Zerohedge

Doug Casey On The Death Of Privacy... And What Comes Next Via International Man International Man: In practically every country, the allowable limit for cash withdrawals and transactions continues to be lowered. Further, rampant currency debasement is lowering the real value of these ridiculous limits. Why are governments so intent on phasing out cash? What is really behind this coordinated effort? Doug Casey: Let me draw your attention to three truths that my friend Nick Giambruno has pointed out about money in bank accounts. #1. The money isn’t really yours. You’re just another unsecured creditor if the bank goes bust. #2. The money isn’t actually there. It’s been lent out to borrowers who are illiquid or insolvent. #3. The money isn’t really money. It’s credit created out of thin air. The point is that cash is freedom. And when the State limits the utility of cash—physical dollars that don’t leave an electronic trail—they are limiting your personal freedom to act and compromising your privacy. Governments are naturally opposed to personal freedom and personal privacy because those things limit their control, and governments are all about control. International Man: Governments will probably mandate Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) as the “solution” when the next real or contrived crisis hits—which is likely not far off. What’s your take? What are the implications for financial privacy? Doug Casey: CBDCs are proposed as a solution, but in fact, they’re a gigantic problem. Government is not your friend, and CBDCs are not a solution. If they successfully implement CBDCs, it would mean that anything you buy or sell, and any income you earn, will go through CBDCs. You will have zero effective privacy. The Authorities will automatically know what you own, and they’ll be in a position to control your assets. Instantly. They’ll be able to add CBDCs to the accounts of favored people and subtract from or block access to the accounts of those who aren’t. Digital dollars will be easy to implement since everybody already has a government ID and a Social Security account. Everybody has a smartphone. Soon everybody will have a CBDC account as well. If you lack any of these things, it will certainly ding your oncoming Social Credit Score. I’ll go so far as to say that Central Bank Digital Currencies and digital “health passports” may be the most dangerous threats to the freedom and independence of the average human being in modern history. They will allow the State to easily control where you can go, what you can do, and what you can own. They’re both very big deals, and they’ll be daily facts of life. In today’s world, it’s increasingly dangerous to say things that run counter to what’s considered politically correct. If you can’t say something, it’s much harder to do something. And indoctrination through education and the media are making it hard to even think. We will soon be living in a society where you can neither think, say, nor do anything that isn’t PC. Again, the problem is promoted as a solution. It’s much like what happened during the great COVID hysteria, which was a relatively minor problem from a medical point of view. The State solution was mass lockdowns and mass vaccination. The solutions were much worse than the problem. In any event, free speech is dying with cancel culture, trigger warnings, safe spaces, and penalties for so-called hate speech. Free speech should be an absolute—including so-called hate speech. I’d like to reemphasize that although “hate speech” is typically impolite, unpleasant, and acrimonious, it is, perhaps paradoxically, a good thing. Why? Because it allows you to identify what’s going on in the mind of the person who utters it. And I would much rather know what somebody’s thinking and what somebody’s likely to do than have a tight lid put on so-called hate speech. I prefer knowing who I’m dealing with and what they think and feel. International Man: It’s not just financial privacy but privacy across the board that is being buried. Cellphones, so-called “smart” appliances, electric vehicles, social media, and other electronic devices create an all-encompassing surveillance system that most people voluntarily opt into. What is really going on here? Doug Casey: It’s been said that while art imitates life, life also imitates art. Especially when we look at George Orwell’s famous novel, 1984. In the book, Big Brother had ubiquitous video screens monitoring what the plebs did. We now have hundreds of millions of cameras all around the world—not counting billions more in smartphones. Universal surveillance is making for very grim times. Recently, Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum said that everything will be “transparent”—a euphemism for darker things. But don’t worry: you have nothing to fear, he said, if you do nothing wrong. That’s ridiculous. It’s exactly what the Stasi, the KGB, and the Gestapo said. I wonder if Schwab would be willing to have a camera observe him in his bathroom and bedroom, when he visits his safe deposit box and has a private conversation with friends—or fellow conspirators? Of course not. Transparency is only for the potentially dangerous plebs, who may not share the views of their betters. One of the differences between a civilized society and a primitive, barbaric society, is privacy. In primitive societies, privacy doesn’t exist. You have paper-thin walls in your hut. Everybody sees everything you do and everybody you talk to. One of the nice things about civilization is that you can get away from other people and keep them from observing you. Privacy is one of the central elements of civilization itself. Eliminating privacy, whether it be personal or financial, is not only an aggression against individuals but destructive of civilization itself. Schwab’s “transparency” is a regression towards barbarism. International Man: It seems privacy is dead for most people. If that is the case, what comes next? Where is this trend headed? Doug Casey: The first time that it became apparent to me on a personal level was at a police station in D.C., where I was paying a fine for some traffic violation. I got to chatting with the cop in back of the computer screen. This was a long time ago, in the late 70’s. And as we talked, he said, in a friendly way, “Look, you don’t have any idea how much information we have on you—but it’s a lot.” He wasn’t trying to intimidate me; he was just observing a fact. And that was a long time ago. About 25 years ago, Larry Ellison, the head of Oracle Corporation, came out and made a shocking statement to the effect of “Privacy doesn’t exist, forget about it.” At the time, I thought it sounded like Ellison approved of it, but now I don’t think that was the case. He was just pointing out a reality. Arnold Schwarzenegger made an ad during the COVID hysteria. He said, “To hell with your freedom,” encouraging people to stop protesting about getting their shots. Children no longer say, “Hey, it’s a free country,” when one says or does something that another doesn’t like. People have been programmed not to take privacy seriously. Worse, they’re now suspicious of it and passively accept the fact that it doesn’t exist. With China’s Social Credit System, everything you do, everywhere you go, and even everything you say is recorded and reported. We’re going to get our own version. You’ll be rewarded or punished according to what the ruling elite think is good or bad. So the question is: when, if ever, will this trend turn around? Well, I’m not sure it’s any longer a question of “when.” It’s more a question of “if”—at least within a reasonable time frame. The trend is not only still in motion but accelerating. A lack of privacy means a lack of freedom. And a lack of freedom is what characterizes a serf—although in today’s world, you’re a serf with a high standard of living. International Man: How can the average person protect their privacy and limit their exposure to State and corporate surveillance? Doug Casey: Limit airing your personal thoughts and actions on Facebook, LinkedIn, and similar types of social media. It’s all accessible to anybody and makes it much easier for the State to control you. In my case, I’ve made part of my living by doing the opposite of what you should do. I understand it’s a contradiction. It’s the path that I’ve chosen. But from a personal freedom point of view, it’s not a wise path. I’m reluctant to say so, but I’d advise others not to choose it. It amounts to painting a target on your back. At this point, if you want to maximize your personal freedom, you ought to consider living in a country where you’re not a citizen. That’s because governments consider citizens to be their subjects, their assets, their property. However, when you’re a foreign citizen living in a foreign country, the local government tends to consider you a non-threat, almost a non-person. Sad to say, in today’s world, from a personal freedom point of view, you’re better off not living in your own country. That certainly includes the US and Canada. From a financial point of view, it’s very important that you own and hold physical gold and silver, physically in your own possession, as opposed to electronically. Paper or electronic accounts are fine for speculating. But you want to have a considerable cache of the physical metals for safety. Plus, at some point, they will revert to day-to-day money. Lastly, put a layer of protection between you and the bad guys. Don’t be afraid to use corporations and trusts in the right jurisdictions. Create barriers to make it harder for the bad guys to find out who owns something and where that person really is. *  *  * The political and economic climate is constantly changing… and not always for the better. Obtaining the political diversification benefits of a second passport is crucial to ensuring you won’t fall victim to a desperate government. That’s why Doug Casey and his team just released a new complementary report, “The Easiest Way to a Second Passport.” It contains all the details about one of the easiest countries to obtain a second passport from. Click here to download it now. Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 19:45

Pilot Who Landed Plane After Panel Blew Out Sues Boeing, Claims Company Unfairly Blamed Him An Alaska Airlines pilot who was universally praised as a hero after safely landing a Boeing jet after a door plug panel flew off shortly after takeoff is suing the company because he says the plane maker wrongly tried to blame him and the rest of the crew. The section of a Boeing 737 Max where a door plug fell while Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 was in flight on Jan. 7, 2024. NTSB via AP Captainn Brandon Fisher received accolades from the heads of the National Transportation Safety Board and the FAA, along with some Boeing executives, when he safely landed flight 1282 in January 2024 with 177 people on board.  According to Fisher's lawyers, however, Boeing's attempts to deflect liability in past lawsuits caused some passengers to sue the pilot, causing him great distress, AP reports. Four flight attendants previously sued Boeing over the incident last summer. Fisher claims that Boeing suggested it wasn't responsible because the plane was 'improperly maintained or misused' by others. "It was clear Boeing’s words were directed at Captain Fisher in attempt to paint him as the scapegoat for Boeing’s numerous failures," his lawyers, William Walsh and Richard Mummolo wrote in their lawsuit filed in an Oregon court. Bolts Were Missing An NTSB investigation of the incident revealed that four bolts securing what is known as the door plug panel were removed and never replaced during a repair on the Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft while it was being assembled. Both Boeing and Spirit Aerosystems - which has since been acquired by Boeing, were both implicated.  The bolts in question are hidden behind interior panels on the plane, so they aren't something that could have been easily checked in a preflight inspection by the pilot or anyone else from the airline (i.e. Boeing's assembly line was responsible). NTSB investigators concluded that the door plug was gradually moving upward over the plane's 154 flights prior to the incident before ultimately flying off. "Boeing’s lie infuriated Captain Fisher as well, as he was being castigated for his actions as opposed to being lauded," wrote Fisher's attorneys. "Because he had flown Boeing aircraft for the entirety of his employment with Alaska Airlines, Boeing’s attempts to blame him felt like a deep, personal betrayal by a company that claimed to hold pilots in the highest regard." The NTSB was unequivocal in its determination that this was a manufacturing issue, and the crew's actions were exemplary.  The Blowout The incident occurred minutes after the flight took off from Portland, Oregon - creating a significant air vacuum in the cabin. Seven passengers and a flight attendant sustained minor injuries, but Fisher was able to land the plane safely. The blowout caused a 2x4 foot piece of fuselage covering an unused emergency exit behind the left wing to be ejected from the plane.  During the investigation, Boeing factory workers told NTSB investigators that they felt pressured to work too fast, and were asked to perform duties they weren't properly trained for.  Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 19:20

Trump Seeks $6 Million Legal Fee Reimbursement For Dismissed Georgia Election Case Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), President Donald Trump is asking the state of Georgia to reimburse $6.26 million in attorney fees and costs he incurred defending against his now-dismissed election interference case in the state. (Left) Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis at the Atlanta Police headquarters in Atlanta on May 3, 2023. (Right) Former President Donald Trump prepares to deliver remarks in Las Vegas on July 8, 2023. Megan Varner; Mario Tama/Getty Images In a motion filed Jan. 7 in Fulton County Superior Court, Trump’s legal team cited a 2025 Georgia law under which if a prosecutor is disqualified from a case because of improper conduct and the case is subsequently dismissed, defendants in that case are entitled to request “all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred” in their defense. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had indicted Trump over an alleged unlawful conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia, one of four criminal cases he faced while running for another term as president. The Georgia Court of Appeals later disqualified Willis due to an “appearance of impropriety” stemming from her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she had hired to lead the case. The ruling was subsequently upheld by the Georgia Supreme Court. The case formally ended in late November 2025, when the special prosecutor who took over chose not to move forward with any charges. Trump’s motion seeks a total reimbursement of $6,261,613.08. The filing includes more than 200 pages of documentation to show how the money was spent, most of it on legal fees. According to the filing, over $2.31 million went to the law firm of Jennifer Little, Trump’s longest-serving attorney on the case. Drew Findling, who represented Trump in the case for about a year, was paid $1.46 million to his firm. Steve Sadow, who replaced Findling as lead counsel in the Georgia case, received $1.52 million to his firm. “In accordance with Georgia law, President Trump has moved the Court to award reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in his defense of the politically motivated, and now rightfully dismissed, case brought by disqualified DA Fani Willis,” Sadow said in a statement. The request will be decided by Superior Judge Scott McAfee. If he awards the fees and costs, the money would be paid from the budget of the Fulton County district attorney’s office. Under the new state law, the judge is required to grant such a motion if he finds that the amount requested is “reasonable.” Trump’s co-defendants could also seek reimbursement for their own legal bills. A total of 18 people were indicted alongside Trump in August 2023, including former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Most defendants, including Trump, pleaded not guilty. Four accepted plea deals, which remain in force. The Fulton County district attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment. The Georgia case was the last remaining criminal prosecution against Trump. A pair of federal cases, one focused on his actions in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol and another on his handling of classified documents, was dropped after he returned to the White House earlier in 2025. The fourth case, in which Trump was accused of approving a scheme to falsify business records to conceal a hush-money payment to an adult film actress, concluded in January 2025, when a New York judge sentenced him to an “unconditional discharge.” The ruling spared him any penalty, including jail time or a fine, but did not vacate his criminal conviction. Trump has maintained his innocence in the New York case, and his legal team is appealing to overturn the conviction. Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 18:55

