‘Left Is A Vicious Wounded Tiger’ – Larry Klayman Warns “They Want Us Dead”
ViaGreg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,
Renowned Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch, has been fighting government corruption and winning for decades.
Today, the fight has turned into an all-out war and fight to the death. Klayman explains, “Bottom line is we have been in a war, but now we are at red alert…”
” The fact that Donald Trump has been reelected the 47th President of the United States with the popular vote and an overwhelming landslide in the Electoral College, the Left is on the run, but it’s stung. It’s like a wounded tiger. It’s vicious. It will fight back…
You are going to see the Left in the streets, ultimately. It will probably be in days, if not weeks. You are going to see a repeat of what we saw with Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, radical Palestinians and others. They are going to be coming for us.
Frankly, and this sounds extreme, we saw the assassination attempts… and Kamala Harris and Biden calling Trump Hitler, calling them garbage and calling us garbage, they want us dead. Let me repeat that. They want us dead…They are like rats leaving the ship.
The time to peacefully and legally crush them is now.”
Klayman also sees that things may not stay peaceful.
Klayman points out, “It’s only a matter of time because they are whipping up the hatred right now against all of us garbage men…”
” It’s only a matter of time that he (President Trump) may have to declare martial law to reestablish order here. I hope it doesn’t get to that. But he (the President) has that authority as well.
So, I want people to realize that there may be a calm in the storm right now, but the communists, the atheists, the radicals and the Left are coalescing. They are plotting, and they are planning.
This is like the ‘Force’ in ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Darth Vader.’ They intend to come back anyway they can.
If they can’t do it peacefully and legally, which they can’t, they are going to get violent, and we better be prepared for that.”
Klayman also points out that President Trump cannot turn America around without the help of millions of patriots. Klayman says,
“He needs us to back him. We need to fight for him if necessary. Here’s the scary thing. God forbid, but I don’t think this is the last assassination attempt. I think there will be more. . . . This kid that took a crack at Trump in Butler, we don’t know what his motive was today. . . . We’ve never gotten the truth about anything.
We don’t know who killed John F. Kennedy. Even Bobby Kennedy Jr. does not believe that Sirhan Sirhan killed his father.
Martin Luther King’s family does not believe that James Earl Ray was the assassin of Martin Luther King. It was probably Edgar Hoover the FBI Director. . . .
We don’t know anything about the two people that tried to assassinate Donald Trump because our government is corrupt to the core, and that is why the Left is going to resist. Our government needs to be reconstituted. Embedded in government is the Deep State, and it is more powerful than the President.”
Klayman is appealing to the incoming Trump Administration to make him the Czar in charge of picking judicial appointments.
Klayman says too many RINO judges were put on the bench during Trump’s first Administration.
Klayman is also representing Laura Loomer in a $150 million defamation lawsuit against HBO and Bill Maher. Klayman is also the lawyer of record on many other groundbreaking cases. Klayman also talks about the need for donations as the 2024 Election cycle took donations away from FreedomWatchUSA.org. Klayman makes an appeal for badly needed funds so he can continue his work for “We the People” against government corruption.
There is much more in the one-hour in-depth interview.
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with renowned lawyer and government corruption fighter, Larry Klayman, founder of FreedomWatchUSA.org as he lays out the evil that criminals on the Left and RINO’s are planning for America.
3D Chess always makes me think of Star Trek and wonder who the heck thinks that we need a game more complex than chess? 52-Card Pickup is a game most frequently played by siblings, and even then, only once or twice. Typically, the older sibling asks the younger one if they want to play 52-card pickup. Without knowing the game, but excited that their older sibling wants to do anything with them, the younger one instantly agrees. At which point the older sibling throws a deck of cards across the room and yells – there you go, 52-card pickup!
Depending on who you listen to, talk to, or follow, in its first full week, the Trump team is either playing an incredible game of 3D Chess, or is playing the equivalent of 52-Card Pickup with the nation.
It is far too early to say which side is right, and the final answer will likely fall somewhere in the middle. Having said that, there are a few things that have come up consistently in meetings, calls, and interactions with clients.
There are various processes in place to effectively protect the system. Could they be bypassed by using Recess Appointments? I have to admit that Congress getting recess, like schoolchildren, has always amused me, but recess appointments would be a very aggressive tactic. They allow Trump to bypass the confirmation process (for up to a year) for some positions, presumably the most difficult/contentious ones. For some reason, this is also “part of the system and process,” so someone must have thought that there was a need for this. To me, this, like many things (including the 2+ month timeframe between the election and the inauguration) is likely a function of how difficult it was to travel across the country back in the day. It will be interesting to see how the appointments go, to say the least.
If you are going to try to radically change D.C., often described as “draining the swamp,” it does make sense that non-traditional candidates would be selected. Yes, there are people with more experience than some of the nominees, but are they too close to the system to try and change it?
D.O.G.E (the Department of Government Efficiency) has generated a lot of buzz. It seems to be the one thing that everyone is curious about and wants to see how it all plays out (even with a tinge of optimism that some spending can be cut without reducing or hurting services). It is also quite clear that Musk, one of the richest people on the planet, will play a major role in this administration, as a key advisor to President-Elect Trump.
Thinking about this dovetails well with last weekend’s Learning to Speak Trump Again. For better or worse, we should expect D.C. headlines to continue to create volatility for the markets.
Having said that:
The 10-year Treasury is back to 4.44%, basically where it closed on November 7th. We’ve had some pretty big swings on a daily and even intraday basis, but wound up unchanged. I remain firmly in the camp that the deficit fears (and concerns about inflation from tariffs) are more than priced in right now.
The S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 are both below where they closed on November 7th (for all the “growth” hype, that certainly grabs your attention). Maybe even more surprising, given the attention, is that the Russell 2000 is back to below its November 7th close, having dropped over 5% since it hit a high on Monday (maybe a good reminder that equity markets should shut down along with the bond market on Veterans Day).
Gold was strong into the election, but has faded hard since then. Copper, which should benefit from growth if the “Dr. Copper” people are correct, is down over 12% since the start of the month. Oil has struggled, but energy stocks have done well, with XLE holding onto its gains. This makes some sense (see “Drill Baby Drill” from Fox Business this summer) as energy production should increase, helping to keep energy prices at bay, but creating some potentially strong profit growth.
Bitcoin. Bitcoin has been incredibly strong. Yes, some volatility, but it has clung to the idea that a Trump administration will be very positive for crypto in general and Bitcoin (and Dogecoin) in particular. Given how many of the people in Trump’s inner circle are very positive on Bitcoin, it makes sense. On the other hand, Trump doesn’t control Bitcoin at all, and he does seem to like to control things, which may tarnish his current love affair over time. Also, for all the chatter about the U.S. government building up a “Bitcoin reserve” (it is hard to miss it, if you spend any time at all on X), I have not heard from anyone that this is really feasible. Most, which includes me, think that there will be an immense amount of resistance to government adoption (yes on clearer and helpful rules and regulations, but no on adoption by the government). You cannot fight this rally right now and maybe it is 3D Chess being played out, but it has the smell of 52-Card Pickup to me.
Many of the Commercial Real Estate ETFs have done poorly. In some cases, they are much closer to their annual lows than highs, even as stocks in general perform well. I think that this is actually a very interesting opportunity as yield fears are overdone, and Work From Home is really going to struggle next year. More and more companies are limiting work from home as they push for a return to the office. That momentum feeds on itself. Many who were afraid to push for work from office will be emboldened. I cannot see a world where the Department of Government Efficiency (I’m not sure it is an actual department, but that doesn’t really matter given the attention that it’s getting) won’t be looking at getting more government workers back into the office. Everyone has focused on the potential for layoffs dragging down D.C.-focused real estate valuations, but I think that net/net over time, it will turn out to be good for D.C. commercial real estate. I see CRE as where I have the biggest difference of opinion with consensus views right now.
One Chart That I Cannot Stop Thinking About
We included this chart in our NFP reaction, but I feel a sense of urgency to highlight it again. Maybe this is our attempt to play 3D Chess, or maybe we are getting ourselves overly wound up about a non-event. Since we often discuss how dubious the Jobs Available calculation is for the JOLTS report, it may seem weird that the QUIT rate, from that same report, has grabbed our attention. My take on the QUIT rate is that it is “crowd sourced” data. Every individual has a pretty good idea about their own job prospects and that gets reflected in the QUIT rate.
During the financial crisis, the QUIT rate didn’t get this low until May 2008. If I remember correctly, we technically were not in a recession at the time, and only later did the powers that be declare that we actually were in a recession. That fits with my view that this rate is important and may have a predictive element to it.
I certainly think that when anyone and everyone felt like they could quit and get a better job, it was extremely difficult for management to take away work from home. I suspect that plans to offer severance packages to reduce the workforce voluntarily (one idea floated around by DOGE) won’t be that effective when workers don’t see outside opportunities readily available (that is my interpretation of the QUIT rate).
If we see a lot of progress made on the “Make America Great” front, this could change abruptly. There might be plenty of new jobs created. There might be jobs that were being done by undocumented workers becoming available. A lot could happen, but so far, I think the outlook on jobs is following the same path as stocks – initial jubilation has turned into a wariness about what might actually be achievable, let alone accomplished.
Bottom Line
Expect more volatility. We are going to get headlines and announcements that are difficult to interpret. What do they really mean? How likely is it to get accomplished? We know this administration is looking for CHANGE, but exactly what type of change they want is still a bit unclear in many areas. What they can achieve is even more unclear.
There is a clear sense of “urgency” as I cannot recollect any other election winner coming out so quickly with so many announcements!
I think we want to “fade” growth. We can buy dips in Treasuries and sell rips in stocks.
Maybe we will get a clearer picture, but I suspect in the coming days and weeks, the market will have more questions than answers. The fact that the original reaction to the election was so strong (with so many shorts being taken out, and so many newly minted bulls emerging) leaves us with potentially treacherous positioning. While legend has it that Wall Street likes to Climb a Wall of Worry, I don’t think it likes the current level of uncertainty. Maybe it is all 3D Chess, and we are just too naïve to see the master plan, or maybe we are all seeing enough things to question how effective this master plan will be?
While I like being overweight duration and underweight equities, I would not be a very aggressive overweight or underweight. It is more of an attempt to trade the volatility that is likely to continue.
On Bitcoin, if I hear one more $1 million price target, my head might explode, but for now, I can’t think of what will slow this down given the team around Trump, but then again, Trump himself might say something showing that he has had a change of heart (which is what I suspect will happen, but it seems too early for that to occur).
I did not focus on inflation, jobs, or other economic data (except to highlight the QUIT rate). I think that the data of the past few months will likely be irrelevant early next year as policies become clear and we can focus on what those policies will do to the economic data, and not worry about economic data that probably reflects a set of policies that will no longer be relevant.
We do get the most important earnings report for the AI story this week. Everything seems rosy in the space, but it is increasingly difficult to guess what has already been priced in.
Good luck and don’t stray too far from the desk, because you never know what headline might come out next! If you missed our Around the World Podcast from earlier in the week, it is a good listen.
G7 Vows To Keep Imposing ‘Severe Costs’ On Russia As War Reaches 1,000 Days
Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) have issued a Saturday statement vowing to support Ukraine as long as it takes to defeat Russia, vowing to impose severe costs on Moscow, in line with prior Washington statements vowing to ‘weaken’ Russia.
This comes amid growing Western behind the scenes action to engage Putin on the diplomatic front, in response to President-elect Donald Trump preparing to enter the White House, where a top priority is to negotiate a swift end to the war in Ukraine. This coming Tuesday will mark 1,000 days since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.
“Russia remains the sole obstacle to just and lasting peace,” the new joint statement says. It pledges to support more measures “in support of Kyiv as the thousandth day of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine approaches.”
The group major industrial countries consists of the US, France, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK. Currently Italy holds to the rotating presidency.
“The G7 confirms its commitment to imposing severe costs on Russia through sanctions, export controls and other effective measures. We stand united with Ukraine,” the statement added.
The European Union is a ‘non-enumerated’ member of the G7. The European Commission’s chief Ursula von der Leyen issued a simultaneous statement on X saying the “G7 reiterates its unflinching support to Ukraine.”
As we are nearing the 1000th day of Russia’s full-blown war, the G7 reiterates its unflinching support to Ukraine.
We’re committed to continue imposing severe costs on Russia through sanctions, export controls & other measures.
G7 partners stand with the brave Ukrainian nation.
“G7 partners stand with the brave Ukrainian nation,” von der Leyen concluded, at a moment there is widespread recognition that Russia is steadily advancing in the east, and will soon solidify control over the whole of the Donbass.
On the nuclear front, the Pentagon has issued a more measured and somewhat conciliatory statement in a report to Congress:
“The United States will abide by the central limits of the New START Treaty for the duration of the Treaty as long as it assesses that Russia continues to do so,” the Pentagon said in the report on the nuclear weapons employment strategy of the United States.
The US is also committed to future arms control with its nuclear-armed competitors, but any future accords will “need to account for US deterrence requirements and other strategic threats globally,” the report said.
Since Trump’s election the ratcheting nuclear rhetoric and warnings from the Russian side appear to have cooled. A key rationale of Trump’s team in making the case for a necessary and quick winding down of the war is that the West must avoid nuclear confrontation or a WW3 scenario with Russia at all costs.
War-weary populations across Europe and the West are also in favor of peace, all recent polling shows, and Trump has been given a clear mandate by US voters to seek a diplomatic end to the war.
President Zelensky has also admitted this past week that the war will likely end sooner under Trump. He is pressing for a “just peace” – but is unlikely to assent to anything without firm security guarantees from NATO countries. Still, Zelensky is warning allies not to appease Putin by hasty engagement on the diplomatic front. “What is needed are concrete, strong actions that will force him to peace, not persuasion and attempts at appeasement, which he sees as a sign of weakness and uses to his advantage,” a statement from Zelensky’s office said Friday.
Following President Donald Trump’s extraordinary victory over Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden addressed the nation. His message was simple: “setbacks are unavoidable, but giving up is unforgivable,” and he concluded by saying, “may God protect our troops.”
Unfortunately for President Biden, however, many people in his party have given up on fighting for America and have even given up on supporting our troops. Indeed, this anti-American and anti-military sentiment in the Democratic party undoubtedly contributed to President Trump’s victory.
This is a shame because veterans represent the very best of America. From the sandy beaches of Normandy and the wet jungles of Vietnam to the hot deserts of Iraq and harsh mountains of Afghanistan, they have fought and died for our freedom. Their courage, honor, and selflessness are unmatched, and they should serve as an example for every American today, especially young people.
With that in mind, in light of this recent Veteran’s Day, it is worth asking what our new president can do to restore a sense of gratitude in all Americans for our military servicemen and women.
There are many answers to that question, of course. For example, his administration could put a stop to the politicization of the military through wokeness, which would ensure that our veterans can be proud of the branches they served. Likewise, President Trump could use his bully pulpit to remind the American people of the virtues of our military men and women. This White House could also revisit its previous plans to build the National Garden of American Heroes, and honor some of our country’s greatest veterans there.
These are all excellent initiatives, but one of the simplest — and subtlest — ways that President Trump can restore respect for our troops and veterans is by preserving and enhancing the beauty of our national cemeteries. The United States and its territories contain 164 national cemeteries. Some are well-known, such as the Arlington National Cemetery and Gettysburg National Cemetery, and others are more inconspicuous, but each cemetery is — in the words of President Lincoln — “hallowed ground.”
My father is buried at Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery in St. Louis, Missouri, so I know from the personal experience of many visits that these cemeteries are more than places of rest — they are the final resting place of our country’s heroes and sacred symbols of American freedom.
We must never forget these men and women. We must also introduce a new generation of Americans to these cemeteries, as I am convinced that walking through those beautiful, straight, uniform rows of fallen soldiers is such a powerful experience that it could make any American grateful for our veterans.
To do this, President Trump cannot only ensure that these cemeteries are well maintained, he can promote programming that introduces Americans — especially young Americans — to the profound sacrifices that sustain our liberty. Hosting more roll-call events, concerts, and other community initiatives can help keep the spirt of service alive in the hearts of all Americans and change the minds of this new generation.
Doing so will not only give veterans the respect and honor they so thoroughly deserve, but it will also make our country better. Gratitude is the character trait that seems to be desperately missing from our national dialogue, but it doesn’t have to be this way. The first step to making America great again is remembering the greatest people in our country’s past: our veterans.
Preserving and enhancing our national cemeteries is an excellent way to do that. Next Veteran’s Day, visit a cemetery near you and say a prayer of thanks for the men and women that gave everything for our freedom.
Tom Ruck is the award-winning author of “Sacred Ground: A Tribute to America’s Veterans.”
The value of both gold and bitcoin comes from their so-called ‘network effect’.
The network effect of both gold and bitcoin comes from the collective belief that they are the non-confiscatable assets to own in a fiat monetary system, as an insurance against hyperinflation, banking system failure, or state expropriation.
As global wealth rises, the value of the network effect of both gold and bitcoin will also rise.
But as bitcoin takes market share from gold, bitcoin has considerably more upside than gold.
Despite bitcoin’s election-fuelled rally, its 260-day complexity is not yet close to the 1.2 level that would signal the start of another crypto winter.
Hence, while we should expect a near-term retracement, bitcoin’s structural uptrend is intact with an ultimate destination of $200,000+
10-year T-bonds and Portuguese stocks are tactically oversold.
Back in 2021, I penned a report explaining why bitcoin was headed to $100,000+. Suffice to say, my $100,000+ forecast stirred a hornets’ nest, even here at BCA. The naysayers pushed back hard, claiming that bitcoin was a ‘Ponzi scheme’ or, at the very least, a dangerous bubble.
