- Macron, Le Pen Suffer Setbacks In French Regional Elections Amid Lowest Turnout On Record
Macron, Le Pen Suffer Setbacks In French Regional Elections Amid Lowest Turnout On Record
French President Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen both suffered setbacks as their parties performed poorly in regional elections that saw a historically low turnout rate with more than two out of three note cast a vote.
Macron’s La République En Marche won a paltry 10.9% of votes while the far-right National Rally, led by Le Pen, won 19.1% – both lower than expected – according to exit polls. The right-wing party Les Republicains fared better and won 29.3% of the vote. An unprecedentedly high rate, 68%, of the population didn’t vote. This is the highest abstention rate under the Fifth Republic.
As Goldman economist notes Sven Jari Stehn writes, in line with expectations President Macron’s party posted another round of very disappointing results, often barely reaching the second round. The week until the second round on June 27 will now see parties negotiate to form the Front Républicain in an effort to block the far-right from reaching office. Polling suggests that this will be enough to defeat Le Pen’s party everywhere but in the Southern region of Provence-Alpes-Cote-d’Azur, although her weak first round results will likely weigh on her momentum. Xavier Bertrand—who is trailing behind President Macron in polls for the presidential elections—looks set to win re-election in the Northern region of the Hauts-de-France with a comfortable margin, thus likely providing momentum to his presidential bid.
Key Highlights via Goldman:
According to preliminary results, incumbent parties and the far-right were in the lead after the regional elections’ first round. In the widely-watched race in the Southern region of Provence-Alpes-Cote-d’Azur, far-right candidate Mariani was leading against the alliance between the centre-right and Macron’s presidential party by 2.5%. In the Northern region of the Hauts-de-France, 2022 presidential hopeful Xavier Bertrand (independent) won 42.1% of the vote, setting a 17.6% lead on far-right contender Sébastien Chenu. In other regions, incumbent parties – the center-right party Les Républicains and the Socialist party – looked broadly set for re-election.
The voting method — two rounds, proportional with lists and majority bonus — requires parties’ lists to gather 10% of the votes in order to qualify to the second round (with lists having won between 5% and 10% of votes can merge with the qualified lists). Successful lists then contend for a simple majority in the second round, where the first list benefits from a 25% seat bonus in the regional council. This system allows for the so-called Front Républicain to operate, whereby mainstream parties either support or drop-out of the race to block the far-right from reaching office. The Southern region of Provence-Alpes-Cote-d’Azur is the only region where polls give the far-right within polling error of beating a range of potential Front Républicains. Another key parameter of the second round will be voter turnout, which reached a record low at 33.9% in this first round. Although covid and reopening likely weighed on the participation rate this particular weekend, the downward trend of the past decades could also be reflected in the second round through a weakened Front Républicain.
It is difficult to map these results into the race for the 2022 presidential elections. In that respect, the presidential party’s disappointing results can be traced back to his party’s lack of local rooting. Meanwhile, the far-right’s performance looks especially mixed, as Le Pen’s party both got closer to office than ever in the South, but lost ground almost uniformally in other regions.
As a result, Goldman concludes that the center-right – Les Républicains, currently third in polls for 2022 – looks to emerge as the winner of these elections, with three of its leaders winning large victories.
The race to the 2022 presidential election could thus slightly narrow once the dust settles on this regional ballot.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/22/2021 – 02:45 - Turkey's Secret Plan To Invade Greece And Armenia
Turkey’s Secret Plan To Invade Greece And Armenia
A plan for a simultaneous Turkish invasion of both Greece and Armenia was prepared by Turkey, according to the secret documents of the Turkish General Staff.
According to these documents, the plan called “CERBE” was prepared in 2014 and updated in 2016.
According to the Nordic Monitor, “Turkey was inspired by the name of its secret war plans for the eastern Mediterranean, from a significant victory Ottoman naval machine against a fleet of Christian alliance that strengthened Turkish rule in the Mediterranean.”
According to a PowerPoint presentation prepared by the General Staff for a review of interior design, Turkey has drawn up a plan for a secret military operation called “TSK [Turkish Armed Forces] Cerbe Operation Planning Directive”. The plan was dated January 7, 2014, which means that it was probably updated amid increased tension between Turkey and Greece / Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean, the report also states. Cerbe is the name of an island in southern Tunisia near the border with Libya.
It was there that the Battle of Djerba took place in May 1560 between the Ottoman forces and the fleet of the Christian Alliance, which consisted mainly of Spanish, Papal, Genoese, Maltese and Neapolitan forces.
“The Turks won the battle, which gave them dominance in the Mediterranean Sea,” the report said, adding that “the name of Turkey’s comprehensive war game plan in the eastern Mediterranean fits in with the narrative promoted by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan” and his associates, who often place Turkey’s problems with its Western allies as part of a renewed conflict between Christian Europe and Muslim Turkey. A slide from the powerpoint from the secret document lists the military plans of Turkey against Greece, Armenia and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean with corresponding dates that show when they were drawn up“.
“The existence of Turkey’s war plan for the east was discovered in a court file in the Turkish capital, with prosecutor Serdar Coşkun, loyal to the Turkish president, apparently forgetting to remove the classified documents before submitting them to the court,” the statement said, which continues: “They were collected from the headquarters of the General Staff during an investigation into the failed coup on 15 July 2016. The documents, including the plan to invade Greece and Armenia, were found to have been sent among the top commanders to the General Staff through a secure internal email.
Koskun ordered the army to forward copies of all emails for the previous two months, including the encrypted ones, on August 1, 2016. Ten days later, on August 11, 2016, the prosecutor instructed his trusted assistant, a police officer named Yüksel Var, collect emails from the General Staff’s internal servers and report to him. A panel set up by military technicians under Var completed its work on 14 February 2017. Finally, the indictment filed by prosecutors Necip Cem İşçimen, Kemal Aksakal and İstiklal Akkaya in March 2017 at the 17th Supreme Criminal Court of the All of Ankara the e-mails collected from the computers of the General Staff“.
The Nordic Monitor concludes: “No communication was found in the e-mails indicating any coup attempt, which many believe was a disorientation operation organized by Erdogan and his intelligence and military leaders to trap the opposition to persecution and mass purges.
The document does not contain details about the specifics of the program other than its name and updated date. The details of the war plan must have been labeled “confidential” and therefore could not be communicated through the intranet system running on the Turkish army’s email exchange servers. A review of the documents also shows that the General Staff, which notified the emails at the outset, panicked eight months later about the possible impact of the disclosure of sensitive documents and began sounding the alarm. The first warning letter was written on March 8, 2017 by the Chief of General Staff Unur Tarçın, Head of the Communication, Electronic and Information Services System of the General Staff (Muhabere, Elektronik ve Bilgi Sistemleri, or MEBS).
He warned the General Staff Legal Service that the documents contained secret documents related to Turkey’s national security, classified intelligence reports and operations in Syria and the eastern Mediterranean. He said the documents should be kept secret and not disclosed to unauthorized persons. The Deputy Chief Legal Adviser of the General Staff, Colonel Aydın Seviş, then wrote to the 17th Ankara High Criminal Court on 24 August 2017, reiterating the same concerns about the secret documents and urging the establishment of a committee to review them. However, the Turkish prosecutors did not seem to pay attention to their concerns and included all the emails with the attached secret documents in the case file, revealing the highly classified information including the name of the invasion plan for Greece”.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/22/2021 – 02:00 - When the FBI Framed Four Innocent Men
When the FBI Framed Four Innocent Men
Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary,
This is the story of how the FBI framed four innocent men for murder, destroyed families, and tried to cover it up. It’s also the story of the convergence of John Durham and Robert Mueller: how Durham uncovered the FBI’s crimes and how Robert Mueller’s FBI disputed the innocence of the men the FBI framed.
The FBI knocked and Mike Albano opened the door. It was 1983. As a member of the Massachusetts State Parole Board, Albano thought he had been doing his job when he looked into voting to commute the sentence of Peter Limone, who along with Joseph Salvati, Henry Tameleo, and Louis Greco, had been convicted for the murder of Teddy Deegan in 1965.
Those convictions never sat right with Albano – he was savvy to Massachusetts and the convergence of the Mob and law enforcement. His suspicions of the convictions, and sympathy to the four men, only grew when he met with Greco, who proclaimed his innocence and said “he wanted to live one day as a free man, just one day.”1
FBI special agents John Morris and John Connolly weren’t there just say hello or to discuss the details of the case (a state case, not a federal case). There was a darker purpose: straight-up intimidation. Threats that it wouldn’t be good for Albano’s career if he voted for commutation.
To Albano’s credit, he voted to commute the sentence of Limone. This particular petition for commutation (Limone filed six in total that were all rejected) was denied by Governor Michael Dukakis after the FBI and then-U.S. Attorney Bill Weld put on the pressure, alleging that Limone was guilty of the Deegan murder, had been involved in commissioning the murder of Joseph “The Animal” Barboza, and would return with seniority to Boston’s organized crime structure if he was freed.
The Parole Board also voted in favor of two commutation petitions by Greco. The first was denied by Governor Michael Dukakis, the second denied by Governor Bill Weld. There was no ruling on the third commutation petition filed by Greco in 1995. He died soon after it was filed. Greco’s plea to Albano, that he live “just one day” as a free man, was never granted.
To understand this case and the FBI’s efforts to intimidate Albano, you have to go back to the 1960s. J. Edgar Hoover was the FBI Director and made it a focus of his to take down La Cosa Nostra – the Italian Mob – by any means necessary. To achieve this goal the FBI used criminal informants.
