The Burning State

 by Steve Gruber via American Greatness,

The Golden State looks like a failed state, due to the failures of Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass. Because of these two, California is a mess and Los Angeles an inferno. Because of a blue wave of incompetence, the state is in the midst of one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history. Because of decades of one-party rule under Democrats, our most populous state is in chaos, and our second-most populist city in flames. The fires continue to burn, with at least 16 dead and over 23,000 acres destroyed. The fires are evidence of gross negligence, mismanagement, and irresponsibility, in the face of a preventable tragedy. The fires are also evidence of absentee leadership—of zero leadership—in the face of mass suffering.

The evidence is in the hills and streets of Pacific Palisades, where the fire still burns.

The evidence is in Newsom’s response to the fires, a nonresponse of denial and deflection. The evidence is in Bass’s refusal to respond to questions about the fires. The evidence is visible and irrefutable, with lives lost and livelihoods decimated. And yet, despite everything, despite the downpour of ash and debris, despite the loss of more than 10,000 homes and other structures, Newsom continues to say nothing of substance and Bass continues to do nothing. The two continue to indict themselves, for they are unfit to serve and unable to govern. The good news is that we are four days from Inauguration Day, with President Trump back in the White House.

Voters will note the contrast between President Trump and Newsom. The contrast is even greater with Bass, who makes Newsom look like a professional.

Take, for example, this clip of Bass staring ahead and not responding to a reporter’s questions. Either Bass thinks she is a celebrity—that she is famous rather than infamous—and does not have to speak to the press, or she thinks the press should not speak to her. Does she think her job is ceremonial, that she owes the public nothing more than her presence? Does she think her job is to smile and wave and sign autographs? Is it too much to ask her to tell us what she plans to do—if she even has a plan—concerning the Palisades Fire? Does she think silence is sound, that she inspires confidence, or projects strength?

When Bass does speak, the effect is anything but reassuring. She says the city has been through tragedies before, including “civil unrest” in 1992. Too bad the unrest was a riot, resulting in 63 deaths, 2,383 injuries, and 12,111 arrests. The riots also caused more than $1 billion in property damage, affecting 3,767 buildings, due to arson and looting. Bass ignores these facts, just as she ignores the fact that a riot is different from a natural disaster. The only thing that connects the two—the one thing both have in common—is that Democrats made them worse. Democrats were in charge then, and Democrats are in charge now. Los Angeles was a Democrat town then, and Los Angeles is a Democrat town now. But Los Angeles may not be as reliably blue much longer.

The same is true for the governorship, where Gavin Newsom is out of touch and out of his league. Here he is complaining—about President Trump. Here he is attacking the “weaponized grievance” of President Trump. Here is Newsom, the governor of California, acting like a spectator, here he is talking like a bystander—an observer—instead of a leader. He says more about President Trump than he says about the fire. Newsom says nothing about efforts to contain the fire, or what he intends to do when the fire stops, because—surprise!—he has nothing to offer.

Newsom would rather attack President Trump than provide a plan of attack. Here, again, Newsom would rather complain about President Trump than speak to voters’ complaints about his failures as governor. Newsom would rather say California’s reservoirs are full than take responsibility for failing to guarantee that the reservoir in the Palisades was full. Newsom would rather blame President Trump, who is not in office, than take the blame for his many and ongoing failures while in office in California.

Here, in contrast, is President Trump saying the fire is a true tragedy. Here is President Trump saying more in two minutes than Newsom has said in over seven days. Here is President Trump saying we will rebuild, in spite of Newsom’s assertions to the contrary. Here is leadership—by President Trump—on behalf of residents of California. Here is plain speaking, by President Trump, in the spirit of Harry Truman and the style of Teddy Roosevelt. Here is a Republican who appeals to Democrats, telling an antidemocratic hack like Newsom to get out of the way.

California may soon follow President Trump’s lead.

The Golden State may soon reject Newsom and Bass.

If the state is to be great again, if it is to rebuild and recover, Californians must reject Newsom and Bass.

If California is to be the place where the future happens, if the state is to be healthy and strong, it has no choice but to reject Newsom and Bass.

Let a real leader change things for the better.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/burning-state

Trump's US Treasury pick says question of debt limit repeal is 'nuanced'

 Scott Bessent, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's choice to head the Treasury Department, on Thursday said the question of eliminating the U.S. debt limit is "nuanced," but said if Trump wants to do so he will work with him and with Congress to get it done.

"The debt limit is a very nuanced convention," Bessent told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee in response to a question from U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren about whether he would support its repeal. "Look, the United States is not going to default on its debt if I'm confirmed. But I will tell you that, for people who don't understand the debt limit, it might be like taking out your handbrake in your car, that you can still hit the brakes, but it's one less feature."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-us-treasury-pick-says-220454601.html

Former Central Banker Mark Carney Seeks Leadership of Canada's Liberal Party

 Mark Carney, the former Canadian and U.K. central banker, formally declared Thursday his interest to succeed Justin Trudeau as leader of Liberal Party and the country's prime minister.

Carney, who's also chairman at Brookfield Asset Management, revealed his intentions to a crowd in Edmonton, Alberta, the western Canadian city where he spent the bulk of his youth. He becomes the first high-profile name to enter the Liberal Party leadership race, at a time when the party trails the Conservative Party by a wide margin and the economy faces turbulence from President-elect Donald Trump's threat to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian imports.

Trudeau said this month he would step aside as prime minister, once Liberal Party members pick a new leader in a March 9 vote. A national election must be held no later than October, and it is looking likely an election will come this spring after the legislature resumes in late March. All three main opposition parties have vowed to defeat the minority Liberal government at the earliest opportunity when the legislature returns on March 24.

Carney was previously at Goldman Sachs before joining the Bank of Canada as a deputy governor in 2003. He was the Bank of Canada governor during the 2008 global financial crisis, and earned praise domestically for his role in guiding the economy and ensuring financial stability relative to other Group of Seven economies. He later served as the Bank of England governor, from 2013 to 2020, and tried to steer the economy through Brexit.

Political watchers in Canada expect the Liberal Party leadership campaign to come down to a contest between Carney and former finance minister Chrystia Freeland, whose resignation letter last month set the stage for Trudeau's decision to resign. A formal announcement from Freeland is likely in the coming days, according to a person familiar with the situation.

https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/202501168507/former-central-banker-mark-carney-seeks-leadership-of-canadas-liberal-party

'In Crawford, Johnson picks an Intel chair with ‘America First’ leanings'

 In choosing Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) to chair the House Intelligence Committee, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has tapped a veteran conservative with “America First” leanings to steer one of the most powerful panels heading into the second Trump administration.

Crawford, a 14-year veteran of Capitol Hill, voted last year against legislation providing billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, citing more dire needs at home. The vote aligns him with President-elect Trump and his allies, who have sought to shift U.S. resources away from foreign entanglements and dedicate those energies instead toward domestic economic problems.

Crawford also voted in 2021 to challenge the presidential election results in both Pennsylvania and Arizona, where Trump was defeated but nonetheless claimed victory.

Both of those positions — Ukraine and the 2020 election — mark a sharp contrast to the track record of Rep. Mike Turner, the Ohio Republican who chaired the Intelligence Committee in the last Congress but now finds himself without a gavel.

Turner, now in his 23rd year in Congress, fits the more traditional mold of Reagan-era conservatism, including support for extending government surveillance powers, maintaining strong ties with NATO allies and helping Ukraine repel Russia’s invasion. Those positions have put him at odds with Trump’s “America First” agenda and made him a target of some of the incoming president’s MAGA followers.

Turner was also among the minority of House Republicans who voted to certify Joe Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania and Arizona four years ago.

Crawford has largely flown under the radar during his seven terms in the House, but he now finds himself at the helm of a committee that will be at the forefront of efforts to defend the country against threats, foreign and domestic, in an age of cyber attacks, hacks, misinformation and artificial intelligence technologies that are increasingly difficult to fend against.

Johnson, who has unilateral power to appoint the Intel chair, has defended his decision to remove Turner’s gavel and appoint Crawford, rejecting the notion that it came as a result of pressure to appease the incoming president. 

“This is not a Mar-a-Lago or a Trump decision, this is a Speaker’s decision,” Johnson told reporters Thursday in the Capitol.  

“A lot of deliberative thought goes into these things,” he continued. “The Intel Committee is extremely important, especially at a time like this, and it’s time for a new start.” 

Johnson has suggested that his decision was motivated, at least in part, by an episode last year when Turner warned of a dire threat to U.S. security — an incident that appeared to catch Johnson off guard. 

“There’s been a lot of controversy, as everyone knows, about things related to the Intelligence Committee … and abuses and things and lots of allegations over the last few years,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to clean all that up.”

But the removal of Turner has also sparked a backlash from Democrats — and at least a few Republicans — who are accusing Johnson of bowing to Trump’s wishes at the expense of national security. Those voices have long criticized Trump for being too cozy with Russian President Vladimir Putin and saw Turner as an ally in the effort to push back against Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine and beyond. 

“Mike Turner has robustly promoted the safety of the American people and the Free World and his unjustified ouster is likely being applauded by our adversaries in Russia and China,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Thursday in a statement. 

“Shameful.”

Crawford, who voted last April against almost $61 billion in aid to Ukraine, said he supported Ukraine’s effort to expel Putin’s “invasion force,” but he could not endorse nonmilitary aid to Kyiv “when Americans are struggling with rising costs at home.”

On other issues related to the Intel Committee, however, Crawford has sided with Turner, even when other House conservatives were calling for a different approach. 

Crawford, for instance, has supported renewal of a controversial law empowering the government to surveil the communications of foreigners when they are abroad. That law — Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — has long been criticized by conservatives on Capitol Hill who say it gives the government too much power to capture data from U.S. citizens. 

Many of those critics are members of the House Freedom Caucus — and are among Trump’s staunchest supporters on Capitol Hill.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5090034-rick-crawford-intelligence-committee-chair/

' Outgoing FDA chief flags online weight loss drug dangers'

 Current laws and regulations are not enough to protect Americans from the risks of compounded versions of popular weight loss drugs, especially those bought online, outgoing U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf said on Thursday.

The sale of these drugs would be less of a problem if the price of the original drugs were not so high, Califf told reporters at a media roundtable.

"I'm very worried about the internet compounding industry. Some of it, I'm sure, is very high quality, but it's very hard, if you are ordering things on the internet, to know exactly what you're getting," said Califf, who will leave the agency once incoming President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

"If the price of these drugs was not so high, it wouldn't be such a problem."

Novo Nordisk's and Eli Lilly's weight loss drugs can cost over $1,000 for a month's supply, while compounded versions typically cost a few hundred dollars. 

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2025-01-16/outgoing-fda-chief-flags-online-weight-loss-drug-dangers

Lilly’s I&I Push Gains Momentum With Omvoh Expansion

 

Omvoh’s label expansion is important progress for Eli Lilly as it works to diversify its portfolio beyond obesity, according to analysts from BMO Capital Markets.

The FDA on Wednesday signed off on the use of Eli Lilly’s antibody Omvoh (mirikizumab) for the treatment of Crohn’s disease.

The decision “marks another step of progress in Lilly’s plan for revenue diversification and expansion into inflammation,” BMO Capital Markets analysts wrote in an investor note on Wednesday evening. Still, Omvoh’s prospects in Crohn’s disease remain modest, according to the analysts, especially since it “failed to reach superiority vs. Stelara.”

In the Phase III VIVID-1 trial, results from which were posted in October 2024, more patients treated with Omvoh reached histologic response after 52 weeks versus Stelara—though Lilly at the time conceded that this effect was only “nominally statistically significant.”

Data from VIVID-1 were used to support Wednesday’s approval, demonstrating a 53% clinical remission rate and a 46% endoscopic response rate at 1 year. In both metrics, Omvoh’s benefit was significantly superior to placebo, with p-values less than 0.001.

Stelara has long been known as a difficult “hurdle” to clear in the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) space, according to the BMO analysts, who pointed out that AbbVie’s own Skyrizi and Johnson & Johnson’s Tremfya were each also unable to surpass the blockbuster’s efficacy. Given this particular market dynamic, BMO expects Omvoh’s uptake in Crohn’s disease to be “challenging.” The firm projects peak worldwide revenue of $801 million across IBD indications by 2032.

Still, the BMO note stated that while Wednesday’s label expansion might only be an “incremental upside” to Lilly’s shares, it points to the pharma’s “progress … in expanding its footprint in [inflammation & immunology],” an important move for the company as it seeks to diversify its portfolio beyond obesity.

Most prominently, however, is the pharma’s $3.2 billion play to snap up Massachusetts-based Morphic Holding in July 2024. The merger, which closed a month later, will give Lilly MORF-057, a small-molecule drug candidate that blocks the α4β7 integrin. This mechanism targets the movement of lymphocytes from the blood into the intestines, addressing an underlying IBD pathway. MORF-057 is in mid-stage development for ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease.

A few months later, in September 2024, Lilly’s immunology portfolio snagged another win with the FDA’s approval of its anti-IL-13 antibody Ebglyss for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in patients aged 12 years and above.

Beyond immunology, Lilly earlier this week announced a potential $2.5 billion deal with Scorpion Therapeutics’ STX-478, a small molecule PI3Kα blocker for cancer.

https://www.biospace.com/fda/lillys-i-i-push-gains-momentum-with-omvoh-expansion

Russia & Ukraine Holding 'Limited Talks' In Qatar

 Bloomberg has reported that Russia and Ukraine have been conducting "limited talks" in Qatar, citing unnamed Russian sources. The talks are said to focus on preventing threats to each country's nuclear facilities as the war continues.

The same report cited Ukrainian sources who say the contacts thus far have only focused on prisoner exchanges, which has resulted in several major swaps throughout the conflict. The latest exchange was Wednesday, involving 25 POWs returned on each side.

But it's clear that any direct negotiations under the incoming Trump administration is likely to grow out of these existing 'limited' contacts and exchanges. The Kremlin on Thursday offered 'no comment' when asked about Bloomberg's reporting.

Via Reuters

Despite the Trump campaign rhetoric of a speedy negotiation track which will reach a permanent truce soon after he enters office, Trump's team has since acknowledge that talks are likely to take much longer.

A Wednesday Reuters report said, "Advisers to President-elect Donald Trump now concede that the Ukraine war will take months or even longer to resolve, a sharp reality check on his biggest foreign policy promise - to strike a peace deal on his first day in the White House."

"Two Trump associates, who have discussed the war in Ukraine with the president-elect, told Reuters they were looking at a timeline of months to resolve the conflict, describing the Day One promises as a combination of campaign bluster and a lack of appreciation of the intractability of the conflict and the time it takes to staff up a new administration," the report continued.

Keith Kellog, Trump’s incoming envoy for the Russia-Ukraine crisis, has expressed hope that a deal can be secured within the first 100 days of the Trump administration, which has a far longer timeline that what's been previously given.

Trump’s incoming national security advisor, Rep. Mike Waltz, has said it will be a priority of the new Trump administration to get Ukraine to lower its conscription age from 25 to 18 in order to "stabilize" the battlefield. This is all a tacit admission that Russia is in the driver's seat and that Ukraine currently has little real leverage.

As for one area Moscow is expected to remain resolute on, Bloomberg details:

Russia will demand Ukraine drastically cut back military ties with the NATO alliance and become a neutral state with a limited army in any talks with incoming US President Donald Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.

Increasingly confident he has the advantage on the battlefield in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin is determined to achieve his goal that Kyiv never join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and that limits are placed on its military capacity, said the people with knowledge of Kremlin thinking who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive information.

Additionally, Russian media has quoted top national security official Dmitry Medvedev to say that Ukraine won't ever get a 'Germany-style reunification' deal:

Suggestions that Ukraine could get a security deal similar to West Germany after World War II are betting on the dissolution of Russia, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has claimed.

West Germany joined NATO in 1955, while East Germany remained part of the Soviet bloc until reunification in 1990. Moscow did not oppose the move, as the US and its allies had assured the USSR’s leaders that Western troops would not go beyond Germany’s eastern border. NATO’s breach of that promise is the primary cause of the current animosity between Russia and the West, according to Russian officials.

"Who would honestly consider a scenario, in which a nuclear power relinquishes something to the ugly dwarf named Ukraine?" Medvedev wrote on Telegram. "It means they can only count on Russia’s dissolution."

Sen. Marco Rubio calls for concessions in resolving the Ukraine-Russia war, adding "there is no way Russia takes all of Ukraine," while it is also "unrealistic" that Ukraine will push Russia back to where it began at the start of the conflict. https://t.co/wwrk9C1Q2F pic.twitter.com/zXm91SW303

— ABC News (@ABC) January 15, 2025

Top Russian leaders, including President Putin himself, have consistently spoken with the assumption that the four annexed territories of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia will remain Russia's forever.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-ukraine-holding-limited-talks-qatar