Politics

A family at the center of a catalytic converter theft ring has been sentenced for “operating a multi-million-dollar catalytic converter theft ring throughout the Philadelphia region”, according to authorities and a new report from Patch.

A Philadelphia towing company owner was exposed as the ringleader of a catalytic converter theft ring, busted in June 2023 after a yearlong investigation, according to Bucks County prosecutors.

Six family members, including some from Montgomery County, were sentenced Monday. Authorities revealed TDI Towing was “likely involved in the buying and reselling of over 25,000 likely stolen catalytic converters,” according to NBC. 

The Patch report says that “TDI employees were paid an average of $300 per catalytic converter, for a total of nearly $8.2 million during the three years.”

 A joint investigation by Bucks County detectives and over 30 local, state, and federal agencies uncovered the ring. Michael Williams, owner of TDI Towing in Philadelphia, along with his wife, three sons-in-law, and her sister, were sentenced Monday. In June, five pleaded guilty, while one entered a no-contest plea.

Michael Williams received 2.5 to 5 years in state prison and probation, while his accomplices, including Bruce, Schwartz, Hopkins, and Lisa Davalos, were sentenced to county jail terms ranging from 90 days to 23 months, and Deborah Davalos received two years of probation.

“I think we got to see on the videos who [Williams] was when he didn’t know he was being recorded,” said Prosecutor Edward Furman. “Our position was that he was preying on people that were in the throes of addiction. He knew that they were looking for cheap, easy money and he was their source of it.”

Coley Reynolds, Williams’s defense attorney, commented to NBC: “Michael was a person who was raised a certain way, wanted to take care of his friends, wanted to take care of his community. I’m not saying that led to these offenses, but certainly we thought it should have been more of a consideration to the court.”

Williams will have to pay more than $100,000 in restitution.

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

Senate Democrats proposed a constitutional amendment on Dec. 16 that would abolish the Electoral College and ensure the country’s presidential elections were determined by the popular vote.

“It is time to retire this 18th-century invention that disenfranchises millions of Americans,” Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in a press release.

He and Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) proposed the legislation after another proposal emerged in the House last week.

“No one’s vote should count for more based on where they live,“ Schatz said in the press release. ”The Electoral College is outdated and it’s undemocratic. It’s time to end it.”

Article II of the Constitution establishes the Electoral College, which directs states to appoint electors for casting votes for president and vice president.

The practice has come under considerable criticism from Democrats such as Durbin, who noted in his press release that he tried to abolish the Electoral College in 2000.

“In all but five presidential elections, the winner of the election received the most votes,” the press release read. “Two of those five times came in the last 25 years, handing the presidency to candidates the majority of voters rejected.”

The release was referring to former President George W. Bush and candidate Donald Trump losing the popular vote in 2000 and 2016 respectively. In the most recent presidential election, Trump won 49.9 percent of the popular vote compared with Vice President Kamala Harris’ 48.4 percent.

Trump has both supported and criticized the Electoral College in social media posts. He said in 2012 that it was a “disaster for democracy” and in 2019 said he “realize[s] the Electoral College is far better.”

He said that the “brilliance of the Electoral College is that you must go to many States to win,” adding that without it, smaller states would lose power.

Eliminating the Electoral College via constitutional amendment would require state and national approval.

According to Article V of the Constitution, Congress can send the issue to the states after two-thirds of both the House and Senate approve an amendment. From there, three-fourths of the state Legislatures or state ratifying conventions must also approve.

The House legislation is a joint resolution with proposed text for a constitutional amendment. It reads in part: “The pair of candidates having the greatest number of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected.”

The bill clarifies that the change would be enacted following verification by three-fourths of state Legislatures.

The bill and amendment seem poised to fail with a Republican-dominated Congress next year.

In October, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) panned a call by his state’s governor to abolish the Electoral College.

McConnell said the Electoral College encourages candidates to travel to smaller states. “At its core, the Electoral College protects Americans from the whims of the majority, something I’m familiar with in the Senate. … Without it, no presidential candidate would ever travel to a small state in Middle America, like Kentucky,” he said.

Senate Democrats’ press release on Dec. 16 noted that 17 states and the District of Columbia “have joined a national plan to bypass the Electoral College by agreeing to allocate its electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the nationwide popular vote.”

That seemed to be a reference to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which has seen legislative approvals from multiple typically blue states since 2007.

In September, Pew Research Center said that more than six in 10 Americans support the popular vote determining who the next president is. Only 35 percent favored retaining the Electoral College.

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.