economics

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

Few can afford to be massively tariffed by the US, let alone sanctioned, and most aren’t willing to burn their bridges with the US for ideological reasons at the expense of their immediate economic interests…

Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar clarified earlier this month that “India has never been for de-dollarization. Right now there is no proposal to have a BRICS currency. BRICS do discuss financial transactions, [but] the United States is our largest trade partner and we have no interest in weakening the dollar at all.” This was in response to Trump threatening to impose 100% tariffs on any country that de-dollarizes.

Here are three background briefings for those who haven’t followed this:

* 6 September 2024: “BRICS Membership Or Lack Thereof Isn’t Actually That Big Of A Deal”

* 1 November 2024: “Did The Latest BRICS Summit Achieve Anything Of Tangible Significance At All?”

* 2 December 2024: “Trump’s Threats Against BRICS Are Based On False Premises”

As the first explained, “BRICS can be compared to a Zoom conference: members actively participate in talks on financial multipolarity, partners observe their discussions in real time, and everyone else with an interest in them hears about the outcome afterwards.” The second one confirmed the veracity of this assessment after the last BRICS Summit had no tangible outcome other than a joint statement. And finally, the last reaffirms the preceding two’s insight, which corrects false perceptions about BRICS.

India is on pace to become the world’s third largest economy by 2030, which requires continued flows of American investment and maintaining access to its enormous market. At the same time, however, it also wants to internationalize the rupee. That last-mentioned policy isn’t de-dollarization per se, but pragmatic and a form of hedging, so Trump shouldn’t be too perturbed. He’s also expected to have the most Indophilic administration in history that’ll be reluctant to sanction India anyhow.

The Indian way represents the model for other Global South countries to follow. Few can afford to be massively tariffed by the US, let alone sanctioned, and most aren’t willing to burn their bridges with the US for ideological reasons at the expense of their immediate economic interests. Furthermore, those that take this chance are making themselves dependent on someone else, namely China. Therefore, this policy comes at the expense of sovereignty, though it’s ironically supposed to strengthen such.

The middle ground between remaining trapped in the dollar system and experiencing its wrath after trying to liberate oneself is to gradually increase the use of one’s national currencies. In parallel with this, having access to alternative non-Western platforms like Chinese ones and whatever BRICS may or may not unveil can help, but they mustn’t become replacements. The goal is to diversify currencies and platforms, not replace one dependency with another, and it’ll take time implement.

Barring a black swan that completely revolutionizes the global financial system, the dollar will likely remain the world’s reserve currency, and Trump will take drastic action against China if it dares to unveil the so-called “petroyuan”. Those suppliers and clients who also decide to use it will face his fury as well. The “petroyuan” might therefore only remain a euphemism for China’s potential use of this currency in some of its bilateral energy deals while probably falling fall short of expectations in the medium-term.

The long term is too far out to forecast, but if the US keeps de-dollarization trends in check under Trump and institutionalizes the means that he’s expected to employ, then that’ll naturally have an adverse effect on internationalizing the yuan. At most, it might begin to be used more in bilateral trade deals too, but the US’ grand strategic goal is for the dollar to remain the currency of choice in energy deals. Internationalizing the ruble like Russia has done with its energy deals isn’t a threat to the dollar at all.

The only reason it even happened was because the US prohibited the use of dollars by others when purchasing Russian energy products, but curtailing and eventually even lifting these sanctions (as well as the associated one banning Russia’s use of SWIFT) could likely reverse this trend to a large degree. After all, it’s much more convenient for everyone to go back to the old order of business, though the US’ weaponization of the financial system since 2022 left an impression that’ll lead to continued hedging.

As “politically incorrect” as it may sound, China already complies with some of these same Western sanctions against Russia despite still officially criticizing them as hegemonic. This is proven by the Chinese-based BRICS New Development Bank and the SCO Bank suspending projects in Russia and not allowing the transfer of Russia’s dues respectively as proven here and here. RT also drew attention to Russia’s payment problems with China in early September, which were analyzed at length here.

It might therefore be unwise for any country to make itself dependent on China by promulgating radical de-dollarization policies since there’s no guarantee that the People’s Republic will have its back. The fact of the matter is that China’s complex interdependencies with the West are too deep, and this places major limits on its financial policymaking capabilities, thus explaining why it hasn’t fully supported Russia. This observation could lead to self-imposed restraints among aspiring de-dollarizing states.

No responsible country like India would feel comfortable fully returning to the former system so the increased use of national currencies and utilization of alternative platforms will persist into the future. So long as these trends remain manageable, and Trump is expected to do his utmost to this end, then no radical changes are expected anytime soon. Everything will continue moving more or less in the same direction, but at a gradual pace, and that’s best for the West and the Global South at this point in time.

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has begun reaching out through back channels to the governments of Mexico and El Salvador to prepare for his mass deportation plan, according to Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter. The conversations, which involve Trump advisers and informal intermediaries, are part of an effort to lay the groundwork for returning millions of undocumented immigrants as soon as Trump takes office.

While Trump has addressed migration broadly with Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, his team has held more detailed discussions through intermediaries, including businesspeople, to ensure deportation plans can proceed swiftly, the people said on condition of anonymity.

“We’re already talking,” said Tom Homan, Trump’s designated “border czar,” during a November visit to Texas alongside Governor Greg Abbott. “We’re already planning. We’re going to put a plan in place and secure this nation at the highest levels ever seen.“

The Challenge of Deportations

Trump’s deportation push—aiming to target millions of undocumented immigrants, including over 1 million with final orders of removal—relies heavily on the cooperation of other countries. While Mexico and El Salvador have longstanding repatriation processes, Trump’s advisers acknowledge that reaching agreements with other governments, such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and China, will be far more challenging.

“Unless they can strike a deal with the governments of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua on deportations, it seems likely they will look for alternate destinations,” said Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank. “That’s a really hard ask. If the Trump administration arrives just with a stick and no carrot, it’s going to be a tough negotiation.”

Trump addressed this difficulty Monday when asked about countries like Venezuela resisting deportation flights.

“They’ll take them back,” Trump said. “They’re all taking them back, yeah. And if they don’t, they’ll be met very harshly economically.”

Trump advisers involved in the outreach include incoming National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, according to sources. Homan, while focused on domestic enforcement, has supported these efforts to build deportation infrastructure ahead of Trump’s January 20 inauguration.

Negotiations after Trump takes office are expected to be led by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, and Christopher Landau, Trump’s former ambassador to Mexico who has been tapped as Rubio’s deputy.

The conversations with Mexico have included preparations for deporting Mexican nationals, but the Mexican government has been clear it won’t accept deportees from other countries. “Mexico’s Sheinbaum has said the nation is ready to welcome back its own citizens,” said a senior Mexican official, “but it won’t accept those from other countries.”

El Salvador presents a different dynamic. Trump’s family maintains a close relationship with President Nayib Bukele, whose administration has remained friendly with Trump allies. Donald Trump Jr. attended Bukele’s second inauguration in June, and Trump’s ambassador nominee for Mexico, Ronald Johnson, has kept in close contact with Bukele since serving as U.S. ambassador to El Salvador.

Focus on Immediate Enforcement

Trump’s deportation strategy will begin with targeting individuals already facing deportation orders. “The priority will be those with no legal basis to stay,” said a person familiar with the plans, pointing to undocumented immigrants who have either committed crimes or exhausted their appeals and asylum processes.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has not responded to requests for updated figures, but Migration Policy Institute data shows that Mexico has received more than 1.7 million deportees over the past decade—more than the next nine countries combined.

Homan and Trump’s advisers argue that aggressive early action will set the tone for enforcement. “The American people re-elected President Trump because they trust him to lead our country and restore peace through strength around the world,” Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s transition spokeswoman, said in a statement. “When he returns to the White House, he will take the necessary action to do just that.”

While Trump’s relationships with Mexico and El Salvador remain relatively stable, cooperation from other nations remains uncertain. Trump’s transition team recognizes that countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, which are often the origin points for migrants, have fraught diplomatic relations with the U.S. These nations rarely accept deportation flights, posing a major obstacle to Trump’s mass deportation plan.

Authored by Clay Routledge via RealClearPolitics,

In the middle of a Trump transition, the “Resistance 2.0,” and the inevitable partisan mud-slinging, it is easy to lose faith in humanity’s future. Polls show growing pessimism about everything from democracy to economic mobility to climate change.

Yet the major challenges we face demand something different from us: a progress mindset. 

Our team at Archbridge Institute’s Human Flourishing Lab recently launched Progress Pulse, a new research initiative to study the attitudes, knowledge, motives, and goals that individuals hold regarding progress. In our first Progress Pulse survey, the results from over 2,000 U.S. adults reveal a stark divide: 52% believe we will make significant progress and create a better world for future generations, while 48% expect failure and decline.

Particularly concerning is our finding that young Americans are the most cynical about the future. Among adults aged 18 to 34, only 47% believe life will be better for future generations, while 53% expect decline. This drops to 42% when looking specifically at Gen Z (adults under 28). In other words, nearly 60% of Gen Z believes we will fail to improve the world and that life will be worse in the future. This stands in stark contrast to older Americans: Among those 65 and older, 60% believe in a better future, with only 40% expecting decline. 

This generational divide should worry us all, given that young adults will be at the forefront of solving tomorrow’s challenges. We cannot afford for them to have a negative outlook.

Some might argue that negativity is actually needed to drive progress. I frequently come across the view that positive feelings – from happiness to hope – are signs of people putting their heads in the sand or living blissfully unaware. The slogan, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention,” captures the sentiment that negative feelings are necessary for driving change.

But this view fundamentally misunderstands human psychology. Negative feelings such as anxiety often make us more psychologically defensive. While this can be useful when we need to protect ourselves from immediate physical, social, or financial threats, it also orients us away from the creative, innovative thinking and action that progress requires. For instance, research finds that the more anxious people are, the less likely they are to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Whether we are building businesses, families, friendships, or the broader institutions that advance civilization, negative thoughts and feelings are barriers to success.

Positive mental states, not negative ones, tend to push us outward toward solving problems and improving the world. This is because positive emotions promote a more expansive mindset, leading to greater willingness to take risks and explore new possibilities, which is crucial for addressing complex societal challenges. 

