Today’s News 27th May 2023

• Supreme Court Sides With 94-Year-Old Woman Whose Home Equity Was Seized By County
  Supreme Court Sides With 94-Year-Old Woman Whose Home Equity Was Seized By County

  The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with an 94-year-old Minnesota grandmother who was wronged when her county forced the sale of her condominium over unpaid taxes, and kept the proceeds that far exceeded the taxes she owed – the latest “home equity theft” to make headlines.

  

  The case followed a report late last year by the Pacific Legal Foundation which found that 12 states and DC allow local governments and private investors to seize far more than what is owed from homeowners who fall behind on property tax payments.

  Writing this opinion was Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote in Tyler v. Hennepin County that “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.”

  Christina Martin, an attorney for homeowner Geraldine Tyler, told the court during April 26 oral arguments that local governments shouldn’t be able to seize and keep the full value of a home as payment for much smaller property tax debts.

  Minnesota law allows counties to retain windfalls at the expense of property owners – which between 2014 and 2020 applied to around 1,200 Minnesota residents who lost their homes and all the equity in them, for debts that averaged just 8% of the home’s value, according to PLF.

  Tyler owned a modest one-bedroom condominium in Hennepin County, but after she was harassed and frightened near her home, she moved to a new apartment in a safer neighborhood. The rent on her new apartment stretched her resources and she fell into arrears on her condo’s property tax bills, accumulating about $2,300 in taxes owed, along with $12,700 in penalties, interest, and costs.

  The county seized Tyler’s condo, valued at $93,000, and sold it for just $40,000. Instead of keeping the $15,000 it was owed, the county retained the full $40,000, amounting to a windfall of $25,000, according to PLF. -Epoch Times

  Tyler sued, arguing that her Fifth Amendment rights were violated when the government breached the ‘Takings Clause.’ Her lawsuit was originally rejected by the courts, including the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which found the seizure legal.

  The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the principle that Tyler’s right not to have her her property seized goes back to English law, and as far back as the Magna Carta of 1215.

  “The Takings Clause ‘was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole,’” wrote Roberts.

  “A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed.”

  “[I]f a bank forecloses on a home because the homeowner fails to pay the mortgage, the homeowner is entitled to the surplus from the sale.”

  In collecting all other taxes, “Minnesota protects the taxpayer’s right to surplus.” So if a taxpayer falls behind on income tax and the state confiscates and sells the property, state law provides that any surplus must be returned to the owner. The same rule is followed regarding arrears of personal property tax—such as for a car—and real property tax.

  In Tyler’s case, the “State now makes an exception only for itself, and only for taxes on real property. But ‘property rights cannot be so easily manipulated,’” Roberts wrote, citing Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a 2021 Supreme Court decision that pitted the property rights of an employer against labor organizing rights. –Epoch Times

  “Minnesota may not extinguish a property interest that it recognizes everywhere else to avoid paying just compensation when it is the one doing the taking,” Roberts wrote.

  Dan Rogin, Hennepin County assistant administrator and auditor told the Times in an email: “Based on today’s decision which found Minnesota’s law unconstitutional, Minnesota’s property tax forfeiture laws must be revised. Hennepin County will work closely with the Minnesota Legislature to create a process that is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 23:40

• Why Are US Military Personnel Heading To Peru?
  Why Are US Military Personnel Heading To Peru?

  Authored by Nick Corbishley via NakedCapitalism.com,

  The ostensible goal of the operation is to provide “support and assistance to the Special Operations of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces and National Police of Peru,” including in regions recently engulfed in violence. 

  

  Unbeknown, it seems, to most people in Peru and the US (considering the paucity of media coverage in both countries), US military personnel will soon be landing in Peru. The plenary session of Peru’s Congress last Thursday (May 18) authorised the entry of US troops onto Peruvian soil with the ostensible purpose of carrying out “cooperation activities” with Peru’s armed forces and national police. Passed with 70 votes in favour, 33 against and four abstentions, resolution 4766 stipulates that the troops are welcome to stay any time between June 1 and December 31, 2023.

  The number of US soldiers involved has not been officially disclosed, at least as far as I can tell, though a recent statement by Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel Lopéz Obrador, who is currently person non grata in Peru, suggests it could be around 700. The cooperation and training activities will take place across a wide swathe of territory including Lima, Callao, Loreto, San Martín, Huánuco, Ucayali, Pasco, Junín, Huancavelica, Iquitos, Pucusana, Apurímac, Cusco and Ayacucho.

  The last three regions, in the south of Peru, together with Arequipa and Puno, were the epicentre of huge political protests, strikes and road blocks from December to February after Peru’s elected President Pedro Castillo was toppled, imprisoned and replaced by his vice-president Dina Boluarte. The protesters’ demands included:

  • The release of Castillo

  • New elections

  • A national referendum on forming a Constitutional Assembly to replace Peru’s current constitution, which was imposed by former dictator Alberto Fujimori following his self-imposed coup of 1992

  Brutal Crackdown on Protests

  Needless to say, none of these demands have been met. Instead, Peru’s security forces, including 140,000 mobilised soldiers, unleashed a brutal crackdown that culminated in the deaths of approximately 70 people. A report released by international human rights organization Amnesty International in February drew the following assessment:

  “Since the beginning of the massive protests in different areas of the country in December 2022, the Army and National Police of Peru (PNP) have unlawfully fired lethal weapons and used other less lethal weapons indiscriminately against the population, especially against Indigenous people and campesinos (rural farmworkers) during the repression of protests, constituting widespread attacks.”

  As soon as possibly next week, an indeterminate number of US military personnel could be joining the fracas. According to the news website La Lupa, the purported goal of their visit is to provide “support and assistance to the Special Operations of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces and National Police of Peru” during two periods spanning a total of seven months: from June 1 to September 30, and from October 1 to December 30, 2023.

  The secretary of the Commission for National Defence, Internal Order, Alternative Development and the Fight Against Drugs, Alfredo Azurín, was at pains to stress that there are no plans for the US to set up a military base in Peru and that the entry of US forces “will not affect national sovereignty.” Some opposition congressmen and women begged to differ, arguing that the entry of foreign forces does indeed pose a threat to national sovereignty. They also lambasted the government for passing the resolution without prior debate or consultation with the indigenous communities.

  The de facto Boluarte government and Congress are treating the arrival of US troops as a perfectly routine event. And it is true that the US military has long held a presence in Peru. For example, in 2017, U.S. personnel took part in military exercises held jointly with Colombia, Peru and Brazil in the “triple borderland” of the Amazon region. Also, the US Navy operates a biosafety-level 3 biomedical research laboratory close to Lima as well as two other (biosafety-level 2) laboratories in Puerto Maldonado.

  But the timing of the operation raising serious questions. After all, Peru is currently under the control of an unelected government that is heavily supported by Washington but overwhelmingly rejected by the Peruvian people. The crackdown on protests in the south of the Peru by the country’s security forces — the same security forces that US military personnel will soon be joining — has led to dozens of deaths. Peru’s Congress is refusing to call new elections in total defiance of public opinion. Just a few days ago, the country’s Supreme Court issued a ruling that some legal scholars have interpreted as essentially criminalising political protest.

  As Peru’s civilian institutions fight among themselves, Peru’s armed forces — the last remaining “backbone” in the country, according to Mexican geopolitical analyst Alfredo Jalife — has taken firm control. And lest we forget, Peru is home to some of the very same minerals that the US military has identified as strategically important to US national security interests, including lithium. Also, as I noted in my June 22, 2021 piece, Is Another Military Coup Brewing in Peru, After Historic Electoral Victory for Leftist Candidate?, while Peru’s largest trading partner is China, its political institutions — like those of Colombia and Chile — remain tethered to US policy interests:

  Together with Chile, it’s the only country in South America that was invited to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was later renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership after Donald Trump withdrew US participation.

  Given as much, the rumours of another coup in Peru should hardly come as a surprise. Nor should the Biden administration’s recent appointment of a CIA veteran as US ambassador to Peru, as recently reported by Vijay Prashad and José Carlos Llerena Robles:

  Her name is Lisa Kenna, a former adviser to former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a nine-year veteran at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and a US secretary of state official in Iraq. Just before the election, Ambassador Kenna released a video, in which she spoke of the close ties between the United States and Peru and of the need for a peaceful transition from one president to another.

  It seems more than likely that Kenna played a direct role in the not-so-peaceful transition from President Castillo to de facto President Boluarte, having met with Peru’s then-Defence Minister Gustavo Bobbio Rosas on December 6, the day before Pedro Castillo was ousted, to tackle “issues of bilateral interest”.

  On a Knife’s Edge

  After decades of stumbling from crisis to crisis and government to government, Peru rests on a knife’s edge. When Castillo, a virtual nobody from an Andean backwater who had played an important role in the teachers’ strikes of 2017, rode to power on a crest of popular anger at Peru’s hyper-corrupt establishment parties in June 2021, Peru’s legions of poor and marginalised hoped that positive changes would follow. But it was not to be.

  Castillo was always an outsider in Lima and was out of his depth from day one. He had zero control over Congress and failed miserably to overcome rabid right-wing opposition to his government. Even in his first year in office he faced two impeachment attempts. As Manolo De Los Santos wrote in People’s Dispatch, Peru’s largely Lima-based political and business elite could never accept that a former schoolteacher and farmer from the high Andean plains could become president.

  On December 7, they finally got what they wanted: Castillo’s impeachment. Just hours before a third impeachment hearing, he declared on national television that he was dissolving Congress and launching an “exceptional emergency government” and the convening of a Constituent Assembly. It was a preemptive act of total desperation from a man who held no sway with the military or judiciary, had zero control over Congress, and had even lost the support of his own party. Hours later, he was impeached, arrested by his own security detail and taken to jail, where he remains to this day.

  Castillo may be out of the picture but political instability continues to reign in Peru. The de facto Boluarte government and Congress are broadly despised by the Peruvian people. According to the latest poll by the Institute of Peruvian Studies (IEP), 78% of Peruvians disapprove of Boluarte’s presidency while only 15% approve. Congress is even less popular, with a public disapproval rate of 91%. Forty-one percent believe that the protests will increase while 26% believe they will remain the same. In the meantime, Peru’s Congress continues to block general elections.

  Peru’s “Strategic” Resources 

  As regular readers know, EU and US interest in Latin America is rising rapidly as the race for lithium, copper, cobalt and other elements essential for the so-called “clean” energy transition heats up. It is a race that China has been winning pretty handily up until now.

  Peru is not only one of China’s biggest trade partners in Latin America; it is home to the only port in Latin America that is managed entirely by Chinese capital. And while Peru may not form part of the Lithium Triangle (Bolivia, Argentina and Chile), it does boast significant deposits of the white metal. By one estimate, it is home to the sixth largest deposits of hard-rock lithium in the world. It is also the world’s second largest producer of copper, zinc and silver, three metals that are also expected to play a major role in supporting renewable energy technologies.

  In other words, there is a huge amount at stake in how Peru evolves politically as well as the economic and geopolitical alliances it forms. Also, its direct neighbour to the north, Ecuador, is undergoing a major political crisis that is likely to spell the end of the US-aligned Guillermo Lasso government and a handover of power to Rafael Correa’s party and its allies.

  And the US government and military have made no secret of their interest in the mineral deposits that countries like Peru hold in their subsoil. In an address to the Washington-based Atlantic Council on Jan 19, Gen. Laura Richardson, head of the U.S. Southern Command, spoke gushingly of Latin America’s rich deposits of “rare earth elements,” “the lithium triangle — Argentina, Bolivia, Chile,” the “largest oil reserves [and] light, sweet crude discovered off Guyana,” Venezuela’s “oil, copper, gold” and the fact that Latin America is home to “31% of the world’s fresh water in this region.”

  She also detailed how Washington, together with US Southern Command, is actively negotiating the sale of lithium in the lithium triangle to US companies through its web of embassies, with the goal of “box[ing] out” US adversaries (i.e. China and Russia), concluding with the ominous words: “This region matters. It has a lot to do with national security. And we need to step up our game.”

  Which begs the question: is this the first step of the US government and military’s stepping-up-the-game process?

  The former president of Bolivia Evo Morales, who knows a thing or two about US interventions in the region, having been on the sharp end of a US-backed right-wing coup in 2019, certainly seems to think so. A few days ago, he tweeted the following message:

  The Peruvian Congress’ authorisation for the entry and stationing of US troops for 7 months confirms that Peru is governed from Washington, under the tutelage of the Southern Command.

  The Peruvian people are subject to powerful foreign interests mediated by illegitimate powers lacking popular representation.

  The greatest challenge for working people and indigenous peoples is to recover their self-determination, their sovereignty and their natural resources.

  With this authorization from the Peruvian right, we warn that the criminalization of protest and the occupation of US military forces will consolidate a repressive state that will affect sovereignty and regional peace in Latin America.

  Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel Lopéz Obrador, who refuses to acknowledge Boluarte (whom he calls the “great usurper”) as Peru’s president and has recently faced threats of direct US military intervention in Mexico’s drug wars from US Republican lawmakers, had a message for the US government this week:  “[Sending soldiers to Peru] merely maintains an interventionist policy that does not help at all in building fraternal bonds among the peoples of the American continent.”

  Unfortunately, the US government does not seem interested, if indeed it ever has been, in building fraternal bonds with the peoples of the American continent. Instead, it is set on upgrading the Monroe Doctrine for the 21st century. Its strategic rivals this time around are not Western European nations, which are now little more than US vassals (as a recent paper by the European Council of Foreign Relations, titled “The Art of Vassalisation”, all but admitted), but rather China and Russia.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 23:20

• Where Trust In The News Is Highest (& Lowest)
  Where Trust In The News Is Highest (& Lowest)

  Trust in news has fallen in many countries around the world, following a temporary increase during the peak Covid-19 pandemic years, albeit still remaining higher than before the health crisis began.

  This is according to the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2022, which polled 93,000 consumers in 46 markets about a range of digital news topics ranging from perceptions of media coverage of the war in Ukraine to the changing habits of younger consumers as well as where people go for climate news.

  Overall trust in the news fell in 21 out of the 46 markets analyzed, while 18 markets remained at a similar level and only seven saw an uptick.

  You will find more infographics at Statista

   Finland had the highest share of respondents agreeing “you can trust news most of the time” at 69 percent which marks a 4 percentage point increase since the last edition of the report. The United States made little progress and is still rock bottom of the ranking, along with Slovakia, with only 26 percent of people trusting the news most of the time – a 3 percentage point decrease on last year.

  In Latin America, trust was down in Brazil (-6 percentage points) and Colombia (-3) as of February 2022, but at the same level or saw slight improvements in other countries. Meanwhile, of the analyzed countries in Africa, South Africa (+9) and Nigeria (+4) saw improvements, while Kenya saw a decrease (-4). In Asia, trust in news fell in Malaysia (-5) and Taiwan (-4) but grew in the Philippines (+5) and Japan (+2).

  According to the report, while the majority of people across countries remain engaged and use the news regularly, nations with a lower level of trust in news such as the United States (26 percent), United Kingdom (34 percent), France (29 percent) and Slovakia (26 percent) also tended to see some of the highest levels of selective avoidance and declining interest in it. Reasons cited for selective news avoidance – choosing to ration or limit export to news or certain types of news – include being put off by the repetitiveness of the news agenda, feeling worn out by the news, as well as that it brings down their mood, leads to feelings of powerlessness, is too hard to understand or that it can’t be trusted, among others.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 23:00

• Rickards: DEI Must DIE
  Rickards: DEI Must DIE

  Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

  After taking in hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate contributions, paying millions in bonuses and buying million-dollar mansions for founders, BLM (Bolshevik Lives Matter) ran a $9 million deficit.

  Cowardly CEOs eager to appease the woke mob fall for these scams every time. Could we soon be witnessing the demise of the “DEI” movement?

  The letters “DEI” stand for diversity, equity and inclusion, which is the mantra of corporate and political America today.

  It sounds good. Who doesn’t like diversity in experience and conversation? Who doesn’t support equity? And what’s wrong with the inclusion of individuals in larger groups and institutions? Nothing.

  The problem is that none of these words is used in any common-sense way. They’re used in Orwellian fashion to mean almost their exact opposites.

  

  In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell wrote the slogan of Big Brother’s political party as WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

  Today’s DEI pushers have done Orwell proud.

  • Diversity means uniformity of thought and practice along ideological and political lines.

  • Equity does not mean equality of opportunity. It means equality of result, which involves handicapping the most talented and taking from the most productive to give handouts to the laziest and least motivated.

  • Inclusion means exclusion of whites from Black dorms, exclusion of unpopular speakers from public venues and exclusion of ideas that vary from a politically rigid orthodoxy. The DEI thought agenda is being enforced by armies of inspectors and compliance officers who will fire you, demote you and denigrate you in front of your peers if you deviate from their thought control.

  It’s time for DEI to DIE. It’s time to exclude these ideas from the campuses, institutions and corporations where they prevail.

  Many decent-minded Americans have begun to push back against the DEI agenda but none more aggressively and successfully than Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. DeSantis has just signed legislation that eliminates DEI in higher education in the state of Florida.

  This comes after DeSantis fired the president and the entire board of trustees of the New College of Florida for their DEI propaganda and replaced them with officials who value honest education and the study of the humanities.

  A lot of people talk a lot about DEI but don’t actually do anything except create sound-bites. DeSantis gets things done. Let’s hope he’s not alone.

  The future of education, open debate and creativity is at stake.

  Related to the DEI agenda is the ESG agenda. And the main component of the ESG agenda is climate. Below, I show you how that climate agenda has little to do with climate — and everything to do with control over you. Read on.

  The Green Fraud

  Those yelling the loudest about climate change want to destroy the oil and natural gas industry, destroy nuclear power plant construction, shut down coal-fired plants, end coal mining, mandate electric vehicles (EVs) on very short deadlines and eliminate gas stoves in your kitchen, fireplaces and even outdoor barbecues.

  They also want to build wind turbine arrays offshore and on deserts, plains and even mountains near you. They want to install solar module fields on every rooftop and open space near a population center. The climate change radicals want to increase the mining of lithium, nickel, cobalt, copper, rare earths and other dangerous chemicals to feed their obsession with EV batteries.

  They’re spending hundreds of billions of tax dollars to subsidize the EVs, battery manufacturing and a coast-to-coast network of charging stations to keep the EVs moving (even if they do have to stop for a charge every 180 miles).

  The greenies also want to mandate “15-minute cities” where you can walk everywhere in town within 15 minutes, which means you won’t need your car to visit a doctor, dry cleaner, grocery store, pharmacy or any of the other locations we routinely visit for errands and necessities.

  That may sound attractive if you chose it voluntarily. That’s not what the greenies have in mind. They want 15-minute cities as a Trojan horse to eliminate automobiles entirely and force you to ride bicycles or use public transportation. In the end, you’ll need a permit to fly to another city.

  The permits will be rationed and you’ll have to put yourself on a waiting list until your turn. You can pay for your ticket with the new central bank digital currency (CBDC), assuming your social credit score is high enough and you didn’t vote for the wrong candidate in the last election.

  In short, the climate change agenda is not about climate change. It’s about total political and economic control of the population. So-called climate change is an elite scare tactic to get you to fall into line and obey government orders (as most people do).

  Elites claim that if we don’t radically reduce CO2 (carbon dioxide) and CH4 (methane) emissions, global warming will melt the ice caps, raise sea levels, put island nations underwater and flood the New York City subway system in 10 years or less. They’ve been making similar claims for 40 years and they’ve been wrong every time. That doesn’t stop them. Fear works.

  What is new is that the climate crowd now has the political power they need to push their agenda using fear and the regulatory state to attack your means of transportation, your personal conveniences and your consumer choices.

  This is being enabled by Joe Biden and thousands of bureaucrats buried in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and scores of other agencies.

  The U.S. Treasury, SEC and the Federal Reserve have even joined in by regulating loans to the oil and gas industry and requiring financial disclosures about climate change and other ESG (environment, social and governance) metrics.

  Meanwhile, the World Bank (controlled by the U.S.) is being encouraged to deny loans to industries that involve carbon-based development and to steer financing toward projects approved by the climate mavens. This is called the “all of government” approach in which every agency gets involved in pushing the climate agenda, even if it’s not the primary job of that agency. The pressure never stops.

  In short, the climate change debate could not be more relevant to investors. Those calling the shots in the Green New Deal (what I call the Green New Scam) will decide which industries win or lose, which projects get financed (or not), which initiatives are subsidized by the government or left to wither on the vine and which companies will feel the regulatory heat if they don’t get with Biden’s programs.

  Climate change is not a sideshow. Nothing is more relevant to markets, investors and asset allocators today.

  Climate change is real but it’s slow and powerful and has nothing to do with trace gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane. It’s caused by the interaction of complex systems such as sun cycles, ocean currents, wind patterns including the jet stream, volcanic activity, salinity levels (in turn caused by ocean current subduction) and other mega-systems over which humans have no control.

  We’re living in a world where major forces beyond our control have been hijacked by elites to create a climate of fear to achieve their agenda of total government command over your life. It’s time for Americans and citizens around the world to learn the facts, push back on the elites and reestablish public policy based on real science. It’s time to push the flawed models, phony data and bogus warnings out of the way.

  Unfortunately, the public relies on media elites and political leaders for their information. As decades roll by and scare stories are discredited time and again, public skepticism will rise and the alarmists will lose credibility.

  The danger is that alarmists may pass legislation, limit choices and impose costs in the name of climate change before the public catches on to the scam. At that point, the economic damage becomes semi-permanent even if alarmism fades.

  In the elites’ vision, citizens will be confined to small towns or cities for extended periods. Travel will be tightly restricted. Appliances will be downsized with no consumer choice allowed. Taxes will be imposed on targeted activities to discourage use. Education will be turned to indoctrination to raise a generation who believe in the climate lies needed to gain support for these measures (that kind of indoctrination has been underway for some years).

  Welcome to the world of the green elite. It’s coercive, restrictive, arrogant and apparently not much fun. It’s a world where the elites control everything and you do as you’re told. It’s a world based on lies and fear. It’s coming sooner than you expect unless citizens can join hands, reassert the truth and push the elites back into a corner where they belong.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 22:40

• Rep. Nadler "Wouldn't Care" If Ukraine Used F-16s To Strike Russian Territory
  Rep. Nadler “Wouldn’t Care” If Ukraine Used F-16s To Strike Russian Territory

  Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

  Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said Wednesday that he “wouldn’t care” if Ukraine used American-made F-16s to strike Russian territory despite the risk of such an attack escalating into a direct clash between the US and Russia.

  When asked by Epoch Times reporter Liam Cosgrove if he was concerned about the potential of Ukraine using F-16s to hit targets inside Russia, Nadler said, “No, I’m not concerned. I wouldn’t care if they did.”

  NY Congressman @RepJerryNadler told me he “wouldn’t care” if Ukraine used western F16s to strike Russian territory.

  He then dismissed the likelihood of that happening, despite Ukrainian forces deploying U.S. weaponry in Russia’s border city of Belgorod earlier this week: pic.twitter.com/oRLmqv0mBm

  — Liam Cosgrove (@cosgrove_iv) May 25, 2023

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

  Nadler said it was unlikely Ukraine would use F-16s to attack Russian territory, but Cosgrove pointed out that US-made armored vehicles were used in a cross-border raid in Russia’s Belgorod region that was launched on Monday.

  “That may be, but they’re not gonna use major weapons. Things like F-16s, they need for air defense over Ukraine so that they can provide air cover for their counterattack and things like that. They’re not gonna waste it in Russia,” Nadler said.

  So far, there’s no clear timeline for when the F-16s will be delivered to Ukraine. President Biden signed off on European countries delivering the Lockheed Martin-made aircraft, but Ukrainian pilots still need to be trained, and estimates for how long that will take vary from a few months to up to two years.

  Russia has said providing Ukraine with F-16s brings “colossal risks,” a warning brushed off by President Biden. In the early days of the war, NATO chose not to provide Kyiv with fighter jets over concerns Moscow would perceive the move as the alliance directly entering the war.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 22:20

• Who's Running For President In 2024? (So Far)
  Who’s Running For President In 2024? (So Far)

  Florida Governor Ron DeSantis became the 7th prominent Republican to announce a presidential run for the 2024 election, as data from the Federal Election Commission shows.

  Former president Donald Trump was the first to announce his run back in December, followed by Nikki Haley, Asa Hutchinson and Tim Scott as well as political outsiders Vivek Ramaswamy and Larry Elder.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  On the Democrats’ side, President Joe Biden filed his bid on April 25 – the same day as in 2019.

  His was preceded by the bids of repeat presidential candidate and self-help author Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a nephew of JFK who made headlines for his anti-vaccine stance.

  So who will get the nomination?

  Trump still dominates the field for Republicans (with Desantis actually down a little from April)…

  

  And unless ‘something’ happens to Biden, the establishment will keep him in place.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 22:00

• A Lot Has To Change Quickly For Republicans To Have A Chance in 2024
  A Lot Has To Change Quickly For Republicans To Have A Chance in 2024

  Authored by Matt Towery via RealClear Wire,

  To be clear, I am writing this as a pollster, not as a politician or partisan.

  

  Here’s the bottom line. As it gets closer to the summer of 2023, I would rate the Democrats as more likely to again take/keep the White House. They might even hold on to the Senate and re-take the House.

  This is a tough message to deliver to the Republican faithful at a time when inflation is way up, millions have crossed the border illegally, China and Russia both pose true threats to international stability, and crime has spiraled in many areas of the nation.

  Sure, events and issues would seemingly favor the 2024 Republican nominee for president. But consider this. On Oct. 25, 2022, immediately following a Wall Street Journal poll showing Republicans up by two points in the “Generic ballot” midterm contest, my firm, InsiderAdvantage, also showed Republicans leading Democrats by four points, well within the WSJ poll’s margin of error. Sixteen national polls followed ours in the RealClearPolitics average with only two of the polls showing Democrats leading and one showed a tie. The other 13 polls had Republicans ahead. CNN had the same four-point advantage our survey showed. ABC News/Washington Post along with CBS News had the GOP with a two-point lead. NPR had it at a three-point GOP lead.

  For whatever reason, only a few national pollsters chose to survey the battleground Senate contests in the last few weeks  of the 2022 midterms. Many of us who did, such as one of the most accurate over the past four cycles, Robert Cahaly of Trafalgar, showed Republican candidates in competitive states trending ahead, reflecting what the many national organizations were indicating in their generic ballot polls.

  But the building “Red Wave” disappeared on Election Day. Sure, as pollsters we will be examining our data and weighting for the next cycle. But it may be that for Republicans, opinion surveys, whether suggesting a win or a loss, won’t matter. A loss is more likely regardless.

  Why?

  In part because there exists a not-so-subtle Democratic machine that goes far beyond politicians and now includes significant segments of corporations, media and “nonpartisan” governmental entities. Presidential and battleground Senate races are currently won at the slimmest of margins and Republicans face a system that now requires that their nominee blow past those margins on the crest of not just a possible “Red Wave” but riding a true “Red Tidal Wave.”

  Only that massive “Red Tidal Wave” can carry a Republican back into the White House. Here’s a list of why such a GOP meltdown is possible again and the potential remedies for the party that, at present, seem unlikely to materialize in time to avert disaster for Republicans in 2024.

  If a Tree Falls…

  You know how this goes: If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?

  In the political forest, the answer is no if the tree is Republican or conservative. This is by far and away the biggest obstacle Republicans face in having a fair chance of winning in 2024.

  While Fox News remains the dominant cable news network, it cannot possibly serve to counterbalance the three broadcast news networks along with CNN and MSNBC. Even with Newsmax thrown into the mix, the “conservative” broadcast and online media, based on total viewership and readership, is overwhelmed day in and day out. Other than Rupert Murdoch, conservative-leaning financiers have either lacked the will or have been stymied at forming consortiums to purchase or challenge the “legacy” media. And Republican operatives seem hellbent on spending all their money in short-burst primary and general election cycles. They just assume that everyone knows their view of the news: that President Joe Biden is “cognitively challenged”; the economy is in decline; the border is flooded daily by undocumented immigrants; that crime is destroying the nation’s once great and revered cities; that the U.S. appears weak and unprepared for future aggressions by major foes. You get the point.

  But the average voter doesn’t. Polls asking voters about issues provide conservatives with the appearance that their issues are important to voters as well as the foibles of Democrats. But most issue-oriented polling questionnaires assume that their respondents are aware and have an opinion on the matter. And respondents rarely want to confess that they haven’t a clue. Put that same respondent in an unaided survey where they must articulate the issues of the day and one will find that those opinions on most issues dissolve into a mishmash of general concepts and less definitive answers.

  It seems that Republican leaders just assume that everyone else lives in the bubble they live in. But they don’t.

  Most voters whose vote the GOP might otherwise win don’t much know about critical race theory, the consequences of mounting federal debt, or much of anything conservatives talk about amongst themselves or to their audiences.

  Were it not for Twitter CEO Elon Musk, what little information conservatives manage to get out beyond their bubble would be shut down by the social media establishment.

  Consider the following. On the day after news reports of an IRS whistleblower’s allegations of potential wrongdoing concerning the Department of Justice’s handling of the Hunter Biden investigation and the revelation that Secretary of State Antony Blinken allegedly requested a letter from members of the intelligence community to label the younger Biden’s laptop “a Russian Hoax,” the daily White House briefing was devoid of questions on the two issues.

  Weeks later, when the House Oversight Committee presented financial records of members of President Biden’s family and their business associates receiving over $10 million from foreign corporations linked to China and Romania using a labyrinth of corporations, a massive tree fell. But virtually no one heard it.

  The three “legacy” TV networks did not cover it in their news broadcasts and mostly ignored it on their websites. But taking the old “tree falls” to a new level, The New York Times decided to ignore the tree falling and instead proclaim renewed sturdiness and growth for the tree. Their headline: “House Republican Report Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by President Biden.”

  The selective and slanted nature of news now often starts at its initial gathering point and continues in its final presentation to a busy public, most of whom grab their news from social media and news aggregations on their smartphone. Republicans and conservatives have missed the boat in educating voters in a non-controversial and balanced manner, about the true facts and news of the day.

  And consider that conservatives are routinely labeled by the mainstream press with the pejorative phrase “far-right wing” while even the most “out there” liberals are labeled the more upbeat moniker of “progressives.” Republicans haven’t even been able to address the simple matter of the lexicon used in political battle.

  No Check on the Checkers…

  The business of “fact checking” arose with the same foundational financial and logistical support that brings “legacy” news to us. Have you noticed how journalists, and I mean top ones, are willing to use definitive terms like “lies” and “debunked” in their description of certain people and issues rather than the more cautionary and traditional terms like “disputed” and “alleged”? That’s because the fact checkers make definitive statements that allow journalists to definitively dismiss certain matters and embrace others. While the NewsGuards and PolitiFacts of the journalistic world were being incubated and lovingly made into “institutions,” there was no formidable effort made by those who long for a more balanced media to create credible and less politicized alternatives. And that’s a fact!

  Add to that “fact” the amazing coincidence that AI has burst on the consumers of news and social media just in time for what might be the most critical presidential election cycle in American history. Now facts, figures, biographies, and narratives can be gathered, edited and selectively presented to consumers who have no idea who or how their AI database or algorithms were programed or written in the first place. If those wanting a more balanced media don’t fund their own legitimate and well-funded fact-checking organizations, an entire generation will become reliant on one-sided and often extremely biased groups claiming to be the ultimate arbiters of truth.

  ‘Existential’…

  This is the most overused word of the last three years. Everything, it seems, is deemed “an existential threat” to the world. The philosopher Soren Kierkegaard must be rolling over in his grave at the endless use of his central concept.

  So let me keep Kierkegaard spinning. The failure of the GOP to flood nursing homes, bingo halls, and mortuaries (OK, that one is a joke, of a sort) in search of voters willing to cast early ballots remains, as of today, unaddressed, And it really is an “existential threat” to the Republican leaders. They must come to understand that in our post-COVID era, the rules for who votes when and where, and under the aegis of “voter outreach,” has changed forever. Democrats know how to spend buckets of money to advance what could best be termed “selective democracy.” They know just how to bump against the line of what is allowed and what is not, should anyone with any authority and objectivity care.

  The GOP has only months remaining to create armies and methods to match those efforts.

  If the Shoe Fits…

  Republicans must wear it. In recent years Republicans have suffered from a tenuous relationship with white suburban women and younger voters. They are being made to feel guilty in the classrooms, carpool lines or suburban tennis matches that they were born white or were provided opportunities while growing up. It translates as “Republicans are the racist party” by default.

  When Roe v. Wade was overturned, some Republican leaders in various states decided to up the ante on abortion laws. It’s logical for Republicans, given their position on the matter, to advance protecting unborn lives. But to do so without a massive ad and public relations outreach campaign to those essential demographic groups to explain their legislation, creates a political shoe so tight that an elephant’s foot has no prayer of fitting. Hence, a contributing factor to the massive turnout and marginal losses for Republicans in many marginal contests in 2022.

  It’s the same for the issue of gun control versus gun rights. If Republicans want to continue to support a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, they need to educate a public overwhelmed by a media that does not.

  How about a massive paid ad campaign exposing voters to statistics supporting the claim that in areas where everyone is “packing heat,” so to speak, gun violence drops? If that is indeed the case, don’t just say it on conservative-leaning cable news shows, prove it to the public in well-reasoned ads with real live statistics. Ditto for the value of armed security in every school. If the evidence exists to support those concepts, why is it not front and center in ads on popular TV shows and the web? Shucking and jiving through endless mass shootings isn’t working — and is costing the GOP with younger and suburban swing voters.

  The Tooth Fairy vs. the Dentist and Periodontist…

  Lord knows both parties know how to pander, but Republicans let their “fiscal responsibility” stand in the way.

  Democrats under Joe Biden have been described as “the Tooth Fairy,” promising outrageously massive handouts to various demographic targets with no apparent way to pay for them. Meanwhile, the Republican counter to this Democratic approach is to serve as national dentist and periodontist. Incrementally trying to fight cavities and oral decay but with nothing new to offer voters. Ask yourself “Tooth Fairy or Dentist?” Most would choose the Tooth Fairy every time!

  For the sake of argument, try this idea on for size, Republicans: Propose that the government eliminate all these programs you view as needless handouts, unappreciated foreign aid and government waste.

  Put it all into the Social Security “trust fund” as a sort of “matching contribution” and give seniors a real live retirement that they can live on. Instead of raising the age requirement for benefits, lower it over time! And jack those payments way up while cutting out the “left-wing woke funding” you claim to despise in order help pay for it.

  No one would ever expect that from the GOP. Yet that would consolidate (and could increase) for Republicans a senior base they began to lose during the pandemic, and which continues to be problematic. Based on exit polls of battleground Senate races, increasing the GOP share of the vote among those age 55 and over is the most likely way for Republicans to expand their vote and create a true “Red Tidal Wave.”

  The choice between forgiving college loans of over-educated millennials who offer little potential for significant vote gains, versus an enhancement and expansion of benefits to more senior Americans of all backgrounds, would seem to be a no-brainer. And it would put to rest the constant Democrat go-to of last-minute ads warning seniors that “Republicans want to cut your benefits.”

  How about a national bonus or additional tax credit program for police and firefighters across the nation? How else are we ever going to motivate the next generation to consider taking on these increasingly dangerous and thankless jobs?

  The GOP has become the party of the working person, including those who have worked hard all their lives. Why not seal the deal by promising to reward those voters and taking resources away from programs that encourage the opposite? That is exactly how Democrats under Biden are seemingly operating. They arguably penalize those who work to have good credit by rewarding those who don’t. The Green New Deal makes the future far more expensive and impracticable on the average worker while searching for ways to transfer resources to others in the name of “energy and climate equity.”

  Take from one group and give to another. Republicans better learn to do it big — and soon — or they will wither as a party.

  It’s likely, for the GOP I know, that the shoe won’t fit their agenda either. They will deem such ideas “unworkable and fiscally irresponsible.” As if the Democrats’ “Inflation Reduction Act” was?

  A Better Class of Prisoner…

  In the 1960s, one governor, when asked about the sorry conditions of his state prisons, responded by saying that what the state needed was “a better class of prisoners.” When it comes to Republican campaigns, a better class of prisoners might be called for. Or at least a truce among inmates. For decades Republican political operatives have approached one another as rival “political gangs,” more interested in capturing all the dollars from political donors and spending them through their associates and fellow “gang members,” than winning. “Diss me and my gang and we will cut funds off from your candidate.” We saw that same mentality prevail once again in 2022, and Republican candidates once again were the casualties of it.

  Democrats take a different approach. They tend to work toward one common goal of winning. The spoils of victory are then rewarded after the votes are in and the political power has been gained. Of course, to be fair, Democrat “dark money” is more plentiful, and Republicans often must scrounge around for funds in order to compete.

  A lot has to change in a short time period to give former President Trump or any other Republican nominee a sporting chance of winning in 2024. No GOP nominee, even Trump (who tends to pull more voters to the polls than other modern-day Republican nominees could have hoped for) cannot win if these substantial changes don’t start to take place, and rapidly.

  If not, the elephant walk of 2024 could once again be one straight off the political cliff. But for this upcoming cycle, pollsters will likely be extra careful not to march off that cliff with them.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 21:40

• Texas Children's Hospital To Stop Offering Hormone Therapy And Other Transgender Services
  Texas Children’s Hospital To Stop Offering Hormone Therapy And Other Transgender Services

  Texas Children’s Hospital will stop offering hormone therapy and other transgender care, according to the Houston Chronicle and ABC affiliate KTRK. 

  In anticipation of a Texas bill — which aims to curb gender-transition care and which was sent to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk on May 19  — becoming law, Texas Children’s CEO Mark Wallace told employees the hospital will cease providing some transgender care services within the next few months, according to an email sent May 24 and obtained by the news outlets. 

  The hospital is one of two Texas facilities part of an attorney general investigation based on allegations of providers “unlawfully performing” gender-transition procedures. 

  A screenshot of the email was first posted on Twitter Wednesday afternoon. A hospital spokesperson confirmed its authenticity to the Houston Chronicle. In the email, Wallace said the hospital will “continue to offer psychosocial support and any form of care we can within the bounds of the law.” A Texas Children’s spokesperson said Wednesday that the hospital so far is not canceling any appointments related to transgender care.

  In the email, Mr. Wallace said “we will work with patients and their families to manage the discontinuation of hormone therapies or source appropriate care outside of Texas,” according to KTRK. The hospital said it plans to continue offering psychological care that complies with state laws. 

  “The transition we will embark on is going to be immensely heart-wrenching, but we will lead through this adversity and navigate these next steps together with grace, love and compassion like we always do,” Wallace said in the email. “I understand that there are many viewpoints and opinions related to this matter, but I want to remind everyone that our mission is to create a healthier future for all children.”

  The email followed an announcement last week from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton saying he intended to investigate whether Texas Children’s is “illegally” performing transgender care. His announcement came after a conservative activist posted what he said was evidence that the hospital “secretly” provided such care. That activist posted Wallace’s email to staff on Twitter. Paxton had previously announced a similar investigation at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin.

  Senate Bill 14, which would ban transgender care for minors, has not been signed into law, though Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to do so. The state Senate approved a final draft of the legislation last week. The legislation prohibits doctors from prescribing medications such as puberty blockers or from performing surgeries on minors diagnosed with psychological distress about their gender identity.

  A previous statewide directive to investigate medical treatment for transgender youth as child abuse has been paused since a district court ruling last year. Puberty blockers and hormone therapy are widely accepted treatments for patients with gender dysphoria, which is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as psychological distress and anxiety due to a mismatch between a person’s gender identity and their assigned sex at birth.

  In his email, Wallace said changes to gender transition care will take place “over the next few months.” He described the upcoming changes as “painful.”

  “It is difficult for me, the In-Chiefs & Chairs, executives, faculty, staff and care teams to know that this is where we find ourselves,” he said. “However, I want to assure all of you that through this period and after, we all remain dedicated to educating the amplifying the importance of safe, high-quality transgender medicine programs.”

  Wallace went on to ask for “support, empathy and care” for the children, families and care teams affected by the legislation. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 21:20

• House GOP Questions IRS On Study Of Program That Would Make Agency Tax Preparer, Auditor
  House GOP Questions IRS On Study Of Program That Would Make Agency Tax Preparer, Auditor

  Authored by Mark Tapscott via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  

  IRS officials picked a left-wing think tank to conduct a $15 million “independent review” of a proposal long supported by the same foundation to empower federal officials to prepare Americans’ tax returns, according to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.).

  The think tank in question is New America, a Washington-based nonprofit foundation with deep ties to Democrat officials, appointees, and advocates.

  “The characterization of New America as a strictly non-partisan, non-profit is surprising since the organization is known to be a left-leaning think tank. Specifically, some of the non-profit’s top officials include alumni from the Obama Administration … and other top officials of the organization are tied to left-leaning mainstream and openly left-wing media outlets,” Smith said in a March 6 letter to Acting IRS Commissioner Douglas O’Donnell.

  Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.) co-signed the letter.

  Smith and Schweikert told O’Donnell that they want copies of all IRS documents generated during the selection process that resulted in New America getting the nod to do the review. The requested documents haven’t been provided to the committee.

  The proposal on the table is to establish the IRS Direct File program, under which taxpayers would have their annual income tax returns prepared by the agency using a new government software program to be developed. The $15 million funding for the review was authorized in an obscure provision of last year’s Inflation Reduction Act.

  Even before New America was selected to conduct the review, the IRS had established a pilot program to begin testing the idea of turning federal officials into tax preparers, in addition to tax collectors and enforcers.

  An IRS spokesman didn’t respond to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

  President Joe Biden’s administration and the Democratic majorities that controlled the 117th Congress approved $80 billion in funding that would allow the addition of 87,000 new IRS agents to its payroll, many of whom could be assigned to tax preparation if the Direct File initiative continues and expands from a pilot project.

  Smith has no doubt that the project will be expanded as fast as Democrats can do it.

  “From the start, the Biden Administration cooked the books to get exactly the outcome it wanted. The IRS chose a left-wing think tank and professor to run the study, both of whom are already on the record supporting the IRS becoming America’s tax preparer, filer, and auditor,” Smith said in a May 16 statement.

  “IRS control of tax preparation is the latest step in Democrats’ ongoing efforts to supercharge the agency to go after working-class families, after giving the agency $80 billion to increase audits on taxpayers making less than $75,000. Americans will be powerless when the IRS completely controls the tax filing process from start to finish,” he said.

  Smith is particularly upset that IRS officials initiated the pilot program without prior congressional authorization.

  “Americans don’t want to give the IRS such sweeping control and authority, yet the Biden Administration refuses to listen,” he said in the statement.

  “The announcement of a pilot program raises serious questions about how long the Biden Administration’s decision to move forward on such a program has been in the works, whether the agency had any intention of following Congress’ direction that this study be conducted in an independent and impartial way, and whether the IRS is acting outside the law in establishing a program that Congress has not authorized.”

  If a truly independent review had actually been sought, New America was an odd choice, he said, given its lengthy record of advocating on behalf of expanding the IRS to be tax preparer, auditor, and collector.

  In a March 2021 analysis, for example, New America argued that “the IRS would calculate taxpayers’ refund based on existing wage data, and then offer a simple and free tool for taxpayers to make corrections, provide additional information, review calculations, and finally file taxes. Such a system is commonplace in many countries, including Spain, Chile, Sweden, Estonia, and Iceland, and a proposal to create it has been repeatedly introduced in Congress by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other Senate Democrats.”

  But experts within and without the federal government wonder if the IRS could handle such a huge expansion of its powers and duties, if only because the tax agency’s management record in recent years has been the subject of multiple critical reports.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 21:00

• Black Lives Matter Teeters On Bankruptcy As Insider Transactions Continue
  Black Lives Matter Teeters On Bankruptcy As Insider Transactions Continue

  Black Lives Matter finished its latest fiscal year nearly $9 million in the red, even as world’s premier race-grifting organization continued shelling out millions to execs and relatives of co-founder Patrisse Cullors, according to new tax documents posted last week and first reported by the Washington Free Beacon.  

  The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation spent double what it took in — $17 million in outlays against just $8.5 million in gross revenue. In contrast, the group took in a whopping $77 million in contributions and grants in the preceding fiscal year, which included half of 2020. Assets plummeted by 28% year-over-year, from $41.9 million to $30.2 million for the fiscal year. 

  “That means it has spent two-thirds of the $90 million it raised [in 2020],” reports the New York Post. Given this report is for the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2022, the group’s balance sheet may look a lot worse today, after another 11 months of potential deterioration. 

  

  Broken down by major categories, Black Lives Matter spent $11.5 million on “program services expenses.” $5.1 million on “management general expenses” and $485,000 on fundraising — after all, you have to spend money to waste money. 

  Co-founder Cullors quit the group in May 2021 after the New York Post revealed wild spending by the group and Cullors herself, with massive amounts of the purported charity’s money also flowing to her family members. Some of the greatest hits:

  • BLM paid $970,000 to a company owned by the father of Cullors’ child to “produce live events” and for “creative services“
  • Her brother Paul Cullors was paid $840,000 for providing “security services” for the group
  • Cullors spent $3.2 million to buy four high-end homes, including a $1.4 million house near Malibu and a “custom ranch” in Georgia with an airplane hangar and runway
  • BLM bought a $5.6 million mansion in Los Angeles, which Cullors claimed as an “investment” that would also serve as a “media creation space” and even a safe house for activists. She hosted a Biden inauguration party there. 
  • The group and its affiliates bought a $1.7 million luxury condo in the Bahamas and a $6 million Toronto mansion 

  Many eyebrow-raising expenditures have continued, according to the latest financial disclosures. A company owned by Cullors’ successor, Shalomyah Bowers, was paid $1.69 million over two years for “management and consulting services.”

  A board member’s firm took $1.06 million for “consulting,” and an unidentified board member’s company got $600,000 in the settlement of a “contract dispute.” Cullors’ brother’s security company — Black Ties LLC –was paid another $756,000, and the brother himself also scored $125,000 in compensation plus another $15,000 for unspecified security. 

  Black Lives Matter has done NOTHING for black folks. pic.twitter.com/TpYWkMIerP

  — Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) May 22, 2023

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

  “While Patrisse Cullors was forced to resign due to charges of using BLM’s funds for her personal use, it looks like she’s still keeping it all in the family,” the National Legal and Policy Center’s Paul Kamenar told the Washington Free Beacon. 

  Ohio State University accounting professor Mittendorf was more diplomatic, telling Newsweek that the most significant issue arising from the new disclosure filings is the “continued and substantial transactions with insiders. While this is not improper per se, it does raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest in governing the organization.”

  Referring to the giant influx of money following George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police, Cullors marveled, “That was a lot of white guilt money. There’s a lot of white folks being like, ‘We just got to put the money’.”

  

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 20:40

• The Drug War: An Irrational Crusade
  The Drug War: An Irrational Crusade

  Authored by Donavan Lingerfelt via The Mises Institute,

  It’s been over five decades since the war on drugs began in the United States, and billions of dollars coerced from taxpayers have been spent on this frivolous operation.

  The General Accounting Office’s report found that the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program did not deter youth from drug abuse.

  How exactly has this war benefited taxpayers when drug use has increased, and more potent drugs are being consumed? Even the diabolical Charles Manson distributed drugs while imprisoned. Does one honestly think the government will eradicate drugs off the streets?

  

  The mere suggestion of legalizing drugs causes many to accuse me of advocating drug abuse. I do not have any inclination to consume harmful drugs, and neither do I condone such behavior. My motivation for writing this article, however, is grounded in freedom. I hope that after reading this, people across the political spectrum will understand this objective. For people on the right, they should realize this war is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not grant the government control of what someone injects into their body. The state continues to extend its tentacles of power over its people, and the war on drugs is just one facet of that reality.

  The state believes it has the prerequisites to decree what can and cannot be allowed, not just regarding drug policy but in our private lives as well. Lysander Spooner, the nineteenth-century theorist, argued that vices are not crimes: “Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.” You have total autonomy of your body, not the government or anyone else. This should hopefully register with individuals on the left. Today’s political climate has forced citizens into a political dichotomy with no room outside the uniparty’s parameters. Most politically passionate people fail to realize that they share quite a bit of similarities with their supposed “enemies.” It’s not Left versus Right; it’s the state versus you!

  Many today disregard the significant number of deaths caused by alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs. A considerable number of people abuse these substances, but drug warriors seem to disregard these addictions. Alcohol is a form of drug and can be dangerous when consumed as it affects people differently. On average, 140,000 people die every year from this beverage. Prescription drugs claim 16,500 lives per year. Tobacco consumption is the foremost cause of preventable deaths at an astounding 480,000 deaths annually. One can consider food to be a drug, and its abuse leads to a multitude of health issues. Heart disease, being one of those issues, is the leading cause of death in America.

  The government doesn’t care about your well-being or privacy; it only wishes for complete control over you. Financial privacy has even been encroached upon by the state due to the drug war. Deposits of more than $10,000 in the bank are reported to the Internal Revenue Service even though it’s your money. If you are pulled over with a substantial amount of cash, the police can confiscate your money under civil asset forfeiture laws. Essentially, you are guilty until you prove your money was legally acquired. They can slander your name for simply transporting cash. Police, on countless occasions, have been found planting drugs on one’s person or vehicle. By ending the war on drugs, the accused can be protected from these pernicious acts.

  In 2003, the life of a young man, Weldon Angelos, was ruined by the war’s idiocy. An undercover informant made several purchases from Angelos involving minimal amounts of weed. The informant claimed Angelos possessed a gun, despite one never being brandished or used. Initially, Angelos would have been imprisoned for a day, but federal law required fifty-five years due to a gun being present during the transactions. Presiding over the case, Judge Paul Cassell was so distraught at handing down this absurd sentence that he later petitioned for Angelos’ release. An actual criminal who had committed child rape, second-degree murder, or an aircraft hijacking would have had a shorter sentence than Angelos. After public outrage, Angelos was released in 2016 and pardoned in 2020. Unfortunately, there are many stories like Angelos’ across our country.

  Due to the irreparable harm from Richard Nixon’s war, the US has the world’s largest prison population. China has almost half as many incarcerated individuals. When comparing China’s population to America’s, this is an astounding statistic. In 2020, over a million people were arrested for using or possessing illicit drugs. The government and the police will be further strengthened as they wage their unjust war, while citizens are terrified of false accusations. To clarify, I am not arguing that a person on drugs who hurts or steals from someone should not be in jail. There should be no leniency for these violent crimes. Harm done to people and property are crimes, not vices. To help solve the drug epidemic, however, one should realize this war has not worked.

  There are a few countries that have pursued intriguing alternatives to this crisis. The Netherlands has decriminalized cannabis possession of less than five grams. Psychedelic mushrooms were made illegal in the Netherlands in 2008, yet users found with small quantities are not criminally charged. In Switzerland, they adopted a policy of helping their drug-addicted citizens instead of fighting drugs. For the past two decades, the Swiss have implemented drug-consumption rooms and needle exchange programs. By providing clean needles to users, this reduces the risk of infections. Because of these measures, HIV infections have declined at a significant rate, and Hepatitis C cases have continued to decrease since 2002. Consumers at drug-consumption rooms are watched to prevent overdoses. Facility employees make connections with these individuals without stigmatizing them. Users are more comfortable with what they inject at drug facilities compared to what they may find on the streets.

  Portugal has arguably been the most prominent trailblazer in drug policy reform. In 2001, they decriminalized all drugs, treating it as a health-conscious issue rather than a criminal one. Individuals possessing less than a ten-day supply of any drug will not be punished with prison time but will usually be sent to a commission for recovery treatment options. The European Union’s average rate of drug-related deaths is five times higher than Portugal’s. From 1998 to 2011, drug treatment attendees in Portugal increased by 60 percent. This result is encouraging because Portuguese citizens are seeking help, rather than fearing incarceration.

  An ample portion of US states and cities have changed their tune on drug legalization based on the positive results from the aforementioned countries. Marijuana used for medical purposes is currently legal in thirty-eight states, while recreational use is permitted in twenty-two states. In 2021, the city of Seattle approved legislation decriminalizing psychedelics, which mirrors the policies of Oakland and Santa Cruz. Similar to Portugal’s revolutionary policy, Oregon has adopted legislation that will not criminally charge individuals with small quantities of any drug but will instead enforce a hundred dollar fine. Although there is much to improve in America’s drug policy, these states and cities are taking a closer step toward allowing citizens the freedom to choose what they can consume. Hopefully, all states can learn from these drug pioneers, domestic and abroad, that are helping addicts rather than waging an irrational crusade against their people.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 20:20

• "Glut Of Inventory" Hits Hamptons As Rental Demand Cools
  “Glut Of Inventory” Hits Hamptons As Rental Demand Cools

  Considering the following: private jet demand in the US is sliding, and summer rental rates in the Hamptons have dropped. These could be indications that some of the wealthiest Americans are pulling back on spending as recession fears mount.

  Vacation rental company StayMarquis said the average nightly rate for a home in the Hamptons averaged $970 as the summer season begins. This is down from $1,080 last year and follows two years of price surges since the Hamptons exploded in popularity during the pandemic. 

  “More properties are available to rent, there are better deals and landlords are more open to shorter stays.” Jordan Flerx, a vice president at StayMarquis, told Bloomberg. 

  Flerx continued, “You can take advantage of properties that you would not have been able to shoot for in the past.”

  The slowdown in demand for Wall Street’s most popular summer playground, situated 90 miles east of Manhattan, may result from capital market turmoil over the past year and a half. The Federal Reserve’s most aggressive interest rate hikes in a generation to tame high inflation has led to sliding banker bonuses. 

  The slowdown has sparked a “glut of rental inventory” that has led to favorable conditions for tenants, according to Judi Desiderio, the CEO of Town & Country Real Estate. This means tenants have the upper hand in price negotiations. 

  Bloomberg provides a list of available Hamptons properties that show discounting: 

  “Southampton Seclusion” (Southampton)

  • July 2023 Price: $110,000
  • July 2022 Price: $120,000

  

  “Village Fringe Luxury” (East Hampton)

  • July 2023 Price: $60,000
  • July 2022 Price: $70,000

  

  “Art Village Retreat” (Southampton)

  • July 2023 Price: $60,000
  • July 2022 Price: $75,000

  

  “Sandpiper Spindrift” (Westhampton)

  • July 2023 Price: $68,000
  • July 2022 Price: $75,000

  

  “North Fork Waterfront” (East Marion)

  • August 2023 Price: $40,000
  • August 2022 Price: $50,000

  

  Besides sliding demand for summer rentals in the Hamptons, there has been a drop in private jet demand in the US. 

  

  Also, the latest debit and credit card data published by the Bank of America Institute shows higher income consumers are beginning to crack. 

  

  The signs are becoming more evident the upper cohort of American consumers is curtailing spending as the economic storm clouds gather. It raises the question of whether financial advisors are recommending their wealthy clients to brace for the impact of a hard economic landing.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 20:00

• The Corruption Of Climate Science
  The Corruption Of Climate Science

  Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,

  Instead of fighting anti-civilization lunacy, corporations are taking their money off the table, along with their life-affirming affordable fuel…

  

  “We need to criticize the people who got us here,” says Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of Fossil Future.

  “We can’t keep treating these designated experts as real experts. They are not real experts, they are destroyers. They are anti-energy, non-experts. And that needs to be made clear.”

  Epstein is right, and his advice has never been more urgent—or as difficult to make people understand. It is no exaggeration that every major institution in America has now committed itself to the elimination of affordable and abundant energy. If it isn’t stopped, this commitment, motivated by misguided concern for the planet but also by a lust for power and money and enabled by moral cowardice and intellectual negligence, will destroy Western civilization.

  For over 50 years, with increasing frequency, corrupted, careerist scientists have produced biased studies that, amplified by agenda-driven corporate and political special interests, constitute a “consensus” that is supposedly “beyond debate.” We are in a “climate crisis.” To cope with this climate emergency, all measures are justifiable.

  This is overblown, one-sided, distorted, and manipulative propaganda. It is the language of authoritarians and corporatists bent on achieving even more centralized political power and economic wealth. It is a scam, perhaps the most audacious, all-encompassing fraud in human history. It is a scam that explicitly targets and crushes the middle class in developed nations and the entire aspiring populations in developing nations, at the same time as its messaging is designed to secure their fervent acquiescence.\

  What is actually beyond debate is not that we are in a climate crisis but that if we don’t stop destroying our conventional energy economy, we are going to be in a civilizational crisis.

  Energy is the foundation of everything—prosperity, freedom, upward mobility, national wealth, individual economic independence, functional water and transportation infrastructure, commercial-scale agriculture, mining, and industry. Without energy, it all goes dark. And “renewables” are not even remotely capable of replacing oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric power. It’s impossible.

  The only people who think renewables are capable of replacing conventional energy are either uninformed, innumerate, or corrupt. Period.

  But to cope with the apocalyptic messaging of climate catastrophists, it isn’t enough to debunk the potential of renewables. It is also necessary to challenge the underlying climate “science.” The biased, corrupt, unceasing avalanche of expert “studies” serving up paid-for ideas to special interests that use them as bludgeons to beat into the desired shape every relevant public policy and popular narrative. So here goes.

  A new study, released May 16, deserves far more criticism than it’s going to get. Authored by seven ridiculously credentialed experts and primarily affiliated with the leftist Union of Concerned Scientists, this study has the rather innocuous title: “Quantifying the contribution of major carbon producers to increases in vapor pressure deficit and burned area in western US and southwestern Canadian forests.” Bursting with charts and equations, and too many links to corroborating sources to count, the study has all the accouterments of intimidating credibility. But serious questions may be raised as to its logic as well as its objectivity.

  Biased, Flawed Studies

  For starters, this study doesn’t restrict itself to “Quantifying the contribution of major carbon producers to increases in vapor pressure deficit.” The authors can’t resist attacking these “major carbon producers.” In this revealing paragraph, the study’s true intent becomes apparent: it is fodder for litigation.

  With the impacts of climate change growing increasingly severe, questions of who is responsible for climate change, how much responsibility each entity bears, and the obligations of those entities to mitigate future climate change and assist financially with climate adaptation are more present than ever in policy negotiations and in courtrooms around the world. These questions are deepened by the fact that the fossil fuel industry was aware of the climate-related risks of their products as early as the mid-1960s (Franta 2018) and, instead of shifting business practices, invested in campaigns and tactics to mislead the public and generate doubt about climate science.

  That paragraph has nothing to do with the stated goal of the study. It just shows the political and legal context in which this study is designed to play a useful part. But what about the logic?

  Here is where this study falls apart. It’s always fascinating to wade through intellectual efforts that are the product of extraordinary diligence and rarified expertise, only to discover the absence of fundamental variables and realize that by leaving them out, the entire argument disintegrates.

  To explain what the authors got wrong, it is first necessary to summarize what they did. In plain English, the authors claim that hotter summers in recent years have caused more severe forest fires in the western United States, and fossil fuel emissions are causing the hotter summers.

  That’s it.

  To make their case, the authors have relied on a scientific term that imparts gravitas to the discussion, “vapor pressure deficit.” This is a big phrase that simply means “dry air.” The point they’re making is that it isn’t merely heat itself, but the fact that moisture is absent from the air, which causes trees to dry out faster and therefore become easier to ignite and burn. So far, so good. But there are at least two gaping holes in this reasoning. Both should be obvious.

  First, the heat waves afflicting western forests in recent years are not unique. Even in modern history, the hottest temperature ever recorded in California was in 2013, when it hit 134 degrees in Death Valley. As for whipsawing extremes, during the 1930s, a decade when hot temperatures rivaled if not exceeded those we experience today, the coldest temperature ever measured in California, negative 45 degrees, was recorded in Nevada County. But the last few centuries are a mere heartbeat in the meteorological history of California.

  Last year the San Jose Mercury breathlessly reported that the drought—over now, by the way—was the “worst in 1,200 years.” This raises the obvious question, what about that even bigger drought that occurred 1,200 years ago? This same newspaper in 2014 reported that “past dry periods lasted more than 200 years.” And so what about these multi-century droughts? Do we have temperature data for them? Was it hot? What was the vapor pressure deficit during these prehistoric, 200-year droughts? Such questions are not asked, much less answered.

  One can go on. Prehistoric Sequoias, the predecessors of redwood trees, first appeared in the fossil record 200 million years ago, when dinosaurs still walked the earth. In their current form, redwoods have thrived in California for over 20 million years. For most of that period, the average global temperatures were considerably higher than they are today.

  But what if it isn’t just heat, but dry heat, that is unprecedented today? What if the “vapor pressure deficit” is worse today than it has been at any time in 20 million years? That is a huge assumption, probably impossible to verify. Even if it’s true, it doesn’t make up for the study’s other flaw, which is the density of forests in California today, which is truly unprecedented. The study’s authors acknowledge they don’t take this variable into account, writing:

  Our results highlight the roles of major carbon producers in driving forest fire extent by enhancing fuel aridity, but do not explicitly account for effects from non-climatic factors such as the prohibition of Indigenous burning, legacies of fire suppression, or changing human ignitions.

  The authors go on to contend this omission has “not modified the climate-BA [burned area] relationship at the scale of this study.”

  They’re wrong.

  In California, wildlife biologists and forest ecologists who spend their lives studying and managing these timberlands unanimously agree that tree density has increased, thanks to “non-climatic factors such as the prohibition of Indigenous burning, and legacies of fire suppression.” The increase is not subtle. Without small, naturally occurring fires that clear underbrush and smaller trees, forests become overgrown. Controlled burns and responsible logging are absolutely necessary to maintain forest health. According to a study conducted in 2020 by UC Davis and USDA, California’s mid-elevation Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests used to average 60 trees per acre, and now they average 170 trees per acre according to conservative estimates.

  This is not an isolated finding. Observations of excessive tree density are corroborated by numerous studies, testimony, and journalistic investigations. Unlike the subjectively defined algorithms plugged into a climate model, excessive tree density is an objective fact, verified repeatedly by people on the ground. To imply by omission that more than tripling the density of trees across millions of acres of forest would not leave them stressed and starved for soil nutrients, sunlight, and water from rain and atmospheric moisture is scientific malpractice.

  Without taking these additional factors into account, it is deceptive to indict fossil fuel emissions for causing wildfires. Perhaps some indirect connection can be established of debatable relevance, but for this study to assign specific percentages and acreages suggests a premeditated purpose: creating material for expert testimony for litigation against oil companies.

  The Real Reason for Catastrophic Wildfires

  California’s forests are tinderboxes because environmentalists made it nearly impossible to get permits to do controlled burns and because environmentalists decimated the timber industry. In the face of relentless regulatory and litigious harassment, California’s timber industry has shrunk from harvesting 6 billion board feet per year as recently as the 1990s to less than 2 billion board feet in recent years. Meanwhile, California’s fire suppression industrial complex has grown to gargantuan proportions, pouring billions of dollars into putting fires out before they can spread.

  The result is predictable and doesn’t require a climate scientist to explain it. We have mismanaged our forests for decades, mostly thanks to the misguided influence of environmentalist pressure groups on the state legislature. California’s forests are now overcrowded with trees that are stressed, dried out, and ready to burst into flames, with or without a “vapor pressure deficit.”

  The solution, according to climate catastrophists, is to empty the dangerous, flammable “urban/wildland interface” of human habitation, mandate electric vehicles, and sue oil companies. This will accomplish nothing for the forests, even if every apocalyptic climate scenario were to come true. A rational solution would be to bring back the timber industry, deregulate controlled burns and mechanical thinning, revive responsible grazing of cattle, goats, and sheep to remove excessive foliage, and watch the forests again thrive.

  If mismanagement is what’s really causing forest superfires, media misinformation is what’s preventing policy reform. A Sacramento Bee headline, for example, says, “Fossil fuel companies to blame for share of California wildfires . . . ” From The Hill: “Scientists blame fossil fuel production for more than a third of Western wildfires.” From “Pulitzer Prize-winning” Inside Climate News: “Fossil Fuel Companies and Cement Manufacturers Could Be to Blame for a More Than a Third of West’s Wildfires.” None of these media reports mention tree density.

  The monolithic alignment of the scientific and journalistic community in support of an authoritarian, utterly impractical “climate” agenda reveals a misunderstanding if not outright betrayal of scientific and journalistic core values. Both disciplines are founded on the bedrock of skepticism and debate. Without nurturing those values, the integrity of these disciplines is undermined. When it comes to issues of climate and energy policy in America, science and journalism are compromised.

  Fossil Fuel Industry Failures

  Let’s suppose that back in the mid-1960s, oil companies were presented with a theory that fossil fuel emissions would cause the climate to warm. Wouldn’t their first rational response be to question this theory? Why would questioning a theory constitute “misleading the public”? Even if some of the executives in these companies believed these theories, it would be absurd to suggest all of them did. In any boardroom discussion, and this is amusingly ironic, the economic interests of an oil corporation would compel their directors to be intellectually honest and not simply accept the theory that their product was going to warm the planet. Good luck proving that oil companies intentionally misled the public.

  But so what? Were America’s oil and gas companies simply supposed to believe all these nascent theories and shut down? What exactly should they have done, back in the mid-1960s, to cope with this allegedly looming climate emergency? Were solar panels and wind turbines ready for rapid deployment back then? Of course not, especially since solar panels from China, and wind turbines from Germany, are still not capable of providing more than a small fraction of the energy we need.

  The real crime, if you want to call it that, isn’t that oil and gas companies questioned climate change theories back in the 1960s or ’70s. It’s that they’re accepting them now.

  Oil and gas companies today are not willing to challenge the climate crisis orthodoxy, or the myth of cost-effective renewables at scale. They aren’t willing to devote their substantial financial resources to debunking this agenda-driven madness that is on the verge of taking down our entire civilization. The fact that America’s oil and gas companies have adopted a strategy of appeasement is a crime against humanity. The fact that these companies are failing to make long-term investments to develop new oil and gas fields, and instead are reaping windfall profits as they sell existing production at politically inflated prices, that, too, is a crime against civilization.

  Ultimately, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the major oil companies are complicit in the destruction of America’s energy economy. Because rather than declaring total war on these paid-for, flawed scientific studies and the special interests that fund them, oil companies will engage in theatrical litigation, knowing that the cost of settlements won’t even come close to the short-term profits to be had by slowly asset stripping their companies while selling diminishing quantities of fuel at punitive rates.

  Epstein is right that we must criticize the “experts” that want to destroy human civilization with climate alarmism. But we must also recognize and criticize the institutions targeted for destruction. Instead of fighting this lunacy, they are taking their money off the table, along with their life-affirming affordable fuel, and heading for the hills.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 19:40

• Lavrov Hails China's "Balanced Position" On War As Ukraine Asked To Give Up Territory
  Lavrov Hails China’s “Balanced Position” On War As Ukraine Asked To Give Up Territory

  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hailed China’s “balanced position” on the conflict in Ukraine during a Friday meeting with Chinese special envoy Li Hui in Moscow.

  China has thus far resisted Western pressure to condemn Moscow, but has instead tried to present a neutral stance while issuing occasional statements condemning NATO expansion and US global dominance. Beijing has also been among a handful of Asian countries to have greatly expanded Russian energy imports since the start of the war.

  

  The Chinese envoy on Friday once again called for an immediate ceasefire, at a moment Russian forces are consolidating gains in Donetsk, particularly in Bakhmut where Wagner finally declared victory over the weekend following more than 200 days of fierce fighting.

  According to The Wall Street Journal Li Hui conveyed a clear message that: “US allies in Europe should assert their autonomy and urge an immediate ceasefire, leaving Russia in possession of the parts [of Ukraine] …that it now occupies.”

  China has also sent representatives to Ukraine and Europe, with EU officials conveying their stance that freezing the conflict was not in their interest. The Zelensky government too believes that a ‘freeze’ would only allow the Russians to resupply, regroup, and fortify their positions. Western allies have also been arguing against a freeze.

  EU officials reportedly told the Chinese envoy that “it’s impossible to split Europe from America” and that Europe remains committed and unified in support of Ukraine.

  According to a review of Friday’s meeting between Russian and Chinese representatives: 

  Russia’s Lavrov expressed gratitude for China’s “balanced position” and willingness to play a positive role in a meeting with China’s Ukraine envoy, the foreign ministry said.

  China’s Li Hui, who spent 10 years as ambassador to Moscow, has been on a tour of European capitals, and last week visited Kyiv.

  After those talks, China said it wanted to “form the greatest common denominator for resolving the Ukrainian crisis, and make its own efforts to stop the fighting and (establish a) ceasefire and restore peace as soon as possible”.

  Kyiv has told Li, however, that it would not accept any proposal that involved Ukraine losing territory.

  Hawks in both Britain and the United States have urged Ukraine to stay the course, despite mounting troop casualties in the tens of thousands. The UK especially has long been accused of actively thwarting attempts at peace talks which were proposed last year – instead encouraging Ukraine to ‘win’ militarily. President Zelensky has all the while maintained that talks with Moscow are impossible until Russian troops leave every bit of Ukrainian territory.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 19:20

• Americans Say Families Need $85,000 To Get By, Up From $58,000 In 2013
  Americans Say Families Need $85,000 To Get By, Up From $58,000 In 2013

  By Mary Claire Evans of Gallup

  Americans, on average, estimate that a family of four needs a minimum income of $85,000 annually to “get by” in their community, marking a considerable increase from a decade ago. The past decade has witnessed not only an increase in the average income required but also a notable shift in the upper range of income expectations.

  During that time, the proportion of Americans who believe that a family needs more than $100,000 to get by has tripled to 30%, while 18% now estimate it to be between $75,000 and $99,999, and 31% think it is $50,000 to $74,999. Half as many Americans now as in 2013 believe a family of four can get by on less than $50,000 annually. This includes 3% who estimate a figure lower than $30,000, and 11% who cite a figure between $30,000 and $49,999.

  

  The latest average of $85,000, from an April 3-25 Gallup poll, is notably higher than the federal poverty line for a family of four, which is currently $30,000.

  In 2013, the average estimate was $58,000, and the federal poverty line for a family of four was $23,550. Accounting for inflation and the subsequent change in purchasing power, Americans’ 2013 estimate translates to $75,668 in 2023 dollars. Their 2023 estimate therefore reflects an increase of about $9,000 in perceived family needs beyond what inflation alone would account for.

  Higher-Income Respondents Believe Families Need More

  Americans’ perceptions of the minimum income a family of four needs are influenced by their own financial circumstances. Specifically, those with an annual household income of $100,000 or more project $100,000, on average, as necessary for a family to get by. Middle-income respondents, those with between $40,000 and $99,999 in annual income, estimate a family needs about $80,000. Meanwhile, those earning less than $40,000 believe an income of about $66,000 suffices.

  

  Eastern, Suburban Residents Give Higher Estimates

  Geographical location also influences Americans’ perceptions of the income needed for a family of four to get by. Notably, residents in the Eastern U.S. estimate, on average, that families need an income of about $98,000, which is significantly more than the estimates from other regions. Residents in the Midwest have the lowest estimate, saying families need an average income of $76,000. These regional differences likely reflect variations in cost of living, housing prices and wage levels.

  Similarly, Americans’ views on the minimum income for a family of four are influenced by their urbanicity. Those residing in cities (about $87,000) and suburban areas ($91,000) project a higher required income for a family of four than those living in towns or rural areas ($78,000).

  

  These findings are similar to those from 2013, when Eastern and suburban residents’ estimates of what a family of four needs to get by were substantially higher than those given by people in other regions or urbanicities.

  Bottom Line

  The rise in perceived necessary income to support a family of four highlights the economic pressure facing American households as high inflation stretches into a second year.

  There is a diversity of socioeconomic realities across various population segments and geographic locations. Notably, individuals residing in urban and suburban areas, as well as those with higher incomes, tend to estimate a higher necessary income for a family of four. These patterns might reflect their cost-of-living circumstances as well as differences in perceptions of need and evolving lifestyle aspirations.

  The increasing estimate of required income may also be linked to the rise in two-income families. Americans’ average estimate for getting by sits at $85,000, an amount more likely to be reached only in families with dual incomes, further emphasizing the changing economic dynamics of American households.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 19:00

• Florida Citrus Industry Posts Worst Year Since 1930s After Hurricane Damage And Crop Disease
  Florida Citrus Industry Posts Worst Year Since 1930s After Hurricane Damage And Crop Disease

  Authored by Bryan Jung via The Epoch Times,

  Florida’s citrus industry posted its worse harvest since 1937, which should give orange fans some pause at the supermarket.

  

  Damage from the 2022 hurricane season, combined with the impact of citrus greening disease, is ravaging the Sunshine State’s orange crop.

  This will likely cause citrus prices to skyrocket nationwide, as Florida farmers recorded its smallest orange harvest in 90 years, according to the state’s latest agriculture report.

  The U.S. Department of Agriculture said in January that only 18 million boxes of Florida oranges would be on the market in 2023, a 56 percent drop from last year.

  Peak orange production in Florida is normally at 244 million boxes a year.

  “No doubt, as the supply of juice continues to rise because of the storms and the low harvest. The prices of oranges are gonna go up and that’s simple supply and demand,” Matt Joyner, CEO of Florida Citrus Mutual, told Fox Business.

  “We are devoted to getting back into production and making sure that the orange juice that Americans know and love is available to them. Hopefully, we’ll see these prices come back down soon.”

  

  Oranges hang on a tree at one of the Peace River Packing Company groves in Fort Meade, Fla., on Feb. 1, 2022. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

  Sparking Worldwide Shortages

  The collapse of Florida’s orange harvest is having effects worldwide, as the Sunshine State, along with Brazil, produces the majority of oranges for the global citrus market.

  The Wall Street Journal reported that the price for a gallon of orange juice in some parts of the United States is already above $6.

  U.S. orange prices have already risen 25 percent, while other countries have seen prices more than double.

  “Congress, back in December, appropriated money for disaster relief, and there was money for agriculture nationwide, which would include the disasters here in Florida from 2022,” said Joyner.

  “Unfortunately, we’ve not seen any of that aid make it down to the state yet, but we continue to have conversations with USDA, and we’re hopeful that maybe some of those funds will start flowing,” he added.

  The $9 billion citrus industry employs more than 76,000 full- and part-time workers and provides over 90 percent of orange juice consumed in the United States.

  Natural Disasters

  The University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences estimated that Hurricane Ian caused more than $1 billion in damage to the state’s agriculture industry, including $247 million to the citrus crop.

  Massive winds, rainfall, and flooding caused damage in nearly 77 percent of the state’s counties.

  

  Workers attempt to prop up with stakes the new growth orange trees in an orange grove in Arcadia, Fla., on Oct. 20, 2022, in the wake of Hurricane Ian. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

  However, the situation worsened with a hard freeze in January that ruined many surviving oranges.

  “It’s eight months after the storm and you can imagine the difficulty that growers are having in recovering and going on with their operations without any kind of disaster relief at all,” said Joyner.

  The advocacy group Florida Citrus Mutual, along with a delegation of citrus growers, met with USDA officials and members of Florida’s Congressional delegation in May to discuss further hurricane relief

  Farmers are currently more worried about the spread of citrus greening disease which was first detected in 2012 in California and is beginning to sweep the Florida peninsula.

  Some growers have planted disease-resistant orange tree rootstocks developed by University of Florida citrus researchers in a bid to save the industry.

  The bacteria are a threat to most of Florida’s citrus trees, leaving bitter, greenish fruits that are inedible.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 18:20

• US Corporations Are Filing For Bankruptcy At The Fastest Pace Since 2010
  US Corporations Are Filing For Bankruptcy At The Fastest Pace Since 2010

  One would not know it from looking at the S&P which just hit a 2023 high, but there is a bit of a bankruptcy crisis sweeping the US where companies are filing for bankruptcy at the fastest pace in 13 years, in a clear sign of a tightening credit squeeze as interest rates rise and financial markets have locked out all but the strongest borrowers.

  The increase is most visible among large companies, where there were 236 bankruptcy filings in the first four months of this year, more than double 2022 levels, and the fastest YTD pace since 2010 according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

  

  Several large recognizable companies with hundreds or thousands of workers have filed for bankruptcy protection in recent weeks, including Bed Bath & Beyond and Vice Media, although their financial troubles predated the recent economic turmoil.

  The bankruptcies did not slow down in May, when just the past week saw eight companies with more than $500 million in liabilities file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, including five in a single 24-hour stretch last week, making this the busiest week for chapter 11 filings so far this year. In 2022 the monthly average was just over three filings.

  Last week’s eight large filings, those with at least $50 million of liabilities, included those of now defunct woke “media empire” Vice Media, Envision Healthcare and Monitronics International. Prior to last week, the busiest seven-day stretch this year belonged to a week in late February that saw firms including Covid-19 testmaker Lucira Health, generic drugmaker Akorn and former SPAC Starry Group kick off insolvency proceedings

  

  In total, twenty-seven large debtors have filed for bankruptcy so far in 2023 compared to 40 for all of 2022, according to figures compiled by bankruptcydata.com.

  Among all types of companies, large and small, the increase in bankruptcies is somewhat more muted, with filings remaining below pre-pandemic levels and historic norms, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. However filings, especially among large, unprofitable companies, are ramping at a frenzied pace as interest rates rise, pandemic-era government support dries up and sales growth slows amid a cooling economy.

  There were about 16,200 bankruptcy filings among all types of companies in U.S. District Courts in the first quarter — up from 12,200 a year earlier, but still well below the 21,000-or-more-a-quarter in the pre-pandemic period, data from Moody’s Analytics shows. Even those pre-pandemic numbers were relatively low in historic terms, in part because low interest rates made it easy for companies to borrow.

  Now, S&P Global forecasts that the 12-month trailing default rate for speculative-grade securities will jump from the current 2.5% to 4.5% by early 2024.

  “The era of low interest rates and pandemic-related government support programs helped keep companies afloat that may have otherwise had few other options,” S&P analysts said of their large-company data. “Now that interest rates are back to pre-Great Recession levels and pandemic support programs are largely over, we’re seeing a fresh uptick in a possible sign that companies are running out of time.”

  Yields on junk bonds have more than doubled from less than 4% in mid-2021, as measured by the Bloomberg US High Yield Index. The Fed has warned that lenders could further contract the supply of credit to businesses after recent turmoil in the banking sector.

  

  “Our general view is that we are going to see an increase in ‘hard restructurings’, driven by the combination of higher debt levels from the borrowing binge of Covid and rising interest rates. The triggers will be running out money and inability to refinance maturing debt,” said Bill Derrough, an investment banker at Moelis who advises clients across distressed situations. “Some companies have used every trick in the book and now have run out of tricks.”

  Companies that sell nonessential consumer items have been harder hit than other sectors as Americans curb their spending amid high inflation, S&P said. Plant-Based Pizza Boston, catalogue retailer AmeriMark Interactive and the Party City retail chain are among the recent casualties.

  Last month, the dress retailer David’s Bridal filed for bankruptcy for the second time in 5 years, and said it was seeking a buyer, days after informing state labor departments that it planned to lay off more than 9,000 employees nationwide. The 70-year-old company said its business was weighed down by “the post-covid environment and uncertain economic conditions.”

  Perhaps the most notable recent bankruptcy was that of long-struggling Bed Bath & Beyond, which filed for bankruptcy in late April, got a boost from the wave of consumer spending during the pandemic — when Americans spent more time at home. But when the economic climate shifted and stubbornly high inflation reduced discretionary purchases, the retailer’s fortunes tumbled.

  Recent filings make clear how some large, indebted companies were clobbered by the end of easy money. A Vice Media bankruptcy filing last week disclosed that the company had been cash flow negative for several years, forcing it to borrow heavily to fund operations. As interest rates rose, it became costlier for Vice to refinance those loans. For a delightful read on the collapse of the faux-woke media empire, which at one point was valued by idiots at almost $6 billion, read the following FT report.

  Turmoil in the banking business in March also contributed to a small rise in bankruptcy filings in that sector this year, S&P said. The most notable filing was SVB Financial Group, the parent company of Silicon Valley Bank, which collapsed after a run on the bank’s deposits.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 18:00

• Breakthrough On Debt Deal Would Raise Limit, Cap Spending For Two Years – But Will Freedom Caucus Accept?
  Breakthrough On Debt Deal Would Raise Limit, Cap Spending For Two Years – But Will Freedom Caucus Accept?

  With the X-date for potential US default now estimated at June 5, House GOP and White House negotiators appear to be settling on an agreement to raise the debt limit and cap federal spending for two years, Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the discussions.

  

  That said, while the two sides have whittled down their differences over the past several days, the details are tentative, and a final agreement is not yet in sight. The two sides have yet to agree on the amount of the cap, however under the emerging agreement, defense spending would be allowed to rise 3% next year, which is in line with President Biden’s budget request.

  “We’re making progress and our goal is to make sure that we get a deal because default is unacceptable,” said Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo, who warned CNN that payments to Social Security beneficiaries, veterans and others would be delayed in the event of a default. “The president has committed to making sure that we have good-faith negotiations with the Republicans to reach a deal because the alternative is catastrophic for all Americans.”

  The emerging deal would also include a measure to upgrade the nation’s electric grid to be able to handle the massive requirements of renewable energy, a key goal for Democrats, while speeding up permits for pipelines and other fossil fuel projects demanded by Republicans.

  The deal would also cut $10 billion from an $80 billion increase for the IRS that the Biden administration included in the Inflation Reduction Act, after Republicans warned of a ‘wave’ of audits led by new agents. Democrats say the increase will pay for itself via less tax cheating.

  As Rabobank notes, the deal would cap just about everything aside from defense.

  How exactly ‘close’ is defined is unknown – earlier in the evening it was reported that Republicans still required more spending cuts worth USD 70 billion – and a temporary suspension of the debt limit might still be necessary.

  …

  In a note last week, our US strategist Philip Marey stated that a suspension of the debt limit is likely, but he also underscored that the risk is substantial that the X-date will pass without an agreement on anything, and hence that some payments would be missed. According to the Wall Street Journal, the administration is preparing a contingency plan, but supposedly it does not yet mention any prioritization of payments. It rather discusses how to deal with a breach administratively.

  As we noted earlier, putting this “deal” in context, the plan passed by the House GOP would reduce fiscal year ’24 spending by $130bn, or about 0.5% of GDP (setting aside the deficit saving from rescinding student debt forgiveness, which hasn’t been implemented yet and which may be struck down by the high court). At the other end, according to reports which indicate the White House may cap FY24 discretionary nondefense spending at FY23 levels would reduce spending by about 0.1% of GDP relative to a plausible baseline. So, the federal spending reduction for FY24 could range from 0.1% to 0.5% of GDP. The final “compromise” outcome – which may be announced as soon as Friday- will be a 0.2% spending cut.

  Spoiler alert: spending will be cut by 0.2% of GDP. That’s what all this drama is about – to make that seem like a giant sacrifice by both sides. https://t.co/Gb9vKWJr4e

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 26, 2023

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

  Today’s daily update from Treasury showed that after a $25 billion benefits payment to Social Security, the Treasury’s cash balance dropped by $27 billion to $49.5 billion, the lowest since 2021.

  

  That means that net of roughly $80 billion in extraordinary measures (this number will have its weekly update Friday after the close), the Treasury now has approximately $140 billion in accessible cash. Which brings us to the good news: even net of the sizable cash drain on June 1 (just over $100 billion in scheduled payments) the Treasury is likely to retain a sufficient cash balance on Jun 1, the date which Janet Yellen has previously said was the X-Date, to extend operations for at least several days without a technical default.

  Will the Freedom Caucus accept the deal?

  Given that what’s taking shape will be far less than Republicans’ opening offer – which called for raising the debt ceiling through March in exchange for 10 years of spending caps, House conservatives appeared to already be balking at the current framework. On Thursday, the House Freedom Caucus sent a letter to Speaker Kevin McCarthy demanding that he stand his ground.

  

  “We know where our differences lie,” said McCarthy to reporters at the Capitol, adding that his team plans to work through the holiday weekend.

  “We do not have an agreement yet. We knew this would not be easy. It’s hard, but we’re working. And we’re gonna continue to work till we get this done,” he said.

  Jan Hatzius and Alec Phillips of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said in a note to investors that odds were highest for an accord to be reached on Friday. “Negotiators appear to be closing in on an agreement.”

  Should a deal be reached soon, Tuesday is emerging as the likely day for a House vote. The Senate would then have to act quickly to send it to Biden’s desk before June 1, the date by which Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said her department could run out of cash. 

  The following day sees a payment due to millions of Social Security beneficiaries, putting pressure on politicians to resolve the impasse.

  One of the negotiators, Rep. Garrett Graves (R-LA) described progress as “slow” on Thursday night, adding that the White House was holding firm against GOP demands to add work requirements to the eligibility for Medicaid and other social welfare programs.

  “We have a lot of hangups,” he said. “But that’s one of the bigger issues.”

  When Republican negotiator Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina was asked Thursday evening what he would tell investors about the progress of talks, he shot back “Glad the market’s closed.“

  On Wednesday, Fitch Ratings placed the US’s AAA credit rating on watch for a potential downgrade – which hasn’t happened since 2011, when Congress was at a similar impasse. According to the White House and the Treasury, Fitch’s move demonstrates the urgency of reaching a speedy solution to the stalemate, however McCarthy said that negotiators don’t need a ratings agency to convey the importance of getting this done.

  Meanwhile, it appears that the Treasury market feels a deal is nearly in hand.

  

  

  Then again…

  U.S Treasury bonds are junk, no matter what the rating agencies claim. That’s because when it comes to sovereign debt the real risk is #inflation, not default. Anyone buying a 30-year U.S. Treasury is basically guaranteed to lose over 90% of their purchasing power.

  — Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) May 25, 2023

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

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 17:58

• The End Of Dollar Supremacy
  The End Of Dollar Supremacy

  Authored by John Rapley via UnHerd.com,

  The West’s imperial lifecycle is drawing to a close…

  

  In January 1999, in a Washington of bustling bars and soaring stock markets, Bill Clinton rose to deliver his State of the Union address. America was so untroubled by threat or misfortune that it had spent the previous year debating the precise significance of fellatio. But Clinton, who had survived the scandal, exuded unshakeable personal and civilisational self-confidence. Declaring “a new dawn for America” and a future of “limitless possibility”, he called on Congress to decide how to spend all the record surpluses the government was soon going to enjoy. America’s only inconvenience, it seemed, was too much money. Today, as America struggles to support a crumbling dollar, marshal allies against Russia, ward off a rising China, it’s easy to forget that barely two decades ago it strode the planet like a colossus.

  But pride before a fall has an ancient lineage, and only the arrogance of the historical present could treat American imperial decline as a novel phenomenon, let alone mere metaphor. Some 16 centuries before Clinton, in an uncannily similar setting of domes and colonnades, a Roman orator stood before the imperial Senate to deliver an equally triumphal speech. It was 1 January 399, inauguration day for the latest in a millennium-old line of consuls, the most prestigious Roman office. This year’s candidate was Flavius Mallius Theodorus. After rising to praise his audience — “here I see gathered all the brilliance of the world” — he went on to proclaim the dawn of a new Golden Age, celebrating the unparalleled prosperity of the Empire.

  Rome’s rapid comeuppance is now a historical parable that America can learn from in real-time. Because the rhetoric of Clinton and his ancient predecessor was spoken from atop the crest of the same wave: an identical process of rise and decline which Peter Heather and I, in our new book, call “the imperial lifecycle”. Empires grow rich and powerful and attain supremacy through the economic exploitation of their colonial periphery. But in the process, they inadvertently spur the economic development of that same periphery until it can roll back and ultimately displace its overlord.

  America has never thought of itself as an empire, mainly because with the exception of the few islands in the Pacific and Caribbean, it has never accumulated a large network of overseas territories. But this modern European model, in which colonies were (and in a few cases, still are) administered by governors who answered directly to the imperial capital, was but one of many. The late Roman Empire, for instance, functioned as an “inside-out” empire — effectively run from the provinces, with Rome serving more as a spiritual than administrative capital. What held it all together was the shared culture of the provincial nobility that ran it, most of whom has provincial origins but had been socialised into what Peter Heather has called the imperial culture of “Latin, towns and togas”.

  The American Empire — or more accurately the American-led Western empire — mirrors this confederal model, with an updated cultural-political glue that we might call “neoliberalism, Nato and denim”. Under this regime, the nation-state was primary, borders were inviolable, relatively open trade and capital movement prevailed, governing elites  were committed to liberal principles, and bureaucracy was based on increasingly standardised education systems (with economics training assuming an increasingly central role as the century progressed). But since its establishment in 1944 at the Bretton Woods conference, its fundamental economic model has been in the timeless imperial mould: exploitation of the periphery to the benefit of the imperial core.

  The great wave of decolonisation that followed the war was meant to end that. But the Bretton Woods system, which created a trading regime that favoured industrial over primary producers and enshrined the dollar as the global reserve currency, ensured that the net flow of financial resources continued to move from developing countries to developed ones. Even when the economies of the newly-independent states grew, those of the G7 economies and their partners grew more. And while the treaty arrangements that cemented this system were periodically updated at international summits, even then the US and its main trading partners would typically draft a deal for sign-off by everyone else. As a result, the gap between rich and poor countries grew bigger than ever.

  Clinton was speaking at the all-time peak of this American imperial order. Two years earlier, a financial crisis that had begun in Asia had ricocheted across the developing world. And when protesters filled streets and governments across the Global South collapsed, the rich in developing countries panicked and sent their money into the safe haven of US Treasury paper. That influx of cash sent the late Nineties US economy into overdrive, creating the abundance that Clinton took to be endless.

  In fact, as he was speaking, the overall flow of global capital had already begun moving the other way. By this time, quietly but steadily, developing countries like China and India had shaken off the torpor of earlier decades and were starting to grow in leaps and bounds. The brief recessions induced in developing countries by the Asian Crisis and the consequent boom in the West obscured the fact that the really dynamic economies of the world were now in what was called the Third World. Once the protests died down and normal business resumed there, investors in the developing world — followed by fund-managers in Western countries — sent their money back to the growing economies of the global periphery.

  In the Roman Empire, peripheral states developed the political and military capacity to end Roman domination by force. In the modern case, the conflict was fought through diplomatic, economic and political channels. The year of Clinton’s panegyric now looks pivotal — not only for the changing capital winds, but because of what happened at that year’s World Trade Organization summit in Seattle. After decades in which they’d more or less signed off on done-and-dusted deals, delegations from some of the big developing countries got together, refused to go along and brought the negotiations to a halt. As their diplomatic and political capacity rose to match their economic heft, developing countries were now demanding, and getting, better deals.

  The Third World was rising, and it quickly showed in the economic data. On the eve of the millennium, the cusp of its supremacy — a supremacy no other empire in history had come remotely close to matching — the West accounted for four-fifths of the global economy. Today, that’s down to three-fifths, and falling. The fastest-growing economies in the world are now all in the old periphery; the worst-performing economies are disproportionately in the West. These are the economic trends that have created our present landscape of superpower conflict — most saliently between America and China. A once-mighty empire is now challenged and feels embattled. Taken aback by the refusal of so many developing countries to join in isolating Russia, the West is now waking up to the reality of the emerging, polycentric and fluid global order.

  These trends are only set to continue. But this is where America and Rome diverge. The Roman Empire existed at a time where there was one fixed factor of production: land. The economy was therefore necessarily steady-state and overwhelmingly agricultural. For the periphery to rise, the core had to fall, as the barbarian invaders seized physical Roman real estate. But in the modern world, where continued technological progress means economies can keep moving forward, if more slowly, decline may only need to be relative. The West can continue to grow, and to play a pre-eminent role in global governance.

  But meek acceptance isn’t what builds empires in the first place. The danger is that, obsessed with past glories and tempted by a desire to turn back the clock, Western countries attempt to restore their greatness. Since its own imperial marginalisation, Britain has been possessed by a manic and counter-productive declinism, most recently responding to the 2008 crash with a programme of austerity that has sunk its economy into what may become a permanent decay. America’s interminable annual wranglings over debt ceilings could, if they continue, diminish the attractiveness of the dollar, at a time when developing countries are looking for alternatives.

  The fate of the West hangs in the balance, and it must stop drawing the wrong lessons from Roman history, not the least of which is a stubborn refusal to accept a diminished role in its world. After all, the Roman Empire might have survived had it not weakened itself with wars of choice on its ascendant Persian rival. By finding a way to coexist peacefully with its own rival China, however uncomfortable that may be, the US could do itself and the world a favour.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 05/26/2023 – 17:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest