Month: March 2019

On January 10th, CATO Institute Vice President for Foreign and Defense Studies Christopher Preble will hold a pacifist event at CATO titled “Overkill: The Case of Reevaluating U.S. Nuclear Strategy”. Leaving aside the fact that US nuclear strategy was reevaluated just 2 years ago, in 2010-2011, and more recently in the just-completed NPR Implementation Study, the fact is that Preble calls for far more than reevaluation: he calls for deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent. And that is absolutely unacceptable.

CATO falsely claims that

“The United States has far more nuclear weapons and delivery systems than deterrence requires. The triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and bomber aircraft reflects bureaucratic Cold War planning, not strategic vision.”

Those are blatant lies.

Firstly, the US does not have more – let alone far more – nuclear warheads and delivery systems than deterrence requires. As the current STRATCOM commander, Gen. Bob Kehler, and his predecessor, Gen. Kevin Chilton, have testified, the current arsenal is “exactly the right size” needed for nuclear deterrence. (Remember that Gen. Kehler has spent his entire career working on nuclear weapons and their carriers.) And, as former Secretary of Defense and Energy James Schlesinger has testified, the current arsenal is “barely adequate”.

The reason why the current arsenal is the bare minimum needed is that it is barely adequate for 1) surviving a possible enemy first strike; and 2) threatening the vast majority of Russia’s, China’s, North Korea’s, and Iran’s military assets. To be able to do that, it must be no smaller than the nuclear arsenal of America’s largest nuclear adversary (currently, Russia).

Russia has 2,800 strategic warheads (1,492 of them deployed and 1,308 in reserve), untold thousands of tactical nukes, and a huge fleet of delivery systems: 434 ICBMs, 14 ballistic missile subs, over 240 strategic bombers (64 Tu-95s, 16 Tu-160s, 171 Tu-22Ms) with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, and thousands of tactical nuclear delivery systems. Its ICBM fleet alone can deliver 1,684 warheads to the US, while its SSBN fleet could deliver 2,240 warheads to America if need be. Its 58 SS-18 Satan heavy ICBMs alone can deliver 580 warheads to the US.

Russia’s huge tactical nuclear arsenal (estimated by the Obama Administration to be 10 times larger than America’s) can be delivered by a very wide range of delivery systems, including short-ranged ballistic missiles, ship- and air-launched cruise missiles, surface warships (nuclear depth charges), artillery pieces, tactical strike aircraft (e.g. Su-24s, Su-25s, Su-27s/30s/33s/35s, and Su-34s). Russia has at least 1,040-2,000 deployed tactical nuclear warheads (according to various estimates listed here on p. 6), and 2,000-4,000 tactical nuclear warheads in total according to ASDEF for Global Strategic Affairs Madelyn Creedon (p. 6).

Russia currently plans to significantly grow its arsenal of ICBMs and bombers. This year, the Russian Government tripled ICBM production, and by 2020, it will procure 400 new ICBMs – partly to grow the fleet and partly to replace older ICBMs. It is also developing a new heavy ICBM (to replace the SS-18 Satan), a new 100-ton missile with a “global range” and a conventional warhead, a new middle weight ICBM called the Avangard, and a new rail-based ICBM (which will likely be an RS-24 Yars derivative). None of these ICBMs will be limited by New START. Russia is also building additional Tu-160 bombers from stockpiled components. Because Russia was below New START ceilings, and because that pathetic treaty has many loopholes large enough to drive a truck through them, Russia is allowed to significantly build up its strategic arsenal. The US is not.

Overall, Russia plans to spend 21 trillion roubles (i.e. $770 bn) on new equipment during the next decade.

Russia’s huge nuclear arsenal alone justifies the current size of America’s nuclear arsenal and constitutes the single largest threat to US national security, as documented in more detail here and here.

Furthermore, former Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher has admitted that “Russian overreliance on tactical nuclear weapons should be a signal to the US that some Russian officials are still acting and reacting according to a Cold War mentality.” Note that she said that about Russian, not American, officials.

