Archive

2024

Browsing

This year’s Pro Bowl Games — the second of its kind — will take place in Orlando, Florida, with the multi-day competition kicking off Thursday night with various skills challenges pitting AFC players against those from the NFC.

On Sunday, the Pro Bowl Games conclude, highlighted by 7-on-7 AFC-NFC flag football at Camping World Stadium.

Players voted to the Pro Bowl Games from the two Super Bowl 58 teams — the Kansas City Chiefs and San Francisco 49ers — will not be participating. The NFC champion 49ers had a league-leading nine players voted to the Pro Bowl, while the AFC champion Chiefs had five.

COACH STEVE: Fun. Friendship. International closeness. Kids’ flag football championships come to Orlando.

Who are the 2024 Pro Bowl Games coaches?

Peyton Manning and Eli Manning will serve as coaches for the inaugural Pro Bowl Games. Peyton will coach the AFC team, with Eli serving as the NFC coach. The Manning brothers also were head coaches for last year’s Pro Bowl Games.

SUPER BOWL CENTRAL: Latest Super Bowl 58 news, stats, odds, matchups and more.

Peyton Manning’s AFC staff will include fellow Pro Football Hall of Famer Ray Lewis (defensive coordinator), Mexico women’s flag football national team member Diana Flores (offensive coordinator) and rapper/actor Snoop Dogg (captain).

Eli Manning’s NFC staff will include Pro Football Hall of Famer DeMarcus Ware (defensive coordinator), U.S. women’s flag football national team member Vanita Krouch (offensive coordinator) and actor Pete Davidson (captain).

How to watch the 2024 Pro Bowl Games

The first round of the Pro Bowl Games skill challenge will take place Thursday at 7 p.m. ET. ESPN will televise the event, with live streams available on Watch ESPN and fubo.

Another round of the skills challenge, as well as the flag football game, will take place Sunday at 3 p.m. ET. ABC, ESPN and Disney XD will televise the event, with live streams available on ESPN+ and fubo.

What are the Pro Bowl Games skill challenge events?

Precision Passing (Thursday): Each of the conference’s three quarterbacks will battle it out in a one-minute accuracy competition, as they attempt to accumulate points by hitting as many targets as possible. Targets range from either static or those attached to robotic dummies or drones. The conference with the highest cumulative score among all participants earns three points.

Best Catch (Thursday): This event will be pre-taped at landmarks around Orlando. One player from each conference will compete in a best catch competition, showing off their creativity, inventiveness and talent. Fans will vote online to determine their favorite catch by a player in each conference, and the player with the highest number of votes will earn three points for his conference.

Closest to the Pin (Thursday): This golf accuracy competition features six players from each conference attempting to hit a ball as close to the hole as possible. The winner will earn three points for his conference.

High Stakes (Thursday): Starting off with a football in hand, each player will attempt to catch punts from a JUGS machine. The players that succeed in catching the football without dropping others will advance to the next round and attempt to catch an additional football. The most sure-handed player who catches the most footballs wins.

Snap Shots (Thursday): A new event this year will allow long snappers and centers to showcase their skills by snapping balls at targets of various sizes and point values.

Dodgeball (Thursday): A multi-round tournament featuring four teams of five players. In the first match, the AFC offense will face the NFC defense, and in the second game the NFC offense squares off against the AFC defense. The winner will earn three points for their conference.

Madden NFL head-to-head (Sunday): Two players from each conference will play Madden NFL 24 using the official 2024 Pro Bowl Games rosters. The winning team will earn their conference three points.

Gridiron Gauntlet (Sunday): Six players from each conference will complete on an obstacle course, breaking through walls, crawling under doors en route to a final sled that will be pushed across the field. The winning team will earn their conference three points.

Kick-Tac-Toe (Sunday): Each conference’s kicker will compete in a giant Tic-Tac-Toe competition. The first kicker to complete a connecting line of three squares or hit five squares total will be declared the winner and earn three points for his conference.

Tug-of-War (Sunday): This will be a five-on-five competition positioned above a foam pit. The competition will be best of three, and the winner who pulls the opposing team across the marker twice gains three points.

Move the Chains (Sunday): Two teams of five offensive and defensive linemen will work together to move 3,000 pounds of weights off a massive wall and be the first team to pull that 2,000-pound wall across the finish line. The winner will earn three points for their conference.

2024 AFC Pro Bowl Games roster

*Starter

OFFENSE

Quarterback

Tua Tagovailoa, Miami Dolphins*
Lamar Jackson, Baltimore Ravens
Patrick Mahomes, Kansas City Chiefs
C.J. Stroud, Houston Texans (replaces Mahomes)
Gardner Minshew, Indianapolis Colts (replaces Jackson)

Running back

Raheem Mostert, Miami Dolphins*
James Cook, Buffalo Bills
Derrick Henry, Tennessee Titans

Fullback

Alec Ingold, Miami Dolphins*

Wide receiver

Tyreek Hill, Miami Dolphins*
Amari Cooper, Cleveland Browns*
Keenan Allen, Los Angeles Chargers
Ja’Marr Chase, Cincinnati Bengals

Tight end

Travis Kelce, Kansas City Chiefs*
David Njoku, Cleveland Browns
Evan Engram, Jacksonville Jaguars (replaces Kelce)

Offensive tackle

Laremy Tunsil, Houston Texans*
Dion Dawkins, Buffalo Bills*
Terron Armstead, Miami Dolphins

Guard

Quenton Nelson, Indianapolis Colts*
Joel Bitonio, Cleveland Browns*
Joe Thuney, Kansas City Chiefs
Kevin Zeitler, Baltimore Ravens (replaces Thuney)

Center

Creed Humphrey, Kansas City Chiefs*
Tyler Linderbaum, Baltimore Ravens
Ryan Kelly, Indianapolis Colts (replaces Humphrey)

DEFENSE

Defensive end

Myles Garrett, Cleveland Browns*
Maxx Crosby, Las Vegas Raiders*
Trey Hendrickson, Cincinnati Bengals

