CMR is the leading provider
of funding and management
support for small to
medium-sized businesses and
entrepreneurs
Established 1984 C MR
is the leading venture
capital, management
support and business
services provider for
small to medium-sized
businesses - linking
excellent management
skills with the
substantial financial
resources of a global bank
of private investors.
CMR has over 450 senior
executives, operating
in the UK, USA, Europe, Asia,
Australasia and
globally,
providing both funding and
specialist help for
entrepreneurial
businesses .
For Businesses
CMR provides excellent
resources:
CMR FundEX Business Exchange - gives all companies & entrepreneurs direct access to CMR's global investor base.
CMR Catalyst Group
Programme -
transform
profitability through
merging.
CMR Company Sales Division helps owners to exit
at the best price.
CMR Corporate Recovery
Division -
experts in rescue and
turnaround.
CMR Technology Licensing
Division -
commercialising
innovation.
CMR Executive
Professionals - management support
and consultancy.
CMR Executives-on-Demandâ„¢ Fully experienced
senior executives
available quickly and
cost effectively.
We always welcome
contact with new
business clients- please get in touch
- we will do our
best to match
your needs and exceed
your expectations.
For Investors
Preferential access to new opportunities for investment and/or acquisition
P re-vets
propositions and
provides a
personalised service
to our investors
Syndication service
enabling investors to
link together as desired
Executive and
management support for
investments as needed
CMR's services to
our investors are not
only fast & efficient
but also free
W e
always appreciate new
members- you are welcome
to join as an investor
or as a CMR Executive.
When you
join us as a Senior
Executive:
CMR's strength is in the
skills and experience of
our executive members -
all senior, director level
people with years of
successfully running and
managing companies.
Because the demand for
CMR's support and services
is ever-increasing,
especially as we enter
recessionary times, we
have a growing need for
more high calibre
executives to join us from
every industry and
discipline.
You will be using your
considerable experience to
help smaller businesses
and entrepreneurs to grow
profitably.
We offer full training
and mentoring support to
help maximise potential.
We are
always keen to find more
high calibre senior
executives in all areas-
skills and location.
Make contact with us today
and maximise your
opportunities.
HEAD
OFFICE
124 City Road
London EC1 2NX
Tel: +44 (0)207-636-1744
Fax:+44 (0)207-636-5639
Email: cmr@cmruk.com
Registered Office:
124 City Road ,
London EC1 2NX
Also Glasgow,
Dublin, Switzerland, Europe, USA/Canada
Privacy Statement: CMR only
retains personal details
supplied directly by executives
joining CMR themselves either as
Full Executive Members or
Interim Management Members or
Investors. Those details are
only used within CMR and not
disclosed to any third parties
without that person’s
agreement. We will keep that
data until requested by the
person to be removed – at that
point it will be deleted.
Personal data is never sold or
used for purposes outside of
CMR’s normal operations. Any
correspondence should be
directed to the Managing
Director, CMR,
Kemp House,
152-160 City Road, London EC1V
2N
Senior Executives
CMR is a worldwide network of senior executives. Join us to expand your career and business horizons.
Business Entrepreneurs
CMR has a complete range of resources & services provided by experts to help all businesses to grow and prosper.
Investors & Venturers
CMR has a continuous stream of business and funding propositions, which are matched to investor preferences. Join us - it's FREE!
FundEX
FundEX is CMR's worldwide stock market for small to medium sized companies and entrepreneurs to raise new capital.
Interim & Permanent Management
Many of CMR's executives can be recruited on an interim, permanent or NED basis.
Login
Main CMR Intranet members only
Regional Intranets
Mon, 06 Jul 2026 03:20:00 +0000 The Unfinished Revolution: When Rights Become Privileges
The Unfinished Revolution: When Rights Become Privileges
The Unfinished Revolution: When Rights Become Privileges
Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance ?”
- Thomas Jefferson
What exactly are Americans celebrating this Fourth of July?
Two hundred and fifty years after the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all people possess inalienable rights, we now live under a government that increasingly behaves as though rights belong to the government to distribute, restrict and revoke as it sees fit.
Freedom has become conditional.
Equal justice under law has become selective.
Constitutional rights have become political bargaining chips.
Government now claims the authority to decide which religious beliefs deserve accommodation and which may be excluded —a clear violation of the First Amendment’s warning against both establishing a religion and favoring or disfavoring one religion over another.
It insists that some speakers deserve constitutional protection while others may be censored, surveilled or punished —a violation of the right to free speech.
It proclaims itself the defender of unborn life while dismantling programs that protect the health and welfare of children already born.
It welcomes some immigrants with extraordinary speed while denying others the full measure of due process promised by the Constitution.
It pays lip service to equality under law while dismantling programs designed to ensure equal opportunity and root out discrimination.
It invokes the sanctity of children while narrowing which children may claim the birthright citizenship guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment .
It insists that no one is above the law while expanding presidential immunity and removing many of the traditional checks on executive power.
None of these contradictions exists in isolation.
Together they reveal a dangerous shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state.
Rights that the Declaration of Independence described as inalienable are increasingly treated as permissions—granted when convenient, withheld when inconvenient, and interpreted according to political priorities rather than constitutional principle.
That is not merely bad policy.
It is a repudiation of the American Revolution, because the Revolution began with one radical claim: freedom is our birthright.
To listen to those in power, however, freedom is a privilege reserved for a select few: the politically favored, the ideologically acceptable, the obedient, the compliant, the useful.
The Declaration of Independence advanced a very different idea: that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
That was the real revolution.
America’s founders may have disagreed—often grievously and hypocritically—about who qualified as “the people,” but they were united in one essential conviction: our rights do not come from government.
The government exists to serve us .
Government exists to safeguard and protect our inalienable rights—not ration them, redefine them or revoke them.
That distinction matters.
Once government is allowed to decide whose rights count, rights cease to be rights at all.
They become privileges.
And privileges can always be revoked.
For 250 years, Americans have treated the Declaration of Independence as the nation's birth certificate, but the Declaration was never merely a birth certificate—it was a warning label.
It was written by people who understood that freedom is fragile, power is relentless, and no generation remains free simply because an earlier generation fought for liberty.
The Declaration was not a celebration of government.
It was an indictment of government.
It catalogued the abuses of a ruler who had placed himself above the law, treated the people as subjects rather than sovereigns, undermined representative government, obstructed justice, maintained standing armies, imposed surveillance, abused power and waged war against the very people he claimed to govern.
The names have changed. The machinery has changed. The technology has changed.
The danger has not.
That is why the Constitution matters.
The Constitution translated the warnings of the Declaration into law.
Through separated powers, checks and balances, federalism, and a Bill of Rights, the founders sought to bind government down with what Thomas Jefferson called “the chains of the Constitution .”
James Madison understood that the greatest threat to liberty would not come from a foreign king but from our own government if left unchecked.
“If men were angels ,” Madison famously observed, “no government would be necessary.”
Because those entrusted with power are not angels, the Constitution—especially the Bill of Rights—was designed to restrain it.
The Constitution assumes that power will seek to expand. That is why it divides power. That is why it checks power.
That is why it places certain freedoms beyond the reach of government majorities, executive decrees, judicial maneuvering and political convenience.
Yet those constitutional restraints are increasingly being loosened—not by formal amendment, but by precedent, emergency powers, executive practice, bureaucratic discretion and public indifference.
The warnings are no longer theoretical.
Even the judiciary has increasingly become part of that transformation.
Rather than serving as a reliable constitutional brake on concentrated power, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly removed barriers that once restrained the executive branch: presidential immunity , limits on nationwide injunctions , and expanded presidential power to fire independent agency officials.
Each decision may be explained on its own legal reasoning. Together they tell a larger constitutional story: the presidency grows stronger, while the people’s ability to restrain it grows weaker.
In Trump v. United States , the Court declared that presidents enjoy sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, placing many exercises of executive power beyond the reach of laws that govern every other citizen.
In Trump v. CASA , the Court curtailed the power of lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions , making it more difficult to halt unconstitutional executive actions before they take effect across the country.
In Trump v. Slaughter , the Court expanded presidential control over supposedly independent agencies by strengthening the president’s power to remove agency officials.
Even where the Court has reaffirmed constitutional protections—as it did in rejecting the Trump administration’s attempt to undermine birthright citizenship —it has still left intact a dangerous constitutional reality: executive overreach can move faster than meaningful accountability.
The founders would have recognized this danger immediately. They had just fought a revolution against concentrated executive power.
Tyranny today may no longer look like King George III, but it is no less dangerous when it arrives wrapped in the language of national security, public safety, emergency management, border control, religious liberty, law and order, governmental efficiency and executive necessity.
It promises protection while steadily expanding surveillance, policing, executive discretion and bureaucratic control. It wraps itself in flags. It quotes Scripture. It invokes patriotism. It salutes the troops.
It speaks the language of freedom while making freedom conditional on obedience.
Thomas Jefferson would have recognized the pattern.
If Jefferson were drafting the Declaration of Independence today, the list of grievances would look strikingly familiar.
Instead of protesting quartered soldiers, he would likely protest militarized police forces equipped like occupying armies.
Instead of denouncing general warrants, he would condemn dragnet surveillance, geofence searches, facial recognition technology and warrantless tracking capable of monitoring millions of innocent people.
Instead of objecting to arbitrary searches of homes and papers, he would confront a government that can peer into our phones, financial records, online communications, travel histories and biometric data with astonishing ease.
Instead of warning against standing armies, he would question a permanent national security apparatus that wages endless wars abroad while steadily importing the tactics of war into policing at home.
Instead of protesting taxation without representation, he might challenge an administrative state that increasingly governs through executive orders, emergency declarations and unelected bureaucracies insulated from meaningful public accountability.
Instead of condemning the obstruction of justice, he would confront a system in which courts too often defer to power, Congress too often abdicates its authority, and presidents increasingly insist they may act first and answer later—if they answer at all.
Instead of accusing a distant monarch of placing himself above the law, he would confront a constitutional system in which the presidency has become imperial, the bureaucracy has become unaccountable, the surveillance state has become omnipresent, and the citizen has been reduced to a suspect, a data point, a taxpayer, a voter, a consumer and, too often, a pawn.
The machinery of power has grown unimaginably more sophisticated, but the central question remains exactly the same: who governs—the people or the government itself?
This is why the Fourth of July matters.
It was never intended as a celebration of government power. It is a celebration of liberty and self-government—the moment ordinary people declared that no ruler, no legislature, no court and no army should ever become too powerful to challenge.
That is precisely the principle now being tested.
Nowhere has this inversion of constitutional government been more visible than under the Trump administration, where rights increasingly appear to depend not on constitutional principle but on political identity, ideological conformity and executive preference.
The danger is not simply that government power is expanding. It is that government is claiming the authority to decide who possesses constitutional rights and who does not.
Freedom of speech, but only for those whose speech government approves. Religious liberty, but only for the beliefs those in power favor. Due process, but only for the people government considers worthy. Equal protection, but only for the politically acceptable. Citizenship, but only for the babies government chooses to recognize. Accountability, but only for ordinary citizens and not for presidents cloaked in immunity.
This is how constitutional government is hollowed out.
Not all at once.
Not always with tanks in the streets.
Not always with a formal suspension of the Constitution.
Liberty rarely vanishes in one dramatic act. It recedes gradually—emergency by emergency, exception by exception, court ruling by court ruling, executive order by executive order, crisis by crisis.
It disappears when due process becomes optional, habeas corpus is treated as expendable, speech is chilled, surveillance becomes routine, government secrecy expands, religious freedom becomes selective, citizenship becomes negotiable, oversight bodies can be fired at will, and executive power grows while meaningful accountability contracts.
It disappears when “we the people” grow so accustomed to fusion centers, surveillance cameras, geofence warrants, AI-assisted policing, militarized SWAT raids, civil asset forfeiture, government watchlists, facial recognition systems, warrantless tracking, endless wars, executive decrees and perpetual states of emergency that constitutional government becomes little more than a ceremonial ideal.
The most dangerous lie of the modern police state is not that government possesses extraordinary powers—it is that those powers are necessary, permanent and beyond question.
Every emergency becomes justification for another exception. Every crisis becomes an opportunity to normalize another expansion of authority. Temporary measures become permanent institutions.
Extraordinary powers become ordinary tools of government. And while the machinery of control expands, the machinery of distraction conspires to keep us from focusing on the government’s self-serving corruption, power grabs and abuses.
Authoritarian regimes require a populace that is too distracted—by spectacle, by outrage, by entertainment, by partisan tribalism, by endless political theater, by what the Romans called bread and circuses, by what we might call militainment—to get outraged enough to do something about the theft of their liberties.
When so-called representatives of the people celebrate power more than liberty , spectacle more than substance, and obedience more than accountability, that is not patriotism. It is conditioning.
The founders understood the danger of that conditioning. They distrusted concentrated power, feared standing armies, insisted on constitutional restraint and placed sovereignty not in rulers but in the people.
They pledged allegiance not to personalities, parties or power, but to enduring ideals and principles.
The founders did not create freedom.
What they created was a constitutional framework designed to preserve it.
Whether that framework survives depends upon whether the American people continue using it.
As America approaches its 250th anniversary, the most important question is not whether the nation survived.
The real question is whether the principles that inspired the Revolution have survived as well.
Have we preserved the belief that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed? Have we preserved the conviction that no one is above the law? Have we preserved the understanding that liberty requires eternal vigilance?
Or have we quietly accepted the idea that rights exist only at the pleasure of those in power?
If we truly wish to honor the spirit of 1776, we must restore the constitutional restraints that made liberty possible in the first place.
Bind the government, including the president, down with the chains of the Constitution.
James Madison understood that written constitutions alone cannot preserve liberty.
Rights written on paper become little more than “parchment barriers” unless the people insist that those limits be honored.
The Constitution cannot defend itself. Neither can freedom.
That was the lesson of independence.
It remains the warning of our time.
The unfinished work of the American Revolution was never about building a stronger government. It was about preserving a free people capable of restraining their government.
Two hundred and fifty years ago, Jefferson wrote that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
He did not write that governments derive their powers from fear. Or emergency. Or efficiency. Or surveillance. Or military strength. Or presidential immunity. Or partisan loyalty.
He wrote that governments exist to secure rights that already belong to the people.
The generation of 1776 pledged “their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor” because they understood that liberty would never preserve itself.
Our generation is unlikely to be asked to sign another Declaration of Independence.
But we are being asked something just as consequential: whether we will preserve the constitutional safeguards entrusted to us or quietly surrender them for the promise of security, efficiency and political victory.
Every generation inherits the Revolution unfinished.
Every generation must decide whether to continue its work—or abandon it.
As I make clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries , freedom does not defend itself.
Thus, the question before us is no longer whether America has reached its 250th birthday. The question is whether Americans still believe what made that birthday worth celebrating in the first place.
Preserving that birthright is our responsibility.
The Constitution is not self-enforcing.
Courts will not always protect liberty. Congress will not always defend its authority. Presidents will rarely surrender power voluntarily.
Which leaves only one remaining guardian of constitutional government: We the people.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 07/05/2026 - 23:20 Close
Mon, 06 Jul 2026 02:45:00 +0000 Trump: 'Netanyahu Knows Who The Boss Is' After Phone Call
Trump: 'Netanyahu Knows Who The Boss Is' After Phone Call
President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could meet as early as next week after the US leader returns from the annual NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey.
Read more.....
Trump: 'Netanyahu Knows Who The Boss Is' After Phone Call
President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could meet as early as next week after the US leader returns from the annual NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey.
That's what Trump told Axios on Saturday after a Friday phone call, wherein the Israeli PM congratulated the American leader on the 250th Independence Day of the United States. Trump said something very interesting in the wake of the call: "We get along very good. [Netanyahu] knows who the boss is," he told Axios .
via Reuters
US-Israel relations have been deeply strained of late, given deep Israeli reluctance on the US-Iran MoU signing, as well as the US-mediated ceasefire in Lebanon.
Israel fears that the end result to a hasty peace could be a nuclear-armed Iran, and some Israeli leaders have gone so far as to say military action must not stop until there's true regime change.
"During their conversation, the Prime Minister said that the United States is a guarantor of global freedom, and that Israel greatly values the close relationship between the two nations. Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump agreed to meet soon in the United States ," Netanyahu's office said of the Saturday call.
On the issue of controversy over the US-Israel relationship and the push to launch Operation Epic Fury, Axios provides the following :
"Many of Trump's closest advisers think that Bibi was wrong about everything," a U.S. official said.
Trump lashed out at Netanyahu over Israel's escalation in Lebanon in a phone call last month, calling the prime minister "crazy" and accusing him of ingratitude.
The tensions have deepened a broader Republican schism over Israel and the war , with MAGA influencers like Tucker Carlson accusing Trump of being beholden to Netanyahu .
Indeed there seems of late a concerted White House effort to dispel this narrative. It seems that Trump is at least now more conscientious about it, given he's publicly seeking to assure Americans that Bibi "knows who the boss is."
A prior Trump-Bibi call in June didn't go so well. At that time reports based on US officials indicated that President Trump ripped into Netanyahu, cussing at him and the president essentially 'steamrolled' him - angry over breaking the Lebanon truce and demanding that Israel's military not attack Beirut.
Trump is said to have told Netanyahu "you’re fucking crazy’" while demanding Lebanon truce: "I’m saving your ass," he also reportedly said. Israeli officials have sought to downplay these negative reports...
Since then, the US has essentially forced Israel to acknowledge the Lebanon ceasefire - though it should be noted that the IDF occupation has been allowed to continue in southern Lebanon - and direct exchanges of missile fire between Tehran and Tel Aviv has been silenced.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 07/05/2026 - 22:45 Close
Mon, 06 Jul 2026 02:10:00 +0000 Charlie Kirk Assassination Case Heads For Key Hearing
Charlie Kirk Assassination Case Heads For Key Hearing
Charlie Kirk Assassination Case Heads For Key Hearing
Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times ,
After months of wrangling, the case of Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin, Tyler James Robinson, is now headed toward its first major legal threshold.
Tyler Robinson, accused of killing conservative commentator Charlie Kirk last year, appears during a hearing in Utah's Fourth District Court in Provo, Utah, on Dec. 11, 2025. Rick Egan/The Salt Lake Tribune via AP, Pool
Robinson, 23, is accused of fatally shooting Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of the conservative Turning Point USA youth movement, while Kirk spoke at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025.
During a four-day proceeding set to begin on July 6 in a Utah courtroom, prosecutors must reveal some of the evidence they have against Robinson.
This preliminary hearing requires the evidence to pass two key tests. And the judge overseeing the case has set strict rules for people who will be attending, including news crews.
Here is what to expect, based on general legal principles, Utah law, and rulings from Utah Fourth District Court Judge Tony Graf Jr.
Why The Hearing Matters
Not all U.S. criminal courts use a preliminary hearing to put evidence through an initial screening, but Utah courts do.
The hearing is like a "mini trial," which comes with advantages and disadvantages for both sides in a criminal case.
Prosecutors have already shared much evidence with Robinson's lawyers, as criminal law requires. But this hearing requires them to show their cards more specifically.
That will give defense lawyers a chance to poke holes in some of the evidence that prosecutors have against Robinson.
However, prosecutors have a wild card in their favor. At this hearing, they may present some evidence that would not be allowed during a trial.
In Utah, that evidence includes "reliable hearsay" testimony - statements that a witness heard someone else make. Usually, hearsay is forbidden, and witnesses must testify only about what they personally stated or observed.
The law requires prosecutors to present enough evidence to persuade Graf that they have "probable cause." That consists of two parts: First, they must provide sufficient proof that a reasonable person could conclude that the alleged crimes happened. Second, that evidence must show that the accused probably committed those offenses.
Open To The Public, With Restrictions
Members of the public and news reporters are allowed to attend the preliminary hearing, the judge ruled on June 1, despite objections from Robinson's lawyers. They wanted to close all or part of the hearing.
Instead, access will be granted, subject to limited seating and strict rules, the judge said. He gave a lengthy explanation of the rules on June 26.
The rules are necessary, he said, to ensure everyone's "safety and well-being" and to preserve fair trial rights for Robinson, as well as for Kirk's widow , Erika Kirk.
No one - except specified people - will be allowed to bring electronic devices to Graf's courtroom in Provo, Utah; he is also banning the devices from the entire fourth floor of that building, outside his courtroom.
People who are exempt from that rule include attorneys and their support staff, as well as media personnel who receive Graf's approval.
"In addition, every person who will be in attendance will be afforded the dignity and respect due to them ," Graf said.
He cited an order he issued on Sept. 24, 2025, regarding courtroom decorum.
"All spectators shall be quiet, civil, and orderly ," Graf said. "Spectators shall not engage in any distracting, disruptive, provocative, disrespectful, uncivil, or threatening behavior of any kind ."
Further, he is forbidding attendees from making any gestures, including shaking or nodding heads to signal disagreement or agreement with statements.
No one is allowed "to wear or display pins, buttons, signs, clothing, or photographs expressing support for or against any person," Graf said.
"The court respectfully asks all persons seeking admission to conduct themselves in an orderly and respectful manner while court staff and security personnel carry out their responsibilities, including security screening and the assignment of wristbands for entry into the hearing," he said.
What Could Happen Next?
Because probable cause is considered a low bar to clear, it is rare for a case to fail at the preliminary hearing stage.
But if that does happen, the case probably would continue after a delay. Prosecutors would be allowed to add more evidence and refile the charges.
Most preliminary hearings end with the case being "bound over" for trial.
At trial, the standard of proof that prosecutors must meet is the highest in the criminal justice system. It is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
This standard requires "more certainty than any other burden of proof in law," according to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute.
Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond all imaginary doubt. It means that the judge or jury is "firmly convinced" that the defendant committed the alleged crimes.
If Robinson is convicted as charged, he could face the death penalty.
Graf on June 26 rejected defense lawyers' request to remove the death penalty as an option. However, he found prosecutors in contempt because they made statements about being able to clear the "reasonable doubt" hurdle.
To remedy that violation of his order prohibiting such an out-of-court statement, the judge said he will work with attorneys on both sides.
They will put together an extra detailed jury selection questionnaire, and a larger pool of potential jurors might need to be summoned, Graf said.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 07/05/2026 - 22:10 Close
Mon, 06 Jul 2026 01:42:51 +0000 China CXMT Testing Production Line for Next-Gen Bonded DRAM, Closing Tech Gap With Korea "Far Faster Than Expected"
China CXMT Testing Production Line for Next-Gen Bonded DRAM, Closing Tech Gap With Korea "Far Faster Than Expected"
China CXMT Testing Production Line for Next-Gen Bonded DRAM, Closing Tech Gap With Korea "Far Faster Than Expected"
According to Korea's Hankgyung , China’s largest memory company, CXMT, which is preparing to IPO in the coming weeks, is currently testing a pilot production line for bonded DRAM in Hefei (the heart of China's semiconductor industry), aiming to achieve high-performance DRAM without using advanced EUV lithography , which is currently monopolized by Dutch ASML and faces unprecedented export controls (although according to Reuters , China has already built a prototype EUV machine).
Bonded DRAM is a technology in which the memory cell array and the peripheral circuitry are fabricated on separate wafers and then bonded together, as explained here . This approach enables the production of ultra-high-density DRAM using only deep ultraviolet (DUV) lithography with multi-patterning, eliminating the need for EUV tools.
Samsung Electronics is also developing its own bonded DRAM under the “B1b” project, while SK Hynix is pursuing a similar technology. However, Korean media warn that there are assessments suggesting CXMT may currently hold an edge over its Korean rivals in both the technology itself and the speed of development.
According to the Korean outlet, Chinese memory chipmakers CXMT (DRAM) and YMTC (NAND) - which just two years ago were nothing more than firms struggling to manufacture low-end chips and suffering trillions of won in losses annually - have recently undergone a dramatic transformation and have "closed the technology gap with Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix far faster than expected", from roughly a 5-year lag down to about 3 years, despite US export controls blocking access to advanced EUV lithography equipment.
Here are the key details :
CXMT's secret R&D push : At its Hefei facility, CXMT has secretly begun building an R&D line for next-generation "bonded DRAM," aiming to commercialize it before Korean rivals. This project aims to develop and produce next-generation memory semiconductors known as "bonding DRAM." These are considered "memory semiconductor game changers" because they can maximize performance and capacity. The company reportedly has recruited top-tier engineers with the explicit goal of beating Korea to market.
Rapid market gains : As recently as 2024, Chinese firms were seen as low-end, loss-making commodity suppliers. By Q1 2026, CXMT's share of the global DRAM market reportedly jumped to 8%, and it's said to be under consideration as a new DRAM supplier for Apple.
HBM ambitions: CXMT is pushing into high-bandwidth memory (HBM), converting about 20% of production lines toward HBM3/HBM3E development, working around the lack of EUV tools by using advanced multi-patterning with older DUV equipment.
NAND patents — China ahead: YMTC's proprietary "Xtacking" wafer-bonding technology gave it an early lead in hybrid bonding patents — the article cites YMTC holding 119 core patents versus Samsung's 83 and SK Hynix's 11 (as of 2023) — to the point that Samsung reportedly licensed patents from YMTC for its next-gen NAND roadmap.
Next-gen tech race: Beyond HBM, China is pursuing "post-HBM" CXL (Compute Express Link) memory, with CXMT working with domestic fabless firm Montage Technology on controllers, leveraging its server DDR5 experience.
IPO push: Both CXMT and YMTC are moving toward public listings (CXMT possibly on the Shanghai exchange as soon as this month) to fund expansion beyond government subsidies.
Expert warnings: Seoul National University professor Hwang Chul-sung called Chinese semiconductors "the biggest future threat to Korea ." Another professor warned that once Chinese AI chipmakers like Huawei begin adopting domestic memory for real-world use, yield and reliability could improve faster than expected. A POSTECH professor argued Korea must lock in an unmatched technology lead in next-gen memory and packaging before the "golden time" created by U.S. sanctions runs out.
Also noted: Huawei's May-unveiled "Tau's Law" concept, which reportedly focuses on cutting data transfer time (rather than transistor miniaturization) to boost overall AI chip system performance — seen as a potentially disruptive alternative approach .
NAND flash and the hybrid bonding patent gap
The article frames this as the area where warning signs are already flashing red. Samsung and SK Hynix currently lead volume production in the 200-to-300+ layer NAND range, which underpins high-value products like enterprise SSDs. But pushing past 400 layers runs into physical limits, making "wafer-to-wafer (W2W) hybrid bonding" a must-have process — a technique that fuses two wafers directly, connecting circuits vertically without conductive bumps between chips.
China's YMTC got there first. Its proprietary "Xtacking" architecture, the world's first of its kind to reach commercialization, has scaled from 160-layer to the newest 270-layer NAND in mass production. On core patents, YMTC reportedly holds 119 versus Samsung's 83 and SK Hynix's 11 (2023 figures) — enough of a lead that Samsung, the NAND market leader, reportedly had to sign a patent licensing deal with YMTC to develop its next-generation "V10" triple-stack NAND (430+ layers).
The CXL / "post-HBM" race
Beyond memory's current HBM cycle, the article describes China moving fast on CXL (Compute Express Link) DRAM, described as the "post-HBM" technology. CXMT is said to be leveraging its experience mass-producing server DDR5 to formally launch into CXL 3.0 development, and is partnering with domestic fabless chip designer Montage Technology to secure the controller technology that's central to CXL products.
This sits alongside CXMT's other next-gen bet: "bonded DRAM," which separates the memory-cell layer and the peripheral control layer onto two different wafers before joining them - a way to boost density and performance without needing EUV lithography (which U.S. export controls block China from importing).
CXMT is reportedly piloting this at a Hefei line using older deep-ultraviolet (DUV) tools plus multi-patterning instead. Samsung (via its "B1b" project) and SK Hynix are working on their own bonded-DRAM equivalents, but the article notes some assessments actually rate CXMT ahead of the Korean firms on speed and technical maturity here.
A POSTECH professor is quoted arguing Korea's current supply-chain lead owes a lot to U.S. sanctions on China, and that Korean chipmakers need to lock in an irreplaceable technology edge in next-gen memory and packaging before that sanctions-driven "golden window" closes.
The report prompted BCA strategist Peter Berezin to remind the world that technological progress has a way of making the return on massive capital spending vaporize on very short notice: "We managed to achieve massive growth in internet traffic without having to spend much more on internet infrastructure because the transmission technologies became much better. Why won’t there be similar technological innovations that dramatically lower the cost of producing memory?"
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Pacific, Michael "Big Short" Burry disclosed a new short position against US chip leader Micron in a Substack post dated July 2. Burry stated that the puts "seemed expensive," so he shorted the stock directly and would add puts if volatility eases. He identified his disclosed entry at $1,052 per share.
The Micron short adds to a broader campaign. On June 30, Burry disclosed shorts against NVIDIA, Applied Materials, and the SOXX Semiconductor ETF, arguing that AI-related chip stocks may be due for a 30% correction .
Burry argues that Micron, whose shares are up 242% year to date with a market cap near $1.17 trillion, has reached "historically extreme" levels, with Micron stock more extended above its 200-day moving average than at any point since 1984, "not even during the dot-com peak."
Burry stated, "Micron defines cyclical like no other," citing 34 drawdowns of more than 30% over 42 years, a median return on invested capital (ROIC) of 4%, and return on equity (ROE) of 7%, which he called "frankly terrible." He added that "one quarter in every three, Micron is a destroyer of capital," with free cash flow negative 48% of the time.
His view: the move reflects fear of missing out (FOMO) and greater-fool dynamics around high-bandwidth memory (HBM) being "sold out through 2026." The timing carries some irony given President Trump praised Micron for a $250 million Trump Accounts commitment, and CEO Sanjay Mehrotra highlighted more than $200 billion in U.S. memory investment.
That said, the bull case remains formidable. Micron, whose stock recently became the most actively traded in the US...
... posted Q3 FY26 revenue of $41.46 billion, up 346% year over year (YoY), and guided Q4 revenue to approximately $50 billion per its 8-K filing. Mehrotra stated results "reflect the strategic value of memory in the AI era." Analysts carry an average MU stock price target of $1,486, with 30 Buy and 9 Strong Buy ratings.
Still, while sellside analysts are rushing over each other to raise their earnings estimates, one wonders how many have considered the risk that Chinese memory production and technology not only catches up to Korea, but surpasses it, and in a few years, all the massive memory production ends up in yet another historic glut of what is, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, just another commodity.
* * * Next-level Wagyu , now at ZeroHedge Store
Tyler Durden
Sun, 07/05/2026 - 21:42 Close
Mon, 06 Jul 2026 01:35:00 +0000 Former Sen. Warren Staffer Attends Ayatollah's Funeral, Calls Him "Greatest Leader Of Our Lifetime"
Former Sen. Warren Staffer Attends Ayatollah's Funeral, Calls Him "Greatest Leader Of Our Lifetime"
A former Democratic Party operative who worked on campaigns linked to prominent unhinged left-wing politicians such as Elizabeth W
Read more.....
Former Sen. Warren Staffer Attends Ayatollah's Funeral, Calls Him "Greatest Leader Of Our Lifetime"
A former Democratic Party operative who worked on campaigns linked to prominent unhinged left-wing politicians such as Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, and others has become a case study in how far-left radicalization can influence those on the left, spiraling dangerously and leading to the open championing of leaders of foreign adversaries.
Calla Walsh began organizing for Democratic Senator Ed Markey while she was still a teenager. She had the perfect profile: earnest, idealistic, and a model Gen Z Democrat.
But, like many of her peers on the left, that idealism mutated into something darker - something Democrats are now concerned about as socialists and Islamists gain power in their party .
The latest Walsh episode shows the Gen Z Democrat on Iranian TV from Tehran during funeral ceremonies for slain Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, praising the late Iranian cleric as the "greatest anti-imperialist leader" of her lifetime.
"Ayatollah Khamenei was the greatest anti-imperialist leader to have lived during my lifetime," Walsh said.
Walsh shared a message similar to that of the Democratic Socialists: "Death to America"...
Walsh's message was also shared with attendees at the funeral.
Ahead of America's 250th birthday, Zohran Mamdani, the socialist mayor of New York City, denounced the nation:
And, of course, Hasan Piker, the unofficial DSA spokesperson, has called for his followers "to kill capitalists. Let the streets soak in their fucking red capitalist blood."
The story presented here illustrates the emergence of a new Democratic Party.
Party leaders are deeply concerned because anti-American rhetoric, denunciations of capitalism, and calls for revolution are not resonating with average voters and could harm Democrats as socialists gain influence ahead of the midterms.
Ted, we got answers below ...
If you want to understand why the Democratic Party has become so radical and revolutionary, here are some answers:
Another Democrat has sounded the alarm on the party's far-left drift:
Related:
In response, the Trump administration has been testing the waters with anti-communist messaging. We suspect that messaging will only grow louder, as sane citizens on both sides of the political aisle can agree that communism is bad.
* * * Next-level Wagyu , now at ZeroHedge Store
Tyler Durden
Sun, 07/05/2026 - 21:35 Close
Mon, 06 Jul 2026 01:15:00 +0000 First $1 Billion, Now $50 Million: Khanna Says Wealth Tax "Must Not Stop At Billionaires"
First $1 Billion, Now $50 Million: Khanna Says Wealth Tax "Must Not Stop At Billionaires"
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) - fresh off endorsing California's November ballot measure to seize 5% of billionaire wealth - published a Subs
Read more.....
First $1 Billion, Now $50 Million: Khanna Says Wealth Tax "Must Not Stop At Billionaires"
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) - fresh off endorsing California's November ballot measure to seize 5% of billionaire wealth - published a Substack essay Wednesday titled, no really, "Why I Support a Billionaire Wealth Tax ."
He makes it roughly a dozen paragraphs before explaining that it isn't one.
"The tax should not stop at billionaires, it must reach centimillionaires, " Khanna writes, before spelling out exactly what that means: every fortune of $50 million and up, hit with a 2% federal levy on wealth above that line - every year, forever, on top of everything else you already pay. The vehicle is Elizabeth Warren's Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, which Khanna notes he has cosponsored every single year it's been introduced.
And before anyone reaches for the estate planner: Khanna wants the levy to pierce irrevocable trusts , with the tax billed to the grantor who set them up - because parking a fortune in a trust, in his telling, shouldn't take it off the government's books.
Former Microsoft executive Steven Sinofsky summed up the reveal in eight words: "Just like that, no longer a billionaires tax. "
Pirate Wires' Mike Solana was less diplomatic, characterizing the scheme as an annual asset seizure in which the government tallies everything you own and demands a cut on top of your existing tax bill - now openly targeting anyone worth $50 million. His prediction for where the ratchet stops: "this ends with your 401k."
For those keeping score at home, the threshold discourse has traveled a long way in a short time:
The measure headed to California voters in November is a one-time 5% tax on the state's roughly 250 billionaires. Newsom, opposing it, countered on June 26 with a national "billionaires' tax" - which, in its original form, applied to anyone worth $100 million or more, language that was quietly scrubbed after multiple outlets quoted it as we reported . Six days later, Khanna planted the flag at $50 million.
None of this is exactly new, of course. The Warren bill has carried the $50 million line since she rolled it out in 2019, and Biden's 2022 "Billionaire Minimum Income Tax" kicked in at $100 million households. The branding always says billionaire , but the fine print ios a slippery slope.
Then there's inflation... The bill's $50 million threshold is a flat statutory number that hasn't moved since 2019 - meaning inflation has already quietly cut the real threshold by more than a fifth . The creep shows up in the sponsors' own math: when the bill debuted, backers said it touched the top 0.05% of American households; the 2026 reintroduction, per the same Saez-Zucman analysis the sponsors tout, now reaches 260,000 households - the top 0.15%. Same words, triple the coverage, five years. Asset inflation does the broadening automatically. Congress just has to sit still.
The escalator, meanwhile, is pre-drafted: buried in the bill is a provision doubling the top rate to 6% automatically in any year that qualifying trigger legislation is on the books .
And anyone curious where a "normalized" wealth tax eventually settles can consult the countries that already normalized one. Norway's kicks in around $160,000 of net worth. The Netherlands taxes deemed returns on assets above roughly €57,000. Swiss cantons start in the low six figures . The European wealth taxes that stayed rich-only - France, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Denmark - were repealed as revenue duds. The ones that survived did so by reaching the middle class. The slippery slope is quite literally the only way these things 'work.'
Khanna spends a portion of the essay taking intramural shots at Newsom, dismissing the governor's version as an income tax billionaires will never feel - since they take no salary, borrow against their stock, and pass fortunes to their kids without selling a share - while boasting that he and Bernie Sanders tax the wealth itself, to the tune of a claimed $4.4 trillion.
The replies were not kind. Christopher Rufo suggested Washington recover the estimated half-trillion dollars a year lost to fraud before inventing new revenue streams. The most-liked response, from James Hafner, noted that the essay's "philosophical case" never actually argues its one load-bearing premise - that one man's need constitutes a claim on another man's property. "There is arithmetic, and there is need," Hafner wrote of the piece's actual contents.
Khanna's comeback - asking Hafner what he thinks of property taxes - was promptly ratioed, sitting at 135 replies to 11 likes at press time.
Except - property taxes are local, visible, and appealable; they pay for the pothole crew, the 2 a.m. patrol car, and the school down the street - and when assessments outran paychecks, voters famously revolted and capped them. Khanna's essay actually frames the California fight as Proposition 13 in reverse, which is a remarkable self-own: he's marketing the sequel to a movie that ended in a taxpayer revolt , triggered by precisely the dynamic critics warn about - paper valuations rising faster than the cash available to pay the levy.
The federal version offers none of the offsetting virtues . The Ultra-Millionaire Tax deposits into the general fund; the child-care-and-community-college wish list lives in the press release, not the bill text. What the bill text does contain is enforcement - just not of the spending. It orders the IRS to audit at least 30% of everyone subject to the tax, every single year . It hands the agency expanded authority to assign values to private businesses, farmland, art, and anything else that's hard to price. It wires in FATCA-style third-party reporting . And should you decide you've had enough of the annual appraisal and leave, it imposes a 40% exit tax on net worth above $50 million on your way out the door. In other words: relentless annual oversight of the taxpayers , and none whatsoever of where the money goes. Even Khanna seems to grasp the trust problem - he launched a state-fraud probe in December , conceding taxpayers "need to have a receipt" for what their money funds - which rather makes Rufo's point: by his own estimate Washington loses half a trillion a year to fraud, and the remedy on offer is an audit of your art collection.
All of which lands a little awkwardly next to this week's Free Beacon report detailing how Khanna's own family fortune - courtesy of centimillionaire father-in-law and auto-parts magnate Monte Ahuja - is sheltered through the very sort of irrevocable trusts the congressman now wants taxed to the grantor. Per the Beacon, Khanna's minor children hold trust stakes in three private golf clubs and multiple hedge funds, the family occupies a $6 million, marble-clad Washington home with a private elevator, and the congressman's financial disclosures run to 333 pages of conveniently non-searchable tables.
What it does say, in writing, is what the fine print has said all along: the number was never $1 billion. This week it's $50 million. Ask again next cycle.
* * * Next-level Wagyu , now at ZeroHedge Store
Tyler Durden
Sun, 07/05/2026 - 21:15 Close
Mon, 06 Jul 2026 01:00:00 +0000 On 250th Anniversary, A Look Back At Gun Ownership In America
On 250th Anniversary, A Look Back At Gun Ownership In America
On 250th Anniversary, A Look Back At Gun Ownership In America
Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times ,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees what may be the most uniquely American of all rights. Those 27 words have inspired millions of words in thousands of debates over the Amendment's meaning and what, if any, limits may apply.
"The Shot Heard 'Round the World," 2009, by Domenick D'Andrea. Public Domain
There is no question that firearms played a pivotal role in the birth and growth of the United States of America.
From the Pilgrims' matchlock muskets and the six shooters carried by cowboys, to the modern semiautomatic rifles wielded by Korean business owners in the Los Angeles riots of 1992, guns are an integral part of American culture.
The right to keep and bear arms is unique, says Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow with Advancing American Freedom and Second Amendment scholar.
"It's an incredibly short list [of countries that recognize the right to own guns], and there are none of them have anything in theory or practice that is what I would say [is] a true equivalent of the American right to keep and bear arms," Swearer told The Epoch Times.
Based on sales data, permit applications, background checks and other factors, there are an estimated 400 million to 500 million firearms in civilian hands in the United States, according to the Sixguns Fraternity. This is an average of two firearms for every person over age 18.
Yet, while America celebrates 250 years as a society that honors the individual right to keep and bear arms, gun ownership remains one of the nation's most divisive issues.
Gun control groups did not respond to emails seeking comment for this article, but many have posted their concerns online. Gun control advocates say violence intervention strategies, strict gun control - including bans - and tighter regulation of the firearms industry are elements of common-sense gun laws.
They point to high-profile stories of mass shootings, school shootings, and violent crime involving firearms.
"The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is 26 times higher than that of other developed countries, but research shows that common-sense public safety laws can reduce gun violence and save lives," Everytown for Gun Safety, states on its website.
The group, along with others, say gunshots are the number one cause of death for American children.
The Centers for Disease Prevention and Control reports that the top cause of death for children between 1- and 17-years-old are "unintentional injuries." Matthew Garnett with the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, defines unintentional injury as, deaths from fatal injuries that were "unintended, unplanned, and did not occur on purpose."
"Unintentional injury deaths include a wide array of mechanisms, with the four most common being: poisoning, motor vehicle crashes, drowning, and falls, " Garnett wrote.
Second Amendment activists say gun control policies harm law abiding citizens rather than criminals. They say the data presented by gun control organizations are cherry-picked or manipulated to get the desired result.
Gun Owners of America says Everytown skews its data on children killed by firearms because it includes 18- and 19-year-olds. Generally, most data involving children only includes children aged 1 to 17, while 18- and 19-year-olds are considered adults.
Public safety has always played a role in American gun legislation, says Robert J. Spitzer, professor emeritus at the State University of New York, College at Cortland.
This includes laws on where and how guns could be carried, who could own them, and which arms are protected by the Second Amendment.
Spitzer has written extensively on the Second Amendment. In a 2017 article published by Duke University, "Gun Law History in the United States and Second Amendment Rights," he describes gun laws from pre-Revolutionary times to the modern day.
He contends that while America has a "wild west" reputation, it has also worked to tame that reputation. Spitzer wrote that "stand-your-ground" laws, the unlicensed carry of firearms, allowing those younger than 21 to legally carry a gun in public, and similar policies, do not align with America's tradition of gun regulation.
"[These] laws are not a return to the past . They are a refutation of America's past, and a determined march away from America's gun regulation tradition," Spitzer wrote. "And these changes have nothing to do with improving safety or security in society, but everything to do with politics."
So, what did the founders have to say? How did they view guns and their impact on public safety? And what route have the courts taken in trying to answer those questions?
Founding View Of Guns
The founders appear to have considered the ability to defend oneself a responsibility as much as a right. As Englishmen and lawyers, they studied English Common Law. Most of them were familiar with the "Commentaries on the Laws of England," by Sir William Blackstone.
Blackstone was an English jurist and legal scholar. His commentaries are considered an authoritative text when it comes to English law.
In the first chapter, Blackstone outlines the process for relief when a person's rights are violated or they are violently attacked. The first avenue is the court and the law, according to Blackstone. If that fails, the next step is a petition to the King and Parliament, and "lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense."
The right to be armed for self-defense underpinned legal arguments John Adams, Founding Father and second U.S. president, made when defending British soldiers charged with murder in the 1770 "Boston Massacre." His argument, voiced before there was a second amendment, informs his, and other founders', world view on the matter.
On March 5, 1770, a group of colonists was berating a British soldier guarding the Customs House in Boston. British Army Capt. Thomas Preston brought a squad of seven soldiers to support the lone guard.
As the situation grew tense, one of the soldiers fired his musket. Thinking the order to fire had been given, the others followed suit. Three colonists, including a black sailor named Crispus Attucks, were killed immediately. Two others died later.
Adams, Josiah Quincy Jr., and Robert Auchmuty, Jr., represented Preston in court. Adams argued that the soldiers had every reason to believe they were in danger.
"Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defence, not for offence, that distinction is material and must be attended to," Adams stated.
Preston was acquitted of his murder charges.
Civilian gun ownership is necessary for a "well-regulated militia," according to Stephen Halbrook, a Fairfax, Virginia-based attorney and senior fellow with the Independent Institute.
"It was considered a duty," Halbrook told The Epoch Times.
Halbrook pointed out that the first settlement at Jamestown, Virginia, almost failed partly because of conflict with Indians who were hostile to the colonists.
"You had a responsibility ... to have arms in your home and basically to carry them around with you. After the Constitution comes into being in 1792 the federal militia laws ... required, that every able-bodied white male citizen would have to provide arms for himself and enroll in the militia, and to go when called to duty," Halbrook said.
This was outlined by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 29. Hamilton explained that the militia consists of armed residents prepared to defend themselves and their communities.
According to Hamilton, "well-regulated" means the members will "acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness." While Hamilton called on the federal government to support the militias, he stressed that they would operate under local authority.
"Reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress ," Hamilton wrote.
The federal government has a militia law, 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: Composition and Classes, as do 45 states.
The federal law states that the unorganized militia is made up of all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia, and females who are members of the National Guard and Naval Militia.
Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and West Virginia do not have established militias. Twenty-two states have active militias, though Connecticut's militia is ceremonial. The rest of the state militias are inactive unless they are called to service.
Self-Defense
Swearer said that America has drifted away from the original intent of the militias. But there have been militia-style actions.
During the 1992 Los Angeles riots that erupted after four police officers were acquitted of charges stemming from the March 3, 1991, beating of Rodney King, several Korean business and property owners took up arms to defend their homes and businesses.
As the riots spread into the area known as Koreatown, many business owners and residents noticed that police were standing by, watching. So, the Korean residents armed themselves, got on their roofs, and held off the rioters. They became known as the "Rooftop Koreans."
"It is arguably a militia usage. It's that same understanding of the people protecting themselves when the government fails to protect them," Swearer said.
It was hardly the first time Americans armed themselves to defend their property. The United States was born in armed conflict.
Halbrook said that around the time of the Boston Massacre, the first gun control laws were passed. As Spitzer noted in his article, many of the laws were focused on public safety.
Firearms regulations from this era covered brandishing firearms, bans on certain types of weapons, carry restrictions, dueling, hunting, inspection of gun manufacturing facilities, and storage requirements, and the responsible discharge of firearms, among others.
There were also laws on who could possess guns. Halbrook said the main objective was to prevent certain groups from being armed.
For example, in his article, Spitzer points out that in 1619 the first General Assembly made it illegal to sell guns, powder, or shot, to Indians. A person convicted under the law faced hanging.
As part of a law requiring church attendance, the General Assembly included language requiring that "all such as bear arms shall bring their pieces, swords, powder and shot." Though not specified in the law, the likely reason for this requirement is to defend the colonists gathered in the church.
These early gun prohibitions were not focused as much on the guns as who could carry them. And, like the colonial governments, America has prohibitions on who can keep and bear arms.
Today, as in those early days, the United States prevents felons, the mentally ill, and others who could be considered dangerous to society from legally owning firearms . This was upheld in the 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case, Lewis v. U.S.
In that case, the court ruled that under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, "the fact of a felony conviction imposes firearm disability until the conviction is vacated or the felon is relieved of his disability by some affirmative action," such as having his rights legally restored.
This legal concept was affirmed in the June 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi, when the court ruled that disarming people deemed by a court to be dangerous aligns with the Second Amendment.
According to the court record, Zackey Rahimi, of Arlington, Texas, abused his girlfriend. Subsequently, she won a domestic violence restraining order against him. Rahimi was disarmed under 18 USC 922 (g) (8), the federal law that bars people under such an order from possessing or purchasing firearms.
After agreeing to the order, he assaulted another woman and was involved in at least five shootings. His firearms were confiscated because of the restraining order. Rahimi appealed the confiscation to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which found the law unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court reversed that.
"Since the Founding, the Nation's firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms ," the decision states. "As applied to the facts here, Section 922(g)(8) fits within this tradition ."
In a subsequent case, United States v. Hemani, the court in June 2026 rejected the idea that the federal government could automatically strip someone of their right to bear arms based on the mere fact that they took drugs. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch indicated more consideration was needed over whether the individual had lost their capacity to reason.
Gentleman's Honor
Halford said it wasn't until the early 19th Century that the first laws resembling modern gun control were passed. He said that in 1813 Kentucky and Louisiana passed laws prohibiting the concealed carry of weapons, including knives and other weapons.
He pointed out that the first such laws were passed in the South, but it was years before northern states passed similar laws. Halbrook said the new law had more to do with the concept of a Southern gentleman's honor.
"In Kentucky ... you had the code of dueling ... and it would be ungentlemanly to carry an arm concealed," Halbrook said. "It was kind of a macho thing ... only a person with bad intentions would hide [his weapons]."
Prohibitions based on politics, race, and similar factors did not fare well with the judicial system.
In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court found that slaves were not citizens and did not have Constitutional rights, including Second Amendment rights.
"It cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went," the decision reads in part.
In 1865, the Freedman's Bureau was established to ensure that freed slaves enjoyed the same civil rights as other Americans, including their Second Amendment rights. Though there were subsequent attempts to deny black Americans their civil rights, the court has generally ruled those laws unconstitutional.
In the following decades, a variety of gun laws were passed with the objective of promoting safety or preventing crime. Three of the most notable are the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986.
The National Firearms Act was a response to organized crime in the 1920s and 1930s. The law designated some weapons as dangerous or unusual. These included fully automatic machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and silencers.
Backers of the law knew it was doomed as a gun-control measure. So, it was passed as Congress exercising its taxing authority. But, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) website, the tax was a secondary purpose.
"Its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in [National Firearms Act] firearms," the website states.
Only Federal Firearms License holders who pay a $200 tax can deal in National Firearms Act items. The tax, which remained $200 until last year when it was reduced to $0, was meant to inhibit ownership of National Firearms Act items.
The Gun Control Act corrected the constitutional problems in the National Firearms Act.
In 1968, the Supreme Court found in Haynes v. United States that forcing a person to register a National Firearms Act item, then prosecuting that person using information from the registration process violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
In 1986, the Firearm Owners' Protection Act was enacted. It added to the definition of "silencer" combinations of parts, and any part to make a silencer to the list of National Firearms Act items. It also prohibited the transfer or ownership of machine guns except for state and law enforcement agencies, and machine guns lawfully owned prior to May 19, 1986.
But in the 2000s, three landmark decisions was issued that turned the gun debate upside down.
Supreme Court Returns To History
Prior to 2008, the courts used a two-step "means test" to determine if a gun law was constitutional. Under this method, courts considered whether a law would obtain a favorable objective - such as crime reduction - even if it did not strictly align with the text of the Second Amendment.
It was accepted that a law might infringe on the right, but that could be acceptable if the end result outweighed the degree of restriction.
In its June 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen the court said the two-step approach was excessive.
By a 6-3 vote, the court concluded that the standard for applying the Second Amendment was determining whether the gun control policy was consistent with the nation's history and tradition . The court also found that New York State's licensing scheme, along with prohibitions on carrying guns in public, were unconstitutional.
Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said any gun control law must align with the Second Amendment's language and have a "historical analog" from the time of the Amendment's ratification to pass constitutional muster.
This meant that if the law covered the activity listed in the amendment, specifically keeping and bear arms, it was unconstitutional unless a similar law existed around the time of the amendment's ratification.
The Bruen decision shook the gun debate and will impact Second Amendment cases for years to come. Two other Supreme Court rulings helped set the stage for the landmark decision.
In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the high court ruled that the Washington's prohibition on handguns, and requirements that privately owned guns be kept unloaded under lock and key, violated the Second Amendment.
In Heller, the court found that the Amendment protects an individual right to carry firearms for protection, which the District's law made all but impossible.
Then on June 28, 2010, the Supreme court ruled 5-4, in MacDonald v. Chicago, that the Second Amendment applied to state and local governments, as well as to the federal government.
Post-Bruen Developments
After Bruen, some states with strict gun laws, including New York, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Rhode Island, and others doubled down passing so-called "Bruen response laws."
Hawaii implemented a law prohibiting firearms on all private property open to the public unless the property owner gives express permission to gun owners to carry on their property.
The Supreme Court recently struck down that law in Wolford v. Lopez, ruling that it placed an undue burden on licensed gun owners.
Rhode Island, Virginia, and Illinois banned certain semiautomatic firearms, so-called assault weapons. New York and California instituted background checks for ammunition purchases in 2023.
As she announced the ammunition background check law, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said her state was dedicated to promoting gun safety.
"We know this has nothing to do with lawful gun owners, nothing to do with them at all. These are people who have been convicted of felonies or other categories of people that should be prohibited from firearms and ammunition ," she said.
At the time, President Joe Biden was in the White House and had successfully implemented much of his agenda to increase firearms regulation. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which included funding for violence intervention programs as well as stronger gun control laws, was enacted in 2022.
Biden opened an Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the White House. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives was taking a much tougher stand on regulating firearms manufacturers and dealers through its zero-tolerance policy, and he was making strides toward implementing universal background checks.
Gun rights advocates, on the other hand, have been energized by the Supreme Court decisions, as well as what they consider to be a pro-Second Amendment president in Donald Trump.
Trump is currently 18 months into his second term. He closed the office in the White House, dismantled almost all of Biden's gun control programs and opened a Second Amendment office in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.
Gun rights activists said there is more to be done. They are calling for the repeal of the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act, the shutdown of the ATF, and the destruction of billions of gun sales records, which they say the agency is using to build an illegal registry.
The ATF denies it has such a registry.
The experts say that, like all the other constitutional rights, the Second Amendment will continue to be examined and possibly limited or expanded.
Halbrook offered advice for gun owners that could be applied to either side of the debate.
"They have to pay attention to politics, they have to vote, they have to support candidates who are going to be on their side, and they have to vote against those who are against them," Halbrook said.
The second amendment is spelled on a U.S. flag in a gun store in Rio Rico, Santa Cruz County, Ariz., on Sept. 17, 2025. Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images
Tyler Durden
Sun, 07/05/2026 - 21:00 Close
Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:58:01 +0000 South Korea Plans Investment Fund From Chip Tax Revenue
South Korea Plans Investment Fund From Chip Tax Revenue
At a time when chip and memory companies are disproportionately receiving the benefits of hundreds of billions in capex, and a growing number of politicians are consider ways t
Read more.....
South Korea Plans Investment Fund From Chip Tax Revenue
At a time when chip and memory companies are disproportionately receiving the benefits of hundreds of billions in capex, and a growing number of politicians are consider ways to socialize these outsized gains, Yonhap News reported that South Korea plans to create an investment fund using tax revenue from its burgeoning semiconductor industry to finance long-term economic growth.
In a senior-level meeting of the government and the ruling party, presidential chief of staff Kang Hoon-sik said the additional revenue from the country’s chip industry should be invested for future growth, the news agency reported.
“By launching the fund with the extra tax revenue, we aim to make bold investments for the future, including supporting the three mega projects, creating future growth engines, addressing K-shaped polarization, and supporting housing, startups and jobs for those in their 20s and 30s,” Kang said.
South Korea recently unveiled its three mega projects initiative, which involves significant investment in semiconductors, physical AI and data centers.
Investments of at least 1,350 trillion won ($880 billion) from companies including Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix will be made, as the government looks to strengthen the country’s long-term competitiveness and position itself as an AI powerhouse.
Samsung Group and SK Group said they plan to build two chipmaking plants apiece in the southwest for a total of 800 trillion won, to rapidly expand production capacity to meet increasing demand. South Korea also announced 550 trillion won of investment from companies including internet leader Naver Corp. to build 8.4 gigawatts of AI data-center capacity by 2029.
The country aims to double its memory production capacity within five years and secure world-class manufacturing capabilities to pull far ahead of competing nations, the industry ministry said in a statement. South Korea must move faster than its global rivals to secure leadership in chips, data centers and physical AI, President Lee Jae Myung said at a briefing where he called the Samsung and SK Hynix leaders “national heroes.”
Kang said the mega projects will help create new growth engines to determine the country’s future over the next 20 to 30 years, Yonhap added.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 07/05/2026 - 20:58 Close
Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:34:08 +0000 Nvidia Supplier Hon Hai Sales Beat As Continued AI Demand Offsets Consumer Electronics Decline
Nvidia Supplier Hon Hai Sales Beat As Continued AI Demand Offsets Consumer Electronics Decline
Nvidia’s server assembly partner Hon Hai Precision Industry reported a bigger-than-expected 40% jump in quarterly sales and said AI deman
Read more.....
Nvidia Supplier Hon Hai Sales Beat As Continued AI Demand Offsets Consumer Electronics Decline
Nvidia’s server assembly partner Hon Hai Precision Industry reported a bigger-than-expected 40% jump in quarterly sales and said AI demand is growing further, according to Bloomberg.
Hon Hai’s revenue grew to NT$2.51 trillion ($79 billion) in the three months to June, beating the average of analyst estimates of NT$2.37 trillion. Demand for AI-related products drove sales, compensating for a slight decline in demand from consumer electronics and computing products, where soaring memory prices have resulted in widespread demand destruction.
Shipments of AI racks are expected to maintain their momentum in the current quarter, while demand for information and communications technology products is entering peak season, the company said in a statement Sunday quoted by Bloomberg. Overall operations are expected to grow both quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year.
Hon Hai, also known as Foxconn, has established itself as a key AI hardware player by assembling servers that house Nvidia accelerators. This comes as Alphabet, Amazon, Meta Platforms and Microsoft are setting aside about $725 billion for AI spending this year, a total which Goldman believes could rise as high as $1.4 trillion in 2027 , even as warnings abound about overcapacity and questions about how to monetize the technology grow louder.
In March, the Taiwanese company projected strong sales growth in 2026, fueled by sustained AI momentum. It derives a significant chunk of sales from assembling Apple’s iPhones and MacBooks and is in a position to benefit from any positive reception for the latest iPhone 17 product family, although in light of the upcoming price hikes across Apple products it remains to be seen what consumer reception will be for the higher-priced products.
But like many electronics manufacturers, Hon Hai faces a shortage of memory chips used in a wide range of products from smartphones to PCs and servers . Executives have said the crunch should not significantly impact demand for premium handset and computer products the company makes for major customers.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 07/05/2026 - 20:34 Close
Sun, 05 Jul 2026 23:50:00 +0000 Iran To Grant China, 'Friendly' Countries 'Special Consideration' On Hormuz Fees
Iran To Grant China, 'Friendly' Countries 'Special Consideration' On Hormuz Fees
Iran To Grant China, 'Friendly' Countries 'Special Consideration' On Hormuz Fees
Via The Cradle
Iran's ambassador to China stated on Saturday that the Islamic Republic would impose service fees on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, but that China and other "friendly" countries would be granted "special considerations ."
During a speech at the World Peace Forum in Beijing on Saturday, Iranian Ambassador Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli affirmed that Iran was working in "collaboration and cooperation" with Oman on "new arrangements" for the strait .
via Associated Press
Ships passing through Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world's oil exports moved before the US-Israeli war on Iran, must travel along Iranian territory to the north and Omani territory to the south.
"As a country where the Hormuz is part of its territorial waters, we will definitely charge service fees ," Fazli said. However, the fee would not be a "toll," he added, as tolls are considered illegal under international maritime law. Instead, the fees would be for security and administration.
"These new arrangements will be concerning guaranteeing the security of passage through the Straits of Hormuz , supervision of the passage of the vessels … and also guaranteeing and dealing with the environmental consequences of the massive number of ships," he stated.
Iran's NourNews agency quoted the ambassador as saying that "special considerations" would be applied to China and other friendly nations when determining the level and type of service fees charged for their vessels.
Beijing began importing large amounts of Iranian crude in the early 1990s as China industrialized and sought new energy sources to shift away from coal.
Beijing's purchases typically account for roughly 90 percent of Iran's oil exports, providing tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue that support Iran's government and military. To bypass US economic sanctions, much of the oil is transported using trans-shipment hubs and a shadow tanker fleet to obscure its origins .
The Strait of Hormuz was closed by Iran after the US and Israel launched an unprovoked war on the Islamic Republic on February 28.
In April, as energy prices soared, the US responded by imposing a naval blockade on Iran's southern ports to attempt to halt Iranian oil exports.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by Iran and the United States on June 15 to halt hostilities stipulated that commercial ships would be allowed to transit through the Strait of Hormuz free of charge for 60 days. Fazli added that new arrangements regarding Hormuz would be made in cooperation with Oman.
Last month, Oman proposed that ships transit the strait via a new southern route close to its coast and a new northern route along Iran's coast, while the central route through the strait is de-mined. Omani officials worked with the UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO) to develop the plans.
However, Iran rejected plans for the southern route, which would have been overseen by the US, saying it would violate Clause 5 of the MoU.
On Thursday, Iranian forces attacked a Singaporean ship attempting to pass through the southern Omani route, causing the IMO to abandon the effort.
On Friday, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf announced Iran and Oman had reached an agreement on the joint management and regulation of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran has repeatedly vowed that the strait will not return to its pre-war status despite an illegal US blockade on its ports and attempts to undermine Iranian control of the waterway.
"Hormuz is defined under Iran's command, not CENTCOM," Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister and top negotiator Kazem Gharibabadi said in a statement on July 2nd.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 07/05/2026 - 19:50 Close