According to a footnote in a Sept. 12 court filing, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission has retracted its longstanding characterization of cryptocurrencies as “securities” and intends to use more careful language in the future. 

Specifically, as CoinTelegraph’s Alex O’Donnell reports, the retraction arose from the SEC’s ongoing lawsuit against crypto exchange Binance for allegedly offering and selling unregistered securities. In a 2023 complaint, the SEC identified 10 crypto assets on the Binance platform as “securities,” including the native tokens of Solana, Cardano (ADA) and Polygon.

The SEC “regrets any confusion” caused by its characterization of these tokens as “crypto asset securities” and “no longer uses the shorthand term,” according to the Sept. 12 filing.

“With its use of the term ‘crypto asset securities,’ the SEC is not referring to the crypto asset itself as the security,” the agency said. Instead, a token’s status as a security “consists of the full set of contracts, expectations, and understandings centered on the sales and distribution of the [crypto asset],” it said, citing language from an earlier filing.

Coinbase’s chief legal officer has been critical of the SEC. Source: Paul Grewal

The SEC asserts that even by this narrower definition, Binance remains at fault for unlawful securities offerings because the exchange’s tokens “continue to be offered and sold as investment contracts.”

The securities regulator is advancing a similar argument against crypto exchange Kraken, which the agency charged in November with “operating [a] crypto trading platform as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, dealer, and clearing agency.”

The regulator’s emphasis on the context around which virtual assets are sold follows its 2024 approval of Bitcoin and Ether exchange-traded funds (ETF) using a legal entity structure typically associated with funds holding commodities, not securities.

The SEC is also suing Kraken for alleged securities law violations. Source: Kraken

“I’ll say it again:  somehow ETH transaction[s] HAVE changed [in] a meaningful way that the Ten Crypto Assets [referenced in the SEC’s Binance lawsuit] have not so as to avoid the agency’s clutches,” Paul Grewal, Coinbase’s chief legal officer, said in a Sept. 13 post on the X platform.

“How? That’s apparently for the [SEC] to know, and the rest of us to find out only if and when we are sued,” Grewal said. Coinbase is also being sued by the SEC for alleged violations of securities laws. 

Pressure is mounting on US financial regulators, including the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), to abandon what critics describe as a high-handed and confusing approach to crypto enforcement. 

In a Sept. 4 statement, Summer Mersinger, one of the CFTC’s five commissioners, chastized the CFTC for engaging in “regulation through enforcement” and called for clearer guidance for crypto exchanges. 

“It [is] my hope that one day soon the commission would consider rulemaking, or at the very least guidance, making clear how DeFi protocols could comply with them,” Mersinger said. 

Authored by Ethan Watson via RealClearPolitics,

After yanking Joe Biden off the ticket with a giant vaudeville cane, Kamala Harris has breathed new life into the Democratic party. Kamala opened her campaign with the “politics of joy,” replete with twerking rappers, sassy X clapbacks, and quirky Doritos videos. But, after weeks of pressure from the media, Kamala has finally posted her stance on the issues facing America, and at the debate on Tuesday night, she dove deeper into her policies than ever before. Finally, Gen Z voters have the opportunity to do what everyone least expects from them: weigh each presidential candidate from a policy perspective.

Until now, I’ve been mystified as to why my generation, usually so quick to recognize inauthenticity, was falling for Kamala’s cotton candy campaign. But Gen Z voters were immediately smitten with Kamala, whose light, albeit vapid rhetoric provided a reprieve from the political mudslinging of the last eight years. She threw concerts and posted goofy videos. Instead of engaging in contentious discussions, Kamala supporters could quip “Brat Summer” while retweeting Mark Hamill. It was light and fun, and after years of ugly politics, even her blatant pandering was a nice change.

By spoon-feeding young voters inoffensive content, Harris deflected their attention from her flip-flopping on issues and pushing radical policies like an unrealized capital gains tax. Her proxies dodged questions on air, claiming that she was too busy to sit down for an interview. And most young voters supported Kamala, with 58.7% of voters 18-34 viewing her favorably after the DNC in August.

But Kamala’s actual ideas have been forced into the spotlight. As Harris gets serious, so should Gen Z.

I’ve seen firsthand my generation’s BS detectors in action. We know when we can skip a hokey motivational speaker at a company event or skim the “required” readings. We traverse career fairs, collecting swag and acting interested as phony recruiters try to convince us that their company isn’t a pyramid scheme. In other words, we don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

Now that Harris’ policies are in the open, we should treat her with the same scrutiny. If Gen Z is really dissatisfied with the direction the company is going, per a Spring 2024 Harvard Youth Poll, then perhaps we should consider the fact that portions of her brand new “Issues” page were copied from the Joe Biden campaign site. Remember him? He’s the one who was in charge – or at least who seemed in charge – when that Harvard poll was taken earlier this year. 

Additionally, 53% of Gen Z voters believe that there is a dire crisis happening on our southern border, a border that Kamala presided over as border czar. Do we really believe she’s the best candidate to solve that problem?

Another driving factor behind Gen Z’s discontent with the status quo is the economy. On that topic, Harris echoes Joe Biden’s policies. Harris proposes a $25,000 first-time homebuyer handout, doubling down on Biden’s $10,000 proposal. Harris’ policies also include expanding the Affordable Care Act, which has been the law of the land for the past 14 years (and passed while Joe Biden was Vice President). She touts her plan to raise the tax on long-term capital gains to 28% – in other words, 28% of what Gen Z makes in the stock market will go not to a home down payment but to the government. Do we really think that will help young people prosper?

I call on my generation to apply to Kamala Harris the same utility maximization we do in all areas of life. Now that she’s dropped the TikTok-and-vibes charade, we have the chance to think critically about whether Kamala represents the change to the status quo, or whether she’s just Joe Biden 2.0. It seems Kamala can buckle down to business when pressed. Can we?

Ethan Watson is a Young Voices contributor working towards a Master of Accounting degree at the University of Kansas. He holds dual undergraduate degrees in Accounting and Political Science with an eye toward law school in the near future. Follow him on X: @erwatson13.

Authored by  Nadia Schadlow & Craig Mundie via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

American policymakers have spent years decrying the loss or impending loss of key competitive sectors to China, including 5G telecommunications networks, solar panels, advanced manufacturing, and quantum computing. Recently, it was reported that China was outspending the United States on fusion energy and that it could surpass U.S. fusion capabilities in three to four years. The United States can’t let this happen.

Fusion will provide reliable, carbon-free electricity for an expanding global economy. That will have profound geopolitical consequences. If we allow China to dominate fusion technology and to deploy it at scale at home and abroad, Beijing will hold a central position in the geopolitics of energy going forward.

Fusion occurs when two atoms combine into one, releasing astronomical amounts of energy. Some new fusion designs produce superheated plasma that can reach temperatures of up to 100 million degrees Celsius, producing energy with minimal radiation risks.

For generations, fusion has been the stuff of science fiction because of the challenge of recreating the physics of the sun in a controlled environment on earth. But in the last few years, scientists and engineers, working on competing models for producing fusion, have made transformational progress on several classes of daunting problems, faster than the public perceives.  And faster than U.S. policy is reflecting.

Just as important as the physics behind these milestones are the advances in key “adjacent technologies” that help to manage the hot plasma at the heart of all fusion reactions. Advances in fiber optics, semiconductors, and computing, including AI, have been critical to progress. Power semiconductors have allowed the introduction of different fusion architectures, creating more opportunities and faster progress. Advanced fiber optics mean we don’t have to worry about electromagnetic interference. Powerful computers allow this intricate atomic ballet to be choreographed and repeated thousands of times per second.

Thanks to American innovation and determination, the fusion moment is here. When matched with private sector investment, it’s a potent force. But we could lose this moment to China unless the U.S. government takes steps now to accelerate manufacturing at scale and deployment.

First, fusion must be considered a considered a key part of the shift to clean energy. The focus for years has been almost exclusively on renewable solar and wind – which cannot solve the problem of intermittent energy. A Department of Energy report in 2022 advanced a U.S. strategy to secure supply chains for “Robust Clean Energy Transition” without mentioning fusion. The Biden Administration’s “Decadal Vision” for commercial fusion was a corrective, but fusion will need wider acceptance to take its place in the world’s energy mix.

Second, the U.S. government must create a regulatory environment that differentiates modern fusion technology from 20th century nuclear energy and that allows for scaled deployment. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission – which controls matters related to fission and fusion energy – has taken some important first steps. In April 2023, for example, it acknowledged that fusion energy should be treated as a technology separate from nuclear fission. Notably, the U.K. government also ruled on the “fundamental differences between nuclear fission and fusion” and that it would be “unnecessary to incorporate fusion energy facilities into nuclear regulation.”  These are key steps toward a regulatory structure that would allow U.S. companies to produce fusion generators at scale. We can’t afford to wait 10 years to plan for power plants to come on-line. Just as our airline industry produces scores of airplane designs without having to separately approve each plane, U.S. fusion companies need to be able to manufacture generators in a repeatable way in large-scale factories to be effective.

Deploying fusion generators at scale will have the added benefit of catalyzing American manufacturing. But to achieve this, the U.S. needs to make the needed components. Most attention in the Act is focused on leading-edge microchips for computing – the kinds that are now primarily made in Taiwan. But it’s critical that the United States and its allies produce the kind of other semiconductors that enable the sophisticated physics synthesis required by fusion. Currently, a large majority of high-power semiconductor production and innovation takes place outside the United States.

Third, loan programs and tax incentives that apply to renewables need to be opened up to fusion. Currently for example, the production tax credit for manufacturing is geared towards renewables and does not include fusion. These programs and various Department of Energy efforts, while well-funded, need to prioritize fusion.

In the 19th century, the great powers scrambled to develop technology and secure petroleum supplies around the globe to ensure a secure foothold in the energy future. Today, a similar scramble is unfolding. Electrification for economic growth coupled with the new energy requirements of generative AI – which are immense – together will have critical geostrategic consequences. Beijing recognizes that fusion is a source of near-unlimited energy and that achieving it at scale will not only give China the energy independence it craves but also a leading position as supplier of these new sources of energy around the world.

Fusion is a moonshot opportunity. We can’t afford to miss it.     

Nadia Schadlow is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. Craig Mundie was formerly the Chief Research and Strategy Officer at Microsoft. Both are strategic advisors to Helion Energy, a U.S. based fusion energy company.

The combination of extremely tight beef supplies in the US, with the national cattle herd size sliding to the lowest levels since 1951 and new estimates of declining beef production in agricultural juggernaut Brazil, points to elevated burger prices for the foreseeable future, yet more bad news for cash-strapped consumers struggling with rampant food inflation.

Bloomberg cited consulting firm Datagro analyst Joao Otavio Figueiredo’s presentation at a conference in Sao Paulo this week, which noted Brazil’s cattle availability is expected to decline as early as next year. This essentially means the cost of producing beef will rise, straining global supplies of red meat at a time when the South American country has ramped up exports of beef to the US. 

Figueiredo expects Brazil’s animal slaughter rates to fall 4.6% next year and 7.5% in 2026. This means that years of expanding beef production capacity in South America are ending abruptly. This is happening at a time when US companies are turning to Brazil for beef supplies to counter extremely tight domestic supplies, the lowest since 1951. 

“The reduction in the Brazilian cattle herd comes when beef production is already constrained by a severe shortage of slaughter-weight animals in the US, which has eroded profits for processors such as Tyson Foods Inc. and Cargill Inc. That is unwelcome news for JBS SA, Marfrig Global Foods SA and Minerva SA, which rely on Brazilian cattle for a sizable share of their beef output,” Bloomberg noted. 

Notice how US meat imports from Brazil have ramped up in the last several years.

Data from Statista shows that in 2022 , the imports of beef from Canada and Mexico to the US were 51%, while Brazil was in the number three spot with 14%. 

No one is coming to the rescue to save the rapidly deteriorating US beef cattle herd.

Retail ground beef prices at the supermarket continue marching higher.

According to VP Harris, the solution to rising beef and food prices is communist price controls… 

We don’t expect a meaningful rebound in the nation’s beef cattle supply until at least 2026. It will take years.

Maybe the Fed can print more beef? Oh wait, no, but you know who can: Bill Gates.

One of Buffett’s top lieutenant, and Berkshire’s vice chair of insurance operations, Ajit Jain, has sold $139 million worth of his Class A shares – more than half of his holdings – in Warren Buffett’s conglomerate.

Jain disposed of 200 of the Class A Berkshire shares for about $695,418 each, according to a regulatory filing Wednesday. The disposal means the long-term executive is left with control of 166 such shares, 61 of which he directly owns.

The sale was the biggest drop in Jain’s holdings since he joined Berkshire in 1986. As CNBC notes, it’s unclear what motivated Jain’s sales, but he did take advantage of Berkshire’s recent high price. The conglomerate traded above $700,000 to hit a $1 trillion market capitalization at the end of August.

“This appears to be a signal that Ajit views Berkshire as being fully valued,” said David Kass, a finance professor at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business.

The sale is also consistent with a significant slowdown in Berkshire’s share buyback activity as of late, as well as its record liquidation of stock holdings, most notably Apple and Bank of America. Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire repurchased just $345 million worth of its own stock in the second quarter, significantly lower than the $2 billion repurchased in each of the prior two quarters.

“I think at best it is a sign that the stock is not cheap,” said Bill Stone, CIO at Glenview Trust Co. and a Berkshire shareholder. “At over 1.6 times book value, it is probably around Buffett’s conservative estimate of intrinsic value. I don’t expect many, if any, stock repurchases from Berkshire around these levels.”

The India-born Jain joined Berkshire Hathaway in 1986 to work on the conglomerate’s insurance operations, which include car insurer GEICO. He facilitated a push into the reinsurance industry and more recently led a turnaround at Geico, Berkshire’s crown jewel auto insurance business. In 2018, Jain was named vice chairman of insurance operations and appointed to Berkshire’s board of directors.

Buffett has long praised Jain, saying in 2017 that he’s probably made more money for Berkshire than Buffett has: “Ajit has created tens of billions of value for Berkshire shareholders,” Buffett wrote in his annual letter in 2017. “If there were ever to be another Ajit and you could swap me for him, don’t hesitate. Make the trade!”

In 2018, Jain and Greg Abel were named vice chairmen of the firm, with Abel, who’s a decade younger than Jain, eventually being tapped as Buffett’s successor.

Investors have questioned whether Jain, 73, would stick around to help Abel run things once Buffett, now 94, leaves the firm. The answer appears to be no.

Tensions remain high in Venezuela following a disputed presidential election on July 28.

According to Human Rights Watch, at least 24 people have been killed, including protesters and bystanders, as well as a member of the Bolivarian National Guard. The post-election turmoil hits hard in a country already suffering from a weak economy.

In recent years, Venezuela has faced runaway inflation, political upheavals and falling oil prices, creating an extremely difficult environment for businesses and workers. The Venezuelan economy has suffered a prolonged collapse, with triple-digit inflation and massive migration in search of better prospects.

“Venezuela has experienced a recession unprecedented for a Latin American country or globally for a country without war. The economic contraction between 2014 and 2021 exceeded 70 percent and reached its lowest point,” says Asdrúbal Oliveros, director of the consulting firm Ecoanalítica, in an interview with CNN.

The country has emerged from the hyperinflation period it experienced between 2018 and the end of 2019; however, as Statistas Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, it is still premature to consider it restored from the losses accumulated in the last decade. 

You will find more infographics at Statista

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at current prices is slowly recovering, with an estimated value of US$102.3 billion in 2024, but remains a fraction of pre-crisis levels.

The national public debt has risen to US$4.2 trillion in 2023, further exacerbating the economic situation. Although the unemployment rate is relatively low at 5.5 percent, this figure does not fully reflect the underemployment and informal work faced by many Venezuelans.

While Venezuelan inflation is no longer the highest in Latin America, with Argentina exceeding 200 percent, it remained above 50 percent in June 2024. This economic instability continues to affect Venezuelans’ standard of living. The minimum wage has remained frozen at 130 bolivars since March 2022, but its value has been devalued to approximately $3.50. However, in May 2024, President Nicolás Maduro announced an increase in state bonuses for the public sector, which include the minimum wage, a $40 food bonus and an “Economic War Bonus” that will increase from $60 to $90.

The deterioration of finances in recent years is evident too in everyday life, with over 80 percent of the population living in poverty and 53 percent facing extreme poverty.

In a move aimed at curbing China’s growing influence on American soil, the House of Representatives passed a bill aimed squarely at slashing Chinese sway in U.S. universities. This legislative punch landed on the second day of “China Week,” a concerted effort by House Republican leadership to tackle China’s expanding footprint across multiple sectors.

On September 9th, the House passed 15 bills, all designed to ensure that the United States keeps its edge in tech and to combat China’s alleged subversive activities. Front and center was a bill introduced by Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) that bars American schools, which are cozy with Confucius Institutes (CIs)—widely seen as CCP propaganda hubs—or are recipients of Chinese funds, from getting any grants from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The Senate now holds the bill’s fate in its hands as it sits with the relevant committee. But for schools that cozy up to CIs, the writing’s on the wall—you’re either with the U.S. or you’re helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) undermine America’s institutions.

“You’re either going to take a step in support of the strength of the United States and push back on the CCP… or you’re going to be on the side of somebody else’s security,” Pfluger thundered on the House floor.

Confucius Institutes Under Fire

The Confucius Institutes are funded by the CCP, which not only picks and pays for the textbooks but also sends over Chinese nationals to teach. A 2018 report from the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission even laid bare the “longstanding and formal ties” between CIs and the CCP’s United Front Work Department—a well-oiled machine for influence operations. And while many Confucius Institutes were forced to shut their doors in 2020 and 2021 after a State Department crackdown, the CCP has simply povited. Some of these so-called institutes just got a facelift, rebranding under different banners but maintaining the same mission.

As the Epoch Times notes further, A 2022 report revealed that although the institutes went through massive closure in the United States in 2020 and 2021 after the State Department designated the Confucius Institute U.S. Center (CIUS) as a Chinese foreign mission, a significant portion of them re-branded under similar programs.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) spoke against the bill, saying that the language was too broad to ban all types of DHS funding, including disaster relief, for all American colleges that receive money from China.

In a statement issued on Sept. 10, the White House supported the spirit of the bill but questioned the approach.

“The administration appreciates Congress’s efforts to ensure that DHS funding is made available only to partners that advance U.S. interests, homeland security, and democratic norms.

“However, there may be more appropriate ways to prevent DHS funding from being directed toward academic institutions that are vulnerable to the PRC’s increasing monetary influence.”

The bill passed later in the afternoon with a vote of 249–161, with most representatives voting on party lines. Thirty-six Democrats voted for the bill.

The amended version narrowed down the definition of Chinese entities of concern to those that assist the persecution of Uyghur Muslims, work against U.S.–Taiwan relations, or take part in the Thousand Talents Program, a Chinese initiative to attract talent with critical military technology.

Only the recipient of funding from these Chinese entities of concern will disqualify an American higher education institution from receiving DHS funding.

The amended version also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to report to Congress any colleges among DHS grant recipients that work with a Confucius Institute or Chinese entity of concern.

After the passage of his bill, Pfluger wrote in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times that the CCP is using Confucius Institutes to “infiltrate American university campuses and engage in espionage, steal intellectual property, intimidate Chinese dissidents, promote communist propaganda, and funnel sensitive information back to the People’s Liberation Army.”

“This bill protects students and universities while ensuring that American dollars are not enabling foreign malign influence,” he said.

The bill passed shortly after a prominent American university cut ties with the CCP.

On Sept. 6, Georgia Tech announced that it would not continue its Shenzhen Institute (GTSI) in Shenzhen, China’s southern city bordering Hong Kong. Georgia Tech reached an agreement with Tianjin University, a public research university in China, in 2016 to establish the GTSI.

The university cited its “extensive role in national security” and the fact that the Commerce Department has blacklisted Tianjin University since December 2020 as reasons to pull the plug on the institute in China.

Current students can still graduate through the program.

Several months ago, Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House China panel, launched an investigation into Georgia Tech’s Tianjin University partnership.

Moolenaar welcomed Georgia Tech’s decision.

“I appreciate Georgia Tech’s productive engagement with the committee’s investigation and look forward to continuing to work with Georgia Tech as they proceed with the termination.”

The congressman also called for other colleges with similar ties to consider the potential impact.

“It is my hope that other American institutions of higher learning who have similar arrangements with Chinese institutions will pay close attention here and likewise think hard about the impact their pursuits in China are having on America’s long-term national security.”

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In 1968, in the midst of Democratic convention riots, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley famously declared, “The policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.”

Democratic state election officials appear to have adopted a similar approach to the upcoming election. In states such as North Carolina and Michigan, Democrats are fighting to keep the name of Robert Kennedy, Jr. on the ballot even though he withdrew from the race and endorsed former president Donald Trump. These are key states where the misplacement of even 1 percent of votes could turn the outcome of not just the state but the entire election.

In Michigan, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson recently fought to keep third-party candidate Cornel West off the ballot. Unlike Kennedy, who is viewed as likely to drain votes from Trump, West is viewed as pulling votes from Vice President Kamala Harris, particularly among those opposed to her policies toward Israel.

A court ruled against Benson and said that she was adopting an artificially narrow interpretation to keep Kennedy on the ballot.

In North Carolina, where Trump and Harris are in a statistical tie, Democrats also refused to remove Kennedy’s name. An appellate court this week ordered them to do so to avoid the obvious confusion for voters.

Recently, the same Democratic officials sought to block West from the ballot due to his campaign causing “partisan mischief.”

These efforts are being pursued in other states such as Wisconsin (another key state), where Democrats on the election board blocked a Republican effort to remove Kennedy’s name.

In Michigan and North Carolina, officials have the distinction of fighting to keep a popular candidate from the ballot while fighting to retain a non-existent candidate.

It is all in the name of protecting democracy from itself.

Previously, Democrats in Florida and North Carolina fought to block other Democrats from appearing on primary ballots. Candidates like Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), author Marianne Williamson and commentator Cenk Uygur faced concerted campaigns by election officials and advocates to prevent voters from having a choice in the primary.

After preventing a meaningful primary and securing the nomination for President Biden, Democrats later handed the nomination to Harris without a single vote from a single primary voter.

Democratic activists are now calling it an election by “acclamation,” like a political version of the immaculate conception in which a candidate is simply conceived by the party elite. It is enough to make the Chinese Central Committee blush.

Harris was then walled off from the media to avoid any unscripted interactions, including by putting earbuds in her ears in what many called a clearly fake call to avoid press questions.

At the same time, Democratic supporters are now arguing that it is not necessary for Harris to offer detailed plans or agree to interviews in a campaign that is selling “joy” and “good vibes” like political valium.

Others appear to believe that saving democracy means holding Harris to a different, more deferential standard. New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to defend treating Harris differently: “I think the challenge, not just for journalists, but really for the country, is that not only is Donald Trump a threat, but, you know, it lowers the bar. So, I don’t think it’s unacceptable,” she said.

Somewhere in that double negative, journalism perished. In my new book, I discuss how journalists are now sometimes taught to dispense with both neutrality and objectivity in favor of framing the news for viewers and readers.

You see, it is all about saving democracy. Gay explained: “The context is difficult because of the extremism of the Republican Party, because of how extreme Donald Trump is, it’s hard to hold both candidates accountable equally, because one is committed to democracy and is functioning as a normal candidate from a normal American party, and the other is not.”

This was echoed by “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough, who said that life as we know it would end unless Harris is elected, telling viewers that the “autocrat” Trump would throw opponents in jail and take media outlets off the air: “So, yeah, the threats to democracy are real,” he said. “But [so are] the threats to the free market, the threats to free enterprise, to our economy.”

Other guests amplified that dire message further and criticized people for covering how Harris is changing her positions and refusing to offer details on policies. It appears that this election is simply too important for substantive debate. After all, Harris has said that 2024 “genuinely could be” the last democratic election in America’s history. The last thing we need is a substantive election at this precarious time.

The omitted details include Harris’s support for policies that many of us view as a direct threat to our constitutional system, including censorship and court packing.

Both candidates have much to address that they would prefer to ignore. The media is correct to press Trump on many of these issues. Yet, the success of any democratic system is dependent on three key elements: participation, information and choice. Getting the vote out takes on a menacing meaning if voters are being protected from the distractions of facts. Winning at any cost is no virtue in a democracy, even when claiming to be a defender of democracy.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

By Keishi Koja of Stripes.com

Japan lodged another protest with China last week, its third in less than two weeks, after it said Chinese coast guard vessels entered waters around Japanese islets in the East China Sea.

Four vessels crossed the 12-mile territorial limit claimed by Japan around the Senkaku Islands between 4 p.m. and 4:06 p.m. Friday, according to a Japan coast guard news release that day.

Japan’s Foreign Affairs Ministry then lodged complaints with the Chinese Embassy in Japan and with the Chinese government in Beijing, a ministry spokesman told Stars and Stripes by phone Monday.

Some government officials in Japan are required to speak to the media only on condition of anonymity.

Two Chinese vessels approached Taisho Island from the northwest and entered the 12-mile limit at 4 p.m. and 4:06 p.m., according to the release.

Meanwhile, the remaining pair of Chinese vessels simultaneously entered the area around Uotsuri Island, also from the northwest.

The Chinese vessels appeared to be armed with deck-mounted machine guns and were met by a larger contingent of Japanese coast guard ships, a Japan coast guard spokesman told Stars and Stripes by phone Monday.

They warned the Chinese vessels to leave the area using radio and electronic message boards, he said.

“We do not know why the Chinese vessels intruded Japanese waters,” he said. “There were no Japanese fishing boats operating in the area.”

All four vessels left Japanese waters without incident by 6:01 p.m.

The incidents marked the 32nd and 33rd times this year that Chinese coast guard vessels intruded into Japan’s territorial waters around the Senkakus, the spokesman said. The last incident occurred Aug. 28.

The Senkakus are 105 miles east of Taiwan. The islets, whose surface area amounts to about 2½ square miles, are also claimed by China and Taiwan.

The incidents followed the intrusion of a Chinese military aircraft and a survey vessel into Japanese airspace and territorial waters around Kyushu, the southernmost of Japan’s four main islands, in late August.

A Chinese Y-9 surveillance plane flew into Japanese airspace on Aug. 26 just southeast of the Danjo Islands, about 100 miles southwest of Nagasaki. It was the first time a Chinese military aircraft breached Japan’s airspace.

The flight was a “grave violation” of Japan’s sovereignty and a threat to its security, Defense Minister Minoru Kihara said during a press conference Aug. 27.

“We filed extremely severe protests through diplomatic channels on the same day and strongly asked for measures to prevent recurrences,” he said.

Five days later, a Chinese naval survey vessel navigated into Japan’s territorial waters southwest of Kuchinoerabu Island, Kagoshima prefecture.

“We expressed strong concerns and filed a protest to the Chinese government through diplomatic channels on the same day,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said during a press conference Sept. 2.

U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel questioned China’s intent on his account on social platform X.

“China says it’s still ‘investigating and verifying’ the recent violation of Japan’s airspace by one of its surveillance planes,” he wrote Sept. 3. “But with a Chinese survey ship sailing into Japanese waters only the other day, two territorial incursions in less than a week looks more intentional than accidental.”