Skip to content

Alain Guillot

Life, Leadership, and Money Matters

Home
Blog
About
Contact

About

Hi, my name is Alain Guillot, I am a blogger, podcaster, and youtuber.

In this blog we write and accept articles about:

Leadership
Business
Entrepreneurship
Personal Finance
Financial Markets
Economics
Science
Technology
Culture
Personal development
Books

Alain Guillot
About Page

To advertise with us, please go to our Advertise Page or go to our Contact page.

https://www.alainguillot.com/fabricated-racism-when-false-hate-crimes-shape-the-narrative/
Today, we are going to talk about the false hate crime report involving LaTarsha Brown. When I see how many fabricated racial incidents exist, it makes me realize that the U.S. is not as racist as some people wish it were.

There is even a website that reports fake hate crimes. Take a look, it’s called, drum roll please, “FakeHateCrimes.org.”

When people who constantly complain about racism run out of real incidents to highlight, some resort to making them up.

LaTarsha Brown is an employee at City of Allentown’s Department of Community and Economic Development, Pennsylvania, and also serves as a school board member.

In January 2025, she reported finding a noose on her desk at City Hall. Immediately, the situation escalated.

“We have to take this absolutely seriously because, obviously, this is a serious threat, and it’s also potentially a hate crime.”

Protesters gathered outside, believing the police were not handling the case seriously enough.

The media covered the story extensively, activists and community leaders made speeches, and outrage spread over racism in the workplace. Under mounting pressure, the police decided to escalate the investigation and called in the FBI for assistance.

At this point, LaTarsha Brown started to panic. She had sought attention, but she hadn’t expected the case to gain so much traction that federal authorities would get involved.

As the investigation progressed, Brown became uncooperative. She gave vague statements, and detectives noted that she appeared deceptive.

Eventually, law enforcement conducted DNA tests on the noose. Every City Hall employee willingly provided a DNA sample—except Brown. While others complied to avoid being labeled racist, she refused.

In the U.S., being accused of racism is one of the worst reputational stains a person can face.

Due to her refusal, the police obtained a warrant to compel her to provide a DNA sample. The results confirmed that her DNA was on the noose—not only on the outside but also embedded within the rope fibers.

As a result, she was charged with filing a false police report and tampering with evidence. Both are misdemeanors, meaning she will likely face minimal legal consequences. However, despite her actions, she has retained her job. If a white person had staged a similar hoax, they would likely have faced hate crime charges and immediate termination.

If a white person would have done it, they would have gotten fired. I think the same standards should be applied to her and I think she should lose her job. She has brought disgrace to the black community and to the antiracist movement growing in the U.S. Also, if a hate crime is a felony, hoxing a hate crime and involving the police should also be a felony.

This fake racism is not new news. NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace claimed fake racism over a rope that was used to pull the garage door.

It seems Brown wanted attention—but not this much. She may have sought to portray herself as a victim to gain sympathy and influence public opinion in her favor. Perhaps she believed this would help her politically, encouraging people to support her causes and decisions. However, she didn’t anticipate the case spiraling out of her control and attracting federal scrutiny.

Most Americans are not racist, but some individuals try to convince us otherwise. They gain attention by exaggerating racism and embracing a victimhood narrative. It seems that when it comes to racism, the demand is greater than the supply.

As a society, we would be far better off if we focused on overcoming real challenges rather than fabricating oppression for personal gain.

Fabricated Racism: When False Hate Crimes Shape the Narrative

https://www.alainguillot.com/should-taxpayers-fund-npr-and-pbs-the-left-bias-public-broadcasters/

March 26, NPR CEO Katherine Maher and PBS CEO Paula Kerger testified before the House Subcommittee on a hearing called: “Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the Heads of NPR and PBS Accountable,” focused on allegations of partisan bias within public broadcasting and the ongoing debate over federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which received $535 million from Congress for 2025.

The Accusations Against NPR and PBS
Republicans, accused NPR and PBS of left-wing bias, citing examples such as NPR’s initial dismissal of the Hunter Biden laptop story and PBS’s inclusion of a drag queen on a children’s program.

Among those calling for defunding public media, Representative James Comer (R-Ky.) argued that CPB has become a “left-wing echo chamber” that no longer serves the interests of all Americans. Marjorie Taylor Greene took it a step further, stating that NPR and PBS should be entirely defunded and dismantled, as taxpayer money should not be used to fund what she sees as partisan news organizations.

