- The Invasion Equation
The Invasion Equation
Authored by Clarence Henderson via RealClear Wire,
Rape trees, river floaters, skeletal remains, and fentanyl candy. The new vernacular of illegal immigration is an indictment of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) loss of operational control along the U.S.-Southern border. A consequence of this is the transformation of cartel insurgencies into well-formed armies that recruit and employ uniformed soldiers, have supporting intelligence operations, and control terrain. The challenge now confronting state and federal law enforcement is no longer how to deter an insurgency; it’s how to defeat an army.
Modern armies are resourced by nation-states who provide moral leadership in times of war. But the accountable governments of nation-states can falter and fail. Mexico in particular has a compromised central government that is not protecting its own homeland from subversive actors. When this happens, a conglomerate of paid professionals, mercenaries, conscripts, and criminals fills the void to either protect or exploit the resources of a community. It was true within the first communities of Mesopotamia, and it is happening now in communities across Mexico. This is how armies begin. A state is incapable of securing its communities, accountable governments lose legitimacy, and subversive actors start vying for control of terrain to exploit resources.
The hallmark of any effective army is its ability to control terrain. The cartel armies have done that by co-opting the gangs of the U.S. and operate the world’s largest crime syndicate complete with narco distribution hubs throughout the U.S.. In Mexico they cordon cities and run roadblocks to collect information and extort residents. To date, as much as 20 percent of Mexico has come under control of the cartels as previously reported by CIA analysts. Their center of gravity is the illicit drug and human trafficking revenues from which they derive their strength. The illegal aliens that they infiltrate, the drugs that they smuggle, and the terrorist that they give safe passage each infiltrate the Southern border under their control and further empower their control of terrain.
The Invasion Word
Armies deter aggression and win the nation’s wars by dominating the land. So, the maxim goes… But this is a description that prescribes to a classical definition of state-on-state aggression initiated by an invasion of one state’s sponsored military against another’s. Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution even guarantees that the U.S. shall protect its states against invasion. And if not, Article 1, Section 10 permits states the right to protect themselves from an invasion. These “invasion clauses” are the genesis of the debate that is occurring between the federal government and border states. The federal government clings to the classic definition of an invasion and does not believe the humanitarian disaster occurring under the control of cartel armies constitutes an invasion. Whereas border state Governors believe in a 21st century asymmetric style of invasion pointing to the infiltration of bad actors causing economic and criminal harm to their states. Regardless, the federal dogma continues along the line that an invasion is an “armed hostility from another political entity.”
To date, America’s next great leader has yet to emerge and articulate a coherent unified response to the 21st century cartel invasion. Instead, a range of state-based strategies and stunts have been developed. Governor Gregg Abbott of Texas has passed an executive order empowering his state to apprehend illegal immigrants in certain circumstances as well as designating Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey was seeking court affirmation for his state’s right to defend itself, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is focusing on trafficking operations. And each of the aforementioned Governors has since adopted the political stunt of giving illegal aliens safe passage to sanctuary cities in northern states via bussing. As a result, cartel armies continue to consolidate power and gain control of territories while states bear the brunt of economic and criminal impacts.
Deploying the National Guard
The loss of operational control along the U.S.-Southern border by DHS has forced border state Governors into a constitutional dilemma. To date, no Governor has challenged the federal government to enforce federal immigration law and turn back persons seeking illegal entry. Instead, states such as Texas are relying on their own state constitutional authority to use the National Guard to arrest illegal aliens committing crimes. In fact, the National Guard has had a continuous presence on the Southern border since 2014 when former Texas Governor Perry deployed 1,000 troops to interdict Cartel del Golfo (Gulf Cartel). Deploying the National Guard to interdict cartel armies remains a desirable option due to the federal government’s abandonment of the border. But when opting for this option the Governor’s and their military commanders must maintain strategic symmetry throughout all facets of the operation. On-going challenges the National Guard is confronting on the border has generated the following principles that should be addressed when conducting border operations.
- A Task Force is not a Strategy
- Don’t Surge Your Troops to Failure
- You Can’t Go to War with a Border
- Build Consensus Between the Diplomats, the Bureaucrats, and the Generals
A Task Force is Not a Strategy
Governors love a good Task Force. And they exist for virtually every political, economic, and social purpose. As far as the border is concerned, Current task forces include Arizona’s Task Force Badge to support local law enforcement in border towns; New Mexico’s Human Trafficking Task Force; and Texas’ Task Force on Border and Homeland Security. These task forces sometimes strain due to the broad scope of concerns they attempt to address. Governor’s fall into a ‘my task force is bigger than yours” mentality and end up creating over representative committees. For instance, Texas’ Task Force on Border and Homeland Security has representatives from eight state agencies, the Border Sheriffs’ Coalition, county judges, mayors, property rights organizations, concerned citizens, and border community prosecutors. Good luck with that task force developing a specific focus.
A bloated think-tank style “task force” creates ambiguity at the operational level that lacks strategic context. What often results are large task forces that try to cover all conceivable scenarios due to the absence of a unified strategy. Inevitably, the Governor responds to think-tank style task forces and their recommendations and begins to implement what is confused as a strategy. Whereas the General tries to facilitate force structure and build a strategy within their joint staff. Thus, the two begin to react to separate problem sets.
Don’t Surge Your Troops to Failure
The National Guard is an operational force that provides strategic depth to our nation’s Army and Air Force. Over the past two decades the National Guard became quite adept as a resource provider to the Middle Eastern wars. In this federal role the National Guard followed a deliberate mobilization process lasting up to a year that culminated with properly trained, equipped, and missioned Soldiers. State led missions on the other hand are led by the Governor and TAG who controls the state’s National Guard. These National Guard soldiers and airmen are activated on state active duty and remain under the command and control of the Governor while costs are incurred by the taxpayers of the state. In this capacity the state’s TAG is responsible for training, readiness, and oversight of soldiers and airmen.
Governors don’t understand this concept and instead believe that the military exists within a perpetual state of readiness. And because of this belief they are quick to surge troops to the border when political pressure builds. Doing this wrong had disastrous results in Texas. Just this past summer a “no notice surge” of up to 10,000 troops to the Texas-Mexico border was attempted by the Governor. What resulted was a logistical nightmare of delayed pay, substandard living conditions, and equipment shortages. Most egregious were a number of suicides attributed to forced mobilizations because of no warning, and a tragic drowning due to limited training. In the wake of this disaster the TAG, Major General Tracy Norris, was replaced due to her inability to plan an operation, other senior officers were reassigned, and the number of troops on the border was reduced.
You Can’t Go to War with a Border
The Prussian Soldier and writer Carl von Clausewitz wrote over two hundred years ago that war is not exerted on inanimate or passive human material. The U.S.-Mexico border is an inanimate terrain feature. It does not think or fight. The thinkers and fighters are “Cartel Americana” that have saturated the Americas in depth throughout the northern and Southern hemispheres. Defeating the illicit activities of the cartel armies requires a defense in depth strategy extending to within the cities and towns of the U.S. away from the border. What is required is a higher order of operational strategy consisting of what military theorist Liddell Hart refers to as the “concentration of strengths against weaknesses”.
The strength of the National Guard is its array of specialized units and human capital that do not exist within the active component of the U.S. military. Units such as homeland response forces, counter drug programs, cyber defense teams, and information operations; amongst other specialized capabilities could be the focus beyond the border. The primary intent should be to reclaim the physical and digital terrain that the cartel armies have seized. Augmenting the special agents within the Criminal Investigation Divisions of each state’s County Sheriff’s Offices, Attorney General’s Office, and Departments of Public Safety would provide a real threat to the cartel army’s self-preservation. Physical interdictions do not cease but instead become enhanced on the border.
Build Consensus Between the Diplomats, the Bureaucrats, and the Generals
A Governor that decides to deploy the National Guard takes on the role of a diplomat to convince both the citizenry and state legislature for the need of civil self-protection. The messaging that the Governor delivers must be persuasive enough to receive popular support, pass legislation, and forge a budget. In Arizona Governor Doug Ducey influenced state legislators to create a border security fund consisting of $55 million; Florida Governor Ron DeSantis created a consortium of state law enforcement agencies expending $1.6 million to provide border security support to Texas; and Texas Governor Greg Abbott influenced his state legislature to provide $3 billion to finance the Operation Lone Star mission. Building consensus for a budget proposal is a core competency of Governorship. However, building funding consensus is not synonymous with strategic consensus.
Governors, as the Commander in Chief of state military forces, are responsible for providing a strategic context to their National Guard troops. They should be able to rely on their existing agencies to craft that strategic context. The strategic aptitudes of a state exist within the Department of Emergency Management, Department of Public Safety, and Military Department (National Guard) who possess competent strategic planners. It is within these departments and agencies that a strategic framework is developed to visualize the operation in time, space, and purpose. From that, operations at the tactical level are developed, and resources applied through existing state bureaucracies. Doing this right requires strategic patience which is antithetical to a Governor who may have just negotiated a “border package” and needs a surge to commence. Thus consensus on a strategy often is strained from the very first press conference.
Conclusion
Current border state Governors have been forced into a situation non dissimilar to Reagan’s dilemma of 1984 when he responded to the Soviet Union’s influence in our hemisphere. During that time Reagan stated, “the United States has a legal right and a moral duty to help resist the subversive activities of the Soviet Union.” The dilemma of our hemisphere today is how to defend the United States from cartel armies. It’s not good practice to commit large military formations to long term criminal enforcement. It’s simply not within the DNA of America’s founding principles. However, the U.S. is being invaded by cartel armies as they continue to infiltrate the U.S.. How our Governors decide to leverage Constitutional authorities will determine if this war can be won.
Colonel Clarence Henderson (U.S. Army, ret.) is a former Infantry Brigade Combat Team Commander and U.S. Army War College graduate with over 20 years of active service and multiple worldwide deployments. He was the former commander of all troops on the border under Governors Rick Perry and Greg Abbott of Texas.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 23:40 - Email Reveals AR-15 Pistol Brace Company Hit With Data Breach Ahead Of ATF Ruling
Email Reveals AR-15 Pistol Brace Company Hit With Data Breach Ahead Of ATF Ruling
SB Tactical, one of the most popular AR-15 pistol brace manufacturers, appears to have been hit with a data breach, where customer data, including names, addresses, and credit card information, was leaked online.
A snapshot of an email from SB Tactical’s customer support has surfaced on Reddit and Twitter in the last few days detailing “a data security incident that may involve unauthorized access to your personal information.”
“SB Tactical was recently informed by law enforcement that our website was compromised. It is possible that your credit card number, expiration date, CCV code, cardholder name, address, phone number, and email address were exposed,” the email said.
The pistol brace manufacturer has sold millions of units and is arguably one of the most popular stabilizing brace brands in the US. The email continued by indicating “the timeframe of the compromise to be between September 19, 2022, through December 13. 2022.”
We contacted customer service regarding the data breach, who told us, “we recommend that you remain vigilant by reviewing your account statements and credit reports closely.” They said, “some customers have chosen to take the preemptive measure by requesting a new card from their financial institution,” adding, “our sincere apologies for the frustration.”
The timing of the hack is very suspicious because tens of millions of Americans could become lawbreakers overnight, pending a decision by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to classify stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles. Anyone who doesn’t register with the ATF would possess an illegal SBR.
Redditors on forums r/CAguns and r/AR15 have been discussing the hack for the last several days.
“I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but wouldn’t that be a nice list for a three letter agency to have if a brace ban goes into effect…..,” a Redditor said on r/CAguns.
Another said, “Hot take: it was actually the ATF trying to see who owns pistol braces.”
“How convenient before the AFT brace decision. Sounds like a data grab by the government,” someone else said.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 23:20 - FDA Deviated From Normal Process In Pfizer Vaccine Approval, Documents Show
FDA Deviated From Normal Process In Pfizer Vaccine Approval, Documents Show
Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
U.S. drug regulators acknowledged deviating from the normal vaccine approval process when dealing with Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot, according to newly disclosed documents.
A sign for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration outside of the headquarters in White Oak, Md., on July 20, 2020. (Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images) Weeks after Pfizer and its partner BioNTech announced they started a rolling submission of documents for approval of their COVID-19 vaccine, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration official penned a memorandum authorizing the release of a Biologics License Application (BLA) number for the shot even as regulators weighed whether to approve the BLA, one of the documents shows.
“This deviation from our normal practice is done to facilitate product labeling and distribution and is consistent with other Center practices to facilitate vaccine delivery during the declared Public Health Emergency,” Christopher Joneckis, the FDA’s associate director for review management, wrote in the June 17, 2021, memo. “When providing the license number, we should communicate that this license number does not constitute any determination by FDA on the application.”
Joneckis said the decision stemmed in part from the FDA having granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the shot in late 2020. That means the FDA “is familiar with and has reviewed much of the information provided in the BLA application,” which primarily consisted of data used in the application for emergency clearance, he said.
EUAs can be granted if a public health emergency has been declared and the FDA determines it’s “reasonable to believe” that the vaccine or other product in question “may be effective” in preventing, diagnosing, or treating the disease or condition caused by the public health threat. BLAs require a higher threshold of evidence, demonstrating that a product is “safe, pure, and potent.”
A separate document made public this week showed that the license number was given to Pfizer even though no approval decision had been made after Pfizer requested it.
“The Applicant requested a U.S. License Number for BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH with agreement that they will not use it until after the BLA is approved,” the document, a summary of a June 29, 2021, FDA meeting discussing Pfizer’s application, stated.
The summary noted that Joneckis wrote the memo authorizing the release of the number “in advance of the typical notification in the approval letter.” After that, the FDA “generated the license number which will be provided to the Applicant, after filing, in an email message.”
The FDA granted a BLA to Pfizer’s vaccine for individuals 16 and older on Aug. 23, 2021. The vaccine was later approved for children as young as six months of age. The FDA has also authorized or approved multiple boosters due to the vaccine performing poorly against newer variants.
The documents were released by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), which successfully convinced a court to order the FDA to produce documents related to its actions on the COVID-19 vaccines after the agency had claimed it would take decades to do so. The government has been providing ICAN documents in response to the suit and Freedom of Information Act requests.
Aaron Siri, a lawyer representing the network, told The Epoch Times in an email that the new documents are “another piece of evidence that supports that licensure of this product quickly became a foregone conclusion.”
The FDA did not respond to a request for comment.
Advisory Committee Meeting ‘Not Needed’
The FDA only held one meeting with its advisory panel, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), after Pfizer and BioNTech lodged their BLA request. That meeting focused on whether to clear vaccines for younger populations, and not the new application.
During the meeting, multiple panelists expressed confusion about when they would be consulted on any BLA requests.
Read more here…
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 23:00 - "This Got Way Overhyped": 2016 Russian Twitter Trolls Were Dismal Failure: WaPo
“This Got Way Overhyped”: 2016 Russian Twitter Trolls Were Dismal Failure: WaPo
In a report that should come as a surprise to no one (especially after the TWITTER FILES drops), Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 US election via Twitter were a dismal failure that reached relatively few users, and had “no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior,” according to the Washington Post, citing a study published Monday from the NYU Center for Social Media and Politics.
“My personal sense coming out of this is that this got way overhyped,” said report co-author Josh Tucker, who co-directs the NYU center. “Now we’re looking back at data and we can see how concentrated this was in one small portion of the population, and how the fact that people who were being exposed to these were really, really likely to vote for Trump,” he added.
“And then we have this data to show we can’t find any relationship between being exposed to these tweets and people’s change in attitudes.”
Key findings via the Post:
- Only 1 percent of Twitter users accounted for 70 percent of the exposure to accounts that Twitter identified as Russian troll accounts.
- Highly partisan Republicans were exposed to nine times more posts than non-Republicans.
- Content from the news media and U.S. politicians dwarfed the amount of Russian influence content the electorate was exposed to during the 2016 race.
- There was no measurable impact on “political attitudes, polarization, and vote preferences and behavior” from the Russian accounts and posts.
Recall just three weeks ago we learned that Twitter saw little to no evidence of foreign influence in the 2016 US election, which the FBI repeatedly sought.
21. Despite Twitter’s pushback, the FBI repeatedly requests information from Twitter that Twitter has already made clear it will not share outside of normal legal channels. pic.twitter.com/WyI03iZ0WF
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 19, 2022
WaPo‘s caveat here is that Russian influence ops on other platforms may have been more successful.
The study, published this morning in Nature Communications — an offshoot of the science journal Nature magazine — is years in the making. That’s due to the amount of time needed to acquire data from Twitter, conduct the study, carry out surveys and run it through the peer review process, Tucker said.
And Twitter is easier to get data from than Facebook, given that posts are public, among other reasons, he said. Thus, the focus on Twitter, despite its smaller user base.
Plus, there were some fundamental differences with observing how people absorbed information on Twitter versus Facebook, Tucker said. “One of the super interesting things we were able to do in this paper is show that lots of what people were exposed to here was not because they were following the accounts of these Russian trolls, but because they follow people who retweeted tweets that came from these Russian trolls, and that’s easier on Twitter, where almost everything is open,” Tucker said. -WaPo
Except that we know Russian influence campaigns on Facebook in 2016 totaled roughly $100,000.
So yeah, all of that was a lie.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 22:40 - Where's The Woodward And Bernstein Of The COVID Scandals?
Where’s The Woodward And Bernstein Of The COVID Scandals?
Authored by Bill Rice via The Brownstone Institute,
I was just a kid, but I’m old enough to remember Watergate. As I grew older, I learned more specific details about this historic event. Here’s my Watergate takeaway, which I think is the accepted “narrative” on this historic event:
Watergate was the biggest political scandal of the century. The fallout or denouement caused President Nixon to resign from office and sent several “conspirators” to prison.
It also made Woodward and Bernstein the most famous journalists of all time.
Few people had heard of these journalists when they began compiling relevant facts about the original Watergate crime and obligatory cover-up, but this changed over the span of about two years.
Based in part on these two journalists doing their jobs, Congressional officials decided to also do their jobs and before you knew it, most of the sordid story was known to the world.
Woodward and Bernstein, who were already minor celebrities, really cashed in with the publication of their best-selling book All the President’s Men, which was adapted into an Academy Award-winning movie starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, two of the biggest stars of our era.
After filling their mantles with every journalism prize, the Washington Post scribes parlayed this fame and success into a lifetime of speaking gigs. By “breaking” the Watergate scandal, they also acquired the panache that allowed them to play leading roles in future investigations that resulted in even more best-selling books.
Today, the names of both journalists are literally in the history books, where their journalistic accomplishments will live forever.
Every ambitious journalist who followed wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein and break some huge scandal that might elevate them onto a similar professional pedestal.
The employer of Woodward and Bernstein, the Washington Post, built most of its reputation on the fact it was the newspaper that did more than any other to expose Watergate.
So … It pays handsomely – directly and indirectly with benefits that will last a lifetime – to be the journalists or news organization that breaks the “scandal of the century.”
Which leads to THE question: Given all of the above, why doesn’t any journalist, editor or publisher want to be the next Woodward and Bernstein when it comes to Covid scandals?
The Covid scandals that could be exposed by an enterprising journalist(s) are vastly larger and more important than those involving Watergate.
To cite one difference … nobody died in Watergate.
In way of comparison, the disease Covid – as well as all the calamitous responses to Covid – must have killed and injured 10, 20, 50 million (a billion?) people by now. And these casualty figures are still growing.
Nor did Watergate cripple the economy nor lead to rampant inflation.
Nor did it lead to mass censorship and the evisceration of civil liberties.
Also, the Watergate conspiracies and cover-ups included only a small group of Nixon loyalists in the White House, plus a few people who actually did the “dirty tricks.”
It takes no Woodward and Bernstein for the Man on the Street to realize that Covid crimes and cover-ups must have involved practically every agency in government by now.
NIH, NIAID, CDC, FDA, the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA, the White House, the Department of Homeland Defense, Congress, the Justice Department, the courts , judges, governors, mayors, OSHA, the Departments of Transportation, Commerce, Labor, HHS … local police departments, all the state and local health agencies, colleges, school boards … almost all of these agencies went “all in” on the bogus Covid narratives and requisite cover-ups.
Then we have all of the private sector cronies and conspirators.
In Watergate, at least that I am aware of, Big Pharma was not implicated. With Watergate, none of the world’s major corporations signed onto the program.
With Covid, as far as I can tell, every big company endorsed the CDC’s policy guidebook and did their patriotic best to make sure the conspiracy went off without a hitch.
When you stop and think about it, there’s no way a “Woodward and Bernstein” could tell the story of the Covid Scandal. There’s simply too many scandals that would have to be exposed. It would take an army of Woodward and Bernsteins to break the pieces down into individual, sub-scandal components.
Still, the journalists who provided the public with a few key answers to what really happened and why, journalists who told the world the names of the people who committed the biggest crimes and cover-ups, would surely go down in history as the most important journalists of world history.
That is, Woodward and Bernstein would have to move down to second place.
Which isn’t their fault. It’s just that, compared to Covid, Watergate seems like a scandal to fix a few parking tickets.
But, still, not ONE mainstream media journalist nor one mainstream media news organization has shown any interest in exposing any parts of the scandal of all time.
How does one explain such a surreal reality?
If saving lives and exposing corrupt (I’d say evil) officials doesn’t motivate today’s journalists, one would think that the All-American values of wanting to become rich and famous would get the adrenalin of a few crackerjack journalists flowing.
But, no.
As it turns out, nobody wants to be the next Woodward and Bernstein. Nobody cares about earning that spot in the history books and making their children and grandchildren proud. (“My Dad scored four touchdowns in a high school football game.” “… Well, my Dad broke the Covid scandal …”)
Why doesn’t any journalist want to expose the real truth about the myriad Covid scandals?
The answer to this puzzler seems pretty obvious to me. The watchdog press must be a part of the conspiracy. The conspiracy must be that vast. This is the only possible answer I can come up with.
The reason Woodward and Bernstein were able to tell the the world that Nixon’s White House was full of crooks is because the Washington Post wasn’t part of that conspiracy.
In fact, the journalists and their employer were part of a massive group effort involving hundreds of news organizations that were working around the clock, trying to expose the crimes and cover-ups.
When you realize this, you realize that Nixon and his team never had a chance of getting away with it.
But skip forward 50 years to Covid times and we see that the scales of journalism have completely flipped.