Interior linemen

Chris Jones, Kansas City Chiefs*
Quinnen Williams, New York Jets*
Justin Madubuike, Baltimore Ravens
DeForest Buckner, Indianapolis Colts (replaces Jones)

Outside linebacker

T.J. Watt, Pittsburgh Steelers*
Khalil Mack, Los Angeles Chargers*
Josh Allen, Jacksonville Jaguars
Jermaine Johnson, New York Jets (replaces Mack)

Middle linebacker

Roquan Smith, Baltimore Ravens*
Patrick Queen, Baltimore Ravens

Cornerback

Pat Surtain II, Denver Broncos*
Sauce Gardner, New York Jets*
Jalen Ramsey, Miami Dolphins
Denzel Ward, Cleveland Browns

Free safety

Justin Simmons, Denver Broncos*
Minkah Fitzpatrick, Pittsburgh Steelers

Strong safety

Kyle Hamilton, Baltimore Ravens*

SPECIAL TEAMS

Long snapper

Ross Matiscik, Jacksonville Jaguars*

Punter

AJ Cole, Las Vegas Raiders*

Kicker

Justin Tucker, Baltimore Ravens*

Kick returner

Marvin Mims Jr., Denver Broncos*

Special teamer

Miles Killebrew, Pittsburgh Steelers*

2024 NFC Pro Bowl Games roster

*Starter

OFFENSE

Quarterback

Brock Purdy, San Francisco 49ers*
Dak Prescott, Dallas Cowboys
Matthew Stafford, Los Angeles Rams
Jalen Hurts, Philadelphia Eagles (replaces Purdy)
Baker Mayfield, Tampa Bay Buccaneers (replaces Prescott)
Geno Smith, Seattle Seahawks (replaces Stafford)

Running back

Christian McCaffrey, San Francisco 49ers*
D’Andre Swift, Philadelphia Eagles
Kyren Williams, Los Angeles Rams
Jahmyr Gibbs, Detroit Lions (replaces McCaffrey)

Fullback

Kyle Juszczyk, San Francisco 49ers*
C.J. Ham, Minnesota Vikings (replaces Juszczyk)

Wide receiver

CeeDee Lamb, Dallas Cowboys*
A.J. Brown, Philadelphia Eagles*
Mike Evans, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Puka Nacua, Los Angeles Rams
Amon-Ra St. Brown, Detroit Lions (replaces Brown)
DK Metcalf, Seattle Seahawks (replaces Evans)

Tight end

George Kittle, San Francisco 49ers*
Sam LaPorta, Detroit Lions
Jake Ferguson, Dallas Cowboys (replaces Kittle)

Offensive tackle

Trent Williams, San Francisco 49ers*
Lane Johnson, Philadelphia Eagles*
Penei Sewell, Detroit Lions
Tristan Wirfs, Tampa Bay Buccaneers (replaces Williams)

Guard

Zack Martin, Dallas Cowboys*
Chris Lindstrom, Atlanta Falcons*
Landon Dickerson, Philadelphia Eagles
Tyler Smith, Dallas Cowboys (replaces Martin)

Center

Jason Kelce, Philadelphia Eagles*
Frank Ragnow, Detroit Lions

DEFENSE

Defensive end

Nick Bosa, San Francisco 49ers*
Montez Sweat, Chicago Bears*
Aidan Hutchinson, Detroit Lions
DeMarcus Lawrence, Dallas Cowboys (replaces Bosa)

Interior linemen

Aaron Donald, Los Angeles Rams*
Dexter Lawrence, New York Giants*
Javon Hargrave, San Francisco 49ers
Kenny Clark, Green Bay Packers (replaces Hargrave)

Outside linebacker

Micah Parsons, Dallas Cowboys*
Danielle Hunter, Minnesota Vikings*
Haason Reddick, Philadelphia Eagles

Middle linebacker

Fred Warner, San Francisco 49ers*
Bobby Wagner, Seattle Seahawks
Demario Davis, New Orleans Saints (replaces Warner)

Cornerback

DaRon Bland, Dallas Cowboys*
Charvarius Ward, San Francisco 49ers*
Jaylon Johnson, Chicago Bears
Devon Witherspoon, Seattle Seahawks
Darius Slay, Philadelphia Eagles (replaces Ward)

Free safety

Jessie Bates, Atlanta Falcons*

Strong safety

Budda Baker, Arizona Cardinals*
Julian Love, Seattle Seahawks

SPECIAL TEAMS

Long snapper

Andrew DePaola, Minnesota Vikings*

Punter

Bryan Anger, Dallas Cowboys*

Kicker

Brandon Aubrey, Dallas Cowboys*

Kick returner

Rashid Shaheed, New Orleans Saints*

Special teamer

Jalen Reeves-Maybin, Detroit Lions*
Nick Bellore, Seattle Seahawks (replaces Reeves-Maybin)

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Former President Donald Trump leads President Biden with just over 50% support in Georgia, a state Biden won by less than 1 point in 2020.

That’s according to a Fox News survey of Georgia registered voters released Thursday.

Just over half of Peach State voters, 51%, say they would support Trump in a hypothetical head-to-head rematch, while 43% say they’d go for Biden. That puts Trump ahead by 8 points, outside the poll’s margin of sampling error.

Eight in 10 Georgians (78%) say they are extremely or very interested in the race and the vote breakdown among this subgroup is similar: 52% would go for Trump and 43% Biden.

Trump receives strong support from his base, including White evangelicals (85%), conservatives (76%), White voters without a college degree (74%) and rural voters (67%). For Biden, it’s liberals (87%), Black voters (71%), voters with a college degree (52%) and suburban women (52%).

Democrats and Republicans are equally likely to support their respective candidates (91% each) while independents go for Trump by 20 points (51%-31%). It also helps Trump that more Republicans (83%) than Democrats (78%) are interested in the election. 

Biden is taking a hit with younger voters as those under age 35 go for Trump by 7 points.

A majority says Biden was legitimately elected in 2020 (60%), yet over 2 in 10 (22%) of that subgroup would vote for Trump in 2024. About a third (32%) believe Biden’s victory was suspect, and they overwhelmingly go for the former president (97% Trump).

‘Given that the Democrats won major U.S. Senate races in 2020 and 2022, Trump’s strength in this poll is somewhat surprising,’ says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News Poll with Democrat Chris Anderson. ‘We can blather on (correctly) about how ‘anything can happen,’ but the reality is Biden may want to shift his focus and precious resources away from Georgia and onto other potential battleground states, such as North Carolina.’

In a potential five-way race, Trump still leads the pack, but both the former president and current incumbent lose support to third-party candidates: Trump gets 45%, while Biden drops to 37% support. Other candidates receive a total of 12% support: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (8%), Cornel West (3%) and Jill Stein (1%).

The survey tested another hypothetical five-way race, which substitutes Nikki Haley for Trump. In this case, third-party candidates help Biden and hurt Haley. Biden comes out on top by 6 points with 35% support among Georgians, followed by Haley at 29%, Kennedy at 18%, West at 3% and Stein at 1%.

Where do Trump supporters go in this scenario? Just 46% would back Haley, while 31% would vote third-party, 6% wouldn’t cast a ballot at all and 13% are undecided. Haley gets over 50% support among registered Republicans (52%), but nowhere near the 83% Trump garners in his five-way race.

Independents splinter when it comes to Haley — 20% back her, while 22% would go for Biden and a larger share, 30%, for Kennedy. By comparison, Trump receives 34% support among independent Georgia voters vs. 21% for Biden and 17% for Kennedy.

The economy is the top issue nationally, and it’s no different in Georgia as 44% feel they are falling behind financially (43% say they’re holding steady and 12% say they are getting ahead).

When asked the most important issue in deciding their vote this November, 62% say the economy is extremely important, followed by election integrity (53%), health care (51%) and immigration/border security (46%). Abortion comes in at 40%, while all other issues fall under 30%: the Israel-Hamas war (28%), climate change (27%) and the Ukraine-Russia war (23%).

Trump comes out on top on most issues. More Georgia voters trust Trump than Biden to handle immigration/border security (+21 Trump better to handle), the economy (+18), Israel-Hamas (+15) and Ukraine-Russia (+11). Voters are split on health care (+2 Trump), election integrity (+1 Trump) and abortion (even). The only issue where Biden comes out on top is climate change (+5 Biden).

‘The coalition that gave Biden a slim victory in 2020 is in need of reassembly and that may be harder to do this time,’ says Anderson. ‘On the crucial issues of the border and the economy, Georgia voters think Trump is significantly better — Biden will need to make inroads on these issues to win Georgia again.’

Another topic surrounding the presidential candidates is their mental acuity and more voters are extremely or very concerned about Biden’s mental soundness (65% concerned) than they are Trump’s (51%).

Biden’s job ratings are on par with his national ratings, which are underwater: 41% approve vs. 58% disapprove in Georgia.

Georgia voters are ready for change — a lot of it. Nearly 8 in 10 want either a lot (50%) or radical (29%) change in how the country is run, while 2 in 10 say a little (17%) or no change (3%) is necessary.

Trump wins among those who want at least a lot of change, while Biden wins among the remainder. 

Conducted Jan. 26-30 under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), this Fox News Poll includes interviews with a sample of 1,119 Georgia registered voters randomly selected from a statewide voter file. Respondents spoke with live interviewers on landlines (200) and cellphones (649) or completed the survey online after receiving a text message (270). Results based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points. When necessary, weights are generally applied to age, race, education, and area variables to ensure the demographics of survey respondents are representative of the registered voter population.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The U.S. State Department announced Thursday that it was imposing financial sanctions against four Israelis, after they allegedly contributed to violence and instability in the West Bank.

The announcement came hours after President Biden issued an executive order giving the U.S. the authority to impose financial sanctions against any foreign person who acts to threaten peace, security or stability in the West Bank.

‘The State Department is today imposing financial sanctions on four Israeli nationals for their destabilizing acts in the West Bank,’ State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said during a press briefing. ‘Today’s action falls on the steps we took in December to impose visa restrictions on dozens of individuals for…contributing to violence and instability in the West Bank.’

Biden imposed sanctions on Israeli settlers Thursday in the West Bank, after a 17-year-old American citizen was shot and killed there in January.

An announcement from the White House on the executive order states, ‘extremist settler violence’ reached record levels in the West Bank in 2023. The sanctions will ban dozens of settlers and their families from traveling to or conducting business in the U.S.

Biden’s order applies to settlers who make ‘acts or threats of violence against civilians, intimidate civilians to cause them to leave their homes, destroy or seize property, or engage in terrorist activity in the West Bank.’

The action came after 17-year-old Abedel Jabbar, a U.S. citizen, was allegedly shot and killed by an Israeli settler while visiting the West Bank in January. Jabbar’s family said he was visiting the area to learn more about his Palestinian heritage.

‘There is no justification for extremist violence against civilians, whatever their national origin, ethnicity, or religion,’ Secretary of State Antony Blinken said.

The four individuals who the U.S. imposed financial sanctions against are David Chai Chasdai, Einan Tanjil, Shalom Zicherman, and Yinon Levi.

The State Department said Chasdai initiated and led a riot that involved setting vehicles and buildings on fire, assaulting Palestinian civilians, and damaging a property in Huwara, which resulted in the death of a Palestinian civilian.

Tanjil, the State Department said, participated in assaulting Palestinian farmers and Israeli activists by attacking them with stones and clubs, causing injuries that required medical treatment.

Zicherman was seen on video assaulting Israeli activists and their vehicles in the West Bank, blocking them on the street. He also tried to break windows of vehicles passing by with activists inside, the State Department noted, adding that Zicherman cornered at least two activists and injured them both.

Levi is accused of leading a group of settlers who created fear in the West Bank. The State Department also said Levi led settlers from the Meitarim Farm outpost, who assaulted Palestinian and Bedouin civilians, threatened them with additional violence if they did not leave their homes, set fire to their fields and destroyed their property.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office issued a statement on the sanctions.

‘The absolute majority of the settlers in the West Bank are law-abiding citizens, many of whom are currently taking part in Israel’s defense,’ he said. ‘Israel acts against anyone who breaks the law. Therefore, no room for exceptional measures in this regard.’

Netanyahu’s finance minister, Benjamin Smotrich, called the accusations of violence by settlers an ‘antisemitic lie,’ and added that settlements in the region will continue.

‘If the price is the imposition of American sanctions on me — so be it,’ Smotrich said.

Fox News Digital’s Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A group of Republican senators are demanding that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ‘repair the damage’ to its credibility after a series of errors surrounding the origin of the anti-Catholic memo that targeted traditional Catholics as potential ‘terrorists.’

The memo, which has since been retracted by its creators in the FBI Richmond field office, was a focus in congressional oversight action and hearings last year and garnered significant criticism by Republican lawmakers. 

In a letter obtained by Fox News Digital, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. and 14 of their colleagues, demanded FBI Director Christopher Wray give a ‘coherent and complete response’ to the Senate after its apparent failures in reviewing how the memo was ever created and the agency’s compliance with congressional oversight on the matter. 

‘We are writing about the FBI’s failure to provide information requested by members relating to the now infamous Richmond memo while misleading this body with what little information it did provide,’ the senators wrote. 

‘We recently also learned that the FBI permanently deleted critical records related to the memo, and one of the authors of the Richmond memo prepared a second, external report in coordination with headquarters that was intended to be circulated outside the Richmond office to the full FBI,’ they said. 

According to the lawmakers, the FBI ‘for months used its internal review of the Richmond memo as an excuse not to provide records or respond to members’ questions.’

‘Despite the completion of what we now know was a very narrow internal review, limited to only certain aspects of this single internal analyst report, FBI has repeatedly ignored member requests for records that would enable Congress to conduct its own investigation. This includes FBI’s repeated failure to fulfill the March 1, 2023, request by the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, Charles Grassley, and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, Lindsey Graham,’ the letter states. 

The ranking members asked the agency for copies of the correspondence between the intelligence analysts who drafted the Richmond memo and anyone of higher rank related to the report, an unredacted copy of the Domain Perspective memo, and a copy of all reports issued within FBI or DOJ within the past five years alleging a link between any primarily religious or conservative association or entity and violent extremism.

‘Now we know that information related to the Richmond memo wasn’t provided to Congress because the FBI deleted the records as soon as the incident became public,’ the lawmakers stated, citing a report released by the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 4, in which Deputy Director Paul Abbate ordered Richmond Special Agent in Charge Stanley Meador to ‘take [the memo] down’ as soon as it became public. 

According to Meador, there was then a ‘follow-up call’ from Tanya Ugoretz, the FBI’s assistant director of the Directorate of Intelligence, which ordered Meador to notify the deputy director and Ugoretz, ‘‘when [he] had taken the necessary steps’ to remove the memorandum, and anything referring to the document, from FBI systems,’ the senators note. 

‘FBI must provide an immediate explanation for its order to delete records related to this incident, which not only obstructs congressional oversight, but also means the FBI’s internal review itself did not have access to documents that may have provided critical information on the incident. The FBI must also explain why it withheld this information from the Senate, despite repeated requests for records,’ they said. 

The senators said that based on now-available information, Wray’s claims under oath before Congress that the memo was ‘a single product by a single field office’ was ‘misleading, and that other offices had significant contributions to the memo.

‘Despite the internal memo’s obvious flaws, it was approved by layers of FBI bureaucracy, including the Chief Division Counsel and the Special Agent in Charge (SAC),’ the senators wrote. 

‘Indeed, FBI’s October 27 letter indicated that a total of seven individuals were involved in the drafting, review, and approval of the memo,’ they said. 

‘That a product this defective was reviewed by seven FBI employees and senior agents is evidence of a cultural problem at FBI that points well beyond a single report,’ they said. ‘This broader crisis of FBI leadership is part of an ongoing pattern of weaponization of federal law enforcement against ordinary citizens that we have warned you about at length, and which the FBI must address,’ they said. 

The FBI must respond to the senators by Feb. 14. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen on Thursday launched three separate attacks in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. 

Around 5 a.m., U.S. Central Command forces shot down a drone over the Gulf of Aden. There were no injuries. 

Later Thursday, CENTCOM forces destroyed a Houthi explosive uncrewed surface vehicle (USV) in the Red Sea. U.S. forces identified the USV heading toward the international shipping lane and determined it presented an ‘imminent threat’ to merchant vessels and U.S. Navy ships in the region, CENTCOM said. 

CENTCOM said the strike resulted in ‘significant secondary explosions.’ There were no injuries or damage reported. 

Later that afternoon, two anti-ship ballistic missiles were launched from Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen toward a Liberian-flagged, Bermuda-owned cargo ship. The missiles landed in the water without hitting the ship. There were no injuries or damage reported to the vessel. 

Iran-backed Houthi militants, stationed in Yemen, have for months been firing upon commercial vessels passing through the Red Sea. The militants say the attacks are in support of Palestinians killed in the ongoing Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. Thursday represented the 42nd, 43rd, and 44th such attacks since November 19th.

The latest strikes come just days after three U.S. soldiers were killed in Jordan. The Biden administration has blamed the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iran-backed militias that includes the militant group Kataib Hezbollah. 

Earlier this month, two U.S. Navy SEALs, went missing during a mission in the Red Sea and have since been declared dead. 

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Thursday it’s time to further disable Iran-backed militias like the Houthis that have struck at U.S. forces and ships in the Middle East. He said the U.S. is preparing to take significant action in response to the soldiers’ deaths. 

For days the U.S. has hinted strikes are imminent. The threat of retaliation for Sunday’s deaths has driven some militant groups to say they were stopping hostilities. But the latest strikes by Houthi rebels cast doubt on those claims. 

