political power, human liberty, and the power of the state. In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo applied this Thomistic framework to the most pressing social question of the day: what can be done to help the working class?
The modern world gave two answers to the social question. The individualists argued for replacing monarchies and the agrarian economy with modern democratic governments and a modern industrial economy that could produce massive new wealth, feed the hungry, and mass-produce clothing and modern urban dwellings. Drawing on the promise of the Enlightenment, this side proposed that the resources of modern science and technology could be applied to develop a new system of mass production guided by the modern principles of efficiency and effectiveness. But the application of this solution led to new social problems including new forms of urban poverty and a widening gap between the poor working class and those participating in the growing industrial economy. On the other hand, collectivists proposed that helping the working class entailed abolishing the system of property and putting in place state-controlled industrial production.
Pope Leo did not take a side in the debate, but offered the Church a framework in which to view it. Rerum Novarum emerged as the centerpiece of this modern response.
Rerum Novarum was referenced and celebrated by virtually every pope of the twentieth century. Encyclicals and statements revisited the 1891 encyclical, each applying it to their day, including important statements by popes from the 1930s to the 1990s. Its themes also deeply influenced the documents of the Second Vatican Council and spurred the arguments that brought down the Soviet Union and sought to curtail the excesses of consumer capitalism.
When Pope Leo XIII was staring down the Industrial Revolution at the end of the nineteenth century, long-held patterns of work were changing. Amid new wealth, many industries treated workers as expendable commodities. Village life in the old economy was collapsing, and new forms of urban poverty were on the rise. Social life had become highly polarized. A new, materialist culture was emerging, and traditional virtues were increasingly regarded as obsolete.
Since the mid-1990s, I have taught a philosophy seminar called Catholic Social Thought at Saint Louis University, for both undergraduates and graduates; Rerum Novarum is assigned. From my years of experience in returning again and again to this text with such a varied group of students, here are the ten most significant lessons I have learned about this enormously influential Church document.
1. Pope Leo XIII warns the Church about the dangers of an unbridled industrial spirit. The title of the encyclical is subtle. Despite the phrase “Of New Things,” the subject of the first sentence is not new things. Instead, the subject is “the spirit of revolutionary change.” The encyclical begins with a statement about a widespread and familiar modern desire for innovation and novelty. The claim made in the first sentence is that this spirit of revolutionary change has taken hold and spread in the modern world, almost like a cancer. This modern spirit appears in politics as a demand for individual rights, and it becomes libertarian individualism in economics. This revolutionary spirit then shifts into a call for a collective politics and economics.
Pope Leo XIII warns us to be wary about this restless modern spirit. It’s alluring but deceptive, similar to yet perhaps different from the restlessness of heart expressed by Augustine at the beginning of the Confessions (our hearts are restless until they rest in God): this spirit turns its back on both the concrete lives of working people and hard-earned wisdom by flitting always to shiny new things.
2. Rerum Novarum treats the modern spirit as a two-headed monster. The modern spirit referenced in the title, “Of New Things,” is not a unified “new thing:” it is more like a two-headed monster. G. K. Chesterton called the two heads of such a monster “Hudge” and “Gudge.” Gudge is an industrial capitalist; Hudge is a romantic socialist idealist. To solve modern social problems, Gudge looks to big business while Hudge thinks social problems should be solved by big government. Pope Leo XIII did not take sides in this debate, as I explain below.
3. Pope Leo XIII was concerned about the conflict between business and government. Pope Leo, in the encyclical, observes that central to social questions in modern society is a conflict between the priorities of big business and those of big government. The former trusts that anarchic industrialism and unregulated markets make the world better by producing wealth; the other, noticing that many poor people are left out of the circle of exchange, trusts big government to create economic parity. The lover of big business supports a system of sweating and mindless long hours inconsistent with family life while the lover of big government is an idealist who loves humanity but doesn’t care much for particular humans or real-life families.
Leo XIII criticized the modern framework that turns social debates into a dispute between Right and Left. Both views share a modern anthropology, and both are fundamentally flawed in many ways. Leo’s alternative anthropology draws from a synthesis between Sacred Scripture and Greek philosophy. His view, like that of the popes who came after him (and, no doubt, our newest Holy Father), simply cannot be reduced to a dispute between left- and right-leaning ideologies.
4. The structure of the text of Rerum Novarum reveals the argument and the proposal. Many recent discussions ignore the encyclical’s structure, which is essential to understanding its central thesis. The order of presentation is straightforward, with five basic parts. (There is no scholarly critical edition of the text. A recent effort to develop a new English translation of the encyclical was jettisoned; perhaps it will be revived with the new pope taking the name Leo to honor Rerum Novarum.) The available translations differ in paragraph numbering, so references can be confusing. I reference here the online Vatican version.
i) Introduction: The condition of the working class (1-3)
ii) Reasons against the socialist solution (4-15)
iii) The role of the Church (16-31)
iv) The role of the State (32-47)
v) The role of employers and workers (48-62)
Attending to the structure of the encyclical makes it easier to notice that Pope Leo is making an argument against socialism and that he is offering specific, practical advice regarding the distinct responsibilities of the Church, the state, employers, and workers in responding to the day’s pressing social issues.
5. Leo’s arguments against socialism rest on a distinctive understanding of the human person. Pope Leo explains that by exercising intelligence and freedom in work, humans are invited to act as stewards of creation. Some of the arguments rely on subtle, technical Thomistic understandings of justice. The larger point is a defense of private property (properly understood) as stewardship; this is a feature of our freedom and responsibility, with the corollary that ownership is not a claim that one may do whatever one wants with what is one’s own; rather, ownership is a responsibility to care for material goods that are the fruit of human labor. A central purpose of work is to support oneself and one’s family. Right possession is not the same as right use. In a more ultimate sense, the earth is the Lord’s. The human person is thus neither a mere rights-bearing individual nor a mere member of a collective. Any property system that denies this truth of the human person is unjust.
6. The Church has a specific role to play in contemporary society. In the final three sections, Pope Leo outlines his proposed solution to the social question. The role of the Church is distinctive: she should remind both employers and workers that “God has created every human as a person with dignity,” and yet it is foolish to think everyone is equal in every way: “People differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community.”
The Church “aims higher still” by reminding each person that everyone suffers and dies. It is foolish to think one can escape suffering and death, or to think that riches bring freedom from sorrow, or that money can buy eternal happiness. Accordingly, the Church has a distinctive task: “to influence the mind and the heart.” While the Church intervenes directly on behalf of the poor in her corporal works of mercy—feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and burying the dead—she does not have the task of secular political governance.
7. Political governance has a limited but distinctive role. The state’s task differs from that of the Church, though the two roles are complementary. Pope Leo outlines a principle of intervention that prefigures the principle of subsidiarity (as it would be articulated forty years later in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno). “The State must not absorb the individual or the family; both should be allowed free and untrammeled action so far as is consistent with the common good and the interest of others.” The state should allow employers and owners to come to agreements regarding pay, work hours, the conditions of the workplace, and other related matters. But Pope Leo reminds employers that when workers threaten to strike, it is typically because there is some injustice in the pay or the work conditions. Indeed, some situations may justify striking.
8. Pope Leo concludes Rerum Novarum with a detailed discussion of the role of employers and workers. The proposal is rather different from the revolutionary calls of the socialists. Pope Leo proposes not revolution, but a call to employers and workers to form associations “consisting either of workers alone, or of workers and employers together.” Some of these will have the aims of labor unions: to secure reasonable hours, rest periods, humane conditions, health and safety regulations, and a wage sufficient to support a worker and one’s family. Pope Leo also calls for other kinds of associations, including groups that promote interaction between employers and workers, mutual aid societies, organizations that support the young or the elderly, groups that promote intellectual and moral formation, and groups that promote shared participation in worship.
9. The text is concise yet rich. The text of Rerum Novarum is significantly shorter than most recent encyclicals. The argument, especially the complex line of reasoning against socialism, is highly compressed. Several factors account for the brevity of the text. Leo was writing to bishops, unlike the popes who wrote later social encyclicals, which are addressed to all people of goodwill indeed to everyone. Pope Leo presumes his readers are bishops with advanced training in Thomism and an awareness of the social questions dominating the late nineteenth century. Despite the comparative brevity of the text, the 1891 encyclical is rich and layered with insights that have been fruitful beyond the context in which it was written. The text assumes familiarity with many ancient and medieval sources and their nineteenth-century revival, especially in the journal Civiltà Cattolica. Some of the layers have come into better focus through subsequent engagement with Rerum Novarum. For more than a century, it has been discussed and analyzed, with later detailed analyses focusing on almost every section of the text.
10. Rerum Novarum has proven fruitful in practice. Rerum Novarum was far more influential than nearly every subsequent encyclical. At a granular level, it affected industrial policies, and on a broader scale, it changed the culture. Saint John Paul II observed in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”) that during the Industrial Revolution, when consciences and cultures had become callous to the treatment of working people, Pope Leo’s call had an impact on both hearts and policies. By the end of the twentieth century, no one in polite society would say that it is just to treat workers merely as items of cost.
In the domain of work post-Rerum Novarum, while there is widespread cultural acceptance that sweatshops and child labor are bad, the old worries about abuses of human dignity in the industrial economy are being replaced by concerns about the digital economy.
One fruit of Rerum Novarum suitable to our time is the call to form associations. Almost every year, a few of my students respond to Rerum Novarum by taking seriously the challenge to form associations. The long-defunct sodality at our university has been revived. Our university’s Catholic Studies programs are buzzing with social activity. Yet inviting others to join in social associations strikes me as increasingly challenging. For some young people who came of age during the COVID pandemic in a digital world, the call to participate in face-to-face associations may seem threatening. Today, when a tremendous amount of our work and our economy is digitally mediated, we risk treating one another in depersonalized, inhumane ways.
Rerum Novarum ends, appropriately, with a call to practice the virtues, a call that transcends a particular time in history and is always relevant. “The happy results we all long for must be chiefly brought about by the plenteous outpouring of charity.” Love is patient and kind. Love suffers all and endures all. This key Christian virtue will help us resist the alluring spirit of revolutionary, ravenous desire for new things in our AI age and retrieve the distinctions, habits, and practices Pope Leo XIII proposed more than a century ago.
The new Pope Leo XIV faces many challenges, and so does the Church. But my experience teaching Rerum Novarum leaves me hopeful that, just as his namesake did, our new Pope Leo will shepherd the Church through this next great revolution with wisdom, humility, and divine guidance.
-
Site: Zero HedgeTyson Responds To Beef Shortage With "Hard" Push Into Chicken ProductionTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 19:40
Speaking at the BMO Global Farm to Market Conference in New York, Tyson Foods CEO Donnie King said the U.S. cattle industry appears to be in the early stages of a rebuilding cycle, with the national herd size hovering near 70-year lows.
In response to alarmingly low herd levels pushing cattle futures in Chicago to record highs, King noted Tyson plans to ramp up chicken production. Chicken is viewed as an affordable alternative to beef, making it increasingly attractive to cost-conscious consumers.
"We've got more opportunity to grow," King told industry insiders and investors at the market conference, adding the company is looking to work its assets "a little harder."
