Trump Cuts Childhood Vaccine Schedule: Your Briefing

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

President Trump signed an executive order on Monday that shrinks the list of vaccines the federal government recommends for every child and hands parents a larger say over the rest. The order recommends routine immunization against 11 diseases, down from the 18 the CDC recommended in 2024, and moves the shots it drops into a category of shared decision-making between parents and doctors.

Why it matters

Federal vaccine recommendations drive school mandates, insurance coverage, and pediatric practice in all 50 states. Changing the schedule by executive order, rather than through the scientist-led advisory process that has set it for decades, is the real departure here, and it will be fought in court.

Monday’s order routes around the old process and puts more of the call in parents’ hands. Supporters see overdue humility about federal mandates and a schedule that grew longer than those of some peer nations. Physicians see a politicized retreat from a system that all but eliminated diseases like measles and rubella in the United States.

What changed

  • The recommended list falls to 11 diseases. The order, branded “Gold Standard” childhood recommendations, cites a January 2026 HHS assessment comparing the US schedule with peer countries, per the White House.
  • Dropped shots move to “shared clinical decision-making.” Vaccines no longer urged for all children, including the hepatitis A and B, COVID-19, and flu shots, become a parent-and-doctor choice rather than a blanket recommendation.
  • The order splits the MMR shot into three. It calls for separate measles, mumps, and rubella doses given at separate visits.

The fine print

The order leans on an HHS finding. A January 2026 assessment cited by the White House concluded the US recommends more childhood vaccines than any peer nation, more than twice the doses of some European countries.

Recommendations are not mandates. The federal schedule is advisory; states set school requirements, and many will not move, so the practical effect depends on how governors, insurers, and pediatricians respond.

What they’re saying

  • Pediatricians pushed back hard. Physician groups noted that decades of studies show the existing schedule is safe and found no link between vaccines and autism.
  • Supporters framed it as parental choice. The administration cast the order as restoring informed consent and aligning the US with the shorter schedules used in some European countries.

What’s next

Expect an immediate court fight. Earlier attempts to change the schedule were blocked, and the same questions about federal authority will follow this order. Watch the insurers and the states. Coverage rules often track the federal recommendation, so the first real-world effects will show up in what plans pay for and what schools require this fall.

-The Editors

Liberty, Politics · Upstream of the Swamp · August 11, 2026

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Taiwan Throttles Civilian Cell Data In Emergency Drill

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Taiwan spent 30 minutes on Monday learning what a war with China would do to its phones. At 2:30 p.m., air raid sirens sounded across seven counties and cities in central Taiwan, and regulators throttled mobile data to a crawl, the first time a democratic government has deliberately slowed an entire region’s cellular network as a wartime rehearsal.

Why it matters

A Chinese assault on Taiwan would likely begin with the network, not the beach. Jamming, undersea cable cuts, and cyberattacks would hit civilian communications first, and Monday’s test measured whether people can still be warned, moved, and counted when the signal dies. Taiwan is the most likely trigger for a US-China war, so how its people function in a blackout is an American security question, not only a Taiwanese one.

The island has drilled civilian defense before, but this year crossed a new line by cutting the data itself rather than just sounding sirens. Chinese military exercises around Taiwan have repeatedly rehearsed the blockade that would isolate it, and a communications collapse is the opening move most war games expect. That is why the government is willing to accept frozen payments and stalled apps now, to find the failure points before an adversary does.

What happened

  • Data slowed to about 1% of normal capacity. Streaming, video calls, and large transfers became largely unusable while the throttle held.
  • Seven jurisdictions went dark together: Miaoli, Taichung, Nantou, Changhua, Yunlin, Chiayi City and Chiayi County, in a single 30-minute window.
  • The wider civil-defense drill spans 14 cities and counties, reaching much of Taiwan’s population of more than 23 million as it rolls across the island.

How it works

  • Regulators cut bandwidth but kept the lifelines. Voice calls, text messages, emergency calls, and government cell-broadcast alerts stayed live while data collapsed, a design meant to keep official warnings moving when the rest of the network is gone, per Focus Taiwan.
  • It was a slowdown, not a shutdown. Fixed broadband, WiFi, landlines, and military networks kept running, so the stress test fell squarely on mobile data, per The Record.
  • This is one strand of Han Kuang 42, the island’s largest annual military exercise, running August 5 to 14, which for the first time weaves the civilian drills directly into the live-fire maneuvers.

What insiders are watching

  • The test exposed real friction. Mobile payments stalled, delivery apps timed out, and one resident sheltering in a basement could not send a photo message reading “HELP,” the kind of small failure that scales badly under fire.
  • The exercise moves to the front line next. It reaches the outlying islands of Kinmen, Lienchiang and Penghu on Tuesday and northern Taiwan on Thursday, pushing the stress test to the territory closest to the mainland.

What’s in it for America

  • Washington warned its own citizens. The American Institute in Taiwan, the de facto US embassy, issued an advisory on the exercises, a reminder of how many Americans live and work inside a Taiwan contingency.
  • The stakes reach past the island. Taiwan builds the advanced chips the US military and economy depend on, so a blockade that severs its networks also severs a supply chain no ally can quickly replace.

-The Editors

National Security · Upstream of the Swamp · August 11, 2026

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Oil Surges >5% on Iran Standoff as Yields Rise

By Kenny Polcari

Written by Kenny Polcari

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Things You Need To Know

Stocks spent most of Monday looking for direction after Friday’s record-setting performance — the Dow lost 61 pts, the S&P gave back 4 pts, the Nasdaq lost 85 pts, the Russell fell 17 pts, the Transports gave up 140 pts BUT the Equal Weight S&P added 3 pts while the Mag 7 added 10 pts.

While it didn’t look like much — underneath the surface, the story got more interesting. Oil surged, Treasury yields rose, gold pushed higher and suddenly everyone was reminded that Friday’s weak jobs report didn’t magically make the inflation problem disappear.

The whole “bad news is good news” argument? Yeah, well – that just got tossed out the window….

Oil exploded higher — WTI surged more than 5% to settle at $82.30 while Brent jumped 5% to $87.72. Why? A direct result of the weekend drama – Iran came back to the table with a list of demands for the U.S. that included lifting sanctions, releasing frozen Iranian assets, pulling U.S. military forces away from the region AND paying war reparations.

And Trump? Well, he appears willing to let the economic pressure build rather than launch another major military strike.

And the oil market heard that loud and clear.

This morning, the situation isn’t getting any better. Oil is trading up another $1.22, or 1.5% at $83.90, after Trump announced his own list of demands on Iran — including making Iran financially responsible for past attacks, saying:

“I am likewise demanding compensation from Iran, for all of the people that they have killed and gravely wounded with their roadside bombs and many conflicts. Additionally, compensation should be paid to the families of the hundreds of thousands of innocent protestors that Iran has killed over the last 50 years.”

In other words — there is NO deal in the Gulf.

Which brings us to the bond market – because it heard the noise as well. Investors sold bonds, causing yields to rise. The TLT lost 0.9% while the TLH lost 0.7%. The 10-yr pushed up and THRU 4.7% to kiss 4.71% while the 30-yr moved right back to 5.25%.

Even the 2-yr jumped 5 bps to end the day yielding 4.24%. And that’s important because unlike the 10-yr and 30-yr – which are driven by inflation expectations, fiscal concerns and term premium – the 2-yr is much more sensitive to what investors THINK the Fed is going to do next. This morning it is up 1 bps at 4.25%,

And suddenly, traders are putting the September rate hike right back on the table.

The market-implied odds of a September hike have moved back above 50% after falling sharply following Friday’s weak jobs report. And even the prediction markets are moving – Kalshi is now pricing roughly a 45% chance of a 25 bp September hike.

Think about what happened in just 72 hours. Friday’s jobs report told the bond market the Fed may not need to hike. Monday’s oil surge reminded it that if inflation starts heating up again — the Fed may not have a choice.

But here is where it goes off the rails. A rate hike will do absolutely NOTHING to produce another barrel of oil. It won’t open the Strait of Hormuz, and it won’t solve an inflation problem being driven by a geopolitical supply shock. That problem gets solved in the Gulf – not at the Fed. And don’t think the Iranians don’t know this.

Which brings us directly to tomorrow’s CPI report. Economists expect July headline CPI to rise 0.1% m/m after falling 0.4% in June, while the y/y number is expected to come in at +3.4%, down from 3.5%.

That’s great — IF it happens. But remember – this report is looking backward. Oil has moved sharply higher SINCE much of the July inflation data was collected. So, if energy prices remain elevated the NEXT CPI report could face even more upward pressure. And THAT is where it gets complicated for Kevy and the FOMC.

Because suddenly you have exactly the combination the Fed does NOT want:

Slower employment growth AND stubborn inflation being driven by a supply shock. Raise rates and you risk putting even more pressure on an economy already showing signs of slower employment growth. Don’t raise rates and you risk allowing inflation expectations to become unanchored if oil continues to surge.

And neither choice produces one more barrel of crude.

Now, gold. It pushed higher again on Monday, up $48 to close at $4,389. This morning it is down $30 at $4,359 as it looks for the next catalyst.

$4,500 is the next level to watch — a push up and through that opens the door to a move towards $4,750-ish. A failure could see us test support back down at $4,160.

Eco data today is about Existing Home Sales — and they are expected to be down 1% m/m.

And while that report isn’t likely to move markets the way tomorrow’s CPI report could, it matters because housing remains one of the clearest examples of what higher long-term rates are doing to the economy.

Mortgage rates remain elevated at 6.7%; affordability remains challenged and the bond market – NOT the Fed – continues to keep financial conditions tight. Raising rates will surely send mortgage rates closer to 7%.

So today we watch oil, we watch the 2-yr, and we watch how investors position themselves ahead of tomorrow’s CPI report.

European markets are not open yet, but the tone is quiet.

US futures are relatively flat as well – but it is 3:30 am. Dow futures are down 64 pts, S&P’s down 4, Nasdaq up 5 pts while the Russell is down 5 pts.

The S&P 500 closed at 7,753 – down 4 pts. I don’t expect much today – unless, of course, we get an unexpected headline. Technically, trendline support is at 7,500, with resistance somewhere between 7,900/8,000. I’m still in the camp that we could see another drawdown as we move into September – ahead of the mid-terms. The extent of that depends on many factors – the conflict in the Middle East is, in my opinion, at the top of that agenda.

The Jackson Hole – global central bank boondoggle is only 2 weeks away. The title this year is “Financial Innovation: Implications for Payments and Policy.” Sounds like a real barn burner…. The event takes place on August 27-29. My gut says we won’t hear anything that will change the outlook on the markets.

Take good care,

Kp

Kenny Polcari is a partner and Chief Market Strategist at Slatestone Wealth – A boutique wealth advisory firm with $2 billion dollars of investor assets under management. In this role, his responsibilities range from market and economic analysis to investor education interpreting the ever changing economic and market landscape on behalf of Slatestone and how those impacts may affect future investment and planning strategies on behalf of their clients. With more than 40 years of industry experience as a member of the NYSE serving institutional investors both at home and abroad – he is a seasoned and well-known voice on the markets. You may recognize him from his many years serving as a market analyst on Fox Business and CNBC or his ‘Trader Talk’ Podcast on the Yahoo Finance Channel. For more, please visit his Substack HERE.

Disclaimer. Source: Bloomberg, CNBC, Reuters, Wall Street Journal

This media segment contains general market commentary based on publicly available information and is provided for informational and educational purposes only. Any discussion of companies, securities, or asset performance relates solely to those assets and does not represent the performance of any firm investment strategy, portfolio, or client account. It should not be interpreted as portfolio performance or as a reflection of client results.

This content does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Opinions expressed reflect views at the time of the interview and may change without notice. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and are not guarantees of future outcomes. Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. The firm and its clients may hold positions in assets discussed, and holdings may change at any time.

The author’s views are their own and do not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Investing involves risk; please consult with a qualified professional before making any financial decisions.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Ninth Circuit Revives Arizona Voter Law: Your Briefing

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

A full Ninth Circuit reversed a block on Arizona’s voter-registration laws, ruling the groups that sued had no standing. The proof-of-citizenship fight now moves to the Supreme Court. Here is where it stands.

What happened

  • The full court reversed the block. Sitting en banc, the Ninth Circuit undid a lower-court injunction and cleared Arizona to enforce provisions of its 2022 voter-registration laws, HB 2492 and HB 2243.
  • Standing was the hinge. The court overruled its own precedents that let advocacy groups sue over the cost of countering a law, following the Supreme Court’s 2024 tightening of who may bring such claims.
  • The challengers lost without a merits trial. Groups including Mi Familia Vota were found to lack standing, dissolving the block they had won below.

How we got here

  • The laws date to 2022. Signed by then-Governor Doug Ducey, HB 2492 required documentary proof of citizenship to register, and HB 2243 directed officials to verify citizenship and cancel registrations that could not be confirmed.
  • A panel had struck them down. An earlier three-judge Ninth Circuit panel called the provisions voter suppression; the en banc court has now reversed that panel.
  • The doctrine shifted under the case. The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling narrowing organizational standing gave the en banc majority the ground to throw the challengers out of court.

What changed

  • The ruling is about the process, not the law. By narrowing who can sue, the court dissolved the injunction without declaring the provisions themselves lawful or unlawful.
  • Enforcement can resume. Arizona may again apply the registration and cancellation provisions the panel had frozen, subject to the guidance counties receive.
  • A prior settlement still shapes the field. A 2018 consent decree and the federal National Voter Registration Act set the floor Arizona must meet, and the state has long argued it may ask for more.

The receipts

  • Republicans claimed vindication and had already taken the broader fight to Washington, with Senate President Warren Petersen petitioning the Supreme Court to defend the proof-of-citizenship rule.
  • The RNC framed it as sovereignty, arguing the earlier block undercut Arizona’s constitutional authority to run its own elections.

Where things stand

  • The bigger question is at the high court. The justices agreed on July 1 to weigh whether Arizona can demand proof of citizenship beyond what federal law requires, with argument in the term that opens in October.
  • Two tracks now run in parallel. The en banc reversal restores state enforcement on standing grounds while the citizenship question awaits a definitive answer. The docket is set for the new term.

The counterargument

  • Voting-rights groups call it a technical dodge, arguing the court ducked the merits by shutting the courthouse rather than defending the laws.
  • Others warn of confusion. Rules changing months before a general election risk uneven application across Arizona’s 15 counties.

What’s in it for Americans

  • The same doctrine that dissolved this case could unwind a decade of advocacy-group lawsuits far beyond Arizona. Arizona is the test kitchen. As the country’s marquee battleground, what it can enforce in 2026 sets a template other states will copy.

The Ninth Circuit did not bless Arizona’s voter laws. It decided the people suing to stop them had no right to be in court. That is a narrower ruling than the headlines suggest, and a more durable one, because standing travels from case to case. The louder verdict is still coming, from a Supreme Court that has already agreed to say whether a state can ask a voter to prove citizenship. Arizona will run its 2026 election in the space between those two answers.

-The Editors

Liberty · Upstream of the Swamp · August 10, 2026

 

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Justices Take Religious-Liberty Cases

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Supreme Court will hear two religious-liberty cases next term: a Catholic preschool shut out of Colorado funding and an Orthodox Jew told he needed a permit to pray at home. Here is the rundown.

What happened

  • The Court took a Colorado funding fight. In Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, granted in April, justices will weigh whether the state can bar Catholic preschools from its universal program.
  • It added a home-worship case. In Grand v. City of University Heights, granted June 30, the Court will hear a case in which an Orthodox Jew was told to get a permit to host a prayer group at home.
  • Both will be argued in the fall term, setting up a pair of church-state rulings by mid-2027.

The cases

  • Colorado promised universal preschool, funding worth more than $6,000 per child at the school of a family’s choice, then excluded Catholic schools.
  • The sticking point is a nondiscrimination clause. Participating schools must agree not to turn away children based on sexual orientation or gender identity, which the parishes say forces them to abandon their beliefs.
  • The Ohio case is smaller but sharper. Daniel Grand invited about a dozen neighbors to pray; the city sent a cease-and-desist and demanded a special-use permit for a “place of religious assembly.”

Why it matters

The trend line favors religious claimants. A run of recent decisions has widened protections for faith-based groups seeking equal access to public benefits.

A ruling for Grand could shield home worship for minority faiths of every kind, from minyans to small congregations that meet in living rooms. This directly takes on a state’s antidiscrimination rules against a family’s free exercise of religion, with public money in the balance.

Worth watching

Colorado is the bigger dollar figure, because a ruling could reshape how states design any benefit that religious institutions want to join. The Court’s framing will signal its appetite for either a narrow permit ruling or a broad statement on faith and public life.

The precedent

  • The Court has been building this line for years. A string of rulings has held that once a state offers a public benefit, it generally cannot exclude religious institutions simply for being religious.
  • Colorado tests the next question. Not whether faith-based schools can be barred outright, but whether a state can condition their inclusion on rules that cut against their beliefs.
  • A six-justice majority has been receptive to free-exercise claims, which is why religious-liberty advocates pressed both cases to the top court.

Worth watching

  • The term opens the first Monday in October, with arguments and a decision expected by the end of June 2027.
  • The breadth of the rulings is the major story. The justices could rule narrowly on permits and preschool contracts or write broadly about faith’s place in public life.

The Court has paired a question of money with a question of a living room: whether a state can condition preschool dollars on a religious school’s silence, and whether a city can make a man seek permission to pray at home. Both ask where the government’s writ ends and conscience begins. By next summer, the justices will have drawn that line a little more clearly.

-The Editors

Liberty · Upstream of the Swamp · August 10, 2026

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

China Squeezes Rare-Earth Costs: How Will This Impact America?

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

A key rare-earth benchmark jumped 21.4% in a single month as Beijing tightened export controls. A one-year truce expires this fall, and the leverage is China’s. Here is what this technical story means for you.

What happened

  • Prices are climbing fast. The NdPr benchmark reached about $133.02 a kilogram on July 1, up 21.4% from $109.55 a month earlier.
  • Beijing named names. On June 22, China’s commerce ministry added 10 US entities to its export-control list, including rare-earth producers MP Materials and USA Rare Earth.
  • The truce has a clock. A one-year de-escalation reached in late 2025 expires this fall, and no replacement is in hand.

Numbers in context

  • A one-month move of 21.4% is a supply shock in a material with no quick domestic substitute.
  • Eight of the ten targeted firms are defense-linked, underscoring that this is an industrial-base fight, not just a commercial one.

How it works

  • NdPr is the workhorse. The neodymium-praseodymium alloy drives the permanent magnets inside missiles, fighter jets, EVs, and wind turbines.
  • China controls the chokepoint. Beijing dominates processing, so licensing decisions in one ministry set prices and availability worldwide.

What’s in it for America

  • The Pentagon feels this directly. The same interceptors and radars now in short supply due to the Iran war depend on magnets built from Chinese-processed material.
  • Reshoring is slow and costly. MP Materials and others are building domestic capacity, but a mine and a magnet plant take years, not quarters.

Worth watching

  • Watch the finished-goods pass-through. The input spike has not yet clearly hit retail prices for chips or motors, but a sustained squeeze would.
  • The defense timeline is unforgiving. Magnets ordered today feed weapons on multiyear build cycles, so a shortage now shows up as delayed deliveries years out.

The backstory

  • China built the monopoly on purpose. Decades of state investment gave it commanding control of rare-earth processing, the step where raw ore becomes usable magnet material.
  • The West let the capability lapse. Mines closed, and expertise drained away, leaving the US and its allies dependent on a strategic rival for a defense-critical input.

The counterargument

  • Leverage can be overplayed. Every squeeze accelerates Western efforts to build alternatives, so Beijing risks eroding the very dependence it exploits.
  • Prices are volatile. A one-month spike can reverse if licenses loosen, so the benchmark move signals risk more than a permanent new floor.

Rare earths are the quiet dependency behind American power, in both senses of the word. A 21% jump in a single benchmark is a reminder that Beijing holds a valve the United States cannot yet turn on its own. The magnets are small. The leverage is not.

-The Editors

Energy & Manufacturing · Upstream of the Swamp · August 10, 2026

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Taiwan Defense Budget Tops Record: Your Briefing

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Taiwan will propose a record defense budget above NT$1.1 trillion for 2027, a 16% jump and the first time its military spending has crossed the trillion-dollar mark. What does this mean for a volatile area?

What happened

  • Taipei is going big. The cabinet will propose a 2027 defense budget above NT$1.1 trillion, roughly $34.1 billion, official media reported.
  • The jump is 22% over the prior year, the first time annual military spending has crossed the NT$1 trillion line. The formal proposal lands August 20, when the government unveils the full budget.

By the numbers

  • Spending clears 3% of GDP, a threshold Taiwan first reached in 2026 and now intends to hold.
  • The trajectory is steeper still. President Lai Ching-te has set a target of 5% of GDP by 2030, a near-doubling of the burden in four years.
  • The baseline was far lower. As recently as 2025, Taiwan’s defense budget sat near NT$647 billion, about 2.45% of GDP.

How we got here

Washington has pushed hard. US officials have pressed Taipei to spend more on its own defense, and Lai has embraced the demand rather than resisted it. Beijing sets the clock. Near-daily incursions and large annual drills have made deterrence a budget line, not an abstraction.

What’s in it for America

For years Washington argued allies free-ride on American power; Taiwan is now buying down that argument in cash. It also shapes the weapons pipeline. Higher Taiwanese spending means more orders for US-made systems, the same interceptors and munitions the Pentagon is already scrambling to replenish.

Worth watching

  • The legislature is not a rubber stamp. Opposition parties have trimmed past defense requests, so the NT$1.1 trillion figure is a proposal, not a done deal.
  • The 5% goal is the real test. Crossing the trillion mark is symbolic; sustaining the climb toward 2030 is the harder, longer commitment.

The counterargument

  • Money is not readiness. Critics note Taiwan has struggled to recruit and retain troops and to absorb weapons fast enough, so dollars alone will not close the gap with the mainland.
  • Politics can still shrink the number. Opposition lawmakers have frozen or cut past defense spending, and a divided legislature could pare the proposal before it becomes law.

Taiwan is trying to make itself expensive to invade. Whether the island can hold the line politically, year after year, against a legislature that has balked before, is the question that outlasts any single budget. Deterrence is not a one-time purchase. It is a standing bill, and Taipei has just signaled it is ready to keep paying.

-The Editors

National Security · Upstream of the Swamp · August 10, 2026

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Iranian Bad Faith And Deception

By Mark Wallace

Written by Mark Wallace

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

We’ve seen this show before: certain factions of Iran’s government privately tell American authorities that they are ready to sign off on a peace deal.  With high hopes that, finally, Iran may actually be telling the truth for once and that peace is at hand, the Trump Administration suspends the war and releases that information to the press. Then, a day or two later, other factions in Iran announce that there is in fact no deal in the offing and present a list of ridiculous demands to the United States.  At that point, it’s back to square one.

This is either a concerted design and ruse of “good cop/bad cop” or an indication that no one is really in charge in Iran; it’s just a bunch of competing and opposed factions.

It’s time to end this farce once and for all.  There is absolutely no need for any kind of a peace deal with Iran.  Negotiations with the liars and lunatics who run Iran are completely pointless.

What the United States needs to do at this juncture is to take a page from the history of the American Civil War. In November 1864, President Abraham Lincoln authorized Major General William T. Sherman to march through the State of Georgia to the sea, destroying the Confederacy’s power to make war by destroying infrastructure (such as railroads), seizing food and otherwise crushing the Confederacy’s morale. Sherman started in Atlanta and marched 285 miles to Savannah, destroying not only railroads but also telegraph lines, crops and factories. The campaign ended on December 21, 1864.  Four months later, the Confederacy collapsed with General Robert E. Lee’s surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse.

Things have changed in the last 162 years, and there is no longer any need for a ground invasion of enemy territory.  The United States and Israel have complete air superiority over Iran, and everything that needs to be accomplished in Iran can be accomplished with air power alone.

A good start would be a bombing campaign that destroys all the key parts of Iran’s infrastructure, somewhat similar to what Sherman did in his March to the Sea. This would include all electrical power plants in the country and key water distribution networks. Israel would be given the job of ensuring that those power plants and water distribution networks are not rebuilt. With Iran permanently deprived of electricity, and with the delivery of water severely crippled, there would be no particular reason to think that Iran can enrich uranium or develop a nuclear weapon.  With no electricity, drone and missile production by Iran would immediately come to a halt.  Iran might still attempt to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed with row boats, canoes and sailing ships, but those measures can be swiftly and permanently defeated.

The Lying Left Wing Press has spread the word that destroying Iran’s infrastructure would be some kind of war crime, but that line of argument is not only false but also quite possibly treasonous.  If the Lying Left Wing Press were correct, then Abraham Lincoln and General Sherman would be war criminals.  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt would be a war criminal for authorizing General LeMay’s air campaign against Japan during World War Two (described by one historian as “the burning of a nation”) as well as the fire bombing of Germany’s city of Dresden.  President Harry Truman would be a war criminal for authorizing the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It’s a ridiculous argument that would make out some of America’s most respected Presidents to be war criminals.

The Lying Left Wing Press’s propagation of this “war crimes” hoax quite possibly constitutes giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States and therefore would seem to fall squarely within the definition of treason as set forth in the Constitution.  A U.S. Justice Department may be appropriate at this point.

In summary, it’s time to take off the gloves with Iran and to eliminate Iran’s capacity to create a nuclear weapon, to manufacture drones and missiles, to export terrorism and to wreak havoc on the world.  There is no need for a peace treaty or any other kind of agreement with Iran if this is accomplished.

“People should either be caressed or crushed. If you do them minor damage, they will get their revenge; but if you cripple them, there is nothing they can do. If you need to injure someone, do it in such a way that you do not have to fear their vengeance.” —- Niccolo Machiavelli

-Mark Wallace

Any opinions articulated herein are those of the author, not The Prickly Pear.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Ladies, Have Fun With Your Contradictions

By Neland Nobel

Written by Neland Nobel

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

The Women’s National Basketball Association, a subsidiary of the better-known NBA, is headed for a confrontation with reality.

This comes in several forms.  This heretofore obscure and money-losing division of the NBA has been attracting both needed media attention and unwanted controversy.

One of their players, Caitlin Clark, a married white athlete, has been breaking all kinds of league records and attracting crowds wherever she appears.  For putting the league on the media map with her exceptional play, she has been fouled, pummeled, and abused by the majority of black lesbian players.

The league’s owners, coaches, and referees have sat on their institutional hands while these beatings take place in public, subject to much negative scrutiny and commentary online and on podcasts.  Fundamentally, because basketball is a spectator sport, millions have seen the mistreatment with their own eyes and know the denials are bogus.

This is not the kind of publicity a sports league should want.

The public does not like it as Clark is rapidly becoming the “Jackie Robinson” of normies.  She is a player of outstanding ability, being discriminated against by the established league and its officials.  The irony is the offenders are largely black and female, two groups that endlessly prattle about discrimination and unfair treatment.  But the “patriarchy” is not the cause of their problems but rather their own prejudice, and the public has noticed the glaring hypocrisy.

Her teammate, the attractive and white Sophie Cunningham, gets roughed up as well, but Cunningham often attempts to protect Clark. However, Cunningham has attracted additional attention for standing up for women in sports by suggesting what, for centuries, was common sense: that men should not be playing sports alongside women.

So, abuse of white heterosexuals and an unwillingness to deal with the transgender threat to women’s sports has placed the WNBA in the front lines of the culture wars.  Justifiably, the league is taking a barrage of incoming fire, now from several directions.

The league has responded with rehearsed statements to the controversy in an attempt to mitigate the damage.  Unfortunately, the response sounds like it was crafted by a gender studies program that absorbed an HR department, all originating from North Korea.

As the controversy comes to a boil, two ex-NBA players say they will enter the draft for the WNBA, and Clay Travis, of radio and podcast fame, has said he will organize a club of male players called the Tennessee Balls to compete as a team in the women’s league.

The league is going to have to deal with the definition of “what is a woman”, and soon.

The league over the weekend said they will shortly be making a statement on the matter.

This is all very amusing to watch because the league seems captured by Leftist historical and social interpretations, displaying for all to see the internal contradictions of the radical movement.

Feminists told us there was no difference between men and women.  Men and women are interchangeable, and the only explanation for diverse outcomes is discrimination and patriarchy.  Thus, women and “people of color” deserve special treatment.

Gender studies hacks have told us that sex and gender are separate and that self-identification determines the outcome, even though DNA, hormones, and inherited differences in physical strength don’t seem to change despite self-declarations.

Women spent much of the last 30 years in court, tearing down all-male clubs and associations.  They argued that it gave men an advantage because of the “old boys network”.  They even went out of their way to destroy the Boy Scouts.

Now, many women wonder where the manly men are, having done all they could to destroy institutions and structures that produce men.  This includes the nuclear family. Men and fathers are not needed, just a generous welfare program.  Didn’t Gloria Steinem teach us that a “woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”?

They also spent a lot of their time lowering standards for the military, for police and firefighters, and other jobs, so women could compete.  Management got the message and has openly discriminated against men in hiring.

OK, men will soon have a chance to compete within the lower standards of the WNBA.  Is the “old girl network” going to openly discriminate against men?

You see,  if men can’t have a male “safe space”, why should women have their “safe space”, especially since women today get most of the higher-paying jobs and dominate at the universities in terms of graduates.  Having an exclusive place for women, and giving them special aid under Title 9, assumes you can define what a woman is.

Why should the WNBA be for women only if men and women are interchangeable?  Further, if women are just as good, then competing against men should be no problem.

The trouble is if they go in that direction, second-rate and retired male athletes will quickly take over the league.  Where will that leave them?

Most men are coming to the defense of women’s sports because they know damn well that women can be very good at certain things, but they can’t really compete with men on a physical basis in most sports.

So, it is amusing to see so much of the sisterhood allowing fake men into their ranks.  But they are captured by ideology and not reality.  Can LGB coexist with TQ?

If sex is as fluid as advocates contend, why can’t a male play in a women’s league, at least on the days he feels like a girl?  And who can challenge how he might feel?

If they rule the other way, and define womanhood in the biological sense, they will face the wrath of much of their LGBTQ and whatever constituency.  We don’t need men, especially to watch women’s basketball.  The league can try to survive on a much smaller audience.

The decision will not only forever alter the course of women’s sports, but could strike a decisive blow against the nonsense of current gender ideology.

As Professor Richard M. Weaver so famously said, “ideas have consequences.”  Ladies, have fun with your contradictions.

-Neil Nobel

Neland ‘Neil’ Nobel was born in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, and moved to Arizona in 1961. He attended ASU and earned a B.A. and an M.A. in history, with a specialty in economic and military history.  He graduated Summa Cum Laude and received a Richard M. Weaver Fellowship from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.  He spent the next 45 years in the financial services industry, ending his career with a 25-year run with UBS as a portfolio manager and Certified Financial Planner. In retirement, he remains active, having founded the Prickly Pear in 2020 and continuing to contribute content.  In his spare time, he is a certified firearms instructor and runs a hiking club and two shooting clubs.  He is married with three children and three grandchildren.

Any opinions articulated herein are those of the author, not The Prickly Pear.

 

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

River Cuts Fuel Arizona Race: State of Play

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

A new federal framework would hand Arizona the deepest Colorado River cuts of any state, and the pain has become a weapon in the Hobbs-Biggs governor’s race. Here is the state of play.

What happened

  • Washington drew the map for scarcity. The Bureau of Reclamation’s post-2026 framework lays out major cuts to Lower Basin states, with Arizona hit hardest.
  • The politics were instant. Andy Biggs blamed Governor Katie Hobbs for a weak deal; Hobbs called the criticism “political gamesmanship.”
  • The stakes are the November race. Biggs won the Republican primary with about 73% and faces Hobbs on November 3.

By the numbers

  • Arizona absorbs the deepest cut. Under the guidelines modeled for 2027 and 2028, the state would lose 760,000 acre-feet a year if Lake Mead falls below 1,145 feet.
  • Other states give up far less. California would see 440,000 acre-feet cut and Nevada 50,000, a fraction of Arizona’s share.
  • The formula is lopsided. Arizona would take 80% of the first 300,000 acre-feet of Lower Basin shortage and 43.33% of the next slice up to 1.5 million.

The fine print

  • These are models, not mandates. Reclamation calls the 2027 and 2028 figures preliminary, set within the plan’s guardrails and still being refined.
  • The cuts are not new in kind. Arizona has faced Colorado River reductions for three straight years; the framework deepens a squeeze already underway.

What’s in it for America

The cities say they are ready. Phoenix insists it is prepared, pointing to backup supplies, reuse projects, and transfer deals built up over years. Water is now a growth question. Every acre-foot lost is a constraint on homebuilding, agriculture, and the data centers courting Arizona power and land.

How we got here

  • Lake Mead’s level is the trigger. Whether the deepest cuts hit depends on where the reservoir sits when the guidelines take effect.
  • The race will run on it. Expect water to headline the Hobbs-Biggs contest, a rare issue where scarcity is measurable and the blame is contested.
  • The river is over-promised. The Colorado was divided among states in a wetter century, and decades of drought and overuse have left Lake Mead and Lake Powell chronically low.
  • Arizona drew the short straw long ago. Its junior water rights mean it absorbs shortages first, a legal reality that predates any current officeholder.

Water is Arizona’s hardest currency, and the federal framework has just told the state it will have less of it than any neighbor. The engineering answer, backup supplies and reuse, is real but finite. The political answer is only beginning. In a governor’s race now organized around a shrinking river, the candidate who best explains the cut, and who caused it, may hold the advantage.

-The Editors

Politics · Upstream of the Swamp · August 10, 2026

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Redistricting Hands GOP New Map: This Could Save Midterms

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

New congressional maps have left Democrats defending a wall of seats Trump carried in 2024. They need a net three for the House, on terrain tilted sharply against them. There has been a ton of politicization and litigation around these pivotal maps. Here is the state of play.

What happened

  • The map moved under the Democrats. By the NRCC’s post-redistricting count, they are now defending 23 House seats that Trump won in 2024.
  • Republicans are far less exposed, defending only about eight seats that Kamala Harris carried last cycle.
  • Counts vary by method. Another tally puts it at 14 Democratic-held Trump districts and nine Republican-held Harris districts; the larger figure reflects the new maps and a broader competitive set.

The magic number is small but misleading. Democrats need a net three seats to retake the House, on terrain that makes three hard to reach.

By the numbers

  • The battlefield tilted red. To flip the House, Democrats must win Republican seats where Trump outperformed in 2024.
  • The gains run one way. After 10 states enacted new maps, Republicans are positioned to pick up as many as 16 seats, against six for Democrats.
  • Registration is moving too. Every analyzed district has seen net Republican growth since 2020, totaling nearly 737,000 voters.

How we got here

Red states redrew first and hardest. Mid-decade map fights, led by Texas, reshaped the national picture before a single vote was cast. Democrats answered where they could, but blue-state gains have not offset the losses in states Republicans control.

What’s in it for America

The majority may be decided by mapmakers, not swing voters, a reality that cuts against the idea of a responsive House. A midterm that history says should favor the party out of power now runs uphill for it.

Worth watching

  • Litigation could still move lines. Several new maps face court challenges that could redraw districts before November.
  • Turnout beats geometry, sometimes. A strong enough wave can overwhelm a favorable map, which is the Democrats’ only real path here.
  • The registration drift is the slow story. A net Republican gain approaching 737,000 voters across the analyzed districts hardens the map beyond the lines themselves.

The backstory

  • Texas lit the fuse. A mid-decade Republican redraw there set off a national scramble, prompting blue states to counter with maps of their own.
  • California answered at the ballot box. Voters approved a temporary redraw meant to blunt Republican gains, but the offsetting seats did not fully cancel the red-state advantage.
  • The result is a lopsided board. Ten states redrew lines, and the net effect moved the House map toward Republicans before the campaign even began.

The counterargument

  • A wave can still swamp a map. Midterms punish the party in power, and a big enough swing would carry seats Trump won comfortably.
  • Gerrymanders age badly. Packing a district tight for one cycle can leave it vulnerable if the political wind shifts, a risk Republicans now carry in reverse.

Maps are policy made quietly, and this cycle they may matter more than any ad or debate. Democrats need three seats and face a wall of districts Trump won by comfortable margins. The number is small; the ground is not. Control of the House now turns as much on lines drawn in state capitols as on votes cast in November.

-The Editors

Politics · Upstream of the Swamp · August 10, 2026

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Iran Promotes Interpol-Wanted Bomber: Arrogance In Bold

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Iran named Mohsen Rezaei, wanted by Interpol over the 1994 bombing that killed 85 at a Buenos Aires Jewish center, as secretary of its Supreme National Security Council.

The facts

Iran appointed Mohsen Rezaei, a former commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard, as secretary of its Supreme National Security Council on August 9.

He has been a wanted man since 2007. Interpol issued a Red Notice for Rezaei over his alleged role in the 1994 AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires. The attack killed 85 people and injured hundreds, the deadliest terrorist bombing in Argentina’s history.

The backstory

  • Argentine prosecutors place him in the room. They allege Rezaei took part in a meeting where the AMIA attack was decided, and accuse Hezbollah of carrying it out with Iranian support.
  • Interpol has held the line. Its Executive Committee approved the Red Notice for Rezaei and five other suspects in 2007, and the General Assembly upheld it the same year.
  • An arrest nearly happened. Argentina sought to detain him during a 2022 visit to Qatar, but the request went nowhere.

Who he is

  • Rezaei is a regime fixture, not an outsider. He led the Revolutionary Guard through the Iran-Iraq war, ran for president repeatedly, and served as an economic vice president under Ebrahim Raisi.
  • The security council is the hub. Its secretary sits at the center of Iran’s defense, intelligence, and nuclear decision-making, coordinating the country’s response to external threats.

Why it matters

The message from Iran is deliberate. Elevating an internationally wanted suspect to a top security post is a statement of defiance, not an oversight.

This complicates diplomacy. Washington is pressing Iran over the Strait of Hormuz and its nuclear program, and the man now steering Tehran’s security file is a fugitive from an antisemitic mass murder.

Worth watching

  • Argentina is still pursuing the case. Prosecutors have pushed the AMIA bombing toward a trial in absentia, keeping the charges alive three decades on.
  • The appointment shapes the negotiating table. Any US or Israeli channel to Tehran now runs, in part, through Rezaei’s office.

The crime

  • The bombing was Argentina’s 9/11 in scale. The July 1994 blast leveled the AMIA Jewish community center and remains the deadliest terrorist attack in the country’s history.
  • The case has never closed. Three decades of stalled prosecutions, a dead special prosecutor, and diplomatic friction have kept it a live wound in Argentine politics.
  • Rezaei is no minor functionary. A commander in the Iran-Iraq war and a repeat presidential candidate, he has spent decades at the top tier of the Islamic Republic.

The counterargument

  • Tehran rejects the charges outright, calling the Interpol notices politically motivated and denying any role in the AMIA attack.
  • A Red Notice is not a conviction, and Iran has never surrendered a suspect, so the appointment carries no legal cost inside the country.

Governments signal intent through personnel. By placing a man wanted for the deadliest terror attack in Argentine history at the head of its security council, Tehran has said something plainer than any communique. The 85 dead in Buenos Aires were not an obstacle to his rise. They were, in the regime’s telling, part of the resume.

-The Editors

National Security · Upstream of the Swamp · August 10, 2026

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Senate Passes Russia Sanctions Bill: Will This Escalate U.S. Involvement?

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Senate passed sweeping Russia sanctions 86 to 11, arming the president with tariffs of up to 100% on the biggest buyers of Russian oil. It heads to a House that will not vote until September.

Background

  • The Senate cleared the Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, named for the late Senator Lindsey Graham, by 86 to 11, a rare bipartisan supermajority.
  • It hands the president a tariff weapon. The bill authorizes duties of up to 100% on imports from the five largest purchasers of Russian oil and natural gas.
  • China and India are the clearest targets, the two biggest buyers of Russian crude, alongside Slovakia, Hungary, and Azerbaijan.

By the numbers

The 86 to 11 margin clears a veto-proof threshold in the chamber, a signal of how far the politics of Russian oil have shifted. Countries importing less than 15% of their gas from Russia, and taking significant steps to cut it, can avoid the tariffs. Five governments are named as primary concerns, the states Washington sees as bankrolling Moscow through energy purchases.

Details

  • It pairs primary and secondary sanctions, reaching Russian officials, oligarchs, their families, and the financial institutions that move their money. The shadow fleet is a named target, the shell companies and repurposed tankers that carry sanctioned crude past existing controls.
  • Secondary sanctions are the teeth. By reaching the banks and middlemen who finance the trade, the bill aims to make handling Russian oil legally radioactive.
  • The trigger is the president’s to pull, which gives the White House leverage rather than a mandate, and room to calibrate the pressure.

Fine print

The bill carries Lindsay Graham’s name. Graham championed it for months and died in July, before the chamber he served finally passed it. Trump had already signaled this threat, floating aggressive tariffs on Russian-oil buyers, and the vote now converts that bluster into statutory authority.

What’s in it for America

  • The lever cuts both ways. Tariffs on China and India would ripple into US supply chains for electronics, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing inputs.
  • Inflation is the risk. Broad duties on two of the world’s largest economies would raise costs at home, the price of squeezing Moscow’s war chest.
  • Energy is the pressure point. Choking Russian revenue is the aim, but the same move can lift global crude just as the Hormuz standoff already has prices climbing.

The counterargument

  • The tariffs are a tax on Americans first. Duties on imports from China and India are paid at US ports and passed to US buyers, a cost critics say lands before any pain reaches Moscow.
  • Enforcement history is not encouraging. Earlier caps on Russian oil were widely evaded through the same shadow fleet the bill now chases, so authority on paper is not pressure in practice.
  • The open-ended trigger cuts both ways. Supporters call presidential discretion flexibility; skeptics call it a loophole that lets the threat fade once the headlines do.

The Senate did the easy part, handing the president a weapon by a margin that crossed party lines and honored a colleague who did not live to see the vote. The hard part is using it. Tariffs aimed at Moscow’s customers land on America’s trading partners and, eventually, its own shelves. That is the arithmetic the House will weigh in September, and the White House every day after.

-The Editors

National Security / Personal Finance · Upstream of the Swamp · August 10, 2026

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Weak Jobs Data Sparks Stock Rally; Gold Surges as Rate-Hike Odds Fall

By Kenny Polcari

Written by Kenny Polcari

Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes

Things You Need to Know

  • NFP goes NEGATIVE, stocks move higher.
  • Bonds rally, yields fall a bit.
  • Oil higher as Iran makes demands that includes the insults MUST stop.
  • Gold is unchanged.
  • Eco data includes July CPI and PPI.

Well, good morning — and what a way to end the week!

Stocks pushed higher again on Friday, sending the S&P to yet another record high as ‘the players’ (investors, traders and the algos) digested a surprisingly weak July jobs report and immediately concluded that Kevy and the FOMC may have one less reason to raise rates in September.

Translation: Bad news is Good news for the markets. (But hold that thought).

As the bell rang to close out the week, the Dow had gained 151 pts, the S&P up 48 – closing at another new record high, the Nasdaq added 345 pts, the Russell up 33 pts, the Transports added 81pts, the Equal Weight S&P gained 62 pts while the Mag 7 added 260 pts.

And for the week? Well, let’s just say it was ‘fairly’ impressive too. The S&P gained 3.6%, the Dow added 3%, the Nasdaq surged 5.2%, and the Russell gained 3.5%.

At 8:30 am – we got the much-anticipated July NFP report…. And this is where it gets interesting. July Non-Farm Payrolls came in at NEGATIVE 23,000 jobs versus the expectation for PLUS 80,000. – Yeah, that’s not a typo…Negative 23,000. And if that wasn’t a kick in the pants – They revised May and June DOWN by another 103,000 jobs combined.

May was revised from +129k to +63k, while June was revised from +57k to just +20k. So, over the last three months — May, June and July — the economy has created an average of just 20,000 jobs per month.

Now, while THAT got everyone’s attention, it wasn’t over…. The unemployment rate FELL to 4.1% from 4.2%. And so, you ask – How does that happen? Simple – people left the labor force.

The labor-force participation rate fell to 61.4% from 61.5%.

So don’t look at the drop in the unemployment rate as positive. The labor market is cooling. And the algos went all in.

Why? Because suddenly the odds of a rate hike in September aren’t so grand anymore…. Before Friday morning’s report, the market had been pricing in a 58.7% chance of a September rate hike; after the report, those odds fell to 42.9%. Just to put it in perspective — two weeks ago, those market-implied odds were closer to 70%.

But here’s something else that should make you smile. The prediction markets — Kalshi and Polymarket — were already ahead of Friday’s NFP report. They had the odds of a September rate hike sitting in the low-40% range BEFORE the jobs number hit. Now? They’re down to about a 34% chance of a hike.

And notice what NO ONE is pricing in — a rate cut. Something I have been saying for weeks.

Recall what we discussed last week: the bond market is already doing some of the Fed’s work for it. Long-end rates have moved higher, financial conditions have tightened, and the Fed hasn’t had to do a damn thing — other than jawbone.

And that sent bonds higher and yields lower. The TLT and TLH rose by 0.3% and 0.2%, respectively. The 2-yr Treasury ended Friday yielding about 4.19%, down from 4.25% on Thursday. The 10-yr ended at 4.65%, down from 4.69%, while the 30-yr ended at 5.19%, down from 5.22%.

Even after Friday’s rally, a 10-year yielding 4.65% and a 30-year yielding 5.19% are NOT necessarily what you would consider ‘accommodative’. 30 yr Mortgage rates are at 6.7%, for a fico score of 740 or better – higher if you score is lower, commercial real estate loans, corporate borrowing costs, auto loans — all of those remain elevated.

But let’s not get carried away…Because there is another side to this story. On Friday, investors interpreted weaker economic data as GOOD news, because weaker data means less pressure on the Fed.

But there is a line, and at some point, bad news stops being good news and becomes…well…BAD NEWS.

Right now, investors believe the economy is slowing — NOT collapsing – that’s the good news…. That’s the sweet spot.

Slower growth + strong corporate earnings + less Fed pressure = higher stock prices.

But if the next NFP report continues to deteriorate, then investors will stop asking ‘When is Kevy is going to raise rates?’ and start asking ‘When will he cut rates?’ (think weakening economy). And if that happens, then investors will ask whether corporate earnings estimates are too high.

That is when BAD NEWS becomes BAD NEWS.

We aren’t there yet, but this is not the time to take a nap!

Now let’s talk about GOLD — because THAT just got even more interesting. Gold exploded higher on Friday – up 2.4% or $102/oz – to end the day at $4,340.

And yes — the weak jobs report helped. Lower Treasury yields helped. Lowered expectations for another Fed hike helped, never mind the ongoing geopolitical uncertainty that also provides some support (think the safety trade).

Now while all that helped…. I still think Friday’s move was much more TECHNICAL and MOMENTUM driven than anything else – something we discussed on Friday morning.

Recall how gold spent roughly 7 weeks trapped in that $4,000/$4,200 trading range. Then last week it pierced trendline resistance around $4,160, broke up and through the upper end of the range at $4,200, and BOOM!

The algo’s got fired up, the Momo guys piled on, shorts were forced to cover and chased it higher. So, Friday’s jobs report didn’t CREATE the gold breakout; it validated it, and that’s an important distinction.

The weak jobs number gave an already bullish technical setup the catalyst it needed to accelerate. That’s why I would say the move was 70% technical/momentum and 30% fundamental.

We’re in the $4,160/$4,500 trading range. On any pullback, watch the $ 4,160-ish level – if gold holds it, then the breakout remains intact. Now if we pierce $4,500 with conviction? Then we will have another conversation. This morning, gold is trading unchanged.

Now oil remains a problem. WTI closed Friday at $77.08, and this morning it is back on the move, up about $1.20 or 1.3% as traders digest the latest headlines out of Iran – that have raised the ante….

Over the weekend, Iran laid out a ‘new’ list of demands that it says must be met before the Strait of Hormuz fully reopens. So, the idea that Scotty thinks we ‘have a deal’ – well, think again.

They want the US to:

End military threats and insults against its national and religious values.

Permanently halt attacks against Iran and its regional allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen and Iraq. All places that harbor their terrorist proxies.

Lift the U.S. naval blockade and withdraw U.S. naval and air forces from around Iran.

Pay financial compensation and war reparations.

Lift U.S. economic sanctions.

Unconditionally release frozen Iranian financial assets.

OK – what this tells me is that we are not even close to being over.

And that is exactly why oil remains a problem for the markets. Because as long as the Strait remains closed, oil is going to carry a geopolitical risk premium. The see/saw back and forth – One headline suggesting progress, the next suggesting a stalemate will continue to cause market angst. Trendline resistance is at $81.40; if we break up and through, then I suspect we could see $90 oil again fairly quickly. Should we get a deal, then yes, oil will decline, but that seems more unlikely right now.

Remember – Higher oil feeds directly into the inflation conversation, inflation feeds into the bond market and the bond market feeds directly into equity valuations. So, if crude starts making another run, then the conversation about easing financial conditions becomes more complicated.

Now, Tehran is clearly playing for leverage. They know Americans are tired of a conflict that has dragged on far longer than anyone originally expected, and they know the midterm elections are now less than three months away. So, they have every incentive to test Trump’s willingness to stay the course.

Because until we get a real agreement, the geopolitical premium isn’t going away – and neither is the volatility in crude.

There is no eco data today – but we will get the July CPI and PPI on Wednesday and Thursday – both are expected to be lower. Friday will give us the latest Retail Sales numbers along with the U of Mich sentiment surveys.

While earnings season has slowed, there are several reports worth paying attention to this week – particularly around Quantum Computing – QUBT, AI infrastructure – CRWV, networking – CSCO, Semi Equipment – AMAT and fintech – NU.

European markets are flat.

US futures are mixed as the week begins. Dow futures are down 15 pts, S&P’s up 12, Nasdaq up 135 pts while the Russell is down 5 pts.

The S&P 500 closed at 7,757 – up 47 pts. This morning – European market action and US futures action suggest the mkt will churn. We are now in the middle of August and are truly in the Dog Days of summer…Much of Europe is on vacation, and in the US – many families are also on vacation. Volumes are lower and so moves can be exaggerated (in both directions).

Technically – trendline support is way down at 7500. Resistance is somewhere between 7,900/ 8,000.

Take good care,

Kp

Kenny Polcari is a partner and Chief Market Strategist at Slatestone Wealth – A boutique wealth advisory firm with $2 billion dollars of investor assets under management. In this role, his responsibilities range from market and economic analysis to investor education interpreting the ever changing economic and market landscape on behalf of Slatestone and how those impacts may affect future investment and planning strategies on behalf of their clients. With more than 40 years of industry experience as a member of the NYSE serving institutional investors both at home and abroad – he is a seasoned and well-known voice on the markets. You may recognize him from his many years serving as a market analyst on Fox Business and CNBC or his ‘Trader Talk’ Podcast on the Yahoo Finance Channel. For more, please visit his Substack HERE.

Disclaimer. Source: Bloomberg, CNBC, Reuters, Wall Street Journal

This media segment contains general market commentary based on publicly available information and is provided for informational and educational purposes only. Any discussion of companies, securities, or asset performance relates solely to those assets and does not represent the performance of any firm investment strategy, portfolio, or client account. It should not be interpreted as portfolio performance or as a reflection of client results.

This content does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Opinions expressed reflect views at the time of the interview and may change without notice. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties and are not guarantees of future outcomes. Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. The firm and its clients may hold positions in assets discussed, and holdings may change at any time.

The author’s views are their own and do not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Investing involves risk; please consult with a qualified professional before making any financial decisions.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Key Business Headlines: August 10

By Jake Novak

Written by Jake Novak

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

STOCKS/ECONOMY

  • Stock futures are mixed after all three major indices posted strong gains last week. Investors are again focusing on trying to get some clear guidance on a possible peace deal with Iran.
  • The yield on the 10-year Treasury bond is at 4.66 percent.
  • Gold is at the $4,395 per ounce level. Silver is at $64 per ounce level. Bitcoin is at the $65,000 level.
  • Asian markets closed higher today, led by a 2.1 percent rally for the Nikkei. The Hang Seng rose 1.1 percent, the Kospi gained 0.7 percent, and the Shenzhen closed just above the breakeven mark.

OIL/ENERGY

  • U.S. crude prices are up and at the $79 a barrel level, as traders are showing skepticism over continued promises of an imminent deal to open the Strait of Hormuz.
  • Gasoline prices are down to $4.00 a gallon, national average.

CHIPS FOR SALE

  • Intel (INTC) is filing to offer $15 billion worth of new common stock. Its shares are down 3 percent in the premarket.

BERKSHIRE NUMBERS

  • Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.b) reported 16 percent quarterly operating profit growth, but also a 9 percent drop in its insurance division income. Berkshire Hathaway shares are up slightly in the premarket.

AI MANIA

  • Meta Platforms (META) founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has released a 6,500 word essay, hoping to explain the company’s AI policies and efforts. Meta shares are up 2 percent in the premarket.

FOOD FEAR

  • Taylor Farms is now recalling some products with jalapenos and guacamole ingredients at some Walmart (WMT), Kroger (KR), Target (TGT), and Whole Foods stores because of possible salmonella contamination. This comes after Taylor Farms lettuce grown in Mexico was found to be contaminated with cyclospora bacteria.

-Jake Novak

Jake Novak is a 30-yr. veteran TV news producer, editorial columnist, & fmr. diplomat with expertise in politics, business news, culture, & media analysis. He is also the author of Jake’s Takes on Substack.

The author’s views are their own and do not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Investing involves risk; please consult with a qualified professional before making any financial decisions.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Dueling Court Orders Create ‘Men’s Prison Within A Women’s Federal Prison’

By Breccan F. Thies

Written by Breccan F. Thies

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

TPP Editors’ Notes

  • Activist court orders halted executive efforts to restore commonsense, biological sex segregation within the federal prison system.
  • Housing male inmates—including violent offenders—in women’s facilities violates the basic constitutional rights, bodily privacy, and safety of female prisoners.
  • The ongoing legal battle surrounding the Department of Justice’s attempt to manage conflicting court rulings by constructing a makeshift “men’s prison” inside a female facility.

Male inmates claiming to be females are seeking full integration with women

Dueling court orders regarding men who claim to be women serving time in federal prison have resulted the Department of Justice creating a sex-segregated wing in a women’s prison to house the men.

The Justice Department, through the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is seeking to transfer every male inmate claiming to be female in the country to one female-only prison — Federal Medical Center (FMC) Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas — after one federal judge blocked an executive order to remove “trans”-identifying men from female prisons, and another federal judge ordered those men to be segregated from the women. During the Biden administration, an inmate claiming to be “transgender” could be placed in a facility meant for the opposite sex. In a prison system that has in most situations been sex-segregated, men were now being allowed to serve their time in female prisons, simply by claiming to be female.

President Donald Trump attempted to stop that practice through an executive order, but shortly after, males being housed in female prisons sued to block its enforcement. D.C. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, in Jane Doe v. Blanche (or, Doe v. McHenry), agreed, stopping the transfer of 14 male inmates to male prisons.

“[The injunction] does not, at this juncture, require that Plaintiffs be housed alongside cisgender female inmates or share common spaces,” Lamberth wrote.

At the same time, another federal lawsuit, Fleming v. Warden T. Rule, was filed by FMC Carswell inmate Rhonda Fleming, asking that the male inmates be removed from general population “for her protection,” as, “Under the Biden administration, numerous biological male inmates have been placed in the prison. Biological, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim women are forced to shower and share other intimate facilities, in violation of their bodily privacy rights, with male inmates.” According to the filing, there were over 20 male inmates at FMC Carswell alone at the time, adding, “Many of these male inmates are incarcerated for violent acts against women and children, to include rapists, child molesters, and domestic abusers. The prison officials allow these male inmates to intimidate women in lines for medications, meals, and in assigned cells.”

Texas Federal Judge Sidney Fitzwater, another Reagan appointee, ultimately signed a protective order, partitioning the men into a separate floor of the facility, not to interact with the women.

“It is being described as a ‘men’s prison within a women’s federal prison,” Fleming told The Federalist in an email correspondence. “Judge Lamberth believes the men have a right to be in a women’s prison, without any type of segregation from the general population of women inmates. Judge Fitzwater does not.”

Elspeth Cypher, former Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice and President of the Women’s Liberation Front, told The Federalist that the men in FMC Carswell were initially allowed to be in the cafeteria and recreation areas with the women, “but the men were angry with the women for complaining about them and so they threatened and harassed the women in those areas. As a result, their recreation time and cafeteria time had to be segregated also.”

While Fleming and a class of other female inmates were granted relief by being moved to other prisons, the intent of the BOP to move all male inmates in the federal prison system to FMC Carswell causes the same problem for the rest of the female inmates in that facility.

However, transferring all the male inmates to a single facility while these court battles continue seems to be a creative, temporary solution to the ultimate problem the Justice Department is trying to solve, which is segregating inmates by sex as they should be.

But the male inmates appear to want full integration with the women, as they filed through their attorneys at National Center for LGBTQ Rights and the GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders an emergency motion asking essentially to ignore the ruling in Fleming and “enforce” Jane Doe.

“The Plaintiffs already housed in the segregated unit are suffering severe and escalating harm, including resurgent gender dysphoria, loss of clinical progress achieved over years in general population, deteriorating mental health, and, for at least one Plaintiff, the resurgence of suicidal ideation,” the motion states. “Absent immediate intervention by the Court, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm that cannot be remedied through an award of money damages.” Specifically, the male inmates asking the court to move them to general population with women and never create segregated units again.

“The trans-identifying men in the separate unit in Carswell are now claiming that their gender dysphoria is increasing because they are separate from the ‘other’ women,” Cypher said. “The problem the trans-identifying men have always complained about is that they are abused by male prisoners. Now, they are complaining about not being with the women. As Amie Ichikawa, founder of WomanIIWoman, a nonprofit that helps women re-enter society said ‘Women are not support animals.’”

As The Federalist reported, FMC Carswell, along with its male counterpart facility FMC Fort Worth, were turned into “transgender” surgical centers during the Biden administration, and there are other court orders involving Lamberth that maintain these inmates’ abilities to keep receiving hormone replacement drugs.

-Breccan Thies

Breccan F. Thies is the White House correspondent for The Federalist. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism.

This piece was reproduced with the permission of The Federalist. Any opinions articulated herein are those of the author, not The Prickly Pear. To read the original piece, please visit HERE.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Tired of Clicking “Accept Cookies”? Blame Brussels, Not Big Tech

By Chloe Anagnos

Written by Chloe Anagnos

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

TPP Editors’ Notes

  • Unelected European bureaucrats shape the American digital landscape through the “Brussels Effect,” bypassing U.S. democratic institutions and sovereign lawmaking.
  • Compliance burdens from foreign mandates like the GDPR and Digital Markets Act disproportionately harm smaller innovators while protecting established tech giants.
  • European regulatory overreach diverts free-market engineering resources away from real innovation, leading to higher prices and an inferior user experience for consumers.

If you’ve clicked “Accept All Cookies” for what feels like the billionth time, you’ve experienced something most Americans never think about: European regulation.

Those seemingly endless privacy banners that now clutter every website didn’t appear because Congress passed a law. They became ubiquitous because the European Union’s privacy rules forced companies to redesign their websites, and rather than maintain one experience for Europe and another for the rest of the world, many adopted the same design.

The European Union has become one of the world’s most influential technology regulators, and because America’s largest technology companies operate globally, European rules frequently become global rules.

This phenomenon is often called the “Brussels Effect.” The term was coined by Columbia Law professor Anu Bradford, who argues that the EU’s large market and regulatory regime often compel multinational companies to adopt European standards worldwide rather than incur great expense to maintain separate systems for different markets. Instead, companies redesign their products to satisfy Europe’s strictest requirements and deploy those changes worldwide.

The result? European regulations effectively become U.S. standards without any debate among American lawmakers. American consumers are increasingly living under rules they never voted for.

For example, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, which took effect in 2018, fundamentally changed how companies collect and process personal data. In response, companies such as Google and Facebook announced they would extend many GDPR protections globally rather than create separate systems for Europe and the rest of the world.

The most visible consequence has been the inundation of cookie consent banners. While GDPR was intended to strengthen user privacy, academic research suggests the endless stream of cookie notices has produced widespread “consent fatigue.”

Rather than evaluating privacy choices, many users simply click “accept” to continue browsing. Researchers examining thousands of websites have also found that many cookie banners fail to comply with GDPR requirements, undermining the transparency they were meant to provide.

Now Europe’s regulatory influence is reaching even further into the United States. Policymakers in Washington and state legislatures propose borrowing European technology laws without fully considering whether those policies achieve their intended goals overseas.

The Digital Markets Act seeks to create in the U.S. what the European Commission calls “fairer and more contestable digital markets” by imposing new obligations on designated “gatekeeper” platforms. These rules restrict certain forms of self-preferencing, meaning they can’t treat their own services or products more favorably in ranking than those of third parties.

Supporters argue these changes will increase competition, but critics contend that they may instead reduce incentives to innovate and make digital products less seamless for consumers.

Amazon provides a useful example: Amazon Prime succeeds because it bundles fast shipping, streaming video and music, cloud photo storage, and other benefits into a single subscription. Consumers voluntarily choose Prime because they value that integrated experience.

Although the DMA does not prohibit Amazon Prime, its restrictions on how dominant platforms can combine and prioritize their own services raise broader questions about whether future regulations could make such integrated consumer experiences more difficult to maintain.

The Digital Services Act takes an equally expansive approach by requiring major online platforms to assess systemic risks, increase transparency, provide regulators and qualified researchers with access to platform data, and submit to ongoing oversight.

These goals may sound reasonable. But compliance requires armies of lawyers, engineers, auditors, and policy experts. Large technology companies may be able to absorb these costs. Smaller competitors often cannot.

Ironically, regulations intended to curb the power of Big Tech can sometimes reinforce it by creating compliance burdens that startups struggle to meet. Whether the DMA lowers or raises barriers to competition remains the subject of active academic debate, but there is broad agreement that the regulatory obligations are substantial.

But the ripple effects don’t stop there.

Every additional compliance requirement consumes engineering resources that could otherwise be spent improving products, fixing bugs, developing new features, or lowering prices. Consumers rarely see these hidden costs directly, but they experience them through slower innovation, more cumbersome user experiences, and higher prices spread across digital services.

This should concern Americans regardless of their views about regulating technology companies. There are legitimate debates to be had about privacy, competition, and online safety. But those debates should occur through American democratic institutions, not by default because multinational corporations conclude it’s easier to comply with Europe’s regulations everywhere than to build separate systems.

The question Americans should ask is whether we want the future of the American internet to be shaped through our own democratic process or quietly rewritten, one regulation at a time, in Brussels.

-Chloe Anagnos

Chloe Anagnos is a second-generation American, wife, mother, digital strategist, and writer.

This piece was reproduced with the permission of Independent Women. Any opinions articulated herein are those of the author, not The Prickly Pear. To read the original piece, please visit HERE.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Drilling Stalls At 588 Rigs: What Does This Mean For Americans?

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The US rig count held flat this week at 588. The pause signals steady output at record levels as oil prices swing on the Iran standoff. Baker Hughes counted 588 active US rigs, unchanged on the week. Canada slipped, down 3 to 216. What are the implications?

By the numbers

  • Fewer rigs, more oil. US crude output hit 13.6 million barrels a day in July, a record monthly total, as efficiency let a flat rig count pump record volumes.
  • The Permian carries the load, supplying roughly 48% of US crude at about 6.6 million barrels a day.
  • The gas side is well supplied. Natural-gas storage rose 33 Bcf last week, a comfortable cushion, even as LNG exports climb toward record volumes.
  • Prices explain the caution. WTI opened near $78 a barrel, and Brent traded around $82 on Friday, a range that funds existing wells but does not scream expansion.

Where things stand

  • The Gulf is the wild card. Crude has whipsawed on the Strait of Hormuz standoff, where roughly 70 ships remain stalled nearly six months into the conflict.
  • The federal forecast sees prices easing. The EIA’s latest outlook put Brent near $74 a barrel for the third quarter, which would keep drillers cautious.

Drillers are holding the line, waiting to see whether the Gulf crisis lifts prices enough to justify new steel in the ground.

Coming up next

  • The next tell is the outlook. The EIA’s updated short-term forecast, due within days, will show whether the agency expects the Iran premium to hold.
  • Production, not rigs, is the number that counts. As long as output holds near records, a flat rig count reflects discipline, not weakness.

What’s in it for America

  • Independence is holding. Record output with a flat rig count means the country is producing more with less, the mark of a mature, efficient basin.
  • The pump is the payoff. Steady supply and an easing price forecast point toward stable gasoline costs, the number households actually feel.

A flat rig count is not a headline on its own. It is a thermometer, and right now it reads steady, a record-producing industry waiting on a Gulf crisis it cannot control and a price it cannot yet count on. The reading to watch is not this week’s 588 but whether it moves at all once the outlook lands.

-The Editors

Energy & Manufacturing · Upstream of the Swamp · August 9, 2026

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

What the Olympics Really Cost: Rio’s 10-Year Legacy of Debt and Destruction

By Jeffrey Degner

Written by Jeffrey Degner

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

TPP Editors’ Notes

  • Crony Capitalism at Taxpayer Expense: Government-managed megaprojects are often insulated from market discipline and routinely result in massive cost overruns, forcing taxpayers to subsidize corrupt elites.
  • The $13.1 Billion Fiscal Disaster: The 2016 Rio Games blew $3.5 billion past its original budget, fueled by an unprecedented web of international bribery, kickbacks, and political corruption.
  • Erosion of Private Property Rights: Exposes the government’s heavy-handed use of eminent domain that forcibly displaced hundreds of families and demolished neighborhoods to construct temporary Olympic venues.

Rio 2016, like many ambitious projects, combined political cronyism and weak market discipline. Ordinary Brazilians are still paying the bill.

The Rio Olympics of 2016 had millions of Americans tuned in and cheering on swimmer Michael Phelps, who earned his twenty-eighth Olympic medal and his twenty-third gold. Those same fans were thrilled with the power and grace of Simone Biles, who secured a team gymnastics gold along with three more individual golds. In my home, attention was elsewhere.

My wife, who was born and raised in Brazil, had just one thing on her mind: redemption. Two years before, Mineiraço (“the trauma at Mineirão”) — the Brazilian men’s stunning 7–1 World Cup loss to Germany — had scarred the nation’s sporting psyche. Winning gold on their home soil, sealed by Neymar Jr.’s decisive penalty kick, was a powerful salve on the still-open national wound. Days later, the Brazilian men overpowered Italy in volleyball to secure the gold, capping an unforgettable Olympics for the host nation.

Brazilians saw victories on the pitches and courts but the political economy of Olympic hosting was another matter. Rio’s Olympics were a story of corruption, cost overruns, and economic waste the nation could ill afford.

Rio’s complicated Olympic legacy showcases crony capitalism, and the damage resulting from politically driven malinvestment. At the center of the former was a corruption investigation known as Operation Car Wash (Lava Jato). The joint effort between Brazilian and French investigators uncovered a vast web of massive bribery and kickbacks that would eventually lead to the imprisonment of high officials with connections to the national government. Members of the Brazilian Olympic Committee were sentenced for bribery, embezzlement, and more.

The rot reached back to the awarding of the games themselves: Rio’s governor, Sergio Cabral, later confessed to facilitating over $2 million in bribes to secure votes over rival bids from Chicago, Madrid, and Tokyo. Cabral wasn’t alone in the scheme. Carlos Arthur Nuzman, then-head of the Brazilian Olympic Committee, was convicted for the internal negotiations that secured the deal.

For their crimes, Cabral and Nuzman were sentenced to 10 and 30 years in prison, respectively. In March 2024, however, these sentences were annulled by a Brazilian federal court, claiming that the earlier convictions were outside the jurisdiction of the judge, Marcelo Bretas, who presided over the trial. While Nuzman walks free, Cabral remains in prison, facing sentences of more than 400 years for other crimes. The same appeals court that released Nuzman also overturned the conviction of Brazil’s current president, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, who was also found guilty of crimes in the Lava Jato operation.

One of the main beneficiaries of the winning bid was the Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht and its petrochemical arm, Braskem. Odebrecht oversaw over half of the building contracts, later found to have been facilitated by an in-house bribery operation, cravenly called the “Division of Structured Operations.” Its then-president, Marcelo Odebrecht, served just two and a half of a nearly 20-year sentence for corruption, and was released in 2017. This shortened sentence was part of a plea deal in which he admitted to paying nearly $800 million in bribes for construction contracts throughout Latin America, but in particular for Olympic-related construction deals. In December of 2016, lawyers for Odebrecht pleaded guilty, agreeing to a fine of $3.5 billion to satisfy prosecutors in the US, Brazil, and Switzerland for additional international bribery schemes. At the time, it was the largest international bribery settlement in history.

Such high-profile corruption may be the exception, but Olympic cost overruns are the rule. Rio paid $13.1 billion for the 2016 games, $3.5 billion over budget in nominal terms. A 2016 study at Oxford University found the Olympics have the highest average cost overrun of any type of megaproject: an average of 156 percent in real terms.

Rio ran the greatest budget deficit, but every hosting city since 1960 has overspent what it planned. The Sochi Winter Olympics of 2014 exceeded its budget by 289 percent, the 1994 Lillehammer Winter Games by 277 percent (each in 2022 dollars). Calgary, Canada spent three decades paying off its $1.6 billion Olympic bill, prompting Canadians to joke that the Olympic “Big O” had become the “Big Owe.” While other cities haven’t broken the bank to the same degree, not a single event has come in under budget. Excessive spending — or deliberately misleading the public — seems to be endemic to the games themselves. Without a true profit and loss calculation, taxpayers routinely bear the burden, while the politically well-connected line their pockets.

Despite these uneconomic and corrupt outcomes, defenders of the Games point to a different kind of redemption. Some of the facilities have been converted into schools or parks, and now serve the public good. In 2024, the mayor of Rio de Janeiro, Eduardo Paes, proclaimed, “Finally, we will deliver to the population of Rio the legacy of the Olympic Games.” The International Olympic Committee has also touted Rio’s repurposing of old, gutted venues. A community pool now stands where the Olympic Aquatics Stadium once stood, but large expanses remain empty and closed. A local federal prosecutor called them “white elephants,” erected with “absolutely no planning.”

While these land use conversions are highly visible and easy for politicians and IOC members to hail, a dark stain of property rights violations still mars the Rio Olympics, particularly among those who had their homes demolished in the area surrounding the Vila Autódromo. The eminent domain battle began the same day that Rio won (bought) the Olympic bid in 2009. A community of about 600 families watched helplessly as their homes were bulldozed to make way for parking and roads accessing Olympic venues. Offers of public housing were little consolation and their evictions sparked local protest and international concern. These scenes of mass displacement are common around Olympic building projects and in anticipation of its international media and delegations.

Supporters of the overall Olympic vision rely on hypothetical, inflated cost-benefit analyses and quaint references to the “public good.” But the true legacy of the Rio games, like others, seems to be one of cronyism and crushed property rights. With extraordinary budget deficits, decrepit infrastructure that takes years to rehabilitate, and corruption scandals that reached across international borders, Brazil was a standout in degree, not in kind. Wherever governments, shadowy international organizations, and taxpayer money collide, a less-than-redemptive story is sure to follow.

The central lesson isn’t that officials and developers in Rio were uniquely corrupt. They weren’t, as officials in Salt Lake City, Atlanta, Paris, Tokyo, and elsewhere have faced similar corruption scandals. The fiscal disaster of so many Olympics teaches instead how projects insulated from market discipline routinely overinvest, overspend, and undervalue the rights of those who bear the costs.

-Jeffrey Degner

Jeffery L. Degner is a Research Fellow in Economics and Economic Freedom at AIER. He holds a Ph.D. in Economic Science from l’Université d’Angers and an M.A. in Applied Economics from Western Michigan University, and previously served as Dean of the School of Business at Cornerstone University.

This piece was reproduced with the permission of AIER. Any opinions articulated herein are those of the author, not The Prickly Pear. To read the original piece, please visit HERE.

 

 

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Socialism Is Splitting Democrats: Your Briefing

By The Editors

Written by The Editors

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

A self-described democratic socialist won Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary against tens of millions in opposition money. Victor Davis Hanson argues the label that wins primaries will not survive a national race. Many agree with him, but where will the numbers land?

The rundown

  • Abdul El-Sayed won Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary on August 4, defeating Rep. Haley Stevens 48.5% to 47.5%, about a one-point margin with 99% of the vote counted.
  • He won against the money. El-Sayed overcame roughly $65 million in outside spending, much of it from a group tied to AIPAC that boosted Stevens and hit El-Sayed over his criticism of Israel.
  • VDH calls it a bellwether of a party splitting between its establishment and an organized socialist left heading into the midterms.

How we got here

The primary was ugly and expensive. Stevens and El-Sayed traded blows for months over data centers and foreign policy as the establishment consolidated behind Stevens.

The movement has scale now. The Democratic Socialists of America passed 120,000 members this summer, the largest socialist organization in American history, and El-Sayed’s win followed Zohran Mamdani’s in New York.

In Their Own Words

Hanson on the movement’s honesty problem: “If you’re running for office, you come off not even as a socialist. So, he was renouncing a lot of the things he was going to do… And then when they take office, they are not even socialist, they’re communist.”

Hanson cited New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s stated aim “to seize the means of production or take property from people if he finds they’re poor landlords,” and the Democratic Socialists’ goal to “take over utilities, break up corporate agriculture, seize people’s property.”

By the numbers

  • The generational split is the real story. Gallup found 39% of Americans view socialism positively, but a Cato survey put favorability at 62% among those 18 to 29, against 34% of Boomers.
  • The party has moved with it. Gallup put Democrats’ positive view of socialism at 66%, up from 50% in 2010.
  • The platform stays niche even as the label spreads. Polling shows the DSA’s specific policies, from seizing utilities to abolishing prisons, draw only minority support.

Up next

  • The general election is the real test. El-Sayed must now sell the same platform to a Michigan electorate far broader than a Democratic primary.
  • Republicans see a gift. The party is eager to make El-Sayed and Mamdani the national face of the Democrats in 2026.

Whether socialism is an asset or an anchor is now an argument inside one party and a test for the other. Michigan did not settle it. It raised the stakes, put a name on the wing that intends to define the Democratic future, and handed Republicans the contrast they have been looking for.

-The Editors

Politics · Upstream of the Swamp · August 9, 2026

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.