- US-UK Intelligence Warning: China Cyberthreats Pose 'Epoch-Defining' Challenge
US-UK Intelligence Warning: China Cyberthreats Pose ‘Epoch-Defining’ Challenge
Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,
The cybersecurity wars between communist China and the West are raging, yet few people realize what’s really going on. That’s now changing.
The Chinese regime’s ability to launch successful cyberattacks against American and British defenses is higher than it has ever been. New attack tactics, techniques, and protocols (TTPs) developed by the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) cyber division are threatening the integrity and functionality of Western nations’ military communications, operations, and other critical systems.
(L to R) MP Tim Loughton, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, and MP Stewart McDonald during a press conference at the Centre for Social Justice in central London on March 25, 2024. The Chinese regime is believed to have targeted a group of senior MPs and peers with a fresh series of cyberattacks aimed at undermining UK democracy. (Jordan Pettitt/PA Wire)
That may be why the United States and the UK are now publicly speaking about these critical threats, warning the Chinese and other national threat actors with which they coordinate to cease these provocative attacks. To that point, American, British, and European officials have warned that the Chinese regime’s cyberattacks are both coercive and destabilizing. As an indication of just how serious those threats are, the UK summoned the Chinese ambassador as a formal response to the regime’s increasing cyber threats to the UK.
UK: Defending Against China’s Cyberattacks Is ‘Top Priority’
To underscore their concern, Anne Keast-Butler, director of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the UK’s top-tier surveillance agency, said at a security conference in England’s city of Birmingham that responding to China’s cyber activities was “a top priority” for GCHQ. This isn’t the first time the UK government has had to confront Beijing about its illegal and threatening activities in cyberspace, but of late, it’s become a much bigger problem.
In fact, last month, British Prime Minister Rushi Sunak said Chinese hackers working for the CCP were running “malicious cyber campaigns” against UK lawmakers and UK media and were also responsible for a hack on the British Armed Forces’ payments system. The prime minister spoke further about the cyber threats, saying his country faced an “axis of authoritarian states like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China.”
What’s more, British authorities have charged three men with spying for Hong Kong’s foreign intelligence service in the UK. The men are accused of being Chinese state-sponsored hackers and stealing election data from the UK’s elections offices, as well as performing surveillance operations in the UK. Beijing stated that the case was “a fabrication.” When pressed about these and other cyber activities and the threats they pose to international norms and the security of the United States, the UK, and European countries, Beijing denied the existence of such threats, dismissing them as “absurd.”
These events put additional strains on UK relations with China.
The Volt Typhoon Threat and Beyond
These official accusations follow in the wake of the confrontation that Washington had with Beijing several weeks ago regarding its advanced “Volt Typhoon” attack. That attack involved the discovery of the long and undetected presence of Chinese infiltration into vital U.S. operational systems across a variety of verticals. It was determined that Chinese attackers had breached the networks of dozens of American critical infrastructure organizations that control electrical power, water, and both civilian and military communication systems via a widespread network of compromised servers and computers.
FBI Director Christopher Wray contends that Volt Typhoon would be used to disrupt, if not eliminate, control of the critical infrastructure systems mentioned above, as well as other strategic assets, prior to launching a military campaign against the United States or Taiwan. Again, Beijing has denied any official connection to the Volt Typhoon attack.
Hackers Penetrating US Defense Systems
However, at the Birmingham security conference, National Cyber Director Harry Coker asserted that Chinese hackers were violating U.S. defense sites in cyberspace and targeting U.S. interests at an “unprecedented scale.” Mr. Coker highlighted the severity of this threat, noting that “in a crisis or conflict scenario, China could use their pre-positioned cyber capabilities to wreak havoc in civilian infrastructure and deter U.S. military action.”
The British prime minister and the GCHQ chief emphasized their rising concerns about China’s cyberattacks and their impact on the global order. Mr. Sunak said the next few years would be “dangerous and transformational,” while Ms. Keast-Butler said that “Russia and Iran pose immediate threats, but China is the ‘epoch-defining’ challenge.”
As China’s Power Rises, So Do Attacks
However, the United States, the UK, and Europe aren’t the only targets of Chinese hackers. The Philippines has seen a fourfold rise in Chinese cyberattacks year over year as friction between the two has increased. The parallel between the Chinese regime’s growing military power and influence in the world and its rising level of cyberattacks against its adversaries can’t be overlooked. Nor can the fact that the United States and the UK feel the need to publicly point the finger at China.
Cyberattacks have occurred for decades, but this is a clear change from how they were handled in the past, when they were managed at the government level. However, with China’s apparent ability to penetrate even the most highly guarded systems, the next few years may well be, as the British observed, “destabilizing,” “transformative,” and “epoch-defining.”
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 23:40 - Putin's Purge? Another Top Russian General Arrested On Bribery Charges
Putin’s Purge? Another Top Russian General Arrested On Bribery Charges
Is this the continuation of what appers an ongoing purge by President Vladimir Putin of his top defense ranks?
The Kremlin escalated its crackdown on Russia’s top military ranks, with a new corruption arrest this week.
Russian authorities detained Lieutenant-General Vadim Shamarin, deputy to General Valery Gerasimov, head of the army’s general staff, on suspicion of large-scale bribe-taking, Russian state media reported Thursday.
It is the fourth arrest in the past month of a high-ranking military official, marking the biggest Russian army scandal in years. The detentions come as President Vladimir Putin carries out a sweeping reshuffle of top jobs, including a change at the head of the Ministry of Defense.
Lieutenant-General Vadim Shamarin, deputy head of the army’s general staff. Handout/Reuters The arrest comes closely on the heels of the biggest reshuffling in military leadership since the Ukraine invasion’s start: the May 12th removal of Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu (or rather, he was shifted to head of the national security council) and installation of Andrei Belousov.
“On May 22, the court chose a preventive measure for Shamarin in the form of detention for a period of two months,” a court official was cited in AFP as confirming. Additionally a senior defense ministry procurement official identified as Vladimir Verteletsky was also reportedly detained.
The court has alleged Shamarin accepted bribes “at an especially large scale” while overseeing the doling out of state contracts:
Russia’s Investigative Committee, which probes major crimes, announced later on Thursday that the general is accused of accepting 36 million rubles ($397,000) from the executives of a phone manufacturing plant for “general patronage” and ensuring higher product supplies through Defense Ministry contracts.
He is currently in pretrial detention. As for recent removals which are specifically criminal cases, below is a review of the series of arrests:
- Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov was detained in late April
- Lieutenant-General Yuri Kuznetsov, head of personnel at the defense ministry
- Major-General Ivan Popov, a former top commander for Russia’s offensive in Ukraine
Despite all appearances, the Kremlin is still denying that a “purge” is in progress – but instead a mere serious campaign to root out corruption.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told RIA in the wake of the detention of Gerasimov’s deputy, “The fight against corruption is a continuous effort. This is not a campaign. It is an integral part, in fact, of the activities of our law enforcement agencies.”
So this string of arrests is being presented as an open and shut simple enforcement of the law, but this is hardly convincing many Russia observers in the West. For example, the BBC’s Russia Editor Steve Rosenberg has observed: “When one top defense official in Russia is arrested, that’s interesting. When four senior defense figures are arrested in less than a month, that’s more than a pattern…begins to look like a purge.”
As for head of the army, Gen. Gerasimov… while this certainly puts him under a greater spotlight (as his #2 just went down), he is not accused of any wrongdoing, but still has come under increased criticism among Kremlin officials of late for how the ‘special military operation’ is being executed in Ukraine.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 23:20 - The Unifying Principle: Here's Why The Political Divisions In The US Today Cannot Be Mended
The Unifying Principle: Here’s Why The Political Divisions In The US Today Cannot Be Mended
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,
Recently I was watching a short documentary about the history of political discourse and division in the US and it got me thinking about how the internal conflicts of the past might relate to the rampant social battles Americans are dealing with today. From early disagreements between various Founding Fathers on hot button issues like the Sedition Act, central banking and standing armies, to epic and disastrous conflagrations like the Civil War, America has never been “of one mind” on everything.
Overall, though, the longstanding assumption is that even when we slip and fall into disarray Americans will find common ground and move on towards the future together. It’s a nice sentiment, but what if this ideal no longer applies?
There are some people that argue there was never a golden era for the US; that we’ve always been destructive, or exploitative or “imperialist.” Of course, it’s very easy to examine any given time period through the lens of modern sensibilities and pass judgment. How we would do things today is not necessarily how we would do things yesterday. We can’t easily condemn the men and women of the past without at least recognizing that we will probably never see the issues of their day from their perspective.
The political left is the most egregious violator of this principle. They have a bad habit of trying to rewrite history according to their current ideological cultism and applying their taboos to time periods when civilization had very different views on how to function. The progressive philosophy is partially rooted in “futurism”; the idea that all old ideas and ways of doing things must be abandoned to make way for new methods. In other words, they think everything “new” is better and must be embraced.
Frankly, this theory has never proven correct. Not every old idea should be left behind and not every new method is better. In fact, most ideas that leftists think are new are actually very old. There’s nothing ground breaking about DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion), it’s just another form of Marxism based on personal identity rather than the traditional class politics.
Do you want to know what DEI really is? It’s a vehicle for forced association.
Forced association is used to leverage populations into a homogeneous soup, a hive mind with no individual thought or right to discriminate against destructive groups and ideologies. But if America is experiencing an agenda of forced association today then we have to ask – What is there to be gained? Why pressure people who fundamentally disagree with each other on every level to coexist within a society? Why do the people in power want this so badly?
Well, for the central planners (usually socialists/globalists), tribalism is a big no-no. People going their own way is unacceptable. If the populace thinks they can divide and separate and live differently from each other, then how can the establishment continue to exist? For a one-world government to be achieved ALL divisions must be erased and everyone has to either love or fear the purveyors of “unity.”
Separation must, therefore, be demonized. The problem is, there’s no way to blackmail a population into association, not in the long term anyway. A group is an abstraction without form; it means nothing until the individuals involved share a unifying principle. When I look back at political disagreements in history I find that there is a vital factor that existed during past conflicts that does NOT exist today.
Even during the worst of times including the Civil War both sides of the division held the same basic principles and morals. They had a lot of the same values, a shared religion and a shared understanding of reality. They were people connected by the same American soul, they merely disagreed on singular issues. The goal for each side was for America and its fundamental heritage to survive, even if they didn’t always obey every aspect of the Constitution or the existing leadership at the time. This is not how things work in 2024.
In terms of surface level politics its obvious that there will never be peaceful reconciliation between woke progressives and conservatives/independents. One side or the other has to go, and I think the majority of people in the US want leftists to go.
To be clear I’m not saying that all people on the political left are exactly the same. There’s definitely a political spectrum from traditional liberals to extreme activists. But there is no denying that, for now, woke zealots control the levers of power and influence within the Democratic Party and the leftist media. They also have the explicit backing of every major institution from corporations to NGOs to government.
You don’t see a whole lot of average Democrats with the guts to stand up and criticize their own side even when they know there’s something very wrong happening. They go along with the program either out of laziness or fear. With conservatives the reverse is true. Conservatives can’t seem to organize a damn thing because we constantly disagree with each other when it comes to solutions.
And let’s not forget the fence riders out there. It’s sure nice to always be out of the fray and in the rear with the gear while pretending as if you’re “above it all.” That’s a very comfortable place to be because it allows a person to avoid risk while appearing as if they’re taking the high road. Much like a slippery academic who never defines his position in a debate so that he can change his arguments on a whim.
The issue is that, even though fence riders don’t want to admit it, there are times when one side is right and one side is utterly wrong. Sometimes there is no middle ground.
A lot of moderates are finally waking up to the horrors of the collectivist movements in our midst. Maybe it was the pandemic lockdowns or the attempted trans indoctrination of children or the unhinged nature of far-left activists in the streets but somewhere along the way moderates finally realized conservatives were RIGHT all along about a lot of things. We were fighting to save their freedoms years ago while they were acting cool and wondering what all the fuss was about.
There are a lot of factors that set conservatives (and a many moderates) apart from the political left, but the core disconnect is so deep and disturbing it’s hard to quantify. I can only summarize it down to this:
1) The unifying principle of the left is deconstruction. They find their meaning or purpose in the act of tearing down and destroying what other people have built.
2) The unifying principle for conservatives is to build and protect what has been found to work.
Humanity’s best bet for success is liberty with responsibility, free markets and meritocracy. All things we are trying to preserve, and all things that leftists want to blow up.
For progressives the most important question is: What happens when they’ve destroyed the last edifice? What comes next? If dismantling systems is their unifying principle what will they do when they have nothing else to dismantle? What happens when every plate in the china shop is broken? They are incapable of creating a new and functional society so they would need an outside foundation.
In this regard I set globalists apart from typical leftists. Globalists are indeed leftists at their core but they are also builders, and not in a good way. Globalists don’t build societies, they build prisons. Once the useful idiots on the left have finished the job of deconstructing America the globalists plan to come in with a new ideal, a new religion, a new foundation based on worshiping THEM.
Here is where we find the greatest split of all – The spiritual nature of our impasse.
I’ve definitely never been one to promote the concept of theocracy and I have many scruples when it comes to “Earthly” religious organizations. Anything governed by men can be corrupted. But I also accept that America was built by a majority Christian society following integral Christian values. I don’t think every American needs to be Christian. The Founding Fathers understood that religious freedom is essential. But we must acknowledge and embrace the fact that the country works best when Christianity is at the forefront. At least there is a unifying moral code to hold the framework together.
Furthermore, it would be far easier to reconcile Christian social systems with science and critical thinking than it will be to reconcile freedom loving Americans with far-left collectivists. The woke cult is much more hostile to science today than Christians are; they even refuse to acknowledge human biology. I also think Christianity is growing along with newer generations of conservatives with a greater respect for skepticism. We could see a renaissance following the paths set by great Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas or C.S. Lewis.
I’m seeing a lot of the old blind devotion to the Republican Party fall by the wayside and a greater focus on what politicians achieve rather than what they promise. I’m seeing people on the right embrace the value of comedy and pop culture more, which has always been a problem for conservatives. And, I’m seeing science open doors to religious thought instead of trying to close them. As humanity delves deeper into quantum physics, cosmology and even the mind sciences, our relationship to the great beyond requires consideration of the physical AND the metaphysical.
It’s the kind of thing that would make progressives rage and foam at the mouth. For them, science must always be in service to their causes or it ceases to have value, and one of their primary causes is the erasure of Christianity. They’ll never allow a world where science and religion work together to build a future in which discovery is balanced with ethical responsibility.
Then there is the issue of moral imperative. Many of us see the targeting of children for indoctrination and exploitation. We see the promotion of subjective reality and degeneracy. We see the inclination towards lies as a tool for political power. We see leftists caring more about winning and less about the truth.
For the globalists and the woke mob, morality is nothing more than a social construct, but we know that these ideas are inborn and inherent for the majority of people. If they weren’t, humanity would have gone extinct ages ago from self destruction. Leftists don’t agree with the concept of a basic moral code. Leftists don’t even agree that morals are a necessity. They think they can manifest their own reality from thin air. How can we possibly live side-by-side with people who despise every pillar that holds western civilization together?
The answer is – We can’t. For now I see no path to peace. Peace would require a unifying principle, a mutual respect, and that does not exist.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 23:00 - USAF Releases First Mid-Flight Image Of B-21 Raider
USAF Releases First Mid-Flight Image Of B-21 Raider
The B-21 Raider, the US Air Force’s latest stealth bomber, was unveiled in December 2022 and is currently undergoing testing at Edwards Air Force Base in California. This cutting-edge aircraft is poised to gradually replace the B-1 and B-2 bombers in the second half of the decade, solidifying its position as the backbone of America’s stealth bomber fleet.
On Wednesday, the USAF released new stunning images of the B-21.
Since the stealth bomber debuted, there has only been a handful of images released and or taken by the public:
The B-21 is USAF’s first strategic bomber in over three decades and is expected to enter service in the mid-2020s with a production goal of 100 aircraft.
America is gearing up for conflict as the world fractures into a multipolar state.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 22:40 - In Blow To China, Argentina's Milei Looking To US For Defense Cooperation
In Blow To China, Argentina’s Milei Looking To US For Defense Cooperation
Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Over the past decade China’s security footprint in Argentina has grown considerably, but analysts say recent indicators demonstrate President Javier Milei may be shifting defense cooperation back towards the United States.
(Illustration by The Epoch Times, Shutterstock, Getty Images, Shimin Gu/CC, Public Domain, Casa Rosada (Argentina Presidency of the Nation)/CC) A 2012 agreement between officials in Argentina’s Neuquen Province and Beijing allowed the construction of a deep space tracking station near the Chilean border, that made Washington sit up and take notice.
The 50-year contract grants the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) the ability to operate freely on Argentinian soil. The facility, known as Espacio Lejano, became the precedent for a Chinese ground tracking facility in Rio Gallegos, on the south eastern coastal tip of Argentina, which was formally announced in 2021.
Since the Espacio Lejano contract was signed, analysts and U.S. officials have repeatedly expressed concern over China’s expanding collaboration with Argentina in matters of security and surveillance.
“The PRC [People’s Republic of China] has expanded its ability to extract resources, establish port, manipulate governments through predatory investment practices, and build potential dual-use space facilities,” U.S. Southern Command Gen. Laura Richardson said during a 2023 House Armed Services Committee hearing.
President Milei took office on Dec. 10, 2023, replacing the progressive President Alberto Fernandez, who forged closer ties with China and signed a 2022 deal to join the Communist Party’s Belt and Road Initiative. While campaigning, Mr. Milei made no secret of his disdain for communist regimes and signaled his intent to move away from socialist policies in favor of a more libertarian direction.
In the nearly seven months he has been in office, President Milei has enacted major economic reforms and a downsizing of government.
Other recent “positive indicators” indicate the Milei administration are prioritizing defense relations with the United States over China, said Leland Lazarus, the associate director for national security at Florida International University’s Jack D. Gordon Institute for Public Policy.
“The fact is that in just six months, he’s already visited the U.S. multiple times. He’s met with Secretary Blinken, he’s been to the White House … all that is like absolute music to General Richardson’s ears. To Biden’s ears,” Mr. Lazarus told The Epoch Times.
Ms. Richardson traveled to Argentina in April, on a visit that included the donation of a Hercules C-130H transport aircraft to the Argentinian Air Force and a tour of a naval facility in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, the extreme tip of the country.
“We are committed to working closely with Argentina so that our collaborative security efforts benefit our citizens, our countries and our hemisphere in lasting and positive ways,” Ms. Richardson said in a statement at the time.
Argentine President-elect Javier Milei pauses for a photo while departing from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House in Washington, on Nov. 28, 2023. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images) In Ushuaia, Ms. Richardson met with local military personnel to discuss their role in “safeguarding shipping routes vital to global trade.”
In an Argentinian Ministry of Defense release, President Milei confirmed that Ms. Richardson also checked on the progress of an “integrated naval base” at the Ushuaia naval facility.
Argentine officials stated that they also discussed “legislative modernization in defense matters.”
Under the previous administration, China had been given preferential treatment.
In June 2023, Tierra del Fuego Gov. Gustavo Melella gave China the go-ahead to build a “multi-purpose” port facility near the Strait of Magellan.
The project was promptly met with legislative backlash as three national deputies and members of the Civic Coalition filed an official complaint against the governor’s provincial decree to build a port with Beijing. The same group further accused Mr. Melella of violating Argentina’s national security.
No public records show the project has since moved forward.
Shift in Relations
Mr. Lazarus said Argentina’s desire for deeper security cooperation with Western partners was also evident in April when Argentina’s Minister of Defense, Luis Petri, signed a historic purchase agreement for 24 F-16 fighter jets from Denmark.
“Today we are completing the most important military aeronautical acquisition since 1983,” Mr. Petri said in an official press release.
“Thanks to this investment in defense, I can proudly say that we are beginning to recover our aerial sovereignty and that our entire society is better protected against all those threats that put us to the test.”
The purchase occurred after multiple media reports in 2022 said the previous administration under President Alberto Fernandez was considering the purchase of China–Pakistan-made JF-17 fighter jets. A minister of former President Mauricio Macri’s administration, who asked not to be identified, confirmed to The Epoch Times that a deal to purchase the JF-17 jets was under consideration during the Fernandez era.
Argentina’s President Alberto Fernandez (L) arrives at Beijing’s airport ahead of the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing on Oct. 17, 2023. (Parker Song/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) The China snub on such a notable arms deal is telling for some, as the CCP has invested a lot in Argentina’s defense sector.
“From 2009–2019 China transferred a total of $634 million worth of major military hardware to five South American countries—Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela,” a House Foreign Affairs Committee brief states.
“The governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina have purchased PRC [People’s Republic of China] defense equipment, cooperated in military exercises, and engaged in educational exchanges and training for military personnel.”
Read more here…
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 22:20 - What Americans Are Most Worried About
What Americans Are Most Worried About
Statista’s Consumer Insights survey has been tracking which issues adults in the United States consider to be the most important in the country right now, and how they have shifted over time.
The following chart, via Statista’s Anna Fleck, provides just a snapshot of these, listing the eight most cited concerns out of a possible 20 options, in the most recent survey wave as well as in the survey wave at the start of the pandemic.
You will find more infographics at Statista
Where health and social security came first in the earlier iteration, likely in reference to Covid, it had dropped by 6 percentage points by 2023/24. In the meantime, inflation and the cost of living has risen from third position to first position (+13 p.p).
Other notable changes include a drop in the share of people citing immigration in the latest wave and an increase in the share of people picking crime. Six of the eight most recent most pressing issues are social, with the sole environmental topic of climate change having narrowly dropped off the list, coming in 10th position with 30 percent of respondents picking it, following unemployment with 31 percent.
As this chart shows, poverty and housing are now on the minds of more U.S. adults, at least more imminently, than before. Where poverty had previously tied in 9th position with education in 2019/20 with a 32 percent share of respondents picking it as one the most important issues facing the country right now, the share rose to 37 percent in the latest survey wave. Similarly, where housing had been in rank 11 with 22 percent, it has now risen to position 6, with 36 percent of respondents selecting the option.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 22:00 - Judge Blocks Florida Law Criminalizing Transport Of Illegal Immigrants Into State
Judge Blocks Florida Law Criminalizing Transport Of Illegal Immigrants Into State
Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
A federal judge has temporarily blocked part of a Florida law that criminalizes transporting illegal immigrants into the state.
Illegal aliens from Cuba line up to board a bus to be driven to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection station as they are processed in Marathon, Fla., on Jan. 5, 2023. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images) The challenged law was signed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis a year ago, when southern border states were bracing for a flood of illegal immigrants following the scheduled expiration of Title 42, a public health order that allowed border enforcement agents to quickly expel those deemed at risk of bringing in COVID-19.
Touted by Mr. DeSantis and his supporters as the “strongest anti-illegal immigration legislation in the country,” the law contains a provision that makes it a third-degree felony for anyone to “knowingly and willfully” transport into Florida someone whom “the person knows or reasonably knew … has not been inspected by the Federal Government since his or her unlawful entry.”
In a preliminary injunction issued on May 22, [Venezuelan born] Judge Roy Altman of the Southern District of Florida said the provision in question “extends beyond the state’s authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration law, and in doing so, intrudes into territory that’s preempted.”
“In this case, any harm the state may suffer from an injunction is overweighed by the harm [the provision] poses both to the Plaintiffs and to the United States, which has the ultimate interest in protecting federal supremacy in the realm of immigration,” the Trump-appointed judge wrote.
The lawsuit was filed in July by The Farmworker Association of Florida, which describes itself as a “grassroots and community-based farmworker membership organization” serving seasonal workers as well as migrant workers who travel with the seasons to harvest crops.
According to its complaint, the association members have to travel back and forth between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, crossing back into Florida multiple times per year. With the transportation law in place, some of its members became “too afraid to travel in and out of Florida with their undocumented friends or family members,” over the fear of being arrested or prosecuted, according to the association.
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, a defendant in the suit, has argued that the association has no legal standing to sue in the first place. She also clarified that visa holders, DACA recipients—those who were illegally brought to the United States as young children—asylum seekers, and people with pending removal proceedings are not subject to punishment under the transportation law, since they are considered “inspected” by the federal government.
Judge Altman disagreed with her argument. In the May 22 opinion, he said the way the law is worded gives the association’s members a good reason to fear a potential arrest and that they have “suffered an injury in fact,” even though they haven’t put themselves at risk of an actual arrest.
The judge also found that the Association has standing to sue.
“An organizational plaintiff suffers cognizable injury when it is forced to divert resources from its regular activities to educate and assist affected individuals in complying with the challenged statute,” he wrote.
The association was backed by a score of high-profile progressive advocacy groups: the national and Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans for Immigrant Justice, the American Immigration Council, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. They celebrated the court order as a “much-needed win for Floridians.”
“The court was right to block this callous and patently unconstitutional law, which had threatened Floridians with jail time for doing the most ordinary things, like going to work, visiting family, and driving kids to soccer games. This ruling is an important victory for Florida communities,” Spencer Amdur, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.
The Florida attorney general’s office did not respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.
The ruling is the latest in the legal blowback against states that seek to handle illegal immigration on their own in the wake of the growing crisis at the nation’s southern border. The Biden administration has sued three states—Texas, Iowa, and most recently Oklahoma—for making illegal immigration a state crime enforceable by state and local law enforcement.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 21:40 - The Income A Family Needs To Live Comfortably In Every US State
The Income A Family Needs To Live Comfortably In Every US State
Families in the top five most expensive U.S. states require an annual income exceeding $270,000 to live comfortably.
This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, illustrates the income necessary for two working adults with two children to maintain a comfortable lifestyle in each state.
“Comfortable” is defined as the income needed to cover a 50/30/20 budget, with 50% allocated to necessities like housing and utilities, 30% to discretionary spending, and 20% to savings or investments.
The calculations for family income needed in each state were done by SmartAsset, using the cost of necessities sourced from the MIT Living Wage Calculator, last updated on Feb. 14, 2024.
Massachusetts Tops the List
Massachusetts is the most expensive state to live comfortably in, requiring a total family income of about $301,184. Hawaii ($294,611) comes in second, followed by Connecticut ($279,885).
Housing is one main reason Massachusetts is an expensive state to live in, particularly in the Boston area. In addition, the state also has a high cost of living, including expenses such as healthcare and utilities.
Rank State Income for 2 working adults raising 2 children 1 Massachusetts $301,184 2 Hawaii $294,611 3 Connecticut $279,885 4 New York $278,970 5 California $276,723 6 Colorado $264,992 7 Washington $257,421 8 Oregon $257,338 9 New Jersey $251,181 10 Rhode Island $249,267 11 Vermont $248,352 12 Minnesota $244,774 13 New Hampshire $244,109 14 Alaska $242,611 15 Maryland $239,450 16 Nevada $237,286 17 Virginia $235,206 18 Illinois $231,962 19 Arizona $230,630 20 Pennsylvania $230,464 21 Maine $229,549 22 Delaware $228,966 23 Wisconsin $225,056 24 Utah $218,483 25 Michigan $214,490 26 Nebraska $213,075 27 Georgia $212,826 28 Montana $211,411 28 Iowa $211,411 30 Idaho $211,245 31 North Carolina $209,331 31 Ohio $209,331 33 Florida $209,082 34 Indiana $206,003 35 New Mexico $203,923 36 Wyoming $203,424 37 Missouri $202,259 38 North Dakota $202,176 39 Texas $201,344 40 South Carolina $200,762 41 Kansas $196,768 42 Tennessee $195,770 43 Oklahoma $194,106 44 Alabama $193,606 45 South Dakota $192,608 46 Kentucky $190,112 47 Louisiana $189,613 48 West Virginia $189,363 49 Arkansas $180,794 50 Mississippi $177,798 Meanwhile, Mississippi is the least expensive state for a family to live comfortably, requiring $177,798 per year. Arkansas ($180,794) comes in second, followed by West Virginia ($189,363). In common, all these states share low prices of housing.
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to check out this graphic, which ranks the median down payment for a house by U.S. state.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 21:20 - Senate Again Blocks Border Bill With GOP Opposition
Senate Again Blocks Border Bill With GOP Opposition
Authored by Joseph Lord and Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,
The U.S. Senate on May 23 again rejected a proposed border bill as the issue continues to dominate voters’ concerns ahead of the 2024 election. The bill was previously blocked by Republicans in February when it was rolled into a broader foreign aid package.
Republicans have criticized Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) decision to bring the bill back up for a vote, saying it was a political move aimed at bolstering Democrat messaging ahead of the 2024 elections.
The legislation, dubbed the Border Act of 2024, was rejected in a 43–50 vote that included more opposition from members of both parties than the previous vote in February.
The bill includes $20 billion in funding for border security and a mechanism to shut down the border after seven consecutive days with an average of 5,000 illegal immigrants encountered per day or if more than 8,500 illegal aliens are encountered in a single day.
Proponents of the bill say that it would grant President Joe Biden additional authority to close the border, and say that it would alleviate the situation by providing new funding that could help stop the flow of fentanyl over the border.
“It’s a chance to show we’re serious about fixing the border,” Mr. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said ahead of the vote.
Opponents say the opposite, with many contending it would only make the situation worse—particularly through a clause that could effectively codify allowing 5,000 illegal aliens into the country a day.
In February, the bill failed to advance a 49–50 vote, including support from four Republicans and opposition from four Democrats.
On Thursday, Several Democrats, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, voted against the measure.
These lawmakers tied their opposition to the measure’s lack of protection for “Dreamers,” the recipients of deferred immigration enforcement under President Barack Obama.
Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and John Lankford (R-Okla.), key negotiators for the initial package, both defected to vote against the measure.
No Republicans supported the measure during its second round, with many saying that the vote itself was a political ploy by Democrats that would only worsen the situation at the southern border.
Political PR War
The bill comes amid a PR war among Republicans and Democrats on whose border credentials are stronger even as both sides continue to accuse the other of politicizing the issue, even as its failures on both May 23 and during its original vote came due to bipartisan opposition.
That PR war comes as the border issue continues to dominate voters’ priorities in 2024, with poll after poll showing that voters have far more confidence in former President Donald Trump’s ability to handle the border than have faith in President Biden’s policies.
Now, Democrats are trying to show that they can be strong on the border too—but Republicans say that the whole package is unnecessary, as President Biden already has the authority he needs to close down the border.
“The fact of the matter is that President Trump had the authority to secure the border. He did. Biden used that exact same authority to open it back up,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told The Epoch Times.
Democrats, meanwhile, extolled the effects the bill could potentially have on reducing the flow of fentanyl into the country.
In a memo sent to the press, the White House accused Republicans of being on the side of fentanyl pushers.
“Instead of supporting legislation endorsed by the Border Patrol Union, congressional Republicans sided with fentanyl traffickers,” the White House said.
President Biden has repeatedly endorsed the legislation and called on Congress to take it up.
Amid the debate, both parties are claiming—and responding to claims—that the other party is motivated primarily by politics.
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) told The Epoch Times that the bill “seems like it’s a Schumer lifeline to guys like Tester,” a reference to Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) who’s facing a tough reelection bid in ruby-red Montana.
“Biden could fix the border tomorrow if he wanted to—Trump fixed the border without additional authority,” Mr. Sullivan said. “So my message to President Biden? Fix the border the way Trump did.”
The sentiment was repeated by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who called the second push on the bill “completely a political stunt. I don’t even think it’ll get any Republican votes.”
Like his colleagues, Mr. Paul called on President Biden to fix the border with his preexisting authorities.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Democrats’ lead negotiator on the package, meanwhile rejected the claim that Democrats were pursuing the bill for political advantage, blaming Republicans with political motives seeking to kill the bill.
“I think it’s pretty ironic for a party that openly admits they killed the bill for political reasons to claim that we’re trying to pass a law for political reasons,” Mr. Murphy told reporters.
Mr. Murphy, one of the lead negotiators on the bill, said that it was very different from the House’s H.R. 2 border security bill, which Mr. Murphy dismissed as “transparently a partisan political exercise,” while the Senate bill, he said, is “transparently bipartisan.”
“I just think … Republicans have zero interest in fixing the border because they can’t imagine living in a world in which the border isn’t a political issue,” Mr. Murphy said.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 21:00 - Last Hope Against Biden-Bucks – House Passes Bill Blocking The Fed From Issuing A CBDC
Last Hope Against Biden-Bucks – House Passes Bill Blocking The Fed From Issuing A CBDC
The CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act passed the United States House of Representatives on a largely partisan vote on May 23.
As CoinTelgraph’s Derek Andersen reports, the bill, which must still face a vote in the Senate, amends the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to prohibit Federal Reserve banks “from offering certain products or services directly to an individual, to prohibit the use of central bank digital currency for monetary policy, and for other purposes.”
The Republican-backed bill’s debate was sparsely attended. Republican supporters spoke about the potential for the abuse of a central bank digital currency (CBDC), while Democrats concentrated on innovation, the dollar’s international competitiveness and the bill’s poor drafting.
French Hill, the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion, said:
“We live in a world where the government can abuse the tools it has.”
Representative Mike Flood reused his rhetorical device urging the audience to “imagine the politician you despise the most” with control over a CBDC.
Financial Services Committee member Warren Davidson called the New York Fed’s Project Hamilton “the same creepy surveillance tool” as China’s digital yuan. He said the pilot project “could be developed to something further.” The Fed was not responding to dialog, so it must respond to law, he said.
Warren called a digital currency the “creepiest surveillance tool known to man” that would lead to “coercion and control.”
“Why would we enable it?” he said. “Everywhere it’s depicted as evil.”
Davidson said the Fed should not pursue a digital currency without authorization from Congress, arguing it doesn’t have a place in a free society.
“We don’t want them to design it,” he said. “We don’t want them to build it.”
Frequent references were made to the digital yuan and the blockage of bank accounts in Canada during a trucker drivers’ demonstration against COVID-19 vaccination. Davidson also mentioned George Orwell – author of the novel 1984 – the New Testament Book of Revelations and the Deathstar – a device in the Star Wars film franchise – in his arguments.
The CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act. Source: congress.gov
That idea was echoed by Rep. Alexander Mooney, author of an amendment to the bill that restricted CBDC research, who said a CBDC should not be “available at a moment’s notice.”
Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke about the “deep state” and the “Democrat regime.”
🚨🇺🇸HOUSE PASSES CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY BAN | 216-162
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene:
“The idea of a Central Bank Digital Currency is terrifying!
That’s why I’m supporting the CBDC Anti Surveillance State Act to BAN CBDCs.”pic.twitter.com/MW3dAti1yV
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 23, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The exact implications of the bill were also disputed. Brad Sherman called the bill a “word salad” that favored “crypto bros.” He added that no one would be required to use a CBDC.
While Republican arguments focused on a retail CBDC, Financial Services Committee ranking member Maxine Waters claimed the bill could be construed to ban a wholesale CBDC as well.
Waters argued that the bill would “risk undermining the primacy of the U.S. dollar” globally.
The bill could also be interpreted to ban Federal Reserve holdings of bank reserves, which is necessary to administer payment systems, Waters said:
“[The bill] blocks the American economy as it operates today and has for decades.”
Waters also mentioned zero-knowledge proof technology that could guarantee user privacy. Dollar-pegged stablecoins could lose their value in a run, while a CBDC could not, she added.
Source: XRP Drops
Financial Services Committee member Jake Auchincloss said that his proposed bill, “Power of the Mint Act,” would accomplish similar goals without the drawbacks of the bill under consideration, but it had been blocked by Republicans.
The CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act was introduced into the House by Rep. Tom Emmer in February 2023. It passed by a vote of 216-192.
For the past two years, Jim Rickards – among many others – have been warning about the emergence of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), or as some like to call the U.S. version, “Biden Bucks.”
These Biden Bucks would have the full backing of the U.S. Federal Reserve. They’d replace the cash (“fiat”) dollar we have now. And if Biden got his way, they’d be the sole, mandatory currency of the United States.
What does this mean for you?
As Rickards details below, it would make your money less truly your own. It would be subject to government control.
Biden Bucks are being peddled as a more efficient and convenient form of money. They say they’re just simplifying the payment system and making it more efficient. It’ll be much more convenient than the convoluted system we have today.
And they’re actually right about that. A digital dollar will be simpler, more efficient and more convenient to use.
Assume you buy gasoline at your local gas station. You pay with a credit card, which begins a payment process involving maybe five separate parties.
These include the merchant from whom you bought the gas, the credit card company, the bank and an intermediary called a merchant acquirer (no need to explain what a merchant acquirer does for today’s purposes, but just realize that it’s part of the payment system).
Ultimately the bank that issues your credit card sends you a bill, which you pay. You also pay a fee, maybe 3%, all to buy the gas.
But with a central bank digital currency, you could simply pay for the gas with an account you have at the Fed.
You would get rid of all the middlemen. You could bypass the merchant acquirer, the banks and the credit card company. A digital dollar would also eliminate many of the fees we currently face.
So yes, the payment system would be faster, cheaper, easier, more streamlined and more secure. What’s not to like as far as you’re concerned?
Well, if you’re concerned about your personal privacy, everything.
We Can’t Let You Destroy the Environment
Imagine this. To further advance his Green New Scam, what if Joe Biden and his cronies decided that gasoline needed to be rationed?
Your Biden Bucks could be rendered useless at the gas pump once you’ve purchased a certain amount of gasoline in a week! You want gas, but all you get is a one-word message: Declined.
How’s that for control?
Biden Bucks would create new ways for the government to control how much you could buy of an item, or even ban purchases altogether. It would keep score of every financial decision you make.
In a world of Biden Bucks, the government will even know your physical whereabouts at the point of purchase.
It’s a short step from there to putting you under FBI investigation if you vote for the wrong candidate or give donations to the wrong political party. If any of this sounds extreme, fantastical or otherwise far-fetched, it’s not.
Look at all the ways the government has abused its power to target its opposition in recent years.
Government Always Wants More Power
From unconstitutional “lawfare” against Trump, to the jailing of harmless J6 protesters who did nothing more than walk around the Capitol taking selfies (I’m not talking about those who committed violence that day, who should be punished to the full extent of the law), the federal government has overstepped its bounds.
Several months ago, the FBI and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) sent letters to U.S. banks asking them to identify and provide a list to the government of customers using Zelle, Venmo and similar payment channels who mentioned “MAGA,” or “Trump” in their message traffic.
They also asked for details on bookstore purchases of religious articles including Bibles. Finally, they asked for details on those shopping at Cabela’s, Dick’s Sporting Goods or Bass Pro Shops, presumably on the view that those are places to buy guns and ammo.
This is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment (free speech, freedom of religion), Second Amendment (right to bear arms) and Fourth Amendment (no unreasonable search and seizure).
It’s not a crime to write “MAGA,” etc. and therefore there’s no reasonable basis for suspecting a crime, and therefore no right to get the information without a warrant, which requires a judge. Any judge would likely reject the warrant request since there’s no probable cause.
This is an obvious case of profiling. If you shoot someone and you’re wearing a MAGA hat, you get arrested for the shooting, not the hat. In this case, the hat is enough to put you under surveillance because you have been profiled as “an enemy of the people” by the government’s definition.
I predicted this kind of surveillance would arise with the use of Biden Bucks since the government would have your financial records and would not have to go to the banks or get a warrant. I’d like to say I was wrong, but unfortunately I was right.
Why do you think it would stop there? Government always seeks to expand its power.
The Slippery Slope
In the latest example of federal overreach, the latest update of the IRS Internal Review Manual expands the scope of IRS investigation and audit activity to include anyone who impedes the government’s “ability to govern” or who poses a “threat to public safety or national security.”
Such phrases sound benign when applied to foreign terrorists or criminal masterminds. Then you realize they can just as easily be applied to political opponents, Trump supporters, podcasters, opinion writers, political organizers or everyday Americans who stand in the way of the administration’s ambitions.
The IRS can use threats of audits and investigations to intimidate social media platforms like Google, Facebook and Instagram into shutting down MAGA Republicans and others who oppose Biden policies.
The updated IRS manual also allows the IRS to leak taxpayer information to the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security or other agencies with enforcement power in order to sic those agencies on targeted victims.
This happens in a context where simple political opposition has been criminalized giving the IRS carte blanche to choose their victims. If you’re outspoken against the Biden administration, keep your tax records handy and get ready for a knock on the door.
So, again, why would you be surprised if the government used Biden Bucks to punish its political opponents? It’s just the natural progression.
Can it be stopped? There’s one possibility — and it comes from the individual states.
The Last Hope?
Last year, Indiana became the first state to reject CBDCs as a form of money. This year it enacted an additional measure that prohibited state agencies from accepting CBDCs as payments.
Florida, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Alabama and Georgia have passed similar laws to block the imposition of CBDCs.
Will they succeed? It would be a triumph of federalism if they did, which has a rich American tradition.
But proponents of Biden Bucks invoke Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the federal Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal law takes precedence over state law.
Over the years, the federal government has gradually expanded its powers under the Supremacy Clause.
It might be an uphill battle, but the states might just be our best defense against the implementation of Biden Bucks.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 20:40 - China's Rapid Nuclear Expansion Is Threatening US Dominance In The Sector
China’s Rapid Nuclear Expansion Is Threatening US Dominance In The Sector
Authored by Haley Zaremba via OilPrice.com,
-
China is quickly becoming the world’s leading producer of nuclear energy, raising concerns for US competitiveness.
-
China’s plans for floating nuclear plants in the disputed South China Sea create tension with neighboring countries.
-
China and Russia’s joint project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon raises questions about safety and militarization.
China’s runaway nuclear energy expansion has competitors biting their fingernails. As nuclear energy regains traction around the world as a promising baseload power source for a decarbonized future, it’s also become more and more of a geopolitical battleground. As countries scramble to keep a strategic foothold in a rapidly changing energy landscape, becoming a nuclear energy powerhouse is suddenly important for world superpowers. And China seems to be winning this race.
While the United States has been the biggest nuclear power generator in the world for decades, the American market has significantly slowed in recent years at the same time that Beijing has doubled down on deployment, adding a whopping 34 gigawatts of nuclear energy capacity over the last ten years. As a result, China is set to overtake the United States (and France) to become the world’s biggest producer of nuclear energy within the decade.
China currently has 55 operating nuclear power reactors compared to the United States’ 94, but it already has 23 new reactors under construction and more on the way. In fact, it’s taken China just 10 years to add the same amount of nuclear capacity that the United States needed four decades to build.
Beijing is able to approve new nuclear reactors at a much faster clip than the United States, at a blazing rate of ten new plant approvals per year. Chinese plants are also much less expensive to build, in part thanks to preferential loans with particularly favorable terms from state-owned banks. While the United States has recently taken pains to kick-start its own stalled nuclear energy sector, its newest power plant is so behind schedule and over budget that nuclear energy advocates are worried that it might derail the nation’s nuclear ambitions altogether.
While the sharp rise in nuclear energy deployment in China is great news for the nation’s decarbonization potential – and therefore great news for the entire world’s ability to meet mid-century climate goals – China’s fast and furious approach has put a number of world leaders on edge. Policymakers in the United States have demonstrated concern that China’s rapidly increasing nuclear energy capacities could allow it to export nuclear reactors at a large scale, ultimately undermining U.S. foreign relations in the importing countries. This would not be a new trend, but a continuation of China’s already massive expansion of energy influence in emerging markets.
Meanwhile, China’s plans to put floating nuclear power plants in the South China Sea have stirred up tensions with its Southeast Asian neighbors. China, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines all have overlapping claims to parts of the sea, which China claims almost in its entirety despite a 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration which rejected Beijing’s claim as “having no legal basis.” In contempt of this ruling, China has continued to ‘reclaim’ land to build artificial islands in the Sea and now plans to send about 20 floating nuclear power plants to some of those islands.
Experts have widely condemned these plans, warning that “China’s planned deployment of floating nuclear reactors to the disputed South China Sea may risk ramping up tensions with other claimants and undermining regional security.” Adding to these tensions, there is some legitimate concern that China will be using these plants to power military operations in the conflicted region, which would be in violation of international law.
Indeed, China’s outsized nuclear ambitions cannot be hemmed in by its own borders, or even terrestrial bounds. Earlier this year, Moscow and Beijing announced joint plans to put a nuclear reactor on the moon within the next decade. Russian state media even claims that development of the plant is already underway and Russia and China are currently working on experimental and research facilities under the project.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 20:20 -
- 30% Of Americans Believe College Isn't Worth It
30% Of Americans Believe College Isn’t Worth It
The value of a college education is spiraling lower as youngsters realize it’s a giant scam. Racking up $100k in college debt for worthless gender degrees in liberal indoctrination camps, only to graduate and land a job that didn’t require a degree—such as a realtor or bartender, as many millennials found out, has been a major wake-up call.
A new survey from the Pew Research Center shows that 29% of people aged 25 to 34 say college degrees are no longer worth the money, and this growing distrust risks a further implosion of the higher education bubble.
Here are the highlights of the new study:
-
Only one in four US adults say it’s extremely or very important to have a four-year college degree in order to get a well-paying job in today’s economy. About a third (35%) say a college degree is somewhat important, while 40% say it’s not too or not at all important.
-
Roughly half (49%) say it’s less important to have a four-year college degree today in order to get a well-paying job than it was 20 years ago; 32% say it’s more important, and 17% say it’s about as important as it was 20 years ago.
-
Only 22% say the cost of getting a four-year college degree today is worth it even if someone has to take out loans. Some 47% say the cost is worth it only if someone doesn’t have to take out loans. And 29% say the cost is not worth it.
Gen-Z and millennials were sold a big lie by the liberal education complex. And they’re quickly figuring out their degrees are worthless.
This generation was sold a lie. pic.twitter.com/niST9avUcE
— Mirthful Moments (@moment_mirthful) May 19, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
I’m twice her age and have twice the experience and still can’t find a job.
The good news for both of us is that we can always sell feet pics for money. pic.twitter.com/AlfLBvBpl6
— Dr. Jebra Faushay (@JebraFaushay) March 27, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
NEW: Gen Zer starts crying about how she can’t get a minimum wage job even though she has “two degrees” and speaks three languages.
Say it with me: College is a scam.
26-year-old Lohanny Santos says she is being super “for real” and is “humbled” as she continues to get turned… pic.twitter.com/09ll6hJyb7
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 8, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
College is a scam. pic.twitter.com/KZmh3ER6pH
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) October 18, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Meanwhile…
But white liberals with worthless degrees need not worry. The Biden administration will bail them out with taxpayer funds.
BREAKING: Karine Jean-Pierre finally admits that Bidenomics is crashing people financially.
Glad that Alexander called out Biden’s ridiculous student loan debt relief. pic.twitter.com/TcFsbOXb6f
— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) May 22, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
For our Gen Z readers, we ask that you avoid going into debt at a woke liberal college and ending up with a worthless degree four or five years later.
Learn a trade in the powering up America theme. Transmission cable installers and pipeline welders are in high demand. Gender studies is not.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 20:00 -
- Blinken Working With Congress To Punish Hague-Based ICC
Blinken Working With Congress To Punish Hague-Based ICC
Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,
Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday said he wanted to work with Congress on legislation to punish the International Criminal Court (ICC) for seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Blinken was asked by Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing if he would support legislation to counter “the ICC sticking its nose in the business of countries that have an independent, legitimate democratic judicial system.”
Blinken replied, “Given the events of yesterday, I think we have to look at the appropriate steps to take to deal with again, what is a profoundly wrongheaded decision.”
The ICC was previously sanctioned by the US under the Trump administration for its plans to investigate alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan. The Biden administration reversed the sanctions, but the US pressure worked to get the court to announce the focus of its Afghanistan investigation would be on the Taliban and ISIS-K.
The ICC’s chief prosecutor announced warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on Monday for their role in the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, which implicates Blinken and other top US officials for supporting the onslaught. The ICC is also seeking warrants for Hamas leaders for the October 7 attack on southern Israel and the taking of hostages.
The State Department has said it would rather Israel kill Hamas leaders than have them face trial in The Hague.
“We absolutely believe that Hamas should be held accountable. That could either be through the prosecution of the war effort by Israel. It could be by being killed. It could be by being brought to justice in an Israeli court,” said State Department spokesman Matt Miller.
The Biden administration is opposing the ICC efforts against Israeli and Hamas leaders despite backing its warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Sec Blinken today told the Senate it was “extremely wrong headed” and a “shameful equivalence” for the ICC prosecutor to request arrest warrants for Netanyahu. Blinken agreed to work with congress to sanction the ICC showing US double standards on Israel compared to Russia. pic.twitter.com/aUjWsgDbXC
— Philip (@rulesbasedworld) May 21, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The US says the ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction to pursue Israeli leaders since Israel is not a member of the court, but neither is Russia and Ukraine. While not having full UN membership, the State of Palestine is a signatory to the Rome Statute, making it a member of the ICC.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 19:40 - China Threatens 25% Car Tariff Against US, EU Moves – Trade Ties To Worsen In Coming Weeks
China Threatens 25% Car Tariff Against US, EU Moves – Trade Ties To Worsen In Coming Weeks
Beijing is still mulling its expected retaliation in the wake of last week’s Biden administration rollout of steep tariff increases on a series of Chinese tech imports, importantly including computer chips, EV batteries and medical technology products.
Wednesday saw shares of European luxury automakers such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Tata Motors (Jaguar Land Rover), and Volkswagen Group (Audi) all finish lower, in the aftermath of a threatening and ominous Chinese state-run Global Times article which argued China should “consider raising the temporary tariff rate on imported cars with large-displacement engines, in order to reduce imports as part of the country’s broader efforts to cut emissions and promote the green development of the auto industry.”
China has signaled it is ready to unleash tariffs as high as 25% – which would be a significant increase up from the current duty rate of 15%. Citing a Chinse industry insider, the GT piece blasted the ‘protectionist moves’ coming out of Washington and the West.
Chinese state owned SAIC Motor Separately this week, in post on X, the China Chamber of Commerce to the EU (CCCEU) issued its own warning in an obviously coordinated messaging campaign, saying it was “informed by insiders that China may consider increasing temporary tariff rates on imported cars equipped with large-displacement engines.”
“This potential action carries implications for European and US carmakers, particularly in light of recent developments such as Washington’s announcement of tariff hikes on Chinese electric vehicles and Brussels’ preparations for preliminary measures in a high-profile anti-subsidy investigation into Chinese EVs,” the chamber statement said.
As a reminder, this the text of the European Commission’s opening an investigation back in October… it formally launched “an anti-subsidy investigation into the imports of battery electric vehicles (BEV) from China. The investigation will first determine whether BEV value chains in China benefit from illegal subsidisation and whether this subsidisation causes or threatens to cause economic injury to EU BEV producers.”
The investigation under EC President Ursula von der Leyen aims to determine whether this violates the WTO anti-dumping agreement. The deadlines set out to potentially impose duties is July 4.
China is hitting back at both Europe and the US, as South China Morning Post observed:
Beijing has indicated that it won’t take either gambit lying down. On Sunday, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced an anti-dumping investigation into imports of polyoxymethylene copolymer – a chemical commonly used in automotive engineering – from the US, EU, Japan and Taiwan.
It has already started probing alleged dumping in the European brandy sector, seen to target France’s cognac exports. Paris has been a strong supporter of a tougher EU trade policy towards China.
Amid predictions that trade conditions between China and the West are expected to worsen in the coming weeks, von der Leyen on Tuesday sought to downplay a trade war in remarks from Brussels.
“I don’t think that we are in a trade war. I have the motto: ‘de-risk not decouple’, and I think here it’s very clear we are in the category of de-risking from China. We have decoupled from Russia,” she said.
China is set to be a central foreign policy talking point among both presidential campaigns going into November…
In a big “cognitive dissonance” moment, Rand Paul correctly points out there’s “not a lot of difference” between Biden and Trump on China, especially since Biden “jumped on the Trump Train” with respect to Tariffs. Both are obsessed with scolding and sanctioning China, Paul notes pic.twitter.com/ugqgjUT5nB
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) May 21, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And here’s what the Biden administration said during the last Tuesday unveiling of the new US tariff hike: “Today, I am following through on my commitment to stand up to the People’s Republic of China’s unfair trade practices by issuing a formal proposal to modify the tariff actions.” US Trade Representative Katherine Tai further vowed, “The President and I will continue to fight for American workers, and for our economic future and national security.”
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 19:20 - Bitcoin & The Wrong Lessons From Pizza Day
Bitcoin & The Wrong Lessons From Pizza Day
Authored by Jimmy Song via BitcoinMagazine.com,
The following is an excerpt on Bitcoin Pizza Day from “Fiat Ruins Everything” by Jimmy Song. Visit the Bitcoin Magazine Store to order a print, digital or audio copy of the book.
Pizza Day is often viewed with a sense of regret.
The well-known story goes like this: many years ago, Laszlo Hanyecz bought two Papa John’s pizzas, and in return, some fortunate person received 10,000 BTC.236 This tale resembles that of Peter Minuit purchasing Manhattan Island for a mere $24. It’s hard to believe such a transaction took place, considering the current value.
The story has several intriguing aspects. It marked the first real-world good or service purchased with Bitcoin. It also established Bitcoin’s price; since the two pizzas cost around $41, one BTC was approximately $0.0041.
Another aspect of this narrative is Laszlo, a pioneer in mining Bitcoin using GPUs (graphics processing units). He spent around 100,000 BTC on pizzas, as he made similar deals multiple times throughout the month. In a way, he’s the Santa Claus of this story, giving away value almost flippantly.
RENT-SEEKING FANTASIES
Pizza Day often triggers daydreams of becoming a Bitcoin billionaire through a single brilliant trade. Many people don’t fantasize about being Laszlo, as they aren’t GPU programming experts. However, they can easily imagine being the person on the bitcointalk forums offering to buy Bitcoin for a couple of pizzas.
The idea of having made such a trade sparks envy, as we all secretly resent the person who actually executed it. We perceive them as lucky, as if they had won the lottery.
These fantasies stem from a fiat mentality, where the value hierarchy is rooted in fiat money. The desire is to be lucky rather than skilled. People would prefer making money without working, versus earning it by providing valuable goods and services.
It’s revealing that the regret lies in missing out on luck rather than innovation. In a fiat-driven world, it’s easier to dream about being the person who sold the pizza, rather than the one who had the skill and foresight to mine with GPUs. This mindset prioritizes fiat accomplishments—getting lucky with money—over real achievements, which involve earning money by providing value to the market. Most people would rather ride the coattails of an innovator than be one themselves.
BITCOIN REGRET
We all have our Bitcoin regret stories. I remember learning about Bitcoin in February 2011. I tried to find a way to buy it using a credit card, but I couldn’t. I attempted mining on Amazon Web Services and didn’t find any blocks solo-mining for two days. I began the process of moving dollars into Mt. Gox, but when the price dropped from $1 to $0.90, I decided it was too much of a hassle to set up. I could have bought Bitcoin at $0.90, but I didn’t. It’s one of the biggest regrets of my life.
Everyone has different regret stories. Perhaps you heard about Bitcoin back in June 2011 when it ran up to $30 and regret not buying it then. Maybe you discovered Bitcoin in April 2013 when it reached $266, or later that year in December 2013 when it soared to $1,100. Or perhaps it was in 2017 when it hit $2,500, $5,000, and then $19,000. Or even more recently, in March 2020 when Bitcoin crashed to under $4,000, or later that year when it was breaking $10,000. Anyone who’s heard about Bitcoin at any point in its history has a regret story.
Bitcoin regret stories are like bad-beat stories in poker. Everyone has them, and they are fantasies about different, luckier outcomes. They are unproductive stories because the feelings of regret come from a fantasy that assumes virtues that are not common.
THE CHALLENGE OF HOLDING
In these regret stories, we often overlook something. What if we had bought Bitcoin when we first heard about it? How would we have handled the subsequent challenges? Would we have had the diamond hands to hold through the 85% drawdowns in 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2018?
When you fantasize about the Pizza Day story, do you ever consider the difficulty of holding during the tough times in 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2018? There’s a tendency to assume that we would have had the conviction that we possess now, like how a time traveler might feel. I’ve experienced those drawdowns firsthand, and let me tell you, most people didn’t have that conviction, and they sold. Many believe they would have held strong through all the difficult times, but like the original O.J. Simpson verdict, that assumption goes against all evidence.
Holding 10,000 BTC wasn’t uncommon back in 2010. Many people had a significant amount of Bitcoin because they were worth pennies at the time, but where are they now? Most of them sold when the Bitcoin price doubled or tripled and never looked back.238 They viewed Bitcoin as a plaything and didn’t grasp its revolutionary nature. So, they sold it to buy a new computer, a new bike, or a new car.
SHATTERING YOUR DREAMS
Had you sold Laszlo two pizzas for 10,000 BTC in 2010, you probably would have sold them in the new few years. To think otherwise is hubris. Most people back then didn’t understand what Bitcoin was, and there were no educational resources explaining why you should hold. We now have an abundance of resources for understanding Bitcoin.239 In 2023, it’s much easier to comprehend that Bitcoin is a better form of money than anything that came before. Back in 2010, it was much more difficult. Do you still think you would have had diamond hands?
To hold Bitcoin is to have a deep conviction about what it is. There are necessary virtues to be a long-term holder. Holders understand the fundamental value of Bitcoin being sound money and can thus withstand the 85% drawdowns that occur regularly. Only the truly extraordinary managed to hold from 2010, and you likely would not have been one of those people.
But suppose you beat the odds and had conviction. You held through 2011 and even the first bubble in 2013. Would you have had the foresight to withdraw to your wallet before Mt. Gox collapsed in 2013?240 Or if you used another exchange before then, would you have gotten out before they exit-scammed?241 We say “not your keys, not your coins” now, but back then, this was not common practice. Many people had to be burned for that lesson to become a meme. Even with conviction, there’s a good chance you would have been one of the many who suffered.
There were also other dangers, like the advent of altcoins starting in 2011. How many Bitcoins would you have lost in Geistgeld,242 Feathercoin,243 and MasterCoin?244 There were also numerous scams, including Pirate40245 and others who promised high returns by running Ponzi schemes. Would you have avoided those? There were also several ASIC startups that sold machines that weren’t built yet. Would you have avoided getting duped by Butterfly Labs246 or TerraMiner?247 How about the cloud mining services248 that took your Bitcoin and paid out only a fraction over the next 12 months? Would you have avoided these tempting offers that ended up diminishing many Bitcoin stacks? You would have needed the instinct to get in on Bitcoin early while not falling for these similar-sounding investments, which frankly is not an easy needle to thread.
Looking back on those dangers, it’s a miracle that people made it past those years with any Bitcoin at all. Many OGs are like Vietnam veterans, reflecting on the times when they were fortunate to escape the numerous hazards.
BUILDING CONVICTION IS CHALLENGING
Developing deep conviction is not easy, and for early adopters, it was especially difficult. Remember, everyone was calling Bitcoin a scam back then. Even now, it takes years of study and unwavering resolve to develop that conviction. Back in 2010-2013, having Bitcoin conviction was as rare as a physically-fit government health official.
Going against conventional wisdom and following your convictions requires a great deal of courage, which many people lack. Consider what happened during COVID-19. How many people had the conviction to voice opinions against the mainstream narrative in March 2020? That’s the level of conviction you had to possess to hold Bitcoin through those early years.
In 2023, we have numerous resources that help us save in Bitcoin. Podcasts, books, and videos are available to help us navigate this space, not only to develop the conviction but also to adopt best practices for holding. The early years were a minefield of traps to lose your Bitcoin. It’s much easier these days to avoid those traps, but back then, there weren’t OGs who could warn you about them. The resources that exist now and the Bitcoin memes we have today (“Not your keys, not your coins.”) are not propaganda. They are the fruit of hard-earned experience.
BITCOIN DERANGEMENT
Studying the early individuals in the Bitcoin space reveals a troubling pattern. Almost every non-technical Bitcoin advocate pre-2013 is now promoting an altcoin. Why have so many early adopters become Bitcoin-deranged?
We can find some answers by looking at the fiat world of lottery winners. Years after winning, numerous lottery winners end up worse off than before they won the lottery. They are ill-equipped to manage the windfall, and many find themselves with greater debt, damaged relationships, and a worse life. Some even commit suicide. While not everyone experiences such negative outcomes, enough do that many lottery agencies proactively offer assistance.
Unfortunately, bad outcomes have been the fate of many early Bitcoin adopters. At some point in the last decade, they either fell victim to scams or became scammers themselves. As a result, many of them have turned against Bitcoin.
So, to further shatter your daydream, there’s a good chance that if you had gotten in early, you would be an altcoin scammer or would have been scammed by an altcoin. These are serial scammers with no qualms about lying, cheating, or stealing their way to wealth. They exist in a rent-seeking nightmare of shattered dreams. That’s not a desirable fate, and it’s something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.
LEVEL UP YOUR CONVICTIONS
For many, Pizza Day is an opportunity to indulge in time-traveling fantasies where they daydream about being wealthy. This mindset often leads people to explore altcoins, as it stems from the fiat money mentality. Essentially, Pizza Day is a fantasy about being lucky and not having to work. In other words, it represents a rent-seeking desire on a grand scale.
Fiat money has fostered a consumerist mentality, which exacerbates the urge to rent seek. Governments capitalize on this desire through lotteries, profiting from the allure of easy wealth. Altcoins exploit the same yearning. Unfortunately, Pizza Day often reinforces this mentality, focusing on the desire to be fortunate rather than skilled.
Instead, Pizza Day should serve as a reminder that forming conviction is no easy task. True conviction demands knowledge, wisdom, and courage—virtues that require time, energy, and effort to develop. Rather than envying early adopters and fantasizing about joining their ranks, we should strive to cultivate the conviction needed to hold through challenging times and provide value in the process. As the saying goes in the Bitcoin community, “It’s still early.”
On Pizza Day, commit to leveling up your convictions.
TEN THINGS YOU BOUGHT INSTEAD OF BITCOIN
– 1-
That sleek, irresistible Apple gadget you just had to have, only to replace it two years later with an even shinier, more irresistible version.
– 2 –
Green gems in Clash of Clans, because clearly, the defense of your virtual village was of greater importance than securing your financial future.
– 3 –
A college degree with about as much relevance to your current job as a penguin waddling through the Sahara Desert.
– 4 –
Litecoin, the less secure, less functional cousin of Bitcoin— because who needs the real deal when you can settle for something much worse?
– 5 –
A dating app subscription that merely solidified your status as forever alone.
– 6 –
Steam games on sale, eagerly awaiting their debut in your library, wondering when they’ll finally bask in the glow of your screen.
– 7 –
That exercise equipment now serving as an exquisite clothes rack, because let’s face it, the allure of the couch is simply too strong to resist.
– 8 –
An online class you signed up for, attended just long enough to say “hello” and “goodbye,” then promptly ghosted.
– 9 –
The, uh, “adult entertainment” that left you feeling deflated and questioning your life choices the next day.
– 10 –
An MLM product from a Facebook friend that you abandoned quicker than you can say “pyramid scheme.”
* * *
Click here to order a copy of “Fiat Ruins Everything: How Our Financial System is Rigged and How Bitcoin Fixes It”, by Jimmy Song.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 19:00 - Bipartisan Calls Grow For Ukraine To Hit Russian Territory With US Arms
Bipartisan Calls Grow For Ukraine To Hit Russian Territory With US Arms
Officials in the US are growing more vocal in making the case for allowing Ukraine to use Washington-supplied weaponry to attack Russian territory.
On Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson came out with a full-throated statement expressing support for such a move which would certainly risk bringing NATO and Russian into more direct conflict. Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken is also said to be on board with a policy change.
US Army image Johnson was asked by Voice of America if he supported a scenario where Ukraine forces attack Russian soil utilizing American weapons. He responded by saying that the US needs “to allow Ukraine to prosecute the war in the way they see fit.”
“They [Ukraine] need[s] to be able to fight back. And I think us trying to micromanage the effort there is not a good policy for us,” he said.
Ukrainian parliament member Oleksandra Ustinova was among a delegation from Kiev that was in Washington days ago in order to lobby US lawmakers for a change in policy. The Biden administration has long communicated a strict ban on pro-Kiev forces attacking Russia with American arms.
Watch Johnson sign off on Ukraine using US weapons to attack inside Russian territory:
⚡️”I think we need to allow Ukraine to prosecute the war in the way they see fit. They need to be able to fight back and I think that us trying to micromanage the effort there is not good policy for us,” – US House Speaker Mike Johnson answering the question whether Ukraine… pic.twitter.com/88M6Km2XTS
— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) May 22, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“Realizing that we do not have the right to use, for instance, HIMARS [rocket launchers] on the territory of Russia, the Russians display all their equipment along the border and use it to destroy the Kharkiv region,” Ustinova has been cited as saying. “And we simply cannot get to them, because there’s a ban on the usage of American weapons on the territory of Russia.”
In Kharkiv oblast in particular, Russia earlier this month launched a new major offensive to push the border 10km deep into Ukrainian territory, with the stated aim of establishing a buffer zone to make it harder for Ukrainian artillery to reach Russian settlements across the border.
The Biden White House has yet to give in to the intensified lobbying campaign to loosen restrictions on US weaponry, on a public level at least.
On Monday a group of House lawmakers from both parties issued a formal letter urging the lifting of any restrictions on Ukraine’s use of US weapons.
The lobbying push is in full-swing for what could be the biggest escalation of the entire Ukraine war: for the US to start openly coordinating strikes inside Russia. Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ) urges Blinken to reverse the “dangerous policy” of not explicitly allowing these strikes pic.twitter.com/PebaJ0RXSZ
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) May 22, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“It is essential the Biden administration allows Ukraine’s military leaders to conduct a full spectrum of operations necessary to respond to Russia’s unprovoked attack on their sovereign land,” the letter said.
At this point President Zelensky is going so far as to request that NATO directly intercept and shootdown Russian missiles sent against Ukrainian cities. Indeed the messaging and requests are growing more desperate, given Ukraine forces are being rapidly beaten back in places like Kharkiv.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 18:40 - "Dangerous Racial Gerrymandering" – White House Fumes As Supreme Court Backs GOP's New South Carolina Congressional Map
“Dangerous Racial Gerrymandering” – White House Fumes As Supreme Court Backs GOP’s New South Carolina Congressional Map
The U.S. Supreme Court on May 23 ruled in favor of South Carolina’s redrawn congressional map, reversing a lower court decision.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) challenged the map, arguing legislators were motivated by race when drawing district lines and committed “intentional racial discrimination.”
As Zachary Stieber reports via The Epoch Times, a panel of federal judges in 2023 said that “race predominated over all other factors” when legislators redrew South Carolina’s First Congressional District, currently represented by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.). The finding was based in part on the movement of more than 30,000 black voters to a different district.
To show that race was the predominant factor motivating legislators who are redrawing districts, plaintiffs challenging a new map must prove the state elevated race above other factors, such as contiguity, according to court precedent.
The judges who handed down the earlier ruling “clearly erred” because the challengers did not provide such proof, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said.
The challengers “provided no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander, and their circumstantial evidence is very weak,” he wrote. “Instead, the challengers relied on deeply flawed expert reports.”
Justice Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, was joined by Justice John Roberts, another appointee of President Bush, and Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, all appointees of former President Donald Trump.
Justice Thomas, another appointee of President Bush, wrote in an opinion, concurring in part.
Justice Elena Kagan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, filed a dissent. She was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another appointee of President Obama, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of President Joe Biden.
The panel that entered the 2023 ruling consisted of U.S. District Judges Mary Geiger Lewis and Richard Gergel, both appointees of President Obama; and U.S. Circuit Judge Toby Heytens, an appointee of President Biden.
The new map, created after the receipt of data from the 2020 census, was enacted in 2022.
“We’re always going to have concerns about elections but I think the Supreme Court was clear. They examined the question and they followed the law,” South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican who signed the updated map, told reporters at an unrelated briefing. “I have not read it, but I know about it, and I think they made the right decision.”
South Carolina Senate President Thomas Alexander, another Republican defendant in the case, did not respond to a request for comment.
“Today, the Supreme Court has failed the American people. Voting rights have taken another gut punch, and the future of democracy in South Carolina is dangling by a thread,” Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP said in a statement.
South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District includes over half of the state’s coast and parts of Charleston. It has a population of about 762,000.
Republicans won elections in the district for decades starting in the 1980s. Former Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-S.C.) upended that trend in the 2018 election. After one term, he was unseated by Ms. Mace.
Ms. Mace won with 50.6 percent of the vote in 2020 and in 2022 earned another term with 56.3 percent of the vote.
Justice Alito also criticized the lower court judges for not finding challengers at fault for their failure to provide an alternative map showing how legislators could have achieved their “legitimate political objectives” while producing “significantly greater racial balance.”
The majority also said they found similar errors in the lower court’s finding that legislators intentionally diluted the votes of black people, because that finding was based on the same facts that underpinned the analysis of the racial gerrymandering claim.
Justices remanded the portion of the case relating to vote dilution back to the district court, with guidance on how to analyze dilution allegations.
Justice Thomas said in his opinion that he agreed with most of Justice Alito’s opinion but that he does not think the Supreme Court has the power to decide claims of racial gerrymandering.
“Drawing political districts is a task for politicians, not federal judges. There are no judicially manageable standards for resolving claims about districting, and, regardless, the Constitution commits those issues exclusively to the political branches,” he wrote.
Justice Kagan said in her dissent that reversing factfinding about redistricting can only be done if a “clear error” is found, citing a previous ruling. “This court must give a district court’s view of events ’significant deference,‘ which means we must uphold it so long as it is ’plausible,’” she wrote. “Under that standard, South Carolina should now have to redraw District 1.”
The Supreme Court earlier this year ruled that Louisiana needed to use a congressional map with two black-majority districts in the upcoming election. The three justices appointed by Democrats dissented in that order as well.
In 2023, the nation’s top court struck down Alabama’s redrawn map, finding it was racially discriminatory in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
The White House was quick to issue a statement condemning The Supreme Court’s decision:
The right to vote is the foundation of American democracy. Key to that right is ensuring that voters pick their elected officials — not the other way around. The Supreme Court’s decision today undermines the basic principle that voting practices should not discriminate on account of race and that is wrong.
This decision threatens South Carolinians’ ability to have their voices heard at the ballot box, and the districting plan the Court upheld is part of a dangerous pattern of racial gerrymandering efforts from Republican elected officials to dilute the will of Black voters. Vice President Harris and I are ironclad in our commitment to protecting the sacred right to vote, and we will not stop fighting until Congress passes both the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act, and the Freedom to Vote Act to ensure fair Congressional maps for all Americans.
Given the demise of Biden’s share of the black vote, maybe this actually did him a favor?
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 18:20 - SEC Approves Spot Ether ETFs In Major Crypto Victory
SEC Approves Spot Ether ETFs In Major Crypto Victory
What until just a few days ago was viewed as an extremely low-probability event, has just come true, when the highly politicized Securities and Exchange Commission, headed by Liz Warren’s soon to be terminated lackey Gary Gensler, has – against its desires – been forced again to approve no less than eight crypto ETFs, this time for spot Ethereum, following what was reportedly urgent political intervention from the White House.
Following relentless pushback which prompted Bloomberg’s ETF expert Eric Balchunas to give a spot ETH ETF only 25% odds of approval, in the first-of-its-kind blessing, the SEC signed off on a proposal by venues run by Cboe, Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange to list products tied to the world’s second-biggest cryptocurrency. The move removes a key hurdle for spot Ether ETF trading in the US.
Issuers now need a separate sign-off from the regulator, and no deadline has been set for that decision. In other words, as Bloomberg’s James Seyffart explains, today’s approval does not mean ethereum ETFs will begin trading tomorrow: this is just 19b-4 approval. Now the SEC will need to approve the S-1 documents which is going to take time: “We’re expecting it to take a couple weeks but could take longer. Should know more within a week or so”
TO BE CLEAR: This does not mean they will begin trading tomorrow. This is just 19b-4 approval. Also needs to be an approval on the S-1 documents which is going to take time. We’re expecting it to take a couple weeks but could take longer. Should know more within a week or so!
— James Seyffart (@JSeyff) May 23, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Ahead of the approval, SEC boss Gary Gensler had been cryptic on his views over whether Ether is a security, stoking concerns that the agency was hardening its stance. Others, such as this website, duly noted that in the grand scheme of things it is not what Gary Gensler or “Senator Karen” want, but rather only the wishes of Larry Fink…
Fink’s endgame is ETH: he has repeatedly said the goal is tokenization
“I see value in having an Ethereum ETF. These are just stepping stones towards tokenization and I really do believe this is where we’re going to be going.”https://t.co/MfGAqHZLWc
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
… and JPMorgan matter…
JPMorgan now just as bullish on ethereum as Larry Fink. Good luck @GaryGensler pic.twitter.com/tdQFKUvsKI
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 10, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
… And while crypto enthusiasts said they were worried about Gensler trying to subject Ether — and various other projects based on the Ethereum blockchain — to the agency’s arbitrary, capricious, and onerous investor-protection rules, claiming that Ether is in fact a security despite claiming previously that it is not, the recent sharp policy stance reversal driven by an abrupt change in the political climate, revealed that the only thing that decides whether something is a security or not, is a phone call from the White House which is trailing Donald Trump in the polls by double digits.
Which is why, as recently as last week, companies were banking the SEC would reject the Cboe plan — and potentially others — by Thursday’s deadline. Additional SEC approval is still needed for the issuers, but the signoff is a huge victory for the industry, and especially those who held on to Ether since January, which continued to sink mercilessly even as bitcoin soared.
Backers hope a listing will bring a new flood of money to the asset class by appealing to retail and institutional investors, who are interested in crypto but more comfortable investing in ETFs than tokens.
Overall, investors, many who retreated after FTX exchange’s collapse, have already been piling back into crypto. Ether, the native token of the Ethereum blockchain, is up more than 60% this year alone thanks to the frenzy. And, as both Goldman and Bernstein have noted, the upside for Ether is likely far greater than that of bitcoin in the long run.
Full report available to pro subscribers Some of Ether’s recent rally is also due to optimism that the US crackdown on the industry – led by such congressional knucle-draggers as Elizabeth Warren – is finally waning. The Republican-led House on Wednesday advanced sweeping cryptocurrency legislation despite opposition from the White House and Gensler. Although the Senate isn’t expected to approve the measure, it also garnered notable Democratic support in the House.
On the jurisdictional question, Lee Reiners, policy director of the Duke Financial Economics Center at Duke University, said that exchange bids to list the products were based on Ether being a commodity and not a security. An SEC decision to green light the plan bolsters the view that the SEC still considers Ether not to be a security, he said. Investment companies seeking to list the products have already been making concessions to win SEC approval.
Fidelity Investments said it will keep Ether it buys as part of the ETF out of programs that pay rewards for blockchain maintenance, known as staking. The latter has been a hot-button issue for Ether because it raises questions about whether the token should be treated as a security. Last year, the SEC in a lawsuit accused Coinbase Global Inc. of breaking its rules by offering staking services.
And so, we now wait for the various ETH ETF issuers to make adjustments for today’s latest clarifications and to get S1 approval imminently which will finally greenlight trading; indeed, VanEck which was the first to apply for a spot Ether ETF wasted no time in filing an amendment to their S-1 filing.
VanEck making amendment to their ETH ETF S-1 already https://t.co/9faENB70nF pic.twitter.com/xQNLxJ7kO3
— NLNico (@btcNLNico) May 23, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And speaking of Van Eck, here is what the head of the company’s digital asset research team, Matthew Sigel published seconds after the ETF approval:
We are so thrilled to confirm that the SEC has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, our exchange partner CBOE’s proposed rule change to list and trade a @vaneck_us
spot #Ethereum ETF on the CBOE!TLDR: We expect the improved political backdrop will lead to further victories for digital asset investors & developers, via new laws & in the courts, that draw investment to #Bitcoin, Ethereum and other open-source blockchain software.
We applaud this decision, as we believe the evidence clearly shows that #ETH is a decentralized commodity, not a security. ETH’s status as a commodity has now been recognized in a variety of circumstances, including the CFTC’s regulation of ETH futures, public statements by Commission officials, rulings by federal courts, and now, hopefully, this ETF.
The high degree of correlation between ETH spot prices and CME Ethereum futures prices, similar to the correlation seen with Bitcoin, proved that the spot ETH market is tightly linked to the regulated futures market. This tight linkage supports the listing of spot ETH ETFs, as it allows for the market surveillance the SEC requires. Additionally, the presence of liquid, regulated ETH futures trading on the CME and the approval of ETFs tracking those futures demonstrated to all neutral observers that Ethereum meets the same criteria as Bitcoin for an ETF holding the spot asset. The SEC approved the listing of spot Bitcoin ETFs based on these exact criteria, and we have long believed that Ethereum warrants the same treatment.
Any claim that Ethereum’s move to proof-of-stake has turned it into a security, or that staking itself is a securities transaction is misguided and harmful to innovation. Proof-of-stake is simply an alternative consensus mechanism to proof-of-work mining – it does not fundamentally alter Ethereum’s decentralized nature or transform ETH into a security issued by a central entity. Since the DAO hack in 2016, Ethereum has become highly decentralized, with no centralized issuer or promoter controlling a material supply or percentage of validators. The Ethereum Foundation’s ETH holdings have steadily declined to just 0.30% of the circulating supply, and Vitalik Buterin holds around 0.23%. This widespread distribution of ETH contradicts the idea of it being a security issued by a common enterprise.
We have also heard arguments that Ethereum’s transition to proof-of-stake (PoS) was a securities transaction. This misunderstands the decentralized nature of Ethereum’s governance. Ethereum’s transition to PoS was driven by social consensus, involving broad community discussions, transparent development processes, and voting mechanisms within a decentralized network. This contrasts sharply with traditional financial systems, where decisions are made by centralized entities or a small group of registered stakeholders. Changes in Ethereum are proposed through Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs), debated publicly, and adopted only with widespread community support, ensuring no central authority controls the network. This decentralized, community-driven process highlights that Ethereum remains a decentralized commodity, not a security, as its evolution reflects the collective agreement of its diverse global participants.
As the UK Prime Minister on this topic just recently said: “We are pro-open source. Open-source drives innovation. It creates start-ups. It creates communities. There must be a very high bar for any restrictions on open source.”Many traditional finance market participants may not fully understand that ETH is not just a speculative asset but has extensive real-world utility underpinning a vibrant decentralized application ecosystem. Ethereum supports over 270 million unique user addresses and processes an average of 1.2 million transactions daily. On-chain value settlements exceeded $2.8 trillion over the last year, compared to global remittances of $860B, PayPal volumes of $1.5 trillion, and Visa network volume of $15 trillion. Ethereum boasts a robust developer community, with more than 2,300 monthly active developers contributing to 113,000 distinct Githib repositories. Thanks to the network effects from this decentralized community, Ethereum has become the foundational layer for a vast ecosystem of over 3,000 applications, including financial services, games and collectibles. Its smart contract functionality enables automated lending/borrowing, decentralized exchanges, NFT marketplaces, play-to-earn games, and tokenization of real-world assets. Major companies like Reddit, Ubisoft, Nike, and Visa have launched Ethereum-based projects. Regulating Ethereum NFTs differently from physical collectibles like baseball cards or Rolex watches is often absurd – both represent unique digital/physical scarcity and ownership. A Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT and a rare 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle rookie card can serve similar purposes as status symbols and stores of value. But governance structures like those enabled by Ethereum underpin much of the innovation happening in open-source databases, including real-world asset tokenization. Stifling this utility through misguided regulation would hamper technological progress and drive those talented entrepreneurs overseas.
The situation has been made even more confusing by the inconsistent stances taken by different U.S. regulators. While the SEC has recently declined to clarify ETH’s status, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) allowed Ether futures products to trade as commodities. The Chairman of the CFTC has stated repeatedly under oath that ETH is a commodity. Even the SEC’s own guidance has stated that a digital asset may transition away from being a security as it becomes sufficiently decentralized over time, though critical details are lacking. Adding to the contradictions, just last week the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unveiled an indictment that referred to Ethereum as a “decentralized” blockchain. Needless to say, this regulatory discord has fostered harmful uncertainty and, contrary to the SEC’s mandate of capital formation, has inflicted a lot of pain in the market.
That’s why today feels particularly sweet to VanEck, the first traditional ETF issuer to file for both Bitcoin & Ethereum ETFs. It is so encouraging to observe the growing bipartisan support for digital assets in DC, reflecting widespread voter input, & culminating in today’s ETF news and this week’s congressional repeal of SAB 121, an accounting rule hostile to crypto that was enacted through unorthodox means.
We expect this improved political backdrop will lead to further victories via new laws and in the courts that draw investment to Bitcoin, Ethereum and other open-source blockchain software.
Stay tuned for further updates.
PS – we expect to go FIRST.
After tumbling just after the close because someone was stupid enough to assume that since there was no approval by 4:00:00pm it means the SEC won’t bless the ETF, Ethere was last trading just above $3,800…
… and rapidly approaching its YTD high just above $4,000, from where it will proceed to move much higher in the coming months.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 17:58 - Current PLA Drills Around Taiwan Are Bigger In Scope Than Exercises Triggered By Pelosi
Current PLA Drills Around Taiwan Are Bigger In Scope Than Exercises Triggered By Pelosi
As part of China’s two days of encircling drills around Taiwan, its military has dispatched about 30 aircraft toward the island Thursday, most of which crossed the Median Line in the Taiwan Strait. About a dozen PLA naval ships have also surrounded the self-ruled island, and in response Taiwan’s military has deployed warships to monitor the situation.
An additional dozen Chinese coast guard ships have been spotted close to Taiwan’s disputed outlying islands as well, according to Taipei officials. PLA Naval Colonel Li Xi has called the exercises “a strong punishment for the separatist acts of Taiwan independence forces and a serious warning against interference and provocation by external forces.”
Illustrative: prior PLA drills, via Reuters As we reported previously, the large-scale drills are were launched just days after Taiwan’s new president, Lai Ching-te, was sworn into office at the start of the week. Beijing has called Lai a “dangerous separatist” who will ensure future “war and decline” for the island of Taiwan, which China has long claimed as its own.
CNN has cited Chinese state television to describe:
As part of the drills, dozens of Chinese fighter jets carrying live ammunition conducted mock strikes against “high-value military targets” of the “enemy” alongside destroyers, frigates and missile speedboats, according to China’s state broadcaster CCTV.
…China’s state broadcaster CCTV said multiple destroyer and frigate formations of the Eastern Theater Command Navy “maneuvered at high speed in multiple directions in the waters surrounding Taiwan, creating an omnidirectional approach in pushing toward the island.”
Dozens of fighter jets were also seen near the outlying islands which include Kinmen, Matsu, Wuqiu, and Dongyin in the East China Sea.
China’s CCTV broadcaster further detailed of the drills, “Under the support and cover of the Army and the Rocket Force, multiple types of aircraft were organized and loaded with live ammunition, flew to the predetermined airspace to establish multiple strike positions, and coordinated with destroyers, frigates, and missile speedboats to simulate attacking the ‘enemy’s’ high-value military targets and reconnaissance and patrol aircraft.”
Regional analyst Arnaud Bertrand says that these ongoing two-day exercises are actually bigger in scale and scope compared to those which ensued in August 2022, in reaction to then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ultra-provocative visit to Taiwan. His words follow below the maps:
Before: What the 2022 PLA ‘encircling’ drills in response to Nancy Pelosi’s visit looked like…
Via CGTN Currently: The expanse of the ongoing Thurs-Fri PLA military drills surrounding Taiwan…
These are major military exercises by China around Taiwan, with more “exclusion zones” that are larger in scale than the exercises triggered by Pelosi’s visit and closer to the island.
They are basically demonstrating that they can completely blockade the islands, with the zones placed in front of Taiwan’s biggest ports (like Kaohsiung to the South, where a lot of Taiwan’s navy is, or Hualien to the East), as well as protect the mainland at the same time. It’s not a sign of imminent war, simply a reaction to Lai’s presidential inauguration speech where he hinted at significant changes to the status quo towards independence, so much so that even the Financial Times ran an article saying that “China has a point” when they were warning about Lai’s intention to change the status quo.
Wow, that’s exceedingly rare. The FT admits that the ROC’s new leader Lai Ching-te is attempting the change the status quo across the Taiwan strait and that “China has a point” in this regard.https://t.co/cfuMnnLNBs
Here is what they write:
“China is right to say that Lai is…
— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) May 22, 2024
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
This is China telling him “don’t get any ideas”.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 05/23/2024 – 17:20
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