King said Tyson will expand chicken production to meet growing demand as a more affordable alternative to beef.
The cattle shortage, plus new developments this week of U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins shutting down live cattle, horse, and bison imports from southern border land ports, sent cattle futures in Chicago to fresh record highs earlier this week.
King expects chicken demand to remain robust through the second half of this year into 2026. This will help the U.S. largest meat processor to offset sagging beef profits amid one of the worst cattle shortages in a generation.
King reiterated his call, first mentioned on Monday in an earnings call, about emerging signs ranchers are in the early innings of rebuilding depleted herds. He cautioned that such an effort could take at least two years.
The White House's Rapid Response 47 X account reposted a video from Fox News that interviewed a rancher who warned, "it's going to take time to rebuild" the nation's herd.
5th Generation Cattle Rancher Steve Lucie: I think at this point, we should be all-in on what's happening... We have the lowest beef herd that we've had since 1950 and that's because so many people have gotten out of the industry. If we could've exported more of our beef, I don't… pic.twitter.com/Hmkq30KmYa
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 7, 2025The question on our minds: Will the cattle shortage actually worsen in the second half of the year and into 2026? The rebuilding cycle takes time, which likely means higher beef prices and potential supply constraints—think back to the brief egg shortage.
At ZeroHedge, we're not waiting around to find out.
We've launched a "Rancher-Direct" e-commerce platform to secure access to clean, American-raised beef sourced from independent ranchers across the country.
It's about planning ahead in uncertain times. Relying on multinational supermarket chains for clean, reliable food has become a major issue over the years. The smarter path forward is building direct relationships with local ranchers—knowing where your food comes from and securing that connection before the next supply chain crunch hits.
-
Site: RT - News
Donald Trump has accused the host nation South Africa of persecuting its white minority
The White House National Security Council has instructed US American federal agencies to suspend their preparations for the G20 summit in Johannesburg, as US President Donald Trump continues to accuse South Africa of “genocide,” The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
Citing two people familiar with the matter, WaPo said the move aligns with Trump’s earlier threat to boycott the November meeting over what he called a campaign of persecution against South Africa’s white minority.
Pretoria has drawn international attention since passing a law in January permitting the expropriation of land without compensation – most of which is currently owned by white farmers. South Africa has insisted that the forced redistribution scheme is aimed at addressing the imbalance in ownership that remains from the apartheid era.
Read moreUS welcomes white South African asylum-seekers (VIDEO)
“White farmers are being brutally killed and their land is being confiscated in South Africa and the newspapers and the media [don’t] even talk about it,” Trump told reporters on Monday. He slammed Pretoria’s recent expropriation law and indicated last month that he was not planning to attend the annual G20 meeting.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa rejected the accusations of genocide as a “completely false narrative.” He said that he would like to meet with Trump to “discuss this matter further.”
On Monday, State Department officials welcomed around 50 members of South Africa’s white minority who arrived in the US seeking asylum. Trump has promised to provide safe haven for them and expedite the naturalization process.
-
Site: Zero HedgeUnitedHealth Shares Plunge Continues On Reported DoJ Probe For Medicare FraudTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 19:15
And the hits just keep on coming...
UNH shares are plunging after hours (down 6% and back below $300 for the first time since September 2020) following a report from The Wall Street Journal that, according to people familiar with the matter, the DOJ is investigating UnitedHealth Group for possible criminal Medicare fraud related to its Medicare Advantage business.
While the exact nature of the potential criminal allegations against UnitedHealth is unclear, the people said the federal investigation is focusing on the company’s Medicare Advantage business practices.
The Justice Department’s criminal healthcare fraud unit focuses on crimes such as kickbacks that trigger higher Medicare and Medicare payments.
UnitedHealth’s latest annual securities filing says the company “has been involved or is currently involved in various governmental investigations, audits and reviews,” and flags involved agencies including the Justice Department.
It doesn’t specifically mention the criminal, civil and antitrust probes the Journal has reported.
The probe adds to a list of government inquiries into the company, including investigations of potential antitrust violations and a civil investigation of its Medicare billing practices, including at its doctors offices.
All of this comes as the Trump administration and Congress look to cut federal health spending, a key source of UnitedHealth’s success.
-
Site: Henrymakow.comFreemason science is based on many false assumptions.STEVEN YOUNG'S TOP TEN NUCLEAR HOAXESFUZZY OR DUBIOUS FALLACIES IN FREEMASONIC "SCIENCE"#1 THE APPEAL TO "AUTHORITY" FALLACY: This would include claims such as "Einstein said it" or "Einstein proved it in 1905" which is an appeal to "authority" that ignores the fact that Einstein was really a fake-"scientist". Einstein plagiarized "his" 1905 relativity theory and also included no references in it. This known plagiarism forced the Nobel Committee (nicknamed "the IgNobel Soviet") to award Einstein a Nobel Physics Prize "for his services to theoretical physics and especially for his discovery of the law of the PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT". The top four fake-"scientists" of all time were: Newton, Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Hawking.#2 THE REIFICATION FALLACY: Reification means treating something abstract as if it were concrete. One example of this in Freemasonic "Science" is as follows: "Atoms and molecules are real because we have precise models of them". But, in reality, there is still no evidence that atoms or molecules even exist.#3 CIRCULAR REASONING: One example of this in Freemasonic "Science" would be Brownian Motion, which is essentially the claim: "Atoms cause things to wiggle, so if something wiggles that must be caused by atoms". In reality, it is heat that causes wiggling but Einstein covered that with his folly called "the molecular-kinetic theory of heat". Another example of this in Freemasonic "Science" would be: "Quantum mechanics can only be understood by the smartest people; therefore those who understand quantum mechanics must be the smartest people".#4 HASTY GENERALIZATIONS: A good example of this would be the "Double-Slit Experiment", which only proves that light is a wave. But Freemasonic "Science" extrapolated it to falsely claim: "this proves we have infinite parallel selves in alternative realities and that Schrödinger's Cat in a box can be dead and alive at the same time".Quantum Physics also makes the sensational claim that everything that does not happen must be happening "in other universes". When Freemasonic "Science" claims that the "Double-Slit Experiment" "proves" that "particles can be waves, and waves can be particles", that is actually untrue. In fact, it does not prove that at all.#5 AD HOMINEM ATTACKS: A good example of this might be simply: "That critic of Freemasonic 'Science' is not a credible 'scientist' because he has lost the plot".Steven says the ATOM is a an idol, and that Atomic Physics is therefore a form of idolatry· The atom is a false image or representation of God.· The atom is loved, feared, and admired.· The atom has the ("divine") power to create and destroy worlds.· The atom is structured as a trinity (proton, electron, neutron).· The atom embodies both genders (plus and minus).· The atom hides the reality of the ETHER and helps Freemasonic "Science" to suppress experiments proving that the ether exists, e.g. George Airy's Experiment (1871), or the Sagnac Experiment (1895).· The atom hides the reality of transmutation, whereby one metal can be transmuted to a different kind of metal through the application of heat. Instead, Freemasonic "Science" claims that each metal is a specific type of atom and that you cannot change one type of atom into another type of atom.· The atom hides, or inverts, the reality of ALCHEMY (or maybe the atom was invented for this very purpose in the spirit of the "Age of En-Darken-ment").· Like some "Deus Ex Machina", every tyrannical regime uses the atom to scare people.Freemasonic philosopher Manly-Palmer Hall said: "We are the gods of the atoms that make up ourselves, but we are also the atoms of the gods that make up the universe".The ETHER is symbolized by the Hexagram or Star of Remphan (of the Antichrist State of Israel)
But, the Atom is also symbolized by a quasi-hexagram.STEVEN'S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ATOMIC PHYSICS AND QUANTUM PHYSICS· It is a 20th-century version of Ancient Atomism, or a case of "Ancient Atomism Re-branded".· It is bizarre and illogical, and it makes unverifiable claims.· It fails to prove the existence of the "particles" and "sub-particles" on which it is based, and which it also claims to describe.· For over 100 years, people have been talking about it, but it never yielded any tangible benefit to humanity.· Philosophically, it is rooted in idolatry, materialism, nihilism, and hedonism.· Theoretically, it is riddled with misinterpretation and paradoxes, and can lead to solipsism.· Practically, it has some ability to model energy and matter because wave equations DO work, irrespective of the fact that "particles" and "sub-particles" probably do not exist. At the same time, Freemasonic "Science" also misinterprets waves to be "probability distributions", although they are not that; they are just waves.· It features a lot of fruitless pedagogy and intellectual posturing.· Most Quantum Physics involves using the word "quantum" to bolster something or to make something sound more mystical or magical.· Quantum Physics is often about making a single literal interpretation of an entire statistical distribution.· Quantum Physics is incomplete as a theory and is often (or properly) viewed as a SOFT SCIENCE.LINKSThis 1921 news-clipping urged folks to drink radioactive water.The following link shows how the Rockefeller Death-Care Business buried "radium" and "radioactive" treatments by reusing those words in the nuclear hoaxes, and how this was a clear case of re-branding the good as "bad":US geneticist Hermann Muller was awarded the 1946 Nobel Prize for Medicine for discovering that X-rays can induce mutations. But Muller deliberately LIED when he claimed there was no safe level of radiation exposure, which led to the Linear No-Threshold Model (LNT) or that "there is no safe level of radiation". A press release from his university stated bluntly: "Muller knowingly lied". Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/attack-radiation-geneticists-triggers-furor.Dr Sadao Hattori was a proponent of the hormetic effect of radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis). Dr Kiyohiko Sakamoto showed how low-dose irradiation of the torso was the most effective treatment for malignant lymphoma.So maybe God did not "make a mistake"? Maybe mild radiation was designed with a beneficial purpose in mind?---------------- -
Site: Zero HedgeWhere Americans WorkTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 18:50
Five years ago, the Covid-19 pandemic marked a dramatic shift in workplace dynamics, as working from home suddenly became the norm for millions of workers in the United States and across the globe.
This transformation offered employees newfound flexibility, enabling them to manage their time more effectively, eliminate commutes, facilitate childcare and often achieve a better work-life balance.
Remote work also allowed for a customized work environment, fostering comfort and productivity for many.
However, as Statista's Felix Richter notes, traditional office settings continue to hold unique advantages, which is why more and more employers have started to call their workers back to offices for most days of the week.
Offices facilitate in-person collaboration, spontaneous brainstorming and social interaction, all of which are challenging to replicate virtually.
Additionally, the structured environment of an office can provide clearer boundaries between work and personal life, reducing distractions and helping employees switch off when at home.
In many cases, hybrid models combining the benefits of both setups have emerged, catering to diverse employee preferences and living situations and striking a balance between the benefits and disadvantages of both working from home and in the office.
You will find more infographics at Statista
According to Statista Consumer Insights, 1 in 5 American employees currently work from home regularly, while 40 percent of respondents regularly work in a company office.
-
Site: LifeNews
Today, the Justice for Victims of Abortion Drug Dealers Act (HB 575) and the Stop Coerced Abortion Act (HB 425) passed through the Louisiana House of Representatives.
LifeNews is on TruthSocial. Please follow us here.
HB 575 by Reps. Lauren Ventrella and Julie Emerson empowers Louisiana citizens harmed by abortion to file lawsuits against abortion drug dealers who unlawfully sell abortion services, including predators and abusers.
HB 425 by Rep. Josh Carlson broadens the current definition of coercion in RS: 87:6 to encompass tactics often employed by abusers, like control or intimidation, that force a woman to undergo an abortion against her will.
HB 575 and HB 425 passed on Louisiana Right to Life’s Pro-Life Day at the State Capitol where Pregnancy Resource Centers from across Louisiana came to lobby legislators and show their support for life.
Communications Director for Louisiana Right to Life Sarah Zagorski said the following about the success in the House of Representatives:
HB 575 is an opportunity for restorative justice for women and families that are victims of abortion drug trafficking. It will ensure that victims have civil recourse after being harmed by the abortion industry.
HB 425 broadens Louisiana’s abortion coercion statue to encompass tactics often employed by abusers, like control or intimidation, that force a woman to undergo an abortion against her will.
Louisiana Right to Life is committed to a future where women and girls are safe from the predatory tactics of the abortion industry and can pursue justice for themselves and their families.
The post Louisiana House Passes Two Pro-Life Bills to Save Babies, Help Women appeared first on LifeNews.com.
-
Site: Zero Hedge"Rogue" Devices Found Hidden In Chinese Solar Panels Could "Destroy The Grid"Tyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 18:25
Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,
Undisclosed communication devices reportedly discovered in Chinese-manufactured solar panels and related equipment have sparked concerns among U.S. officials about the vulnerability of the nation’s power grid, according to a Reuters report.
These “rogue” devices, found over the past nine months, could potentially destabilize energy infrastructure and trigger widespread blackouts, sources familiar with the matter told the outlet.
The undocumented devices, including cellular radios, were identified in solar power inverters, batteries, electric vehicle chargers, and heat pumps produced by several Chinese suppliers.
BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) May 14, 2025
The U.S. has found Trojan horse communication devices in Chinese-made solar power inverters. They are used to connect solar panels to electricity grids.
The devices could be turned out remotely to destabilize energy grids, potentially leading to massive blackouts like… pic.twitter.com/mShdpVD4oDU.S. experts uncovered the components during security inspections of renewable energy equipment, prompting a reevaluation of the risks posed by these products.
Inverters, critical for connecting solar panels and wind turbines to the power grid, are predominantly manufactured in China, amplifying concerns about their security.
“We know that China believes there is value in placing at least some elements of our core infrastructure at risk of destruction or disruption,” said Mike Rogers, former director of the U.S. National Security Agency.
“I think that the Chinese are, in part, hoping that the widespread use of inverters limits the options that the West has to deal with the security issue,” Roger’s further urged.
Experts warn that these rogue devices could bypass firewalls, allowing remote manipulation of inverter settings or even complete shutdowns.
Such actions could disrupt power grids, damage energy infrastructure, and cause blackouts.
“That effectively means there is a built-in way to physically destroy the grid,” another source told Reuters.
The discovery adds to long-standing warnings from energy and security experts about the risks of relying on Chinese-made green energy products.
* * *
On Sale! Grab a complete 2-day emergency survival backpack at ZH Store
Click pic... add to cart (one for each car & your go-bag storage)... be more prepared. Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.
Concerns over espionage and sabotage have grown as the U.S. continues to integrate these technologies into its energy systems.
In December 2023, Republican officials, including former Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher and then-Senator Marco Rubio, urged Duke Energy to discontinue using Chinese-manufactured CATL batteries at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, citing surveillance risks.
“Directly following our inquiry, Duke disconnected the Chinese-manufactured systems from the grid,” Gallagher and Rubio stated in a February 2024 press release.
“Others that continue to work with CATL, and other companies under the control of the CCP, should take note,” they added.
The Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledged the issue, with a spokesperson telling Reuters that the department continuously assesses risks associated with new technologies.
“While this functionality may not have malicious intent, it is critical for those procuring to have a full understanding of the capabilities of the products received,” the spokesperson said.
The DOE is working to strengthen domestic supply chains and improve transparency through initiatives like the “Software Bill of Materials,” which inventories all components in software applications.
A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington rejected the allegations, stating, “We oppose the generalisation [sic] of the concept of national security, distorting and smearing China’s infrastructure achievements.”
* * *
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
-
Site: LifeNews
The House Energy and Commerce Committee has passed the reconciliation bill that Republicans plan to advance in Congress to cut the massive size of the federal government.
The good news for pro-life Americans is that the measure includes language to defund Planned Parenthood and Big Abortion. The abortion giant just announced that it killed over 420,000 babies in aboritons in its most recent year and mamade over $2 billion.
There were several amendments by pro-abortion Demcorats to take out the pro-life language in that committee. They all failed.
Nearly all committee Republicans voted against an amendment brought by pro-abortion Democrat Rep. Lizzie Fletcher to strike the language that would prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funds, even through Medicaid payments. Republican Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Gabe Evans did not vote on the amendment.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a leading pro-life group, celebrated the news.
“We congratulate Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie and House GOP allies for their hard work on a budget that serves moms, babies and taxpayers alike. SBA will proudly score in favor of this ‘one big beautiful bill’ that includes the vital priority of stopping forced funding of the abortion industry. To no one’s surprise, pro-abortion Democrats peddled lies and ran cover for abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood,” the group told LifeNews.
“Their taxpayer funding increased almost $100 million in one year, hitting $792.2 million in 2023, as health care like pap smears and breast exams plummeted – all while ending a record 402,230 babies’ lives,” it added. “We applaud pro-life congresswomen Harshbarger, Houchin, Fedorchak and Lee for speaking out during the debate to set the record straight and defeat a Democrat amendment that would have kept funneling money to Big Abortion. The Big Abortion industry is focused on profits, politics and lawfare, not providing quality services for low-income women in a safe environment. Patients are far better off going to community health centers that outnumber Planned Parenthood 15:1, where Medicaid recipients among others can get much more comprehensive care.”
The reconciliation bill now moves to the House Budget Committee to be combined with bills from the other House committees before going to the House floor. A Friday vote in the committee is expected and then a vote in the House Rules Committee prior to the floor vote, which is expected next week.
After House passage, it will go to the Senate for consideration.
Last week, a few Republicans in the House and Senate expressed their reservations about defunding Planned Parenthood within the budget bill. Asked about that, President Donald Trump expressed confidence that Republicans will resolve internal disagreements to advance legislation defunding Planned Parenthood.
“I don’t know yet. I have to see because you’re just telling me that for the first time, we’ll work something out,” Trump said in response.
The reconciliation process, which allows legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority, offers Republicans a rare opportunity to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business. Pro-life groups argue that taxpayer dollars, even if not directly funding abortions, indirectly subsidize Planned Parenthood’s operations, which include killing over 390,000 babies every year.
Pro-life advocates emphasize that community health centers, which outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics and provide comprehensive care without abortions, can absorb patients if funding is redirected.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch pro-life advocate, has signaled that defunding “big abortion” is a priority in the reconciliation bill, which also addresses Trump’s agenda on taxes, border security, and energy.
The Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal funds from directly paying for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. However, Planned Parenthood receives approximately $700 million annually through Medicaid reimbursements and Title X grants. Pro-life leaders argue this funding frees up resources for Planned Parenthood’s abortion operations.
The reconciliation bill, which allows legislation to pass with a simple majority in both chambers, is seen as a critical opportunity to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business. The abortion company received nearly $700 million in taxpayer funds in its 2022-2023 fiscal year, killing 392,715 babies in abortions, according to its annual report.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) wants the big budget reconciliation plan extending President Donald Trump’s tax cuts sent to his desk — ready for signature — by July 4. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) would like it even sooner: Memorial Day.
Meanwhile, Representative Mary Miller (R-Ill.) is waging a fierce campaign among her Republican colleagues to make defunding Planned Parenthood a non-negotiable piece of the final proposal.
Miller sent a passionate letter to Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, obtained by Breitbart News. In it, she urged Guthrie to “use every legislative option available to cease all federal funds going to Planned Parenthood,” exposing the organization’s deep entanglement in abortion and transgender treatments. “Abortions and transgender treatments have exploded in clinics across the country,” she wrote.
Citing the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Miller highlighted that “abortions made up 97.1% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services from 2021-2022, performing nearly 400,000 abortions.” She also underscored the crisis in her home state, noting, “In 2023, my home state of Illinois performed 72,143 abortions, the most in our history since the state started reporting abortion totals in 1973.” Miller laid bare Planned Parenthood’s financial empire, stating, “Due to a lack of decisive Congressional action, Planned Parenthood has become a federally funded health network with private assets valued at $2.5 billion. Recent numbers show that Planned Parenthood received nearly $700 million in taxpayer revenue from 2022-2023.”
Her letter concluded with a call to action: “It is essential that we protect taxpayer dollars and stop funding this organization. President Trump has already issued an Executive Order that implements such a plan. Therefore, I urge you to do everything possible to ensure Planned Parenthood never receives another penny of taxpayer dollars.”
Speaking to Breitbart, Miller doubled down, declaring, “Planned Parenthood is a multi-billion-dollar abortion business that continues to receive millions in federal funding.” She praised Trump’s leadership, stating, “President Trump had it right when he issued an Executive Order to cut off taxpayer dollars from abortion providers like Planned Parenthood,” and insisted, “it’s time for Congress to make that policy permanent. I urge the Energy and Commerce Committee to ensure that not another dime of American tax dollars goes to this murder-for-profit organization.”
The post House Committee Passes Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on LifeNews.com.
-
Site: Zero HedgeLiving Near Golf Courses May Double Parkinson's Risk, Study FindsTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 17:40
Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Residents living within one mile of golf courses may face more than double the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease compared to those living farther away, according to new research.
Potentially Due to Groundwater Contamination
The case-control study, recently published in JAMA Network Open, analyzed data from more than 400 residents living with Parkinson’s and more than 5,000 matched controls across southern Minnesota and western Wisconsin, from 1991 to 2015.
DG FotoStock/Shutterstock
Researchers looked at how close the individuals lived to golf courses and whether their drinking water came from groundwater sources, especially in regions vulnerable to groundwater contamination from pesticide or herbicide use.
The findings showed that those living within one mile of a golf course had more than twice the odds of developing Parkinson’s compared to those living more than six miles away.
The study also found that residents whose tap water was supplied from groundwater sources, particularly in regions prone to groundwater pollution, faced nearly twice the risk of developing Parkinson’s if their water source was near a golf course.
While the study did not measure the type of pesticides used at the golf courses, the authors wrote that studies have linked pesticides used to treat golf courses with the development of Parkinson’s. Examples of pesticides include chlorpyrifos, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), Mancozeb, and so on.
Pesticides have been linked to nerve cell damage associated with Parkinson’s, yet are still commonly applied to golf courses to keep turf healthy and aesthetically pleasing.
These can enter the environment through runoff or groundwater contamination, which could leach into underground water supplies, according to researchers.
Parkinson’s is a progressive and currently has no cure. Risk of developing the degenerative condition increases with age, and most patients are diagnosed when older than 50.
Dr. M. Maral Mouradian, distinguished professor of neurology and director of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Institute for Neurological Therapeutics, and not involved in the study, told The Epoch Times that the study adds to growing evidence that environmental exposures may play a role in the disease’s development.
An unrelated 2020 study identified a cluster of Parkinson’s cases in a golf community. According to this group of researchers, golf courses may use more pesticides per acre than are used in agriculture.
This can be due to golf courses striving for a visually appealing, uniform appearance that can be achieved using large amounts of pesticides to control weeds, insects, and diseases that could compromise this look.
“We were contacted by a golf community of approximately 2200 people because of a concern that PD was unusually prevalent in their community,” wrote the researchers of the 2020 study.
They discovered that among the multiple pesticides used on the golf course, there were three previously linked with Parkinson’s risk: Mancozeb, 2,4-D, and manganese oxide.
Significant Limitations of the Study: Expert
Independent experts, not involved in the study, urge caution over interpreting the results.
Dr. Michael Genovese, physician and chief medical adviser at Ascendant New York, told The Epoch Times that researchers didn’t directly measure pesticide exposure, such as testing people’s blood or checking the water for chemicals.
“That means we cannot say pesticides caused the increase in Parkinson’s,” he said. “We can say that the results are very suspicious and match what other research has shown about pesticides being harmful to the brain.”
Professor David Dexter, director of research at Parkinson’s UK, explained other significant limitations of the JAMA study in a statement.
“Firstly, Parkinson’s starts in the brain 10-15 years before diagnosis, and the study didn’t only use subjects who permanently lived in the area,” he said. “This would not only affect participants’ exposure, but also suggests their Parkinson’s could have started before they moved around a golf course.”
Additionally, the population was not matched for location, with 80 percent of the Parkinson’s subjects living in urban areas, compared to only 30 percent of controls. Dexter continued, “Hence other factors like air pollution from motor vehicles, etc. could also account for some of the increases in Parkinson’s incidence.”
Genovese said this study should still be considered a “wake-up call,” even if it does not offer absolute proof. “The pattern it shows is tough to ignore.”
-
Site: southern orders
My interpretation of Pope Leo’s liturgical remarks to the Eastern Churches is that in no way should Latin Rite bishops try to persuade Eastern Rite Catholics to embrace the Latin Rite liturgies.Implied in this, is that the integrity of the ancient liturgical traditions of the east be maintained and not corrupted by Latin Rite ideologies concerning the liturgies of the Church in the wake of Vatican II. Post Vatican II Latin Rite corruptions should not be foisted on the Eastern Rites of the Church!
But let’s look at what has happened to the pristine heritage of the Latin Rite Liturgies of the Church in the wake of Vatican II led by liturgists who wanted to dismantle our heritage altogether.
We have dragged into it not only Eastern Rite/Orthodox traditions, but also Protestant traditions inimical to our own rite!
Let’s talk about Chant!
The Latin Rite’s chant treasury is Gregorian Chant, plain and complex, as well as, Polyphony. Vatican II asked that it be maintained.
About 98% of Catholics in the post-Vatican II era have no clue as to our patrimony of Gregorian Chant or Polyphony. Why?
Because we have dragged into the Latin Rite, Protestant music and their chants like Anglican and Lutheran, if chants are used. Sometimes even the manner of eastern chants. We no longer mandate that in the Sung Mass, the Propers be chanted in Gregorian Chant, plain or complex. In fact the Propers are no longer required and thus Protestant hymns with their saccharine Protestant sounds are used, like “How Great Thou Art”, Amazing Grace, and Just a Closer Walk with Thee.” Often the theology of these songs are Protestant too. But other hymns, even devotional Catholic hymns, substitute the Propers which should be sung in Gregorian Chant!
Or, we use Kitschy new songs created by modern liturgical musicians who make mega bucks over constantly trying to keep Catholic parishes up to date with current trends. Their hymns sound like Broadway ditties!
We also rely upon non-denominational worship and praise music, thus forming young Catholic to leave our tradition for the fleetingly trendy, superficial and energetic non-denominational worship.
We have dragged icons from the East into our churches.
We have dragged Protestant fellowship into the Mass, with chatty celebrants, friendly, welcoming and smiling and their facing the congregation to emphasize them, not God. And congregations are encouraged to be chatty in the church before and after Mass and exude fellowship, hospitality and charm during Mass especially at the Kiss of Peace.
Pope Leo, please help us to purify our Latin Rite Mass of all these corrupting influences in our rite and get back to our heritage by getting rid of Eastern Rite, Protestant and Non-denominational corruptions!
-
Site: Zero HedgePutin Says Ukraine 'Catching Men Like Dogs' On The StreetTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 17:20
Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the Ukrainian military's severe manpower crisis in a very blunt and sarcastic way, following well over three years of what has become a grinding war of attrition for both sides.
Ukrainian recruitment officials have been rounding up would-be soldiers "like dogs" in the country's streets, the Russian leader said. He made the remarks in a Tuesday meeting with members of 'Business Russia' in which he by contrast praised the steady influx of volunteers Russia's army has seen.
Getty Images
"While the Kiev authorities are engaged in forced mobilization – people are caught like dogs on the street, then our guys go voluntarily, they go themselves… They are catching 30 thousand people there now, and we have 50-60 thousand a month enlisting willingly," Putin said, according to state media translation.
However, Western intelligence sources would beg to differ. They have long claimed that Russia too is suffering significant manpower shortages, and that this was on display early in the war by the prominence of Wagner and other mercenary firms on the battlefield, as well as controversial tactics like recruiting straight from prisons. But all analysts agree that Ukraine's problems are far more acute at this point.
Ukraine's manpower problems have never been a secret, and over the last year coverage has picked up in American mainstream press. Kiev's general mobilization policies which have been in effect since 2022 have included a controversial law banning men who are between 18 and 60 years old from leaving the country
Endless videos have also circulated showing brutal tactics of recruitment officers - from grabbing young men from their cars at checkpoints to tackling people in the streets and shoving them into vans.
For example, Hungarian channel M1-Hirado recently ran a special news segment compiling terrifying footage of Ukrainians being beaten and shoved into vans in forced mobilization operations.
There remains deep fear over being sent off to Ukrainian boot camp given the likelihood of quickly being shipped off to he front lines. Most Ukrainians have come to see this as essentially a death sentence.
We detailed before that to make up for recruitment shortfalls, authorities from the so-called Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TCK) are using increasingly aggressive methods to meet monthly draft quotas.
After morning briefings, officers split into teams and search various locations around the city – cafes, restaurants, and even nightclubs – for men eligible for military service.
-
Site: ChurchPOP
The month of May is a special time in the Catholic Church because it is dedicated to Mother Mary!
Special devotion to Mary has been part of Catholic tradition for centuries, and the month of May serves as a time for us to honor and show our love for the Blessed Mother.
Here are 7 Ways to Honor Mother Mary during the Month of May:
Caroline Perkins, ChurchPOP
1) Make a Marian Shrine
Set up a special place in your home, dorm, office, etc., in honor of our Blessed Mother! All you need is a statue or image of the Virgin Mary. Consider gifting her with a vase of fresh flowers, and take the time to visit this special place during your prayer routine.
It can be as extravagant or as simple as you feel called to do.
2) Plant a Marian Garden
Spring has sprung! Plant a garden dedicated to Our Lady. If you don’t have the space to do so, consider keeping a vase of fresh flowers in your home or gift a bouquet to the Marian shrine at your parish.
Caroline Perkins, ChurchPOP
3) Pray the Rosary Daily
Our Lady instructed us to pray the Rosary every day. If you don’t do so already, make this a habit during the month of Mary specifically. You will be amazed by the graces that come forth from doing so!
4) Learn about Marian Apparitions
What is your favorite Marian apparition? Is there an apparition of Our Lady you’ve been wanting to learn more about? Consider this the perfect time to do so!
Caroline Perkins, ChurchPOP
5) Have a Go-To Marian Prayer
There are various Marian prayers we can turn to as Catholics. Having one that resonates with your season in life–whether it’s the Hail Mary, Memorare, or a simple, “Mary, Mother of Jesus, be a Mother to Me Now,” is a game changer.
6) Pray the Seven Sorrows of Mary Rosary
Our Lady promised special graces for those who honor her Seven Sorrows.
You can find our guide for praying the Seven Sorrows Rosary on our website here.
Caroline Perkins, ChurchPOP
7) Complete a Marian Consecration
Through consecration of oneself to Mary, we acknowledge her role as the Mother of Our Lord and entrust our intentions to her intercession. We believe that she hand-delivers our prayers to her most Holy Son. We worship God more fully by honoring His Mother!
There is a full guide to Marian Consecration on our website here.
Through prayers, devotions, and acts of love and service, we can deepen our relationship with Mary and better follow her example of faith, obedience, and love.May this month of dedication to Mary inspire us to grow in faith and seek her intercession in all our needs!
-
Site: ChurchPOP
The month of May is a special time in the Catholic Church because it is dedicated to Mother Mary!
Special devotion to Mary has been part of Catholic tradition for centuries, and the month of May serves as a time for us to honor and show our love for the Blessed Mother.
Here are 7 Ways to Honor Mother Mary during the Month of May:
Caroline Perkins, ChurchPOP
1) Make a Marian Shrine
Set up a special place in your home, dorm, office, etc., in honor of our Blessed Mother! All you need is a statue or image of the Virgin Mary. Consider gifting her with a vase of fresh flowers, and take the time to visit this special place during your prayer routine.
It can be as extravagant or as simple as you feel called to do.
2) Plant a Marian Garden
Spring has sprung! Plant a garden dedicated to Our Lady. If you don’t have the space to do so, consider keeping a vase of fresh flowers in your home or gift a bouquet to the Marian shrine at your parish.
Caroline Perkins, ChurchPOP
3) Pray the Rosary Daily
Our Lady instructed us to pray the Rosary every day. If you don’t do so already, make this a habit during the month of Mary specifically. You will be amazed by the graces that come forth from doing so!
4) Learn about Marian Apparitions
What is your favorite Marian apparition? Is there an apparition of Our Lady you’ve been wanting to learn more about? Consider this the perfect time to do so!
Caroline Perkins, ChurchPOP
5) Have a Go-To Marian Prayer
There are various Marian prayers we can turn to as Catholics. Having one that resonates with your season in life–whether it’s the Hail Mary, Memorare, or a simple, “Mary, Mother of Jesus, be a Mother to Me Now,” is a game changer.
6) Pray the Seven Sorrows of Mary Rosary
Our Lady promised special graces for those who honor her Seven Sorrows.
You can find our guide for praying the Seven Sorrows Rosary on our website here.
Caroline Perkins, ChurchPOP
7) Complete a Marian Consecration
Through consecration of oneself to Mary, we acknowledge her role as the Mother of Our Lord and entrust our intentions to her intercession. We believe that she hand-delivers our prayers to her most Holy Son. We worship God more fully by honoring His Mother!
There is a full guide to Marian Consecration on our website here.
Through prayers, devotions, and acts of love and service, we can deepen our relationship with Mary and better follow her example of faith, obedience, and love.May this month of dedication to Mary inspire us to grow in faith and seek her intercession in all our needs!
-
Site: Zero HedgeOut Of Chaos, A New World OrderTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 17:00
Authored by Allan Feifer via AmericanThinker.com,
Watching President Trump speaking from Saudi Arabia, I almost felt sorry for a moment for our enemies. They must ponder how to stay relevant as the world seemingly metamorphizes before them, powerless to stop the transformation. In his speech, the President said something so powerful yet unconventional that I had to stop and consider why he was the first leader of our country to say it:
Before our eyes, a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts and tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other.
Commerce is a recurring theme for Trump. His detractors miss the significance of exactly why commerce is so central to Trump’s vision of world peace and why he does not believe in “forever” enemies. I admit that Trump’s beliefs are unconventional for many, including myself.
Trump sees Russia, North Korea, China, and a great many nations and people as future participants in a world of commerce. At the same time, Trump views some nations, traditionally considered friends, as potential adversaries and impediments to such a change in posture. It’s a lot to take in.
In essence, Trump’s vision can be seen as a balance between stakeholder interests and dogma. I admit millions of us are heavily invested in dogma, including myself. Dogma is generally thought of as:
-
A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith set forth authoritatively by a religion.
-
A principle or statement of ideas, or a group of such principles or statements, especially when considered authoritative or uncritically accepted.
-
That which is held as an opinion, a tenet, a doctrine.
Trump sees dogma as static thinking that sees us imprisoned in a cage of a single acceptable outcome, based not on logic but on past decision matrices that have worked at one time or another, but are not readily transferable to the current challenges. The world economy is on a path to bankruptcy, with almost no country putting debt management first. We reflexively return to the old solutions rather than look for an entirely new Rosetta Stone.
At American Thinker, Thomas Kolbe wrote:
In the first quarter of this year, global debt surged to a record high of $324 trillion. This milestone becomes significant when compared to global GDP, which currently hovers around $110 trillion. Governments worldwide now owe 100% of GDP -- an alarming reality, as no modern state has ever managed to free itself from the ensuing fiscal bind once this threshold is reached.
That Rosetta Stone is about collective wealth creation versus inevitable death through debt.
When I am plagued trying to reconcile ambiguities, I frequently fall back on my love of the 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant, who is most remembered for his work explaining “pure reason,” “practical reason,” and his ideas concerning applying judgment.
I tend to understand Kant best with these three statements:
-
What we experience and our perceptions are not necessarily reality.
-
The limits of our abilities can be reflected in our choices, which almost always demonstrate the limits of our knowledge.
-
The morality of our actions can only be defined by what can be logically inferred, yet it is imperfect.
The bottom line that extends these three precepts into the here and now is Trump’s new dictum—trade makes right.
In other words, nations that depend on each other to be wealthy and prosperous rarely fight each other. The old Reagan dictum was “Peace through strength.” Trump would turn that around to “Peace through interdependent trade.”
We have a Scythian choice before us. Keep doing the things that are comfortable and familiar, or do something radically different, even if it may seem risky or untried.
Trump demonstrates that he is not a theoretician by flatly denying Iran access to nuclear weapons.
This is proof positive that he is not naively foolish. We haven't seen an entirely new approach that promises to change the trajectory of the world economy since the Marshall Plan was implemented immediately after WWII.
Trump hasn’t named his plan, but the means and objectives are now clearly in sight. We should all wish him success because he is the captain of our Ship of State.
-
-
Site: RT - News
Representatives of Kiev and Moscow are expected to hold direct talks in Türkiye for the first time since 2022
US President Donald Trump has said he expects positive developments from expected Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul on Thursday. The two sides are preparing to hold their first direct negotiations since the start of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.
On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to restart direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev in order to find a lasting settlement that would address its root causes. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, who had previously ruled out any talks with Moscow, also expressed his willingness to travel to Istanbul.
Kiev stated that the only official from Moscow that Zelensky would talk to is Putin. However, the Russian president has so far made no indication that he is planning to travel to the Turkish city.
Speaking during a meeting with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani in Doha on Wednesday, Trump said, “I think we’re having some pretty good news coming out of there today and maybe tomorrow and maybe Friday, frankly. But… we’ll see about that.”
Read moreChina supports proposed talks between Russia and Ukraine
While the US president suggested earlier this week that he could also attend the meeting between Ukrainian and Russian representatives on Thursday, he appeared to downplay that possibility while on board Air Force One en route to Qatar.
“Now tomorrow we’re all booked out, you understand that, we’re all set,” Trump told reporters.
Bloomberg has quoted anonymous Turkish officials as saying they were not expecting the US president to make an appearance at the talks, but were “not entirely ruling out” such a possibility.
Meanwhile, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff confirmed to reporters in Doha that he would travel to Istanbul on Friday alongside US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to participate in discussions.
Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Trump described the upcoming Russia-Ukraine talks as “very important,” saying that he expected a “good result,” and that he believed both Zelensky and Putin would come to Istanbul.
-
Site: Zero HedgeEd Martin Reveals J6 Pipe Bomber Probe Shakeup, Warns DOJ 'Much, Much Worse Than People Think'Tyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 16:40
Ed Martin, a senior official in the Trump administration’s Department of Justice, is warning that corruption within federal law enforcement is far more severe than the American public realizes. Martin, who holds the roles of Director of the Weaponization Working Group, Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Pardon Attorney, made the comments during an interview with Tucker Carlson.
Martin weighed in the unresolved case of the January 6, 2021, pipe bomber, expressing frustration with the investigation’s lack of progress, wondering whether the lack of answers may have been intentional. “The pipe bomber—as a prosecutor - I’ve got the pipe bomber case in my office,” Martin told Carlson. Martin revealed FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino told him that the bureau had reassigned agents to the case, however, the renewed effort was still in it early stages. “It’s been going on for five weeks?” Martin said, likening the past probe to the bumbling “Keystone Cops.”
Starts at 16 minutes
Ed Martin was on his way to cleaning up Washington as the new U.S. Attorney, until Senate Republicans decided he was too sincere and killed his nomination.
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) May 14, 2025
(0:00) Introduction
(1:20) Ed Martin’s Response to the Crazed Leftist Who Spit in His Face
(7:21) Why Would Republican… pic.twitter.com/WBtNxdnAqgMartin further criticized the FBI’s previously handling of the case, alleging that basic investigative steps were overlooked. “They didn’t interview some of the people that you would have said, ‘That might be a suspect.’ They hadn’t interviewed him,” he said. Raising concerns about the agency’s competence, he added, “The question becomes, ‘what’s happening here?’ Is it incompetence? It feels worse than incompetence.”
When asked by Carlson whether the DOJ is worse than people believe, Martin went further, declaring, “I think it’s worse than incompetence.” However, he urged that importance of following the facts and not getting ahead of investigations, saying, “The only way forward is not to describe what I think of the motives but to expose over and over again what’s happened. If you expose what happened and the truth gets out, then accountability is possible.”
Martin went on to praise Bongino’s efforts, noting, “He is going hammer and tongs at this stuff.” The Trump DOJ official acknowledged the complexity of pursuing accountability, saying, “You can’t arrest everybody in the first month, but you got to get this going.”
Martin then described the issues facing the DOJ as “much, much worse than people think.”
The FBI has begun delivering subpoenaed documents to House Judiciary Committee Republicans, addressing demands for greater “transparency and accountability” within the bureau, the Epoch Times reported in March.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, had pressed FBI Director Kash Patel in a March 7 letter for information and records allegedly withheld during the tenure of former FBI Director Christopher Wray.
In response, FBI Assistant Director Marshall Yates provided an initial batch of documents covering key issues, including the investigation into pipe bombs discovered near the Democratic and Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., in January 2021, as well as the FBI’s interactions with social media platforms and probes into threats against school officials.
Jordan’s push for transparency began with a February 24 letter, sent shortly after Patel’s confirmation as FBI Director. The letter targeted Wray’s leadership, accusing him of “slow-walking” the pipe bomb investigation tied to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and questioning the FBI’s use of “confidential human sources” during the event.
Some Republicans have claimed FBI informants were active on January 6, a claim partially substantiated by a December 2024 report from the FBI’s inspector general. While the report confirmed no undercover FBI agents were present, it revealed over two dozen informants were at the Capitol that day, according to the Epoch Times.
* * *
Grow your own food with HEIRLOOM SEEDS (39 varieties - 4,500 seeds) from ZH Store! Free shipping in the USA.
Click pic... buy seeds... take food supply into your own hands...
-
Site: southern orders
The sash of the papal cassock has traditionally had a decoration at the end of it. Pope Francis asked that it be removed to be in more conformity with his humbleness compared to other popes who preceded him.
Pope Leo’s cassock does not have the decoration, but that was from the cassocks in the room of tears. Hopefully a cassock truly tailored to him will eventually have it?
Should the papal sash be humble with no decor or ornately proud with decor?
Should the red shoes of the fisherman reappear?
-
Site: RT - News
US officials are set to arrive the day after anticipated Russia-Ukraine direct talks begin, according to the agency
US President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff has said he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will travel to Istanbul on Friday, according to Reuters. Earlier this week, Trump announced that US officials would take part in the upcoming talks on the Ukraine conflict.
The first direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in more than three years are set to take place in the Turkish city on May 15. On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to resume dialogue to find a lasting settlement to the ongoing conflict that would address its root causes.
Witkoff made the remarks on Wednesday while speaking to reporters in Doha, where he and Rubio are accompanying Trump on a state visit to Qatar as part of a broader Middle East trip.
Trump said on Tuesday that Rubio and other US officials would join the talks in Istanbul. A White House spokesman later clarified to reporters that Rubio, Witkoff and US Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg would attend the negotiations.
Trump, who had previously suggested he might attend in person, told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Qatar that his schedule would not allow it.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow would be sending a delegation and expected Ukraine to do the same. Kiev stated previously that Vladimir Zelensky would only talk directly to the Russian president.
READ MORE: Why the Russia-Ukraine peace talks are doomed before they begin
On Wednesday evening, the Kremlin named its delegation for the talks, to be led by presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, who also headed the Russian side during negotiations in Istanbul in 2022.
-
Site: Zero HedgeSupreme Court Set To End Era Of Nationwide Judicial InjunctionsTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 16:20
Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.,com,
The days of rogue district court judges hijacking executive authority may finally be numbered. On Thursday, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a consolidated case, Trump v. CASA, which challenges lower court rulings that blocked President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. Despite the constitutional authority granted to the executive branch on immigration matters, three district judges issued sweeping nationwide injunctions halting the order.
Now, the highest court may have the chance to rein in judicial overreach and restore balance between the branches of government.
Since President Trump began his second term, liberal judges have weaponized nationwide injunctions against his administration an astonishing 17 times in just the first few months — and that's only counting through late March 2025. This is nothing new, of course.
Even Newsweek seems to believe that the court will side with the Trump administration.
In recent years, some justices have expressed criticism of universal injunctions.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the court's conservatives, argued in a 2020 concurring opinion that injunctions are "meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit."
He said the "routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions" and that the court must address them.
He also noted that nationwide injunctions mean that plaintiffs can shop around for the judge that is most likely to be sympathetic to their cause.
"Because plaintiffs generally are not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide," Gorsuch wrote.