Trump Launches His Own QE: Directs GSEs To Purchase $200 Billion In Mortgage Bonds First, Trump short-circuited the Fed's rate-cut process. Now he is going after QE by launching his own version of it.  In a post on late Thursday post on Truth Social, President Trump said he was directing the purchase of $200 billion in mortgage bonds, which he framed as his latest effort to bring down housing costs ahead of the November midterm election. “This will drive Mortgage Rates DOWN, monthly payments DOWN, and make the cost of owning a home more affordable,” Trump wrote in his post. He added that his decision not to sell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during his first term allowed them to amass “$200 BILLION DOLLARS IN CASH” and that he was making his announcement “because of that.” Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte, said soon after that the president aims for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae to execute the purchases. Pulte said Thursday the bond purchases “can be executed very quickly. We have the capability, we have the cash to do it, and we are going to go about executing it very smartly and in a very big way.” “It is one of my many steps in restoring Affordability, something that the Biden Administration absolutely destroyed,” the president said. Mortgage backed securities rallied relative to Treasuries on the news. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have added billions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities and home loans to their balance sheets in recent months, fueling speculation that they’re trying to push down lending rates and boost their profitability ahead of a potential public offering; now those speculations have been validated.  The government-backed housing-finance giants increased their retained portfolios, the portion of bonds and loans they hold onto rather than sell to investors, by more than 25% in the five months through October, according to recent figures. The announcement comes one day after Trump said on Wednesday that he would seek to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes. The president’s advisers have repeatedly raised alarms that affordability has become a political albatross for the GOP and could cost the party control of Congress in the elections this fall. In keeping with Trump's housing obsession, overnight Politico reported that the White House is drafting an executive order broadly targeted at addressing Americans’ frustration with the cost of living, including a push to allow people to dip into their retirement and college savings accounts to afford down payments on homes. Of course, by simply adding even more fuel to the demand side - which is what this kind of conversion from savings into home equity will do - it will achieve the opposite of what Trump is pursuing, which means even more mortgage bond purchases, which means even more rate cuts, which means even more direct intervention in the market by various third parties, which means even more endogenous liquidity generated, and so on. Of course, it also means we have barely scratched the surface of where gold and bitcoin will eventually trade.  Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 18:05

US Online Holiday Shopping Hits Record $257.8 Billion: Adobe Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), U.S. online holiday shopping was a record in 2025, fueled by a strong Cyber Week, according to new data released on Jan. 7 by Adobe. Shoppers on Black Friday at a mall in Bethesda, Md., on Nov. 28, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times Consumers spent $257.8 billion from Nov. 1 to Dec. 31, representing a 6.8 percent year-over-year increase and a new record for online shopping. This beat Adobe’s forecast of $253.4 billion. Adobe calculates its estimates using direct online transactions and data from more than 1 trillion U.S. retail site visits. The solid performance was driven by the five-day holiday—Thanksgiving Day to Cyber Monday—which generated more than $44 billion in overall online transactions. Within this period, Cyber Monday was the biggest e-commerce day of the season, accounting for $14.25 billion of sales. Cost-conscious consumers were on the hunt for strong discounts, and they found savings, particularly in electronics, toys, apparel, and appliances. Discounts off the listed prices were higher than in the previous year, enabling shoppers to trade up and purchase higher-ticket items. Three trends were also prevalent across the two-month Christmas shopping season, according to Adobe: mobile shopping; buy now, pay later programs; and use of generative artificial intelligence (AI). “This 2025 holiday season, consumers embraced generative AI more than ever as a shopping assistant in their purchasing decisions,” Vivek Pandya, lead analyst at Adobe Digital Insights, said in a statement to The Epoch Times. “Competitive discounts and flexible payment options like Buy Now Pay Later also contributed to driving record spend of $257.8 billion throughout this holiday season.” Mobile shopping reached a new milestone, accounting for more than half (56.4 percent) of online transactions. Buy now, pay later—a flexible payment method that allows consumers to pay for a purchase at a later date—climbed to an all-time high and contributed $20 billion in online spending. This was up nearly 10 percent from the same time a year ago. Cyber Monday was the biggest day on record for buy now, pay later schemes, topping $1 billion. An Adobe survey conducted in November found that consumers planned to use the program for apparel, electronics, furniture, and toys. Meanwhile, generative AI-powered chat services were a crucial tool for shoppers to locate deals and research products throughout the holidays—and it paid off for retailers. In total, traffic to retail sites driven by generative AI platforms jumped more than 693 percent year over year. On Cyber Monday alone, AI‑referred visits to U.S. retail websites surged by 670 percent. “While the base of users remains modest, the uptick shows the value AI can deliver as a shopping assistant,” the report stated. Shoppers on Black Friday at a mall in Bethesda, Md., on Nov. 28, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times Consumers relied most heavily on these AI services for appliances, electronics, personal care products, toys, and video games. Every year, retailers brace for a wave of post-Christmas returns—and 2025 was no different. While overall holiday season returns were down 1.2 percent from a year ago, they climbed 4.7 percent year over year in the five days following Christmas Day. In 2024, one out of every eight returns occurred between Dec. 26 and Dec. 31. This year, Adobe reported, it was one out of seven. Most Wonderful Time of the Year Overall, it was a terrific year for retailers as U.S. holiday spending rose at a non-inflation-adjusted pace of 4.2 percent, according to the annual Retail Spend Monitor report from Visa Consulting & Analytics. Comparable to Adobe’s findings, artificial intelligence played a role, says Wayne Best, chief economist at Visa. “This season also marked a turning point, with artificial intelligence shaping how people discover products, compare prices, and interact with offers. This led to a more informed, more intentional consumer, ensuring they could stretch their discretionary spending,” Wayne said in a news release. Mastercard, meanwhile, reported that U.S. holiday in-store and online retail sales jumped by almost 4 percent from Nov. 1 to Dec. 21. The credit card giant noted that consumers shopped early, took advantage of store promotions, and blended brick-and-mortar shopping with the online experience. Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 17:15