Adding fuel to the fire, Senator John Neely Kennedy criticized public broadcasting, claiming, “We all know what public radio and public TV are like today: They run from slightly communist to very communist.” He argued that taxpayer money should not subsidize any form of media, regardless of political stance. Representative Eric Burlison echoed this sentiment, pointing out that the U.S. is $36 trillion in debt and should not be allocating funds to media organizations.

NPR’s Response and the Challenge of Perceived Bias
During the hearing, NPR’s Maher acknowledged past missteps, including her own 2020 tweets where she called President Trump a “racist” and a “sociopath.” She also admitted that NPR’s lack of coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story was an error. However, Maher maintained that NPR is committed to journalistic integrity and pointed out that accusations of bias should be weighed against the broader contributions public media makes to civic discourse.

Yet, when confronted with the fact that all 87 members of NPR’s editorial board are registered Democrats, Maher conceded that this was “concerning.” This acknowledgment has fueled conservative arguments that public media is not politically neutral.

The Future of Public Broadcasting
Despite the heated exchanges, no immediate funding changes were enacted, as CPB funding is secured through 2027. However, this hearing signals that public media will continue to face intense scrutiny. Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for NPR and PBS to be defunded, stating, “NPR and PBS, 2 horrible and completely biased platforms, should be DEFUNDED by Congress IMMEDIATELY.”

Should Taxpayers Fund the Media?
The fundamental question at the heart of this debate is whether taxpayer money should be used to fund any form of media. Public broadcasting supporters argue that NPR and PBS provide essential educational and cultural programming that would not survive in a purely commercial environment. Detractors, however, see public media as an outdated model in the digital age, where news and entertainment options are abundant and privately funded alternatives exist.

I align with Senator Kennedy’s perspective: the government should not be in the business of funding media. If a news organization cannot sustain itself through voluntary contributions, advertising, or subscriptions, then it may not be providing content that people truly value. Public broadcasting should stand on its own merit, rather than relying on taxpayer dollars.

The future of NPR and PBS may not be decided overnight, but one thing is certain—this debate is far from over.

Should Taxpayers Fund NPR and PBS? The Left Bias Public Broadcasters

https://www.alainguillot.com/palestinians-rise-against-hamas-the-largest-protest-since-war-began/
Hundreds Join Gaza’s Largest Anti-Hamas Protest Since War Began

Since Oct 7th, 2023, the people of Gaza have endured immense suffering. Their voices have often been drowned out by war, political agendas, and the iron grip of the terrorist group Hamas. However, in an unprecedented moment of defiance, hundreds of Palestinians took to the streets in northern Gaza this week, demanding that Hamas step down and allow them to live in peace.

A Cry for Liberation
The protest, the largest anti-Hamas demonstration since the war with Israel began, saw young men marching through the streets of Beit Lahia, chanting “Out, out, out, Hamas out.” Their demand was simple: an end to the rule of Hamas, whose control has only brought destruction, economic collapse, and war.

Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, masked Hamas militants quickly intervened. Armed with guns and batons, they forcibly dispersed demonstrators, assaulting several. This violent crackdown reflects Hamas’s longstanding intolerance toward dissent. Instead of addressing the grievances of the people, Hamas chose to silence them through brute force.

Hamas Chooses War Over Peace
The timing of these protests is crucial. Hamas recently rejected an extended ceasefire and the continued exchange of Palestinian prisoners for Israeli hostages, leading Israel to resume its military campaign. This rejection raises a critical question: If the release of hostages could lead to peace, why would Hamas refuse?

The answer lies in Hamas’s priorities. While ordinary Palestinians long for normalcy—food, water, shelter, and safety—Hamas thrives on perpetual conflict. The group’s leadership remains disconnected from the daily struggles of Gazans, prioritizing its political and military objectives over the well-being of the very people it claims to represent.

Voices from the Rubble
Mohammed Diab, a resident of Beit Lahia who lost his home and his brother in an Israeli airstrike, voiced his frustration: “We refuse to die for anyone, for any party’s agenda or the interests of foreign states. Hamas must step down and listen to the voice of the grieving, the voice that rises from beneath the rubble – it is the most truthful voice.”

Diab’s words resonate with countless Gazans who have lost everything. Most of the 2.1 million people in Gaza have been displaced, some multiple times. With 70% of buildings damaged or destroyed, critical infrastructure—healthcare, water, and sanitation systems—has collapsed. The population faces extreme shortages of food, fuel, and medicine. Yet, amid this devastation, Hamas continues to prioritize its survival over the needs of the people.

The West’s Double Standard
As Palestinians in Gaza risk their lives to protest against Hamas’s oppression, one must wonder how Western protesters will respond. Will they stand in solidarity with the people of Gaza in their struggle for freedom, or will they continue to romanticize Hamas as a “resistance movement,” ignoring the voices of those suffering under its rule?

The world must recognize that true support for Palestinians means advocating for their freedom from all forms of oppression—including Hamas. It is time for international communities to listen to the voices rising from the rubble and stand with those demanding peace, dignity, and self-determination.

The question remains: Will the world hear their cries, or will it turn a blind eye once again?

Palestinians Rise Against Hamas: The Largest Protest Since War Began

https://www.alainguillot.com/ice-seeks-to-deport-student-activist-from-south-korea/
Yunseo Chung, a legal permanent resident who has lived in the U.S. since she was seven, was arrested for occupying the lobby of Barnard College’s main library on Wednesday. Her participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations escalated tensions with school administrators, ultimately leading to several protesters being taken into custody, according to police reports.

Now, because she is not a U.S. citizen, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is seeking to deport her. In response, Chung is suing the Trump administration to prevent her deportation.

Chanting “Free Palestine” and wearing masks and keffiyehs over their faces, the protesters began their sit-in inside the Milstein Center for Teaching and Learning around 1 p.m. Shortly afterward, the school blocked access to the building, disrupting classes.

The demonstrators were demanding the reinstatement of two Barnard students who had been expelled for interrupting a “History of Modern Israel” class on January 21 and distributing fliers, including one depicting a jackboot crushing a Star of David.

The Trump administration has prioritized the detention of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, particularly those who are not U.S. citizens.

Ms. Chung, an English and gender studies major, has participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations since last year. She also faced college disciplinary proceedings twice — including for putting up posters accusing Columbia of “complicity in genocide.”

At this time, she has not been detained by ICE because she is in hiding. However, those assisting her may also face legal consequences.

Protests Have Limits
The First Amendment protects free speech and peaceful protest, but that protection does not extend to illegal activities. The law is clear:

Blocking access to buildings, classrooms, and emergency exits is illegal.
Disrupting classes interferes with academic operations and can violate campus policies.
Vandalism and property damage are criminal offenses.
Threats or violence are never protected under free speech laws.
Trespassing in restricted areas, particularly after hours, is a punishable offense.
Defamation—making false accusations that harm reputations—can lead to legal consequences.
Students should follow the law when protesting issues they disagree with and carefully consider the potential legal consequences of their actions.

ICE Seeks to Deport Student Activist From South Korea

https://www.alainguillot.com/illegal-immigration-and-tragedy-the-case-of-camillia-williams/

The Biden administration’s lax immigration policies have led to tragic consequences, with criminals entering the country unchecked and, in many cases, avoiding deportation even after being caught. A glaring example is the heartbreaking murder of Camillia Williams, a mother of five from Cobb County, Georgia. Her case underscores the urgent need to enforce immigration laws before more innocent lives are lost.

The Tragic Case of Camillia Williams
Camillia Williams was found dead in the woods, brutally strangled and hidden behind bushes in what authorities have called a senseless and random attack. The suspect? A 21-year-old Honduran national who entered the United States illegally in 2021 under Biden’s parole system. Despite being ordered deported in 2023, he remained in the country, evading authorities until it was too late. Now, he faces felony murder and aggravated assault charges.

A Broken Immigration System
This case has reignited the national debate on border security, highlighting the failures of the Biden administration’s immigration policies. According to reports, the suspect was arrested by Border Patrol upon entry in 2021 but was released into the country under the administration’s lenient policies. He was later ordered to be removed but failed to appear for his deportation hearing. Had the system worked effectively, Camillia Williams might still be alive today.

Calls for Justice and Stricter Policies
The murder of Williams has sparked outrage, with Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene calling for the death penalty. “We are mourning the tragic and completely avoidable murder because of Democrats’ open-border and cartel-first policies,” she stated. “Deportation is not enough—GIVE HIM THE DEATH PENALTY!”

Williams’ family also insists that the suspect be tried in the U.S. so justice can be served. However, this case is just one among many in which illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds remain in the country due to failed enforcement.

ICE’s Struggles to Deport Criminals
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been facing an uphill battle in apprehending and deporting criminals who entered under Biden’s watch. The agency is stretched thin, often locating these individuals only after they commit heinous crimes. ICE officers have reported that many violent offenders have been released under Biden’s policies, making their job of securing the country even harder.

The Laken Riley Act and Trump’s Tougher Stance
In stark contrast, former President Donald Trump recently signed the Laken Riley Act into law, which mandates the detention and deportation of undocumented migrants who commit certain crimes. This law was named after another tragic victim of illegal immigration and aims to prevent future atrocities like the murder of Camillia Williams.

A Call to Action: Enforce Immigration Laws Now
The only way to ensure national security is to take decisive action:

Find and deport all criminals who entered illegally
Shut down the flow of illegal immigration entirely
Hold the Biden administration accountable for its failed policies
The tragic death of Camillia Williams should serve as a wake-up call. Americans must demand that their leaders prioritize border security and the safety of their citizens. Without strict enforcement, more lives will be at risk—and more families will suffer the devastating loss that Williams’ loved ones are now enduring.

Illegal Immigration and Tragedy: The Case of Camillia Williams

https://www.alainguillot.com/why-did-columbia-university-need-a-400m-threat-to-combat-antisemitism/
Columbia University in New York City, the site of violent pro-Hamas protests, has agreed to take stronger measures to protect Jewish students after facing the potential loss of $400 million in federal funding. The university’s decision comes in response to demands from the Trump administration to address antisemitism and ensure campus safety.

The Delay in Action: Why Did It Take Federal Pressure?
One of the most pressing questions is: Why did it take the threat of losing federal funding for Columbia to take action? Ensuring student safety and upholding university policies should have been a priority from the start. Yet, it was only after financial consequences were on the table that the institution made meaningful commitments.

The Illegal Nature of the Protests
While peaceful protests are a fundamental right, they must adhere to legal and institutional guidelines. A legal protest must:

Remain peaceful
Not disrupt the normal functioning of the school
Comply with campus policies
Avoid violating laws on trespassing
The protests at Columbia clearly did not meet these criteria. Instead, they involved:

Disrupting school operations
Threats of violence
Vandalism and destruction of property
Ignoring lawful orders
Trespassing on private property
Given the level of disruption and violence, the Trump administration was justified in freezing federal funding. Universities should not be environments where students feel unsafe or where violent demonstrations are tolerated.

Columbia’s New Policy Changes
In response, Columbia University issued a four-page memo titled “Advancing Our Work to Combat Discrimination, Harassment, and Antisemitism at Columbia.” The memo outlines new policies aimed at restoring order and ensuring student safety. These measures include:

Banning Masks: The university has prohibited face masks or coverings when used to conceal identities in the commission of policy or legal violations. This aligns with the Trump administration’s request and helps ensure accountability.
Mandatory Identification: Protesters are now required to show identification upon request by campus safety officers.
Cooperation with Law Enforcement: Columbia has pledged to work with federal authorities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to remove foreign nationals involved in violent or extremist activities.
A Step in the Right Direction
These measures are reasonable and necessary to uphold campus safety. Free speech and protest rights are fundamental, but they must not infringe on the rights and safety of others. Columbia’s new policies signal a step toward restoring order and protecting students from discrimination and violence. However, the delayed response raises concerns about university leadership’s commitment to maintaining a safe and inclusive environment without external pressure.

Why Did Columbia University Need a $400M Threat to Combat Antisemitism?

https://www.alainguillot.com/the-esg-investing-scam-how-wall-street-sells-you-a-fantasy/
The ESG Investing Scam: Wall Street’s Latest Money Grab

ESG investing—short for Environmental, Social, and Governance—sounds like a great idea. It promises to direct money toward companies that care about the planet, treat employees well, and follow ethical business practices. But in reality, it’s just another way for Wall Street to sell expensive investment products while pretending to do good.

Wall Street’s Rebrand: From Greed to Greenwashing
In the 1980s, Wall Street didn’t hide its true nature. “Greed is good,” as the famous line from the movie Wall Street goes. Today, that’s been replaced with “Greed and good.” But make no mistake—profit is still the priority. ESG is just another marketing gimmick to attract investors who want to feel like they’re making a difference.

The Problem with ESG Ratings
Big investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, and Fidelity have created ESG funds, claiming to invest in responsible companies. These funds rely on ESG ratings from agencies like MSCI and S&P, which score companies based on how well they handle environmental and social risks.

But here’s the catch: ESG ratings don’t measure how much good a company does. They measure how much environmental and social issues might hurt a company’s profits. That’s a huge difference.

Take McDonald’s, for example. MSCI upgraded its ESG rating because it made small changes to its packaging and waste management. But at the same time, its greenhouse gas emissions increased by 16% between 2015 and 2020. Since MSCI didn’t think those emissions would hurt McDonald’s bottom line, they didn’t factor into the rating.

This happens all the time. A Bloomberg study of 155 ESG rating upgrades found that only one was due to actual emissions reductions. So much for saving the planet.

Who Gets a Good ESG Score? Almost Everyone.
Because of this flawed system, 90% of the companies in the S&P 500 are included in at least one ESG fund.

Google and Facebook (Meta) get high ESG scores despite their role in spreading misinformation.
Coca-Cola and Pepsi are considered ESG-friendly, even though their sugary drinks contribute to diabetes and obesity, and their plastic bottles pollute the oceans.
Even oil giants like BP and Exxon have “respectable” ESG ratings.
Meanwhile, Tesla, the global leader in electric vehicles, was kicked out of some ESG indexes because rating agencies don’t like Elon Musk’s management style or his anti-union stance.
This system isn’t about ethics—it’s about making sure there are enough stocks in ESG funds so Wall Street can keep charging higher fees.

The Real Problem: ESG is About Profit, Not Impact
ESG funds cost more than regular index funds, but they don’t actually push companies to be more responsible. Instead of measuring how companies harm society and the environment, ESG ratings measure how these issues affect corporate profits. That’s a broken system.

A real ESG system would consider things like:

The health costs of smoking or excessive sugar consumption.
The impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change.
The real-world harm caused by unethical business practices.
Can ESG Investing Be Fixed?
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is starting to crack down on greenwashing. It recently proposed new rules requiring companies to disclose their carbon emissions, but only if those emissions are “material” to investors. The problem? What’s material to investors isn’t always what’s important for society.

The SEC needs to go further. All companies should be required to report their full carbon footprint, including emissions from their supply chains. ESG rating agencies should be held accountable for their misleading scores.

ESG Investing: The Ultimate Marketing Gimmick
Some conservatives call ESG investing “woke capitalism.” But in reality, it’s just regular capitalism with a green coat of paint. It lets Wall Street charge higher fees while making investors feel good about themselves—without actually changing anything.

The bottom line? If you care about sustainability, don’t blindly trust ESG labels. Dig deeper, and you’ll see that most of them are just another way for Wall Street to profit off your good intentions.

The ESG Investing Scam: How Wall Street Sells You a Fantasy

https://www.alainguillot.com/how-suicidal-empathy-is-killing-democrat-controlled-cities/
Why Are Democrat-Controlled Cities Full of Crime?

Many cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and Portland are grappling with high crime rates, homelessness, high taxes, and a declining quality of life.

For example, San Francisco was once a beautiful city that attracted tourists eager to visit the Golden Gate Bridge. But now, you would be repelled by the visible homelessness, streets lined with tents, and open drug use. Navigating the city is so problematic that it’s advisable to consult the city’s “poop map.”

The states with the highest levels of homelessness are all run by Democrats: Hawaii, California, Oregon, New York, and Washington.

There are several reasons for this:

Rent Controls: Democrats often propose rent control and tenant protection laws, but these policies reduce the incentive to build new housing, exacerbating the housing shortage.

Lenient Drug Policies: Many Democratic states have increasingly adopted lenient drug policies, resulting in open-air drug markets in major cities. Some areas have decriminalized hard drugs or significantly reduced penalties, leading to an explosion in addiction and homelessness.

Soft-on-Crime Policies: Reduced penalties for theft and drug possession have contributed to widespread shoplifting, drug use, and street crime. Businesses are closing, and more people are living on the streets.

Generous Welfare Programs: Democratic states often offer generous welfare programs, including free healthcare, food assistance, and cash benefits. While these programs are intended to help, they can create an incentive for homeless individuals from other states to relocate to areas where services are more plentiful.

The common thread among these states is Democratic leadership that prioritizes progressive policies over practical solutions. Instead of enforcing laws, encouraging affordable housing development, and effectively addressing addiction, they enable destructive behaviors while blaming external factors like “systemic inequality” or “capitalism.”

These are places where most people don’t want to raise a family, and where excessive regulation makes it difficult for entrepreneurs to build businesses.

Many of these problems arise from the hijacking of compassion, or what could be called “suicidal empathy.” This leads to policies that, though well-intentioned, might unintentionally harm the broader social fabric. Any time you criticize a compassionate program, you are labeled as hateful.

How Suicidal Empathy is Killing Democrat-Controlled Cities

$https://www.alainguillot.com/elon-musk-rescues-two-astronauts-from-outer-space/ This sounds like the title of a superhero science fiction movie, but it happened in real life. Elon Musk just rescued two astronauts who were stranded in outer space. A Brief History Elon Musk was one of the founders of PayPal (a service I use daily to accept payments from international clients). In October 2002, eBay acquired PayPal for $1.5 billion, and Musk received $180 million from the sale. He then invested $100 million of his own money to start SpaceX, aiming to build cheaper, reusable rockets by streamlining manufacturing and reducing launch costs. The company’s first rocket, the Falcon 1, launched in 2006. However, it failed three times before achieving success in 2008. (Insert clip of Elon talking about his first experience.) When Elon Musk first attempted to enter the rocket industry, he traveled to Russia to purchase a rocket. The Russians laughed at him—he was just 30 years old, and they quoted him an absurd price for an outdated rocket they had no intention of using. Rather than accept the offer, Musk declined. On his flight back to the U.S., he made some mental calculations and realized that he could build his own rockets instead. “I read a lot of books and talked to a lot of people. I mean, that’s kind of how I learned how to build rockets.” —Elon Musk In just six years, Musk went from knowing nothing about rockets to building the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach orbit. The Space Revolution Elon Musk has accomplished something that neither the U.S. government, the Chinese government, nor the Russian government has been able to do—create reusable rockets. In 2015, SpaceX successfully launched and landed a reusable rocket, reducing spaceflight costs to a fraction of what traditional government programs required. Today, SpaceX launches missions at one-tenth of the price of government-run programs. Government agencies, burdened by bureaucracy and inefficiency, have struggled to match this progress. Unlike NASA, which relies on taxpayer funding and inefficient contracts, SpaceX operates with a relentless focus on efficiency and innovation. The problem with government-run space programs is the way contracts are structured: NASA’s funding is approved by Congress, meaning projects are often distributed across multiple congressional districts to gain political support. Government contracts are often based on cost-plus pricing, where contractors are incentivized to keep costs high rather than improve efficiency. (Insert clip of government inefficiencies.) The Rescue Mission In June 2024, NASA sent two astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft. Originally scheduled for an eight-day mission, the astronauts ended up stranded for nine months due to thruster malfunctions and helium leaks, making Starliner unsafe for return. The choice of Boeing over SpaceX was a political decision. The Biden administration favored Boeing despite its inferior spacecraft, avoiding giving the contract to Elon Musk. Even as the astronauts remained stranded, President Biden refused to ask Musk for help, fearing that Musk would receive public credit as a hero. After President Trump won the election, he promised to bring the astronauts home. He immediately authorized a SpaceX rescue mission, and as a result, Musk successfully brought them back to Earth. Thank you, Elon Musk.$

Elon Musk Rescues Two Astronauts from Outer Space

Load More… Subscribe

Stay Informed. Stay Ahead.

Get the latest economic, financial, and political trends—straight to your inbox. No fluff, no noise—just clear, insightful analysis to help you stay informed.

We write and publish a YouTube video about three times per week. Be the first to find out.

Subscribe Now – Unsubscribe anytime.

Type your email…

Alain Newsletter

Life, Leadership, and Money Matters

Search

Social

Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter/X

Lightbox image placeholder

Previous Slide

Next Slide