The Teddy Deegan Murder
Teddy Deegan was murdered on the night of March 12, 1965 in Chelsea, Massachusetts, just north of Boston. His body was found in an alley behind the Lincoln National Bank. He had on gloves and a screwdriver was found near his left hand. A tool of his trade. The lieutenant who arrived at the scene described a fresh pool of blood near his left knee and blood “still oozing from the rear of his head.” In all, Deegan was shot 6 times with three different guns.
The officers who recognized Deegan there lying in the alley wouldn’t have been surprised. Deegan didn’t hang around the best people and didn’t exactly behave himself. They didn’t expect Deegan’s murder, but they wouldn’t have been surprised.
Arrests are made.
Four men – Limone, Greco, Salvati, and Tameleo – were accused of Deegan’s murder.
Peter Limone was arrested on October 27, 1967. It was his tenth wedding anniversary and it was spent in jail away from his wife, Olympia, with whom he had four young children. He was supposed to meet Olymia that evening for a meeting at their sons’ school. He never showed up.
Louis Greco surrendered to the FBI in Miami, having been in Florida at the time of the murder, and was extradited to Massachusetts in 1968. He too was married and had a couple young children. He was a war hero, having served in the South Pacific in the Army during World War II. For his service he had been awarded a Purple Heart and two Bronze Stars. He returned from the war “disabled for life with a shattered ankle.”
Joseph Salvati was 34 when he was arrested. Like Limone, he also had four young children. Henry Tameleo was the oldest of the four men. He was born in 1901 and had been married to his wife since 1919.
The Trial and Convictions
The state murder trial started on May 27, 1968. Joseph Barboza, an FBI informant, testified that Limone and Tameleo approved the “hit” on Deegan, that Salvati was there with them, and that Greco helped plan the killing.
Not that Barboza was innocent – he was indicted for a misdemeanor relating to the murder and was serving time for possessing an illegal firearm. This was supposedly part of a deal the FBI gave Barboza: testify for the Massachusetts government in the murder trial and they’d let the judge know the extent and materiality of his assistance.
Anthony Stathopoulos, Jr. had also been at the scene and testified Greco – or a man who looked like Greco – wanted to get him as well. Other witnesses testified to guilt-indicating conduct by the defendants. For example, it was alleged that Tameleo and Greco tried to bribe Barboza and Stathopoulos to change their testimony.
The defense had an uphill battle. Their lawyers suspected that the FBI might have information or documents relating to the witnesses or Deegan’s murder. But the FBI produced nothing.
The jury reached its verdict on July 31, 1968. The four men were found guilty: Greco for murder in the first degree, Limone and Tameleo for accessories before the fact, Salvati for being an accessory after the fact, and all them for conspiracy to murder Deegan and Stathopoulos.
Limone, Tameleo, and Greco received the death penalty. Salvati was sentenced to life.2 The convictions were brought to the attention of Director Hoover, with the Boston office sending memos citing the Suffolk County District Attorney’s comments that the prosecution was a “direct result of FBI investigation” and witness development.
The FBI agents involved in the case (and who testified in support of their witness) were recommended awards and letters of commendation. They later received large bonuses and were praised by Director Hoover.
The Families
The families of the four men were devastated by the news. They had been distraught since the arrests – but at least with a trial they had hope things would work out in their favor. Now hope was gone and their husbands, their fathers, were facing execution.
It was hard for the wives but the children had it worse. The taunts at school that their father was a murderer. Going through cold prison gates and being frisked just to spend their birthdays with their father. An empty seat at sporting events and recitals. A boy’s nightmares of his father’s electrocution. A girl’s anxiety of missing her dad.
Henry Tameleo was the oldest of the four (aged 66 at the time of imprisonment) and his health was rapidly failing. The prison board and his doctors recommended he be transferred due to his health – these requests were ignored for years. He remained in prison a “sick, lonely old man” struggling with depression. His wife died in 1979. They had been married approximately 60 years; the last 10 years spent apart. He wasn’t there to hold her hand as she passed.
As bad as all of that is – and it is bad – the Greco family took it the worst. I’m not sure there are words to describe the trauma they endured. Greco and his wife Roberta had two sons (Eddie and Louis Jr.) who were 10 and 12, respectively, when their father was taken away. After Greco’s conviction, his son Eddie – at just 10 years old – contemplated suicide. In his own words, he wanted to “take a plastic bag and kill myself. . . I was putting plastic bags around my head.”
The boys’ mother Roberta stopped cooking and cleaning, and took up drinking and beating the kids. Eddie would go to school hungry. One day in 1970 Eddie came home to find their mother had abandoned them. They lived with family until they were thrown out of that home. Eddie was 13 and Louis Jr. was 15 when they were put out on their own.
Greco’s health suffered the same fate as his family on the outside: deterioration. While Greco (and the other two defendants put on death row) was spared execution due to the termination of the death penalty in Massachusetts, he had always been sentenced to death – it was just a matter of time. His health began failing and he was ultimately unable to do most anything without assistance. He lost control of his bowels and Salvati helped clean up after him. Greco’s right leg was amputated below the knee in 1995 de to gangrene. He died in prison on December 30, 1995.
Approximately two years later his son and namesake, Louis Jr., committed suicide by drinking a can of Drano. His other son Eddie struggled with cocaine and heroin addiction. He would eventually die from a likely overdose.
What the FBI knew.
There were FBI secrets about these convictions for 30+ years. These secrets went all the way up to FBI Director Hoover, and were uncovered in late 2000 by then-Assistant US Attorney John Durham: that the FBI had framed four innocent men for murder. This set-up was “known to, supported by, encouraged, and facilitated by the FBI hierarchy all the way up to the FBI Director.”3
To understand the FBI conspiracy, we have to go back to the 1960s and FBI Director Hoover’s efforts to take down La Cosa Nostra- the Italian Mob – by any means necessary.
Part of that task involved focusing on Raymond Patriarca, a powerful New England organized crime boss. In 1962, the FBI installed a wire in Patriarca’s Providence, New England office without a warrant. The conversations were monitored and forwarded to agents in the FBI’s Boston office. This was kept secret even within the FBI. Per Judge Gertner, “FBI reports describing conversations on the wire referred to it as if it were a human source, an informant just like any other.”
The FBI also made use of informants, with whom their agents were have a secret and long-term relationship. Enter Jimmy Flemmi, a career criminal and top FBI informant. The FBI had known of Flemmi’s criminal history – and knew that Flemmi had been involved in a number of murders. Condon, one of the agents handling Flemmi, had been informed in 1964 and early 1965 that Flemmi had committed several murders. This didn’t matter to FBI Agent Dennis Condon, his Boston FBI supervisor, or even to Director Hoover. He could get close to Patriarca and other mob figures and, therefore, had potential.
Jimmy Flemmi was eventually closed as an informant in the fall of 1965. His brother, Stephen Flemmi, began informing for the FBI not long after. Like Jimmy, Stephen was a career criminal, gangster, and killer.
The FBI’s Knowledge of the Plot to Kill Deegan
The wires and informants against Patricia were well underway by 1965. In October 1964, the FBI learned on two occasions that Jimmy Flemmi wanted to kill Deegan. Director Hoover had been updated on these developments.4
Five months later, in early March 1965, Jimmy Flemmi met with Patriarca and asked for permission to execute Deegan. A couple days later Flemmi returned with Joseph Barboza and asked for the “OK” to kill him. Flemmi thought Deegan was “an arrogant, nasty sneak and should be killed.”5
Two days prior to Deegan’s murder, on March 10, 1965, an informant advised the FBI that Raymond Patriarca, a powerful New England organized crime boss, had ordered a “hit” on Deegan. They had already completed a dry run and “a close associate of Deegan’s has agreed to set him up.” The FBI knew it was coming.
Deegan was executed on March 12, 1965. This was the same day that one of his killers, Jimmy Flemmi, was assigned to be developed as an informant.6
The FBI’s Knowledge
The FBI never doubted who killed Teddy Deegan. The day after the murder, an FBI informant reported that Jimmy Flemmi confessed to the killing along with Roy French, Joseph Romeo Martin, Ronnie Cassesso, and Joseph Barboza. Approximately three months later, Director Hoover was informed that Flemmi had participated in the murder.
The FBI was able to put together exactly how the murder was supposed to go down. After the hit was approved by Patriarca, the men planned to kill Deegan when he and an associate (who was also to be killed) were robbing a place in Chelsea. French was to tip the killers off to the time and location.
Deegan’s death had the criminal world talking. On March 13, 1965 (the day after the murder), a top FBI informant reported that Jimmy Flemmi confessed to murder along with French, Romeo, Martin, Cassesso, and Barboza.
“That account would be repeated over and over with minor variations in every single document the FBI had” before Barboza started cooperating.7 Other accounts supported that theory of the Deegan murder. For example, the Chelsea police had information that the men had been seen leaving a restaurant together at approximately 9 p.m. and returning 45 minutes later. Other informants came forward. Eleven days after Deegan’s murder, on March 23, 1965, it was reported to the FBI that Barboza admitted to the killing. The memo below shows that Director Hoover was informed that the FBI’s own informants had murdered Deegan.
This information wasn’t shared with state authorities or the defense counsel of the accused. As a result, this really became a criminal conspiracy by the FBI hierarchy – all the way up to Director Hoover.
Durham Starts the Bulger Review
In 1995, information of Whitey Bulger’s relationship with corrupt FBI agents became public, leading to an investigation of the FBI’s Boston field office. This included a review of documents relating to Limone’s case.
In late 2000, then-Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham uncovered FBI memos from the 1960s detailing FBI misconduct in this case, providing them to the DOJ, US Attorney’s Office, the defendants and state prosecutors, and the FBI. As a result, “the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office immediately filed a motion to vacate Limone’s conviction, to grant Limone a new trial, and admit him to bail.
Judge Margaret Hinkle of Suffolk Superior Court ruled that the Durham documents were material, exculpatory, and cast ‘real doubt’ on the justice of Limone’s convictions.”8 The state cases against Salvati and Limone – the only two still alive – were dropped. (Greco and Tameleo had died in prison; their cases were posthumously dropped.)
Mueller
Once Durham uncovered these documents, the Massachusetts Pardon Board reached out to FBI Director Mueller, asking about the FBI’s official response to the exculpatory evidence. The Boston Field Office provided a shameful response that the new evidence of an FBI set-up did not mean that the men were “innocent – it merely means that they are entitled to a new trial.”
The Lawsuit and Aftermath
Eventually, the surviving men and their families, along with the families of the deceased Greco and Tameleo, filed suit against the FBI. Not only did the FBI refuse to admit the truth – that these men were innocent – but the FBI also obstructed their civil rights trial. It turned out that the FBI had been hiding evidence from their own lawyers. This caused Judge Gertner to order that “this matter be brought to the personal attention of the Director of the FBI [Robert Mueller].”
After a bench trial, Judge Gertner concluded this case was “about intentional misconduct, subornation of perjury, conspiracy, the framing of four innocent men.” She awarded the men and their families over $100 million in damages.
For the wrongly convicted and their families, this would never be enough.
Meanwhile, the FBI headquarters is still called the J. Edgar Hoover F.B.I. Building. Mueller enjoys, at least with some, a good reputation despite his small but significant part in this saga. And Durham – now Special Counsel – still quietly looks for the truth.
* * *
1. In this essay, the Author relies in large part on Judge Nancy Gertner’s July 26, 2007 Memorandum and Order in civil action no. 02cv10890, Peter J. Limone, et al., v. United States of America, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
2. Barboza pled guilty to conspiracy and had his unrelated charges dismissed. He was sentenced to a year and a day to be served concurrently with the other time he was doing.
3. Gertner Memo.
4. https://fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fbi2.pdf
5. https://fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fbi2.pdf
6. https://fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fbi2.pdf
7. Gertner Memo at 49.
8. Gertner Memo at 12.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 23:40 - Thermostats In Texas Homes Are Being Accessed Remotely And Turned Up Due To An Energy Shortage
Thermostats In Texas Homes Are Being Accessed Remotely And Turned Up Due To An Energy Shortage
Have a smart thermostat at home? Better keep an eye on it – especially if you live in Texas.
That’s because some residents of the Lone Star state have been claiming that someone has been turning up the temperatures at their homes, remotely, at the same time the state is undergoing an energy shortage.
And while the Electric Reliability Council of Texas has asked Texans to turn up the temperatures at their homes to help deal with the shortage, some residents are claiming it’s being done for them.
Deer Park resident Brandon English told KHOU: “(My wife) had it cranked it down at 2:30. It takes a long time for this house to get cool when it gets that hot. They’d been asleep long enough that the house had already gotten to 78 degrees. So they woke up sweating.”
His wife received an alert on her phone shortly thereafter saying their thermostat had been changed remotely due to an “energy saving event”.
“Was my daughter at the point of overheating? She’s 3 months old. They dehydrate very quickly,” English said. And according to KHOU, the English’s house isn’t the only place where such “adjustments” can take place:
The family’s smart thermostat was installed a few years ago as part of a new home security package. Many smart thermostats can be enrolled in a program called “Smart Savers Texas.” It’s operated by a company called EnergyHub.
The agreement states that in exchange for an entry into sweepstakes, electric customers allow them to control their thermostats during periods of high energy demand. EnergyHub’s list of its clients include TXU Energy, CenterPoint and ERCOT.
“I wouldn’t want anybody else controlling my things for me,” English said. He said he unenrolled the home’s thermostat as soon as he found out. “If somebody else can manipulate this, I’m not for it,” he said.
Similar complaints on a Houston Reddit board showed that English wasn’t the only person who had the issue. “Several others” said their thermostats were also accessed and turned up.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 23:20 - Biden Urged To Replace Harris On Border Assignment In Letter Signed by 56 Republicans
Biden Urged To Replace Harris On Border Assignment In Letter Signed by 56 Republicans
Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
More than 50 House GOP lawmakers called on President Joe Biden to relieve Vice President Kamala Harris of her duties in handling the U.S.–Mexico border crisis.
President Joe Biden delivers remarks as Vice President Kamala Harris stands by in the East Room at the White House on May 10, 2021. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters) The Republicans, as they have done for months, noted that Harris hasn’t yet visited the border amid a surge in illegal immigration. Some Democratic lawmakers who represent areas along the border have also called on the vice president to take more action, including a visit to the area.
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) and 55 other Republicans in the House demanded Harris’s removal from her border assignment, citing recent Customs and Border Protection data that shows that 180,000 people were apprehended last month after crossing the border illegally.
“Despite being in the midst of a border crisis this country has not seen in two decades, Vice President Harris has not yet shown adequate interest in observing this crisis first-hand,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter. “In the 85 days since the Vice President has been tasked with solving this crisis, she has yet to visit the border and meet with Border Patrol agents, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, and local law enforcement officials.”
Harris has defended not going to the border and said she will visit the border sometime in the future.
When she visited Mexico and Guatemala this month, Harris said that the “root causes” of the illegal immigration problem should be addressed. However, her explanation to reporters in Mexico about why she hasn’t visited the border yet overshadowed her trip, saying that the White House is aiming to boost economic development in the region.
She told reporters: “It would be very easy to say, ‘We’ll travel to one place, and therefore it’s solved.’ I don’t think anybody thinks that that would be the solution.” When pressed about visiting the border again, Harris said she did so when she was a senator from California.
Harris has also said that their mission primarily is diplomatic work focused on the “Northern Triangle” countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, as well as Mexico.
During a testy exchange last week between Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Mayorkas said that questions about Harris not having visited the border are “quite unfair and disrespectful.” Norman was one of the signatories of the letter asking Biden to relieve Harris of her duties.
Mayorkas said, “Let me be very clear, the president and the vice president have requested and directed me to visit the border, which I have done on multiple occasions.”
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) has become possibly the most vocal Democrat in the House about the border crisis. Last week, he wrote a letter to the vice president requesting she meet with him and visit the border, but he later told Fox News that he hasn’t heard back from her office.
“I encourage you to join me and other Members of Congress, while we visit with the people on the ground who deal with these issues every day,” Cuellar wrote. “I believe it is critical that you meet with local stakeholders and residents, consider their concerns, and use their lived experiences to implement more effective policies.”
Meanwhile, as Tom Ozimek also notes:
A dozen Republican senators have demanded the immediate release of a Biden administration blueprint for expanding and overhauling the immigration system, according to a draft document obtained by selected media but not yet disclosed to Congress or the general public.
In a joint letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (pdf), the senators demand the release of a 46-page draft called the “DHS Plan to Restore Trust in Our Legal Immigration System,” which was first reported by The New York Times and which reportedly maps out the Biden administration’s plans for significant expansion of the immigration system.
According to The New York Times, the blueprint “lists scores of initiatives intended to reopen the country to more immigrants,” while not just rolling back some Trump-era policies but also “addressing backlogs and delays that plagued prior presidents.” Most of the document’s policy proposals could not be implemented by executive authority, but would require a broader overhaul of U.S. immigration laws, according to the report.
In the letter, the GOP lawmakers allege that the blueprint “is being withheld from Congress and the American people,” which they find “particularly troubling given the ongoing crisis at the southern border.”
Kinney County Constable Steve Gallegos and Kinney County Sheriff’s deputies arrest a smuggler and seven illegal aliens from Guatemala near Brackettville, Texas, on May 25, 2021. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times) Since Biden took office, there has been a historic surge in illegal immigration, a situation Republicans have characterized as a “crisis” fueled by the the president’s policies. Biden administration officials have disputed that characterization, including Mayorkas, who in recent Senate testimony insisted on using the term “challenge” to describe the problem while insisting that the administration has a strategy to cope with it.
But the senators expressed concern that some of the policies the blueprint reportedly contains would serve to exacerbate the problem by accelerating the flow of illegal immigration into the United States.
“We are deeply concerned that these policies will act as a pull factor to continue drawing illegal immigrants to the country—much like the policies already being implemented by the Biden Administration,” they wrote.
The Epoch Times has reached out to the DHS with a request for comment on the GOP letter and seeking clarification on the timeline for the document’s release to the public.
The lawmakers also objected to what they characterized as President Joe Biden’s plans to “use and abuse executive authority to reshape our immigration system.”
“In addition, the policies allegedly proposed in this document would open up new ways for immigrants to enter the country legally that extend well beyond the plain text and meaning of the law,” they wrote. “While there are many rational suggestions for reform in this document, these are decisions that must be made by Congress, and Congress alone, and not by the stroke of the President’s pen,” they added.
“A decision with such serious public safety consequences should be open and accessible, but instead, DHS has kept this information from everyone except a media ally,” the senators wrote.
The letter was signed by Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.).
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 23:00 - Pakistan PM Slams Door On Allowing CIA Bases For Afghan Operations
Pakistan PM Slams Door On Allowing CIA Bases For Afghan Operations
In a new high level interview given to Axios’ Jonathan Swan, Pakistani Premier Imran Khan issued a blunt message to Washington as it struggles with the deteriorating security situation amid the Afghan draw down, which Biden has vowed to accomplish before Sept.11.
Khan has definitively ruled out allowing the United States to set up CIA bases on Pakistani soil to conduct cross-border operations. “Will you allow the American government to have CIA here in Pakistan to conduct cross-border counterterrorism missions against Al-Qaeda, ISIS or the Taliban?” Swan asked the longtime Pakistani leader in the interview first published days ago.
“Absolutely not. There’s no way we’re going to allow it,” Khan said, before repeating resolutely, “Absolutely not.”
Earlier this month, US intelligence and defense officials acknowledged they are in a “last-minute” scramble to find regional bases to operate from – for example to conduct drone operations – after the Pentagon fully exits by the upcoming Fall per the White House’s timeline.
Driving these efforts are not only fears that the Taliban could quickly take Kabul in the days and weeks after Western forces exit the country, but according to Axios, it’s to prevent increased Russian influence in Central Asia: “The Biden administration also is exploring options in Central Asia to maintain intelligence on terrorist networks inside Afghanistan, but that is complicated for a different reason: Those countries are in Vladimir Putin’s sphere of influence,” the report states.
Throughout much of the two decade long US war in Afghanistan, Pakistan has served as a crucial base of US counterterror operations; however during Khan’s 2018 election as prime minister, he vowed to “never again” allow US intelligence or special forces such a role on Pakistani soil.
Swan writes that, “Close observers say it would be political suicide for Khan to embrace the presence of the CIA or special forces on Pakistani soil.”
US Air National Guard photo Assuming that any kind of near future deal with US intelligence is ever actually reached, for the above reasons the public will certainly never know about it.
Historically, especially into the 1980’s, Pakistan has been host of major and far-reaching US intelligence campaigns in Central Asia – so despite Khan’s public denials of entertaining the possibility of an agreement for covert ops being reach – it always remains a a distinct possibility.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 22:40 - New Study Links Ivermectin To "Large Reductions" In COVID-19 Deaths
New Study Links Ivermectin To “Large Reductions” In COVID-19 Deaths
Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
A recent pre-print review based on peer-reviewed studies has found that using antiparasitic drug ivermectin could lead to “large reductions” in COVID-19 deaths and its use could have a “significant impact” on the pandemic globally.
A health worker shows a bottle of Ivermectin as part of a study of the Center for Paediatric Infectious Diseases Studies, in Cali, Colombia, on July 21, 2020. (Luis Robayo/AFP via Getty Images) For the study (pdf), published on June 17 in the American Journal of Therapeutics, a group of scientists reviewed the clinical trial use of ivermectin, which has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, in 24 randomized controlled trials involving just over 3,400 participants. The researchers sought to assess the efficacy of ivermectin in reducing infection or mortality in people with COVID-19 or at high risk of getting it.
Using multiple methods of sequential analysis, the researchers concluded with a moderate level of confidence that the drug reduced the risk of death in COVID-19 patients by an average of 62 percent, at a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.19-0.79, in a sample of 2438 patients.
Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the risk of death was found to be 2.3 percent among those treated with the drug, compared to 7.8 percent for those who were not, according to the review.
“Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease,” the authors wrote.
A health worker shows a box containing a bottle of Ivermectin as part of a study of the Center for Pediatric Infectious Diseases Studies, in Cali, Colombia, on July 21, 2020. (Luis Robayo/AFP via Getty Images) Since the start of the pandemic, both observational and randomized studies have evaluated ivermectin as a treatment for, and as prevention against, COVID-19 infection.
“A review by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance summarized findings from 27 studies on the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection, concluding that ivermectin ‘demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy’ against COVID-19” the researchers wrote, referring to one recent review, which was based on data from both peer-reviewed studies and preprint manuscripts.
They cited another recent review that concluded that ivermectin reduced deaths by as much as 75 percent, while noting that neither the National Institutes of Health in the United States nor the World Health Organization (WHO) have recommended the use of ivermectin outside clinical trials for use in the fight against COVID-19.
[ZH: Meanwhile in India]
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in a note on “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19,” warns that it has received “multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses.”
“Using any treatment for COVID-19 that’s not approved or authorized by the FDA, unless part of a clinical trial, can cause serious harm,” the FDA said in the note, adding that it has not reviewed data to support the use of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients.
The WHO said in March that “the current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive” and that, until more data becomes available, the agency recommends that “the drug only be used within clinical trials.”
The authors of the ivermectin efficacy study argued, however, that the drug has an “established safety profile through decades of use” and “could play a critical role in suppressing or even ending the SARS-CoV2 pandemic.”
“The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally,” they argued in the study abstract.
The authors noted in their publication that all the studies on which they based their conclusions have been peer-reviewed.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 22:20 - China Crackdown On Bitcoin Sends Retail Graphics-Card Prices Lower Despite Ongoing Scalping
China Crackdown On Bitcoin Sends Retail Graphics-Card Prices Lower Despite Ongoing Scalping
Bitcoin, Ether, and most other crypto tokens tumbled to their lowest levels in more than a week Monday morning amid a continued crackdown on cryptocurrency miners by China, as the PBOC, China’s central bank, requested a meeting with Alipay and several local banks over providing services to crypto traders.
As of 1400 ET, BTC was trading around $32,292, a plunge of more than 9% over the past 24 hours and a halving since its all-time high of nearly $65,000 in mid-April.
The continuing crackdown on crypto and mining in China has sent shockwaves worldwide – most of them are bad for the crypto community as miners may have to relocate. But there may be a near-term silver lining, as the most critical component in mining operations, graphics cards, saw prices plunge from record highs – at least for those fortunate enough to score one from retailers at MSRP.
According to the South China Morning Post (SCMP), retail prices for various Nvidia cards used by miners have been falling. For example, Nvidia Quadro P1000 model graphics cards were going for 2,429 yuan (US$376), down from 3,000 yuan ($464) in early May, before China started cracking down on crypto mining.
A more popular card for miners, the Asus RTX3060, was down 4,699 yuan ($726) from its peak of 13,499 yuan ($2087) on JD.com.
All price changes above were tracked by e-commerce firm Manmanbuy.
That said, whether the current dip in retail prices will translate to actual availability – particularly in the US, where scalpers use automated scrapers to identify and snap up cards as they become available and flip them on Ebay and other forums for huge premiums – has yet to be seen. Meanwhile, NVidia CEO Jensen Huang has warned that RTX 3XXX series cards will be difficult to buy through the end of the year. So until the silicon shortage is remedied, and Ethereum jumps from POW (mining with GPUs) to POS (not mining with GPUs), demand for Nvidia GPUs is unlikely to abate – allowing scalpers to keep doing their thing.
A graphics card mining rig is a special computer put together for the sole purpose of mining cryptocurrencies.
Graphics Card Prices in 🇩🇪🇦🇹 June 20, 2021
AMD: No major changes.
nVidia: Availability goes up greatly. Prices go down again, from average +133% best price over MSRP (end of May) to now +91%.
Still a long way to go.https://t.co/qstKFcg8ls pic.twitter.com/obcyAM7D5Z
— 3DCenter.org (@3DCenter_org) June 21, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
We noted earlier that authorities in the Chinese city of Ya’an had promised to root out all bitcoin and ether mining operations in the area – known for its cheap hydroelectric power – in the coming months.
… and couple this with PBOC’s statements about Alipay, ICBC, Agricultural Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Postal Savings Bank of China, and Industrial Bank over providing services to virtual currency trading – the makings of a reversal in graphics card prices seems to be underway.
But keep in mind, prices are still sky-high from a pre-COVID level as the ability to procure high-end graphics cards has become more challenging due to supply chain disruptions.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 22:00 - The Biden 'No-Go' Zones
The Biden ‘No-Go’ Zones
Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via AmGreatness.com,
The Democratic Party won the long march through journalism, but this Pyrrhic victory has meant the destruction of every principle of journalistic integrity liberals ever claimed to champion…
In American journalism, there are supposed to be some clear, nonnegotiable third-rails.
One is zero tolerance for overtly racist language and comportment among our movers and shakers. Reporters, for example, for four years damned Donald Trump for his neutralizing summation that there were both “fine people” and extremists mingled among the hordes of protestors during their occasionally violent encounters in Charlottesville, Virginia.
It mattered little to the media that Trump added qualifiers of “many” and “both” sides of the protests:
We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides . . . And I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally—but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? . . . Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats—you had a lot of bad people in the other group, too.
Selected words from the above quote were recycled ad nauseam as proof Trump was a racist.
Another no-go zone is any hint of contextualizing sexual harassment or assault.
No statute of limitations can provide exemption, much less a “she said/he said” defense in the age of “women must be believed.” The Brett Kavanaugh circus of September 2018 was a reminder that a lack of evidence, credible witnesses, or basic logic is no defense against the 30-year-old charges of alleged teenage sexual misbehavior. Bill Clinton managed to use his progressive credentials as an insurance policy to avoid for months any condemnation that he was a callous womanizer, but finally the press corps found his exploitative appetites too egregious to ignore.
A third zero-tolerance zone is any hint of presidential debility.
We were told in the dark days of 1973 that Nixon was non compos mentis, nursing his wounds with drink as his legendary constitution finally cracked under the pressure, making him supposedly unable physically to withstand the impending impeachment. “Saturday Night Live” made an industry out of Chevy Chase replaying Gerald Ford’s stumbles. Ronald Reagan was all but declared senile by the press for using index cards in some of his summits and speeches, or putting his hand to his ear and claiming he could not fathom reporters’ gottcha questions amid the din of swirling helicopter blades on the White House lawn.
Finally, lying, fibbing, and even presidential exaggeration are deemed intolerable—or so we are told by the media.
It does not matter that the newsroom is currently one of the great purveyors of untruth, as we saw in the Russian collusion hoax, the dubious Wuhan wet-market narrative, or the yarn about the Lafayette Square militarization to green-light a Trump photo-op.
Reporters never let Richard Nixon live down his “tricky Dick” reputation for his purported bouts of misinformation. Lyndon Johnson’s lies about the supposed impending victory in Vietnam doomed him.
George H. W. Bush never got free of his “Read my lips: No new taxes” pledge. Bill Clinton was impeached because what he said about his sexual misadventures, sometimes under oath, could not be squared with the facts.
There is no need to rehash the media’s echo chamber of “Bush lied, people died” in connection with the flawed CIA intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. One reason why the media’s canonization of Barack Obama ultimately failed was the latter’s blatant lies. (Who can forget “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”?) The Washington Post and an epidemic of “fact-checkers” tallied up all of Trump’s exaggerations and contradictions to convince the public that he was an inveterate liar.
Americans may disagree with these journalistic rules, but to quote Hyman Roth about the state of our media, “This is the business we’ve chosen.”
Yet it is arguable that while no other president in modern memory has trespassed more egregiously on these no-go areas than Joe Biden, he has received no criticism for his transgressions.
Joe Biden (never mind his son, Hunter) has compiled the most glaring rap sheet of racist quotes of any current modern political leader.
He characterized Barack Obama as the first “clean and articulate” black presidential candidate. He told a group of accomplished black professionals that Romney would put “y’all back in chains,” as if they were helpless laborers.
Biden’s rants about Indians and donut shops, the Corn Pop fables, his dismissals of black journalists with put-downs such as “you ain’t black” and invectives such as “junkie” would have disqualified any other candidate.
His earlier treatment of Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court nomination confirmation hearing, his idolization of fossilized racist kingpins in the Senate, his rhetoric on busing and black career criminals, were all couched in racial condescension.
At a time when the current incarnation of Biden is siccing the federal government—and the Pentagon in particular—on a mythical, nationwide white supremacist conspiracy, the president’s own son is revealed to have habitually used the N-word and emulated what he thought was a backward black patois. Was Joe warning America about Hunter, when he charged that white supremacy reigned and must be dethroned?
While Joe Biden is also pointing fingers at white America with despicable false accusations of anti-Asian hate crimes (in truth, these attacks disproportionately are committed by black males), the press is quiet about Hunter Biden’s exchanges with his cousin Caroline Biden over set-up “dates.” In one, Caroline warns Hunter “I can’t give you f—ing Asian sorry. I’m not doing it.”
Hunter trumps her racist slurs with his own agreement: “No yellow.”
That story was buried by mainstream journalists who have long ago fused with the progressive cause.
As senator, vice president, and presidential candidate Joe Biden was often caught—and occasionally even apologized for—habitually touching, smooching, squeezing, hugging, and breathing on women, some of them preteens, in a manner that can only be called creepy, with all of the females recoiling at his advances. When the intrusions became too great to ignore, the would-be president said only he would be “mindful” of invading the private space of women.
Tara Reade, a former assistant in Senator Biden’s office, replayed the role of Christine Blasey Ford with charges of sexual assault—but with far greater credibility and detail (“There was no exchange, really, he just had me up against the wall . . . I remember it happened all at once . . . his hands were on me and underneath my clothes.”). Reade provided corroborating evidence, and explicit details of assault, yet the same journalists and politicians—again so often joined at the hip—who had sought to destroy Brett Kavanaugh gave Biden a pass, absurdly citing the statute of limitations, and even questioning the sanity and stability of Reade herself.
As far as presidential health goes, even Donald Trump’s enemies have remarked on his almost unnatural stamina and energy, characterized by 20-hour work days and near inexplicable rapid recovery from COVID-19. No matter. By mid-2017 there was a nonstop journalist mantra that Trump was “crazy” and “unhinged,” and too “sick” to remain president. The clamor continued until Trump himself took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and aced the exam’s questions. A Yale psychiatrist achieved mini-celebrity status by unprofessionally diagnosing Trump in absentia as mentally challenged and in need of a forced intervention—unhinged charges that nonetheless enhanced reporters’ frenzied calls for invocation of the 25th Amendment.
Contrast this with Joe Biden. He has trouble walking up the steps of the Air Force One. He forgets names and events. His days are short and his attention span shorter, his press conferences rare—and scripted. At the recent G-7 summit he displayed a mishmash of bizarre interruptions, “get off my lawn” temper tantrums at reporters, slurred words, incomplete thoughts and sentences, cognitive freezes, and general fragilities. His own administration, or more likely those around Vice President Kamala Harris, habitually leak to their lackeys in the media portentous “worries” that Biden’s infirmities are such that they can longer be successfully hidden. And yet the ruse continues.
Finally, Biden says things that are just flat out lies. He declared that no Americans had been vaccinated until he took office, despite a presidential photo-op of him greeting the vaccination on December 21, 2020, and the fact 1 million people had been vaccinated by the day he took office, including him. At the G-7 meeting Biden offered his most egregious untruth—that Trump supporters had killed officer Brian Sicknick—although the autopsy report, now several weeks old, found Sicknick had died of natural causes a day after the riot. While the border is wide open, Biden ignores the chaos and asserts the border is secure and closed. Hunter Biden’s laptop, Joe insists, was a result of “Russian disinformation.” Almost everything Biden has said on illegal immigration, the effects of his proposed tax hikes, and the January 6 Capitol assault is untrue.
Reporters ignore the mounting lies, ironically winking and in acknowledgement that most are the result of Biden’s own cognitive deterioration—as if it is more reassuring that a president does not know what he is saying rather than is saying something untrue.
How can we explain this utter dereliction of American journalism?
The media was always left-leaning. But after 2016, it openly announced that it could no longer remain unbiased given the existential threats supposedly posed by President Trump. CNN transmogrified from a leftist airport news aggregator into a purveyor of whoppers, open threats against the president, and outright obscenities.
Remember the blasé reporting about presidential decapitation and poisoning? On-air discussion of defecation? The forced retractions of fake news? The retirements and firings for fabricating stories? All that characterized CNN after 2015.
But aside from Trump, another reason why journalism died was the rise of Silicon Valley and related left-wing billionaires, enriched from monopolies of social media and Internet communications, buying up media companies. Abetted by the subversion of higher education that turned journalism schools into ideological factories, the tech oligarchs made war on the First Amendment, which they hate almost as much as the Second. Reporters were rewarded handsomely for upholding woke orthodoxy, knowing that while an accurate story offering a positive view of a conservative could stall a career, any inaccurate negative take on conservatism was likely to be job enhancing.
Finally, there is no longer a Democratic Party—at least not of the kind that Joe Manchin and earlier incarnations of Joe Biden and Bill Clinton used to represent. The Left talks of Representative Liz Cheney’s (R-Wyo.) psychodramas and fissures in the Republican Party, but only because civil war for control of the Democratic Party is long over, and was won by the hardcore neosocialist left. Now it is only a matter of mopping up stragglers and relics.
Translated into presidential coverage, reporters know that any tough question or honest reporting on Joe Biden will not be praised for disinterested journalism or personal courage, but damned as apostasy and disloyalty. In truth, Democratic politicians treat the media now as if they were obedient poodles. They consider any who timidly bark when not so instructed to be in need of neutering.
The final ironies? The Democratic Party won the long march through journalism, but this Pyrrhic victory has meant the destruction of every principle of journalistic integrity liberals ever claimed to champion. Now its most progressive leaders—Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi—have grown so accustomed to fawning Soviet-style reportage that they no longer have the ability to answer any real journalist’s questions.
Stranger still, the beneficiaries of media obsequiousness have nothing but contempt for the helots who now serve them. Remember Ben Rhodes’ haughty putdown of slavish journalists who “know nothing” and were unknowingly drowning in the swampy echo chambers he had so cynically created?
Once politicians lose all fear of the press, they will say and do anything in their hubris, as we now see with the completely unmoored Joe Biden. And having lost not just the respect of the public but also the regard of the very progressives they idolize, America’s journalists are routinely slapped down as the fawning toadies they have become.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 21:40 - "Avocados Are Green Gold" As Thieves Target Farms
“Avocados Are Green Gold” As Thieves Target Farms
Avocado farmers in South Africa are combating thieves who have found that money grows on trees.
The Wall Street Journal interviewed avocado farmer Mark Alcock who has a 170-acre farm in South Africa, the world’s sixth-largest avocado exporter. He said his farm has a motion-activated infrared camera system operated by an ex-military soldier and protects the property from criminals.
Alcock is not alone. As prices increase due to cyclical factors, other farms have installed security systems to monitor their crops.
“As the value of the product rises, the accessibility of it rises because more orchards are being planted,” said Howard Blight, who farms avocados on a 350-acre farm. He said his farm is guarded by an electric fence and guards.
“It seems a bit drastic,” Blight said. “But avocados are the green gold.”
Avocado theft used to be minimal but is now rampant because criminal gangs are getting involved and raiding farms, then pushing the fruit into legitimate markets, according to the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, an NGO.
The latest raids have disrupted the supply and the price of avocados across South Africa. Much of the fruit is destined for Europe, where wholesalers pay up to $2 per pound.
Perhaps the reason why criminal gangs are stealing avocado is that the financial legacy of the virus pandemic has doomed the country and will likely result in longer-term structural effects. This includes high levels of debt and soaring wealth inequality, pushing those who are jobless into criminal gangs.
Francisco Díaz, co-owner of Oh My Avo, Cape Town’s first avocado bar, said the crime wave is producing headaches for his business.
“This year it was a little bit crazy. Plenty of people are stealing them, so there was a big shortage,” Díaz said.
Craig Coppen, co-director of Canine Security, provides security services to more than 30 commercial growers across the country, monitoring 3,700 acres.
On the other side of the world, drug cartels in Mexico have diversified from pumping cocaine and fentanyl into the US to more legitimate operations, including developing avocado farms or seizing them from local farmers. This lucrative business is feeding the West’s craze for avocado toast, popularized by millennials.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 21:20 - Alan Dershowitz: "Radical Left" Campaign To Get Justice Breyer To Retire Will "Backfire"
Alan Dershowitz: “Radical Left” Campaign To Get Justice Breyer To Retire Will “Backfire”
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,
The left-wing campaign to pressure Justice Stephen Breyer to quit the Supreme Court will backfire, said Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz.
Over the past several months, progressives in Congress and left-wing opinion piece writers have increasingly called on Breyer—who is part of the Supreme Court’s liberal wing—to step down due to his age after the justice publicly rebuffed proposals to “pack,” or expand, the Supreme Court.
“They’re saying to him, ‘Look, quit, quit,’” Dershowitz said during an interview with WABC 770 on Sunday, “even though you’re healthy and well, and your appointment is for life because we want to make sure that President Biden gets to appoint your successor while there is still a majority of Democrats in the United States Senate.”
Dershowitz argued that Democrats “want to make the Supreme Court a kind of political institution” packed with individuals who share the same ideological viewpoint.
“Justices should sit as long as they are healthy,” Dershowitz said.
“Oliver Wendell Holmes sat until he was over 90. [Louis] Brandeis sat until he was in his 80s. Some of our greatest decisions were written by octogenarians. And I don’t like the fact that there are people who want to pressure Justice Breyer to leave the court and make it even more political than it now is.”
Attorney Alan Dershowitz, a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team, speaks to the press in the Senate Reception Room during the Senate impeachment trial at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 29, 2020. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
The pressure campaign to get him to retire started months ago. In April, near the Supreme Court, a truck with the banner “Breyer, retire,” was seen driving around the building, according to photos and video uploaded at the time. In Congress, members of the “Squad,” including its de facto leader Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in June, have made similar requests of the justice.
“It’s something that I’d think about, but I would probably lean towards yes,” the self-described Democratic socialist congresswoman told CNN earlier this month in response to a question about Breyer’s possible retirement. “But yes, you’re asking me this question, so I’ve just—I would give more thought to it but, but I’m inclined to say yes.”
Progressives have cited Breyer’s relatively advanced age in arguing that he should step down. After Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020, President Donald Trump and the then-Republican-led Senate appointed Amy Coney Barrett, considered by some to be a conservative jurist, to the vacant Supreme Court spot.
During Barrett’s Senate hearings, several top Democrats publicly suggested expanding the Supreme Court. However, without undoing the 60-vote filibuster in the equally divided Senate, it seems unlikely for such a measure to make it through Congress.
Breyer himself in April spoke out about “packing” the court during a speech at Harvard, suggesting that such a measure would backfire and create an impression that the institution is politicized. Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) several days later then told news outlets that he believes the justice should step down.
But, according to Dershowitz, the public pressure campaign likely “will backfire,” and Breyer is “not going to want to be perceived as having given in to pressure. I know him.”
“He’s not the kind of guy who’s going to say, ‘I’m going to leave office as a result of pressure from some academics who want me to leave in order to serve their own political interests,’” the longtime former professor said. “So, A – It’s going to backfire. B – It’s age discrimination. C – It politicizes the Supreme Court. And it tells us what’s wrong with the hard left today. They see everything politically.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 21:00 - Exxon To Fire Up To 10% Of White Collar Workers For The Next 3 To 5 Years
Exxon To Fire Up To 10% Of White Collar Workers For The Next 3 To 5 Years
Late last year, when the fate of the reflation trade and the price of oil was still unclear, Exxon made the only decision that it could in order to preserve its dividend: it announced that it would cut 14,000 jobs worldwide by 2022, or about 20% of its workforce, and it would extend reductions well beyond that original time frame. The cost savings would go to fund the one thing the once world’s largest corporation was best known for – its generous dividend, which at one point last year yielded about 10% (it has since shrunk to 5.6%).
Fast forward to today when the price of oil is at a three year high, the Exxon dividend is not only safe but according to BofA will be hiked, and the company is the target of multiple activist campaigns, with many pressing for it to refocus away from its long-term strategy of “dividend at any cost” and instead to embrace the virtue signaling ESG insanity that has gripped so many on Wall Street. And yet, despite all these favorable factors, Exxon is now unleashing another major reduction in force (i.e. mass layoff), with Bloomberg reporting that the oil giant is preparing to reduce headcount at its U.S. offices by between 5% and 10% annually for the next three to five years by using its performance-evaluation system to eliminate low performers.
In a novel spin on mass layoffs, the cuts will target the lowest-rated employees relative to peers, and for that reason will not be characterized as layoffs. While such workers are typically put on a so-called performance improvement plan, many are expected to eventually leave on their own. This year’s evaluation is happening now but affected employees have not yet been notified, the people said.
Bloomberg emphasizes that this latest plan is separate from last year’s announcement of 14,000 job cuts – meaning that in the near future the company may cut up to 30% of its existing workforce – and comes at a tumultuous time for Exxon, which is still grappling with the fallout from last month’s annual meeting, when shareholders rebuffed top management and replaced a quarter of the company’s board over climate and financial concerns.
Sensing that the hammer is about to fall, several high-profile traders have also left in the last few weeks although these appear to be voluntary resignations and “there’s no suggestion the trading departures were related to the review program” which will mostly affect white-collar jobs in areas such as engineering, finance and project management,
In order to preserve the dividend, Exxon has gone to great lengths to trim cash burn, and in addition to mass layoffs, other cost-cutting initiatives have included suspending bonuses and halting employee-contribution matches to 401k savings plans as the pandemic crushed demand for crude, saddling the company with a record annual loss.
Needless to say, with oil at $75 a barrel, or where it was in late 2018, Exxon’s financial position has been substantially improved, even so the supermajor has some way to go to pay down debts accumulated during 2020’s market collapse, with Bloomberg noting that “a smaller and more efficient workforce is key to further improvements.”
Exxon achieved $3 billion of annual “structural cost reductions” in 2020 and will continue to make savings through 2023, Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said at the annual meeting in May.
“We’ve got additional work to continue to take advantage of the new organization and find opportunities to reduce our costs,” Woods said.
Translation: many more layoffs are coming.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 20:40 - The State Convinced People It Was Dangerous For Them Not To Be Watched, Now Many Believe Surveillance Tech Is "For Our Own Good"
The State Convinced People It Was Dangerous For Them Not To Be Watched, Now Many Believe Surveillance Tech Is “For Our Own Good”
Authored by Aden Tate via The Organic Prepper blog,
Yet another consequence of 2020 was the growth of public surveillance (aka Big Brother state) disguised under the umbrella of COVID. When you can convince a populace it is dangerous for them to be unobserved, you create the mindset that public surveillance is for the good of all.
Big Brother is bigger than ever
I work within the security industry.
One newer piece of technology that we can now install is AI fever monitoring cameras. Many buildings throughout the US now have a camera with thermal capabilities monitoring your every move when you walk in.
Should you be deemed somebody with a temperature outside of the preset bounds, the system will use facial recognition to lock onto you. As you travel throughout the facility, security staff/management is notified.
How is this any different from giving a polygraph to every person without their knowledge or consent?
Is this information the world at large needs to know?
Must you tell every business owner from here on all your recent health history to be admitted into the building? In the future, do I have to reveal every medical procedure I’ve had? Do I also have to report my sexual history, what foods I eat, and other private information before being allowed inside?
Consider the invasions of privacy that come from the utilization of thermal technology. The front desk staff now knows who has a problem with armpit sweat, how hot your crotch is, and whose butt is sweating.
Do HIPPA requirements apply here at all?
What happens if it’s discovered that heart rate is linked with an infectious disease? Will we then incorporate heart rate monitors throughout our facility? I hope you don’t get nervous speaking to that person you find attractive. What if an employee who doesn’t like you works the cameras? Isn’t that a violation of privacy?
What if it’s determined that abnormal sweating patterns are associated with an infectious disease? In this case, let’s say that it’s a sweaty butt. Are thermal cameras going to monitor everybody’s backsides in such an event?
Do you see how this can quickly grow into a terrifying experience?
Privacy is foundational to freedom
The Founding Fathers of America fully understood the importance of privacy when it came to freedom. It’s for this reason that the Fourth Amendment was written.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
Is it not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for someone to use a camera to collect your biometrics without your consent? Are you secure in your person and effects in such a case? Are we now subject to rights violations each time we enter a grocery store, doctor’s office, or gas station? Does modern American society demand that our rights be violated so that we can live within that society?
Surveillance of US citizens and sensitive data collection reached epic proportions
COVID tech used to monitor the American people during the past year and a half collected more sensitive data than ever before.
Want proof?
- Alabama State University purchased thermal imaging and facial recognition-equipped drones to enforce social distancing and masking in public.
- Some US school districts required their students and staff to wear a Bluetooth armband to monitor their temperature.
The end result of these types of policies is to have authorities dictating your oxygen intake and whether or not you’re allowed to hug your friends.
Want more proof?
Online classrooms – intended to protect students against COVID – were turned into the ever-present TV cameras from 1984.
- Twelve-year-old Isaiah Elliot of Colorado flashed a toy gun across his screen during one of his lectures and was then suspended. Police were then sent to his house for a welfare check.
- Things were no different in Maryland. An 11-year-old boy had the police called on him by his teacher. The teacher saw a BB gun hanging on his bedroom wall during a Google Meet class.
When government employees get to decide which toys your children play with and what they decorate their bedrooms with, you have a public surveillance problem.
The end result of policies such as these is authorities demanding to violate your right to health privacy, then threatening your child with potential kidnapping (via Social Services) if you refuse to send your child to school.
Is the abolition of cash for your health or control?
The push for the abolition of cash was heavy throughout 2020. For example, the CNN article “Dirty money: the case against using cash during the coronavirus outbreak.” wrote:
The ongoing spread of coronavirus is forcing institutions around the world to rethink one particularly germy surface that most consumers touch every day: cash.
What’s the end result of this movement? A cashless society, and therefore, the monitoring and controlling of every purchase you make.
And now we have the vaccine passport
Now Americans must “state your name and race” before using certain transportation services, entering certain buildings, or going to certain churches. And it’s only going to continue to grow in use.
What does a vaccine passport do? First, it gives people the ability to know everywhere you’ve ever been. And, should it become digitally uploaded, to see where you are right now. Also, it lets them know whether or not you’re willing to comply with tyranny or not. Those who don’t – those who haven’t been placed on the list – are easier to find.
And when you’re easier to find – well, you end up in a situation very akin to Soviet Russia, do you not?
“These are the people who have not pledged loyalty to Stalin! Do with this list as you will!”
Public health is the perfect guise for tyranny
It’s based on fear, and fear is a potent motivator. If you can get most people to seek security rather than freedom, slavery is not far behind. As FA Hayek said regarding security in his masterpiece The Road to Serfdom, “the general striving for it, far from increasing the chances of freedom, becomes the gravest threat to it.”
Do you enjoy your freedom? Do you enjoy your right to privacy – not having a peeping Tom invading every aspect of your life? Then pay attention to what is being done with COVID tech. Watch both where and how it is being used.
Because I think you’ll agree with me: it’s not in your best interest.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 20:20 - Vaccines Exhibit "Reduced Efficacy" Against "Delta" Variant, WHO Doctor Warns
Vaccines Exhibit “Reduced Efficacy” Against “Delta” Variant, WHO Doctor Warns
As the mutant COVID-19 strain known as “Delta” picks up steam across Europe and the US, one of the WHO’s leading doctors has just expressed concern about recent research published in the Lancet showing that the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines aren’t as effective at protecting against “Delta”.
Answering a question from a reporter during the organization’s regular Monday briefing in Geneva, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said that there is data “showing a reduction in neutralization” for the Delta variant, but not as much as the “Beta” variant – better known as the mutant strain that was first discovered in South Africa.
She continued on, noting that the first generation of vaccines are still highly effective: “Having said that, these vaccines are still highly effective, they produce enough antibodies to protect against serious disease and death. While we are seeing some reduced efficacy, they are still effective at preventing severe disease and death including against the delta variant.”
Ultimately, the WHO needs to vaccinate as many people as quickly as possible – which is the goal of Covax, the WHO’s program to vaccinate the world – to give dangerous variants less opportunity to take root and spread.
“The goal of Covax is that we need those who are most at risk to severe disease, and those who are most exposed, to receive those vaccines and to be protected,” Dr. Kerkhove said.
To learn more about vaccine efficacy, the WHO has been “working with a global network…to get these studies under way…and to look at real-world efficacy data as well.” New research is coming in “fast and furious” and WHO is doing everything it can to determine what’s relevant and what’s not. The agency remains vigilant, however, because they fear that over time a growing number of “double” or “triple” mutants could further erode the efficacy of the first generation of vaccines. What’s more, “there may be a time where we have a constellation of mutations that arise in a variant” that will cause vaccines to lose potency entirely.
Readers can watch the entire briefing below. Dr. Kerkhove is asked about the threat posed by mutant strains just before the 1-hour mark:
Recent evidence suggests that the Delta variant, which has prompted concern worldwide, has also led to new surges of COVID in under-vaccinated parts of the US. According to BBG, even as the number of fully vaccinated Americans reaches 150MM, the genomics firm Helix has analyzed about 20K samples from COVID tests across more than 700 American counties and found that cases of the Delta variant appear to be spreading much more quickly in areas with lower vaccination rates than in areas that have higher rates.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 20:00 - Professors Call For Hate Speech Protections To Be Extended To Animals
Professors Call For Hate Speech Protections To Be Extended To Animals
Two professors at the University of Sheffield have published a piece in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies to extend hate speech protections to animals to deal with hateful “speciesist” remarks. Drs. Josh Milburn and Alasdair Cochrane insist that such protections will help achieve a “more benign human–animal relations within society.” The need for speech criminalization is based on the view that “some animals do seem to have their social confidence eroded because of their awareness of the risk of violence.”
We previously discussed the campaign by PETA to end the use of animal references in pejorative comments. It called for the end of the use of pig, chicken, pig, rat, snake and other references to “stand up for justice by rejecting supremacist language.”
These two academics go further to demand actual speech crimes and controls to protect animals:
“Laws against hate speech protect members of certain human groups. However, they do not offer protection to nonhuman animals. Using racist hate speech as our primary example, we explore the discrepancy between the legal response to hate speech targeting human groups and what might be called anti-animal or speciesist hate speech….We thus conclude that, absent a compelling alternative argument, there is no in-principle reason to support the censure of racist hate speech but not the censure of speciesist hate speech.”
What was striking to me in the work is the reliance on the writings of NYU Professor Jeremy Waldron who I debated a couple years ago at Rice University over his work in establishing speech codes and crimes. Despite my respect for him as an academic, I have long objected to Waldron’s work as inimical to free speech and creating a slippery slope of ever-expanding censorship. That danger is evident in this latest work. The professors embrace Waldron’s concept of “group defamation” and the harm it causes to individuals in society. They then extend that concept to animals:
“the best reading of Waldron’s theory must include certain animals within its protective remit…some states have enacted constitutional provisions for the sake of animals, some of which explicitly recognise the ‘dignity’ of animals.But, again, none of these provisions acknowledges that animals possess the Waldronian sense of civic dignity: none views animals as possessing equal social standing, membership, status, and rights. No community truly regards its animal residents as members of society, and none recognises them as equals.”
The argument illustrates how speech controls and crimes develop into an insatiable appetite for more and more regulation in maintaining what Waldron calls a better society. More and more speech is pulled into this vortex of criminalization and regulation.
As many know on this blog, I have long called for greater protections for animals and the recognition broader of animal rights. This includes greater standing to argue for relief in court on behalf of such animal interests. However, I am also a free speech advocate. Indeed, academics like Waldron probably view me as something of an extremist in my own right. I admit that I oppose most regulation and criminalization of speech. I may be a free speech dinosaur in that sense. Traditional free speech values are certainly out of vogue among academics. I believe in largely unfettered free speech, particularly for statements made off campus or outside of a classroom. I seriously do not believe that these animals are harmed by such comments but I know that free speech will be further harmed by their criminalization.
The danger is really not a line of woke Weimaraners because this really protects the sensibilities of humans. Indeed, it may be an odd form of anthropomorphism in assuming hurt feelings that humans would have. Animals can clearly sense anger and disapproval. However, few leave the room when you complain of living a “dog’s life” or “eating like a pig.”
There is a point about such phraseology but I prefer Dr. Doolittle’s version:
<
You can read the study here.
* * *
Update: Soon after this column was posted, I received a thoughtful and clarifying response from Professor Milburn. With his approval, I can including that response to this posting so that readers understand the position of the authors. I appreciate his reaching out and I encourage readers to consider the more nuanced view that he is suggesting:
Thank you for blogging about the article I wrote with Alasdair Cochrane on animals and hate speech. We, of course, welcome engagement and analysis from legal scholars.
I am emailing to clarify that, in the article, we do not say that animals should be protected from hate speech. We argue for a conditional: given that we have found — in existing scholarly discourse about the foundations of hate speech law — no compelling reason to draw a line, we conclude that if humans should be protected by hate-speech laws, then (in principle) animals should be protected by hate-speech laws.
I believe that this is a conclusion that could be endorsed by people who support the existence of hate-speech laws and those who do not. Indeed, I have previously spoken with a colleague who is, like you, very sceptical of hate-speech laws, and he suggested that Alasdair and I frame the paper explicitly as a reductio-style argument against hate-speech laws. We do not do this in the paper — indeed, we do not take a side in the question of whether hate-speech laws are justified at all. But we welcome engagement with our arguments from people who are generally supportive of hate-speech laws and those who are generally opposed.
Anyways; thank you, again, for taking the time to write about our paper.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 19:40 - "This Is Not A Temporary Situation": The Global Chip Shortage Will Continue To Push Prices Higher
“This Is Not A Temporary Situation”: The Global Chip Shortage Will Continue To Push Prices Higher
The ongoing global semiconductor shortage is causing prices of electronics to rise while at the same time pressuring suppliers and material providers to continue raising prices. In the midst of the shortage, demand for consumer electronics has continued to rocket higher.
Ergo, industry officials believe that the increases are likely to continue, according to a new Wall Street Journal report. The effects can be easily seen in consumer electronics.
The report notes that items like one ASUS laptop that formerly cost $900 now costs $950. An HP Chromebook laptop that used to cost $220 has seen its price rise to $250. In fact, HP has raised consumer PC prices by 8% and printer prices by more than 20% in just the short span of a year. the company’s CEO blames the rise in prices on “component shortages”.
Dell Technologies Inc. Chief Financial Officer Thomas Sweet recently said: “As we think about component cost increases, we’ll adjust our pricing as appropriate.”
Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi
made excuses for HPexplained the price hikes by saying they reflected an absence of usual discounts, instead of all-out price increases.Vincent Roche, the CEO of chip maker Analog Devices Inc., commented: “We’re not taking advantage of this cycle to do anything on pricing, other than where we are paying more for the additional supply that we’ve got to get on board. We’re passing that on.”
Hock Tan, CEO of Broadcom Inc., simply noted: “We see cost inflation.”
Digi-Key Electronics has also raised prices of semiconductor-related components by roughly 15% this year. They blame it on “pressures from the supply crunch”. Certain components now cost 40% more than they used to, according to David Stein, the company’s vice president of global supplier management.
“Contract prices for computer memory have risen about 34% since the beginning of last year,” the Journal notes, calling the rising prices “part of broader uptick in inflation in the U.S. economy”.
The median price of the top 20 bestselling microcontrollers is up by more than 12% since the middle of last year, according to Supplyframe Inc.
Dale Ford, the chief analyst at the Electronic Components Industry Association, concluded: “Raw-material costs have gone up more recently, and I think people are now saying this is not a temporary situation. Price increases are going to be durable.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 19:20 - Coca-Cola Diversity Policy Risks Violating Anti-Discrimination Laws, Shareholders Warn
Coca-Cola Diversity Policy Risks Violating Anti-Discrimination Laws, Shareholders Warn
Authored by GQ Pan via The Epoch Times,
A group of Coca-Cola shareholders are warning that the company’s recent diversity policy would actually require contracted law firms to violate anti-discrimination laws.
In a letter dated June 11, the American Civil Rights Project (ACRP) noted that on Jan. 28, the general counsel of Coca-Cola demanded law firms seeking to keep the company as a client must commit that at least 30 percent of billed time would be from “diverse attorneys,” and at least half of that time would be from black attorneys.
The ACRP, speaking on behalf of “a set of concerned Coca-Cola Company shareholders,” demanded that the soft drink company either “publicly retract the discriminatory outside-counsel policies” or otherwise “provide access to the corporate records related to the decision of Coca-Cola’s officers and directors to adopt and retain those illegal policies.”
Coca-Cola’s race-specific contracting policy, according to the ACRP, has exposed the corporation and its shareholders to “material risk of liability” for potentially violating anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
The letter further alleged that all of Coca-Cola’s decision makers knew, or should have known, that the policy was potentially illegal. It said those who were not so aware of the legal risks either have failed their responsibility or “relied on the inexcusably flawed advice of counsel.”
The diversity plan was shelved following the resignation of Bradley Gayton as Coca-Cola’s general counsel, after less than a year on the leadership position.
Gayton wrote in January that it is a “crisis” that the legal profession is not “treating the issue of diversity and inclusion as a business imperative.”
“The Stockholders therefore demand that you immediately publicly retract the policies in their entirety,” the letter concluded, adding that they will be “forced to seek judicial relief” to protect their interests in the company if they do not receive a response to their demands within 30 business days.
Coca-Cola, one of the largest food and beverage companies in the world, came under fire in February, when its employees were allegedly instructed to be “less white” as part of a “Confronting Racism” training course featuring interviews with sociologist Robin DiAngelo, the author of a 2018 book called “White Fragility.”
“In the U.S. and other Western nations, white people are socialized to feel that they are inherently superior because they are white,” reads one of the slides, allegedly sent from an “internal whistleblower” and posted on Twitter by YouTube commentator Karlyn Borysenko. The post went viral.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 19:00 - How Crowds Of Partiers Transformed NYC's Washington Square Park Into A "No Go Zone"
How Crowds Of Partiers Transformed NYC’s Washington Square Park Into A “No Go Zone”
Though it hasn’t garnered nearly as much attention as the occupation of Lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park, which was widely recognized as the genesis of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that exploded in the years after the financial crisis, the occupation of Washington Square Park has shown no signs of slowing down, even with the Big Apple’s crowded mayoral primary just one day away.
Some have even likened the park to a “no go zone”, a reference to areas (typically outside the US) where high rates of violent crime prompt outsiders to avoid the area.
Late last week, the NYT published a lengthy piece chronicling the situation at WSP, which has long had a reputation as a haven for the homeless and for drug dealers. Since the city imposed a curfew a few weeks back, the park has become a rallying point for activists and partygoers alike who are trying to make a point about reclaiming public space. The bougie residents who live in the area surrounding the park told the NYT that the situation “felt like war”.
After the NYPD first clashed with revelers in the park on June 5, the city ordered the police to stand down, prompting homeowners and renters who live near the park to brace for “a summer of chaos and sleepless nights.”
Edith Molina, 19, came down from the Bronx. “This is the park you come to chill out,” she said. “In the Bronx, you have gang violence, and police run you out of parks. Here, police don’t do anything.”
On recent weeks, the NYT reported that the number of visitors in the park sometimes balloons to more than 1K people, packed into a 9.74-acre piece of land in the heart of Greenwich Village. With the homeless and the crowd of young revelers has come drug dealers, who have created an influx of crack and heroin dealing in the park. The Daily Mail added, in a story published Sunday night, that residents have also complained about “prostitution and public sexual acts” being carried out in the park.
Speaking on Monday, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio said he believes the situation will resolve itself “naturally”.
The park is subject to a midnight curfew, but the NYPD has taken a lax approach in recent weeks to enforcing the midnight curfew, allowing revelers to party on long into the night.
While the noise has drawn most of the complaints from residents, many have also complained to police about the surge in police. Last Saturday alone, two people were stabbed, a man was beaten and mugged of his phone and a 77-year-old cook at a nearby diner was attacked after a young man drawn to the area by the park threw a tantrum after being refused access to the diner’s bathroom. A handful of overdoses have also been reported in the park seemingly every day.
Violent crime has been climbing across the Big Apple since the start of the pandemic. Felony assaults are up 8% for the first six months of 2021 vs. the same period last year, while rapes are up by 3%. Shootings in the Big Apple have increased by 64% year-on-year, while murders are up 13%.
While many of the residents who live nearby see themselves as liberals, many fear speaking out because they worry about being labeled a “NIMBY” – an acronym for “not in my backyard”. The phrase is a reference to supposedly “liberal” individuals who oppose development like multi-family housing, rehab facilities and halfway houses in their neighborhoods. Still, a growing number say they’re in favor of more aggressive police tactics as violence in the park has escalated.
Carmen Gonzalez, a dog photographer in the neighborhood, said: “Once the sun comes down, the park changes drastically. It’s time to draw the line.” Others articulated similar complaints.
Christa Shaub, who has lived in the area for 15 years, and Amy Heinemams, who has lived in there for six years, said the partying in the park is nothing new especially during the summer months, but ‘it’s exaggerated post-pandemic.’
‘This is an open park, but you need to have respect for people,’ Shaub said. ‘There needs to be regulations.’
The mostly young tourists who complain the loudest about the park being “public space” apparently haven’t put much thought into the fact that some people are now too afraid to use the space.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 18:40 - Ron Paul: The Road To Authoritarianism Is Paved With Fiat Currency
Ron Paul: The Road To Authoritarianism Is Paved With Fiat Currency
Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,
Last week, the Federal Reserve announced it will maintain an interest rate target of zero to 0.25 percent for the rest of 2021. The Fed said it will also continue its monthly purchase of 120 billion dollars of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities.
Some Fed board members are forecasting a rate increase by late 2022 or 2023, though with the rate still not reaching one percent.
The Fed will neither allow interest rates to rise to market levels nor reduce its purchase of Treasury securities. A significant increase in interest rates would make the government’s borrowing costs unsustainable.
The Fed also raised its projected rate of inflation to three percent, although it still insists the rise in prices is a transitory effect of the end of the lockdowns.
There is some truth to this, as it will take some time for businesses to get back to full capacity.
However, the Fed began taking extraordinary measures to prop up the economy in September of 2019, when it started pumping billions of dollars a day into the repo market that banks use to make short-term loans to each other.
The lockdowns only postponed and deepened the forthcoming Fed-caused meltdown.
Germany’s Deutsche Bank recently released a paper warning about the Federal Reserve continuing to disregard the inflation risk caused by easy money policies designed to “stimulate” the economy and facilitate massive government spending.
Germans have reason to be sensitive to the consequences of inflation, including hyperinflation.
Out-of-control inflation played a major role in the collapse of the German economy in the 1920s, which led to the rise of the National Socialists.
This pattern could repeat itself in America where we have already witnessed the rise of authoritarian movements. Last summer, groups exploited legitimate concerns about police misconduct to ferment violence across the country. Can anyone doubt that an economic crisis that leads to mass unemployment, foreclosures, and maybe even shortages will result in large-scale violence? Or that the violence will be exploited by power-hungry politicians? Or that many people will once again fall for the big lie that preserving safety requires giving up their liberty?
The apparatus of repression already exists in the form of a surveillance state, police militarization, and big tech’s cooperation with big government to stamp out dissent. Now, President Biden and his congressional allies want to use the January 6 US Capitol turmoil to justify expanding government powers in the name of stopping “domestic terrorists.” Part of this new campaign is expanding censorship of “extremism,” defined as any views that threaten the status quo. The Biden administration has taken a page from the Communist playbook in suggesting people report their friends and family who are becoming “radicalized.”
We may still have time to prevent collapse in America, or at least to make sure the collapse leads to a transition to a free society. The key to success is spreading the ideas of liberty until we have the ability to force the politicians to dismantle the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that is the lifeblood of authoritarian government.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 06/21/2021 – 18:20
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