Take hope, for example. Hope is a positive and action-oriented mental state. Behavioral sciences research shows that when people are hopeful, they have a firm confidence in themselves and an unwavering belief that they will attain positive change in their lives. This allows them to persist through adversity. Hopeful people are flexible in finding effective paths toward their goals and can quickly adjust their approach when they encounter obstacles. Hopeful individuals are also more motivated to want to improve the world and they show greater creativity and tolerance for different perspectives – essential qualities for addressing the major challenges of our time.

The good news? Hope is contagious. Hopeful individuals inspire others to adopt more positive and action-oriented mindsets. They create ripple effects of positive change in their communities and organizations.

Right now, we need hope to spread. Our public discourse is saturated with negativity. Research finds that a growing proportion of news headlines convey anger, fear, disgust, and sadness. And we are part of the problem: Research also shows that when individuals engage with news online, they give more clicks to negative headlines. All of this is taking a toll on our nation’s psyche. 

As we confront the challenges of our time, we face a choice: Succumb to negativity or embrace a progress mindset. The evidence is clear – if we want to solve big problems and create a better future, we need to adopt a positive outlook.

The future remains unwritten. The challenges we face are real, but so is our capacity to overcome them. The first step is believing we can.

Clay Routledge is vice president of Research and director of the Human Flourishing Lab at the Archbridge Institute.

Authored by Kenin Spivak via RealClearPolitics,

It’s time to defrock the word police.

The election, polls, and anecdotal evidence confirm that Americans want to end the obnoxious recitation of pronouns – “Latinx,” “birthing persons,” and other entries in the radical left lexicon – except in eulogies for progressive virtue signaling.

In a March Gallup poll of more than 12 million adults, 4.4% identified as bisexual, 0.9% as transgender, and 0.1% as pansexual. In exit polls this year of more than 110,000 voters conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, just 1% identified as “nonbinary,” a subset of the Gallup categories. Some of these individuals, most often nonbinaries, dominate use of non-standard pronouns such as “they,” “zir” and “hir.”

If 100% of bisexuals, transgenders, and pansexuals used non-standard pronouns (they do not) and all are offended if the remaining 94.6% of us do not publicly proclaim our pronouns in our signature cards and profiles (also untrue), then the pronoun kerfuffle risks offending 5.4% of Americans. From 10 to 20 times more Americans are offended by this babble. According to a Pew study published in June, nearly 56% of registered voters are uncomfortable with someone using the pronouns “they” or “them,” rather than “he” or “she.” Most of the 53% of Americans who consider religion to be “very important” in their lives likely agree.

Even in Canada, where polls show greater support for gender fluidity, a survey of 3,016 adults from the Angus-Reid Institute found that 66% opposed (36% strongly) and just 22% supported (6% strongly) that “everyone should put their pronouns in their social media profiles/emails.” Media savvy squad member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez deleted her pronouns from her X profile.

The core question is not whether those who choose non-standard pronouns, other than “they,” should be dissuaded from doing so, but whether we must all subjugate ourselves to pronoun activists by beclowning our signature cards and profiles to confirm that we are adhering to at least 2,000 years of gender identification, and whether we must adopt idiosyncratic pronouns when describing others.

At the least, no one should use the pronoun “they.” The use of “they” to describe an individual is grammatically incorrect in nearly all circumstances. It is narcissistic and pompous. When discussing multiple people and also using “they” as a pronoun for one or more of them, the result is indecipherable. (Try to understand the sentence I just wrote if the word “them” could mean both more than one individual, and one or more specific individuals.)

More than a few times I have had the following conversation with a professional whose firm uses pronouns in its signature cards. Me: Does anyone in the firm use pronouns other than him or her? Partner: “No” (or, rarely, “a few”). Me: Why then do you do this, since it must be off-putting to many more people than the number who like it? Partner: Some variation of, “We only care about the feelings of the few.”

This goes even further when people are penalized for refusing to participate in this farce. Being LGBTQ may be protected by law or common decency, but the Constitution unambiguously protects free speech and the exercise of religion. It does not protect an individual’s right to force others to refer to him or her as a “they.” At least 10 states have passed legislation to ensure that teachers, staff, and students aren’t required to use students’ pronouns or names if they don’t align with the student’s sex at birth.

Nothing, of course, is more absurd that the misogynistic “birthing person,” or that a nominee for the Supreme Court can’t define “woman.”

U.S. passport applicants now may select any gender, or an “X” gender, as may residents of 16 states on birth certificates, and at least 25 states and the District of Columbia on drivers’ licenses and other identification, defeating the purpose of identification.

French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish assign gender to most nouns. Hence, Americans from South America refer to themselves as “Latino,” “Latina,” or just “Hispanic.” The same misogynistic pathology that causes progressives to insist there are more than two immutable sexes, erase women, and put biological males in girls’ sports, drives them to the despised slur “Latinx.”

A 2021 poll of 800 registered voters of Latin American descent for Bendixen and Amandi International, a Democratic firm, found that only 2% described themselves as Latinx, and 40% found the term offensive. A Pew survey in September found that only 4% of Hispanics use it, 51% have never heard of it, and 75% of those who have, oppose it. In October, a study conducted by professors from Georgetown and Harvard found that the use of Latinx by Democrats was increasing Hispanic support for Donald Trump and other Republicans.

The progressive lexicon is based on tenuous connections (“grandfathered” is racist), wordy (“people experiencing homelessness” for “homeless”), kooky (“assigned female at birth” for “girl”) and offends vast number of Americans, including women and members of minority groups whom the progressives claim to be supporting.

According to Future Forward, Kamala Harris’ lead PAC, variants of Trump’s campaign advertisement about her support for taxpayer-funded sex reassignment surgery for transgenders with the tagline “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” shifted the race 2.7% in Trump’s favor.

Trump’s success among most demographic groups, and exit and post-election polling (see here, here, here, and here) tell us that Americans don’t want to be told by the radical left what to think or how to speak about social issues. It is time to put pronouns, Latinx, and other progressive terminology in the waste basket.

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including The American Mind, National Review, the National Association of Scholars, television, radio, and podcasts.

South Korea’s Constitutional Court began reviewing President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment on Saturday, following a National Assembly vote that led to it. Yoon was scheduled for questioning on Sunday as part of a prosecutors’ office investigation, but he has not responded. Meanwhile, the leader of his party, who had supported the impeachment, has resigned.

NBC News reports the prosecutors’ office asked Yoon to appear for questioning on Sunday as part of an investigation over his failed attempt to declare emergency martial law earlier this month. Prosecutors will issue another summons for the president. 

On Saturday, the National Assembly voted to impeach Yoon, with 204 lawmakers in the 300-member house in favor of the motion and 85 against. Eight votes were declared invalid, while three lawmakers abstained from voting.

The vote comes a little more than a week after Yoon survived an impeachment vote, capping multi-week political turmoil in the country that borders North Korea. This follows Yoon’s declaration of the briefest martial law in South Korean history on December 3, lasting only a few hours, after accusing the opposition party of engaging in ‘anti-state activities.’

Recall, Yoon said: “I will not give up. I will do my best for our country.” And this could be why he failed to appear for questioning on Sunday.

“If Yoon continues to defy requests for questioning in the two inquiries, investigators could ask a court to issue a warrant for his arrest,” NBC noted. 

Under South Korea’s Constitution, Yoon’s impeachment has allowed Prime Minister Han Duck-soo to become interim leader.

Political instability in South Korea led to the resignation of Han Dong Hoon, the leader of Yoon’s People Power Party, on Monday morning. 

Han said he does “not regret supporting the impeachment” because the president’s use of martial law was wrong. 

“Defending illegal martial law is a betrayal of the country, the people, the conservative spirit, and the achievements of our party that achieved industrialization and democratization,” Han emphasized. 

Given that the Constitutional Court will now decide whether to reinstate or remove Yoon, Goldman’s Goohoon Kwon and Andrew Tilton provided clients with the possible transition scenarios. That process could take up to six months.

Here’s what comes next: 

Newsquawk’s latest headlines on the ongoing political turmoil: 

• South Korean MPs have successfully voted to impeach President Yoon in their second attempt, amid backlash following his brief move to impose martial law, according to BBC. Yoon was suspended from official duties at 19:24 local time on Saturday while PM Han is to continue as acting president, according to Yonhap.

• South Korea’s acting president Han vowed to leave no vacuum in state affairs, build a solid security posture, and ensure the cabinet works hard to maintain trust with the US, Japan, and other partners. He also pledged efforts to operate financial and forex markets smoothly, according to Yonhap. Acting President Han said the country will maintain preparedness to prevent North Korea from stirring up provocations, secure national interests ahead of the new US administration, and prioritise national security above all else, according to News1 and Yonhap.

• South Korea’s opposition leader Lee Jae-myung said the party has decided not to proceed with the impeachment of acting , according to Reuters.

• Bank of Korea stated it is necessary to respond more actively to the economic impact compared with past impeachment periods, given heightened challenges in external conditions. It also said it will use all available policy instruments, in conjunction with the government, to respond to and avert escalation of volatility in financial and forex markets, according to Reuters.

• South Korea’s Finance Minister said the government will continue to swiftly deploy market-stabilising measures as needed, seek more support measures for vulnerable sectors, and actively communicate with parliament to keep the economy stable. The minister also confirmed that the bi-annual economic policy plan will be announced before the end of the year, according to Reuters.

• South Korea’s financial regulator said it will expand market-stabilising funds if needed to boost liquidity in bond and short-term money markets and expects financial markets to stabilise as recent political events are temporary shocks, according to Reuters.

Also, the Goldman analysts warned of another scenario that could unfold: “… muddling through in a political gridlock.” 

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Alejandro Mayorkas, provided an update Sunday on a rash of apparent drone sightings in the New Jersey region, saying the federal government will take action to address concerns but signaled that officials don’t have the authority to shoot them down.

Over the past several weeks, residents and local officials have reported drones flying over New Jersey, drawing intense speculation and scrutiny in the past week. Some federal lawmakers have called on the drones to be shot down or captured, while federal officials have not disclosed the source of the unmanned aerial vehicles.

“There’s no question that people are seeing drones,” Mayorkas told ABC News’ “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning. “I want to assure the American public that we in the federal government have deployed additional resources, personnel, technology to assist the New Jersey State Police in addressing the drone sightings.”

Mayorkas added that the sightings are “in fact” of drones, but some are “manned aircraft that are commonly mistaken for drones,” echoing previous statements made by the FBI, DHS, and the White House. He did not provide further details.

“But there’s no question that drones are being sighted,” the secretary said, adding that there are “thousands” of drones that are flown every day in the United States, including commercial and recreational vehicles. He also pointed out that in September 2023, the Federal Aviation Administration changed federal rules that allow drones to fly in the evening.

“I want to assure the American public that we are on it. We are working in close coordination with state and local authorities,” Mayorkas said. “And it is critical, as we all have said for a number of years that we need from Congress additional authorities to address the drone situation. Our authorities currently are limited, and they are set to expire. We need them extended and expanded.”

Elaborating, he called on Congress to allow state and local officials to have broader latitude in dealing with drones “under federal supervision.”

When asked by Stephanopoulos about whether the drones should be shot down, as suggested by President-elect Donald Trump in a social media post over the weekend, Mayorkas signaled that the U.S. government has limited capacity in that regard.

Several local New Jersey elected officials, including Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), said in a Saturday news conference that that government should take down the drones and have them inspected by federal officials. “Why can’t we bag at least one drone and get to the bottom of this?” Smith asked.

Mayorkas said Sunday that the U.S. government is “limited in our authorities” in taking down a drone, noting that there are more than 8,000 drones being flown each day across the country.

“We have certain agencies within the Department of Homeland Security that can do that, and outside our department,” he added, “but we need those authorities expanded as well.”

The Homeland Security secretary then stressed that U.S. officials have not seen evidence that the drones are being operated by a foreign adversary, echoing statements made by the White House and FBI. He also suggested that the drones have not been flown over any sensitive or restricted areas.

“When a drone is flown over restricted air space, we act very, very swiftly,” said Mayorkas, who is due to leave office on Jan. 20, 2025. “And, in fact, when an individual in California flew a drone over restricted air space, that individual was identified, apprehended, and is being charged by federal authorities. And so we act as swiftly as possible when an individual does fly a drone over restricted air space and violates the rules.”

He was making reference to an incident earlier this month in which a Chinese national living in the United States was flying a drone near Vandenburg Air Force Base in Southern California.

The suspect, Yinpiao Zhou, was arrested at the San Francisco International Airport right before he was set to board a flight back to China on Dec. 9, officials have said.

Authored by Josh Stylman via The Brownstone Institute,

Let me start by saying I loathe politics. I’ve always been drawn to liberal ideas—individual freedom, protecting the vulnerable, questioning authority, and the fundamental belief that consenting adults should be free to live their lives however they choose as long as they’re not harming others. These aren’t political positions to me; they’re basic human principles. But the game of politics itself repulses me. What I’m about to share isn’t about politics; it’s about our shared reality and how we’ve lost touch with it.

The Mindvirus

What’s truly mind-numbing to me is how people don’t see what’s happening right in front of them. The media has devolved into nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the establishment, programming people to react rather than think. I’ve experienced this firsthand: When I drew historical comparisons between vaccine mandates and 1933 Germany’s early authoritarian policies, I was instantly labeled an extremist and cancelled by my NYC community. Yet now, these same people casually call everyone at Trump’s MSG rally Nazis. The irony would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

My Liberal Foundation

I still believe deeply in core liberal principles:

• Genuine free speech, not the controlled corporate version we see today
• Standing against establishment overreach
• Opposing unchecked corporate power
• Fighting against unnecessary wars
• Complete bodily autonomy – your body, your choice, in ALL contexts
• Defending individual rights consistently, not selectively

These aren’t just political positions—they’re principles about human dignity and freedom.

The Democratic Party’s Transformation

The Democratic Party’s drift from these values didn’t happen overnight. Many of us, exhausted by Bush’s brutal wars, lies about weapons of mass destruction, and the Patriot Act’s assault on civil liberties, invested our hopes in Obama’s promise of change. But instead of the transformation we sought, we got what felt like Bush’s third and fourth terms.

Under Obama, we watched as corporate influence grew stronger, not weaker. The Snowden revelations exposed massive surveillance programs. The housing crisis devastated ordinary Americans while Wall Street got bailouts. Rather than challenging institutional power, the Democratic establishment became increasingly entangled with it.

The betrayal of liberal values became even clearer with Bernie Sanders. Like Trump, Bernie tapped into something real—a deep frustration with a system that had left ordinary Americans behind. Both men, from vastly different perspectives, recognized that working people were suffering while elites prospered. But the Democratic establishment couldn’t allow an actual progressive challenger. They used every trick in the book—from media manipulation to primary shenanigans—to block him from the nomination. Most disappointing was watching Bernie himself bend the knee to the same establishment he had railed against, leaving millions of supporters feeling betrayed and politically homeless.

When Hillary Clinton emerged as the nominee, we were told rejecting her meant rejecting women’s leadership. But we weren’t rejecting female leadership—we were rejecting warmongering and corporate cronyism. What we needed was a leader embodying the feminine divine: qualities of compassion, understanding, nurturing wisdom, and the ability to truly listen. Instead, we got another hawk in the corporate establishment’s pocket. And when that failed, they doubled down on cynical identity politics with Harris.

Today, the situation relating to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. perfectly exemplifies how far the party has fallen. Here was a lifelong Democrat, a member of the party’s most popular family, who wanted to challenge these corrupting influences—and they wouldn’t even let him on the debate stage. I firmly believe that had they given him the opportunity, he could have united the country and beaten Trump.

But that reveals the truth: this was never about beating Trump. It was about ensuring they maintained control by installing another establishment stooge who wouldn’t challenge their power structure. His departure from the party isn’t just about one candidate; it’s the culmination of a long betrayal of liberal principles.

The Politics of Distraction vs. Real Issues

Take abortion rights. This is an incredibly nuanced issue with deeply held convictions on all sides. I’ve spoken with several constitutional lawyers who’ve explained that overturning Roe was legally sound—not a political decision but a constitutional one about federal versus state authority. That makes it even more telling that Democrats, when they had a supermajority, chose not to codify these protections into federal law. Instead, they’ve kept this issue unresolved, using it as a reliable tool to drive voter turnout every four years.

While abortion access matters deeply to many Americans, we’re facing multiple crises that threaten the very foundation of our republic: inflation is crushing working families while Wall Street posts record profits; government surveillance of citizens has reached dystopian levels; and our regulatory agencies—the FDA and CDC—have been completely captured by corporate interests, approving one toxic product after another while our children are being poisoned by processed foods, environmental toxins, and experimental drugs.

The climate crisis (or what some see as deliberate geoengineering) threatens our very survival. Our border is in complete chaos—while we send billions to foreign conflicts most Americans barely understand. All this while our own infrastructure crumbles and our nation grows more divided than ever.

The hypocrisy around women’s rights is particularly telling. The same party that claims to champion women’s bodily autonomy pushed for mandatory experimental medical interventions, despite documented evidence of mRNA vaccines affecting women’s reproductive cycles and fertility. These effects were known from early trials, yet raising concerns got you labeled as “anti-science.” Meanwhile, they’ve insisted that biological males have access to women’s spaces—including locker rooms, bathrooms, and sports competitions—prioritizing fashionable ideologies over women’s safety and fair competition.

The Democrats permanently lost any moral authority on bodily autonomy the moment they advocated for mandatory medical procedures—yet they continue to lecture us about it without a hint of self-awareness. Liberal principles aren’t a Chinese menu where you get to pick and choose which freedoms matter.

Take Kamala Harris—she literally campaigned on “My body, my choice” while simultaneously mandating experimental Covid shots for her own campaign staff. You can’t claim to champion bodily autonomy in one breath and deny it in the next based on political convenience. Either you believe in individual liberty and bodily autonomy, or you don’t. There’s no à la carte option when it comes to fundamental human rights.

The Corporate-State Fusion

What we’re seeing today aligns disturbingly well with Mussolini’s definition of fascism: the merger of state and corporate power. Look at Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum promoting “stakeholder capitalism,” where corporations and governments form partnerships to control various aspects of society. The WEF’s corporate membership reads like a who’s who of Democratic Party megadonors: BlackRock, which donated millions to Biden’s campaign while pushing ESG policies that benefit their bottom line; Pfizer, which poured over $10 million into Democratic coffers while securing massive government contracts; Google and Meta, which not only donate heavily but actively suppress information challenging Democratic narratives.

This isn’t a coincidence; it’s coordination. These same companies shape policy that enriches them: BlackRock advises on financial policy while managing government assets, Pfizer helps write drug approval guidelines while selling mandatory vaccines, and Big Tech collaborates with federal agencies to control information flow. We saw this play out in real time: from day one of the Biden administration, they created backdoor channels into social media companies to censor Americans’ speech about Covid, the 2020 election, and other sensitive topics.

This isn’t a theory—it’s documented fact. Every major policy decision seems to benefit these corporate partners: vaccine mandates, digital currency initiatives, censorship programs, climate policies—all funneling money and power to the same corporations that fund the Democratic machine. When corporations and government work together to control information and behavior, that’s precisely the corporate-state fusion that classical liberals once fought against. The Democratic Party has become the party of corporate fascism while claiming to fight against it.

The Democratic Facade

The current administration embodies everything wrong with our system. Look at Kamala Harris—she dropped out of the 2020 presidential race before any primary, polling below 1%. Biden then selected her solely because he limited his pool to black women—not because of her qualifications, but because of identity politics. Her record as Senator was abysmal—she sponsored zero significant legislation and missed 84% of votes during her brief tenure. Then as Vice President, her role as border czar has been an unprecedented disaster—one the administration now tries to pretend never happened.

And here’s the ultimate irony: this is the party screaming loudest about “threats to democracy,” yet they literally installed Harris as their candidate when nobody voted for her—she dropped out before a single primary vote was cast due to dismal polling. They wouldn’t even let their own members participate in primary debates. They’re lecturing us about democracy while actively suppressing democratic processes within their own party. When they say “democracy is on the ballot,” what they really mean is their controlled version of democracy where they pick the candidates and we’re supposed to fall in line.

Nobody voted for her, and honestly, nobody really likes her—they just hate Trump more. They could prop up a steaming pile of manure as a candidate, and people would vote for it just to vote against Trump. But here’s the real question: If Trump is truly the democracy-ending threat they claim, why didn’t democracy end during his first term? And if Harris is the solution to our problems, why hasn’t she fixed anything while in office?

The Trump Enigma

My view on Trump has evolved, though not in the way many might expect. I didn’t vote for him in 2016 or 2020. Growing up in this region, I knew him only as a second-generation real estate developer—Woody Guthrie had written those critical lyrics about his father, “Old Man Trump.” At the time, I thought Donald was just another entitled heir who happened to opportunistically tap into something real. 

But there’s so much more to this story. His connections to secret societies and the occult run surprisingly deep. His Trump Tower penthouse is essentially a Masonic temple, designed as a replica of Versailles with deliberate esoteric symbolism throughout. His mentor was a 33° Scottish Rite, and Roy Cohn’—master of blackmail and dark arts—shaped his early career. Most intriguingly, his uncle John Trump was the MIT scientist tasked with reviewing Nikola Tesla’s papers after his death—papers that allegedly contained world-changing technologies, from free energy to more exotic possibilities. I don’t know what it all means, but there’s clearly more to this story than the “orange man bad” narrative we’re fed.

At this point, I see only three possibilities:

1. He’s playing his part in a grand political wrestling match (WWF style)
2. He’s a dueling bad guy (genuinely a thorn in the establishment’s side)
3. He’s actually the hero of this story (which would be the most hilarious plot twist imaginable from the vantage point of someone like me)

The Path Forward

Candidly, I don’t know and at this point, any of these seem plausible. What I do know is what the blue team represents—their actions have made that crystal clear. But Trump remains a bit of a mystery to me. I have a hard time believing any politician could be our savior—real change has always come from the bottom up, not the top down. But something interesting happened that gave me a glimmer of hope: RFK, Jr. jumping on board.

The RFK, Jr. situation is fascinating. Here’s a Kennedy—essentially Democratic royalty—teaming up with Trump after being shut out by his own party. This isn’t just any political alliance. RFK, Jr.’s deep understanding of the administrative state, from public health institutions to regulatory agencies, combined with his proven track record of exposing corporate capture and fighting pharmaceutical corruption, makes this particularly intriguing. Maybe, just maybe, this alliance could protect our children from harmful policies and unnecessary wars?

I struggle with what comes next because I understand the gravity of our situation. Our republic is incredibly fragile—more fragile than most people realize. The Founders knew this, warning us about the difficulty of maintaining a democratic republic. But I refuse to give up on dialogue, even when it feels hopeless. If people don’t see what’s happening by now—the censorship, the mandates, the war-mongering, what appears to be intentional schismogenesis (I wrote about this idea here)—will they ever?

The powers that profit from our division; they’ve mastered the art of keeping us fighting each other so we don’t look up to see who’s really pulling the strings. These aren’t just political issues—they’re existential challenges that require reasonable people to discuss complex solutions. Your neighbor who voted differently isn’t your enemy—they likely want many of the same things you do: safety, prosperity, freedom, and a better future for their children. They might just have different ideas about how to get there.

I know this is heavy stuff. You might disagree with everything I’ve said, and that’s okay. What’s not okay is letting these disagreements destroy our relationships and communities. The choice isn’t just about who we vote for—it’s about how we treat each other, how we discuss our differences, and whether we can find common ground in our shared humanity.

The way forward isn’t through hatred or fear. It’s through understanding, open dialogue, and most importantly, love. We might be living through the death throes of the American experiment, or we might be witnessing its rebirth. Either way, we’re in this together, and our strength lies in our ability to work through these challenges as a community, as neighbors, and as friends. Let’s choose wisdom over reaction, understanding over judgment, and love over fear. Our future depends on it.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Via Middle East Eye

The Israeli military is preparing to deploy remotely controlled automated weapons across occupied West Bank checkpoints to target Palestinians, according to a report by the Israeli Army Radio on Sunday.

The system, named “Roeh-Yoreh” (“See-Fires”), is an advanced weaponry structure developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. It includes a tower with sophisticated surveillance equipment and a remote-controlled lethal fire mechanism. 

Since its introduction into the Israeli military arsenal in 2008, the system has been exclusively used in Gaza, where it was deployed along the security fence to target Palestinians approaching the barrier. 

According to Army Radio, the move to use the system in the West Bank comes despite its limited effectiveness in repelling the Hamas-led October 7 attacks out of Gaza. 

In the early hours of the assault, Hamas used drones to hit the tower-mounted weapons, disabling them with ease and allowing fighters to cross the boundary into Israel. 

The Israeli military plans to deploy dozens of Roeh-Yoreh systems in strategic locations across the West Bank, including settlement entrances and key control points, according to the report.

The goal, it added, was to prevent armed attacks and infiltrations into illegal Israeli settlements. The manufacturing of these systems for the West Bank has already begun. 

Initially, they will be installed at high-risk locations by the Israeli military, with plans to expand deployment to additional sites.

According to the report, the 636 Reconnaissance Unit of the West Bank Division will operate the systems, amid rising Israeli concerns about growing security threats in the territory. 

Around 700,000 Israeli settlers live in roughly 300 illegal settlements in the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem, which have been constructed since they were captured by Israel in the 1967 war. Under international law, settlement construction in an occupied territory is illegal.

Since Israel launched its war on Gaza in October last year, violence by the army and settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank has skyrocketed. 

At least 800 Palestinians from the West Bank have been killed by Israeli fire since the war began, with around 6,500 more wounded, according to Palestinian health officials. 

Authored by Andrew Latham via RealClearWorld,

Russia’s 2015 military intervention in Syria was a bold assertion of its great power ambitions, rescuing Bashar al-Assad’s regime and projecting influence in the Middle East. However, recent rebel advances and Assad’s sudden deposal threaten to isolate Russia’s Khmeimim airbase and Tartus naval facility, undermining both the practical and symbolic foundations of Moscow’s global power status.

The fall of Assad promises to be a major blow to Russia, which is already bogged down in Ukraine. Its ramifications are likely to be felt across Moscow’s foreign policy, which could soon face some stark and unenviable choices.

The Russian presence in Syria is central to the Kremlin’s broader strategy of force projection. Its Mediterranean bases allow Moscow to sustain military operations in the Levant, North Africa, and beyond, countering U.S. influence. With the key city of Homs having fallen to the rebels, supply routes to Khmeimim and Tartus have been severed, forcing reliance on vulnerable air and sea routes. This will weaken Russia’s operational readiness and its ability to influence events in neighboring theaters, including Africa.

Khmeimim also serves as a logistical hub for Russian private military contractors (PMCs) like the Wagner Group, active in Libya, Mali, and the Central African Republic. These contractors are central to Moscow’s efforts to expand its influence in Africa, providing security and securing lucrative economic deals. With Khmeimim isolated, sustaining these operations would become costly and inefficient, reducing Moscow’s ability to achieve its geopolitical objectives on the continent.

The isolation of Khmeimim and Tartus will severely constrain Russia’s ability to sustain military operations in Syria and beyond, undermining its ability to conduct airstrikes, reconnaissance, and rapid-response missions. PMCs, reliant on robust logistics, will face disruptions, emboldening opposition forces and exposing the fragility of Russia’s African partnerships. These setbacks will ripple through Moscow’s strategic calculations, undercutting its influence and economic goals.

The symbolic consequences of a rebel victory will be even more damaging. Moscow has portrayed its intervention in Syria as a demonstration of its reliability as an ally and its ability to uphold the sovereignty of client states. The loss in Syria will puncture this narrative, exposing the limits of Russian power and credibility. Regional actors, including Iran, Turkey, and the Gulf states, will recalibrate their perceptions of Moscow’s influence, while African partners might pivot toward more reliable alternatives such as China or the West.

Domestically, the repercussions of a diminished role in Syria will be significant. President Vladimir Putin has marketed the Syrian intervention as a triumph of Russian statecraft, portraying it as a cornerstone of Russia’s resurgence on the global stage. While critics of Russia’s foreign interventions have questioned their costs for years, the fall of Assad could amplify these doubts in ways the prolonged conflict in Ukraine has not. Syria’s collapse would symbolize a failure of Russia’s ability to safeguard allied regimes, striking at the narrative of strategic competence that Putin has worked to project. Public perceptions of Russian strength, carefully curated through state-controlled media, could falter, creating broader political vulnerabilities. Moreover, Syria has served as a testing ground for Russian weapons systems, and reduced visibility in the region would weaken their appeal to buyers, further diminishing Russia’s geopolitical leverage and economic gains from arms exports. The rebel victory in Syria will resonate globally. For the United States and its allies, it will validate strategies to contain Russian influence and embolden further countermeasures. NATO could leverage Russia’s difficulties to underscore the limitations of its global reach, while China might accelerate efforts to dominate regions like Central Asia and Africa, further sidelining Moscow in regions where it traditionally competes.

Russia now faces a stark choice: escalate its military commitment to protect its strategic interests, such as its naval facility in Tartus and airbase in Khmeimim, or accept a diminished role in the region. Escalation would aim to preserve these assets and reassert influence but risks clashes with other regional powers and would strain resources already stretched by commitments in Ukraine and Africa. Retrenchment, however, would signal a devastating blow to Russia’s credibility as a reliable guarantor of allied regimes worldwide, sending a clear message to its partners in Africa, the Middle East, and beyond that Moscow cannot be counted on to defend its allies in times of crisis. This erosion of trust would undermine Russia’s broader global strategy and invite further challenges to its influence elsewhere.

Already there is evidence Russian warships have left Tartus, raising questions about Russia’s commitment to its Syrian bases. As Russia navigates this crisis, it must confront the limits of its resources and the fragility of its aspirations. Great power status requires not just military might but strategic resilience. The outcome of the Syrian conflict will shape the future of Russia’s role in the evolving international order. For Moscow, the stakes could not be higher.

Andrew Latham is Professor of Political Science at Macalester College and a Non-Resident Fellow at Defense Priorities.