Jul 30

Today’s News 30th July 2024

  • The UN's Green Agenda Will Spark Famine
    The UN’s Green Agenda Will Spark Famine

    Authored by Thi Thuy Van Dinh via The Brownstone Institute,

    “We The Peoples of the United Nations determined…to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,”

    – United Nations Charter Preamble (1945)

    This is the second part in a series looking at the plans of the United Nations (UN) and its agencies designing and implementing the agenda of the Summit of the Future in New York on 22-23 September 2024, and its implications for global health, economic development, and human rights. Previously the impact on health policy of the climate agenda was analyzed.

    The right to food once drove UN policy towards reducing hunger with a clear focus on low- and middle-income countries. Like the right to health, food has increasingly become a tool of cultural colonialism – the imposition of a narrow ideology of a certain Western mindset over the customs and rights of the ‘peoples’ that the UN represents.

    This article discusses how it happened and the dogmas on which it relies.

    The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the farming equivalent of the World Health Organization (WHO), was founded in 1945 as a specialized United Nations (UN) agency with a mission to “achieve food security for all.” Its motto “Fiat panis” (Let there be bread) reflects that mission. Headquartered in Rome, Italy, it counts 195 Member States, including the European Union. The FAO relies on more than 11,000 staff, with 30% being based in Rome.

    Of its US$3.25 billion biennial 2022-23 budget, 31% comes from assessed contributions paid by Members, with the remainder being voluntary. A large share of voluntary contributions come from Western governments (US, EU, Germany, Norway), development banks (e.g. World Bank Group), and other lesser-known publicly- and privately-funded entities set up for assisting environmental conventions and projects (including the Global Environment Facility, Green Climate Fund and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). Thus, like the WHO, most of its work now consists of implementing the dictates of its donors.

    The FAO was instrumental in implementing the 1960s and 1970s Green Revolution, associated with a doubling in world food production that lifted many Asian and Latin American populations out of food insecurity. The use of fertilizers, pesticides, controlled irrigation, and hybridized seeds was considered a major achievement for hunger eradication, despite resulting pollution to soil, air, and water systems and facilitation of the emergence of new resistant strains of pests. The FAO was supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) founded in 1971 – a publicly funded group with the mission to conserve and improve seed varieties and their genetic pools. Private philanthropies, including the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, also played supportive roles.

    Successive World Food Summits held in 1971, 1996, 2002, 2009, and 2021 have punctuated the FAO’s history. At the second summit, world leaders committed themselves to “achieving food security for all and to an ongoing effort to eradicate hunger in all countries” and declared “the right of everyone to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger” (Rome Declaration on World Food Security). 

    Promoting the Right to Food 

    The human “right to food” was central to FAO policy. This right has two components: the right to sufficient food for the poorest and most vulnerable, and the right to adequate food for those more fortunate. The first component is to combat hunger and chronic food insecurity, the second provides for balanced and appropriate nutrient intake. 

    The right to food was consecrated as a basic human right under international law by the non-binding 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR, Article 25) and the binding 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, Article 11) with 171 States Parties and 4 Signatories. It is closely related to the right to work and the right to water, also proclaimed in the same texts. Their States Parties are expected to recognize fundamental rights focusing on preserving human dignity, and work toward their progressive achievement for their citizens (Article 21 UDHR, Article 2 ICESCR). 

    Article 25 (UDHR)

    1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services…

    Article 11 (ICESCR)

    1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

    2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:

    (a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;

    (b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need. 

    The FAO assesses the progressive implementation of the right to food through the annual flagship State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) reports, jointly with four other UN entities – the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), World Food Program (WFP), and the WHO. In addition, since 2000, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has established a “Special Rapporteur on the Right To Food,” mandated to (i) present an annual report to the Human Rights Council and to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and (ii) monitor trends related to the right to food in specific countries (Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2000/10 and Resolution A/HCR/RES/6/2).

    Despite an increasing population, remarkable improvement in access to food at the global level continued until 2020. At the 2000 Millennium Development Summit, world leaders had set an ambitious goal to “eradicate extreme poverty and hunger,” among the 8 goals altogether aimed at developing the economy and improving acute health problems affecting low-income countries. 

    Millennium Development Goals (2000) 

    Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

    Target 1A: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 a day

    Target 1B: Achieve Decent Employment for Women, Men, and Young People

    Target 1C: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

    The UN reported that Target 1A of halving the proportion of people who suffered from extreme hunger, compared to the 1990 statistics, was successfully achieved. Globally, the number of people living in extreme poverty declined by more than half, falling from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 836 million in 2015, with most progress having occurred since 2000.

    On this basis, in 2015, the UN system launched a new set of 18 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to economic growth, social equity and well-being, environmental preservation, and international cooperation, to be achieved by 2030. In particular, Goal 2 on ending hunger in the world (“Zero Hunger”) is coupled with Goal 1 on “ending poverty in all its forms everywhere.”

    These goals appeared highly utopian, not taking into account factors like wars, population growth, and the complexities of human societies and their organizations. However, they reflected the global mindset at the time that the world was progressing toward unprecedented, steady economic growth and agricultural production to improve the living conditions of the poorest.

    Sustainable Development Goals (2015)

    2.1 By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.

    2.2 By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons.

    In 2019, FAO reported that 820 million people suffered from hunger (only 16 million less than in 2015) and almost 2 billion experienced moderate or severe food insecurity, and predicted that the SDG2 would not be achievable at current progress. The most affected areas were sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Western Asia.

    Complicit Suppression of the Right to Food through Covid-19 Emergency Measures

    Come March 2020, repeated waves of restrictions and interruption of income (lockdowns) were imposed on “the peoples of the UN” for two years. While UN staff, as part of the laptop class, continued to work from home, hundreds of millions of the poorest and most vulnerable lost their meagre incomes and were pushed to extreme poverty and hunger. The lockdowns were decided by their governments based on poor advice from throughout the UN system. On 26 March, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres set out his 3-step plan: suppressing the virus until a vaccine became available, minimizing social and economic impact, and collaborating to implement the SDGs.

    UNSG’s Remarks at G-20 Virtual Summit on the Covid-19 Pandemic

    We are at war with a virus – and not winning it…

    This war needs a war-time plan to fight it…

    Allow me to highlight three critical areas for concerted G-20 action...

    First, to suppress the transmission of COVID-19 as quickly as possible. 

    That must be our common strategy.  

    It requires a coordinated G-20 response mechanism guided by WHO. 

    All countries must be able to combine systematic testing, tracing, quarantining and treatment with restrictions on movement and contact – aiming to suppress transmission of the virus.  

    And they have to coordinate the exit strategy to keep it suppressed until a vaccine becomes available…

    Second, we must work together to minimize the social and economic impact…

    Third, we must work together now to set the stage for a recovery that builds a more sustainable, inclusive and equitable economy, guided by our shared promise — the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

    It was remarkably naive or callous to claim that human, social, and economic impacts caused by the Covid response on hundreds of millions of the poorest and the most vulnerable were minimizable. Naturally, its promoters were not among those who suffered. A decision was made to impoverish populations and drag them down, yet claim publicly that development targets could still be achieved. Lockdowns were contrary to the WHO’s recommendations in 2019 for pandemic influenza (non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza; 2019).

    Only a few months prior to March 2020, the WHO had stated that in case of a pandemic, measures such as contact tracing, quarantine of exposed individuals, entry and exit screening, and border closures were “not recommended in any circumstances”: 

    However, social distancing measures e.g. contact tracing, isolation, quarantine, school and workplace measures and closures, and avoiding crowding) can be highly disruptive, and the cost of these measures must be weighed against their potential impact…

    Border closures may be considered only by small island nations in severe pandemics and epidemics, but must be weighed against potentially serious economic consequences.

    One can wonder if the UN had ever seriously weighed the social, economic, and human rights costs of the measures pushed by Guterres against expected benefits. Countries were encouraged to institute measures such as workplace and school closures that would entrench future poverty for the next generation.

    As was predictable, the 2020 SOFI report on Food Security and Nutrition estimated at least 10% more hungry people: 

    The COVID-19 pandemic was spreading across the globe, clearly posing a serious threat to food security. Preliminary assessments based on the latest available global economic outlooks suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic may add between 83 and 132 million people to the total number of undernourished in the world…

    These are the individuals, families, and communities with no or little cushion who suddenly lost jobs and incomes, particularly in informal or seasonal economies, because of the panic caused by a virus predominantly threatening elderly people in Western countries. 