Even Justice Elena Kagan, one of the Court’s three liberal justices, has criticized broad nationwide injunctions and the blatant judge-shopping tactics used by plaintiffs to game the system.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue because Joe Biden's outgoing Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, also filed a brief in December 2024 asking the Supreme Court to limit these broad orders despite knowing Trump would benefit from the decision.
"In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas," Kagan said in 2022.
"It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."
Let’s be honest: Nationwide injunctions were never about judicial oversight.
They’ve been the left’s go-to tool for blocking President Trump’s agenda through activist judges.
With just one ruling, any of the hundreds of district court judges in the country can nullify federal policy they don’t like.
Now, the left is panicking.
Without these judicial shortcuts, they’ll have to argue their cases on the merits instead of in front of cherry-picked friendly judges. Even Vox admitted these injunctions were “the core of the resistance.”
But that era may be ending.
The Supreme Court looks poised to rein in this abuse of power and restore constitutional balance.
For anyone who believes in law, not lawfare, this moment can’t come soon enough.
-
Site: The Remnant Newspaper
-
Site: Zero Hedge'Hey, Comrade Putin, Just Go': Brazil’s Lula Presses Russian President On Istanbul TalksTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 15:45
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was just recently one of the some 29 heads of state who attended the Victory Day Red Square parade and events in Moscow. He also met with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin while in the country.
And now amid plans for 'direct' Russia-Ukraine talks to be held in Istanbul Wednesday, Brazilian media is reporting that Lula is urging Putin to attend in person.
"It costs me nothing to say, ‘Hey, comrade Putin, go to Istanbul and negotiate, come on'," Lula was quoted as saying by Brazil’s state news agency Agencia Brasil.
Presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Vladimir Putin. Kremlin.ru
But on Wednesday, Kommersant newspaper is reporting that not even Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the Istanbul talks.
"Speaking to reporters during a visit to China, Lula said he would stop in Moscow on his way back to Brazil in an effort to press Putin to take part in negotiations," another regional source reports.
As for the United States, President Trump is dispatching his two top diplomats, but there are reports they could arrive after main talks are scheduled to happen, while currently they are accompanying Trump in the Gulf:
US President's Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will arrive in Istanbul, Türkiye, on Friday, May 16, reports The Guardian.
As the outlet reports, Witkoff told journalists that he and Rubio will head to Istanbul on Friday for talks regarding Russia and Ukraine. He also noted that it remains unclear whether Russian President Vladimir Putin will be present at the planned negotiations.
However, the potential talks between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul are scheduled for Thursday, May 15.
The Kremlin has since confirmed that it still plans to participate, also as Zelensky is trying to goad Putin into attending in person. Zelensky has said he's ready to be there if Putin is.
And even Trump had days ago said he was "thinking about actually flying over"; however, this is looking increasingly unrealistic.
Rubio and Witkoff might arrive late, as regional sources are reporting.
Despite some sensational recent headlines and statements, one thing we can be sure will not happen is President Putin's personal presence. There's no reason for him to be there - from a strategic point of view - given Kiev has yet to make any major concessions, and Russian forces are winning on the ground in the east.
And if Moscow is not willing to send Lavrov, it's a clear sign the Kremlin is not approaching the Istanbul meeting as if it will result to much of great consequence or substance.
-
Site: RT - News
Ukraine’s membership reportedly won’t be on the June meeting’s agenda
The US is against inviting Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky to the NATO summit in The Hague next month, Italy’s ANSA news agency reported on Wednesday, citing anonymous diplomatic sources.
Kiev has long sought membership in the US-led military bloc - something Russia considers a fundamental threat to its national security. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly described the prevention of such a scenario as one of Moscow’s top objectives in the Ukraine conflict.
Since assuming office in January, US President Donald Trump has on multiple occasions ruled out Ukraine’s accession to NATO in the foreseeable future.
In its article, ANSA reported that “for now… a NATO-Ukraine Council at the level of leaders is not planned,” adding, however, that no final decision has been made yet. According to the publication, Kiev could participate in some of the meetings on June 24-25, but only at the level of foreign and defense ministers.
The Italian outlet reported that for the time being the only non-member states that have received invitations are Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
Read moreUkrainian membership of EU would drag bloc into war – Hungary
ANSA also reported that “at the moment, a very concise program is expected at the summit, in contrast to what has happened in recent years, to avoid possible friction with Donald Trump.”
Zelensky joined NATO leaders for sessions of the NATO-Ukraine Council at the 2023 Vilnius Summit and the 2024 Washington Summit.
Also on Wednesday, Bloomberg quoted unnamed diplomats familiar with the matter as saying that membership for Ukraine will not be on the agenda during the upcoming gathering in the Netherlands, with the main focus expected to be on ramping up defense spending. The outlet similarly reported that the NATO summit in June will likely be shorter than the previous meetings.
Speaking during a press conference last Friday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated that “we never agreed that, as part of a peace deal, there would be guaranteed NATO membership for Ukraine.”
He emphasized that Ukraine’s accession to the bloc had been agreed upon by its members, but “for the longer term, not for the peace negotiations ongoing at the moment.”
Rutte noted, however, that NATO maintains close cooperation with Kiev with respect to military aid and personnel training.
-
Site: Zero HedgeIs The Senate Stablecoin Bill Dead? Dems Demand Treasury Info On Trump Citing Crypto "Bribery" RisksIs The Senate Stablecoin Bill Dead? Dems Demand Treasury Info On Trump Citing Crypto "Bribery" RisksTyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 15:25
Update (1405ET): CoinDesk's Margau Nijkerk reports that Top House Democrats sent a letter to the U.S. Treasury Department Wednesday, asking its money laundering watchdog to hand over all suspicious activity reports (SARs) tied to President Donald Trump’s crypto ventures.
In a letter sent to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Reps. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.), Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) - the ranking members of the House Oversight, Administrative, and Judiciary committees - called for an urgent investigation into Trump’s blockchain project World Liberty Financial and the $TRUMP memecoin, citing possible violations of campaign finance laws, bribery statutes and securities regulations.
“The Committees seek to determine whether legislation is necessary to prevent violations of campaign finance, consumer protection, bribery, securities fraud, and other anti-corruption laws in connection with fundraising by candidates for federal office and federal officeholders and to guard against deceptive and predatory campaign fundraising practices, illicit foreign influence over federal officials, and other financial misconduct connected to prospective or current federal officials,” the leading Democrats on the committees wrote in a press release shared with CoinDesk.
The request marks an escalation in congressional scrutiny on whether President Trump and his entourage are abusing their positions of power to benefit their crypto businesses. Senate Democrats pointed to Trump’s crypto ventures last week as part of their reason for not voting to advance stablecoin legislation that previously saw bipartisan support.
The inquiry zeroes in not only on the Trump family’s September 2024 launch of World Liberty Financial and the $TRUMP memecoin launched just days before his inauguration, but also Elon Musk’s America PAC and whether they are using Trump’s name to solicit donations under false pretenses.
As Sander Luz reported earlier via Decrypt.co, it was supposed to be a slam dunk.
The American crypto industry, flush with more political capital than it has ever had (and perhaps will ever have), was to get its long-awaited “regulatory clarity” on stablecoins last week.
And yet the Senate failed to pass a key procedural vote on the marquee stablecoin legislation.
As the bill, dubbed the GENIUS Act, languishes in legislative purgatory, should it be considered functionally dead—or might there be hope yet for its passage?
It depends who you ask.
Technically speaking, according to the Senate’s rules, the window to file a motion to reconsider the bill—which would establish a legal framework for offering stablecoins in the United States—has already passed.
Such a motion would have had to be filed by Monday evening, and no senators did so in time.
A source familiar with the Senate’s rules of procedure confirmed this state of affairs to Decrypt.
Stablecoins are a key component of the crypto economy. They are essentially digital dollar-equivalents that allow their users to enter and exit digital asset trades, and send payments or remittances overseas, without the need to access dollars directly.
It’s expected that once these assets are anointed by the U.S. Congress, rules of the road signed into law by President Donald Trump, banking giants and Wall Street titans will join the fray and enter the stablecoin market—bringing billions if not trillions of dollars into crypto. That’s why the lobbying arm of the crypto industry has been pushing so hard for this legislation.
But the GENIUS Act has not been taken up for a cloture vote this week because, functionally, political calculus has not changed on the topic since Thursday.
A small cadre of pro-crypto Democrats still have yet to reach a deal with Republican leadership over the bill’s language. Republicans are confident, however, they will be able to take advantage of “other procedural opportunities” to get the GENIUS Act back to the Senate floor if such a deal is made, sources told Decrypt.
After a largely uneventful weekend, key Democratic and Republican stakeholders are resuming talks this week over the contents of the bill, sources familiar with the plans told Decrypt. Both sides are remaining exceptionally tight-lipped, however, about what exact language is holding up progress.
Five Senate Democrats who voted against the bill last week previously voted to advance it from the Senate Banking Committee. Two of the Democrats who opposed the bill on Thursday, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), are consponsors of the legislation.
In a statement issued last weekend, pro-crypto Democrats blamed their withdrawal of support for GENIUS on portions of a new draft of the bill, which they said contained insufficient anti-money laundering and national security protections. But optics appear to also be playing a significant role in their change of tune.
In the last two weeks, President Donald Trump and his family have made multiple flashy crypto and stablecoin-related announcements that have animated Democrats over perceived conflicts of interest in the White House.
That line of attack has only been exacerbated since the weekend, with Trump announcing Monday that he intends to personally accept a $400 million Boeing jet as a gift from the Qatari government.
The Senate’s decision to block the GENIUS Act on Thursday drew immediate condemnation from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who warned the vote could jeopardize the U.S.’s position in the global digital assets race.
“For stablecoins and other digital assets to thrive globally, the world needs American leadership,” Bessent posted on X.
“The Senate missed an opportunity to provide that leadership today by failing to advance the GENIUS Act.”
Multiple crypto policy leaders told Decrypt Tuesday they are growing increasingly worried that the political stakes involved pose a very real threat not just to any chance of salvaging the GENIUS Act, but also the rest of the industry’s legislative agenda.
A parallel stablecoin bill is currently making its way through the House, and foundational market structure legislation is pending in both chambers of Congress.
The policy leaders all agreed that this week is do or die for crypto’s political momentum in Washington.
Should the GENIUS Act fail to make significant progress by Friday—as in, pass the cloture vote it failed last week—the situation could become terminal, they warned.
“Grim if something doesn’t give soon,” one D.C. insider put it.
-
Site: LifeNews
Kelsey Grammer, the actor and director best known for his roles in Frasier, Cheers, and Transformers, recently shared his personal experience with abortion. In his new memoir, Karen: A Brother Remembers, he reflected on two abortions in his past, expressing the deep pain and regret they have caused him throughout his life.
“I know that many people do not have a problem with abortion, and though I have supported it in the past, the abortion of my son eats away at my soul,” Grammer wrote.
His first son passed away in 1974. Although Kelsey was willing to keep his baby, his then-girlfriend was not. He “did not plead with her to save his life” because of his support of the “idea that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body.”
“I supported the idea that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body. I still do. But it’s hard for me. Still is,” he wrote.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.
When explaining the abortion, he said, “I volunteered to have my son’s body vacuumed out of his mother’s. I regret it.”
This is considered a suction dilation and curettage (D&C) abortion, often used in the first trimester. The abortionist will use a vacuum-like tool to suction the baby out of the womb, rapidly tearing the body into pieces. This procedure is not only horrifically cruel to the baby but also traumatic for all involved.
He also criticized abortionists, saying, “The doctor, or so-called doctors, who have executed generations of children in this manner — I have no idea how they call themselves doctors. Something about the ‘first, do no harm’ thing. But I offer no controversy.”
Years later, Grammer was expecting his daughter Faith with his now-wife Kayte, the couple was actually expecting fraternal twins. However, the second baby’s sac ruptured at 13 weeks and did not repair itself.
“Doctors advised us his continued growth without the safety of his amniotic fluid would surely kill him and probably take Faith too,” Kelsey recalled. “It did not repair.”
Grammar says he and his wife decided to abort their son in order to save their daughter. “We killed our son so Faith might live. We wept as we watched his heart stop,” Grammer said.
“It is the greatest pain I have ever known. Kayte’s scream was enough to make a man mourn a lifetime,” he wrote.
Abortion not only harms the baby and mother, but fathers are left with deep regret and trauma as well. Even someone like Kelsey Grammer, who lives a life of fame, success, and wealth, still cannot shake the feeling of knowing two of his sons were aborted.
Thankfully, we serve a God who is ready to forgive when we come in repentance and salvation. Join us in prayer for Kesley Grammer and every post-abortive father, that they will find healing in Jesus.
If you or someone you know has struggled with abortion regret and would like healing, Rachel’s Vineyard has abortion healing for men.
LifeNews Note: Ashlynn Lemos is the communications intern for Texas Right to Life.
The post Kelsey Grammer: Aborting My Son “Eats Away at My Soul” appeared first on LifeNews.com.
-
Site: LifeNews
Learning her baby was “incapable with Life” as a 40-year-old woman in her first pregnancy was not something Sheila Walsh was ready to hear.
Because of her age, Sheila, a best-selling Christian author, was advised to undergo some additional testing in the middle of her pregnancy.
She and her husband were called back to the office once the results were in. “I don’t remember everything she said, but I remember this: ‘Your baby is incompatible with life.’ I stared at her as if she was speaking in a foreign language. This was a phrase I’d never heard before. Neither Barry nor I said anything. We were stunned,” Walsch recalled.
Then her doctor recommended scheduling an abortion for the next day. “I heard that, and her words snapped me back into reality. I was shocked. ‘No!’ I said vehemently. ‘No! Absolutely not. This little one will have every day God has planned for him to live,’” she highlighted.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.
In her confusion and despair, Sheila drove to a nearby beach to pray.
“I took off my shoes and walked to the edge of the water and prayed. I prayed like I had never prayed before, out loud to the wind and the waves and the birds,” Sheila said.
“Jesus! My heart is aching. I don’t understand this at all, but I just want to declare here and now that we are in this together. I’ve always needed You, but I know right now that I need You more than I ever have. I don’t know how this will end, but I’m not letting go of You for one moment. You didn’t promise me happiness, but You did promise You would never leave me. I’m not letting go. I’m not giving up. You and me—we’re in this together.”
“Something shifted inside me. I had no idea how long I could carry our son, but I became relentless in my prayers, not for a perfect outcome but for the presence of a perfect Father. At 35 weeks, my doctor called. I held my breath,” Walsh recalled.
That day, Sheila learned that another 40-year-old patient’s test results had been mixed up with hers. Her son had no diagnosis after all.
“There had never been anything wrong with our son. I fell to my knees and thanked God, but then I prayed for the other mother who would be getting a very different phone call,” Walsh said.
Today, her son Christian is 27 years old—a proud Texas A&M graduate with a master’s degree in Psychology. He is living proof of what’s possible when a mother chooses faith over fear. If Sheila and her husband had followed the doctor’s advice, their son would never have taken his first breath.
Sheila Walsh’s story is a powerful reminder that every life—no matter how uncertain or difficult—deserves a chance. In a moment when fear nearly stole her son’s future, Sheila chose faith and trusted God’s plan.
Every child deserves a chance, and every parent deserves the truth—not fear-based pressure.
If you or someone you know is pregnant and facing a life-limiting diagnosis, you’re not alone. Organizations like Abel Speaks are ready to walk alongside you with compassion and support.LifeNews Note: Ashlynn Lemos is the communications intern for Texas Right to Life.
The post A Doctor Told Her “Your Baby is Incompatible With Life” and Suggested Abortion. Now Her Son is 27 appeared first on LifeNews.com.
-
Site: LifeNews
Many wondered what would become of Planned Parenthood when Roe fell, when Dobbs declared that the day of judicially mandated abortion availability was finally over. Would Planned Parenthood shut down, close down the clinics, stop living off of taxpayer funds, pack up its abortion pills and go home?
Well, the latest Planned Parenthood Annual Report is out, finally giving some hard numbers and some hard answers to some of those questions. According to the 2023-2024 Annual Report, “A Force for Hope,” Planned Parenthood is still very much alive, still performing abortions, and still raking in the cash.
Doing what is necessary to keep abortion business going and growing
Planned Parenthood’s killing centers were still very much operational after Dobbs, performing a record 402,230 abortions, despite ceasing abortion operations in many newly pro-life states and closing more than fifty clinics since 2020. For details, see May 2025 NRL News.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!
How’d they accomplish this? By shifting a lot of business to virtual clinics or telehealth operations and essentially turning a lot of old clinics into travel agencies.
Planned Parenthood admits this without shame or apology. They almost seem to congratulate themselves on finding a way to beat the system and continue to bring “hope” to those seeking abortions.
The report touts its new “virtual health centers” enabling women in 23 states to access telehealth services and its new smart phone app called “PPDirect.” Available in 42 states and the District of Columbia, this app “allows patients to use a mobile device to request prescriptions for birth control pills, patches, rings, emergency contraception, and treatment for urinary tract infections.”
In case that sounds innocent enough for that broad section of society which learned to use telehealth during COVID, Planned Parenthood helpfully points out that “This year PPDirect expanded the array of services Planned Parenthood health center providers offer, including medication abortion through telehealth in states where it is legally permitted.”
Planned Parenthood doesn’t tell how many of these “virtual abortions” it facilitated. But in a country where nearly two thirds of all abortions are now “medication” or chemical abortions, the zealously pro-abortion Biden administration made it legal to prescribe mifepristone online and ship to women’s home. This represents a substantial and lucrative business venture.
Planned Parenthood also wants to draw attention to its “Direct Patient Assistance for Travel and Related Expenses” and “Patient Navigation” programs.
PPFA provided affiliates with $3.4 million through direct patient assistance funding, which helped more than 12,500 patients who were forced to travel for their abortion care. Nationwide, recipients on average received $275 to cover logistical needs such as transportation, accommodations, meals, and dependent care during travel.
More than money was involved, however.
PPFA’s patient navigation program has grown to include more than 90 patient navigators across the country. Patient navigators help people seeking abortion overcome logistical barriers by connecting them with transportation and travel support, financial assistance, and referral services. We estimate that Planned Parenthood affiliate abortion patient navigators have assisted more than 100,000 people access care in the last year.
If this involved giving assistance and referrals to women in pro-life states so that they could be sent for abortions to Planned Parenthood clinics in neighboring states (an outcome Planned Parenthood has clearly planned for), this would mean as many as a quarter of Planned Parenthood’s abortions in the first full year post Dobbs were women and babies who would have been spared that fate if they had stayed home.
Other non-abortion services remain low or show decline
It is interesting, and sad, to note that while abortions at Planned Parenthood once again hit an all-time record, other services continued to decline. The cancer screens Planned Parenthood make so much about in advertisements and political statements? Down again in the group’s most recent report, to 426,268.
For reference, remember that Planned Parenthood did more than 2 million cancer screenings twenty years ago, in 2005. Also recall that, for all its cash, there is still no mention of any Planned Parenthood affiliate springing for a mammogram machine.
Even birth control, Planned Parenthood’s signature product, isn’t selling like it used to. Not counting 2020, the COVID year, the 2,223,680 contraceptive “services” it provided between October 1, 2022, and September 30, 2023, represent the lowest total in least twenty years. The number was close to 4 million in 2006, nearly double the current figure.
Prenatal services and adoption referrals were slightly up but still remain so small in comparison to abortion as to be largely inconsequential to Planned Parenthood. The annual report says 7,008 women received prenatal services in its 2023 service year, but this still meant they were outnumbered by abortion by a more than 57 to 1 margin.
The group made 2,148 adoption referrals in 2023, up 427 from the previous year (from women in pro-life states who turned down the offer of free abortion travel?). But that still means Planned Parenthood sold abortions to 99.5% of those pregnant women faced with those two “options.”
Huge revenues sustained by substantial government support
Planned Parenthood’s revenues suffered a bit in its second fiscal year post Dobbs, dropping ever so slightly, from $2.0543 billion in fiscal 2023 to $2.0261 billion in fiscal 2024. (There appears to be a typo in the Annual Report as currently posted. Though listed in the header as the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023, this is the same date given in last year’s report, while this year’s notes page refers to figures through June 30, 2024.)
In any case, the federation still took in at least $27 million more than it spent, hardly signs of an organization in financial crisis. How does this comport with news stories of overworked, underpaid staff, ill-equipped facilities?
One does well to recall that the above-mentioned New York Times exposé revealed that a lot of the money Planned Parenthood took in went to legal support and “public campaigns to expand abortion access and subsidies for patient navigators who help patients access abortions.” As Katie Benner reported, Planned Parenthood “repeatedly prioritized the fight for abortion rights over clinics because the political fight was fundamental to the organization’s ability to operate.”
It is interesting to see how these more recent revenues compare to last year’s. While overall just about $28 million less, the big drop came in terms of “Private Contributions & Bequests” which fell more than $300 million since last year’s report.
If these years are tracked correctly (see the note on the typo in the report above), that means that, financially speaking, this is in the second full year past Dobbs. So the “sky is falling” rhetoric, which helped them (and many abortion funds) raise so much money in the wake of Roe’s fall, seems to have peaked and fallen off as time went on.
Private abortion funds also saw a big fall off after people began to see what Dobbs did and didn’t do. Obviously, private donors simply weren’t buying the hype as much.
With “Non-Government Health Services Revenue” staying about the same ($372 million in fiscal 2023 versus $350.5 million in 2024), most of the deficit was made up for by “Government Health Services Reimbursements & Grants.” Just under $700 million in fiscal 2023, it busted through that barrier in 2024, hitting $792.2 million. That’s coming from taxpayers’ pockets!
Planned Parenthood doesn’t spell it out here, but while some of that comes from federal family planning grants like Title X, the vast majority of it comes from state Medicaid reimbursements. And though federal money, because of the Hyde amendment, is not allowed to go directly to abortion (though it helps keep Planned Parenthood open), many of the very abortion-friendly states where Planned Parenthood does business do allow state Medicaid funds to cover abortion.
At retail prices starting at around $600 for a standard first- trimester surgical abortion (and maybe slightly more for a chemical one), the revenues Planned Parenthood pulls in from abortion likely easily dwarf the reimbursements the organization gets from states for much cheaper services like contraception.
In any case, the reimbursements Planned Parenthood gets from states ultimately come from you and me, in taxes levied by state and federal governments. With 39% of its revenues coming from government sources, and so much of its money and so much of its energy going to the promotion and performance of abortion, it is worth asking whether Planned Parenthood could survive or stay in business without government funding.
If it did, it would have to be a far different business with a much different focus than what we see today.
Hoping for something better
Planned Parenthood starts its 2023-2024 Annual Report by saying
Every time a patient walks through the doors of a Planned Parenthood health center, it is an act of hope — hope that they’ll get the care they need, that their decisions about their own bodies will be honored, that they’ll be truly seen.
It may be an “act of hope” for Planned Parenthood, which hopes it will sell her an abortion and get her money, but calling this an act of hope for the young mom and her baby is cruel.
Most women who seek abortions say it is not so much because they just don’t want a child. Rather it is because they just can’t see how to financially make it; how to continue their schooling or career; or how to maintain their other significant relationships. Your typical Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer her any real support or practical services in that regard. They don’t really “see” or care for her or her circumstances and certainly don’t see or care for her baby.
Parenthood is in their name, but it’s certainly not in their hearts or their corporate vision.
Here’s hoping that Planned Parenthood, or at least the people who support them, will finally truly see the woman and the unborn children that they’re supposed to be serving. Instead of another 402,230 dead babies, Planned Parenthood could offer them real help and real hope, and not just another bloody, expensive encounter where they are processed and sent away with an empty womb, a broken heart, and a lighter wallet.
LifeNews.com Note: Randall O’Bannon, Ph.D., is the director of education and research for the National Right to Life Committee.
The post Planned Parenthood Killed 402,000 Babies. It’s Just an Abortion Business appeared first on LifeNews.com.
-
Site: Catholic ConclaveBishop Glettler and Imam Abualwafa write book about hopeDialogue book "Don't Choose Hate, Choose Love" aims to send a signal against the "new harshness in our society" - chapter with impulses for action for a non-prejudiced approach to one anotherIn their joint book "Don't Choose Hate, Choose Love," Innsbruck Bishop Hermann Glettler and Imam Abualwafa Mohammed have set out to search for traces ofCatholic Conclavehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06227218883606585321noreply@blogger.com0
-
Site: Zero HedgeWhat's Behind Ethereum's Recent Price Surge?Tyler Durden Wed, 05/14/2025 - 14:45
Authored by James Hunt via TheBlock.co,
Ethereum has lagged behind Bitcoin and alternative Layer 1s throughout this cycle amid a wave of relative bearishness.
And yet, since the crypto market's April lows, ETH has surged nearly 100% - gaining 65% in the last 30 days alone to tap $2,750, back above pre-election levels (and key technical levels).
So what's driving the move?
Analysts at research and brokerage firm Bernstein, led by Gautam Chhugani, said in a Wednesday note to clients that several narratives have been put forward attempting to explain this performance.
While bitcoin claimed all-time highs, crossing the psychological $100,000 barrier, the ETH/BTC ratio has dropped 45% over the past year as bitcoin dominated store-of-value mindshare amid the success of Bitcoin exchange-traded funds and corporate treasury adoption, while retail flows shifted to faster Layer 1s like Solana, the analysts wrote.
Ethereum, caught between its Layer 2 roadmap and limited ETF traction comparatively, was "stuck somewhere in the middle," they added - neither the best store of value, nor the best blockchain destination for speculative retail trenches.
Stablecoins and tokenization, Layer 2 institutionalization, and an ETH short unwind
However, according to the analysts, the narrative is beginning to change amid a boom in stablecoin and securities tokenization, Layer 2 institutionalization, and an ETH short unwind.
The cycle is expanding beyond store-of-value use cases, they said, with stablecoin payments and tokenized securities gaining real traction.
Stripe's $1.1 billion acquisition of stablecoin platform Bridge and Meta's recent comments about reigniting its stablecoin venture are helping to bring back a focus on the underlying blockchains, and Ethereum — which holds 51% of the total stablecoin supply — is emerging as the key platform proxy for this growth trend, they added.
Traditional finance giants like BlackRock and Franklin Templeton are also advancing adoption of a real-world asset tokenization market now valued at over $22 billion, according to RWA.xyz — with Ethereum again dominating deployment.
Secondly, while critics question the value accretion of Layer 2s to ETH, the Bernstein analysts said that with networks like the Coinbase-incubated Base earning revenue of around $84 million last year, Ethereum Layer 2s are taking a growing role in institutional crypto infrastructure. With Robinhood's recent acquisition of WonderFi — which also runs an Ethereum Layer 2 — brokers may soon offer tokenized equities on their own chains, they argued. Since these Layer 2s use ETH for gas and settlement, they help drive Ethereum demand and position it as a leading platform for institutional smart contract adoption, they added.
Finally, the third driver of ETH's recent outperformance is more tactical, in the analysts' view. Over the past 12 to 18 months, crypto hedge funds have often used ETH as a delta-neutral hedge - staying long BTC and SOL while shorting ETH. But as the narrative shifts toward institutional adoption of blockchain and stablecoin payments, and beyond store of value, ETH's role as the underperformer is becoming harder to justify, they said.
As a result, the resurgence of ETH and other non-bitcoin assets is good for crypto exchanges and broker-dealers, they argued, as a broader crypto market rally reinvigorates retail traders, driving stronger volumes.
-
Site: RT - News
Karim Khan reportedly sought arrest warrants for Israeli leaders a little over two weeks after the accusations were made
International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan set in motion a plan to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leadership shortly after he faced sexual misconduct allegations, The Wall Street Journal has reported, citing documents from a UN probe into the scandal.
Khan announced he would file applications for arrest warrants for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and then Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on May 20 last year, a mere two and a half weeks after he first learned about the sexual misconduct allegations against him, the Journal said. “The timing of the announcement has spurred questions about whether Khan was aiming to protect himself from the sexual-assault allegations,” the newspaper suggested.
According to the materials the WSJ reviewed, Khan’s alleged sexual misconduct spree began in late 2023, when “the 55-year-old prosecutor was increasingly lashing out at his team” after coming under a barrage of criticism. Pro-Palestine activists had labeled him a “genocide enabler” and accused the ICC of a lack of action on the Gaza conflict.
One of his assistants, a “woman in her 30s who often traveled with him for her job” requested a meeting “to urge him to ease up,” according to the report. Khan allegedly invited her to his suite in the Millennium Hilton hotel next to the UN, where he sexually assaulted her.
“She said she attempted to leave the room several times, but he took her hand and eventually pulled her to the bed. Then he pulled off her pants and forced sexual intercourse, according to the testimony,” the report reads.
Read moreICC chief prosecutor accused of punishing staff who leaked sexual misconduct claims – Reuters
The misconduct allegedly continued after the first incident, with Khan performing “nonconsensual sex acts” on his staffer on multiple occasions during trips to New York, Colombia, Congo, Chad and Paris, as well as “at a residence owned by his wife where he stayed in The Hague,” according to the accuser’s testimony cited by the WSJ.
The woman, a lawyer from Malaysia, kept silent on the affair for a while, fearing retaliation from Khan and losing her job. When the allegations became known within the organization, the prosecutor attempted to press her into disavowing them and insisted the scandal would ultimately hurt the Gaza investigation, the woman claimed in her testimony.
Khan’s legal representatives have rejected all allegations, stating it is “categorically untrue that he has engaged in sexual misconduct of any kind.” The prosecutor previously pledged to cooperate “fully and transparently with the external investigation” and denied any “retaliatory behavior” against his accuser or other staffers.
Israel asked the ICC to withdraw the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on November 21 last year. The country rejects the jurisdiction of the Hague-based court, and also urged the body to suspend its investigation into alleged atrocities in Gaza altogether.
-
Site: AsiaNews.itPeople in Syria celebrate with fireworks the announcement by the US president. The new government led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, who met Trump in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, is seeking international legitimacy, while countries in the region are increasingly interested in restarting trade. But more than 10 years of embargo have left deep economic and social scars that will be hard to heal.
-
Site: Catholic ConclavePope Leo XIV, fhe Holy Father received the Prelate of Opus Dei, Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz, in audience today.The Holy Father Leo XIV received the Prelate of Opus Dei, Monsignor. Fernando Ocáriz, in audience this morning, accompanied by his auxiliary vicar, Monsignor Mariano Fazio. It was a brief meeting, in which the Pope expressed his closeness and affection.The Holy Father, among other things, Catholic Conclavehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06227218883606585321noreply@blogger.com0
-
Site: LifeNews
Planned Parenthood (PP) released their annual report a few days ago, and it doesn’t surprise me that as always, it is full of creative and misleading statistics*. For instance:
- The abortion-performing giant performed a record 402,230 abortions–an increase of over 9,500 from the previous year and an overall increase of 23% since 2013–yet they claim that abortion is only 4% of their services!
- According to the report, 96.9% of the time, women seeking help related to their pregnancy at Planned Parenthood were sold an abortion rather than given prenatal care, provided care for a miscarriage, or helped to make an adoption plan.
- Prenatal services, miscarriage car, and adoption referrals accounted for only 1.7%, 0.9% and 0.5% respectively.
So how do they get the 4% statistic? It’s easy to manipulate the data. When a client goes to PP for an abortion, she may have a pregnancy test, an ultrasound procedure, a blood test, an STD test, an HIV test, be given anesthesia or pain killers, have a consultation about contraceptives, or a whole range of other services, event though the reason for the visit is the abortion. Let’s say that she has a total of 10 “services”, even though the abortion is the reason for those services, PP counts each “service” as equal, so in this case, they would say that the abortion was only 10% of the services that the woman received.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!
I’ve been hospitalized many times over the years. I remember years ago when I was in the hospital for the birth of my children, the itemized bill I received was probably longer than an arm’s length and had maybe 50 separate charges. By PP’s logic, the delivery of my children was only .02% of the services I received even though that is the reason I was in the hospital!
The most astounding stat in the report however, is that last year, PP received $792.2 million dollars (an increase of $92.9 million dollars over the previous year) in taxpayer funding! They also reported an excess total revenue over total expenses of $178.6 million dollars!
There is some good news, though, and hope that this abortion giant will be cut down. As reported by LifeNews, House Republicans unveiled sweeping legislation late Sunday that would defund Planned Parenthood for the next decade and prohibit taxpayer funding of so-called “gender transition procedures” for minors under Medicaid. The bill, part of a broader GOP fiscal package aligned with President Donald Trump’s agenda, includes multiple provisions long sought by the pro-life movement.
Planned Parenthood has aborted an estimated 7.1 million babies since 2000 and now commits roughly 40% of all US abortions. Apparently their motto of “Care. No Matter What” doesn’t extend to the children that they kill. KILLING PREBORN CHILDREN IS NOT HEALTHCARE no matter how you sugar coat it.
LifeNews Note: Denise Leipold is the interim executive director of Right to Life of Northeast Ohio.
The post Planned Parenthood Claims Abortions are Just 4% of What It Does. That’s Totally False appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Pages