How Dare You Fight Back Against Communists! Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us When we examine the historic nature of communist revolution, we have to look beyond our disgust for their motives and consider their strategies and the reasons why they tend to succeed. Because it is simply a fact that the western experiment of individual liberty and self determination is being systematically eroded by a storm of socialist movements that will inevitably lead to a global communist regime if we do not take drastic actions in the near future. The goals of communism and socialism are essentially the same; the core difference is that socialism seeks collectivist control of populations and resources through an incremental and “peaceful” (subversive) takeover of governments. Communism seeks collectivist control over populations and resources through direct and violent overthrow. Either strategy can bleed into the other and there is no rule that says communists can’t exploit various shades of violence and sabotage while hiding behind a facade of peace and democracy. At bottom, leftists operate like guerrillas when they are not in government power, and they operate like dictators when they are in government power. We have seen this dynamic on display when it comes to the highly organized activist sabotage networks that stalk and impede lawful deportations of illegal aliens. This week, one female activist was shot and killed while allegedly trying to block ICE agents with her vehicle, and then trying to run one of them over when they approached her. I’ve looked at all the available video evidence from multiple angles and in my opinion she did in fact try to hit the officer with her car. Frankly, she got exactly what she deserved and I would argue that more of these NGO paid activists need to face similar consequences if we are ever going to stop the engineered communist monkey wrenching in our midst. If we can’t shut the NGOs down, then the people they pay and train need to be pummeled until they realize the money simply isn’t worth it. Leftists function on the assumption that they can skirt the law while using it as a shield against reprisal. They do it over and over and usually they get away with it. They whittle us down by stabbing at us from behind a curtain of gray legality. I’m tired of it, and I think many millions of other Americans are also tired of it. We’re done playing nice. In my studies on various communist insurgencies over the past century there is a clear pattern, a specific strategy that is almost always used. For lack of a better description, today we would call it the strategy of the “Cry Bully.” Here is basically how Cry Bully communists operate: 1) They work with the very same oligarchs, corporatists and globalists they claim to despise. They happily take the money of wealthy institutions and NGOs and do the bidding of their elitist masters as long as they get to tear down their enemies. 2) They employ elicit funding to pay for a the mobilization of an astroturf army of provocateurs and agitators (useful idiots will naturally gravitate to this army over time because they wrongly assume it’s grassroots). 3) They use propaganda to justify the activist sabotage and disruption of the target society by falsely claiming that they represent the will of the populace and the rights of the “disenfranchised.” 4) They wrap themselves in the identity of the “victim”; they are the poor, downtrodden masses. They are the poverty stricken underclass. They are the abused and mistreated majority suffering under a minority of overlords (anyone more successful than they are or anyone who opposes their beliefs). Therefore, everything they do no matter how vicious, deceitful and destructive is morally exonerated. 5) The insurgents then agitate and provoke and poke and prod the society until it reacts to defend itself. When they finally get hit back, leftists then cry the tears of the wounded underdog. 6) They then attempt to abuse the laws and principles of the existing system in order to punish anyone who defends themselves against communist provocations. If they can get the law on their side, through corrupt judges and politicians, then they can cripple their opposition by making people afraid to fight back for fear of imprisonment. 7) When leftists can’t control the law they wail and rage over it’s rightful application. They act as if the enforcement of basic law and order is the same as government tyranny. How dare you fight back! How dare you subject them to the punishments they deserve! 8) A great and fabricated drama unfolds. Leftists play the role of martyrs who “only want to be free”, who only want “equity” and the same prosperity enjoyed by their betters. They only want to protect the rights of the vulnerable. In reality, they are militants trying to burn down your freedom and prosperity and pillage what they can in the process. They don’t want to be equal to you, they want to plunder what you have so they can feel superior to you. They want to steal your wealth, your accomplishments and the life which you worked so hard to build. They are parasites, not people. If any of this is sounding familiar it’s because we are experiencing this very process of communist revolution right now in America. And, I think it’s time to admit that our republic and our constitution (as we currently interpret it) are ill equipped to defeat an insurgency made up of millions of the same citizens that the republic was originally built to protect. If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would have already crushed this insurgency to dust and they would not be concerned about any constitutional conundrums. They understood that the liberties of the republic only apply to people who want to keep the republic alive. They do not apply to people who desire its death. How do we fight this enemy from within? Well, first we have to accept that the greatest enemy conservatives have is ourselves. There is no shortage of conservatives and centrists these days who refuse to take proper action. Our greatest enemy is those people within our own ranks who have no balls. In the face of rampant racketeering and migrant driven fraud in Minnesota (and other blue states) we repeatedly discover that the system is being manipulated to serve the interests of miscreants who want to steal from us and subjugate us. It’s not just the migrants, it’s the leftist politicians enabling the migrants. The entire structure of law is being subverted and mocked. Tim Walz is just one example of a political poison pill that likely participated in fraud and he’ll probably never face prison time for it. Look at all the leftist judges protecting the Somali fraudsters. Look at all the politicians in congress protecting them. And it’s not just Democrats, there are some Republicans and libertarian politicians who are constantly interfering with any meaningful response. Meanwhile, blackpillers scream over Trump “not doing anything.” It’s clear that our welfare systems are being pirated, that our country has been invaded and that at least one half of our government is in on the scheme. Yet, I see a number of conservative and libertarian voices who would rather blither on about small government theory rather than actually confront the culprits. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that the government’s massive expansion is a symptom of our inaction on the “smaller” issues. If we can’t even deal with a bunch of low IQ pirates from Somalia and the garbage Democrats supporting them, then we’re never going to be able to deal with the “bigger” issues of federal waste, the central bank or the globalists. There’s a good reason why public approval for congress is constantly sitting near record lows (currently hovering around 15%). All they do is maintain the status quo and impede every effort that might lead to a modicum of reform. Communists love these kinds of circumstances. They love legal purists and constitutional sticklers, because the purists make communist revolution possible. This is not to say that I believe the federal government is the answer to everything, or most things. But at some point conservatives decided that government is not allowed to do ANYTHING. That it is supposed to sit idle while the country is overrun by barbarians and morally relative demons. That we aren’t ever supposed to retaliate and strike fear into the hearts of our adversaries. I’m sorry, but we are at war and there is no place for such idealism any longer. Retaliation is the only thing that is going to save us now. When I ponder this problem I’m often reminded of a book called The Trial by Franz Kafka. In that book there is a short story called “Before The Law” which describes a man who travels from the country to the city to a place where he can “access the law.” The doorway to the law is protected by a guard, who tells him he “can’t admit the man at the moment”, but if he waits he might eventually gain entry. Over years of waiting the man grows old and feeble, fixating on the guard and desperate for admittance. Finally, he begins to die. He asks the guard why no one else has sought entry in all that time. The guard replies: “No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. And now, I am going to shut it.” The law seemed to be open to him, but it was a facade. If he wanted justice he would have to grab it himself, but the man never attempted to force his way in. He never took action. Instead, he wasted his life and youth hoping for the system to treat him fairly. And this is how I look at the conservative liberty movement or MAGA movement and the various groups that orbit it. It’s not only about the system interfering with Trump’s efforts, it’s about conservative being hobbled and tied down by false promises of law and justice while communists are given free rein to do as they please. Conservative are constantly told that waiting is the answer. It’s a grand lie designed to keep us passive and apathetic. In fact, I would argue that extensive wealth and energy has been expended over the years by the powers-that-be to do one thing: To simply keep conservatives from taking matters into their own hands. Like crabs in a bucket, there always seems to be naysayers, blackpillers and purists who grab hold of anyone taking action and pulling them back into the water. And, when government does do something right, as we have see with Trump on more than a few occasions, these same people are often a more incessant obstacle than the very leftist insurgents attacking our nation from within. Their argument of course is that if we fight back then the result might be much worse than what we have today. What if we become the monsters we’re trying to defeat? I say that’s a risk we’re going to have to take. Better to do something than wait at the gate, aging and rotting away slowly, watching our republic die from a thousand cuts when we could have saved it while we are still capable. Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 16:25

Texas Issues Warning About Unsolicited Seed Packages From China Authored by Dorothy Li via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), Texas has warned residents not to plant what it calls “mysterious seeds” that arrived in unsolicited packages from China, as authorities investigate thousands of such reports across the state. Packages containing unknown seeds from China. Texas Department of Agriculture State authorities first became aware of this issue in February last year, when a resident in Clute reported that a package from an unknown sender in China contained “unidentified seeds and a liquid container,” according to the Texas Department of Agriculture. Since then, officials have collected 1,101 packs of unsolicited seeds delivered to 109 locations across the state, the agency said in a Jan. 5 statement. The most recent packet was collected on Dec. 29. “At a glance, this might seem like a small problem, but this is serious business,” Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller said in the statement. “The possible introduction of an invasive species to the state via these seeds poses real risks to Texas families and the agriculture industry.” The issue was not limited to Texas. Officials in Ohio, New Mexico, and Alabama issued similar advisories last year after families reported receiving unsolicited packages of unknown seeds at their doorsteps. The Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries, in a March statement, said that the seeds sent to Alabamians were identified as tomato and onion varieties. While no harmful compounds were detected in them, state officials cautioned that such practices could still be illegal or violate regulations without proper authorization. “We urge all residents to be on the lookout for similar packages,” Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries Rick Pate said in the statement. “These seeds may be invasive to Alabama plants or be harmful to livestock.” This wasn’t the first time U.S. households received packages of unidentified seeds they hadn’t ordered. In 2020, officials from all 50 states issued warnings about such unsolicited seeds. Many of these packages were processed by China Post, the Chinese communist regime’s official postal service. At the time, U.S. state officials warned residents that seeds arriving by mail could introduce invasive species into local ecosystems, while some Americans expressed concern that they could carry diseases amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Individuals in European Union member states, the UK, Canada, and some in the Indo-Pacific, including Australia and Taiwan, also reported receiving similar unsolicited packets of seeds at the time, many of them from China. An investigation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture determined that these seeds were likely part of a global “brushing scam.” By sending unsolicited, low-value items to residential addresses, sellers could post false-positive reviews under the name of a “verified” owner, thereby boosting sales, according to investigators. As new reports continued to emerge, officials in Texas said they’re collaborating with the federal authorities to collect, test, and dispose of these seed packs safely. Residents who received unsolicited packages are urged to contact their local agriculture departments immediately and are advised not to open the package, plant the unidentified seeds, or discard them in regular trash. “Whether it’s part of an ongoing scam or something more sinister, we are determined to protect Texans,” Miller said in the Jan. 5 statement. “Unsolicited seeds coming into our country are a risk to American agriculture, our environment, and public safety. Texas isn’t going to take chances when it comes to protecting our people and our food supply.” Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 15:25

Lebanese Army Says Plan To Limit Weapons To State Forces At Advanced Stage Authored by Evgenia Filimianova via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), The Lebanese armed forces said on Jan. 8 that their plan to restrict weapons to official security agencies had entered an “advanced stage,” after expanding their presence across southern Lebanon. Members of the Lebanese army secure the area near the site of an Israeli strike, after Israeli military said that it struck a militant from the Hezbollah terrorist group, in Beirut's southern suburbs of Lebanon on Nov. 23, 2025. Mohamed Azakir/Reuters The army said that it has secured vital areas and extended control over territories under its authority in the South Litani sector, excluding areas that remain under Israeli occupation. The announcement follows the Lebanese government’s August 2025 decision to authorize the army to prepare a plan to limit all weapons in the country to six recognized security agencies by the end of 2025. That decision came after a visit by U.S. envoy Tom Barrack, who pressed Lebanese officials to consolidate state authority over all armed entities. Military activity between Israel and Lebanon has persisted despite a cease-fire agreement reached in 2024 and mediated by the United States and France. Under that agreement, Lebanon committed to expanding its army’s control over southern areas and restricting the operations of the terrorist group Hezbollah near the border with Israel. Israel continues to hold positions in southern Lebanon and has carried out repeated airstrikes that it says are aimed at preventing Hezbollah from rearming and planning new attacks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement on Jan. 8 that the U.S.-brokered cease-fire agreement “states clearly, Hezbollah must be fully disarmed.” The statement added that this was “imperative for Israel’s security and Lebanon’s future.” While welcoming Lebanese efforts, Netanyahu’s office described them as “an encouraging beginning, but they are far from sufficient,” citing what it described as Hezbollah’s attempts to rebuild its “terror infrastructure with Iranian support.” Lebanese Leadership Backs Army Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, who met Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on Jan. 8 just before convening a Cabinet session at Baabda Palace in Beirut, publicly endorsed the army’s statement. “I also emphasize that the deployment of the Lebanese armed forces south of the Litani River falls under a comprehensive national decision grounded in the Constitution, state resolutions, and relevant international commitments,” Aoun said in a statement issued by the presidency on Jan. 8. He said the move was aimed at “consolidating the exclusivity of arms in the hands of the state.” Aoun, Salam, and Lebanese army commander General Joseph Haykal met with U.N. Undersecretary-General for Peace Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix on Jan. 7. The talks focused on the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon’s (UNIFIL’s) support for Lebanese authorities in sustaining the cessation of hostilities and advancing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which bars armed groups from operating near the border with Israel. The Lebanese army said on Jan. 8 that it continues to coordinate closely with UNIFIL and the U.S.-backed cease-fire monitoring mechanism. It thanked the U.S. and French teams involved in monitoring the truce, as well as the countries contributing troops to the mission. Ongoing Operations and Israeli Strikes Operations in the South Litani sector remain ongoing until unexploded ordnance and tunnels are cleared, the Lebanese army also said in its statement. These steps, it added, were necessary to consolidate control and prevent armed groups from rebuilding their capabilities. Lebanese armed forces condemned continued Israeli attacks on Lebanese territory, saying they negatively impact their ability to complete the restoration of control over southern areas. Israel carried out airstrikes on multiple targets in Lebanon on Jan. 5 that it said were linked to Hezbollah and Hamas, according to the Israeli military. On Jan. 6, the Israel Defense Forces said it struck weapons storage facilities and military structures used by Hezbollah in attacks against Israeli troops and territory. The military also said it hit Hamas weapons production sites in southern Lebanon that it described as critical to the group’s military buildup. Aoun condemned the strikes on Jan. 6, saying they had hit towns in the Bekaa Valley and southern Lebanon, reaching as far north as Sidon. Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 14:45

FDA Says Many Fitness Wearables, AI Tools Exempt From Regulation The Food and Drug Administration on Jan. 6 clarified that it will not regulate some artificial intelligence (AI) tools and wearables. In a guidance document, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said tools used to help make clinical decisions are sometimes exempt from FDA oversight, such as those not intended to analyze medical images. In a second document, the FDA said it does not regulate “low risk products that promote a healthy lifestyle,” including “low risk general wellness products” such as exercise equipment and software programs. The agency listed as examples products that track and record a person’s sleep, work, and exercise and products that make claims about weight management and physical fitness. “For a lot of the decision support out there, we need to get out of the way as a regulator,” FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said in a video. “We have a clear lane for medical-grade products. But otherwise, we need to adapt with the times, and be proactive with guidance, so that companies and developers are not left confused about what they should be doing, or what the FDA wants.” Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary in Washington on July 29, 2025. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images As Zachary Stieber details below via The Epoch Times, Makary said the FDA is “here to promote AI” and added during an appearance on Fox Business that at least some of the tools use AI. “If something is simply providing information, like ChatGPT or Google, we’re not going to outrun that lion, we’re not going to go in there and say there is one result that is inaccurate and therefore we have to shut down,” Makary said. “We have to promote these products, and at the same time, just guard against major safety concerns.” When asked about concerns regarding inaccurate information, Makary said, “We don’t believe in censorship.” “If people are looking up a symptom on an AI-based tool, let’s have that conversation when they come in to see their doctor or do a virtual visit,” he said. OpenAI, which developed ChatGPT, said this month that more than 5 percent of ChatGPT messages are about health care, with more than 40 million users turning to the AI bot with health care questions. Researchers reported in 2025 that at least half of responses from AI models to health-related questions are not fully supported by their sources and that some answers are contradicted by the sources. Wearables, a category that includes fitness trackers and glucose monitors, are also not subject to regulatory oversight if they are simply providing information, according to Makary. “The only stipulation is if they make claims of something being medical grade, like a clinically appropriate clinical-grade blood pressure measurement,” he said on Fox. “We don’t want people changing their medicines based on something that’s just a screening tool or an estimate of a physiologic parameter.” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said people should start using wearables as part of efforts to improve their health. The FDA had in 2025 warned Whoop, which makes wearable products, that it was marketing monitoring of blood pressure without FDA approval. “We believe the agency is overstepping its authority in this case by attempting to regulate a non-medical wellness feature as a medical device,” a Whoop spokesperson told news outlets at the time. The FDA later issued consumer alerts telling people not to use unauthorized devices for monitoring blood pressure and infant vital signs. Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 13:45

One Fell Swoop: Lawsuit Eyes Death Blow To Racial Preferences Authored by RealClear Investigations' Benjamin Weingarten, Opponents of affirmative action hoped that the Supreme Court had delivered a death blow to the controversial policy in 2023 when Chief Justice John Roberts declared for the court’s majority that “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” But as sweeping as that pronouncement was, it came in a ruling in the landmark SFFA v. Harvard case, solely barring the use of racial preferences in college admissions. The practices that the court deemed illegal on campus have persisted elsewhere, including in programs across the federal government. A lawsuit now wending its way through the courts, Revier v. Loeffler, aims to change that. Building on the SFFA ruling, the suit’s plaintiffs are taking aim at regulations that they allege direct agencies to unconstitutionally dole out tens of billions of dollars in awards on the basis of race – most prominently through no-bid or limited competition contracts reserved for so-called “Small Disadvantaged Businesses” and facilitated by the Small Business Administration. The case could have wide implications, as the SBA’s definition of disadvantage has been widely adopted by many other federal agencies.  The lawsuit’s thrust parallels a slew of related executive orders, policies, and probes the Trump administration has advanced to purge diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from the public and private sectors. A future president with different priorities, however, could reverse them. Consequently, absent legislation from a razor-thin Republican congressional majority, opponents of racial preferences believe the courts may offer the best opportunity to end such practices.  Defenders of affirmative action, however, note that it is rooted in laws passed by Congress that reflected the belief that racial discrimination is a powerful source of disadvantage. And they believe that righting past wrongs through its implementation has redounded to Americans’ collective benefit. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Small Business Committee, and Sen. Mazie K. Hirono of Hawaii sent a letter to the SBA  defending minority companies, which they say “play a role in strengthening the industrial base by diversifying the supply chain.” Biden Amped Up Racial Preference The Revier case could be a game-changer in part because of the size, scope, and influence of federal contracting. The U.S. government is the world’s largest buyer of goods and services. Historically, on a bipartisan basis, it has sought to use its buying power to benefit small businesses, for whom the feds earmark roughly one-quarter of all contract dollars. The SBA reported that in fiscal year 2024, federal authorities had inked $630 billion in small business eligible prime contracts. Following the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the federal government sought to promote the development of minority-owned small businesses, with the Nixon administration initiating the policy to steer a subset of contracts to such enterprises. The Biden administration significantly increased the value of federal government contracts extended to such businesses to “advance equity and build wealth in underserved communities,” more than doubling the statutorily-driven 5% contracting goal threshold that had been set by Congress. In 2024, the SBA awarded some $78 billion – or 12% of all contract dollars – to so-called “Small Disadvantaged Businesses,” often under no-bid or limited-competition arrangements. Such contracts cover work in areas ranging from construction to professional services and information technology and are awarded across two dozen agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture. SBA sets forth who qualifies as “socially and economically disadvantaged” through regulations, instituted nearly 30 years ago, that have since spread government-wide. While white-owned businesses theoretically qualify for the program, the regulations created a “rebuttable presumption” that – irrespective of one’s individual circumstances – treated blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians by default as “socially disadvantaged.”  Under its “Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development Program,” sometimes referred to as 8(a), SBA has historically rendered small firms owned and controlled at least 51% by those identifying as minorities, and who meet certain economic criteria, eligible for its minority business development program – giving them preferential entrée to more than $40 billion in annual awards over non-minorities.  Analyses show that in recent years, no individually owned firms led by a Caucasian have participated in the program.  Fraud Allegations The program also has long been subject to allegations of fraud and abuse, reflected in a series of past Government Accountability Office and SBA Office of Inspector General studies and reports. Some of the initiative’s 4,300 participants have engaged in misconduct ranging from offering kickbacks to reportedly arranging “pass-through” work where purported minority-led companies effectively serve as fronts – winning business only to outsource the work to non-minority subcontractors.  In June, after four individuals pled guilty to a $550 million bribery and fraud scheme enabled by a USAID contracting officer and involving multiple participants in the SBA program – one of whom would receive an additional $800 million in federal contracts even after being flagged by USAID as lacking “honesty or integrity” – SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler ordered an audit of the program, focusing on high-dollar and limited-competition contracts. Months later, in October, investigative journalist James O’Keefe released an undercover interview video indicating that one contractor, ATI Government Solutions, used its minority status pursuant to the program to win upwards of $100 million in contracts – only to outsource 80% of its work to subcontractors, including major corporations like Accenture. Shortly thereafter, the SBA would suspend ATI and its three executives. In December, the administration intensified its scrutiny of the program, issuing letters to all participants demanding a slew of financial records dating back years under threat of losing their program eligibility, and/or facing investigative and remedial action. “There is mounting evidence that the 8(a) Program designed for ‘socially and economically disadvantaged’ businesses went from being a targeted program to a pass-through vehicle for rampant abuse and fraud – especially during the Biden Administration, which aggressively prioritized DEI over merit in federal contracting,” SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler said in a press release. Days later, Senate Small Business Committee Chairwoman Joni Ernst announced during a hearing the launch of her own investigation of the SBA initiative, stating that “Unfortunately, the SBA’s 8(a) program has been a magnet for fraudsters since its inception.” During that hearing, Ed Markey acknowledged that “Like any federal program, there have been rare cases of bad actors taking advantage of these resources. And they should be held accountable.” “But,” he added, “these rare instances do not warrant an all-out assault on a program that has created good-paying jobs, provided pathways to success for small businesses, and created economic growth for our country.” The Massachusetts Democrat also asserted that politics was at play – even while injecting a note of partisanship himself. The Senate, Markey said, was subjecting “the little guys, the minority small business owner, the black and brown small businesses,” to harsh oversight, in contrast with the administration’s dealings with foreign governments and large corporations, who allegedly participate in “President Trump’s pay-to-play system.” Systemic Discrimination The entities currently suing the SBA do not allege discrimination in the 8(a) program, but rather in other government programs that have adopted its regulations. The two plaintiffs – Revier Technology, a small Louisiana-based software company, and Young America’s Foundation (YAF), a national conservative student organization – asked a Louisiana court in November to vacate the SBA’s 8(a) regulation, which they claim has harmed them in their efforts to access other government initiatives reliant upon it. Revier, which says it is developing AI-based technology for use in construction, claims it was denied investment capital under a Treasury Department small business credit program, since its funding is limited to businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals as defined by SBA regulation, and Revier’s owner, Matthew Schultheis, is white. “The…investment program I applied to was designed to help small entrepreneurs like me,” Schultheis told RealClearInvestigations. “When my application was rejected solely because of my race, I had to take action.” Likewise, several students affiliated with Young America’s Foundation (YAF) claim discrimination under a Department of Homeland Security cybersecurity fellowship that requires applicants to be socially disadvantaged to be eligible to participate in the program, as defined by SBA regulation. That regulation’s definition of social disadvantage likewise flows through preferential contracting programs at NASA, research grants administered by the EPA, and elsewhere in the federal government, according to the Revier suit.  The Revier and YAF plaintiffs each claim they could “not benefit from a presumption of social disadvantage,” and therefore “could not apply on equal footing” in seeking to participate in relevant federal programs, violating their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process rights to equal treatment.  “The federal government’s pervasive use of race as a proxy for determining who is ‘socially disadvantaged’ – and therefore who receives contracts, grants, loans, investment capital, opportunities, and other benefits – is unconstitutional, and it must be stopped,” the plaintiffs wrote in their complaint. YAF is represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. The conservative/libertarian-oriented public interest law firm, which has served plaintiffs in a number of related cases, has identified at least 60 racially discriminatory programs across the federal government. Caleb Kruckenberg, litigation director at the Center for Individual Rights, which is co-counsel in the Revier case, told RCI that SBA’s challenged 8(a) regulation “remains on the books and has been incorporated in at least 20 other federal programs administered by multiple federal agencies." His colleague, Michael A. Petrino, said that if the plaintiffs were to prevail, minimally “all programs that incorporate the SBA regulation and its racial presumption could no longer administer those other programs using any portions of the regulation that are vacated.” The Trump administration’s unwillingness to defend racial preferences in analogous cases – including challenges to the use of racial and sexual preferences in Department of Agriculture programs – suggests it may not defend the SBA’s regulations. Although the plaintiffs could achieve a limited victory if the administration rescinds the regulation or revises it to remove the alleged unconstitutional content, Petrino told RCI, “A judicial ruling that requires such revocation would prevent a future administration from reviving the same or similar rule.” Courts Start Chipping Away In the meantime, the judicial branch is already scrutinizing the SBA’s longstanding regulations mandating racial preferences.  In July 2023, a Tennessee U.S. federal district court judge enjoined SBA “from using the rebuttable presumption of social disadvantage in administering” the 8(a) program, finding that that presumption fails to pass the “strict scrutiny” standard required when setting out racial classifications. It “does not further a compelling governmental interest and is not narrowly tailored to achieve such interest,” the court ruled.  In March 2024, a Texas district court found that a race-based presumption of social disadvantage for applicants in a program run by the Commerce Department’s Minority Business Development Agency was unconstitutional. Likewise, in October 2024, a Kentucky judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Department of Transportation “from mandating the use of race- and gender-based rebuttable presumptions” for department contracts impacted by certain “Disadvantaged Business Enterprise” goals when pursued by the plaintiffs who brought the case. In response to that case, the Trump Justice Department stated that it would no longer defend the SBA-like rebuttable presumptions incorporated into the department’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, finding it to be unconstitutional. The Revier plaintiffs are seeking a more ambitious end in the elimination of that rule at SBA, and everywhere else it is incorporated.  Citing such litigation, Petrino told RCI that “any time would have been a good time to bring this case, but the Supreme Court’s rulings in recent years on both racial preferences and administrative law challenges make it easier.” The Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to the 8(a) program’s constitutionality back in 2017 on Fifth Amendment grounds. That case, however, challenged the relevant provisions of the Small Business Act authorizing the program. The statute defines socially disadvantaged individuals as those “subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identity as a member of a group without regard to their individual qualities.” And the statute includes a congressional finding that blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other groups are “socially disadvantaged.” But, unlike the regulations that the Revier plaintiffs are challenging, the law contains no explicit rebuttable presumption of social disadvantage if an individual is a member of such a group. Resistance Ahead Any challenge to racial preferences in government programs – particularly at a Supreme Court that has already handed progressives defeats on racial matters – is likely to be met by significant resistance.  Democrats on the House and Senate Small Business Committees have continued defending it and related efforts.  Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez criticized the SBA following its announcement that it would be initiating an audit of the 8(a) program in June, and delivery of a warning letter to federal contracting officers in July calling on them to report potential program misconduct. “The SBA’s decision to target the use of a key small business contracting program and pressure federal agencies is deeply disappointing,” Velázquez, the ranking Democrat on the House Small Business Committee, said in an August statement. “This move strays from the agency’s core mission. Instead of helping small businesses compete in the federal marketplace, SBA is stripping away the very tools that enable them to succeed.” In addition to its political defenders and the businesses and individuals who are the direct beneficiaries of tens of billions of dollars in government awards annually, a constellation of trade associations, NGOs, law firms, and researchers support and/or rely on the continuation of the regime. Challengers have taken the Trump administration to court over a variety of anti-DEI executive actions – to mixed effect. Regarding racial preferences in government programs more broadly, a witness selected by congressional Democrats in a relevant June 2025 House Oversight Committee subcommittee hearing captured the position of program proponents.  “Congress has never placed a ceiling on the debt it endlessly accumulates to African Americans, indigenous peoples, and other communities of colors,” University of Southern California Professor Shaun Harper told the panel, “These diverse citizens persistently appear at the bottom of just about every health indicator and statistical metric of thriving…Government and private sector investments into DEI efforts have never been anywhere close to covering the enormous sum of this unpaid, continuously accruing debt.” “The real cost of racial inequities far surpasses spending on DEI programs, positions, and professional learning experiences,” Harper concluded. By contrast, Judge Glock of the right-leaning Manhattan Institute wrote in a spring 2023 City Journal piece that “Instead of righting historical wrongs,” government minority contracting efforts have “enriched a small subset of already-wealthy businesses, bred corruption and fraud, deepened racial divisions, and cost taxpayers countless billions of dollars – while doing nothing to help the truly disadvantaged.” Such “unconstitutional” programs, Glock said in testimony delivered opposite Harper, “should be removed from all levels of government as quickly as possible.” * * *  This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire. Tyler Durden Thu, 01/08/2026 - 12:45