Mar 15

Today’s News 15th March 2023

  • Italy Blames Russia For Surge In Migration, Accuses Wagner Group Of "Hybrid Warfare"
    Italy Blames Russia For Surge In Migration, Accuses Wagner Group Of “Hybrid Warfare”

    Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

    Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto accused the Russian mercenary Wagner Group of facilitating the increase in migration reported this year from Africa to Europe…

    Russian mercenaries are responsible for a surge in illegal immigration into Europe and are engaging in “hybrid warfare” against countries supporting Ukraine in the ongoing conflict, Italy’s Defense Minister Guido Crosetto has claimed.

    Speaking on Monday, the Italian minister claimed the Russian Wagner Group, which operates in several African countries and holds considerable political influence, has been facilitating an increase in illegal immigration across the Mediterranean into Italy.

    “I think it is now safe to say that the exponential increase in the migratory phenomenon departing from African shores is also, to a not insignificant extent, part of a clear strategy of hybrid warfare that the Wagner division is implementing, using its considerable weight in some African countries,” Crosetto said.

    Italy’s Defense Minister Guido Crosetto. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

    “Just as the EU, NATO, and the West have realized that cyberattacks were part of the global confrontation that the war in Ukraine opened up, they should now understand that the southern European front is also becoming more dangerous every day,” he added.

    However, Italy has long dealt with mass migration from Africa and Middle Eastern countries, and the minister presented no evidence that Wagner was behind any operation to increase migration to Europe. Europe, however, has faced a migrant crisis partially facilitated by Russia and Belarus in countries like Poland and Baltic nations over the last couple of years.

    Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani told Italian news agency ANSA that many migrants are now originating from areas “controlled by the Wagner group.”

    Europe’s border agency, Frontex, reported that in the first two months of 2023, the top countries of origin were Ivory Coast, Guinea, and Pakistan — all countries where Wagner has no presence.

    The accusation is firmly denied by the mercenary group whose leader Yevgeny Prigozhin said via the Telegram messaging app: “We have no idea what is happening with regard to the migrant crisis, but we are not dealing with it,” before calling Crosetto a “mudak,” a Russian derogatory term akin to “idiot” or “moron.”

    As Remix News reported on Monday, migrant crossings across the Mediterranean have more than doubled in the first two months of 2023, with Frontex data revealing a total of 11,951 crossings detected in January and February, up 118 percent over the same period last year.

    Italian government figures revealed more than 20,000 people have now reached Italy so far this year, suggesting a significant increase in the past two weeks in migrant activity.

    The surge in immigration prompted the Italian government last week to announce tougher new laws on people smugglers, who could now see themselves jailed for up to 30 years for facilitating illegal immigration into Italy.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 03/15/2023 – 02:00

  • The Urbanity Of Evil: 20 Years After The US Invasion Of Iraq
    The Urbanity Of Evil: 20 Years After The US Invasion Of Iraq

    Authored by Norman Solomon via Common Dreams,

    Vast quantities of lies from top U.S. government officials led up to the Iraq invasion. Now, marking its 20th anniversary, the same media outlets that eagerly boosted those lies are offering retrospectives. Don’t expect them to shed light on the most difficult truths, including their own complicity in pushing for war.

    What propelled the United States to start the war on Iraq in March 2003 were dynamics of media and politics that are still very much with us today. Soon after 9/11, one of the rhetorical whips brandished by President George W. Bush was an unequivocal assertion while speaking to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001: “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Thrown down, that gauntlet received adulation and scant criticism in the United States. Mainstream media and members of Congress were almost all enthralled with a Manichean worldview that has evolved and persisted.

    AFP via Getty Images

    Our current era is filled with echoes of such oratory from the current president. A few months before fist-bumping Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman—who’s been in charge of a tyrannical regime making war on Yemen, causing several hundred thousand deaths since 2015 with U.S. government help—Joe Biden mounted a pulpit of supreme virtue during his 2022 State of the Union address.

    Biden proclaimed “an unwavering resolve that freedom will always triumph over tyranny.” And he added that “in the battle between democracy and autocracies, democracies are rising to the moment.” Of course, there was no mention of his support for Saudi autocracy and war.

    In that State of the Union speech, Biden devoted much emphasis to condemning Russia’s war on Ukraine, as he has many times since. Biden’s presidential hypocrisies do not in any way justify the horrors that Russian forces are inflicting in Ukraine. Nor does that war justify the deadly hypocrisies that pervade U.S. foreign policy.

    This week, don’t hold your breath for media retrospectives about the Iraq invasion to include basic facts about the key roles of Biden and the man who is now secretary of state, Antony Blinken. When they each denounce Russia while solemnly insisting that it is absolutely unacceptable for one country to invade another, the Orwellian efforts are brazen and shameless.

    Last month, speaking to the UN Security Council, Blinken invoked “the principles and rules that make all countries safer and more secure”—such as “no seizing land by force” and “no wars of aggression.” But Biden and Blinken were crucial accessories to the massive war of aggression that was the invasion of Iraq. On the very rare occasions when Biden has been put on the spot for how he helped make the invasion politically possible, his response has been to dissemble and tell outright lies.

    “Biden has a long history of inaccurate claims” regarding Iraq, scholar Stephen Zunes pointed out four years ago. “For example, in the lead-up to the critical Senate vote authorizing the invasion, Biden used his role as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to insist that Iraq somehow reconstituted a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapons program and sophisticated delivery systems that had long since been eliminated.” The false claim of supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was the main pretext for the invasion.

    That falsehood was challenged in real time, many months before the invasion, by numerous experts. But then-Senator Biden, wielding the gavel of the Foreign Relations Committee, excluded them all from two days of high-impact sham hearings in mid-summer 2002.

    And who was the chief of staff of the committee at that time? The current secretary of state, Antony Blinken.

    We’re apt to put Biden and Blinken in a completely different category than someone like Tariq Aziz, who was Iraq’s deputy prime minister under despot Saddam Hussein. But, thinking back to the three meetings with Aziz that I attended in Baghdad during the months before the invasion, I have some doubts.

    Aziz wore nicely tailored business suits. Speaking excellent English in measured tones and well-crafted sentences, he had an erudite air with no lack of politesse as he greeted our four-member delegation (which I had organized with colleagues at the Institute for Public Accuracy). Our group included Congressman Nick Rahall of West Virginia, former South Dakota senator James Abourezk and Conscience International president James Jennings. As it turned out, the meeting occurred six months before the invasion.

    At the time of that meeting in mid-September 2002, Aziz was able to concisely sum up a reality that few U.S. media outlets were acknowledging. “It’s doomed if you do, doomed if you don’t,” Aziz said, referring to the Iraqi government’s choice of whether to let UN weapons inspectors back into the country.

    After meetings with Aziz and other Iraqi officials, I told the Washington Post: “If it was strictly a matter of the inspections and they felt there was a light at the end of the tunnel, this would be a totally fixable problem.” But it was far from being strictly a matter of the inspections. The Bush administration was determined to make war on Iraq.

    A couple of days after the Aziz meeting, Iraq’s regime—which was accurately stating that it had no weapons of mass destruction—announced that it would allow UN inspectors back into the country. (They had been withdrawn four years earlier for their safety on the eve of an anticipated U.S. bombing attack that took place for four days.) But compliance with the United Nations was to no avail. The U.S. government leaders wanted to launch an invasion of Iraq, no matter what.

    During two later meetings with Aziz, in December 2002 and January 2003, I was repeatedly struck by his capacity to seem cultured and refined. While the main spokesperson for a vicious dictator, he exuded sophistication. I thought of the words “the urbanity of evil.”

    Bush’s “shock and awe” over Baghdad, file image.

    A well-informed source told me that Saddam Hussein maintained some kind of leverage over Aziz by keeping his son in jeopardy of imprisonment or worse, lest Aziz become a defector. Whether or not that was the case, Deputy Prime Minister Aziz remained loyal to the end. As someone in Jean Renoir’s film The Rules of the Game says, “The awful thing about life is this: Everybody has their reasons.”

    Tariq Aziz had good reasons to fear for his life—and the lives of loved ones—if he ran afoul of Saddam. In contrast, many politicians and officials in Washington have gone along with murderous policies when dissenting might cost them only re-election, prestige, money or power.

    I last saw Aziz in January 2003, while accompanying a former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq to meet with him. Talking to the two of us in his Baghdad office, Aziz seemed to know an invasion was virtually certain. It began two months later. The Pentagon was pleased to brand its horrific air attacks on the city “shock and awe.”

    On July 1, 2004, appearing before an Iraqi judge in a courtroom located on a U.S. military base near Baghdad airport, Aziz said: “What I want to know is, are these charges personal? Is it Tariq Aziz carrying out these killings? If I am a member of a government that makes the mistake of killing someone, then there can’t justifiably be an accusation against me personally. Where there is a crime committed by the leadership, the moral responsibility rests there, and there shouldn’t be a personal case just because somebody belongs to the leadership.” And, Aziz went on to say, “I never killed anybody, by the acts of my own hand.”

    The invasion that Joe Biden helped to inflict on Iraq resulted in a war that directly killed several hundred thousand civilians. If he were ever really called to account for his role, Biden’s words might resemble those of Tariq Aziz.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 23:50

  • China Calls AUKUS Sub Deal "Pure Deception" As It Means Australia Going Nuclear
    China Calls AUKUS Sub Deal “Pure Deception” As It Means Australia Going Nuclear

    China has blasted the new AUKUS nuclear submarine deal announced by President Joe Biden in San Diego on Monday alongside Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Biden sought to stress that the agreement to transfer nuclear submarine technology to Australia is not “a challenge to anybody” and that “These boats will not have any nuclear weapons of any kind of them,” according to his remarks at an outdoor ceremony at Naval Base Point Loma.

    But Beijing disagrees, as on Tuesday the foreign ministry blasted the US and its allies for their “Cold War mentality” which puts the region on a “dangerous path” that will “only motivate an arms race”. Spokesperson Wang Wenbin additionally said that nuclear subs for Australia’s military will “damage the international nuclear nonproliferation regime, and harm regional stability and peace.” 

    “The latest joint statement issued by the U.S., U.K., and Australia shows that the three countries have gone further down the wrong and dangerous path for their own geopolitical self-interest, completely ignoring the concerns of the international community,” Wang said at a daily briefing.

    This isn’t the first time that China has made the charge that in Canberra procuring nuclear-powered subs it is violating its own ‘nuclear weapons free’ policy. Wang reiterated China’s long-running assertion that it poses “serious risk of nuclear proliferation and violating the object and purpose of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.”

    “The three countries claim that they will abide by the highest nuclear non-proliferation standards, which is pure deception,” Wang said, charging they’ve been engaged in “coercing” the International Atomic Energy Agency into bestowing endorsement.

    Meanwhile, China certainly took notice when Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles commented on the super expensive AUKUS deal Tuesday (Australia forecasts it will spend up to $245 billion on the project by 2055). He had delivered—

    …”one of the most ominous warnings” relating to the reasons behind a heavily expensive AUKUS deal, says Sky News host Laura Jayes.

    “It answered the why – why we are spending so much on these nuclear-powered submarines?” Ms Jayes said.

    Defence Minister Richard Marles has stated in a media conference on Tuesday, “the biggest conventional military build-up … seen since the end of the second world war” is happening in our region.

    “That is all about China – not mentioned by word, but ‘the biggest conventional military build-up’ – well it cannot be about anyone else,” she said.

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

    Also fueling Beijing’s anger are recent reports that the US Navy is planning a full-service submarine hub in Australia which can be a major base overseeing all submarine deployments in the Asia Pacific.

    Defense News reported last week, “The U.S. Navy envisions a submarine hub in Australia from which the service can oversee the entire range of undersea activities in the Asia-Pacific region, from boat production to repairs to missions, service Secretary Carlos del Toro said last month.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 23:30

  • Investors Expecting Fed To Accept Entrenched Inflation
    Investors Expecting Fed To Accept Entrenched Inflation

    By Nour Al Ali, Bloomberg markets live reporter and analyst

    Breakevens and inflation swaps show market inflation expectations still above the Fed’s 2% target…

    … which coupled with money-market expectations of a Fed rate-cut as soon as the summer…

    …  is a sign that investors expect the Fed to potentially accept that inflation may remain higher than its target and far more entrenched in the economy as financial stability remains a concern.

    For much of the current tightening cycle, the market has been at odds with the Fed as it prioritized its fight to tame inflation. When Chair Jerome Powell testified in Congress last week, the market listened and sent yields soaring, interpreting his initial appearance as a strong sign of the Fed’s hawkishness. He said that policymakers were prepared to increase the pace of rate hikes if needed, adding that nothing about recent data suggested that the Fed has tightened too much.

    The next day, Powell softened his tone, stressing that no decision had been made on the pace of rate hikes, and that policymakers were looking to be guided by the wave of upcoming data. Jobs, which showed a tight labor market, along with CPI and PPI data, which would give clarity on price pressures. Since then, the SVB meltdown led to significant repricing across global assets and investor expectations of the Fed’s rate-hike path.

    Treasuries, particularly at the short-end, have given back some of the gains they’ve seen during the market mayhem. The yield on short-end USTs was up close to 30 basis points on the session, climbing past 4.3% after today’s inline data. It remains to be seen what the next few data prints hold, and how it will inform both the market and the Fed ahead of its decision this month.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 23:10

  • DeSantis Issues Most Blistering Takedown Yet Of US Role In Ukraine "Territorial Dispute"
    DeSantis Issues Most Blistering Takedown Yet Of US Role In Ukraine “Territorial Dispute”

    At a moment Western officials and even some mainstream media are beginning to express doubt over Ukraine’s ability to push Russian forces back, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who will likely enter the race for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, has issued his sharpest criticisms yet of America’s role in the Ukraine war, calling it fundamentally a “territorial dispute” which the US should stay out of.

    The statements came as part of his response to a questionnaire issued to possible 2024 presidential candidates by Fox News’s Tucker Carlson. The questionnaire asked whether protecting Ukraine should be part of US “vital national interests”. DeSantis ripped Biden’s policy as a virtual “blank check” which serves to erode US interests and “distracts” from what should be more pressing priorities.

    He stressed that the United States government “cannot prioritize intervention in an escalating foreign war over the defense of our own homeland” – which also echoes the scathing critiques of a small cadre of GOP Congressional members like Matt Gaetz, Thomas Massie, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

    Via Reuters

    “While the U.S. has many vital national interests — securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness within our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural, and military power of the Chinese Communist Party — becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them,” DeSantis said. Likely the reference is to the civil war which predates the Feb.24, 2022 Russian invasion by many years: the conflict in Donbas which went back to 2014 and by many estimates took over 14,000 lives on both sides. 

    “The Biden administration’s virtual ‘blank check’ funding of this conflict for ‘as long as it takes,’ without any defined objectives or accountability, distracts from our country’s most pressing challenges,” he added.

    Crucially, he also used the questionnaire as an opportunity to point out that the Biden White House’s irresponsible escalation of involvement in supporting Kiev has ultimately pushed Moscow into “a de facto alliance” with China.

    “Because China has not and will not abide by the embargo, Russia has increased its foreign revenues while China benefits from cheaper fuel. Coupled with his intentional depletion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and support for the Left’s Green New Deal, Biden has further empowered Russia’s energy-dominated economy and Putin’s war machine at Americans’ expense,” the Florida governor said. 

    And on the question of F-16s, which is currently being pushed by some Congressional hawks and reportedly being mulled over by the administration…

    DeSantis said F-16s and long-range missiles should be “off the table” because the moves could risk “drawing the United States into the conflict and drawing us closer to a hot war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.”

    The Florida Republican further went after what he called the US policy of “regime change” in Russia which he said is “no doubt popular among the DC foreign policy interventionists”.

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

    Despite Biden officially rejecting that he has a policy of regime change, DeSantis emphasized that the current trajectory tends in that direction, leaving no good options as things escalate in Ukraine. He said that any attempt to remove Putin from power “would greatly increase the stakes of the conflict, making the use of nuclear weapons more likely.”

    “Such a policy would neither stop the death and destruction of the war, nor produce a pro-American, Madisonian constitutionalist in the Kremlin. History indicates that Putin’s successor, in this hypothetical, would likely be even more ruthless,” he wrote. “The costs to achieve such a dubious outcome could become astronomical.”

    Given that Donald Trump is running, and some polls have put their popularity and support among Republican voters very close, it will be interesting to see if Trump matches or surpasses DeSantis’ emphasis on non-interventionism in the “territorial dispute” in Ukraine. Certainly Trump has already been out front in being vocal against Biden’s policies in Ukraine. All of this at the very least means the debate within the GOP is likely to slide more and more against a policy of escalating American involvement, despite the hawks still by and large exercising most influence at the moment.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 22:50

  • Death Of A Myth
    Death Of A Myth

    Authored by George D. O’Neill Jr via TheAmericanConservative.com,

    Americans need to wake up to the realities of a post-unipolar world before it’s too late…

    As we witness the collapse of various mainstream narratives, especially those surrounding the U.S./NATO war with Russia in Ukraine, Americans should begin to reassess their understanding of U.S. national leadership. Most American citizens have no notion of the great disparity between what their government does overseas and the stories they hear from its mouthpieces. As a result, Americans unwittingly support all sorts of foreign operations with little or no understanding of what is actually going on. For years, they have been misled by a non-stop propaganda campaign that is only now beginning to crumble.

    We are experiencing the death throes of the United States’ unipolar hegemony over large parts of world. Until citizens begin to realize the magnitude of their government’s policy deceptions, it will become increasingly difficult to understand the United States’ changing global position and adjust to the effects of the growing negative perception of our country held by many people around the world.

    Since World War II, and particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the dominant and unrivaled world power. Instead of being a peacekeeper and honest “world’s policeman,” the U.S. has increasingly been a destabilizing bully. Many leaders worldwide have been reluctant to speak up about the increasingly destructive nature of U.S. foreign policy for fear of being punished. But as U.S. stature and power declines, large parts of the world have been seeking arrangements to protect themselves from U.S. predation.

    Most Americans do not understand why such realignments are occurring, thanks to a constant stream of propaganda about America being the “most generous,” the “exceptional nation,” a “nation that sets aside its interests for the benefit of the world,” an “important source of good” around the globe as the “protector of the rules based order,” always shouldering the heavy responsibility to protect the international system and weak nations from bad actors, ad nauseam. According to a number of sources, U.S.-caused wars have been directly responsible for the deaths of more than 10 million people since World War II. The neoconservatives will scoff at these facts and their sources, but most of the rest of the world believes this to be true.

    Most Americans cannot accept these observations because they contradict the narrative given them by the omnipresent state propaganda machine. While the ever growing list of American misdeeds abroad has for years been largely unchallenged at home, it has become increasingly obvious to many across the globe. Americans should take note. For example, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has just published an overview of what they see as U.S. misbehavior. The U.S. establishment and well-meaning patriots may dismiss the Chinese observations, but they ring true to many who live outside of the neoconservative propaganda bubble.

    Contrary to establishment mythology, the U.S. is famous for breaking its promises, violating treaties, and abandoning agreements. The list is long: the U.S.’s 1990 promise not to move NATO east into former Warsaw Convention countries, the abrogation of the ABM, INF, Open Skies, START treaties, the JCPOA, the  agreement with Libya, and others. The U.S. has also repeatedly flouted international law by invading countries that do not bow to U.S. hegemony.

    There are a number of U.S. agencies that covertly fund NGO election interference operations. Most Americans have no idea that the Cold War–era National Endowment for Democracy was created to influence elections in countries around the world, and has interfered in many. (The National Endowment for Democracy was spending money in Russia until the Russians expelled them.) Then there are the famous “Color Revolutions” sponsored by various U.S. agencies. Some estimate the U.S. has interfered in as many as fifty countries.

    The days of pretending to ignore this destructive behavior are drawing to a close. We are entering a period in which the populations of many countries may decide that being subject to American hegemony is not in their interests. Increasing numbers of countries have joined and formed alternative alliances outside U.S. influence. SCO, BRICS+, OPEC+, and others have experienced growing membership as countries that believe their interests are better protected by these non-U.S. affiliated alliances sign on.

    The fallout of the tragic and unnecessary Ukraine war has accelerated this movement to seek other cooperative associations. As America’s European allies are learning, there can be huge political and economic costs to being associated with the U.S. The populations of Europe have watched their own economies suffer and paid dearly for energy because of the ten rounds of self-destructive sanctions imposed on Russia.

    The purveyor and protector of the “rules-based order” decided that Germany should not import cheap Russian natural gas. America’s president and a senior State Department official threatened to cut off the pipeline supplying Russian natural gas if Russia did not bow to Washington’s wishes. Coincidentally, the Nord Stream gas pipelines were blown up not long after. The U.S. Secretary of State said the sabotage was an “opportunity,” and the assistant secretary of State appeared to be satisfied. The neoconservatives lauding this act of terrorism against an ally of the U.S. may believe pretending Washington was not responsible will reassure America and Europe, but the rest of the world believes otherwise.

    Many will ignore or diminish the consequences of a possible U.S. role in the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines. But this addition to the list of callous acts believed abroad to be perpetrated by the U.S. further would undermine the narrative of America as the “generous nation,” “leader of the free world,” “protector of the rules-based order.” For years, these contradictions were skillfully finessed and ignored by a compliant press and complicit institutions that profited from these deceptions. But as the U.S. appears less powerful, the rest of the world is beginning to take notice and are moving to seek other protective friendships.

    Less than two years ago, the “most powerful military in the history of man” was chased out of Afghanistan by a group of ragtag militants armed with small arms and mounted on donkeys, bicycles, and motor scooters. The Taliban now has $80 billion worth of U.S. military equipment our leaders left behind. The excuses may have been convincing to the Washington elites and were sold strenuously by regime-aligned media outlets. The rest of the world knows better. The old post-Vietnam collapse tropes, claiming “we would have won if only we were really allowed to fight,” ring hollow after twenty years, hundreds of thousands killed and made homeless, and several trillion dollars spent on that disaster.

    Contrary to the many assertions that the Russians would collapse from the shock and awe of the “sanctions from Hell,” the ruble has not turned into rubble as Joe Biden predicted. The U.S. and its NATO clients are running out of ammunition and arms to send to Ukraine, which is being bled white at their behest. It appears that Russia will steadily grind down the Ukrainian military. All of this is reminiscent of World War I. The proto-neoconservatives sold that war as a quick engagement that would be over by Christmas 1914. Four years later, 20 million were dead and many more were wounded or displaced; subsequently most of the European Christian monarchies collapsed, Russia descended into communism’s seventy-year nightmare, and the “War to End all Wars” to make the world “safe for democracy” set the stage for the even more horrific World War II.

    A century later, we are sleepwalking into World War III. Americans should ignore the state-sponsored propaganda (eerily similar to that which led up to WWI), wake up, look at what their leaders have wrought, and do all they can to end support for this cruel war before we face a Great War–like conflagration or worse.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 22:30

  • CDC, FDA Respond To Florida Surgeon General's COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Alert
    CDC, FDA Respond To Florida Surgeon General’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Alert

    Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    U.S. health authorities have responded to the warning from Florida’s surgeon general about a spike in reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.

    Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, speaks in Washington on June 16, 2022. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

    Drs. Rochelle Walensky and Robert Califf claimed in the response that Dr. Joseph Ladapo, the surgeon general, was misleading the public by focusing on the increase in adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

    “The claim that the increase of VAERS reports of life-threatening conditions reported from Florida and elsewhere represents an increase of risk caused by the COVID-19 vaccines is incorrect, misleading, and could be harmful to the American public,” Walensky and Califf said in the missive.

    Walensky heads the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Califf heads of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The CDC and FDA co-manage VAERS, which accepts reports from anybody but which is primarily used by healthcare workers.

    The COVID-19 vaccines were given emergency authorization in late 2020. Under the emergency authorizations, vaccine companies and healthcare workers are required to report certain adverse events through VAERS, “so more reports should be expected,” Walensky and Califf said.

    “Most reports do not represent adverse events caused by the vaccine and instead represent a preexisting condition that preceded vaccination or an underlying medical condition that precipitated the event,” they said.

    They did not cite any studies or other research to support the claim.

    While anyone can lodge reports with the system, authorities request medical records and other documentation in an effort to verify reports of certain events. Out of 1,826 reports of heart inflammation after Pfizer or Moderna vaccination in adults through May 26, 2022, for instance, the CDC verified 72 percent.

    The CDC also identified hundreds of safety signals for the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines through analyzing VAERS data in 2022, according to records obtained by The Epoch Times. A safety signal is a possible sign of a side effect. Only a handful of adverse events are definitely caused by the vaccines, according to the CDC, including myocarditis, or heart inflammation, and severe allergic shock.

    Ladapo said in February that in Florida, the number of reports to VAERS after the COVID-19 vaccines were authorized spiked by 1,700 percent, while the increase in vaccine administration rose by just 400 percent.

    “We have never seen this type of response following previous mass vaccination efforts pushed by the federal government,” Ladapo said in a letter to Walensky and Califf.

    “These findings are unlikely to be related to changes in reporting given their magnitude, and more likely reflect a pattern of increased risk from mRNA COVID-19 vaccines,” he added, calling for “unbiased research … to better understand these vaccines’ short- and long-term effects.” The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines both use messenger RNA (mRNA) technology.

    Florida officials pointed to a study that found in the original clinical trials that the vaccinated were more at risk of serious adverse events, as well as other papers that found an increased risk of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination.

    Florida currently recommends against COVID-19 vaccination for young, healthy males who have been shown to be at the highest risk of myocarditis. Vaccinating the population “doesn’t make any sense” from a risk-benefit standpoint, Ladapo, appointed by Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, told The Epoch Times. The heart inflammation causes serious problems and can even lead to death in some cases.

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 21:50

  • Car Dealerships Hit With Profitability Squeeze As Auto Industry Cracks
    Car Dealerships Hit With Profitability Squeeze As Auto Industry Cracks

    Auto dealerships are encountering a major problem where auction (wholesale) prices are increasing while real book values stagnate, squeezing profitability. 

    To make sense of this, auto-guru CarDealershipGuy expanded on our tweet, pointing out that Manheim wholesale auto prices are re-accelerating while other indexes tracking prices were flat. 

    Here’s what was revealed in the conversation as per the auto expert:

    Manheim is tracking auctions. Dealers ARE paying more for cars. A LOT more. But the issue dealers are running into is SELLING those cars.

     JD Power – one of the industry’s main sources of Vehicle Book Values that auto lenders rely on to value collateral – hasn’t materially adjusted upwards. 

    This has left dealers high-and-dry and without a profitable outlet for all the inventory they just acquired for OVER book value. 

    And that is leading to lots of dealers selling cars to consumers at a front-end LOSS (meaning, lose money on actual cars) while hoping to make it up on the back-end (with value-added products like warranties). 

    Speaking for myself, our vehicle purchase price has slightly RISEN but our ASP (average sale price) has barely budged. 

    Separately, CarDealershipGuy went even more in-depth about underwater auto dealerships in a recent blog post:

    Cars are appreciating again and this presents problems for both dealerships and consumers. Here’s why:

    Ask any dealer and they will tell you that appreciating wholesale prices is a phenomenon we haven’t seen since the craziness of 2021. There hasn’t been a tax season where we’ve seen wholesale prices for mainstream, bread-and-butter cars at $3K above the “book value.” [Book values are current wholesale and retail market price estimates provided by various publishers, such as NADA, Kelly Blue Book, Black Book, JD Power, and other companies]

    Look at this example from a recent sale at an auction:

    A 2016 Honda Civic LX with 68K miles was listed with an auction value of $15,800 and sold for $16,100. The JD Power book value is listed at only $12,925 for clean and $12,050 for average conditions. This is a 7-year-old Honda Civic we are talking about. See what’s wrong here? While wholesale prices have been increasing for 3 months, book values haven’t caught up yet!

    This is just one example, but as other dealers can attest, it is an increasingly common occurrence.

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

    So what are the consequences?

    Dealers struggle to make a profit, and thus, sell a car: There’s no “water” (industry term for profit or ‘spread’) in the deal from the get-go. Lagging book values certainly hurts dealer margins, but there’s another issue:

    Inaccurate book values hinder dealerships’ ability to secure financing for consumers because lenders use book values to underwrite loans(!)

    Even if a lender is willing to accept the 120% loan-to-value ratio, it would still require a large down payment of ~$5K to secure a loan. Faced with increased delinquencies, lenders want to take less risk and charge dealers more for each loan, further squeezing dealer margins.

    Consumers in the prime credit segment don’t need to worry, but those in subprime and deep subprime should expect it to become increasingly difficult to get into cars.

    He presented an outlook similar to ours about the turmoil ahead:

    We are in for a bumpy ride: the outlook for subprime shoppers is bleak, and dealers are facing additional headwinds from higher wholesale prices, lack of inventory, and inaccurate book values.

    Aside from the issue of auto dealerships experiencing losses from selling vehicles, subprime borrowers are also having difficulties meeting their monthly payments that exceed $1,000.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 21:30

  • The Fed Can't Give Up The Inflation Fight Yet
    The Fed Can’t Give Up The Inflation Fight Yet

    Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

    Many people in Washington hoped for much better inflation numbers in February. Below zero would have released tears of joy following this rough weekend of bank failures and the first signs of financial instability in these three years of nonstop terrible. Alas, that did not happen. The report came in at a 0.4 percent increase for the month and 6 percent for the year, or three times the Fed’s target.

    Drilling down, there are some really terrible hot spots. Food at home, energy services, and transportation all registered double-digit increases on an annualized basis. You know this intuitively by looking at your utility and grocery bills. Shopping used to be a pleasure. Now it is nothing but pain. We look at those steaks, eggs, and even veggies and think twice and three times. We stand at the cash register with dread. The bill comes and we shake our heads with sadness at what we are going through.

    Remember the days when we would shop with smiles on our faces, see and greet friends, and leave with a spring in our step? Those days are gone, replaced with grumbling, sadness, and deep annoyance all around. Every aisle is filled with crabby people who have a sense that they are getting pillaged. We are alarmed not only at high prices but also the magically shrinking packages.

    “Good time to be on a diet,” everyone thinks. The diet called “one meal a day” (OMAD) starts looking very attractive. And truly Americans of all classes would do well to examine their eating habits. But one might like to do that under less financial duress.

    It’s fair to observe that inflation is not getting worse at the same pace it was last year. But a declining rate of worsening is not anything to cheer about. The Fed must still deal with a depreciation rate of the dollar in terms of goods and services that it cannot tolerate. Already, the dollar has lost 17 cents of value in two years. Something has to change.

    Informed opinion over the weekend hoped that the Fed would stop the wild war on inflation with fewer rate increases over the coming months. My own read on Jerome Powell is that he is in no mood to do that. He made up his mind two years ago that he was wrong to accommodate Congress’s spending mania for a virus and reversed course.

    He further knew that his rate increases would naturally devalue the portfolios of major banks that had stored its cash excess in fixed-rate government securities and other mortgage-backed products. They had plenty of time to sell those at a discount. So far as he is concerned, the balance-sheet problems of Silicon Valley Bank are not his problems. They are a matter for the risk-management team to solve.

    It appears too that there is a real difference of opinion between the Fed and the Biden administration at this point. Over the week, the Biden administration via the Treasury and the deposit insurers went out on a limb to guarantee the deposits of failing banks—an absurd and dangerous promise that cannot be applied across the board. Powell didn’t make that decision but neither is he in a position to stop it. That’s for regulators to decide and he is not among them. His job is to land the economy away from inflationary excesses come hell or high water. Unless someone gets to him, my bet is for the rate increases to continue.

    There are two theories concerning why last week’s bank failures have not led to a broader contagion. One credits the Biden administration’s policy of universal deposit insurance. But it is more likely the case that these particular failures were not systemic but rather trace to poor management by the banks themselves. It would be nice to know. All the Biden administration had to do was let them fail and watch the results. Alas, that didn’t happen.

    A major factor in why the Biden administration did the wrong thing owed to major players in industry and banking screaming that something had to happen. In a panic and watching financial opinion turn ever more south on a Sunday, the regulators jumped in to promise something that is simply impossible: universal guarantees. This was a huge error.

    Another error was putting President Biden on stage to promise the American people that the banking system is sound. It’s like these people truly believe that they still have credibility. They do not. Viewers listen to them and naturally assume that the opposite is true. Free advice: never trot that geezer out to assure anyone in a crisis. He has zero credibility and his every word does damage to any message they want to deliver.

    As a result of this mess, we now have two de facto monetary policies operating at cross purposes. We have the regulators captured by the Biden administration pushing looser money and credit, and indeed promising more floods to fix any problems that emerge in the future. On the other hand, we have Powell and the Fed sticking to their guns on tighter money to restrain the effects of excesses of 2020 and 2021.

    This morning’s CPI numbers make the point that the Fed still has a lot of work to do. In addition, it is actually difficult to discern long-run and underlying trends from month to month numbers. After all, last summer we saw one month (July) when inflation actually registered as flat. Last month’s numbers seemed to indicate a re-acceleration, despite what the headlines said.

    Remember that these numbers are always in the past. What is going on now? We are certainly seeing the rate at which food is going up beginning to relax a bit. February was certainly terrible but March is less so. On the other hand, have you seen gas prices lately? For the year, we are up by 40 cents a gallon. It does not look good. And we can fully anticipate that renewed demand with spring and summer coming is going to put more upward pressure on gas prices.

    Overall over three years, there is no room for optimism about the price at the pump. This became obvious to me yesterday when the discount, members-only station had a line around several blocks. People are willing to wait 45 minutes just to save a few bucks on gas. That’s when you know that matters are becoming more intense.

    The Fed has more than enough evidence on its side to continue the tightening campaign. This will put more pressure on heavily leveraged companies because the costs of servicing their debt are rising ever more and eating into their capacity to retain huge labor costs. For a sign, have a look at Meta/Facebook which just announced another huge round of layoffs. This indicates some hardcore balance-sheet pressure.

    We are nowhere near done with this. The right side of the yield curve will continue to offload capital to the left and that means growing layoffs in information technology and professional services even as retail and hospitality are facing real shortages. The Fed’s determination to arrest the inflation problem means that this shift will continue.

    As for the woke banks, they will all likely bite the dust before this is over. And herein we find the silver lining in all this upheaval. We are getting back to the realities of finance about which markets have been in denial for many years.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 21:10

  • New Wuhan Scandal: US Agencies Double-Paid Virus Research Costs
    New Wuhan Scandal: US Agencies Double-Paid Virus Research Costs

    The US government may have made tens of millions of dollars in duplicate payments for virus research at the Wuhan Institute for Virology, according to a review of government records by a former federal investigator, CBS News reports. 

    “What I’ve found so far is evidence that points to double billing, potential theft of government funds. It is concerning, especially since it involves dangerous pathogens and risky research,” said Diane Cutler, whose services were engaged by Kansas Republican Senator Roger Marshall. 

    Cutler has more than 20 years of experience investigating healthcare fraud and white-collar crime, an her conclusions spring from her review of over 50,000 documents relating to US grants that financed coronavirus research in China. 

    The Wuhan Institute of Virology (Roman Pilipey/EPA via The Guardian)

    The apparent double-payments, made via the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and US Agency for International Development (USAID), related to a variety of claimed costs, including salaries, travel, medical supplies and equipment.  

    Anonymous sources told CBS the damage may amount to tens of millions of dollars. Marshall has turned over Cutler’s findings to USAID and the agency’s internal watchdog, which has launched an investigation of its own. It could take six months or more. 

    On Feb. 28, FBI Director Christopher Wray said the bureau had long ago concluded the Covid-19 pandemic was most likely the result of a leak from a Chinese lab. Days earlier, it was reported that the Department of Energy had — in 2020 — reached its own determination that a lab leak was most likely. 

    This month, former NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci was accused of prompting a cadre of scientists to publish a paper disproving the lab-leak theory — just days after scientists warned Fauci, in February 2020, that Covid-19 may have indeed leaked from a lab.  

    Two authors of that same paper — who initially expressed concerns over a lab-leak but then changed their tune — went on to receive millions in NIH grants under Fauci.

    Fauci earned at least $480,654 a year in his NIH-NIAID role, making him the highest-paid employee in the federal government. Now, the increasingly disgraced graduate of the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts is raking in a pension estimated at $414,000 — more than the US presidential salary.   

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 20:50

  • Trump Publishing Private Letters From High-Profile Figures Including Kim Jong Un, Hillary Clinton, Oprah
    Trump Publishing Private Letters From High-Profile Figures Including Kim Jong Un, Hillary Clinton, Oprah

    Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Former President Donald Trump is set to release 150 private letters sent to him from an array of high-profile political figures and celebrities including former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, and Oprah Winfrey.

    Former President Donald Trump arrives to address the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Md., on March 4, 2023. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

    The letters will be published in Trump’s new book, titled “Letters to Trump,” which will be released on April 25, according to the book’s publisher, Winning Team Publishing.

    The publisher describes it as “a colorful photo book” that captures the “incredible, and oftentimes private correspondence, between President Donald J. Trump and some of the biggest names in history throughout the past 40 years.”

    “From President Richard Nixon to Princess Diana, and from Hillary Clinton, to Chairman Kim Jong Un, no book offers a glimpse into history quite like Letters to Trump,” the publisher stated on its official website.

    Axios reported that the book also includes letters from Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Mario Cuomo, Arnold Palmer, Jay Leno, Liza Minnelli, Regis Philbin, and more.

    Among them is a letter from television host Winfrey dating back to 2000 in which she says: “Too bad we’re not running for office. What a team!” according to the report.

    Trump on ‘Cunning’ Kim Jong Un

    Every letter published within the book has been personally handpicked by Trump and is accompanied by his original commentary as well as transcripts when handwriting is not completely clear, according to the publisher.

    The latest book marks the second official book to be released by the 45th president of the United States with Winning Team after the release of “Our Journey Together“—his first book since leaving office—in December 2021.

    Trump is the co-founder of Winning Team Publishing and his first book, which featured captioned photographs of his time in the White House, made $20 million in sales in the first two months, according to Axios.

    Speaking of the new book in a phone call with reporters from the Daily Mail and other publications on March 9, Trump explained, “We had lots of great letters from lots of great people and not so great people, to be honest with you.”

    “But they’re very famous people. And probably there’s never been such diversity as this in terms of people where the letters come from and who they come from,” Trump said.

    During the phone call, the former president also spoke of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, whose correspondence with Trump is featured in the new book, describing him as “very smart, very cunning, very streetwise.”

    “We spoke a lot, actually, we spoke a lot and I think we had really, you know, a great relationship,” Trump said of the North Korean leader. “But I thought Kim Jong Un is a very, very interesting guy, and we had a good relationship. And I think he’s not a happy person right now with respect to the Biden administration.”

    Read more here…

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 20:30

  • Uber, Lyft Shift Into Gear As California Court Rules Gig Workers Are Contractors
    Uber, Lyft Shift Into Gear As California Court Rules Gig Workers Are Contractors

    Shares of Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. traded higher today following the decision of a California appeals court to uphold the law that categorizes gig workers as independent contractors rather than employees. 

    The 132-page decision, released on Monday evening, struck down a lower-court ruling that found Proposition 22, the state measure that lets companies classify workers as independent contractors, violated California’s constitution.

    This means the so-called gig economy business model is preserved for now. 

    Gig economy companies spent a whopping $200 million convincing drivers that Prop. 22 would provide them with more flexibility and some benefits. 

    “Across the state, drivers and couriers have said they are happy with Prop. 22, which affords them new benefits while preserving the unique flexibility of app-based work,” Tony West, Uber’s chief legal officer, told Bloomberg.

    “We’re pleased that the court respected the will of the people, and that Prop. 22 will remain in force,” West said. 

    Uber and Lyft shares were both up over 5% in the pre-market after the three-judge panel of the state appeals court ruled in favor of the companies, but LYFT gave back most of those gains as the day wore on with UBER outperforming. 

    According to Jefferies analysts, Lyft, DoorDash, and Uber have managed to evade a potential impact of $20 million to $170 million on their 2024 core earnings.

    “The ruling clears the path for Uber’s continued stock outperformance,” Jefferies analyst John Colantuoni wrote.

    The analysts anticipate that the decision will likely face a challenge in the California Supreme Court.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 20:10

  • Taibbi: In FBI Case, The First Amendment Takes Another Bizarre Hit
    Taibbi: In FBI Case, The First Amendment Takes Another Bizarre Hit

    Authored by Matt Taibbi via Racket News,

    Racket readers may recall that in November, shortly before the Twitter Files began, I ran an interview with Steve Friend, a onetime FBI agent who lost his career after blowing the whistle on the Bureau.

    Friend refused to participate in a bureaucratic scheme to put local agents across the country in charge of J6 cases that were really being run out of the Washington office, a plan that made one Washington-based case look like a national map full of domestic terror cases popping up everywhere. He also objected to heavy-handed tactics like the use of S.W.A.T. teams for a suspect communicating voluntarily through an attorney, and the questioning of people in connection with J6 in cases where the state had little to no evidence. From that story:

    Friend didn’t think the interview was warranted, and worried the feds showing up at someone’s door without cause “might do more harm than good” in a part of the country where government was unpopular already. He sucked it up and did the “knock and talk” anyway.

    “I said, ‘Hey, were you at the Capitol?’” Friend recalls. “And he said, ‘No, that was my son’s funeral that day. I wasn’t there.’”

    He shakes his head. “It hit me like a ton of bricks. I thought, I can’t believe I just made this guy relive that. And for what? Even if he’d admitted to being there, if he said, ‘I was there, I don’t wanna talk about it,’ I couldn’t even charge that.”

    But even though Friend had reservations about some of the cases, his main concern was procedural — that by playing bureaucratic games with who was running these investigations, and putting locals nominally in charge of cases where they were really in supporting roles, they put all of the court cases in jeopardy. “A lot of these guys are bad dudes, and they should go to jail,” he said, about the Oath Keepers. But if “we didn’t follow our rules… we set ourselves up to get crushed at trial,” adding, “I want to win.”

    A little over a week ago, the same Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Government that organized the Twitter Files hearings privately heard testimony from Steve and two other FBI whistleblowers. The Democratic Party response to Steve and his colleagues was eerily similar to tactics pulled out against myself and Mike Shellenberger:

    — Mike and I were not real journalists, they said, but “so-called journalists.” Steve and his fellow agents “are not, in fact, whistleblowers,” according to the minority report, and “do not meet the definition of a whistle-blower,” according to the New York Times.

    — I was told by Florida’s Debbie Wasserman-Schultz that “being a Republican witness certainly casts a cloud over your objectivity”; Democratic Party sources told the Times that Steve and fellow agents Garret O’Boyle and George Hill “have engaged in partisan conduct that calls into question their credibility”;

    — Democratic questioners in our case asked us about our opinions on Russian interference, and one said openly that failing to agree with them on that issue disqualified us from the “nuanced convo”; Steve, George, and Garrett were repeatedly quizzed about their attitudes toward various right-wing movements, suggesting that their opinions about these matters made them ineligible to offer procedural complaints. Friend, for instance, was asked about statements by “Three Percenters”:

    Q: (Quoting from flyer) “Remember this, it comes straight from our Declaration of Independence, that whenever any form ofgovernment becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it. That is why you are here. For massive change to occurmassive action must be taken. Patriots, we are the lifeblood of this great nation, and it’s time we prove that.” Do you have an opinion about this statement?

    Friend: It seems like First Amendment-protected activity.

    — Michael and I were repeatedly quizzed about money we may have made during the Twitter Files period, with Wasserman-Schultz going so far as to harangue my about my Twitter followers tripling and to ask us if we were paid for our testimony; Committee Democrats accused Friend of having “profited, and is profiting, from making his allegations about the FBI public”;

    — Congressman Colin Allred told me to “take off my tinfoil hat”; the three FBI agents were accused of “conspiratorial social media posts,” as the Times put it.

    — Allred also blasted me for criticizing the “national security agencies” and told me to go home and “grapple” with the reality that the “very rights you think they’re trying to undermine, they may be trying to protect”; Friend and his fellow agents were accused of aiding in a “vendetta against the FBI”;

    — Shellenberger and I were accused of being stooges of Elon Musk; Friend and the agents, agents of Kash Patel.

    But the most outrageous portion of the Democratic Party’s report came in a section claiming that, because the agents were not really whistleblowers, and therefore really just expressing their opinion, they were not covered. “No law,” they wrote, “protects witnesses who speak to congress under these circumstances.”

    The Whistleblower Protection Act specifically and the First Amendment generally come to mind, but not to this Committee office.

    The style of the new anti-speech Democrat is clear: define all government critics as lacking standing to criticize, impugn their prior opinions and associations, imply that all their beliefs are conspiracy theory, define their lack of faith in the FBI’s judgment as treasonous, and declare their motivation to be financial. Lastly, when they invoke common constitutional rights, make a note that their activities exist in an uncovered carve-out.

    This is the playbook, and we all better get used to it.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 19:50

  • DeSantis Admin Yanks Hyatt Miami Liquor License For Hosting "Drag Queen Christmas" With Kids Present
    DeSantis Admin Yanks Hyatt Miami Liquor License For Hosting “Drag Queen Christmas” With Kids Present

    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ administration is revoking the Hyatt Regency Miami’s alcohol license after it hosted “A Drag Queen Christmas” with children present in the audience.

    In a 17-page complaint filed Tuesday by the state’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation, the state claims that the Hyatt’s James L. Knight Center violated several laws, including a prohibition of “lascivious exhibition” in front of people younger than 16, according to Florida’s Voice.

    According to the complaint the “acts of simulated sexual activity, and lewd, vulgar, and indecent displays” included:

    • Performers forcibly penetrating or rubbing exposed prosthetic female breasts against faces of audience members

    • Intentionally exposing performers’ prosthetic female breasts and genitalia to the audience

    • Intentionally exposing performers’ buttocks to the audience

    • Simulating masturbation through performers’ digitally penetrating prosthetic female genital

    • Graphic depictions of childbirth and/or abortion

    DeSantis supported the move.

    “Sexually explicit content is not appropriate to display to children and doing so violates Florida law,” his press secretary Bryan Griffin told Insider. “Governor DeSantis stands up for the innocence of children in the classroom and throughout Florida.”

    Hyatt Regency Miami will be allowed to continue selling alcoholic beverages until the department makes a final decision, and it has 21 days to request a hearing, according to department spokeswoman Beth Pannell in a statement to Insider.

    Regulators had warned the facility to change how it marketed the show before it went live, according to a copy of the letter included in the complaint. The letter accused the marketers of putting on a performance that constitutes “public nuisances, lewd activity, and disorderly conduct” when minors are present.

    The impetus of the letter was a screenshot where tickets were being sold that read “all ages welcome.” The department warned the venue not to admit minors or otherwise face penalties, including an alcohol license revocal. -Insider

    Last year DeSantis signed a bill into law prohibiting schools from including gender and sexual orientation from being taught in classrooms up to the third grade. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 19:30

  • There's No Such Thing As 'Healthy Obesity'
    There’s No Such Thing As ‘Healthy Obesity’

    Authored by Ross Pomeroy via RealClear Wire,

    Conventional wisdom, along with boatloads of scientific evidence, point to obesity being universally unhealthy, leading to diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and many more problems. But in recent years, that conventional wisdom has been challenged by a “U.”

    The obesity paradox

    That “U” appeared on graphs charting the link between body-mass index — a common but imperfect gauge of whether or not someone’s weight is healthy, calculated simply by dividing their mass by the square of their body height in meters — and their risk of death. Numerous epidemiological studies have found that people in the “overweight” category (BMI 25-30) surprisingly have the lowest mortality risk, while those categorized as “obese” (30-35) have little or no increased risk over the “healthy” (18.5-25). At the extreme ends of the BMI spectrum, both the “underweight” (less than 18.5) and the extremely obese (35+) have a greatly increased risk of death. Furthermore, numerous studies also have suggested that obesity might lower the risk of death for older people and patients with various chronic diseases.

    Considering what we know about the health pitfalls of increased body fat, one would expect a mostly straight line of rising mortality risk as one goes from a BMI of healthy to obese. That’s why the “U-shaped” mortality curve has been dubbed the “obesity paradox.”

    But in recent years, that paradox, and the studies that created it, have come under fire. Critics chiefly contend that BMI is a flawed way to determine whether someone has obesity. That’s because it does not measure the composition of one’s body mass — that is, how much is fat and how much is muscle. Nor does BMI measure where fat is located, which can make a big difference. Visceral fat jammed among internal organs is much worse than subcutaneous fat stored just beneath the skin. For example, an extremely fit and muscular individual could easily make it into the obese BMI category. At the same time, a “skinny” individual with a lot of body fat nestled dangerously around their mid-section could be categorized as “healthy.”

    Why has BMI been so frequently used in epidemiological studies? Because it’s convenient, readily calculated based on self report. On the other hand, measuring body fat requires subjects to take a trip to a lab or to conduct the measurement on themselves, which can be quite difficult for a layperson to do accurately.

    Replace BMI with body fat

    In a review article published in 2020, researchers from Sapienza University in Italy noted that excess body fat should be used to measure obesity instead of BMI.

    When a team of researchers adjusted BMI to take muscle mass into account back in 2018, then associated this corrected measure with mortality risk, they found that the “U” mostly transformed into a straight line. Extremely obese individuals went from having only a marginally increased risk of death compared to healthy individuals to about a 70% increased risk.

    More recently, Ryan Masters, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Colorado, tried to resolve the obesity paradox by taking more confounding variables into account. He examined nearly 40 years of data from almost 18,000 subjects, and he not only considered subjects’ distribution of body fat, he also tallied the amount of time that they spent at a high or low BMI.

    “I would argue that we have been artificially inflating the mortality risk in the low-BMI category by including those who had been high BMI and had just lost weight recently,” he explained in a statement. “The health and mortality consequences of high BMI are not like a light switch,” he added. “There’s an expanding body of work suggesting that the consequences are duration-dependent.”

    Obesity paradox debunked

    After accounting for the potential biases in the data, Masters found that obesity boosts one’s risk of death by as much as 91%, vastly more than previous studies suggested. The U-shaped curve disappeared, and the paradox along with it. He further estimated that about 1 in 6 U.S. deaths are related to excess weight.

    “Paradoxes should be met with skepticism,” a pair of public health experts wrote in a 2017 op-ed in the International Journal of Obesity. “Counterintuitive results should be discussed with colleagues and collaborators with different areas of expertise. The only ‘paradox’ we can see here is why researchers continue to claim to have evidence of a paradox without careful consideration of potential methodological explanations.”

    This article was first published at Big Think.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 19:10

  • Putin: "Complete Nonsense" That Anyone Other Than State Actor Behind Pipeline Explosions
    Putin: “Complete Nonsense” That Anyone Other Than State Actor Behind Pipeline Explosions

    “I am certain that this is complete nonsense,” President Vladimir Putin said in fresh statements to Russian media on Tuesday, making rare detailed remarks concerning the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. He was referencing the latest narrative out of the West which claims a mysterious “pro-Ukrainian group” was behind the pipeline bombings.

    Last Tuesday The New York Times published a story making the claim, and quickly an avalanche of follow-up stories have appeared across Western media asserting a similar narrative. Putin says that these stories are intended to run cover in order to hide a “state” actor. He stressed that only specialists backed by a government which possesses “certain technologies” could be capable of such a complex, deep underwater operation.

    Illustrative, EPA via Shutterstock

    Putin’s full statement given while on a visit to an aircraft plant in Russia’s Buryatia republic region is as follows, per state media translation: “I’m sure this is complete nonsense. An explosion of this kind – of such power, at such depth, can only be carried out by specialists, and supported by the entire power of a state, possessing certain technologies.”

    The Western media narrative of a rogue “pro-Ukrainian” unit being behind the sabotage op began emerging almost a month after Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published his bombshell report which said President Biden ordered the attack on the natural gas pipelines. It detailed the CIA’s role in conjunction with an elite US Navy deep sea diving team as well, and with the help of Norwegian intelligence.

    Putin in his new remarks also pointed the finger at the United States, but stopped short of a direct accusation. According to a translated summary of his words in Sputnik: 

    He also suggested that one should probably consider who would be interested in the destruction of Nord Stream, noting that, theoretically, the United States could have been one such entity as such act of sabotage would help them cut the flow of Russian gas to the European market so that the US could supply greater amount of its own, much more expensive liquefied natural gas there.

    The Russian president added that, while repairing the damaged Nord Stream pipelines would be no mean feat, it probably could be done, though such undertaking would require time, money and new technologies.

    The Russian leader also weighed on on the possibility of a repair and the question of future operability:

    He noted, however, that the Nord Stream project would have a future only if Russia’s European partners were to remember about their own national interest, as it would seem that, currently, they are doing whatever it is they are told “from across the ocean.”

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

    Following Hersh’s report, US officials and establishment media sought to portray the famed reporter as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ who is far past the prime of his career. This despite Hersh’s track record of blockbuster investigative journalism and his breaking major stories spanning decades speaking. It remains that he’s among the most celebrated journalists in American history who was proven right time and again. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 18:50

  • A Mismatch Of Short And Long-Term Interest
    A Mismatch Of Short And Long-Term Interest

    Authored by Kane McGukin via The Mesh Point,

    The relationship between Silicon Valley Bank, our attention spans, and our money.

    Investing requires the ability to manage funds such that you are able to cover both your short-term needs and your long-term wants + needs. The tricky part is there’s no one perfect way to do it.

    The case of Silicon Valley Bank and its failure/takeover is a great example of what happens when there is a mismatch between your short and long interests; you go bust!

    • What’s the real issue at hand?

    • What’s the root cause?

    • What’s the signal in all the noise of why and how it happens?

    To me, the Silvergate unwind, Silicon Valley, and Signature Bank takeovers this past week and weekend are a microcosm of what’s wrong with society at the moment. It’s a signal that something is off.

    It’s a warning sign that there is a greater need to pay attention. To seek the facts and not take the easy route. Pursue depth over quickness. Long-form over short and sweet.

    It’s a tell-tale sign that what’s really wrong is a lack of truth throughout the entire system. There’s a need for proof of reserves.

    Societally we suffer the same fate as Silicon Valley. There’s a mismatch between our interests. We’re watching a heavy pursuit of short-term pleasures (Tiktok) over our long-term interest (productivity) while seeking the easiest way to get things as instant as possible. There’s entirely too much focus on the short term without any real thought as to the ramifications of our decisions over the long run.

    That’s the portfolio mistake that SIVB made. That’s the life mistake it appears most are making. If you invest in bonds with low yields for immediate gratification and ignore that when rates rise you won’t be able to satisfy investor demands. Then deposits leave. If you invest in instant gratification because it feels good, you won’t be able to fund the future you *expect* to have if things *unexpectedly* change.

    The case of SIVB is a great example. One we’ve seen many times over. In an integrated world, money moves fast. So, if your interest is out of line and focused too far in the near term or too far in the long term, then you very likely won’t be ready for the challenges that are sure to arise.

    Especially, if you don’t have a plan.

    *  *  *

    Subscribe to the Bombthrower mailing list to get these posts as they come out, and follow Kane McGukin via his Substack and Twitter.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 18:30

  • Treasury To Give Biden Family 'Suspicious Activity' Banking Reports To GOP Investigators
    Treasury To Give Biden Family ‘Suspicious Activity’ Banking Reports To GOP Investigators

    The Treasury Department is finally complying with a request to release suspicious activity reports (SARs) generated in connection with the Biden family and their associates’ business transactions.

    US banks have filed over 150 SARs from Hunter and President Joe Biden’s brother, James, which included “large” amounts of money tagged for further review by the Treasury. According to a 2020 report, SARs “often contain evidence of potential criminal activities, such as money laundering and fraud.”

    In December, the Treasury denied Congressional investigators access to the SARs.

    “Most Americans have never heard the term ‘Suspicious Activity Reports.’ These are actual reports that financial institutions file with the Treasury Department when they see suspicious activity,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan told Epoch TV’s Joshua Phillip in an interview for the “Newsmakers” program at the time.

    “Typically, it’s money laundering type of activity, so most Americans don’t get these. Or if they do, there is a good reason for it. But there are 150 of them on Hunter Biden and Jim Biden, the President’s brother, and that to me is a big concern,” Jordan said.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsHouse Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) demanded the records from the Treasury on January 11, however the Treasury denied the request – citing “improper disclosure” of relevant information which could hinder the Biden administration’s ability to “conduct of law enforcement, intelligence, and national security activities,” Breitbart reports.

    The Treasury’s compliance comes after the committee’s probe has so far met resistance from Hunter Biden and from some of his associates, such as Serbian politician Vuk Jeremić and Hunter’s art dealer.

    While the probe has met resistance, the committee has found a few key individuals willing to comply. The Biden family’s former top financial lieutenant Eric Schwerin is expected to “soon” provide requested documents to the committee. Schwerin, who shared bank accounts with Joe Biden and was dubbed the family’s “moneyman,” was also the president of Rosemont Seneca Partners, a fund created by Hunter Biden and several​ associates that spawned business deals in Russia, Ukraine, China, and Romania.

    In addition, Joe Biden’s former executive assistant Kathy Chung is scheduled on April 4 to sit for a requested transcribed interview with the committee’s investigation into the Biden family business and Joe Biden’s classified document scandal. Chung was hired as Joe Biden’s assistant when he was vice president after a recommendation from Hunter Biden. Chung appears in numerous email threads on Hunter’s “laptop from hell.” -Breitbart

    “It’s As Bad As We Thought”

    On Sunday, Comer told Fox News‘ Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures” that money from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) flowed to the Biden family.

    “It’s as bad as we thought… Since we’ve last spoken we have bank records in hand.  We have individuals who are working with our committee,” said Comer.

    “In the last two weeks we’ve met with either these individuals personally or with their attorneys.  And that would be four individuals who had ties in with the Biden family in their various schemes around the world. So now we have in hand documents  We have in hand documents in hand that show just how the Biden family was getting money from the Chinese Communist Party.“

    Watch:

    Suspicious activities indeed…

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

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 18:10

  • Why Not Let Banks Fail?
    Why Not Let Banks Fail?

    Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    Imagine that for the last 100 years, the federal government’s policy was to bail out every business that was in danger of going under. The policy would consist of shoveling large amounts of subsidies into the business in order to help it remain in business. If, however, the business failed anyway, the federal government would pay a large sum of money to the owners of the business as well as to the business’s employees to enable them to transition to other lines of work.

    Now, for a true-blue socialist, this would sound like a tremendously fine idea.

    It would conjure up images of Medicare for All, the socialist healthcare system by which the federal government would provide or guarantee healthcare services for everyone — for “free.”

    In actuality, however, it would be an enormously bad idea, which I think everyone, except true-blue socialists, would instinctively realize. 

    After all, where would the federal government get all that money to cover all the businesses that fail on a regular basis. Yep. Taxation! The feds would have to be taxing the American people — big time — to keep up with providing subsidies to all those failing businesses. It would’t be long before Americans found themselves paying income taxes totaling maybe 90 percent or more of their incomes to provide all the money to fund this giant socialist scheme.

    Moreover, all that free money would encourage all sorts of inefficient businesses. Everybody would be opening up businesses knowing that if they failed, the government would be there to bail them out. Obviously, that would only exacerbate the taxation problem.

    The United States now has an economic system in which there is massive governmental intervention, both with respect to large welfare-state programs (e.g., Social Security and Medicare) and economic regulation. Nonetheless, there is still an instinctive commitment to the principles of a genuine free-market economy — that is, one in which economic enterprise is free of government control and intervention — one in which people are free to keep everything they earn, do what they want with their own money, and freely enter into economic transactions with others. That was America’s founding economic system. 

    Everyone knows that in a free market, there are no guarantees of success. Life entails risk. Some people take the road of high risk. Other try to play it perfectly safe. Most people live their lives somewhere in between.

    Many people invest money in the stock market. When they do so, they are buying stock in a particular company. They know that the value of that stock can go up and it can go down. They also know that the company could even go under, which could entail a total loss of their investment.

    When that happens, the government doesn’t bail out the investor, even if the investor has lost his entire life’s savings. Moreover, no one cries out for the government to do so. It has become part of our economic culture that people invest their money at their own risk. If people don’t want to risk losing their money in the stock market, they should stay out of the stock market. 

    Obviously, this no-bail-out policy should cause people to be cautious about which companies to invest in. Since the government isn’t going to bail out investor, it behooves people to do research on companies or to rely on trusted financial advisors who have done their homework on companies. This leads to a more enlightened citizenry and more efficient businesses.

    Why not treat banks the same way?

    If people put their money in a bank that fails, why should they be treated any differently from people who invest their money in a company that fails? If they choose the wrong bank, why should taxpayers be forced to cover their bad or wrong decision? Why not simply let the bank go under, just as we let companies go under? 

    In a genuine free market, people would be much more careful about which banks to put their money into. Like with the purchase of stocks, they would be more likely to do research on banks or rely on trusted financial advisors who do that for a living.

    People who wished to take bigger risks for a higher return would select banks that were riskier than others. People who wished to play it safe would select more secure banks with a lower return. 

    Under the bank system in which we live today, the government “insures” deposits in excess of $250,000. Yet, the government doesn’t always follow this policy. As we see with Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, the government sometimes covers all the deposits — including those that exceed $250,000 — in the event of a bank failure. Moreover, oftentimes the failed bank is simply absorbed into the banking system rather than simply permitted to go out of existence.

    Obviously, this system doesn’t encourage due diligence on the part of depositors.

    Why should anyone research the financial condition of a bank when the government is going to cover deposits if the bank goes under? Why should anyone worry about buying stock in a bank if the government is going to bail out the bank if it fails? 

    Over time, the entire banking system inevitably becomes weaker and more unstable. At first, individual banks fail, which the government is able to cover. Ultimately, however, this type of system inevitably leads in the direction of an industry-wide banking collapse, one that the government lacks the money to cover, unless it taxes the citizenry an enormously large percentage of their income. 

    That’s, in fact, why the government continues raising the amount of its deposit “insurance” and why it continues to bail out depositors and banks that fail. The government wants to assure depositors that everything is “okay” with its socialist banking system, when, in fact, everything is not “okay” with its socialist banking system.

    Among the biggest mistakes America has ever made was to socialize the banking system. We should get government out of the banking business and restore our heritage of free markets to this sector of the economy. Separating banking and the state is the key to a strong and viable banking system. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 03/14/2023 – 17:50

Digest powered by RSS Digest