Yet three years on, my prediction has been vindicated both for its price forecast and its underlying justification. Now, with the bitcoin price closing in on $100,000, is it time to take profits? The answer depends on whether you are a trader or a long-term holder.
Bitcoin’s progress has always been two steps forward, one step back. After its recent surge, premised on the more ‘bitcoin friendly’ candidate winning the US presidency, we can expect some near-term retracement – as was the case in April this year. On a multiyear horizon though, bitcoin’s structural uptrend is intact and will ultimately take it to $200,000+ (Chart 1).
The Value Of Gold And Bitcoin Come From Their ‘Non-Confiscatability’
To understand the value of bitcoin we must understand the value of gold. With gold predominantly used as jewellery, many people think that the value of gold comes from its properties as a precious metal, especially the chemical inertness that keeps it eternally beautiful. But this is a misunderstanding.
The other precious metals that are gold’s neighbours in groups 10 and 11 of the periodic table – silver, platinum, and palladium – possess identical properties to gold. This means that we can quantify gold’s value as a precious metal as being gold’s relative scarcity versus, say, silver multiplied by the price of silver.
Today, gold is roughly eight times as scarce as silver, so gold’s value as a precious metal is the price of silver, $30/oz, times eight, which equals $240/oz. This comprises just 10 percent of gold’s current market price of $2550/oz (Chart 2).
Yet for centuries, the gold price did just equal its scarcity versus silver multiplied by the silver price. The relationship ended only when the world moved to a fiat monetary system in 1931, and then again in 1971. In a fiat monetary system, the gold price surges to many multiples of its scarcity versus silver (Chart 3).
This provides the compelling proof that in a fiat monetary system, most of gold’s value comes not from its use as a precious metal. Most of gold’s value comes from the network of marginal buyers who are holding it for what I call its ‘non-confiscability’. Unlike financial assets, bank deposits, or cash, the state cannot confiscate gold via fiat monetary inflation. This is ensured by gold’s limited supply. Nor can gold be confiscated by the higher risk of a banking system failure that a fiat monetary system aggravates.
Can we justify the price of gold instead by the high cost of mining it? No, the causality runs the other way. The cost of mining gold is driven by its market price, as miners grab the largest share of its selling price that they can.
What about central bank purchases of gold? Central bank reserves also hold gold rather than foreign fiat currencies for gold’s non-confiscatability. A foreign fiat currency can be confiscated via devaluation by its government or central bank, but gold cannot.
All of which brings us to two key points:
First, given that gold’s above-ground market value is $19 trillion,1 the majority, around $17 trillion comes from the network of holders who value gold for its non-confiscatability.
Second, just like gold, bitcoin cannot be confiscated by monetary inflation or banking system failure (Chart 4). Additionally, and
unlike gold, it is difficult for the state to confiscate it by outright expropriation. Yet bitcoin, with a market value of $1.5 trillion comprises less than 10 percent of the total market for non-confiscatable assets. As bitcoin’s share of this market increases, and the supply of bitcoins reaches its upper limit, bitcoin’s price has substantial upside.
The Value Of Bitcoin’s ‘Network Effect’ Has Substantial Upside
In essence, the value of both gold and bitcoin comes from their so-called ‘network effect’. A network effect creates a self-reinforcing cycle of value where each new user makes the network more valuable for everyone.
In the case of both gold and bitcoin, their network effect come from the collective belief that they are the non-confiscatable assets to own in a fiat monetary system. And that a certain proportion of total wealth must be held in these non-confiscatable assets as an insurance against hyperinflation, banking system failure, or state expropriation.
You might ask, what is the difference between a network effect based on collective belief and a Ponzi Scheme? The answer is that a Ponzi Scheme relies on an exponential growth of its network on a promise to get-rich-quick. Once that exponential growth ends, as it must, the value of the network collapses.
By contrast, gold’s network effect has existed in relatively stable form since 1971, and bitcoin’s network effect has existed for over ten years. And their entire raison d’être is an insurance against the get-poor-quick that comes from hyperinflation, banking system failure, or state expropriation.
The upshot is that we can value the gold and bitcoin networks as the product of three terms:
Global wealth
Global wealth share held in the non-confiscatable asset-class
Non-confiscatable asset-class share held in gold/bitcoin
For gold, this means that if global wealth rose by say, 20 percent in the coming 2-3 years and the global wealth share held in the non-confiscatable asset-class held constant, while bitcoin eroded the non-confiscatable asset-class share held in gold from 90 to 80 percent, then the gold price would nevertheless increase by about 7 percent. Under the same premise though, the bitcoin price would increase by about 140 percent3 to $200,000+.
What does our proprietary analysis of price trend complexity reveal for gold and bitcoin? Gold’s 260-day price rally complexity (fractal dimension) recently reached the point of collapse that has reliably signalled tactical retracements. This justifies our current tactical short position in gold (Chart 5).
In the case of bitcoin, its major structural downtrends – so-called ‘crypto winters’ – have started when the preceding rally’s 260-day complexity collapsed to a level of 1.2 (Chart 6).
Despite bitcoin’s election-fuelled rally, its long-term complexity has not collapsed to the level that would signal the start of another crypto winter. Hence, while we should expect a near-term retracement, bitcoin’s structural uptrend is still intact with an ultimate destination of $200,000+.
A French court on Friday ordered the release of Lebanese pro-Palestine activist Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, Europe’s longest-held political prisoner, after 40 years in prison.
Abdallah, a former guerrilla with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), was sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for his alleged involvement in the 1982 murders of US military attache Charles Robert Ray and Israeli diplomat Yacov Barsimantov.
Lebanese political prisoner Georges Ibrahim Abdallah sits in court during his trial in Lyon, France, in July 1986, via AFP
The 73-year-old has appealed his conviction 11 times since becoming eligible for release in 1999. The court said the communist activist would be released on December 6 on the condition that he leaves France and does not return, French anti-terror prosecutors said in a statement to AFP.
The prosecutors said they would appeal the court’s decision, leaving the timing of Abdallah’s release uncertain.
The Lebanese activist, born to a Christian family in the northern village of Koubayat, has long maintained that he was not a “criminal” but “a fighter” who battled for the rights of Palestinians.
“The path I followed was dictated by the human rights violations perpetrated against Palestine,” he told the judges during his latest appeal for release.
Wounded in 1978 during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Abdallah, a secondary school teacher, joined the Marxist-Leninist PFLP, which carried out a series of plane hijackings during the 1960s and 1970s.
A year later, Abdallah, along with his brothers and cousins, founded his own pro-Palestine armed group, the Lebanese Armed Revolutionary Factions (LARF). The group had contact with other far-left armed outfits, including France’s Action Directe, Italy’s Red Brigades and the German Red Army Faction (RAF).
The Lebanese anti-Israeli Marxist group claimed responsibility for five attacks, including four in France in 1981 and 1982.
‘Honor of being accused’
In 1986, Abdallah was sentenced in Lyon to four years in prison for criminal association and possession of weapons and explosives. He was tried the following year for complicity in the assassination of Ray and Barsimantov, as well as for the attempted assassination of a third American diplomat in 1984.
In the murder trial, one of the French secret services’ sources was Abdallah’s lawyer, Jean-Paul Mazurier, who later revealed that he was an intelligence agent.
In court, Abdallah denied the accusation but declared: “If the people did not entrust me with the honor of participating in these anti-imperialist actions that you attribute to me, at least I have the honor of being accused of them.”
Abdallah was then sentenced to life in prison, a far more severe punishment than the 10-year sentence sought by the attorney general. His lawyer, Jacques Verges, who previously defended clients such as Venezuelan militant Carlos the Jackal, saw the verdict as “a declaration of war”.
A support committee was immediately formed, demanding Abdallah’s “immediate release”. The longest-serving prisoner in France has never expressed regret for his actions.
“He is doing well intellectually. He is an activist. He sticks to his guns, reads a lot and keeps himself very informed about what is happening in the Middle East. People write to him from all over the world,” his lawyer, Jean-Louis Chalanset, told AFP in 2022.
‘A political victory’
“I am the victim of a political decision,” Abdallah said shortly before the verdict on Friday.
Washington has consistently opposed Abdallah’s release, while Lebanese authorities have repeatedly called for his freedom.
A more recent photo of Georges Ibrahim Abdallah
Since 1999, the year he became eligible for release, all his parole requests have been rejected except one in 2013, when he was granted release on the condition that he be expelled from France.
When his request was granted that year, then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contacted French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, saying in diplomatic cables revealed by WikiLeaks: “Although the French government has no legal authority to overturn the Court of Appeal’s decision, we hope French officials might find another basis to challenge the decision’s legality.”
French Interior Minister Manuel Valls then refused to proceed with the order and Abdallah remained in jail.
Chalanset told AFP that the court’s decision on Friday is not contingent on the government issuing such an order, calling it “a legal and a political victory”. However, under French law, an appeal can suspend the court’s decision, effectively deferring its execution.
Over the years, Abdallah’s fate has mobilized activists close to the French Communist Party and the far left, who have accused successive governments of employing relentless tactics regarding the political prisoner’s release.
Several communist municipalities have even made him an honorary citizen, and protests have frequently been held outside his prison in Lannemezan, in southwestern France. “Georges Ibrahim Abdallah is the victim of a state justice that shames France,” Nobel Prize-winning author Annie Ernaux said in a piece in the communist daily L’Humanite last month.
The Human Rights League, a leading French human rights NGO, has long maintained that Abdallah’s continued imprisonment violates human rights.
Donald Trump’s re-election as President of the United States, including an immense electoral college and popular vote victories, was the American people’s call for sanity and prosperity. For the incoming Trump administration, there is no time to waste in honoring the public’s mandate for change from the Obama and Biden administrations’ radical, dangerous, extreme, and disastrous policies.
The first step is to lower the country’s political temperature. It won’t be easy.
On the prevailing side, Mr. Trump’s supporters were elated by his victory and felt a palpable sense of relief at the reprieve it provided from the left’s ideological assault upon everything these God-fearing, patriotic Americans cherish. Yet, even as the election night celebrations continued, the calls began in earnest for the incoming administration to implement the most sweeping policies anyone to the right-of-center could conceive; and, yes, for “accountability” of bad actors, be it through political firings and impeachments, social ostracisms and “cancellations,” and criminal investigations that were expected to lead to indictments and prison sentences.
This is not unique in the annals of victorious presidential campaigns. Indeed, though one would be loath to acknowledge the irony, such demands were made by Democrats when Mr. Biden captured the White House in 2020. While Mr. Biden and his handlers and Congressional abettors indulged their leftist base with radical legislation, executive orders, and partisan political persecutions, it would behoove Mr. Trump and his supporters to recognize precisely how the American people viewed such unexpected surprises from “Lunch Bucket Joe from Scranton.” And, should they forget, all they need do is look at Vice President Kamala Harris’s electoral map.
This is not as easy as it sounds, for looking across the political aisle is an embittered and embarrassed Democrat Party. Lashing out at everyone but themselves for the abject failure of their fetid ideologies in matters of peace and prosperity, the left is not in a kumbaya mood—any more than are Mr. Trump’s supporters, who bear the scars of the Democrats’ systematic sedition against the first Trump administration; their despicable lawfare against him personally; and their pervasive slanders, smears, and attacks against his voters.
Already, under the guise of “offering olive branches,” the Democrats have sought to buy time to regroup, craft a narrative that they are the peacemakers, and wait for the first opportunity to rebrand Mr. Trump as an unstable, wannabe dictator who must be “resisted” by any means because it is justified by his being an existential threat to “our democracy.” It is a repeat of 2016, except in this instance, the size of Mr. Trump’s win has stunned and staggered the left, which necessitates their crafting breathing room to coordinate their counterattack.
Those blind to the Democrats’ stratagem will foolishly implore Mr. Trump to water down his rhetoric and goals to court the Democrats’ goodwill.
The GOP and, yes, Mr. Trump have gone down this dead end before and have learned a hard, valuable lesson not to repeat this mistake.
But this is not about enfeebling, but rather enabling the Republican-Populist agenda and movement.
Instead, as is his wont, Mr. Trump must grab the bulls**tters by the horns and offer the terms of political comity that will lower the country’s political temperature for the Democrats’ consideration.
The first and defining measure?
Announce that upon assuming office you will pardon Hunter, Jim, and Joe Biden for any crime they committed or may have committed.
Saying it and doing it will cement in the public’s mind that Mr. Trump is not only refraining from doing unto his political enemies what was done unto him but showing the magnanimity in victory of which his Democrat opponents have proven incapable. Armed with the moral high ground and the political insulation this beneficent act would provide, Mr. Trump will have significantly increased his already immense political capital that will be required to pursue and implement the significant policy reforms that he articulated throughout the campaign.
Of course, there will be pushback within his base by those who don’t accept that.
If Republicans do unto the Democrats what the latter did unto them, the public will view the GOP as hypocrites, declare a pox on both houses, and recoup the political capital Mr. Trump needs to achieve his agenda. Nothing would more hearten despondent Democrats.
Mr. Trump well understands this, and, nothing if not a leader, has the abundance of courage to empathize with his defeated opponents, for he has experienced the same feeling—in fact, exponentially more so, as he was the defeated candidate—and an incumbent president to boot. Equipped with this personal experience and acumen, he has the insight to recognize this singular chance to advance his agenda—one containing the very policies that, when implemented, will provide the very sanity and prosperity the voters emphatically demanded when returning him to the Oval Office.
Netflix is reportedly paying at least $60 million in purses to make history in its first-ever, live, non-pay-per-view sports broadcast tonight.
The streaming giant’s venture into live programming pits 27-year-old YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul against 58 year-old ‘Iron’ Mike Tyson.
The big fight between “Iron Mike” and “The Problem Child” is scheduled to take place at AT&T Stadium, the Arlington, Texas home of the Dallas Cowboys.
The venue, which holds 80,000, has hosted some major boxing matches over the years, including multiple fights featuring former champion Manny Pacquiao current pound-for-pound No. 1 Canelo Álvarez.
Tyson will be fighting out of the red corner on Friday night, and weighs in at 228.4 pounds.
“This fight is not going to change my lifestyle financially,” Tyson said.
“I feel I can beat this guy.”
Paul will fight from the blue corner of the ring and enters the fight at 227.2 pounds.
“I’m here to make $40m and knock out a legend,” Jake Paul told interviewers.
The fight has garnered a great deal of attention as nobody knows how a 58-year-old Mike Tyson is going to look in his first sanctioned competitive fight since 2005.
Things got a littel heated at the weigh-in…
For now, the betting markets favor Paul over Iron Mike, with Tyson’s odds fading today…
Jake Paul’s Advantages:
Age and Stamina: Paul is significantly younger, at 27 years old, which gives him an edge in terms of stamina, recovery, and physical condition. Boxing is indeed a sport where youth can be a substantial advantage.
Recent Activity: Paul has been active in the ring, fighting several times in recent years. This regular competition keeps him in fighting shape and provides him with recent experience against diverse opponents.
Size and Reach: Paul has a height advantage and possibly a reach advantage, which could help him keep Tyson at bay if he chooses to fight more defensively.
Boxing Skill Development: Over his fights, Paul has shown improvement in his boxing technique, particularly in his footwork, jab usage, and defensive maneuvers.
Mike Tyson’s Advantages:
Experience: Tyson’s vast experience as a former undisputed heavyweight champion cannot be overstated. He knows how to fight at the highest levels, how to read opponents, and how to end fights quickly.
Power: Even at an advanced age, Tyson’s punching power is legendary. If he can land a clean shot, his power could still be devastating.
Motivation: This fight could serve as a significant motivator for Tyson to prove he still has what it takes, which might lead to an exceptional performance.
Fight Predictions:
Betting odds generally favor Paul due to his youth and recent activity, but there’s a significant portion of the public and some experts betting on Tyson, driven by nostalgia and his raw power.
Scenario 1 – Early Knockout: If Tyson can replicate his old explosive starts and land a significant punch early, he could potentially knock out Paul.
Scenario 2 – Endurance and Strategy: If the fight goes beyond the initial rounds, Paul’s superior conditioning and strategy might wear Tyson down, leading to a win either by knockout or decision.
Scenario 3 – Fight Integrity: There’s always the possibility in such high-profile, exhibition-like bouts that the fight might not be as competitive as it could be due to various external factors, but given the statements from both fighters and the sanctioning of the bout, this seems less likely.
Conclusion:
While many factors could play into the outcome, if one were to go by the majority of expert opinions and odds:
Jake Paul is likely to win due to his youth, recent fighting experience, and physical advantages. However, Mike Tyson’s power and experience make him a dangerous opponent, and if he can catch Paul with a solid punch, nothing can be ruled out.
The fight’s result might also depend on how Tyson has prepared, considering his age and health conditions.
Remember, in boxing, one punch can change everything, especially when it comes from someone with Tyson’s history.
* * *
Netflix will start coverage of the full fight card at 2000ET.
Who are the Jake Paul-Mike Tyson Ring Girls?
Lexi Williams – Instagram superstar; 1.4M followers; “I’m so excited to be a part of this moment,” she wrote on Instagram. One of the true titans of the Instagram modeling world
Sydney Thomas – Making her second career ring girl appearance
Raphaela Milagres – Brazilian model who worked the Jake Paul vs. Andre August fight in 2023
Virginia Sanhouse – Venezuelan model with 5.5M TikTok followers
Delia Sylvain – Veteran ring girl who worked the Jake Paul vs. Mike Perry fight in July.
Full Card:
Heavyweight: Mike Tyson vs. Jake Paul
Super Lightweight: Katie Taylor vs. Amanda Serrano for Taylor’s IBF, WBA, WBC and WBO women’s super-lightweight titles
Welterweight: Mario Barrios vs. Abel Ramos for Barrios’ WBC welterweight title
Super Middleweight: Neeraj Goyat vs. Whindersson Nunes
Super Middleweight: Shadasia Green vs Melinda Watpool for vacant women’s WBO super middleweight title
Super Lightweight: Lucas Bahdi vs. Armando Casamonica
Featherweight: Bruce Carrington vs Dana Coolwell
As PJMedia’s Scott Pinsker warns, make no mistake, Mike Tyson is still a master artist. He’s still an all-time great.
Jake Paul is scribbling with crayons.
On their merits, if Tyson has ANYTHING left, he will flatten Paul. It shouldn’t go more than a couple of rounds, two minutes or not. Mike Tyson on Testosterone Replacement Therapy is probably less like a guy pushing 60 and more like an athlete in his 40s.
If the fix is in, it’s almost certainly for Tyson to take the dive. That’s how it’s always been in boxing: The old lion makes way for the younger (and more marketable) lion.
Peter caps off a very newsworthy week, in which the decisive Trump victory shocked the media class and another Fed rate cut was announced. Peter analyzes both events, arguing against the unbridled economic optimism of Trump’s supporters and criticizing Jerome Powell’s stance on Fed independence and his alarming lack of concern for a future of stagflation.
Peter starts by highlighting the inconvenient trade-off between taxes and government spending. Trump promises new tax cuts, but these will need to be offset by spending cuts, lest the national debt balloons even further out of control:
Trump would have to maybe have a fireside chat in front of the American public and level with them.
He can say, when I was running for president, I promised a lot of things.
I promised a lot of tax cuts… we really need higher taxes if we can’t get some serious cuts in spending.
And so that’s what we’re going to try. I’m going to ask Americans to pitch in and tighten their belts.
While both the Republicans and Democrats like to take credit for for the country’s economic growth, the reality is that much of this “growth” is an artificial boom induced and sustained by decades of expansionary monetary policy by the Federal Reserve:
The problem was we didn’t have a strong economy. We had a bubble. We had a fragile economy.
In fact, we’ve been blowing a bubble in this economy ever since the 1990s. Greenspan is the architect of this house of cards.
He’s been blowing all the air in and every president going back to Clinton has been hiding behind his bubble and has been taking credit for the fake economic growth that has been a consequence of this ever-expanding bubble.
With the stock market lifted by Trump’s success, Peter argues the best time to switch into US equities is when the aforementioned bubble pops. It’ll be painful in the short-term, but that’s when stocks will be a bargain:
The time to load the boat with US stocks is not when they’re historically expensive. I’m waiting for blood in the streets. I want the collapse to happen…
Now, I know when we initially do that and the economy is in recession and everybody is pessimistic, that’s when I’m going to be optimistic, because I’m going to know that this is the bitter tasting medicine that we should have swallowed a long time ago.
Pivoting to the Fed rate cut, Peter points out that the Fed may have cut rates by less than they would have had Kamala Harris been elected instead of Donald Trump:
You would assume that if we’re going to have a stronger economy, the Fed should reconsider the rate cuts, maybe even pause or hike rates.
I thought, well, there’s no chance the Fed’s going to do that. Trump would go ballistic—they’re going to cut. And that’s exactly what they did.
One reason the dollar has been so strong is that people are thinking, well, maybe the Fed won’t cut as much now that we’re expecting a stronger economy.
Peter takes aim at Jerome Powell’s political cowardice, in which he uses the Fed’s independence as an excuse to avoid criticizing bad fiscal policy:
Being independent doesn’t mean you have to keep your mouth shut and you can’t speak your mind and you can’t be critical.
It actually means the opposite of it.
When you’re independent, you’re not influenced by politicians, so you could say whatever the hell you want to say.
You can criticize whoever you want to criticize, and that is exactly what his job is.
At Thursday’s Fed press conference, Powell dodged a question about the possibility of stagflation. Peter sees this as a major gaffe:
He [Powell] kind of says, “Well, our plan for stagflation is to hope there is no stagflation.”
Then he laughed, realizing how ridiculous that sounded.
I mean, what kind of plan is that? Your plan is to hope it doesn’t happen. .. Because obviously, it’s possible.
So, what are you going to do? That’s the question, not what you hope will happen. What’s your plan?
They’ve got no plan. That’s why they hope it doesn’t happen.
But, you know, Murphy has a law, right?
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. We’re going to have stagflation.
Donald Trump’s has likely halted economic progressivism from corrupting the White House, but with the debt still expanding and the Federal Reserve still setting price controls on interest rates, the economy is far from healthy.
President-elect Donald Trump’s second term in office will likely bring sweeping changes to the nation’s Indo–Pacific policy and ongoing strategic competition with China.
Taiwan’s armed forces hold two days of routine drills to show combat readiness ahead of Lunar New Year holidays at a military base in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, on Jan. 11, 2023. The self-ruled island of Taiwan continues to hold defensive drills, as tensions remain high in the Taiwan Strait. Annabelle Chih/Getty Images
Leaders throughout Congress and the national security space are therefore preparing for an era marked by increased confrontation as the administration pushes back on the Chinese regime’s aggression in the region.
Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, said he expects a second Trump administration to adopt a firm approach to foreign policy in the Indo–Pacific.
“During Trump’s first administration, peace through strength was at the forefront of American foreign policy,” Moolenaar said in a statement shared with The Epoch Times by the committee’s staff.
That strength, Moolenaar suggests, would extend to the U.S. allies throughout the Indo–Pacific, where Trump is expected to push regional partners to increase their defense spending in order to receive continued U.S. support.
“The entire free world must act with urgency to invest in its collective military power in order to deter conflict, support global prosperity, and defend our values against CCP [Chinese Communist Party] aggression,” Moolenaar said.
Those increased expectations of Washington’s allies could bring both risk and opportunities to U.S. relations in the region as the nation attempts to pressure regional partners into adopting a more forward-facing defense posture.
They will also likely bring increased volatility to the United States’ relationship with China and the CCP, including by shaping the potential for an armed conflict between the two superpowers over the future of Taiwan.
Taiwan Flashpoint
The CCP claims that Taiwan is part of its territory. Though the communist regime has never controlled the island, CCP leader Xi Jinping has made unifying Taiwan with the mainland a legacy issue of his rule and has ordered the Party’s military wing to prepare for a potential conflict by 2027.
The United States does not officially support Taiwanese independence or the forceful unification of the two territories. But, since 1979, Washington has maintained obligations to sell Taiwan the arms it needs to maintain its self-defense.
Likewise, the United States has maintained a policy of so-called strategic ambiguity since 1979, in which it will neither confirm nor deny its willingness to enter a military conflict to defend Taiwan from CCP aggression.
However, U.S. political and military leadership have signaled that they are preparing for such an eventuality. To that end, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti issued a guidance document in September ordering the Navy to prepare for war with China by 2027.
The United States is not interested in preserving Taiwan’s independence simply because of its democratic government. The island nation is responsible for manufacturing more than half of the world’s semiconductors and nearly 90 percent of the globe’s advanced semiconductors, used in electronic components for everything from laptops to pickup trucks to hypersonic missiles.
To that end, Trump’s transactional approach to international security deals has thrown Taiwan’s central role in the global economy into question.
In July, for example, Trump called for Taiwan to pay more for its defense, though the island is already one of the largest purchasers of arms from the United States.
Since 1950, Taiwan has spent more than $50 billion on U.S. weapons, making it the fourth largest purchaser of U.S. arms behind Japan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
Trump has also suggested that military force would not be necessary to protect Taiwan from the CCP and has instead claimed that a severe enough economic threat to China would prevent an invasion of Taiwan.
Russell Hsiao, executive director of the Global Taiwan Institute think tank, told The Epoch Times that Trump’s ambiguous stance on Taiwan’s defense could invite further CCP attempts to sway American and Taiwanese decision-makers away from aggressively defending the island’s de facto independence.
“The president-elect has already indicated that he would be less clear than President Biden as to whether he thought the United States had an obligation to come to Taiwan’s defense if China decided to invade the island,” Hsiao said.
“Washington and Taipei should be prepared for Beijing to exploit this in its cognitive warfare campaigns and quickly develop their own counter-strategies.”
Hsiao noted, however, that Trump was “unencumbered by past precedents and norms,” which could help him to strengthen the bilateral relationship by overcoming the self-imposed restrictions of the past that have limited U.S. involvement with Taiwan on the international stage.
As such, he said, asking for Taiwan to accept a larger share of the financial burden for its defense could be an opportunity for Taiwanese leaders to demonstrate their resolve and, in the process, garner renewed U.S. support through access to increased arms sales.
“President-elect Trump is expected to emphasize burden-sharing in security ties with allies and partners,” Hsiao said.
“While this may be generally seen in a negative light by most allies and partners, it should be noted that this could lead to it being more forward-leaning in providing a wider variety of arms to Taiwan suited to a range of potential contingencies.”
Trump Expected to Deliver Security—at a Price
Taiwanese leadership responded by saying the island was committed to taking on more responsibility and defending itself from CCP aggression.
Taiwanese leadership may consider making a substantial arms purchase early on in the second Trump administration as a sort of down payment to demonstrate its resolve to the administration.
John Mills, former cybersecurity chief in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, said that ensuring a robust defense budget would help Taiwan to make sure U.S. support did not flag and that military expenditure was “the primary metric” used by Trump to determine an ally’s willingness to defend itself.
“We have a very poor track record when we carry the burden for other countries,” Mills said.
“All that is being asked is at least 2 percent of GDP spent on defense and, in reality, 4 to 5 percent is the new 2 percent.”
At present, Taiwan spends about 2.4 percent of its GDP on defense, according to data compiled by the CIA.
Other U.S. allies in the region are more varied. South Korea spends about 2.7 percent of its GDP on defense, and the Philippines spends only about 1.5 percent. Japan is in a unique situation because it is currently spending 1.4 percent but is in the middle of a historic reform of its military policy and strategy, which will see that figure rise to at least 2 percent in the coming years.
Yet none of those numbers at their current levels are likely to please the incoming Trump administration if it is truly so set on encouraging the nation’s allies in the Indo–Pacific to take point on confronting the Chinese regime’s global expansion.
There may be some wiggle room, however, as the administration looks to use less traditional pathways to secure its international interests.
Sam Kessler, a geopolitical analyst at the North Star Support Group risk advisory company, said that a hallmark of the first Trump administration was its ability to think outside of the box, and that would likely only increase now, given Trump’s growing distance from the old guard of the Republican Party.
“The Trump administration in the first term was innovative, proactive, and resourceful in the deals and agreements they crafted, so expect something similar, as well as a little predicted unpredictability, too,” Kessler told The Epoch Times.
“This may be done in the form of trade deals, security arrangements, foreign investments, and policies that may help reduce the threat levels, too. It could be a wide range of things that could be utilized.”
On that note, Kessler suggests that Trump would revisit trade deals and strong economic measures when confronting China and might prove surprisingly willing to take a proactive stance in the bilateral relationship with China.
Such economic deals, he said, could have the secondary objective of smoothing out regional tensions and preserving allied security while holding the CCP accountable economically.
“We may end up witnessing a series of deals and agreements that may be related to multiple issues that are non-related to the original purpose of a negotiation in order to reduce tensions between multiple parties in other areas,” Kessler said.
In all, it is clear that U.S. allies in the Indo–Pacific will be expected to contribute more to the common defense in the region, and such efforts will not go unseen.
With that much in mind, Mills said that he believes the likelihood of an armed conflict would drop, as Trump’s expectations for all nations in the Indo–Pacific would be clear.
“The likelihood of conflict in the western Pacific decreases significantly under Trump,” Mills said.
“Why? Because he’s showing clarity and resolve at all times. Clarity and resolve help prevent war. Lack of clarity and resolve creates war.”