China has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, and possesses at least 36 DF-5, 30 DF-31/31A, and a number of DF-41 MIRVable ICBMs, plus 6 ballistic missile subs with a collective capacity to deliver at least 72 SLBMs (JL-1s and JL-2s). It has recently acquired the Tu-22M production line and intends to procure 36 such bombers, each of which can carry 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. It is rapidly growing its arsenal of ICBMs, MRBMs, SRBMs, and land-attack cruise missiles (which can be launched for airborne, seaborne, and ground platforms alike and have a range of up to 4,000 kms).

Yet, under New START, the US will be allowed to maintain only 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and only 700 deployed (plus 100 nondeployed) strategic warhead delivery systems. Tactical nuclear weapons and their delivery systems (in which Russia has a huge lead over the US) are not covered, and neither is China’s large nuclear arsenal, which is not subject to any inspections or limitations, even though Russian generals such as Viktor Yesin (ret.) have called for China to be included in nuclear arms limitation treaties. China, however, has persistently refused to participate in such treaties or even to discuss the issue or disclose the size of its arsenal. In fact, the US is the only country in the world to have publicly disclosed the precise size of its nuclear arsenal: 5,113 warheads, deployed and nondeployed, strategic and tactical. (Per New START, only 1,550 strategic warheads can be deployed).

Last but certainly not least, the US has to deter North Korea and Iran as well, and has to provide a nuclear deterrent not only for itself, but also for over 30 allies who rely on it for their security and their very existence. Further significant cuts to it would force these allies to develop their own nuclear weapons, because they cannot bet their security and their existence on America breaking free of its “unilateral nuclear disarmament will make us safer” kool-aid.

CATO’s claim that the US nuclear arsenal and its triad structure (ICBMs, SSBNs, and strategic bombers) is a relic of Cold War bureaucratic planning is also a blatant lie. The nuclear arsenal’s size, as demonstrated above, is the bare minimum needed for the nuclear threats of today (if anything, it should be larger).

Furthermore, the nuclear triad is NOT a relic of Cold War bureaucratic planning; it is THE most survivable arrangement for any nuclear arsenal (more legs of the nuclear triad mean more layers of defense and more targeting problems for the enemy) and the only credible kind of a nuclear deterrent. Only such a deterrent can survive a Russian or Chinese nuclear first strike – thus ensuring that such first strike never happens.

Moreover, the nuclear triad has been repeatedly confirmed by the highest levels of the US government as the right arrangement for the nuclear deterrent: in the 1994, 2001, and 2010 Nuclear Posture Reviews, in the New START Senate resolution of ratification, as well as recentlyby the entire US Senate when it unanimously adopted Senator John Hoeven’s FY2013 NDAA amendment stating the Senate’s commitment to maintaining the nuclear triad and its belief that this is the best arrangement for the nuclear deterrent. Likewise, the House has passed an NDAA which – as House Republicans trumpet on the HASC’s website – upholds the House’s commitment to the nuclear triad and provides for the maintenance and modernization of all three of its legs.

Moreover, the US nuclear arsenal and fleet of delivery systems are already vastly smaller than they were at the end (let alone the peak) of the Cold War. In 1991, the US had over 20,000 nuclear warheads; today it has only about 5,000. In 1991 the US had over 1,000 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers; today, only 450 ICBMs (going down to 420), 14 SSBNs (not all of which are at sea at any time or are fully loaded), and just 96 nuclear-capable bombers (B-52s and B-2s). The US nuclear arsenal is less than 1/4th of its 1991 size, i.e. more than 75% smaller than it was at the end (let alone the peak) of the Cold War.

Thus, CATO lied when it spoke of “the need to bring it [US nuclear strategy] into the 21st century”; that strategy, and the nuclear deterrent, have already been brought into the 21st century.

“Join us as Christopher Preble, the Vice President of Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, discusses U.S. nuclear strategy, and the need to bring it into the 21st century.”

CATO also wrongly asks:

“Can the United States achieve an effective nuclear program which makes us safer, while adapting to the need for a smaller defense budget?”

Firstly, the US already has a very effective nuclear program which keeps America safe 24/7/365. Furthermore, cuts (let alone deep cuts) in America’s nuclear deterrent would make America MUCH LESS secure, not more, for the reasons stated above. Furthermore, there is no “need for a smaller defense budget”; the total FY2013 military budget (as authorized by Congress in the FY2013 NDAA) is only $633 bn, i.e. just 4.2% of GDP and less than 18% of the total federal budget. By both measures, it’s the lowest level of US military spending (excluding the late 1990s and early 2000s) since FY1948. Even Jimmy Carter spent a larger percent of GDP and the federal budget on the military.

Moreover, the entire nuclear arsenal, along with its supporting facilities, costs only $32 bn per year to maintain (per the Stimson Center), which is only 5% of the total military budget. So, even as the defense budget is being reduced, there is no need to cut funding for the nuclear deterrent. In fact, such cuts would be foolish and suicidal.

Further recommended reading: http://missilethreat.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/WebPage.pdf; http://missilethreat.com/russia-developing-new-long-range-ballistic-missile-2/.

With the kids out of school for the summer, we find new ways to relate – My daughter’s choice was chicken videos on youtube.

Our family regularly shares. We do youtube night where we pass the remote around and everyone has to watch whatever video the current controller-holder picks. We also do music night where we rotate through each family member’s favorite artists/songs.

All of that is about sharing. My son likes the stranger side of youtube – a guy in a pink body suit freaking people out on the streets and in elevators. My daughter likes Panic at the Disco and videos with animals doing weird stuff. The wife… just music videos.

So what strange content could come out of such a wholesome  family experience? How about Singing Techno Chicken?  Yeah, that really happened. Enjoy.

Whether or not you  appreciate chicken talent, you must appreciate their character. Here’s a rooster that finds just about everything funny!

The Pentagon is sending several thousand more troops to the southwestern border, fulfilling a request made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Currently, there are about 2,3000 troops stationed at the southwestern border. Pentagon officials revealed Tuesday that they will be deploying an additional 2,000 troops as part of the DHS’ request for the military to extend its mission there. Originally intended to last until Dec. 15, the military’s mission will now be extended to Sept. 30.

The entire operation is estimated to cost $132 million by the end of January, and over $600 million by the close of the fiscal year in September.

“We are supporting our federal partners on the border, and that mission has been extended until September,” stated Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jamie Davis. “We are currently sourcing the units involved and there will be an increase of a few thousand troops.”

Beyond maintaining a troop presence, the Pentagon will also aid DHS officials with infrastructure development. Military troops will help set up more concertina wire and expand surveillance capabilities along the border.

“Most recently DHS has asked us to support them in additional concertina wire and then expanded surveillance capability, and we’ve responded with, you know, here’s how many people it would take,” Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan told reporters on Tuesday.

The expansion of troops comes as President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats continue to be at odds over a proposed border wall.

After undergoing the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, Trump announced on Friday that he reached a temporary deal to reopen the government until Feb. 15 — giving the administration and congressional leaders three weeks to reach a long-term compromise on the border debate.

The president has demanded $5.7 billion in funding to build a 234-mile long wall on the southern border — construction of the wall would fulfill Trump’s biggest campaign pledge in 2016. However, Democratic leadership has maintained their opposition, framing it as immoral and too expensive.

I’ve written about this often: It seems that President Obama is taking the “throw it at the wall and see what sticks” approach to his campaign ads. This means that he is making claims, regardless of how false they are, and hoping they get enough viewership without the average American even checking on the validity of these claims themselves. Team Obama hopes that if repeated often enough, the electorate will simply believe these claims, without question, ultimately voting for a president based on lies and misinformation. For additional examples, see this post: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/06/fill-in-blank-obama-campaign-is-based.html. In fact, I highlighted the “science” behind the President’s campaign strategy here: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/06/obama-campaign-deceit-machine-rolls-on.html

In Obama’s newest campaign ad, he goes right after Mitt Romney and his tax rate. First,… why??? What in the world does this have to do with anything? Does Obama really think the American people are dumb enough to focus on Romney’s tax rate while ambassadors are getting mauled, 23,000,000 people are unemployed, and the national debt climbs to astronomical levels? I won’t answer that. Moving on and focusing on the facts that debunk Obama’s ad, let’s get some things straight:

– Mitt Romney has done NOTHING illegal. Nothing.

– Mitt Romney has paid every bit of taxes required of him.

– Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes in one year than an average American would pay in 448 years of work.

– Most importantly: Mitt Romney DID pay a higher tax rate than most Americans – I will address this specifically.

Let me see if I understand this: President Obama puts out the ad above and, in short, the ad uses creepy music and words like “probably” to make a claim about a guy who has done nothing wrong, all while lying about the tax rates of all Americans?

Okay, I will answer my own question: Yes, Obama truly does think Americans are that stupid. Allow me to elaborate.

First, with regards to the “Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you” claim, did you notice the most important word? Of course, it’s “probably.” Why does Team Obama use that specific word? One simple phrase answers this question: “Plausible deniability.” Why didn’t Obama just say, “Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than you?” Answer: Because Obama knows this is absolute baloney. His campaign can twist their claim any way they want… IF and when the American people question it. Team Obama hopes and knows they won’t. Using the word “probably” is like an insurance policy. Just in case a fire storm does hit, the Obama campaign cannot get nailed for being entirely dishonest.

To understand this overall picture, I submit to you: When you’re putting out a claim to the country as a whole (the “probably paid more than ‘YOU’ part”), you’re implying that > 50% of people fall in to the category. You can’t claim “you” if it’s one in 100 people. So yes, when Obama claims, “Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you,” he is implying Mitt Romney paid a lower tax rate than most people. Hmmm. I want take a brief step back to some internet propaganda I analyzed earlier this year. Back in March, I investigated the ridiculous claim of Mitt Romney’s versus a teacher’s tax rates.

What does the data show? It clearly says that yes, IRS data confirmed that “millionaires and billionaires” do not pay lower tax rates than the middle class. For those claiming “well, this doesn’t include payroll taxes…” You’re right. It doesn’t. But payroll taxes are a total of 7.65% of the first approximately $110,000 of earned income (BEFORE the payroll tax holiday). This means that for the average income, which is about $40,000, an American tax payer paid an income tax rate of 6.00% and a payroll tax rate of 7.65%. The conclusion: an average taxpayer pays about 13.65% in total federal taxes. Keep in mind this is the average. It’s a safe judgement to assume approximately 50% of Americans make more than and 50% of Americans make less than this average. Well, economics and math aside, if the majority of the country pays a tax rate of 13.65%, how can Mitt Romney pay a lower tax rate than most Americans when he pays around 14%? Keep in mind, these figures account for those Americans that DO pay taxes. When you factor those in that do not, all those Americans paying nothing significantly bring down the American average.

Now that the first Obama tax lie is debunked in theory, let’s talk about it in practice. Of course, as a good conservative economist, I wanted to look at some real IRS data to back my claim.

My analysis follows. First, be sure to look at the specific IRS tax data report I used for this analysis: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12inwinbulratesshare.pdf

Let’s take a look. First, and this is a quick side note… we constantly hear the claim, 47% of Americans pay no taxes. Well, the opening line of the IRS report says the following:

– “Taxpayers filed 140.5 million individual income tax returns for Tax Year 2009. Of those, 81.9 million (or 58.3 percent) were classified as taxable returns. This represents the lowest percentage of taxable returns in more than 24 years. A taxable return is a return that has total income tax greater than $0.”

What?! That means, if we assume the US has about 310,000,000 people, that yes, about 54-55% didn’t even file tax returns (this is given as a range because the number could be different due to joint tax returns), but there is an even more important stat here: Only 81,900,000 of those paid taxes. So out of 310,000,000 people, only 26.4% had income tax to pay? How can this country be sustained when nearly 3 out of ever 4 people doesn’t even pay income tax? Perhaps the argument is, “73% of Americans pay no income tax, if you add payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare taxes) in, 47% still pay nothing? Hmmm.

Anyway, the glaring charts that stand out in the IRS data are Figures B and B1. Take a look:

(Click on image to zoom in)

What do you notice? Ahhh yes… truth and fact. This shows the average tax rates of the 81.9 million who DID pay taxes. Yes, this means that the people who did not pay taxes have had their figures removed, no longer bringing down the average. So out of all remaining taxpayers, for example, the average American making $30,000 – $50,000 per year paid a final tax rate (again, notice total income tax), of 6.4%. This is a different income range “bucket” from the discussion above, but it does paint the same picture.

 Now lets look at ALL TAX FILERS- including those who actually did file a tax return and didn’t pay any tax (about 41.7% of all tax filers). Check it out:

(Click on image to zoom in)

So… what did we find? Factoring in ALL TAX FILERS, the average American making $30,000 – $50,000 per year (this chart shows ALL income earners), paid a final tax rate of 2.9%. This means that even if you added in the 7.65% payroll tax rate, the average final tax rate of someone earning between $30,000 – $50,000 is 10.55%.  Did you notice anything else? Yes, many people get more in a tax refund than they paid in total income tax. These people essentially receive tax payments from the government.

Why did I highlight the $30,000 – $50,000 income range? Well, though this data is slightly outdated, the average American earns about $40,000 each year (it’s safe to assume this hasn’t changed drastically since): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States. To me, that’s the standard. If you claim, “Mitt Romney probably paid a lower tax rate than you,” I respond with an question of, “what did the average income earner pay?”

In simple conclusion, as the bright-as-the-sun data have shown, since the average American did not pay anything close to the rate that Mitt Romney did, how can this claim by team Obama be anything but a lie? Every American needs to see this before they simply believe another Team Obama lie.

Part – 2, a summation of how President Obama vilifies Mitt Romney (and the wealthy in general) for using “loopholes,” “deductions,” and “write-offs” to reduce his taxable income while doing it more and to a greater extent, can be seen here: http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/10/barack-obama-continues-to-lie-about-taxes-part-2/

Luke Bryan performs “Huntin’, Fishin’ And Lovin’ Every Day” from his Kill the Lights album.

For years adherents to the Austrian school of economics have been making the case that regulation bars access to economic opportunity, making it harder for the average producer to access and process from the boons of capitalist interactions.

Now validation of that principle is coming from an unlikely place: the federal government.

A report recently released by the Office of Economic Policy in the Department of Treasury in conjunction with the Department of Labor details how a rise in licensing requirements necessary for many professionals to legally practice business are often not reflective of marketable and necessary skills within a given profession and add to the cost of business:

“The evidence in this report suggests that licensing restricts mobility across States, increases the cost of goods and services to consumers, and reduces access to jobs in licensed occupations. The employment barriers created by licensing may raise wages for those who are successful in gaining entry to a licensed occupation, but they also raise prices for consumers and limit opportunity for other workers in terms of both wages and employment. By one estimate, licensing restrictions cost millions of jobs nationwide and raise consumer expenses by over one hundred billion dollars.”

Amongst those hardest hit: immigrants, those with criminal convictions and military spouses who must reapply for a license every time they move.

Though the report also states there are benefits to licensing, such as creating an increased professionalism amongst tradesmen, there is another obvious market mechanism that has the same results: discretion.

Anyone who patronizes a business and finds the workmanship shoddy and underwhelming will not return. When enough of a consensus in a community is reached, that business fails, allowing more meritorious practices to rise up. Discretion is the natural weedkiller of the capitalist wilds.

Also of note is the discrepancy in licensing requirements between older, more traditional occupations and those that have risen from recent innovation.

Almost ninety percent of health care practitioners- who coincidentally are part of the largest sector of the U.S. economy- are most heavily licensed, contributing to the cost and inanities of an already over-regulated, inefficient field.

Meanwhile, the licensing for computer and mechanical professionals is negligible. Most economists believe that the increased in automated production will lead to a significant shift in the work force, dramatically increasing the need for computer technicians and maintenance experts. So, any increase in licensure requirements could dramatically impact future prosperity. And, with the slowest recovery in American history still an exigent political issue, this is something to watch out for in future.

The rise of bureaucrats and the extra-constitutional abilities they have through regulation make it a heady seduction. Indeed, the passage of Net Neutrality already threatens the future of Internet freedom, particularly for small businesses whose customer base is expanded through online sales and marketing.

This is a rare moment of honesty for the federal government, perhaps speaking to the fact that the effects are so overwhelmingly negative they cannot be equivocated away. But, will the temptations of power prove a powerful enough piece of witchcraft to cause would-be regulators to overlook this? History suggests so, but, as the 2016 election cycle moves forward, this should become an integral talking point for conservatives.

LOS ANGELES — U.S. customs agents seized 221.7 pounds (100.6 kilograms) of Cocaine worth approximately $2 million concealed in produce cargo vessels arriving from Ecuador and Guatemala.

On January 22, while conducting an enforcement boarding of a refrigerated vessel arriving from Ecuador, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers discovered 80 bundles of cocaine weighing 204.2 pounds (92.64 kilograms). The narcotics were concealed within the floorboards of the cargo vessel. A week after, on January 28, CBP officers discovered seven bundles of cocaine weighing 17.5 pounds (7.96 kilograms) inside the floorboards in another cargo vessel this time arriving from Guatemala.

Located in Ventura County, Port Hueneme is the only commercial deep-water port between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Strategically located, Port Hueneme is an important hub for imports of autos, fresh produce, general cargo, bulk liquids, and fish.

“This is the largest drug seizure at Port Hueneme in the last quarter of a century,” said LaFonda Sutton-Burke, CBP Port Director of the LA/Long Beach Seaport, and Port Hueneme. “I’m extremely proud of the results of this joint effort, it shows the professionalism, vigilance and keen focus of both agencies in preventing dangerous drugs into our communities.”

The investigative expertise from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigation (HSI) special agents who are now leading the ongoing investigation, was critical to the success of this interception.

“HSI is committed to stopping those who seek to smuggle illegal drugs across our borders,” said Joseph Macias, Special Agent in Charge for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Los Angeles. “As drug traffickers get more creative, we are working round-the-clock with CBP and our law enforcement partners to stop this activity. HSI is generating a significant amount of intelligence in this investigation, which we will use to identify, disrupt and ultimately dismantle the criminal organization behind this scheme.”

“CBP plays a critical role in the effort to keep dangerous drugs from illegally entering the country. Specifically, by leveraging a comprehensive, multi-layered, intelligence driven, and threat-based approach to enhance the security of our seaports, we can diminish the effectiveness of transnational criminal organizations drug operations,” said Carlos C. Martel, CBP Director of Field Operations in Los Angeles.

With two kids and a busy life, it’s hard to find time to go to the mall, search through stores or spend hours surfing the internet to find a great gift for my children.

I just found this page listing the most popular toys and games being purchased this year and got some great ideas immediately.

The page lists the Best Selling Toys and Games this Season with reviews, comparison pricing and tons of information on each item to help buyers make good decisions whether they are buying for their children, nieces and nephews or grandchildren.

Gifts can be filtered by age, child’s interest, cost, and buyer review rating and many are marked down to Black Friday deal prices!

If you’re still looking for ideas, here’s a few of the highest rated gift ideas that just might help you get through your list (click on the images to see reviews, pricing and descriptions):
MOTA JETJAT Ultra Drone with One Touch Take-Off & Landing, Black

Gund Baby Animated Flappy The Elephant Plush Toy

LEGO TECHNIC Porsche 911 GT3 RS 42056

Crayola Air Marker Sprayer, Marker Art Tool, Turn Markers Into Spray Art, Airbrush Like a Pro,

Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida condemned leaders of the Women’s March Friday for failing to “repudiate anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry.”

Wasserman Schultz, who is Jewish, joins a growing list of left-wing personalities and groups distancing themselves from the organization run by co-presidents Tamika Mallory and Bob Bland and board members Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour and Breanne Butler.

“While I still firmly believe in its values and mission, I cannot associate with the national march’s leaders and principles, which refuse to completely repudiate anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry,” Wasserman Schultz wrote in an op-ed for USA Today. “I cannot walk shoulder to shoulder with leaders who lock arms with outspoken peddlers of hate.”

Tablet Magazine published an investigation in December revealing anti-Semitic comments and behavior from top organizers in the Women’s March. The Women’s March organization, especially board members Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour, also came under fire for its connections to the Nation of Islam and its openly anti-Semitic leader Louis Farrakhan.

Farrakhan has called Nazi leader Adolf Hitler “a very great man” and claimed that “there were many Israelis and Zionist Jews in key roles in the 9/11 attacks.”

“It’s clear that the leadership of the march has yet to cut ties with those who promulgate hate and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Until it does, I cannot stand alongside it,” Wasserman Schultz wrote.

The annual Women’s March, the event for which the organization was founded, is set to take place Saturday, but many local chapters have already distanced themselves from the national organization. Wasserman Schultz said she will march alongside the groups that have condemned the national organization Saturday.

Some groups continue to support the Women’s March national leadership, however. The abortion provider Planned Parenthood stood by the organization in the days following the Tablet Magazine investigation’s release.

“Over the last two years, we’ve seen unprecedented attacks on our health and rights from the Trump-Pence administration. The Women’s March has become a symbol of our collective resistance to these damaging and discriminatory policies and Planned Parenthood is proud to once again, join our progressive partners for the #WomensWave mobilization to protect and advance the progress we’ve made as a movement dedicated to equity and justice for all people,” Planned Parenthood communications director Erica Sackin said in a statement to left-wing website Refinery29.

Financial powerhouse JPMorgan is launching its own version of bitcoin, CNBC first reported Thursday — even though JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon called bitcoin a “fraud” and “stupid” in 2017.

“JPM Coin” will have a fixed value of $1. It will only be available for major institutional customers in trials that will start in a few months, reported CNBC. JPMorgan wants to expand JPM Coin to include a wider range of customers later in the year.

JPMorgan is the first major U.S. financial institution to launch its own kind of cryptocurrency, which describes digital currency that uses encryption to operate and doesn’t need regulation from a centralized system. Cryptocurrencies are very difficult to counterfeit and often rely on blockchain technology.

Bitcoin was the first kind of cryptocurrency to use blockchain technology and was started in the late 2000s. JPM Coin will not be traded freely like bitcoin is.

JPMorgan wants to use cryptocurrency to facilitate international payments for its big corporate clients.

“Money sloshes back and forth all over the world in a large enterprise,” Umar Farooq, head of JPMorgan’s blockchain projects, told CNBC. “Is there a way to ensure that a subsidiary can represent cash on the balance sheet without having to actually wire it to the unit? That way, they can consolidate their money and probably get better rates for it.”

JPMorgan moves more than $6 trillion around the world every day for its customers, according to CNBC.

JPMorgan’s cryptocurrency shift has an ironic undertone for several reasons — for instance, the company banned the purchase of bitcoin using its credit cards. Bitcoin was created to “disrupt the established banking world” after all, according to CNN Business.

But JPMorgan is not the first U.S. bank to create a cryptocurrency. New York-based Signature Bank launched its blockchain transaction platform Jan. 1, reported CNN Business. Signature Bank says its customers are using the cryptocurrency for millions in transactions, according to Coindesk.

“If you’re not into blockchain technology as a bank, you won’t be around in three to seven years,” Signature CEO Joseph DePaolo said according to CNN Business.

Signature Bank is about 2 percent of the size of JPMorgan, according to Coindesk.