‘At this point, it’s time to take away even more capability than we’ve taken in the past,’ Austin said Thursday in his first press conference since he was hospitalized on Jan. 1 due to complications from prostate cancer treatment.

Previous U.S. strikes have not deterred the attacks. Since the war between Israel and Hamas broke out in October, Iranian-backed militant groups have struck U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria at least 166 times with rockets, missiles, and one-way attack drones, drawing about a half-dozen U.S. counterstrikes on militant facilities in both countries. The U.S. military also has carried out airstrikes targeting the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

While Iran has denied involvement, Austin said Thursday that ‘how much Iran knew or didn’t know, we don’t know. But it really doesn’t matter because Iran sponsors these groups.’

The Pentagon has the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower in the region, along with at least a half dozen other major U.S. warships, U.S. Air Force fighter jets and radar aircraft. It has already been regularly using those assets to conduct strikes and defend ships.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Thursday that he apologized directly to President Biden for not giving advance notice about his hospitalization for prostate cancer treatment. 

‘I want to be crystal clear. We did not handle this right and I did not handle this right,’ Austin said at a Pentagon press briefing on Thursday. ‘I should have told the president about my cancer diagnosis. I should have also told my team and the American public, and I take full responsibility. I apologize to my teammates and to the American people.’

‘I want to make it very clear that there were no gaps in authorities and no risk to the department’s command and control,’ he insisted, addressing concern about who was in control at the Department of Defense during a time of heightened tension in the Middle East. Austin returned to the Pentagon for the first time since his hospitalization on Monday – just a day after a drone strike by Iran-backed militants killed three U.S. service members and injured at least 40 others in Jordan at a post near the Syrian border. 

‘At every moment, either I or the deputy secretary was in full charge,’ Austin said. ‘And we’ve already put in place some new procedures to make sure that any lapses in notification don’t happen in the future if the deputy secretary needs to temporarily assume the duties of my office. She and several White House officers will be immediately notified, including the White House Situation Room, and so will key officials across the department. And the reason for that assumption of duties will be included in writing.’ 

Austin also said he apologized to Biden after the matter. 

‘As a rule, I don’t talk about conversations with my boss, but I can tell you I have apologized directly to President Biden and I’ve told him that I’m deeply sorry for not letting him know immediately that I received a heavy diagnosis and was getting treatment,’ he said. ‘And he has responded with a grace and warm heart that anyone who knows President Biden would expect. And I’m grateful for his full confidence in me.’ 

Austin rejected the notion that he would resign over the controversy. 

Fox News’ national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin noted that during the time that Austin was in the intensive care unit, there was a drone strike carried out against an Iraqi leader of a militia. 

‘Do you regret that the authorities were not clear at that point? And what can you explain about what was going through your mind at that time?’ Griffin asked during the press conference. ‘And then separately, there’s been a lot of telegraphing about targeting and responding to the drone strike, so much so that the Iranian proxy leaders have left the country. Some are back in Tehran. Has there been too much telegraphing or is the point not to kill any Iranian commanders?’ 

Austin said the strike ‘was planned and I had made recommendations to the president on actions that we should carry out.’

‘President made a decision. And based upon that decision, authorities were pushed down to the Central Command commander. And as you know, a strike like that, you can’t pick the precise time when that strike is going to take place. You want to minimize collateral damage. You want to make sure that you have everything right. And so the subordinate commander had the controls on that particular strike. So I was very much involved in the planning and the recommendation for that. And we knew that that would take place within a matter of days.’ 

‘In terms of telegraphing about strikes and whether or not people leave or what they left,’ Austin said he would not speculate but said the U.S. vows a ‘multi-tiered response.’ 

Austin denied he created what another reporter called a ‘culture of secrecy’ at the department.

The secretary explained that he had a ‘minimally invasive procedure’ on Dec. 22, 2023, to treat his recently diagnosed prostate cancer. 

Unexpectedly, he said he felt severe pain in his leg, abdomen and hip on Jan. 1, and that evening an ambulance took him to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where doctors found he needed treatment for several issues, including a bladder infection and abdominal problems. On Jan. 2, Austin recalled how he was also experiencing a fever, chills and shallow breathing, so medical staff transferred him to the critical care unit for several days for closer monitoring and better ‘team care by my doctors.’ 

‘The deputy secretary assumed the functions and duties of my office, which happens when necessary,’ he said. ‘Her senior staff, my senior staff and the Joint Staff were notified of this through our regular email notification procedures, and I never directed anyone to keep my January hospitalization from the White House.’ 

Austin said he resumed his functions and duties as secretary from the hospital on Jan. 5. 

‘I was functioning well mentally, but not so well physically. And so I stayed at Walter Reed for additional time for additional treatment, including physical therapy, for some lingering issues with my leg,’ he said. ‘Now, I’m offering all this as an explanation and not an excuse. I am very proud of what we’ve achieved at the department over the past three years, but we fell short on this one.’ The Pentagon said Austin was released from Walter Reed on Jan. 15. 

Austin on Thursday also said he missed an opportunity to speak about an important health issue, one that especially impacts the Black community. 

‘I was diagnosed with a highly treatable form of cancer, a pretty common one. One in eight American men will get prostate cancer. One in six Black men will get it,’ he said. ‘And so I’m here with a clear message to other men, especially older men. Get screened, get your regular check-ups. Prostate cancer has a glass jar. If your doctor can spot it, they can treat it and beat it. The side effects that I experienced are highly, highly unusual. So you can count on me to set a better example on this issue today and for the rest of my life.’ 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The U.S. Capitol Police announced Thursday they have declined to press charges following the filming of a ‘sex video that was recorded inside the Hart Senate Office Building on the morning of Wednesday, December 13. 

‘After consulting with federal and local prosecutors, as well as doing a comprehensive investigation and review of possible charges, it was determined that — despite a likely violation of Congressional policy — there is currently no evidence that a crime was committed,’ the agency said in a statement to Fox News. 

‘Although the hearing room was not open to the public at the time, the Congressional staffer involved had access to the room. The two people of interest were not cooperative, nor were the elements of any of the possible crimes met,’ Capitol Police continued. 

‘The Congressional staffer, who has since resigned from his job, exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and refused to talk to us,’ authorities also said. ‘Our investigators are willing to review new evidence should any come to light.’ 

The Daily Caller, which first broke news of the video, reported that the footage was leaked in a chat and was ‘shared in a private group for gay men in politics.’ 

A staff member for Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., was later fired over the video. 

‘I was angry. I was disappointed,’ Cardin told Fox News in December when speaking about the scandal. ‘It’s a breach of trust.’  

Cardin would not name the staffer in question, only saying it was a ‘personnel issue.’ The Democratic Senator said he was not aware of any further disciplinary issues against the staffer and hadn’t spoken to him since the firing. 

Room 216 in the Hart Senate Office Building is a storied hearing room. The dais where the graphic video was filmed is a place from which U.S. senators have grilled high-profile presidential nominees, including those who would go on to become justices of the Supreme Court. 

Fox News’ Bradford Betz, Anders Hagstrom and Kelly Phares contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A judge in London threw out a lawsuit Thursday filed by former President Trump which claimed the infamous dossier and its ‘shocking and scandalous claims’ harmed his reputation.

‘There are no compelling reasons to allow the claim to proceed to trial,’ Judge Karen Steyn said of the lawsuit Trump filed against Orbis Business Intelligence, a company co-founded by Christopher Steele, the former British spy who created a dossier in 2016.

The dossier was paid for by Democrats and published during Trump’s first presidential bid against Hillary Clinton. It contained uncorroborated allegations and rumors that spread like wildfire among Trump’s critics and through mainstream media outlets.

Trump repeatedly denied the accusations in the dossier, which included rumors about him engaging in sex acts with Russian prostitutes. He unequivocally said the dossier was fake news and a political witch hunt — then sued to clear his name.

The ruling comes as Trump is the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination and faces other legal woes in the U.S.

In the lawsuit, Trump alleged Orbis violated British data protection laws and sought damages. He also wanted a judge to definitively rule the claims were false.

Trump’s legal team argued the former president ‘suffered personal and reputational damage and distress’ because his data protection rights were violated. Trump’s lawyer Hugh Tomlinson argued the dossier ‘contained shocking and scandalous claims about the personal conduct of President Trump.’ Trump’s case ‘is that this personal data is egregiously inaccurate.’

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung blasted Steele’s ‘false and defamatory allegations’ in a statement to Fox News Digital.

‘The High Court in London has found that there was not even an attempt by Christopher Steele, or his group, to justify or try to prove, which they absolutely cannot, their false and defamatory allegations in the fake ‘dossier.,’’ Cheung said. ‘The High Court also found that there was processing, utilization, of those false statements. President Trump will continue to fight for the truth and against falsehoods such as ones promulgated by Steele and his cohorts.’

Conversely, Orbis said the lawsuit should be thrown out because the dossier, which was published by BuzzFeed, was never meant to be made public. It was done so without the permission of Steele or Orbis, they claim. They also said Trump’s lawsuit was filed too late.

The judge seemed to agree, saying Trump had ‘chosen to allow many years to elapse — without any attempt to vindicate his reputation in this jurisdiction — since he was first made aware of the dossier.’

She said that ‘the claim for compensation and/or damages… is bound to fail.’

Steele previously ran the Russia desk for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6. He was paid by Democrats to compile research into any ties between Trump and Russia.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The tight supply environment in the housing market largely fueled DR Horton’s (DHI) strong year-and-a-half run. Last week, DHI’s earnings took a hit, missing the mark on Wall Street’s profit expectations (though it managed to beat on revenue), in addition to signaling softer quarters ahead.

DHI’s stock dropped from its all-time high of $157.93 to a low of $138.83 before recovering. But is it a buyable dip? Or is it a falling knife waiting to snare the unwary? Let’s look at DHI stock’s daily chart to find out (see below).

CHART 1. DAILY CHART OF DR HORTON. Buyers jumped in as soon price began consolidating below the 50-day SMA line.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

The story here is pretty clear:

DHI fell below the 50-day simple moving average (SMA), and buyers jumped in, assuming the dip was sufficient to signal a buy.The Stochastic Oscillator is one indicator that confirms the “oversold” thesis.Plus, the 50-day and 200-day SMA are trending upward, with the 50 well above the 200. Both are signaling bullishness.

While this makes for a reasonable “buy-the-dip” thesis, it could use plenty of fine-tuning by filtering it across different, yet complementary indicators.

Helpful Charting Tip

DHI was filtered in the StockCharts’ Entered Ichimoku Cloud scan, an excellent way to find potential “buy the dip” stocks. Check it against the StockCharts Technical Rankings (SCTR) score (and, of course, the chart itself) to see if it’s a tradable prospect.

CHART 2. DAILY CHART OF DR HORTON WITH ICHIMOKU CLOUD AND CHAIKIN MONEY FLOW.  Adding more indicators to measure the pullback and momentum can give you different angles to understanding the “buy the dip” scenario.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

Compare the above chart to Chart 1 and decide whether an entry on the buy side might have been premature.

Countering the “oversold” reading on the Stochastic Oscillator, the Chaikin Money Flow shows a dramatic decline in buying momentum.The Ichimoku Cloud indicates a bullish condition, yet gives the stock a much wider range of support than, say, the 50-day SMA; still, it helps to pinpoint a more specific entry level.The purple line marks a resistance level likely to serve as support.That potential support level also sits right above the Fibonacci 50% retracement line, which, in turn, sits right above the lowest level of the cloud.

But are there other technical reasons to support the case that DHI might have more downside to run before reversing upward? The answer is yes if you look at DHI from a seasonality context.

CHART 3. 10-YEAR SEASONALITY CHART FOR DHI. April, July, and November are DHI’s strongest months.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

DHI’s 10-year seasonal performance shows that February is a weak month for the stock. While March has a strong higher close rate (78%), its average 10-year return is 0.6%. April, however, has an above-average higher-close rate and a strong average seasonal return of 5.6%. The strongest months are July (with a 100% higher close rate and 8.5% average return) and November (89% higher closes and 9.7% average return).

But how might DHI’s performance compare with the S&P 500’s seasonal performance?

CHART 4. 10-YEAR SEASONAL PERFORMANCE OF DHI VS THE S&P 500. Though the numbers may vary against the broader market, DHI’s strong months remain consistent.Chart source: StockCharts.com. For educational purposes.

The performance, though slightly varied, still reflects the same scenario: February is a weak month, while April shows strength, and July and November are the strongest months.

The Bottom Line

Considering DHI’s 10-year seasonal performance, by itself and against the broader market, suggests that its current dip isn’t quite over yet. The CMF shows a decline in buying pressure and doesn’t indicate significant bullish momentum. Adding the Ichimoku Cloud, Fib retracements, and simple support and resistance to the mix can help traders identify favorable entry points. So, it’s a matter of waiting. But the context for a trade setup is well in place.

Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.

Note to the reader: This is the fourth in a series of articles I’m publishing here taken from my book, “Investing with the Trend.” Hopefully, you will find this content useful. Market myths are generally perpetuated by repetition, misleading symbolic connections, and the complete ignorance of facts. The world of finance is full of such tendencies, and here, you’ll see some examples. Please keep in mind that not all of these examples are totally misleading — they are sometimes valid — but have too many holes in them to be worthwhile as investment concepts. And not all are directly related to investing and finance. Enjoy! – Greg

Risk and Uncertainty

Is volatility risk? (Here we go again.)

In the sterile laboratory of modern finance, risk is defined by volatility as measured by standard deviation. However, that assumes the range of outcomes is a normal distribution (bell curve). Rarely do the markets yield to normal.

When an investor opens his or her brokerage statement, it shows the following portfolio data for the last year:

Standard Deviation = .65 Loss for the Year =.35 percent

Which one do you think will catch their attention? I seriously doubt any investor is going to call his or her advisor and complain about a standard deviation of .65. However, the .35 percent loss will get their attention. Even investors who have no knowledge of finance or investments know what risk is—it is the loss of capital.

Risk is not volatility; it is drawdown (loss of capital). However, in the short term, volatility is a good proxy for risk, but over the longer term, drawdown is a much better measure of risk. Volatility does contribute to risk, but it also contributes to market gains.

Risk and uncertainty are not the same thing.

Risk can be measured. Uncertainty cannot be measured.

A jar contains five red balls and five blue balls. In the old days we called it an urn instead of a jar. Blindly pick out a ball. What are the odds of picking a red ball? There are five red balls and the total number of balls is 10. Therefore the odds of picking a red ball are 5/10 =.5 or 50 percent.

That is Risk! It can be calculated.

Suppose you were not told the number of red or blue balls in the jar. What are the odds of picking a red ball? That is Uncertainty!

Figure 3.8

Figure 3.8 is an attempt to visualize how modern finance is focused on risk, but have you ever wondered or thought about which element of risk they deal with? Actually they do a great job of analyzing risk; risk is at the heart of all the theories of Modern Portfolio Theory (Capital Asset Pricing Model, Efficient Market Hypothesis, Random Walk, Option Pricing Theory, etc.). The risk that they attempt to deter.mine is known as nonsystematic risk, or you may have heard it as diversifiable risk. Diversification is a free lunch and should never be ignored. The world of fi nance is focused on diversifiable or nonsystematic risk. However, there is a much larger piece of the risk pie, and that is called systematic risk. Once you have adequately diversified, then it seems that you are only dealing with systematic risk. Systematic risk is what technical analysis attempts to deal with. It is also known as drawdown, loss of capital, and in certain situations as a bear market.

Back to the Original Question: Is Volatility Risk?

Two simple price movements are shown in Figure 3.9 ; which represents more risk, example A or example B?

Figure 3.9

Modern finance would have you believe that A is riskier because of its volatility. However, you can notice from this overly simple example that the price ended up exactly where it began; therefore, you did not make money or lose money. B, based on the concept of volatility as risk, has no risk according to theory; however, you lost money in the process. I think it is obvious which is risk and which is only theory.

Is Linear Analysis Good Enough?

Figure 3.10 is known as a Cartesian coordinate system, sometimes referred to as a scatter diagram, used often to compare two issues and derive relationships between them. The returns of one are plotted on the X-axis (abscissa/horizontal) and the returns of the other are plotted using the Y-axis (ordinate/vertical). Those small diamonds are the data points. A concept known as regression is then applied by calculating a least-squares fit of the data points. This is the straight line that you see below. Then, a little high school geometry is used on the equation for a straight line, which is y=mx+b, where m is the slope of the line and b is the where the line crosses the Y axis (a.k.a. the y–intercept). So once you have the linearly fitted line, you can measure the slope and y–intercept, and this will give you the beta (slope) and alpha (y-intercept).

Figure 3.10

The following statistical elements can all be derived from simple linear analysis.

Raw BetaAlphaR^2 (Coefficient of Determination)R (Correlation)Standard Deviation of ErrorStandard Error of AlphaStandard Error of Betat-TestSignificanceLast T-ValueLast P-Value

Linear Regression Must Have Correlation

Figure 3.11 is a scatter plot of a fictional fund ABC (Y-axis) plotted against the S&P 500 (X-axis).

Figure 3.11

The least-squared regression line is plotted and the equation is shown as:

Y = 0.5997x + 0.0005, which means the slope is .5997 and the y-intercept is 0.0005.

A slope of 1.0 would mean that the Beta of the fund was the same compared to the index, and the line on the plot would be a quadrant bisector (if the plot were a square, the line would be moving up and to the right at 45 degrees). So, a slope of 0.5997 means the fund has a lower beta than the index. The y-intercept is a positive number, although barely, but that means the fund outperformed the index.

R^2 is the Coefficient of Determination, also known as the goodness of fit. Now, I understand that dealing with positive numbers has some advantages, but, in most cases, R^2 is also reducing the amount of information. Let me explain. We know that R is correlation, the statistical measure that shows the relationship between two datasets and how closely they are aligned. That is not the textbook answer for correlation, but will suffice for now. Correlation ranges from +1 (totally correlated) to -1 (inversely correlated), with 0 being non-correlated. Nice information to know; is the fund correlated to the market, inversely correlated to the market, or not correlated at all? Squaring correlation will give you an always positive number (remember least squares?), but why remove the information about the level of correlation? R^2 will not tell you if it is correlated or inversely correlated. Actually, I think it is the social science’s fear of negative numbers. However, in fairness, R^2 will show the percent dependency of one variable over the other—in theory.

The R^2 in Figure 3.11 is 0.7965, which means there is a fair degree of correlation, we just don’t know if it is positive correlation or inverse correlation. To get correlation, merely take the square root of 0.7965 to get R=0.8924684 (yes, an attempt at humor), which means R could also be -0.8924684. Anyway, hopefully you get my point.

Finally, notice how the data points are all clustered fairly closely to the least squares line, which visually shows you that this fund is fairly well-correlated to the index.

Figure 3.12 shows fund XYZ plotted against an index. Notice that the linear least-squared fit equation (y = 0.5997x + 0.0005) is exactly the same as the previous example. However the value of R^2 is 0.2051, which is considerably different than the previous example. Visually, you can see that the data points are more scattered than in the previous example, so, just based on the visual observation, you know this fund is not nearly as correlated as the previous fund ABC. Yet we find that the least squares regression line is oriented exactly the same, so the values of alpha and beta are the same for this fund (XYZ) as they were for fund (ABC) above.

Figure 3.12

So what’s the difference, you are hopefully asking? The difference is that one fund is not nearly as correlated as the other. We know that they are both positively correlated from visual examination, but unless the value of R (correlation) is shown, we don’t know any more about the correlation. This is one of the horrible shortcomings of this type of analysis. Here is the message: if it isn’t correlated, then the values derived for alpha and beta are absolutely meaningless. Yet I see publications ranking funds and showing R^2, alpha, and beta, but never a mention of R. Shame on them!

Figure 3.13

The scatterplot in Figure 3.13 shows both funds plotted with the index. You can clearly see that fund XYZ (triangles) is not nearly as correlated as fund ABC (circles). Yet the linear statistics of modern finance does not delineate a difference between the two. My only comment to them is: Stay out of aviation.

The 60/40 Myth Exposed

It is almost impossible to see any performance comparisons that not only show a benchmark, but also a mix of 60% equity and 40% fixed income, known as 60/40 in the fund industry. The efficient frontier is one of those terms that came from a theory developed decades ago on risk management. Modern finance looks at a plot of returns versus risk, and, of course, by risk, it means standard deviation. This is the first mistake made with this concept. Then it plots a variety of different asset classes on the same plot and derives the efficient frontier, which shows you the level of risk you take for the asset classes you want to invest in. Figure 3.14 shows the efficient frontier curve from 1960 to 2010 (an intermediate bond component was used).

Next, if you draw a line that is tangent with the curve and have it cross the vertical return axis at the level for assumed risk free, then the point of tangential is the proper mix of equity and bonds. I did not attempt to do this here, as the determination of the risk free rate to use over a 50-year period presents too much subjectivity. From 1960 to present, that mix of stocks and bonds is about 60/40.

Figure 3.14

The ubiquitous 60/40 ratio of stocks to bonds, which shows up in most performance comparisons, gleans the message that, for over 50 years of data, nothing has changed. Does anyone actually believe that? Figure 3.15 is a chart showing the efficient frontier for each individual decade in the 1960 to 2010 period. Clearly, each decade has its own efficient frontier and its proper mix of equity and bonds. Yet the world of finance still sticks to the often wrong mix of 60/40. It may very well be a good mix of assets, but the data says it is dynamic and should be reviewed on a periodic basis. Notice that the decades of 1970 and 2000 showed similar downward curves, meaning that stocks were not nearly as good as bonds. Conversely the decades of 1980 and 1990 were the opposite.

Figure 3.15

In an interview with Jason Zweig on October 15, 2004, Peter Bernstein said that a rigid allocation policy like 60/40 is another way of passing the buck and avoiding decisions. Did you want to be 40 percent invested in bonds during the 1970s when interest rates soared? Did you want to only be invested 60 percent in equities in the period from 1982 to 2000, which was the greatest bull market in history? Of course not! Markets are dynamic, and investment strategies should be too. Finally, some analysis will show that a 60/40 portfolio is highly correlated to an all-equity portfolio.

Discounted Cash Flow Model

When studying modern finance, and after years of hearing about the discounted cash flow (DCF) model, I have this to say about the discounted cash flow model. First of all, you must decide on six values about the future. They are shown below. If you have read this book this far, you probably know what’s coming next.

Discount Rate

Cost of Equity, in valuing equityCost of Capital, in valuing the firm

Cash Flows

Cash Flows to EquityCash Flows to Firm

Growth (to get future cash flows)

Growth in Equity EarningsGrowth in Firm Earnings (Operating Income)

The inputs (above) to the DCF process must all be correct or the model fails completely. The odds of successfully coming up with correct (guesses) inputs are extremely low, yet this is used in modern finance routinely. This reminds me of the Kenneth Arrow story on forecasting in Chapter 5. When asked about the discounted cash flow model, I liken it to the Hubble Telescope; move it an inch and all of a sudden you are looking at a different galaxy.

The goal of this chapter, at the very minimum, is to cause you to challenge what modern finance has provided. I apologize for beating some concepts with a stick, but sometimes multiple approaches to show something are better in the hope that one will remain with the reader. There was enough math to scare the average person; Part 4 focuses on the wide use of the term average. The goal is to show that using long-term averages can be totally inappropriate for most investors.

Thanks for reading this far. I intend to publish one article in this series every week. Can’t wait? The book is for sale here.