Today’s News 12th December 2022

• Xi Jinping's Saudi Trip & The Overthrow Of Atlanticism
  Xi Jinping’s Saudi Trip & The Overthrow Of Atlanticism

  Via The Cradle, 

  As Atlanticists continue their commitment to a future shaped by energy scarcity, food scarcity, and war with their nuclear-capable neighbors, most states in the Persian Gulf that have long been trusted allies of the west have quickly come to realize that their interests are best assured by cooperating with Eurasian states like China and Russia who don’t think in those zero-sum terms.

  With Chinese President Xi Jinping’s long-awaited three-day visit to Saudi Arabia this past week, a powerful shift by the Persian Gulf’s most strategic Arab state toward the multipolar alliance is being consolidated. Depending on which side of the ideological fence you sit on, this consolidation is being viewed closely with great hope or rage.

  Xi’s visit stands in stark contrast to US President Joe Biden’s underwhelming ‘fist bump’ meeting this summer, which saw the self-professed leader of the free world falling asleep at a conference table and demanding more Saudi oil production while offering nothing durable in return.

  

  In contrast, Xi’s arrival was greeted by a multi-cannon salute and Saudi jets painting the red and yellow colors of China’s flag in the skies over Riyadh. Beijing’s delegation of political and business elites will continue to meet with Saudi counterparts to strike long-term strategic deals in cultural, economic and scientific domains.

  The visit culminated in the first ever China-Arab Summit on Friday in which Xi met with 30 heads of state. The Chinese foreign ministry described this as “an epoch-making milestone in the history of the development of China-Arab relations.”

  While $30 billion in deals were signed between Beijing and Riyadh, something much bigger is at play which too few have come to properly appreciate.

  Riyadh’s steps toward the BRI since 2016

  Xi Jinping last visited the kingdom in 2016, to advance Riyadh’s participation in China’s newly unveiled Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). A January 2016 policy report by the Chinese government to all Arab states reads:

  “In the process of jointly pursuing the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road initiative, China is willing to coordinate development strategies with Arab states, put into play each other’s advantages and potentials, promote international production capacity cooperation and enhance cooperation in the fields of infrastructure construction, trade and investment facilitation, nuclear power, space satellite, new energy, agriculture and finance, so as to achieve common progress and development and benefit our two peoples.”

  It was only three months later that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) inaugurated Saudi Vision 2030 which firmly outlined a new foreign policy agenda much more compatible with China’s “peaceful development” spirit.

  After decades serving as an Atlanticist client state with no viable manufacturing prospects or autonomy beyond its role in supporting western-managed terror operations, Saudi Vision 2030 demonstrated the first signs of creative thinking in years, with an outlook toward a post-oil age.

  MBS saying goodbye to President Xi after 3 days of meetings…

  Time will tell, but judging from the cold and humiliating reception of Biden, and the extremely warm reception of China, the US is no longer a close Saudi ally…

  🔊music …🧐 pic.twitter.com/Pyvfb8bMeu

  — Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) December 11, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  On the energy front, China Energy Corp is building a sprawling 2.6 GW solar power station in Saudi Arabia, and Chinese nuclear developers are helping Riyadh develop its vast uranium resources while also mastering all branches of the nuclear fuel cycle.

  In 2016, both nations signed an MoU to build fourth generation gas-cooled nuclear reactors. This follows the UAE’s recent leap into the 21st century with 2.7 GW of energy now constructed. By early 2017, Riyadh had firmly bought its ticket on the New Silk Road with a $65 billion agreement integrating the Saudi Vision 2030 and BRI with a focus on petrochemical integration, engineering, refining, procurement, construction, carbon capture, and upstream/downstream development.

  In the new post-American epoch, signs of this spirit of cooperation and bridge building have increasingly come to be felt, even while its effects have been forcibly restrained – as millions of Yemenis suffering under seven years of war can testify.

  Unlike the Atlanticist fixation on Green New Deals which threaten to annihilate industry and farming, Riyadh’s post-oil outlook is much more synergistic with China’s idea of “sustained growth” that demands nuclear power, continued hydrocarbons, and robust agro-industrial development.

  China’s trade with Saudi Arabia rose to $87.3 billion in 2021, which saw a 39 percent increase over 2020, while US-Saudi trade has collapsed from $76 billion in 2012 to only $29 billion in 2021. Some of this Beijing-Riyadh trade may now be conducted in the Chinese Yuan, which will only undermine the US-Saudi relationship further.

  In the first 10 months of 2022, China’s imports from Saudi Arabia were $57 billion and exports to the kingdom rose to $30.3 billion. China is additionally building 5G systems and cultivating a vast technology hub with a focus on selling electronic goods, all while helping Saudi Arabia build up an indigenous manufacturing sector.

  A trend of Harmonization

  Despite the continued chaos in Yemen, and economic devastation in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, Beijing’s subtle trend has nonetheless been one of healing with Saudi Arabia – and regional power Turkiye. Saudi Arabia and Turkiye have often acted as rivals, and front two distinct foreign agendas with broad regional ambitions that overlap on many fronts. But despite this competitive past, higher necessities have induced both nations to harmonize their foreign policy outlooks with a new “look east” focus.

  This was expressed during the Saudi crown prince’s visit to Ankara in June 2022 where the two heads of state called for “a new era of cooperation” with a focus on political, economic, military and cultural cooperation outlined in a joint communique.

  Only days after MbS’s return from Turkiye, then-Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi visited Jeddah to promote regional stability stating in a press release “they changed points of view on a number of issues that would contribute to supporting and strengthening regional security and stability.”

  Iraq and Saudi Arabia had only re-established diplomatic ties in November 2020 due to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait 30 years earlier. Between 2021-2022, Iraq had worked hard to host bilateral talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran with five rounds of talks held and Kadhimi stating his belief that “reconciliation is near.” Tehran-Riyadh diplomatic ties were cut in the aftermath of the 2016 execution of outspoken Saudi Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, prompting the storming of the Saudi embassy in Tehran by angry protestors.

  In March 2022, MbS stated that Iran and Saudi Arabia “were neighbors forever” and stated that it is “better for both of us to working it out and to look for ways in which we can co-exist.”

  By August 23, 2022, the UAE and Kuwait created a new milestone by restarting diplomatic relations with Iran. And although nearly every Persian Gulf state (plus Turkiye) had devoted years to supporting regime change in Syria, a new reality has imposed itself with all Arab parties veering toward the Chinese BRI model of regional integration and economic development.

  The Key Role of Iran

  Not only is Iran a key player in the Greater Eurasian Partnership serving as a strategic hub for the southern route of China’s BRI, but it is also a keystone of the Russia-Iran-India-led International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) which has become a major force synergizing with the BRI.

  Iraq and Iran themselves are in the final stages of building the long-awaited Shalamcheh-Basra railway which will unite the two nations by rail for the first time in decades while also offering a potential extension to the already existent 1500 km railway through Iraq to Syria’s border.

  The climate for cooperation was undoubtedly made possible by the presence of Chinese economic diplomacy which established a 25 year, $400 billion energy and security deal with Iran – but also Russia, whose similar but smaller $25 billion, twenty-year deal with Tehran may easily expand to $40 billion in Russian investments in Iran’s vast oil and natural gas fields in the coming years.

  Saudi Arabia and Russia’s relationship with OPEC+ demonstrated its potency this summer when Riyadh won the ire of Washington by not only denying Biden’s requests for increased oil production, but cutting overall oil production and driving up global prices of oil. Saudi Arabia benefited by vastly increased imports of discounted Russian oil which were then sold to a desperate Europe.

  Furthermore, Saudi plans to join the global hub of multipolarity itself, BRICS+ (alongside Turkiye, Egypt, and Algeria), in addition to recently becoming a full-fledged Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) dialogue partner, have placed its destiny ever deeper into the growing Multipolar Alliance.

  With the increased potential for stability and harmonization of interests across various power blocs, an atmosphere more conducive to long-term economic investments is finally presenting itself to Chinese investors who had long looked upon conflict-ridden West Asia with justifiable trepidation.

  In August 2022, the Saudi state oil company Aramco and China’s Petroleum and Chemical Corporation Ltd signed an MOU expanding on the aforementioned $65 billion cooperation deal of 2017, which involves the construction of Fujian Refining and Petrochemical Company (FREP) and Sinopec Senmei Petroleum Company (SSPC) in Fujian, China, and Yanbu Aramco Sinopec Refining Company (YASREF) in Saudi Arabia.

  Rail and interconnectivity

  Perhaps most exciting are prospects for interconnectivity that play directly into the development corridors tied to the BRI. In Saudi Arabia, this train has moved steadily apace with the 450 km high speed Haramain Railway built by China Railway Construction Company connecting Mecca to Medina completed in 2018.

  Discussions are well underway to extend this line to the 2400 km North South Railway from Riyadh to Al Haditha completed in 2015. Meanwhile, 460 km of rail connecting all Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members is currently under construction, which is driving reforms in engineering, trade schools, and manufacturing hubs across the Arabian Peninsula.

  

  In 2021, all GCC states gave their full support to a $200 billion Persian Gulf-Red Sea high speed railway dubbed “The Saudi Landbridge,” which also dovetails another $500 billion megaproject with vast Chinese investments, dubbed the futuristic NEOM mega-city on the Red Sea.

  The Eurasianists stand to gain

  It can only be hoped that this new chemistry of harmonization and win-win cooperation may soon provide a key to ending the fires of conflict in Yemen and other regional states.

  Further, with Russia and China both helping to broker diplomatic backchannels, and with Iran playing an active role within this process, perhaps negotiations for reconstruction can begin in this war-torn zone of conflict. It is not an extreme stretch of the imagination to see the new Persian Gulf-Red Sea rail project extending north into Egypt and south into Yemen.

