| interview with Victor Davis Hanson via The Victor Davis Hanson Show Hoover Institution fellow Victor Davis Hanson discusses historically black colleges, the trans movement, and the reaction to the new movie Sound of Freedom. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As I have been saying for months. Fink is resigning from BlackRock. I believe he wants to run for president, down the road. He would make a dangerous ideologic president. +++ BlackRock’s False Voting ‘Choice’ Asset managers say they’re giving investors new proxy vote options. But the power still lies with the proxy adviser duopoly, Glass Lewis and ISS. By The Editorial Board BlackRock has won media plaudits for purportedly democratizing proxy voting for retail investors. If only. Instead, the asset manager is trying to blunt criticism of its environmental, social and governance (ESG) approach, while empowering the proxy advisory duopoly that promotes the same progressive agenda. BlackRock, like other asset managers, has traditionally voted proxy ballots for retail investors in its index funds. Yet it has lately come under criticism from conservatives for using the $9.4 trillion in assets that it manages to drive public companies to adopt ESG causes, including on CO2 emissions and other “sustainability” disclosures. Nineteen Republican state Attorneys General last autumn sent a letter to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, warning about antitrust concerns from its coordination with other financial institutions as part of the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative. The AGs also noted that BlackRock’s policy of punishing directors of corporate boards that don’t follow its climate orders may violate its fiduciary duty to investors. BlackRock got the message—sort of. Last week it announced that starting next year more than three million retail investors in its most popular exchange-traded fund will be able to choose from a range of proxy voting policy options. Message to the Republican AGs: There can be no antitrust or fiduciary violation if BlackRock offers retail investors a voting choice. Not so fast. Nearly all of BlackRock’s pre-selected voting policies are crafted by the proxy advisory duopoly of Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, or ISS, both of which support ESG investing. These include Glass Lewis’s Climate Policy and ISS’s Socially Responsible Investment Policy. Even options that aren’t ESG-focused on their face, such as ISS’s Catholic Faith-Based Policy, support things such as emissions reductions, board diversity quotas and racial equity audits. “BlackRock is committed to a future where every investor can have the choice to participate in the shareholder voting process,” the company’s global head of investment stewardship said. OK, but they still can’t truly choose how to vote. BlackRock’s “voting choice” initiative recalls Henry Ford’s famous line that a customer can have a car painted any color as long as it’s black. One BlackRock option from ISS does broadly support the recommendations of corporate boards, which tend to be less friendly to ESG resolutions. But most investors don’t support corporate boards on every issue. Under this policy, investors can’t separately disapprove of a CEO’s compensation when a company is under-performing. BlackRock seems to be more concerned with obtaining political and legal protection than providing true voting choices to its investors. It isn’t alone. Vanguard and State Street launched similar initiatives earlier this year. Vanguard’s four options included its own recommendations, a company board-aligned policy, a Glass Lewis ESG policy, and abstention. State Street’s seven voting options, all prepared by ISS, are mostly ESG-aligned, including one based on the AFL-CIO guidelines. Another “seeks to promote support for recognized global governing bodies promoting sustainable business practices advocating for stewardship of environment, fair labor practices, non-discrimination, and the protection of human rights.” This coordination between asset managers and proxy advisory firms may elevate the antitrust concerns that the Republican AGs raised. BlackRock and its peers are trying to shirk their fiduciary responsibility to act in investors’ best financial interests by entrusting voting recommendations to proxy advisers, which act as ESG force multipliers for pension funds. Sorry, BlackRock, investors deserve better choices than these. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yes, we need to grow our population because we are not reproducing. However, we need to demand legal entry and be selective. We have very right to decide who we want to become future citizens. +++ America’s Choice: Immigration or Bust By 2040 the U.S. could have six million fewer working-age people. By The Editorial Board The U.S. has a people problem. The birth rate has been sliding for years, and it’s about to translate into a shrinking labor force. By 2040, according to a study out this week, America could have more than six million fewer working-age people than in 2022. The only way to counter the domestic trend is by attracting workers from abroad. “The working-age U.S. population has peaked absent additional immigration,” writes Madeline Zavodny, in a forthcoming paper from the National Foundation for American Policy. “New international migrants are the only potential source of growth in the U.S. working-age population over the remainder of the next two decades.” Ms. Zavodny is an economics professor at the University of North Florida, and her analysis is based on data from the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics. At a time when some Americans view foreign workers as cheap competition, she offers a prescription for growth and vigor. In particular she notes that, although foreign-born workers accounted for nearly half the gain in U.S. employment from January 2021 through May 2023, “employment among prime-aged U.S.-born workers also soared during this period.” Unemployment has been historically low, she adds, and difficulty of finding good workers will increase if the pool of working-age people shrinks. The domestic trend lines aren’t good, for two big reasons. The declining birthrate is one. The other is Baby Boomers are both living longer and aging out of the work force. Anyone who imagines that a shrinking population is pleasant should spend some time in Japan and Italy. As these countries are finding, decline means fewer people to produce goods and services, as well as less innovation. Even China’s Communists now admit that owing to their pursuit of a one- child policy, they now face, as Milton Friedman predicted, a huge worker shortage that will challenge economic growth. So far the U.S. has been able to compensate via immigration, which was “the sole source of growth in the U.S. working-age population in 2021 and 2022,” Ms. Zavodny says. But this isn’t guaranteed. She suggests a future of competition among countries hit by the double whammy of a declining birth rate and aging society. Canada recently rolled out a new work permit to lure away foreigners in the U.S. on high-skill H-1B visas. The target of 10,000 applicants was met in two days. Amid Donald Trump’s talk about a wall and Joe Biden’s chaos at the southern border, it’s hard to imagine any solutions from Congress before 2025. But Ms. Zavodny identifies labor-force trends that will have damaging consequences if they aren’t addressed. Someone needs to make the case that admitting foreign workers is good for Americans. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Israel's mass media, like America's, must stir in order to sell newspapers etc. which are still popular in Israel. When all radical charges subside the election results will, as the attached editorial reveals, prove far less authoritative and dangerous. Meanwhile those in sensitive jobs and volunteer military status are acting treasonous considering the threat to Israeli survival. That said, it will take some savvy political maneuvering to keep the Haredi from going nuts and BIBI is the best at being able to bring that about. Biden is also doing what he can to cause BIBI's defeat +++ Israel’s Supreme Court Panic Attack Compromise is the way out of the mess, and Joe Biden’s help isn’t needed. By The Editorial Board Israel’s democracy is in jeopardy, its ability to defend itself against foreign threats is dying, and worse is to come. That was the overwrought media and political narrative on Monday as the Jewish state passed a modest judicial reform that probably won’t make as much difference as either side claims The new law bars the Israeli Supreme Court’s reasonableness test, which lets the court overturn government actions based on its interpretation of that word. The new law barely begins to reverse the “judicial revolution” of the 1980s and 1990s, in which Israel’s court claimed unusual new powers. The purpose of the new law is to pass something, anything, to show conservative voters that the government hasn’t been completely rolled by opposition protests. “Reasonableness” in Israel started at the local level as a common-law import but became an all-purpose tool to invalidate government appointments, military decisions and policies of national significance. This gave the court enormous discretion, with often arbitrary results. For example, the court found it was unreasonable for a caretaker government to bind future governments by appointing midlevel officials. But it found it was reasonable for a different caretaker government to offer a final-status peace deal to the Palestinians. Shortly before Monday’s vote, opposition leaders Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid offered to accede to a “reasonableness” reform in exchange for postponing the larger reforms first proposed by the Netanyahu government. They understand that this change isn’t itself a danger, but it is too late to hold back the protest movement stirred up by the original and more sweeping reform. Protesters are blocking highways, announcing strikes and shirking military-reserve duty, while universities and businesses are letting out students and workers. Boycotting reserve duty has been an effective pressure tactic on Israel’s government. But playing politics with military readiness is an indulgence Israel can’t afford, and looking to the military brass for political intervention isn’t the way to “save democracy.” On Monday night Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for compromise on the rest of the reform, which makes sense, with talks until November. But will he be able to hold off his coalition partners pressing to go much further? That would likely fail amid intense opposition. Compromise will take time, and time may demonstrate that the new “reasonableness” law has changed little. The justices haven’t lost their substantial power over the appointment of new justices. The court can still hear almost any case, even on a strictly political question in which no petitioner has been directly harmed. The court retains the power it seized in the 1990s to strike down legislation, and it can still block administrative actions for every reason except unreasonableness, for which there are many substitutes. In other words, the judiciary hasn’t really been reformed, and democracy isn’t dying in Israel. President Biden’s running commentary on this internal Israel debate is unseemly and looks aimed at toppling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. The two ought to be working together to expand the Abraham Accords to Saudi Arabia and to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Israel’s judicial debate is far down the list of urgent problems in the Middle East. ++++++++++++++++++++++ Since you would go to jail for what Hunter did, his "soft ball" plea agreement should be overturned by the judge. +++ Hunter Biden’s Bargain Plea Does anyone still believe Joe’s claim he never discussed his son’s business? By William McGurn “Gradually, then suddenly.” That’s how a character in Ernest Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises” describes how he went bankrupt, but it could easily be Hunter Biden’s explanation for how his habit of trading on the family name blew up on him at the moment a plea deal was supposed to bury it all for good. Now the plea deal itself—scheduled to be approved Wednesday in Delaware by U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika—has become an issue. The federal investigation into the young Mr. Biden’s taxes and financial dealings began in 2018. It’s been punctuated by the surfacing of lurid laptop photos of Hunter taking drugs and cavorting with women in the nude. There have also been occasional teases about Joe Biden’s alleged involvement in Hunter’s business, including the never explained email from a business partner saying 10% of a deal with a Chinese company would be “held by H for the big guy.” That was the gradual part. Suddenly came last week. First was the testimony before Congress—under oath and in public—by whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler. These career Internal Revenue Service investigators proffered details about how the president’s political appointees sabotaged their investigation, tipping off Hunter’s lawyers about searches and interviews, forbidding questions about “the big guy,” and running out the clock on the statute of limitations for the more-serious tax issues involving Burisma payments. Then, just a day after the whistleblowers testified, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) dropped another bombshell: A Federal Bureau of Investigation FD-1023 form memorializing a trusted source’s claim that Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky alleged he’d been “coerced” into paying Joe and Hunter Biden $5 million each. News outlets dutifully reported that the form was “unverified” (a qualifier absent from most reporting on the infamous Steele dossier). But saying the information is unverified raises the key question: What steps, if any, did the FBI take to verify these allegations? Think about it. As recently as two months ago, the bureau wouldn’t even admit to Congress that the FD-1023 existed. Not until FBI Director Christopher Wray realized some people had already seen a copy, and he was threatened with contempt, did the FBI fess up and give members of Congress a limited look. Even more disturbing, though the form is dated June 30, 2020, Messrs. Shapley and Ziegler said their team never saw it. By releasing the document, Mr. Grassley has given the American people more detailed information about the bribery allegation than Justice and the FBI ever gave the IRS team. The same goes for the laptop, which the IRS whistleblowers say they never saw. On top of all this, U.S. Attorney David Weiss, the federal prosecutor handling Hunter’s case, has a credibility problem. Attorney General Merrick Garland was unequivocal in asserting that Mr. Weiss had “complete authority” to bring charges wherever he wanted—and never asked for special-counsel status. But Mr. Shapley testified (under oath, remember) that Mr. Weiss told him and other investigators that he wasn’t the “deciding person on whether charges were filed.” Mr. Weiss, who could clear this up, has made a series of public statements that instead only add to the confusion. He has said that he had “ultimate authority,” that he never sought special-counsel status, and that if he had asked he would have been granted it. Someone isn’t telling the truth here. The Heritage Foundation is suing for answers. It wants to know if Mr. Garland lied when he said Mr. Weiss hadn’t asked for special-counsel status. And it wants the answer before Wednesday, when Hunter’s plea is to be approved. So Heritage is asking a court to force the Justice Department to release internal communications relating to Mr. Weiss and the special-counsel question. It may not win. But Heritage is right to say that there are too many questions about the fairness and integrity of the whole Hunter Biden investigation to let it all be swept under the carpet with a plea deal. Meanwhile, the burden of proof has shifted. With each hearing, Congress has unearthed troubling allegations that are increasingly specific and backed up by witnesses. Now we learn that Devon Archer, Hunter’s former best friend and business associate, will tell the House Oversight Committee about client meetings that Joe Biden either attended in person or via speakerphone while he was vice president. The New York Post reports that Mr. Archer will testify that there were at least 24 such conversations. The more we know, the harder it is to believe Joe Biden’s assertion that he never discussed business with Hunter. It’s rare for a judge to rip up a plea arrangement. But it is well within Judge Noreika’s discretion to do so. The issue now goes well beyond what Hunter Biden did, or even his father’s involvement. It’s whether the two powerful institutions that handled this investigation and came up with this sweetheart deal—the FBI and the Justice Department—can be trusted. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I listen to a lot of "experts" who are simply interested in claiming to be doing you a "patriotic favor" by getting you to purchase their books, employing their ideas etc. They get wealthy telling you how to either become wealthy and/or avoid losing all you wealth. It so happens I am in agreement with Jim Rickards and suggest you actually listen to this video but not purchase what he has written unless you choose to do so. I have been urging the purchase of oil stocks for several years getting aboard way too early but I still maintain oil will remain a sound investment for, at least, three main reasons: a) Greta Greenies are wrong because they have a long way to go to build any infrastructure which will make electricity competitive. Oil and gas will remain a source of power for decades. b) Productivity will be slaughtered as Kerry, Fink and Biden force America to spend trillions that will make America less competitive in order to reduce pollution less than 1/2% as well as making us more vulnerable to China's military intentions. c) Electing a rational Republican President will restore our return to energy independence ut will not return the dollar to it's dominant position because the tooth paste is out of the tube, thanks to Biden..
Currency Wars by James Rickards | Executive SummaryFeb 18, 2023 — In this book, James Rickards examines the effects of currency wars and how they are feared in international economics. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment