CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Patrick Pillow via The Libertarian Institute,

In 1990, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) provided "full funding" for one Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Awlaki for studies in civil engineering at Colorado State University.

There was only one problem: the USAID document listed his birthplace as Sana'a, Yemen. Awlaki was actually born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, an inaccuracy which federal security agent Ray Fournier and The New York Times describe as being done in an attempt to qualify for scholarship money.

Awlaki returned to the United States on October 23, 2000, just two weeks after the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. This sequencing is worth mentioning, but at this time the FBI did not establish any connection between Awlaki and the attack.

Just months before September 11, Awlaki moved to Virginia and became an imam at the Dar Al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church. After the events of 9/11, on September 15, he was questioned by authorities and claimed he flew into Washington DC's National Airport at 9 AM - less than an hour before the Pentagon was hit.

Significantly during interrogations, Awlaki would not show his passport and left the interview at one point to take an "urgent" phone call. When asked about his feelings about jihad, he would go on to state "I would like not to comment on that."

Years later, in 2003, Awlaki himself would initiate a conversation with the FBI, stating he was "astonished by some of the talk circulating in the media." This included allegations of him serving as a "spiritual advisor" to the hijackers, to which Awlaki stated he would like to "clarify any misunderstandings."

As one FBI agent asked upon receiving correspondence from Awlaki, "Holy crap - isn't this your guy?"

While they discussed a potential meeting in London, the meet up never happened as Awlaki stopped replying. Still, the story didn't end there.

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission Report was released in which Awlaki's relationship with the hijackers was detailed. In the report, it discusses hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar who were reported to have "developed a close relationship" with Awlaki.

Years later, on July 16, 2010, Awlaki was revealed by the U.S. Treasury as a key leader for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and described as being increasingly dangerous with an "operational role" in the group.

This included assistance to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, known by some as the "underpants bomber," who attempted to detonate a device in mid-air during a flight on Christmas 2009. Awlaki also exchanged messages with Nidal Hasan before he killed thirteen people at Fort Hood in 2009. In 2010, Faisal Shahzad - who attempted to use a car bomb in Times Square - stated he was a "fan and follower" of Awlaki.

Awlaki was killed a year later in Yemen by a drone strike. Weeks later, his 16-year old son was also killed by a drone strike which raised multiple legal and ethical questions, as he was a U.S. citizen and killed in a country the United States was not formally at war with. His daughter was also killed in a raid over five years later.

As families of 9/11 victims sued the Saudi Arabian government, more potential reveals were provided in 2015. This included a witness during a civil lawsuit who stated they saw Hazmi and Mihdhar at a second-floor guest room at Awlaki's San Diego mosque and also that he had "closed-door meetings in San Diego with al-Mihdhar, al-Hazmi, and another individual, whom al-Bayoumi had asked to help the hijackers."

An April 4, 2016, FBI "Encore" Investigation Update, Review and Analysis discussed how Awlaki had phone contact with Ziyad Khaleel - an alleged equipment procurer for Osama Bin-Laden. It was this connection that led the FBI to open an investigation into Awlaki in the first place in 1999.

A part of Operation Encore released in 2021, the Joe Biden administration revealed that Saudi diplomat Fahad al-Thumairy had directed an associate to look after "two very significant people," who were later identified as Hazmi and Mihdhar.

Later reveals also show Omar al-Bayoumi - who supported both Hazmi and Mihdhar - worked as an agent of Saudi intelligence. Awlaki was later revealed to have phone calls with Bayoumi just days after Bayoumi was setting up bank accounts for the hijackers in San Diego. Videos released in 2022 show Awlaki warmly greeting Bayoumi before the events of September 11.

With the U.S. government having years of warnings, connections, and unanswered questions, Awlaki's story has continued to raise questions about intelligence failures, foreign alliances, and the consequences of intervention. As we approach the 25th anniversary of 9/11, the question Awlaki leaves behind is why so many warning signs were missed, and why some answers remain hidden.

Seattle-area corporate giants, including Microsoft, Starbucks, Costco, and Alaska Airlines, are pressuring City Hall for a new public safety plan amid concerns about violent crime and ongoing disorder after years of failed progressive experiments have transformed parts of the metro area into a hellhole. 

??THIS IS INSANE!!!!

A community is now BEGGING for help after a tiny homeless encampment in Seattle EXPLODED into a SEVERAL ACRE camp.

In just over a year, a small cluster of tents became a GIGANTIC tent city.

The people who live there, families, homeowners, taxpayers, have… pic.twitter.com/aPm2WVLNmS

— Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) September 7, 2026

The coalition includes Microsoft President Brad Smith, Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol, Costco CEO Ron Vachris and executives from Nordstrom, Alaska Air Group and other major employers, according to local outlet Komo News. Their letter, sent to City Hall on Thursday, brings coordinated pressure from the business community to change how City Hall governs. 

2024 donations (employees + PACS):

Starbucks: 92% went to Democrats
Microsoft: 84% went to Democrats
Costco: 80% went to Democrats

Ya'll literally voted for it https://t.co/V3XPDnOcdC

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 11, 2026

"The clearest message" from an August poll of Seattle voters, the coalition wrote, is that residents expect the city "to act with urgency, fund the actions needed to improve public safety, and provide a clear plan for measuring progress." 

DO YOU TIME TRAVEL? Literal madness on the streets of Seattle Monday afternoon. A woman was totally naked on the sidewalk across the street from Seattle City Hall. This is the best I could do with the blurs. ??
I asked if she needed help. Instead, she wanted my muffins. Then she… pic.twitter.com/EhfsepupF9

— Jonathan Choe (@choeshow) September 5, 2023

The coalition wants cameras in Pioneer Square, the Stadium District and other areas hosting large events. It also seeks more foot and bicycle patrols, adherence to a seven-minute response standard for priority 911 calls, and an end to open-air drug markets. 

"We need action," former Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, now the CEO of Challenge Seattle, said. "We've got a crisis on our hands right now, and we need action on public safety."

Breaking — Following the inauguration of Seattle’s newly-elected Social Mayor Katie Wilson, Seattle police has been ordered to stop making arrests for open-air drug use.

This is the current scene in Seattle, close to Lumen Field, where the World Cup is set to take place.… pic.twitter.com/s5FwdDpzXD

— Katie Daviscourt ?? (@KatieDaviscourt) January 7, 2026

Perhaps the progressive experiment of defunding police and open-air drug markets has run its course, and shame on the corporations that fueled this era of left-wing stupidity. 

The Daejon Love story is already having an impact on the dating world...

And singles who want to know more about a match before agreeing to a date now have another option besides scrolling through social media and playing amateur detective, according to the NY Post.

Stud or Dud, a new platform from public-records company PeopleFinders, is designed to gather publicly available information about a potential partner in one place. The service can surface details such as past addresses, bankruptcies and other records, while also organizing some of the findings into easier-to-read red- and green-flag categories.

The tool is aimed at a familiar modern dating problem: online profiles can create a convincing picture without proving that the person behind them is being truthful. A seemingly normal Instagram account, polished dating bio or professional-looking LinkedIn page may still leave major gaps about someone’s identity or history.

PeopleFinders CEO Amber Higgins said that distinction is important. “Records give you context, not certainty,” she said, describing background information as another layer of verification rather than definitive proof that someone is trustworthy.

The Post writes that the launch also comes as romance fraud and fake online identities remain a concern for daters. According to survey figures cited in the article, one-quarter of Americans said they had interacted with a fake profile or AI bot, and 15% reported losing money through an online dating or romance scam.

Stud or Dud is meant to streamline work that many singles already do before meeting someone: searching names online, checking employment claims, reviewing tagged photos or asking friends to investigate. Instead of relying heavily on material that a person can curate themselves, the platform emphasizes public records that may be harder to manipulate.

Still, a background search cannot replace judgment. Higgins pointed to behavior as another important warning system, including refusing video calls, changing details about work or location, pushing a relationship ahead unusually quickly or introducing financial problems early in the conversation.

Money requests are an especially significant warning sign. “If money comes up before you’ve met in person, that’s a moment to pause, not lean in.”

The broader idea behind the service is to make basic vetting a routine part of online dating rather than something people do only after becoming suspicious. For users already accustomed to checking a match before meeting, Stud or Dud essentially packages that research into a faster, more centralized process.

The Trump administration's immigration crackdown ran into two separate legal challenges Thursday, as Denver sued to keep armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents away from polling places while a federal appeals court rejected the government's attempt to subject millions of illegal immigrants already living inside the United States to mandatory detention without bond hearings.

The disputes involve different statutes and different courts, but the underlying fight is increasingly the same: how far can the executive branch push immigration enforcement under existing federal law before judges conclude that Congress never gave it the authority being claimed?

On one front, Denver and several national advocacy groups filed suit in federal court in Washington seeking to stop ICE officers from carrying out immigration enforcement at voting locations ahead of November's midterm elections.

On the other, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that immigrants who have been living inside the United States for years - even if they originally entered illegally - cannot automatically be placed into mandatory detention under the provision the administration has been invoking.

Together, the cases put fresh judicial pressure on one of the administration's signature second-term policies.

Denver Takes ICE To Court Over The Polls

The City and County of Denver joined the League of United Latin American Citizens, Common Cause and UnidosUS in challenging what the plaintiffs characterize as a federal policy permitting armed ICE officers to conduct enforcement operations at polling locations.

The lawsuit, filed Sept. 10 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, invokes a rarely litigated Civil War-era federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 592, that generally prohibits federal officials from bringing "troops or armed men" to places where elections are being conducted, except when needed to repel armed enemies of the United States.

The plaintiffs argue that even the prospect of armed immigration officers appearing at voting sites could deter voters, disrupt election workers and force municipalities to divert resources toward preparing for confrontations with federal agents. Denver officials are already training election personnel on how to identify federal agents, document encounters and de-escalate potential conflicts, according to the complaint.

The complaint also alleges that armed agents have already appeared at polling locations in San Antonio, Ventura County, California, and Syracuse, New York.

The lawsuit follows comments by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who said ICE would not patrol polling places but would not exclude them from normal enforcement activity.

Mullin said agents could enter a voting location if there were a security threat or if officers were serving a warrant on a person they had been tracking, while the administration's position is not that polling places are enforcement targets. It is that they are not automatically enforcement-free zones either.

DHS has similarly said ICE is not planning operations targeting polling sites, while maintaining that officers could make an arrest there if an active public-safety threat or targeted enforcement action required it.

That distinction is now headed for federal court - where the plaintiffs want a judge to declare the policy unlawful and prevent armed federal immigration officers from carrying out enforcement at polling locations and other places where votes are collected. The case arrives as election officials around the country prepare for a midterm season already saturated with litigation over voting rules, federal-state authority and election administration.

Fourth Circuit Rejects ICE Detention Theory

Hours away from the political fight over polling sites, the Fourth Circuit delivered a more immediate legal setback for the administration's detention policy.

In Lopez Garcia v. Guadian, a divided three-judge panel held that two immigrants who had lived in the United States for years could not be mandatorily detained without an opportunity to seek release on bond.

The dispute centers on two sections of federal immigration law.

The administration contends that immigrants who entered the country without being legally admitted remain "applicants for admission" under Section 1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and therefore can be detained without bond while removal proceedings play out. The detainees argued - and the Fourth Circuit majority agreed - that immigrants already established inside the United States instead fall under Section 1226, which generally allows for bond consideration.

Judge Nicole Berner, joined by Senior Judge Barbara Keenan, said the latter interpretation better fits the text, structure and historical application of the statute. The court noted that Section 1226 had for decades generally governed detention of noncitizens already inside the country, while Section 1225 had traditionally been associated with people seeking admission at the border. 

Berner warned that accepting the government's interpretation could expose millions of people to mandatory detention without bond and said such a reading would imply Congress quietly authorized an unprecedented expansion of immigration detention when it rewrote immigration law in 1996.

The majority eventually compared the implications to some of the darkest chapters of American detention policy, including the confinement of Chinese immigrants in the late 19th century and the internment of roughly 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry during World War II.

The court ultimately affirmed habeas relief for Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia and Juan Jose Rivera, ruling that both had to be given an opportunity to argue for release at a bond hearing.

The Dissent: Congress Meant What It Wrote

Judge Allison Jones Rushing rejected the majority's reasoning - with her dissent focusing heavily on the wording Congress adopted in its sweeping 1996 immigration overhaul. Earlier immigration laws explicitly referred to "arriving" immigrants, ports of arrival and people attempting to enter the country. Congress removed much of that language in 1996 and instead defined a broader category of "applicants for admission."

If Congress intended mandatory detention to remain limited to people physically arriving at the border, she argued, lawmakers could simply have retained the older language. Instead, Congress deliberately adopted terminology broad enough to include people physically present in the United States who had never been lawfully admitted. The statute treats anyone present without admission as an applicant for admission, and an applicant is by definition seeking admission, she wrote. "It's that simple."

The majority, she added, "clearly has strong views about what it considers the 'moral implications'" of denying bond, but those views do not rewrite the text.

That statutory disagreement is no longer confined to one court - meanwhile, the Fourth Circuit has now joined the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits on the side of bond eligibility for immigrants already living inside the country.

The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have taken the opposite view, concluding that the government's mandatory-detention interpretation is consistent with the statute.

That 9-2 split puts the issue squarely in territory the Supreme Court often steps in to resolve.

ICE's Next Battle May Be At The Supreme Court

The two developments illustrate the rapidly expanding legal front surrounding the administration's immigration agenda. Denver's lawsuit asks whether federal immigration officers can carry their normal enforcement authority into one of the most legally protected environments in American civic life: the polling place.

The Fourth Circuit case asks a different but potentially far larger question - whether the government can automatically detain broad categories of immigrants already living in the country without first giving them access to a bond hearing.

DHS maintains that the administration is enforcing immigration law as Congress wrote it. The Fourth Circuit majority says the government is attempting to extract sweeping detention powers from statutory language that does not clearly provide them.

And Denver is effectively making the same structural argument from another direction: whatever authority ICE may have to execute immigration law, Congress imposed special limits around elections. So while the administration continues expanding immigration enforcement on the ground, the courts are increasingly being asked to define the perimeter.

For ICE, that means the next phase of the immigration fight may be determined less by how many agents Washington deploys - and more by how the Supreme Court ultimately reads statutes Congress wrote decades ago.

A few days ago before it became public knowledge that the hilariously misnamed "hedge" fund Situational Awareness, run by a 24-year-old German ultra liberal who was fired by OpenAI, and then launched a new career investing like the most degenerate Korean momentum chaser blew up in explosive supernova fashion as a result of massive leverage in a handful of high beta momentum stocks like Sandisk, AMD and Bloom Energy, we warned that someone was blowing up - as indicated by the surge in Total Return Swap funding rates - and told our followers as much one week before the Leopold Aschenbrenner news hit.

ok Archegos 2.0... you can come out now https://t.co/xtxZL8wNTZ

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 24, 2026

We just didn't know who it was... 

Fast forward a little over a month when earlier this week we pointed out that in a very bizarre case of deja vu, it was as if Leopold had emerged from the career grave and was rerunning his entire high beta momo - with massive leverage - playbook. 

Specifically, in "What's Behind The Market's Sullen Vibe, And What Comes Next" we said that the market appeared to *lean forward*  last Friday and again on Tuesday's post-Labor Day holiday reopening, when as Nomura's Charlie McElligott pointed out, the market saw a string of large Flex Calls trade in many of those same "Concentrated AI"-names which were unwound during the Summer calamity, where the Nomura desk saw this "mystery buyer" spending $315 million of total Options Premium, $1.1B of Delta and $5.8mm of Vega on the buys.

McElligott went on, noting that the “Return of the mystery AI / Tech Vol Buyer” was feeding back into the same “Spot Up, Vol Up” / “Positive Spot / Vol Correlation” dynamic in these single-names that defined much of the pre-July market action, which after the recent single-stock Tech Vol bludgeoning was now acting as a much-needed positive PnL driver for Vol Dispersion (Short Correlation) trades again locally. McElligott listed some examples of this rampant tech vol buying observed in the Friday/Tuesday period, from the Nomura desk:

AMD (+10.9% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 5k Jan 540.01 Calls x $37.42 = $18.7M , $100M delta, $560k vega
• Tue: 3.7k Jan 580.01 Calls for $47.50 = 17.5M, $93M delta, $515k vega

BE (+17.5% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 5k Jan 250.01 Calls for $53.50 = $26.7M , $80M delta, $300k vega.
• Tue: 4k Jan 310.01 Calls for $53.75 = $21.5M, $60M delta, $265k vega

CRWV (+18% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 19k Jan 105.01 Calls for $11.03 = $21M , $80M delta, $400k vega
• Tue: 15k Jan 115.01 calls for 14.88 = 22.3M, $80MM of delta, $370k vega

DRAM (+8.9% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 30k Jan 65.01 Calls for $7.1 = $21.5M , $90M delta, $430k vega
• Tue: 29k Jan 70.01Calls for $7.30 = $21.2M, $83M delta, $425k vega

INTC (+14% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 22k Jan 105.01 Calls for $11.52 = $25.3M , $105M delta, $500k vega
• Tue: 15k Jan 115.01 Calls for $14.88 = $22.3M $80M delta, $370k vega

SKHY (+13.4% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 10k Jan 190.01 Calls for  $22.85 = $22.85M, $92M delta, $420k vega
• Tue: 6.5k Jan 210.01Calls for $24.60 = $16M, $56M delta, $290k vega

SNDK (+11.8% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 1250 Jan 2040.01 Calls x $230 = $28M of prem, $103M delta, $520k vega
• Tue: 1250 Jan 2200.01 Calls x $231 = $29M of prem, $95M delta, $520k vega

In short: all massively out of the money calls meant to trigger momentum ignition by starting a gamma squeeze, and all in danger of blowing up spectacularly - again - once the momentum flips

Upon reading this, our first thought - of course - was that Leopold had somehow come back from the trading dead, and that someone Prime Broker was allowing him to put on massive leverage yet again, knowing perfectly well how it ended up last time around .. but then we quickly ignored that because if true, it would mean that not only was the 24-year-old rerunning the exact same trade he had put on and which ended in tens of billions in losses for his investors in July, but that he was actively telegraphing to the entire world that he was back by putting on trades that intentionally moved the underlying prices and attracting attention to themselves - thus putting a very clear and palpable bullseye on his back, daring the entire market to stop him out... again.

Surely, he couldn't be that stupid, could he? 

It turns out he was. 

Two days after we first pointed out the bizarre activity in Flex Calls, today the FT reported that Leopold Aschenbrenner’s hedge fund Situational Awareness "has started building relationships with new brokerages as it attempts a rebound from the largest loss in the history of the hedge fund industry."

Not only has it started "rebuilding relationships" (more on that in a second), it has started trading: 

"Now, Aschenbrenner is rebuilding large trading positions in technology stocks such as semiconductor manufacturers AMD, Intel, SK Hynix and Sandisk and AI start-ups including CoreWeave, according to people familiar with the matter. His efforts have been bolstered by new relationships on Wall Street like with Clear Street." 

So all the same names that he blew up on the first time, he is going in for round two.

As for how young master Leopold is planing on handing his now wife another imploded hedge fund sujpernova (if not quite galaxy), why here too we find more of the same: only instead of Total Return Swaps courtesy of Goldman, this time Leopold was going all in using deep out of the money leverage in the form of the abovementioned "flex calls", to wit:

Situational Awareness in recent days has placed large new bets using so-called “flex options”, according to people familiar with the matter. Using fully-paid options reduces the risks a fund takes on because it can only lose the money it has already paid to open the trade and nothing more. 

These specialised options trades, which allow traders to customise the terms of the contract, can only be made through large brokerages.

Right... the same brokerages that were his counterparts on the TRS trades and who decided one day to gang up on him and destroy him on that one beautiful late July morning. Those same brokerages are now his option counterparts, and somehow the outcome is supposed to be different. 

Ok, fine, but the Unawareness fund would surely need some prime broker to vouch for him and hand him the leverage Leopold needed for his 2nd attempt at ramping memory/momentum names. This would be challenging since after July, he was now radioactive on Wall Street where every broker who had worked with him was now being probed by the DOJ.

So where do you go when even JT Marlin, sorry, your former Prime Broker JPMorgan, tells you to fuck off? 

Why you go deep off the grid... to a name nobody has ever heard of: "the investor has recently begun working with specialist brokerage Clear Street, according to people familiar with the matter, as he begins rebuilding a portfolio of aggressive bets on technology companies."

That's the FT's take, and it is dead wrong, because if what Leopold wanted to do was just "rebuild his portfolio" he could certainly do that in quiet fashion - the way most traders do when they hope to accumulate a position without tipping off everyone else - where nobody would have any idea it was him. He did not want to do that.

Instead what he clearly intended to do was bring as much attention to his trades as possible, in hopes of making it clear to the market he was once again rerunning the same doomed play that nearly ended his career a month ago. In short, he is hoping that once it becomes clear he is back, his "followers" will follow him into triggering an other "meme stonk" gamma squeeze, one which allows Leopold to then dump everything to his witless followers. 

Only it won't work, because once again the "Nostradamus of AI" finds himself stuck in extremely illiquid names, and what's worse, instead of sharing risk exposure with his TRS counterparts, this time it is only his P&L that will blow up when his brokers rug pull him, which they will very soon now that it is again clear he is trying to squeeze them all, while the SEC is sniffing around. 

Which is why the only question we have is how to bet - in the cheapest possible way - on the second collapse of Situational Awareness in the coming days (especially now that DeepSeek is making a mockery of the massively overpriced memory space) a trade which even Leopold would profit from, as he prepares to hand his hedge fund over to Ken Griffin for the second time.