- Bulgaria Refuses To Send Weapons To Ukraine, Joins Hungary & Austria's Neutral Stance
Bulgaria Refuses To Send Weapons To Ukraine, Joins Hungary & Austria’s Neutral Stance
For the time being, Bulgaria will not send any military equipment to Ukraine…
After Austria and Hungary, Bulgaria has also joined the minority group of European Union countries that refuse to send weapons to Ukraine, news and opinion portal Mandiner reports.
Bulgaria has declared that it will not take part in the EU’s joint ammunition purchase program, nor will it supply fighter jets or tanks to Ukraine, Euronews reports. Bulgarian President Rumen Radev is under enormous pressure from opposition parties, but he has said he stands by his position.
“Bulgaria does not support and is not involved in the joint procurement of ammunition for Ukraine. However, we will support efforts to restore peace. As long as the interim government is in power, Bulgaria will not make its fighter aircraft, anti-aircraft missile systems, tanks and other equipment available to Ukraine,” said Radev.
At the end of January, Hungarian Defense Minister Kristóf Szalay-Bobrovniczky and his Austrian counterpart, Klaudia Tanner, said in Budapest that neither country will offer any kind of military assistance to Ukraine in order to “prevent further escalation.”
Although many of its Western allies accuse Hungary of siding with Russia in the war based on its firm stance of not sending weapons to Ukraine, last December Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said that his government is simply on the side of the Hungarians.
“We are pro-Hungarian,” Orbán told daily Magyar Nemzet in an interview.
“We are on the side of the Hungarians in the Russian-Ukrainian war.”
Orbán argued that while it is important to his government that Russia poses no security threat, continued economic relations are essential for not only Hungary but also the entire European economy.
“The answer to the question of whether we are on the right or wrong side of history is that we are on the Hungarian side of history. We support and help Ukraine, it is in our interest to preserve a sovereign Ukraine, and it is in our interest that Russia does not pose a security threat to Europe, but it is not in our interest to give up all economic relations with Russia. We are looking at these issues through Hungarian glasses, not through anyone else’s,” Orbán said.
Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/28/2023 – 02:00 - The Real Insurrection, And The Dirty Politics Of Jan. 6
The Real Insurrection, And The Dirty Politics Of Jan. 6
Authored by Franke Miele via RealClear Wire,
The Democrats say that Jan. 6 was the worst attack on American democracy since the Civil War. They call it an insurrection, but if it was indeed the worst since 1865, no one but a fool would dare claim it even remotely approached the scale of the bloody war between the states.
And if you weren’t a fool, you might conclude that Jan. 6 was nothing like an insurrection. It wasn’t violent in the sense of an armed rebellion. It wasn’t organized. And it didn’t seek to overthrow the government, but to protect the Constitution. In more ways than not, it was a defense of American democracy, not an attack on it.
In every particular, Jan. 6 was a pale shadow compared to the Civil War. To start with, it lasted less than six hours, whereas the Civil War lasted four long years. The war between the North and South cost the lives of 620,000 soldiers and another 50,000 civilians. The Jan. 6 incursion at the U.S. Capitol, on the other hand, claimed the lives of just two women protesters, Ashli Babbitt and Roseanne Boyland. Among the defenders of the Capitol, police officer Brian Sicknick died after suffering two strokes the next day, but without a direct known connection to the riot. Two other protesters died of natural causes during the siege, and four law officers died by suicide in the months following the attack. If you count all of those as legitimate casualties of Jan. 6, then the total comes to nine compared to a minimum of 670,000 in the Civil War.
It would be impossible to exaggerate the stark differences between Jan. 6 and the Civil War.
Yet somehow, the Democrats (yes, members of the same Democratic Party that instigated the Civil War) were able to use the Jan. 6 incursion of the Capitol as a means to terrorize their political enemies and to punish those who used their rights of free speech and free thought to question the legitimacy of the Biden presidency.
As of March 6, 2023, more than 1,000 people have been charged with crimes stemming from the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. But the Biden administration is not done seeking its pound of flesh from Trump supporters. Last week, we learned that the Department of Justice (hereinafter the Department of Retaliation) had sent a letter to the chief judge of the D.C. federal court warning that between 700 and 1,200 more people will be charged with Jan. 6 crimes. More than two years after the fact! That brings the total of citizens likely to be charged to approximately 2,000, and according to the White House these are all domestic terrorists.
Now, to be clear, there was at least one instance of terrorism on Jan. 6, 2021, when pipe bombs were planted at the national headquarters of both the Republican and Democratic parties. But the perpetrator of that failed attack has never been identified, let alone charged. Instead, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the House Jan. 6 select committee and the White House have focused on making examples out of American citizens who believed that a corrupt election had been held in 2020.
By insisting that U.S. elections are always beyond reproach, the Democrats and their allies in the media have de facto criminalized the formerly protected speech of millions of Americans who have lost confidence in the electoral system. And the Justice Department, on behalf of President Biden, has decided to make an example of the Jan. 6 protesters in order to quell dissent among Republicans who might otherwise be tempted to carry a Trump flag to the Capitol.
If you don’t think that the prosecution, and accompanying lengthy jail sentences, of 2,000 protesters for entering the Capitol on Jan. 6 is excessive, consider this:
Following the real insurrection, the Civil War, hardly any of the 1 million men who fought on behalf of the Confederacy were charged with any crimes, let alone treason. That’s because President Abraham Lincoln, and President Andrew Johnson after him, recognized the importance of binding the nation together following the tumultuous war years. Instead of seeking retaliation, and humiliation of former enemies, they (and most Northerners) sought reconciliation and understanding. Forgiveness, not punishment, was the watchword.
In a Christmas Day proclamation in 1868, Johnson granted “a full pardon and amnesty to all persons engaged in the late rebellion.” He wrote, in part:
[A] universal amnesty and pardon for participation in said rebellion extended to all who have borne any part therein will tend to secure permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people, and their respect for and attachment to the National Government, designed by its patriotic founders for the general good.
Further, Johnson declared:
…unconditionally, and without reservation, to all and to every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion, a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.
Now compare that to the zealous and unyielding pursuit by Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice of the Jan. 6 protesters, the vast majority of whom neither waged war, nor committed treason, but only trespassed in an effort to assure that their grievances were heard. Unbelievably, many of those protesters remain in jail 26 months after the riot without ever having received the speedy trial they are promised by the Constitution, and others – once convicted – face lengthy prison terms in unfathomable conditions.
What does the DOJ say about its mission? Here’s an excerpt from the department’s March 6 update:
[T]he investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the attack continues to move forward at an unprecedented speed and scale. The Department of Justice’s resolve to hold accountable those who committed crimes on January 6, 2021, has not, and will not, wane.
As I said before, it’s the Department of Retaliation, and there’s no reason to think it will end there. The special counsel appointed to investigate Donald Trump’s possession of classified documents and his actions and words on Jan. 6 represents a new low in American politics. No matter how Merrick Garland or Joe Biden spin it, this is not about justice, but about eliminating the biggest threat to Biden’s reelection.
Where is James Comey when you need him? Remember when the former FBI director recited the not insubstantial case against Hillary Clinton for possession of classified information on an illegal server, and then declared “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case”? That is exactly how most nonpartisan people feel about the case against Trump, who, unlike Hillary, was president and actually had the power to declassify any documents in his possession.
Even more outrageous is claiming that Trump was guilty of treason or inciting a riot because he asked his supporters to walk from the Ellipse to the Capitol on Jan. 6 “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” That’s not incitement; it’s First Amendment-protected political speech. And when Trump said, “We fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” he wasn’t talking about invading the Capitol; he was specifically talking about fighting against election fraud. Any other interpretation is disingenuous.
Yet the Department of Retaliation continues its relentless assault on Trump supporters like a bureaucratic version of Inspector Javert from “Les Miserables.” Instead of showing the magnanimity of President Johnson following the Civil War, the Democratic administration of Joe Biden insists on fracturing our society even more than it was at the end of the Trump administration.
Remember Andrew Johnson’s words? He said that a pardon “will tend to secure permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people.” Why can’t the Democrats and their sympathizers like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger see that their obdurate persecution of Trump voters will have the opposite effect? Instead of bringing their opponents to heel, they will just foment greater hatred and distrust among those who already feel abandoned and rejected by their government.
Or maybe the Democrats do know exactly what they are doing. Spanish-born and American-educated philosopher George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” but maybe even more dangerous are those who distort the past. They condemn the rest of us to a legacy of permanent chaos, lies, and animosity, and of course they expect us to shut up and take it. There was no insurrection on Jan. 6, but that doesn’t mean the people will be patient forever.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 23:40 - Over 3,000lbs Of Beef Recalled Over Possible E. Coli Contamination
Over 3,000lbs Of Beef Recalled Over Possible E. Coli Contamination
A Kansas meat packing company has recalled approximately 3,436 lbs of boneless beef chuck product due to potential contamination with E. coli, according to the US Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
A routine FSIS inspection of a sample of ground beef made from the boneless beef chuck tested positive for this strain of E. coli, also known as STEC O103, after which the the Harper, Kansas-based outfit issued the recall.
The affected beef products were packaged on Feb. 16, 2023. The recall applies to all corrugated boxes of various weights containing “Elkhorn Valley Pride Angus Beef 61226 BEEF CHUCK 2PC BNLS; Packed on 2/16/23.”
The FSIS has provided a list of serial numbers and box count numbers on their website, according to the Epoch Times, which notes that the affected products were shipped to distributors, federal establishments, retail locations and wholesale locations – including hotels, restaurants, and institutions, in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Consumers are advised not to use or distribute the affected products, and throw them out or return them to where they were purchased.
0103
As the Epoch Times notes;
STEC O103 infection can cause bloody diarrhea and vomiting, and some illnesses can last longer and be more severe.
Most people recover within a week, but some can develop a more severe infection, including hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which is a type of kidney failure. HUS can occur in people of any age but is most common in children under five years old, older adults, and those with weakened immune systems.
“It is marked by easy bruising, pallor, and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately,” FSIS said.
FSIS says that it routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to ensure the product is no longer available to consumers.
To prevent foodborne illnesses, the FSIS recommends that all consumers prepare their raw meat products safely, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef products that have been cooked to a temperature of 160° Fahrenheit.
According to the FSIS, using a food thermometer that measures internal temperature is the only way to confirm that ground beef has been cooked to a high enough temperature to kill harmful bacteria.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 23:20 - Contract Confirms US Government Received $400 Million From Major COVID-19 Vaccine Manufacturer
Contract Confirms US Government Received $400 Million From Major COVID-19 Vaccine Manufacturer
Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The U.S. government has released the licensing agreement it hammered out with vaccine manufacturer Moderna but has refused to confirm many payment details.
A nurse fills up a syringe with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine in a file image. (Sergio Flores/Getty Images) Moderna agreed to pay the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to license spike protein technology the company included in its COVID-19 vaccine, the contract confirms.
Moderna resisted for years acknowledging the work by government researchers on the spike protein but relented in late 2021 and announced the contract during an earnings call on Feb. 23.
Moderna said it provided a “catch-up payment” of $400 million to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the NIH, under the agreement.
The newly disclosed contract says that Moderna would pay the NIH a “noncreditable, nonrefundable royalty in the amount of Four Hundred Million dollars.”
Portions that would confirm Moderna’s statement that the company would pay “low single digit royalties” on future sales of its COVID-19 vaccines are redacted.
The contract, running 34 pages, has key sections redacted as to future royalties.
One section, for instance, says, “The licensee agrees to pay to the NIAID earned royalties on net sales … as follows.” But the rest of the section is redacted.
The Epoch Times obtained the contract through the Freedom of Information Act.
The NIH cited for the redactions an exemption to the act that enables agencies to withhold “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.”
“They redacted the royalties, even though there have been press releases about the royalties,” James Love, director of the nonprofit Knowledge Ecology International, told The Epoch Times via email. “It’s common but [expletive] to redact royalties on a negotiated license on a government patent.”
Unredacted information in the contract confirmed that Moderna had agreed to pay the NIH royalties before the agreement took effect in late 2022: a “minimum annual royalty,” “earned royalties,” and “benchmark royalties.”
The contract was signed on Dec. 14, 2022, by Michael Mowatt, director of the Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Office at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Shannon Klinger, chief legal officer at Moderna.
The payments would include a royalty within 60 days after government officials provided a “reasonable detailed written statement and request” for an amount “equivalent to a pro rata share of the unreimbursed patent expenses previously paid by the NIAID.”
Moderna has made nearly $37 billion from its COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. It has forecast $5 billion in revenue from the vaccines in 2023. Moderna and Pfizer both received enormous government contracts for their vaccines, which helped in development and manufacturing.
Shares Ownership
The NIH shares ownership of the spike protein technology that Moderna utilized with researchers at Scripps Research Institute and Dartmouth University’s Geisel School of Medicine. Both are named as partners in the contract.
While it’s unclear from the contract what specific revenue the partners will receive from Moderna, Dartmouth said previously it would make money through the agreement.
Read more here…
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 23:00 - Jim Jordan Demands Docs After IRS "Attempt To Intimidate" Journalist Matt Taibbi During Govt Weaponization Hearing
Jim Jordan Demands Docs After IRS “Attempt To Intimidate” Journalist Matt Taibbi During Govt Weaponization Hearing
“Lois Lerner ain’t got shit on me…”
Sometimes the hubris and self-delusion just goes too far…
It has been eleven years since Lois Lerner presided over (and then apologized for) the IRS targeting of conservatives during the 2012 election.
But her “inappropriate… error of judgment” may just have been turned up to ’11’ as during the day when independent journalist Matt Taibbi was in Washington DC delivering testimony to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on March 9, an IRS agent visited his home in New Jersey, leaving a note demanding he contact the agency within four days.
That’s very odd
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 28, 2023
“Odd” indeed, Mr. Musk.
As The Wall Street Journal reports, Mr. Taibbi was told in a call with the agent that both his 2018 and 2021 tax returns had been rejected owing to concerns over identity theft.
The journalist has provided House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan’s committee with documentation showing his 2018 return had been electronically accepted, and he says the IRS never notified him or his accountants of a problem after he filed that 2018 return more than four-and-a-half years ago.
He says the IRS initially rejected his 2021 return, which he later refiled, and it was rejected again – even though Mr. Taibbi says his accountants refiled it with an IRS-provided pin number.
Mr. Taibbi notes that in neither case was the issue “monetary,” and that the IRS owes him a “considerable” sum.
The bigger question on everyone’s minds (most of all Rep. Jordan) is simple – since when did the IRS dispatch agents for surprise house calls? Is this the new $80 billion budget being well spent to ‘send a message’ to a reporter telling the truth?
The coincidental timing of this unannounced IRS agent visit prompted Rep. Jordan to write to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, demanding answers:
“In light of the hostile reaction to Mr. Taibbi’s reporting among left-wing activists, and the IRS’s history as a tool of government abuse, the IRS’s action could be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate a witness before Congress. We expect your full cooperation with our inquiry.”
Jordan added that “the circumstances… are incredible,” and “demand a careful examination by the Committee to determine whether the visit was a thinly-veiled attempt to influence or intimidate a witness before Congress.”
And the committee Chair demanded that the IRS and Treasury provide the following documents and information:
1. All documents and communications referring or relating to the IRS’s field visit to the residence of Matthew Taibbi on March 9, 2023;
2. All documents and communications between or among the IRS, Treasury Department, and any other Executive Branch entity referring or relating to Matthew Taibbi; and
3. All documents and communications sent or received by Revenue Officer [James Nelson] referring or relating to Matthew Taibbi.
Yellen and Werfel were given until April 10th to comply with the request.
Will this arrogant show of disdain for democracy – this clear and present danger exposed of government agency ‘weaponization’ at its very apex – be the Alonzo Harris’ undoing of ‘untouchable’ Democratic Party’s grip on power?
We will have to wait and see if Rep. Jordan’s demands for documents are met?
* * *
Read Rep. Jordan’s full letter to The IRS and Treasury below:
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 22:40 - Study Confirms Physical Exercise Should Be First Choice For Mental Health Treatment
Study Confirms Physical Exercise Should Be First Choice For Mental Health Treatment
Authored by Jennifer Marguilis via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
In a funk? Do you: a) reach for a bag of potato chips, b) call a friend, c) pop an extra anti-depressant, or d) head for the gym to sweat out the sadness?
(Maridav/Shutterstock) For years, studies have shown that exercise is one of the best ways to treat a range of mental health issues. A new analysis of that whole body of research makes this clearer than ever.
This new study, which was conducted by a team of 13 Australian scientists, was published in February in the British Medical Journal’s British Journal of Sports Medicine.
As the researchers explored, pharmaceuticals are usually the first response to mental health issues worldwide, with lifestyle adjustments like exercise, sleep hygiene, and a healthy diet considered merely as complementary choices, at best.
Even when lifestyle changes are recommended, they are seldom prescribed to patients in treatment by medical doctors.
A Vast Evidence Base
In order to synthesize the evidence on the positive and negative effects of physical activity on depression, anxiety, and psychological distress in adults, the Australian researchers performed an “umbrella overview,” a comprehensive analysis of all the work that has been done on the subject to date.
The idea behind an umbrella review of this type is to try to quantify the strength of the signal.
One scientific study provides some direct evidence that a treatment is useful; but when hundreds of studies confirm each other, taken together, these studies more strongly suggest that a treatment or intervention may be widely effective and applicable.
Since so much research has been done in the field of exercise and mental health, the Australian team sought to examine the totality of the evidence.
To that end, they looked at nearly a hundred reviews, comprising over a thousand studies done, on over 100,000 participants. In other words, they conducted a “systematic [review] of systematic reviews, synthesizing a vast evidence base.”
Exercise Best Treatment for Depression
Mental health is often pushed to the fringe of health care, but half of all people experience some mental health distress at some point in their lives, and more than 10 percent of people worldwide are currently struggling with mental health.
Anxiety is the most common problem—and seems to be becoming more pronounced among children and younger adults—while depression poses the greatest burden to normal life function.
The Australian researchers discovered that exercise provided the best results when used for treating depression. More specifically, exercise was 150 percent more effective than pharmaceuticals or Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT).
It was also better than psychological consultation or “talk therapy.” In fact, exercise was shown to reduce depressive symptoms by 42 to 60 percent, whereas talk therapy and pharmaceuticals only reduced symptoms between 22 percent and 37 percent.
Exercise was shown to be the best treatment for both anxiety and depression, even though pharmaceuticals are the most commonly recommended treatment for both.
Any Kind of Exercise Works
Every kind of exercise worked. The numerous studies looked at many types and schedules of exercise, and they all worked—doing any movement regularly (including dancing, walking, and yoga) was a big improvement over doing nothing.
Read more here…
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 22:20 - GM To Discontinue Current Camaro, No "Immediate Successor" Announced
GM To Discontinue Current Camaro, No “Immediate Successor” Announced
As the legacy auto industry continues its government-mandated business model shift to EVs, the current generation of the Chevrolet Camaro appears to have become collateral damage.
The once popular American muscle car is going out of production, according to General Motors, who announced last week that the sports car as it exists today would be “bowing out” after the current model and a final “collector’s edition”.
While the vehicle has done well on the racetrack, sales have slowed over recent years, the NY Post added. They reported that by the end of 2021, current generation Camaro sales had fallen almost 70%.
Chevrolet sold 72,705 of the current generation when it was released in 2016 and that number fell to 21,893 by the end of 2021.
“After nine strong model years in the market, with hundreds of thousands sold, the sixth generation Chevrolet Camaro will retire at the conclusion of model year 2024.The final sixth generation Camaros will come off the assembly line at the Lansing Grand River Assembly Plant in Michigan in January 2024,” the release said.
Scott Bell, vice president, Global Chevrolet, commented: “As we prepare to say goodbye to the current generation Camaro, it is difficult to overstate our gratitude to every Camaro customer, Camaro assembly line employee and race fan. While we are not announcing an immediate successor today, rest assured, this is not the end of Camaro’s story.”
GM continued:
Chevrolet will celebrate this storied nameplate with the addition of the Collector’s Edition package on the 2024 Camaro RS and SS, and on a limited number of ZL1 equipped vehicles available in North America. The Collector’s Edition pays homage to Camaro, resurfacing ties that date back to the development of the first generation Camaro in the 1960s, most notably the program’s initial code name: Panther.
Regarding the move’s effect on Camaro and Chevrolet’s presence around the race track, Jim Campbell, Chevrolet U.S. vice president, Performance and Motorsports, concluded: “Chevrolet’s products and our relationship with our customers benefit from motorsports. Our plan is to continue to compete and win at the highest levels of auto racing.”
“Chevrolet campaigns the sixth generation Camaro in a variety of series, including NASCAR, IMSA, SRO, NHRA and the Supercars Championship. Camaro will continue to compete on track, working with motorsports sanctioning bodies to ensure Chevrolet’s presence in racing moving forward,” GM concluded.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 22:00 - FBI Lawyer Hoped Justice Department Would 'Reconsider' 2021 Memo On Alleged School Board Threats
FBI Lawyer Hoped Justice Department Would ‘Reconsider’ 2021 Memo On Alleged School Board Threats
Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Documents the FBI recently released show that a lawyer for the agency expressed her reservations about a draft version of U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Oct. 4, 2021 memo that initiated a controversial federal effort to investigate alleged harassment at school board meetings around the country.
Attorney General Merrick Garland delivers remarks at an event commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Gideon v. Wainwright Supreme Court decision, at the National Press Club in Washington on March 16, 2023. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) The documents, which the America First Legal Foundation (AFL) recently obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, showed FBI attorney Miriam Coakley expressed her hope that Garland and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) would reconsider their actions.
“Not sure if you’ve seen this/weighed in—it was just raised to my attention,” Coakley wrote in an Oct. 4, 2021 email to Corey Frazier Ellis. Ellis was serving at the time as chief of staff for FBI Director Christopher Wray before Garland appointed him in December of that year to serve as the Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina.
“I hope DOJ reconsiders,” Coakley added in her email.
After Coakley contacted him, Ellis raised the issue to Norman Wong, the then director of the DOJ’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), writing “we are asking that the memo be revised,” to which Wong replied: “It’s a little too late.”
The DOJ proceeded to publish Garland’s memo that day, along with a larger press statement describing the formation of a task force that would include the FBI and the DOJ’s Criminal, National Security, and Civil Rights Divisions.
2021 Garland Memo Set Off Controversy
At the time, Garland and the DOJ cited “an increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers” in their decision to launch the new DOJ task force.
The new task force came as parents had been protesting school boards around the country over their COVID-19 policies and the inclusion of critical race theory (CRT) principles in school curricula. On Sept. 29, 2021—just days before Garland’s memo—the National School Boards Association (NSBA) sent a letter (pdf) to President Joe Biden and the DOJ, raising concerns about disruptions to school board meetings and claiming the harassment they were experiencing was akin to domestic terrorism or hate crimes. The NSBA letter called on the DOJ to use its National Security and Counter-terrorism components to investigate these school board incidents and use counter-terrorism laws—like the PATRIOT Act—to prosecute them.
The NSBA letter and Garland’s subsequent decision to form a new task force to investigate disruptions at schools and school board meetings received pushback from Republican officials. A Group of State Attorneys General sent a letter (pdf) disputing the NSBA’s claims and arguing that the DOJ’s subsequent actions could be used as a pretext to chill lawful free speech.
The NSBA went on to retract its letter and said “there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.” Despite that NSBA retraction, Garland continued to defend his decision to form the new DOJ task force.
“All it asks is for federal law enforcement to consult with, meet with local law enforcement to assess the circumstances, strategize about what may or may not be necessary to provide federal assistance, if it is necessary,” Garland said in response to questions at the time from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). Garland said his memo “alters some of the language in the [NSBA] letter that we did not rely on.”
Read more here…
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 21:40 - Big City Politicians Need To Take Crime Seriously
Big City Politicians Need To Take Crime Seriously
Authored by Gabriel Nadales via RealClear Wire,
There have been several signs recently that voters are sick and tired of the anti-police policies causing crime to skyrocket in big cities. What will it take for politicians in these cities to get the message?
Last year, former San Francisco district attorney Chesa Boudin was thrown out of office for implementing radical, pie-in-the-sky policies that caused crime to rapidly increase. While many thought Boudin’s ouster in one of America’s most progressive cities would be a turning point, it was just a bump in the road for the radical soft-on-crime movement.
Walmart recently decided to shut down all of its stores in Portland, Ore., after months of record-breaking theft with no response from the local government. New York’s crime rate has been steadily increasing since the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise of the “defund the police” movement, after crime rates had been falling in the Big Apple for several years.
Just this month, the District of Columbia’s government had to be reprimanded by Congress for attempting to implement a policy that would’ve eliminated cash bail and reduced sentences for offenses such as carjackings – even though carjackings have been occurring at an astonishing rate in the district.
If Congress didn’t have the lawful yet unusual authority over the district to rescind the law, D.C. would’ve been yet another feather in the cap of anarchists.
Meanwhile, in Chicago, Lori Lightfoot became the first mayor to lose reelection in over 40 years as the rising crime in her city led to her downfall. Just a few days ago I visited Chicago, and it was obvious to me that Chicagoans have had to learn to adapt to the constant threat of violent crime.
One day as I left my hotel to grab some food, I could tell that I scared several people merely by walking past them. I noticed that a guy around my age slowed down to let me pass out of a sense of caution while putting himself between me and his girlfriend. An older Hispanic woman crossed the street to avoid me, and another man kept his distance at a crosswalk while looking at me from the corner of his eye.
But people weren’t just cautious of me, but also of each other. It was sad to see that the citizens of a once-great American city are unable to trust that a random stranger walking down the sidewalk won’t harm them.
Crime is a practical, everyday issue, like inflation, that people can palpably feel. And it’s one that Americans care deeply about. Politicians in American cities like these can turn the tide by refusing to kowtow to radical soft-on-crime activists, cracking down on theft and violent crime, and giving law enforcement the support they need to do their jobs effectively.
In fact, a recent survey sponsored by Our America found that 79% of Americans support stronger sentences for violent criminals. The survey also found that 75% of Americans want to fully fund the police so they can have access to the best tools, resources, and training available to protect and serve their communities. Clearly, Americans from all over the country want to support law enforcement and keep violent criminals behind bars.
Americans are clamoring for political leaders to take crime in their communities seriously. It is extremely difficult to pursue your dreams if you and your family are set back by the kind of violent or property crime that destroys people’s livelihoods. Americans deserve to live free from fear.
It’s time that big city governments listen to their citizens rather than to soft-on-crime activists.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 21:00 - Watch: Cubans Now Invading Florida By Air
Watch: Cubans Now Invading Florida By Air
Thousands of Cuban immigrants have arrived in the Florida Keys by boat in recent months. To address the surge, the state of Florida and the US Border Patrol have increased ground personnel. However, it now seems that migrants are turning to motorized hang gliders.
Chief Patrol Agent Walter Slosar tweeted over the weekend that two Cuban immigrants were taken into custody after landing a powered hang glider at the Key West International Airport.
𝐓𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚:
Two Cuban migrants were taken into U.S. Border Patrol custody after landing at the Key West International Airport onboard a powered hang glider. No reported injuries. We appreciate the support from @mcsonews.#Breaking #Saturday #KeyWest #Cuba pic.twitter.com/KqqFlYqie1
— Chief Patrol Agent Walter N. Slosar (@USBPChiefMIP) March 25, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Local 10 News obtained a video from a Key West resident showing the migrants in US airspace.
DEVELOPING: migrants from Cuba in motorized glider/ultralight arrive in Key West this morning. They’re being processed by Border Patrol agents. More on @WPLGLocal10 at 6pm pic.twitter.com/WevJuC2REE
— Janine Stanwood (@JanineStanwood) March 25, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
A witness said:
“I actually heard it first. I heard that glider in the air (and) I heard the motor.
“I actually looked up because it shouldn’t be where it was, that’s in the path of Key West Airport,” said Christopher Herrera.
Local pilot Nick Pontecorvo told the media outlet:
“It was pretty awesome. To make that flight 90 miles over open ocean, especially with the wind, that takes a lot of courage,” Pontecorvo said.
The use of ultralight aircraft by migrants to evade ground-based border patrol agents seems to be a new and worrisome development amid the ongoing invasion by boat across the Keys.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 20:40 - Victor Davis Hanson: Who Owns The University?
Victor Davis Hanson: Who Owns The University?
Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via AmGreatness.com,
The megalomania of the current crop of students, faculty, and administrators at our radical universities blinds them to the claims of their generations of benefactors…
The most recent shout-down debacle at Stanford’s law school, one of many such recent sordid episodes, prompts the question: “Who owns our universities?”
The law students who are in residence for three years apparently assume they embody the university. And so, they believe they represent and speak for a score of diverse Stanford interests when they shout down federal Judge Kyle Duncan, as if he were an intruder into their own woke private domain.
After all, Stanford, like most of the Ivy League universities, is a private institution. Are then its board of trustees, its faculty, its students, and its administration de facto overseers and owners?
Not really.
In the case of public institutions of higher learning, there is no controversy: The people own the university and, through their elected representatives, pay for and approve its entire budget.
Again, through their selected regents and overseers, the taxpayers adjudicate the laws of these universities.
But private universities, while different, are not really so different.
Take again Stanford as a typical example.
It receives about $1.5 billion per year in federal taxpayer grants alone to its various faculty, labs, research centers, and programs.
Its annual budget exceeds $8 billion. If Stanford accepts such huge federal and state direct largess, do the taxpayers who provide it have some say about how and under what conditions their recipients use their money?
Second, the university also has accumulated a $36 billion endowment. At normal annual investment returns, such an enormous fund may earn well over $2 billion a year. That income is almost all tax-free, based on the principle that Stanford is a nonprofit, apolitical institution.
But is it?
One could imagine what would have happened had, say, a radical abortion proponent been shouted down at Stanford Law School. Further, conceive that conservative law students had called her scum and wished for her daughters to be raped. Envision obscene placards flashing in her face—before she was stopped speaking entirely by a conservative Stanford dean who hijacked her talk and informed the pro-abortion speaker that she more or less asked for such a mob reception. The perpetrators, we know, would have been expelled from the law school within 24 hours, and the dean fired in 12. And, alternately, had the architects of this real, vile demonstration faced an open hearing, where evidence of the event was presented, and had been found guilty of violating university policy and then had been expelled and ostracized from the law school, even after much chest-thumping and performance-art braggadocio, it is unlikely the debacle would be repeated.
Third, the federal government through subsidies and guarantees is liable for over $1.6 trillion in aggregate student loans. Thousands of Stanford undergraduate and graduates are among those indebted and could not attend the university without such taxpayer largess.
To take a hypothetical, if some 16,000 undergraduate and Stanford graduate students carried on average $20,000 in federally backed student loans, the Stanford student community could be carrying a third of a billion dollars in federal loan guarantees.
In other words, the private universities of the United States are really not so private at all. They rely on billions of dollars in federal and state research subsidies and grants; billions of dollars in tax-exempt annual income from their endowments; and hundreds of billions of dollars in federally backed student loans that allow them to charge exorbitant tuition at above the annual inflation rate from leveraged and indebted students.
Given those huge public investments, should not the public have some say in how these universities are run?
After all, Stanford, and thousands of private universities like it, are not Hillsdale College. Hillsdale long ago lost trust in federal and state government due to their efforts to use their partial funding as a means of politically leveraging the college. And therefore, it has refused all public monies ever since.
Left-wing major colleges or universities have not done the same because they rightly assume the federal government shares their commitment to radical progressive change. And thus, Washington gives them free rein to discriminate in admission, housing, and hiring, as well as to suspend constitutional protections for faculty and staff—if in service to progressive-regressive agendas.
But that was then, and this is now. If Stanford’s sordid law school psychodrama taught us anything, it was that the law school mob felt they could threaten, smear, scream, disrupt and shut down a public speaker and do so with complete impunity. And they were right on all counts.
But if the public “owns” much of private universities given the colossal amount of money it provides them, could the public at last insist that all colleges, public and private, simply abide by the laws of the land?
That adherence would mean universities, to continue their taxpayer revenue streams, would pledge not to discriminate in their hiring and admissions on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. That public insistence would prompt revolutionary changes on campus.
Stanford, for example, laudably recently deplored its past antisemitic admissions practices of the 1950s that deliberately restricted the number of Jews who qualified for admission. The university had institutionalized discrimination on the logic it did not want too many Jews on campus, as part of its social engineering to achieve the “correct” student body. Amid its current apologies, Stanford added that in the 1950s it had not been transparent in its warped discriminatory admissions but had either denied or sought to hide its bias.
Amid its apologies for past discrimination, the university has announced that its incoming class of 2026 includes 22 percent described as “white.” Yet that percentage (remember the university, not us, the public, is obsessed with categorizing people by race), is less than a third of the percentage of so-called whites in the general public.
Has this particular group suddenly suffered collectively an epidemic of low grades, poor test scores (on now optional tests for admission) or poor community service and extracurricular activities?
Would that decline explain why it is so suddenly and vastly “underrepresented”?
Surely a university currently and loudly apologizing for its past ethnic, racial, and religious discrimination against Jews would not simultaneously, but quietly, begin doing nearly the exact thing some 70 years later?
For that matter, since when do universities, public or private, deliberately warp the spirit of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by institutionalizing racially separate graduation ceremonies, racially segregated dorms (“theme houses”), and safe spaces?
All the legalese universities employ to skirt both state law and federal statutes prohibiting segregation and discrimination—and it is a multibillion industry—cannot hide the fact that in many ways campuses are emulating the spirit and practice of the Old Confederacy and postbellum Jim Crow South, according to the infamous “1/16” or the “one-drop” rule, to adjudicate hiring and admission, and the apartheid practice of directing particular races to “separate but equal” housing.
Should not private universities also pledge to follow the Bill of Rights and provide constitutional protections for its university community?
That would mean if a university could not guarantee the right for invited speakers to finish their lectures without being shouted down, physically intimidated, or met with obscene and pornographic slurs and placards, the university then would be liable to suspension of its federal funds.
Recently, Stanford admitted that it allowed a Stasi-like “snitch” program on campus in which anonymous complainers can lodge complaints against allegedly biased remarks by faculty, staff, or administrators. But is not a hallmark of the U.S. legal system that the accused has a constitutional right to face his accuser?
In fact, most private universities suspend a great number of constitutional protections when its constituents are accused either of sexual harassment or insensitive speech. Students, especially, in campus hearings are not always allowed to meet their accusers, to cross examine accusations and evidence, or to have legal counsel at all times.
Should the taxpayers not insist that campuses ensure their communities the same rights of due process, of protection from double jeopardy, of rules of evidence and cross examination as enjoyed by the general public who funds them?
It is not just the American taxpayer who funds public and even private universities, but alumni and donors as well. The students who shouted down Judge Duncan as “scum” and hoped his daughters were raped are likely at Stanford with at least partial financial support. Many of those endowments are sustained by generous donors. And they too remain a part of the university community, along with faculty, administrators, and various boards of trustees.
The present radicalization of the campus is based on the egotistical assumption that transitory students own colleges. They believe, by their snobbery (one law student yelled at Judge Duncan that the judge couldn’t get into Stanford Law School) and ephemeral presence on a current campus, that they are the one and only “Yale,” or they are the real “Stanford.” Therefore, they believe they have the right to dictate to—or follow the whims of—their equally transitory radical administrators.
But for such a claim of ownership to be true, universities would have to self-fund, to raise all their own research dollars, to provide their own loans to their own students—and then to announce that they have no need of all the generous donors who supplied their wherewithal, and all the vast majority of students who do not disrupt, slur, slander, smear, and resort to violence, but do pay their tuition bills and thereby also help ensure viable universities.
So, who owns American higher education?
Almost everyone who pays for this now peculiar institution – a fact that the current ungracious woke activists who are passing through colleges are too dense in their megalomania to grasp.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 20:20 - 'No Country For Young Men' – How Old Is The Head Of State Of Each Nation
‘No Country For Young Men’ – How Old Is The Head Of State Of Each Nation
How many world leaders are in each generation?
This visualization by Edit Gyenge visualizes the ages of every nation’s head of state as of March 22, 2023, comparing them with the median population of the respective country. It uses data from the CIA World Factbook and Wikipedia.
Editor’s note: This visualization looks specifically at heads of state. It should be mentioned that depending on the system of government in a country, heads of state shown here may or may not have actual political power. In some countries, the head of state may be a ceremonial position that does not impact day-to-day governance.
The Oldest and Youngest Heads of State
Here is the full list of heads of state, from oldest to youngest:
Country Head of State Gender Age Generation Cameroon Paul Biya Male 90 Silent Generation Palestine Mahmoud Abbas Male 88 Silent Generation Saudi Arabia Salman Male 88 Silent Generation Norway Harald V Male 86 Silent Generation Kuwait Sheikh Nawaf Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah Male 86 Silent Generation Iran Ali Khamenei Male 84 Silent Generation Denmark Margrethe II Female 83 Silent Generation Ireland Michael D. Higgins Male 82 Silent Generation Italy Sergio Mattarella Male 82 Silent Generation Namibia Hage Geingob Male 82 Silent Generation Cote d’Ivoire Alassane Ouattara Male 81 Silent Generation Malta George Vella Male 81 Silent Generation Equatorial Guinea Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo Male 81 Silent Generation Zimbabwe Emmerson Mnangagwa Male 81 Silent Generation United States Joe Biden Male 81 Silent Generation Nigeria Muhammadu Buhari Male 81 Silent Generation Dominica Charles Savarin Male 80 Silent Generation Congo, Republic of the Denis Sassou Nguesso Male 80 Silent Generation Bangladesh Abdul Hamid Male 79 Silent Generation Austria Alexander Van der Bellen Male 79 Silent Generation Ghana Nana Akufo-Addo Male 79 Silent Generation Iraq Abdul Latif Rashid Male 79 Silent Generation Uganda Yoweri Museveni Male 79 Silent Generation Nepal Ram Chandra Paudel Male 79 Silent Generation Liechtenstein Hans-Adam II Male 78 Silent Generation Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva Male 78 Silent Generation Laos Thongloun Sisoulith Male 78 Silent Generation Nicaragua Daniel Ortega Male 78 Silent Generation Algeria Abdelmadjid Tebboune Male 78 Silent Generation Eritrea Isaias Afwerki Male 77 Baby Boomers Sweden Carl XVI Gustaf Male 77 Baby Boomers Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah Male 77 Baby Boomers Samoa Afioga Tuimaleali’ifano Va’aleto’a Sualauvi II Male 76 Baby Boomers Djibouti Ismaïl Omar Guelleh Male 76 Baby Boomers Finland Sauli Niinistö Male 75 Baby Boomers Antigua and Barbuda Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Australia Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Bahamas Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Belize Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Canada Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Grenada Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Jamaica Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers New Zealand Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Papua New Guinea Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Saint Kitts and Nevis Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Saint Lucia Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Solomon Islands Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Tuvalu Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers United Kingdom Charles III Male 75 Baby Boomers Portugal Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa Male 75 Baby Boomers Barbados Dame Sandra Mason Female 74 Baby Boomers Sri Lanka Ranil Wickremesinghe Male 74 Baby Boomers Pakistan Arif Alvi Male 74 Baby Boomers Haiti Ariel Henry Male 74 Baby Boomers East Timor José Ramos-Horta Male 74 Baby Boomers Bahrain Sheikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa Male 73 Baby Boomers Ethiopia Sahle-Work Zewde Female 73 Baby Boomers Myanmar Myint Swe Male 72 Baby Boomers Marshall Islands David Kabua Male 72 Baby Boomers South Sudan Salva Kiir Mayardit Male 72 Baby Boomers Georgia Salome Zourabichvili Female 71 Baby Boomers Thailand Maha Vajiralongkorn Male 71 Baby Boomers Tajikistan Emomali Rahmon Male 71 Baby Boomers Russia Vladimir Putin Male 71 Baby Boomers South Africa Cyril Ramaphhosa Male 71 Baby Boomers Panama Laurentino Cortizo Male 70 Baby Boomers Cambodia Norodom Sihamoni Male 70 Baby Boomers Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev Male 70 Baby Boomers China Xi Jinping Male 70 Baby Boomers Mexico Andrés Manuel López Obrador Male 70 Baby Boomers Yemen Rashad al-Alimi Male 69 Baby Boomers Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Male 69 Baby Boomers Angola João Lourenço Male 69 Baby Boomers Singapore Halimah Yacob Female 69 Baby Boomers Belarus Alexander Lukashenko Male 69 Baby Boomers Oman Haitham bin Tariq Male 69 Baby Boomers Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi Male 69 Baby Boomers Malawi Lazarus Chakwera Male 68 Baby Boomers Luxembourg Henri Male 68 Baby Boomers Latvia Egils Levits Male 68 Baby Boomers Ecuador Guillermo Lasso Male 68 Baby Boomers Lebanon Najib Mikati Male 68 Baby Boomers Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud Male 68 Baby Boomers Germany Frank-Walter Steinmeier Male 67 Baby Boomers Guatemala Alejandro Giammattei Male 67 Baby Boomers Greece Katerina Sakellaropoulou Female 67 Baby Boomers Mauritania Mohamed Ould Ghazouani Male 67 Baby Boomers Central African Republic Faustin-Archange Touadéra Male 66 Baby Boomers Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev Male 66 Baby Boomers Philippines Bongbong Marcos Male 66 Baby Boomers Rwanda Paul Kagame Male 66 Baby Boomers Tunisia Kaïs Saïed Male 65 Baby Boomers Monaco Albert II Male 65 Baby Boomers Estonia Alar Karis Male 65 Baby Boomers Benin Patrice Talon Male 65 Baby Boomers India Droupadi Murmu Female 65 Baby Boomers Trinidad and Tobago Paula-Mae Weekes Female 65 Baby Boomers Comoros Azali Assoumani Male 64 Baby Boomers Suriname Chan Santokhi Male 64 Baby Boomers Gabon Ali Bongo Ondimba Male 64 Baby Boomers Mozambique Filipe Nyusi Male 64 Baby Boomers Seychelles Wavel Ramkalawan Male 64 Baby Boomers Argentina Alberto Fernández Male 64 Baby Boomers Armenia Vahagn Khachaturyan Male 64 Baby Boomers Mauritius Prithvirajsing Roopun Male 64 Baby Boomers Romania Klaus Iohannis Male 64 Baby Boomers Tonga Tupou VI Male 64 Baby Boomers São Tomé and Príncipe Carlos Vila Nova Male 64 Baby Boomers Malaysia Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah Male 64 Baby Boomers Honduras Xiomara Castro Female 64 Baby Boomers Niger Mohamed Bazoum Male 63 Baby Boomers Tanzania Samia Suluhu Hassan Female 63 Baby Boomers Japan Naruhito Male 63 Baby Boomers Cabo Verde José Maria Neves Male 63 Baby Boomers Belgium Philippe Male 63 Baby Boomers Colombia Gustavo Petro Male 63 Baby Boomers Cuba Miguel Díaz-Canel Male 63 Baby Boomers Sudan Abdel Fattah al-Burhan Male 63 Baby Boomers Kiribati Taneti Maamau Male 63 Baby Boomers Israel Isaac Herzog Male 63 Baby Boomers South Korea Yoon Suk-yeol Male 63 Baby Boomers United Arab Emirates Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan Male 62 Baby Boomers Afghanistan Hibatullah Akhundzada Male 62 Baby Boomers Costa Rica Rodrigo Chaves Robles Male 62 Baby Boomers Indonesia Joko Widodo Male 62 Baby Boomers Botswana Mokgweetsi Masisi Male 62 Baby Boomers Czechia Petr Pavel Male 62 Baby Boomers Senegal Macky Sall Male 62 Baby Boomers Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev Male 62 Baby Boomers Jordan Abdullah II Male 61 Baby Boomers Montenegro Milo Ðukanovic Male 61 Baby Boomers Maldives Ibrahim Mohamed Solih Male 61 Baby Boomers Peru Dina Boluarte Female 61 Baby Boomers Zambia Hakainde Hichilema Male 61 Baby Boomers Venezuela Nicolás Maduro Male 61 Baby Boomers North Macedonia Stevo Pendarovski Male 60 Baby Boomers Congo, Democratic Republic of the Félix Tshisekedi Male 60 Baby Boomers Bulgaria Rumen Radev Male 60 Baby Boomers Lesotho Letsie III Male 60 Baby Boomers Morocco Mohammed VI Male 60 Baby Boomers Bolivia Luis Arce Male 60 Baby Boomers Micronesia David W. Panuelo Male 59 Baby Boomers Fiji Ratu Wiliame Katonivere Male 59 Baby Boomers Sierra Leone Julius Maada Bio Male 59 Baby Boomers Vanuatu Nikenike Vurobaravu Male 59 Baby Boomers Lithuania Gitanas Nauseda Male 59 Baby Boomers The Gambia Adama Barrow Male 58 Generation X Syria Bashar al-Assad Male 58 Generation X Togo Faure Gnassingbé Male 57 Generation X Liberia George Weah Male 57 Generation X Croatia Zoran Milanovic Male 57 Generation X Kenya William Ruto Male 57 Generation X Bosnia and Herzegovina Željka Cvijanovic Female 56 Generation X Albania Bajram Begaj Male 56 Generation X Netherlands Willem-Alexander Male 56 Generation X Dominican Republic Luis Abinader Male 56 Generation X Spain Felipe VI Male 55 Generation X Eswatini Mswati III Male 55 Generation X Slovenia Nataša Pirc Musar Female 55 Generation X Mongolia Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh Male 55 Generation X Burundi Évariste Ndayishimiye Male 55 Generation X Iceland Guðni Th. Jóhannesson Male 55 Generation X Palau Surangel Whipps Jr. Male 55 Generation X Kyrgyzstan Sadyr Japarov Male 55 Generation X Serbia Aleksandar Vucic Male 53 Generation X Vietnam Võ Văn Thưởng Male 53 Generation X Paraguay Mario Abdo Benítez Male 52 Generation X Switzerland Alain Berset Male 51 Generation X Poland Andrzej Duda Male 51 Generation X Moldova Maia Sandu Female 51 Generation X Guinea-Bissau Umaro Sissoco Embaló Male 51 Generation X Slovakia Zuzana Caputová Female 50 Generation X Uruguay Luis Lacalle Pou Male 50 Generation X Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides Male 50 Generation X Madagascar Andry Rajoelina Male 49 Generation X Nauru Russ Kun Male 48 Generation X Libya Mohamed al-Menfi Male 47 Generation X Hungary Katalin Novák Female 46 Generation X France Emmanuel Macron Male 46 Generation X Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy Male 45 Generation X Bhutan Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck Male 43 Generation X Guinea Mamady Doumbouya Male 43 Generation X Guyana Irfaan Ali Male 43 Generation X Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani Male 43 Generation X El Salvador Nayib Bukele Male 42 Millennials Turkmenistan Serdar Berdimuhamedow Male 42 Millennials North Korea Kim Jong-un Male 41 Millennials Mali Assimi Goïta Male 40 Millennials Chad Mahamat Déby Male 39 Millennials Chile Gabriel Boric Male 37 Millennials Burkina Faso Ibrahim Traoré Male 35 Millennials Though ages vary across countries and regions, Africa has both the oldest and youngest heads of state in the world today.
Last month, Cameroon’s president Paul Biya celebrated his 90th birthday, making him the oldest head of state in the world in a country that has a median population age of just 18.5 years. The African continent is home to about one-third of the world’s silent generation heads of states.
At the other age extreme, 35-year-old Ibrahim Traoré became the youngest head of state in Burkina Faso after a coup d’etat in September 2022.
Traoré is not the only millennial head of state out there. He is joined by others including Chile’s Gabriel Boric, and North Korea’s well-known Kim Jong-un.
Baby Boomers Lead the Way
Born between 1946 and 1964, the baby boomer generation dominates the world’s state leadership roles today.
Over 58% of the world’s heads of state are in this generation, including the UK’s King Charles III who is the head of state of 15 total nations.
Boomers also make up the largest share of women leaders in the top state positions today. While only around 10% of the world’s nations have women head of states, 65% of them are in this generation.
Included in this subset are heads of state such as Peru’s president Dina Boluarte, Honduras’ president Xiomara Castro, and India’s president Droupadi Murmu.
Where Gen X Takes the Lead
According to historical trends, one might expect to see an American president from Generation X in office sometime soon, but that has not yet materialized for various reasons.
However, this generation has made their mark in other parts of the world as heads of state, especially in Europe.
The presidents of Ukraine (Volodymyr Zelenskyy), France (Emmanuel Macron), and Hungary (Katalin Novák) are in Gen X, and are also Europe’s youngest heads of state.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 20:00 - Would A 'Wealth Tax' Work?
Would A ‘Wealth Tax’ Work?
Authored by Allen C. Guelzo & James H. Hulme via RealClearPolitics.com,
Facing a national debt of over $31 trillion, the Biden administration’s FY 2024 budget plan is looking for a gusher of new revenue in a “wealth tax” of 25% on wealth exceeding $100 million.
This would tax not just personal income but gains in the value of assets, regardless of whether that gain actually arrives as cash in hand.
The Biden administration’s proposal is not exactly new.
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren made wealth taxes part of their 2020 bids for the Democratic presidential nomination. Sen. Ron Wyden, the current chair of the Senate’s Finance Committee and the Joint Committee on Taxation, called for a wealth tax in 2021. Wyden’s plan, the “Billionaire’s Income Tax,” would tax billionaires (or anyone who earns more than $100 million in three consecutive years) at 20%. The Biden administration’s tax proposal is similar to Wyden’s, treating taxation of asset appreciation as a kind of “prepayment” of income taxes.
The appeal of a wealth tax has three faces.
-
First, the tax is variously estimated to capture $360 billion in revenue over the next ten years.
-
It also appeals to popular anxieties over income inequality in America, since so much of the wealth of the “One Percent” is tied up in asset appreciation rather than actual income.
-
Finally, there is a political dividend. As the Biden administration tries to gin up enthusiasm for a possible reelection campaign in 2024, promoting a wealth tax is at least one way to rally the Democrats’ progressive base.
But the appeal of the wealth tax also has some major liabilities.
The first is the staggering difficulty of determining the appreciation of value. For instance: Should an asset’s appreciation be figured on its “fair market value”? Who determines that? Should it be on whatever the market price might be on a given day? Which day? The variations within those possibilities should make heads spin, which is one reason why Janet Yellen has expressed skepticism about the difficulties in levying a wealth tax. None of that even begins to deal with the question of what is due an asset owner if an asset actually loses value.
Another ominous liability concerns who, exactly, would be paying such a tax. Advocates of wealth taxes have assured critics that the tax would affect only 700 uber-wealthy households – or, as President Biden explained, “One-hundredth of one percent of the Americans will pay this tax.” But new taxes tend not to be respecters of persons. There is no guarantee that the original targets of a wealth tax wouldn’t simply divert wealth into more difficult-to-value assets, or simply offshore their assets, and perhaps themselves as well. When François Mitterand introduced a wealth tax in France in the 1980s, more than 60,000 millionaires left France, and saddled the government with a net loss from what would have been their income taxes and value-added taxes.
If that flight were to be repeated in the U.S., Congress would be forced to drive the liability limit downward into the middle class, just to keep up revenues. It would not be difficult – in fact, it might be unavoidable – to find middle-income Americans paying the wealth tax on their cars, their homes, even their 401(k)s. It would also tempt federal fiscal policy makers to feed inflation, since inflation would float the face value of assets upward, even while hollowing out their real value.
The principal obstacle to a “wealth tax,” however, is in the Constitution. The Constitution strictly limits what the federal government can tax. It took the 16th Amendment in 1913 to permit Congress to levy a tax on personal incomes, and even that Amendment specifically limits the taxing power only to income, not wealth. Ever since the Supreme Court’s 1920 decision in Eisner v. Macomber, real income must occur before there can be taxable income.
But in a June 2022 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel ruled in Moore v. U.S. that an offshore investment which had never paid a dividend could still be taxed as part of a “mandatory repatriation tax” created by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
This obscure provision gave the three judges the opportunity to suggest that the 16th Amendment’s definition of income “is a flexible one” and that there is “no set definition of income under the 16th Amendment.” That leaves an open door to interpret any kind of increased value as “income.” The original plaintiffs have now asked the Supreme Court to review the judgment, arguing that the “decision shatters what had been an unbroken judicial consensus dating back to Eisner.”
In 2020, when he was still a candidate, President Biden dismissed the Sanders and Warren plans as mean-spirited and divisive.
“Tax policy,” he said, “is not about punishment.”
But three years is a long time in politics, and in 2023, punishment may now seem to be what pays.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 19:40 -
- Millennials Dominate Insolvencies In Canada As Credit Card, Student Loan And Other Debts Pile Up
Millennials Dominate Insolvencies In Canada As Credit Card, Student Loan And Other Debts Pile Up
As US millennials distinguish themselves as the ‘buy now, pay later‘ generation, their Canadian counterparts are leading the way when it comes to insolvencies, according to Ontario-based insolvency trustee firm, Hoyes Michalos, which performs an annual “Joe Debtor” analysis.
According to Doug Hoyes, millennial Canadians have been dealt a generational losing hand, as debts from credit cards, high-interest loans and tax debt, and debt owed from the country’s taxable financial support during the pandemic known as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB).
“I think there’s a whole bunch of whammies that have hit millennials,” said Hoyes. “The CERB was the final straw that broke the camel’s back.”
The 2022 Joe Debtor study examined 2,700 personal insolvencies filed in Ontario. Hoyes Michalos says 49 per cent were filed by millennials aged 26 to 41, even though they make up 27 per cent of adult Canadians.
The study found that on a per−population basis, millennials were 1.4 times more likely to file for insolvency than people in generation X aged 42 to 56, and 1.7 times more likely than baby boomers aged 57 to 76.
Insolvent millennials were on average 33 years old and owed an average of $47,283 in unsecured debt. –Canadian Press
According to Hoyes, many people didn’t set aside taxes when they received CERB and other pandemic-related relief funds. Now, a flood of young Canadians have found themselves insolvent and unable to continue paying down their various debts.
Hoyes says the millennials have been given a bum rap, and didn’t enjoy the same societal benefits as older generations – whose wages kept up (better) with inflation, and went to college when tuition didn’t require student loans – allowing graduates the ability to enter the workforce and start saving and investing right away, as opposed to having to service large debts in addition to pulling off a house.
He also says there’s no ‘safety valve’ like there use to be.
“Anything goes wrong like a pandemic, or you lose your job or you get sick or you get divorced and boom, there is no safety valve there,” said Hoyes, who added that filing for bankruptcy is an option to eliminate debts, however most people end up working with insolvency trustees to file proposals to manage their debt.
“It becomes an affordable way to eliminate the debt, and that’s why we’re seeing more and more millennials resorting to consumer proposals,” he said. “They really have no other choice.”
According to Winnipeg-based credit counselor Sandra Fry, many young people are looking for ways to manage debt without declaring bankruptcy.
“Unfortunately, a lot of people out there are living on the edge of their affordability,” she said, adding that inflation is “really squeezing Canadians in general from all sides.”
Millennial clients she’s dealt with lately have often had variable interest rate mortgages, and rate hikes “caused huge strain on their budget because their payments just went up like crazy.”
Dave Locke, 31, lives with his wife in Coquitlam, B.C., east of Vancouver, and the couple sought Fry’s help when their mortgage payments jumped dramatically in the middle of a costly renovation.
Locke, who works for a real estate brokerage, got into the housing market at a young age having worked in the oil and gas industry after high school.
He ended up buying a home in Coquitlam with his wife Tara, who works in labour relations, and the Bank of Canada’s rate hikes eventually saw their monthly mortgage payments jump 40 per cent.
The couple had a construction loan with their bank to fund the renovations, and as interest rates climbed and the price of construction materials ballooned, Locke realized something had to give, even with their relatively high combined incomes. -Canadian Press
“I’m still paying the full balance,” said Locke. “I’m just not paying any additional interest.”
He says that while it’s embarrassing to be in so much debt, “it’s just the way it goes.”
“You have to kind of swallow your pride.“
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 19:20 - CFTC Calls Ether A Commodity In Binance Suit, Highlighting Complexity Of Classification
CFTC Calls Ether A Commodity In Binance Suit, Highlighting Complexity Of Classification
By Derek Anderson of CoinTelegraph
The suit claims Binance used Ether as a commodity in its financial products, experts explained, which says little about the basic nature of the coin…
The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed suit against Binance on March 27 for violations of the Commodities Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. Those violations included transactions with Ether (ETH), according to the suit. This claim, at first glance, touched on a notable point of contention between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The CFTC claimed in its suit that Binance engaged in transactions with “digital assets that are commodities including Bitcoin, Ether, and Litecoin for persons in the United States.” That was not a new position for the agency. The CFTC claimed ETH was a commodity in its suit against FTX in December and chair Rostin Behnam stated his opinion that ETH and stablecoins were commodities as recently as March 8 in a Senate hearing.
The CFTC position on ETH was fairly uncontroversial before the Ethereum Merge; after Ethereum moved to a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism, SEC chair Gary Gensler commented on staking coins that “From the coin’s perspective […] That’s another indicia that under the Howey test, the investing public is anticipating profits based on the efforts of others.”
Gensler’s comment brought on a slow wave of reactions. In February, for example, Ethereum co-founder and crypto entrepreneur Joseph Lubin told Cointelegraph, “Staking is not a security,” and it would be a “terrible path for the U.S.” to make it so. He added that he thought the U.S. courts would agree with him and “there would be a tremendous outcry from not just the crypto community but different politicians and certain regulators,” if ETH were classified as a security.
The CFTC case against Binance does not rest on the nature of ETH as much as the nature of Binance products, however, limiting its applicability to the larger argument.
“In this particular case, ETH is being treated as a ‘commodity’ rather than a ‘security,’” Timothy Cradle, director of regulatory affairs at Blockchain Intelligence Group, told Cointelegraph. “The complaint references securities as they relate to swaps.” Cradle added:
“The economics of an offering including ETH could still change the definition applied to the token. For example, ETH staking could still be construed as an investment contract, and as such a security.”
Some transactions, such as mixed swaps involving ETH, could be subject to regulation by both the SEC and CFTC, Cradle said, but that “would not necessarily define ETH itself as a security as mixed swaps also include commodities and currencies.”
This more complex approach to regulation would not necessarily imply cooperation between the two agencies. Yankun Guo, partner at law firm Ice Miller, said of the situation in a statement to Cointelegraph:
“It shows that both the multifaceted nature of how tokens function and how they are used can cause them to be fall under multiple agency’s jurisdiction; […] I wouldn’t be surprised to see a similar lawsuit by the SEC naming all the same tokens except BTC as securities.”
Silver lining
The CFTC suit against Binance states that ETH is a commodity
Task failed successfully pic.twitter.com/8HiF8LUOoi
— sassal.eth 🦇🔊 (@sassal0x) March 27, 2023
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 19:00 - Viagra Sales Went Soft As Exclusivity Expired
Viagra Sales Went Soft As Exclusivity Expired
25 years ago, on March 27, 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Viagra for treatment of male erectile dysfunction. With its distinct blue diamond shape, Viagra quickly gained notoriety and became deeply ingrained in popular culture. For Pfizer, the drug was an instant success, surpassing $1 billion in global sales in its second year on the market and remaining one of the company’s best-selling drugs for years to come.
Originally studied for use in hypertension (high blood pressure) and chest pain associated with coronary heart disease, sildenafil, which is the generic name of the drug later marketed as Viagra, was found to sometimes induce penile erections during clinical trials. Seeing an opportunity, Pfizer decided to study and market it for erectile dysfunction, in a move that became a textbook example of drug repositioning.
However, as Statista’s Felix Richter reports, while Viagra is still one of the most recognizable drugs in the world and synonymous with sexual performance enhancement, its success story began to fade in 2013 when Pfizer’s patent on the use of sildenafil in erectile dysfunction expired in the European Union. Around the same time, the company was involved in a patent lawsuit in the United States, which resulted in a settlement allowing Teva Pharmaceuticals to launch a generic version of Viagra in December 2017.
As Statista’s chart illustrates, the loss of exclusivity in major markets such as Europe, Japan and most importantly the United States had a significant effect on Viagra sales, which declined by almost 70 percent between 2012 and 2018.
You will find more infographics at Statista
25 years after its initial approval, Viagra is no longer part of Pfizer either.
In 2020, the company’s off-patent branded and generics business Upjohn, which included Viagra, was spun-off and combined with Mylan to create a new company called Viatris.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 18:40 - Beware Liberals And Conservatives Delivering 'Catastrophic News'
Beware Liberals And Conservatives Delivering ‘Catastrophic News’
Authored by John Tamny via RealClear Wire,
It’s little known today, but a major driver of Henry Ford’s interest in machines was an aversion to work. And horses. Born into a farming family in Michigan, Ford’s migration away from “the land” was rooted in a desire to avoid the dawn-to-dusk toil that defined life for an overwhelming majority in the 19th century.
So, while Ford is most known for having democratized access to the automobile, it’s less known that Ford Motor Company also mass-produced tractors. 650,000 in 1927 alone. In his words, “What a waste it is for a human being to spend hours and hours behind a slowly moving team of horses in the same time a tractor could do six times as much work.”
Ford’s intimate knowledge of how machines multiply human productivity while reducing time on the job came to mind while reading Washington Post columnist Max Boot’s recent assertion that “Russia is in a demographic death spiral.” Who is the source of Boot’s pessimism, or optimism? It’s none other than American Enterprise Institute fellow Nicholas Eberstadt.
Eberstadt is the leader of a strain of conservatives thoroughly convinced that the main crisis awaiting us is a consequence of people in more developed countries choosing to have fewer kids. Eberstadt is to “demographic death spiral” what Michael Mann is to “catastrophic global warming.” Both have flocks to feed, and feed them they do with narratives that actual market signals formed by actual information thoroughly reject.
The global warmist in Mann promotes an endless picture of the world’s coastal cities literally going under water, all because the people in the well-to-do parts of the world now avail themselves of cars, air conditioners, and other mechanized advances that make living so pleasurable today. The only problem with Mann’s preaching about the hell that awaits us is that human migratory patterns and pesky market prices disagree. At present something north of 45% of the world’s population lives in coastal areas, and the previous number is expected to grow.
In concert with this migration to coastal cities allegedly set to go under water is a rather evident surge in the price of real estate. Yes, you read that right. In the global locales that Mann and his warming crowd claim will be washed away, the cost of dwellings on what’s set to be washed away grows and grows.
It makes you wonder…about Mann. Smart as he surely is, he can’t possibly know more than the markets. And if you doubt the latter, he surely can’t have anywhere close to the combined knowledge of half of the world’s population.
Which brings us back to Boot. Under the sway of Eberstadt, he’s convinced that Russia’s birthrate of “only 1.5 children per woman” has it as previously mentioned “in a demographic death spiral.” Except that people are not static creatures. They’re instead dynamic parts of an increasingly global whole.
The 1.5 Russian children per women being born today are entering a world in which every good and service produced within it is a beautiful consequence of intensely sophisticated global cooperation. To use but one of countless examples, Boeing airplanes are comprised of millions of intricate parts manufactured around the world. And that only tells part of the story.
To see why, think back to Ford and his fascination with machines. He yet again understood that machines multiply human effort. A man working today can do the work of hundreds and realistically thousands of men born when Ford was. Throw in technology that increasingly thinks for us, and it’s easy to see that the babies being born today will be the productive equivalent of tens of thousands born when Ford was in 1863.
Yet Boot think’s Russia days are numbered because of “1.5 children per woman”? How much time did it take for him to read the “fascinating report” written by Eberstadt in which the “demographic death spiral” was bruited as a negative factor for so many developed countries, and by extension, the world?
The good news for Boot is that age 53, he’s got time to make up for time wasted on a pessimistic assessment of the future that is mocked by markets (watch investment flows, including a surge of investment into low-birthrate countries like the U.S. and South Korea), machines, and simple common sense. What’s true for Boot is happily true for Eberstadt too, age 67. Indeed, with machines increasingly thinking for us, it’s only a matter of time before man aided by machines unlocks the secrets to ever longer life.
It’s all a reminder that contra the pessimists, the only threat to people who populate the “closed economy” that is the world is a lack of freedom. Everything else will be taken care of by the very market forces that presently look disdainfully at catastrophic fear-mongering promoted by the dominant ideologies.
* * *
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 18:20 - In "Huge" Chinese Push By Aramco, World's Biggest Oil Producer Will Build $10BN Petrochemical Complex, Buy 10% Stake In Top Chinese Refinery
In “Huge” Chinese Push By Aramco, World’s Biggest Oil Producer Will Build $10BN Petrochemical Complex, Buy 10% Stake In Top Chinese Refinery
In what has been dubbed a “HUGE push” by the Saudi state-owned petrochemical giant into China’s economy, Saudi Aramco surprised the world with a double-header of pro-China news: first, Aramco said it will build a $10 billion refinery in China and, just hours later, it revealed that it would acquire a stake a 10% stake in a Top Chinese oil refinery.
Through the strategic arrangement, Aramco would supply 480,000 bpd of Arabian crude oil to Rongsheng affiliate Zhejiang Petroleum and Chemical Co. Ltd (ZPC), under a long-term sales agreement. #OOTT #China
— Amena Bakr (@Amena__Bakr) March 27, 2023
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The news come as Saudi Arabia is on the verge of dethroning the petrodollar and accepting payment in Yuan for Chinese oil sales.
Let’s dig deeper.
Over the weekend, Saudi Aramco – world’s biggest oil producer – announced plans to build a $10-billion refining and petrochemical complex in China’s northeast over the next three years, accelerating a development that was paused during the pandemic, and taking advantage of the country’s growing demand for energy. According to the Aramco news release, the complex will have a capacity of 300,000 barrels of crude daily, and OilPrice adds that the Saudi major will supply 201,000 barrels per day to the facility.
The project will be carried out in partnership between Aramco and two Chinese companies. Construction works should begin in the second half of this year, with the project scheduled for completion in 2026.
“This important project will support China’s growing demand across fuel and chemical products. It also represents a major milestone in our ongoing downstream expansion strategy in China and the wider region, which is an increasingly significant driver of global petrochemical demand,” said Aramco’s head of downstream, Mohammed Al Qahtani.
The news follows a report from December last year according to which Aramco had struck a deal with China’s Sinopec to build a 320,000-bpd refinery and petrochemical cracker in China, highlighting the latter’s major role in global oil consumption yet again.
Then, one day later, Aramco also unveiled that it has agreed to buy a 10% stake in a giant oil complex in China for 24.6 billion yuan ($3.6 billion), in exchange for securing sales to one of the country’s largest refineries.
Aramco will also supply 480,000 barrels of crude oil per day to Rongsheng Petrochemical Co’s refinery in the eastern province of Zhejiang over a 20-year period, according to a statement from the Chinese company. Aramco will also provide a credit of $800 million to Rongsheng for the purchase, that statement said.
Refining and petrochemical investments have been a priority for Aramco as it seeks to secure long-term demand for its main product, even as it expands local refining capacity as well. According to the International Energy Agency and other forecasters, a bet on petrochemicals is a good long-term bet in the oil industry amid expectations of a decline in oil demand for transport fuels. The IEA has projected that petrochemicals will account for more than a third in oil demand growth by 2030, rising to 50% of demand by 2050 as transport electrifies
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 18:00 - "Power At Every Level", Brags Chicago Teachers Union, As 200 Members Skip School For Political Workshop
“Power At Every Level”, Brags Chicago Teachers Union, As 200 Members Skip School For Political Workshop
Authored by Mark Glennon via Wirepoints.org,
“We’re gonna have to teach the city of Chicago how to redefine transformation, how to redefine renaissance,” said Chicago Teachers Union President Davis Gates in her opening remarks, and the day naturally started with the CTU’s own organizer and Chicago mayoral candidate, Brandon Johnson, who got a standing ovation.
Some 200 CTU members skipped school Thursday for what’s supposedly an annual delegates’ training conference, but the CTU’s own description makes clear it was about expanding its vast political goals — through schools.
A conference workshop
“Power At Every Level” Delegates Conference” is the the CTU’s own headline on their description.
It was a day full of workshops and training “about building power from the school buildings to the district and charter networks to the highest levels of political power in the city,” the CTU says. One session was on the CTU’s three-year strategic plan, which was about “how mobilizing in school buildings is critical to realizing the full potential of this particular moment….” It went on:
Winning the mayor’s office is, of course, a high priority, but it’s just one piece of the puzzle. Everything we do builds on the organizational foundations we forge in our school buildings and communities across the city, and this is what will make our three-pronged strategy of mayoral representation, bargaining strong charter and district contracts, and winning a pro-educator elected school board a reality.
Another session was about why school leadership needs to “build power” on topics that included “Teaching Through Trauma,” “Green Schools,” and “Assertive Grievance Handling.”
CTU organizer Brandon Johnson faces Paul Vallas in Chicago’s mayoral election on April 4.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/27/2023 – 17:40
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