  Looking at a map of the region, one can imagine the reactivation of the “Bridge of the Horn of Africa” first unveiled in 2009, that would have extended rail across the 25 km Bab el Mandeb strait connecting pipelines and rail lines into Djibouti and East Africa, more broadly.

  While a western-manipulated Arab Spring derailed that concept in 2011, and the Saudi war against Yemen drove it further under ground since 2015, perhaps this new spirit of inter-civilizational cooperation under a new economic architecture liberated from the Atlanticist-dominated dollar system may provide just what it takes to revive the idea once again.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 23:30

• NBC Makes Big Correction In Report On US-Russia Prisoner Swap
  NBC Makes Big Correction In Report On US-Russia Prisoner Swap

  Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

  NBC News has updated a story that initially claimed President Joe Biden’s administration had a choice between freeing basketball player Brittney Griner and Marine veteran Paul Whelan in the prisoner exchange for Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout.

  

  Citing a person described as a “senior U.S. official,” NBC initially reported that the U.S. government wanted both Griner and Whelan freed as part of the swap.

  “But the official said Russia has treated Whelan differently because he is an accused spy, and that the Kremlin gave the White House the choice of either Griner or Whelan—or none,” the story said.

  Griner was jailed because she brought, by her own admission, cannabis into Russia. Whelan is behind bars because he was convicted of espionage. Whelan has maintained his innocence.

  U.S. officials have described both as “wrongfully detained.”

  

  (Left) Paul Whelan, a former U.S. marine, in Moscow on June 15, 2020. (Right) Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) basketball player Brittney Griner at the Khimki Court, outside Moscow on Aug. 4, 2022. (Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images)

  After Biden spoke about the exchange, claiming there was “not a choice of which American to bring home,” NBC stealthily updated its piece without noting that it was altered, according to archived versions reviewed by The Epoch Times.

  The outlet’s updated version stated, “But the official said Russia has treated Whelan differently because he is an accused spy, and that the Kremlin ultimately gave the White House the choice of either Griner or no one after different options were proposed.”

  Hours later, after critics noted the stealth edit, NBC added a correction.

  “An earlier version of this article misstated the choice the Biden administration was given over hostages. It was to swap for Griner or no one, not a choice between Griner or Whelan,” the correction states.

  An NBC spokesperson did not respond to a list of emailed questions, including why the initial update did not include a correction and what it means when it says it “misstated the choice” the government faced.

  

  U.S. President Joe Biden (R) speaks on the release of Olympian and WNBA player Brittney Griner from Russian custody, at the White House in Washington on Dec. 8, 2022. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

  ‘Left Behind’

  Critics said the administration should have negotiated the release of Whelan.

  “Paul Whelan has been let down and left behind at least three times by 2 Presidents,” the Bring Our Families Home Campaign said in a statement.

  “He deserves better from his government, and our Campaign implores President Biden to urgently secure Paul’s immediate return using all tools available.”

  White House officials have backed Biden, saying the United States did not have a choice.

  “In recent weeks, it became clear that while Russians were willing to reach an agreement to secure Brittney’s release, they continue to treat Paul Whelan differently, given the nature of the totally illegitimate charges they have levied against Paul,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters in Washington this week. “Unfortunately, the choice became to either bring Brittney home or no one.”

  “This was not a choice for us on—of which American to bring home. That was not the choice. It was a choice between bringing home one American or bringing home none,” she added later.

  “Our choices was: Brittney or no one at all. Bring home one American or no American at all.”

  A senior administration official, speaking to reporters on background, offered a similar view.

  “So I want to be very clear: This was not a situation where we had a choice of which American to bring home. It was a choice between bringing home one particular American—Brittney Griner—or bringing home none,” the official said.

  

  U.S. Basketball player Brittney Griner looks through bars as she listens to the verdict standing in a cage in a courtroom in Khimki, outside Moscow on Aug. 4, 2022. (Evgenia Novozhenina/Pool via AP)

  Whelan

  Whelan said after the swap that he was “greatly disappointed that more has not been done to secure my release, especially as the four year anniversary of my arrest is coming up.”

  David Whelan, Whelan’s brother, said he was glad Griner was freed but relayed fresh disappointment, noting that Whelan was also not released in a swap that brought American Trevor Reed home earlier this year.

  “As I have often remarked, Brittney’s and Paul’s cases were never really intertwined. It has always been a strong possibility that one might be freed without the other. The sentiments I shared in April about Trevor are unchanged: this is the event we wish for so much for our own family. She will be reunited with her family. Brittney is free. And Paul is still a hostage,” David Whelan said.

  “But how many more times do I need to write that?”

  Other Americans still in Russian custody include Marc Fogel, a teacher who was arrested in Moscow in 2021 with marijuana, which he reportedly uses as medicine following a spinal injury.

  Bout was serving a 25-year sentence for conspiring to kill Americans. He was convicted in late 2011.

  Bout was described by then-Attorney General Eric Holder as “one of the world’s most prolific arms dealers.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 22:30

• China's Top Medical Advisor Says Omicron No More Dangerous Than The Flu
  China’s Top Medical Advisor Says Omicron No More Dangerous Than The Flu

  About a year ago, the nation was on the verge of another lockdown when a tidal wave of Omicron infections prompted those who use masks alone… in their car… with their windows down, to hyperventilate that covid is about to kill several million more Americans, and anyone who suggested that this was nothing more than the flu was promptly suspended from twitter most likely by this guy, er gal: Melissa Ingle.

  Former content moderator employee at Twitter speaks out. Do you believe this person enforced twitter ToS fairly and equally for all persons?

  pic.twitter.com/3qverDTdPK

  — John Curtis  (@Johnmcurtis) November 23, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  … deplatformerd demonetized and canceled.

  So it was with great shock that we read today that once again, all those “conspiracy theorists” were dead on: according to Chinese officials, who have continued to downplay the risks of Covid-19 as the country’s idiotic covid zero restrictions are further eased after the economy ground to a halt following two years of lockdowns, with a top medical adviser saying the fatality rate from the omicron variant of the virus is in line with influenza.

  Echoing what so many mouth-breathing rednecks said for most of the past year – at least according to their far more intelligent (in their own opinion) big-city dwelling liberal peers all of whom have at least one and more mental disorders, the death rate from omicron is around 0.1%, similar to the common flu, and the infection rarely reaches the lungs, Zhong Nanshan was quoted in an interview with state news agency Xinhua. Most people recover from the variant within seven to 10 days, he said.

  Zhong’s comments follow the government’s latest line on the coronavirus, which – two weeks after sporadic violent protests nearly sunk the Xi regime – has been suddenly talking down the disease’s dangers as China moves toward exiting its Covid Zero policy. The nation reported 10,514 local infections for Saturday, more than 20% lower than Friday. Doubts have been raised about the accuracy of case numbers because fewer people are being tested, but one could say the same about the numbers on the way up.

  But one thing is certain: China’s covid slowdown is history.

  Still, China is not in the clear just yet: on Saturday, Zhong was quoted saying that there’s an “urgent need” to increase booster-shot rates as travel during upcoming holidays will raise the risk of a large-scale spread.

  “It’s unlikely people will stay put for the 2023 Lunar New Year holiday so I advise those who will travel home to get booster shots so that even if they are infected, symptoms will be mild,” he said.

  The Lunar New Year holiday runs from Jan. 21 to Jan. 27 but usually lasts about 40 days as people take off before and after the official break. Hundreds of millions of Chinese return to their home provinces for family reunifications during New Year.

  China issued a plan on Sunday to enhance capacity of county-level medical facilities to better protect people living in rural areas from Covid. It requested such hospitals to boost their intensive care unit capacity by the end of December. Medical staffers from pediatrics and other units need to receive training on how to look after patients in ICU, according to the plan.

  Separately, in a Sunday commentary, the Communist Party’s flagship People’s Daily said local governments have swiftly put into practice the 10 new Covid measures announced by the National Health Commission last week, including a reduction of mass testing and loosening of quarantine rules. Regions including Chongqing, and cities in Liaoning, Shandong and Guangdong have urged schools to resume offline teaching, the paper reported separately.

  These new measures will pave the way for China to further optimize Covid controls in the future and eventually claim victory over the outbreak, the commentary said.

  But back to the main topic, the end of covid in China, state-backed tabloid Global Times on Sunday cited Zeng Guang, a former chief epidemiologist at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as saying that suggestions for China to downgrade its Covid control from the top Category A to Category B has gained momentum in the scientific world.

  Once Chinese scientists have reached a consensus that variations of the coronavirus continue to be less dangerous, China will downgrade its Covid control at the right time, Zeng said. China currently classifies Covid-19 as a Category-B disease, but is controlling it as a Category-A disease.

  China’s road to reopening could be “bumpy,” which coupled with the scenario of a mild recession in Europe and the US may lead to a tougher economic climate, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. President John Waldron said via video link at Shanghai’s Bund Summit on Saturday.

  “That will obviously have some negative implications for growth,” Waldron said, in remarks that underscore how lenders are gauging the impact of China’s pivot from a Covid Zero policy.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 22:00

• Ex-CIA Officer: The Lies Spies Tell About Assange
  Ex-CIA Officer: The Lies Spies Tell About Assange

  Authored by John Kiriakou via Consortium News,

  I attended a panel discussion at the National Press Club last week (Monday) about the fate of WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange. The event happened to be at the National Press Club, but it was actually sponsored by the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy, and International Security at George Mason University. Hayden, the notorious former director of both the C.I.A. and the N.S.A., who oversaw the C.I.A.’s torture program during part of the George W. Bush administration, was front and center at the event. 

  The panel, moderated by Sasha Ingber, a national security correspondent in Newsy’s Washington, D.C., bureau, included Assange’s U.S. lawyer Barry Pollack, one of the finest criminal defense attorneys in America; Gabe Rottman, a senior attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; the notorious Mark Zaid, who bills himself as a “whistleblower attorney,” but who has probably done more damage to legitimate whistleblowers than any other person in Washington; and Holden Triplett, a former F.B.I. agent and former director for counterintelligence at President Donald Trump’s National Security Council.

  

  While acknowledging my own biases (Pollack is a genius and Zaid is a scoundrel), the one thing that surprised me was how utterly clueless Holden Triplett was. This is a guy who promotes himself as a counterintelligence expert. He runs a consulting company hilariously named “Trenchcoat Advisors.” 

  Triplett claims to have been a top F.B.I. counterintelligence official in the U.S. embassies in Moscow and Beijing. And he served Donald Trump loyally for two years in a GS-14 position at the White House.  Triplett made no mention of why he left the F.B.I. before qualifying for the pension. What struck me most about Triplett was his willingness during the event to throw a rhetorical turd into the middle of the room and then to expect the audience to nod politely and agree with him. 

  On more than one occasion, he made completely unfounded statements about Julian Assange, only to then have the neoliberal Washington swells nod in agreement, despite having literally no evidence to back up his assertions. He said, choosing his language carefully, for example, that “When I look at anything Julian Assange has done over the years, whatever it is has the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation.” 

  ‘Hallmarks’ & ‘Earmarks’

  Notice the language there. He didn’t say that Julian was a Russian agent. He didn’t say that WikiLeaks was working for or on behalf of the Russians. He said that it all had the hallmarks of something that Russian intelligence would do. 

  

  The language is meant, of course, to bring the DNC/MSNBC crowd over to his point of view. And judging by the reception he got, he was mostly successful.

  Triplett’s disingenuous and damaging statements reminded me very much of an open letter published in October 2019 and signed by more than 50 retired senior C.I.A. and other Intelligence Community officials, saying that the Hunter Biden laptop “had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” 

  They ignored the fact that Hunter Biden said that it was his laptop. These esteemed intelligence professionals offered no proof of an intelligence operation, of course, even though most, if not all, currently maintain their security clearances. They threw that same rhetorical turd into the middle of the room and expected all the rest of us to nod in agreement.

  It wasn’t flunkies who signed this letter. It was otherwise serious people, including National Press Club conference host Hayden; former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper; former Secretary of Defense and C.I.A. Director Leon Panetta (himself a well-documented leaker); torture-supporter and former C.I.A. Director John Brennan; torture apologist and former Acting C.I.A. Director Mike Morrell; among others. 

  They offered no proof of any ties between the Hunter Biden laptop and Russia, between Trump’s election as president in 2016 (which they went on about at length) and Russia, or between WikiLeaks and Russia. 

  We’re just supposed to take their word for it because they’re important, smart and well-placed. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the likes of these signatories say, when somebody disagrees with them, “Well, if you could only see the information that I see…,” or “If you had access to the information that I have access to … .”

  It’s time to call a spade a spade. They’re lying. And they want us to believe their lies. I was at the C.I.A. too. I underwent the same training that they underwent. And if there was one thing the C.I.A. taught me, it was that if I was going to make a judgment or draw a conclusion, I had to offer proof. I wasn’t allowed to hide behind language like, “all the hallmarks of” or “leads me to believe…”. If you don’t have any proof, keep your mouth shut.

  In the meantime, I was greatly heartened by the confidence that Pollack exuded at the National Press Club event. Julian Assange is in good hands. Barry will provide him with the best defense possible. 

  As for these other characters, it’s up to the rest of us to counter them and their propaganda. It’s up to us to demand the truth.

  John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act—a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration’s torture program.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 21:30

• Oregon Eyes 2023 Crackdown On Illegal Marijuana Growers
  Oregon Eyes 2023 Crackdown On Illegal Marijuana Growers

  Oregon lawmakers are looking to crack down on illegal marijuana growers who aren’t abiding by the state’s 2014 laws governing recreational use and cultivation.

  

  Year-to-date, approximately 95 metric tons of illegally grown marijuana have been seized across the state, according to the Oregon-Idaho High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force. In 2019, they seized just 8 metric tons.

  The 2014 legislation was supposed to eliminate problems caused by “uncontrolled manufacture” of the drug, however growers haven’t all magically agreed to the taxes and red tape that accompanied the legalization. Now, officials who have heard complaints from everyone from legal growers to the police are looking to crack down, AP reports.

  Now, a draft bill set for introduction in the 2023 legislative session would double the maximum fine and prison sentence for illegal grows to 10 years and $250,000 for those growing more than 100 plants, or possession in excess of 32 times the legal limits.

  

  The bill would also limit personal possession to 2 ounces of marijuana in a public place, and 8 ounces at home.

  The measure also holds people accountable for environmental damage and prohibits use of water at locations not licensed for growing marijuana. Addressing immigrant labor, the draft bill makes it a crime for managers of an illegal grow site to confiscate a passport or immigration document, to threaten to report a person to a government agency for arrest or deportation, or withhold wages without lawful justification.

  Some parts of Oregon have seen record seizures as police raid plantation after plantation. Police say foreign criminal gangs have become involved, from Mexico, Russia, China and other countries. -AP

  In October, a single raid in Yamhill County yielded 76,930 pounds of marijuana –  roughly $76 million worth, the largest pot bust on record. According to the report, the haul would be worth $269 million on the East Coast.

  

  “Investigators found the entire property had been converted to facilitate the growth, storage, processing, and packaging of marijuana to be shipped or transported out of the area,” said the sheriff’s office.

  And in another October raid, Oregon State Police, with the assistance of SWAT officers, raided a property in southern Oregon – destroying around 1,000 pounds of illegal, processed marijuana. Firearms, stolen vehicles and the carcass of a black bear were found in the raid.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 21:00

• Dupe Or Designated Defendant? The Criminal Case Against Jack Dorsey
  Dupe Or Designated Defendant? The Criminal Case Against Jack Dorsey

  Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org,

  The latest Twitter disclosures have raised potential legal liability for Twitter and its executives. No one appears more at risk than Twitter’s former CEO Jack Dorsey

  

  It is an ironic turn of events since Dorsey supported the takeover by Elon Musk and has called for all files to be released without filtering. Dorsey has the feel of a “designated defendant,” someone who was pushed forward by others to take any legal hit.

  On its face, Dorsey has vulnerability after the latest release. He was repeatedly asked by members of Congress about censoring and shadow-banning, which has now been confirmed in these files.

  In September 2018, Dorsey testified under oath and denied what these files appear to now confirm. Rep. Mike Doyle, D., Pa., asked, “Social media is being rigged to censor conservatives. Is that true of Twitter?”

  Dorsey responded, “No.”

  Doyle then asked “Are you censoring people?”

  “No,” Dorsey said.

  “Twitter’s shadow-banning prominent Republicans… is that true?” Doyle asked.

  Dorsey again said no.

  Dorsey was also asked about my prior testimony on private censorship in circumventing the First Amendment as a type of censorship by surrogate. Dorsey and the other CEOs were asked about my warning of a “‘little brother’ problem, a problem which private entities do for the government that which it cannot legally do for itself.” In response, Dorsey insisted that “we don’t have a censoring department.”

  It now appears that the entire company was operating as a censoring department. However, there were in fact super-censors. Dorsey did not mention the Strategic Response Team-Global Escalation Team (SRT-GET), which operated above what journalist Bari Weiss described as “a level beyond official ticketing, beyond the rank-and-file moderators following the company’s policy on paper.”

  That group reportedly included Vijaya Gadde, head of Legal, Policy and Trust; Yoel Roth, the global head of Trust and Safety; CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, and others.

  Notably, others at the company made similar denials as Dorsey but may not have done so under oath. In 2018, Gadde and head of product Kayvon Beykpour expressly declared, “We do not shadow-ban. And we certainly don’t shadow-ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”

  Even if untrue, lying in public is generally not a crime. However, when you repeat a lie to federal investigators or Congress or the courts, it becomes a federal offense.

  The question is whether Dorsey was left in the dark on these decisions. He was reportedly a member of SRT-GET. However, some of the files indicate that these decisions may have been made without his knowledge. That includes the decision on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, which Dorsey called a “total mistake.”

  Dorsey could quibble over the term “shadow-banning” but the question was obviously meant as a follow-up to the inquiry over “rigging” discourse on the platform. He could also stress other answers, where he tied “shadow-banning” to a more subjective notion of political bias. For example, Dorsey also repeated these statements in public, including an appearance with Sean Hannity on Fox, when he was asked if “Twitter has ever been involved in shadow-banning, Dorsey again categorically denied such practices: “We do not shadow-ban according to political ideology or viewpoint.”

  For most people, Dorsey’s comments clearly suggested that there was no shadow-banning. However, he could claim that he knew that they were shadow-banning but that they were not doing so “according to political ideology or viewpoint.” That is clearly refuted by the new files showing a hair-triggered censorship system directed against conservative and Republican posters.

  The other defense is lack of knowledge but, even if accepted, that will raise the question of whether this was a case of a designated defendant or willful blindness. 

  In some cases, there is a suspicion that corporations will assign some executive to sign off on compliance or certifications as the fall guy or designated defendant if things go wrong. The chump is often a junior lawyer or executive who takes personal responsibility for certifying a false fact.

  Dorsey is clearly no chump or junior executive. The question is then whether this was a case of willful blindness or an attempt by other executives like Gadde or Roth to give him plausible deniability by keeping him in the dark.  He then became the public face in unequivocally and confidently denying practices like shadow-banning.

  The greatest defense for Dorsey may be found in the Justice Department itself. Any prosecution of Twitter executives could prove a hard sell for Attorney General Merrick Garland, whose department has been repeatedly accused of pronounced political bias. 

  While Garland has aggressively pursued contempt sanctions against Trump associates, it is not clear if he would prove as aggressive with Democratic allies like Dorsey or other Twitter executives. He could face that question if the House under the GOP pursues perjury or contempt sanctions.

  Dorsey once said about Twitter that “It’s really complex to make something simple.” He may now be hoping that his answers before Congress were simple enough to make any prosecution complex.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 20:30

• Destructive Ambiguity In Crypto Regulation
  Destructive Ambiguity In Crypto Regulation

  By Marcel Kasumovich, Deputy CIO of One River Asset Management

  Market Notes: Destructive Ambiguity In Regulation

  “Had we over-regulated the Internet early on, we would have missed out on many innovations that we can’t imagine living without today. The same is true for blockchain. Disruptive technologies rarely fit neatly into existing regulatory considerations, and rigid regulatory frameworks have repeatedly stifled innovation. It’s likely that innovations in the Blockchain will outpace policy, let’s not slow it down.”

  Brookings Institution made this declaration in 2015. It is time to heed those wise words.

  But it’s money. The stakes are higher. That digital assets have lived to see their fifth bear market is already an achievement. Liberty Reserve is a reminder of how hard it is to survive. Regulatory clarity is THE issue. It’s not easy. It’s especially hard for technology built to shred powerful middlemen. Be attentive to the resilient components of the ecosystem. They matter most in disruptive downturns. Those are the building blocks. Today, it is Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Stablecoins – more than two-thirds of the market cap (Figure 1). Tomorrow, it will be the things built on those foundations.

  

  Discussions on regulation are met with a natural first response: I’m not a lawyer. You don’t have to be. Follow the money. That trail will tell you a lot about regulatory policy and compliance. Where are my assets? Most investors want to spend time focused on price risk and portfolio construction, not operational ones. Yet, the digital financial crisis has investors reasonably going back to the basics: Custody, the foundation for institutional scale.

  “Self-custody.” Aren’t digital assets about bringing users control? Yes, to a point. The concept of unhosted wallets, or “self-custody,” removes counterparty risk entirely. It pushes all the risk to the investor. The user controls the keys, and thus, the assets. For individuals, this can be a powerful tool. The keys are used to identify your place on the blockchain. However, lose the keys, and you lose your assets. It also introduces various regulatory issues, such as the Travel Rule for money under the Bank Secrecy Act. Unhosted wallets need to adhere to these rules to avoid illicit activity.

  But unhosted wallets are not institution friendly. “The investor” in this case is an institutional machine. Private keys can be broken into pieces. To unlock assets requires an entire key, and diversity of the pieces can ensure security. Phrases can be stored in multiple places. Unhosted wallets could be widespread. But this isn’t where institutions start. Reasonably. State Street. BNY Mellon. These are familiar custodial arrangements and native digital players need to come as close as possible to replicating them. And they have.

  Demand for hosted, third-party custody solutions has mirrored that of institutional interest in digital assets. Figure 2 illustrates industry players in custodial solutions over time. There’s a surge in 2018, just after the super-spike in digital assets in 2017. In the most recent cycle, traditional banks were drawn to provide custodial support, just in time for the peak in 2021 asset prices. The solutions are there, but not all are created equal. And investors would like tools familiar to traditional markets.

  

  “Qualified custodian” is one of those familiar elements. Digital custodians were attracted to this standard. But there’s an issue – it is defined by the Custody Rule, regulated by the SEC, and there appears no urgency to provide clarity for digital assets. Entities seeking regulatory clarity found creative solutions through State Chartered Trust Companies. Independently capitalized. Segregated assets. 100% reserved. Deep cold storage solutions. In 2018, digital “qualified custodians” were led by the New York State Department of Financial Services. It is an institutional standard.

  Yet, there are roadblocks imposed by regulators. The Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121 took banks out of the custody business. “The staff believes that Entity A should present a liability on its balance sheet to reflect its obligation to safeguard the crypto-assets held for its platform users.” Traditional custody is off balance sheet. Custodial services are uneconomic as banks are capitalized to gross balance sheets. A win for digital custodians? Not quite. The Bulletin required disclosure that custodial assets may not be protected in bankruptcy, adding uncertainty rather than clarity.

  Pulling on the disclosure thread takes us down another regulatory path – the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) that governs all US commercial transactions. Digital assets do not fit neatly into UCC. We learned the same with our Digital Income strategy. And there has been little effort to provide clarity to date. Service providers are now spelling it out for users. Agreements are being updated to state the applicability of UCC Article 8. That article implies custodial assets are bankruptcy remote from general creditors. This is the same legal protection offered in traditional asset markets.

  Clarity is being realized by enforcement. The wave of bankruptcy is bringing clarity to custody issues – Celsius’s segregated customer assets are being returned to the customer. And precedent is being set on the value of regulatory clarity. LedgerX, a derivative intermediary, was part of the FTX family and excluded from the bankruptcy filing. It has been subject to CFTC regulatory oversight since 2017. Simple things followed. Communication lines between LedgerX and the CFTC. Capital requirements to meet operating costs. Segregation of client assets. Regulation worked.

  Don’t let any crisis go to waste. The transformative potential of digital assets is driven by their resiliency – the foundations can’t be easily killed. Big thinkers on money, like Hayek, contemplated the issues holistically. When in doubt go back to those. Hayek’s thinking was simple – competition is good. Why should money and its regulations be different? Hayek evaluated innovation in the monetary sector through digital currencies long before their existence. His last revision on the topic was in 1990, at the age of 91. Life is long. Live it.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 20:00

• North Carolina Treasurer Wants BlackRock CEO Larry Fink To 'Resign Or Be Removed'
  North Carolina Treasurer Wants BlackRock CEO Larry Fink To ‘Resign Or Be Removed’

  Authored by Nathan Worcester via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  You might call it the “battle of BlackRock.”

  

  The conflict, which pits Republican officials in states across the country against the world’s largest asset manager, has only intensified in recent months.

  Just days ago, Florida became the latest state to pull money from BlackRock—in its case, $2 billion in state-controlled assets.

  The state’s chief financial officer, Jimmy Patronis, explained that “using Florida’s cash to fund BlackRock’s social-engineering project isn’t something we signed up for.”

  Now, North Carolina Treasurer Dale Folwell has taken the rhetoric up another notch.

  In a Dec. 9 letter to BlackRock’s board of directors, he called for the firm’s CEO, Larry Fink, to “resign or be removed” from his position.

  

  Folwell argued that BlackRock’s focus on “environmental, social and corporate governance” (ESG) under Fink’s leadership runs contrary to its fiduciary duty—in other words, its legal obligation to serve its clients’ best interests.

  Those many clients include the North Carolina Retirement System, for which Folwell serves as sole fiduciary. Of the $111.4 billion fund, $14 billion is presently managed by BlackRock, according to the letter.

  ESG is an investment philosophy that aims to embed particular values—for example, concern about climate change—into the financial system. Its conservative critics argue that it distorts the economy by privileging politically correct sentiment over the hard realities of the market.

  Folwell warned that Fink’s “pursuit of a political agenda has gotten in the way of BlackRock’s same fiduciary duty.”

  “A focus on ESG is not a focus on returns and potentially could force us to violate our own fiduciary duty,” he added—a broad hint, perhaps, at a potential future willingness to divest from the asset manager.

  Florida’s divestment from BlackRock isn’t the only such move in the last several months.

  Under Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt, now the Show Me State’s senator-elect, millions in Missourians’ retirement dollars were taken out of BlackRock’s hands.

  

  Louisiana, Utah, and Arkansas have followed similar courses of action.

  The biggest concern from many of those states has been BlackRock’s efforts to steer investors away from fossil fuels, out of a stated concern with climate change driven by human activity.

  In his 2020 Letter to Shareholders, Fink wrote that “in the near future—and sooner than most anticipate—there will be a significant reallocation of capital.

  Fink went on to tout BlackRock’s “initiatives to place sustainability at the center of our investment approach.”

  A subsequent list of those initiatives included “exiting investments that present a high sustainability-related risk, such as thermal coal producers” and “launching new investment products that screen fossil fuels.”

  Treasurers, attorneys general, and other officials from fossil fuel-producing states have argued that BlackRock’s ESG-related commitments undermine the prosperity and stability of their own communities.

  BlackRock, for its part, has responded to the ongoing pressure campaign from state-level officials with a website, “Energy investing: Setting the record straight.”

  There it argues that it identifies climate change as a long-term risk it needs to protect its clients’ interests from.

  “Our consideration of the risks and opportunities of a transition to a low-carbon economy is in the interest of realizing the best long-term financial results for our clients and entirely consistent with our fiduciary duty,” that website states.

  Many environmental groups argue that the big banks and asset managers targeted by Republican officials are not doing enough to promote fossil fuel divestment. They’re among the biggest supporters of ESG-like policies to transform the private sector under President Joe Biden, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposal to mandate climate-related disclosures from publicly traded companies.

  

  A Dec. 8 article from the Sierra Club, for example, praised BlackRock for “starting to push back” against Republican officials’ campaign against ESG.

  Yet they noted that BlackRock continues to manage fossil fuel investments on behalf of its clients.

  The Epoch Times has reached out to BlackRock for further comment.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 19:30

• Identical Twins Awarded $1.5 Million Over Med School Cheating Accusations
  Identical Twins Awarded $1.5 Million Over Med School Cheating Accusations

  Identical twin sisters who were accused of cheating on their year-end medical school exams have been awarded $1.5 million in a defamation case against the Medical University of South Carolina.

