Today’s News 21st October 2023

• Why Was It So Hard For Elite Universities To Condemn Hamas Terrorism?
  Why Was It So Hard For Elite Universities To Condemn Hamas Terrorism?

  Authored by Marc Zvi Brettler & Michael B. Poliakoff via RealClear Wire,

  America’s leading universities have an antisemitism problem—and it starts at the top. This past week, university presidents and deans across the country wrote to their students and faculties to express concern in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Israel by Hamas. What they said, and what they did not say, provides a window into the culture of intellectual and moral rot and cowardice that reigns at these once-great institutions. 

  

  Those who attack Jews or Israel are all too often exempt from their excoriation. Hamas terrorists massacred some 1,300 Israelis, took approximately 200 hostages, most of them civilians, and left an additional 3,200 injured, but you would not know it from some university leaders’ missives this week.

  At Harvard University, President Claudine Gay has issued three muddled statements, under pressure, on the horrific events. Her first statement was a tepid confession of “heartbreak” that implied an equivalence between the Hamas attacks and Israel neutralizing the terrorists. This embarrassment was signed by all the university’s senior deans. Only after a barrage of online criticism—and threats by donors—did she muster the strength to condemn the child killers. Not content to leave it alone, she has issued another statement, but still without criticizing the 30-odd student groups who professed to “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible” for the murder, rape, kidnapping, and torture of Jews, referring instead to the principle of freedom of speech. Let us be clear that these students have freedom of speech, but so does Claudine Gay. She has the right to condemn their words. In 2022, Harvard denounced in no uncertain terms “the capricious and senseless invasion of Ukraine.” Harvard knows how to speak clearly about Ukrainian victims but not, apparently, about Jewish victims.

  Columbia University President Minouche Shafik offered a masterfully slippery statement: “I was devastated by the horrific attack on Israel this weekend and the ensuing violence that is affecting so many people.” While all lives matter, the mention of “ensuing violence” is a reference to Israeli targeting of terrorists—putting it on a par with raping and pillaging by Hamas. She implied moral equivalence. 

  The moral lassitude and obscurantism of Shafik’s statement trickled down. Columbia College Dean Josef Sorett emitted the following: “The events in Israel and Gaza over the past several days have shocked the world and impacted many of our students.” Dean Sorett’s “events in Gaza” are, of course, Israeli military operations undertaken in self-defense and in an effort to kill murderers, which he places on par with the door-to-door murder of civilians in Israel. 

  The dean of Columbia Law School did not outclass her colleague. Gillian Lester wrote to her students and faculty, “The violence that erupted in Israel and Gaza this past weekend is nothing short of tragic,” again implying a moral equivalence between the enemies of the Jewish people and their victims.

  At Middlebury College, the senior leadership wrote to “acknowledge the untold pain, suffering, and loss of life unfolding from the violence happening now in Israel and Palestine.” President Laurie Patton seems unclear about who is making the violence “happen.” She goes on to warn against “hate, racism, ethnic discrimination, antisemitism, or Islamophobia.” The equivalence is complete, and we can move on to meet the real threat: Islamophobia. Compare this muddle to the perfect clarity of Middlebury’s official response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine: It “wreaked untold havoc in the lives of innocent civilians. Russia’s aggression against its democratic neighbor is a violation of international law, made only more egregious by its escalation in the face of international condemnation. I join that condemnation in solidarity with our Middlebury community.” How easy it would have been to revise that statement ever so slightly to say that Hamas “wreaked untold havoc in the lives of innocent civilians. Hamas’s aggression against its democratic neighbor is a violation of international law, made only more egregious by its escalation in the face of international condemnation. I join that condemnation in solidarity with our Middlebury community.”  

  The University of California–Berkeley, which spends $36 million annually on its Division of Equity & Inclusion, may be the most openly antisemitic campus in the country. Its law school is under federal investigation for discriminating against Jews. Student organizations there expressed their “unwavering support” for the Hamas pogrom. The president refused to condemn this statement. Instead, he expressed his heartbreak at “the violence and suffering in Israel and Gaza,” pointedly comparing Israel’s self-defense to the terrorist attacks themselves, gesturing, like too many others, to the “complex history” of the situation. 

  In reality though, no complexity is so great as to obscure the distinction between the intentional slaughter of innocents and targeted strikes against terrorists. Some schools eventually issued careful statements—but their initial reaction—or lack of reaction—is most telling, especially when contrasted with quick and decisive past declarations of outrage.

  At Stanford University, the administration has covered itself in special disgrace by adding dishonesty to cowardice, despite finally acknowledging the horror. Criticized for its silence about the weekend’s slaughter, Stanford claimed in an unsigned statement that it “does not take positions on geopolitical issues and news events.” But when Russia invaded Ukraine, Stanford’s president released this statement: “The unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and the attack it represents on democracy, is beyond shocking.” He continued, “It has been remarkable to witness the courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people.” Stanford also commented when a child’s skipping rope was found in a tree in 2021, where it had been tangled for some years, officially denouncing it as a “a potent symbol of anti-Black racism and violence that is completely unacceptable under any circumstances.” Stanford discovered the principle of institutional neutrality, it seems, just in time for the Sabbath assault on Israeli civilians.

  Under the principle of institutional neutrality, colleges and universities should indeed refrain from speaking corporately on contemporary social or political issues, unless they transcend the institution’s values as a whole (such as the wanton taking of innocent life by terrorists). Higher education’s mission is to encourage diversity of thought. But condemning brutality and savagery, whether the murder of George Floyd under the knee of a policeman, or the civilian carnage Hamas wrought, is not a political statement. No one has asked presidents to endorse Zionism or the two-state solution or anything vaguely geopolitical. They needed only to affirm human decency without which the university is a place of moral chaos.

  However serpentine the ongoing contortions of these administrators, what is revealed in these official reactions by colleges is a cancerous moral rot and intellectual confusion. Bothsidesism is a symptom; the root cause is worse. They were perfectly able to rush to condemn the murder of George Floyd, the seedy depravities uncovered by the #MeToo movement, and the brutal invasion of Ukraine—as they should. They pronounce vocally and volubly on the events of January 6, 2021, and on horrible killings at houses of worship. They take flamboyant public positions on everything from affirmative action to climate policy to marriage equality. So why is it so hard to condemn the slaughter of Jewish babies? Why is it so hard to offer proper support and empathy to their grieving Jewish students?

  The University of Pennsylvania’s president had no word of censure for Penn’s Palestine Writes festival, which ran between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur and featured Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters, notorious for exhibitionist antisemitism. Then came the anemic initial response of Penn’s president to the Hamas atrocities. Jon Huntsman, a Penn graduate and donor and a former governor of Utah, pinpointed the cause of his alma mater’s failure: “Moral relativism has fueled the university’s race to the bottom.” If only Penn’s administration possessed such moral (and pedagogical) clarity.

  To be fair, some universities have offered proper statements that unambiguously condemn the pogrom of Hamas. But these are few and far between. The United States used to lead in higher education, but now we need to look for leadership abroad, for example in the exemplary statement of the German Rectors’ Conference that noted quickly, clearly, and unambiguously: 

  We are deeply shocked and appalled by the terrorist attack of Hamas on Israel, the terrible massacres, and the kidnappings. 

  On behalf of all German universities, I would like to express our sincerest condolences and heartfelt sympathy. We are deeply saddened by the senseless loss of life. Our thoughts are with those killed and injured, those still in danger, and their families and friends. 

  As the German Rectors’ Conference, the voice of German universities, we stand in solidarity with the Israeli universities and academic colleges and all their members. We would be grateful if you could share this message of sympathy and solidarity with your member institutions.

  Educational institutions have a responsibility to educate and lead—not only in subject matters but in basic issues of morality. Those who fail to condemn the slaughter of children and fail to show empathy to their students who identify with this slaughter, are failing their mission at the most basic level. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 10/21/2023 – 00:00

• How Much Do EV Batteries Cost?
  How Much Do EV Batteries Cost?

  The cost of an electric vehicle (EV) battery pack can vary depending on composition and chemistry.

  In this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti and Sabrina Lam use data from Benchmark Minerals Intelligence to showcase the different costs of battery cells on popular electric vehicles.

  

  Size Matters

  Some EV owners are taken by surprise when they discover the cost of replacing their batteries.

  Depending on the brand and model of the vehicle, the cost of a new lithium-ion battery pack might be as high as $25,000:

  

  The price of an EV battery pack can be shaped by various factors such as raw material costs, production expenses, packaging complexities, and supply chain stability. One of the main factors is chemical composition.

  Graphite is the standard material used for the anodes in most lithium-ion batteries.

  However, it is the mineral composition of the cathode that usually changes. It includes lithium and other minerals such as nickel, manganese, cobalt, or iron. This specific composition is pivotal in establishing the battery’s capacity, power, safety, lifespan, cost, and overall performance.

  Lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA) battery cells have an average price of $120.3 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), while lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM) has a slightly lower price point at $112.7 per kWh. Both contain significant nickel proportions, increasing the battery’s energy density and allowing for longer range.

  At a lower cost are lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which are cheaper to make than cobalt and nickel-based variants. LFP battery cells have an average price of $98.5 per kWh. However, they offer less specific energy and are more suitable for standard- or short-range EVs.

  Which Battery Dominates the EV Market?

  In 2021, the battery market was dominated by NCM batteries, with 58% of the market share, followed by LFP and NCA, holding 21% each.

  Looking ahead to 2026, the market share of LFP is predicted to nearly double, reaching 38%.

  NCM is anticipated to constitute 45% of the market and NCA is expected to decline to 7%.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 23:30

• Turley: The Trump Gag Order Should Be Struck Down
  Turley: The Trump Gag Order Should Be Struck Down

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  Below is my column in The Hill on the imposition of a gag order on former President Donald Trump by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Despite my long-standing criticism of Trump’s personal attacks on judges and critics, this gag order should be curtailed or struck down on appeal. While the odds tend to favor the lower court in such orders, there is ample reason to object to the scope and language of the order. The ill-defined bar on criticizing the prosecution or witnesses (including one of Trump’s opponents in this election) raises serious free speech concerns. It is also unlikely to have any appreciable impact on the heated public debate over this and other prosecutions of the presidential candidate. Much of this campaign will focus on the alleged weaponization of the criminal justice system. While Trump is still allowed to criticize the case generally, the vague order cuts too deeply into his right to criticize the prosecutor, the judge, and witnesses in the case in this election.

  

  Here is the column:

  The imposition of a gag order on former President Donald Trump was overwhelmingly applauded by pundits and press alike. Journalists described the order from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan as “narrow” and “limited.” Most of them lionized Chutkan as an “unflinching” and “no-nonsense”  judge who would not tolerate Trump’s penchant for personal attacks and reckless rhetoric.

  However, this order should concern everyone who values freedom of speech. While the odds may favor Chutkan on appeal, this order should be overturned as overbroad and dangerous.

  For years, many of us have been criticized Trump for his personal attacks on judges and opponents alike. Undeterred, Trump has continued such inflammatory attacks on “deranged” Special Counsel Jack Smith and the “biased, Trump-hating Judge” Chutkan. Smith has pushed aggressively for a gag order, even though one of the major issues in Trump’s campaign is whether the Biden Administration has weaponized the criminal justice system against him and other Republicans.

  This week, Chutkan issued a partial gag order and stressed that she will not allow Trump to conduct a “smear campaign” in which he seeks to “vilify and implicitly encourage violence against public servants who are simply doing their jobs.” She stressed that “no other criminal defendant would be allowed to do so, and I’m not going to allow it in this case.” Chutkan reflects this trend in stating categorically that these are the limits that must be imposed regardless of the defendant.

  These orders come at a great cost — limiting both parties and counsels in raising objections to alleged abuses of the government. The First Amendment was written in the aftermath of such abuses, including the infamous prosecution of publisher John Peter Zenger 290 years ago in 1733.

  Some polls show that a majority now believe the Trump prosecutions are “politically motivated.” Tens of millions oppose the prosecutions, and this will be the single most-discussed issue of the campaign. Yet, one candidate would be both the subject of this national debate and a gag order barring full participation in it.

  Chutkan steadfastly refused to recognize that either this case or this defendant are far from typical. Her order bars Trump from making statements against Smith, his staff, court personnel, and potential witnesses. That last category could include one of Trump’s opponents in the presidential election, former Vice President Mike Pence.

  If Chutkan had simply barred statements targeting court staff or jurors, there would be no controversy. But she has imposed a vaguely worded court order that could turn campaign speeches into criminal contempt.

  While appellate courts have largely ruled in favor of lower courts’ gag orders, there have long been constitutional concerns over these limits on not just the free speech rights of defendants but also their zealous representation by defense counsel.

  It is not surprising that Smith dismisses such concerns. Smith has long adopted extreme legal positions that ignore constitutional values. This includes his prosecution of the former governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell (R), which was reversed in a unanimous 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court in 2016.

  The courts remain divided on the standards for curtailing the free speech rights of a defendant. A closely analogous case is the corruption trial of Rep. Harold E. Ford Sr. (D–Tenn.). The district court barred Ford from making any “extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication” that included criticism of the motives of the government or basis, merits, or evidence of the prosecution.

  The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the gag order as overbroad and stressed that any such limits on free speech should be treated as “presumptively void and may be upheld only on the basis of a clear showing that an exercise of First Amendment rights will interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial.”

  There remains a division on the courts of what showing is needed, but there is little evidence of any true balancing in Chutkan’s decision. This and the other trials will remain the focus of heated debate in this campaign. Her order will only silence the voice of the man who many feel is the victim of politically motivated prosecutions. This order will do little to reduce the criticism or the coverage.

  Ironically, it is a level of restraint that Judge Chutkan herself has failed to show in the past. For example, in sentencing a rioter in 2022, Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.”

  She added that “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”

  That would seem to imply the guilt of an individual who was not even charged. Yet Chutkan has refused to recuse herself in now trying the very man she was referencing as responsible for the crimes of that day.

  As has long been the case, many are turning a blind eye to the implications of this order. They cannot see beyond the name at the top of the caption page. But this order would allow any judge to effectively strip a political candidate of the ability to contest the merits and motivations involved in his own prosecution, including challenging the veracity of prosecutors or witnesses.

  In some of these cases, there is ample reason for such criticism. While I have long said that the Mar-a-Lago prosecution by Smith is well-supported in both law and facts, other prosecutions currently ongoing are clearly politically motivated. The most obvious is the prosecution brought by Alvin Bragg in New York — a case that contorts existing law in an attempt to bag a political figure unpopular in his jurisdiction.

  While the Chutkan gag order does not extend to the other cases, they constitute a daisy-chain of trials that will have Trump running between courts before the election. There is much to criticize in Smith’s second indictment, which will be tried before a judge who previously denounced Trump in a district where 95 percent of the voters opposed Trump.

  After Chutkan ordered a trial just before Super Tuesday, she is now gagging only one candidate — the very candidate who is campaigning against the weaponization of the criminal justice system. You do not have to like or support Trump to recognize the serious problem inherent in such a gag order.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 23:00

• De-Dollarization? China Completes First Digital Yuan Purchase For Cross-Border Oil Transaction
  De-Dollarization? China Completes First Digital Yuan Purchase For Cross-Border Oil Transaction

  De-dollarization continues accelerating with news of the Shanghai Petroleum and Natural Gas Exchange (SHPGX), a Chinese-backed exchange for trading energy-related products, settling its first cross-border transaction in digital yuan.

  Chinese-based financial news outlet “Yicai” first reported PetroChina International bought one million barrels of crude oil using digital yuan on Thursday. It was the exchange’s first overseas oil settlement in digital yuan. However, the name of the seller was not disclosed. 

  SHPGX has made several transactions in yuan earlier this year: In March, PetroChina and TotalEnergies completed a yuan-denominated liquefied natural gas transaction on the exchange. According to the exchange, four such LNG transactions have occurred this year. 

  

  China’s central bank began the digital yuan project in 2014 and has piloted the electronic currency in numerous regions across China. The world’s second-largest economy has been preparing to use the yuan and its digital version in international trade and finance as an alternative to the dollar. 

  In August, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called for BRICS nations to create a common currency as the world furiously searches for ways to circumvent the dollar-based financial system. 

  Brazil’s president said a BRICS currency “increases our payment options and reduces our vulnerabilities.” 

  The US shutting Russia out of the SWIFT messaging system that underpins most global payments in response to its invasion of Ukraine has supercharged the de-dollarization trend. 

  It remains to be seen who exactly PetroChina paid digital yuan for the crude oil, but it might not be out of the question that it was Russia, considering it’s been shut out of the SWIFT system, plus oil exports to China have hit a record high. 

   

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 22:30

• US Announces New Immigration Program For Ecuadorians
  US Announces New Immigration Program For Ecuadorians

  Authored by Stephen Katte via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  A new legal immigration pathway for immigrants from Ecuador has been implemented by the Biden Administration to help slow the influx of illegal immigrants trekking to enter the United States at its Mexico border.

  

  According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Family Reunification Parole (FRP) allows U.S-based Ecuadorians to sponsor immediate family members abroad to come into the country legally.

  Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said the FRP process will open up new pathways for legal immigration, while also hopefully reducing the number of people making the dangerous journey from Ecuador using people smugglers.

  “Establishing this process for certain Ecuadorian nationals will ensure more families can access lawful pathways rather than placing themselves at the mercy of smugglers to make the dangerous journey,” he said.

  “Those who do not avail themselves of family reunification parole or other lawful, safe, and orderly pathways, and attempt to enter the United States unlawfully will continue to face tough consequences,” he added.

  

  To qualify, Ecuadorians must have a family member who is already a citizen or permanent resident to sponsor them for an immigrant visa. If approved, officials will invite the applicant to enter the United States under the humanitarian parole authority without waiting for a visa.

  Under the new FRP process, qualifying applicants must be outside the United States at the time of application and go through all the usual screening, vetting, and medical requirements. Anyone who has already received an immigrant visa is not eligible.

  As part of the FRP, migrants can remain in the United States for up to three years, apply for work permits while they wait for an immigrant visa, and then apply to become a lawful permanent resident.

  The process is being touted as much faster than the family-based visa system, which is nearly permanently backlogged and capped at a specific number. The FRP already includes eligible nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

  

  Illegal entry into America is classed as a federal crime and can attract penalties such as deportation, and bans on re-entry into the country.

  Chaos in Ecuador Driving Up Emigrant Numbers

  Ecuador has previously been in the midst of its own immigration crisis, as millions fled socialist Venezuela to escape hyperinflation and extreme poverty in the once wealthy nation. In recent years, Ecuadorians have also been fleeing their country in huge numbers due to a struggling economy and a massive uptick in violent crimes from drug cartels and street gangs.

  In July, Ecuador’s President Guillermo Lasso was forced to declare a state of emergency and night curfews in three coastal provinces after a wave of violence swept through the country, leaving at least eight dead.

  

  Ecuadorian presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio was also gunned down Aug. 9 while leaving a political rally. The six men accused of the crime were killed in prison while awaiting the results of the investigation into the crime.

  The State Department has advised Americans not to visit certain areas of the country due to heightened risks of kidnapping, assault, and murder.

  The ongoing chaos has seen record numbers of Ecuadorians attempt to flee to safer countries. Federal data shows that Border Patrol reportedly apprehended nearly 99,000 Ecuadorians who entered the United States without authorization in the last 12 months.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 22:00

• RFK Jr's Presidential Bid Hinges On Ballot Access
  RFK Jr’s Presidential Bid Hinges On Ballot Access

  Earlier this month, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr announced he was abandoning a Democratic Party that’s overtly hostile to his 2024 presidential campaign, choosing to run as an independent candidate instead.

  He’s already drawing a hefty 16% in three-way contest with Biden and Trump, according to a recent NPR/PBS/Marist poll. However, all the public support in the world will mean nothing unless RFK Jr can overcome a major hurdle for any independent candidate: getting his name on the ballot in 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

  There’s more to that feat than gathering signatures. “It takes significant expertise to navigate specific rules for every state and the requirements needed before signatures can even begin to be collected — and then to beat back the legal challenges that will almost certainly follow,” writes Politico‘s Brittany Gibson. 

  

  Time is a big factor, and one that makes the ballot challenge all the more daunting for Kennedy’s campaign, given his relatively late start. Consider that the nascent No Labels party has been at it for two years says it will complete the process for 28 states by New Year’s, with a goal of hitting 50 for the election.

  Utah’s deadline comes first, and in less than three months — on January 6. “I wondered if they had thought it all through before making the switch over,” ballot access expert Michael Arno tells Politico. 

  Signature requirements vary wildly: Kennedy has to get 200,000 signatures in California but a mere 275 in Tennessee. To be on the safe side, campaigns need to exceed those targets so they still qualify after signatures are scrutinized. Many states add an extra level of complexity by requiring that the group of people signing a ballot petition represent various parts of the state to a stipulated extent.  

  There’s also a need to hire signature collectors, with the cost typically coming in between $7 and $10 per autograph. Those collectors need thick skin, as they’re prone to being confronted by party loyalists angered over an independent’s potential “spoiler” role. 

  To defend their duopoly, Democratic and Republican parties each routinely file legal challenges against independent candidates, and Kennedy’s campaign is surely bracing for legal battles over the coming months. 

  However, it’s not yet obvious which party has the most to lose from Kennedy’s presence on the ballot. In the latest NPR/PBS/Marist polls, Kennedy lifted Biden’s lead over Trump from 3 points to 7.   

  So @RobertKennedyJr has fired his antiwar campaign manager @Dennis_Kucinich and replaced him with his CIA officer relative… Run, don’t walk away from RFK! https://t.co/chMStpd5eU pic.twitter.com/m75ZOawfFn

  — Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) October 14, 2023

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

  Kennedy’s impact on Trump and Biden will likely change over time, as he stakes out different policy positions. Even before the Hamas attack on Israel stirred that issue, Kennedy alienated progressives and non-interventionist libertarians with full-throated support of Israel that went well beyond the level of lip-service often deemed mandatory of politicians. Meanwhile, his flirtation with reparations for black people — which his campaign calls “direct redress payments” — is certain to rankle disaffected Republicans. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 21:30

• Grenada, 1983: Catalyst To Upgrading Special Operations
  Grenada, 1983: Catalyst To Upgrading Special Operations

  Authored by Forrest Marion via RealClear Wire,

  In mid-October 1983, a “sordid little Leninist dictatorship” on the Caribbean Island of Grenada crumbled, resulting in the British Commonwealth country’s takeover by a more-leftist military junta. The situation immediately raised concerns in Washington regarding the potential for a large-scale hostage crisis in addition to the threat of regional instability within the Cold War’s context.

  

  From 1979 to 1983, the revolutionary Grenadian government, led by Maurice Bishop, established close ties with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Probably its most important project was the construction of an international airport with a 9,000-foot runway. The government stated the airport was for tourism, but, inexplicably, the hotels to support the anticipated increase in visitors were lacking. Tellingly, the Point Salines airport on Grenada’s southern coast was to be capable of handling Soviet military aircraft. President Ronald Reagan called Grenada “a Soviet-Cuban colony being readied as a major military bastion to export terror and undermine democracy.”

  On October 19, 1983, Bishop – considered not leftist enough by some of his fellow Marxists – was murdered. Within days, Reagan approved the chairman of the joint chiefs’ recommendation to develop plans for possible hostilities on the island, should the Grenadians and/or the Cubans – 450 of the latter were building the airport – oppose a U.S. evacuation of its citizens. Of greatest concern to the Reagan administration was the presence of several hundred medical students on the island. It feared “another Tehran” – referring to the hostage crisis in 1979-80 that contributed to President Jimmy Carter’s failed reelection bid.

  On October 25, 1983, an eight thousand-member U.S.-led coalition force invaded Grenada. Its objective was to “conduct military operations to protect and evacuate US and designated foreign nationals from Grenada, neutralize Grenadian forces, stabilize the internal situation, and maintain the peace.” To no one’s surprise, the operation was one-sided and short – most hostilities ended within 72 hours – but it was somewhat akin to an NFL team defeating a scrub club, 7-3. Regardless of media coverage that gave the impression of a flawless battlefield victory, “it was an ugly win, with many problems” surrounding the employment of special operations forces.

  Instances of poor operational planning and deficiencies in areas such as the knowledge of conditions on the ground at Grenada, interservice cooperation, and communications abounded. Although Washington had closely followed developments in Grenada since 1979, military planners lacked current maps of the island. In numerous cases during the operation, various military elements did not share common radio frequencies or system compatibility, contributing to the widely publicized anecdote of one military member on the ground at Grenada resorting to a payphone to call back to the United States for artillery support. While the story became an urban legend (at least one similar incident featuring a regular phone did occur, however), the actual deficiencies in communications provided the ideal platform for the “payphone” anecdote to spread far and wide – including senior U.S. officials and Hollywood.

  The unfinished but usable airfield at Port Salines was a major objective. Early on October 25th, as the lead C-130 aircraft carrying the airfield seizure package approached, it lost navigational and infrared systems. Coupled with unexpected rain showers and low ceilings, the aircraft commander passed the formation’s lead to another Hercules. Following the reshuffling of aircraft, and learning the Grenadians were awaiting the assault, the Army Ranger 1st Battalion commander, Wes Taylor, directed his men to jump from only 500 feet above the ground. Lieutenant Colonel Taylor’s impromptu decision probably saved numerous lives, as the Grenadians could not achieve a trajectory low enough for their antiaircraft guns to target the aircraft. In any case, the Americans’ reception was not the “pina coladas” that one senior Air Force briefer had led the aircrews to expect.

  Air Force combat controllers were among the several types of special operations forces in Grenada, some of whom jumped in with the Rangers. While the Rangers established a perimeter around the Salines airfield, the combat controllers ensured the safe, timely, and coordinated flow and movement of aircraft during landings, takeoffs, and ground operations, and following the set-up of radios, navigational aids, and lighting, they handled those duties plus airspace coordination.

  Gaining actual control of the field was extremely difficult, however. One combat control officer recalled, “Our real issue . . . was that the Army and the Navy and Marine Corps were all attempting to use the airfield as well [as the Air Force], and no one had deconflicted the control. . .. Everybody had their own plan. . .. [and] was trying to execute it on the same piece of real estate.” Each Service thought it was the primary airfield user and in charge. In one case, an Air Force combat control officer and an Army superior officer nearly came to blows when an Army artillery battery which had set up on one side of the airfield began firing across the runway! In the chaotic environment at Port Salines, near-misses occurred “all the time.”

  Upgrading Special Operations

  From the close of America’s Southeast Asia military operations, U.S. special operations forces experienced significant trials in the decade that followed, marked particularly by the failed Iranian hostage rescue attempt in 1980 and the Grenada operation’s mixed record three years later. In the aftermath of Iran-Grenada, several congressional leaders took the initiative to reorganize the Pentagon’s special operations forces, culminating in the creation of U.S. Special Operations Command in 1987.

  Looking back from 1991, U.S. Army Col. William G. Boykin – later a 3-star general – wrote in his war college research paper of a key Senate hearing five years earlier in which retired Maj. Gen. Richard Scholtes provided “compelling testimony” concerning Grenada. Scholtes, the Joint Special Operations Command commander for the operation, explained to the senators how his forces were “misused” and “robbed of their unique capabilities by the conventional planners and chain of command,” leading to “relatively significant casualties in Grenada as a result of numerous fundamental misunderstandings of their tactics and capabilities.”

  The effect was powerful. The next day, Senator William Cohen (R-Maine) introduced a revised version of his original special operations bill as an amendment to the 1987 defense authorization bill. Cohen told his fellow lawmakers:

  I do not believe that this record is attributable to persistent bad luck or an inadequate caliber of men in the armed services. In my view, we have not been effectively organized to fight the most likely battles of the present or the future.

  Both houses of Congress passed the special operations measures. Two months later, in October 1986, President Reagan signed the 1987 defense bill into law, which included the framework for U.S. Special Operations Command. In the coming years, Cohen’s bleak assessment was destined to change – a fact he undoubtedly appreciated while serving as the nation’s defense secretary a decade later.

  From a broader perspective, the brief Grenada operation in 1983 began the post-Vietnam rebuilding of the positive image of America’s military in the eyes of many citizens. That rebuilding continued with another short, successful operation in the 1989 removal of Manuel Noriega from Panama. In 1991, during the vastly larger, successful operation against Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime – U.S. objectives remained limited – the American public’s favorable view of its armed forces reached a high not seen in decades. At the same time, the long overdue recognition of U.S. veterans of the Southeast Asia conflict was a welcome corollary.

  But the 1990s also began a trend in the U.S. military that threatened cohesion and combat readiness. Like the well-known tragedy at Parris Island in 1956 in which six Marine recruits perished in a swamp, beginning with the Clinton administration in 1993 the Pentagon wandered into the swamp of social engineering for political ends. Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy permitting homosexuals in the armed forces began the process that, three decades later, helped bring us to where we are now: neo-Maoist (self-loathing) diversity trainings; Orwellian “memory hole” treatment of military heroes; and drag-queen-, abortion-, and transgender-related perversions – all of which are front-and-center in the U.S. armed forces.

  None of this contributes to the current recruiting crisis, we are told, however. Put another way, if one wished to destroy the U.S. military from within, what might one do differently?

  For the first time, the American military is rated “weak” by the respected Heritage Foundation. Meanwhile, China continues its engagement in low-level hostilities against the United States that it could ramp up at any moment; ideally, not until victory seems assured. As I remember from a 1980s’ radio sermon on the Book of Jeremiah: “Payday comes someday. . .. Payday comes some day.” Although the national context differs today, Jeremiah wrote of Judah: “Yet I shall not make a full end of you; But I shall correct you properly And by no means leave you unpunished.” . . . Perhaps it will be so with us.     

  ---

  Forrest L. Marion, Ph.D., is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and military historian. He is the author of Flight Risk: The Coalition’s Air Advisory Mission in Afghanistan, 2005-2015 (Naval Institute Press, 2018), and (forthcoming), Standing Up Space Force: The Road to the Nation’s Sixth Armed Service (Naval Institute Press).

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 21:00

• "Dangerous And Misguided": California AG Flips Out After Judge Strikes Down Assault Weapons Ban
  “Dangerous And Misguided”: California AG Flips Out After Judge Strikes Down Assault Weapons Ban

  California Attorney General Bob Bonta is hoppin’ mad after a federal judge in San Diego declared the state’s law banning assault weapons to be unconstitutional, and that a 1989 prohibition on certain semi-automatic weapons could not stand in light of a US Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded gun rights.

  

  In a 79-page ruling on Thursday, US District Judge Roger Benitez said that the state’s ban deprived law-abiding people from owning semiautomatic firearms like the AR-15 (in certain configurations) is “extreme,” and violates the US Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

  

  Benitez also (accurately) notes that criminals are already in possession of “assault weapons,” and that “Rather than being outgunned, many citizens want these same firearms as a defense against criminal attacks.”

  

  Benitez then provided examples of self-defense that are rarely picked up in the media, starting with a pregnant woman in Florida, who was able to defend her home from violent attackers using an AR-15.

  

  According to Benitez, in light of the US Supreme Court striking down New York state’s limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home, that there were “no founding era dead ringers or historical twins” to California’s assault weapons ban, and that the state couldn’t point to any historical laws before it adopted its ban.

  California in 1989 became the first U.S. state to ban assault weapons, acting in the wake of a school shooting that killed five children.

  The legal challenge was brought by several California residents who wanted to own firearms like the AR-15 as well as by gun rights groups including the Firearms Policy Coalition, the California Gun Rights Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation.

  Benitez, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush, said California’s decision to ban assault weapons “creates the extreme policy that a handful of criminals can dictate the conduct and infringe on the freedom of law-abiding citizens.” -Reuters

  In response to the ruling, AG Bonta fired off an angry letter and filed an appeal, calling Benitez’s decision “dangerous and misguided.” We expect the state’s liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to agree, after which the US Supreme Court will need to weigh in (or not).

  Meanwhile, California gun owners aren’t exactly overjoyed. As one anonymous user on Calguns.net posted in response:

  After Duncan (not to mention Heller, Peruta, Bruen, etc., etc.) talk of this being a win is just delusional. NOTHING has changed for the better. In fact it’s far WORSE.

  Can I buy handguns the rest of the nation can? NO.
  Can I open carry? NO
  Can I carry concealed? NOT AFTER JAN 1, 2024
  STD mags? NO
  Can I own AR-15s or the like that aren’t bastardized, unsafe, nonstop ugly a*s reminders of our impotence? NO
  Can I buy ammo online like I used to? NOT WITHOUT JUMPING THROUGH FFL03+COE HOOPS).
  For crying out loud people, we can’t even buy ammo without first asking permission and then having to paying for that permission (background check)!!

  What a joke this all is. And there’s so much more I haven’t even thought of. You call this winning? Wake up. I’m done.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 20:30

• India Rejects Russian Demand To Pay For Oil In Chinese Yuan
  India Rejects Russian Demand To Pay For Oil In Chinese Yuan

  By Tsvetana Paraskova of Oilprice.com

  India’s government is expected to reject demands from Russian oil companies to pay for Russia’s crude oil imports in Chinese yuan, Indian officials told Bloomberg on Friday.

  

  Russia and its companies need Chinese currency as Russian trade has become much more reliant on China after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the sanctions on Russia. Moscow has a lot of Indian rupees, but it can’t spend them all while it needs yuan. Russian firms have largely ditched dollar and euro payments due to the Western sanctions and the fact that Russia has been cut off from the SWIFT banking payment system.

  Russian oil companies have been asking lately for payments in yuan, but the Indian government – which owns 70% of the refiners in the world’s third-largest crude oil importer – will not agree to these demands, according to Bloomberg’s sources.

  Some crude cargoes from Russia to India have been recently delayed because the parties have failed to agree on the currency of the payment, sources at refiners told Bloomberg.

  Earlier this week, unnamed Finance Ministry sources told Reuters that payment in Chinese currency of seven cargoes of Russian crude oil imported by state-run Indian oil refineries is being held up over the Indian government’s new-found hesitancy to accept this form of payment.

  State-run Indian Oil Corporation has settled purchases in yuan previously, while Bharat Petroleum Corp and Hindustan Petroleum have not yet resorted to the Chinese currency, though direct Russian suppliers have requested this. 

  India has hiked imports of Russian crude in the past year due to the cheaper Russian supply compared to crudes from the Middle East.

  Between April and September, the first half of India’s 2023/2024 fiscal year, Indian imports of Russian crude oil more than doubled to 1.76 million barrels per day (bpd) from 780,000 bpd in the same period of the 2022/2023 year, per vessel-tracking data cited by Reuters.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 20:05

• "He Not A Terrorist": FBI Arrests Man Living In Parents' Basement For Train Derailment
  “He Not A Terrorist”: FBI Arrests Man Living In Parents’ Basement For Train Derailment

  Local media Fox 8 reports that a Cleveland man, who lives with his parents, was arrested last week on federal terrorism charges for sabotaging railroad tracks. 

  

  According to a complaint filed in federal court, FBI agents say 43-year-old Joseph Findley jammed metal objects into the tracks near Cleveland’s St. Clair-Superior neighborhood. Agents say Findley’s action led to a CSX derailment in August:

  The federal investigation began in August, when CSX employees reported that their train struck objects that had been wedged into a switch on the tracks near East 55th Street and Dominion Energy. The obstruction caused some of the wheels on the train to derail, but eventually they fell back into place on the tracks. -Fox 8

  After the derailment in August, FBI agents began their investigation:

  When FBI agents began their investigation, surveillance cameras at Dominion Energy were not positioned to show the nearby railroad tracks. However, the company agreed to change the angle of the cameras, and that’s when they captured images of a bald man in shorts and a black shirt placing items on the tracks a total of five times between August and Oct. 1.

  When shown photos of the suspect, an employee at a nearby business identified him as Joseph Findley. When federal authorities executed a search warrant at Findley’s home on Friday and placed him under arrest, they say he admitted that he had placed rail spikes on the tracks, but denied he intended to cause trains to derail. -Fox 8

  Findley’s mother told the local media outlet that her son was “depressed because he lost his job, he lost his girlfriend, but he never did anything like that.” 

  She continued, “They’re nuts, he’s not a terrorist. I think they all exaggerated it because he never did anything bad.”

  However, being depressed about Biden’s crap economy of persistent inflation is not an excuse to place metal items on CSX tracks. 

  This brings us to a much larger issue: A surge in train derailments nationwide over the last year. Last week, a freight train carrying military vehicles derailed in downtown Colorado Springs. And, of course, let’s not forget about the toxic train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. 

  Even though equipment failures cause many of these train derailments, we must ask the question: How many were sabotaged? 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 19:40

• The FDA's Ties To The Gates Foundation
  The FDA’s Ties To The Gates Foundation

  Authored by Maryanne Demasi via The Brownstone Institute,

  In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

  Under the MOU, the two entities agreed to share information to “facilitate the development of innovative products, including medical countermeasures,” such as diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics to combat disease transmission during a pandemic.

  The FDA has MOUs with many academic and non-profit organisations, but few have as much to gain as Bill Gates, who has invested billions into pandemic countermeasures.

  Experts are concerned the Gates Foundation could have undue influence over the FDA’s regulatory decisions of these countermeasures.

  

  David Gortler, an ex-senior adviser to the FDA commissioner between 2019 and 2021, says he is “suspicious” of the MOU.

  “If the Gates Foundation establishes an MOU with a regulator on a product they want to develop, it seems like it would be a conflict of interest.  What if every other drug company did the exact same thing as the Gates Foundation?” he says. 

  Gortler, now a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC, explained that normally, meetings between developers and regulators are supposed to be an official part of the public record and subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. 

  “However, an MOU such as this can circumvent the usual requirements for the transparency of official communications,” says Gortler. 

  “This way their communications can be kept secret.”

  David Bell, a former medical officer for the World Health Organisation (WHO) who now works as a public health physician and biotech consultant, agrees that the MOU has potential to corrupt the regulatory process.

  “The narrative is that philanthropic foundations can only be good, because they’re making vaccines and saving thousands of lives, so we need to cut the red tape and help the FDA get stuff done quickly otherwise children will die,” says Bell. “But in reality, it has potential to corrupt the whole system.”

  Bell adds, “Speaking generally, close relationships between regulators and developers raise inevitable risks that shortcuts and favours will breakdown the rigorousness of the product review, putting the public at risk.”

  Revolving door

  The FDA has been roundly criticised for its “revolving door.” Ten of the past 11 FDA commissioners left the agency and secured roles with pharmaceutical companies they once regulated.

  Similarly, the Gates Foundation hired high-ranking members of the FDA, who bring with them intimate knowledge of the regulatory process.

  For example, Murray Lumpkin had a 24-year career at the FDA, serving as senior advisor to the FDA commissioner and representative for global issues. Now, he is deputy director of regulatory affairs at the Gates Foundation, and signatory on the MOU. 

  And Margaret Hamburg, who served as FDA commissioner between 2009 and 2015, is now on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Gates Foundation.

  Bell has no doubt that these appointments were strategic to “game the system” saying, “If I worked at the Gates Foundation, I would certainly hire somebody like Murray Lumpkin.”

  The only way to fix the revolving door problem Bell says, is to have a ‘non-compete clause’ in their contracts.

  “It might be that FDA employees cannot work for the people they’ve regulated for at least 10 years. There are places that have those rules – private companies have agreements that you can’t work for a rival,” said Bell.

  The FDA dismissed questions about the potential for conflicts of interest, or the lack of transparency over its communications with the Gates Foundation. In a statement, the FDA said:

  FDA regulatory decision making is science-based. Former FDA officials do not impact regulatory decisions. FDA only collaborates with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation under the MOU as described.

  Gates has billions at stake

  Gates boasted about receiving a 20-to-1 return on his $10 billion investment into the “financing and delivery” of medicines and vaccines.

  “It’s the best investment I’ve ever made,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

  “Decades ago, these investments weren’t sure bets, but today, they almost always pay off in a big way.”

  In Sept 2019, just prior to the pandemic, SEC filings showed the foundation purchased over 1 million shares in BioNTech (Pfizer’s partner) for $18.10/share. By Nov 2021, the foundation dumped most of the stock for an average of $300/share.

  Investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel reported the foundation pocketed approximately $260 million in profit – more than 15 times its original investment – most of it untaxed because it was invested through the foundation.

  In his recent book, How to Prevent the Next Pandemic, Gates warns that future pandemics are the biggest threat to humankind and that survival depends on global pandemic preparedness strategies, firmly positioning himself at the centre of shaping the agenda.

  In October 2019, the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum hosted Event 201, which gathered government agencies, social media companies, and national security organisations to war game a “fictional” global pandemic.

  

  Oct 2019, Gates and WEF fund Event 201 to simulate a global pandemic response

  The key recommendations from the event were that such a crisis would require the deployment of new vaccines, surveillance, and control of information and human behaviours, by orchestrating the cooperation and coordination of key industries, national governments, and international institutions.

  Several weeks later when the covid-19 pandemic emerged, many aspects of this ‘hypothetical scenario’ became a chilling reality.

  The Gates Foundation, which holds shares in a range of drug companies including Merck, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson, is now credited with wielding significant influence over the direction of the global response to the pandemic, saying its goal is to “vaccinate the entire world” with a covid-19 vaccine.

  Global dominance

  The Gates Foundation has poured millions into funding NGOs, media, and international agencies, earning Gates significant political clout.

  Financial contributions to the media have garnered Gates favourable news coverage, boasting on the foundation’s website it committed almost $3.5 million to the Guardian in 2020 – 2023.

  The UK medicines regulator – the MHRA – disclosed it took approximately $3 million in funding from the Gates Foundation in 2022, which would span across several financial years.

  Presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy, Jr labelled Gates “the most powerful man in public health” because he managed to steer the WHO’s pandemic strategy to focus primarily on vaccination.

  Kennedy said in an interview that the WHO “begs and rolls over” for Gates’ funding, which now makes up over 88 percent of the total amount of the WHO’s donations by philanthropic foundations.

  “I think [Gates] believes that he is somehow ordained divinely to bring salvation to the world through technology,” said Kenney.

  “He believes the only path to good health is inside a syringe.”

  The Gates Foundation’s CEO Mark Suzman responded to concerns that the foundation has “disproportionate sway in setting national and global agendas, without any formal accountability to voters or international bodies.”

  “It’s true that between our dollars, voice, and convening power, we have access and influence that many others do not,” admitted Suzman in his 2023 annual letter . 

  “But make no mistake – where there’s a solution that can improve livelihoods and save lives, we’ll advocate persistently for it. We won’t stop using our influence, along with our monetary commitments, to find solutions,” he wrote.

  Republished from the author’s Substack

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 19:15

• "The Whole George Floyd Story Was A Lie": Tucker Carlson
  “The Whole George Floyd Story Was A Lie”: Tucker Carlson

  Tucker Carlson just challenged one of the left’s most sacred of cows – George Floyd, an ex-con who died with an elephant-dose of fentanyl in his system and a history of health issues, while in custody of Minneapolis police on May 25, 2020.

  

  According to Carlson, we need to revisit certain popular narratives, including the circumstances surrounding Floyd’s death – and in particular, inconsistencies between public perception – that Floyd died under the knee of former officer Derek Chauvin, who’s currently serving more than 40 years in state and federal sentences.

  “Did, for example, a racist white cop actually murder a man called George Floyd, a civil rights leader in Minneapolis on Memorial Day of 2020? Now we’ve been told that that happened, told it relentlessly for more than three years,” Carlson says, adding “But the question is, did he [Derek Chauvin] actually murder George Floyd? And the answer is, well, no, he didn’t murder George Floyd, and we’re not guessing about that; we know it conclusively thanks to a new court case now underway in Hennepin County, Minnesota.“

  The lawsuit, incidental to Floyd and Chauvin, unveiled sworn deposition excerpts from a conversation with County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker, indicating that Floyd’s passing was not due to asphyxiation or strangulation. Instead, factors including drug use and a fatal concentration of fentanyl were significant contributors, reframing his demise from the widely publicized ‘murder’ to an inadvertent overdose.

  Derek Chauvin did not murder George Floyd pic.twitter.com/aZj4yDrfuG

  — Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 20, 2023

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

  “In other words, George Floyd, according to the official autopsy, was not murdered. He died instead of what we used to call natural causes, which, in his case, would include decades of drug use, as well as the fatal concentration of fentanyl that was in his system on his final day,” Carlson continued – laying out how the initial George Floyd storyline was endorsed and amplified by mainstream media, and ignited nationwide protests, intensive racial discourse, and movements like Black Lives Matter. 

  These changes encompassed police defunding efforts, corporate hiring practices, and the institutionalization of new cultural observances like Juneteenth.

  Carlson interviewed Vince Everett Ellison, author of “Crime Inc.” – who discussed the possibility of orchestrated degradation and victimization within the Black community by political entities, particularly the Democratic party.

  Ellison suggests that the glorification of figures like George Floyd represents an insidious strategy to perpetuate a certain stereotype of blacks who are reliant on the system, thereby solidifying a voting base and maintaining a form of socio-political control.

  Drawing parallels between movements like BLM and historical or international groups used for political leverage, Ellison’s commentary insinuates that these organizations could be modern iterations of ‘domestic militias’ utilized by the Democrats for social manipulation and power consolidation. The unsettling comparison of BLM to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, or the historical utilization of the Ku Klux Klan, paints a grim picture of political machinations where civil unrest is a tool rather than a byproduct.

  “The Democratic party uses BLM and Antifa as theirs, throwing the rock and hiding the hand. Of course, they’re going to do it; they’ve always done it, even at the beginning, they used the Ku Klux Klan,” he said.

  Watch:

  Ep. 32 You’ll be shocked to learn this, but it turns out the whole George Floyd story was a lie. pic.twitter.com/4vDXBStHf5

  — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 20, 2023

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

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 18:50

• Georgia Man Issued $1.4 Million Super Speeder Ticket For Doing 90 In A 55
  Georgia Man Issued $1.4 Million Super Speeder Ticket For Doing 90 In A 55

  Inflation really has gotten out of control.

  We’re sure those were the thoughts of the Georgia man who received a $1.4 million speeding ticket last month. Connor Cato was on his way home on September 2 when he was pulled over for doing 90 in a 55 mile per hour zone. 

  Georgia State Patrol then tore him off a ticket with a $1.4 million dollar fine, according to WASV. 

  “‘$1.4 million,’ the lady told me on the phone. I said, ‘This might be a typo’ and she said, ‘No sir, you either pay the amount on the ticket or you come to court on Dec. 21 at 1:30 p.m,’” Cato told his local NBC affiliate. 

  Criminal defense attorney Sneh Patel commented: “I mean I can’t imagine someone would have to pay $1.4 million for not showing up for a speeding ticket.”

  

  He added: “At first when I was asked about this, I thought it was a clerical error. But then you told me you followed up and apparently it’s not a clerical error. But again, I have never seen something like this, ever.” 

  Patel told the NBC affiliate that misdemeanor charges in Georgia can only go up to $1,000: “It’s a misdemeanor of high and aggravated nature, it will be $ 5,000. Now, the bond amount should be relevant to that so for misdemeanor, you wouldn’t see bond amounts over $5,000 maybe $10,000 just to ensure if it’s a crime that involves violence or if you’re anticipating they will commit more crimes, it would set a higher amount or if you think they won’t show for court, you set a higher amount.”

  He added: “But not $1.4 million — that’s something that goes into cases that are drug trafficking, murders or aggravated assaults, something of that nature.”

  The city of Savannah then explained to NBC that, like all good efficient government work, the “system” uses $999,999.99 as a “placeholder” on tickets until a judge has a chance to set the fine at a hearing, as is done with super speeder tickets. 

  “The balance reflected in the e-citation is a placeholder. Super speeders are required to go to court. The system automatically puts in $999,999.99 as the base amount plus other costs since the only way to resolve the ticket is to appear in court,” Savannah told NBC. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 18:40

• "Children Are Not Social Experiments": Oklahoma Ban On Sex Changes For Minors Upheld By Federal District Court
  “Children Are Not Social Experiments”: Oklahoma Ban On Sex Changes For Minors Upheld By Federal District Court

  Authored by Steven Kovac via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  U.S. District Court Judge John F. Heil has ruled that an Oklahoma state law banning sex-change procedures on children was constitutional and therefore could be enforced.

  

  The ruling on Oct. 5, 2023, came as a result of a motion for injunctive relief to restrain the state from implementing the law.

  Five young people identifying as transgender and in some degree of transition, their parents or legal guardians, and a health care provider are the plaintiffs in the case.

  The defendant is Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican.

  In an email to The Epoch Times, Mr. Gentner’s press secretary, Leslie Berger, stated: “The Attorney General’s Office continues to fulfill its duty to defend Senate Bill 613, and has won a ruling that results in full enforcement of that law.”

  The lawsuit was filed on May 2, 2023, the day after the Republican-controlled Oklahoma State Legislature resoundingly passed Senate Bill 613 enacting the ban.

  Governor Kevin Stitt, a Republican, signed the bill into law just hours after it passed. Then, the state agreed to hold off on implementation until the court ruled on the motion.

  The court decided that a child’s parents do not have the right to obtain medical services to change the sex of their minor son or daughter, as the plaintiffs contended.

  However, in the ruling, there is a recognition of the longstanding legal acknowledgment that Americans have the right to refuse medical treatment.

  The statute does not keep Oklahomans who are 18 years old and over from obtaining such procedures.

  Judge Heil, a Trump appointee, wrote that there is a distinction between adults who are ready to make life-altering decisions and “minors, who, at least in the eyes of the legislature, are not.

  “Indeed, courts have upheld restrictions designed to protect and prevent minors from engaging in behaviors that are far less risky than the procedures banned in SB 613,” he wrote.

  Judge Heil cited precedent that recognized a balance between “the truth that parents generally know what is best for their children,” and the reality that state governments have an abiding interest in protecting public health, preserving and promoting the welfare of children, and keeping the medical profession ethical and honest.

  “In the case before this court, plaintiffs have not demonstrated a fundamental right for parents to choose for their children to use puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for the purpose of effectuating a gender transition,” wrote the judge.

  He quoted from a supporting case, which reads in part: “Absent a fundamental right, the state may regulate an interest pursuant to a validly enacted state law or regulation rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”

  A Sincere Disagreement

  The ruling acknowledged that some people believe that obtaining a sex change operation is a demonstration of compassion for a child, while other people believe that saving a minor child from undergoing a sex change procedure is an act of compassion.

  Judge Heil wrote that, because the entire concept is relatively new to society, and that definitive medical evidence is still being acquired, it would not be wise for the judiciary to enjoin the democratically elected legislature from enforcing a duly passed law addressing the subject “without a clear warrant in the Constitution.”

  The ruling also stated that the plaintiffs failed to meet the necessary standards to prove any discrimination on account of sex and could prove no 14th Amendment due process violations.

  “It is well to remember that the most deeply rooted tradition in this country is that we look to democracy to answer pioneering public policy questions, meaning that federal courts must resist the temptation to invoke unenumerated guarantees to ‘substitute’ their views for those of legislatures,” reads one of the supporting precedents cited by Judge Heil.

  Under the new law, a health care provider “shall not knowingly provide gender transition procedures to any child,” under possible penalty of license revocation and felony prosecution.

  According to the statute, gender transition procedures are medical or surgical services performed for the purpose of “attempting to affirm the minor’s perception of his or her gender or biological sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex.”

  The outlawed gender transition procedures include surgeries that alter or remove physical or anatomical characteristics or features that are typical for the individual’s biological sex, as well as the prescribing of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, “or other drugs to suppress or delay normal puberty or to promote the development of feminizing or masculinizing features consistent with the opposite biological sex.”

  Exceptions to the ban allow a minor currently taking cross-sex hormones to be gradually weaned off the drugs.

  It also exempts children in need of treatment for the onset of puberty before the rest of the body is ready, along with those suffering from other physical problems related to genitalia.

  According to a study by Liberty Counsel, a national, non-profit, religious liberty law firm that advocates for Christian values, 22 states have passed legislation protecting children from sex change practices.

  In a recent press release, Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver said of the Oklahoma decision: “The District Court has justly decided that Oklahoma is free to protect children from these harmful procedures that have devastated many young lives.

  “Children are not social experiments and state legislatures have considerable discretion to protect them.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 18:25

• Wealthy House Dem Signals He'll Challenge Biden For 2024 Nomination
  Wealthy House Dem Signals He’ll Challenge Biden For 2024 Nomination

  While the hour is getting late for would-be pursuers of the presidency in 2024, a moderate Democratic House representative is signaling he’s about to announce a challenge to President Biden for the party nomination. 

  First elected to Congress in 2018, 54-year-old Rep. Dean Phillips represents Minnesota’s third district, which primarily comprises the western suburbs of Minneapolis, along with some rural areas. For a Democratic Party obsessed with identity politics, Phillips would be the first Jewish US president.  

  Rep. Dean Phillips: “Joe Biden right now is down SEVEN POINTS in the four swing states that will decide the next election.” 👀 pic.twitter.com/QtKpW9ZeIH

  — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) August 13, 2023

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

  Phillips is quietly signaling to House peers that he’ll launch a campaign shortly, Politico reports. He’s previously pointed to Biden’s age as a liability and said “the country is begging for alternatives.” In an August appearance on Meet the Press, Phillips called on Biden to “pass the torch…I believe a majority wants to move on…people want to turn the page.” 

  Don’t expect Phillips to draw any sharp policy contrasts with Biden. A January analysis by FiveThirtyEight found that Phillips voted in accordance with Biden’s position 100% of the time. 

  President Biden issued an outstanding speech this evening, making a strong case for why we must support Ukraine, Israel, and all who seek self-determination, security, and peace. That’s what America does.

  — Rep. Dean Phillips 🇺🇸 (@RepDeanPhillips) October 20, 2023

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

  He’ll need a big war chest to take on an incumbent president and a Democratic Party that’s rigged the nominating process to an extent it prompted Robert F. Kennedy, Jr to abandon it in favor of an independent run. Politico notes that Biden already has $91 million in cash.

  Then again, Phillips has the potential to self-fund a campaign, at least to some extent. An heir to Minnesota’s Phillips Distilling Company and co-founder of Talenti Gelato, he’s one of the richest members of Congress. In 2019, Fortune estimated his net worth at $77 million.  

  Over the summer, Phillips held meetings with Democratic donors. Earlier this month, Phillips called New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley. “I called Chairman Buckley…to introduce myself as I contemplate entering the Democratic primary,” Phillips told Politico. 

  New Hampshire presents an unusual momentum opportunity for any challenger to Biden. The Democratic Party stripped the Granite State of its first-in-the-nation primary slot and gave it to South Carolina, the state where Biden’s fortunes turned in the 2020 race. However, New Hampshire plans to go rogue, and hold an unsanctioned primary on Jan. 23, a few weeks before South Carolina’s Feb 3 contest. As a result of the intrigue, Biden’s name probably won’t be on the ballot.  

  Phillips is already too late to appear on the Nevada ballot, and he only has until Nov. 10 to make South Carolina’s cut-off. 

  Given the formidable challenge of taking on the Democratic Party machine, perhaps a Phillips campaign isn’t a drive to defeat Joe Biden but rather a call option on a scenario in which the clearly-declining Biden is finally deemed physically and/or mentally capable of running for re-election. That already appears to be the case, but at some point it may become so painfully evident that Biden’s family and party puppetmasters wake up to that reality.   

  BIDEN: “I asked the secretary of state when he and I were working in the Senate to write something for me and he said he wrote a line that I think is appropriate. He said, ‘It’s not we lead, it’s not just…’ Well, I won’t go into it, I’ll wait ’til later, taking too much time.” pic.twitter.com/XxtspLBJs3

  — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 18, 2023

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

  Meanwhile, Phillips’ candor about Biden’s unattractiveness as a candidate seems to have had its own consequences for Phillips: He’s facing a primary challenge of his own, as Ron Harris, an executive member of the Democratic National Committee, has announced he’s seeking to wrest Phillips’ House seat away from him.   

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 18:00

• Russia Will "Pay The Price" For Supporting Gaza: Israeli Official
  Russia Will “Pay The Price” For Supporting Gaza: Israeli Official

  The Cradle,

  During a live interview on Russia’s state-run broadcaster RT, Israeli lawmaker Amir Weitmann threatened to make Moscow “pay the price” for allegedly supporting the Palestinian resistance in Gaza.

  “We’re going to finish this war. We’re going to win because we’re stronger. After this, Russia will pay the price. Believe me, Russia will pay the price,” Weitmann, the head of the libertarian caucus in Israel’s ruling Likud Party, told the RT news anchor.

  

  “Russia is supporting the enemies of Israel, Russia is supporting Nazi people who want to commit genocide on us, and Russia will pay the price […]. We are going to finish with these Nazis, we’re going to win this war […] we’re not forgetting what you are doing […] we will come, we will make sure that Ukraine wins, we will make sure that you pay the price for what you have done,” the close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continued.

  Since the start of the Gaza-Israel war, the Russian government has continuously called for a peaceful resolution. This week, the nation drafted a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire. However, Israel’s western allies struck it down.

  As the Israeli bombing campaign against millions of Palestinian civilians escalates, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that the siege of Gaza is reminiscent of the Leningrad siege by Nazi Germany.

  Weitmann’s unhinged accusations follow in the footsteps of other wild claims made by current and former Israeli officials. When asked last week during a TV interview about the suffering faced by Palestinians in Gaza, former prime minister Naftali Bennett lashed out at the interviewer and repeated the claim that Palestinian fighters are “Nazis.”

  “Are you seriously going to keep asking me about Palestinian civilians? What is wrong with you? Have you not seen what’s happened? We’re fighting Nazis,” the former premier shouted. “Shame on you,” Bennett continued, interrupting and accusing the anchor of “spinning a narrative” in favor of the Palestinians.

  Amir Weitmann, member of Israel’s ruling Likud Party threatens Russia on RT

  “After we win this war…we will make sure that Ukraine wins…Russia will pay the price…”

  The masks are off… pic.twitter.com/WatMZAiBq3

  — DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) October 19, 2023

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

  A  few days after Bennett’s tirade, Israeli President Isaac Herzog claimed during a news conference that “there are no innocent civilians in Gaza.”

  “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible […] It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’etat,” Herzog claimed about the 2.3 million Palestinians – half of whom are children – who live under a brutal military blockade and are the constant targets of Israeli air raids.

  While international law is clear that belligerents who fail to distinguish between combatants and civilians are guilty of war crimes, Israeli officials have been working overtime to spin the narrative that the entire population of Gaza are “terrorists” or “Nazis.”

  Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant last week went even further, saying Gazans are “human animals” who must be eradicated, while National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir said that Gaza doesn’t need humanitarian aid, only “tons of bombs.” Ben Gvir’s comments came a few hours after widespread headlines were issued that said an Israeli jet bombed the Baptist Hospital in Gaza City, killing hundreds of wounded civilians, most of them women and children.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 17:40

• Anheuser-Busch Resorts To 'Bribing' Distributors In Effort To Keep Bud-Light On Shelves
  Anheuser-Busch Resorts To ‘Bribing’ Distributors In Effort To Keep Bud-Light On Shelves

  Anheuser-Busch’s emergency relief program for beer distributors has been extended by the brewer to keep Bud Light on store shelves after its disastrous ‘woke’ advertising with trans-TikTok star Dylan Mulvaney earlier this year. The move certainly looks like a ‘bribe.’ 

  The New York Post revealed while quoting a report from Beer Marketer’s Insights that Anheuser-Busch has offered as much as $150 million in relief to distributors since Mulvaney’s Bud Light TikTok video on April 1 sparked nationwide boycotts. 

  Some of the financial relief distributors have received are reimbursements for freight and fuel surcharges, as well as an additional week to pay bills to the brewer. 

  “I imagine for those that are having some cash flow concerns, this would help somewhat,” one distributor told The Post.

  

  The report mentioned that the financial aid package to distributors that started in June will be expanded through next spring. That includes sales incentive payments. 

  NYPost explained that the “market share recovery incentives” come as beer and liquor stores prepare to “revamp their shelf space in the spring when they look at the last 12 months of sales and determine which products are hot and deserve more space – and which will lose space.” 

  Last month, former AB executive Anson Frericks warned that shelf space is “the single largest determinant of sales in a store,” and said there will be a “dramatic shift” for Bud Light following the nationwide boycott. 

  Dave Williams, vice president of analytics and insights at Bump Williams Consulting, said retailers closely watch sales figures to determine what brands are given the best shelf space. 

  “There’s explosive growth on one side and sharp decline on the other,” Williams said, adding, “This does have that ripple effect where if Bud Light loses space on the shelf, that could make it a longer-term endeavor to claw back to where they were if they’re ever able to do that in the first place.”

  Several months ago, Deutsche Bank analyst Mitch Collett said Bud Light was expected to lose about 25% of its business. 

  The latest data from Citi Bank shows AB’s hemorrhaging has continued in the last four weeks (pro subs can find the report in the usual place):

  ABInBev’s beer volumes fell 15.5% in the latest 4 weeks, notably worse than the market at -4.3% as the fall-out from the Bud Light social media campaign persists. Beer price/mix grew 3.0% to leave total dollar sales down 13.0%, deceleration vs last month’s -10.9%. Total value share for ABInBev fell – 489bps and beer value share decreased 534bps. We estimate Bud Light accounts for a little over 30% of the group’s US revenues (c.8% of group). Bud Light volumes fell 30.2% and Budweiser volumes fell 25.6%, compared to -29.9% and -25.3% respectively in the previous 4-week period

  They will never forget:

  “ABInBev’s beer volumes fell 15.5% in latest 4 weeks, notably worse than the market at -4.3% as the fall-out from the Bud Light social media campaign persists. Beer price/mix grew 3.0% to leave total dollar sales down 13.0% vs last month’s -10.9%” – Citi

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 20, 2023

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

  

  Meanwhile, Mexican lager Modelo Especial dethroned Bud Light as the number-one-selling beer in America, while some beer drinkers have gravitated to brewers operating in the parallel economy, such as “Conservative Dad’s Ultra Right 100% Woke-Free American beer.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 17:20

• Money-Market Fund Assets Crash 'Most Since Lehman' As Bank Deposits Rose Last Week
  Money-Market Fund Assets Crash ‘Most Since Lehman’ As Bank Deposits Rose Last Week

  Money-market funds saw the largest weekly outflow since Lehman (Q3 2008), plunging $99BN…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  The outflows were all from institutional funds (retail funds saw another inflow)…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Presumably this was driven by tax-extension deadline payments – or else something serious is happening.

  Total bank deposits – on a seasonally-adjusted basis – dropped for the second week in a row (-$$8.7BN)…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Non-seasonally-adjusted, total deposits saw inflows for the 3rd week in a row (+$20.6BN)…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Is this the start of a major reversal… or just the one-off tax flows?

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Domestically, excluding foreign banks, there were deposit inflows on both an SA and NSA basis…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Which has narrowed the delta between SA and NSA deposit outflows since SVB to just $38BN (the outflows are still over $200BN total)…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  On the other side of the ledger, bans increased their lending volumes modestly last week – after 2 weeks of shrinkage – op around $9BN…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  The Fed’s balance sheet shrank by around $19BN last week, but usage of its emergency funding facility for banks remained at record highs around $109BN…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Bank reserves at The Fed and US equity market appear to be converging back together…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  The key warning sign continues to trend lower (Small Banks’ reserve constraint), supported above the critical level by The Fed’s emergency funds (for now).

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Notably above, Large bank cash is surging (as those money-market fund outflows move?) – is it time to sacrifice another small bank for the greater good?

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Finally, if you’re wondering why regional banks were clubbed like a baby seal this week… wonder no more…

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  They have a $109BN (at least) hole in their balance sheets that needs to be filled by March-ish…

  

  …(and with rates going higher, good luck!)

  Tl;dr:…

  – QT is shrinking Fed BS.
  – Shrinking Fed BS means commercial bank deposits have to drop.
  – Since deposits (especially at small banks) refuse to drop (normally they would be reallocated to risk but high rates make that unattractive), small bank deposits will be forced to drop. pic.twitter.com/OpWwQs4x5t

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 20, 2023

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

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 17:00

• House Investigators Reveal $200,000 "Direct Payment To Joe Biden"
  House Investigators Reveal $200,000 “Direct Payment To Joe Biden”

  The House Oversight Committee on Friday revealed a direct payment to President Joe Biden which appears to have been laundered through his brother James.

  

  As the oversight Committee notes in a release;

  In 2018, James Biden received $600,000 in loans from, Americore—a financially distressed and failing rural hospital operator. According to bankruptcy court documents, James Biden received these loans “based upon representations that his last name, ‘Biden,’ could ‘open doors’ and that he could obtain a large investment from the Middle East based on his political connections.”

  On March 1, 2018, Americore wired a $200,000 loan into James and Sara Biden’s personal bank account – not their business bank account. On the same day, James Biden wrote a $200,000 check from this same personal bank account to Joe Biden. 

  pic.twitter.com/tJUMLMD5iu

  — Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) October 20, 2023

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

  Let me get this straight..James Biden “repays 200k loan” to Joe Biden on the same day James gets 200k loan from a failing business..that is hoping to use the Biden name to get Mid East funding (since failing) and ultimately ends up later in bankruptcy? pic.twitter.com/y902q473IW

  — Greta Van Susteren (@greta) October 20, 2023

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

  Chairman James Comer (R-KY) said in a statement (emphasis ours);

  This summer, Joe Biden said: “Where’s the money?”

  Well, we found some.

  We’re still digging into evidence subpoenaed from bank accounts belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, and James and Sara Biden – the brother and sister-in-law of the President.

  A document that we’re releasing today raises new questions about how President Biden personally benefited from his family’s shady influence peddling of his name and their access to him.

  Bank records obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability have revealed a $200,000 direct payment from James and Sara Biden to Joe Biden in the form of a personal check.

  Here is some important context about this check we’ve obtained in our investigation:

  In 2018, James Biden received $600,000 in loans from, Americore—a financially distressed and failing rural hospital operator.

  According to bankruptcy court documents, James Biden received these loans “based upon representations that his last name, ‘Biden,’ could ‘open doors’ and that he could obtain a large investment from the Middle East based on his political connections.”

  On March 1, 2018, Americore wired a $200,000 loan into James and Sara Biden’s personal bank account – not their business bank account. 

  And then on the very same day, James Biden wrote a $200,000 check from this same personal bank account to Joe Biden. 

  James Biden wrote this check to Joe Biden as a “loan repayment.”  Americore—a distressed company—loaned money to James Biden who then sent it to Joe Biden.

  Even if this was a personal loan repayment, it’s still troubling that Joe Biden’s ability to be paid back by his brother depended on the success of his family’s shady financial dealings.

  Some immediate questions President Biden must answer for the American people:

  Does he have documents proving he lent such a large sum of money to his brother and what were the terms of such financial arrangement?

  Did he have similar financial arrangements with other family members that led them to make similar large payments to him?

  Did he know that the same day James Biden wrote him a check for $200,000, James Biden had just received a loan for the exact same amount from business dealings with a company that was in financial distress and failing?

  The House Oversight Committee will soon announce our next investigative actions and continue to follow the money.

  The bank records don’t end here.There is more to come.

  Watch:

  🚨 BREAKING 🚨

  We have found a $200,000 DIRECT payment to Joe Biden.
  @RepJamesComer lays out the money trail. 👇 pic.twitter.com/0vq3lqhRHz

  — Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) October 20, 2023

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

   

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/20/2023 – 16:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest