18 Burst results for "U. S. Supreme Court"
Monitor Show 16:00 09-30-2023 16:00
"Hey, can I let you in on a little secret? Ugh, I'm obsessed with the Drop app. Drop makes it so easy to score free gift cards just for doing my everyday shopping at places like Ulta, Sam's Club, and Lyft. So if you're like me and love a good shopping spree, download Drop today and join the secret club of savvy shoppers. And use my code GETDROP999 to get $5. Broadcasting 24 hours a day at Bloomberg .com and the Bloomberg Business Act. This is Bloomberg Radio. It appears a government shutdown has been avoided after the House passed a 45 -day stopgap funding bill. The measure passed 335 to 91 with overwhelming Democratic support as dozens of Republicans voted against it. The bill now goes to the Senate for final approval. Former President Trump could be in New York City on Monday for his civil fraud trial. Trump's lawyers revealed his plans on Friday while discussing another case, a lawsuit against his former lawyer Michael Cohen. Trump was set to undergo a deposition in that case in Florida on Tuesday, but his lawyers asked the court to postpone it so he could get to the New York trial, which opens Monday. Earlier this week, the judge overseeing the New York case ruled that Trump had been overvaluing his properties and was liable for fraud. A Michigan judge is ruling the teen who shot seven people and killed four at Oxford High School in November 2021 can be sentenced to life without parole. Lisa Taylor has more. Judge Kwame Rowe made the announcement Friday morning that Ethan Crumbly has a slim chance of rehabilitation. He said the teen is obsessed with violence even while being held in jail. The hearing and ruling are required as the U .S. Supreme Court ruled that underage defendants could not be given a life without parole sentence without a separate hearing following a conviction. Crumbly is scheduled to be sentenced in December. I'm Lisa Taylor. SpaceX launched another 22 Starlink satellites into orbit.
A highlight from Congressional Republicans Lash Out At Gensler
"And at the end of it all, after dealing with several more non -answers from Gensler, an exasperated ogles closed the hearing with the call to open up the floodgates, hit him with subpoenas, get the information we need. The obfuscation, the not answering questions, I'm sick and tired of it. Dude, you wear tap dancing shoes better than Fred Astaire and enough is enough. It's time that questions are answered and that we have the information that we need. Welcome back to The Breakdown with me, NLW. It's a daily podcast on macro, Bitcoin, and the big picture power shifts remaking our world. What's going on, guys? It is Thursday, September 28th, and today we are talking about Gensler's combative hearing. Before we get into that, however, if you are enjoying The Breakdown, please go subscribe to it, give it a rating, give it a review, or if you want to dive deeper into the conversation, come join us on The Breakers Discord. You can find a link in the show notes or go to bit .ly slash breakdown pod. Well, friends, we had yesterday another hearing featuring SEC Chair Gary Gensler. This was a House Financial Services Committee oversight hearing. And what makes this one a little bit more interesting, even in the Senate hearing that we heard last week, is one, it had some interesting lead -in in the fact that a bipartisan group had just sent Gary Gensler a letter encouraging him, in the strongest possible language, to approve a Bitcoin spot ETF. And two, it had the setup for some very interesting fireworks heading in. And indeed, that is exactly what we got. Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry set the agenda from the beginning with his opening remarks. He addressed Gensler saying, Last time you were before the committee, I voiced my concerns regarding your reckless approach to rulemaking, lack of capital formation agenda, crusade against the digital asset ecosystem, and unresponsiveness to Congress. So many things changed, so many things remain the same. Those are the same issues on the docket today. McHenry went on to accuse Gensler of doing nothing over the past five months to remedy the legitimate and often bipartisan concern expressed by this committee, adding that this is disgraceful and that their patience was wearing thin. Now, the Republican critique of Gensler's rulemaking agenda is that a huge number of rules have been proposed during his term without an economic analysis being performed on their cumulative effect. Regarding the crypto crackdown, McHenry rebuffed Gensler's constant assertion that the law is clear. He stated, your actions have created more confusion and lasting damage. Indeed, he said that contrary to the SEC's role of consumer protection, that Gensler's actions had, quote, pushed legitimate digital asset activities outside of regulated financial institutions where consumers are best protected. Keep in mind, this is all in the opening statements. McHenry went on noting that the SEC's regulation by enforcement agenda has been ineffective and has been on a massive losing streak in the courts. Still, the main point, the main thrust of McHenry's opening, was that it was unacceptable that the SEC had not engaged with Congress. Wrapping it up, McHenry said, the SEC is not above the law, nor is it unique. I do not want to be the first chairman of this committee to issue a subpoena to the SEC, and you should not want to be the first SEC chair to receive a congressional subpoena. Either we find a path forward where the SEC recognizes Congress as a co -equal branch of government and is responsive to our oversight duties, or my option is to issue that subpoena. It's time for you to consider the lasting consequences of your actions and what that means to the SEC's reputation long -term. While your time in this role may be temporary, the repercussions for your actions may be permanent for the agency. It was a fierce opening that sent the signal right away of what we were in store for. Now, a couple other quick notes around other opening statements. Democrat Ranking Member Maxine Waters used her time to rail against MAGA Republicans for pushing the government into a shutdown, and effectively defended the SEC's agenda on all fronts, and asserted that their rulemaking agenda was moving quote thoughtfully and effectively. Now, Gensler himself also got a chance to give an opening statement, and most of his time was spent on justifying the agency's regulatory agenda. He claimed overall that the rulemaking process had been measured with ample time and consideration given to public comment. Now, from there we moved into the question section of the hearing. McHenry as committee chair got to go first and used his questions to focus on Bitcoin. He asked Gensler whether he stood by his previous comments that Bitcoin is not a security, which Gensler evaded by talking in circles, never reaching a point. Notably frustrated by this process, McHenry snapped, I'm asking you to answer my question now. This is not supposed to be hard. Unable to get a straight answer, McHenry moved on to his point that there is currently no regulator with authority over Bitcoin's spot markets. He asked whether Gensler believed legislation should be passed to close that regulatory gap. To the surprise of no one, Gensler continued in his noncommittal manner, acknowledging the existence of said gap but failing to engage with the need for legislation. After that, McHenry left the crypto topic to press Gensler about when he can expect a response to document requests. Becoming ever more frustrated with Gensler's mealy -mouthed answers, McHenry said, This should not be the hard work of a chairman. You have 30 major rulemakings, but you won't even provide basic documents to us. Your unresponsiveness is non -compliance and we'll have to take action if you're not willing to comply. Now Maxine waters again as ranking minority member got to speak next. She, too, continued on the crypto theme, although she used her time to accuse the industry writ large of quote gross violations of the law that end in investors getting ripped off. She asked Gensler what the SEC has done to quote shut down crypto firms and whether quote crypto firms are getting the message. This, of course, mainly served to set up Gensler's usual sound bites. This is a field, he said, that's rife with fraud, manipulation and scams, and the American public is still getting hurt by the non -compliance in this field. Waters also used this chance to castigate Republicans who quote too often protect crypto firms. Now it was very clear listening to Waters that she wants the public to see the crypto industry as just Luna and FTX, to extrapolate them to everything and effectively shut the industry down. Now moving into the rest of the questioning, much of the substantive discussion centered on SEC staff accounting bulletin 121. Better known as SAB 121, this measure requires financial institutions to place intangible assets on their own balance sheet rather than in segregated customer accounts. The rule has been widely criticized for making crypto custody essentially unworkable for banks. Dissatisfaction was expressed from numerous representatives, including one of Gensler's usual allies, Brad Sherman. Sherman noted that the rule lumps all intangible assets together from real estate to crypto. He suggested that specifically designed rules for vastly different asset classes would be more appropriate. The most robust questioning on this topic, however, came from Republican Mike Flood. Flood put to Gensler that his staff did not consult with prudential regulators on SAB 121, which Gensler acknowledged. After stating that he had personally looked into this issue, Flood noted that the Accounting Standards Board had not published any guidance around crypto custody. This contradicted Gensler's comments from a previous hearing when he stated that the SEC was simply applying existing accounting rules. Flood said quote, With regard to SAB 121's potential effects on a bank's balance sheet, it's fair to say that fact pattern we have is that the SEC is not just going out of its lane, but it failed to comprehend the existence of any conflict with prudential rules. He suggested that there are only two explanations for this action. Either the SEC knew there was no justification for SAB 121 and chose to do it anyway, or that there were fairly obvious mistakes made during that process. Flood concluded saying quote, The case of SAB 121 raises the question of whether the SEC is compromised. Now, as you might expect, minority whip Tom Emmer lined up to take his shot with a series of rapid -fire yes or no questions. The main thrust of his questioning was around whether Gensler's history as a partner at Goldman Sachs had colored his agenda at the SEC. To get a sense of Emmer's opinion on this, just look at his tweet from yesterday where he said, Fact, Gary Gensler is not an impartial regulator, and his answers to my questions today prove just that. He's made a career of being relentlessly loyal to the largest institutions in America at the clear expense of innovation, competition, and everyday Americans. One example, Emmer presented Gensler with a quote he previously gave about bank executives being concerned about depositors moving money into crypto. Emmer asked, Can you assure this committee that your style of regulation by harassment towards digital asset innovation is to the benefit of every American and not driven by your desire to protect industry incumbents? At another point, Emmer asked whether Gensler believed that all crypto tokens were securities, which was, once again, avoided with a rambling noncommittal answer. And all of this built up to the big finale in which Emmer said, Mr. Gensler, despite your years of rhetoric, I'm convinced you are not an impartial regulator. Instead, it's clear you are working to consolidate your own power even though it means crushing opportunities for everyday Americans and, frankly, the financial future of this country. Even the federal courts are highlighting the damage you, sir, are doing to our constituents and they are telling you you don't have the legal authority to accomplish your goal of squashing competition in the financial markets. Now, while this was extremely satisfying to watch if you happen to agree with Emmer, in general, I find that this type of interaction is exactly why these hearings are so much about and not really about productive anything. This was a chance to articulate the Republican position against Gary Gensler. There's no real place for listening. It's about laying out a narrative. Now, in this case, I happen to agree with Emmer's narrative, but it still doesn't make for the most effective governance. Another notable line of questioning came from Democrat Richie Torres. Torres used his time to dig into the issue of whether crypto should be governed by securities law. He said, I worry that the term investment contract has become so infinitely malleable and I worry that when it comes to crypto, your interpretation of the term investment contract has no limiting principle and therefore could invite arbitrary and capricious enforcement action. Torres referenced an August report from six law professors which examined the history of the Howey test. That report had noted that no Supreme Court ruling has ever determined the existence of an investment contract scheme without recognizing one or more contracts underlying that scheme. When pushed to provide a case that contradicts this research, Gensler was unable to do so. When Gensler began to waffle, Torres cut him off, stating that, This is a question to which you should know the answer because the definition of an investment contract is the central issue. That's what determines the extent of your authority. That's what determines the applicability of federal securities law to crypto transactions. Your inability to answer that question is baffling to me. Switching tactics, Torres asked whether purchasing a Pokémon card would constitute a securities transaction. Gensler, as always, was unable to give a straight answer, stating that he would know what the context was, although generally he acknowledged that it would not be. Torres followed up by asking whether purchasing a tokenized Pokémon card would be considered a securities transaction. He asked Gensler if, For you, the process of tokenization is what transforms a non -securities transaction into a securities transaction? Gensler, of course, did not get to a real answer and just fell back on restating the elements of the Howey test. One other topic that you might be wondering if it came up was the Prometheum question. Prometheum was, of course, the first crypto firm to obtain SEC registration as a crypto brokerage, despite the fact that that licensing seems to give them no ability to actually offer digital asset trading. Prometheum is also minority -owned by a prominent Chinese firm. After Gensler failed to express any serious concern with the Prometheum situation, Congressman Ralph Norman noted that the SEC had taken 10 weeks to respond to a letter on the issue. He said, Andy Ogles brought the four -hour hearing full circle, saying, And at the end of it all, after dealing with several more non -answers from Gensler, an exasperated Ogles closed the hearing with the call to, So, what can be drawn from this hearing, if anything? Well, Gensler appears to be stubbornly sticking to his plan to evade document requests and oversight from Republican representatives. Over the four -hour hearing, there were few, if any, answers from Gensler that produced any new information or even, frankly, attempted good -faith engagement with the questions. Throughout the hearing, Gensler acted as if he knew there would be no serious repercussions and he could continue to treat congressional oversight as a joke. Republicans, for their part, are clearly fed up and ready to act. McHenry began and ended the hearing with a threat to subpoena the SEC and Gensler to compel a response to the numerous document requests that have gone unanswered. The threat seemed to carry little weight for Gensler, who seemed more than willing to allow that controversial action to play out. Now, on the flip side, establishment Democrats appear entirely disengaged with the legislative process and committed to the current strategy of naming failed crypto projects and demanding that the SEC continue its rampage throughout the industry. No senior Democrats appear at all concerned that the SEC is losing in court, as long as that litigation remains a roadblock for the industry. Representative Torres remained a bright spot and one of the few Democrats breaking with his senior colleagues. His questions showed a deep understanding of the legal issues surrounding token lawsuits and the need for additional clarity and crypto regulation. Overall, the hearing really just confirmed what we already knew about Gensler and his leadership of the SEC, which is, of course, that it seems very unlikely that anything will change. However, Republicans have now clearly reached the end of their rope and are ready to play hardball by using subpoena power. As Bill Huizenga put it to Gensler, what's your plan? Because we've got a plan. Until next time, guys, be safe and take care of each other. Peace.
A highlight from 105. I Couldn't have Predicted This EFT Tapping + Talk
"From iHeart Podcast, Supreme the Battle for Roe tells the story of the unlikely champions behind the landmark case Roe v. Wade. Starring Maya Hawk as 26 -year -old lead attorney Sarah Weddington. Or challenging the Texas abortion laws in federal court. And Academy Award nominee William H. Macy as Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. Time is not the most important factor. Getting it right is. Listen to the podcast Supreme the Battle for Roe on the iHeart Radio app or on iTunes. Hi I'm Nicole and I'm an EFT tapping practitioner and I want to help you learn how to use EFT tapping to grow as a person, to grow on your spiritual path, and to truly change your life in any way that you are looking to change your life. Because I believe that we deserve to have the life that we are meant to live. Thank you so much for joining me today. Let's get into the podcast.
A highlight from 1263. Gensler Rejects Courts | Hints At Revoking Bitcoin Futures
"Today, we have the SEC going directly against the U .S. court system, and I think it's going to be a good one for you guys. We'll break this down for you. There's a lot happening with Garrett Gensler, how they are strategizing against potentially some of the rulings already by the U .S. courts. You don't want to miss it. My name is Paul Baron. Welcome back into Tech Path. All right, let's get into it today. Before we start, I want to thank our sponsor, and that is Tangem. If you guys are looking at a secure way to do your own self -custody, one of the things you can do is get into these card wallets. Now, a card wallet is like a physical wallet. It in itself works in tandem with your software on the phone, and it does a great job in terms of your overall security and protecting your digital assets. If you like self -custody, this is one of the tools you can use. Just go over, go to tangem .com, click Get Tangem. You've got a couple of options here. They've got a brand new wallet coming out that will give you optional seed phrase capability, all of that happening in October. So jump in, use our discount code. It's going to give you some additional discounts. Make sure and get the three -pack, too, because it's a better deal. So use the discount code, click the link down below, and start your journey on self -custody. Let's get into the first thing. I want to go to the clip that explains Gensler's strategy here about the current status of our courts and their decisions so far and what he might do with that. Listen in. When you take collectively recent court decisions we have seen, how have they made you, Gary Gensler, think differently about regulating this space? I'll tell you. I think the same thing. It's about ensuring for compliance and protecting the investing public. And this is a field, it kind of reminds me a bit of the 1920s, where a lot of people were getting hurt. The securities laws apply to crypto security tokens, and there's nothing incompatible with those tokens, with the securities laws, and we've just seen so many people hurt and lost their money, and there's so many hucksters and fraudsters in this field. All right, so most of this has been, as you guys know, if you've followed our channel for very long, you understand where the problems had lied. Most of it is because of the lack of clarity, the lack of real legislative direction, and I think that's been the case. Gensler's position has pretty much been unchanged. He truly believes that all tokens are essentially securities and that they are the savior against protecting individuals' rights and hopefully their finances. The only problem is that we see just as much fraud and problems within the traditional finance markets as we do in any other markets that are speculative. So I think this is still Gensler's missed shot of really understanding what the future of innovation really means for crypto and blockchain. Let's go to another clip here. This is where maybe could the courts convince him because the rulings have been coming out pretty sequential here in and against, in favor of the blockchain industry and against the SEC. Listen to what he had to say. And so nothing any court would say would change your mind on that? I wish something a court could say which would actually bring the compliance sooner. Having said that, there are a lot of folks in this field that are trying to say, well, those don't apply to us. And I suspect you've interviewed one or two of them, too. You'd be right about that. First thing I want to say here is Gensler's selection of words. His pauses are getting further and further apart. Why is that? I mean, he seems to be so intrepid in the past. And now all of a sudden he's taken this role of just a very, very strategic way of answering questions. And I think it's an interesting concept, especially because of the fact that he's had what handed to him over the past few months in terms of court rulings by judges who are essentially following the law. And this is where I think it starts to rub with a lot of people about Gensler's kind of frivolous attempt at, hey, I don't really care what the courts have to say. They just need to give us the ability to litigate and execute our plan over the SEC or over these financial markets, including the crypto markets in general. Stuart Alderadi kind of jumped in on this on Twitter. Stuart Alderadi obviously coming in from the Ripple case, fresh off a fairly good win. But what's most concerning to me, let me zoom in on that, and should be to you in the full video clip, is shocking admission of an unelected bureaucrat that he won't respect the decisions of the court. This is the problem that the overreach of the SEC continues to dive into. But more important, I think it's more importantly around Gensler himself. Because there's enough dissent in the SEC, especially in most of these rulings here recently, that it does pose a very interesting position right now. Here's John Deaton coming in with it. Just watch the reaction of the question posed. Any court includes the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Law of the Land. These people are so inherently arrogant that they think they are above the law. Let me introduce you, everyone, to the real -life example of a megalomaniac right there. And I would agree. I think this interview alone started to really showcase how Gensler thinks about these things. And he's strategically lining up. I'm wondering if there is something big that Gensler - because remember, if you watched one of our other clips when we did the government shutdown video, part of that was in a clip here and there was a lot of nervousness around these government shutdowns. I don't know. Is there something brewing down there with the SEC? I want to go to this next clip because this is where Gensler is going directly against a decision that's already been made around ETFs, listening to what he had to say. I'm not going to ask you to comment specifically on what's next in the Grayscale case, but in part of that ruling it was about the distinction between futures and spot and it not being clear that really fundamentally they were differently in terms of the fraud and manipulation you often talk about. My question to you is, is there a world given those concerns you have about fraud and manipulation that the SEC could actually revoke approval of a Bitcoin futures ETF? We take into consideration any time a court rules and we consider it and think it through and deal with filings that are in front of us. And we have a number of open filings in the Bitcoin exchange traded product space. For spot products, sure, but could you rule out revoking the futures product? Again, I'm just not going to speak to the filings and you are absolutely right. There are a number of Bitcoin futures exchange traded funds and they've been live since about two years. All right. So there was some body language in there in that interview. Part of this was the smirk that Gensler has on his face when that question was asked. This concerns me because it does and has the ability to impact the markets in pretty much a catastrophic way. Traditional traders would see this as a very bad move by the SEC because this could put a lot of futures ETFs at risk. And I think for just him to even entertain that, as opposed to an unequivocal no, we would not do that, we've already put markets in motion, is very telling about the strategy and his grab of power that the SEC has continued to go after. So it's a very interesting situation right now brewing within the SEC. There is something up, there is something up with Gensler and his strategy in terms of these market conditions. I want to go to another clip here on Custodia Bank because this kind of starts to play into this because there are some other scenarios playing out with Custodia Bank and the Fed. I'll explain this in a couple of clips so you guys can catch up. You probably are not completely aware of it. Let me go to this first clip that kind of gives you an overview on Custodia.
Scott Presler: Pennsylvania Is Winnable, Vote for Carolyn Carluccio
"To win the election and i'll tell you in the last week i've been to slippery rock university and penn state city we registered and over whelming number of republicans even to independence and here are the issues that jen the and young people care about they don't want censorship from their university or their government they don't want the lockdowns the mandate they're they're seeing that food is unaffordable gas prices they're being outpriced of buying a vehicle all kids these want to be parents one day want to be homeowners and the fact of the matter is that under under this administration under democrats we are losing sight of the american dream for young people this is our opportunity as the republican party to come in let's make life affordable let's make life better let's make sure that the uh the american dream is still there for everyone especially young folks and so yes you hear me loud and clear everybody listening to the bongino show pennsylvania is winnable and i would not be here in this state and i need every pennsylvania to make a plan to vote for judge carolyn carluccio to the pennsylvania supreme court if you don't want mask mandates if you don't want lockdowns if you want to check and balance against democratic governor shapiro i urge you i plead with you i beg you make a plan vote to for judge carolyn
Scott Presler: We Don't Need the Government, We Need Active Citizens
"Because I was mad but you know I wasn't mad at President Obama I was ultimately mad at myself I said Scott where were you registering where voters were you getting out the vote where were you helping to make sure that we were electing publicans into office and I realized that my inaction meant that I was the problem and so I became the solution by getting my first job in politics in 2014 I I moved halfway across the country to Texas to elect now Governor Greg Abbott and then realized how important it was that we win back the White House in 2016 because I was always forward thinking focusing on the Supreme Court and I never wanted Hillary Clinton to set foot in office ever again as you know and so I dedicated two years of my life to electing Donald J. Trump as the 45th President and it really was Trump who changed my life in 2019 because he was talking about the city of Baltimore Maryland and again the same inaction that I felt in myself in 2012 I was reminded of by society's reaction to Baltimore because because everybody was tweeting they were posting pictures they were getting likes and clicks from posting videos and of Baltimore I thought to myself okay you're gonna go do a trash cleanup and I I thought was it going was to be me my mom dad but the tweet that I posted on social media it went viral and I was oh but within seven days we organized a cleanup in Baltimore on on a Monday and we got 200 volunteers from all across the country that came together in an act of love and we picked up 12 tons of trash in 12 hours in one single day and I thought to myself Dan I don't need the government to solve my problems what I do need is concerned citizens coming together as a community and we can do
A highlight from Week in Review - Episode 24
"Cycling isn't just cycling. It can be cycling or cycling or even cycling. Peloton isn't just one thing. We have classes that will ease you in and classes that will make you sweat and a range of instructors so you can find your match. Whatever you're in the mood for, we can get you in the zone. See for yourself with a worry free 30 day home trial. Visit one Peloton dot com slash home dash trial terms apply. Welcome to the Mike Gallagher Show Week in Review podcast. It's just about everything that's happened this week. I'm Eric Hanson, and we begin with President Trump, who made some controversial statements about abortion this week and called Ron DeSantis's six week abortion ban a terrible mistake. We might as well get this out of the way. We got President Trump with an answer to Kristen Welker on NBC's Meet the Press and her debut as the new host, which gave a lot of ammunition to Trump haters who want to hurt him and try to wreck his chances of becoming the nominee in 2024. This is an interesting dilemma that Republicans have. Here's the dilemma. Pro -life fighting for the sanctity of those unborn babies, the sanctity of their lives, the sacredness of the innocent. That's a centerpiece that's foundational for the Republican Party. And whether we like it or not, this particular debate that we're having in America over abortion is crushing us at the ballot box. And Donald Trump, I believe, was trying to address that with Kristen Welker on Meet the Press. Let's get it out of the way. I've been dreading this all weekend. Well, it wasn't all weekend. I mean, this first broke, I think, Saturday. They gave a little preview of his answer. I don't love his answer, but I also don't love the way Trump critics are pouncing on him, claiming he's not pro -life. I got into a big knockdown drag out, as I expected I would with my friend Mark Davis in Dallas, because Mark is now hell bent on proclaiming that Donald Trump is not pro -life. And he's saying that because of this exchange with Kristen Welker yesterday on Meet the Press. If a federal ban landed on your desk, if you were re -elected, would you sign it at 15 weeks? Are you talking about a complete ban? A ban at 15 weeks? Well, people are starting to think of 15 weeks. That seems to be a number that people are talking about right now. Would you sign that? I would I would sit down with both sides and I negotiate something and we'll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years. I'm not going to say I would or I wouldn't. I mean, the sanctus would really design a five week and six week ban. Would you support that? I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake. But we'll come up with a number. But at the same time, Democrats won't be able to go out in six months, seven months, eight months and allow an abortion. Now, there are people who took that answer and proclaimed that Donald Trump is not pro -life, like it's important to proclaim or make some kind of declaration that he is not pro -life. I believe it's ridiculous to claim that a guy who's the only president to ever attend the March for Life, the guy who promised to get Roe v. Wade overturned because that was terrible federal. That was a terrible federal ruling and appointed Supreme Court justices who did just that to claim that Donald Trump is not pro -life is preposterous. It's absurd. It's virtue signaling. And perhaps it's just. The opportunistic way you chalk up some points for Ron DeSantis, because clearly Team DeSantis is pouncing on Donald Trump over this remark. I believe two things can be true at the same time. You can be pro -life and you can acknowledge that this issue is killing us at the ballot box. And we're losing elections. So President Trump has some campaign trouble to manage. Meanwhile, our current president can barely navigate a simple speech. If you miss Joe Biden at the U .N. this week, well, buckle up. Remember when Trump went to the United Nations and gave a really good speech and the media freaked out and said how goofy and wild and unpresidential and unprecedented it was, they had a complete meltdown and he gave a really decent speech. Compare that to the appearance of Joe Biden yesterday at the U .N. Now, even as we have all our institutions and drive creative new partnerships. Let me be clear. Certain principles of our international system are sacrosanct. Both Biden and Kamala Harris do the same thing when they say, let me be clear, run for the hills, because when they say, let me be clear, you're going to see nothing but mud and gibberish. I mean, babbling incoherently in front of the United Nations. And if that wasn't wild enough, you've got the Ukrainian President Zelensky. He marches in with his entourage. You know, I used to say I was torn about Ukraine. People that I respect insist that we have got to continue to fund the Ukrainian battle with Russia, that the American people have to help Ukraine with its border. We dare not have a wall for our own border, but we better, by God, help Ukraine with theirs. We better fund them. We better give them the missiles they want. We got to give them the ammunition they need. We need to. We got to stop Vladimir Putin. And if you push back against that, you're a stooge for Vladimir Putin. You're a Putin puppet. Just ask Tucker Carlson. When Tucker dared to express the belief that the American people have bigger fish to fry than funding Ukraine, he was thoroughly denounced and renounced as a stooge of Vladimir Putin. So there goes Zelensky marching into the UN yesterday with his bodyguards and his entourage, and he gets up to that podium. And what he said was pretty stunning. I expected he would stand at that giant podium in front of that ugly green background at the UN and talk about the need to fund his military. Talk about Russia's aggression against the Ukrainian people. Talk about Ukraine's place in the whole worldview of things instead. We got this. Even though humanity is failing on its climate policy objectives, this means that extreme weather will still impact the normal global life and some evil state will also weaponize its outcomes. And then people in the streets of New York and other cities of the world went out on climate protest. We all have seen them and when people in Morocco and Libya and other countries die as a result of natural disasters and when islands and countries disappear underwater and when tornadoes and deserts are spreading into into new territories and when all of this is happening, one unnatural disaster in Moscow decided to launch a big war and killed the tens of thousands of people. No wonder loony leftists have the Ukrainian flag in their front yard. You would think the Ukrainian president had bigger problems than climate change. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers hit the picket lines this week. They made a few modest demands like a 40 % pay raise in a four day work week. Speaking of the UAW strike, I watched Sean Fain, the president of the United Auto Workers Union on the Sunday morning news shows. And you know, I admit I'm not a real big fan of unions. In fact, quite the opposite. I kind of think that unions have helped destroy many aspects of our economic system. In fact, it's a commonly held view that pension plans that used to be in place contributed to the decline of the U S automakers. Well, now the UAW is demanding pensions come back. They want the old fashioned defined benefit plan. And as Bloomberg points out, pensions are not worth striking over. You know what I find interesting about the UAW dispute? I heard all the talking points about how the corporate executives at the big three automakers make too much money. That's a Bernie Sanders mantra. That's an Elizabeth Warren trope. The executives make too much. You know, a company can be producing billions of dollars of revenue, but the Bernie Sanders of the world want to cap what an executive at one of those companies earns, which I always find so fascinating. It's as if they want to equate the guy or gal on the assembly line with the big automakers. Well, they're not the same. I mean it'd be nice if everybody made the same amount of money in life hate to break it to your life doesn't work that way. Some people make more than others and admittedly a lot of it is luck. I don't deserve the living that I make, but I'm very blessed to make a good living. There are people make a lot more than I do and I don't begrudge them anything, but simply because somebody that might have a show on television might make 10 times what I make. I don't think I should make what they make simply because we do the same essentially same thing. I mean, and Democrats always have such hypocrisy on this issue. Like somebody just texted me, how many homes does Bernie Sanders have again? It's more than one. But here's something that I noticed when I heard Sean Fain, the president of the UAW talk about executives compensation and how we're not making enough and we're taking steps backwards. I mean, the fact of the matter is the union gave up the defined benefit pension plan in a previous negotiation. Now they want it back. When you give up a benefit like that, you're not going to get it back. That's not realistic. And here's what I'm interested in. You know what was missing from all the coverage of the UAW strike? They never talk about what auto make auto workers make. Now I kept hearing how somebody on the assembly line can't feed their family. Really? What do they make? I kept hearing that Sean Fain kept saying the auto workers have taken three steps backwards. Really? How much do they earn? I know what they want to make. They want a 40 % pay increase and they want to only work four days a week. Now that's a pretty good deal.
A highlight from With All Confidence
"Let's turn together to the triumphal ending of the book of Acts this morning chapter 28 verse number 11 to begin with Not feeling so triumphant so the Lord's wants us to learn today that despite our feelings this this stuff is true. Amen so acts chapter 28 verse number 11 After three months we set sail in a ship that had wintered in the islands remember they were on the island of Malta a ship of Alexandria with the twin gods Castor and Pollux. These are the gods the patron gods of sailors with the twin gods as a figurehead putting in at Syracuse we stayed there for three days and From there. We made a circuits and arrived at Regium and after one day a south wind Sprang up and on the second day. We came to Puteoli there. We found brothers believers and were invited to stay with them for seven days and so we came to Rome and the brothers there when they Heard about us came as far as the forum of Appius and three taverns to meet us on seeing them Paul thanked God and took courage and When we came into Rome? Paul was allowed to stay by himself with the soldier who guarded him After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews and when they had gathered he said to them brothers Though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers Yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans When they had examined me they wished to set me at liberty Because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case But because the Jews objected I was compelled to appeal to Caesar though. I had no charge to bring against my nation For this reason therefore I have asked to see you and speak with you since it is because of the hope of Israel That I am we're that I'm wearing this chain and They said to him we have received no letters from Judea about you And none of the brothers coming here has reported or spoken any evil about you But we desire to hear from you what your views are For with regard to this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against When they had appointed a day for him they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers From morning till evening he expounded to them Testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus from both the law of Moses and from the prophets and some were convinced by what he said, but others disbelieved and Disagreeing among themselves. They departed after Paul had made one statement The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet Go to this people and say you will indeed hear but never understand and you will indeed see but never perceive for this people's heart has grown dull and with their eyes they can barely With their ears, they can barely hear and their eyes their eye and their eyes they have closed lest they should see with their eyes and hear their ears and Understand with their hearts and turn and I would heal them Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles They will listen He lived there two whole years at his own expense and welcomed all who came to him Proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without Hindrance and to all these words God's people say Well Here at the end of acts we have moved from a huddled mass in Jerusalem back in chapter number one To the masses of Rome the capital city of the Roman Empire the center of the world as they saw it so from a little huddled group of 120 in that upper room in Jerusalem the day of Pentecost all the way to Rome where millions upon millions of people lived Let alone pilgrimage every single year and this is all just as Jesus promised Remember back in chapter 23 if you will when Jesus was Testifying before the Sanhedrin before the Jewish Council sometimes called the Jewish Supreme Court chapter 23 verse 11 The Apostles said the following night the Lord stood by here our looks at the following night The Lord stood by him Paul and said quote take courage for you for as you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem So you must testify also? where in Rome So Jesus has promised To Paul that he was going to go to Rome to testify of the gospel so he's Moved from the center of the Israelite religion in Jerusalem The temple was and now he's moved to the center of as the Romans described it the center of the world And in fact, this is this is in fulfillment of what we saw the very very beginning Of the book of Acts in chapter number one if you go back there all week the beginning verse number eight Remember Jesus promise and his call and his commission To the earliest church and he told them that they would receive power the power of the Holy Spirit who would come upon them to be my witnesses in Jerusalem and Judea that's the larger region Samaria.
A highlight from Does Donald Trump Support A Pro-Life Agenda?
"Cable news, noisy, boring, out of touch. That's why Salem News Channel is different. We keep you in the know. Streaming 24 -7 for free. Home to the greatest collection of conservative voices like Dennis Prager, Jay Sekulow, Mike Gallagher, and more. Salem News Channel is unfiltered and unapologetic. Watch anytime on any screen at snc .tv and local now channel 525. All of the time he has to spend in core rooms really hurt his campaign because so far hasn't really hurt his campaign. Yes, I would have had another 22 ,000 votes. Are you saying you needed those votes in order to win? Are you acknowledging you didn't win? I'm not acknowledging no. I say I won the election. When we ask people how they feel about getting this rematch, they said that they think that means politics in the U .S. is broken. Now from the ReliefFactor .com studios, here's Mike Gallagher. Boy, we live in a broken world, don't we? The weekend was chock full of bad news. A Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy was apparently ambushed as he sat at a red light. Somebody assassinated him. They pulled up next to him and shot him in the head. A video was released of two kids in Las Vegas murdering a retired police chief, a guy on his bike out for his morning ride in Las Vegas. These two kids thought it would be funny to mow him over to kill him and they did. According to Charlie Kirk, one of the two perpetrators is right now free. They don't even have both of them behind bars. The two punks, the two cowards, the two monsters who murdered this guy in cold blood. And also, of course, we might as well get this out of the way. We got President Trump with an answer to Kristen Welker on NBC's Meet the Press and her debut as the new host, which gave a lot of ammunition to Trump haters who want to hurt him and try to wreck his chances of becoming the nominee in 2024. This is an interesting dilemma that Republicans have. Here's the dilemma. Pro -life is a centerpiece, is a foundation of the Republican Party fighting for the sanctity of those unborn babies, the sanctity of their lives, the sacredness of the innocent. That's a centerpiece, that's foundational for the Republican Party. And whether we like it or not, this particular debate that we're having in America is over abortion crushing us at the ballot box. And Donald Trump, I believe, was trying to address that with Kristen Welker on Meet the Press. Let's get it out of the way. I've been dreading this all weekend. Well, it wasn't all weekend. I mean, this first broke, I think, Saturday. They gave a little preview of his answer. I don't love his answer, but I also don't love the way Trump critics are pouncing on him, claiming he's not pro -life. I got into a big knockdown drag out, as I expected I would with my friend Mark Davis in Dallas, because Mark is now hell -bent on proclaiming that Donald Trump is not pro -life. And he's saying that because of this exchange with Kristen Welker yesterday on Meet the Press. So for the first time in 62 years, I'm not going to say I would or I wouldn't. I mean, DeSantis is willing to sign a five -week and six -week ban. Would you support that? I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake. But we'll come up with a number, but at the same time, Democrats won't be able to go out in six months, seven months, eight months and allow an abortion. Now, there are people like my friend Mark Davis who took that answer and that proclaimed Donald Trump is not pro -life, like it's important to proclaim or make some kind of declaration that he is not pro -life. And here's what Mark tweeted over the weekend. The heartbeat bill is, quote, a terrible thing and a terrible mistake, unquote. Mark said, I loved every day of his presidency. Thank God he beat Hillary. And if he's the nominee, I'll walk through fire to help him beat Joe Biden. But Trump is not pro -life. Now, as expected, Mark and I had a pretty solid disagreement only because I believe it's ever a ten the march for life. The guy who promised to get Roe v. Wade overturned because that was terrible federal. That was a terrible federal ruling and appointed Supreme Court justices who did just that to claim that Donald Trump is not pro -life is preposterous. It's absurd. It's virtue signaling. And perhaps it's just the opportunistic way you chalk up some points for Ron DeSantis, because clearly Team DeSantis is pouncing on Donald Trump over this remark. I believe two things can be true at the same time. You can be pro -life and you can acknowledge that this issue is killing us at the ballot box and we're losing elections. And here's what Mike Cernovich, who's a conservative influencer on social media, here's what he tweeted or posted on X. He said, if you want to be pro -life, no exceptions, good for you. Lose every election, have no political power, then see what life looks like in a Bolshevik hellhole. Will you feel good because you didn't compromise as your children starve? That's the alternative. And I really do appreciate his point. I am pro -life. I'm proud to tell you every day about Preborn. I want you to support an organization like Preborn. I want women to see ultrasounds and see what that baby inside their womb looks like, because the chances are that woman is going to choose life. I have fought and represented the life movement for many, many years, but I'm also realistic enough to know that if we lose election after election after election because too many women are turning against the GOP over additional abortion restrictions, we're never going to have any Republicans in office to prevent more carnage against the unborn, because we may never win another election. And that's the dilemma. I truly believe that Trump was answering the question on Meet the Press with that in mind, that the reason he thinks it's a terrible idea is he thinks it's costing us elections. Is he pro -life? Of course he is. Was it a clunky answer? Perhaps. Should you want to score points by declaring that Trump is now somehow some wild -eyed pro -choice Democrat? I don't think that's fair and I don't think that's reasonable, but I'm going to turn it over to the smartest audience in America. That's you. Here's the PhD weight loss and because you probably followed this controversy over the weekend. I want to get your take on it. I want to get your reaction. I heard from my pal, Joey Hudson. A lot of people in South Carolina were shocked at what Trump said, very disappointed in his answer. Do you feel that way or do you recognize he is trying to navigate the challenge of winning elections so that we can continue to have the kind of pro -life presidency that he delivered? Am I wrong? 800 -655 -MIKE. Press one to come on air. Press two to leave a voicemail or text us your comments on the MyPillow text line, which is also 800 -655 -MIKE. 800 -655 -6453. And yes, I survived wisdom tooth surgery. Not too bad at all. I might have over -exaggerated a little bit. I know you're shocked. I was perhaps a bit melodramatic heading into the oral surgeon. Doing just fine. 16 past the hour in the Relief Factor Studios. Let's try to tackle this. Let's dive in. Okay. Head first. 800 -655 -MIKE. 800 -655 -6453. Left -leaning activists are attacking Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Read The People's Justice Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories That Define Him. On sale now from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. A year ago, I was well over 50 pounds overweight, but I needed a simple plan that worked with my lifestyle. I found that and so much more with PhD weight loss and nutrition. I'm 53 pounds lighter than I was, and I feel better than I have in years. The program is super simple. Dr. Ashley Lucas and her team customize a plan for your body to make it simple because weight loss shouldn't be hard. They even provide 80 % of your food at no additional cost. They treat the entire person. Dr. Ashley believes that all change starts with the mind. She'll help you change your behavior and think differently about food and the way you eat. You'll never gain the weight back. Best thing about this program, they have an 85 % success rate of their clients maintaining their weight loss for life because they have a lifetime maintenance plan to keep us on track. And maintenance, best part of all, it's absolutely free. If you're looking to lose that weight and you're looking for a job, go to myphdweightloss .com today. Sign up for your consultation. Better yet, give them a call straight away. 864 -644 -1900. 864 -644 -1900. They'll answer all your questions. Tell them my calendar sent you. Call 864 -644 -1900 or go to myphdweightloss .com.
A highlight from Cowboys Defense Dominates & Broncos Struggles Continue
"From I Heart Podcast, Supreme the Battle for Roe tells the story of the unlikely champions behind the landmark case Roe v. Wade, starring Maya Hawk as 26 -year -old lead attorney Sarah Weddington. We're challenging the Texas abortion laws in federal court. And Academy Award nominee William H. Macy as Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. Time is not the most important factor. Getting it right is. Listen to the podcast Supreme the Battle for Roe on the I Heart radio app or AI has the power to automate. But if it's using untrusted data, can you trust the results? Your business doesn't just need AI, it needs the right AI for your business. Introducing WatsonX, a platform designed to multiply output by tailoring AI to your needs. When you WatsonX your business, you can train, tune and deploy AI all with your trusted data. Let's create the right AI for your business with WatsonX. Learn more at ibm .com slash WatsonX. IBM, let's create.
Monitor Show 15:00 09-16-2023 15:00
"With Bloomberg, you get the story behind the story, the story behind the global birth rate, behind your EV batteries' environmental impact, behind sand. Yeah, sand. You get context. And context changes everything. Go to Bloomberg .com to get context. And that is it for this edition of Bloomberg Best. I'm Ed Baxter. And I'm Denise Pellegrini. And this is Bloomberg. Stay with us now. Top stories and global business headlines are coming up right now. Broadcasting 24 hours a day at Bloomberg .com and the Bloomberg Business Act. This is Bloomberg Radio. United auto workers are holding talks with Ford and GM on day two of the UAW strike. Union members are striking for better pay and pension benefits. Representatives for both GM and Ford say negotiations have resumed after Friday's pause. Union leaders are pushing for what they call a strong and fair contract. President Biden sent two high level White House officials to help mediate the talks. Post tropical cyclone Lee is slamming New England as it barrels toward Canada. The latest update from the National Hurricane Center says Lee is now packing top winds of 75 miles per hour, about 100 miles south southeast of Eastport, Maine. Some 85 ,000 customers have lost power in Maine. Forecasters say tropical storm conditions are likely to continue for several more hours along the coast of Maine and Cape Cod. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will remain in office. State senators voted on 16 articles of impeachment today after ending deliberations. The senators acquitted the attorney general of all counts. Paxton only needed to be convicted of one of the articles to automatically be removed from office. He was accused of abusing the power of his office to help a political donor. U .S. Supreme Court Justice Katanji Brown Jackson is calling for American schools to teach the history of racism in the U .S. Jackson was in Birmingham, Alabama, on Friday to mark the 60th anniversary of his death.
Caller: Donald Trump Should Take His Case to SCOTUS
"Why can't he have his lawyers kept in contact with the Supreme Court and say look I'm not going to take this I'm going to say what I to want say because I'm not guilty and they're holding me back to tell the truth just so people in America American citizens American the whole world can hear the truth about him and about what they are lying about him John thank you for the call I appreciate it frustration is real no question about it alright we got a lot more to say here on the Mark Levin show don't forget tonight nine o 'clock right after this show Sean's full hour -long interview I'm sorry Mark's full hour -long interview with Sean Hannity on the Fox News channel this is the Mark Levin show we're coming right innovation refunds has been helping helping small businesses that qualify to get a business payroll tax refund through the employee retention credit also known as the ERC now the ERC is a tax refund for businesses they kept employees on payroll for parts of 2020 and 2021 they also earn the highly coveted SOC 2
US Special Counsel Jack Smith Asks Judge to Place Gag Order on Trump
"Persecuting him in this matter why the Biden Justice Department this politically tainted weaponized Department of Justice is going after him he has absolutely every right in fact he needs to he has a responsibility to do so what the judge is trying to do is to tie his hands so that he Donald Trump can't go out there and explain his side of the story and the argument he's using of course is the same tired argument the left always uses which is that Trump's speech will lead to people getting in in danger they'll be put in danger that's actually what he's saying a redacted copy of a released government filing Friday after an order from US District Judge Tanya Chukin comes in connection with the election interference case one of four criminal cases he's facing quote the defendant has an established practice of issuing inflammatory public statements targeted individuals or institutions that present an obstacle to him the government said Trump made clear his intention to issue public attacks related to case the when the day after his arraignment he posted a threatening message on truth social this was the message that he posted on August 4th quote if you go after me I'm coming after you how is that a threatening statement it's not of course but what they want to do is to silence him completely Jack Smith does not want Donald Trump to be able to make his case to the American people the effort to keep him off the ballot which is so alive and well right now and you've got people who are completely interpreting the 14th amendment section 3 which does not apply to presidents because the president is not listed senators representatives electors of the president and the vice president but not the president so this effort is going to fail they know it's going to fail they have to know that when this gets to the supreme court if they try to bar Trump from being on the ballot usually the 14th amendment section when 3 this gets to the United States Supreme Court, the courts going to throw it out say it does not
Vivek Ramaswamy: Learning From DeSantis & Trump's Achievements
"You know everybody packs though it's interesting during primaries how everybody's got like a blood lust for the other guys but i'm going to ask you this question what do you do you think as a candidate you could learn from what ronda santas did in florida where i live a really turnaround miraculous in the state i mean a 20 -point win in florida is equivalent to a 700 -point win anywhere else and donald trump's administration with the abraham accords tax cuts judges regulatory reform i mean what can you take from the other candidates in the race rather than us kind of beating each other up to hell during a primary and it's a team effort i mean everybody here all of your listeners you donald trump ronda santas i'm going to rely on all of these people to play their role in our national revival i mean take the trump administration best of president the 21st century no doubt about it he actually grew our economy while keeping us out of war how about that that beats bush biden obama each his credit for the supreme court pick the fact that he gave us the supreme court that he has is what will allow me to now take on the administrative state because when we send those federal employees home and they sue us i know that that current supreme court that we have that trump gave us is going to back me up six to three so i give trump immense credit for that that's also why i've said dan want that i trump to be my mentor and advisor during my first year in office i want to work together this is a team sport i don't want to just do this single -handedly with an ego to the contrary we've got to build where we last left us off ronda santas excellent governor in the state of florida especially when it came to after the first phase of the pandemic to actually
Will Americans Ever Get Tired of the Left's Hypocrisy?
"Was just looking at a clip of Kamala Harris proclaiming that nobody should tell people what to do with their body. Huh, boy, isn't that rich, coming from Ms. Vaccine Mandate herself. Are Americans ever going to get tired of hypocrisy from these people? Such hypocrisy. I mean, there's Kamala Harris who says the government shouldn't tell people what to do with their body. I get so aggravated at this. Adam, go ahead and play this clip. I mean, think of the audacity. Of course, she's talking about abortion rights because Democrats worship at the altar of abortion rights. Listen to Kamala Harris proclaiming how the government should not be in the business of telling us what to do with our lives. What the Supreme Court took away, the United States Congress has the power to put back in place, but that means we need the people in Washington, DC. To have the courage to understand, you can have your personal beliefs, but don't have the government telling people what to do with their body. Don't have the government tell us what to do with our body. Now, you know how many times she backed vaccine mandates? How'd you like to be an airline pilot who lost his job because he wouldn't get a vaccine? Yep, the hypocrisy is very real with these people.
A highlight from MONEY REIMAGINED: Noelle Acheson On Whats Not Happening With Bitcoin
"You're listening to Coindesk's Money Reimagined with Michael Casey and Sheila Warren. Hello and welcome to Money Reimagined. I'm Sheila Warren. As a reminder, you can listen to us weekly on the Coindesk Podcast Network or wherever you get your podcasts. And we podcast at coindesk .com, subject line Money Reimagined. Michael's off moderating a panel today and so I am joined by a frequent guest on the show, Noelle Acheson. I'm thrilled as always to chat with her. Noelle is now the new host of Coindesk Markets Daily and we'll spend some time today talking about the crypto markets, specifically what's going on with Bitcoin or not going on with Bitcoin, more to the point. Noelle is joining us from Spain and she has a view into European markets as well. Noelle, let's get right into it. It's so great to see you. Sheila, always great to see you. Thanks very much for inviting me to join you today. It's a fun day. I mean, we're traveling the world. You're in California, if I'm not mistaken. I'm over in Europe and this is going to be a lot of fun because while crypto markets have been quiet over the summer, they certainly haven't been idle. No kidding. And I think if anything, people are wondering, I think let's just get to the question on top of mind for most of our folks who are into crypto and not the lay people who tend to join us, which is what's going on with this bear market? How long is this going to last? Why aren't we seeing a little more of the usual volatility, right? Which is we've come to think of as a feature, not a bug. What's that about in your view? There's so much to unpack there, but I'm going to start off with a fairly controversial view in that we are not in a bear market anymore. I mean, look how much Bitcoin is up since the beginning of the year, quite double, but not far from that. And there's been just so much going on. Institutional interest is low. So if you want to go by that definition, I suppose you could say it's a bear market, but no, I go by it's done pretty darn well. It has outperformed stocks easily. And it also, Sheila, depends on what currency you're looking at. If you look at Bitcoin versus in the dollar terms, then it's up. I haven't checked the figures today, but it's what, 70 % last time I checked, 76%, whereas they are in the Turkish lira, it's up something like 120%. In Argentinian pesos, it's up over 200%. So again, I don't think we're in a bear market entirely depends on the point of view. That said, the institutions are yet not interested. They are standing on the sidelines for now, which is very strange when you consider the relative risk in crypto versus a whole lot of other assets that they are invested in. I am of the belief that we have an almighty stock market crash coming because there's no way the consumer can hold up and stock prices are discounting consumer strength. They're discounting Fed cuts in the near term. They're discounting a soft landing. I think all of those are pipe dreams. I also believe bonds are incredibly risky investment at the moment because of the misconception of what the Fed really is after here, which is bringing down inflation at whatever the cost. And they have plenty of tools in their arsenal to ensure that the financial system continues whatever interest rates are. So going by tracking slightly, the institutions are surprisingly quiet at the moment. One, because of the macro uncertainty, they've got a lot on their plate at the moment just trying to figure out the direction of the asset classes they are more used to. And also two, you touched on this already, so we can dive into that. There is very little volatility in crypto markets today. And that is a problem. Volatility in crypto markets is not a bug. It's a feature. And its absence is the main reason behind the low liquidity, which is keeping the large investors out. With low liquidity, they run slippage risk when they get in with large orders. And they run exit risk in not being able to exit should they need to. And anything but large orders is just not worth their time. I knew you would go there. And I love it because I think what is a bear? It's all contextual. And you have to look at specifically Bitcoin, but I'd say crypto in general, compared to what are your other options? Are people really investing in real estate at scale right now? Is that a thing that seems wise? I guess it depends on where you are in the world, right? So in so many ways, I couldn't agree more. I think people are looking at the extended caution, shall we say, of institutional investors and over pegging to that, if you will, as an indicator of where the market actually is. Now, next question for you, though, is given that we do have some positive signaling around Bitcoin ETFs, well, it's mixed. Okay, fair enough. We've extended some applications. The SEC's extended applications here, but Grayscale got a positive outcome. Why are we not seeing more institutions engaging with Bitcoin? What's your view on that? Well, how much, I guess, do you think, how important do you think, first of all, threshold question? How important do you think a Bitcoin ETF is to institutional investors? How important should it be? Different question. And then why do you think institutional investors aren't necessarily reacting to this signal such as it is? In order, yes, very. And it's the lack of volatility. Yes. Yes. Investors should be focusing on the likelihood of a Bitcoin spot ETF. Let's throw the ether spot ETF in there as well. Why not? Why is this important? Because it will bring in new investment. It's a convenient wrapper. And let's face it, you and I are fairly used to managing crypto wallets, but most people aren't. They've improved so much over the years, but they're still kind of finicky. And your average investor who just wants to do a couple of taps on his or her screen isn't going to sell it. And the seed phrases, it's kind of it's kind of a hassle. So when it is as easy as, again, a couple of taps on your screen or just telling your broker, please get this Bitcoin ETF, I mean, to get some exposure for portfolio diversification reasons, even if you're not going to buy into the whole decentralized eagles, just for diversification reasons, it makes sense if it's easier, there will be new funds coming in. And Sheila, it's something that we often tend to overlook. Every single bull run is driven by new funds coming in. Tends to be institutional funds to start with, because that is the smart money. They have different risk profiles, et cetera. We know the bull run is nearing its end or running out of steam when the retail starts to come in. That's generally the latter half of it. But the institutions are still waiting for some signals, one of which is one of which would be, I should say, the approval or actual listing of Bitcoin spot ETFs, whether they care or not, because I'm sure they have plenty of smart people on their staff who could handle custody for them. They're thinking about what everyone else is thinking. It's not so much what I'm going to do. It's what is everyone else going to do and can I get ahead of that? So, yes, the spot Bitcoin ETF is very important for the markets and it is looking increasingly likely. I think it's going to happen this year, latest, obviously spring of next year. But I think there are strong incentives for the SEC to get ahead of this and to approve all of the applications in one fell swoop so that they can't be accused of picking favorites, even though I'm sure they're quite tempted to do so. Probably that's not a minefield they want to wade into. And as for why are they not doing so right now? One, they don't see the momentum there yet. Now, there are always exceptions. And I think we're starting to see some signs of that. But in general, institutional investors like to think what other institutional investors are going to be doing. I'm not saying they're pack animals, but they do like to wait for some momentum. It's not there yet. For the reasons that we were talking about before, right now, the liquidity is just painfully low. It's risky. We want some volatility in the market. An interesting question, Sheila, is what will it take for that volatility to come back and what will it take? So what would it take for the liquidity to come back? Because that's the key. In fact, even more so than volatility, liquidity is what the institutional investors are waiting for. And the answer to that, in my opinion, is volatility. Why? Because market makers and the high frequency traders that are responsible for a large part of the liquidity in the crypto markets, they need that volatility to make money. The market makers hedge their positions and hedging and crypto is more expensive than hedging and other assets. And if there isn't that volatility there, they're not going to cover those hedging costs. And as for high frequency traders, it's just not worth their while unless there is that volatility on which they can make money. So when we start to get volatility, we will start to see more liquidity. When we start to see more liquidity, we will start to see institutional interest because the asymmetric risk profile is there. There is less downside right now in Bitcoin to choose one example than there are in many stocks. There is more upside, arguably, in Bitcoin to choose one example than there is in many stocks at these valuations. And this is something that for sure smart institutional investors are thinking about. Something I think that gets missed a lot is in the sort of CFI, DeFi, I don't want to call them wars, but kind of the camps that we have within the crypto ecosystem, right? And this idea that TradFi versus CFI versus DeFi, you know, kind of mindset is that a lot of the liquidity comes from various forms of exchanges. If you can't exchange something, if you can't trade it, if you can't buy it and sell it just to be as plain as possible for those of our listeners who aren't as familiar with this terminology or how this works. If you can't trade something, if you can't exchange it and buy and sell it, it doesn't have any liquidity. It's a stuck asset and it can't provide option value for you. You can't move within it freely. And that is not attractive in many cases. In some cases, you don't mind that, right? All of us are familiar, well, most people I think who listen to this show are familiar with the idea of buying and holding an asset. Real estate's a great example. You buy some of your intentions to hold it for a very long time. If the market makes little moves here and there, you don't necessarily care, right? This is the whole theory behind single family residences or buying your home or owning a home as an asset. Other kinds of things, especially digital assets, are very different. The idea is that you can trade them faster and they are more liquid. And that is meant to be a feature of the asset. If that liquidity is compromised in any way and there are multiple ways it could be compromised. It could be compromised because people are afraid to sell. It could be compromised because suddenly they're faced with a gigantic tax event if they sell. So they might sell in smaller amounts. It could be because there's some regulatory thing happening that makes people very nervous. It could be because an exchange shuts down. It could be because a bank failed. There are all kinds of reasons why liquidity might be affected. And so I think what's interesting to me is when I think about the TradFi, DeFi versus DeFi kind of framing, the idea is, well, what's really needed is the exchange. The exchange is the functional place where this kind of thing happens. And the more places there are to trade, to exchange these assets, the more optionality you have around liquidity. But I'm just curious to get your thoughts around the role of exchanges, different kinds of exchanges and what would happen. I think this is something a lot of us are back of mind, very concerned about what would happen if one of the major exchanges suddenly became unable to list a token. Let's not let's leave Bitcoin out of it. I think that is a very unlikely thing. But if another token suddenly were unable to be exchanged for any number of reasons, what might the consequences of that be? Are we looking at another potential major crash? Over to you, Noel. Lots of unpack there and stepping back, this reminds me of that saying, you know, if a tree falls in the woods but no one hears it, did it actually fall? If something doesn't trade, it doesn't really have a market price, as you pointed out. However, Bitcoin has had a market price since 2010, effectively, it always will have a market price, whether that market price is legitimate, legitimate in the sense, does it represent the market opinion at any given point in time? That entirely depends on the liquidity and the distribution of the exchanges that are trading it with smaller, more liquid tokens, the altcoins, if you will, that does become relevant. That becomes relevant when we're talking about very thin float. If you and I were to exchange two percent of a token, which involved, you know, you and I swapping three shares, maybe three tokens, maybe if that turned out to be two percent of the free flow, then you and I can really move the market. That's not representative and that is going to affect the liquidity. In other words, you're not going to get big orders or major investors looking at that because that would be irresponsible of them and they have a fiduciary duty. So liquidity is fundamental. Liquidity does depend on the number of and characteristics of the platforms that allow for the exchange of these assets. And coming back to your last question, unfortunately, we can all still remember much to our chagrin what happens in the market if a major platform just disappears or implodes. You know, we're still working through the debris of what happened to FTX in November, and it's not quite over yet. Unfortunately, it's another another headwind. So exchanges are super important. And as for the debate about what is better for the ecosystem, the centralized version of the decentralized version, the centralized version right now is what most institutional investors have to use. They do not have the regulatory authority or the permission of their compliance departments to deal on decentralized exchanges. I think that's temporary. I think that will change as compliance departments around the world get more comfortable with idea. But for now, centralized exchanges are key for this. They provide certain comfort and regulatory cover. And when it comes down to the question, which I get asked a lot, you know, we don't need the institutions in this industry. We don't want centralized. It's anti -crypto kind of thing. And my response is always, we get to decide if the market will decide if the market doesn't want centralized exchanges, they will cease to function. But unfortunately, the market does want them. And that's one of the points of crypto. It's the free market. The market decides. Now, that's not that's, you know, very handwavy, truthfully, legislation regulators around the world are grappling with the requirements of of what centralized what crypto centralized exchanges should what rules they should follow. And this is important because it's investor protection. We can all get behind the idea of investor protection. But the it's like water. It will find the easiest path. It will find a way to move. It just needs to move. If the jurisdictions such as the United States do not get some clear guidelines in place, then the liquidity will move elsewhere. We're already seeing that. If I can throw in a totally different twist, and this is another very significant tailwind that we are not is being looked in my opinion, and this is relevant to liquidity, is what is going on in India at the moment. We saw the wrap up of the G20 meeting this weekend and one of India's goals for being Just to interject really quickly to just note for our listeners that India has the presidency of the G20, which is so they are setting the tone for a lot of the conversations in addition to some of the content. But please continue, Noelle. Absolutely. In fact, they said at the outset that one of their overriding goals for their presidency was to establish global guidelines for crypto regulation coming from India. This is fascinating because you've got the central bank wanting to ban it. I mean, even earlier this year, the central bank governor said that crypto assets were not even tulips, which is very insulting. But you also have the Supreme Court saying that the central bank cannot forbid banks from servicing crypto companies, but no bank wants to. The central bank doesn't approve, et cetera, et cetera. In other words, in India, crypto trading has been muted because of regulatory pressure and the punitive tax rate. However, with India having succeeded in its goal at getting some, in my opinion, toothless guidelines around crypto, still they are indeed global guidelines. We now have India saying that it is going to be focusing on its approach. That is a massive market. This is just one milestone in what I'm seeing around the world, Sheila, and that is a steady march toward greater crypto clarity, even in the US. I mean, the decisions that have come down from courts over the past few months, handing victories to, not to the SEC, but to the crypto companies that the SEC has been doing battle with, it's a slow and painful march, but it is a march toward crypto clarity, even in one of the most resistant jurisdictions. But that covers a potentially huge market as well. Yeah, and I have to contextualize that as well. So when I first met with the Reserve Bank of India, the RBI back in, oh, gosh, it must have been like 2018, 2019 at the latest, it was just, you know, listen, we've got our universal payments interface, we've got UPI, we've got a universal identification system, everyone's on it, you know, we don't need any of this stuff. We're already taking a lot of steps to make sure everything is happening. And it's a really fascinating march towards, I mean, frankly, high surveillance. OK, but what's really interesting is you have a populist prime minister in Modi who is somewhat analogous to Trump. I say that realizing it's a controversial stance, but as a person of Indian descent, I feel very comfortable making the statement. And yet you had the exact opposite move with respect to crypto in the country for quite a period of time. So this thawing, while it is minor compared to other moves being made, is extremely significant. And the idea that now that I think some of the other moves that were made by the Modi regime have been pretty cemented and they're kind of commonplace and they're sort of a psychological adjustment on the part of the population to the use of these kinds of things, you're now seeing, I think, kind of the next thing, which is, OK, this other thing is happening. Digital assets are blowing up all over the place, maybe not in terms of the price, but in terms of the ubiquitousness. Right. There's a clear stickiness here. The U .S. and the SEC there are not, frankly, winning their apparent, well, Gary Gensler, especially in the Pacific, Gary Gensler's apparent quest to ban the asset class. That does not appear to be successful. Europe, the UK are moving in the Middle East, moving at a march pace into this. Brazil, all kinds of places. And so I think India, to some extent, doesn't really have a choice. They have to take this very seriously. And there are no fools over there. They're recognizing what this might look like within their context of the financial system that they have very, very deliberately laid out. Now, this government is not averse in any way to making extraordinarily dramatic changes overnight. OK, so this is a government that, what was it, a few years back, just banned certain bills, just took them off the market with 24 hours notice. So you basically had it was a very high denomination paper currency. And the idea was you had basically 48 hours to take them to a bank and get them exchanged. And if you didn't, they were worthless. You could not use them anymore. That was ruled out with almost no notice, basically overnight. It caused a huge kerfuffle among certain classes in India. But the idea was it was an attempt to get black market money and turn it into white money and to say, you're holding this in these giant denominations, you can't do it anymore. So they have no hesitation in doing things super quickly. And so I think that's also important context is if they were to decide we're going to lean into Bitcoin, crypto, certain kinds of products, whatever it is, it would happen potentially extremely quickly. It's not the kind of thing that ever else would need months of back and forth and legislation and this and that and public comment. They would just do it and go. So I think it's one to watch, not just because they have the presence of G20 and that will set a tone, but also because to your point, it is a massive market that has remained pretty closed in terms of a lot of opportunities to outside and not just investment. That's a different issue, but to outside engagement within the rails that the country runs on. Absolutely. And it's not only a massive market, it's a massive entrepreneurial culture itself that has had to pretty much sit on the sidelines with its cost waiting for some sort of clarity. Not only that, it is also a culture that is not averse to speculative trading, similar to other economies in Asia, similar to many economies in developing worlds, Sub -Saharan Africa comes to mind. And when they initially clamped down, they saw it as a threat to the UPI and also to the digital repeat that they're trying to increase the usage of. But that is bucketing crypto into payments use. The fact that they are now aware that, hey, if we let people trade this, there is going to be significant tax revenue behind this. Plus, we're going to be giving people what they want, which generally polls quite well and turns out quite well for in the elections. But it's so it reflects a growing a deepening understanding of what crypto can do. And it's standable. It's difficult for many for many to get their heads around, let alone leaders of giant economies that have other things to worry about. But it's significant. Going back to what you're saying, Sheila, about India's role in the G20 this year as its president, it did guide it towards some global framework, clumsy global framework. But a global framework, that's a start. You have the IMF actually acknowledging the point in banning this. It's in the pattern on their previous statements. The presidency passes to Brazil in December. Brazil is very pro crypto. Brazil has a host of spot ETFs. Brazil's leading crypto exchange is right now in trials with the central bank on the digital currency that they're launching. You have banks that are quite happy to serve as crypto businesses. In other words, an entirely different environment which could push the G20 into an even more accelerated understanding of the potential of crypto assets and stepping back for a second. It highlights what you and I have spoken about before, Sheila, about the one complexity, but to the opportunity of an entirely new asset class that is many things to many people. Crypto is a speculative asset to some. It is a payments rail to others. It is an entrepreneurial platform for many. It is many things, and that is very hard to regulate, but also does present great opportunities for those brave states that are willing to embrace the potential.
A highlight from Secretary Pompeo on President Biden and the Dangers His Infirmity Invites
"The United States Border Patrol has exciting and rewarding career opportunities with the nation's largest law enforcement organization. Border Patrol agents enjoy great pay, outstanding federal benefits, and up to $20 ,000 in recruitment incentives. If you are looking for a way to serve something greater than yourself, consider the U .S. Border Patrol. Learn more online at cbp .gov slash careers slash USBP. That's cbp .gov slash careers slash USBP. Welcome to today's podcast, sponsored by Hillsdale College. All things Hillsdale at hillsdale .edu. I encourage you to take advantage of the many free online courses there. And of course, listen to the Hillsdale Dialogues, all of them at Q for hillsdale .com or just Google Apple, iTunes, and Hillsdale. Morning, glory America. Bonjour, hi Canada. I'm Hugh Hewitt in Studio North. There's a lot to cover today, a lot to talk about. I'm going to begin, though, by telling you about my friend Terry Eastland, who died yesterday. And I want to read Roger Clegg's short obituary in the National Review, which posted yesterday at 1133. Roger writes, I met Terry Eastland after we had both joined the Justice Department during the Reagan administration in the early 1980s. So we were friends for approximately four decades. He and I were fellow Texans and appreciated not only Ronald Reagan, but Southern cuisine together. To be sure, Terry's expertise on barbecue in particular was deeper than mine, no doubt helped by the fact that his wife Jill was from North Carolina. Terry's Southern roots were manifest in other ways. He was devoted to the Atlanta Braves and sold encyclopedias and or Bibles door to door. I forget which and maybe it was both. He went to Vanderbilt and Oxford, studied the classics, eventually became a journalist. Readers of National Review knew Terry as a distinguished and stalwart conservative intellectual. He's the author of numerous books and innumerable articles and high on the masthead of the American Spectator and Weekly Standard, among other publications. He was not a lawyer, but wrote beautifully and wisely about a range of legal issues, including separation of powers, religious freedom and equal protection. We work together, writes Roger Clegg, most recently at the Center for Equal Opportunity, where Terry continued his lifelong fight for colorblind equal opportunity. Terry was one of the most pleasant and thoughtful people I ever met, a learned and genuine Christian in every sense of the word. No surprise then that he was devoted to his family, helping to care for his mother and mother -in -law and mentally challenged sister, as well as being a devoted husband, father and grandfather. Jill sent me a text this morning. Terry passed away gently this morning. He is with his savior. That's a beautiful and short farewell to Terry Eastland. Everyone who is in the conservative legal movement, I mean, really, everyone who's in the conservative legal movement, who's 40 and older, has worked with Terry. And I don't think anyone can say this, I don't think Terry had any enemies. I really don't. I met Terry at a Bethel Bible study in 1983 when I was clerking on the D .C. Circuit and the Fetching Mrs. Hewitt persuaded me to go over to a national Presbyterian church. You know, I'm a Catholic, but this is my first dipping the toe into the Presbyterian world. And there are about 14 people from Jack and Edna who were in their 70s, right down to young married couples like the Fetching Mrs. Hewitt and myself in the Eastlands and a number of other people led by Anne Dennison. And we met together once a week for two years to go through the Bible, especially useful to people like me who have no idea what's the organization thereof. But Terry was there and first time you go around the room, what are you doing? And I said, well, I'm clerking on the United States Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit. Terry lit up and said, that's interesting that I'm over at the Department of Justice. We should have lunch. And we did. And Terry and I and Jill and the Fetching Mrs. Hewitt became fast, fast friends over two years in Bible study. And then Terry recruited me to DOJ off the court. He went in and said, do you want to work over here? Bill Smith, because I was going to Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, a big law firm. I'd accepted their offer. I was doing a clerkship and was going to go to GDC downtown D .C. Said, you want to come on to work over here? You know, Bill Smith, he's a Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher partner. He'd probably like you. And so I took my resume into Tex Lazar, who was the new chief of staff after Judge Ken Starr had left. And I interviewed with Tex and I interviewed with General Smith and I went over to work there. And Terry and I worked together for the time I was at Justice. And after I went over to the White House, he stayed with Ed Meese when Ed Meese arrived and became the head of public affairs for Ed Meese. And the four horsemen would run in those years somewhat fast. That's Brad Reynolds, Chuck Cooper, Terry Eastland and Hugh Hewitt would run down the mall every day back in the 80s and back up solving the problems of the world. The conservative legal movement is broad and it's older than the Federalist Society actually begins in 1981 at the Reagan Department of Justice and with Ed Meese at the White House. And it flowered. And in the middle of it was a non -lawyer, Terry Eastland. I'm not saying he's central to everything, he just knew everyone. He wrote carefully, constructively, amusingly, and he was never angry. He was indeed the nicest man in Washington, D .C. And part of that is Texas and part of that is Christianity and part of it is his humility. And he really brought home this to me, the most important non -life lesson but intellectual lesson I learned from Terry. The Constitution was written to be understood by ordinary people. It was written by landed people for people who were not landed and not often literate so that they could adopt it in state conventions and that you ought to be able to read it and understand it and reason it. Terry wrote great books about the Supreme Court. He wrote great books about the law. He wrote great books about affirmative action, especially which offended him deeply because he came from very, very little. And he ended up going to Vanderbilt and Oxford and becoming an intellectual. He's a newspaper editor at the Virginia pilot, Norfolk pilot, I believe, and before that at the Observer. And he was recruited originally by Bill Smith, General Smith, to be a speechwriter and then he took over all of comms for General Meese.
Monitor Show 07:00 09-09-2023 07:00
"Interactive brokers' clients earn up to USD 4 .83 % on their uninvested, instantly available cash balances. Rates subject to change. Visit ibkr .com slash interest rates to learn more. Today's program, you can listen on demand with our Wall Street Week podcast. Find that on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you get your podcasts. I'm David Weston, stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines are coming up right now. Broadcasting 24 hours a day at bloomberg .com and the Bloomberg Business Act. This is Bloomberg Radio. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is endorsing former President Trump during a rally in Rapid City on Friday. Noem said she would do anything she could to help him win the 2024 presidential election. Trump thanked her for the endorsement and complimented her on her policies in the state. He also called Noem a warrior for American values. The move is fueling speculation that Noem could become Trump's vice president pick. The death toll stands at at least 632 after a magnitude 6 .8 earthquake struck Morocco. Friday's quake hit about 44 miles southwest to the city of Marrakesh, a major tourist destination. The United States Geological Survey says this was the strongest earthquake to hit the country in more than a century. The Department of Justice is filing an appeal to the Supreme Court seeking to end the legal battle over Miffipa Stone. The commonly used abortion pill has been the subject of a nationwide legal fight since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. The Justice Department filed the appeal on Friday, urging the Supreme Court to maintain broad access to the abortion medication. The move came just hours after the manufacturers of Miffipa Stone filed a similar appeal. Full final report from the special grand jury in Georgia that investigated former President Trump has been released. Jim Forbes has more. It reveals that the grand jury recommended charges against South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.