  

  Kayla and Kellie Bingham were accused of “academic dishonesty” in May 2016 after test proctors deemed their exam performance to be too close to be a coincidence – with identical answers to 296 out of 307 questions, including 54 wrong answers. University officials launched an investigation, and a school “honor council” alleged the sisters were “signaling one another and passing notes,” according to court documents. The school ultimately ruled they had cheated on the exam.

  “It was an eight-hour exam during which we exhibited normal test-taking behavior,” Kayla Bingham told CBS MoneyWatch.

  The Binghams successfully appealed the decision and filed a lawsuit against the university, arguing that for years they had behaved and performed similarly academically and in athletics. After a four-day trial in November, a South Carolina jury decided the school had defamed the sisters and awarded them a total of $1.5 million in damages. 

  The Binghams’ legal case hinged on the theory that it is common for identical twins to perform similarly on tests given their genetic profiles. Nancy Segal, who runs California State University, Fullerton’s Twin Studies Center and who testified in the case, said numerous studies show that identical twins often perform similarly on a range of cognitive tests. -CBS News

  “There is a wealth of psychological research that shows that identical twins do perform very similarly on tests of intelligence, information processing and speed of response, and I was not at all surprised they turned in very similar exams,” said Segal. “When identical twins perform very differently it catches our attention.”

  “When they perform alike, it’s very consistent with the literature. I would have been surprised if they hadn’t scored alike.”

  The Binghams claimed that the allegations of cheating caused them psychological distress, which included panic attacks and post-traumatic stress disorder.

  “It was a very hostile environment. People we had known, sat next to and studied with for two years would not speak to us,” Kellie Bingham told CBS. “They knew our work ethic and study habits but refused to hear our side of the story. People we trusted completely turned their backs on us.”

  The university’s accusation and the events that ensued also interfered with the Binghams’ plans to become doctors. The two now work as government affairs advisers at the same South Carolina law firm.

  And according to Kayla, “We came to understand that once word gets out, even if it’s not accurate, it damages your reputation as a person. So we completely switched tracks,” adding that she “wanted to fight back because I had been wronged.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 19:00

• Ban TikTok Everywhere?
  Ban TikTok Everywhere?

  Authored by Anders Corr via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  It’s time to ban TikTok. The social media app is wildly popular with young adults and children but controlled by an authoritarian regime in China. Apple rates the platform for users ages 12-plus. Yet the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses the app’s secret algorithm to influence and track their opinions, messaging, keystrokes, and locations.

  

  One billion users globally are vulnerable to the theft of their passwords and future blackmail. Based on data already collected, TikTok could leverage American leaders over the entire 21st century.

  TikTok is expanding into online purchases, music, search engines, warehouses, and fulfillment centers. It would like to become an everything app that replaces Google, Apple, Twitter, Amazon, and Facebook.

  Unfortunately, the Biden administration is doing next to nothing against the threat that TikTok poses to the American public and economy. The silence of most Democrats on the issue is a form of complicity.

  Republican States Against TikTok

  But Republicans in Congress and state capitals across the United States are increasingly voicing their concerns and stepping up to the plate.

  Nebraska’s Governor Pete Ricketts was the trendsetter, having banned TikTok on state-owned and leased devices two years ago. In the past few weeks, other Republican leaders—including in Texas, South Dakota, South Carolina, Maryland, and Arkansas—have taken similar actions.

  The State of Indiana filed two lawsuits against Tiktok, alleging the app deceives consumers about content and security. Indiana claims the algorithm purposefully addicts young people. One lawsuit claims it promotes inappropriate content and is linked to mental and eating disorders.

  

  Indiana’s Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita said, “TikTok is actively exposing our children to drug use, alcohol abuse, profanity and sexually explicit material at a young age.”

  In South Carolina, the Republican governor not only removed the app from government devices, but asked state offices to block TikTok’s website.

  Republican Governor of Maryland Larry Hogan issued an emergency cybersecurity directive prohibiting technologies from both Russia and China, including TikTok, from the executive branch.

  South Dakota’s tourism bureau deleted its TikTok account of 60,000 followers.

  These states are stepping up to pay the price for U.S. national security.

  South Dakota’s Governor Kristi Noem, who signed the state’s executive order against TikTok, wrote that the CCP collects personal information on users, including internet browsing data and keystrokes. That would mean it could harvest passwords.

  In an opinion article, Noem criticized the Biden administration for insufficiently protecting the United States from foreign adversaries.

  “Mr. Biden hasn’t demanded that Beijing or TikTok cease gathering the data of American citizens, and he hasn’t pushed Congress to ban the app nationally,” she wrote. “By refusing to respond to this threat, the president is allowing China’s communist leaders to continue their attack on American security.”

  Noem also plans to work with South Dakota’s legislature to address China’s buying of American farmland. Companies from China often purchase land near U.S. military bases, threatening surveillance of strategic assets, including nuclear weapons.

  “South Dakota is showing the nation how to create a state-led response to threats from communist China,” the governor wrote. “We are taking the lead on preventing Beijing from accessing the private data of our citizens and throttling our food supply.”

  Noem, a Republican, will get support from most of South Dakota’s voters as 53 percent are Republicans, compared to only 37 percent Democrats. China can be a bipartisan issue—perhaps many Democrats will support her measures. But TikTok users and farmland owners could turn against her.

  Taking a strong position against the CCP, even on a bipartisan issue in the United States, carries political risk.

  Biden’s Big Choice

  The Biden administration faces increasing risk from its limited options on the TikTok issue as well. Whether it bans the app or not, someone will be unhappy.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 18:30

• White House Says Still "Negotiating" For Whelan's Release, Lashes Out At Critics
  White House Says Still “Negotiating” For Whelan’s Release, Lashes Out At Critics

  The Biden administration says it is still engaging with Moscow in an ongoing attempt to secure detained Marine veteran Paul Whelan’s release from the Russian prison where he’s serving a 16-year sentence, which reportedly involves hard labor.

  On Sunday, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told ABC’s “This Week” the US is still “negotiating” for his release – confirming that recently a “very serious, specific proposal” was made to the Russians.

  

  He further gave some background on the Brittney Griner release while seeking to deflect widespread criticisms that Whelan was left behind for the less serious case of WNBA star Griner. Biden has been accused of simply choosing her for her fame and the bigger PR campaign rallying behind her.

  Kirby described that for months the White House pushed hard to gain Whelan and Griner’s release together, but “it just didn’t land anywhere… with the Russians,” he explained in the Sunday comments.

  “As we progressed through this summer and into the fall… it was clear that they were treating Paul very separately, very distinctly because of these sham espionage charges they levied against him.” Kirby said that just before Griner’s release it became clear that Whelan’s release would remain unlikely. 

  “It really occurred to us that there was just no chance of doing it last week… we had been trying all the way up until the moment we actually secured the deal that got Brittney home, we were still trying to get Paul out,” he said.

  Days ago CNN cited US officials who listed some of the Russian names that could potentially be included in a future Whelan swap: 

  US officials made quiet inquiries to the Germans about whether they might be willing to include [Vadim] Krasikov in the trade, a senior German government source told CNN earlier this year. But ultimately, the US was not able to secure Krasikov’s release. The German government was not willing to seriously consider including Krasikov –who assassinated a Georgian citizen in broad daylight in Berlin in 2019 – in a potential trade, the German source said.

  The US made several other offers to the Russians, sources said, to try to get them to agree to include Whelan in the swap. Among the names floated by the US was Alexander Vinnik, a Russian national extradited to the US in August on allegations of money laundering, hacking and extortion. The US also offered to trade Roman Seleznev, a convicted Russian cyber-criminal currently serving a 14-year sentence in the US, sources said.

  “We’re going to keep trying as hard as we can,” White House’s John Kirby tells @MarthaRaddatz after U.S. was unable to negotiate release of Paul Whelan.

  “This business of getting wrongfully detained Americans home, there’s nothing easy about it.” https://t.co/xc7EPeqf8J pic.twitter.com/eZX9CARGwQ

  — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) December 11, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The biggest name on that list is Vadim Krasikov, a former colonel from Russia’s domestic spy organization. He’s serving out a life sentence in Germany for murder after being convicted in the assassination of a former Chechen fighter, Zelimkhan “Tornike” Khangoshvili, which was carried out in a Berlin park.

  Kirby used the Sunday morning media interviews to lash out at the White House’s critics who point to the Russians getting the deal of the century in Viktor Bout’s release.

  “They weren’t on the phone. They weren’t watching the incredible effort and determination by [Roger Carstens] and his team to try to get both Paul and Brittney out together,” Kirby said. “In a negotiation, you do what you can. You do as much as you can. You push and you push and you push. And we did. And this deal we got last week, that was the deal that was possible. It was the deal we could get now. Now was the moment we could get it, and we executed it.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 18:00

• 14 Border Agents Committed Suicide In 2022
  14 Border Agents Committed Suicide In 2022

  Authored by Madalina Vasiliu via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Fourteen Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents who worked at the southern border committed suicide this year, according to members of Congress.

  

  The Republican and Democrat lawmakers released the grim, and growing, tally during a press conference on Dec. 7 at the House Triangle.

  Between 2007 and Nov. 2022, a total of 149 CBP agents located at the U.S. southern border took their lives.

  CBP agents are exposed to traumatic experiences that affect their lives, said the lawmakers, noting that it’s common for law enforcement officers to keep their mental health needs to themselves.

  CBP agents feel abandoned by the current administration, Rep. Mayra Flores (R-Texas) said, referring to President Joe Biden’s recent remarks.

  When asked on Dec. 6 why he wasn’t going to the border while visiting a border state, Biden told reporters at the White House it was “because there are more important things going on.”

  Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) said, “While in Washington, there’s a lot that divides us in policy and often drives us in a lot of different directions, but there are a lot of things that should unite us.”

  

  During the 2022 fiscal year, $23 million has been allocated to the mental health of CBP agents, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said, adding that the same budget for the 2023 fiscal year will be the same.

  The Taking Action to Prevent Suicide (TAPS) Act would allow CBP agents to freely speak with health care professionals without fear of losing their jobs as well as increase the number of local behavioral health specialists with the expertise to provide psychological assistance to CBP officers.

  If there are no health care experts in the agency, Cuellar said, the government should work with local organizations to provide what the CBP agents need for their mental health.

  

  “Until we take out the fear of law enforcement coming forward and talking about their mental health issues, they’re never going to do it,” said Brandon Judd, president of the Border Patrol Union.

  There needs to be more than a friendly social worker, said Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.). CBP agents should have health care personnel trained to guide them through traumatic experiences when necessary, she added.

  “We all know that our immigration system is fully broken. It is working for no one. Therefore, the folks who are manning the southern border are bearing the brunt of our failed policies,” Slotkin said.

  The Epoch Times previously obtained data indicating that CBP captured 209,664 illegal aliens along the southern border in October.

  Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.), said that CBP’s southern agents need more advanced technology, such as sensor towers and refugee processing facilities. Soto supports Biden’s proposed homeland security budget “to keep our homeland safe and respect international refugee laws.”

  “While many of us may have disagreements on border solutions, both here and across Congress, we still have to come together, find common ground, find solutions like the TAPS Act because our Border Protection officers deserve nothing less for protecting our homeland,” Soto told the press.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 17:30

• "Egregious": McCarthy To Subpoena 51 Intel Agents Who Called Hunter Laptop Bombshell 'Disinformation'
  “Egregious”: McCarthy To Subpoena 51 Intel Agents Who Called Hunter Laptop Bombshell ‘Disinformation’

  Amid calls that he sucks and should be replaced, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) says he’ll subpoena the 51 former intelligence officials who said the New York Post‘s bombshell report on the Hunter Biden laptop had ‘all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

  

  The California Republican — who is expected to become speaker when the GOP takes control of the House of Representatives in January — said what Twitter did with The Post’s bombshell October 2020 report was “egregious.”  -NY Post

  “Those 51 intel agents that signed a letter that said the Hunter Biden information was all wrong, was Russia collusion, many of them have a security clearance,” McCarthy told Fox News on Saturday. “We’re going to bring them before a committee. I’m going to have them have a hearing​,​ bring them and subpoena them before a committee. Why did they sign it? Why did they lie to the American public?”

  McCarthy – former roommate of liberal pollster (and Hunter Biden pal) Frank Luntz – has faced strong opposition to his bid to become the next Speaker of the House, particularly from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), so you’ll understand our skepticism over his ‘vow’ to get to the bottom of the 51 former senior intelligence officials.

  Former CIA Director John Brennan and ex-National Security Council Director James Clapper were among a group of former intelligence officials who signed a statement days after the expose, claiming it “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”  

  ​McCarthy questioned the move. “Why did you use the reputation that America was able to give to you … but use it for a political purpose and lie to the American public?” he said on Fox. 

  Republicans are preparing to launch a number of investigations into the Biden family as a result of The Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden’s overseas business relationships while his father was vice president in the Obama administration. -NY Post

  Journalist Glenn Greenwald puts the whole thing in perspective in a great Twitter thread:

  Once these CIA, NSA and DHS operatives — among them the most unscrupulous career liars and war criminals: John Brennan, James Clapper, Michael Hayden and Leon Panetta — signed onto this lie, they handed it to POLITICO’s @NatashaBertrand, now of CNN, who uncritically spread it: pic.twitter.com/59QNRRuZsk

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 11, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The 2 worst media offenders in spreading this lie were NBC and CNN. They put one liar after the next on to say this laptop was forged and came from Russia. @RepAdamSchiff as usual, took the lead in lying. He should be removed from the Intel Comm for this:https://t.co/o6CCIhcSTm

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 11, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  So *of course* House GOP should investigate how 51 CIA/NSA/Homeland Security leaders spread this lie to media to manipulate the 2020 election. House Dems should, too!

  But, instead, Dems and their liberal followers will object, because the US Security State is their key ally.

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 11, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  One last point about @GOPLeader McCarthy. He’s vowed to remove @IlhanMN from committees. That’s cheap and easy to do for so many reasons.

  Omar is 1,000 times better than Schiff (see below). Schiff is the most destructive liar in Congress. The media reveres him. Remove *him*. pic.twitter.com/EQPNDtK3eH

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 11, 2022

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 17:00

• Morgan Stanley On What Will Drive The Next Phase Of ESG Research
  Morgan Stanley On What Will Drive The Next Phase Of ESG Research

  By Stephen Byrd, Head of North American Equity Research, Power/Utilities and Clean Tech at Morgan Stanley

  Debate among investors is growing about whether to focus on stocks which are ESG ‘enablers’ with best-in-class ESG metrics, or on ‘ESG improvers’. We see merit in both approaches but believe the benefits of owning ‘ESG rate of change’ stocks and engaging with companies in transition are underappreciated. In a recent report, Morgan Stanley’s Sustainability Research team, in collaboration with industry analysts, our Quantitative Investment Strategies (QIS) team, and AlphaWise, show that focusing on names with improving ESG metrics can deliver both alpha and positive ESG impacts.

  Our work is distinctive on multiple fronts. First, in collaboration with our analysts, we developed a forward-looking framework to analyze ESG rate of change at the stock level. We think it provides a better gauge of the likely future rate of change than typical data services, which are often backward looking and/or not informed by in-depth, sector-specific analyses. In addition, our analysts focused on companies with an opportunity to improve their financial performance thanks to ESG rate of change, a key difference from typical ESG analyses.

  From a quant perspective, our QIS team assessed the impact on stock returns of ESG criteria such as carbon efficiency, exclusions driven by environmental harm, percentages of revenues linked to fossil fuels, and non-climate ESG concerns. The team found little evidence of a significant positive or negative effect on performance from screening on such broad ESG criteria. This underscores the need to marry ESG capabilities with strong sector expertise in order to generate alpha, tailoring ESG criteria and strategies to industry dynamics. We developed a robust set of sector-specific ESG rate of change criteria.

  We were surprised how often deflationary technologies are driving simultaneous improvement in both ESG and financial metrics. An usually broad range of innovations are dropping in cost so much that they offer significant net benefits on both fronts. These include solar/wind/clean hydrogen, green ammonia, precision agriculture, improved molecular plastics recycling technology, more efficient electric motors, energy storage cost reductions, ‘green steel’, more durable vehicle tires, recycling technologies, electrification of many products/industrial processes, carbon capture tech, and waste-to-energy/waste-to-plastics technologies.

  We reject a dichotomy between investing in ESG ‘enablers’ versus ‘improvers’. We would highlight a recent Morgan Stanley report on Earthshots led by Ed Stanley that identified a number of important emerging ‘enabling’ technologies – radical decarbonization accelerants or global warming mitigants. With the help of our global analysts, the team reviewed 40 promising technologies but zeroed in on six of the most game-changing. Given a growing mismatch between the pace of climate technology adoption and the planet’s need for these solutions, we believe these Earthshots are likely to be a key secular trade of the 2020s.

  

  In evaluating ‘improvers’, we reiterate the need to marry ESG investing principles and deep sector expertise. Applying ESG metrics without such knowledge can lead to suboptimal results. For example, in the US utilities sector, management teams are shutting down expensive coal-fired power plants and building renewables, energy storage, and transmission, which drives superior EPS growth. Our quantitative research team showed the superior stock returns for companies leading the way on this ‘carbon rate of change’ strategy, but many of these stocks would screen negatively on classic ESG metrics such as carbon intensity.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 16:30

• Lithium-Ion Battery Prices Rise For First Time
  Lithium-Ion Battery Prices Rise For First Time

  Lithium, a mineral used in batteries to power electric vehicles, smartphones, laptops, and all sorts of gadgets, has surged to a record high this year as the world pushes forward with a ‘green’ future. But in the process of decarbonizing the global economy, battery prices, for the first time since BloombergNEF began tracking the market in 2010, have risen on an annual basis. 

  After a decade of deflation, the volume-weighted average price of lithium-ion battery packs across all industries increased to $151 per kilowatt-hour in 2022, a 7% increase from last year. BloombergNEF forecasts prices could continue rising next year. 

  

  “Never before in the 12 years BNEF has surveyed battery prices have they recorded an annual increase, instead dropping sharply as production grew,” Bloomberg said. 

  The rising costs of lithium, nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and manganese — crucial metals used in battery making have increased lithium-ion battery pack prices. 

  Just look at the Lithium Price Index — prices are out of control … 

  

  “Not until 2024, when more lithium production is expected to come online, are prices forecast to drop again,” Bloomberg explained. 

  The rise in lithium-ion battery packs could be the first red flags in the energy transition that prices to decarbonize economies will be costly. 

  “With the advent of electromobility and all this excitement about lithium, the world needs new sources,” Daniel Jimenez from consultancy iLiMarkets recently told the FT. “Whoever is producing lithium in the coming three years is going to make abnormally high margins.”

  Yet until new supply comes online, lithium-ion battery packs will rise, which has already caused EV affordability concerns. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 16:00

• The Rise And Fall Of Inflation Risk Factors
  The Rise And Fall Of Inflation Risk Factors

  By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

  This week we will all focus on CPI on Tuesday and the Fed on Wednesday. What Chair Powell says and does on Wednesday will reverberate through the markets. For the record, I expect 50 bps and he will keep a rate hike on the table for the February 1 st announcement.

  Rather than attempting to estimate this week’s CPI data (which will be important), today’s report will focus on what will drive inflation (and the economy/markets) after the Fed decision.

  We have seven weeks between this FOMC decision and the next one. Seven weeks feels like  a lifetime in a market that is prone to large daily and weekly swings. Even the views on the economy are shifting rapidly as more economists seem to be heading in our direction, which is that the recession will start sooner (Q1) and be deeper than most people previously thought.

  If anything, the market is pricing in a Squishy Landing. That report tried to define a “squishy” landing and also tried to figure out why markets may misinterpret data as indicating a “soft” landing when the worst is yet to come. Finally, we re-iterated our more pessimistic outlook in that report.

  Inflation Factors versus Inflation

  Rather than just trying to “estimate” inflation, we examine the factors that “drive” inflation. While we could just estimate various inflation components such as rent, in this report, we will try something different. We will lay out the factors that drive inflation. We believe that these factors do a good job of predicting where inflation and the economy are headed

  In theory this is what many do, but we hope that today’s analysis makes it clear how these factors have been behaving (and how they will behave). That will go a long way in explaining why our current outlook is more pessimistic and is strongly in the camp that “the Fed has gone too far already.”

  

  We will address the individual components that go into this model. This model shows the highest inflationary pressures were from Q2 2021 to Q4 2021. It remained elevated for that extended period of time due to a variety of factors (the importance of which changed within that period). The factors have been pointing to steadily declining inflation and growth pressures ever since.

  If anything, the factors point to deflationary pressures in Q1 and Q2 next year – which is another way of reaching our conclusion that the economy and markets are in jeopardy of a large “risk-off” trade that will break 2022’s lows on stocks (while yields plummet).

  The Inflation Factors

  We will use 5 factors. The factors are somewhat broad and the influence that they have on inflation is just an estimate. Yes, inflation and the economy are closely linked. No, our model is not tested and is both arbitrary and subjective. Nonetheless, it seems logical and almost elegant. The explanation fits the narrative of what has been going on, and some version of this “model” has been influencing my thoughts on inflation, the economy, and markets. It is a good starting point for this overall discussion and what to expect in terms of economic data and corporate reporting over the next seven weeks.

  The factors that we use are:

  • The Fed. This is primarily focused on rates and the balance sheet. Lower rates are stimulative and higher rates act as a headwind. Balance sheet expansion (QE) is stimulative while balance sheet reduction (QT) is contractionary. Other “extraordinary” measures are included as well.
  • Stimulus. This includes a range of items such as checks sent to individuals, moratoriums on rent/student loans, PPP, and government spending programs like the “Inflation Reduction” Act.
  • Supply Chains. This attempts to broadly incorporate supply chain issues from the actual inability to produce goods to the costs of shipping and transporting. It is difficult to get an exact definition, but we all know it when we see it.
  • War. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the sanctions are also factors.
  • Disruptive. Another broad topic and not only is it extremely important, but it has been overlooked by many. It does not just include the wealth gained and lost by investors or the impact on the economy. The spending generated by “disruptive” companies (and even units of larger/more “traditional” organizations) was quite simply massive. This segment can easily include crypto as well as disruptive companies (some of which were already public or recently went public, and others largely benefitted from PE/VC investments). This may be the most contentious factor, which likely makes it the most important in terms of explaining why our outlook remains so pessimistic.

  We did not treat wage inflation as an inflation factor. This is a tricky and almost circular issue. Is wage inflation a factor? Certainly, the Fed focuses on wage inflation because it could potentially create “sticky” (or rather “non-transitory”) inflation. From that perspective, it is a factor rather than an output. However, we will treat wage inflation as another output (wage inflation will respond to the other factors, making it okay to ignore in the factor model). It is somewhat circular, which is why we highlight it.

  The Fed

  

  The Fed did everything it could in the immediate aftermath of COVID and the COVID lockdowns. They bought corporate bonds/ETFs, backstopped money markets and corporate new issuance, expanded their balance sheet, and cut rates to zero.

  Over time they pulled back on that support. By Q3 of 2022 we saw them acting as a moderate headwind. We should not just expect higher rates for now because the Fed is telegraphing higher rates into the future (while ramping up QT) as well.

  By early 2023 the Fed will be a deflationary pressure.

  That will start to reverse course as the Fed backpedals (likely smaller QT before rate cuts). In any case, on a standalone basis this might be the right policy, but given how the other factors are behaving, it may be a mistake.

  Stimulus

  

  Stimulus started slowly, ramped up, tailed off, ramped back up again, and is now in the process of declining. We’ve left it as a small positive factor for much of this year and next year.

  The bump in Q2 2021 may have been the most awkward of the inflation drivers as yet another stimulus package was passed long after there was an obvious need for it (the very nature of inflationary).

  We didn’t get a “bounce” in the factor when the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” was passed, because it wasn’t heavily front loaded, but it is why we leave stimulus as a positive factor going forward.

  Supply Chain

  

  The supply chain issues didn’t manifest themselves right away. In Q2 2020 oil (WTI) futures briefly traded negative. Yes, there were all sorts of weird shortages and mismatches during that time. You could get rolls and rolls of industrial grade toilet paper if you could figure out where to go, but it was virtually impossible to get high quality toilet paper (I’m sure there were other initial issues, but that one sticks out).

  It was only over time as we re-opened and inventories got whittled down that supply chain issues started to mount. Add to that the fact that there weren’t enough workers at the docks to unload (let alone ship) things. Supply chain constraints were off the charts (as was the cost of shipping). However, those costs have since come down.

  There are still some supply chain issues. Shipping isn’t great, but other issues are much smaller now. Offsetting that pressure further are the inventory builds that we’ve seen across so many industries. It is still a moderately inflationary factor, but should go away by Q2

  War

  

  Russia invaded Ukraine in Q1 2022, but as troops were building up before that, we started to see some pressure on commodity prices that could be attributed to the war risk. That escalated post invasion as sanctions took hold. It abated a little in the summer on the energy front (seasonal) and as some deals were attempted on the commodity front. It has ramped back up and that will continue into Q1 of next year and then it should subside into the summer again.

  Disruptive

  

  This doesn’t exactly follow the chart of bitcoin, ARKK, or SPAC issuance, but it is probably somewhat linked. Were those just a factor of the other factors, or a factor in their own right?

  The wealth created and spent in this subset of the universe (which was unique to this period) is its own driver. It ties into my argument that jobs lost will NOT be the metric of this recession, rather it will be jobs lost multiplied by average pay that will define this recession.

  I’m hearing this from programmers, software and hardware sellers, and event planners. The wealth created and spent was enormous, concentrated, and inflationary.

  The Whole Picture

  

  This chart might be a little bit messy, but it is a useful illustration of how these various factors have worked to drive inflation.

  Thinking about these factors and when they started to turn down (and how inflation/the economy have followed) sends a somewhat chilling message if they are correct.

  We are seeing little to no inflationary (growth) pressures in the economy in Q1, yet we are behaving as though fighting inflation is still job number 1.

  Bottom Line

  Look for growth and inflation to slow, regardless of what the Fed does going forward. Inflation was driven by many factors, most of which are receding on their own.

  We have seven weeks of data after this Fed meeting and will be entering into Q4 earnings. I have little reason to be optimistic unless something about these risk factors change. It would be great to have discussions on the appropriateness of these factors and their relative importance.

  This model may have many errors, but I welcome the opportunity to discuss/refine it and hopefully it gives you some food for thought on why our inflation and growth projections are on the pessimistic side of consensus.

  Good luck on Wednesday and get ready for the next 7 weeks!

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 15:30

• The Twitter Files: The Corporate Media Ignores The Biggest Story Of The Decade
  The Twitter Files: The Corporate Media Ignores The Biggest Story Of The Decade

  The biggest story of the past decade is not the covid pandemic, the January 6th protests, the war in Ukraine, the BLM riots, or even the stagflationary crisis in the US.  Behind these major events is another story, one that connects them all together in a disturbing way.  Even more important than the effects of geopolitical and economic chaos is the effect of mass censorship; without the free exchange of information and debate the public remains ignorant.  And if the public remains ignorant, crisis events have an increasing potential to explode.

  Public perception of national and international affairs is a key determinant of the outcome of disasters and conflicts.  This is why governments and elitists from around the world often seek to manipulate the ways in which people digest information.  The idea is rather simple – They believe that ‘we the people’ cannot be allowed to come to our own conclusions.  They think we cannot be trusted to develop the “proper” viewpoints and we are not smart enough to understand the implications of governmental decisions.  

  In other words, they believe the exact opposite of what is outlined in the US Constitution.  The establishment will give numerous reasons why they need to censor, suppress, spin and misrepresent the facts of any given situation, but in the end the real rationale is that they have a vision for society that is contrary to our foundations.  They have appointed themselves the arbiters of reality to see that vision done.  As Edward Bernays, the “father of public relations” once stated in his book ‘Propaganda’:

  “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

  This is pure authoritarianism.  It’s the stuff of nightmares and revolutions.  But for many years now a large subsection of the world has denied such a dynamic exists.  It’s “conspiracy theory” and “tinfoil hattery” to claim that a small number of elites work together in secret to control public perception and govern our society from the shadows.  After all, where is the proof?

  Of course, this kind of argument is a coping mechanism for the mentally deficient.  Proof of such secretive governance and control is everywhere these days, but some people prefer willful denial.  Take for example the ongoing data drops for what is now being called “The Twitter Files.”

  The mainstream media is barely responding to the information dump initiated by Elon Musk.  They seem to be far more interested in Donald Trump’s tax records.  When they are forced to acknowledge the story, they are hostile, calling the information “boring” or unimpressive.  It’s a classic psychological  tactic of typical narcissists and criminals – When they get caught, they act indifferent, as if neither the evidence nor their crimes really matter.  If getting caught doesn’t matter to them, then their crimes must not be all that bad, right?

  The content of these files is astonishing, but at the same time it is true that the conclusions are not surprising.    

  The files simply confirm almost everything conservative and libertarian commentators have been saying for years; all those “conspiracy theories” about Big Tech censorship of conservatives turned out to be true.  Not only that, but the theory that government agencies and officials from the DNC worked with Big Tech to silence and undermine their political opponents was also true.  

  

  Twitter has long denied that they “shadow ban” users, but this was a lie.  The data shows that small groups within Twitter called “strategic response teams” suppressed up to 200 accounts per day.  Usually these were accounts of larger and more influential conservative politicians and celebrities.  And, these teams operated in coordination with Democrat officials and agencies like the FBI.  In some cases the goal was to mute a particular individual. In other cases the goal was to steer national elections.   

  Internal Twitter communications show that SRT groups spent most of their time fabricating reasons why certain information was subject to TOS.  In other words, if Twitter’s rules were not being violated, they made up new rules.  

  The exposure of Twitter is the biggest story of the decade because it provides proof of a hidden cabal.  It shows the ugly mechanics behind the scenes and exposes a network of elites and their errand boys who were involved in direct operations to destroy the 1st Amendment for the sake of ideological supremacy.  

  It’s the classic definition of fascism, a definition that Benito Mussolini reiterated when he argued:  “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

  And, if this brand of Fascism was happening within the halls of Twitter, then there is little doubt it is also happening at companies like Google/YouTube, Apple, Facebook, etc.  Before we had evidence, now we have confirmation.  

  The corporate media argues over relevance instead of morality because they benefited from the censorship.  It’s important to remember that one of the first measures Big Tech companies applied after suppressing the alternative media during the pandemic was to then amplify the corporate media.  These companies are floundering with dismal audience numbers and dwindling profits.  No one listens to them anymore.  Yet, as long as they promote the establishment narrative their opinions and disinformation are given priority on nearly every search engine and social media platform.  

  Of course they aren’t interested in the Twitter Files, liars are often “bored” by honest commentary and factual information.  Also, their continued existence relies on the censorship of their competition in the alternative media.

  The bottom line is this:  According to the Bill of Rights, it is illegal for agents of the US government to obstruct the free speech of law abiding American citizens.  It does not matter if the action is done by using “private businesses” as middlemen.  And, if a private business is colluding with government to implement political policy then it is no longer a private business.  Twitter was participating in a form of treason, along with the agencies that they cooperated with.  It’s a huge story, and one that should lead to punishment for those involved.      

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 15:00

• Army Captain Separated From Service For Refusing Vaccine As House Passes Bill That Rescinds Military’s Vaccine Mandate
  Army Captain Separated From Service For Refusing Vaccine As House Passes Bill That Rescinds Military’s Vaccine Mandate

  Authored by J.M. Phelps via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  An Army captain was separated from the service for refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine as the GOP attempts to roll back Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s military vaccine mandate.

  

  Capt. Stephen Rogerson (a pseudonym) has served in the Army for 17 years, and on Dec. 6, a three-person administrative board voted to separate him from service. On the same day, the House passed an $858 billion defense funding bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year 2023, that included a provision to rescind the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

  But soldiers like Rogerson are “falling through the cracks of a failed policy at precisely the wrong time,” according to R. Davis Younts, an Air Force Reserve Judge Advocate General (JAG) and civilian attorney.

  In October 2021, Rogerson received a temporary medical exemption through his primary care manager. Within two hours of submitting his request for exemption to the vaccine to his command, it was denied.

  “Rather than accepting my exemption, they gave it to the command surgeon who overturned it and took measures to deny it—without the authority or policy in place to do so,” he told The Epoch Times, using a pseudonym for fear of reprisals.

  “In addition to opposing the vaccine for medical concerns, I was opposed to it because it came out so quickly and there was no way possible to know its long-term side effects.” Thus, he took all necessary steps to oppose the vaccine.

  For this, Rogerson received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand in February, which was permanently filed into his record.

  “Those things are going to be in my record, unless there’s some sort of language requiring the military to take out the adverse actions given to soldiers who refused to take the experimental vaccine,” he said.

  “While Congress taking action is a great thing, the language isn’t clear,” Rogerson said.

  According to Younts, “The latest language in the NDAA is compromised language,” explaining that the agreement will only end the Department of Defense’s (DoD) vaccine mandate, and does not address the issue of the thousands of service members who have already been separated or who have had adverse action taken against them due to their refusal to take the vaccine.

  If the NDAA is approved by the Senate and signed into law by President Joe Biden, Austin would have 30 days to rescind the mandate.

  “I know, firsthand, the military is continuing to push the vaccine and boosters,” he said. “The Navy and Coast Guard, in particular, are putting tremendous pressure on its members.”

  Younts believes the “coercion” to get the vaccine will continue, even if the mandate is rescinded.

  He questioned whether “the DOD’s intent will be to continue to punish and kick out those individuals who violated the supposed ‘lawful order’ to get the vaccine while it was a mandate.”

  The White House said including the provision in NDAA was “a mistake.”

  “Making sure our troops are ready to defend this country and prepared to do so, that remains the President’s priority, and the vaccine requirement for COVID does just that,” John Kirby, National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications, said during a press briefing on Dec. 7.

  A Whole New Fight

  Service members in the Air Force, Marines, and Navy are currently protected by a preliminary injunction that prohibits the respective services from taking adverse actions against the unvaccinated. Meanwhile, the Army and Coast Guard are subject to such restrictions.

  “Without a change in the policy, soldiers could still be punished with travel restrictions, other measures to prevent training and education, and more,” Rogerson said. He expects “restrictive measures to remain in place, depending on how the DoD treats the guidance that comes down from Congress.”

  To that end, Younts said, “There are still a lot of people in the Army and Coast Guard that have a letter of reprimand in their file for refusing the vaccine.” Many have not been promoted, have been restricted from travel, and have had other actions taken against them, he said.

  “Because of this, the military’s position could be that [service members] violated the initial order when it was a mandate, and they’re still going to move to kick them out.”

  Rescinding the vaccine mandate via the NDAA is “a small step,” Younts said. “What’s going to force the DoD and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to change their policy and not punish or retaliate against those who are in a refuser status, but their cases still haven’t been processed to completion yet?”

  Furthermore, the language of the NDAA does not reinstate thousands of military members who have already been separated from the service. “Congress has not required the DoD to address any of these issues,” Younts pointed out.

  “All it says is that as the NDAA goes into effect, the mandate doesn’t exist anymore,” Younts explained. “Unless there’s more court action or another intervention,” he said, “the DoD is still going to consider the previous vaccine mandate a valid order, and those who refused that order, they’re going to continue to be punished.”

  Younts is also concerned about the current injunctions in place for the Air Force, Marines, and Navy.

  “For example, if the Air Force case goes to trial next year and we lose, a whole bunch of these people already have a letter of reprimand in their record or have had other adverse action taken against them,” he said. And because of this, “The Air Force could still punch them and kick them out for disobeying a so-called lawful order,” the attorney added.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 14:30

• Bond Investors Switch From Mutual Funds To ETFs At Record Clip
  Bond Investors Switch From Mutual Funds To ETFs At Record Clip

  The worst year for bonds since at least 1975 has prompted plenty of investors to abandon the asset class. However, of those who are sticking around, a great number are swapping from mutual funds to exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in execution of loss-harvesting tax strategies. 

  Amid this mass wave of so-called “wrapper-swapping” — reallocating from a mutual fund to an ETF in the same broad asset class — ETFs now comprise a record-high 21% of bond fund assets, according to a new report from The Wall Street Journal. That’s around double the share ETFs had six years ago.  

  

  The bond market beatdown has “set off the acceleration of wrapper-swapping that we have seen in equities for a while,” ETF strategist Todd Sohn of Strategas tells the Journal . “Now we’re finally getting it in bonds.”

  Many investors have been stunned by bond funds’ failure to buffer portfolio returns in a rough year for equities. While the S&P 500 is down 17%, Bloomberg’s aggregate U.S. bond index is off 11%. 

  Bond mutual funds have seen net redemptions of a whopping $454 billion this year, but bond ETFs have drawn a net $157 billion — by far a record swap. 

  

  As investors wrapper-swap, many are shifting their bond allocation to emphasize U.S. Treasury debt, jettisoning stakes in riskier bond asset classes as worries over the country’s economic health mount. Almost 60% of bond inflows at iShares have gone into Treasury funds. 

  Taxes are a big driver of the trend. By redeeming losing bond positions held outside of 401(k)s, IRA and other tax-sheltered accounts, investors can realize capital losses and improve the bottom line on their upcoming 2022 tax filings. 

  Before you swap wrappers, beware of IRS “wash sale” rules, which disallow the recognition of capital losses if the investor replaces it with a “substantially identical” investment during a window that extends from 30 days before the sale through 30 days after.

  Caution is required even when swapping from a mutual fund to an ETF — as there are no clear IRS rules on what constitutes “substantially identical.” 

  The more your choice of ETF differs from the mutual fund you sold, the better your chance of passing IRS muster. For example, selling Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund and swapping into the Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF within 30 days is almost certainly asking for trouble — as Biden recruits his legions of 87,000 new IRS employees.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 12/11/2022 – 14:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest