1 investment I’m eyeing for my Stocks and Shares ISA in 2025
We live in Orwellian times. The deceitful and antisemitic reporting on the Israeli military campaign in Gaza is a glaring example of the gaslighting endemic in parts of the media, academia, and political discourse across the Western world. This article builds on themes from my earlier piece, Gaslighting and Projection of Orwellian Proportion, to challenge whether this gaslighting stops at Israel and the Israeli Defense Forces—or if it is simply the most visible and egregious example of a broader manipulation. The distinction between persuasion and manipulation, in my judgment, lies in intent. Persuasion seeks to inform and inspire with philanthropic motives, aiming to foster understanding and thoughtful action. Manipulation, by contrast, operates with malign intent, seeking to deceive and control. The reporting on Israel exemplifies manipulation, where distortion and bias have sown mistrust and misunderstanding. This raises broader concerns about the narratives promoted by certain media outlets, academics, and political actors—a pattern suggesting deeper systemic agendas. To better understand this phenomenon, it’s worth looking back, as it becomes increasingly clear that this manipulation has been at play for some time. Consider Menachem Begin and Ronald Reagan, two leaders whose legacies are now widely celebrated but who faced relentless vilification during their time in office. Before his election as Israel’s Prime Minister, Begin was labelled a threat to democracy. David Ben Gurion refused even to mention him by name, referring to him dismissively as “the man in the basement.” Yet Begin achieved what many thought impossible: a peace treaty with Egypt, Israel’s greatest adversary at the time. Similarly, Reagan was dismissed as a “Hollywood actor turned politician,” caricatured by critics as reckless and simplistic. Despite this, he ended the Cold War without firing a shot, revitalised the American economy, and restored confidence in democratic values. The parallels with contemporary figures like Peter Dutton are striking. Leaders such as Australia’s Opposition Leader are frequently castigated as “far right” by media, academia, and political opponents. But this raises an essential question: is Dutton truly far right, or simply far right of those who now find themselves firmly entrenched on the far left? The same voices vilifying Israel and the IDF—sections of the ABC, certain academics, union agitators, and partisan journalists—are often those driving divisive narratives in other domains. Their coordination raises doubts about their trustworthiness and intent. If their approach to Israel is rooted in deception, can their messaging in other areas be trusted? Take nuclear energy policy, for example—a subject outside my area of professional expertise, but one that deserves scrutiny. Across the globe, nuclear energy is increasingly seen as a critical component of a sustainable energy future. France generates over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, making it a leader in low-carbon energy. Canada, too, has embraced nuclear energy as part of its strategy to reduce emissions, with prominent progressive figures like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau advocating for its inclusion in achieving net-zero goals. Even in Australia, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke—a revered Labor leader and iconic figure of progressivism—advocated for nuclear power as a forward-thinking solution to the nation’s energy challenges. He argued that Australia’s vast uranium reserves offered an unparalleled opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure energy security while boosting economic growth. Contrast this with the Albanese Government. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Energy Minister Chris Bowen have consistently dismissed nuclear energy as a viable option, citing high costs and long lead times. Bowen recently called nuclear power “the most expensive form of energy,” a claim that critics argue overlooks advancements in technology and the broader economic benefits of a diversified energy portfolio. This shift also extends to foreign policy. For decades, there was bipartisan support for Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, with successive Australian governments maintaining a steady alliance with Israel. Recent actions by the Albanese Government, including changes in Australia’s voting patterns at the United Nations, have been perceived by some as a departure from this bipartisan tradition. Critics argue that these moves align Australia with divisive UN resolutions that undermine Israel’s legitimacy, reflecting a broader pivot from the consensus-driven foreign policy of earlier decades. Occam’s Razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is often the correct one, offers insight here. The simplest explanation for the consistent distortion in reporting, policymaking, and public discourse is that much of the left in politics, media, and academia has been overtaken by social Marxists. Social Marxism applies Marxist principles to cultural and social structures rather than economic systems. It divides the world into oppressors and the oppressed, prioritising identity politics and victimhood narratives over truth and shared values. This framework not only explains the distorted reporting on Israel but sheds light on the broader decay in public discourse across the Western world. The connection between manipulation in media and social Marxism becomes clear when one examines how narratives are framed. The same individuals and institutions that distort facts about Israel often exhibit a broader agenda: discrediting traditional values, stifling evidence-based debate, and championing divisive ideologies. Ronald Reagan once warned, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” This cautionary statement resonates deeply in today’s context, where ideological rigidity and social Marxism threaten to erode democratic resilience. Leadership in such times requires clarity, integrity, and the courage to stand against prevailing tides of manipulation and deceit. Throughout my military career, I learned the importance of valuing actions over rhetoric. Words can be empty vessels, but actions reveal true intent. This principle guided me as I observed sycophants who sought to curry favour through flattery while pursuing self-serving motives. The lesson was clear: substance always outweighs superficiality. This perspective informed my reaction to the recent U.S. Presidential election, when I observed a highly educated Australian Jew catastrophise over the election of the 47th President of the United States of America and its implications for reproductive rights. My own stance on this issue is “pro-choice,” yet I found the hyperventilation unwarranted, especially given the administration’s stated policy of keeping abortions “safe, legal, and rare.” This episode revealed a deeper trend: a political platform so weak that the only strategy left was to vilify the alternative. Convincing the public that the alternative is worse is a hallmark of far-left politics, which relies on division and fear rather than constructive solutions. As I approach the conclusion of this article, I find it necessary to share my assessment: I, like many Australians, have at times been influenced by narratives shaped by social Marxists masquerading as educated and learned progressives. However, I have since begun to see through this manipulation. I encourage readers to take a moment of introspection—to reflect on some of the beliefs you may hold as incontrovertible truths. Who are the voices shaping these narratives, and what are their intentions? Because the same people who lecture us incessantly about genocide and apartheid are often the ones championing other causes, perceptions, and ideologies that I can no longer accept at face value. Abraham Lincoln wisely noted, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” To this, I would add the enduring adage: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Together, these sentiments remind us that discernment is not just a virtue but a necessity, especially in these Orwellian times. The reporting on Israel has taught me a vital lesson: to scrutinise, question, and seek truth—even when it challenges long-held beliefs. In these consequential times, clarity and integrity are not luxuries; they are imperatives. We have agency, and we must put a stop to this madness in 2025.Brazil’s Bolsonaro planned and participated in a 2022 coup plot, unsealed police report alleges
Hydreight Reports Record Topline1 Revenue of $6.12M in Q3-2024 (YOY Increase of 54%) and achieved positive Adjusted EBITDA1Gradually declining benchmark interest rates have lured some investors back toward real estate investment trusts (REITs) over the past year. Those lower rates make it easier for REITs to purchase more properties, while shrinking yields for CDs, bonds, and Treasuries drove many income-focused investors back toward higher-yielding dividend stocks again. But amid a good year for REITs, one that was left out in the cold was Sun Communities ( SUI -0.88% ) , which mainly invests in manufactured home communities, RV communities, and marinas. Sun's stock has fallen by about 8% over the past 12 months as the S&P 500 rose by nearly 30%. So what's the right course of action for investors now when it comes to this out-of-favor REIT? Understanding Sun Communities' business model As of the end of the third quarter, Sun's portfolio consisted of 659 properties, including 288 manufactured housing properties, 179 RV properties, and 138 marina properties across North America, plus 54 U.K. properties of various types. That represented a decline from a total of 670 properties a year earlier. That drop was mainly caused by a restructuring of its manufactured housing portfolio, where it struggled with high inventories as interest rates increased. On the bright side, the blended occupancy rate for its North American manufactured housing and RV segments rose 50 basis points year over year to 97.7% in Q3. The U.K. segment's occupancy rate grew 90 basis points to 91.5%. From 2018 to 2023, Sun's core funds from operations (FFO) per share grew at a robust compound annual rate of 9%, even as its residential business weathered the pandemic and rising interest rates. But for 2024, it expects its core FFO to decline by 4% to 5% as it prunes its manufactured housing business. It also plans to restructure its business to further cut costs. Why aren't investors enthusiastic about Sun's future? Sun's business seems stable, but it was hit by some concerning allegations this past September from Blue Orca Capital, a Texas-based short-selling hedge fund. Short-sellers make money when a stock's price falls, so investors should keep that bias in mind. In its report, Blue Orca made several claims of financial improprieties by Sun President and CEO Gary Shiffman. Blue Orca further critiqued some of the approaches the company takes in its financial reporting. It also claims the company is too highly leveraged, with a net-debt-to-recurring- EBITDA ratio of 6.0. However, investors may want to take those bearish claims with a grain of salt. Also, Sun isn't the only REIT to report results in the way that it does, and it certainly isn't unusual for REITs to take on lots of debt. In its Nov. 6 quarterly conference call with analysts, the company reported that it had engaged an independent third-party law firm to look into matters after the short report was released. "...there have been no changes to our financial reporting practices and the Audit Committee determined that the company complied with its disclosure obligations," Shiffman said. Also on Nov. 6, Sun announced that Shiffman would retire in 2025 and that former Chief Operating Officer John McLaren was coming back to serve as the company's president. (The board has begun a separate search for a new CEO.) The timing of that transition and Sun's dim earnings outlook rattled investors, and the stock has tumbled by about 14% over the past three months. The company, however, noted that "Mr. Shiffman’s retirement is not the result of any disagreement with the Company on any matter relating to its operations, policies or practices," and Shiffman said in the conference call that his decision was not related to the Blue Orca report. Trading at around $124, Sun's stock might look reasonably valued at 17 times last year's FFO per share, but its forward dividend yield of 3.1% seems low relative to the yields of other REITs or the 10-year Treasury's current yield of 4.1%. Is it the right time to buy, hold, or sell Sun's stock? Sun's prospects might brighten as it restructures its business and interest rates decline further, but it would be easy to find more appealing REITs with higher dividend yields and lower valuations. For example, Realty Income (NYSE: O) -- a REIT giant that mainly serves large recession-resistant retailers -- offers a forward yield of 5.8% at its current share price, makes payouts on a monthly basis, and trades at less than 14 times last year's FFO per share. So for now, it would be smarter to avoid Sun's stock. It should eventually break out of this rut, but it doesn't make sense to park your cash in this underwhelming REIT when there are plenty of better looking buys in the sector.Millions of university graduates and students will soon wake up to an early Christmas present after the government wiped thousands of dollars off their debts. Login or signup to continue reading Laws to cap the indexation rate for the Higher Education Loan Program at either the rate of inflation or the wage price index - whichever is lowest - passed federal parliament late Tuesday night after Australians were stung with a 7.1 per cent increase to their student debts in 2023 because of surging inflation. The indexation changes will lead to $3 billion in debt being cleared over coming weeks. "University is a lot more expensive today than when I was at university," Education Minister Jason Clare told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. "Wiping $3 billion in debt will fix that spike in inflation that happened last year and it'll make sure that never happens again." People with an average HELP debt level will get a $1200 reduction on their loans. Those with a debt of $45,000 will get a decrease of about $2000, while students with $60,000 owning will have debt lowered by $2700. The changes were recommended in the university accords, a review of the tertiary education sector handed down in February. The laws mean university students completing placement will receive payments to help with living costs from July 2025. Students in degrees including teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work will receive an allowance of $319 per week. The reforms were a big win for students and graduates at a time when many Australians were struggling with the high cost of living, Universities Australia chief executive Luke Sheehy said. Though universities have celebrated these measures, other government proposals for the sector have been widely spurned. Labor has attempted to implement a cap on the number of foreign student arrivals from 2025. The reform would be used in place of an immigration rule known as ministerial direction 107, that has throttled student visas. Swinburne University of Technology vice-chancellor Pascale Quester has urged the government to replace the ministerial direction and prioritise visa processing for enrolments in science, technology, engineering and mathematics courses - collectively known as STEM subjects. The number of domestic students taking these courses has dropped steadily, while international student interest has increased by 39 per cent since 2021. "Forget a brain drain, we are at risk of a brain drought," Professor Quester said. "There is so much STEM talent in the region, but we have slammed the door in their faces with hastily-crafted policy." The government is also expected to slash a further 20 per cent off Australians' student debt if it wins the federal election in 2025. Australian Associated Press DAILY Today's top stories curated by our news team. Also includes evening update. WEEKDAYS Grab a quick bite of today's latest news from around the region and the nation. WEEKLY The latest news, results & expert analysis. WEEKDAYS Catch up on the news of the day and unwind with great reading for your evening. WEEKLY Get the editor's insights: what's happening & why it matters. WEEKLY Love footy? We've got all the action covered. WEEKLY Every Saturday and Tuesday, explore destinations deals, tips & travel writing to transport you around the globe. WEEKLY Get the latest property and development news here. WEEKLY Going out or staying in? Find out what's on. WEEKDAYS Sharp. Close to the ground. Digging deep. Your weekday morning newsletter on national affairs, politics and more. WEEKLY Follow the Newcastle Knights in the NRL? Don't miss your weekly Knights update. TWICE WEEKLY Your essential national news digest: all the big issues on Wednesday and great reading every Saturday. WEEKLY Get news, reviews and expert insights every Thursday from CarExpert, ACM's exclusive motoring partner. TWICE WEEKLY Get real, Australia! Let the ACM network's editors and journalists bring you news and views from all over. AS IT HAPPENS Be the first to know when news breaks. DAILY Your digital replica of Today's Paper. Ready to read from 5am! DAILY Test your skills with interactive crosswords, sudoku & trivia. Fresh daily!
NEW YORK, Dec. 21, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Silvaco Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SVCO) resulting from allegations that Silvaco may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Silvaco securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=32199 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On October 15, 2024, Silvaco issued a press release entitled “Silvaco Announces Preliminary Unaudited Revenue for Q3 and Updates Full Year 2024.” In this press release, Silvaco provided updated full year guidance of $60 to $63 million in revenue, down from the previous guidance of $63 to $66 million in revenue. Silvaco also provided updated guidance of 10% to 16% year-over-year growth, which was down from 16% to 22% projected year-over-year growth. On this news, Silvaco common stock fell 32.6% on October 16, 2024. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm , on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/ . Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. ------------------------------- Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.comTrinasolar Joins AMEA Power for Large Energy Storage Project
Stock market today: Wall Street hits more records following a just-right jobs reportShura Council participates in symposium on situation of Palestinian female prisoners in occupation prisons
Myles Garrett has made a little more history in Sunday’s game against the Dolphins. With his second sack of the day in the fourth quarter, Garrett became the first player with at least 14.0 sacks in four consecutive seasons since the sack became an official stat in 1982. The reigning AP defensive player of the year, Garrett’s 14th sack of 2024 came with 9:16 left in the fourth quarter on second-and-7. He had previously sacked Huntley in the third quarter, which made him one of just three players to eve record at least 13 sacks in five of his first eight seasons. The No. 1 pick of the 2017 draft, Garrett has recorded 102.5 sacks in his eight-year career.On December 23, 2024, the Federal Communications Commission issued FAQs: One-to-One Consent Rule for TCPA Prior Express Written Consent . What is the FCC’s New One-to-One Consent Rule In December 2023, the FCC adopted new rules in the Second Report and Order to combat unwanted and illegal telemarketing calls and texts, including a rule that closed the lead generator loophole. The rule expressly prohibits lead generators, texters and callers from using a single consumer written consent to inundate consumers with unwanted telemarketing robocalls and robotexts from dozens of sellers when consumers visit comparison shopping websites. The FCC made it unequivocally clear that each caller and texter soliciting consumers’ business must obtain a consumer's prior express written consent prior to making such robocalls or robotexts. Under the Commission’s new one-to-one consent rule— which takes effect on January 27, 2025 —the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s prior express written consent requirement applies to a single seller at a time. In other words, robocallers and robotexters must obtain a consumer’s written consent for marketing messages for each seller. For example, on a comparison shopping website, the consumer could check a separate box for each seller they wish to receive a robocall or robotext from. In addition, such consent must be in response to a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the consumer will receive robocalls or robotexts from each selected sellers, and the content of ensuing robotexts and robocalls must be logically and topically related to the website where the consumer gave consent. When Was the TCPA Enacted, and What is its Purpose? In 1991, Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), codified in section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC § 227 , to address certain practices considered to be an invasion of consumer privacy and, in some instances, a risk to public safety. The TCPA generally prohibits making any nonemergency call using an artificial or prerecorded voice to any residential telephone line, wireless telephone number, or certain other telephone numbers (for example, a 911 line, other emergency telephone numbers, or a patient room at a hospital) without the prior express consent of the called party. The TCPA also prohibits making any nonemergency call using an automatic telephone dialing system (also referred to as an autodialer) to certain telephone numbers—including any wireless telephone number—without the prior express consent of the called party. The TCPA generally requires callers to get consumer consent before making certain calls to consumers using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice. FCC rules require prior express written consent for all telephone calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver an advertising or telemarketing message to wireless numbers and residential lines (such written consent is also required for calls to certain telephone numbers, including wireless numbers, using an autodialer). In addition, in a 2003 Order , the FCC explained that the TCPA applies to both voice calls and text messages. The FCC’s most recent actions have centered on a consumer’s right to revoke consent when they no longer want robocalls or robotexts and on the growing use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in calling and texting. In a 2024 Order the FCC took steps to protect consumers by strengthening consumers’ ability to revoke consent to receive robocalls and robotexts and also required that callers and texters implement such requests in a timely manner. More recently, the FCC released a 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing steps to protect consumers from the abuse of AI in robocalls. Are There Written Consent Requirements to Protect Consumers Whose Telephone Numbers are Registered in the Do-Not-Call Registry? The FCC’s Do-Not-Call (“DNC”) rules also protect consumers from unwanted telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls when the consumer has added their number to the National DNC Registry . These additional protections apply to all telemarketing calls, regardless of the technology used to make the call or whether the call is to a wireline or a wireless number. However, even if a consumer’s telephone number is listed in the DNC Registry, the consumer can provide prior express written consent to receive telemarketing calls or texts from a particular seller. To obtain prior express invitation or permission for a telemarketing call to a DNC line, the caller must meet the requirements of section 64.1200(c)(2)(ii) of the FCC’s rules: “Such permission must be evidenced by a signed, written agreement between the consumer and seller which states that the consumer agrees to be contacted by this seller and includes the telephone number to which the calls may be placed.” Why Did the FCC Adopt the One-to-One Consent Rule? In short, the FCC believes that lead generated communications were a large percentage of unwanted robocalls and robotexts and “often rely on flimsy or nonexistent claims of consent.” The FCC also states its belief that while comparison shopping websites that involve lead generation can benefit consumers by enabling them to quickly compare goods and services and discover new sellers, “new protections were necessary to stop abuse of its established prior express written consent requirement.” The FCC also states that “this rule is consistent with the Federal Trade Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, which requires one-to-one consent as well.” Does the New FCC Requirement for One-to-One Prior Express Written Consent Apply When a Third Party is Added to an Ongoing Live Telemarketing Call? The FCC explained in its Second Report and Order that the new one-to-one consent rule would not affect the practice of connecting a third-party agent to a prospective customer on a telemarketing call that is not autodialed and does not include a prerecorded or artificial voice message. “Indeed, the new one-to-one consent rule has no bearing on such calls. It only applies to calls made using an autodialer or prerecorded or artificial voice.” However, if the third party seeks to reconnect with a consumer following this initial live call, the caller must obtain the necessary consumer consent if its future calls will be placed using an autodialed and/or prerecorded or artificial voice. Where Can I Find the Second Report and Order? The Second Report and Order is available, here , The Federal Register Summary of the Second Report and Order is available, here . Takeaway: Lead generators and telemarketers should consult with an experienced FTC defense lawyer ahead of the looming one-to-one consent rule effective date. Without limitation, failing to ensure lawful consent language and processes, utilizing regulated technologies (versus, for example, utilizing lawful human selection systems) with leads procured outside the constraints of the new rule, working with lead generators that do not comply with applicable legal regulations, and/or failing to adhere to the new “logically and topically” related requirement potentially expose corporate entities and individuals associated therewith to significant liability exposure.Malaysia agrees to resume 'no find, no fee' hunt for flight MH370, 10 years after plane disappeared