- Conspirators For The Constitution: When Anti-Government Speech Becomes Sedition
Conspirators For The Constitution: When Anti-Government Speech Becomes Sedition
Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
– George Orwell
Let’s be clear about one thing: seditious conspiracy isn’t a real crime to anyone but the U.S. government.
To be convicted of seditious conspiracy, the charge levied against Stewart Rhodes who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for being the driving force behind the January 6 Capitol riots, one doesn’t have to engage in violence against the government, vandalize government property, or even trespass on property that the government has declared off-limits to the general public.
To be convicted of seditious conspiracy, one need only foment a revolution.
This is not about whether Rhodes deserves such a hefty sentence.
This is about the long-term ramifications of empowering the government to wage war on individuals whose political ideas and expression challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.
This is about criminalizing political expression in thoughts, words and deeds.
This is about how the government has used the events of Jan. 6 in order to justify further power grabs and acquire more authoritarian emergency powers.
This was never about so-called threats to democracy.
In fact, the history of this nation is populated by individuals whose rhetoric was aimed at fomenting civil unrest and revolution.
Indeed, by the government’s own definition, America’s founders were seditious conspirators based on the heavily charged rhetoric they used to birth the nation.
Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, and John Adams would certainly have been charged for suggesting that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to protect their liberties and defend themselves against the government should it violate their rights.
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government,” insisted Paine.
“When the government violates the people’s rights,” Lafayette warned, “insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.”
Adams cautioned, “A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.”
Had America’s founders feared revolutionary words and ideas, there would have been no First Amendment, which protects the right to political expression, even if that expression is anti-government.
No matter what one’s political persuasion might be, every American has a First Amendment right to protest government programs or policies with which they might disagree.
The right to disagree with and speak out against the government is the quintessential freedom.
Every individual has a right to speak truth to power—and foment change—using every nonviolent means available.
Unfortunately, the government is increasingly losing its tolerance for anyone whose political views could be perceived as critical or “anti-government.”
All of us are in danger.
In recent years, the government has used the phrase “domestic terrorist” interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.”
The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American with an opinion about the government or who knows someone with an opinion about the government an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.
You see, the government doesn’t care if you or someone you know has a legitimate grievance. It doesn’t care if your criticisms are well-founded. And it certainly doesn’t care if you have a First Amendment right to speak truth to power.
What the government cares about is whether what you’re thinking or speaking or sharing or consuming as information has the potential to challenge its stranglehold on power.
Why else would the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies be investing in corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram?
Why else would the Biden Administration be likening those who share “false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information” to terrorists?
Why else would the government be waging war against those who engage in thought crimes?
Get ready for the next phase of the government’s war on thought crimes and truth-tellers.
For years now, the government has used all of the weapons in its vast arsenal—surveillance, threat assessments, fusion centers, pre-crime programs, hate crime laws, militarized police, lockdowns, martial law, etc.—to target potential enemies of the state based on their ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that might be deemed suspicious or dangerous.
For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.
According to one FBI report, you might also be classified as a domestic terrorism threat if you espouse conspiracy theories, especially if you “attempt to explain events or circumstances as the result of a group of actors working in secret to benefit themselves at the expense of others” and are “usually at odds with official or prevailing explanations of events.”
In other words, if you dare to subscribe to any views that are contrary to the government’s, you may well be suspected of being a domestic terrorist and treated accordingly.
There’s a whole spectrum of behaviors ranging from thought crimes and hate speech to whistleblowing that qualifies for persecution (and prosecution) by the Deep State.
Simply liking or sharing this article on Facebook, retweeting it on Twitter, or merely reading it or any other articles related to government wrongdoing, surveillance, police misconduct or civil liberties might be enough to get you categorized as a particular kind of person with particular kinds of interests that reflect a particular kind of mindset that might just lead you to engage in a particular kinds of activities and, therefore, puts you in the crosshairs of a government investigation as a potential troublemaker a.k.a. domestic extremist.
Chances are, as the Washington Post reports, you have already been assigned a color-coded threat score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about your potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether you’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.
In other words, you might already be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the police state’s dictates.
As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies have increasingly invested in corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.
Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.
In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, or appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom.
And then at the other end of the spectrum there are those such as Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, for example, who blow the whistle on government misconduct that is within the public’s right to know.
In true Orwellian fashion, the government would have us believe that it is Assange and Manning who are the real criminals for daring to expose the war machine’s seedy underbelly.
Since his April 2019 arrest, Assange has been locked up in a maximum-security British prison—in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day—pending extradition to the U.S., where if convicted, he could be sentenced to 175 years in prison.
This is how the police state deals with those who challenge its chokehold on power.
This is also why the government fears a citizenry that thinks for itself: because a citizenry that thinks for itself is a citizenry that is informed, engaged and prepared to hold the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law, which translates to government transparency and accountability.
After all, we’re citizens, not subjects.
For those who don’t fully understand the distinction between the two and why transparency is so vital to a healthy constitutional government, Manning explains it well:
When freedom of information and transparency are stifled, then bad decisions are often made and heartbreaking tragedies occur – too often on a breathtaking scale that can leave societies wondering: how did this happen? … I believe that when the public lacks even the most fundamental access to what its governments and militaries are doing in their names, then they cease to be involved in the act of citizenship. There is a bright distinction between citizens, who have rights and privileges protected by the state, and subjects, who are under the complete control and authority of the state.
This is why the First Amendment is so critical. It gives the citizenry the right to speak freely, protest peacefully, expose government wrongdoing, and criticize the government without fear of arrest, isolation or any of the other punishments that have been meted out to whistleblowers such as Edwards Snowden, Assange and Manning.
The challenge is holding the government accountable to obeying the law.
A little over 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in United States v. Washington Post Co. to block the Nixon Administration’s attempts to use claims of national security to prevent The Washington Post and The New York Times from publishing secret Pentagon papers on how America went to war in Vietnam.
As Justice William O. Douglas remarked on the ruling, “The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”
Fast forward to the present day, and we’re witnessing yet another showdown, this time between Assange and the Deep State, which pits the people’s right to know about government misconduct against the might of the military industrial complex.
Yet this isn’t merely about whether whistleblowers and journalists are part of a protected class under the Constitution. It’s a debate over how long “we the people” will remain a protected class under the Constitution.
Following the current trajectory, it won’t be long before anyone who believes in holding the government accountable is labeled an “extremist,” relegated to an underclass that doesn’t fit in, watched all the time, and rounded up when the government deems it necessary.
We’re almost at that point now.
Eventually, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we will all be seditious conspirators in the eyes of the government.
We would do better to be conspirators for the Constitution starting right now.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 23:45 - Where The Most Money Is Burned On Cigars
Where The Most Money Is Burned On Cigars
When it comes to buying cigars, U.S. adults are among the biggest spenders.
However, as Statista’s Anna Fleck notes, while Americans of age to buy tobacco spend around $36 per year on cigars, they are only topped by the Lebanese who spent almost $37 per capita last year on the vice.
You will find more infographics at Statista
Other high rollers who like to spend big on expensive cigars are Qataris, Luxembourgers, Icelanders, the Swiss and the Brits – likely aided by the fact that these countries all have high price levels and/or high taxes on tobacco.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 23:25 - Wanted: Corrupt Stooge For High Political Office. Must Have Pulse
Wanted: Corrupt Stooge For High Political Office. Must Have Pulse
Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,
With only days to go before the federal government of the Land of the Free defaults on its debt, it appears that a compromise may finally be on the horizon.
As part of the bargain, both sides have agreed to slash part of the $80 billion in new funding that the IRS was awarded last year.
This is quite a blow to the President, who sold his plan to beef up the IRS last year by saying that the agency would capture up to “a trillion 300 million billion dollars if we hire more IRS agents.”
A trillion 300 million billion? That sure does sound like a lot of money.
Mr. Biden, of course, never seems to have much of a handle of arithmetic (nor anything else).
At one point he explained that Covid-19 had taken “200 billion lives”, and then further commented that “just the outbreak, has taken more than one hundred year, look, here, the lives, it’s just, just think about it.”
Quite sadly he even recently claimed that his son Beau died during a military deployment to in Iraq. In reality, Beau returned from Iraq in 2009, but died of brain cancer in 2015. You’d think his dad would know that.
And this is on top of the countless videos out there of the President shaking hands with thin air, wandering aimlessly at official functions, reading instructions from teleprompters such as “repeat for emphasis”, and stopping mid-sentence with a thousand-yard stare.
Now, Biden isn’t the first leader in history who showed signs of dementia.
King George the III of England famously thought a tree was the king of Prussia. Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan showed signs of dementia towards the end of their terms in office.
But there is a key difference.
President Biden has deliberately surrounded himself with incompetent lunatics.
For example, his Vice President’s latest inspiring quote is, “It’s very important… for us at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to seize the moment in time in which we exist in our present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past, but to the future.”
Profound. A college freshman smoking his first joint couldn’t have said it better.
What’s crazy is that this sort of verbal incontinence is pervasive across the rest of government.
After a three month absence in the Senate due to shingles, 89-year-old Senator Dianne Feinstein returned to Washington and informed a reporter, “I haven’t been gone. I’ve been working.”
The reporter asked for clarification if the Senator meant she had been working from home.
“No, I’ve been here [at the capitol]. I’ve been voting,” she responded, before adding cryptically, “Please, you either know or don’t know.”
And here’s a direct quote from Senator John Fetterman questioning banking CEOs in a recent Senate hearing:
“That’s like if you have I mean like an-and they also realize that that now they have it’s an in a guaranteed, a guaranteed way to be saved by noma again, no matter, by-by-by how?”
After an awkward silence from the men he was interrogating, Fetterman continued, “shouldn’t you have a working requirement after we sail your bank bills-in your bank? Because they seem me-more preoccupied than when snap requirement for works for hungry people but not about protecting the tax papers that will bail no matter whatever does about the bank, the crash.”
Now, I don’t want to poke fun of someone’s legitimate medical condition. Dementia is a devastating condition. And in Fetterman’s case, he suffered a terrible stroke during his senate campaign. It’s certainly not his fault— it could happen to anyone.
But America has become such a touchy, hypersensitive culture, that it’s considered gauche to even question whether someone who suffered a stroke, or suffers from dementia, is still fit for office.
So if you think you’re entitled to an elected representative who actually knows where she is… well then the entire establishment closes ranks around the politician to defend them and labels you a bad person.
The most we can possibly expect of elected leaders right now is that they have a pulse.
Full control of their mental faculties? Not relevant. Backbone and integrity? Laughable.
This is a pretty terrible trend given that the US is riddled with so many serious, malignant problems. This debt ceiling crisis is only the latest one… and they haven’t solved it. Even if their bargain is successful, they’re only punting the problem into the future by little more than two years.
Social Security’s insolvency is looming. America’s military readiness is falling. More bank crises are looming. The dollar is in danger of losing its global dominance. Geopolitical threats are growing.
You’d think that voters would want the best possible leaders who are at the absolute top of their game.
But no. Instead, you just need a pulse.
PS: If you can see what is happening, and where this is all going, you understand why it is so important to have a Plan B. That’s why we published our 31-page, fully updated Perfect Plan B Guide, which you can download here.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 23:05 - McCarthy Reportedly Gave Democrats Secret Concessions In Exchange For Debt Ceiling Votes
McCarthy Reportedly Gave Democrats Secret Concessions In Exchange For Debt Ceiling Votes
Update (2300ET): Hours after the House passed the debt ceiling bill, Axios reports that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) gave Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) secret concessions to boost spending on Democratic districts in the form of “community project funding” in exchange for their votes earlier this evening, according to two senior lawmakers.
One lawmaker said the deal boosts earmarks to Democrats to bring them “closer to parity” with what Republicans receive in such funds in the GOP-led House. -Axios
McCarthy has told reporters that he didn’t cut any deals to supply the Democratic votes.
Speaker McCarthy just told us he didn’t have to cut any deals with Hakeem Jeffries to get Dem votes to approve the rule for debt ceiling bill
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) May 31, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
When asked if he cut a deal, Jeffries said “House Democrats to the rescue to avoid a dangerous default and help House Republicans get legislation over the finish line that they negotiated themselves.”
Asked if he cut a deal with McCarthy to help pass the Rule, Jeffries said over and her (not answering directly):
“House Democrats to the rescue to avoid a dangerous default and help House Republicans get legislation over the finish line that they negotiated themselves.”
— Daniella Diaz (@DaniellaMicaela) May 31, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
More via Axios;
The backdrop: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, previously had told Democrats that they would receive significantly reduced funding for projects in their districts this year, according to Politico.
What we’re watching: The deal could further inflame far-right lawmakers already incensed about the compromise bill that McCarthy cut with Biden. They’ve accused the speaker of caving to most of Democrats’ demands and not cutting enough government spending.
- Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), reacting to news that Democrats might have squeezed McCarthy on earmarks, tweeted derisively: “Earmarks! Sell! Sell! Sell! #NoDeal[.]”
* * *
Update (2115ET): The House has successfully voted to raise the debt limit. The legislation now heads to the Senate, where it will need (and undoubtedly receive) at least 60 votes to proceed to President Biden’s desk for his signature ahead of a June 5 deadline to avert a national default.
71 Republicans opposed the measure, as did 46 Democrats, while 149 Republicans and 165 Democrats voted to back the plan.
As we noted earlier, the bill – which as discussed here does not cut real Federal spending even in year one despite widespread propaganda that In exchange for Republican votes for the suspension, Democrats agreed to cap federal spending for the next two years – would set the course for federal spending for the next two years and suspend the debt ceiling until Jan. 1, 2025 — postponing another clash over borrowing until after the presidential election. By then total US debt will be $35 trillion and well on its way to unsustainability.
Of note, in order to try and convince hardline conservatives to vote yes, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had proposed a bipartisan commission, at an expected cost upwards of $100 million, to outline future budget cuts.
“After today, I’m going to put a commission together to look at the entire budget. This debt is too large,” said McCarthy. “We can be very serious about looking long term to solve this problem.”
* * *
Update (2115ET): The full House vote has started on the debt ceiling deal.
Watch live:
* * *
Shortly after 4pm ET, the debt-limit deal cleared a major hurdle in the House despite growing opposition, setting up the legislation for a vote around 8:15pm on Wednesday night, a vote which despite vocal showboating opposition from various republicans appears destined to pass.
While the House voted 241-187 to take a procedural step needed to consider the measure, McCarthy needed votes from Democrats to offset 29 Republican “no” votes, underscoring the divide within his own party over the legislation as such votes setting the rules for debate are nearly always decided along party lines. The final vote tally suggests that the Speaker’s position is becoming increasingly vulnerable… if only there was someone willing to submit a motion to vacate.
THE RULE for the debt-limit bill has passed. 241-187.
Dems helped the GOP get the motion for the Biden-McCarthy bill across the finish line.
Final vote later tonight.
— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) May 31, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Here are the 29 Republicans that voted no on the rule for the debt ceiling:
A) 29 GOPers voted no on rule for debt ceiling.
- Biggs
- Bishop
- Boebert
- Brecheen
- Burlison
- Buck
- Cline
- Burchett
- Cloud
- Clyde
- Crane
- Gaetz
- Gosar
- Good
- Griffith
- Higgins
- Harris
- Harshberger
- Luna
- Miller
- Moore
- Norman
- Perry
- Posey
- Rosendale
- Roy
- Self
- Spartz
- Tiffany
“I think things are going as planned,” Biden told reporters at the White House, before he was due to leave for Colorado. “God willing, by the time I land, Congress will have acted, the House will have acted, and we’ll be one step closer.”
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, a Minnesota Republican, said early Wednesday that he’s sure the votes are in hand. “It’s going to pass,” he said even though he will need Democrat vote for the final passage.
If it passes, the bill will next go to the Senate, where objections from conservatives could force days of debate. But John Thune, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, said Wednesday that there could be a deal to pass the bill by Friday night, days ahead of the June 5 default deadline.
The bill – which as discussed here does not cut real Federal spending even in year one despite widespread propaganda that In exchange for Republican votes for the suspension, Democrats agreed to cap federal spending for the next two years – would set the course for federal spending for the next two years and suspend the debt ceiling until Jan. 1, 2025 — postponing another clash over borrowing until after the presidential election. By then total US debt will be $35 trillion and well on its way to unsustainability.
* * *
As the deal to raise the debt ceiling works its way through the House, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (KY) is preparing for battle with Senate conservatives who are calling for amendments to the bill and threatening to delay the legislation until changes are made.
As The Hill reports, the bill is likely to get over 40 Senate Democratic votes, meaning it will likely need at least 10-20 “yes” votes from Senate Republicans in order for it to move to President Biden’s desk before the June 5 “X-date” deadline set by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen for the US to run out of funds.
On Sunday, McConnell came out in favor of the deal negotiated between House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and President Biden’s team, however he faces strong opposition from actual conservatives. Chief among them, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who has threatened to use “every procedural tool at my disposal” to slow down the bill. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has similarly thrown a wrench in the gears – demanding a vote on his “conservative alternative” that would cut total federal spending by $545 billion over two years.
“It’s time to go back to the drawing board or, even better, go back to what the House already passed,” said Lee on Tuesday – referring to the Limit, Save, Grow Act, which would cut $4.8 trillion from the future deficit. According to Lee, the current bill “simply does not do what its proponents claim it does — not even close.”
Last week, Lee said that if the bill doesn’t include substantial budgetary and spending reforms, it “will not face smooth sailing in the Senate.”
McConnell has pledged the nation will not default on its debts but he also has a responsibility as leader to help Republican colleagues who want to amend the legislation, which could delay it past the June 5 “X-date.”
“The Senate must act swiftly and pass this agreement without unnecessary delay,” he said in a statement Sunday. -The Hill
Rand Paul, meanwhile, says he won’t vote for any bill to raise the debt ceiling that doesn’t balance the federal budget in five years – which would require over $500 billion in future cuts.
“To us, it doesn’t look like cuts at all. In fact, spending will go up every year under that debt plan,” he said of the Biden-McCarthy deal, adding “Mandatory spending is enormous; it’s over half of the spending every year. It’s going up at five percent a year.”
That said, Paul says he won’t use procedural amendments to slow down passage of the debt bill, which caps federal spending for two years, and allows Congress to decide how to meet those targets at a later date.
Also opposing the current deal are Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL) and Mike Braun (R-IN).
“This bill leaves us with trillions more in debt & no clear path to less inflation or a balanced budget. I appreciate the work @SpeakerMcCarthy did to try & negotiate a good deal when @JoeBiden refused to engage, but I cannot support this bill,” Scott tweeted Tuesday.
(2/2) Now is our moment to get America back on the path of fiscal sanity. Getting serious about America’s debt isn’t something we can compromise on.
If this passes the House, the Senate must take amendment votes and Senate Republican Leadership must stand with everyone working…
— Rick Scott (@SenRickScott) May 30, 2023
Braun, meanwhile, told reporters that he wouldn’t vote for the bill unless it similarly contains major changes and amendments, adding that he won’t object to speeding up the debate on the legislation if he and his GOP colleagues can submit amendments – even if they’re unlikely to pass.
“You want amendments because you know they’re not going to pass, let’s be real here. The Democrats and the neo-cons in our party are going to get this thing across the finish line, but I want the process of being able to amend it. To me, that is a step in the right direction, because this all gives information to the public in terms of what could be done, even though it doesn’t get incorporated,” said Braun.
Other GOP Senators on the fence include John Cornyn, John Kennedy and Mike Rounds.
“From my perspective, there’s not really anything to support until the House passes the bill. I’m waiting to see what the House sends us,” said Cornyn.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 23:01 - Female Athlete Retires After Competing Against Biological Men, Says Girls "No Longer Have A Fair Chance"
Female Athlete Retires After Competing Against Biological Men, Says Girls “No Longer Have A Fair Chance”
Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times,
Hannah Arensman, a 35-time national cyclocross winner, decided to retire at the age of 25 following a loss to a transgender competitor. She shared her decision along with 67 female athletes and supporters in a recent Supreme Court amicus brief filing (pdf) in support of a West Virginia law that would keep biological men out of women’s sports.
“I have decided to end my cycling career,” Arensman declared last Wednesday.
In her statement, Arensman recalled her final race in the elite women’s division of the UCI Cyclocross National Championships in late December, where she finished in the 4th place, flanked on either side by competitors she identifies as male riders. “I came in 4th place, flanked on either side by male riders awarded 3rd and 5th places,” she stated.
She recounted the emotional toll this had on her and her family: “My sister and family sobbed as they watched a man finish in front of me, having witnessed several physical interactions with him throughout the race.”
Furthermore, Arensman expressed her frustration over the possibility that she might have been overlooked for international selection on the U.S. team at the Cyclocross Worlds in February 2023 due to a male competitor. “It is difficult for me to think about the very real possibility I was overlooked because of a male competitor,” she shared.
In her detailed account, Arensman voiced her discontent over what she perceives as an unequal playing field, stating: “It has become increasingly discouraging to train as hard as I do only to have to lose to a man with the unfair advantage of an androgenized body that intrinsically gives him an obvious advantage over me, no matter how hard I train.”
In her statement, she also expressed concern for the young girls entering the field of competitive sports: “I feel for young girls learning to compete and who are growing up in a day when they no longer have a fair chance at being the new record holders and champions in cycling.”
Expressing her frustration and disappointment, Arensman criticized the authorities for not ensuring fair competition in women’s sports: “I have felt deeply angered, disappointed, overlooked, and humiliated that the rule makers of women’s sports do not feel it is necessary to protect women’s sports to ensure fair competition for women anymore.”
Her statement and those from other disenfranchised female athletes were disseminated by the Independent Council on Women’s Sports.
Legal Battle
Selina Soule, a track and field champion, has emerged as a pivotal figure in pushing for the restoration of fairness in women’s sports. With a legal battle on the horizon, Soule is rallying support from those affected by this contentious issue.
Soule described the situation as “devastating,” expressing concern over the future of women’s sports. “It’s devastating that there are women out there who are retiring or changing their events because they are being forced to compete against biological males where those males, if they were competing in the men’s category, they would be barely mediocre. But in the women, they are dominating the field, and it’s a very, extremely frustrating situation,” she told Fox News on May 24. “It should not be happening. Women’s sports should be preserved as just women’s sports.”
Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) joins Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-Va.), track and field athlete Selina Soule (in pink suit) and other Republicans for an event to celebrate the House passing The Protection Of Women And Girls In Sports Act outside the U.S. Capitol on April 20, 2023 in Washington. (Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Soule’s experiences competing against biological males during her high school career have fueled her call for action. “Everybody who has encountered this issue needs to speak up and ask for fairness,” Soule said.
In 2020, Soule, alongside other student-athletes, initiated a lawsuit against the Connecticut Association of Schools. The suit challenged a state ruling that allowed transgender students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity. Despite the judge dismissing the lawsuit on procedural grounds, Soule, backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, is preparing to appeal the ruling.
The repercussions of the current policy are far-reaching, according to Soule’s attorney Christiana Kiefer. “Girls deserve to compete on a level playing field, and what Selena experienced … was being sidelined in her own sport and that’s a clear violation of Title IX,” Kiefer argued during the Fox News show.
On April 6, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) released a notice of proposed rule-making on athletic eligibility for transgender students who participate in school sports. Some states recently have banned these students from participating on teams different from their biological sex.
The Biden administration proposal, as explained in the Federal Register, “would govern a recipient’s adoption or application of sex-related criteria that would limit or deny a student’s eligibility to participate on a male or female athletic team consistent with their gender identity.”
Former high school athlete Selina Soule, who competed within the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference. (Alliance Defending Freedom)
Officially, the rule-change proposal is listed as “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male or Female Athletic Teams.”
A national conservative watchdog group, Citizens Defending Freedom, has been encouraging people to flood the online page of the Federal Register with comments about the proposed rule change to Title IX.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 22:45 - Russian Ambassador Claims Maidan-Style Coup Attempt Unfolding In Belgrade
Russian Ambassador Claims Maidan-Style Coup Attempt Unfolding In Belgrade
Russian Ambassador to Serbia Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko has leveled some dramatic allegations against the West in relation to both the Ukraine war and ongoing tensions and clashes in northern Kosovo, which has been focus of international media attention.
The Russian ambassador claimed that Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic’s opponents are plotting and attempting to stage a “Maidan-style coup” in the Serbian capital of Belgrade. His word choice implied he things the West is involved on some level.
Using terminology which has been familiar in Kremlin descriptions of what NATO is doing in Ukraine, Amb. Botsan-Kharchenko said, “This is part of the hybrid war. I would like to stress that anti-Belgrade forces acted almost synchronously; they operate on two fronts – this is the situation in Kosovo and attempts at a Maidan coup here, in Belgrade.”
Large Serbian protests against gun violence and government mismanagement in May. AFP/Getty Images The Russian official’s words also referenced recent large-scale anti-government protests inside Serbia, some which gathered in front of the building of Serbia’s national broadcaster in Belgrade on Sunday.
These have been billed as ‘peace protests’ but according to regional media have progressively taken on an anti-government character and anti-government slogans. Some of them have happened with slogans such as “Serbia Against Violence” – and have been focused on gun violence in the wake of recent mass casualty school shootings in Serbia – a rarity for the country’s recent history.
The protests have been going strong since mid-May, and people are angry over what they see as government mishandling of recent crises:
Tens of thousands of people have marched through Belgrade, blocking a key bridge in the second large protest since two mass shootings that rattled Serbia and left 17 people dead, including many children.
Protesters gathered in front of the parliament building on Friday before filing by the government’s HQ and on to a highway bridge spanning the Sava River, where evening commuters had to turn their vehicles around to avoid getting stuck. At the head of the column was a black banner reading “Serbia against violence.”
As the demonstrators passed the government buildings, many chanted slogans decrying Serbia’s populist president, Aleksandar Vučić, whom they blame for creating an atmosphere of hopelessness and division in the country that they say indirectly led to the mass shootings.
Additionally Russia’s TASS has described the following of recent protests in Serbia:
The first rally was quite peaceful, with practically no anti-government slogans. People were simply congregating in silence in front of the parliamentary building. During the second rally, protesters blocked a bridge across the Sava River and chanted anti-government slogans. The third demonstration had an anti-government character too. According to the Serbian interior ministry, more than 11,000 people took part in these rallies.
🔴 SERBIA | Thousands have gathered despite the heavy rain in the fourth “Serbia against violence” protest that has just started in Belgrade. pic.twitter.com/xAJpidMpsO
— Balkan Insight (@BalkanInsight) May 27, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Serbia has long been a staunch ally of Russia, however, there’s been recent distance and tensions due to the war in Ukraine. Still, Belgrade is generally seen in the West as more oriented toward Russia. It remains that both Slavic countries have long condemned what they see as NATO aggression and expansion, particularly following the 1999 US-NATO bombing campaign over Belgrade.
The Serbian population itself also tends to engage in large demonstrations against NATO and US policies from time to time. In particular the Serb people reject US and international recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign nation, given it historically was an ethnic Serb and Orthodox Christian heartland. This week, President Vucic has ordered Serbian troops to the Kosovo border amid unrest and an unpredictable situation, also as he’s condemned the Kosovo government for cracking down on the Serb minority there.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 22:25 - Republicans Call For Action As China Turns US Into 'Hunting Ground' For Dissidents
Republicans Call For Action As China Turns US Into ‘Hunting Ground’ For Dissidents
Authored by Frank Fang, Eva Fu and Joshua Philipp via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The recent indictments of two suspected Chinese agents in California are examples of how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is trying to turn the United States into a “hunting ground” for dissidents, according to Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.).
Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) questions Matt Albence, who was then-acting director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, during a hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, on July 25, 2019. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) The two individuals attempted to bribe an undercover officer posing as an IRS agent, in a plot to revoke the tax-exempt status of an entity run and maintained by Falun Gong practitioners, according to the Department of Justice. They were arrested at their residences on May 26 and face charges of conspiracy, bribery, and money laundering.
“This is another example of just how the CCP, the Communist Chinese Party, is doing all they can to undermine our sovereignty [and] silence all dissent even in our country,” Newhouse told EpochTV’s “Crossroads” on May 30.
While U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has characterized the case as part of China’s “campaign of transnational repression” in the United States, Newhouse gave a blunt assessment of the situation.
“I want to be clear about what I think this really means. This is a foreign government that is committing crimes against those that it deems to be a threat, right here on American soil,” Newhouse said.
The two suspected Chinese agents—John Chen from California’s Chino City and Lin Feng from Los Angeles—carried out their bribery campaign from January to May this year, according to prosecutors.
According to a court document, Chen characterized one of the Chinese officials the two received “direction” from as someone “that is always in charge of these matters,” during an intercepted phone call. In other words, the unidentified Chinese official could be directly involved in China’s ongoing persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China, possibly once having a position within the regime’s extralegal body known as the “610 Office.”
The United States “should be a haven from persecution, not what they’re trying to turn it into—a hunting ground for an authoritarian government,” Newhouse added.
610 Office
Falun Gong, also known as Falun Dafa, is a spiritual discipline with slow meditative exercises and moral teachings. In 1999, the Chinese regime launched a persecution campaign against the group, throwing practitioners into prisons, labor camps, and brainwashing centers.
Hundreds of thousands of practitioners have been subjected to torture while incarcerated, according to the Falun Dafa Information Center, while thousands have been killed as a result of torture and abuse in police custody. Owing to strict censorship in China, the actual death toll is likely to be many times higher.
The 610 Office was set up in 1999 for the sole purpose of persecuting Falun Gong practitioners. It was disbanded between 2018 and 2019 and its functions were merged into other CCP organs, according to internal documents obtained by The Epoch Times.
Falun Gong practitioners march in Manhattan to celebrate World Falun Dafa Day, in New York, on May 12, 2023. (Larry Dye/The Epoch Times) In June 2021, the State Department announced sanctions against Yu Hui, a former director of a regional 610 Office, for his involvement in “gross violations of human rights, namely the arbitrary detention of Falun Gong practitioners for their spiritual beliefs.”
The Chinese regime’s presence inside the United States was exposed last month, when the FBI arrested two individuals on charges of operating a secret police station in New York City on behalf of the CCP. They allegedly took orders from the regime in order to track down and silence Chinese dissidents living in the United States, prosecutors said.
Newhouse said more and more American people, as well as members of Congress, are “seeing China for what it is” because of the “aggressive actions” that China has undertaken.
“I’m glad that the DOJ and the FBI have been on their toes on this doing the right thing, holding them accountable,” he added. “Who knows what else is going on, that maybe the American people and members of Congress even aren’t aware of. So we’ve got to be vigilant.”
‘Confront China’s Repression Head-On’
In response to the alleged bribery scheme against Falun Gong, two Republican lawmakers are calling for the government to confront China’s actions in the United States.
Read more here…
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 22:05 - The U.S. Government's Over-Classification Epidemic: Ratcliffe
The U.S. Government’s Over-Classification Epidemic: Ratcliffe
Authored by John Ratcliffe via RealClear Wire,
Classified information is a mainstay in the news these days and rarely for positive reasons. On the one hand, classified documents seem to be leaking at an unprecedented rate, often revealing not only sensitive national security information but also government impropriety. While in office, I saw this firsthand in Crossfire Hurricane, the bogus counterintelligence investigation into non-existent links between President Trump and Russia. Much of that information should never have been classified and was only tightly controlled to obscure government wrongdoing. On the other hand, overclassification of information that does not meet appropriate classification thresholds is an epidemic inside the national security apparatus. As a result, it is estimated that some 50 million documents are classified each year across the federal government.
Overclassification—or unreasonable resistance to declassification—is sometimes a result of the desire to conceal embarrassing or inappropriate actions, but it’s more often done out of convenience, laziness or good old-fashioned CYA. After all, I’m not aware of any government employee getting in trouble for classifying something that didn’t really need to be classified, but there are serious ramifications for not classifying something that should be.
In part because the executive branch has been so slow to address this issue, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress has filed bills to address over-classification and declassification issues. Perhaps they are hoping to force the White House to take action, but any President should be wary of the legislative branch encroaching on their Constitutional authority to classify and control access to national security information.
However, if we are going to tackle the pervasive overclassification problem, we must also ensure that the government has a reasonable process for handling “controlled unclassified information” (CUI)—information that is not classified but is nonetheless not widely shared by the U.S. government. This is the gray area between highly sensitive national security information and widely available or non-sensitive information that’s suitable for public disclosure.
In a 2020 memo to the President’s National Security Advisor, I laid out how the current system came into effect:
For decades, agencies often employed ad hoc, agency-specific policies, procedures, and markings to handle unclassified information that requires safeguarding or dissemination controls. This patchwork approach apparently resulted in agencies’ marking and handling information inconsistently, implementing allegedly unclear or unnecessarily restrictive dissemination policies, and creating potential obstacles to information sharing.”
This dynamic led to the Obama Administration in 2010 to issue an Executive order (EO 13556) retiring many of the various, inconsistent unclassified dissemination control markings used for this “gray area” information and replacing them all with a single marking: CUI.
This simplified approach sounded like a good idea at the time. But like many other well-intentioned government policies, it broke down in its implementation.
In spite of the mandate to simplify the unclassified markings system, the National Archives and Records Administration’s Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) expanded the potential new marking system to include, as I wrote in my memo to the National Security Advisor, “over 124 categories in 20 groupings, with 60 Specified and 60+ Basic categories.”
As a result, the new system is so complex and cumbersome that it has still not been fully implemented 13 years later. And it’s not only because it would be a complicated mess; it would also cost a fortune, requiring an estimated $1 billion or more to implement just in the Intelligence Community alone. What critical mission areas, I wonder, will be cut to build this new bureaucratic regime? Perhaps we’ll stop collecting intelligence on some of our hard targets or adversarial nations and divert that money to fund this latest iteration of government gone wild.
Critics called my memo a “bureaucratic bombshell” in 2020, but it is nothing compared to the bureaucratic nuclear bomb of the new CUI methodology that is already wreaking havoc and driving exasperation across the government, particularly within the national security community.
There is no question that the current marking system for both classified information and CUI has gotten way too complicated. We spend an inordinate amount of money and an outrageous amount of time training people on it—with mixed results. But it makes no sense to spend billions to create new problems rather than fix the existing ones. We need simplification. Unfortunately, the result of President Obama’s 2010 Executive order has been the exact opposite of that. And now we are just days away from a deadline, set by the Biden White House, to either revise or replace the Executive Orders dealing with both classified national security information and controlled unclassified information.
No proponent of good government could justify spending good money and wasting more time attempting to implement a clearly broken system. As a former member of Congress, I can tell you that is why some of my savvy former colleagues on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) are already considering not authorizing funds for the Intelligence Community to implement the unwieldy CUI program come September when the next budget bill arrives. They know we need reform, from cracking down on overclassification to streamlining the handling of CUI. And pushing forward with the current plan doesn’t deliver either.
John Ratcliffe served as the 6th U.S. Director of National Intelligence from 2020-2021. A Republican, he represented Texas’ Fourth Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives from 2015-2020.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 21:45 - Bad News Is Now Good News In China As Market Awaits Stimulus
Bad News Is Now Good News In China As Market Awaits Stimulus
By George Lei, Bloomberg Markets Live reporter and strategist
China’s May PMI survey flashed the latest warning of mounting economic trouble, prompting investors to eagerly weigh the odds of more stimulus out of Beijing. Onshore equities have already relinquished the vast majority of their post-reopening gains, adding pressure on policymakers to move fast and aggressively to promote growth.
The yuan, stocks and commodity prices have fallen since late April, a reflection of China’s pessimistic economic prospects, Shao Xiang and Tao Chuan at Soochow Securities wrote in their WeChat public account on Wednesday. History suggests monetary policy rarely “stands idly by” once manufacturing PMI stays below the 50 threshold for two or more straight months, they pointed out.
The PBOC took actions in 2019, 2021 and 2022 when the factory gauge worsened — including reductions to the Required Reserve Ratio (RRR), the Medium-term Lending Facilities (MLF) rate and Loan Prime Rate (LPR). These actions occurred either during the same month or one to two months after the data was out, the Soochow analysts noted.
The PMI data confirmed China’s post-Covid recovery is “far from a self-sustained one, due to a lack of confidence among corporates and households,” according to Macquarie analysts Larry Hu and Yuxiao Zhang. “Now policy is the only game changer,” they said in a research report on Wednesday.
Beijing will either need to get its stimulus package in shape in the coming weeks or risk a sharp year-over-year downturn in the next quarter, according to Evercore ISI. The lockdown of Shanghai, which took place between April and May of 2022, weighed heavily on the Chinese economy and the low base of comparison suggests 2Q GDP will “look great” in year-over-year terms despite ongoing headwinds, analysts Neo Wang and Gin Wang noted.
Consensus forecast puts the pace of expansion at 7.8% year-over-year in 2Q and 5.1% in 3Q, according to a Bloomberg survey. Evercore ISI believes “it makes more sense to announce stimulus taking effects when 3Q arrives,” while Macquarie sees an “RRR cut, acceleration in infrastructure spending and more relaxation in property policy” in the weeks ahead.
Still, whether PBOC will cut MLF or LPR remains a close call given the expectations for another Fed hike in June, Macquarie cautions. More data deterioration may be needed before Beijing makes up its mind.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 21:25 - Randi Weingarten Has Zero Credibility
Randi Weingarten Has Zero Credibility
Authored by Stan Greer via RealClear Wire,
In March 2020, a little more than three years ago, state and local politicians across America halted in-person classes for K-12 government schools with the purported aim of slowing the spread of the COVID-19 virus. When the school shutdowns began, few ordinary citizens had any idea how long they would last. It ultimately turned out that many school districts would remain closed until well into 2021. It’s been estimated that roughly half of America’s public schoolchildren lost a year or more of full-time, face-to-face instruction in the classroom.
Not coincidentally, both parents’ willingness to make huge financial and other sacrifices to get their kids out of the government education system and public apprehensions about the viability of public schools as institutions have soared since early 2020.
Over the course of the first two years of the pandemic, nationwide enrollment in K-12 public schools plummeted by roughly 1.2 million. The enrollment decline was typically far more severe in states where government school employees are overwhelmingly unionized, and where union bosses’ monopoly-bargaining power over teachers’ compensation and work conditions is most extensive.
For example, 27.1% of the entire enrollment drop occurred in just two states, forced-unionism California and New York, that were home to only 17.7% of the nation’s school-aged population (that is, 5-17 year olds) in 2020. Meanwhile, a fall 2022 Gallup poll recently cited by Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn found that nationwide public satisfaction with government schools “had dropped to 42%, a 20-year low.”
As parental and public confidence in Big Labor-dominated government schools falls, Randi Weingarten, the camera-hogging president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT/AFL-CIO) union, personifies the problem for many concerned citizens. In the words of former Congressman and Trump Cabinet member Mike Pompeo, a particularly harsh critic: “It’s not just about Ms. Weingarten, but she has become the most visible face of the destruction of American education.”
Many Americans understandably blame union bosses like Weingarten for the fact that most American school districts within jurisdictions where Big Labor is most powerful remained shuttered long after it had become apparent that they could operate safely. School children were suffering grave educational and psychological harm as a consequence of the lockdowns.
But Weingarten pleads not guilty. Brushing aside countless well-documented examples of her viciously attacking supporters of reopening schools in 2020 and 2021, such as her July 2020 denunciation of then-U.S. Education Sec. Betsy DeVos’s pro-in person instruction stance as “reckless,” “callous,” and “cruel,” the AFT czar insists she was never against reopening per se.
At an April 26 congressional hearing on the role top union bosses played in perpetuating school shutdowns, she repeated again and again that she had always wanted schools to reopen, as long as it could be done “safely.”
This attempt at self-exoneration is laughable. Just for starters, Weingarten’s recent testimony ignored the fact that, in July 2021, nearly a year after school districts in Right to Work Florida had reopened while “avoid[ing] major outbreaks of COVID-19 and maintain[ing] case rates lower than those in the wider community,” she claimed hysterically that “millions of Floridians” were “going to die” because the state’s elected officials had refused to follow Big Labor orders to keep schools closed.
This prediction was so absurd that Weingarten subsequently decided she had no choice but to apologize for her “hyperbole.” But she continues to invent facts to justify her COVID-19 record.
For example, in her congressional testimony late last month, Weingarten repeatedly cited a January 2021 study co-authored by epidemiologist Tracy Hoeg to justify the AFT hierarchy’s insistence that federal taxpayers had to fork over vast sums of money, putatively for costly new school ventilation systems and other mitigations, before safe reopenings could happen. But as Hoeg, the study’s lead author, publicly pointed out within hours after the hearing’s conclusion, it actually showed rates of COVID-19 transmission were low in schools regardless of whether their ventilation systems were old or new.
In the era of COVID-19 and its aftermath, the fork-tongued Weingarten has become the personification of why state laws handing union bosses monopoly-bargaining power over K-12 public school employees, which are now on the books in well over 30 states, never should have been enacted and ought now to be repealed.
Stan Greer is senior research associate for the National Institute for Labor Relations Research.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 21:05 - Combating The Censorship Industrial Complex
Combating The Censorship Industrial Complex
Authored by Charlie Tidmarsh via RealClear Wire,
It’s been nearly six months since the first installment of the Twitter Files—the journalistic effort by Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, Bari Weiss, Lee Fang, and many others to expose the myriad channels by which the U.S government cooperated with Twitter on content moderation and censorship—was first published. Twitter Files One, perhaps the mildest of more than 20 unique reports, details the social media company’s internal deliberations in the days before the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop was removed from the site. Later reports have exposed the tendrils of a governmental apparatus that influenced some of the most significant media distortions in recent American history, from the fraudulent Hamilton 68 misinformation tracking dashboard to the FBI’s intimate involvement with Twitter’s content-moderation practices.
For six months, not much of consequence has happened, either in Washington or the mainstream media, in response. Those who owe us mea culpas have not provided them, tending instead to attack the individual reporters or ignore their findings. Meanwhile, some concerning developments have emerged: Congress formed the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government in order to conduct its own investigation, which would have been encouraging had it not culminated in representative Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands threatening Taibbi with imprisonment for his testimony; Mark Warner’s RESTRICT Act, which would yield the federal government an enormous media-censorship leeway, was introduced in the Senate in March; Montana banned TikTok statewide; special counsel John Durham’s report on Russian interference was released and received with a profound lack of interest in the FBI’s dubious and error-laden investigation; and the Global Disinformation Index, a British NGO that ranks news outlets on a scale of “risky” to “least risky” (this website is one of the GDI’s ten “riskiest”), was shown to have received funding from the State Department (via the National Endowment for Democracy), which it subsequently lost.
As shocking and foreboding as these anti-democratic actions are, not many commentators are treating them as interconnected expressions of a single censorship apparatus. Michael Shellenberger and his colleagues Alex Gutentag and Matt Taibbi are now undertaking a monumental attempt at defining that apparatus: they call it the Censorship Industrial Complex. Shellenberger and Gutentag are two of the few journalists who not only take the reality of increased government censorship efforts seriously but also consider it a systemic, unified, and global threat, as opposed to a few discreet but regrettable extensions of U.S. political power.
The complex is founded on euphemistic, Astro-turfed neologisms—“misinformation,” “disinformation,” “infodemic,” and, absurdly, “malinformation,” which is defined by The Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency as information “which is based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate” (my emphasis)—and prosecuted by a coterie of journalists, academics, NGOs and nonprofits who claim neutral expertise in adjudicating what is true and what is false. World governments have eerily aligned their definitions of these terms and then cooperated with non-state actors to censor online speech in accordance, all with the stated and ostensibly noble aim of “reducing harm.”
Their reporting, which takes place almost exclusively on Substack and Twitter (Gutentag is also a columnist at Tablet), has called attention to the ways in which major democratic governments in Europe, Canada, the UK, and Ireland are replicating the American tactic: define certain types of speech as harmful and then empower a bureaucratic network of think tanks, research agencies, and nonprofits to enforce strict Internet censorship practices that ensure that so-called harmful speech is repressed.
The most thorough history of how this bureaucracy came into power was provided by Jacob Siegel, a former U.S Army intelligence officer in both Iraq and Afghanistan, writing in Tablet. Strikingly, Siegel compares the emergence of this new complex to its closest analog in American history: McCarthyism. And he locates its legislative origin on December 23, 2016, the date that Barack Obama signed into law the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. What began as a campaign against foreign information warfare morphed into a domestic censorship apparatus in the aftermath of Donald Trump taking office. In this way, it echoes the Military Industrial Complex by leveraging wartime expansions of government authority towards domestic goals. While the primary agents are certain federal intelligence and security agencies and their cooperating NGOs1, Siegel sees the media as playing a remarkably complicit role in the last seven years. “The American press, he writes, “once the guardian of democracy, was hollowed out to the point that it could be worn like a hand puppet by the U.S security agencies and party operatives.”
Shellenberger and Gutentag have provided the first invaluable step in a massive project: they’ve defined the problem. “The Twitter Files gave us a window,” Shellenberger writes, “into how government agencies, civil society, and tech companies work together to censor social media users. Now, key nations are attempting to enshrine this coordination into law explicitly.”
In November 2022, the E.U. passed the Digital Services Act, which legally compels large online media platforms to remove hate speech and disinformation from their platforms under threat of fines as large as six percent of annual global revenue. If passed in the U.S., RESTRICT, with its loopholes and vague jargon, threatens to give the federal government unprecedented ability to spy on the online activity of its citizens. The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022, which passed the lower house of the Irish Parliament, could soon render the possession of “hateful” digital material illegal in that country. Canadian Bill C-11 has passed in the Senate, amending the former Broadcasting Act to allow the government to filter and promote streamed media. Brazil’s proposed Bill 2630, the so-called Fake News Law, will compel social media platforms to regulate “fake news” and misinformation on their platforms more strictly or face severe fines. An early draft of this bill included a provision that would allow the imprisonment for up to five years of anyone spreading content that “threatened social peace and economic order.”
According to Shellenberger, Gutentag, and their colleagues at the Substack Public, what tends to unify these efforts is a reliance on identical, porous definitions of what counts as bad or hateful information, as well as an emphasis on words such as “safety,” “harm reduction,” and “protection.” This is precisely what makes the Censorship Industrial Complex so insidious. No one wants truly false information to dominate our important discussion spaces, or genuine hate to crowd out constructive public discourse. But the verbiage these governments operate with grants tremendous leeway in how such speech is defined and censored. This slippage has already played out in the case of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the contents of which were almost immediately deemed “disinformation” as a justification for Twitter to remove the story from its platform in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election; we now know the material was not only legitimate but in the FBI’s possession in December of 2019.
Shellenberger and Gutentag are calling on any whistleblowers, journalists, or individuals with first-hand experience with this censorship regime to contact them immediately. The first official meeting of this growing anti-censorship movement will be held in London next month. Anyone with information or experience to share is encouraged to reach out on their website, censorshipindustrialcomplex.org, and support Public’s reporting on Substack.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 20:45 - These Five Niche Commodities Signal China's Recovery Faltering
These Five Niche Commodities Signal China’s Recovery Faltering
China’s economic recovery from draconian zero-Covid controls is faltering. Investors had very high hopes earlier this year that the world’s second-largest economy would roar back to life and help offset weakness in the global economy. However, six months later, those same hopes have faded into disappointment.
One of the most immediate warning signs investors are losing faith in the recovery narrative is the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index fell into bear market territory Tuesday, down about 20% from its Jan. 27 peak.
While equities are important to track, we shift attention to sliding commodity prices that might give further input about China’s economic growth miracle seen over the last several decades, which has yet to reemerge and ignite a spark. Maybe that’s because of an aging population or declining workforce or supply chain reset, or enormous debt loads — whatever is hobbling China’s recovery effort might indicate the days of expanding at 6% to 8% a year are over and only 2% or 3% is the new normal.
On the commodity front, two of the most important commodities to China’s economy, copper and iron ore, have been moving lower over the last several months. But five often overlooked commodities essential for economic growth send chilling signs of economic alarm.
“Futures markets for items as diverse as glass, styrene and corn starch are piling on the evidence that China isn’t recovering as fast as many people had hoped, after Beijing abandoned the pandemic restrictions late last year that were crushing its economy,” Bloomberg said.
Glass
China accounts for more than half of the world’s plate glass production thanks to the rapid growth of high-rise buildings and vehicle sales in recent decades. Similar to other industries, low margins and supply gluts have troubled producers for years, forcing them to cut output in recent months.
The situation this year looks even more challenging. Glass futures on the Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange have plunged nearly 20% in the past month, a period when demand usually picks up. The reasons include China’s teetering property market and weaker-than-expected vehicle output in April.
Trucked LNG
China has a vast requirement for natural gas, carried by sea from mega-projects in far-flung places like Qatar and Australia, or over pipelines that stretch across continental Asia. But the last few miles to consumers is often via trucks that criss-cross China’s cities, a barometer of the immediate needs of industries from glass-makers to ceramic factories.
That price has fallen to its lowest level in almost two years. Demand is so weak that the nation’s top importers of seaborne liquefied natural gas are even offering to resell their shipments abroad.
Styrene
Fewer home buyers also means less demand for the purchases that often accompany a new place to live. The price of styrene monomer, a material used for the plastics and rubber that go into appliances like fridges, has declined. China has been the world’s fastest growing market in the past decade with capacity climbing to over 40% of the global total.
Dalian futures fell last week to their lowest since February 2021, after a near-5% drop in home appliance sales in the first quarter, according to the National Appliance Information Center. The problems are slower growth in personal incomes and a “low-frequency sales cycle” for white goods, according to Wu Haitao, a director at the center.
Corn Starch
Corn starch has a wide variety of uses, in soft drinks, as a thickening agent for sauces and in the paper and textiles industries. China produces almost 50 million tons a year.
Although retail sales have outperformed other economic measurements in the months since China’s Covid Zero restrictions were lifted, they grew at a slower pace than expected in April. China’s falling population is another headwind: corn starch is a key ingredient in baby formula.
Paper Pulp
Shanghai pulp futures went into free-fall in February after a sudden recovery in production at paper mills after the Lunar New Year holiday was augmented by resurgent imports. Domestic demand, which was also supposed to rise after China’s reopening, couldn’t keep up.
As with many commodities, China is the biggest producer and consumer of pulp, used for packaging, publishing and household goods. But the market is so vast that a lot of pulp and paper also needs to be sourced from abroad.
Meanwhile, China’s macro data has failed to show the reopening narrative coming to life.
The faltering recovery led to China’s central bank announcing an unexpected cut in mid-May to the amount banks set aside for deposits by 25 basis points, vowing to keep ample liquidity in the interbank system and better fund the real economy.
So the question remains: What’s next for the global economy if China’s highly anticipated economic rebound doesn’t materialize?
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 20:25 - Taliban Deploys Heavy Reinforcements To Iran Border After Clashes
Taliban Deploys Heavy Reinforcements To Iran Border After Clashes
Videos circulating social media on Wednesday show Taliban forces heavily reinforcing the Afghan border with Iran, after significant escalation regarding a water dispute between the two countries, which resulted in heavy border clashes between the two sides over the weekend.
The clashes broke out on Saturday between Taliban troops and Iranian border guards, resulting in the death of two Iranian border guards and a Taliban militant, despite unconfirmed reports of further Taliban casualties.
The outbreak of fighting came a week after Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi warned the Taliban to respect Iran’s rights to water from the Helmand River shared between the two countries, under the 1973 Afghan-Iranian Helmand River Treaty. Iran has long accused Afghanistan of restricting the flow of its water to Iran and causing droughts or dry spells.
Via AFP Each side claimed that the other had initiated the clashes. On May 29, Iran’s Interior Minister Ahmad Vahidi said that calm had prevailed on the border but that Tehran would respond with force if the Taliban resumed provocation.
The Taliban defense minister said on the day that the fighting broke out that the Afghan government views dialogue and negotiation as the best way to resolve issues. Other Afghan officials echoed the defense minister’s words and called for the prevention of escalation.
Other officials and Afghan figures were seen in videos on social media making inflammatory statements. The most notable of these figures is Taliban leader Abdul Hamid Khorosani, who was seen in a video on Twitter May 28 threatening that “if the [religious authorities] allow us, we will seize Tehran.”
“Do not test our strength. You are behind the scenes with the Westerners,” Khorosani added, addressing the Islamic Republic. Reports suggest that Khorosani had been dismissed earlier this month over differences with Taliban leadership.
The Iranian Interior Ministry claimed on Wednesday, following the release of the footage on the Afghan-Iranian border, that those who made statements against Iran were “low-ranking” members of the Taliban who have since been “dismissed” by the organization.
Taliban sends heavy equipment to the border with Iran as tensions escalate over water dispute pic.twitter.com/cGAModswE3
— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) May 31, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Iranian media outlets have also claimed that border-crossings between the two countries are now open, despite having been closed following the outbreak of clashes. “Clashes happened based on a mistake made by the Afghan border guards. We have had several incidents like this so far. We advise Afghan authorities to justify the actions of their border guards,” the Iranian Interior Ministry added.
Despite videos showing reinforcements on the border, Iranian media reports suggested that some “elements are trying to provoke the parties involved with rumors and fake news.”
One Iranian report said that there is complete calm on the border. However, conflicting reports continue to emerge, with some suggesting that the reinforcements are ongoing.
The situation at the border with Iran is intensifying as the Taliban actively moves armored vehicles, including tanks.
Iranian border guards have requested additional support and tanks are being dispatched to assist them.
Unfortunately, the situation is unfolding in a… pic.twitter.com/wR8zuxwEkG
— 301 Military (@301military) May 31, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
In December 2021, brief clashes broke out on the Afghan-Iranian border between Iran’s border guards and Taliban fighters. In June of the following year, an Iranian border guard was killed by the Taliban. Iran urged the Afghan government at the time to “punish the perpetrators” and take action to prevent a repeat of such occurrences.
Footage from the weekend border clashes…
Clashes break out between Iran and Taliban on the border, casualties on both sides have been reported pic.twitter.com/rHVOWSKJ8n
— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) May 27, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Following Washington’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, the US army left behind $7.12 billion in military equipment in the country, which immediately fell into the hands of the Taliban.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 20:05 - Carbon Footprint Of Lab-Grown Beef "Orders Of Magnitude" Worse Than Traditionally Raised: Study
Carbon Footprint Of Lab-Grown Beef “Orders Of Magnitude” Worse Than Traditionally Raised: Study
A new study from the University of California, Davis, has found that lab-grown, or “cultivated” meat’s environmental impact is likely to be “orders of magnitude” higher than retail beef based on current and near-term production methods.
UC Davis researchers find cultivated meat is likely worse for the climate than retail beef under current production methods. (Credit/ Mosa Meat CC-BY- 4) The preprint study, which has yet to undergo peer review, concludes that the energy needed and greenhouse gasses emitted during all stages of production of lab-grown meat is far greater than traditionally raised beef.
Researchers conducted a life-cycle assessment of the energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted in all stages of production and compared that with beef. One of the current challenges with lab-grown meat is the use of highly refined or purified growth media, the ingredients needed to help animal cells multiply. Currently, this method is similar to the biotechnology used to make pharmaceuticals. This sets up a critical question for cultured meat production: Is it a pharmaceutical product or a food product? –UC Davis
“If companies are having to purify growth media to pharmaceutical levels, it uses more resources, which then increases global warming potential,” according to lead author and doctoral graduate Derrick Risner, of the US Davis Department of Food Science and Technology. “If this product continues to be produced using the “pharma” approach, it’s going to be worse for the environment and more expensive than conventional beef production.”
The scientists considered the ‘global warming potential’ to be the carbon dioxide equivalents emitted for each kilogram of meat produced – and found that the global warming potential of lab-based meat using these purified media is up to 25 times greater than the average for retail beef.
More from UC Davis on the eventual goals of lab-grown (cultured) meat;
One of the goals of the industry is to eventually create lab-grown meat using primarily food-grade ingredients or cultures without the use of expensive and energy-intensive pharmaceutical grade ingredients and processes.
Under that scenario, researchers found cultured meat is much more environmentally competitive, but with a wide range. Cultured meat’s global warming potential could be between 80% lower to 26% above that of conventional beef production, they calculate. While these results are more promising, the leap from “pharma to food” still represents a significant technical challenge for system scale-up.
“Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It’s not a panacea,” said corresponding author Edward Spang, an associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology. “It’s possible we could reduce its environmental impact in the future, but it will require significant technical advancement to simultaneously increase the performance and decrease the cost of the cell culture media.”
Even the most efficient beef production systems reviewed in the study outperform cultured meat across all scenarios (both food and pharma), suggesting that investments to advance more climate-friendly beef production may yield greater reductions in emissions more quickly than investments in cultured meat.
Developing the technology that would allow the leap from “pharma to food” is among the goals of the UC Davis Cultivated Meat Consortium, a cross-disciplinary group of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and educators researching cultivated meat. Other goals are to establish and evaluate cell lines that could be used to grow meat and find ways to create more structure in cultured meat.
Risner said even if lab-based meat doesn’t result in a more climate-friendly burger, there is still valuable science to be learned from the endeavor.
“It may not lead to environmentally friendly commodity meat, but it could lead to less expensive pharmaceuticals, for example,” said Risner. “My concern would just be scaling this up too quickly and doing something harmful for the environment.”
Other authors include Yoonbin Kim and Justin Siegel of UC Davis and Cuong Nguyen of the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
The research was funded by the UC Davis Innovation Institute for Food and Health and the National Science Foundation Growing Convergence Research grant.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 19:45 - Chick-fil-A Faces Growing Backlash Over 'Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion' Efforts
Chick-fil-A Faces Growing Backlash Over ‘Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion’ Efforts
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Some conservatives have suggested a boycott of Chick-fil-A after the fast-food chain was discovered to have a vice president of “diversity, equity, [and] inclusion,” or DEI.
A view of Chick-fil-A on Austell Road as customers pull around for their drive-thru orders on March 18, 2020 in Austell, Georgia. (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images) In a previously issued Chick-fil-A news release, the company said that Erick McReynolds serves as its vice president of DEI, saying: “Chick-fil-A restaurants have long been recognized as a place where people know they will be treated well. Modeling care for others starts in the restaurant, and we are committed to ensuring mutual respect, understanding, and dignity everywhere we do business.”
DEI is a set of principles that large corporations, government agencies, and schools have increasingly incorporated into their work environments, often mandating employees receive such training. However, these principles are rooted in Marxism, according to prominent critics including Christopher Rufo and James Lindsay, that are essentially vehicles for “left-wing racialist ideology and partisan political activism.”
“They are designed to replace the system of academic merit with a system of race-based preferences and discrimination—which, in many cases, explicitly violates federal civil rights law,” wrote Rufo for his Substack page earlier this year.
The Chick-fil-A announcement was highlighted this week by several prominent conservative accounts. According to McReynolds’s LinkedIn page, he was hired as Chick-fil-A’s vice president for “Diversity, Equity [and] Inclusion” in late 2021.
“We have a problem,” wrote Joey Mannarino, a conservative host in highlighting Chick-fil-A’s prior announcement, on Twitter Tuesday morning. “Chick-Fil-A just hired a VP of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. This is bad. Very bad. I don’t want to have to boycott. Are we going to have to boycott?”
He also wrote: “The Left is going crazy again over the Chick-fil-A boycott that conservatives are considering. They’re mad because we’ve FINALLY gotten effective at boycotts. Any company that is pushing the trans stuff on our kids or the DEI stuff, we are going to pick the worst offenders.”
“So Chick-fil-A has a diversity, equity and inclusion division,” added columnist Todd Starnes on Tuesday. “Well, that explains the fried cauliflower sandwiches and kale salad.”
By Tuesday afternoon, Lindsay wrote on Twitter that he agreed with the boycott calls and made demands. “We must demand that Chick-fil-A fire their entire ESG and Sustainability staff and partners (including DEI), referring to the left-wing environmental, social, and governance framework.
“Ideally we get them to confess how they got caught up in the racket, and then we return support,” he added. “Conservatives might actually be able to pull this one off.”
The chicken-based fast-food chain has been generally well respected among conservatives due to the company’s religious values and its prior support for religious groups. In the McReynolds DEI announcement, Chick-fil-A makes reference to its corporate purpose, which is “to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us” and “to have a positive influence on all who come into contact with Chick-fil-A.”
The Epoch Times has contacted Chick-fil-A for comment.
Backlash Growing
In recent weeks, a number of companies have faced backlash for embracing what critics say are left-wing values or a pro-LGBT agenda. Since early April, Bud Light has seen a significant backlash after it produced a beer can with transgender activist and influencer Dylan Mulvaney’s face and as Mulvaney suggested a partnership with the brand.
Read more here…
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 19:25 - "See You In The Hague!": Lindsey Graham Snarks Back After Russia Issues Arrest Warrant
“See You In The Hague!”: Lindsey Graham Snarks Back After Russia Issues Arrest Warrant
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has hit back after Russia issued a warrant for his arrest – calling it a “badge of honor.”
“Here’s an offer to my Russian ‘friends’ who want to arrest and try me for calling out the Putin regime as being war criminals: “I will submit to [the] jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if you do,” Graham said in a May 29 press release.
“Come and make your best case. See you in The Hague!” he continued, adding “To know that my commitment to Ukraine has drawn the ire of Putin’s regime brings me immense joy.”
“I will continue to stand with and for Ukraine’s freedom until every Russian soldier is expelled from Ukrainian territory.”
Graham, a massive proponent of the Ukraine war, stated in a video of his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that “the Russians are dying,” adding that the US military aid provided to Ukraine was “the best money we’ve ever spent.“
Ever?
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 27, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
While Graham appeared to have made the comments at separate points in the conversation, the brief video produced by Ukraine’s presidential office juxtaposed them, sparking outrage in Russia.
Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, said on Sunday that it was hard to imagine a greater shame for the United States than having individuals like Graham as senators. –Epoch Times
In February, Graham said that the US shouldn’t be worried about provoking Russia by helping Ukraine.
“The British are training Ukrainian pilots. I believe a decision will be imminent here when we get back to Washington that the administration will start training Ukrainian pilots on the F-16. They need the weapons system,” he told ABC‘s “This Week” on Feb. 19.
Putchist Lindsey Graham: “I’m not worried about provoking Putin. I want to hit him and how do you hit him? We will defeat him by giving the Ukrainians the military capability to drive the Russians out of Ukraine.” THIS CORRUPT GRAHAM WILL PROVOKE THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF UKRAINE pic.twitter.com/mmHyTFxYFd
— Michel Petrucci ❤️ 🇮🇹 (@appolo007) February 20, 2023
Graham has urged his fellow politicians to declare Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, and has advocated for the US to begin training Ukrainian pilots on F-16s.
“They need the weapons system,” said Graham in the above interview, which echoed VP Kamala Harris’ claim that Russia was guilt of “crimes against humanity.”
“So, we need to do two things quickly,” said Graham. “Make Russia a state sponsor of terrorism under U.S. law, which would make it harder for China to give weapons to Russia, and we need to start training Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 now.”
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 19:05 - University Of Colorado Declares Misgendering An "Act Of Violence"
University Of Colorado Declares Misgendering An “Act Of Violence”
The University of Colorado Boulder (Boulder) is under fire this week for a statement on the “Pride Office” website stating that misgendering people can be considered an “act of violence.”
The guide on pronouns is reportedly the work of students associated with the office and states that “choosing to ignore or disrespect someone’s pronouns is not only an act of oppression but can also be considered an act of violence.”
It is a familiar position for many in higher education.
Opposing viewpoints are now routinely declared to be violence. That allows professors and students to rationalize their own act of violence or censorship.
The most vivid example was recently seen at Hunter College, which is part of the CUNY system. Professor Shellyne Rodríguez recently was fired after holding a machete to the neck of a New York Post reporter and threatened to “chop you up.” However, Hunter College decided not to fire her over a prior incident in which she trashed a pro-life table run by students.
Rodríguez spotted students with pro-life material at the college. She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.” Even after a remarkably polite student said that he was “sorry,” Rodríguez would have nothing of it. After all, espousing pro-life views is now “violence.” Rodríguez rejected the apology and declared “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.”
Just a week earlier, a professor stopped another “violent” display of pro-life views in New York. Professor Renee Overdyke of the State University of New York at Albany shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest.
At the University of California at Santa Barbara, feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller Young criminally assaulted pro-life advocates on campus, and later pleaded guilty to the crime. She was defended by faculty and students, including many who said she was “triggered” by a pro-life display and that pro-life advocates were “terrorists” who did not deserve free speech.
It is that easy. You simply declare opposing views “violent” and then you can justify your own violence as a matter of self-defense.
The Colorado controversy does not involve acts of violence over misgendering. Moreover, the guide reflects a deep-felt concern that using someone’s pronouns incorrectly, even unintentionally, leads to “dysphoria, exclusion and alienation.” There are also some positive recommendations in dealing with these difficult situations.
However, this is a university site and there are countervailing free speech costs to characterizing of opposing views on pronouns as violence. As have previously discussed how other countries are prosecuting those who “misgender.” Schools in the United States have promised disciplinary action against any misgendering despite some court cases ruling for faculty with opposing views on pronouns. Even passing out “he/his” candies can result in a university investigation.
Conservative sites like Campus Reform have reported on the Colorado controversy and sought clarification.
Universities are often presented with difficult countervailing interests. On one hand, it must maintain a welcoming and tolerant environment. On the other hand, it must protect free speech values, including the right to express unpopular views or values.
Colorado students have every right to declare misgendering as violence in their eyes, even if many of us disagree. However, the university has an obligation to clearly establish that such views are not the policy or approach of the university itself. The site states “This information was created by students, for students. The university supports an inclusive environment.” It should state that “while the university supports an inclusive environment, the statements on this site are not official statements or policies of the university.” Otherwise, the university should address the free speech implications of declaring misgendering as a violent act.
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 18:45 - Major Grocery Chain Struggles To Survive Amid Wave Of Thefts
Major Grocery Chain Struggles To Survive Amid Wave Of Thefts
A grocery chain which operates primary on the East Coast says it’s taking measures to stay in business amid rampant retail theft and crime across the US.
Giant Food, which operates over 160 locations across DC, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, has begun restricting entry and exit points, beefing up store security (some armed), displaying fewer high-dollar items on shelves, and reducing the number of self-checkout items, company CEO Ira Kress told the Washington Post.
Ira Kress, president of Giant Food, says his company has taken some actions in an attempt to deter shoplifting. (Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post) According to Kress, retail theft has increased “tenfold in the last five years,” which is not “an understatement,” while violence has “increased exponentially.”
“The last thing I want to do is close stores,” Kress continued. “But I’ve got to be able to run them safely and profitably.”
According to Kress, the nature of shoplifting has changed such that more and more retailers are simply allowing it – like Lulu Lemon, which recently fired two employees for calling the police on repeat looters.
“We used to chase shoplifters,” said Kress. “And you’d get the product back, and nobody would ever fight you.”
“I didn’t worry about somebody pulling a knife or gun on me [40] years ago,” he said.
The trend, which industry experts say is in its beginning stages, could foreshadow a further emptying of downtowns already wounded by the pandemic. Although retail vacancy rates for dense urban centers have been declining over the past decade, figures from real estate data firm CoStar show the numbers inching up in some cities. -WaPo
“For the big box and the grocery [stores], which are trying to optimize a single-digit margin, it is very difficult to operate, and you will see more and more exits happening,” said Lakshman Lakshmanan, senior director in Alvarez & Marsal’s consumer and retail group. “We’re seeing the highest level of organized retail crime and theft ever.“
According to Kres, thieves have moved from swiping cigarettes to other goods.
“It’s continued to escalate,” he said. “So now it’s Tide and Dove and razor blades and Olay, or roasts or shrimp or crab legs.“
According to the retail federation, incidents of organized retail crime increased in 2021 by an average of 26.5% – with store owners blaming organized retail crime for around half of the $94.5 billion lost that year due to retail shrink (stolen merchandise).
Other retailers taking similar measures
According to the report, REI – which will close its Portland, OR location next year after nearly two decades, spent over $800,000 in 2022 on additional security at that location alone. This included new windows with security glass, around-the-clock patrols, better outdoor lighting and a new security camera system, per the Post.
While Foods has gone so far as to place fliers on shelves instructing customers to find an employee to retrieve alcohol and expensive supplements and other high-value merchandise from the back.
A shopping cart in a supermarket as inflation affected consumer prices in Manhattan, New York, on June 10, 2022. (Andrew Kelly/Reuters) “I was kind of surprised at the amount of effort that went into trying to mitigate the situation,” said Chris Torossian, former manager in the bakery department at the company’s San Francisco location.
Theft occurred “pretty much daily,” Torossian added, and he frequently heard from co-workers who felt unsafe. Team members were instructed not to chase or accuse shoplifters. In one instance, someone threw a cup of hot coffee on an employee’s face after they confronted the individual for stealing the drink, Torossian said. He also heard of instances where thieves brandished knives.
In April, the company said it was closing the location “for the time being” to “ensure the safety of our Team Members.” -WaPo
“We have the police come to our stores … they’ll take the information, they’ll record it,” said Torossian. “But there’s really nothing being done with that, because they had two homicides that were a bank robbery and two shootings. So it’s like, where are they going to focus their time and attention?”
In May, Target CEO Brian Cornell told investors and analysts; “Beyond macroeconomic challenges, we continue to contend with significant headwinds caused by inventory shrink, building on a worsening trend that emerged last year. While shrink can be driven by multiple factors, theft and organized retail crime are increasingly urgent issues, impacting the team, and our guests and other retailers.”
“The problem affects all of us, limiting product availability, creating a less convenient shopping experience, and put[s] our team and guests in harm’s way. The unfortunate fact is, violent incidents are increasing at our stores and across the entire retail industry. And when products are stolen, simply put, they’re no longer available for guests who depend on them. And left unchecked, theft, and organized retail crime to grade the communities we call home,” he continued.
Maybe stop voting for those soft-on-crime Soros DAs?
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 18:25 - How Flipping Colorado Blue Has Become Democrats' Blueprint For The Rest Of America
How Flipping Colorado Blue Has Become Democrats’ Blueprint For The Rest Of America
Authored by Katie Spence via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Colorado’s legislative session is 120 consecutive days long and during the 2023 session lawmakers introduced 617 bills. Of those, 218 passed and have been signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis. More are waiting to be signed.
Members of the Communist Party USA and other anti-fascist groups burn an American flag on the steps of the Colorado State Capitol in Denver, Colo., on Jan. 20, 2021. (Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images) Democrats have a historic majority in the Colorado House, a supermajority in the Senate, and control the governorship. As such, all bills passed with Democrat support—and more often than not, over Republican’s vehement objections. It’s a marked change from 2002 when the GOP dominated politics in Colorado.
Colorado Republican Rep. Stephanie Luck is one of a handful of Colorado Representatives fighting back and trying to expose what she describes as Democrats’ Marxist agenda, where individual rights don’t matter, and the government controls every aspect of life.
“When I first got elected and sworn into office in 2021, Governor Polis gave his State-of-the-State Address shortly thereafter and stated that it was his goal and the goal of his Democratic majority to fundamentally transform Colorado,” Luck told The Epoch Times.
“So, the question becomes, what was the initial foundation they want to transform? And I would point us to the mission statement of the United States, which is the Declaration of Independence.
“And basically, we could go word by word in that most famous phrase starting with ‘We hold these truths.’ We can start with the word ‘We’ and demonstrate how they want not a ‘We,’ not a unified whole, not one nation, but different tribes, different groupings, different identities, and then just go every single word and recognize that they really are advancing the opposite of that mission statement.
“And that is what Governor Polis and the Democrats have been doing in Colorado.”
“The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776,” circa 1792, by John Trumbull. (Public Domain) The Blueprint
Luck refers to the book, “The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care),” by Adam Schrager and Rob Witwer.
It details how, in the summer of 2004, progressive organizations and a group of multimillionaires—including Colorado’s now governor Polis—devised a plan to elect a Democratic majority. The group called themselves the Roundtable.
“Everyone had a common goal and it wasn’t to win friends. It was to win elections. That was the measure by which they would succeed or fail,” writes Schrager. He adds that the group’s main avenues to flip Colorado blue were extensive organization, a deep understanding of data, and, arguably the most impactful, taking advantage of campaign finance reform laws.
Dr. Joshua Dunn, a professor of political science at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs, agrees.
“There was a well-orchestrated democratic plan to take control of the state. … [The Roundtable] was smart,” Dunn told The Epoch Times. “They were smarter than the Republicans. I think the Republicans will tell you that they were outsmarted by them. I don’t think there’s any doubt about it.
“They were well organized, disciplined, and they imposed discipline on people who wanted their support. They had requirements for people—particularly in local races if you wanted to get support from them—you had to go and knock on a certain number of doors.”
In addition to organization and discipline, Schrager notes that the group understood that swaying state politics could have an outsized impact on politics at the federal level.
“In hindsight, it’s remarkable how quickly members of the Roundtable adapted to the new campaign finance reality. While national political groups were beginning to use 527s [527 concerns a section of the Internal Revenue Code governing a type of tax-exempt political organization] … in 2004 it was unusual for state-based organizations to understand these exotic organizations and complex rules that governed them—much less master them to the point that they could be used effectively.”
By taking advantage of 527s, the Roundtable raised $3.6 million. In contrast, Republicans raised $845,000. With a significant war chest for state-level elections established, the group targeted Republican politicians. And they did so through targeted ads, leaflets, boots on the ground, automated calls, and a unified message that a Democratic majority was better for Colorado.
Schrager quotes Polis saying in The Blueprint: “We really didn’t truly know how big this would become. Clearly, when we started, we had no idea. I didn’t know this would have great historical significance, nor did anybody there that we would transform Colorado.”
But transform the Colorado political landscape they did.
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis speaks in Highlands Ranch, Colo., on May 8, 2019. (Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images) From 1978 to 2002, Republicans controlled both the state House and state Senate. But in 2006, Democrats took control of both chambers.
Then, the 2010 election was the nail in the coffin, according to Dunn, and it came down to candidate quality, “This was an enormous lost opportunity for the Republican Party, and I think it’s very difficult to overstate the significance of that election or the decline of the Republican Party in Colorado.
“That was the Tea Party election. By all rights, the Republican Party should have won both the governor’s office and what’s now Senator Michael Bennett’s Senate seat in that election, but they made two catastrophic mistakes. They nominated a Tea Party candidate for governor who was so ill-prepared that Tom Tancredo ran as a third-party candidate.
“Then on the Senate side with Michael Bennett, again, Republicans should have won that, but they nominated Ken Buck, and he was not prepared for primetime in that race and made several significant mistakes, but he almost won.
“If the Republicans had another good option, they easily would have won that race. So, there you have two statewide elections that Republicans should have won easily, and it was money that they just left on the table,” Dunn said.
A ‘Marxist’ Agenda
Colorado has since shifted to the left.
“We’ve obviously moved to the left. There’s no doubt because there’s been nothing to put the brakes on for [Democrats],” Dunn said.
“You saw that with this past legislative session. … There were a lot of really controversial pieces of legislation. … Even the stuff that didn’t make it through, the fact that it was being considered kind of tells you where they’re trying to go.”
“I wouldn’t be surprised if Polis wouldn’t have minded Republicans controlling one house of the state legislature just to limit the bills that made it to him where he had to make a difficult choice. Either support his own party, which would require him to sign some legislation that might undermine a general election campaign for president, or veto and anger his own caucus,” said Dunn.
Luck sees the Democrats as pushing a Marxist agenda.
“Let’s just take the right to contract and the right to property,” she said. “These are alienable rights [meaning transferable] that our founders understood were necessary to a free people. So, the right to property is a derivative of our self.
“And unfortunately, many of my colleagues don’t understand that property is inherent to oneself. They see property and wealth building almost through a lens of evil. Those who have are somehow inherently bad because they ‘have.’
“So, what we have seen this last session is a pitting of employees against employers, tenants against landlords, any category of people that my colleagues think at some point have been oppressed or have been wronged, are now—through law—given extra rights and afforded extra protections that I believe are largely unjust.”
In the 2023 legislative session, Democrats passed Senate Bill 23-184, “Protections For Residential Tenants,” that, among other provisions, prohibits landlords from considering “certain information relating to a prospective tenant’s income or rental history.” That “information” includes income and credit scores. The new law also puts a cap on how much income a landlord can require to qualify a prospective tenant.
Read more here…
Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/31/2023 – 18:05
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
