Today’s News 29th October 2022

• Escobar: Everybody Wants To Hop On The BRICS Express
  Escobar: Everybody Wants To Hop On The BRICS Express

  Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Cradle,

  Eurasia is about to get a whole lot larger as countries line up to join the Chinese and Russian-led BRICS and SCO, to the detriment of the west…

  

  Let’s start with what is in fact a tale of Global South trade between two members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). At its heart is the already notorious Shahed-136 drone – or Geranium-2, in its Russian denomination: the AK-47 of postmodern aerial warfare.

  The US, in yet another trademark hysteria fit rife with irony, accused Tehran of weaponizing the Russian Armed Forces. For both Tehran and Moscow, the superstar, value-for-money, and terribly efficient drone let loose in the Ukrainian battlefield is a state secret: its deployment prompted a flurry of denials from both sides. Whether these are made in Iran drones, or the design was bought and manufacturing takes place in Russia (the realistic option), is immaterial.

  The record shows that the US weaponizes Ukraine to the hilt against Russia.

  The Empire is a de facto war combatant via an array of “consultants,” advisers, trainers, mercenaries, heavy weapons, munitions, satellite intel, and electronic warfare. And yet imperial functionaries swear they are not part of the war. They are, once again, lying.

  Welcome to yet another graphic instance of the “rules-based international order” at work. The Hegemon always decides which rules apply, and when. Anyone opposing it is an enemy of “freedom,” “democracy,” or whatever platitude du jour, and should be – what else – punished by arbitrary sanctions.

  In the case of sanctioned-to-oblivion Iran, for decades now, the result has been predictably another round of sanctions. That’s irrelevant. What matters is that, according to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), no less than 22 nations – and counting – are joining the queue because they also want to get into the Shahed groove.

  Even Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gleefully joined the fray, commenting on how the Shahed-136 is no photoshop.

  The race towards BRICS+

  What the new sanctions package against Iran really “accomplished” is to deliver an additional blow to the increasingly problematic signing of the revived nuclear deal in Vienna. More Iranian oil on the market would actually relieve Washington’s predicament after the recent epic snub by OPEC+.

  A categorical imperative though remains. Iranophobia – just like Russophobia – always prevails for the Straussians/neo-con war advocates in charge of US foreign policy and their European vassals.

  So here we have yet another hostile escalation in both Iran-US and Iran-EU relations, as the unelected junta in Brussels also sanctioned manufacturer Shahed Aviation Industries and three Iranian generals.

  Now compare this with the fate of the Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drone – which unlike the “flowers in the sky” (Russia’s Geraniums) has performed miserably in the battlefield.

  Kiev tried to convince the Turks to use a Motor Sich weapons factory in Ukraine or come up with a new company in Transcarpathia/Lviv to build Bayraktars. Motor Sich’s oligarch President Vyacheslav Boguslayev, aged 84, has been charged with treason because of his links to Russia, and may be exchanged for Ukrainian prisoners of war.

  In the end, the deal fizzled out because of Ankara’s exceptional enthusiasm in working to establish a new gas hub in Turkey – a personal suggestion from Russian President Vladimir Putin to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

  And that bring us to the advancing interconnection between BRICS and the 9-member SCO – to which this Russia-Iran instance of military trade is inextricably linked.

  The SCO, led by China and Russia, is a pan-Eurasian institution originally focused on counter-terrorism but now increasingly geared towards geoeconomic – and geopolitical – cooperation. BRICS, led by the triad of Russia, India, and China overlaps with the SCO agenda geoeconomically and geopoliticallly, expanding it to Africa, Latin America and beyond: that’s the concept of BRICS+, analyzed in detail in a recent Valdai Club report, and fully embraced by the Russia-China strategic partnership.

  The report weighs the pros and cons of three scenarios involving possible, upcoming BRICS+ candidates:

  • First, nations that were invited by Beijing to be part of the 2017 BRICS summit (Egypt, Kenya, Mexico, Thailand, Tajikistan).

  • Second, nations that were part of the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting in May this year (Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand).

  • Third, key G20 economies (Argentina, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye).

  And then there’s Iran, which has already already shown interest in joining BRICS.

  South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has recently confirmed that “several countries” are absolutely dying to join BRICS. Among them, a crucial West Asia player: Saudi Arabia.

  What makes it even more astonishing is that only three years ago, under former US President Donald Trump’s administration, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MbS) – the kingdom’s de fact ruler – was dead set on joining a sort of Arab NATO as a privileged imperial ally.

  Diplomatic sources confirm that the day after the US pulled out of Afghanistan, MbS’s envoys started seriously negotiating with both Moscow and Beijing.

  Assuming BRICS approves Riyadh’s candidacy in 2023 by the necessary consensus, one can barely imagine its earth-shattering consequences for the petrodollar. At the same time, it is important not to underestimate the capacity of US foreign policy controllers to wreak havoc.

  The only reason Washington tolerates Riyadh’s regime is the petrodollar. The Saudis cannot be allowed to pursue an independent, truly sovereign foreign policy. If that happens, the geopolitical realignment will concern not only Saudi Arabia but the entire Persian Gulf.

  Yet that’s increasingly likely after OPEC+ de facto chose the BRICS/SCO path led by Russia-China – in what can be interpreted as a “soft” preamble for the end of the petrodollar.

  The Riyadh-Tehran-Ankara triad

  Iran made known its interest to join BRICS even before Saudi Arabia. According to Persian Gulf diplomatic sources, they are already engaged in a somewhat secret channel via Iraq trying to get their act together. Turkey will soon follow – certainly on BRICS and possibly the SCO, where Ankara currently carries the status of extremely interested observer.

  Now imagine this triad – Riyadh, Tehran, Ankara – closely joined with Russia, India, China (the actual core of the BRICS), and eventually in the SCO, where Iran is as yet the only West Asian nation to be inducted as a full member.

  The strategic blow to the Empire will go off the charts. The discussions leading to BRICS+ are focusing on the challenging path towards a commodity-backed global currency capable of bypassing US dollar primacy.

  Several interconnected steps point towards increasing symbiosis between BRICS+ and SCO. The latter’s members states have already agreed on a road map for gradually increasing trade in national currencies in mutual settlements.

  The State Bank of India – the nation’s top lender – is opening special rupee accounts for Russia-related trade.

  Russian natural gas to Turkey will be paid 25 percent in rubles and Turkish lira, complete with a 25 percent discount Erdogan personally asked of Putin.

  Russian bank VTB has launched money transfers to China in yuan, bypassing SWIFT, while Sberbank has started lending out money in yuan. Russian energy behemoth Gazprom agreed with China that gas supply payments should shift to rubles and yuan, split evenly.

  Iran and Russia are unifying their banking systems for trade in rubles/rial.

  Egypt’s Central Bank is moving to establish an index for the pound – through a group of currencies plus gold – to move the national currency away from the US dollar.

  And then there’s the TurkStream saga.

  That gas hub gift

  Ankara for years has been trying to position itself as a privileged East-West gas hub. After the sabotage of the Nord Streams, Putin has handed it on a plate by offering Turkey the possibility to increase Russian gas supplies to the EU via such a hub. The Turkish Energy Ministry stated that Ankara and Moscow have already reached an agreement in principle.

  This will mean in practice Turkey controlling the gas flow to Europe not only from Russia but also Azerbaijan and a great deal of West Asia, perhaps even including Iran, as well as Libya in northeast Africa. LNG terminals in Egypt, Greece and Turkiye itself may complete the network.

  Russian gas travels via the TurkStream and Blue Stream pipelines. The total capacity of Russian pipelines is 39 billion cubic meters a year.

  

  Map of Russian gas route via Turkey

  TurkStream was initially projected as a four-strand pipeline, with a nominal capacity of 63 million cubic meters a year. As it stands, only two strands – with a total capacity of 31,5 billion cubic meters – have been built.

  So an extension in theory is more than feasible – with all the equipment made in Russia. The problem, once again, is laying the pipes. The necessary vessels belong to the Swiss Allseas Group – and Switzerland is part of the sanctions craze. In the Baltic Sea, Russian vessels were used to finish building Nord Stream 2. But for a TurkStream extension, they would need to operate much deeper in the ocean.

  TurkStream would not be able to completely replace Nord Stream; it carries much smaller volumes. The upside for Russia is not being canceled from the EU market. Evidently Gazprom would only tackle the substantial investment on an extension if there are ironclad guarantees about its security. And there’s the additional drawback that the extension would also carry gas from Russia’s competitors.

  Whatever happens, the fact remains that the US-UK combo still exerts a lot of influence in Turkey – and BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell, for instance, are actors in virtually every oil extraction project across West Asia. So they would certainly interfere on the way the Turkish gas hub functions, as well on determining the gas price. Moscow has to weigh all these variables before committing to such a project.

  NATO, of course, will be livid. But never underestimate hedging bet specialist Sultan Erdogan. His love story with both the BRICS and the SCO is just beginning.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 10/29/2022 – 00:00

• Watch: Chinese Tech Firm Mounts Drone On Car And Flies It
  Watch: Chinese Tech Firm Mounts Drone On Car And Flies It

  We’re noticing some electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft designs are beginning to look more like cars — where they could one day fly across town and then maneuver around city streets. The first view of this revolutionary design was revealed earlier this week by California-based Alef Aeronautics. However, another company based in China actually flew one. 

  Chinese tech company XPeng mounted a drone onto the roof of a vehicle and called it a flying car. While the eVTOL isn’t as sleek as Alef’s, it actually flew. 

  

  The company shared footage of the first flight on YouTube.

  “Unlike most other “flying car” concepts that we’ve seen before, this one actually does look a bit like a normal car. But, unlike most normal cars, this one appears to have a drone strapped to its roof,” said auto blog Jalopnik. 

  Regardless of how viable this flying car is, XPeng wins the award for actually flying one. 

  One would assume there would be an easy, quick release to separate the car from the drone so it can maneuver around city streets. 

  So the trend now is to put wheels on eVTOLs so they can also drive around streets. Just imagine if the Pentagon got their hands on something like this — an eVTOL hummer — now that would be wild and useful for special forces operations on the modern battlefield (we’re sure DARPA already has a design). 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 23:40

• The War Over 'Transgender' Kids: A Pre-Election Battlefield Update
  The War Over ‘Transgender’ Kids: A Pre-Election Battlefield Update

  Authored by Ben Weingarten via The Epoch Times,

  America is in the throes of a cultural and political war over gender ideology, featuring high-profile conflicts over everything from school curricula to athletics to pronouns.  

  

  But among the most explosive battles unfolding within the broader war is that over transgender children. In an inhospitable election year for the left, Democrats, far from being on the back foot, have pushed ahead on this front, including this fall in California, New York, and Virginia with moves to curb parental rights. 

  Days from the election, President Biden made clear the party’s broader position, telling a transgender activist that no state should be able to bar “gender-affirming healthcare” for kids. 

  That can include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries to remove or replace breasts and genitalia. Promoting such treatment  for the growing number of kids identifying as transgender are, on one side, the Biden administration; blue state governments; much, though not all, of the medical establishment; educators; and activists. Opposing them are red state governments acting on behalf of outraged or concerned parents and other constituents, and buoyed by dissenting doctors.  

  Divisions have deepened despite, as Reuters recently reported, a lack of “strong evidence of the efficacy” of the treatments at issue and despite their possible long-term consequences. Here is a timeline of major developments this year: 

  February 2022

  • Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas issued an opinion concluding that “performing certain ‘sex-change’ procedures on children, and prescribing puberty-blockers to them, is ‘child abuse’ under Texas law.”  

  March

  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that forbids instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, a measure that opponents dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

  • The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division issued a letter to all state attorneys general emphasizing its position that restrictions on transgender medical treatment could violate federal constitutional protections. 

  • After Idaho’s House passed a bill prohibiting gender reassignment surgeries, puberty blockers, and hormone therapy in connection with transitioning, the Senate killed the bill claiming it undermined parental rights. 

  • Republican Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona signed into law a bill prohibiting sex reassignment surgery for those under 18 years old. 

  April

  • The Justice Department challenged Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act (VCAP), which prohibited doctors from performing surgeries on children in connection with transitioning, or providing children with puberty blockers and hormones. Days after the law went into effect, a federal judge in May temporarily halted the provisions pending an appeal by Alabama supported by 15 other states. 

  May

  • Legislators in 19 states committed to introducing so-called “trans refuge state” bills to protect transgender children and families facing restrictive legislation from other states. 

  June

  • President Biden issued his Executive Order on Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals, calling on the Department of Health and Human Services to work with the states to expand access to transgender treatment, while combating – alongside the Federal Trade Commission – so-called “conversion therapy.” This includes simple talk therapy aimed at alleviating gender dysphoria-driven distress, treatment championed by opponents of the transitioning of minors.  

  • Republicans in the Senate and House introduced companion pieces of legislation that would “allow individuals who suffered from an irreversible and potentially sterilizing gender-transition procedure as a minor to seek justice in court.” 

  August  

  • A leaked State Department memo reveals the administration could classify countries permitting conversion therapy as human rights abusers, City Journal reported. 

  • The Department of Justice issued a sweeping subpoena to Eagle Forum of Alabama, a nonprofit advocate for Alabama’s contested VCAP law – a move seen by some as chilling since the subpoena required the organization to produce extensive information regarding its promotion of the legislation. Eagle Forum took the Justice Department to court to quash the subpoena, and the Justice Department backed down, dramatically scaling its subpoena to “1%” of its original demands, in the words of the judge presiding over the case.  

  • Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced legislation that would make providing transgender medical treatment to minors a felony punishable by up to 25 years in prison. 

  September

  • Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom of California signed into law a bill making the Golden State the nation’s first “sanctuary state” for children seeking transgender treatment without the knowledge or consent of their parents. The governor also signed into law a bill co-sponsored by Planned Parenthood that, according to the California Family Council, “prohibits insurance companies from revealing to the policyholder  the ‘sensitive services’ of anyone on their policy, including minor children … ” – such services including transgender treatment. 

  October

  • New York State state Senator Sen. Brad Holyman, a Democrat, introduced a bill that would similarly make New York a sanctuary state for transgender children. 

  • Virginia state delegate Elizabeth Guzman, a Democrat, announced she would introduce legislation under which parents could be criminally prosecuted for child abuse should they refuse to affirm their kids’ transgenderism. Amid national blowback over the bill, Guzman quickly recanted. 

  • Republican Governor Gov. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma signed legislation conditioning $108.5 million in federal stimulus funds for the University of Oklahoma’s Children’s Hospital on its ceasing “gender reassignment medical treatment” for minors. The governor also called on Oklahoma to bar “irreversible gender transition surgeries and hormone therapies on minors” during the 2023 legislative session. Gov. Stitt finds himself in an unusually close race with Joy Hofmeister – the state superintendent of education – who switched parties from Republican to Democrat in 2021 to challenge him. 

  • Michigan Republican state Rep. Ryan Berman introduced a bill under which doctors, as well as parents or guardians, could face child abuse charges if they “knowingly or intentionally consent to, obtain, or assist with a gender transition procedure for a child” – with a maximum penalty of life in prison. 

  • The American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Children’s Hospital Association called on the Department of Justice to police purported social-media threats to doctors and medical facilities by opponents of transgender treatment. 

  • 13 state attorneys general, led by Republican Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, responded to the AMA’s letter to the Justice Department with a letter of their own to Attorney General Merrick Garland, calling for the department to “stand down and allow the national conversation to continue,” citing medical data calling into question the efficacy of transgender treatment.  

  Context 

  • 46 states and Washington D.C. permit “gender-affirming care” for minors.  

  • Four states — Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, and Tennessee — restrict such care for minors. 

  • 24 states and Washington D.C. prohibit transgender exclusions from health insurance coverage, whether involving a minor or an adult.

  • 26 states and Washington D.C. have Medicaid policies covering such transgender treatment, while 15 states have no explicit policy regarding such coverage and care—but do not prohibit it.   

  • Nine states have Medicaid policies explicitly excluding transgender treatment. 

   

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 23:20

• Are Polarized Politics Pushing More People Independent?
  Are Polarized Politics Pushing More People Independent?

  The number of people that define themselves as unaffiliated to a party or as “politically independent” is growing in the United States, raising the question of whether the highly polarizing two-party system is still working.

  According to a series of Gallup surveys taken throughout 2022, on average, 42 percent of respondents said they would define themselves as politically independent this year, versus 27 percent as Republicans and 28 percent as Democrats.

  As Statista’s Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, partisanship often peaks in the year of an election, as shown in both 2016 and 2020.

  The year following an election characteristically sees a slight shift back towards more people defining themselves as independent.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  When Gallup conducts their surveys, they initially ask via telephone whether U.S. adults are a Republican, a Democrat or independent. The next question is whether as an independent, they are politically Republican or Democrat leaning. This naturally divides the population into two camps rather than reflecting a broader spectrum of opinions.

  While some analysts argue that independents are really Republicans or Democrats in disguise, the issue perhaps shouldn’t be totally discounted, as Rhona Colvin of the Washington Post writes: “if they choose to vote, numbers suggest nonpartisan voters could swing close races.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 23:00

• Pentagon: US To Scrap Sea-Launched Nuclear Missile Program
  Pentagon: US To Scrap Sea-Launched Nuclear Missile Program

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The United States will stop developing nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missiles, according to new documents released by the Department of Defense.

  

  The documents (pdf), released on Oct. 27, stated that the United States will “retire the B83-1 gravity bomb,” and will “cancel the nuclear-armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N) program.”

  During a news conference, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin faced questions about retiring the two programs, arguing that “our inventory of nuclear weapons is significant.”

  “I do not believe this sends a message to Putin,” Austin told a reporter. “He understands what our capability is.”

  The Biden administration released three documents on Oct. 27: the National Defense Strategy, Nuclear Posture Review, and Missile Defense Review. Together, they lay out the military’s priorities for the coming years and underscore that Washington plans to maintain “a very high bar for nuclear employment.”

  During the Trump administration, the Pentagon made a decision in 2018 to develop a new nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile, with a focus on the threat from Russia.

  But the Biden administration said in its review that the sea-launched cruise missile program was unnecessary and would be canceled because the United States already had the “means to deter limited nuclear use.”

  One program from the Trump era that Biden is keeping is the W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile, which the Pentagon fielded in 2020 to address Russia’s potential employment of similar-scale tactical nuclear weapons, the kind that Moscow has threatened to use in Ukraine to salvage its war there.

  ‘Very High Bar’

  The document also said that U.S. nuclear policy will maintain “a very high bar for nuclear employment,” but it would “only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its Allies and partners.”

  

  “By the 2030s, the United States will, for the first time in its history, face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries. This will create new stresses on stability and new challenges for deterrence, assurance, arms control, and risk reduction,” the document says.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 22:40

• Leaked FBI Pamphlet Lists 'Misinformation' And 'Disinformation' As 'Election Crimes'
  Leaked FBI Pamphlet Lists ‘Misinformation’ And ‘Disinformation’ As ‘Election Crimes’

  An FBI “2022 Midterm Elections Social Media Analysis Cheat Sheet” leaked to Project Veritas by an agency whistleblower lists misinformation and disinformation as ‘election crimes.’

  

  The ‘crimes’ are are defined as; 

  “DISINFORMATION” – False or inaccurate information intended to mislead others. Disinformation campaigns on social media are used to deliberately confuse, trick, or upset the public.

  “MISINFORMATION” – False or misleading information spread mistakenly or unintentionally.

  

  Does a Hillary Clinton-approved media blitz disinformation campaign to smear her political opponent as a Russian asset count?

  What about “MSM censorship campaigns to suppress damaging information about a candidate” such as Hunter Biden’s laptop?

  More via Project Veritas;

  Recently, the Biden administration attempted to create the “Disinformation Governance Board” under the Department of Homeland Security. After severe pushback from the public due to free speech concerns, the federal government pulled the plug on this idea.

  In another section of the leaked document labelled “Things to Consider,” the FBI reminded its agents that the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment exist. Both amendments are in the Bill of Rights and protect Americans’ rights to free speech and against “unreasonable” searches or seizures.

  The Bureau also flagged the potential for “Voter/Ballot Fraud” in this election, an activity that some have attempted to rule out as a threat to the American electoral system.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 22:20

• Mail-In Ballot Total Surges Past 10 Million Across US Ahead Of 2022 Midterms: Research
  Mail-In Ballot Total Surges Past 10 Million Across US Ahead Of 2022 Midterms: Research

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  More than 10 million people have cast mail-in ballots ahead of the Nov. 8 midterm elections, according to an election monitoring project.

  

  Another 5 million or so have voted early and in person, research from the U.S. Elections Project shows as of Oct. 27. This week, a number of states opened early in-person voting, including Texas.

  The project, which is managed by University of Florida professor Michael McDonald, tracks early voting activity among states that have reported data. Texas, California, Florida, and Georgia have reported more than 1.5 million in-person and mail-in votes as of Oct. 27, the project numbers show.

  “It does seem very robust, early voting … I think we’re looking at more like a 2018 election, definitely,” McDonald told ABC News on Oct. 24, referring to the high turnout.

  More than three dozen states have already opened early voting. For the 2022 midterms, early voting phases range from 46 days to three days before Election Day, the National Conference of State Legislatures says.

  “Congratulations, Georgia voters! We’ve reached 1 MILLION cast votes. Election officials deserve our thanks for rising to the challenge & working hard to serve our communities,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, wrote on Twitter on Oct. 25.

  Georgia has two key races, including for the U.S. Senate and governor’s office. Incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) is facing Republican Herschel Walker, a former NFL and college football star, while Gov. Brian Kemp is facing a rematch with Democrat activist Stacey Abrams.

  Early polling places across Maryland were slated to open on Oct. 27, according to its governor.

  Republicans are favored by analysts and betting oddsmakers to win the House in the Nov. 8 elections, buoyed by frustration over the lackadaisical economy and decades-high inflation. Democrats are attempting to hold their ground and are relying heavily on campaign messaging around abortion.

  If Republicans take just five seats, they can win back a majority in the House. In recent decades, the party that has held the White House has lost congressional seats during midterm elections.

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 22:00

• A Closer Look At The COVID Mortality Rate
  A Closer Look At The COVID Mortality Rate

  Authored by Ian Miller via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  One of the most consistent efforts made by “experts” during the early stages of the pandemic was to attempt to impress on the public that COVID was an extremely deadly disease.

  

  While it’s clear that for the extremely elderly and severely immunocompromised, COVID does present significant and serious health concerns, the “experts” did their best to convince people of all age groups that they were in danger.

  Initially the World Health Organization (WHO), in their infinite incompetence, made a substantial contribution to this perception by claiming that the mortality rate from COVID was shockingly high.

  In March 2020, with precious little data, the WHO made the alarming claim that 3.4 percent of people who got COVID had died.

  CNBC reported that an early press conference by WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus compared that expected mortality of COVID-19 to the flu:

  “‘Globally, about 3.4 percent of reported COVID-19 cases have died,’ WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press briefing at the agency’s headquarters in Geneva. In comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1 percent of those infected, he said.”

  This stood in contrast to previous estimates, which were also above 2 percent:

  “Early in the outbreak, scientists had concluded the death rate was around 2.3 percent.”

  While “experts” could be forgiven for being unsure about the death rate of a brand new illness with very little data available, the fear-mongering and world-altering policy enacted based on these estimates has caused incalculable damage.

  It’s now widely known and accepted that these estimates were wildly incorrect, off by orders of magnitude.

  But a new paper out from one of the world’s leading experts confirms that they were off even more than we previously realized.

  John Ioannidis is one of the nation’s leading public health experts, employed at Stanford University as Professor of Medicine in Stanford Prevention Research, of Epidemiology and Population Health,” as well as “of Statistics and Biomedical Data Science.”

  You’d think that those impeccable qualifications and a track record of being one of the most published and cited scientists in the modern world would insulate him from criticism, but unfortunately that’s no longer how The Science™ works.

  Ioannidis first drew the ire of The Keepers of The Science™ early in the outbreak, when he cautioned that society might be making tremendous decisions based on limited data that was of poor quality.

  He also took part in the infamous seroprevalence study conducted in Santa Clara County, led by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

  That examination, which looked at antibody prevalence in the San Jose area, came to the conclusion that COVID was already significantly more widespread by March and April 2020 than most people realized.

  This had wide-ranging implications, but the most important revelation was that the estimates of COVID’s mortality rate used by “scientists” and the WHO were almost certainly much too high.

  Those estimates were created under the assumption that COVID cases were overwhelmingly detectable; that cases were captured by testing and thus tracking deaths could be achieved with a “case fatality rate,” instead of “infection fatality rate.”

  That was the mistake Tedros and the WHO made two and a half years ago.

  Of course, for providing substantial evidence and data that COVID was less deadly than initially feared, Ioannidis (and Bhattacharya) was attacked from within the “expert community.”

  In what has now become a familiar insult, those behind the study were vilified as COVID minimizers and dangerous conspiracy theorists who would get people killed by not taking the virus seriously enough.

  But Ioannidis remained undeterred, and with several authors, he recently released another review of the infection fatality rate of COVID. Importantly, the paper looks at the pre-vaccination time period and covers the non-elderly age groups; those who were most affected by COVID restrictions and endless mandates.

  The Numbers

  The review begins with a statement of fact that was almost entirely ignored by lockdown “experts” throughout the pandemic, but especially when restrictions, lockdowns and mandates were at their peak early on.

  “The infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of vaccination or prior infection is important to estimate accurately, since 94 percent of the global population is younger than 70 years and 86 percent is younger than 60 years.” [Emphasis added.]

  94 percent of the global population is younger than 70 years old.

  6 percent of is older than 70 years old.

  86 percent is younger than 60 years old.

  This is relevant because restrictions overwhelmingly impacted the 86–94 percent of people who are younger than 60 or 70 years old.

  Ioannidis and his co-writers reviewed 40 national seroprevalence studies that covered 38 countries to come to determine their estimates of infection fatality rate for the overwhelming majority of people.

  Importantly, those seroprevalence studies were conducted before the vaccines were released, meaning the IFR’s were calculated before whatever impact vaccines had on younger age groups.

  So what did they find?

  The median infection fatality rate for those aged 0–59 was 0.035 percent.

  This represents 86 percent of the global population and the survival rate for those who were infected with COVID pre-vaccination was 99.965 percent.

  For those aged 0–69, which covers 94 percent of the global population, the fatality rate was 0.095 percent, meaning the survival rate for nearly 7.3 billion people was 99.905 percent.

  Those survival rates are obviously staggeringly high, which already creates frustration that restrictions were imposed on all age groups, when focused protection for those over 70 or at significantly elevated risk would have been a much more preferable course of action.

  But it gets worse.

  The researchers broke down the demographics into smaller buckets, showing the increase in risk amongst older populations, and conversely, how infinitesimal the risk was amongst younger age groups.

  • Ages 60–69, fatality rate 0.501 percent, survival rate 99.499 percent
  • Ages 50–59, fatality rate 0.129 percent, survival rate 99.871 percent
  • Ages 40–49, fatality rate 0.035 percent survival rate 99.965 percent
  • Ages 30–39, fatality rate 0.011 percent, survival rate 99.989 percent
  • Ages 20–29, fatality rate 0.003 percent, survival rate 99.997 percent
  • Ages 0–19, fatality rate 0.0003 percent, survival rate 99.9997 percent

  They added that “Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025-0.032 percent for 0-59 years and 0.063-0.082 percent for 0-69 years.”

  These numbers are astounding and reassuringly low, across the board.

  But they’re almost nonexistent for children.

  Yet as late as fall 2021, Fauci was still fear-mongering about the risks of COVID to children in order to increase vaccination uptake, saying in an interview that it was not a “benign situation”:

  “We certainly want to get as many children vaccinated within this age group as we possibly can because as you heard and reported, that this is not, you know, a benign situation.”

  It’s nearly impossible for any illness to be less of a risk, or more “benign” than a 0.0003 percent risk of death.

  Even in October 2021, during that same interview with NPR, Fauci said that masks should continue on children as an “extra step” to protect them, even after vaccination:

  “And when you have that type of viral dynamic, even when you have kids vaccinated, you certainly—when you are in an indoor setting, you want to make sure you go the extra step to protect them. So I can’t give you an exact number of what that would be in the dynamics of virus in the community, but hopefully we will get there within a reasonable period of time. You know, masks often now—as we say, they’re not forever. And hopefully we’ll get to a point where we can remove the masks in schools and in other places. But I don’t believe that that time is right now.”

  Nothing better highlights the incompetence and misinformation from Dr. Fauci than ignoring that pre-vaccination, children were at vanishingly small risks from COVID, that vaccination uptake amongst kids was entirely irrelevant since they do not prevent infection or transmission, and that mask usage is completely ineffective at protecting anyone. Especially for those who didn’t need protection in the first place.

  The CDC, “expert” community, World Health Organization, media figures—all endlessly spread terror that the virus was a mass killer while conflating detected case fatality rates with infection fatality rates.

  Yet now we have another piece of evidence suggesting that the initial WHO estimates were off by 99 percent for 94 percent of the world’s population.

  Just for some perspective, here’s the difference visually portrayed between what the WHO claimed and what Ioannidis found:

  

  Even if the lockdowns, mask mandates, capacity limits, and shuttered playgrounds worked, the dangers of the virus were so minuscule that the collateral damage instantly and immediately outweighed any potential benefit.

  Economic destruction, increased suicide attempts due to seemingly indefinite isolation, horrifying levels of learning loss, increasing obesity amongst kids, plummeting test scores, increased poverty and hunger, supply chain problems, rampant inflation; all of it is a direct result of policies imposed by terrified, incompetent “experts.”

  Their estimates were hopelessly, catastrophically wrong, yet they maintained their unchallenged sense of authority for multiple years, and still receive awards, praise, increased funding and a sense of infallibility amongst politicians and decision-makers.

  If sanity and intellectual honesty still existed, these estimates would be front page news for every major media outlet in the world.

  Instead, because the media and their allies in the tech, corporate, and political classes promoted and encouraged lockdowns and restrictions while censoring dissent, it’s ignored.

  Nothing could be more perfectly COVID than that.

  Originally published on the author’s Substack, reposted from the Brownstone Institute

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 21:40

• "Confidence Shaken:" US Firms In China Look Elsewhere As 'Friendshoring' Gathers Steam
  “Confidence Shaken:” US Firms In China Look Elsewhere As ‘Friendshoring’ Gathers Steam

  The global economy is fracturing as the need to rejigger supply chains is underway. US firms realize China’s Covid-zero policy and shutdowns, along with heightened geopolitical risk across the region, are bad for businesses and reduce capital investments in the country. 

  The American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai’s latest survey of hundreds of US firms in the Asian country found a near doubling of respondents over the past year that are cutting investment.

  Around a fifth of the 307 companies surveyed said they were slashing investments this year because of Covid-related shutdowns, travel restrictions, and supply chain disruptions. This is nearly double the number of respondents who were asked the same question last year. 

  “Confidence has been shaken,” the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai said.

  Eric Zheng, president of the Shanghai chamber, was quoted by Financial Times, indicating Beijing should “pivot to a more sensible approach to managing Covid-19 based on a reasonable balance between public health and the economy,” adding the strict measures have “upended business performance expectations.”

  Even though US firms still expect future growth, business confidence has been shattered as only 55% of respondents are optimistic about China’s five-year business outlook — a record low. 

  And President Xi Jinping’s power grab of a third five-year term could leave US CEOs facing a complex outlook that may spur accelerated rejiggering of critical supply chains out of the country to more friendly shores. The survey has conducted between July 14 and Aug. 18 and didn’t include Xi’s consolidation of power. 

  All of this suggests that Western firms are increasingly likely to divert at least some (if not all) of their supply chains out of China in a move called “friendshoring” — while a play on “offshoring,” this isn’t about companies moving operations back to the US or Europe, but instead seeking foreign alternatives that retain the benefit of low labor costs but with less international controversy. 

  Michael Every, the global strategist at Rabobank, recently outlined in a note to clients which countries will benefit from friendshoring… 

  Every expects a lot of low-tech manufacturing jobs will go to India. 

  

  India, Turkey, and Brazil could be the top beneficiaries of medium-tech jobs. 

  

  France, Japan, Italy, and Canada could be the top beneficiaries of high-tech jobs. 

  

  This decade could be one of the greatest global supply chain resets in a generation.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 21:20

• Lifelong Democrat Lawmaker To Vote Republican In NY Governor Race: 'Hochul Has No Clue'
  Lifelong Democrat Lawmaker To Vote Republican In NY Governor Race: ‘Hochul Has No Clue’

  Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Frustrated with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s halfhearted attempt to get serious on crime, a decades-long Democrat state lawmaker says he will vote for her Republican challenger in the upcoming election.

  “The No.1, No.2 and No.3 issues for New Yorkers are crime, crime, crime,” Dov Hikind, a Brooklyn Democrat who had served as an assemblyman in the New York State Legislature for 35 years until 2018, told The Epoch Times’ sister media NTD News after the last and only debate before the Nov. 8 gubernatorial race.

  

  During the hour-long debate on Tuesday night, Hochul faced off with Rep Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) and took on topics including the economy, abortion, and COVID vaccine mandates. But the most heated exchange took place when Zeldin charged Hochul with failing to address rampant subway crimes and hate crimes targeting Jewish and Asian communities.

  Hochul, who ascended to the governorship after former Governor Andrew Cuomo resigned amid a sexual harassment scandal, fired back by accusing the Long Island Republican of trying to “keep people scared” about crimes more than they should, while insisting that her criminal justice policies are “making a difference.”

  “Anyone who commits a crime under our laws, especially with the change they made to bail, has consequences. I don’t know why that’s so important to you,” the Democrat incumbent said at one point.

  Hochul’s response, Hikind said, shows that she “has no clue” whatsoever as to what concerns New Yorkers the most.

  “There’s a 40 percent decrease in the number of people using the New York City subway system. That’s crazy,” he told NTD News. “I don’t blame people. They’re afraid. They’re concerned. They see the things that are happening on the subway system and in the streets of New York.”

  “Hochul has no clue, and I think it was very clear last night,” Hikind continued, adding that he was “dumbfounded” about whether Hochul has a plan for the future at all. He also pointed to the fact that the governor didn’t start campaigning on the issue of crime until very recently when polls showed Zeldin steadily narrowing her lead.

  In a campaign ad launched last week, Hochul highlighted her opponent’s ties to President Donald Trump. The ad features footage of Trump at an April 2022 event at his Mar-a-Lago home saying, “Lee fought for me very, very hard.” It also shows Trump giving Zeldin a supportive tap on the shoulder.

  “Zeldin voted with Trump, too—nearly 90 percent of the time, against tougher gun laws, for extreme anti-abortion laws,” the narrator says in an ominous voice. “Zeldin even voted to overturn the 2020 election to keep Trump in power.”

  Read more here…

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 21:00

• Hawaii On Red Alert As Earthquake Swarms Detected Under World's Largest Active Volcano
  Hawaii On Red Alert As Earthquake Swarms Detected Under World’s Largest Active Volcano

  The Island of Hawaii is on high alert as earthquake swarms continue around the world’s largest active volcano, Mauna Loa. Scientists are worried about an eruption but not sure if one is imminent as magma churns underneath, generating dozens of quakes daily, according to AP News. 

  US Geological Survey’s Hawaiian Volcano Observatory said Mauna Loa has been in a state of “heightened unrest” since mid-month due to daily earthquake swarms jumped from 10-20 per day to 40-50 per day. 

  “Scientists believe more earthquakes are occurring because more magma is flowing into Mauna Loa’s summit reservoir system from the hot spot under the earth’s surface that feeds molten rock to Hawaii’s volcanoes,” AP said.

  Hawaii’s civil defense agency held a meeting earlier this week to educate residents on preparing for a possible eruption. 

  “Not to panic everybody, but they have to be aware of that you live on the slopes of Mauna Loa. There’s a potential for some kind of lava disaster,” said Talmadge Magno, Hawaii County Civil Defense administrator.

  Mauna Loa is about half of the Hawaii Island landmass. So any eruption would immediately impact residents. There are about 200,000 people on the island. It last erupted in 1984, and lava flows took out homes in under two hours. 

  USGS data shows hundreds of quakes have rattled the island in the last 30 days. 

  

  USGS has placed Mauna Loa under “yellow advisory,” ― signifying residents need to be prepared. 

  “We would hope if Mauna Loa rocks that we would have … days so that folks can be evacuated and notified,” Dr. Andria Ellis, a geophysicist at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, told Hawaii News Now. 

  Even though an eruption doesn’t appear imminent, the rumblings underground suggest caution at what may be coming, “and at this point in time, like we always say, it’s better to be prepared and be ready,” said Luke Meyers, administrator of the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 20:40

• Congressional Hispanic Caucus Blocks GOP Rep Mayra Flores' Request To Join
  Congressional Hispanic Caucus Blocks GOP Rep Mayra Flores’ Request To Join

  Though Mayra Flores is the country’s first Mexican-born congresswoman, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has rejected her request to become a member. 

  “As the first Mexican-born American Congresswoman, I thought the Hispanic Caucus would be open in working together,” Flores tweeted on Wednesday.

  “This denial once again proves a bias towards conservative Latinas that don’t fit their narrative or ideology.” 

  The official website of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus gives no hint that it’s a Democrats-only club: “The CHC addresses national and international issues and crafts policies that impact the Hispanic community. The function of the Caucus is to serve as a forum for the Hispanic Members of Congress to coalesce around a collective legislative agenda.”

  The group’s bylaws, however, explicitly bar Republicans from joining, a caucus spokesman told the Texas Tribune. He added, “Rep. Flores’ Extreme MAGA values and their attacks on Latinos and our nation’s democracy on January 6 do not align with CHC values.”

  On Thursday, Flores tweeted “maybe I’m not the right type of taco.” In a July address to a so-called “Latinx” conference in San Antonio, Jill Biden famously compared Mexicans to breakfast tacos. After facing mockery and scorn, she issued an apology. 

  My thoughts after the rejection by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, maybe I’m not the right type of taco.

  — Mayra Flores (@MayraFlores2022) October 27, 2022

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

  Though Flores across-the-aisle gesture was rebuffed, it should be noted that there’s a Republican-only version too: the Congressional Hispanic Conference. The now-Democrats-only Caucus used to be bipartisan, before a split in the 1970s over U.S. policy toward Cuba. 

  Flores caused a national shockwave in June, by flipping a once-solid-blue and 84%-Hispanic district in South Texas, soundly beating her Democratic opponent 51% to 43%. She became the first Republican to represent that part of Texas since 1870 — over 150 years. Notably, one of her votes came from new Texan Elon Musk, in what he says was his first-ever vote for a Republican. 

  Since that special election was only for the balance of the current term, Flores is now seeking re-election in a redrawn district that raises the hurdle for her demographically while also pitting her against another incumbent. Despite that, the Cook Political Report earlier this month switched the race from “Lean Democrat” to “Toss-Up.” 

  Endorsed by Donald Trump, Flores has campaigned against gun control, abortion and lax border security. A recent poll found that, among Hispanics who know both Flores and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Flores has higher net favorability ratings. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 20:20

• Russia Announces End Of Mobilization After Enlisting 300K New Troops
  Russia Announces End Of Mobilization After Enlisting 300K New Troops

  Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu announced Friday the the end of the partial military mobilization order from last month, having reached the target goal of 300,000 to boost operational support for military action in Ukraine. The moment was captured in a televised event with President Vladimir Putin.

  “The dispatch of citizens called up during mobilization was completed today. The notification of citizens [to report for military duty] has ended,” state-run RIA Novosti quoted the defense chief as saying.

  

  “The task set by you — to mobilize 300,000 people — has been fulfilled. No additional tasks are planned,” Shoigu told Putin during the televised meeting. 

  He specified that among the mobilized recruits, some 82,000 are already in the conflict zone in Ukraine and 218,000 still undergoing training. 

  Putin told Shoigu in the meeting, “Based on the experience of conducting a special military operation, we need to think over and make adjustments to all components of the Armed Forces, including the Ground Forces” – and tasked the defense ministry with implementing the necessary “adjustments” or upgrades.

  “During the partial mobilization, over 1,300 representatives of executive power and over 27,000 businessmen were sent to the armed forces. About 13,000 citizens volunteered before they received their conscription notifications, and were sent to the armed forces as volunteers. The average age of mobilized citizens is 35 years,” Shoigu continued.

  He additionally emphasized that all of those mobilized are now eligible to receive special state benefits as designated combat veterans. “Let’s agree that in December at the annual board after all this work, I repeat once again, including at the expert level, you will report proposals which could be accepted,” Putin told Shoigu in concluding the meeting.

  Meanwhile, after over a month of reports of widespread Ukrainian gains amid the counteroffensive in the east and south, pro-Kiev forces are said to be slowing – and in some cases being pushed back again, per The Moscow Times, citing a Rand Corporation defense analyst: 

  Capturing Bakhmut, a salt mining city in the Donetsk region with a pre-war population of 70,000 people, would give Russia a key foothold to launch offensives toward major cities such as Sloviansk and Kramatorsk —  and vindicate Moscow’s decision to throw thousands of men at the fight in the past month. 

  “Bakhmut is one of the few places where Russia has been going forward rather than backward since the summer,” [James] Black said. 

  Absolutely insane and chaotic combat footage from UKR tank. Russian convoy runs straight into UKR 25th brigade fighting near Kherson. Date Unknown. pic.twitter.com/a0eoJlhqxm

  — D.Emery (@DemeryUK) October 23, 2022

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

  However, a huge concentration of Ukrainian artillery on Russian frontlines – backed and sustained by the recent influx of massive weapons shipments from Western allies – have meant likely big casualty rates for the Russian side, especially as the Kherson area appears to be witnessing a slow Russian retreat. There are signs that Russia is continuing to pull civilians out of the city in preparation for large-scale urban warfare. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 20:00

• Democrats Race To Save A Blue State Gone Purple
  Democrats Race To Save A Blue State Gone Purple

  Authored by Matthew Schantin via RealClear Wire (emphasis ours),

  With Election Day less than a month away, Democrats and Republicans are duking it out to secure majorities in Congress. While both parties funnel record-breaking millions of dollars into several traditional battleground states like Pennsylvania and Nevada, Democrats could lose a state they’ve won since the late 1980s – Oregon.

  

  Though the state is all but guaranteed to re-elect longtime Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, there’s a real possibility Oregonians might just elect their first Republican governor in nearly 35 years. Thanks to a well-funded independent spoiler candidate and an unpopular outgoing governor, Democrats are facing a tight race with serious implications as major issues like abortion are tossed to the states.

  While D.C. insiders are shocked to see Oregon in play after RealClearPolitics shifted the gubernatorial election to a “toss-up,” Oregonians like myself have long seen the writing on the wall.

  Conservatives in the state began gaining steam prior to the pandemic, seizing on hot-button issues like climate legislation to galvanize support from rural and moderate voters. One example was a cap-and-trade bill that had Republican legislators fleeing the state Capitol to avoid a vote and motivated the start of Timber Unity, a group strung together by right-leaning rural Oregonians who were locally famous for leading a log truck protest against the legislation.

  From there, dissatisfaction continued to metastasize over the course of the pandemic. Despite ranking in the top 10 states for lowest COVID-19 cases and resulting deaths, Gov. Kate Brown had the highest disapproval ranking of any governor in the country as recently as last April, triggering three separate recall attempts that ultimately failed to make it on the November ballot.

  Ahead of November, many Democrats have distanced themselves from the outgoing governor and have instead focused on promoting their own detailed plans to tackle things like tent cities and modernizing Oregon’s firefighting capabilities.

  All the while, Republican nominee and former state Senate Minority Leader Christine Drazan has used Oregon’s escalating homelessness and addiction crises as evidence of failed Democratic leadership. Capitalizing on the fact that the president’s party historically loses ground during midterm elections and ongoing inflation woes, Drazan is unusually well-positioned to help flip the state red.

  The Republican nominee received a further boost following state Sen. Betsy Johnson’s early decision to join the race. Johnson, who served in the legislature for over 20 years before leaving both the Democratic party and her state Senate seat, is running for the state’s top spot as an Independent. With backing from Oregon’s business community, she has taken millions of dollars from prominent business leaders and timber company owners. Johnson’s early cash advantage helped position her as the “best of both parties” and an ideal spoiler candidate to draw voters away from the other two choices.

  As a result, what many pundits predicted would be a breezy general election for Democratic nominee Tina Kotek after she fought her way through a crowded primary field, has turned into one of the hottest elections in the country.

  As the longest-tenured Oregon House Speaker, many Democrats have seen Kotek as the heir apparent to the governorship for several years.

  While Kotek has been the ideal candidate for Democrats, more moderate voters see her as the embodiment of top-of-mind, often ignoring issues in the state given that she represents and resides in Portland. She has tried to reject this narrative, claiming her opponents will continue to create problems when it comes to guns and climate change, two traditionally salient concerns for Oregon voters given majority support for stricter gun control and protecting the state’s pristine outdoor environment. Johnson and Drazan both have “A” ratings from the NRA and support from Timber Unity with legislative records to match, offering the Democratic nominee prime campaign ads on a silver platter.

  However, recent polling shows a tight two-way race between Kotek and Drazan, with each courting about a third of the vote, while Johnson’s numbers have stagnated in the upper teens. The competitiveness of this race has been reflected in the outside spending pouring in from the Republican and Democratic Governors Associations. Both have written several million-dollar checks, including a recent $1.25 million from the Democratic Governors Association last month, the single largest donation of the race.

  This may be the best chance Republicans have had in decades to take back the Oregon Governor’s mansion, but with the Supreme Court’s recent Dobbs decision and a tragic shooting in Bend, a major city in the state, Kotek is trying to shift the focus back to issues that have long kept many Oregonians in lockstep with the Democratic Party.

  The question now is whether Drazan and Kotek can consolidate their parties’ voters the way they consolidated support from their peers to earn their former leadership roles. President Biden recently visited Oregon while local and national Republican party organizations double down on their investment in the Republican nominee as both parties make a last minute push. National Democrats haven’t given Oregon a second thought in years, but their early oversight could cost them a key governorship at a time when state leaders, rather than federal officials, are tasked with protecting key Democratic positions.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 19:40

• 'Zero Emissions' From Electric Vehicles? Here's Why That Claim Has Zero Basis
  ‘Zero Emissions’ From Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That Claim Has Zero Basis

  Authored by John Murawski via RealClear Wire,

  As California, New York, and other states move to phase out the sale of gasoline-powered cars, public officials routinely echo the Biden administration’s claim that electric vehicles are a “zero emissions” solution that can significantly mitigate the effects of climate change. 

  

  Car and energy experts, however, say there is no such thing as a zero-emissions vehicle: For now and the foreseeable future, the energy required to manufacture and power electric cars will leave a sizable carbon footprint. In some cases hybrids can be cleaner alternatives in states that depend on coal to generate electricity, and some suggest that it may be too rash to write off all internal combustion vehicles just yet. 

  “I have a friend who drives a Kia he’s had for about 15 years,” said Ashley Nunes, a research fellow at Harvard Law School.

  “He called me and said, ‘Hey, I’m thinking of buying a Tesla. What do you think?’” 

  “I said, ‘If you care about the environment, keep the Kia,’” Nunes said. 

  Nunes’ advice points to the subtle complexities and numerous variables that challenge the reassuringly simple yet overstated promise of electric vehicles. Few dispute that the complete transition to EVs powered by cleaner electricity from renewable energy sources will have a less dire environmental impact than today’s gas-powered automotive fleet. But that low-carbon landscape exists on a distant horizon that’s booby-trapped with obstacles and popular misconceptions. 

  In the meantime, the growing efforts by governments in this country and abroad to ban people from buying a transportation technology that has shaped modern society for the past century is prompting some electric car advocates to warn against using best-case scenarios to promote unrealistic expectations about the practicalities, costs, and payoffs of EVs. 

  Adding up the environmental costs and benefits of electric cars requires complex computer modeling to calculate an EV’s lifetime carbon footprint, which depends on a host of assumptions and inputs. The cradle-to-grave analysis must factor in industrial processing, refining, manufacturing, recycling, and electricity generation. The upshot: More greenhouse gases are emitted in the manufacture of EVs than by the drilling, refining, smelting, and assembly for gas-powered cars, which means it can take several years of driving an EV before there is any benefit to the climate. 

  The linchpin of the EV revolution is California’s 100% ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars, SUVs, and light trucks, which is scheduled to go into full effect in 2035 and expected to be adopted by other states. California’s mandate includes a phased-in ban on the sale of new hybrids, which only recently were considered technological marvels. California will restrict the sale of plug-in hybrids to just 20% of total EV sales, a significant cap for low-emissions vehicles that are nearly as popular with environmentally conscious California consumers as all-electric EVs. 

  Within the past several years, General Motors, Volvo, and other major car makers have vowed to zero out gas-powered cars, amid a growing consensus of European nations, and with China, India, and Canada announcing plans to restrict or ban the sale of cars with gas tanks. 

  But public demand is lagging, and until that changes, governments will have to incentivize consumers to buy electric cars. Currently EVs appeal to a narrow demographic: affluent, educated, coastal, and liberal, with the highest enthusiasm among 35- to 45-year-olds, according to research by James Archsmith, who researches energy and environmental economics at the University of Maryland, and his co-authors. Their research concludes that under some scenarios, achieving a 50% market share for EVs in 2035 would require paying subsidies in excess of $30,000 per electric car, totaling in the trillions of dollars, and that achieving more modest penetration targets could cost public treasuries in the hundreds of billions of dollars. 

  The electric car’s biggest disadvantage on greenhouse gas emissions is the production of an EV battery, which requires energy-intensive mining and processing, and generates twice as much carbon emissions as the manufacture of an internal combustion engine. This means that the EV starts off with a bigger carbon footprint than a gasoline-powered car when it rolls off the assembly line and takes time to catch up to a gasoline-powered car. 

  One of the big unknowns is whether EV batteries will have to be replaced. While the EV industry says battery technology is improving so that degradation is limited, if that assurance proves overly optimistic and auto warranties have to replace expensive battery packs, the new battery would create a second carbon footprint that the EV would have to work off over time, partially erasing the promised greenhouse-gas benefits. 

  With governments now in the business of mandating electric vehicles, the battery challenge assumes a global scale. The majority of lithium-ion batteries are produced in China, where most electricity comes from coal-burning power plants. 

  The process of mining critical minerals is sometimes described in language that evokes strip mining and fracking, an inconvenient truth that is beginning to attract notice. “Electric cars and renewable energy may not be as green as they appear,” a 2021 New York Times article noted. “Production of raw materials like lithium, cobalt and nickel that are essential to these technologies are often ruinous to land, water, wildlife and people.” The Times has also warned that with global demand for electric vehicles projected to grow sixfold by 2030, “the dirty origins of this otherwise promising green industry have become a looming crisis.” 

  To address this disquieting dependency on a foreign power, the United States and other nations are seeking to break China’s near-monopoly on battery production. The Inflation Reduction Act states that under a phase-in starting in 2024, EVs with battery components or critical minerals sourced from “a foreign entity of concern,” which includes China, can’t qualify for the maximum allowable tax credit of $7,500. The United States is pumping in more than $100 billion to create an entire industry in this country. Just last week, President Biden announced the American Battery Materials Initiative, awarding more than $2.8 billion for 20 battery manufacturing and processing plants to develop and produce domestic lithium, graphite, nickel, silicon oxide, plus critical components and facilities. 

  Over time, a typical EV will catch up and outperform gas-powered cars on greenhouse gas reductions, because electric cars are cleaner to drive. But the amount of mileage that must be driven for the EV to break even on CO2 emissions depends on a host of assumptions and variables. Some researchers say that the EV’s emissions benefits are vastly overstated – by 600%, according to one study – because the variables used for comparison make an EV look better on paper than it performs in real-life situations. 

  All of these CO2 metrics could come into play in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recently proposed rule that would require publicly traded companies to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions they produce directly, as well emissions produced indirectly through their supply chains around the world. While the implications aren’t clear yet, the new rule could standardize CO2 disclosures and transparency on EV carbon impacts, but some say that such calculations are nearly impossible for global contractors, and automakers would have to rely on the same kinds of estimates and modeling that are used now. Echoing a common concern, EV battery maker Nikola Corp. told the SEC that “some climate data is not readily available, complete, or definitive.” 

  As a result of these uncertainties, many consumers don’t understand the complexity of these analyses and may assume that their electric cars are literally zero-emissions, or that what matters most is that EVs are better for the environment and the precise degree is not that important. 

  Zeb Hallock, president of Tesla Owners Club of NC Triangle in Raleigh, said in an email exchange that he and his wife both drive Teslas, a Model S that replaced a Nissan 350Z in 2014 and a Model 3 that replaced a Toyota Prius in 2018. The Hallocks’ Teslas are charged at home at a cost that he estimates is equivalent to paying 47 cents for a gallon of gasoline. He said by email that the public supercharger network “in some areas of the country can rival the cost of gasoline,” but this is not a concern because the Hallocks do most of their charging at home. 

  When asked about the greenhouse gas deficit of electric cars, Hallock speculated that most EV owners believe the carbon footprint of an EV is minimal and they don’t think much about it. “A small number of owners don’t care at all about environmental benefits and purchased a Tesla for the superior performance and the fact that it’s American made and uses cheap domestic fuel,” he said. 

  EVs: Centerpiece of the Agenda

  But in the universe of climate activism, purported environmental benefits make EVs the international centerpiece of meeting the 2015 Paris Climate Accords to limit the rise of global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, compared with preindustrial levels. Transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States, accounting for more than a quarter of all CO2 emissions, and more than half of those emissions come from passenger cars, pickup trucks and SUVs that are now being slated for replacement by electric vehicles. 

  EV advocates are optimistic that in the coming decades electric cars will become cleaner as power grids are “decarbonized” and the industrialized world reduces its reliance on CO2-spewing fossil fuels, primarily coal and natural gas. Exactly how much cleaner is not easy to pinpoint. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about 60% of the nation’s electricity was generated from coal and gas in 2021. In its Annual Energy Outlook, the agency projects those two fossil fuels will generate 44% of U.S. electricity by 2050. 

  But those percentages can be misleading. Even as the relative fuel proportions change over time, overall electricity demand is going up, so the total amount of fossil fuels actually burned in the mid-21st century goes down by only about 5%, according to EIA estimates. Future greenhouse gas emissions will depend on the number of EVs on the road and how electricity is generated, and those forecasts swing wildly. The EIA forecasts a mere 18.9 million EVs on U.S. roads in 2050, which is very conservative compared with advocacy group EVAdoption’s prediction of more than 25 million EVs on U.S. roads by 2030, only eight years away. BloombergNEF forecasts 125 million EVs on U.S. roads in 2040, up from 1.61 million at the end of last year, which would constitute about half the cars in this country. 

  “They’re making these forecasts that are basically licking your finger and sticking it up in the air,” David Rapson, a professor of energy economics at the University of California, Davis, who analyzes electric vehicle policy, said about California forecasts, which also applies more broadly. “Nobody knows what’s going to happen.” 

  Weaning the country to an alternative power source is an experiment that will pose a host of logistical and environmental challenges. One challenge will be installing nearly 1.2 million public and 28 private public charging stations by 2030 to accommodate the explosion of EVs to more than 48 million vehicles projected in eight years, according to McKinsey & Co. That projection would be partly covered by the 500,000 public chargers funded by $7.5 billion in the recently passed federal Inflation Reduction Act. It could also require building power plants and renewable generating projects at a truly colossal scale, not factored into EVs’ carbon footprint. One estimate places the demand at 1,700 terawatt-hours per year, or 41% of the U.S. electrical generating capacity, to meet a surge in use if there’s a complete transition and the United States has 350 million electric cars.  

  That power demand will be acutely felt in California, where, just days after the California Air Resources Board decreed the phaseout of internal-combustion cars, the state narrowly averted rolling blackouts during a record heat wave and the California Independent System Operator urged residents to cut back power usage by, among other things, avoiding charging their electric cars during times of peak energy demand. RealClearInvestigations has reported that California’s grid is straining under the load, while The New York Times reported that California faces “the threat of rolling blackouts for years to come,” a consequence of the state’s increasing reliance on solar power and wind farms that make for unpredictable electricity production and render California dependent on importing emergency electricity from neighboring states.

  “To think that we are going to completely eliminate these by far dominant sources of energy and transportation services in our economy in the next 13 years is a fairy tale,” said Rapson, who has authored papers challenging optimistic projections. 

  “They want to articulate a vision of hope and ambition that is pushing society towards a solution to climate change,” Rapson said. “That vision is going to run into massive constraints.” 

  Rapson, who believes the state’s unrealistic goals will still advance EV adoption even if they fall short of their targets, said the California Air Resources Board regulations come with a huge loophole: In their current form they don’t prevent the buying and selling of used cars, and they don’t prevent California residents from buying a new gasoline car in another state. The rules could be modified in future years to make it costly to register new cars bought out of state, but in their current form they create an escape valve for citizens who resist electric cars. 

  Even in the trendsetting auto market of California, which accounts for 40% of all EV purchases in this country, EVs accounted for only 12.5% of all car sales last year, and represent less than 2% of all the cars in the state, indicating that gasoline automobiles remain more popular. Banning the sale of new gas-powered cars “will likely be a boon to that industry and to used-car dealers in the state,” predicts James Sallee, an energy economist at UC-Berkeley. 

  He predicts that California’s mandate will only make gasoline vehicles more valuable, as people hold on to them and extend their lifetimes through care and maintenance, the unintended consequence of government policy making something scarce. 

  California Air Resources Board regulations would fine automakers $20,000 for each combustion engine car sold in violation of the restrictions, but residents could get around the EV mandate by buying used gasoline cars in the state and new gasoline cars out of state, unless California tightens its regulations to disincentivize its residents from buying the cars they prefer to own. 

  “As currently constructed,” Sallee wrote, “California residents would be free to import ICE [internal combustion engine] vehicles from out of state, even after the mandate is fully phased in.” 

  Despite the skeptical outlook of some EV researchers, the general tone of EV advocates is marked by enthusiasm and optimism. According to David Reichmuth, a senior engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Transportation Program, the motives of EV critics are often tainted: “Some of the opposition will come from auto companies that want to delay the transition to electric vehicles, but others will be from fossil fuel interests or climate deniers.” 

  In his blog, Reichmuth noted: “The important thing is that you know that this is familiar and worn-out disinformation, designed to sow doubt and confusion.” 

  “There’s some questions about how quickly can we get there, and there’s a lot of details that will get worked out,” Reichmuth said in phone interview. 

  “But if you look at the big picture – if the [auto] industry says that’s where we’re going, if the climate science says that’s where we need to go, and you look at other countries around the world that are going in the same direction, too – it does seem really likely that we can make this work.” 

  Despite the obstacles, the Union of Concerned Scientists predicts that California’s new EV regulations will result in about half the cars in the state in 2035 being “zero-emission” models, increasing to nearly 90% of cars on California roads by 2045. 

  The Union’s analysis undercuts its claim of zero emissions. Running the numbers on the mileage it takes for an EV to become cleaner than a new gasoline sedan in terms of burning off its CO2 deficit and pulling ahead in greenhouse gas reductions, the organization determined this summer that an EV’s break-even point is 21,300 miles, or 22 months, based on average annual driving. For pickup trucks, the EV pickup pulls ahead at 17,500 miles, or 17 months, when compared to the average new gasoline pickup truck. 

  Those calculations are consistent with a Wall Street Journal analysis conducted last year by University of Toronto researchers, who determined that a 2021 Tesla Model 3, with an 82 kWh battery, would have to drive 20,600 miles to break even on greenhouse gas emissions with a 2021 Toyota RAV4 with a 30 mpg rating. 

  Reuters conducted a similar analysis and got much more favorable results. Reuters last year concluded that a Tesla Model 3 would need to drive just 13,500 miles to exceed the CO2 emissions benefits of a Toyota Corolla. The Reuters analysis crunched the numbers on a Tesla with a 54 kWh battery, considerably smaller than the Tesla power pack in the WSJ analysis, producing less greenhouse gas emissions during mining, processing, and assembly. Still, Reuters noted that in countries like China and Poland, where coal is the primary energy source used to generate electricity, the same Tesla 3 with the smaller battery would have to be driven 78,700 miles to reach carbon parity with the Corolla, showing how much difference a power grid’s fuel mix can make. 

  Not all studies are that kind to EVs. Some automakers, such as Swedish manufacturers Volvo and Polestar, have run their own numbers based on what they call conservative, precautionary estimates that suggest the payback period even under ideal conditions – 100% renewable wind energy – would be much longer: about 30,000 miles of driving. The payback would be closer to 70,000 miles in parts of the world where the power plant energy mix includes dirty fossil fuels. The expected lifespan of the Swedish cars in these studies is about 125,000 miles, which means that some drivers will reap greenhouse gas benefits for only half their electric vehicle’s expected usage. 

  One of the least understood factors that determine an EV’s greenhouse gas benefits is the alternative vehicle to which the EV is compared. Some researchers have noted that this “reference vehicle” is often a hypothetical car that gives the EV an illusory advantage. 

  “To our knowledge, there is not an awareness of the importance of these modeling choices, despite the large implied emission abatement differences,” UC-Davis energy economist Rapson and colleague Erich Muehlegger wrote in a recent paper. They contend that the EV is typically compared to the U.S. “fleet average,” a statistical composite that averages out the fuel efficiency of all cars purchased in a given year, including SUVs and pickup trucks. 

  But that’s not what happens in real life. Rapson and Muehlegger found that Californians who took advantage of financial incentives to buy Teslas would likely have bought plug-in hybrids or conventional hybrids without the incentive, not an average car or a gas guzzler, and comparing a Tesla to the average car skews the results. They contend that as a result of the sloppy comparison, the CO2 benefits of Teslas are overestimated by 600% in California. That overestimate would be considerably higher in parts of the country where the EVs are charged with less clean electricity derived from a higher mix of fossil fuels. 

  Cleaner Gasoline Cars

  The cleaner the car that the EV is replacing, the longer it takes the EV to catch up on CO2 emissions, and the existing gas car in the garage can be optimal because a new gas car comes with a carbon footprint from metals processing and manufacturing. 

  That’s why Nunes, the Harvard Law fellow, advised his friend to keep his Kia. Nunes was comparing the greenhouse gas effects of a new Tesla to a 15-year-old Kia that’s driven only about 4,000 miles a year, and concluded that at that rate it would take his friend more than a decade to burn off the Tesla’s carbon footprint. 

  According to research by Nunes and others, many EV owners use their electric car as a secondary vehicle, logging fewer miles and requiring more time to break even on CO2 emissions. Comparing four different scenarios, he concluded that the requisite break-even mileage for an EV with an 85 kWh battery is either 28,069 miles or 68,160 miles, and it would take the EV owner between 2.73 and 10.49 years to drive that distance, depending on a variety of circumstances. In all of Nunes’ scenarios, the alternative to buying an EV was either buying a new gasoline car or driving the old gas car. 

  Another major factor is the CO2 level of the electricity used to power EVs. The U.S. Department of Energy concludes that hybrids are actually cleaner than EVs in six states, but the key to that analysis is that it’s based on combining all the energy sources – such as natural gas, hydropower, wind farms – used to make electricity in those states. Another way of assessing the environmental impact of EVs is to look at the extra demand EVs put on a regional power grid, requiring power generation that comes primarily from fossil fuels. From this perspective, assuming more coal-fired and natural gas-burning electricity added to the grid, hybrids would generate less CO2 than EVs in several dozen states, according to a recent study.   

  “It’s long past the time to retire the phrase ‘zero emissions,’” said Tristan Burton, a computational mathematician who co-authored that study. “If you market something as a zero emissions vehicle, then people out there will think it’s really zero emissions.” 

  email: jmurawski@realclearinvestigations.com

  Twitter: @johnmurawski

   

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 19:20

• Is Saudi Arabia's Neom Project Too Ambitious?
  Is Saudi Arabia’s Neom Project Too Ambitious?

  By Felicity Bradstock of OilPrice.com

  Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia announced plans to dedicate an $80 billion fund to develop the Neom megaproject, aimed at establishing a futuristic living space in the northwest of the country. This forms part of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which aims to diversify the national economy and make the country less reliant on its oil revenues. Saudi Arabia plans to develop Neom as a mega clean-energy city on a plot of land the size of Belgium. The space is expected to eventually become self-sufficient and provide a return on investment of between 13 and 14 percent. It will have no cars, roads, or greenhouse gas emissions and will be powered by 100 percent renewable energy, with 95 percent of the land being preserved for nature. 

  

  Bin Salman suggested that funds could increase to up to $106 billion if required, with the state investing most of the funds. Neom is expected to be one of the most complex construction developments in the world. Phase one will require $160 billion in funding, with the additional investment being provided through an initial public offering (IPO). 

  The much-talked-about Neom project will see the 10 regions developed in the northwest of Saudi Arabia. The most ambitious project is called ‘The Line’, two parallel skyscrapers aimed at housing 9 million people, a 170-kilometre building that juts into the Red Sea but is just 200 metres wide. What it lacks in width it makes up for in height at a staggering 500 metres tall, complete with a mirrored facade. If successful, this structure will be a major feat of engineering. The development will also include Oxagon, an industrial city with a manufacturing hub centred around tech industries, to be built on the sea and the mountainous region of Trojena. Neom will include a residential area, an industrial city, and a mountain tourism destination. 

  The Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, said, “The designs revealed today for the city’s vertically layered communities will challenge the traditional flat, horizontal cities and create a model for nature preservation and enhanced human livability. The Line will tackle the challenges facing humanity in urban life today and will shine a light on alternative ways to live.”  Foundations for The Line superstructure are already being laid, but many architects are doubtful the building will ever be completed due to the major engineering hurdles. Others question the potential for the project to become net-zero in its lifetime, as pledged by the Saudi government, due to the high carbon emissions expected to be released during its construction. But these criticisms are not dampening Saudi Arabia’s high hopes for the project. 

  Antoni Vives, chief urban planning officer at Neom, believes the development is, so far, going to plan. Vives stated: “I want to be clear about this — Neom is a complex, bold, and highly ambitious undertaking and is most certainly not an easy one to deliver… “But we are making strong progress, and it’s exciting to see the vision come to life.” The most recent budget for the project has soared to $500 billion, part of Saudi Arabia’s National Transformation Plan in 2016, valued at $1.1 trillion.

  The structure is expected to be out of this world, with flying taxis, and a high-speed rail network with an end-to-end transit time of just 20 minutes. Planners also expect to see robotic avatars and holograms in its future. In addition to its ambitions to be a trailblazer in several new technologies, the Saudi government has also put connectivity at the centre of the Neom development. Located on the Red Sea, it is expected to form a major trade hub, with 13 percent of the world’s trade passing through the waters at present. Further, 40 percent of the world’s population currently live within a six-hour flight of the region, making it easily accessible. 

  In terms of renewable power, ENOWA, a subsidiary company of Neom will be tasked with developing sustainable energy and water systems in the region. The firm will oversee the development of a green hydrogen production plant as well as desalination plants for the provision of sustainable water, according to the Saudi Press Agency. ENOWA will work with ACWA Power and the U.S. chemical company Air Products to develop Neom’s green hydrogen capacity. Neom is expected to be powered entirely by renewable energy once completed. Although the country has been criticised for ‘greenwashing’ by proposing ambitious green energy targets with no clear strategy to achieve them, as well as using its renewable energy successes to distract from its human rights issues.

  Saudi Arabia has broken ground on its ambitious Neom development, the first of its kind worldwide, with the potential to provide a prototype for other sustainable megastructures. However, many experts across several industries are questioning whether the superstructure and renewable energy goals are realistic and whether the project will actually come to fruition. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 19:00

• The Key Issues For US Voters Right Now
  The Key Issues For US Voters Right Now

  Eight in ten U.S. voters would say that the economy is a very important factor when it comes to deciding who to vote for in the 2022 midterm elections, according to a poll by Morning Consult.

  As Statista’s Anna Fleck notes, the issue has remained an important topic for around 80 percent of respondents consistently since the start of the year.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Other topics likely to sway voters when they head to the ballots include education, immigration and gun policy. The latter has seen greater variation in terms of the number of people who consider it highly important through the past year, with the question of guns concerning more respondents through the summer months, and only in the past three months seeing a fall in numbers of people that would rate it as “very important.”

  The topic of abortion, on the other hand, has seen an uptick since the start of the year, with the latest survey finding that it is the second most frequently cited concern, with 53 percent of respondents saying it would be “very important” for them when deciding who they want in office.

  Meanwhile, where nearly two thirds of voters said that policies on the coronavirus would impact their decisions as of January this year, now only one third hold the same opinion.

  The relative importance of these topics varies depending on which side of the aisle voters are aligned with. For instance, where 66 percent of Republican voters considered immigration an important issue as of this month, only 38 percent of Democrats thought the same.

  The topic of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, however, is very important to 47 percent of Democrats versus only 25 percent of Republicans.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 18:40

• China Rebuffing US Requests To Resume Military Dialogue Until "Red Lines" Respected
  China Rebuffing US Requests To Resume Military Dialogue Until “Red Lines” Respected

  Authored by Dave DeCamp via The Libertarian Institute, 

  China on Thursday responded to a US call for the resumption of military communication channels that Beijing suspended in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) visiting Taiwan in August.

  Tan Kefei, a spokesman for the Chinese Defense Ministry, said that the US was responsible for the channels being suspended and that Washington must respect China’s concerns for them to be resumed.

  

  “If the US side wants to improve military communication between China and the US, then it should match words with deeds, demonstrate its sincerity, and earnestly respect China’s interests and major concerns, and remove the negative factors that impede the development of ties between the two militaries,” Tan said, according to The South China Morning Post.

  After Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, China called off three separate dialogues with the US military, but other lines of communication remain open. Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin spoke with his Chinese counterpart, Wei Fenghe, and the two military leaders agreed communication was important.

  Austin has said the Pentagon is working to reestablish the channels that were suspended. But at the same time, the US is looking to significantly increase support for Taiwan despite Beijing’s warnings over the issue. Tan said that the US needs to understand China’s “red lines.”

  The Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman further explained: 

  “Everything happens for a reason,” Tan told a monthly press conference in Beijing, adding that the suspension of the dialogues was China’s response in “safeguarding national sovereignty and dignity” against “malicious provocation” by the US.

  With an increased US military presence in the South China Sea and Taiwan, less communication between the two militaries increases the risk of an accident. And with US-China relations at their lowest point in decades, an accident could potentially spiral into a conflict.

  * * *

  Russian President Putin in a major Thursday speech called Taiwan “part of China”…

  Taiwan is an inherent part of the People’s Republic of China. This is the position we have & it remains unchanged. All positive gestures such as visits to Taiwan by US highest dignitaries are seen in Russia as nothing but provocation: Russian President Vladimir Putin pic.twitter.com/5lR7zeeAvs

  — ANI (@ANI) October 27, 2022

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

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 18:20

• Watch: Ilhan Omar Calls Anti-War Protesters "Dangerous Propagandists" For Disrupting Town Hall
  Watch: Ilhan Omar Calls Anti-War Protesters “Dangerous Propagandists” For Disrupting Town Hall

  After protesters crashed an AOC town hall earlier this month, calling her a sellout on foreign policy despite her being labeled a “progressive” – now it’s another member of ‘the Squad’ whose political rallies are getting crashed. 

  Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar held a town hall Thursday night in Richfield, Minnesota – which came days after she was among 30 Progressive Dems to issue a letter to President Biden urging a diplomatic solution on Ukraine, but which was retracted merely less than a day later after backlash from fellow Democrats. Like AOC before, anti-war activists demanded answers from Rep Omar on Ukraine. Journalist and independent political commentator Michael Tracy observed of a video clip of the exchange, “Pressed on her Ukraine war position for what may be the first time since February, Ilhan Omar just starts incoherently scream-crying”….

  Ilhan Omar doubles down on backing Ukraine and yells at anti-war protesters pic.twitter.com/MbIkuug52z

  — samirah (@SameeraKhan) October 28, 2022

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

  “You are supposed to be a progressive democrat! Anti-war! Anti-war!” – a protester can be heard shouting during her talk. She then responded: “We are helping Ukraine defend themselves…”

  “$80 billion to Ukraine is not anti war” – the man continued interrupting. She then struggled to explain as tensions in the room grew that the aid is saving Ukrainian lives amid the Russian onslaught. 

  Immediately after the town hall incident in which Omar was called a “warmonger” she took to Twitter to denounce the activists as “dangerous propagandists”.

  “I am sorry, you all aren’t ‘anti-war protesters,’ you are dangerous propagandists who are literally making a mockery of the anti-war movement,” she wrote in a pair of tweets.

  She added: “I have never had the pleasure of responding to [Russia’s] ridiculous internet disinformation in person before. Thank you for the opportunity”

  She defended her yes votes in support of massive US aid to Ukraine as not at all ‘promoting war’. “I am amazed at the nerve that some people have to not be upset with the country literally waging war, but at the country defending itself and those helping them do that,” the Minnesota Democrat commented additionally.

  I am sorry, you all aren’t “anti war protesters”, you are dangerous propagandists who are literally making a mockery of the anti war movement.

  I have never had the pleasure of responding to 🇷🇺 ridiculous internet disinformation in person before. Thank you for the opportunity ✌🏽 https://t.co/xzTLQCymgO

  — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) October 28, 2022

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

  And further: “I was even told by one of these people tonight, ‘it’s America that started the Russia war,’ seriously wtf,” she said in the aftermath.

  But some have noted that seven months ago, and early on in the Russian invasion, Rep Omar was tweeting about how dangerous it would be to flood Ukraine with West-supplied weapons…

  Back in March, Ilhan Omar sounded a lot like the antiwar protesters she demonizes today as Putin puppets.

  Her rhetoric then was purely performative, while her actions ultimately reinforced the objectives of Empire.

  This is why we call them the #fraudsquad. pic.twitter.com/RM64jQCP6Y

  — Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) October 28, 2022

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

  And yet now Omar, AOC, and fellow Progressives in Congress have proven they are afraid to so much as raise the potential for diplomacy with Russia, in the face of nuclear-armed confrontation – even after President Biden himself admitted the world is staring down nuclear “Armageddon”. 

  The #FraudSquad surrenders yet again 🏳🏳🏳 https://t.co/ITfNUm0yt2

  — Gramsci en colère (@AmericanDevine) October 25, 2022

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

  During the town hall fiasco with the protesters, Omar defended her policies by broadly invoking the children of Ukraine…

  “We are helping little children like me that had been helped,” she said, in reference to her own experience of coming to America as a young refugee.

  

  “Listen. Unless you have not been paying attention to what is happening, there are millions of Ukrainians that have been displaced. There are piles of bodies that are being found in mass graves,” she said while raising her voice. “There are little children [whose] lives are being lost…” The protesters then cited the killings of civilians by Ukrainian forces in the Donbas going back to 2014.

  By the end of the back-and-forth, Omar is seen getting emotional and almost screaming, with her voice cracking in anger and frustration as she shouts down the heckler.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 10/28/2022 – 17:44

Digest powered by RSS Digest