The key to the modern-day scandal is …
Of course everyone will get away with their miscellaneous crimes and misdemeanors because nobody who could expose the crooks is trying to do this.
The lesson here is a big one: If you want to get away with “crimes against humanity,” you better make sure you’ve fully captured the watchdog press. (Even Woodward and Bernstein, who are still alive and cranking out stories, don’t care about no Covid scandals.)
How the Bad Guys were able to capture and control approximately 40,000 mainstream journalists would itself be one heck of a story.
But who’s going to tell that story?
Don’t laugh, but I guess it will end up being someone like me.
In the past, I would never have considered that some small-time freelance journalist could break some big, historic scoop. I mean, I can’t even get one government official to return my calls or emails (“Dr. Fauci, Bill Rice, Jr. on the phone …”)
Nor do I have a partner like Woodward helping me with any digging.
But, I’ll say this: I’m not like today’s other 40,000 mainstream journalists. Becoming rich and famous wouldn’t bother me. If I could save a few lives and help put a few diabolical crooks into prison, this would check my “I did something meaningful with my life” box.
Plus, I’ve had this thought: Nobody else is really on the case. Even today, Woodward and Bernstein – with some research help from some of theWashington Post’s army of interns – could expose some of these scandals in three weeks … if they tried.
But we all know these guys are sitting this scandal out.
Breaking this scandal would make them even richer and more famous, but it would also prove all the conspiracy “kooks” were right all along. The embarrassment and professional stigma would be too great for them to bear. The mean tweets from former colleagues (“Why did you go and do that? You’re not in our club anymore!”) wouldn’t be worth the cost.
As it turns out, for reasons that boggle the mind, the amateurs on Substack have been granted complete monopoly rights to investigate the Story of All Time.
What the heck. If the Big Leaguers don’t want play, I say, “Put me in, Coach …”
Anyway, if anyone reading this happens to be a potential whistleblower with information that would tell your fellow citizens what really took place with Covid, please contact me via this Substack site.
I also know this. In 2023, Covid’s version of Deep Throat would be wasting his breath to call anyone at theWashington Post. But every real journalist at Substack would take that call and run with it.
* * *
Reposted from the author’s Substack
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 22:20 - China Eases Ban On Australian Coal Imports, But Impact Will Be Mostly Symbolic
China Eases Ban On Australian Coal Imports, But Impact Will Be Mostly Symbolic
China has allowed several large coal importers to resume purchases of Australian coal, easing an unofficial ban that has lasted more than two years, as Beijing looks to strengthen energy security after ditching the zero Covid policy.
China enacted an unofficial ban on Australian coal in October 2020 after Australia backed a call for an international inquiry into the way China handled the initial COVID outbreak in early 2020. China’s decision to allow four big importers to restart imports of coal from Australia is a sign of a thawing in relations between the two nations and sparked hope that trade between the two could return to normal.
As OilPrice notes, last week China’s National Development and Reform Commission discussed the idea to allow four large Chinese coal importers to make new purchases of Australian coal this year. These are China Baowu Steel Group Corp, China Datang Corporation, China Huaneng Group Co, and China Energy Investment Corporation.
China Energy Investment Corp has already placed an order for purchasing coal from Australia, and the first cargo could load as early as this month, according to Reuters. Moreover, the surge in Covid cases after the end of the restrictions has resulted in lower coal supply from China’s key coal-producing centers Shanxi and Inner Mongolia, traders told Reuters.
At the same time, Reuters also notes that China’s decision to allow imports of Australian coal after more than two years of an unofficial ban is one of those moves where the symbolic importance outweighs the practical impact. The partial easing of the ban will see three utilities and a major steelmaker given permission to resume imports from Australia, which used to be the second-biggest supplier to China prior to the curbs being imposed in mid-2020.
As Reuters adds, while there is likely to be some interest among Chinese buyers for cargoes from Australia, the likelihood of a return to prior levels of trade is limited as regional and global market dynamics have shifted substantially.
That doesn’t mean the move is without significance, but the impact is likely to be more about improving ties between China and Australia, which became strained when Canberra called for an investigation into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, resulting in China banning imports of several goods from Australia, including barley, wine and lobsters.
The partial easing of the ban will see three utilities and a major steelmaker given permission to resume imports from Australia, which used to be the second-biggest supplier to China prior to the curbs being imposed in mid-2020.
That said, there are several reasons why Australian coal won’t once again become a major factor in China, the world’s largest importer of the fuel used mainly for power generation or to make steel.
The first, and most important, is that Australian coal will struggle to compete on price in China, especially thermal grades used to make electricity.
Prior to the ban in July 2020, China was importing in the region of 3.5 to 4.3 million tonnes of thermal coal from Australia, with the 2020 peak coming in at 4.26 million in April of that year, according to data compiled by commodity analysts Kpler.
For that month, it gave Australia a market share of 21% of China’s total thermal coal imports, well behind the leader Indonesia, which had a share of 69%.
While the numbers did move around somewhat on a monthly basis, the April 2020 data is representative of the broader trend in China’s imports of thermal coal, namely Indonesia dominated and Australia was a distant second.
Once the informal ban came into effect, Australia’s share of China’s imports dropped to zero by early 2021.
It’s also the case that China’s overall imports slumped in the months after the ban was imposed, but they started to recover from November 2020 onwards and by June 2021 thermal coal arrivals were exceeding 2020 levels.
What effectively happened is that Russian cargoes replaced Australian, with seaborne thermal coal imports from China’s northern neighbour reaching 3.37 million tonnes by June 2021, having been just 1.07 million in April 2020, the peak month for imports from Australia that year.
China’s imports of Russian thermal coal have remained solid, with some seasonal variations, since then and were 2.96 million tonnes in December, according to Kpler.
The question is whether Australian coal miners can compete on price with Russian thermal supplies, and the answer is probably not. Chinese utilities previously imported lower grade Australian thermal coal, so the closest match is the 5,500 kilocalories per kg (kcal/kg) assessment by commodity price reporting agency Argus. This was pegged at $132 a tonne in the week to Jan. 6, which is roughly similar to Russian thermal coal at the eastern port of Nakhodka, which was assessed by McCloskey at $130.
However, the freight rate strongly favours Russian supplies given the shorter distance to reach Chinese ports.
There is also more than price to consider.
Australian coal miners, as well as the region’s traders, shippers and bankers, will be wary of going back into the Chinese market, having been burnt by the unofficial ban back in 2020. This means they are likely to be willing to sell again to China, but will also be more demanding in terms of price and guarantees. They may also be reluctant to divert coal away from the buyers they gained after the Chinese ban, especially those in places like India and Vietnam.
In short, it will likely take some time to rebuild trust and trading relationships. Add in a likely price disadvantage and it’s hard to see Australian thermal coal charging back into China.
Where there is more scope is in metallurgical, or coking, coal, where Australian cargoes are likely to be more price competitive against those from Russia and the United States. Australia used to be China’s top supplier of imported seaborne coking coal, with imports peaking at 6.84 million tonnes in June 2020, for a market share of 94%. Russia was a distant second in June 2020, supplying just 409,916 tonnes, according to Kpler.
The unofficial ban on Australia coal saw China’s imports of seaborne coking coal plunge, and unlike thermal coal they have not recovered and were just 2.14 million tonnes in December 2022, or just under 30% of June 2020 levels. China has been forced to import more coking coal overland from neighbouring Mongolia and has also boosted domestic output to make up for the shortfall.
While Australian coking coal is likely to be more pricey than that from Mongolia, it can also be delivered to coastal steel mills more easily. Australian supplies may also be more costly than those from Russia, but Russia has limited capacity to supply more volumes, which means Chinese buyers may be willing to purchase Australian supplies to ensure security of supply.
But it may take some time for Australian coking coal to return to China in meaningful volumes for much the same reasons as thermal coal, a lack of trust, the need to rebuild trading relationships and a reluctance to cut off other buyers.
* * *
With demand for winter heating rising, China now looks to avoid another coal crunch. China has put more emphasis on energy security since the autumn of 2021 when power shortages crippled its industry. In 2022, China said it would continue to maximize the use of coal in the coming years as it caters to its energy security, despite pledges to contribute to global efforts to reduce emissions.
In recent months, China has significantly boosted its coal production, following government orders. China’s daily coal production hit a record high in November 2022 as demand for heating jumped, beating the previous record set in September 2022.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 22:00 - Oregon Advises Schools To Keep Students' 'Gender Identity' Hidden From Families
Oregon Advises Schools To Keep Students’ ‘Gender Identity’ Hidden From Families
Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Oregon Department of Education (ODE) has recommended school authorities to keep students’ self-proclaimed “gender identities” a secret from parents for maintaining their “confidentiality.” (Norenko Andrey/Shutterstock) The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) has released a document advising schools on how to support “gender expansive” students, including keeping their so-called gender identities a secret from family members.
If a student discloses their “gender expansive” identity to school staff, the guidance asks staff members to respect the child’s “confidentiality needs.” Students who do not publicly assert their “gender identity” might have concerns about their families and community members finding out, the new guidance (pdf) states.
“Parent and family support is the goal when supporting gender expansive students, but may not be possible in all situations,” according to the document.
“Schools should refer to their current policies when there may be a safety concern. To the extent possible, schools should refrain from revealing information about a student’s gender identity, even to parents, caregivers, or other school administrators, without permission from the student.”
The updated guidance “clarifies new and evolving laws and policies” on how to address the needs of “gender expansive” students and the school districts that serve them, ODE Director Colt Gill says in the letter.
Speaking to Fox News, an ODE spokesperson confirmed that when students claim that notifying their parents about their “gender expansive” identity might be a safety concern, the department encourages schools to “prioritize the student’s safety within all school environments.”
‘Gender-Affirming’ Care
The document pushes for providing “gender-affirming care” in schools. Services like social affirmation through name, gender markers, pronoun use, access to facilities, athletics, etc. are likely to occur in schools. Medical services like access to puberty blockers, “gender-affirming” surgeries, and hormone therapy are likely to occur within a school-based health center (SBHC), the document noted.
It cited a survey by a Gender and Sexuality Alliance (GSA) at a middle school in which respondents picked “gender-affirming” items like clothing, makeup, chest binders, and menstrual products as something the school should focus on for the upcoming year.
The ODE’s updated gender policy has riled some parents. “Oregon is demonstrating for parents that, once again, academics and education are not the priority of our government school system,” Laura Zorc, executive director of Building Education for Students Together, a group focused on parental rights in education, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“There are so few hours in a day, yet Oregon is committed to pushing and retraining teachers on gender issues rather than educating our children.”
State Gender Agenda
Oregon has been the scene of various attempts at pushing gender agenda among school kids. In August, it was reported that Oregon’s Driftwood Public Library was teaming up with a local high school to establish a “gender-affirming” closet for students that is aimed at helping children get access to items like underwear, makeup, and chest binders.
In December, the ODE was reportedly set to spend $2 million on a campaign seeking to launch a pro-“LGBTQ2SIA+” curriculum, pride events, and teacher training. The plus sign was said to stand for a “myriad of additional marginalized gender identities, expressions, and sexual and romantic orientations,” according to Breitbart.
Read more here…
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 21:40 - Citadel's Ken Griffin Plans To Build 'Supertall' Skyscraper In Manhattan
Citadel’s Ken Griffin Plans To Build ‘Supertall’ Skyscraper In Manhattan
Billionaire Citadel boss Ken Griffin plans to build a new skyscraper in Manhattan that would serve as the flagship tower for his financial empire, according to Bloomberg, citing people familiar with initial proposals.
Griffin plans to build a 1,350 feet (411 meters) skyscraper with 51 office floors and seven terraces. Citadel will occupy at least 54% of the building. Foster + Partners, the firm founded by architect Norman Foster, will be the lead designer of the tower that could be completed by 2032.
Last month, Vornado Realty Trust and Rudin Management reached an agreement with Citadel that allows the developers to construct the 1.7 million-square-foot skyscraper by replacing three adjacent properties in Midtown, at 350 Park Avenue, 40 East 52nd Street, and 39 East 51st Street.
“We expect that if this building is built it will be able to house all of our New York City employees for both Citadel and Citadel Securities, which will reduce the need for us to have them spread across multiple sites in New York City as they currently are,” Zia Ahmed, a spokesperson for Citadel, told Bloomberg last month.
The tower’s height would make it one of the tallest buildings in the borough and rival JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s new headquarters in Midtown that is being built, as well as the skyscraper near Grand Central Terminal.
“We want to have exceptional work environments around the world that provide an unparalleled experience for our team members, reflecting the commitment they make to us,” Griffin recently said about the firm’s office buildings.
Griffin is worth an estimated $29.1 billion and ranks 40 on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He moved Citadel’s headquarters to Miami’s Brickell area from Chicago, citing out-of-control violent crime.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 21:20 - House Republicans Adopt Rules Package
House Republicans Adopt Rules Package
Update (1925ET): After last week’s dramatic speaker election, House Republicans adopted a rules package that will govern how the chamber operates until 2025 – Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) first legislative win as the newly-elected Speaker.
The vote of 220-213 was mainly along party lines.
No word on the mystery addendum.
* * *
Update (1445ET): There’s word of a ‘much-fabled 3-page House rules addendum’ circulating throughout certain GOP offices in which McCarthy reportedly agrees on everything from the 20-holdout demands on everything from strategy on the debt ceiling, to committee assignments.
Via Axios‘ Andrew Solender:
At least one GOP office apparently has the much-fabled 3-page House rules addendum.
“We’re taking a look at it … we’re just going through it,” Rep. Ken Calvert, a Steering Committee member, tells @Axios
Asked if members have received a copy: “I don’t know if everybody has.”
— Andrew Solender (@AndrewSolender) January 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
According to Punchbowl News,
there’s also a secret three-page addendum that McCarthy and his allies hashed out during several days of grueling negotiations with the House Freedom Caucus. This pact includes the most controversial concessions McCarthy made in order to become speaker – three seats on the Rules Committee for conservatives, freezing spending at FY2022 levels, a debt-ceiling strategy, coveted committee assignments and more.
* * *
How that Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has been elected Speaker of the House, his first order of business is presiding over the Republican rules package for the 118th Congress.
That said, in order to finally win the gavel after 14 failed votes, McCarthy had to make massive concessions to a group of 20 holdout Republicans, including the ability for just one member to vote to vacate the speaker’s chair.
In a Sunday night tweet, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) tweeted “This is what we’ve been fighting for,” in relation to seven bills that the holdouts were able to include in the rules package, which is expected to be put to a vote on Monday.
1) A bill to cut some of the additional funding that was made available to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
2) A bill to authorize the secretary of Homeland Security to turn away people crossing the border illegally.
3) A bill that includes prohibiting the secretary of energy from sending petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China.
4) A tough-on-crime bill that includes amending the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to direct the district attorney and prosecutor’s office to report to the attorney general.
5) A bill to require a national instant crime background check system to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement agencies when information surfaces that a person present in the United States illegally may be trying to obtain a firearm.
6) A bill to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions.
7) A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion. –Epoch Times
“When we come back, our very first bill will repeal the funding for 87,000 new IRS agents,” McCarthy said on Jan. 7, shortly after being elected Speaker, adding that Republicans “believe government should be to help you, not go after you.”
In a recent letter, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), said that legislation is “ready to go” which will be brought to the House floor over the next two weeks. According to the Epoch Times, the House rules package largely mirrors Scalise’s list.
More via The Epoch Times‘ Tom Ozimek:
According to Scalise’s letter, the first bill, dubbed the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act (pdf), aims to revoke some of the additional IRS funding that Democrats passed as part of their Inflation Reduction Act that the agency plans to use for tax enforcement.
U.S. House Republican leaders Steve Scalise (R-La.) (L) and Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) talk in the House Chamber during the fourth day of elections for Speaker of the House at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington on Jan. 6, 2023. (Win McNamee/Getty Images) With the first bill, Republicans are targeting what Scalise said was “tens of billions of dollars allocated to the IRS for 87,000 new IRS agents.” That figure is in dispute, with the Biden administration saying much of the money would go to non-enforcement staff like customer service.
Another bill Scalise put in the schedule is the Strategic Production Response Act (pdf), which would prohibit non-emergency drawdowns of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve without a parallel plan to boost energy production on federal lands.
Republicans have been highly critical of President Joe Biden for ordering the release of oil from the strategic reserve, arguing that it was a ploy to win votes ahead of the midterms by trying to lower pump prices.
Biden, for his part, has insisted the release was meant to stabilize global oil markets amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing energy price shock, as well as trying to lower prices for Americans amid decades-high inflation, of which a major component is the cost of energy.
Scalise has scheduled another related bill, called Protecting America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act (pdf), which would restrict the energy secretary from selling oil from the strategic reserve to China.
Another bill is the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act (pdf), which would allow the public to see how many cases prosecutors are declining to prosecute, along with the number of criminals released onto the streets and the number of offenses committed by career criminals.
On border security, Scalise put forward a bill called the Border Safety and Security Act (pdf), which would give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the power to turn away people crossing the border illegally in order to gain “operational control” of the border.
Another bill, called the Illegal Alien NICS Alert Act (pdf) would require the National Instant Criminal Background Check system (NICS) to notify U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and relevant local law enforcement if someone trying to buy a firearm is an illegal immigrant.
One bill, called the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (pdf), seeks to make the Hyde Amendment permanent and prohibit federal funding for abortions as well as funding for any insurance plans that include on-demand abortion.
Another bill, called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (pdf), would ensure that infants born alive after a failed abortion would receive the same legal protection and health care as a newborn.
McCarthy’s Concessions
Besides the bills, McCarthy had to make numerous concessions to win over the holdout Republicans, including giving the Freedom Caucus members seats on the powerful House Rules Committee, taking a hard line on the debt limit, and reducing spending.
McCarthy was elected as the 55th House Speaker in the early hours of Jan. 7 by a vote of 216–212.
While it normally takes 218 votes—a majority of the House—to become speaker, that threshold can be reduced if members are absent or merely vote present.
It’s precisely this maneuver that gave McCarthy his coveted win, as six Republicans voted “present” instead of “yea” in the final vote: Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Bob Good (R-Va.), and Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.).
In a 20-minute speech following the vote, McCarthy laid out his priorities for the 118th Congress, including securing the southern border, combating “woke” indoctrination in American schools, and unleashing domestic energy production.
“We must get America back on track,” he said. “We’ll hold the swamp accountable.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 21:05 - Investigating The Investigators
Investigating The Investigators
Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary,
With House Republicans having decided on the Speaker, one of their next items of business is one that is well overdue: the formation of a new subcommittee on the “Weaponization of the Federal Government,” which would conduct a thorough investigation of abuses by federal law enforcement and national security agencies.
According to a recent interview with Rep. Chip Roy, Speaker Kevin McCarthy has “committed to giving the subcommittee at least as much funding and staffing as the House special committee in the last Congress that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.”
It’s about time.
Of course, the very name of the subcommittee – the “Weaponization of the Federal Government” – suggests a wide-ranging inquiry that could look into the actions of a number of federal agencies – the FBI/DOJ, Department of Homeland Security, the CIA and NSA, etc. It would include efforts by the Biden Administration and FDA/CDC to eliminate unapproved speech about COVID-19 and how the FBI made sure social media companies, including Twitter, took down alleged misinformation about the 2020 election and had a part in the suppression of the Hunter Biden story.
And that’s just the more recent history of governmental abuses. What else is out there, still waiting to be uncovered? There is sure to be more. We just haven’t heard of it yet.
Then there are the federal abuses of their investigative powers, starting with the Russiagate fiasco. Yet even with Russiagate there’s much we don’t know. It’s either hidden under layers of classifications or kept secret as part of federal investigative steps. Or the evidence remains with the DNC and Crowdstrike, assuming it hasn’t been destroyed.
But if we could suggest areas of Russiagate-related focus for Congressional investigators – a long list that we’ve had to narrow down to things we’re personally most curious about – here’s where we would start. 1
-
The DNC “Hack”
Topping the list is the holy grail of them all, the purported Russian hack of the DNC servers. Initially leading the investigation and response to the hack was no other than Michael Sussmann, the DNC/Hillary Campaign lawyer who would later draw charges from Special Counsel John Durham for lying to the FBI about other Russian information: the Alfa Bank/Trump connections.
As has been documented here and elsewhere, the investigation into the DNC hack was bungled from the start. The FBI never took possession of the DNC servers, instead relying on conclusions formed by DNC contractor Crowdstrike (which, by the way, was hired by Michael Sussmann on behalf of his clients). The FBI never obtained the complete reports from Crowdstrike. And even Crowdstrike had no direct evidence of exfiltration. As explained by Aaron Mate, the manner in which the Russian attribution is described by US intelligence officials signals that they “lacked concrete evidence for their Russian hacking claim.”
Part of the DNC hack inquiry would be further documentation of who at the FBI raised red flags about the investigation’s scope and seemingly pre-determined outcome. It would also get into who made the decisions. That gets us to the next topic.
-
Corrupted Leadership of the FBI and DOJ
This is an admittedly broad category, covering years of investigative and prosecutorial decision. But its importance is underscored by what we have learned about how the dubious investigations they decided to pursue (like how they targeted Flynn) and how that leadership’s killed necessary investigative into witnesses damning to their “collusion” narrative.
With respect to the FBI, the Michael Sussmann trial revealed how FBI headquarters ordered there to be a “full field investigation” opened into the Trump-Alfa Bank allegations. This decision was made by the FBI’s 7th floor, including Director James Comey. And it was a significant step according to one FBI Special Agent: “In order to open a full field investigation, we would need specific and articulable facts that a threat to U.S. national security has occurred or there’s been a violation of federal law.” Based on what information did Comey possess to make that order?
The Sussmann trial also demonstrated that FBI Headquarters disapproved the request from FBI agents investigating the Alfa Bank allegations to interview the source of the information. Which FBI leader denied that request?
-
Corruption of Special Counsel Mueller
Regarding the Mueller Special Counsel, one former FBI Intelligence Analyst testified that members of the Mueller Special Counsel took the position “to not investigate Mr. [Charles] Dolan.” (If you recall, Dolan was a Clinton ally who ended up being a source for the Steele reports.) This former FBI Intelligence Analyst explained:
“We had been instructed at SCO not to take further action on the matter involving Mr. Dolan and Mr. Danchenko’s relationship.”
By that time, the Mueller Special Counsel was aware the connection between Dolan and Danchenko and there were suspicions, if not direct knowledge, that Dolan had informed the Steele reports. The FBI asked Danchenko about Dolan on June 15, 2017 – before Mueller asked for the 4th FISA warrant on Carter Page, which was submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on June 29, 2017.
Later on, the Mueller Special Counsel would prevent the FBI agents under its supervision from investigating Dolan. One FBI Agent compiled a comprehensive report on Dolan and corroborated Dolan’s involvement in the Steele reports. She submitted that report to the Mueller Special Counsel and requested further investigation of Dolan. She was told that investigation “was not going to be opened.”
It’s hard to overstate the importance of this inquiry. The instructions by Team Mueller to not investigate the Dolan-Danchenko relationship, and to shut down the investigation of Dolan himself, are informed by Team Mueller’s understanding of the consequences of those investigative steps: blowing up the Carter Page FISA warrants, exposing the deception to the FISA court, and the accountability from the FBI/DOJ/Mueller that would come from revealing the truth.
That’s just scratching the surface. Other matters that deserve inquiry include the wiping of Special Counsel phones (a potentially criminal act).
-
The DARPA Connection
As documented by our friends Undead and Margot Cleveland, “The U.S. Department of Defense and private individuals pumping the Alfa Bank hoax also assisted former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Donald Trump for supposed collusion with Russia.”
But there’s more to it than that, as provided by Cleveland in this must-read. There’s the allegation that these researchers helped assist with the “DNC attack attribution.” This raised a question from a member of Special Counsel John Durham’s team:
“Do you believe that DARPA should be instructing you to investigate the origins of a hacker (Guccifer_2.0) that hacked a political entity (DNC)?”
-
The FBI’s 2018 deceptive letter to the FISA Court
In this letter, the FBI assured the FISA court that they found Danchenko to be “truthful and cooperative.” This was written after the FBI knew that Danchenko had lied to them, with his deception starting in January 2017.
That letter was purportedly reviewed by the FBI, which “confirmed its factual accuracy.” It still must be determined who at the FBI reviewed that letter and who vouched for the accuracy of Danchenko. Hopefully we can be provided answers.
-
The CIA Collecting Information on President-Elect Trump
As we detailed in this article, in February 2017 the CIA received manipulated information and data from Michael Sussmann that purported to show that Trump, or Trump associates, “had suspicious interactions with internet protocol (IP) addresses affiliated with a Russian mobile phone provider.”
Currently, we don’t know what the CIA did with that information. Maybe they analyzed the data. Maybe that simply passed it on to the FBI. But, at a minimum, we should ask why the CIA was so willing to accept a meeting and take possession of information from a DNC lawyer that was allegedly damning to the President-elect. And there’s another important question: what else did they collect on American soil?
-
Current Conflicts within the Office of Attorney General Garland
As we’ve reported, Jake Sullivan is a witness in the Durham inquiry, being there for the Clinton Campaign’s Fusion GPS misconduct. He was mentioned during the Michael Sussmann trial as one of the campaign staffers who received updates on the Fusion GPS “opposition research.”
Sullivan’s wife is Margaret Goodlander, who servers as counsel to AG Garland. We have strong reason to believe that Goodlander is keeping tabs on the Durham investigation. There’s a serious concern that she’s being provided non-public information on what happens in the Durham investigation. Totally improper for a government official who happens to be the spouse of a witness.
-
Release the materials, the unredacted reports and 302s.
Let the public see what happened for themselves.
-
Finally, and this one is unrelated to Trump/Russia – but how about House Republicans demand all CIA and FBI documents on Jeffrey Epstein?
* * *
1. We’re limited on space and couldn’t include everything that should be investigated. We also note that Special Counsel Durham is looking into some of these very same issues. His report, whenever its submitted, may answer many of these questions.
Subscribe here…
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 21:00 -
- Seattle Schools Sue Big Tech Over Youth Mental Health Crisis
Seattle Schools Sue Big Tech Over Youth Mental Health Crisis
The Seattle city school district has sued several social media giants, which they blame for causing a mental health crisis.
According to the lawsuit – filed late Friday in Seattle federal court against Alphabet, Meta, Snap and TikTok owner ByteDance – students have been suffering from anxiety, depression and other psychological troubles stemming from their use of social media.
The district serves around 50,000 children across more than 100 schools.
The suit appears to be the first of its kind in the US brought by a school district, following similar claims filed last year by scores of families, including more than a dozen blaming the tech companies for suicides.
The idea that social media companies shoulder responsibility for the potential damage their products cause to young people came to the fore late in 2021 when former Meta employee Frances Haugen revealed documents about its internal operations. Among Haugen’s allegations was a claim that the company was knowingly preying on vulnerable young people to boost profits. Congress held hearings and some state attorneys general launched investigations. –Bloomberg
In Friday’s lawsuit, Seattle School District #1 is asking a judge to find that big tech has created a nuisance, and seeks remedies which include monetary damages, as well as funding to prevent and treat the excessive use of social media. The district cites a spike in suicides and ER mental health visits, as well as President Joe Biden’s 2022 State of the Union speech in which he called to “hold social media platforms accountable for the national experiment they’re conducting on our children for profit.”
“Seattle School District No. 1 brings this action to do just that,” reads the complaint. “Youth in plaintiff’s community are experiencing the same mental health crisis observed nationally.”
No word on whether Seattle schools will also sue the US government and the media over life-altering lockdowns and three years of pandemic hysteria, which also affected the mental health of young Americans.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 20:40 - The GOP Is The Unlettered Party, And That’s A Good Thing
The GOP Is The Unlettered Party, And That’s A Good Thing
Authored by Karl Zinsmeister via RealClear Wire,
Over the coming weeks, a new band of Republicans will announce themselves as candidates in the next presidential race. The frontrunners will be scrappy populists. Today’s most successful center-right politicians are not only champions of the common man but energetic opponents of the idea that our society needs reordering by credentialed authorities.
Ron DeSantis grew up in a blue-collar family, worked his way into Yale with his brains and baseball talent, then went home and built a political career on the idea that “people are able to make decisions on their own.” Florida’s navigation of the COVID crisis, says the governor, established “a blueprint for governance” that rebukes “the entrenched elites” who so often dominate modern society. “Florida is proof positive that we, the people, are not powerless in the face of these elites.”
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott was raised in poverty, went to college on a football scholarship while his brother became a sergeant major in the U.S. Army, then entered politics to fend off the idea that ordinary people can only improve their station through the interventions of a federal patriciate.
Greg Abbott, who lost his father early in life and then was disabled and confined to a wheelchair, gained national prominence as Texas’ governor battling the notion that problems should be solved by mandates from erudite Feds.
Glenn Youngkin, Virginia’s chief executive, left a finance career and dove into politics to defend everyday parents from fouls and interference by officials claiming they know better what children need.
The most striking change in modern American politics is a flipping of the class loyalties of the two major parties. For decades, Democrats were seen as defenders of the little guy, and the GOP as home for pillars of the establishment. But country-club Republicans have been displaced by country-music Republicans, while our socio-economic gentry of lawyers, Wall Streeters, professors, Hollywood moguls, tech millionaires, media influencers, and others from the beau monde have flooded into the “D’s” column.
It wasn’t just Donald Trump who made the GOP the party of the common man. Political scientist Everett Carll Ladd noted way back in 1976 that the class lines of our political parties were turning “upside down.” John F. Kennedy had been elected by the “regular guy” – among college-educated, high-income voters, he lost 2-1. From that point forward, though, campus-trained and highly compensated elites surged to the Democrat side, while working-class men and women shifted toward Republicans.
This political inversion of elite and non-elite Americans reached its tipping point in 2012. That year, for the first time, our richest citizens voted primarily in favor of Democrats. The flow of the nation’s anointed into the Democratic camp, while the hoi polloi gravitated to the GOP, has accelerated since. In the 2022 midterms, among electors lacking a bachelor’s degree, only 39% voted for a Democratic Party congressional candidate.
It’s easy to forget that college graduates are still the fortunate few. Among Americans 25 and older, just 38% currently wield a bachelor’s or higher diploma. And Democrats are much further from the mainstream on this than Republicans: Half of the Democrats’ voters hold a bachelor’s degree, and roughly a quarter possess a graduate degree.
Rather than exploring political orientation as a function of edu-economic privilege, most contemporary journalists explain party alignment using racial and ethnic markers. This is why they were so surprised when Trump won two-thirds of working-class counties in 2020, and 26% of all non-white votes. They were flabbergasted two months ago when DeSantis attracted an overwhelming majority of blue-collar ballots, along with 58% of all Hispanic votes.
Americans of varying complexions and backgrounds are now expressing a bold populism. They complain that in schools, corporations, government agencies, media, and other institutions, entrenched elites are seeking to force-feed them a strange new agenda. Many articles of progressive faith presented by elites as enlightened, non-negotiable truth strike average Americans as patent nonsense – and are being resisted. It is almost exclusively center-right leaders who are supporting these declarations of independence.
This populist backlash has been aggressively characterized by the ruling establishment as hate, ignorance, and animus. Many residents of the high-income hipster towns sprinkled from San Francisco to Brooklyn see the typical American Joe as a scary mix of dumb and dangerous. Progressives use their many professional platforms, and the approved press and online salons that project their crotchets across the country with 10-foot-long shadows, to paint every peasant revolt as an insurrection led by fascists or white supremacists.
A few traditional economic-minded progressives look at the status of humble Americans and see legitimate beefs. Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich warned after Donald Trump’s election that “what has happened in America should not be seen as a victory of hatefulness over decency.” It “is more accurately seen as a repudiation of … major media … corporations … lobbyists … Wall Street … and their lackeys in Washington,” an outcry from a large mass of workaday citizens “who feel powerless and disenfranchised, and who have been left out of our politics and left behind in our economy.”
Data demonstrate starkly that the vast proportion of our nation’s income gains in recent decades have been captured by America’s Brahmin class, with middle- and working-class families clinging to small and shrinking slices. Blue-collar communities are being ravaged by poverty and social breakdown. Meanwhile, telecommuting towns inhabited by our professional, finance, and tech aristocracies glisten.
The social and political concerns of average workers have been shoved aside even more flagrantly than their economic interests. Elites don’t just ignore the perspectives of flyover America on topics like family, sex, race, religion, childrearing, patriotism, and culture – they actively delegitimize them.
Journalism was once a bastion of local, man-on-the-street perspectives. It has been transformed into a highly paid insider’s profession packed with Ivy Leaguers and centered in D.C. and Manhattan. Reporters, writers, and related interpreters of culture now sit right at the heart of our controlling class, and most of these pundits view “Rule by the Smartest” as a good thing. Their media portraits paint it as both healthy and normal.
Historically, however, our country has been the opposite of a land run by edu-economic nobles. From our beginning, America’s gospel creed has been that every person’s judgment is as worthy as the next. No peons. No lords.
George Washington noted that the privates in his army overflowed with a proud, self-governing spirit and would not be dictated to, but had to be led. This obstreperousness was leveraged by smart commanders to produce powerful results – as when Col. Isaac Shelby defeated a larger force of regimented soldiers at the Battle of King’s Mountain by telling his men, “When we encounter the enemy, don’t wait for the word of command. Let each of you be your own officer.”
The most perspicacious chronicler of America’s emergence, Alexis de Tocqueville, was simultaneously “struck by the innumerable multitude of little undertakings” accomplished by humble people, and the utter lack of great projects directed by any commissariat. He recorded his “daily astonishment at the immense works carried through … by a nation which, one may say, has no rich men.”
The European pattern of royal and rustic, cupbearer and kulak, was fiercely rejected on this side of the Atlantic. There were no quiet sheep here willing to be herded by omniscient shepherds. Jefferson captured the American ethos in graphic imagery: “The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred … to ride them.”
Resistance to being overseen by even a highly accomplished upper strata is in many ways the distinguishing characteristic of our national system, the deepest quirk that separates us from other states and people. New Englanders refused early on to let rulers from Old England impose codes upon their independent communities. By 1776 Americans were registering primal screams against “a long train of abuses and usurpations” that decreed, taxed, quartered, and mandated without popular consent. Even the Progressive movement of the 20th century began as a cry against the impositions of haughty monopolies – railroads, political bosses, unresponsive agencies, and corporations. Historically, America has been hostile to any centralized capture of decision-making. Populism is in our blood.
So that was the olden days. What about now? Is it smart for a political party to pursue a populist approach, given the present climate of demagoguery and blood-sport politics? Do Republicans really want to cast their loyalties with the great unwashed?
There is actually a strong argument to be made that our national success, stability, and virtue have been built much more on popular energy, decency, and wisdom than on the astuteness of American elites.
It’s true that a republic centered on the common man will often exhibit a scratchy and brawling political dynamic. Ours always has. Jefferson characterized rule by everyday people as a “boisterous sea” – yet much to be preferred to “the calm of despotism.”
We saw that messy dynamic in action on the House floor last week. But while it can at times be indecorous, American populism has never produced anything close to despotism. Quite the opposite.
A few decades after Tocqueville commented on the constructive genius of normal citizens in America, perceptive foreign observers like Englishman George Ruxton and Pole Henryk Sienkiewicz likewise wandered our land and discovered deep reserves of insight and fair play among our untutored residents. The unassuming farmers, trappers, soldiers, and traders they interrogated impressed them with their judicious acumen and moral goodness. They were less taken with the residents they met in upper-class salons.
Our long national experience with successful populism seems to be invisible to the journalist/techie/lawyer/professor mandarins who currently exhibit such suspicion toward mass opinion. Superior thinkers and would-be culture shapers complain of our lumbering government and the yokels who prevent it from being recast by intellectuals, data-barons, science doyens, and ethical innovators.
That attitude inadvertently reveals great ignorance of U.S. history. Our national code was written by founders whose careful study of human autocracy over the ages left them keenly chastened. America’s architects created a prudent, intensely hedged, fail-safe republic that aimed specifically to empower the unexceptional citizenry – not to ease life for the smart and aggressive experts who always swarm halls of power hoping to apply brisk instruments of government to reshape society in their own image.
James Madison explained it this way: “The difference between our government and others was happily this: that here the government had an anxious and difficult task … while the people stood at ease – not pressed upon, not driven.” In contrast, he noted, wherever ambitious and willful cliques are able to grab power, “government has an easy time, and the people have to bear and do everything.”
Popular governments will sometimes embarrass, but they rarely morph into the most egregious errors or tyrannies. After listing numerous examples from World War II where intellectuals were “more wrong about the progress of the war than the common people,” George Orwell concluded that expert analysis is regularly inferior to popular wisdom. There are many absurd ideas that “one has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe,” he wrote, because “no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
Males can become females. … Trillions may be spent by government without causing inflation. … Releasing criminals from lawful sentences won’t affect predation. … Both of his parents are Stanford professors, so that nice cryptocurrency pioneer must be right.
The gravest existential dangers to America at present are being fomented by our nobility, not our yahoos: a discarding of rowdy free speech in favor of ecclesia-approved dogma. Rewriting history. Toxic labeling by gatekeepers to signal that an argument or individual should be shunned. Using academic guilds to suppress heterodox research. Blandly invoking “science,” racial appropriation, or “unsafe feelings” to shut down debate. Reducing all opposing arguments to “hate.” Forcing into official discourse and law exotic claims promulgated among elites that have never been embraced by the public.
Yes, an extreme rabble can sometimes imperil a society. But the best way to preclude festering among commoners who feel wounded is to listen to them and then treat their afflictions. Ignoring, slighting, or degrading citizens of modest condition is both wrong and impolitic. And arguing that the American Cossacks who periodically gallop their pickup trucks through D.C. and N.Y. are an insurrectionary horde on the brink of seizing the nation’s levers of power is: (a) laughable as social diagnosis; and (b) insulting as political strategy.
Far more plausible than a rube ruination of our society is the opposite nightmare: an educated, wealthy, powerful aristocracy – grown self-important, overbearing, and intolerant – losing all sympathy for middle America. In corridors of power right now, concern for working-class “Deplorables” is at a new low. We are allowed to call them rednecks, reactionaries, and racists, because such creatures deserve only to be bullied and lorded over. That scorn is our era’s most unexamined, unchecked, un-American civic breach.
It’s not demagogic to champion what H.L. Mencken’s heirs deprecate as the “booboisie.” Nor it is anti-intellectual to be skeptical of expertise, and chary of those claiming political power in its name. From Francis Galton to Friedrich Hayek, one of history’s most time-proven realities is the superiority of plain empirical experience over brilliant theorizing.
Ordinary citizens possess forms of knowledge, intuition, and moral sense that make them, as a body, better arbiters of many fundamental issues than any clutch of educated specialists. That’s been called the wisdom of crowds, group intelligence, symbiotic assessment, decentralized problem-solving, dispersed judgment, crowdsourcing – and it is undeniably powerful.
“Wisdom is often nearer when we stoop than when we soar,” concluded William Wordsworth. That ancient insight is the secret of American success. Political leaders who defend it today will earn both results and repute.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 20:20 - Where The World's Ultra-Wealthy Live
Where The World’s Ultra-Wealthy Live
How many millionaires, centimillionaires, and billionaires live in the world’s wealthiest cities?
While such metrics are not all encompassing, these measurements of private wealth do help put the financial health and economic activity of some of the world’s wealthiest cities in perspective.
Visual Capitalist’s Raul Amoros and Nick Routley created the infographic below, using information from the Henley Global Citizens Report, in partnership with New World Wealth, to rank the world’s wealthiest cities. It leverages a comprehensive data set that tracks the movements and spending habits of high-net-worth individuals in over 150 cities around the world.
Which cities and regions have the biggest concentrations of millionaires around the world, each with a net worth greater than $1 million (USD)?
Millionaires and Billionaires in the Wealthiest Cities
In the latest edition of the ranking, North America has a strong showing with seven of the wealthiest cities, by number of millionaires.
In particular, the United States claims five of the cities in the top 10, including the very top spot with New York City.
Asia is the region with the second most millionaires with six cities in the mix. Not surprisingly, China is home to three of these cities, including Hong Kong (SAR).
Europe comes in third with five cities, though only London makes into the top 10 portion of the ranking. Finally, Oceania has two cities on the list, both located in Australia.
How Top Cities Stack Up
Let’s take a closer look at some of the top-ranking cities making the list.
#1: New York
New York is the wealthiest city in the world—home to 345,600 millionaires with a total private wealth that exceeds $3 trillion.
New York is home to many Fortune 500 companies and is the financial heart of the United States, with the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ located in the Big Apple. Additionally, the city’s real estate market is known for being expensive, with sky-high property values and rents.
#2: Tokyo
Tokyo is the economic hub of Japan and is one of the most important cities in the world for business and finance. It is home to 304,900 resident millionaires, making it the city with the second most millionaires in the world.
Japan’s largest city is home to the Tokyo Stock Exchange, which is one of the largest stock exchanges in Asia by market capitalization. Tokyo is also a major center for banking and insurance, and is home to many multinational companies like Honda and Sony.
#3: San Francisco Bay Area
The San Francisco Bay Area boasts 276,400 millionaires. It’s known as the mecca of tech innovation, and as a result, the region has a high concentration of wealthy individuals. San Francisco also has the highest median household income in the country.
The number of millionaires has been growing steadily over the last 10 years, and if the trends of recent years hold, San Francisco could become the number one millionaire hub by 2040.
#4: London
London has been the world’s wealthiest city for years, but over the past decade there has been an outflow of millionaires.
Today, with 272,400 millionaires, the city holds a more humble position. London is known for its financial and business sectors, and it attracts a significant number of high-earning professionals who contribute to its reputation as a hub of wealth and luxury.
#5: Singapore
Singapore is home to 249,800 millionaires making it the second richest city in Asia after Tokyo.
Singapore has one of the highest densities of millionaire households in Asia, with over 5% of households having at least $1 million USD in net financial assets. This is due in part to the country’s strong economic growth and favorable business environment, which has attracted many wealthy individuals and families to the country. In addition, Singapore’s political stability, low crime rate, and high standard of living have also contributed to its appeal as a place to live and work.
Fastest Growing Cities for the Rich
The cities shown in our visualization are already well-established locations for high-net-worth individuals. Some of them have topped the rankings for decades, while some others are less well-known. But what are the fastest growing cities for the rich?
In 2022, cities with strong oil and gas industries like Riyadh, Sharjah, Dubai, Luanda, Abu Dhabi, Doha, and Lagos grew exceptionally. Cities in the UAE became millionaire magnets, attracting over 4,000 millionaires in 2022. In the U.S., a few tax-friendly states like Texas and Florida became home to American companies moving their head offices there.
Looking to the future, companies and high-net-worth individuals will inevitably move where they are treated best. Countries that want to attract wealthy individuals will have to apply tax-friendly policies along with other factors such as quality of life, safety, education, and access to amenities that ultra-wealthy residents value.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 20:00 - Set For A Supreme Showdown? Fifth Circuit Rejects Bump Stock Ban In Contrast To Other Circuits
Set For A Supreme Showdown? Fifth Circuit Rejects Bump Stock Ban In Contrast To Other Circuits
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has handed down a major opinion in Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016, ruling 13-3 that the ATF ban on bump stocks is unlawful. The en banc decision found that a bump stock may be many things but it is not a machine gun.
On December 18, 2018, the ATF issued a rule that bump stock would now be considered unlawful as machine guns and gave bump stock owners 90 days to surrender the devices. After that deadline, possession would be treated as a federal crime. The specific statement read, in part:
The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump-stock-type devices — meaning “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics — are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.
On January 6, 2023, the Fifth Circuit handed down its decision rejecting the rule. It explained the technical aspects for the case as well as the clear shift in interpretation by the ATF:
“A bump stock is a firearm attachment that allows a shooter to harness the natural recoil of a semi-automatic weapon to quickly re-engage the trigger after firing, enabling him to shoot at an increased rate of speed. When ATF first considered the type of bump stocks at issue here, it understood that they were not machineguns. ATF maintained this position for over a decade, issuing many interpretation letters to that effect to members of the public.”
Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in her majority opinion that “[p]ublic pressure to ban bump stocks was tremendous” after the mass shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017. However, “[a] plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of ‘machinegun’ set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.”
The majority further explained:
The Government’s regulation violates these principles. As an initial matter, it purports to allow ATF—rather than Congress—to set forth the scope of criminal prohibitions. Indeed, the Government would outlaw bump stocks by administrative fiat even though the very same agency routinely interpreted the ban on machineguns as not applying to the type of bump stocks at issue here. Nor can we say that the statutory definition unambiguously supports the Government’s interpretation. As noted above, we conclude that it unambiguously does not. But even if we are wrong, the statute is at least ambiguous in this regard. And if the statute is ambiguous, Congress must cure that ambiguity, not the federal courts.
The holding was supported by a rule of lenity that “penal laws are to be construed strictly.” She noted that, as in United States v. Wiltberger, the Court had long followed the rule which Chief Justice Marshall described as “founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. It is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.”
Thirteen judges agreed with the conclusion though twelve (Chief Judge Richman and Judges Jones, Smith, Stewart, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, and Wilson) reversed on lenity grounds while eight members (Judges Jones, Smith, Elrod, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson) reversed on the ground that federal law unambiguously fails to cover non-mechanical bump stocks.
Judge Stephen Higginson, joined by Judges Dennis and Graves, dissented, including a rejection of the lenity argument:
the Supreme Court lets us deploy lenity to narrow laws only as a last resort when, having tried to make sense of a statute using every other tool, we face an unbreakable tie between different interpretations.
Contrary to this authority, the majority opinion and the lead concurrence apply the rule of lenity to garden-variety ambiguity. In doing so, today’s ruling usurps Congress’s power to define what conduct is subject to criminal sanction and creates grave ambiguity about the scope of federal criminal law….
The ATF is likely to find the ruling far less than “tender” but it is well-reasoned. It also stands in contrast to other circuits which reached opposing results. That creates an optimal status for Supreme Court review with a split in the circuits. The D.C. Circuit in Guedes, the Sixth Circuit in Gun Owners of America, and the Tenth Circuit in Aposhian came to opposing conclusions. These are well-reasoned opinions on a difficult question.
There is another reason why Cargill may be appealing to some on the Court. The majority specifically rejected affording the ATF Chevron deference. The reason is that the agency had not relied upon Chevron and seven of the judges rejected Chevron deference when the statute imposes criminal penalties.
First, Chevron does not apply for the simple reason that the Government does not ask us to apply it. Indeed, the Government affirmatively argued in the district court that Chevron deference is unwarranted. As other jurists have recognized in this context, that means that the Chevron argument has been waived—not merely forfeited. . . .
That would seem to be the end of the inquiry, but we recognize that one of our sister circuits has held that Chevron cannot be waived. Guedes, 920 F.3d at 21–23; see also Gun Owners of America, 19 F.4th at 899 n.5 (White, J., in support of affirmance). To be sure, we have never held in a published case that Chevron must be raised by the Government in order to apply. . . . But the conclusion is obvious, and flows from well-settled waiver principles. After all, that a court should defer to the Government’s expressed interpretation is just a legal argument, and a party waives a legal argument if it fails to raise the argument when presented with the opportunity. . . .
If ordinary waiver principles were not enough, we note also that it would contradict Chevron‘s central justification to defer to the Government’s interpretation without its urging us to do so. The justification is that “‘policy choices’ should be left to executive branch officials ‘directly accountable to the people.’” Guedes, 140 S. Ct. at 790 (Gorsuch, J., statement respecting denial of certiorari) (quoting Epic Systems v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1630 (2018) and Chevron, 467 U.S. at 865)). Here, the Government made a clear policy choice by declining to seek Chevron deference. The very interest underlying Chevron demands that we respect the Government’s choice and interpret the statute according to traditional principles of statutory interpretation. . . .
The Chevron framework does not apply for a second, independent reason: the statute which the Final Rule interprets imposes criminal penalties. As noted above, the primary reason for Chevron is that it allows the executive branch to make policy decisions through the accrued expertise of administrative agencies. But in exchange, Chevron deference shifts the responsibility for lawmaking from the Congress to the Executive, at least in part. That tradeoff cannot be justified for criminal statutes, in which the public’s entitlement to clarity in the law is at its highest. . . .
Finally, we note a third reason why Chevron deference does not apply in these circumstances: that ATF has adopted an interpretive position that is inconsistent with its prior position. To apply Chevron here would contravene one of the rule’s central purposes: “to promote fair notice to those subject to criminal laws.” . . .
This is one of the most interesting opinions in the gun-rights area. However, under cases like Bruen or those moving back toward the Court, the underlying issue is the interpretation of the Second Amendment. This case is purely a statutory interpretation case. While it raises constitutional questions in issues like the Separation of Powers, it can be decided without expanding or limiting the Second Amendment jurisprudence.
On the face of the opinion, it (and the prior ATF interpretation) makes obvious sense from both mechanical and legal perspectives. Congress may have a different view but this is a major change to the law by agency fiat. (The change came under the Trump Administration).
The case is so compelling not just on its logic but the basis for a Supreme Court review that I am tempted to assign it as part of my Supreme Court class. Hopefully, the Court can resolve my dilemma by accepting the case and placing it on the docket. If any justices are reading this, I would appreciate the academic accommodation.
The underlying issue is likely something that Congress would examine. Here is a video showing how the bump stock can be used to simulate a machine gun’s rate of fire:
Here is the opinion: Cargill v. Garland
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 19:40 - Iran To Execute More Young Men Arrested In Protests As West Weighs Diplomatic Expulsions
Iran To Execute More Young Men Arrested In Protests As West Weighs Diplomatic Expulsions
Since the start of the September ‘anti-hijab’ protests triggered by the death in police custody of Mahsa Aimini, Iran has launched a major crackdown which has included the arrests of many thousands, but more recently has involved unprecedented protest-related executions.
Four Iranian citizens have been executed so far for what state authorities have dubbed ‘terrorist’ acts. There are widespread reports that two more detainees are about to be executed at a prison in the suburbs of Tehran, after hasty trials.
“Protesters gathered outside a prison near the Iranian capital on Sunday night in an attempt to prevent the rumored imminent execution of two young detainees found guilty of running over a police officer in a car during protests in November,” The Guardian reports Monday.
Undated photo of political detainees in an Iranian prison, via Iran International Family members of one of the men, 22-year-old Mohammad Ghobadlou, have reportedly joined protests outside the prison. He along with the other prisoner, Mohammad Boroughani, were reportedly transferred to solitary confinement which has sparked fears of their imminent execution, given this is typical treatment of death row inmates just prior to execution.
This comes after two men were executed only two days ago on Saturday, with The New York Times describing that they were hanged:
Iran on Saturday hanged two men, a 22-year-old national karate champion and a 39-year-old poultry worker, who participated in antigovernment demonstrations and whose executions were condemned as a ploy by the government to use violence and sow fear to crush the protests.
The men, Mohammad Mehdi Karami, the karate champion, and Sayed Mohammad Hosseini, the factory worker, were hanged at dawn on Saturday in the city of Karaj near the capital, Tehran, after hasty trials on charges that they participated in the killing of a member of the Basij paramilitary group in November, according to the judiciary.
Various Western countries have reportedly summoned the respective Iranian ambassadors in their capitals, demanding explanation. For example, France condemned the “appalling” Saturday executions and ongoing severe crackdown on ‘anti-hijab’ protesters.
Human rights groups have called it “open murder” and claimed that inmates are not receiving fair trials and face trumped-up charges. Iran’s foreign ministry has remain staunchly entrenched in defending the nation’s judicial process: “Remarks of self-styled defenders of human rights are replete with racist thoughts,” a statement posted to the foreign ministry’s website said.
Iranians are so upset about #MohammadBroghani and #MohammadGhobadlou being in danger of imminent execution that video is coming in after 3:00 AM in #Iran where they are protesting outside Rajai-Shahr Prison. #StopExecutionsInIran pic.twitter.com/q4U0TQK6X4
— Jason Brodsky (@JasonMBrodsky) January 8, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Meanwhile, some countries like Canada are going so far as to mull expelling Iranian diplomats, saying that Islamic Republic ambassadors don’t truly represent their people. There have been growing calls in Germany to do the same.
Detained Iranian demonstrators have continued to receive harsh sentences, including years in prison, sometimes for what the rest of the world would deem mere exercise of free speech. But this has not yet served to stamp out the protests, but has in many cases only enraged people in the streets.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 19:20 - Classified Documents Found At President Biden's Think Tank
Classified Documents Found At President Biden’s Think Tank
Classified documents from Joe Biden’s tenure as Vice President were found in early November at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, CBS News reports, citing two sources with knowledge of an inquiry launched by Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The investigation into the roughly 10 documents will be conducted by the US Attorney in Chicago (shocking!), according to the sources.
The classified material was identified by personal attorneys for Mr. Biden on Nov. 2, the day before the midterm elections, Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president confirmed. The documents were discovered when Mr. Biden’s personal attorneys “were packing files housed in a locked closet to prepare to vacate office space at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, D.C.,” Sauber said in a statement to CBS News. The documents were contained in a folder that was in a box with other unclassified papers, the sources said. The sources revealed neither what the classified documents contain nor their level of classification. A source familiar told CBS News the documents did not contain nuclear secrets. -CBS News
Remember when the DOJ raided former President Trump and made a huge deal about classified documents having been commingled with not-classified documents? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
According to Sauber, the White House counsel’s office notified the National Archives on the same day the material was discovered, after which the Archives took possession the next morning.
“The discovery of these documents was made by the President’s attorneys,” said Sauber. “The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the Archives. Since that discovery, the President’s personal attorneys have cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any Obama-Biden Administration records are appropriately in the possession of the Archives.”
In charge of the investigation is John Lausch, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, who will seek to determine how the classified material ended up at the Penn Biden Center (which received $54.6 million in Chinese donations after the Biden Center was announced in 2016).
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 19:00 - US NatGas Prices Bounce After Monthlong Selloff; Some Forecasters See Possible Cold Flip End Of Month
US NatGas Prices Bounce After Monthlong Selloff; Some Forecasters See Possible Cold Flip End Of Month
US natural gas futures surged from an 18-month low and major support level. Energy prices as a whole rose on the prospects China’s move to reopen would boost imports and outweigh global recession fears. Long-term weather models indicate the possibility of a return to winter for the Lower 48 later this month into next, while near-term outlooks still show mild temperatures. There’s no concrete evidence yet of a flip from mild to colder temperatures for the US that would boost heating demand.
Front-month NatGas futures for February delivery jumped more than 10% to above $4 per million British thermal units (mmBtu). The snap higher in price (possibly a short squeeze) occurred just above the 76.4% Fibonacci retracement on the 2020 run-up from $1.43 to $10 in August. Since late last summer, prices have slid nearly 65% on abundant supply, mild winter, and LNG export troubles due to Freeport delays.
Comparing NOAA’s latest 6-10 day weather outlook versus the 8-14 day outlook, there are signs cold weather could be ahead for the West Coast and Rocky Mountains while the eastern half of the US stays above average.
There’s some chatter on social media about longer-term outlooks pointing to much colder weather for the Lower 48 later this month into next (remember, we pointed out some of these forecasts last week).
#EURODAY15 #natgas pic.twitter.com/d11QqlmgLV
— Gas Vegas (@GasVegasBaby) January 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The pattern across N. America continues to lean to the warmer side as the Pacific pattern has been unfavorable for sustained cold since the end of December…but are things changing in the 11-15 day?
Clients can read our latest HDD update here: https://t.co/0PGRH6N2h0#natgas pic.twitter.com/k10oBKOoWR
— Atmospheric G2 (@Atmospheric_G2) January 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Weekend weather data maintains awful/red/bearish pattern next 2-weeks w/very light national demand. However, nat gas markets relieved to see the GFS, ECMWF, and CFS tease a colder pattern Jan 24-31. #natgas #oilandgas pic.twitter.com/cyfhj0YcKt
— NatGasWeather.com (@NatGasWeather) January 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
It may lock in, with help from the Stratosphere. Between the forcing from the tropics and the stratospheric changes, I’m very optimistic about a reversal of fortunes in the Eastern US. Be patient winter lovers. It’s coming. #wxtwitter https://t.co/dfWowrHJzF
— Mark Margavage (@MeteoMark) January 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
10mb Stratospheric Warming Events, even minor ones, have preceded 2 of the most significant arctic air outbreaks these past 2 months. The forecast remains for a stratospheric warming event unlike anything we’ve seen so far this fall and winter. Winter is just getting started. pic.twitter.com/7fhlpfNyQH
— Mark Margavage (@MeteoMark) January 8, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The current polar cyclone is compared to last year ( right Jan 1, 2022) much stronger. This is why it is currently so mild over continents as the polar cyclone is the engine of air movements over the Northern hemisphere, accumulating lots of warm air from oceans.#natgas pic.twitter.com/eyrJJO58Fu
— Heinrich Leopold (@LeopoldHeinrich) January 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
However, Houston-based energy firm Criterion Research said warmer trends would persist across the Lower 48 for the next two weeks. They also said there’s a possibility of a weather event at the end of the month of early February.
With the current warmer weather for January and the 10yr normals beyond that point, we are forecasting a robust March ’23 EOS storage level – ping us at info@criterionrsch.com for details #natgas #ongt
— Criterion Research (@PipelineFlows) January 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
As for Freeport’s restart, it’s anyone’s guess, but here’s some commentary around the latest aerial drone photos of the LNG export facility and what one trader thinks the reopening timeframe could be in early March.
This is my key (Not Skylar’s). When the Valve that is under wrap is installed here. I estimate it is 6 weeks to restart away (pending they are smooth with regulators). That puts me smack at March 1st given work is happening now. #LNG #FreeportLNG #NatGas pic.twitter.com/GE77poEsbE
— NATGAS (@USAEnergyNatGas) January 9, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Hard to pinpoint precisely why NatGas jumped today. Maybe a combination of China reopening, a short squeeze, and or the idea winter isn’t over.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 18:40 - US Alarmed As Erdogan Hints At Assad Meeting Amid Moscow Reconciliation Talks
US Alarmed As Erdogan Hints At Assad Meeting Amid Moscow Reconciliation Talks
During a speech in Ankara last Thursday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan hinted that a meeting with his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad may soon take place, “as part of efforts for peace.” He added that a tripartite meeting between the foreign ministers of Turkiye, Russia and Syria is scheduled to be held in the near future for the first time since 2011.
Erdogan said, “As Russia-Turkey-Syria, we have launched a process through the meeting of our intelligence chiefs and defense ministers in Moscow. Then, God willing, we will bring our foreign ministers together trilaterally. Then, depending on the developments, we will come together as leaders.”
Via Reuters The upcoming meeting aims to enhance communication after Russian-sponsored talks between the Turkish and Syrian defense ministers were held in Moscow on 28 December. The meeting was the highest-level of official meetings between Ankara and Damascus since the start of the Syrian war.
In a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on 5 January, Erdogan called on the Syrian government to ‘take the steps to achieve a tangible solution concerning the case of Syria.”
The US sis seeking to establish a middle ground between Ankara and the SDF in order to prevent Turkish-Syrian reconciliation.
The Syrian-Turkish rapprochement via declared Russian mediation was paralleled by Emirati-Syrian rapprochement – the latest of which was a “brotherly” meeting aimed at strengthening cooperation and restoring historical relations between Assad and Foreign Minister of the UAE Abdallah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, according to SANA.
Saudi newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported that the UAE seeks “to join Russia in sponsoring Syrian-Turkish relations at a high level,” noting that the Emirati foreign minister’s visit to Damascus sought to arrange Turkiye’s participation in the tripartite meeting of Syrian-Turkish-Russian foreign ministers, making it a quadripartite meeting.
The meeting is meant to pave the way for a presidential meeting between Erdogan and Assad in the presence of Putin. Reportedly, the UAE has offered to host this summit, with a possibility of a high-level UAE official being present at the meeting if it will be held in Moscow.
Asharq Al-Awsat added that Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu plans to visit Washington on 16-17 January to brief US officials on the developments of Turkish-Syrian normalization, his meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Faysal Mikdad, and the “roadmap” sponsored by Moscow in the context of security, military, political and economic fields – as agreed upon by the defense ministers as well as the intelligence chiefs in Syria, Turkiye and Russia over the past weeks.
As Turkey has been launching successive operations against Kurdish groups both on the Turkish-Syrian border as well as within Syria itself under ‘Operation Claw Sword,’ a Western official informed Asharq Al-Awsat that a high-ranking US official will be visiting Ankara in the coming hours as part of efforts to mediate between Turkiye and the SDF in northeastern Syria.
Ankara has demanded that Moscow and Washington commit to the implementation of the bilateral military agreements signed at the end of 2019. The agreements stipulate the withdrawal of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to beyond 30 kilometers from the Turkish border, and from the areas of Manbij and Tal Rifaat, in addition to the withdrawal of all heavy weaponry.
The SDF says that it has fulfilled its obligations, and will not withdraw its police force – known as the Asayish – nor dismantle its local councils, despite Turkiye’s insistence on dissolving all Kurdish military and civil institutions in the area.
Meanwhile, Cavusoglu told media on 29 December that Ankara is willing to withdraw from the territory it occupies in northern Syria and hand it over to Damascus in the event that “political stability” is reached – after cooperation in “neutralizing ISIS members, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the YPG.”
The Saudi newspaper’s report stated that US mediation seeks to reach a “compromise” between the Kurdish groups and Ankara without a new Turkish incursion taking place ahead of the Turkish presidential and parliamentary elections in mid-2023. This mediation seems to be an attempt at circumventing the imminent Syrian-Turkish reconciliation.
Another official source disclosed that Ankara was “uncomfortable with the leaks following the meeting of the Syrian, Turkish and Russian defense ministers in Moscow, and that it had agreed to a full withdrawal.” However, the source confirmed that, “it is true that Ankara and Damascus consider the PKK a common threat, and will work against any separatist agenda, because it is an existential threat to both countries,” adding that the two countries will “work to open the Aleppo-Latakia Highway.”
Following the UAE’s visit to Damascus, which came after the US called on its allies and international partners to refrain from normalizing ties with Syria, Asharq Al-Awsat quoted an official as saying that the US has been the only western country to issue a statement against normalization, and is working alongside Paris, Berlin, and London to assume a united stance against normalization with Syria.
Communication is currently underway for a meeting between the representatives of Paris, Berlin, London, and Washington and UN Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pederson in Geneva on 23 January. This meeting will take place before Pedersen’s visit to Damascus to meet with the Syrian foreign minister to “confirm the position against normalization, and support the provision of funding for electricity projects within the timeline of early recovery,” stipulated by a resolution for international aid that will be extended before 10 January.
Asharq Al-Awsat said that the UAE has proposed to contribute to the funding of economic and electrical projects in Syria – within the confines of the Caesar Act.
A poll indicates that there is strong support across all Turkish political parties for Erdogan to meet with Assad.
Overall 59% for, 28.9% against.
Via @OmarKadkoy: pic.twitter.com/HJCZ36kD63
— Aron Lund (@aronlund) January 8, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Simultaneously, Jordan, who was the first to open high-level channels of communication with Damascus, is leading efforts alongside other Arab countries to reach a “united Arab position that defines Arab demands in order to make normalization possible.”
The newspaper quoted another western official as saying that Jordan is calling for coordination to put pressure on Damascus to provide political and geopolitical steps for the coming phase in southern Syria, as Amman confirmed that there has been an increase in the smuggling of Captagon, weapons and ammunition across the Syrian border following the start of the normalization process. Additionally, Amman has said that the Iranian presence in southern Syria near the Jordanian border has not diminished, and that there has been an expansion of ISIS activity in the area, according to the official.
Syria’s Arab League membership was suspended in November of 2011 following the start of the Syrian war, and it has been excluded ever since.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 18:20 - Ron Paul: Trump's Tax Returns Show Evil Of The Income Tax
Ron Paul: Trump’s Tax Returns Show Evil Of The Income Tax
Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,
The final act of the Democrat majority on the House Ways and Means Committee was to make public several years of Donald Trump’s tax returns, which the Committee obtained after a prolonged legal battle. The tax returns confirmed that, despite being one of the richest people in America, Donald Trump paid very little in federal income tax. In fact, in at least one year he paid under a thousand dollars.
Trump’s success in minimizing his tax liability without ever being audited is surprising only to those who think IRS audits are mainly used to catch rich “tax cheats.” According to data released by the Syracuse University Transactional Records Clearinghouse, in 2022 lower-income taxpayers were five and half times more likely than millionaires and billionaires to be audited! This is because low-income taxpayers cannot afford to hire top-notch tax attorneys and accountants to help fight the IRS, so they are more likely to give in to the agency’s demands.
Despite claims of the Biden Administration and its Congressional allies, the $80 million in additional funds provided to the agency as a part of the misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” will likely increase the tax agency’s targeting of low- and middle-income Americans.
Proponents of a flat tax or national sales tax argue that such a system would ensure millionaires and billionaires paid their “fair share” of taxes. Saying we must all pay our “fair share” of taxes assumes we have a moral obligation to the government that can only be fulfilled by turning over as much of our income as our so-called “public servants” demand. This is not the case. Individuals have a moral duty to support their families, and to support private charities if they wish. They do not have a moral duty to support the government.
Tax reform proponents also complain that the current tax code contains too many loopholes that cause economic distortions and inefficiencies. It is true that the current tax system promotes inefficiency, but this is caused by the income tax itself, not the loopholes. Conversely, loopholes actually promote economic efficiency by giving taxpayers the ability to spend more of their money the way they prefer, rather than allowing politicians to spend it. As economist Thomas DiLorenzo put it, “private individuals always spend their own money more efficiently than government bureaucrats do.”
Some have expressed concerns that the use of President Trump’s tax records as part of the Democrat and Deep State effort to discredit him sets a dangerous precedent that will lead to increased use of tax information as a political weapon. The sad fact is that ever since its creation, politicians have used the IRS as a tool for punishing political opponents. As an IRS agent told the head of conservative organization who was being audited after calling for the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton, “What do you expect when you target the President?”
The major problem with the income tax, and the reason it must be eliminated, not merely “reformed,” is that it is rooted in the idea that the government has first claim on our income. This idea is incompatible with a free society. Furthermore, the income tax must also be repealed because the force of the IRS, along with the fraud of the Federal Reserve, is one of the two foundations of the welfare-warfare state that erodes our liberty and prosperity. The only way to avoid 1984 is to repeal 1913.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/09/2023 – 17:40
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
