Today’s News 29th September 2021

• Russia Scrambles Su-27 Jet To Escort US Spy Plane Away From Crimea Border
  Russia Scrambles Su-27 Jet To Escort US Spy Plane Away From Crimea Border

  Russian state media is reporting Tuesday a fresh incident between Russian and US aircraft over the Black Sea. The incident began when Russian radars detected an inbound foreign military plane over international waters in the Black Sea, but which approached Russia’s southern border.

  The “airborne target” was soon identified as a US Air Force RC-135 plane, a type of aircraft known for conducting reconnaissance missions. The Kremlin scrambled a Su-27 fighter to intercept the US spy plane. 

  

  According to TASS, citing the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD), “the Su-27 crew identified the airborne target as a US Air Force RC-135 plane and escorted it over the Black Sea without allowing it to violate the Russian border.”

  The statement said further, “After the foreign military plane turned away from the border of the Russian Federation, the Russian jet fighter safely returned to its home airfield.” It’s similar to an incident last July, also involving the large US recon plane.

  Skies over the Black Sea have been seemingly quieter this year in terms of these types of tense intercept situations, especially compared to the increase in such during 2020 and the last year of the Trump presidency, when aerial encounters over the Black and Baltic Seas, as well off Alaska were more frequent.

  However, there have been more rival military drills in the area. Just last week Russia conducted ‘live fire’ tests of its coastal defense systems on Crimea, firing at mock targets in the Black Sea. At the same time the US conducted joint drills with Ukraine. 

  Video showing #Russia’s bastion coastal defense missile systems live firing at sea targets in the Black Sea: pic.twitter.com/HuA3lNt1dz

  — Apex (@Apex_WW) September 23, 2021

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

  This week the Kremlin warned against any attempt of NATO to expand military infrastructure and bases into Ukraine, spelling out this would be a “red line”. At the same time Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, coming fresh off a summit with President Putin in Sochi, said Russia and agreed to “act” in concert with Belarus should this alarming scenario be observed. 

  “It’s clear we need to react to this…(We) agreed that we need to take some kind of measures in response,” Lukashenko said according to RIA news agency. Thus as rival militaries continue to hold drills in order to send competing ‘messages’ – it’s likely intercept incidents over the Black Sea will only increase and possibly return to 2020 levels.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 09/29/2021 – 02:45

• The Eclipse Of Europe
  The Eclipse Of Europe

  Authored by Pat Buchanan,

  For centuries up to and including the 20th, Europe seemed the central pivot of world history.

  Then came the Great Civil War of the West, our Thirty Years’ War (1914-1945), where all of the great European powers — Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia — along with almost all of the rest, fought some of history’s greatest battles.

  Result: Europe’s greatest nations were all bloodied. All of Europe’s empires fell. The colonial peoples were all largely liberated and began the great migration to the mother countries. And Europe was split between a U.S.-led West and a Moscow-dominated Soviet bloc.

  Yet, even during that four-decade Cold War, Europe was viewed as the prize in the struggle.

  By the time that Cold War ended in triumph for the Free World, a European Union modeled on the American Union was rising, and almost all of Europe’s newly freed nations began to join the NATO alliance.

  

  Yet one senses today that Europe’s role in world history is passing, that the American pivot to China and the Indo-Pacific is both historic and permanent, and that as the past belongs to Europe, the future belongs to Asia.

  Asia, after all, is home to the world’s most populous nations, China and India; to six of the world’s nine nuclear powers; and to almost all of its major Muslim nations: Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey and Iran, as well as to the world’s largest economies outside the USA: China and Japan.

  And Europe?

  In 2016, Great Britain voted to withdraw from the EU. This summer, the British joined the Australians and the U.S. in an AUXUS pact that trashed a cherished French deal to build a dozen diesel-powered submarines — and to replace them with British- and U.S.-built nuclear-power subs.

  Paris saw this as a “betrayal,” a “stab in the back” by allies whom Gen. Charles De Gaulle had disparaged as “les Anglo-Saxons.” Yet AUXUS was also an undeniably clear statement as to where the Australians saw their future, and it was not alongside France, but the USA.

  Still, this was the worst U.S. affront of our French ally since President Dwight Eisenhower ordered the British and French out of Suez.

  But, at least then, Ike could say in 1956 that he had not been alerted to the British-French invasion of Egypt and that our NATO partners had acted without his knowledge or consent.

  To protest the treatment of France in the submarine deal, President Emmanuel Macron recalled his ambassador to the U.S., something that had never been done since France recognized the American colonies and came to their aid during our War of Independence.

  Indeed, the submarine agreement forced cancellation of a grand party at the French embassy in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the 240th anniversary of the Battle of the Capes.

  This was the critical British-French naval battle at the mouth of the Chesapeake in 1781, where a French fleet prevailed, enabling it to provide Gen. George Washington’s army cover as it surrounded, shelled and compelled the surrender of Gen. Lord Cornwallis’ army at Yorktown.

  But if the British are out of the EU, and the French are estranged from their NATO allies, Germany yesterday held an election, where, for the first time in its history, the Christian Democratic Union of Konrad Adenauer, Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel was reduced to a fourth of the national vote.

  The new leader of Germany, after months of negotiations, may be the leader of the Social Democrats, in concert with the Greens. But even that government may not be cobbled together by Christmas.

  Neither of the prospective chancellors for the Christian Democratic Union or the Social Democratic Party has the stature of Merkel, who has been both leader of Germany for the last decade and a half but also de facto leader of Europe.

  And consider the present condition of NATO, once celebrated as the most successful alliance in history for having deterred any Soviet invasion of NATO Europe for the entire Cold War.

  In 2001, invoking Article V about an attack on one being an attack on all, NATO joined the Americans in their plunge into Afghanistan to deal with the perpetrators of 9/11.

  This August, 20 years later, all our NATO allies pulled out as the Afghan army crumbled and vanished and the Afghan regime collapsed. Our NATO allies thus shared in the ignominy of the American retreat and defeat.

  Not only is the center of political gravity shifting from Europe to Asia, European unity seems a thing of the past.

  As Britain has left the EU, Scotland is considering secession from England.

  Catalonia is still thinking of secession from Spain.

  Sardinia is considering secession from Italy.

  Poland and Hungary are at odds with the EU over domestic political reforms said to be in conflict with the demands of the bureaucrats in Brussels.

  As for the southern-tier EU and NATO nations, Spain, Italy and Greece, their main concern is less an invasion by Russia than the ongoing invasion from across the Mediterranean from Africa and the Middle East.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 09/29/2021 – 02:00

• Academia Is Establishing A Permanent Surveillance Bureaucracy That Will Soon Govern The Rest Of The Country
  Academia Is Establishing A Permanent Surveillance Bureaucracy That Will Soon Govern The Rest Of The Country

  Authored by Michael Tracey via Substack,

  Having now received a tsunami of messages from people across the US (and a few internationally) about the surveillance regimes being permanently installed at their educational institutions — in contravention of earlier assurances that the current academic year would mark a long-awaited “return to normalcy,” thanks to the onset of mass vaccination – there are a few conclusions to draw.

  

  First: unless and until COVID “cases” are abandoned as a metric by which policy action is presumptively dictated, these institutions are destined to continue flailing from irrational measure to irrational measure for the foreseeable future. Just turn your gaze over to one of America’s most hallowed pedagogical grounds: As of September 17, Columbia University has newly forbidden students from hosting guests, visiting residence halls other than their own, and gathering with more than ten people. The stated rationale for these restrictions? Administrators have extrapolated from the “contact tracing” data they’ve compulsorily seized that a recent increase in viral transmission is attributable to “students socializing unmasked at gatherings in residence halls and at off-campus apartments, bars, and restaurants.” (Socializing at apartments, bars, and restaurants in the middle of Manhattan — gee, I can’t imagine anything more heinous.)

  Just like Connecticut College and so many other institutions I’ve been taking flurries of messages about, Columbia has already mandated vaccination for all students, faculty, and staff, and is approaching 100% compliance. But as has now been made abundantly clear, for many people in positions of bureaucratic authority, universal vaccination was never going to be sufficient for a transition away from the “Permanent Emergency” mode of COVID exegetical theology. The perverse incentives are easy to grasp. These administrators have so much invested in the infrastructure of “case” detection they’ve constructed over the past year and a half — not to mention the wider ideological project of “stopping the spread” at all costs — that it’s impossible to imagine conditions under which they’d voluntarily move to dismantle the surveillance systems over which they preside. And not just because the new powers conferred by this infrastructure — the ability to micromanage the private lives of young adults, track and adjudicate the propriety of their movements, etc. — is probably creepily intoxicating on a level these administrators may not be overtly conscious of, and in any event would almost certainly never publicly admit.

  No, the infrastructure won’t be dismantled any time soon because doing so would also require accepting a major paradigm shift in how COVID is understood. And for certain segments of society, that whole system of thought is just too all-consuming. Benign instances of transmission — i.e. transmission that results in no severe disease, which is almost invariably the case with vaccinated young adults at astronomically low risk from COVID — would have to stop being portrayed as alarming “outbreaks,” necessitating a never-ending stream of frenzied Zoom strategy meetings and swift, all-hands-on-decks interventionist tactics. The very word outbreak would also probably have to be ditched, given its alarmist connotations. I would suggest instead that outbreak be applied to these frantic upswells of bureaucratic overreaction. Perhaps the epidemiological origins of this diseased mentality could be “contact traced.”

  Why should anyone be alarmed by an alleged “outbreak” of overwhelmingly asymptomatic or mild “cases” among a population of healthy vaccinated undergrads — “cases” which would never have been detected at all if not for the superfluous “surveillance testing” structures that these institutions require students submit to? And before anyone chimes in with the standard “because they can transmit to others” response: the “others” they’re surrounded by have had the opportunity to get vaccinated at no cost for the past eight months. Even the US prestige media is beginning to reject the utility of using “cases” as a benchmark for anything of consequence, so you’d think college administrators would eventually follow suit, but a combination of bureaucratic inertia and weirdly flamboyant zeal appears to be preventing that from happening.

  Having read way too much administrative jargon recently, there are a number of obnoxious rhetorical strategies they employ to engender acceptance of edicts that more and more people seem to recognize are wildly, overbearingly arbitrary. “We all have to hold each other accountable,” these administrators will often pronounce, or some variation thereof, which ironically shields them from accountability for their own capricious and intrusive actions. Their orders are often cloyingly filled with artificial appeals to “the community,” which raises the question of who elected these surveillers and snoops to be spokespersons for “the community,” and how they even define “communities,” which seem to contain growing segments of unwilling inhabitants.

  One key thing to know is that despite their pretension of acting at the direction of “expert” epidemiologists and public health officials, the day-to-day decisions about practical implementation at these places often come down to the individual discretion of officials who in no sane world would ever be deferred to on questions of infectious disease protocol, or really anything else of significance. The latest restrictions at Columbia were promulgated by the “Dean of Undergraduate Student Life,” one of those titles which you know must encompass a whole slew of useless, indecipherable makework — and now tends to include a never-ending cycle of COVID monitoring. In her official bio, Dean Cristen Scully Kromm of Columbia is described as having an esteemed background in something called “residence life and leadership oversight.” I don’t know about you, but I can think of few things more unappealing than to have my personal activity surveilled by official busybodies who have dedicated their careers to learning the majesties of “leadership oversight,” which sounds like a field invented specifically for people who actually enjoy receiving LinkedIn emails.

  Thanks to my trusty network of informants, I was able to listen in on a Zoom meeting held Sunday night by Dean Victor Arcelus, the chief COVID decider at my old stomping grounds of Connecticut College. I apologize again for the unrelenting focus on this obscure liberal arts college in southeastern Connecticut, but it’s just become irresistible. Dean Arcelus convened a panel of all his subordinate Deans involved in the crafting of COVID rules; studying the credentials of these people sure is fascinating. 

  

  One member of the ad hoc infectious disease task force, Ariella Rabin Rotramel, currently serves as the College’s “Interim Dean of Institutional Equity and Inclusion,” and is also Associate Professor of Gender, Sexuality and Intersectionality Studies, with a specialty in “Queer Theory and Activism.” Here is Rotramel answering a Zoom question from an anonymous student:

  

  I’m sure they is a lovely person, but it’s unclear why Rotramel should be endowed with authority to issue virology-related policy pronouncements. Either way, they gave some indication that they is perhaps not up for the task, describing the whole situation as “exhausting” — that familiar exasperated rallying cry of activists demanding acquiescence. 

  Demonstrating his unparalleled leadership abilities, however, Dean Arcelus stated that he was “quite disappointed” at reports that parties had been rudely held this past weekend at an on-campus residential facility. “There will be conduct consequences,” he warned. “Suspension is most definitely on the table.” Though the most extreme variation of the Australia-style lockdown had been lifted just hours after my visit last week, students are still being ordered not to partake in normal social gatherings such as parties (gasp) or going to bars (gasp).

  “If you have parties, if you go to the bars, you’re not going to be able to have everything else,” the Dean exhorted, threatening that those who misbehave could prompt a return to lockdown for everybody. However, he did leave a glimmer of hope, enticing students that “if we were able to see that you all were actually being really good” about acceding to his prohibitions, then “things could potentially change.”

  

  “The power in preventing this from happening again is in you and in holding each other accountable,” Dean Arcelus continued. There’s that ubiquitous feature of the contemporary college administrator jargon — presumably tailored to the sensibilities of “accountability”-minded young adults. Again with the added irony that these invocations of “accountability” serve to deflect scrutiny from those who wield the real decision-making power. In the name of “accountability,” students become scapegoats for the irrational policy choices of the people actually in charge. “Accountability” is usually also demanded on behalf of some imagined “community,” so you are not to comply solely at the behest of Dean Arcelus, but rather at the behest of some diffused assemblage of individuals who are claimed to represent a unified community. There’s always this incredibly annoying pretense that bureaucratic operatives and public health “experts” are alone the most exalted guardians of “community safety,” and if you don’t agree with them on moral, practical, or epidemiological grounds, you are a menace.

  “Moving forward, none of you should be OK with people not having a mask on inside, or not having it properly worn,” the Dean inveighed, again appealing to the shockingly pervasive snitch culture being fertilized at this and other academic institutions. Deans at Georgetown University and the University of Southern California have also been sending out these imperious injunctions for students to rat out the alleged violators among them, or as USC Law School Andrew T. Guzman put it in that typically manipulative style: “non-compliant members of our community.” What’s a “non-compliant member” of the USC “community,” exactly? Someone who engages in unsanctioned indoor “hydration.” No, I’m not kidding.

  Do you find any of this arbitrary or ridiculous? Tough luck. Because nowadays all public and private officials apparently have to do is incant the magic word “Delta,” and people whose dictates about proper interpersonal behavior would otherwise be ignored are suddenly imbued with this awesome, unchallengeable power. Their decrees must be obeyed, preferably with effusions of gratitude. Forcing masks on crying two-year-olds? “Delta.” Forbidden to remove your mask for a few seconds in order to take a sip of water at USC, even as a lavish and unmasked Emmys extravaganza just took place right down the road? “Delta.” Shutting down a special needs school in East Harlem less than a week into the academic year? “Delta.” Concerned about the privacy implications of being made to walk around with your health information stored on mandatory smartphone apps, as is the current policy at the University of Michigan, and being made to display this information on command? “Delta.” Also, I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Delta.

  For all his foibles, at least Dean Arcelus nicely encapsulates the mindset which is now running rampant at major US educational institutions — the same institutions producing the graduates who will soon be governing the rest of the country. At the disciplinary Zoom meeting, the good Dean admitted: “I know all of us thought, going into getting vaccinated in April and May, we thought that we would be able to come back to campus and live campus differently [sic] having been vaccinated… But as I’ve said multiple times now, the Delta Variant just presents a whole new level of challenge to us. And that’s why we can’t do what we thought we were going to be able to do back when we got vaccinated in April and May.”

  Well, there you have it. Vaccination was never the gateway to normalcy it was presented to be, and the only option is apparently to instate “Permanent Emergency” protocols with no cognizable “off-ramp” in sight, as a Duke University “expert” helpfully conceded this week. Reneging on these prior assurances is portrayed as some inherently unavoidable fait accompli, rather than a conscious policy choice undertaken to the exclusion of other vastly more sensible options. Choosing another option would mean re-assessing the underlying logic of constantly surveilling a 99% vaccinated population of healthy young adults with these increasingly dubious “tests,” and gathering their private data so as to opine about the permissibility of their social activities. College administrators are totally committed — politically, professionally, metaphysically — to that logic. There’s also an entire financial infrastructure that’s been erected to sustain the endless provision of nonsensical testing services. Ultimately, these officials can’t or won’t extricate themselves from the scolding surveillance paradigm — and why would they? That would entail the relinquishment of power. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 09/29/2021 – 00:05

• US Debt Rises Irrespective Of Who's In The White House
  US Debt Rises Irrespective Of Who’s In The White House

  The U.S. has seen three Republican and three Democratic administrations since the 1980s, but no matter who is in the White House, U.S. debt has been rising steadily throughout the years, also expanding the debt ceiling in the process.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Currently, Congress is once more called upon to raise the amount of debt the country can take on or at least temporarily suspend the debt ceiling mechanism, which says that the Treasury Department is not allowed to go into debt beyond a certain limit unless explicitly authorized by lawmakers. A previous suspension expired on July 31, increasing the debt ceiling to a de-facto $28.5 trillion, the amount of government debt at that time. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said that under the present circumstances, her department would run out of money in October.

  Despite Democrats and Republicans equally expanding debt while in office, the necessary raising of the debt ceiling is routinely causing a fair share of debate – often stretching until the last minute of the country’s solvency. While Democrats have floated another temporary suspension of the limit, Republicans said that the party would not have the GOP’s support in such a vote. Republicans are blocking the effort in protest of the current administration’s $3.5 trillion budget plan, while Democrats point the finger at Trump era tax cuts that contributed to the need for new debt.

  As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, in early 2018 and again in late 2018 and early 2019, the fight about the debt ceiling was not resolved on time, leading to two government shutdowns. Controversies around the DACA act and the border wall caused federal government agencies to largely shut down for three and 35 days, respectively, as Democrats jilted attempts to expand the debt limit. In 2013, the government shut down for 16 days as Republicans were the ones who did not want to support such a measure as money would flow towards the Affordable Care Act.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 23:45

• Jim Bovard: He Thought I Was An Undercover Fed
  Jim Bovard: He Thought I Was An Undercover Fed

  Authored by Jim Bovard via The Libertarian Institute, 

  From the early 1990s onward, I was exposing FBI crimes, lies, and cover-ups. FBI director Louis Freeh publicly denounced me after I wrote a Wall Street Journal piece on the FBI’s killing of an innocent mother holding her baby at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. I continued hammering FBI abuses in the Journal, Playboy, American Spectator, and other publications.

  One of the FBI’s biggest blunders occurred when it falsely accused a hapless security guard of masterminding an explosion at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. Richard Jewell heroically saved lives by detecting and removing a pipe bomb before it exploded. But the FBI decided that Jewell had actually planted the bomb and leaked that charge to the media, which proceeded to drag Jewell’s life through the dirt for eighty-eight days. The FBI did nothing to curb the media harassment long after it recognized Jewell was innocent. I flogged the FBI’s vilification of Jewell in my 2000 book, Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years.

  

  In August 2001, I took a brief vacation in the mountains of western North Carolina. My then spouse was leafing through a tourist guidebook and swooned over a chalet inn she saw that was far off the beaten path. Alas, the directions to that hideaway were not worth a plug nickel. After futilely roving that zip code for an hour, I pulled up in front of a hardware store in Whittier, a one-stoplight hamlet, to cuss and recheck the map.

  I stepped out of my car and fired up a cheap cigar as I leaned against the front hood of my Ford. Ninety seconds later, a big ol’ bald guy wearing bib overalls came bounding out of the hardware store and asked in a booming voice: “What part of Maryland you from?”

  “Rockville,” I replied.

  He told me his name was Dennis and started chatting me up at racehorse pace. He told me that he was originally from Maryland, had been living down here for twenty years, worked as a long-haul truck driver and maybe that’s why he had prostate problems. He boasted that he lost $5,000 gambling last year at a nearby Cherokee Indian casino but a buddy of his lost $60,000. He said he owned four acres of land a few miles away and then bragged about all the babes he’d boinked before he got married in 1987.

  I nodded and threw in an occasional “huh.” Since I was raised in the mountains of Virginia, I was accustomed to country folks rattling on like they hadn’t spoken to anyone since the last solar eclipse. But something about this guy’s palavering seemed amiss.

  And then he suddenly paused midsentence and stared at me intently. “I think you might be an undercover federal agent,” he gravely announced. Holy crap! I would have been less astounded if he’d accused me of being a vampire come to rob the local blood bank.

  “Why do you think I’m a fed?” I asked incredulously. Shazam—my battered railroad cap was supposed to make me immune from such suspicions. “Because you’re driving a black car with a Maryland license plate,” he replied without missing a beat.

  I rolled my eyes and raised both arms by my side. “Are there any other signs of undercover federal agents?” I asked.

  “Ya—they have hidden tracking devices on the underside of the back of the car.”

  “Feel free to check out my car,” I grinned.

  “OK!”

  

  He and I walked to the back of my vehicle, he got down on his knees and pawed his big right hand around the Ford’s underside. A minute later, after he found no GPS tracker, he decided I wasn’t a G-man and gave me a hearty handshake.

  “I didn’t mean no harm by saying you were a fed,” he apologized.

  “No sweat,” I replied. “Feds don’t like me.”

  “It’s just that this whole area was crawling with hundreds of FBI agents a few years ago—ever since they heard Eric Rudolph was hiding out somewhere in the mountains nearby,” Dennis explained. “Whoa—I had forgotten the feds came looking for Rudolph in North Carolina,” I replied.

  After the FBI finished slandering Richard Jewell, they announced that Rudolph was the 1996 Olympic bomber, placed him on their Most Wanted list, and put a million-dollar bounty on his head.

  Dennis warmed to the subject. “The FBI bragged that they were sending their best agents here and would catch Rudolph real quick. FBI came in like they owned the place. When they took over a motel for their headquarters, their agents went around banging on doors and threw every guest out on the spot. Their strutting was so bad that some restaurants refused to serve them. Well, they didn’t really refuse—they just told the FBI agents they had to leave their guns outside. Restaurants knew the agents weren’t allowed to do that. People taunted the feds with signs saying, ‘Eric Rudolph Ate Here.'”

  “And they never caught Rudolph,” I commented. “No,” Dennis replied. “Nobody would give them the time of day. After a few months, most of the agents were sent back to Washington.”

  Dennis became more at ease after I mentioned that I’d written about federal outrages at Waco and Ruby Ridge—two cases that epitomized the FBI’s right to kill with impunity. Dennis was far better informed on Waco and Ruby Ridge than the vast majority of people I met inside the Beltway, who took their reality from the Washington Post.

  Dennis wasn’t the type to take guff from any federal agent. He was a hunter, and proudly recapped how he’d told a Fish and Wildlife Service agent to go to hell a few months earlier. He started out talking about how the people in that neck of the woods were fine folks but later lamented that most of his neighbors had no interest in ideas. He wasn’t like them, he assured me, because “I didn’t fall off the pickle wagon yesterday” (i.e., wasn’t born yesterday).

  After two hours, Dennis was “talked out.” He wasn’t familiar with that chalet that my wife wanted to visit but said that she and I were welcome to stay at his house that night. I thanked him kindly but said we should probably be heading down the road toward Asheville.

  Eric Rudolph was finally captured in 2003 by a local policeman in a small town about an hour from that hardware store. He pleaded guilty to the Atlanta bombing as well as bombings of abortion clinics and a lesbian nightclub. Shortly after Rudolph was apprehended after more than four years in the mountains, a British newspaper pointed out that the FBI’s failure to catch him illustrated “all the shortcomings of a hi-tech, militarized federal force unable to negotiate such alien, not to say hostile, territory.” 

  To nail Rudolph, the feds had pulled out all their tricks, including “bloodhounds, electronic motion detectors, and heat-sensing helicopters.” Instead of a triumphal “perp walk” and press conference, the FBI spurred the local sale of bumper stickers proclaiming, “Eric Rudolph: 1998 Hide and Seek Champion.”

  One lesson I took from Dennis was that the FBI’s power and federal legitimacy are far more tenuous than Washington recognizes. Beyond the nation’s big cities and the coastlines, federal authority hinges largely on the consent of local citizens. Once that consent vanishes, FBI agents are left to sit in their cars eating their lunches all by themselves. But plenty of pundits and congressmen still clamor for the government to confiscate everyone’s guns or forcibly inject their children. If the feds came in and started shooting mountain men who refused to surrender their firearms, they would likely quickly find themselves in a worse plight than Custer at the Little Big Horn.

  And the other lesson I took from meeting Dennis?

  People in Washington think I’m a redneck, and rednecks think I’m an undercover fed. I can’t get a break.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 23:25

• Afghan Social Media Users Frantically Deleting Accounts After Taliban Revenge Killings
  Afghan Social Media Users Frantically Deleting Accounts After Taliban Revenge Killings

  Prominent Afghan activists and social media personalities have been rapidly deleting past posts and even their accounts altogether since the Taliban took power amid the US withdrawal last month. A new report in BCC details that “since 15 August, Afghans have been deleting photos and tweets from their past – and many have turned away from social media altogether for fear of being targeted by Taliban forces.”

  Although in their official announcements the Taliban is purporting to offer amnesty for officials and supporters of the previous US-backed government, widespread reports of civilians being killed by Taliban forces have emerged since the group entered Kabul.

  

  In recent days journalists are reportedly being targeted as well, and the Taliban has begun hanging bodies of “criminals” in public squares, such as recently in the large city of Herat.

  The BBC interviewed dissidents with large social media followings, including “Fida” – who had this to say: 

  Speaking to the BBC, he claimed that after the Taliban gained control of Kabul, he was told by relatives that he was in danger for playing a detrimental role in the Taliban’s war against “occupiers”.

  “They told my relatives that people will not forgive, despite the general amnesty,” he said, adding that his name appeared on a list describing people being “shot in the head wherever they are found”. According to Fida, the day after the Taliban’s takeover of the capital, on 16 August, he deleted all of his social media accounts.

  He further described that his last Facebook post had been openly anti-Taliban and indicated he was looking to leave the country.

  The Taliban’s defense minister Mohammad Yaqoob has recently admitted the government is aware of reports of “revenge killings”. He was recorded as saying, “Recently, some people have been killed deliberately [by our fighters] in some parts of the country,” RFERL reported.

  But he emphasized, “Once we have declared a general amnesty, none of our fighters have the right to break that amnesty or violate it by settling personal scores or taking personal revenge.”

  Meanwhile, in the continuing saga of now exiled US-backed leaders…

  Hackers have taken over the former Afghan president’s #Facebook page and are posting messages suggesting that people support the #Taliban, according to his official Twitter account.https://t.co/yXwDtVcOyM

  — Al Arabiya English (@AlArabiya_Eng) September 27, 2021

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

  Another Afghan ‘influencer’ interviewed by BBC, identified as Haris, said of the Taliban, “They are still targeting people, killing people and searching for them,” he said, adding: “It’s just the beginning, just wait.” Haris added: “I don’t think any educated Afghan will be able to stay here.”

  Less than two weeks ago the Taliban restored its office of Islamic sharia law enforcement, which it’s calling the Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. Ironically the ministry building in Kabul now used as its headquarters was previously the Ministry of Women’s Affairs – a government department now permanently shut down.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 23:05

• Australia's Astonishing Tyranny Keeps Growing
  Australia’s Astonishing Tyranny Keeps Growing

  Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

  In the early summer of 1798, an Irish stone mason named Philip Cunningham reached his breaking point.

  Cunningham was sick and tired of English rule in Ireland. And along with 50,000 of his fellow Irishmen, Cunningham picked up a weapon and started in uprising against Great Britain.

  Their rebellion was a complete disaster; the rebels hoped that the British army was too weak to resist after their defeat in the American Revolution.

  But within a few short months the British had regained tight control of Ireland.

  Naturally their first order of business was to round up all the remaining rebels— and Cunningham was among them.

  His punishment was being shipped off to a British penal colony in the south Pacific, in a place that was generally known at the time as “New Holland”.

  Today we call it Australia.

  Cunningham wasn’t one to accept his fate easily. Even while en route to Australia, he and other prisoners briefly managed to take over the ship… though British marines eventually regained control and gave Cunningham 100 lashes.

  But Cunningham still wasn’t finished. A few years later in March of 1804, he led about 300 Australian prisoners in yet another rebellion against their British jailers.

  That rebellion was so severe that the British governor was forced to declare martial law— the first, but certainly not the last time in Australia’s history this would happen.

  It’s ironic that, each year, ‘Australia Day’ is celebrated on January 26, which commemorates the day that the British Navy first sailed into Sydney Cove, hoisted their flag, and declared the land their penal colony.

  So Australia Day does not celebrate the birth of a nation so much as the ribbon-cutting of a giant prison.

  Clearly in 2021, Australia has simply been returning to its roots as the world’s largest prison.

  

  You know the story by now— “two weeks to control the spread” of COVID-19 became “indefinite dictatorship and total suspension of basic human rights.”

  Over the course of the last 18 months, Australia’s state and federal governments have:

  • Banned citizens from leaving the country without permission.

  • Banned citizens from entering the country, with threat of five years in prison.

  • Banned citizens and residents from crossing state borders.

  • Banned citizens and residents from traveling further than 5k from home without permission.

  Ironically, an Australian government website lays out citizens’ “right to freedom of movement” and says that this very basic human right “cannot be made dependent on establishing a purpose or reason for leaving.”

  But Australia doesn’t have to follow its own rules, nor care about the human rights of all the little people, because it’s an emergency.

  In the name of COVID Australian police and government officials have also:

  • Tracked a large fast food order to a party to fine guests $26,000 for an unauthorized gathering.

  • Deployed the military to enforce lockdowns. Deployed helicopters to threaten young healthy men playing soccer.

  • Told people not to talk to their neighbors.

  • Executed several dogs to prevent rescue workers from coming to the town.

  • Arrested a pregnant mom in front of her kids for posting about an anti-lockdown rally on social media.

  • Refused to grant a travel exception to a three year old boy visiting his grandparents separated from his parents for months, because of a surprise border closure.

  • Caused a newborn infant to die because the mother was denied permission to travel across state borders for medical care.

  It is also now illegal to plan, publicize, or participate in protests.

  The right to peaceably assemble and hold public protests against unjust government actions is enshrined in the Western legal tradition. But for organizing protests against the Australian government’s tyranny, Anthony Khallouf has been sentenced to several months in prison.

  His “crimes” include not complying with COVID decrees, and “encouraging the commission of crimes”— that is, sharing information about the time and location of protests.

  He is a political prisoner, like many of his forebears.

  But at least Philip Cunningham was imprisoned because he engaged in actual violence.

  Khallouf, on the other hand, was found guilty of… illegally crossing Australian state borders.

  That hasn’t stopped the protests however.

  Thousands of Australian construction workers, for example, protested because they refuse to be coerced into vaccination against their will.

  They actually were peaceful protestors. For real. They literally sang the national anthem.

  Yet police pepper sprayed them and fired rubber bullets into the crowd of thousands (which included children).

  Perhaps even more diabolical is that the government restricted the media from showing footage of the event as it was happening, and restricted airspace to prevent media helicopters from filming.

  That didn’t stop people on the ground from recording it with their phones.

  In one exchange, a protestor filmed a police officer agreeing, “I’m just as over this fucking [lockdown] as you are,” but, “we get paid to do this [fire on peaceful protestors] mate…”

  I’m just doing my job. I’m just following orders.

  Other police were caught on video going door-to-door to ask residents if they planned to attend, or knew of any planned protests.

  They asked one homeowner if he is on any social media platforms, but declined to tell him why they targeted that particular address.

  What’s really crazy is that this authoritarianism goes beyond COVID hysteria.

  Australia’s parliament has passed a new bill eradicating Australians’ right to digital privacy.

  It’s called “Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2021.”

  It gives the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) sweeping new powers to not just surveil Australian citizens online, but also take over and run their online accounts, lock the actual user out of the account, and add or delete data.

  The police never have to notify a person that their account has been hacked by the government.

  What they are calling “warrants” actually do not always require an actual court or judge to sign off.

  An “emergency authorisation,” allows police to bypass the courts entirely. And why should anyone be concerned about that? It’s not like the Australian government has ever abused its emergency powers before…

  The right to travel, the right to protest, the right to privacy, the right to due process, the right to leave your home and earn a living— these are basic human rights that are now gone in Australia.

  It should be obvious by now to every citizen of any Western nation that never-ending “emergency powers” can easily snowball into a full-blown dictatorship.

  There is no reason it couldn’t happen to other formerly free nations as well.

  And that means, more than ever before, it’s time to think about a Plan B.

  *  *  *

  We think gold could DOUBLE and silver could increase by up to 5 TIMES in the next few years. That’s why we published a new, 50-page long Ultimate Guide on Gold & Silver that you can download here.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 22:45

• US To Exclude Travelers Vaccinated With Russia's Sputnik V Despite Distribution To 70 Countries 
  US To Exclude Travelers Vaccinated With Russia’s Sputnik V Despite Distribution To 70 Countries 

  A week ago the US relaxed prior pandemic restrictions on foreign travelers entering the country, announcing that vaccination proof and a negative Covid test would be required. However, one major foreign-produced vaccine will now be deemed not eligible as proof one is fully vaccinated.

  Beginning in November, US rules will exclude Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine as being considered an acceptable vaccine, the Washington Post reports, potentially impacting millions of travelers given that the Russian-produced vaccine could eventually see distribution to 70 other countries. 

  

  The Post indicated that for any non-citizen traveling inbound, they must be vaccinated with a shot on either the FDA or World Health Organization (WHO) list of ’emergency use’ approved inoculations.

  The United Kingdom also recently imposed travel restrictions which only recognizes specific vaccines as valid, which excludes Sputnik. Though US and international health officials have raised concerns over the manufacturing process utilized in making Sputnik V, Moscow sees the US and global bodies as playing politics over the science.

  For example, earlier in the pandemic there were widespread accusations the State Department was waging an ‘infowar’ in Latin America specifically to dissuade countries from receiving Sputnik from Russia.

  Days ago Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York urged mutual recognition of vaccines, saying that Moscow is ready to fight Covid as “our common enemy”:

  “COVID-19 is our common enemy. We support mutual recognition of vaccines approved by national oversight bodies, in the interests of lifting restrictions on international travel of citizens as soon as possible.”

  But the suspicion remains that in the case of Russia, Washington will continue to red flag its shot, despite mounting evidence that it’s just as safe and effective as Western developed and manufactured vaccines.

  Vaccine Diplomacy: The Surprising Success of Sputnik V https://t.co/8HovbKWUF4

  — SPIEGEL Ticker (@SPIEGEL_alles) March 30, 2021

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

  For now it appears yet another example of the “trust the science” mantra being in reality supplanted by pure politics, or in this case geopolitical and economic rivalry and competition, which tends to distrust all things Russian.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 22:25

• Biden's Vax Mandate To Be Enforced By Fining Companies $70,000 To $700,000?
  Biden’s Vax Mandate To Be Enforced By Fining Companies $70,000 To $700,000?

  By Adam Andrzejewski, CEO/Founder of OpenTheBooks.com; originally published in Forbes

  President Joe Biden didn’t just announce a Covid-19 vaccine mandate on companies employing 100 or more people, he plans to enforce it.

  On Saturday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House quietly tucked an enforcement mechanism into their $3.5 trillion “reconciliation” bill, passed it out of the Budget Committee, and sent it to the House floor.

  Buried on page 168 of the House Democrats’ 2,465-page mega bill is a tenfold increase in fines for employers that “willfully,” “repeatedly,” or even seriously violate a section of labor law that deals with hazards, death, or serious physical harm to their employees.

  The increased fines on employers could run as high as $70,000 for serious infractions, and $700,000 for willful or repeated violations—almost three-quarters of a million dollars for each fine. If enacted into law, vax enforcement could bankrupt non-compliant companies even more quickly than the $14,000 OSHA fine anticipated under Biden’s announced mandate.

  The Biden Administration has already started implementing its vaccine mandate enforcement blueprint:

  • The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) set precedent this summer and published an emergency Covid-19 rule in the Federal Register taking jurisdiction over and providing justification for Covid-19 being a workplace hazard for healthcare employment.

  • Early in September, Biden announced his 100-or-more employee Covid-19 vaccine mandate and tasked OSHA with drafting an enforcement rule to exert emergency vaccine compliance authority over companies with 100 or more employees.

  • The legislative provision that passed the Budget Committee raises the OSHA fines for non-compliance 10 times higher – and up to $700,000 for each “willful” or “repeated” violation. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not announced when the House will vote on the reconciliation bill that includes the new OSHA fines.

  • If the legislation is enacted, OSHA could levy draconian fines to enforce Biden’s vaccine mandate, a move that could rapidly bankrupt non-compliant companies. The Biden mandate affects employers collectively employing an estimated 80 million workers.

  The Democrats are playing hardball.                      

  President Biden embraced an aggressive stance earlier this month when he challenged Republicans who are threatening lawsuits over what they decry as his federal overreach: “Have at it. … We’re playing for real here. This isn’t a game.”

  The Legislation

  The provision tucked in the House reconciliation budget bill (on page 168) that increases OSHA fines reads:

  SEC. 21004. ADJUSTMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES.

  (a) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970.—Section 17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 666) is amended—

  (1) in subsection (a)—

    (A) by striking ‘‘$70,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$700,000’’; and

  (B) by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000’’;

  (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘$7,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$70,000’’; and

  (3) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘$7,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$70,000’’

  That provision would change existing law relating to OSHA’s enforcement fines, the very same section of law whose fines OSHA referenced in its June Covid-19 healthcare worker rule and is likely to use again to enforce its forthcoming vaccine compliance rules.

  The Existing Law

  29 U.S.C.§ 666 lays out OSHA enforcement fine levels. The 1970-enacted law reads:

  29 U.S. Code § 666 – Civil and criminal penalties

  (a) Willful or repeated violation Any employer who willfully or repeatedly violates the requirements of section 654 of this title, any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $70,000 for each violation, but not less than $5,000 for each willful violation

  (b) Citation for serious violation Any employer who has received a citation for a serious violation of the requirements of section 654 of this title, of any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or of any regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter, shall be assessed a civil penalty of up to $7,000 for each such violation [emphasis added].

  Each year, OSHA adjusts these penalties for inflation, so for 2021, the fines are not actually capped at $70,000 and $7,000, but $136,532 and $13,653 per violation. If House Democrats get their way, by enacting the page 168 changes, those fines would increase to $700,000 for willful and repeated violations and $70,000 for serious violations.  

  Section 654, cross-referenced in the OSHA enforcement penalty code, outlines the law requiring workplaces to be “free from recognized hazards” causing harm or death:

  29 U.S. Code § 654 – Duties of employers and employees

  (a) Each employer—

  (1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;

  (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this chapter.

  (b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this chapter which are applicable to his own actions and conduct [emphasis added].

  OSHA has already published a rule this year claiming Covid-19 is a workplace hazard, and the agency is using this provision of law to assert and enforce its authority. It is likely the new rule to enforce Biden’s mandate will also use this authority, and by extension use the fines upon enforcement.

  Huge Crippling OSHA Fines, Likely By Design

  The crippling change described on page 168 of the Democrats’ bill isn’t a typo or a clerical error. It was inserted by design and, likely, with the hope that no one would notice before Democrats ram the bill through Congress.

  If enacted, it could bankrupt a whole host of companies that do not believe they should have to comply with the Biden administration’s mandate or harbor the cost of intrusive, weekly tests.

  In its June 2021 emergency rule affecting health care workers, OSHA complained it was having a hard time motivating employers with its paltry $13,653 fine:

  “OSHA has been limited in its ability to impose penalties high enough to motivate the very large employers who are unlikely to be deterred by penalty assessments of tens of thousands of dollars, but whose noncompliance can endanger thousands of workers …”

  The Critics

  Some have openly discussed businesses defying the mandate and taking their risks with OSHA fines. For example, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) tweeted that businesses “should openly rebel” against any OSHA rule.

  It’s one thing to defy a $14,000 fine. It’s quite another to risk incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. One or two disgruntled employees, for example, could bring an employer $70,000-$140,000 in OSHA fines. If considered “willful,” as per Rep. Roy’s tweet — just three “violations” could quickly become a $2.1 million OSHA fine.

  Conclusion:

  If its provision becomes law, the Biden administration may force American businesses to choose between vaccinating their employees, testing them weekly for Covid-19, or going bankrupt under crippling OSHA fines.

  In September, Biden warned the tens of millions of Americans who have declined vaccination against Covid-19, “We’ve been patient. But our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us.”

  Now the Democrats in the House are hoping to make employers foot the bill for that “cost” in the form of fines and bankruptcy.

  Republicans might want to read page 168 of the Democrats’ bill. After all, as we like to say at OpenTheBooks.com, the text of the bill is online in real time.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 22:05

• More Than Half Of China's Provinces Are Now 'Rationing' Electricity, Governors Demand More Coal Imports To Resolve Crisis
  More Than Half Of China’s Provinces Are Now ‘Rationing’ Electricity, Governors Demand More Coal Imports To Resolve Crisis

  At least 20 Chinese provinces and regions making up more than 66% of the country’s GDP have announced some form of power cuts. Guangdong province, the southern industrial hub, is cutting ~10% of its peak power demand…

  

  And as the severe power crunch hits major industrial hubs in China’s northeastern heartland, top political leaders face mounting pressure from businesses and citizens to solve the crisis through increasing coal imports to keep the lights on and factories humming. 

  Reuters spoke with Han Jun, governor of the northeastern province of Jilin, who said new coal suppliers are needed from Russia, Mongolia, and Indonesia. He added the province would also need to acquire coal mining contracts in the neighboring region of Inner Mongolia to ensure adequate supply. 

  Jilin is one of the ten provinces that have been hit hard by the power crunch. The government has rationed power to energy-intensive heavy industries like steel, cement, and aluminum plants to solve the problem, but that has yet to work. Power plants are also facing a surge in thermal coal prices and are unwilling to pass on to consumers.

  

  Han said companies must satisfy their “social responsibilities” and “overcome the difficulties” caused by elevated coal prices. 

  On Sunday, top suppliers of Apple and Tesla reported they had suspended operations as the government limited power to their factories. The power crunch is becoming an international issue that may cause additional headaches for global supply chains, especially when US importers are ordering goods ahead of the holiday season. 

  

  Goldman Sachs told clients this week that as much as 44% of China’s industrial activity has been affected by the power crunch. Therefore the bank slashed 2021 GDP growth forecasts for the year to 7.8%, from the previous 8.2%. Also, S&P Global Ratings cut its 2021 GDP forecast due to rising uncertainties in the country. 

  There are several reasons for the surge in thermal coal, among them already extremely tight energy supply globally (already seen in Europen markets); the sharp economic rebound post-COVID lockdowns that have boosted demand from households and businesses; a warm summer which led to increased air condition consumption across China; the escalating trade spat with Australia that has dwindled coal trade, and Chinese power plants ramping up power purchases to ensure winter coal supply. There’s also Beijing’s pursuit of curbing carbon emissions to ensure the skies at the Winter Olympics in Beijing next February are clear, along with Xi’s international commitment to de-carbonizing the economy. 

  Short-term relief for the country would be importing more coal for power generation and temporarily abandon Xi’s carbon emission curbs to get the energy situation under control. 

  John Kemp, a Reuters commodity market analyst and reporter, points out the energy shortage resulting in soaring coal, gas, and oil prices is a worldwide phenomenon, occurring primarily in Europe and Asia at the moment. 

  There’s no timeline on how long the power crunch will last. As we noted above, increasing coal imports to feed fossil fuel power plants is the country’s only solution besides its attempt to shut down energy-intensive industries that will paralyze its economy and disrupt the global supply chain even more. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 21:45

• ShortageWatch: "Sorry – No French Fries With Any Order, We Have No Potatoes"
  ShortageWatch: “Sorry – No French Fries With Any Order, We Have No Potatoes”

  Authored by Matt Stoller via BIG,

  Welcome to BIG, a newsletter about the politics of monopoly. If you’d like to sign up, you can do so here. Or just read on…

  Today I’m going to follow up on last week’s issue on shortages. I got a TON of feedback, and the topic even came up at last week’s Federal Trade Commission meeting. The good news is that shortages are now on the political radar, with one FTC Commissioner talking about the rise of “Too Big to Fail” industrial firms causing shortages across the economy.

  *  *  *

  And now…

  

  “Sorry. No French Fries with any order. We have no potatoes.”

  In the last BIG issue, I asked you for help identifying shortages in your neck of the woods. Hundreds of you responded, so I’ll talk about some of the shortage stories you are sharing, as well as how this problem is resonating among policymakers.

  My favorite story is quintessentially American, and un-American, at the same time. It’s from a Florida realtor who was in a hurry and stopped at a Burger King for lunch. He saw a sign, “Sorry. No French Fries with any order. We have no potatoes.” At first he thought he was imagining things. What kind of fast food place runs out of fries? Is this, he wondered, a sign of things to come?

  It’s a good question. Fast food exists in a land of plenty, of surplus, of mass produced food with a reliable infrastructure of trucks, trains, farms, and distributors. Shortages of everyday goods conflicts not only with most of our lived experiences, but also with our very conception of who we are. There’s a name for this framework, and it’s called affluence.

  In 1958, John Kenneth Galbraith coined the term “The Affluent Society” to describe a nation beyond material concerns, a nation with immense unthinkable wealth. In such a world, with consumer sovereignty paramount, the only way to go without is if you cannot afford something, not if society can’t produce it. Think about all the politicians who say ‘in the wealthiest country in the world surely we can afford XYZ.’ For the last sixty years, with the exception of the oil crisis in the 1970s, we haven’t had to think about production. If you have the money, you can get the stuff. But now our production systems, once so resilient and strong they appeared invisible, are breaking down.

  So what is happening in the case of this particular Burger King? It’s hard to say, but the problem is clearly widespread. Taco Bell, Chick-fil-A, and Starbucks are having trouble sourcing ingredients, as are school and college cafeterias. Here’s one notice posted on Reddit on school districts having similar issues.

  

  One culprit is the food distribution industry, which is highly consolidated (due to the standard litany of anti-competitive tactics like mergers and exclusive contracts with customers and suppliers). Problems at some of the biggest firms, like Sysco, have even forced summer camps and restaurants in some areas to shut down.

  Burger King uses McLane distribution, a leading firm for grocery distribution. McLane is having trouble recruiting drivers, which is a clear problem everywhere. You’ll hear a number of causes for this shortage, from poaching by Amazon to a large number of truckers retiring rather than be on the road during the pandemic. Here’s a BIG reader on the problem.

  Truck drivers that would transport cargo on flatbed trucks are being recruited away by Walmart and Amazon to exclusively pull box trailers or shipping containers. Large items like steel piles and premade concrete pieces either can’t fit or can’t be loaded into containers or box trailers. Vendors tell me demand is as high as 40:1, meaning for every available flatbed truck there are up to 40 waiting customers. The roads around the NYC metro area are as clogged with truck traffic as ever, but we’re facing longer waits and higher prices to haul non-containerized cargo.

  If you listen to transportation executives, they’ll tell you the real cause. “It comes down to money for drivers in many respects,” said Mark McKendry, regional vice president of intermodal at NFI Industries. “If we get the pay right, you know, we’ll have a little more flexibility.”

  Driving a truck, which used to be a middle class job in the 1970s, has become a cyclical low-paid profession with high burnout and little stability, a so-called “sweatshop on wheels.” While it’s tempting to blame this situation on trucking firms, the reality is that the problem is due to the market structure of transportation created by the deregulation of the 1970s. Prior to deregulation, state and national regulators set routes and prices for trucking firms, which allowed for sufficient margin to make trucking a unionized well-paid profession. Such rules raised shipping prices and were often needlessly bureaucratic, but also ensured the system would be stable, free from ‘ruinous competition,’ as well as absurd drops and spikes in pricing and wages.

  Jimmy Carter, however, and a litany of Democrats, simply hated the union representing truck drivers, which was the Teamsters. Carter advisor Alfred Kahn, the economist who later deregulated airlines with Stephen Breyer’s help, was explicit about lowering trucker wages and breaking their political power. (Kahn, not coincidentally, is beloved by center-left antitrust scholars.)

  The deregulation of the 1970s forced trucking firms to compete against each other to offer lower shipping prices, and the way they did this was by lowering pay to their drivers. Trucking on a firm-level became unpredictable and financially fragile, so for drivers the scheduling became nightmarish and unsustainable, even if the pay during boom times could be high. Today, few think trucking has a future, and even though pay is high, the scheduling is crushing drivers. And so, because we’ve allowed an unregulated trucking system for decades and treated truck drivers like crap for forty years, increasingly we can’t count on getting french fries from Burger King.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 21:25

• Brothels And Illegal Massage Parlors Outnumber Starbucks 2-To-1 Across NYC
  Brothels And Illegal Massage Parlors Outnumber Starbucks 2-To-1 Across NYC

  Back in March 2020, as the reaction to the pandemic was shaping up at countries around the world, in New York City, many black-market “entrepreneurs” decided to try and ramp up their own “massage parlors” and brothels to try and attract male customers, and earn themselves a slice of all that stimulus money rattling around the economy.

  

  Meanwhile, the New York Post reported Monday that the number of illegal massage parlors is higher in some neighborhoods than the number of Starbucks’, the upscale coffee shop that is seemingly effervescent.

  Per the NYP, for every Starbucks that’s in the five boroughs, there are at least two illicit massage parlors. In Queens, staffers at the nonprofit tracking the proliferation of sex trafficking in NYC has dound at least 269 open brothels, the illicit businesses outnumber Starbucks 5 to 1, the data from the intelligence-driven counter-trafficking organization that focuses exclusively on the illicit massage industry shows.

  Many of the massage parlors blend in easily with their surrounding businesses. Take, for example, the Ming Happy Spa on Montague Street, which is wedged between two legal businesses, and handles mostly males in upscale dress.

  In one of New York’s toniest neighborhoods, just a few blocks from the Brooklyn federal courthouse, a shady massage parlor is hidden in plain view. The Ming Happy Spa on Montague Street, conspicuously open until 1 a.m. seven nights a week, is next door to a high-end women’s boutique and operates an innocuous second-floor storefront that sees a steady stream of well-dressed male clientele late into the night. The alleged illicit massage business in the upscale neighborhood is one of at least 629 others currently operating across the five boroughs — a network of illegal enterprises so vast, they outnumber Starbucks 2 to 1 citywide, according to data from Heyrick Research.

  For every Starbucks that’s in the five boroughs, there are at least two massage parlors. In Queens, which has at least 269 roughly open-air brothels, the illicit businesses out number Starbucks 5 to 1, the data from the intelligence-driven counter-trafficking organization that focuses exclusively on the illicit massage industry shows.

  In case consumers are unaware, the reviews explicitly expose what the business truly is via sites like Oarkir, sort of an aggregator of reviews for massage parlors around NYC and the country.

  In most recent reviews, the men claim they paid $60 for the massage and between $40 and $50 for the alleged sex act that came at the end and described in repulsive detail what groping they were allowed to do, how skilled the workers were and their overall rating of the experience. When reached by phone, the spa declined comment. Hundreds of such businesses across the five boroughs, from the Upper East Side to Staten Island, are reviewed on the website and many of them allegedly sell full-service sex, not just post-massage masturbation, the reviews indicate.

  Experts told The Post that the prevalence of brothels and massage parlors, fueled by their ability to operate with immunity, reflects an unofficial, citywide shift toward the decriminalization of the sex trade, something Hizzoner Bill de Blasio imposed months ago. As for whether he (or his successor, Eric Adams) might support full decriminalization, that remains to be seen. But there’s no question that whether they’re violent crimes, or quality of life issues, crime is soaring in Gotham once again.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 21:05

• Military Leaders Saw Pandemic As Unique Opportunity To Test Propaganda On Canadians: Report
  Military Leaders Saw Pandemic As Unique Opportunity To Test Propaganda On Canadians: Report

  Authored by David Puliese via NationalPost.com,

  A plan devised by the Canadian Joint Operations Command relied on propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghan war…

  Canadian military leaders saw the pandemic as a unique opportunity to test out propaganda techniques on an unsuspecting public, a newly released Canadian Forces report concludes.

  The federal government never asked for the so-called information operations campaign, nor did cabinet authorize the initiative developed during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Canadian Joint Operations Command, then headed by Lt.-Gen. Mike Rouleau.

  

  Lt.-Gen. Mike Rouleau PHOTO BY ADRIAN WYLD /The Canadian Press

  But military commanders believed they didn’t need to get approval from higher authorities to develop and proceed with their plan, retired Maj.-Gen. Daniel Gosselin, who was brought in to investigate the scheme, concluded in his report.

  The propaganda plan was developed and put in place in April 2020 even though the Canadian Forces had already acknowledged that “information operations and targeting policies and doctrines are aimed at adversaries and have a limited application in a domestic concept.”

  A copy of the Dec. 2, 2020, Gosselin investigation, as well as other related documents, was obtained by this newspaper using the Access to Information law.

  The plan devised by the Canadian Joint Operations Command, also known as CJOC, relied on propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghanistan war. The campaign called for “shaping” and “exploiting” information. CJOC claimed the information operations scheme was needed to head off civil disobedience by Canadians during the coronavirus pandemic and to bolster government messages about the pandemic.

  A separate initiative, not linked to the CJOC plan, but overseen by Canadian Forces intelligence officers, culled information from public social media accounts in Ontario. Data was also compiled on peaceful Black Lives Matter gatherings and BLM leaders. Senior military officers claimed that information was needed to ensure the success of Operation Laser, the Canadian Forces mission to help out in long-term care homes hit by COVID-19 and to aid in the distribution of vaccines in some northern communities.

  BLM organizers have questioned why military officials gathered information on their initiative, pointing out they followed pandemic rules and did not hold any gatherings outside LTC homes.

  Then chief of the defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance shut down the CJOC propaganda initiative after a number of his advisers questioned the legality and ethics behind the plan. Vance then brought in Gosselin to examine how CJOC was able to develop and launch the propaganda operation without approval.

  Gosselin’s investigation discovered the plan wasn’t simply the idea of “passionate” military propaganda specialists, but support for the use of such information operations was “clearly a mindset that permeated the thinking at many levels of CJOC.” Those in the command saw the pandemic as a “unique opportunity” to test out such techniques on Canadians.

  The views put forth by Rear Adm. Brian Santarpia, then CJOC’s chief of staff, summed up the command’s attitude, Gosselin noted in his report.

  “This is really a learning opportunity for all of us and a chance to start getting information operations into our (CAF-DND) routine,” the rear admiral stated.

  The command saw the military’s pandemic response “as an opportunity to monitor and collect public information in order to enhance awareness for better command decision making,” Gosselin determined.

  Gosselin also pointed out CJOC staff had a “palpable dismissive attitude” toward the advice and concerns raised by other military leaders.

  The directive for the propaganda plan was issued by CJOC on April 8, 2020, but it took until May 2 of that year before Vance’s order to shut it down took effect.

  Gosselin recommended a comprehensive review of Canadian Forces information operations policies and directives, particularly those that may impact any activities for domestic missions.

  There is an ongoing debate inside national defence headquarters in Ottawa about the use of information operations techniques. Some public affairs officers, intelligence specialists and senior planners want to expand the scope of such methods in Canada to allow them to better control and shape government information that the public receives. Others inside headquarters worry that such operations could lead to abuses, including having military staff intentionally mislead the Canadian public or taking measures to target opposition MPs or those who criticize government or military policy.

  Military propaganda training and initiatives within Canada over the last year have proved to be controversial.

  The Canadian Forces had to launch an investigation after a September 2020 incident when military information operations staff forged a letter from the Nova Scotia government warning about wolves on the loose in a particular region of the province. The letter was inadvertently distributed to residents, prompting panicked calls to Nova Scotia officials who were unaware the military was behind the deception. The investigation determined the reservists conducting the operation lacked formal training and policies governing the use of propaganda techniques were not well understood by the soldiers.

  Yet another review centred on the Canadian Forces public affairs branch and its activities. Last year, the branch launched a controversial plan that would have allowed military public affairs officers to use propaganda to change attitudes and behaviours of Canadians as well as to collect and analyze information from public social media accounts.

  The plan would have seen staff move from traditional government methods of communicating with the public to a more aggressive strategy of using information warfare and influence tactics on Canadians. Included among those tactics was the use of friendly defence analysts and retired generals to push military PR messages and to criticize on social media those who raised questions about military spending and accountability.

  The Canadian Forces also spent more than $1 million to train public affairs officers on behaviour modification techniques of the same sort used by the parent firm of Cambridge Analytica, the company implicated in a 2016 data-mining scandal to help Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential election campaign.

  The initiative to change military public affairs strategy was abruptly shut down in November after this newspaper revealed details about the plan. A military investigation determined what the Canadian Forces public affairs leadership was doing was “incompatible with Government of Canada Communications Policy (and the) mission and principles of Public Affairs.” None of the public affairs leadership was disciplined for their actions.

  Several months ago, Acting Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre and DND deputy minister Jody Thomas acknowledged in an internal document that the various propaganda initiatives had gotten out of control. “Errors conducted during domestic operations and training, and sometimes insular mindsets at various echelons, have eroded public confidence in the institution,” noted a June 9, 2021, message signed by Eyre and Thomas. “This included the conduct of IO (Information Operations) on a domestic operation without explicit CDS/DM direction or authority to do so, as well as the unsanctioned production of reports that appeared to be aimed at monitoring the activities of Canadians.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 20:45

• US Hog Herd Hit By Largest Monthly Drop Since 1999
  US Hog Herd Hit By Largest Monthly Drop Since 1999

  US hog herds experienced the most significant monthly drop in two decades, according to new data from the USDA. The reason behind the drop is because farmers decreased hog-herd development over the last year due to labor disruptions at slaughterhouses plus high animal feed. 

  USDA data showed the US hog herd was 3.9% lower in August than a year ago. It was the largest monthly drop since 1999 after analysts only expected a decline of about 1.7%, according to Bloomberg. 

  

  On Monday, hog futures soared in Chicago after the news of tightening supply. Since contracts hit a seven-year high in June, they have plunged from $120 to $80 but have since recovered in recent days to $90. 

  

  Supply chain woes at slaughterhouses, and declining cold pork storage in US warehouses, have pushed up pork consumer prices to record highs. 

  

  Farmers are experiencing a challenging environment of skyrocketing feed prices and other commodity prices used to maintain and growing pig herds, along with the labor disruptions at slaughterhouses that sometimes force them to cull herds. 

  Soaring supermarket meat prices have been devastating for working-poor families who allocate a high percentage of their incomes to basic and essential items. The Biden administration spent most of the year ignoring the dramatic increase in food prices and only addressed the issue earlier this month by blaming meatpackers. The administration even had the nerve to say that if meat prices are taken out of the equation, troubling grocery inflation would be lower. 

  To sum up, shrinking hog herds means pork prices will stay high. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 20:25

• US Adults' Estimates Of COVID Hospitalization Risk Depends On Party, Vaxx Status: Gallup
  US Adults’ Estimates Of COVID Hospitalization Risk Depends On Party, Vaxx Status: Gallup

  By Jonathan Rothwell of Gallup

  The American public’s understanding of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines may have been put to the test in recent weeks as national public health leaders openly debated whether a booster shot is needed for the general population. Meanwhile, a large gap in vaccination rates persists between Democrats and Republicans, possibly reflecting partisans’ different views on the relative risks of COVID-19 versus the vaccines.

  In August, Gallup surveyed over 3,000 U.S. adults on their understanding of the likelihood of hospitalization after contracting COVID-19 among those who have versus have not been vaccinated. The results show that most Americans overstate the risk of hospitalization for both groups: 92% overstate the risk that unvaccinated people will be hospitalized, and 62% overstate the risk for vaccinated people. At the same time, U.S. adults are fairly accurate at estimating the effectiveness of vaccines at preventing hospitalization, with the median respondent putting it at 80%.

  Democrats provide much higher vaccine efficacy estimates than Republicans (88% vs. 50%), and unvaccinated Republicans have a median vaccine efficacy of 0%, compared with 73% for vaccinated Republicans.

  Background

  Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, political affiliation has been a strong predictor of attitudes and behaviors related to disease risks and mitigation. Gallup’s monthly tracking of adult (18+) vaccination rates in the U.S. reveals a deep political divide. As of September 2021, 92% of Democrats reported having had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine compared with 56% of Republicans.

  

  Previous Gallup research has found that the American public has a poor understanding of the true risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and that misperceptions vary by political party. In December 2020, through the Franklin Templeton-Gallup Economics of Recovery Study, we asked 5,000 U.S. adults: “As far as you know, what percentage of people who have been infected by the coronavirus needed to be hospitalized?” Only 18% provided the correct answer, which at that time was between 1% and 5%, and a higher percentage of Republicans (26%) gave the correct response than did Democrats (just 10%). Likewise, experimental research from Gallup and Franklin Templeton found that providing people information about high vaccine efficacy led to greater acceptance of the vaccine.

  Data from Gallup’s most recent COVID-19 Panel survey, in August, is especially relevant to the public’s understanding of vaccine efficacy; in recent weeks, the Biden administration, health officials, and many in the media have expressed concerns about breakthrough infections stemming from the Delta variant of SARS-CoV2, pointing to rising infections, hospitalizations and deaths. On Aug. 18, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it was making plans for administering booster shots to people who are already vaccinated, pending FDA approval. This caused some debate among experts. For example, on September 13, medical scholars published an analysis in a leading journal concluding that “Current evidence does not appear to show a need for boosting in the general population.” Four days later, on September 17, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel rejected Pfizer’s application for broad emergency use of a third dose, opting instead to restrict such authorization for only select groups of higher-risk persons.

  In light of these debates, Gallup tested public understanding of the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines by asking 3,158 U.S. adults two questions during a field period of August 16-22. The items tested respondents’ overall assessment of COVID hospitalization risks facing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, allowing researchers to calculate the implied efficacy of vaccines.

  The items were the following:

  • As far as you know, what percentage of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized due to the coronavirus?
  • As far as you know, what percentage of fully vaccinated people have been hospitalized due to the coronavirus?

  The implied efficacy of vaccines is calculated by subtracting the second response from the first and dividing by the first. If a respondent answers that 10% of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized from COVID and 5% of vaccinated people, this implies a vaccine efficacy of 50%.

  How the Public Understands Hospitalization Risk

  For both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, very few adults reported a correct answer, which is less than one percent. See the discussion in the appendix for details about the correct hospitalization rates and efficacy estimates. Only 8% of U.S. adults gave correct answers for the unvaccinated population and 38% for the vaccinated population.

  Partisanship was a strong predictor of accuracy, but party accuracy varied by whether the respondent was assessing the risk of the vaccinated or unvaccinated populations.

  For unvaccinated hospitalization risk, 2% of Democrats responded correctly, compared with 16% of Republicans. In fact, 41% of Democrats replied that at least 50% of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized due to COVID-19.

  

  By contrast, Democrats were more likely to estimate hospitalization risk for the vaccinated population correctly: 42% of Democrats compared with 33% of Republicans correctly reported that less than one percent of vaccinated people have been hospitalized. Very few respondents thought the risks exceed 50% (only 2% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans).

  

  Public Understanding of Vaccine Efficacy

  The relative reduction of risk from vaccination is known as the efficacy estimate. U.S. CDC data suggest that vaccines are roughly 99% effective at reducing hospitalizations. Careful studies that attempt to compare people living in the same area who face similar risks find efficacy rates around 95%, even against Delta variant, for the most common vaccines found in the United States (Pfizer, Moderna).

  We used individual responses to the items on hospitalization probabilities for vaccinated and unvaccinated people to calculate an implied efficacy rate, which is the percentage reduction in risk for the vaccinated group. Again, partisanship is a strong predictor of the accuracy of these estimates. U.S. adults estimated a median efficacy rate of 80%, which is close to the actual rate. Democrats, however, were even more accurate, with a median efficacy rate of 88%. Republicans, however, expressed an efficacy rate of only 50%.

  Vaccination status was also a strong predictor of efficacy estimates. Unvaccinated Republicans reported risk rates that implied zero benefit of vaccination — an efficacy rate of 0%. By contrast, vaccinated Republicans reported an estimated efficacy of 73%, much closer to the truth. Unvaccinated Independents were also far off (12% efficacy), but vaccinated independents were close (83%) to Democrats. For Democrats, vaccination status made little difference, however. Unvaccinated Democrats still reported 80% efficacy rates. Given previous studies on the effects of the media and information during COVID, one possible reason is that Democrats are more consistently exposed to information that favorably portrays vaccine efficacy.

  

  Discussion

  Democrats are more likely to overstate hospitalization risks for unvaccinated people, which may fuel efforts, often led by Democratic Party leaders, to enforce both mask and vaccine mandates. At the same time, Republicans overstate risks to vaccinated people, leading to very low vaccine efficacy estimates. This may be one of the reasons that so many Republicans have been reluctant to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Previous research links these behavioral patterns to differences in information exposure. If so, vaccine acceptance is unlikely to significantly increase among Republicans until their trusted media or other information sources emphasize the benefits of vaccination.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 20:05

• Tense Exchange As Tom Cotton Asks Gen. Milley: "Why Haven't You Resigned?"
  Tense Exchange As Tom Cotton Asks Gen. Milley: “Why Haven’t You Resigned?”

  US CentCom Commander Gen. Mark Milley got into a testy exchange with Republican Sen. Tom Cotton over the botched Afghan withdrawal and evacuation in Congressional testimony on Tuesday. He appeared to undercut President Biden, who previously told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that “no one” that he “can recall” advised in favor of keeping a few thousand-strong force inside Afghanistan to ensure there’d be no rapid collapse or attacks on Americans. “I can only conclude your advice about staying in Afghanistan was rejected,” Cotton began in his questioning.

  But things really got tense when Cotton questioned, “If all this is true General Milley then why haven’t you resigned?” 

  Wow. Exchange between Gen. Milley & Sen Cotton on why he hasn’t resigned re #Afghanistan

  “President doesn’t have to agree w advice just because we’re Generals..This country doesn’t want Generals to figure out which orders we’re going to follow or not..”
  pic.twitter.com/cb3do7pmGh

  — Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) September 28, 2021

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

  “It’s a political act if I’m resigning in protest,” Milley began his response. “My job is to provide advice.. to provide the best military advice to the president, and that’s my legal requirement – that’s what the law is.”

  “This country doesn’t want generals figuring out what orders we are going to accept and do or not,” Milley emphasized. He added that “on a personal note”…

  “My dad didn’t get a choice to resign at Iwo Jima. Those kids at Abbey Gate didn’t get a chance to resign.”

  “I’m not gonna turn my back on them. They can’t resign so I’m not going to resign,” he added. “If the orders are illegal, then we’re in a different place.”

  Last month, Joe Biden claimed that no military leader advised him to leave a small troop presence in Afghanistan.

  Today, General Milley and General McKenzie both confirmed their recommendation that 2,500 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan.

  Which is it? pic.twitter.com/3Tnw1a6V4q

  — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) September 28, 2021

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

  While the explanation of a top commander’s duties and the Constitution’s laying out elected civilian control of the armed forces are certainly accurate, the whole exchange does bring up the question of accountability. 

  It remains that now a month out, there’s been no accountability whatsoever for the series of bungled actions which in the end resulted in the deaths of 13 American troops and over 60 Afghan civilians. 

  WOW!

  Biden said no senior military leadership advised him to leave a troop presence in Afghanistan. (Cotton)

  Milley & McKenzie confirm they wanted a troop presence.

  Austin said their advice was “received & considered, for sure.”

  Biden has some questions to answer!

  — Kayleigh McEnany (@kayleighmcenany) September 28, 2021

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

  There’s also been zero accountability for the drone strike targeting a misidentified “ISIS-K terrorist” – which ended up being a local humanitarian aid worker. In total the strike killed 10 civilians, including up to 7 children.

  So far there’s not been so much as a single formal reprimand or demotion over the Aug.29 drone strike within either the Biden administration or military ranks. This despite the Pentagon since openly admitting that the drone operation was a “mistake”. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 19:55

• T-Shirt And Jean Inflation Coming With Decade High Cotton Prices
  T-Shirt And Jean Inflation Coming With Decade High Cotton Prices

  Cotton futures in New York are squeezing higher Tuesday morning, racing past $1 per pound for the first time in a decade as adverse weather conditions and robust demand tighten global supply.

  In New York, the contract for December delivery climbed as high as $1.01 per pound, the highest since November 2011. In the last six sessions, prices have surged more than 14% on news of heavy rains damaged crops in Texas and Mississippi, the top growing regions in the U.S., according to Maxar Technologies Inc.’s senior meteorologist Donald Keeney who spoke with Bloomberg. 

  

  Higher fiber prices could soon mean more expensive T-shirts to jeans and other apparel, which would be another headache for consumers already paying an arm and a leg for gas and food. 

  Some analysts believe the mechanics of the push higher in prices is because of an epic short squeeze. 

  “This is a classic short squeeze,” said Peter Egli, the Chicago-based director for Plexus Cotton Ltd. “The trade is short.”

  O.A. Cleveland, a Mississippi State University economics professor, and consultant, believes more price gains are coming because of the “outstanding short positions in the market.” 

  Supply chain disruptions could make matters worse for the industry.  An economist for North Carolina-based researcher Cotton Inc., Jon Devine, said, “it is not easy to get cotton to mills in short order.” 

  Devine said China has been increasing U.S. supplies in recent weeks. The “raw-fiber equivalence of cotton estimated to be contained in U.S. apparel imports has been occurring at the highest rate since the 2010-11 price spike” when futures reached record highs, he said. 

  A significant problem developing is China’s move to acquire U.S. cotton comes when Beijing has shut down electricity-intensive factories such as apparel manufacturers to conserve power. All of this means consumers could see price increases in the clothing they purchase. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 19:45

• Chaos On The Hill: Progressives Threaten To Nuke Infrastructure Deal, Schumer Blows Gasket Over Reconciliation, McConnell Smug
  Chaos On The Hill: Progressives Threaten To Nuke Infrastructure Deal, Schumer Blows Gasket Over Reconciliation, McConnell Smug

  Republicans on Capitol Hill are watching with Cheshire cat grins as Democrats scramble to avoid a US default, while attempting to pass two major pieces of time-sensitive legislation that have the party’s progressives pitted against moderate Democrats.

  

  For starters, House progressives have banded together to nuke the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure package passed by the Senate in August, unless Speaker Nancy Pelosi links it to the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better act – which party moderates including Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) will tank in the Senate unless it’s significantly smaller and has legitimate budgetary mechanisms to pay for it that doesn’t just include a beefed-up IRS collecting deadbeat taxes.

  

  “Progressives will vote for both bills, but a majority of our members will only vote for the infrastructure bill after the President’s visionary Build Back Better Act passes,” said Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair (and boss from hell) Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). The progressive caucus, which claims 95 members, is using their vote on the infrastructure bill as leverage to force the Build Back Better act via the reconciliation process, according to Bloomberg.

  “This agenda is not some fringe wish list: it is the President’s agenda, the Democratic agenda, and what we all promised voters when they delivered us the House, Senate, and White House,” Jayapal added.

  According to Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) – a member of the so-called “Squad” of progressive Democrats, Pelosi’s decision to separate the bills is a “betrayal.”

  “Let me be clear: bringing the so-called bipartisan infrastructure plan to a vote without the #BuildBackBetter Act at the same time is a betrayal. We will hold the line and vote it down,” Tlaib wrote on Twitter, adding “This is not the time for half measures or to go back on our promises.”

  Let me be clear: bringing the so-called bipartisan infrastructure plan to a vote without the #BuildBackBetter Act at the same time is a betrayal. We will hold the line and vote it down.

  This is not the time for half measures or to go back on our promises. https://t.co/FVdlID9hZp

  — Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) September 28, 2021

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

  On Monday night, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) knocked Manchin and Sinema, telling CNN‘s Manu Raju “It is saddening to see them use Republican talking points. We obviously didn’t envision having Republicans as part of our party. And I hope that they will understand that Democrats need to be united behind the president’s agenda, and we need to have urgent conversations on how to get this agenda done.”

  Meanwhile, President Biden(‘s handlers) have arranged for separate meetings on Tuesday with Manchin and Sinema in an attempt to broker an agreement.

  Pelosi says she plans to move forward with the infrastructure vote on Thursday, however even close allies such as Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) have cast doubt on its current ability to pass.

  “If she were to call the bill, it will fail,” she told The Hill, adding “Not because the Progressive Caucus, people like me, aren’t willing to vote for it. But … we had an agreement that we were going to get these two pieces [together].”

  Debt ceiling disaster

  Democrats – which could simply raise the debt ceiling via reconciliation to avoid a US default, have dug in their heels over Republican involvement – with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calling it a “non-starter.”

  “Going through reconciliation is risky to the country and is a non-starter,” he said at a press conference following a meeting of the Senate Democratic conference, adding “It’s very, very risky.”

  On Tuesday, Republicans shut down a bid by Schumer to hold a vote to suspend the debt limit with a 51-vote threshold, to which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) objected – saying that Democrats can do it by themselves.

  SCHUMER asks for unanimous consent to hold a Senate vote to suspend the debt limit at a 51-vote threshold, i.e. no filibuster and Democrats can do it themselves.

  McCONNELL objects.

  No vote. The Republican filibuster holds.

  — Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) September 28, 2021

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

  

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 19:25

• Most Americans No Longer Trust Biden's COVID Info, New Poll Finds
  Most Americans No Longer Trust Biden’s COVID Info, New Poll Finds

  Americans’ trust in President Biden continues to slide, according to the latest Axios/Ipsos Coronavirus Index. The poll found that fewer than half of the respondents trust the president regarding accurate information about COVID-19, a 13-percentage decline since his inauguration in January. 

  Axios/Ipsos found trust in President Biden, the federal government and the mainstream media to deliver accurate information about the virus pandemic slumped in tandem with no end in sight. 

  Only 45% of respondents said they trust the president to provide accurate information about the virus, down from 58% in January. The result of this poll is exemplified in Biden’s outlandish comment on Monday about pre-pandemic life can only return if 97% of Americans are vaccinated.

  

  Compared with rating earlier this year, Biden is losing trust among Democrats (an 11-percentage point decline to 81% trust a great deal or fair amount) and Republicans (a 10-point drop to 11%). He has experienced the most significant decline in confidence among independents (a 17-point decline to 42%).

  

  Similarly, less than half of Americans (49%) trust the federal government to provide accurate COVID-19 information, down from 54% earlier this month. 

  “Delta and other issues have undermined the public’s perception,” Cliff Young, president of Ipsos public affairs, told Axios. He said that no clear resolution to ending the pandemic is the main contributor to the decline in trust. 

  What’s not helping with regaining trust is the administration’s sweeping new federal vaccine mandate for 100 million Americans (with no discussion of natural immunity), many of which are private-sector employees as well as health care workers and federal contractors. People across the country, if they’re in health care or law enforcement, among others, are walking off the job in droves because of the mandate. 

  The survey was taken with a little more than 1,100 adults between Sept. 24–27 and has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points. 

  These findings are a big concern for the Democratic president and his party ahead of the 2022 midterms. It appears Biden’s honeymoon period is over, and the first real glimpse of this was in late July when a Gallup opinion poll found his approval ratings were slipping. 

  

  Compound the botched exit of Afghanistan, Mexico–US border crisis, and soaring food, gas, and rent prices, the president’s ratings continue to tumble. 

  Meanwhile, former President Trump received a healthy boost in support following the Republican National Convention last month.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 09/28/2021 – 19:25

Digest powered by RSS Digest