Author Archives: sterlingcooper

HOW DO HEDGE FUNDS ACTUALLY WORK, AD HOW INVESTORS TYPICALLY JUST HAVE LACKLUSTER RETURNS

HOW TO HEDGE FUNDS ACTUALLY WORK???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtO5hg69ZUs

 

Secrets of Hedge Funds: How Billionaires Gamble Without Losing

Today’s billionaires have a private playground for investing—and it’s not the stock market you know. Hedge funds have become the go-to tool for the world’s elite to seek big returns, explore secret deals, and enjoy a level of freedom rarely seen anywhere else in finance. But hedge funds weren’t always this secretive, exclusive, or even risky. To understand how hedge funds work and why the rich love them, you need to know where it all started, who gets in, and how the money is really made.

Video summary generated with artificial intelligence.

Back in the 1950s, Alfred Winslow Jones—a sociologist, not a Wall Street banker—changed investing forever. He created the first hedge fund. The word hedge simply means protection. Think of buying travel insurance for a flight: if your flight’s canceled, you lose the ticket price, but the insurance gives some money back. Jones applied this concept to investing by betting on winners and against losers in the market. This clever mix aimed to balance risk no matter which way stocks moved. At the time, this was a game-changing idea.

Jones’s original hedge fund idea focused on reducing risk, but today hedge funds are almost the opposite: high-risk, secretive, and closed off to most people. Instead of safety, modern hedge funds have earned a reputation for exclusivity and aggressive bets. How did things shift so much?

The 1920s was a wild party for the economy. Companies like Ford made goods cheaper and life more modern. Almost everyone tried their luck in the stock market, hoping to get rich overnight. But there were no rules to keep things honest.

Popular but fake investments included:

  • Gold mines that didn’t exist
  • Airline companies with no planes
  • Cactus farms in New Jersey

This fantasy crashed in October 1929. Stocks tanked, banks failed, millions lost their savings, and the U.S. sank into the Great Depression.

To fix the chaos, Congress passed the Securities Act of 1933, forcing companies to honestly report their finances when selling stock. In 1934, the Securities Exchange Act created the SEC, a watchdog over markets. These actions gave public investors two important things: real data and a fair shot. Today, you can see real company reports before you put your money at risk.

Unlike mutual funds, hedge funds don’t need to cater to the public. They only accept money from “accredited investors”—typically people with over $1 million net worth (not counting their home) or earning above $200,000 a year. Because they’re private, hedge funds skip most of the safety rules that protect regular investors. The logic: if you’re that rich, you can afford to risk it.

In a typical hedge fund, a group of wealthy people pools their money and trusts a fund manager to invest it. The approach is simple: “Trust me.” There’s hardly any day-to-day reporting, and managers don’t have to share their moves. Investors let the manager “cook” their strategy with little oversight and hope for bigger returns.

Hedge funds can invest in anything—Japanese interest rates, collapsing Chinese real estate, rare paintings, natural gas futures, or even the fate of entire economies. They use strategies most public funds aren’t allowed to touch, such as aggressive short selling, complex derivatives, and heavy borrowing. The rich look for new hunting grounds, and hedge funds let them in.

Imagine public investing as fishing from a crowded dock. It’s safe and transparent, but you only catch what’s already close by. Hedge funds are submarines: small, expert crews with hidden tools dive deep for treasures no one else can see. That secrecy gives them an edge—at least in theory.

Hedge funds don’t broadcast what they own or trade. If rivals saw their strategies, they could simply copy them or drive up prices mid-trade. Even investors rarely get frequent updates. With no public oversight, trust is key, and managers guard their bets jealously.

Once you’re in, you often can’t get out quickly. Most hedge funds have lock-up periods—six months, a year, or more. This helps managers avoid selling assets in a panic and lets their long-term bets mature.

Hedge fund managers use a famous pay model: the 2% management fee and 20% performance fee.

Fund Size Annual 2% Fee 20% Performance Fee (on $100M gain)
$1B $20M $20M

Managers get 2% of the fund’s assets every year, win or lose. If returns are good, they collect 20% of profits as well. There’s a “high water mark” rule that stops repeated performance fees unless the fund recovers any losses—but that 2% rolls in no matter what.

Investors question the high fees, lack of transparency, and mixed results—especially when simple index funds often perform just as well or better after fees. Many wonder: why pay big for mystery deals? For those curious about long-term market returns, watch Will The Stock Market Always Go Up?.

Despite doubts, hedge funds pull in billions. The lure isn’t just big profits. It’s access to unique deals and strategies you simply can’t get elsewhere. For the ultra wealthy, it’s about being in the right rooms and not missing out on private opportunities.

Hedge funds offer plays regular investors can’t find. These include:

  • High-frequency trading
  • Global macroeconomic bets
  • Political and regulatory bets
  • Complex derivatives
  • Private loans and rare asset deals

These go way beyond standard stocks and index funds.

Managing complex portfolios full-time is a headache. Hedge funds act like private chefs—they do the heavy lifting, let the client enjoy results, and save time along the way.

Hedge funds operate like private clubs. Joining means access to strategic relationships, insider deals, and social status. Being a limited partner signals you belong to an influential financial circle.

The wealthy lean on hedge funds for strategies that don’t move with the rest of their portfolio. Even if returns lag, they can reduce risk by spreading bets across different investments.

Hedge funds carry a mystique. They’re seen as the secret weapon of the rich—fuel for headlines, movies, and envy. For many, being “in” gives hope of catching the next big winner and the social status that comes with it.

What started as a tool for risk control has become an exclusive club for chasing big wins. Hedge funds now mean access, secrecy, and high stakes in a world few ever see.

For most investors, public markets offer safety and fairness. Hedge funds sit behind closed doors, trading higher risk for a chance at higher rewards. Know how these worlds differ before venturing in.

Conclusion

Hedge funds began as a clever way to protect against loss but have grown into something far more complex. They aren’t just about chasing returns—they offer access, connections, and status. Most people will never set foot in that world, but understanding hedge funds helps explain how the rich invest and why those rooms remain the most exclusive in finance.

 

THE FBI LIES, IS CORRUPT AND CREATED AN APP THAT HID INFORMATION !

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s release last week of an FBI memorandum discussing the Bureau’s ability to render computerized records invisible to other agents raises huge constitutional and corruption concerns. On Monday, The Federalist analyzed the revelations from that recently declassified document, explaining that material coded “Prohibited Access” in the FBI’s Sentinel case management system will not appear in search results, meaning that users of Sentinel would not know that information relevant to their search even exists.

If Sentinel users do not know that relevant evidence exists, the DOJ cannot possibly provide exculpatory or impeachment evidence to criminal defendants or fulfill their discovery obligations in civil cases. Nor could the DOJ and FBI find all responsive documents for Freedom of Information Act requests, or in response to congressional inquiries or investigations by the inspector general. And the FBI cannot possibly properly investigate criminality if its agents do not even know of potentially relevant evidence.

From the scant evidence available to date, we know that these concerns are not merely hypothetical. Documents related to the Trump/Russia-collusion investigation were coded “Prohibited Access.” That coding prevented agents in the Washington Field Office from identifying potentially relevant evidence concerning whether Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr lied to Congress about her role in the Crossfire Hurricane hoax.

We also know that the U.S. attorney screening material related to Ukraine corruption and the Biden family did not know that the FBI could render material invisible in Sentinel. Likewise, senior DOJ officials familiar with the investigation into the Russia collusion hoax had no knowledge of the “Prohibited Access” functionality. Whether those investigations were similarly stymied is currently unknown because there is so little we presently understand about the FBI’s use of “Prohibited Access.”

Likewise, whether — and if so, how frequently — the DOJ violated its obligation to provide exculpatory and impeachment evidence to criminal defendants, or failed to meet discovery obligations, because of Sentinel’s “Prohibited Access” functionality, is a giant question mark. Whether files rendered invisible in Sentinel were likewise wrongfully withheld from Congress, the inspector general, or those submitting FOIA requests also remains unknown and will be until we get answers to some fundamental questions.

Here are the questions the FBI needs to answer:

When was the Prohibited Access function added to Sentinel? Who decided to add that functionality? Who approved that decision? And who was told of that decision?

Who could mark material Prohibited Access? What standard determines whether material is classified Prohibited Access versus Restricted Access? Who must approve the Prohibited Access designation? Who can see the existence of files designated Prohibited Access?

How long are materials maintained under the Prohibited Access designation? What happens if all the individuals with Prohibited Access to a file leave the Bureau? Can anyone see the existence of the file?

Are Prohibited Access materials ever deleted? Can Sentinel be audited to determine if documents have been deleted, and, if so, by whom? Can those documents be recovered?

Has an audit ever been conducted on Prohibited Access files? By whom? What were the results?

Can the FBI obtain a list of all Prohibited Access materials? How? Has the FBI obtained such a list? How many documents were logged as Prohibited Access? Has anyone reviewed those documents to ascertain whether they were relevant to any criminal or civil cases? Congressional or IG investigations? FOIA requests?

When someone searches for a term that appears in a Prohibited Access document and receives a message that indicates there are no responsive documents, does that trigger an alert to the agents working on the Prohibited Access case? If so, what steps are taken to ensure any relevant information hidden behind the Prohibited Access coding reaches the proper parties?

Do all FBI agents know about the Prohibited Access functionality? Is it in training material? Does the FBI’s Domestic Investigations Operations Guide cover Sentinel? Does Sentinel show the “Prohibited Access” coding as an option when entering a document? Have any agents expressed concerns over their inability to learn of the existence of relevant materials because of Prohibited Access?

When was the DOJ’s inspector general first alerted to the Prohibited Access functionality? By whom? What was the inspector general told?

What is the FBI’s procedure for searching Sentinel in response to requests from the DOJ for either criminal or civil cases? For FOIA cases? In response to congressional inquiries? In response to requests from the inspector general?

These are merely the general questions about Sentinel and the Prohibited Access functionality that need answering. How many more questions follow depends on the answers to these initial queries: If there were only a few cases or a few documents classified as Prohibited Access, the concerns will be much narrower. But if the FBI used Prohibited Access coding on a widespread basis, the ramifications will be enormous.

Jason Foster, the Founder and Chair of Empower Oversight, a  nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to combat waste, fraud, and abuse both inside and outside government, concurred with this assessment, telling The Federalist:

“Making a digital record unsearchable effectively deletes it for all other FBI users and creates the potential to taint thousands of FBI investigations, much like the 1990s FBI crime lab scandal did. That scandal sparked decades of consequences, even as late as 2015 when a DOJ review found errors in FBI hair analysis testimony in dozens of death penalty cases. The implications here for the government’s constitutional obligations to disclose evidence could be staggering.”

Foster, whose Empower Oversight organization represented the IRS whistleblowers who exposed the political interference in the Hunter Biden investigation, added that the Prohibited Access “feature sounds like it creates a digital black hole where evidence vanishes to all but the select few who already know it exists. This echoes J. Edgar Hoover’s secret ‘Official and Confidential files’ that were kept under the direct physical control of only himself and his personal secretary, who destroyed many of them after his death.”

But as Foster told The Federalist, the “new FBI leadership has an opportunity and an obligation to come clean.” “There needs to be a comprehensive review of how many records are essentially locked in this secret digital vault and who holds the keys,” Foster stressed.

Yes, and the FBI can start by answering the questions detailed above.

MAKING GASOLINE FROM THE AIR!!! IT IS HERE!

In 2022, transportation was responsible for an estimated 28 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of those emissions came from everyday gas-powered cars. And while electric vehicles have been heralded as a greener alternative, decades of advocacy and hundreds of billions of dollars in investment have yielded meager results.

Today, electric cars make up just around 8 percent of all vehicles on U.S. roads. (Roughly 90 person of vehicles globally still run on fossil fuels.) Most EVs remain prohibitively expensive for the majority of Americans, and they require enormous amounts of critical minerals—resources that, when extracted at scale, pose their own environmental dilemmas. Most Americans also still just aren’t interested in ditching their gas guzzlers to save the planet.

But what if they didn’t have to?

That’s the alluring—if wildly ambitious—vision being presented by New York–based fuels startup Aircela. Earlier this month, the company announced it had created the world’s first functional machine capable of generating real, usable car gasoline “directly from the air.” Aircela’s new device, roughly the size of a commercial refrigerator, combines direct air capture (DAC) with on-site fuel synthesis to create gasoline using just air, water, and renewable energy. No fossil fuels, they say, are required.

The product their device produces can be poured directly into the tank of any standard gas-powered car. Aircela demonstrated the process, making gasoline directly from air, in front of a live audience in New York. Though most would describe this proof of concept as a “prototype,” company co-founder and CEO Eric Dahlgren takes some umbrage with that label.

“We didn’t build a prototype. We built a working machine,” Dahlgren said in a statement. “We want people to walk away knowing this isn’t too good to be true—it actually works.”

How an at-home carbon capture facility would work

Aircela’s device essentially functions as a compact, portable direct carbon capture facility (DAC) unit. Carbon capture generally refers to the practice of removing carbon dioxide from sources like smokestacks or fossil fuel power plants. Direct air capture, the approach used by Aircela, pulls CO₂ directly from the atmosphere. Europe currently has more than a dozen DAC facilities in operation, and the U.S. federal government is also investing in the technology. Some facilities, such as those run by Climeworks, use large fan-like machines to filter carbon dioxide from the air. Others, like those developed by Carbon Engineering, use chemical mists that bind with CO₂ to extract it. Some researchers are even exploring methods to capture carbon dioxide from the oceans. In most of these cases, the aim is to capture and store the harmful greenhouse gas. Aircela wants to recycle it into cars.

Aircela claims its device captures carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and then converts it into gasoline. The resulting fuel doesn’t contain sulfur, ethanol, or heavy metals. Photos of the machine shared by the company show a device composed of three large blue hexagonal units—two side by side on the bottom and one stacked on top. These separate sections handle the stages of air capture and fuel synthesis. On the back of the machine is a standard-looking gasoline nozzle, similar to what you’d find at a gas station. In theory, someone could install one of these units outside their home and use it to refuel their vehicle before heading out for the day. More importantly, it suggests drivers could potentially reduce their environmental impact without needing to change their daily habits.

A spokesperson from Aircela told Popular Science that their machine is designed to capture 10 kgs of CO₂ each day. From that, it can produce 1 gallon of gasoline. The machine can store up to 17 gallons of fuel in its tank. For context, a Toyota Tacoma’s fuel tank has a capacity of 21.1 gallons. In other words, at least in its current form, the device wouldn’t be capable of filling up a car’s tank with gas overnight. The spokesperson didn’t comment on the device’s precise cost but noted that “affordability is essential” to the company’s mission. Aircela is designing the device for mass production, which they believe will drive down costs over time.

The company reportedly wants to start manufacturing the machine by the fall with an interest in targeting a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial customers.

Related: [The truth about carbon capture technology]

The age old question: will it scale?

The most obvious downside to an approach like this compared to a larger, industrial-scale DAC facility, is sheer impact. A single device, on its own, won’t make a meaningful dent in reducing carbon emissions. But Aircela believes its relatively small size actually makes it less costly and faster to deploy at scale. CEO Eric Dahlgren says the compact form factor gives the technology the flexibility to scale down for individual car owners or scale up for larger clients, such as gas stations or even cargo shipping containers.

“We truly believe that our approach is the fastest way to bring carbon neutral fuels to as many people as possible, to as many places as possible, as soon as possible,” Dahlgren said in a statement.

illustration of a man standing next to device that's three hexagons stacked
Aircela hopes to start manufacturing the device in fall 2025. Image: Aircela Image: Aircela

Of course, that vision also depends entirely on the continued expansion and viability of renewable energy sources. If an Aircela machine uses electricity from a grid powered by natural gas, then not much has really been achieved in terms of carbon reduction. In the U.S., the trend toward renewable energy is strong, though notably less so under the current presidential administration, which has openly embraced the motto“drill baby drill.” Still, Dahlgren says it’s important to approach carbon reduction and environmentalism with a broad perspective and a sense of urgency.

“We cannot wait decades,” Dahlgren added “we need to do something about it right now.”

SAVE US FROM THE ERRORS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET DINGBATS (CBO)

Save Us From the CBO

White House chief economist Kevin Hassett hit on a wider problem last week when he criticized the overly pessimistic prediction out of the Congressional Budget Office’s revenue estimating partner. The Joint Committee on Taxation said extending the 2017 tax cuts would cost some $4.6 trillion in government revenue over 10 years. Mr. Hassett pointed out that if the House reconciliation bill’s tax cuts could boost economic growth to 3%—still less than the post-World War II average— it would restore more than $4 trillion in income to Washington. In doing so, Mr. Hassett uncovered an issue that has swerved Washington into bad policy for decades.

The most powerful forces on Capitol Hill aren’t the House speaker and Senate majority leader, they’re the CBO and JCT. These two unelected bodies forecast how legislation could change spending and revenue over the next decade. Too often, these predictions are wildly off base.

In their defense, it isn’t an easy job. As Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: “Making predictions is hard to do, especially about the future.” What’s less defensible: The computer models that the CBO and JCT use for their predictions keep making the same mistakes.

The CBO and JCT routinely overestimate revenue from tax-rate increases as well as losses from tax cuts. The most recent example is the CBO estimate of the 2017 Trump tax cut’s fiscal effects. Its prediction has proved almost $1.5 trillion too low so far.

The explanation for this persistent error is that the CBO’s and JCT’s computer models fail to take adequate account of how tax-rate changes affect the amount and timing of businesses’ and workers’ decisions—including how much to save, invest and work. Higher tax rates also lead to more tax-avoidance strategies. Imagine how many decisions you would make differently if your income-tax rate rose from 20% to 50%.

Though the modelers now do some dynamic scoring, even this insufficiently accounts for the macroeconomic effects of lower taxes on growth.

Economists have decades of evidence that in most cases, U.S. tax-rate increases have lowered economic growth while tax-rate reductions have increased growth and employment. It happened after the tax cuts urged by Presidents Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Trump. The CBO and JCT’s algorithms don’t adequately account for those historical data.

An infamous example of the JCT and CBO models’ spitting out crazy results came when Sen. Bob Packwood in 1988 requested that the JCT estimate how much revenue would be raised if Congress lifted the top tax rate on income above $200,000 to 100%. The answer to that is obviously close to zero. But the CBO calculated revenue increases of $104 billion the first year, $204 billion the second year, $232 billion in the third, and $299 billion in the fourth and fifth.

That gaffe is old, but the models are hardly better today. The CBO issued one of its most absurd revenue estimates to date this year on a bill sponsored by Senate Majority Leader John Thune to eliminate the federal gift and estate tax. The CBO told Congress it would cost the government more than $600 billion in lost revenue over the next decade. That’s hard to believe, given that the tax raised less than $34 billion in 2023, the latest year reported and the highest level of annual revenue from that tax this century. The CBO’s estimate entirely ignores studies that find that eliminating the estate tax would direct less money into estate-tax planning and avoidance and more money toward reinvestment in family-owned businesses and other ventures. Yet the CBO assumes virtually no benefit to the economy from eliminating this deleterious tax. A Ouija board could turn out more accurate prognostications.

Though these predictions so often fail, relying on terrible assumptions, Congress is still largely a slave to the CBO’s authority on the cost of a bill. The media brandish estimates from it and the JCT to frighten off legislators interested in growth-focused policy. Too often, it works. That’s no way to run a country.

SO CALLED VACCINES WERE MISREPRESENTED

Hidden Betrayal: Moderna and Pfizer Shots Hijack Immune Cells to Rewrite mRNA, Prolonging Spike Protein Production

For years, health authorities assured the public that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were a temporary intervention — delivering a brief genetic message before harmlessly fading away. But a shocking new study published in Nature reveals a far darker reality: These shots don’t just deliver instructions — they reprogram the body to extend their lifespan, forcing cells to produce spike protein far longer than disclosed. The bombshell findings expose a hidden layer of genetic manipulation, raising urgent questions about long-term risks, informed consent, and the true cost of Big Pharma’s rushed “miracle” technology.

Key points:

  • A new study in Nature confirms Moderna and Pfizer’s mRNA shots induce the body to produce an enzyme (TENT5A) that rewrites the vaccine’s mRNA, doubling its tail length and prolonging spike protein production.
  • Spike protein — linked to heart, brain, and immune damage — may persist for years, contradicting official claims it would last “a few weeks.”
  • Moderna’s own scientists admitted mRNA vaccines carry “unacceptable toxicity” risks in a 2024 paper, yet regulators greenlit them for billions.
  • The process hijacks immune cells (macrophages), forcing them to stabilize and amplify the synthetic mRNA, turning the body into an unwitting accomplice.
  • Novavax’s protein-based vaccine does not trigger this effect, suggesting the danger is unique to mRNA technology.

The body’s betrayal: How mRNA shots rewrite their own code

The Polish study (Krawczyk et al., 2025) reveals a chilling mechanism: After injection, immune cells detect the foreign mRNA and activate TENT5A — an enzyme that normally plays no role in vaccine responses. TENT5A then latches onto the vaccine’s genetic code, extending its poly(A) tail — a molecular “timer” that dictates how long mRNA survives. In some cases, Moderna’s mRNA tail doubled in length, from 100 to 200 nucleotides.

“This wasn’t just persistence — it was amplification,” explains Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist and outspoken critic of COVID vaccine safety. “The body is essentially tricked into editing the shot’s instructions to make it last longer. This was never part of the clinical trials.”

A timeline of deception

Public health officials repeatedly claimed mRNA vaccines were “short-lived.” Dr. Paul Offit, a CDC advisor, stated in 2021 that spike protein production would last “a couple of weeks.” Yet studies have since detected spike in blood samples for 187 days, 245 days, and even 709 days post-injection. Moderna’s internal documents acknowledge “challenges” with mRNA toxicity, yet these risks were buried beneath relentless propaganda touting the shots as “safe and effective.”

The Nature study confirms the worst: The vaccines don’t just deliver a message — they reprogram the body to keep that message alive. “It’s like giving someone a self-replicating memo,” says molecular biologist Dr. Jessica Rose. “The memo was supposed to be read once and discarded. Instead, the recipient photocopies it endlessly.”

Why Novavax escapes the trap

Unlike mRNA shots, Novavax’s protein-based vaccine — which contains pre-made spike protein — does not trigger TENT5A activity. This critical distinction suggests the mRNA platform itself is the problem. “The lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used in Pfizer and Moderna’s shots are the Trojan horse,” explains immunologist Dr. Byram Bridle. “They smuggle synthetic mRNA into cells, but the payload doesn’t just fade away — it gets enhanced by the immune system.”

  • Long-term damage: If spike protein lingers for years, what does that mean for cardiovascular, neurological, and autoimmune risks?
  • Informed consent: Were patients ever told their bodies might rewrite the vaccine’s code?
  • Regulatory failure: Why did agencies fast-track these shots while ignoring red flags about mRNA stability?

The Nature study’s authors frame TENT5A’s role as a way to “enhance efficacy.” But for millions already injured, “efficacy” is a euphemism for uncontrolled biological manipulation. The truth is clear: These shots were never as temporary as claimed. The question now is: How many lives will be forever altered by their hidden toll?

AMERICANS ARE FINANCIALLY ILLITERATE!

One in Four Americans Financially Illiterate

Financial literacy is steadily declining in America. The percentage of US adults demonstrating a very low level of financial literacy increased from 20% in 2017 to 25% in 2023.

Around 58% of Americans know about debt and borrowing. Over half (55%) understand saving, and 50% understand consumption. About 42% understand insurance, 44% know about investing, and only 35% know about risk comprehension.

Financial literacy is declining with every generation. Around 53% of the Silent Generation understood finance, followed by 52% of Boomers, 50% of Gen, 45% of Millennials, and 38% of Gen Z. Around 74% of teens admitted that they do not feel confident in their personal finance knowledge, but the good news is that that 73% would like to learn.

There is a drastic difference in knowledge across socio-economic classes, as 75% of American teens are learning about personal finance through their family, with 52% learning a bit at school. An alarming 88% of Americans reported that high school public education did not prepare them for managing their finances. Interestingly, 48% said that they learned about personal finance through social media, which may not be the best reference.

Around 62% of teens said that they learned about savings, 50% were taught about earning, and 44% had some prior information on banking. Only 23% of teens in the US know how to make a budget, but 42% said they were taught how to do so.

This is why we see such a significant difference in financial literacy across socio-economic classes. Only 28% of people earning under $25,000 understand personal finance. That figure rises to 38% for those earning between $25,000 and $49,000, rising once more to 47% for those earning between $50,000 and $99,000. Over 58% of those earning six figures understand personal finance.

The National Financial Educators Council believes that financial illiteracy cost the American public $388 billion in 2023. Americans are facing a private debt crisis. Credit card and household debt have reached record highs and continue to rise. The majority of American households have insufficient emergency savings. The same survey found that 74% of Americans believe they would have made fewer money mistakes if they were properly educated on the subject matter in high school, and 80% believe they would have been more successful if they had that knowledge earlier in life. Politicians believe we should implement countless social programs and simply pay people to exist. America should focus on educating future generations on personal finance as it is perhaps one of the most essential life skills.

AFRICA AID AGENCY TRIES TO KEEP OUT FRAUD AUDITORS, DEN OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD UNCOVERED

This Foreign Aid Agency Locked Its Doors To Keep DOGE Out. Now We Know Why.

Money intended for Africans was secretly re-routed to D.C. bureaucrats and their friends by racist, abusive bosses, employees say

DAILY WIRE LONGREADS: This piece of long-form investigative journalism is adapted from a recent four-part series.

When the Department of Government Efficiency showed up at a small USAID-linked federal agency called the African Development Foundation in March, its management locked the doors and refused to let auditors in. Its board sued to stop DOGE, and was lauded by the Left for objecting to granting “access to USADF systems including financial records, payment and human resources systems.”

But the objection, several former employees told The Daily Wire, might not have been on principled grounds, but rather because those records amounted to a crime scene.

The African Development Foundation’s employees have been sounding the alarm for years about self-dealing, cruelty, and anti-white discrimination. Money sent to Africa was then wired to the personal bank accounts of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. An official promoted his for-profit, multi-level marketing scheme to poor Africans. Law enforcement identified possible criminal kickbacks. And those who now lament DOGE’s shuttering of the agency did nothing to fix it when they had a chance.

“It was so hard to see ADF being used as a beacon of hope and resistance against DOGE because I knew they were actually covering up horrible things…the doors were being kept locked for a reason,” one former employee said. “The hero of the story is actually the villain.”

By law, the agency is only allowed to give grants to Africa-based groups. But to keep more of that money for its own employees and officials’ friends, while concealing how much money actually went to overhead, it would require Africans to send money back to the United States at its direction, employees said.

Until shortly before DOGE gained access to the building with the assistance of U.S. Marshals, the agency was led by CEO Travis Adkins, who arrived in 2021 after a stint at USAID as a Joe Biden political appointee. An assistant to Adkins said that after she asked why her paycheck was lower than agreed upon, Adkins informed her that the remainder would be coming from an overseas account.

He “sent me an email connecting me with this guy in Africa who asked for my banking information. Within a few days, this guy wired me $17,000,” she told The Daily Wire on condition of anonymity. The Daily Wire reviewed bank paperwork showing the transfer from an account in Kenya.

Another longtime employee, she said, was eventually “put on the payroll of an African partner and was informed she was being paid through an entity in Mauritania. No payroll, state, or federal taxes were withheld from her paychecks.”

“The contracts don’t make sense, and they know [DOGE] will find lots of wrongdoing and illegal activity,” she said. “I’m not a fan of DOGE, but some of the things they’re doing need to be done. They have been operating like this for years, and no one did anything about it.”

International money-laundering?

In one instance, the African Development Foundation awarded a grant to a Kenyan journalism group called Africa 24 and directed that group to, in turn, pay the salaries of Americans at the federal agency’s D.C. headquarters.

Chief Financial Officer Mathieu Zahui acknowledged and defended the arrangement.

“The grant was provided to an African organization…a grant can pay for people,” he told The Daily Wire in an interview at his home, where he has been spending his days after DOGE put the agency’s staff on leave and gave them notice of layoffs. “Yeah, granted, they were in D.C.”

Its previous CEO from 2016 to 2021, C.D. Glin — a former Peace Corps DEI officer and later an Obama political appointee to the Peace Corps — reverse-engineered African grants to steer money to friends in the United States, employees said.

The agency gave grants to the Association of Ghana Industries on the condition that it pay Pyxera Global, a D.C. organization where Glin previously worked as director of business development, to “do a study of the artisan sector in Ghana,” agency program manager Kate Ristroph said in a videotaped internal investigative interview obtained by The Daily Wire.

“We’re in that murky territory of like, is this legal?” she said. “The CEO specifically directed it.”

The agency trains African grantees to avoid third-world style corruption by only giving out contracts that have been competitively bid at arms length, yet she was forced to tell them that the Americans were ordering them to do the opposite.

Glin attempted to foist grants addressing nonexistent problems on African groups as a way to steer money to an affiliate of the Aspen Institute, the left-wing Colorado nonprofit, Ristroph said. The then-head of that affiliate, called Artisan Alliance, “flat out tells us she’s a close personal friend of C.D. Glin,” she said.

The agency offered a grant to the Heva Fund, an African group, on the condition that it send a portion to Artisan Alliance. The grant was ostensibly to produce personal protective equipment like face masks, even though Heva told the agency there was no demand for such a thing because affordable PPE was readily available in the region.

Heva was so uncomfortable with the proposition that it asked to cancel the grant, Ristroph said. So the agency pushed the plan on a Kenyan group called Ustadi, which also balked, saying “We don’t need to pay Artisan Alliance, an American company, to help Kenyans learn how to sell masks,” she said.

She said the agency trains African grantees to avoid third-world style corruption by only giving out contracts that have been competitively bid at arms length, yet she was forced to tell them that the Americans were ordering them to do the opposite. “It puts me in a compromising position,” she said.

Criminal kickbacks probe.

This February, President Donald Trump fired the African Development Foundation’s board members, and Adkins resigned as CEO. A three-person committee, including chief financial officer Mathieu Zahui, took over executive duties.

On February 21, DOGE “demanded immediate access to USADF systems including financial records and payment and human resources systems,” but Zahui stalled them. On February 28, the White House emailed Zahui that Pete Marocco, the Trump operative tasked with dismantling USAID, had become acting chairman of the African Development Foundation. Zahui told the White House that agency staff would not honor the appointment because Marocco had not been confirmed by the Senate.

When DOGE returned, staff locked the doors and refused to let them in. DOGE eventually gained access to the building using U.S. Marshals, and put the staff on leave. That’s according to a lawsuit filed against DOGE by a fired board member, with the assistance of left-wing groups, objecting to “swooping in with DOGE staff, demanding access to sensitive information systems.”

But the efforts to stop the Trump administration from viewing that information look different in light of a long-running criminal probe.

Zahui directed more than a million dollars in grants and contracts to a company in Kenya called Ganiam Ltd., without competition. A one-year, $350,000 contract for “transport, travel, relocation” services was executed in March 2020, when few people were traveling or holding conferences because of coronavirus.

According to a search warrant application uncovered by The Daily Wire, USAID’s inspector general established by August 2024 that the company’s owner had secretly wired money to Zahui’s personal bank account at times that matched up with the company obtaining federal contracts. To date, the Department of Justice has not charged either man with a crime.

Ganiam Ltd. is owned by Maina Gakure, whom Zahui has known for decades. Both worked at the Department of Veterans Affairs in San Diego and later moved to Fairfax, Virginia. Gakure had been in charge of awarding contracts at the VA, then created his own company designed to get government construction contracts by taking advantage of a minority preference program. It was called Ganiam LLC and was based out of a house in Virginia.

The African Development Foundation is permitted by law to give grants only to African entities. Gakure similarly created a company based in Kenya called Gakure Ltd.

In January 2024, inspector general agents interviewed Zahui, and he acknowledged having known Gakure personally since 1999. Zahui “could not explain why the contract with Ganiam was sole-sourced instead of being competitively bid,” the agents wrote.

Zahui, who was named chief financial officer of the federal agency after he declared bankruptcy and had his house foreclosed on, acknowledged to investigators that the travel contract was executed after COVID had already shut down travel. He said the money was actually used for IT services, but since Ganiam had no expertise in IT, it subcontracted it to a different company. A Department of Treasury contracting official told the agents that was not allowed.

Zahui continued to give more contracts to Ganiam without competition, which he justified by saying he was “lazy” and didn’t want to find a new vendor. “Zahui stated that he did not receive any direct or indirect benefits from Gakure,” agents wrote.

But in February 2024, the agents seized Zahui’s work phone and examined a subset of the data. “Agents found text messages showing at least eight instances of wire transfers or electronic payments from Gakure to Zahui’s Bank of America account, totaling over $10,000. These payments coincide with USADF’s awarding of sole-source contracts to Ganiam,” they wrote.

“After identifying these payments, the agents stopped their review. Based on the aforementioned evidence, there is probable cause to believe that there are additional relevant communications and instances of payments on the TARGET DEVICE,” they told a judge on October 29, 2024. They asked for a warrant to examine the rest. On November 4, 2024, they executed the search warrant.

Zahui acknowledged to The Daily Wire that he selected Gakure’s firm because of their personal relationship, and said Gakure moved to Kenya before COVID.

During the same time period that Ganiam Ltd. was paid as an African company, Ganiam LLC received $90,000 in U.S. coronavirus assistance designed to prevent the loss of American jobs. Gakure did not return a request for comment.

Zahui told The Daily Wire that Ganiam performed IT services during COVID instead of travel services. Contracting records show that the agency, with only 30 employees, was separately paying astronomical sums for IT, including $865,000 to another minority-owned contractor called Etranservices Corp. between 2020 and 2022, with the option to bill up to $4 million.

Zahui initially denied to The Daily Wire that on top of $800,000 in contracts, the agency also gave grant funding to Ganiam, but he later conceded it was true. He said it gave grants to Ganiam which it was required to use to buy airline tickets for the agency’s African partners to attend events on the continent and to take a trip to the United States, where they visited the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

Zahui also told The Daily Wire that when DOGE changed the office’s locks, they forgot about a back door, and that he has gained access since the takeover.

Offshore bank accounts.

In November 2023, Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), then the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, asked the USAID inspector general to open an “immediate investigation” into what he said was a slew of whistleblower complaints about financial irregularities at the African Development Foundation. Those included “misuse of official funds; fraudulent and corrupt spending practices; conflicts of interest [and] gross mismanagement.”

Among them was “an alleged $2 million deposit by [Zahui] into a bank account in Ghana in February 2023 – that typically would require signature by at least two presently responsible fiduciary agents of the agency,” Risch wrote. “This may also explain why a senior USADF official was unable to account for major financial discrepancies included in the agency’s FY2024 budget request.”

In an internal videotaped interview obtained by The Daily Wire, regional portfolio manager Jeff Gileo, who was tasked with deciding which grantees should receive money, said numerous shadow grants were run out of Zahui’s office, and “we never actually saw them.” He said he asked for information about a grant in the country of Mauritius and was “told no, because there might be some other information in there that people don’t need to know about, being run by finance.”

Zahui strongly denied to The Daily Wire that there was any $2 million deposit. He said it was true that there are accounts throughout Africa with money sitting in them, some in countries where the agency hadn’t been active in years. He also said that he had traveled to open and close such bank accounts, but that the money was all accounted for.

“I went to Botswana, I close it, I take the money out. I went to Swaziland…I close it, and the funds are accounted for today. I couldn’t bring it here because I couldn’t cross the — so we put it where we transfer them in an account, what we call ADF — I forget the name, but we have an account in Kenya,” he said.

Mathieu Zahui, chief financial officer of the African Development Foundation / ADF

Conflicts of interest.

Critics of closing foreign aid agencies say doing so amounts to depriving poor people of essential support. But top officials used the African Development Foundation to advance their own interests, including helping Herbalife — a multi-level marketing scheme run by an agency board member — make inroads on the continent. John Agwunobi, who served as CEO of Herbalife, was an African Development Foundation board member.

In 2020, the African agency partnered with Herbalife at Agwunobi’s behest. That was two months after Herbalife paid a $122 million settlement to the Department of Justice to settle charges that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It also paid $200 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it was a pyramid scheme that exploited people.

The African Development Foundation made it seem like the partnership was with a nonprofit affiliated with Herbalife, but it was actually with the company itself, which was seeking to expand its reach in Africa, the agency’s former general counsel, Mateo Dunne, found. The partnership involved paying five Africans $5,000 and providing them “product donations, and Herbalife Nutrition staff as global volunteers in their businesses,” marketing materials said.

“Materials prepared by USADF and Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. reflect that the partnership was being used to drive corporate sales and marketing, not charitable objectives,” Dunne concluded. “USADF personnel described the partnership with Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. as designed to leverage USADF’s network and reputation to promote the Herbalife brand in Africa.”

That sort of violation of conflict of interest rules was common, Dunne said.

Glin — the Obama appointee who served as the African Development Foundation’s chief executive from 2016 to 2021 — had the agency pay $5,000 a year to an organization, Root Capital, of which he was a board member, employees said. Glin did not file conflict-of-interest reports and ethics pledges, which are required by law and designed to prevent such situations, for most of the years he worked there. He filed one in 2019, but omitted Root Capital from it.

Using poverty funds for luxury.

In January 2022, Travis Adkins took over as CEO. Adkins had a lien against him for unpaid federal taxes from 2015 until he went to work for the federal government, according to public records.

Both Glin and Adkins used agency spending to build their personal brands and glad-hand with celebrities and billionaires, while treating workers with the callous cruelty of which liberals accuse DOGE, employees said.

Glin had the agency pay for him to “travel to countries and network at things that had nothing to do with grassroots African economic development. He went to a Scandinavian country, a European country, African countries where there was no ADF program being considered. He was spending ADF money to get his next job,” an employee said.

Another employee said he’d have the agency pay to sponsor conferences in order to buy prominent speaking slots: “He’d pay $30,000 to speak at events.”

Glin had the agency pay $1,000 to theboardlist.com, which helps executives get prestigious board seats based on DEI hiring, and $7,500 for a Harvard executive class just before leaving the agency, workers said.

All of that seems to have paid off. Glin is now president of the PepsiCo Foundation, overseeing $70 million.

Adkins, for his part, brushed off government rules about travel costs and demanded $1,000-a-night hotels, summarily firing an assistant who raised concerns about his travel arrangements, the former assistant told The Daily Wire, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The executives seemed more concerned about making the agency look good so congressional funding would continue than they were in actually doing good, employees said.

One grantee, called Vava Coffee, violated rules about how it spent grant money, but threatened to publicly disparage the agency as “colonizers” if the checks didn’t keep coming; Glin ordered disbursements to continue, employee Kate Ristroph said in an internal interview obtained by The Daily Wire. She said she eventually succeeded in terminating the grant.

The agency entered into a partnership with the National Basketball Players Association, where NBA players could choose how to spend money in Africa, and American taxpayers would match it. Some of the money was used to build a basketball court.

Toxic workplace.

Glin and Adkins frequently hired workers as contractors instead of government employees, which allowed them to pay them using creative mechanisms such as African pass-throughs.

It broke up the salaries of some workers into small payments from different pass-throughs, seemingly structuring payments to evade contracting rules and oversight by staying under what amounts to a petty cash threshold. One contractor described having to restart her employment every five weeks. Her paychecks came not from the government agency, but from a rotating collection of LLCs, such as Dobbs, the BKW Transformation Group, and Lalaith. When Zahui couldn’t arrange one of these mystery payment sources on time, she was expected to keep working without pay, she said.

Hiring workers as contractors also meant they didn’t have to follow merit-based hiring practices, prove wrongdoing when firing people, or grant them union protections. Glin and Adkins viciously mistreated staff, according to Daily Wire interviews and videos of an internal investigation.

Brandi James, the chief of staff, said in a videotaped internal interview: “Toxic would be people crying or things like that. Yeah, we had that, we had [Glin] yelling.”

Jeff Gilleo, a senior program manager, called Glin a “narcissistic bully” who “said mean things to almost everybody.”

Associate General Counsel Nina-Bella Mbayu said she sought therapy after having “physical reactions” anytime she thought of Glin. “People were just treated, in my opinion, as disposable,” she said.

Yael Nagar, a senior program analyst, said one employee “went on extended sick leave for a mental health program because they were so stressed at work,” and Glin’s takeaway was “we need to make sure no one… finds out about this.”

Employees said they tried to warn PepsiCo against hiring Glin, sending it a letter “about the horrific culture and use of money” under Glin, but that he was hired anyway. PepsiCo and Glin did not return a request for comment.

Employees posted public cries for help on the employer-review website Glassdoor. “USADF is a scary place to work…Maybe one day it will be a workplace that has admirable values and care for its staff. Presently though, it is rotten to the core,” one wrote in 2023.

Brandi James, the agency’s chief of staff, said in an internal email that she tried to use government funds to pay GlassDoor to remove negative posts, but the site refused, leaving them available for anyone who cared to look.

Though DOGE critics now claim that the African Development Foundation was essential and mourn for the jobs lost, when it was operational, no one showed an interest.

‘Them white motherf–ckers.’

The abuse was particularly brutal for white employees, who said the government agency was flagrantly racist. One white junior employee said she soiled herself after Glin made her afraid to leave her desk to use the bathroom.

Adkins’ former assistant, who is black, said in a sworn affidavit that “On at least three occasions, Mr. Adkins told me that he wanted his entire team (to include the General Counsel) to consist only of Black people. He wanted all of his direct reports to be Black.”

“He told me many times he would not hire a white person or a veteran. I said that’s discrimination, and he said ‘I’m the president and CEO, I can do what I want,’” the assistant told The Daily Wire on condition of anonymity. Adkins is also a lecturer at Georgetown University.

The African Development Foundation was created by Congress in 1980 as a board whose members are appointed by the president of the United States to six-year terms, who in turn appoint a CEO to run day-to-day operations. The board chair was Jack Leslie, a white former staffer to former Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) who was appointed to the board by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Adkins bragged about concealing operations from the board, saying “them white motherf—ers, they don’t need to know…I don’t think I should tell them sh–,” according to the assistant.

A junior employee disappeared a few months after she took complaints to the board, and the assistant asked what happened to her; Adkins replied, “I just put the white b—h on a [short-term] contract and then the contract ended,” the assistant said.

The situation was the same under Glin.

“C.D. [Glin] literally said to me that he needed to hire black people,” an employee told The Daily Wire on condition of anonymity. “Virtually everyone he hired in programs was black.”

In 2021, the agency paid to settle an anti-white discrimination claim after it laid off a white senior executive without paying her severance or following federal rules, and falsely claimed she didn’t have the qualifications to shift into another job, even though many of those jobs had actually reported to her.

Retaliation.

In a government agency, the job of the general counsel is to ensure that rules and laws are followed. Glin ensured that the role was either empty or filled with junior lawyers with no experience in government.

After he departed as CEO in May 2021, there was a brief period in which the agency had no permanent leader, and a traditional general counsel managed to be hired. When Mateo Dunne, a white former high-level Defense Department executive, took the job, he was appalled by how little the African Development Foundation seemed to care about laws and rules.

The lawyer set out to interview employees about conflicts of interest, purchase card abuse, contracting fraud, and a toxic workplace environment. In a matter of days, the evidence started stacking up. He told the acting CEO, Elisabeth Feleke, that outside lawyers would have to be brought in to document the full scope of the lawbreaking.

Instead, Feleke ordered him to stop the investigation, told him to change the preliminary findings, and falsely told the board the probe was complete, he told The Daily Wire. Dunne stopped investigating, but sent his preliminary report to the board.

He soon learned that despite agreement that Glin had been abusive, the organization wasn’t getting a fresh start: the board hired Adkins, a decades-long friend of Glin’s, to replace him. When Adkins entered the office for the first time, Glin enveloped him in a bear hug.

Adkins later testified under oath that he was selected to lead the African Development Foundation without even applying for the job, and that he couldn’t recall when or how he managed to be selected.

The report called Dunne a “danger to USADF’s mission and staff.” But the details made clear that the risk was not to anyone’s life, but rather the livelihoods of law-breaking bureaucrats.

As Adkins’ start date neared, Dunne prepared to show him the violations he had found so that Adkins could reform the agency. But it seemed that Adkins already knew, and his first priority was shutting Dunne’s investigation down. Within hours of Adkins being sworn in as president and CEO in January 2022, he put Dunne on leave and cut off his access to evidence before he could even speak, video shows.

“You will be on administrative leave the very moment that we hang up this call. You will have a box mailed to your home to allow you to send back to us any USADF issued equipment,” he told Dunne. “You are not to contact any of the members of the USADF staff. And again, your access to all of our data and systems will be closed down immediately.”

The agency sought to build a justification for firing the white lawyer, with chief of staff Brandi James compiling a 75-page manifesto that called Dunne “Adversarial, Belittling, Calculating, Combative, Condescending, Deceitful, Defensive, Grimy, Sinister, and Unwholesome.”

The report called Dunne a “danger to USADF’s mission and staff.” But the details made clear that the risk was not to anyone’s life, but rather the livelihoods of law-breaking bureaucrats. The dossier faulted him for his “insistence on tying up staff time on investigatory digs.”

The evidence of insubordination was that he had investigated apparent spending on luxuries and personal items by top staff, when Acting CEO Elisabeth Feleke said, “I have not given Mateo direction or mandate to investigate credit card fraud.”

As evidence of Dunne “circumventing and breaching USADF protocols,” the dossier complained that Dunne notified Glin that he had not filed years worth of mandatory Office of Government Ethics conflict-of-interest forms, carrying a $600 penalty, even though Feleke told him not to raise the issue.

Adkins went as far as implying that Dunne had threatened to kill him, alluding to something “being sent to people regarding the death of government officials, as all of us are government officials.” This, it turned out, was a fantastical distortion of Dunne sharing a sentimental quote from a New York governor acknowledging the passing of a former legislator.

Then a new comment appeared on the agency’s profile on GlassDoor that said, under “Advice to Management”: “die.” The post was attributed to “General Counsel.” The African Development Foundation sicced four different law enforcement agencies on Dunne for making death threats.

The former Sunday School-teaching lawyer said he was framed.

“If I was going to do an anonymous post I would obviously not put my job title in there.”

Adkins was forthright with the board’s chair, Jack Leslie, about what was really going on. He wrote to Leslie that Dunne was placed on leave for his “efforts to damage USADF’s reputation via the Office of Inspector General…Dunne conducted an unauthorized, backward-focused investigation.”

Lies.

The African Development Foundation never told Dunne what he was being investigated for, or formally moved to fire him, which would require proving that he did something wrong. It simply left him on paid leave indefinitely, despite a law that limits investigative leave to 90 days. After six months, in July 2022, he quit to take another job.

Dunne provided documentation to the Office of Special Counsel, which exists to investigate whistleblower retaliation, but it closed his file when the employee he’d been working with left her job, he said.

He filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging anti-white discrimination and retaliation. In August 2024, an administrative law judge dismissed his case, even though he had an affidavit from a black employee saying that Adkins had told her repeatedly that he did not want any white people working for him.

Dunne is appealing in court, and deposed African Development Foundation staff in the course of that lawsuit. In his sworn testimony, Adkins denied saying he wouldn’t hire white people — but also claimed he didn’t know how many people worked for him, that he could only remember the names of two, and that he didn’t know what race various employees were.

Adkins did not return a request for comment for this article.

Adkins’ sworn testimony was repeatedly contradicted by documents and the testimony of other employees.

In Sen. Risch’s 2023 letter, he warned that a failure to reform the African Development Foundation might risk destroying public trust in foreign aid as a whole.

“Turning a blind eye to alleged fraud, corruption, and mismanagement in any single development agency or program would undermine the credibility of U.S. development assistance across the board,” he wrote.

Dunne said it has been painful to watch some turn the African Development Foundation into a “martyr,” seemingly to avoid acknowledging that DOGE was right and that established, more cautious methods of accountability had yielded nothing.

“I think USADF deserved the fate that it received, because if it couldn’t be run correctly, then it shouldn’t be run at all. If the leaders of that agency couldn’t act, and members of the foreign policy establishment wouldn’t act,” he said. “It’s an indictment of the entire system.”

 

ZOMBIE TANKERS, TAKE ON IDENTITY OF OLD USA SHIPS TO ALLOW IRAN AND CHINA OIL TRADE!

US-Sanctioned Zombie Tanker Exposes Dark Trade Between Tehran and Beijing

Just over a week after Bloomberg exposed the rise of “zombie” or “phantom” oil tankers—cargo ships that hijack the identities of scrapped ships to evade U.S. sanctions—another clandestine maritime supply chain has emerged, this time revealing how Iranian crude continues flowing into China despite mounting pressure from the Trump administration.

Bloomberg reports that a U.S.-sanctioned “zombie” tanker—Gather View, disguised as a scrapped vessel named Global—delivered 2 million barrels of Iranian oil to a government-run port in Shandong despite a provincial ban on sanctioned ships. Ship tracking data showed the zombie tanker’s port call occurred in late April.

The clandestine maritime supply chain reveals an increasingly desperate Tehran and China’s “teapot” refiners, defying U.S. sanctions and allowing the Iranian oil trade to remain alive.

In a separate report, Reuters reported that U.S. sanctions on two small Chinese teapots have created difficult operating conditions for those refineries.

President Trump has been seeking “maximum pressure” on Iran by disrupting Tehran’s crude export operations with sanctions over its nuclear program.

In March, the U.S. sanctioned Shandong Shouguang Luqing Petrochemical and Shandong Shengxing Chemical in April.

Beijing has previously rejected unilateral sanctions and defends legitimate trade with Iran. China has become Iran’s largest crude buyer.

“Iran needs to be creative because the pace for them to find new tankers cannot really match the pace of US sanctions,” Muyu Xu, senior crude oil analyst at analytics firm Kpler in Singapore, told Bloomberg, adding, “So that’s why we’re seeing them come up with this tactic.”

Last month, Bloomberg identified zombie tankers hauling Venezuelan crude as these new tactics to operate dark fleet operations become more prevalent with foreign adversaries of the U.S.

WARREN BUFFETT CLAIMS TO BE AGNOSTIC, NOT JEWISH

Warren Buffett is not a Jew; in fact, he describes himself as an agnostic.

Still, the billionaire investment guru, who made big news in May when his Berkshire Hathaway corporation bought an 80 percent share in the Israeli metalworks conglomerate, Iscar, for $4 billion, for years has been making his mark on the U.S. Jewish community back home — although sometimes in a roundabout way.

“Proportionally, if you look at the number of Jews in this country and in the world, I’m associated with a hugely disproportionate number,” said Buffett, the second-richest man in the world. His life, he added, “has been blessed by friendship with many Jews.”

The Israeli government stands to reap about $1 billion in taxes on Buffett’s purchase of Iscar. Shortly after announcing the deal, Buffett said he was surprised to learn that a Berkshire subsidiary, CTB International, was purchasing a controlling interest in another Israeli company, AgroLogic.

In Israel — which Buffett plans to visit in the fall — the hope is that the deals will have longer legs: Buffett himself has not ruled out future purchases there and, considering his status as a leading investor, observers say others also may take a look at Israeli companies now that Buffett has done so.

“You won’t find in the world a better-run operation than Iscar,” Buffett says. “I don’t think it’s an accident that it’s run by Israelis.”

Among the first companies Buffett acquired after launching Berkshire Hathaway, the Omaha-based investment and insurance giant, was The Sun Newspapers of Omaha, then owned by Stan Lipsey, one-time chairman of The Jewish Press, Omaha’s Jewish newspaper.

“At the time, the Omaha Club did not take Jewish members, and the Highland Country Club, a golf club, didn’t have any [non-Jewish] members,” Lipsey recalled. “Warren volunteered to join the Highland” — rather than the Omaha — “to set an example of nondiscrimination.”

Buffett happily recalls the fallout from his application.

“It created this big rhubarb,” he said. “All of the rabbis appeared on my behalf, the [Anti-Defamation League] guy appeared on my behalf. Finally they voted to let me in.”

But that wasn’t the end of the story, Buffett said. The Highland had a rule requiring members to donate a certain amount of money to their synagogues. Buffett, of course, wasn’t a synagogue member, so the club changed its policy: Members now would be expected to give to their synagogues, temples or churches.

But that still didn’t quite work, Buffett recalls with a laugh, because of his agnosticism.

In the end, the rule was amended to ask simply that members make some sort of charitable donation, and the path to Buffet’s membership was clear.

“He’s an incredible guy,” said Lipsey, today the publisher of the Buffalo News. In 1973, The Sun won a Pulitzer Prize in local investigative specialized reporting for an expose on financial impropriety at Boys Town, Neb.

“Warren came up with the key source for us knowing what was going on out there,” Lipsey said.

Buffett himself researched Boys Town’s stocks to bolster the story, Lipsey added.

In the 1960s, Omaha Rabbi Myer Kripke decided to invest in his friend Buffett’s new business venture. Their wives had become friendly, he said, and the foursome enjoyed playing the occasional game of bridge together.

“My wife had no card sense and I was certainly no competition to Warren, who is a very good bridge player and a lover of the game,” said Kripke, rabbi emeritus of Omaha’s Conservative Beth El Synagogue. “He’s very bright and very personable and very decent. He is a rich man who is as clean as can be.”

Kripke, father of the noted philosopher Saul Kripke, bought a few shares in Berkshire Hathaway and quickly sold them, doubling his money, he said.

Recognizing a good thing when he saw it, he bought a bunch more shares in his friend’s company, shares that by the 1990s had made Kripke — who says he never earned more than $30,000 a year as a rabbi — a millionaire.

Asked if he credits Buffett with his financial success, he didn’t hesitate.

“Entirely, yes,” he said. “I never had much of an income.”

The Sun newspaper group was not Buffett’s only early purchase of a Jewish-owned company. In 1983, sealing the deal with a handshake, Buffett bought 90 percent of the Nebraska Furniture Mart from Rose Blumkin, a Russian-born Jew who moved to the United States in 1917.

In 1989, he purchased a majority of the stock in Borsheim’s Fine Jewelry and Gifts, a phenomenally successful jewelry store, from the Friedman family.

“He has many friends in the Jewish community,” said Forrest Krutter, secretary of Berkshire Hathaway and a former president of the Jewish Federation of Omaha.

Buffett’s former son-in-law, Allen Greenberg, is a Jew, and now runs the Buffett Foundation, much of whose work has dealt with reproductive rights and family-planning issues. Buffett’s personal assistant is Ian Jacobs, who goes by his Hebrew name, Shami.

Buffett himself counts the late Nebraska businessman Howard “Micky” Newman and philanthropist Jack Skirball as among his “very closest friends.”

Further, Buffett said his “hero and the man who made me an investment success” was Ben Graham. Graham, along with Newman’s father, Jerry, ran a New York fund called Graham-Newman Corp.

“After besieging Ben for the three years after I received my degree from Columbia, Ben and Jerry finally hired me,” Buffett said. “I was the first gentile ever employed by the firm — including secretaries — in its 18 years of existence. My first son bears the middle name Graham after Ben.”