    During 2020, the WHO, ILO, and FAO regularly published joint press releases, but they disingenuously attributed the economic devastation to the pandemic, failing to question the response. This narrative was systematically deployed across the UN system, with the rare exception of the ILO, probably the bravest entity of all, which once pointed directly at the lockdown measures as the cause of massive job losses:

    As a result of the economic crisis created by the pandemic, almost 1.6 billion informal economy workers (representing the most vulnerable in the labour market), out of a worldwide total of two billion and a global workforce of 3.3 billion, have suffered massive damage to their capacity to earn a living. This is due to lockdown measures and/or because they work in the hardest-hit sectors.”

    Given the ILO’s estimation, it is reasonable to assume that the number of people pushed into hunger may well be higher than officially estimated. Adding to this is the number of those who also lost access to education, medical care, and improved shelter.

    The strangest thing about this entire episode is the lack of interest of the media, the UN, and major donors. While previous famines had generated wide and specific sympathy and responses, the Covid famine, perhaps because it was essentially directed by Western-based and global institutions and was more diffuse, has been mostly swept under the carpet. This could be a question of financial return on investment. Funding has been massively directed to initiatives to buy, donate, and dump Covid vaccines and supporting institutions driving the “pandemic express.”

    The FAO and WHO have been collaborating on developing dietary guidelines in order to “improve current dietary practices and prevailing diet-related public health problems.” They once recognized that links between constituents of food, disease, and health were poorly understood, and they agreed to conduct joint research. The cultural element of diets was also highlighted. After all, human societies had been founded on a hunter-gatherer model heavily reliant on wild meat (fat, protein, and vitamins), then introduced dairy and cereals step-by-step according to favorable climates and geography.

    Their partnership led to the joint promotion of “sustainably healthy diets,” which constitutes the consensus of individual approaches of the WHO’s “healthy diet” and the FAO’s “sustainable diets.” As the wording indicates, these guidelines are motivated by sustainability, defined as reducing CO2 emissions resulting from food production. Meat, fat, dairy, and fish are now the declared enemies and should be limited in daily consumption, with protein intake predominantly from plants and nuts, thereby promoting a quite unnatural diet compared to that for which our bodies evolved.

    The WHO claims that its healthy diet “helps to protect against malnutrition in all its forms, as well as noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) including diabetes, heart disease, stroke and cancer.” However, it is then somewhat incongruously promoting carbohydrates over meat-based protein. 

    The following diet was recommended to both adults and young children by the FAO-WHO 2019 “Sustainable Healthy Diets: Guiding Principles” report:

    • Fruit, vegetables, legumes (e.g. lentils and beans), nuts and whole grains (e.g. unprocessed maize, millet, oats, wheat and brown rice);

    • At least 400 g (i.e. five portions) of fruit and vegetables per day, excluding potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava and other starchy roots.

    • Less than 10% of total energy intake from free sugars.

    • Less than 30% of total energy intake from fats. Unsaturated fats (found in fish, avocado and nuts, and in sunflower, soybean, canola and olive oils) are preferable to saturated fats (found in fatty meat, butter, palm and coconut oil, cream, cheese, ghee and lard) and trans-fats of all kinds, including both industrially-produced trans-fats (found in baked and fried foods, and pre-packaged snacks and foods, such as frozen pizza, pies, cookies, biscuits, wafers, and cooking oils and spreads) and ruminant trans-fats (found in meat and dairy foods from ruminant animals, such as cows, sheep, goats and camels). 

    • Less than 5g of salt (equivalent to about one teaspoon) per day. Salt should be iodized.

    Little evidence on the health impact of the guidelines was presented to back up the report’s allegations of: i) red meats being linked with increased cancer; ii) animal source foods (dairy, eggs, and meat) accounting for 35% of the burden of food-borne disease due to all foods, and iii) the health benefits of the Mediterranean Diet and the New Nordic Diet promoted by the report – both plant-based, with little to moderate amounts of animal-sourced foods. Although these diets are new, the FAO and WHO assert that “adherence to both diets has been associated with lower environmental pressures and impacts in comparison to other healthy diets containing meat.” 

    The sister organizations define sustainable healthy diets as “patterns that promote all dimensions of individuals’ health and wellbeing; have low environmental pressure and impact; are accessible, affordable, safe and equitable; and are culturally acceptable.” The paradoxes of this definition are paramount. 

    Firstly, imposing a diet is forcing cultural acceptance and, when reflecting the ideology of an external group, can reasonably be considered cultural colonialism. Diet is the product of culture based on centuries or even millennia of experience and food availability, production, processing, and preservation. The right to adequate food not only implies the sufficient quantity of food for the individuals and their families but also their quality and appropriateness. Examples are not scarce. The French still enjoy their foie gras despite the importation restriction, ban, and an international campaign against it. They also eat horse meat, which shocks their British neighbors.

    Dog meat, also a victim of negative campaigns, is appreciated across several Asian countries. Invoking moral judgment in these cases may be seen as a neo-colonial behavior, and battery farms of chickens and pigs do not fare better than force-fed geese or alleged cruel treatment to animals considered humans’ best friends in multiple contemporary societies. Western people, rich from fossil fuel use, demand that poorer people change their traditional diets in response is a similar but even more abusive theme. If the cultural aspect of diets is undeniable, then the right to self-determination of peoples, including cultural development, should be respected. 

    Article 1.1 (ICESR) 

    All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

    Secondly, at the time of their adoption in 1948 and 1966, the treaties’ provisions recognizing the right to food did not link food to its “environmental pressure and impact.” Article 11.2 of the binding ICESR (quoted above) refers to States’ obligation to implement agrarian reforms and technologies for the best use of natural resources (i.e. land, water, fertilizers) for optimal food production. Farming certainly uses land and water and causes some pollution and deforestation. Managing its impacts is complicated and requires local context, and national governments and local communities are better placed to make such decisions with scientifically founded advice and neutral (unpoliticized) support from external agencies, such should be expected from the UN. 

    The managerial job has become increasingly complicated with the UN’s emerging climate agenda. After the first UN Conference on Environment in 1972 in Stockholm, the green agenda slowly grew through and eclipsed the Green Revolution. The first World Climate Conference was held in 1979, leading to the 1992 adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (together with the non-binding Declaration on Environment). This Convention stated, without openness for further discussion, that human activities producing greenhouse gases were, unlike similar prior periods, the main cause of climate warming:

    UNFCCC, Preamble

    The Parties to this Convention…

    Concerned that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind…

    With the UN’s goal to keep greenhouse gas emissions as low as pre-industrial levels, governments are now bound by obligations to maintain or reduce national emissions. Applied to agriculture in the context of constant population growth, it will inevitably lead to a reduction of food diversity, production, and accessibility, particularly affecting traditional food cultures emphasizing natural meats and dairy. 

    When the Climate Agenda Is More Important Than the Right to Food of “We The Peoples”

    In the draft document of the Pact For the Future (revision 2) to be adopted by world leaders in September in New York, the UN still proclaims its intention to eradicate extreme poverty; however, this goal is conditioned to “mitigating global CO2 emissions in order to keep temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius” (para. 9). The drafters seem not to understand that reducing the use of fossil fuels will undoubtedly reduce food production and prevent billions of people from improving their economic well-being.

    As a result, the planned Actions 3 and 9 in the document appear to strongly push countries toward “sustainable agrifood systems,” and people toward adopting sustainable healthy diets as a component of “sustainable consumption and production patterns.” 

    Pact for The Future (revision 2)

    Action 3. We will end hunger and eliminate food insecurity.

    (c) Promote equitable, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems so that everyone has access to safe, affordable and nutritious food.

    Action 9. We will enhance our ambition to address climate change.

    (c) Promote sustainable consumption and production patterns, including sustainable lifestyles, and circular economy approaches as a pathway to achieving sustainable consumption and production patterns, and zero waste initiatives.

    In the last decades, the right to food was sacrificed twice by the UN itself, first by the green agenda and second by lockdown measures supported by the UN for a virus predominantly affecting the wealthy countries where the climate agenda is based (and, ironically, where people consume the highest rates of energy). It now mostly means the right to certain types of approved foods, in the name of centralized and unquestionable determinations regarding people’s health and the earth’s climate. Veganism and vegetarianism are promoted while wealthy individuals and financial institutions close to the UN buy up farmland. An intent to make meat and dairyless affordable whilst investing in vegan meat and drink may be seen as a conspiracy theory (technically, it is). However such policies would make sense for climate agenda promoters. 

    In this quest, the FAO and WHO omit to highlight the high nutrition of animal fat, meat, and dairy. They also ignore and disrespect the fundamental rights and choices of individuals and communities. They appear on a mission to force people onto pre-approved foods of the UN’s choosing. The history of centralized control and interference in the food supply, as Soviet and Chinese experience taught us, is a very poor one. Fiat fames (let there be hunger) for “We the peoples?”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 07/30/2024 – 02:00

  • The Mandarinate: The 3rd-Party That Isn't On The US Election Ticket
    The Mandarinate: The 3rd-Party That Isn’t On The US Election Ticket

    Authored by Amir Taheri via The Gatestone Institute,

    Barring another surprise “event,” the coming US presidential showdown is likely to be a duel between former President Donald Trump and Vice-President Kamala Harris.

    That duel, if it goes through, will include a number of new features.

    Harris is only the second woman to reach the last round in a US presidential contest. She is also the first “black” woman of Indian and Jamaican background to reach the penultimate rung of the ladder.

    There are novelties on Trump’s side as well.

    He is the second former president after Theodore Roosevelt to seek a return to the White House, in the face of opposition from his party’s traditional elite. But unlike Roosevelt who left the Republican Party to found his foredoomed Progressive Party, Trump did not leave and united it under his flag.

    One of the paradoxes of this election is that Republicans enter the final round unexpectedly united while Democrats, including some on the left, are still yes-butting Harris as their standard-bearer.

    American presidential elections have often been more about personality than policy.

    Of the 46 presidents the US has had, 31 had a military background up to the highest grades. Only Bill Clinton made his refusal to enlist for service during the Vietnam War a badge of honor.

    Barack Obama, who also had no service record, claimed military credit on behalf of his maternal grandfather who had served in the army. Grandpa’s picture is on the cover of Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father.

    This time round, neither of the finalists has a military record, even through grandpas, to boast about.

    What about other ingredients in an American presidential narrative?

    The standard fable presents the aspirant as hailing from a modest, occasionally poor, family living in a log cabin but moving up the social ladder thanks to hard work and personal merit. Bill Clinton made much of the claim that he had been an orphan raised by a selfless and dedicated mother, a theme that helped secure votes from single mothers.

    Such themes don’t work this time.

    Trump may have not lived in the penthouse of Trump Tower from the start, but certainly didn’t grow up in a log cabin either. Harris’s highly-educated parents managed to secure an upper-middle class status thanks to hard work and the luck to live in California, where positive discrimination is almost a creed.

    Thus, one might have assumed that the contest this time would shift attention from personalities to policy differences.

    The opposite has happened.

    The two camps have chosen personal attacks of the kind and at a level seldom seen before. The list of charges made against Trump is too long for this column. He is castigated as guilty of every sin imaginable, including the original one.

    As for Harris, she is caricatured as a Jezebel with a law degree and blamed for all the real or imagined failures of the Obama-Biden’s 12-year joint tenure in the White House.

    Since neither party allowed an open convention, key policy issues were not debated even at the party level.

    What are those issues?

    The first is that the US has been engaged in a cultural civil war for over a decade.

    The traditional vision of the US as a melting pot of cultural, religious and ethnic identities is challenged by what Samuel Huntington’s disciples present as a salad bar in which double-barrel identity is the rule. The clash of civilizations is happening inside the US.

    In it, everyone claims to be, and often genuinely feels to be, a victim.

    “We’ll take our country back” implies that someone has stolen it.

    The slogan “protect our social rights” means someone is trying to deprive Americans of public subsidies, positive discrimination and perks that almost half of the population receive.

    “Black Lives Matter” implies a system of values based on skin color.

    Another key issue is that of the nation’s ethno-demographic persona, which has been reduced to tittle-tattle about how many illegal immigrants to round up and expel rather than how to use managed immigration as a source of strength, as it has been in the US since its inception.

    One of the dangers that democracies face is that of the machinery of government morphing into a political party with its own culture, traditions, methods and, needless to say, interests — above all that of self-perpetuation. Thus, the US has a third, invisible party, besides the Republicans and Democrats.

    The Federal Government employs almost three million people. Of those, between 5,000 and 7,000 change when the White House changes occupants.

    Tenured, at times life-long, jobs help perpetuate a Mandarinate that sees its task as keeping the ship of state on a course it has set.

    That Mandarinate is especially well-entrenched in the State Department, the Pentagon, the Treasury and, more importantly, the judiciary.

    It also has well-established, at times incestuous, relations with lobbyists, single-issue activist groups, universities with their tenured academics, and think tanks with rotating doors to government departments and the media.

    The Mandarinate maintains close ties with those unmovable, effectively tenured members of the Senate and House of Representatives.

    Conspiracy theorists refer to this Mandarinate as “the deep state”.

    However, what we are dealing with isn’t the product of a conspiracy by a cabal in a black chamber. It is the organic product of a system in which democracy is reduced to elections, and elections reduced to a beauty contest, just as a set of rituals is often marketed as a religion.

    Winning an election is an art; governing is quite a different one.

    Another key issue is the redistribution of power at the federal and state levels. In several states, especially in the South, confederal anxieties abide. This is often unjustly seen as “redneck” prejudice or even rank racism. But the fact is that the closer the decision-making process is to those affected, the stronger a democracy is.

    Trump has tried to express that view in his bull-in-the-china-shop style, while advocating the opposite by calling for an increase in presidential power.

    Elitist Democrats on the other hand preach the old federalist gospel of states close to water — especially the two oceans and the Great Lakes.

    This is why Democrats portray the recent decision by the Supreme Court on allowing some states to set their own rules on abortion as an attack on democracy rather than a move towards decentralization that could be extended to other issues.

    Rebalancing power between Washington and the states has been an issue since the end of the Civil War.

    The states of the defeated Confederacy suffered 12 years of military occupation by the Union army, not to mention plundering by “carpetbaggers,” at the end of which they signed a treaty that, while ruling out fissiparous dreams, promised a rebalancing process that never happened.

    While the two candidates fire abuse at one another, the voter isn’t told what they actually mean to do about cracks in the structures of world order, the war in Ukraine, China as a threat or a rival, the exponential rise of anti-Semitic activities and the deepening of incivility in public life.

    On November 5 the Mandarinate or the third party won’t be on any ticket.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 23:45

  • Defense Secretary Orders Review Of 20 Medals Of Honor Awarded For Wounded Knee
    Defense Secretary Orders Review Of 20 Medals Of Honor Awarded For Wounded Knee

    Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has ordered a review of the Medals of Honor awarded to 20 U.S. Army soldiers for their role in a deadly armed clash at Wounded Knee Creek, South Dakota, on Dec. 29, 1890.

    U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin attends the 21st Shangri-La defense dialogue summit in Singapore on June 1, 2024. (Nhac Nguyen/AFP via Getty Images)

    The memorandum Mr. Austin wrote on July 19, which the Department of Defense published last week, directs the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to form a special panel to review the Medal of Honor citations and other supporting documentation for the awards. The panel will then decide whether each soldier’s conduct warranted a Medal of Honor, the highest U.S. military decoration for valor.

    Often referred to as the “Battle of Wounded Knee” or the “Wounded Knee Massacre,” the clash came about when members of the U.S. Army’s 7th Cavalry and other units attempted to disarm a group of Lakota tribe members. Accounts differ as to how exactly the shooting began, but the disarmament effort devolved into an exchange of fire in which an estimated 250 Native Americans, including women and children, were killed and about 100 more were wounded.

    Mr. Austin’s memo listed the 20 Medal of Honor recipients from the Wounded Knee battle.

    Of the 20 Medal of Honor recipients, 16 were members of the 7th U.S. Cavalry: Sgt. William Austin, Pvt. Mosheim Feaster, 1st Lt. Earnest Garlington, 1st Lt. John Gresham, Pvt. Matthew Hamilton, Pvt. Marvin Hillock, Pvt. George Hobday, Sgt. Bernhard Jetter, Sgt. George Loyd, Sgt. Albert McMillan, Pvt. Thomas Sullivan, 1st Sgt. Frederick Toy, 1st Sgt. Jacob Trautman, Capt. Charles Varnum, Sgt. James Ward, and Pvt. Hermann Ziegner.

    Three members of the 1st U.S. Artillery also received Medals of Honor: Army Musician John Clancy, Pvt. Joshua Hartzog, and Cpl. Paul Welnert.

    And 2nd Lt. Harry Hawthorne, of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, received a Medal of Honor.

    Native Americans, political leaders, and other activists have, for years, called for the awards to be rescinded. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other Democratic lawmakers repeatedly proposed legislation between 2019 and 2021, and Congress included a provision in the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act recommending that the Defense Department review the awards.

    Two of the Medal of Honor awards credit soldiers with rescuing their wounded comrades during the exchange of fire at Wounded Knee Creek. Two citations credit recipients for continuing to fight and demonstrating bravery after being wounded in the engagement. Another citation credits an officer with leading a charge to capture high ground and cover another troop of soldiers who were withdrawing from the engagement. Still another citation appears to credit a soldier with reenlisting after he “killed a hostile Indian at close quarters” during the engagement.

    Four of the Medal of Honor awards focus on soldiers who fought to dislodge groups of Native Americans positioned in one or more ravines near the creek. Another citation credits an artillery soldier with continuing to advance his cannon crew during the engagement after his commanding officer was wounded.

    There are 11 less descriptive citations, simply crediting soldiers with “bravery,” “gallantry,” “gallant conduct,” and “distinguished conduct” during the Wounded Knee engagement, with few additional details.

    The standards for awarding the Medal of Honor have evolved over time. The defense secretary’s memo states that the review will consider whether any of the awards were given in violation of the Medal of Honor standards in place at the time they were awarded. The review will also examine witness accounts and historical documents, looking for a range of disqualifying actions, including “intentionally directing an attack against a non-combatant or an individual who has surrendered in good faith, murder or rape of a prisoner, or engaging in any other act demonstrating immorality.”

    “It’s never too late to do what’s right,” a senior defense official said in a statement from the Department of Defense. “And that’s what is intended by the review that the secretary directed, which is to ensure that we go back and review each of these medals in a rigorous and individualized manner to understand the actions of the individual in the context of the overall engagement.”

    The Associated Press contributed to this article.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 22:55

  • These Are America's Most-Visited National Parks
    These Are America’s Most-Visited National Parks

    Visitor numbers have been steadily increasing across national parks in the U.S., as more people are opting to trade city skylines for mountain peaks and lush forests.

    In 2023, U.S national parks welcomed 93.4 million visitors and saw a 4% year-over-year increase from 2022.

    According to National Park Service data, national parks made up 28% of all visits out of all nationally-regulated park types, which includes national monuments, memorials, historic sites, and more.

    This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the top 10 busiest national parks in the United States by number of visits in 2023. Visits includes recreational visits, and excludes non-recreational visits and camping.

    The data comes from the National Park Service and is updated as of February 2024.

    Western U.S. Home To Busiest National Parks

    Great Smoky Mountains, which straddles the border between North Carolina and Tennessee, saw almost three times the amount of visits compared to second-place Grand Canyon. It is consistently the most visited national park in the country.

    This sprawling park is easily accessible for many Americans, located just a day’s drive away for more than half of the U.S. population.

    In terms of location, Great Smoky Mountains and Acadia are outliers among the top 10. The Western United States is home to a majority of the busiest parks, like Grand Canyon in Arizona, Zion in Utah, Yellowstone in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, and Yosemite in California.

    The western half of the country is known for its extensive protected areas, natural landmarks, and outdoor recreation opportunities. California is home to the highest number of national parks, at nine, while other western states like Utah (five parks) and Colorado (four parks) rank among the top five.

    Acadia, the only park located in the Northeastern U.S., is significantly smaller compared to other top national parks, spanning about 49,000 acres, compared to the next smallest park, Zion, which has an area of 147,242 acres.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 22:30

  • Evening Protests Explode In Venezuela As Opposition Crowds Descend On Caracas, Head To Presidential Palace
    Evening Protests Explode In Venezuela As Opposition Crowds Descend On Caracas, Head To Presidential Palace

    Summary: While things were somewhat calm through much of the daylight hours on the streets of Caracas, tensions are now at boiling point and full-blown confrontations with police as thousands of opposition supporters have been literally walking, some from rural areas, to the Presidential Palace. BBC and CNN are confirming that Maduro’s security services have fired tear gas and rubber bullets against outraged demonstrators who believe Sunday’s election was stolen. Some US members of Congress have added their voice, urging the White House not to recognize the results of a Maduro victory.

    “Thousands of people descended on central Caracas on Monday evening, some walking for miles from slums on the mountains surrounding the city, towards the presidential palace,” writes BBC. A handful of other cities have also witnessed unrest Monday, confirms CNN: “Protests were also reported in other cities, including Maracay, where opposition activist Esthefania Natera told CNN that people were on the streets “to yell and demand to tell the truth because we know the real results.” The coastal state of Falcón saw demonstrators topple a statue of leftist icon and Maduro mentor Hugo Chavez, according to activists posting video on social media.

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

    Like with prior instances of brief unrest in the last couple years, in some areas police and military personnel appear to have retreated or even abandoned their armored vehicles.

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

    Some US hawks are openly calling for regime change, and have urged the protesters to go all the way to the Presidential Palace to confront socialist strongman Maduro…

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

    There actually appears to be more than one Chavez statue that has been toppled in different locations at this point, a huge and fierce message by protesters aimed at the regime.

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

    * * *

    earlier: By most accounts, things are surprisingly quiet on the streets of Caracas, despite the opposition candidate Edmundo González and his backers, specifically the prominent and outspoken Maria Corina Machado, loudly contesting the result. There have been some reports of protesters blocking highways and burning tires, including to the capital’s international airport, however. It’s not just that the opposition says that the election was stolen, but that González actually won by a land-slide: “Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado said early on Monday that opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez won 70% of the vote in a presidential contest over the weekend,” writes Reuters. This came just after the government controlled national electoral council announced a 51% victory for President Nicolas Maduro. This flew in the face of several exit polls. According to more from Bloomberg: “After a lengthy delay following the closing of polls, Venezuela’s electoral center said Maduro won 51.2% of the vote, compared with 44.2% for rival Edmundo González. But opposition leader María Corina Machado, who was barred from running, said her coalition had gained access to 40% of the tabulated votes and had González winning 70% of the vote so far.”

    The international reaction has rolled in since the early morning hours. Predictably, the United States has raised “serious concerns” over the voting process, but overall the Biden White House has issued a fairly tame message. “It is critical that every vote be counted fairly and transparently, that election officials immediately share information with the opposition and independent observes without delay and that the electoral authorities publish the detailed tabulations of votes,” Secretary Blinken said. As for Mexico, it also issued a calm statement, with President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador saying: “If the electoral authority confirms the current trend, we will recognize the government-elect.”

    But this is contrasted in the reaction of firebrand conservative Argentina President Javier Milei: “Argentina will not recognize another fraud, and hopes that this time the Armed Forces will defend democracy and popular will,” he had said just ahead of the announced election results. Peru too said it will not recognize the results, and even recalled its ambassador from Venezuela for consultations. “I condemn in all extremity the sum of irregularities with the intention of fraud committed by the Venezuelan government. Peru will not accept the violation of the popular will of the Venezuelan people,” Foreign Minister Javier Gonzales-Olaechea posted on X.

    Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro celebrates

    Russia and China of course stand out as strong backers of Maduro, with President Putin congratulating him on his win: “Russian-Venezuelan relations have the character of a strategic partnership. I am confident that your activities at the head of state will continue to contribute to their progressive development in all directions.” Putin even said, “Remember that you are always a welcome guest on Russian soil.”

    And China and Cuba: China hailed Maduro’s “successful re-election” said the country should be praised for “smoothly holding its presidential election,” according to Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian. “China stands ready to enrich our all-weather strategic partnership and better benefit the peoples of both countries,” the statement said. “China and Venezuela are good friends and partners who support each other.” Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel expressed support for his “brother” Nicolas Maduro… “your victory, which is that of the Bolivarian and Chavista people, has cleanly and unequivocally defeated the pro-imperialist opposition,” he wrote on X. “They also defeated the regional, interventionist and Monroist right. The people spoke and the Revolution won.” All of these countries, including Russia, are military allies with Caracas as well.

    Meanwhile, the last 24 hours of voting in Venezuela has sparked a fierce online debate about who is ultimately to blame for the country’s longtime severe economic woes, which has lately seen waves of mass migration. Socialism or sanctions?… or perhaps decades of both/and… 

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

    Some in Congress are already calling for immediate action from the US administration, and urge that Maduro’s third term should not be recognized.

    Some are also calling for some kind of political intervention (or worse) with a declaration only recognizing the opposition (Juan Guaido-style).

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

    * * *

    Update(02:00ET): The Venezuelan government has announced official election results shortly after midnight: Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has won a third term with 51% of the vote, announced the country’s electoral authority, with 80% of ballot boxes counted. But there are widespread reports that several key exit polls pointed to a huge opposition upset victory by Edmundo González.

    The opposition is claiming victory and that the election has been stolen amid reports that Maduro’s security forces have deployed significant numbers of armored vehicles and heavily armed-police to the streets of Caracas ahead of likely unrest.

    The opposition is further calling on the military to turn against Maduro and back the ‘rightful’ victory of Gonzalez.

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

    The Associated Press has detailed in an overnight update:

    Venezuela’s opposition claimed Edmundo González defeated President Nicolás Maduro in Sunday’s presidential election, setting up a showdown with the government, which earlier declared Maduro the winner.

    “The Venezuelans and the entire world know what happened,” González said in his first remarks. Opposition leader María Corina Machado made the announcement standing alongside González, whose margin of victory she said was “overwhelming.” Earlier the opposition said it had obtained voting tallies from about 30% of ballot boxes nationwide, with more expected overnight.

    The National Electoral Council, which is controlled by Maduro loyalists, has yet to provide the tallies from 30,000 polling booths nationwide.

    AP: Opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, right, & presidential candidate Edmundo Gonzalez hold press conference after electoral authorities declared Maduro the winner.

    Regardless of what actually happen or what will happen in terms of the possibility of violence, it’s clear that the leftist and socialist Venezuelan government just suffered its most significant electoral test and shock in decades.

    Some regional and external governments have signaled they will not recognize Maduro’s ‘win’…

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

    The populace could be gearing up for a fight, but if violence doesn’t spiral within the next 24-48 hours, the situation is likely to remain stable. All eyes will also be on Washington Monday, waiting to see how forcefully the US administration condemns the outcome.

    Meanwhile, an interesting recent admission and revelation…

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

    * * *

    President Nicolas Maduro alarmed and riled his enemies as well as Washington and its allies by declaring just ahead of Sunday’s elections: “If you don’t want Venezuela to fall into a bloodbath, into a fratricidal civil war, due to the fascists, let’s ensure the greatest success and greatest victory in the electoral history of our people.”

    Many pundits are taking this as a warning that he’ll refuse to give up power in the unlikely event he loses his bid for six more years in office, which would be his third term. While there are eight names total on the ballot as Venezuelans wait in long lines to vote Sunday, 74-year old opposition candidate and former diplomat Edmundo González Urrutia is considered the only real contender who has a chance of defeating Maduro.

    González is basically the surrogate candidate for María Corina Machado, who has organized the opposition and has become wildly popular, even recently gaining name recognition abroad and in US media.

    Edmundo González Urrutia and Nicolás Maduro vote on Sunday.

    Maduro and his United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) have ruled over the central American country since 2013, after he took over following the death of his mentor, far-left icon Hugo Chavez.

    Millions of desperate citizens have already left their country in search of work and opportunities abroad amid a crushed economy and rampant accusations of corruption against Maduro government officials. Millions more may leave if his power is extended for another term.

    Polls have seen massive queues since they opened at 6am, but already there are reports of barriers in pro-opposition areas and stories of black-clad, masked men blocking voting stations, as The New York Times has alleged. “The destiny of Venezuela depends on our victory,” Maduro has proclaimed at campaign rallies, while decrying efforts of a hidden imperialist foreign hand to thwart his aims, as well as longtime US-led sanctions.

    Both the United States and Brazil have issued messages of “we’re watching closely”:

    Asked in a press briefing whether Maduro was likely to rig Sunday’s vote, John Kirby, White House national security spokesperson, said it was difficult to know how the situation would play out but that the U.S. wanted “to make it clear to Mr. Maduro that we’re watching, we’re watching closely.”

    Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has also urged Maduro to respect the results, telling international news agencies that he was “scared” by the Venezuelan’s recent remarks, Reuters reported.

    Brazil’s president added that Maduro “needs to learn that when you win, you stay; when you lose, you leave.”

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

    Some analysts expect some degree of unrest and violence to break out no matter who emerges victorious, with either side set to contest.

    “On the basis of their own exit polls, the opposition will probably declare victory and push for regime change, ushering in a period of heightened political tension and uncertainty ahead of the inauguration,” Andre Masuko, a research analyst with the Economist Intelligence Unit, stated to CNBC.

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

    “However, we do not expect the Maduro regime to be overthrown. His strict control over the country’s institutions, including the security forces, the judiciary and the electoral national council (CNE), will be instrumental in helping him to stay in power,” he underscored.

    One big unpredictable scenario of huge consequence is whether the US would throw its support behind any opposition allegations claims of widespread election abuse and fraud.

    Meanwhile, the usual Neocon suspects in Congress are alleging a ‘stolen’ national election before the ballots are even in…

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

    Washington weighing in too forcefully would set the stage for another anti-opposition crackdown by Maduro government security services.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 22:30

  • San Diego Postpones Discussion On 1,000-Bed Shelter Proposal To September
    San Diego Postpones Discussion On 1,000-Bed Shelter Proposal To September

    Authored by Sophie Li via The Epoch Times,

    Discussion on San Diego’s plan to lease and convert a commercial building into a long-term 1,000-bed homeless shelter and resource center is now postponed until September, the mayor announced July 25.

    The San Diego City Council voted 7–2 on July 22 to revisit the topic later, and Mayor Todd Gloria said Thursday that the decision to further delay the discussion was made to allow additional time for project review.

    Concerns that have been raised by the council include property rent, operational cost, and insufficient analysis of the leasing terms.

    According to Mr. Gloria, during the delay, city officials will work with the city attorney’s office regarding such feedback and will also convene a working group to develop a design and preliminary operations plan.

    “As Mayor, I am resolute in further expanding shelter because the status quo on our streets is unacceptable,” Mr. Gloria said in a statement.

    Under a 30-year lease agreement, the city plans to renovate a commercial building in the city’s Middletown area, near the airport, into a homeless shelter campus. The facility will include a commercial kitchen, laundry facilities, dining areas, recreation spaces, and showers.

    In addition to providing shelter, the project will offer job training, meals, housing navigation, and behavioral health support.

    The 65,000-square-foot property, located at Kettner Boulevard and Vine Street, covers 1.8 acres and includes a two-story building with 134 parking spaces.

    The city council’s vote on July 22 instructed city attorneys and staff to prepare an analysis of the lease before its July 30 meeting.

    While some councilors remain open to further discussions on the project, councilors Vivian Moreno and Kent Lee both voted against doing so, citing concerns that the terms presented in the lease are financially irresponsible.

    “The real estate transaction that is at hand is not one that truly does protect the taxpayers,” Mr. Lee said during the meeting.

    “The only responsible thing to do to protect our taxpayers, in not simply just to prolong this discussion, it would be to actually reject these lease terms.”

    Councilors who voted to continue deliberations also expressed concerns about what they said was an insufficient analysis of the lease terms and the project’s costs.

    Last week, the city’s Office of Independent Budget Analyst raised questions about the project’s affordability.

    Over the city’s lease term, the cost is expected to be $72 million.

    Instead, the budget analyst proposed that the city could save $15.7 million by purchasing the property and then renovating it.

    However, according to the mayor, the property is currently not available for sale.

    The analysts’ report highlighted concerns about “significant upfront and ongoing costs,” including rent, lease operations, tenant improvements, and program expenses.

    The mayor’s office estimates that facility maintenance costs will reach $12.5 million over the lease term, with an additional $26.4 million needed annually for operational expenses.

    San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria speaks at the press conference at H Barracks on June 6, 2024. (Jane Yang/The Epoch Times)

    The report also detailed a monthly cost of $32,000, covering property taxes, maintenance, utilities, and insurance.

    Analysts also said that these costs exceed the budget currently allocatedfor homeless programs for the 2025 fiscal year.

    Currently, under the lease agreement, the city is responsible for upgrading the structure to meet the shelter’s needs. However, the councilors argued that such upgrades should not be the city’s responsibility as a tenant.

    “I do not believe that we should be using taxpayer money to fix [the property owner’s] roof,” Councilwoman Marni von Wilpert said.

    Some councilors indicated they might support the project if the terms were revised.

    The mayor asked the council for more specific bargaining points the following day.

    “My administration is happy to continue refining the current proposal, but council members must provide specific negotiating points, which I am immediately requesting from them,” Mr. Gloria said in a statement on July 23.

    No specific date has been set for further discussions. The council is in recess in August.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 22:05

  • Rhinos (& Pangolins) Are The World's Most-Trafficked Animals
    Rhinos (& Pangolins) Are The World’s Most-Trafficked Animals

    Wildlife trafficking is the world’s fourth largest illegal trade when including fisheries and plantlife, after narcotics, human trafficking and counterfeit products, according to the U.S. Homeland Security. 

    According to Germany’s Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, wildlife crimes are frequently associated with other types of crimes, such as money-laundering, corruption as well as tax and customs fraud, but these are only rarely pursued when dealing with wildlife offenses.

    The overlapping of wildlife crime with other serious organized crimes makes it a “convergent crime”.

    While shark-finning has gained prominence in the news recently, as Statista’s Anna Fleck shows in the following chart, the animals most affected by illegal wildlife trade in 2015-2021 were rhinos, pangolins and elephants, together accounting for nearly three quarters (73 percent) of all of all seizure records.

    Infographic: The Most Trafficked Animals | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Interpol warns that as the illegal wildlife trafficking sector continues to grow, it is contributing to pushing species towards extinction. This too is highlighted in the World Wildlife Crime Report 2024, which reveals how 73 percent of the trafficked mammals seized between 2015 and 2021 were considered under threat, while the same was true for 62 percent of the seized amphibians and 59 percent of reptiles.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 21:40

  • Mississippi Law Allowing Ballots To Be Received After Election Day Lawful: Judge
    Mississippi Law Allowing Ballots To Be Received After Election Day Lawful: Judge

    Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

    A Mississippi law that allows ballots received up to five days after an election to be counted is lawful, a federal judge ruled on July 28.

    U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. pointed, in part, to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which governs ballots from citizens residing overseas.

    “So if one federal statute implicitly allows post-election receipt of overseas ballots mailed by election day, that statute is presumed not to offend against the election-day statutes, from which one may infer that the similar Mississippi statute on post-election receipt is likewise inoffensive,” the judge wrote in a 24-page ruling.

    The ruling dismissed cases brought against Mississippi officials by the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.

    The Mississippi law requires officials to count absentee ballots postmarked on or before Election Day, provided that the ballots are received no more than five business days after the election.

    The U.S. Constitution’s elections and electors clause gives Congress the power to set Election Day for determining electors for president and vice president, as well as the date for voters choosing members of Congress. Congress later established a single day for the selection of electors and voting for members of Congress.

    The Mississippi law “contravenes those federal laws” because it “effectively extends Mississippi’s federal election past the Election Day established by Congress,” Republicans said in their complaint.

    They argued that the law was forcing them to spend money to educate voters on the post-Election Day receipt deadline and urged the court to declare the law illegal and block its enforcement.

    Mississippi officials said the law does not directly conflict with federal statutes because those statutes do not address whether ballots must be received on or by Election Day.

    Although Republicans and the Libertarian Party did establish standing, Judge Guirola found that they did not show that the law is illegal or unconstitutional.

    He cited previous rulings from courts, including a 2023 district court ruling that upheld an Illinois law that lets ballots postmarked on or before Election Day be counted if received up to 14 days after Election Day.

    In that ruling, the judge referenced the UOCAVA and noted that the attorney general of the United States “often seeks court-ordered extensions of ballot receipt deadlines to ensure that military voters are not disenfranchised.”

    “These longstanding efforts by Congress and the executive branch to ensure that ballots cast by Americans living overseas are counted, so long as they are cast by Election Day, strongly suggest that statutes like the one at issue here are compatible with the Elections Clause,” Judge Guirola said.

    “In the absence of federal law regulating absentee mail-in ballot procedures, states retain the authority and the constitutional charge to establish their lawful time, place, and manner boundaries.”

    Since the Mississippi law is legal, there are no violations of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, the judge said.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 21:15

  • The War On Raw Milk
    The War On Raw Milk

    Does anyone else find it strange that Covid experts, such as epidemiologist Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding, are back in the media, now sounding the alarm about bird flu as the next pandemic? They’re even scaremongering about raw milk, claiming it will contribute to the spread. Sound familiar? Must stop the spread (early Covid).

    In April, we informed readers that corporate media was ramping up a propaganda campaign to spook Americans about the bird flu. We cited Covid experts who warned the bird flu pandemic could be ‘100 times worse than Covid.’ And even noted this: “Gain-of-Function May Explain Bird Flu Jump To Cows And Humans.”

    “This bird flu has arrived in US very fast and furious…definitely don’t drink raw milk… it’s 50% mortality among those who we detect it. If this truly jumps into humans and spreads human to human we’re in deep trouble,” Feigl-Ding recently said. 

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

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) called out Feigl-Ding for fearmongering:

    “Feigl-Ding you’re flat out lying and fear mongering in this video. You just made up the 50% fatality number and didn’t explain it. You dont even know if pasteurization kills the bird flu virus. People are not contracting fatal bird flu from consuming raw milk.”

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

    In late 2022, Feigl-Ding bashed Twitter for abandoning its ‘Covid misinformation’ policy. The same non-sense policy that deplatformed users for even suggesting Covid came from a lab.

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

    So, given his lack of credibility, Feigl-Ding’s attack on raw milk is highly suspicious. This comes as bird flu spreads, and the government has ramped up oversight on farms, especially mom-and-pop ones.

    The result of this bird flu scare and government action so far to increase ‘surveillance’ across farms, along with Feigl-Ding’s attempts to dissuade people from drinking raw milk, has been disastrous for at least one small-time farmer, Sarah Armstrong, who runs Nourish.

    Armstrong was featured in a recent video uploaded on X that shows how her world was turned upside down when the bird flu spread gained momentum in April. She said the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development hit her farm with a cease and desist order.

    Listen to Armstrong’s story about government overreach and the attack on small farms: 

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

    Here are several predictions about the great reset already underway in the food supply chain. 

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

    It’s time for the people to take back local supply chains and support local farmers. Enough with mega-corporations controlling the food supply.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 20:50

  • The Media Betrays The American Experiment
    The Media Betrays The American Experiment

    Authored by Carson Holloway via AmericanMind.org,

    The stunning events of the last several weeks have highlighted the great weaknesses in the corporate media, an essential part of modern America’s political system. They have, as they constantly remind us, a vital role to play. But they betrayed that role by their open partisanship.

    For one brief shining moment, it seemed as if the media would live up to the promise of Adolph Ochs, the founder of the modern New York Times: “to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.” In the month after President Biden’s disastrous debate performance, the media raised and vigorously pressed the questions about his fitness for office that had to be addressed for the good of the country.

    Yet this spasm of critical curiosity about the fitness of our Democratic president turned out to be just an interlude. Everybody can remember that right before the debate the media (including the New York Times, which later called for Biden to leave the race) were saying that Biden was fine and questions about his decline were based on out-of-context video clips, labeled “cheap fakes” by the White House press office. But now that Biden has left the race, the media have reverted to their usual lack of interest in anything that sheds negative light on the national Democratic Party.

    There is certainly no lack of material. In the wake of Biden’s withdrawal from campaigning, it would be no exaggeration to call this an administration mired in scandal. Besides the voter dissatisfaction over the failures of the last three and a half years, three new developments loom like shadows over the Biden-Harris White House.

    Consider the mysterious way in which Biden was forced out of the race. Up to the day he dropped out he and his top aides were insisting that he was all in. Then he suddenly stepped aside without offering any reason, seemingly pushed aside, perhaps by powerful and shadowy figures with no public accountability.

    There is also the scandal of the officials close to Biden—including the Democrats’ new presumptive nominee, Vice President Harris—evidently knowing about his decline and covering it up, or even directly misleading the public about it. Related to this is the Democrats’ rationally indefensible combination of choices: to drop Biden from the ticket amid widespread reports of his failing memory and flagging concentration, but to leave him in the office of the presidency for the next six months despite these signs of mental infirmity.

    Finally, there is the scandalous failure of the Secret Service to provide adequate protection to a former president and the leading presidential candidate in the present election. Had it been successful, the assassination of Donald Trump would have been one of the worst attacks on American democracy in decades. It would have effectively disenfranchised the tens of millions of Americans who hope to vote for Trump. And the government’s as yet unexplained security lapses almost permitted this to happen.

    Each of these scandals reflects very badly on the nation’s present governing party. Each is also a once in a century story. Yet the media seem very uninterested in getting to the bottom of any of them. They would rather fawn over Kamala Harris.

    Taken together, the events of the last several weeks suggest that Biden’s rough coverage in July was not even really an interlude for the media. It was instead more of their standard operating procedure. Their scrutiny of Biden was not a return to professional standards of reporting. It was rather another case of the media making themselves part of a political operation to protect the Democratic Party—in this case by helping to push aside a president that they had concluded was an electoral liability.

    No serious person who has lived through these events can credibly deny the partisanship of the corporate media. This partisanship undermines our democracy. Democracy means self-government. It means that the people get to choose the direction of the country by electing their leaders. The media could play a vital role in this wonderful process (denied to most people throughout history) through impartial and thorough reporting on public issues.

    Thus they would provide the voters with the information they need to choose freely and intelligently. Instead, the media do all they can to prop up the political party with which they sympathize—all the while professing an objectivity that they manifestly do not possess. To this extent their work is an ongoing fraud on the American public.

    This partisanship also hurts the country itself in other ways.

    By shielding the Democrats from criticism, the media permits them to govern incompetently and recklessly with near impunity. The result: foolish policies (inflationary spending, unregulated immigration, and unnecessary foreign wars) that hurt America and Americans.

    Donald Trump, with his characteristic simplicity and harshness, once said that “the fake news is the enemy of the people.”

    No doubt the media resent this judgment, but they are doing everything they can to demonstrate its accuracy.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 20:25

  • These Are The Fastest Growing Housing Markets In The US
    These Are The Fastest Growing Housing Markets In The US

    This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu, shows the top 10 fastest-growing housing markets in the U.S., based on the growth of their housing stock between 2013 and 2022.

    Housing stock refers to the total number of homes (houses and apartments) within an area.

    All figures were sourced from a StorageCafe analysis of U.S. Census data.

    Data and Highlights

    The following table lists the data featured in this graphic.

     

    Vineyard, Utah takes the top spot with remarkable 7,000% growth in both housing stock and population. A big driver of this growth is the city’s close proximity to Utah’s “Silicon Slopes” region, a growing hub for tech businesses.

    Prominent companies in the region include Adobe, which opened a futuristic 280,000 square feet campus in 2013. Microsoft, Oracle, Google, and Facebook (Meta) also have offices in Utah.

    Meanwhile, Horizon West, Florida has the largest population among this ranking. The area is considered a “master-planned community”, which is a large-scale neighborhood that was planned from the outset to include homes, recreational facilities, schools, and more. The goal is to create a self-sustaining community where residents do not need to leave the area frequently.

    Given Horizon West’s 2022 population of 58,595 people, we can determine that its population 10 years ago was 15,219 (+285% growth).

    If you enjoyed this post, be sure to check out this animated map graphic showing global urbanization from 1950 to 2020.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 20:00

  • 5,800 IRS Employees And Contractors Owe Nearly $50 Million In Unpaid Taxes: Treasury IG
    5,800 IRS Employees And Contractors Owe Nearly $50 Million In Unpaid Taxes: Treasury IG

    Authored by Mark Tapscott via The Epoch Times,

    At least 5,800 IRS employees and contractors owe almost $50 million in overdue taxes and more than half of them haven’t been required to agree to a payment plan, according to the Department of the Treasury’s Inspector-General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).

    In a report made available to The Epoch Times, TIGTA  said auditors found 3,414, or 4 percent, of the 85,359 employees at the IRS have unpaid taxes. Of those with payment plans, $9 million remains unpaid, while $12 million is owed by employees without a payment plan.

    Among IRS contractors, which include many former tax agency employees, 2,573 of 25,732 (10 percent) contractors have unpaid taxes. Of those without a payment plan, $17 million is owed and those with a payment plan have $8 million outstanding.

    The TIGTA also reported that 512 former IRS employees were rehired, either as employees or contractors, despite having “tax compliance issues or conduct and performance problems, including criminal misconduct, sexual misconduct, inability to perform duties, fighting and assault, and unauthorized access to tax return information, have been rehired by the agency and its contractors,” according to Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who requested the watchdog’s report.

    Law Requires Tax Cheats Be Fired

    Federal law requires that federal workers found to have unpaid taxes must be removed unless the IRS Commissioner specifically allows them to remain on the government payroll. The present IRS chief, Danny Werfel, has exercised that discretion to retain more than 1,000 such workers since 2021.

    “Between October 1, 2021, and April 1, 2023, the IRS closed 1,175 cases with disciplinary actions, for 1,068 current employees, with confirmed tax noncompliance issues. During that same time period, 70 employees were identified with substantiated willful … violations and 20 were removed as a result,” the TIGTA report explained.

    “Although the law requires an employee who has either willfully not filed or willfully understated their taxes due to be removed, subject only to the IRS Commissioner’s mitigation, this disciplinary action is not always enforced.”

    Ms. Ernst also pointed out in a July 29 letter to Mr. Werfel that a 2023 TIGTA report “found 149,000 federal employees owe an astounding $1.5 billion in unpaid taxes. Tens of thousands are repeat tax cheats, failing to file tax returns year after year, and the number is steadily increasing.”

    The number of federal workers across the government with unpaid taxes rose 32 percent between 2015 and 2021 to 149,000. Congress approved and President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993 the Federal Employee/Retiree Delinquency Initiative (FERDI) in response to persistent tax delinquencies among government workers.

    The Treasury watchdog also expressed concern in the 2024 report that having thousands of IRS employees and contractors with unpaid taxes represents a privacy security threat to all taxpayers.

    “Given the ever-increasing threat of identity theft and the substantial amount of sensitive information that the IRS holds, hiring employees of high integrity is essential to safeguarding taxpayer information,” the report said.

    “We believe that IRS and contractor employees who are not tax compliant could negatively affect public trust in tax administration and the perception that the IRS is being honest in its dealings with all taxpayers,” the report continued.

    The TIGTA report comes as the federal tax agency is doubling its workforce thanks to an appropriation of more $80 billion. President Joe Biden, who sought the IRS workforce increase, said the additional workers will boost tax compliance, especially by taxpayers earning more than $400,000 annually.

    But Ms Ernst said the new hires are instead targeting middle-income taxpayers, while the tax agency is doing too little to hold its own employees with unpaid taxes accountable.

    “That is why I’m giving my July 2024 Squeal Award to the IRS for auditing honest hardworking Americans while ignoring the overdue and unpaid tax bills of its own tax collectors,” Ernst said in a July 29 statement.

    The Iowa Republican’s Squeal Awards spotlight waste and fraud in the federal bureaucracy.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 19:40

  • Putin Vows 'Mirror Measures' After US Plans Long-Range Missiles For Germany
    Putin Vows ‘Mirror Measures’ After US Plans Long-Range Missiles For Germany

    Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday issued another fresh warning in the wake of the United States weeks ago announcing it intends to deploy long-range missiles in Germany in violation of prior Cold War era missile treaties.

    He has vowed that Russia’s military will in turn place long-range missiles within striking distance of the West. “The flight time to targets on our territory of such missiles, which in the future may be equipped with nuclear warheads, will be about 10 minutes,” Putin warned, announcing his intent to ‘mirror’ any such US actions.

    “We will take mirror measures to deploy, taking into account the actions of the United States, its satellites in Europe and in other regions of the world,” he said, as translated in Reuters.

    Via AP

    Putin also of late frequently warned that a Cold War 2.0 showdown is emerging due to the threatening behavior of the West related to the Ukraine conflict: “This situation is reminiscent of the events of the Cold War related to the deployment of American medium–range Pershing missiles in Europe,” he said.

    These comments come at the same time that Russian warships have increased their port visits to Cuba, which has involved groups of Russian military vessels not far off of America’s east coast. 

    Just like in the original Cold War, Cuba could become a base of Russian missiles in the potential highly dangerous return of a Cuban missile crisis scenario. 

    In early July, the Pentagon had unveiled near and long-term plans to station additional missiles in Europe, to include SM-6, Tomahawk cruise missiles and developmental hypersonic weapons placed in Germany starting in 2026.

    As for Germany, which finds itself in the middle of these tit-for-tat threats and warnings, its foreign ministry has said it will not be intimidated by Moscow.

    “This type of missile… had already been developed and deployed long ago” by Russia, foreign ministry spokesman Sebastian Fischer told a press conference. “What we are now planning is a response to deter these weapons from being used against Germany or other targets,” he emphasized.

    The end of Cold War era treaty was negotiated precisely to avoid and reduce weapons build-up in Europe…

    In mid-July, Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov stated on Telegram that the US moving missiles to Germany “increases the risks of a missile arms race,” given that it could unleash “uncontrolled escalation amid dangerously soaring Russia-NATO tensions.”

    Antonov further warned that this brings European states like Germany in the crosshairs and that Moscow’s patience is limited. The ambassador posed: “Doesn’t Germany understand that the emergence of American missile assets on German soil will lead to these facilities ending up in Russian crosshairs? This is not saber-rattling, it is the simple logic of a normal person.”

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 19:20

  • Nebraska Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Bill Restricting Abortion, Gender-Altering Procedures
    Nebraska Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Bill Restricting Abortion, Gender-Altering Procedures

    Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that a law combining abortion restrictions with limits to gender-altering procedures for minors does not violate the state’s constitution, which requires bills to be confined to a single subject.

    A pro-life sign on a roadside in Agnew, Nebraska, on May 14, 2024. (Charly TRIBALLEAU / AFP)

    The state’s high court acknowledged in a split decision on July 26 that abortion and gender-altering care are “distinct types of medical care” but that the law, LB574, does not violate Nebraska’s single-subject rule because both abortion and transgender procedures fall under the subject of medical care.

    The law, which imposes a ban on abortion beyond 12 weeks’ gestation and includes regulation of puberty blockers for minors and a ban on gender-altering surgeries for minors, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing Planned Parenthood in Nebraska.

    A district judge dismissed the lawsuit last August, and Planned Parenthood appealed, with the key premise being a violation of Article III Section 14 of the Nebraska Constitution, which requires single-subject bills.

    Lawmakers in the Nebraska Legislature had originally proposed separate bills, one banning abortion at about six weeks of pregnancy and another restricting transgender procedures for minors. However, the GOP-dominated Legislature added the abortion ban bill to the existing gender-altering care bill when the abortion ban failed to defeat a filibuster.

    In arguments before the Nebraska Supreme Court in March, an attorney for the state argued that both abortion and gender-altering measures fall under the subject of health care and so the law does not violate the constitutional single-subject restriction.

    By contrast, an attorney for Planned Parenthood argued that the bills deal with distinct subjects in violation of the constitution and that even the Legislature recognized this by introducing the abortion and transgender bills separately.

    The majority on the Nebraska Supreme Court disagreed with the arguments put forward by Planned Parenthood, finding that while abortion and gender-altering care are distinct types of medical care, they “certainly are encompassed within the regulation of permissible medical care.”

    “After our review of the facts of this case and our historical legal precedent wherein we have rarely found violations of Neb. Const. art. III, § 14, we find no merit to Planned Parenthood’s argument that L.B. 574 contains more than one subject in violation” of the state constitution, the high court’s majority opinion states.

    “Unlike our dissenting colleague, and particularly in the absence of a suggestion that the title given by the Legislature was misleading, we decline to reject the elected representatives’ articulation of a subject in the guise of a search for the perfect title.

    “We find Planned Parenthood’s assignments of error to be without merit. We affirm the decision of the district court.”

    Several justices dissented, with one arguing that the Legislature had the duty under the constitutional amendment to “compose legislation, including titling, which stated ‘one subject’; failure to so compose renders the bill unconstitutional. It is not the role of this court to rescue legislative bills.”

    The amended title of the combined LB574 was the Adopt the Let Them Grow Act and the Preborn Child Protection Act, and it provides for discipline under the Uniform Credentialing Act, with part of the dissenting judge’s objection focusing on the complexity of the title.

    Another line of dissent was that the bill contained “unrelated acts, i.e., abortion and gender-affirming care,” and that it included sections that don’t relate to the regulation of medical professionals, in violation of the single-subject constitutional constraint.

    Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen issued a statement praising the ruling, saying he’s “grateful for the court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion upholding these important protections for life and children in Nebraska.”

    “There was a dark moment last year when many feared that a victory for unborn babies was impossible and that the pro-life coalition might break apart,” he said. “I was honored to partner with faithful allies and leaders across the state to combine the abortion ban with protections for kids against irreversible sex change surgeries.”

    ACLU of Nebraska issued a statement calling the state Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the lower court ruling “devastating” and vowing to continue fighting for its position on the matter.

    “This is devastating news for impacted Nebraskans, but it won’t be the final word on abortion access or the rights of trans youth and their families in Nebraska. We’ll continue doing all we can to ensure that these decisions rest with Nebraskans, not the government,” it said.

    At least 25 states have adopted laws restricting or banning gender-altering procedures for transgender minors, with most of them facing lawsuits.

    Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and handed the matter of regulating abortion access over to the states to determine, most Republican-controlled states have advanced legislation that restricts abortion or started enforcing existing laws that had been blocked.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 19:00

  • Elizabeth Warren Says Kamala Harris To Grant Citizenship To Illegal Immigrants
    Elizabeth Warren Says Kamala Harris To Grant Citizenship To Illegal Immigrants

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) says that Kamala Harris ‘will work with Congress’ to provide a ‘pathway to citizenship’ for tens of millions of illegal migrants.

    “I believe we need to create a pathway to citizenship,” Warren told CNN‘s Jake Tapper on State of the Union on Sunday. “All of that is part of what we need to do for comprehensive immigration reform. Kamala Harris will work with Congress and get that done.”

    When Tapper pressed her to defend the disastrous Biden-Harris administration border policies, Warren blamed Congress!

    “I don’t need to tell you voters overwhelmingly disapprove of how the Biden-Harris administration has handled the border,” said Tapper. “By giving the nomination to one of the leaders of the border effort, aren’t Democrats doubling down on one of your party’s biggest vulnerabilities?”

    To which Warren replied: “Border crossings now are lower than they were in the last year of the Trump administration. But recognize – and I know that Kamala Harris knows – this is a problem that ultimately has to be solved by Congress.“

    “We need the tools in order to have more resources at the border, to have more resources in the states and cities that are supporting migrants,” she continued.

    During a Saturday campaign rally in Minnesota, Trump running mate Sen. JD Vance (R-PA), Harris is trying to artificially swell Democrat voter rolls.

    “She wants to hand over control of our country to people who shouldn’t be here in the first place. And we cannot let her. And I have a message, a very simple message to the millions of illegal aliens who are in this country and shouldn’t be. If you are here, start packing your bags right now because Donald J. Trump is coming back into office,” he said.

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

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 18:40

  • Trump To Sit For Voluntary Interview With FBI On Assassination Investigation
    Trump To Sit For Voluntary Interview With FBI On Assassination Investigation

    Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Former President Donald Trump will sit for a voluntary interview with the FBI regarding the probe into the assassination attempt against him at a campaign rally earlier this month, according to a special agent on July 29.

    “We want to get his perspective on what he observed,” Kevin Rojek, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Pittsburgh field office, said in a call with reporters on Monday.

    Former President Donald Trump leaves after speaking during the first rally since the assassination attempt and officially accepting the presidential nomination, in Grand Rapids, Mich., on July 20, 2024. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)

    While the agency said it has not yet determined the motive of the would-be Trump assassin, his actions showed extensive planning ahead of the July 13 rally, Mr. Rojek told reporters.

    Mr. Rojek said interviews with victims are common practice during investigations.

    Several new details were revealed during the call, including that the 20-year-old suspect Thomas Matthew Crooks had made “significant efforts” to conceal his actions, according to CNN.

    Mr. Robek said that Mr. Crooks had conducted extensive online research, which showed that he had an interest in mass shootings, power plants, improvised explosive devices, and the attempted assassination of Slovakia’s prime minister earlier this year.

    The suspect was a reclusive individual primarily connected to his family, Mr. Rojek said. His parents have cooperated fully with the investigation, maintaining they were unaware of his plans.

    Mr. Rojek revealed in the call that Mr. Crooks used aliases and foreign-based encrypted email accounts to evade detection during the purchase of firearms and chemical precursors for explosive devices, according to CNN.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 18:20

  • "This Case Is Going To Fail": Lawyer For Andrew Left Says He'd "Never" Accept Plea Deal
    “This Case Is Going To Fail”: Lawyer For Andrew Left Says He’d “Never” Accept Plea Deal

    Short seller Andrew Left surrendered in Los Angeles this afternoon, CNBC reported. 

    James Spertus, the lawyer representing Left who was previously a prosecutor in the L.A. U.S. Attorney’s Office, said Monday prosecutors had ordered Left to turn himself in that day. Initially, the U.S. Attorney’s Office planned to request a $10 million cash deposit for his bail.

    “Then they wanted several million dollars,” Spertus said. “It doesn’t make any sense. This should be Mr. Left released on his own recognizance. There’s no reason for any bond in this case.”

    Spertus argued Left isn’t a flight risk, or a danger to the community – and that there are no victims in the case. “There can’t be” a plea deal, he said, since it would require Left to tell a judge that what he did was unlawful, which he says it wasn’t. 

    “This case is going to fail for six independent reasons,” Spertus said. “You have no duty to the market to disclose your private trading intentions.”

    He said he thinks the DOJ “is trying to deter the activist short sellers, and they want to stop it.”

    Lawyer James W. Spertus, center

    Spertus told CNBC that, irrespective of Left’s conviction or acquittal, the case will deter short sellers from publicly sharing their research on companies they believe to be overvalued or whose stock prices are based on false information.

    “People will stop sharing their research with the market,” Spertus said. “It’s really bad for the financial markets to have a prosecution like this when the government agrees that the public statements were truthful.”

    As we wrote days ago, Federal prosecutors charged short seller Andrew Left with fraud last Friday, accusing him of making misleading statements about stocks to profit from price moves triggered by his reports, according to an exclusive by the Wall Street Journal. 

    Known for his firm Citron Research, which targets market “lemons,” Left gained fame for betting against Valeant Pharmaceuticals and for betting against GameStop during the meme stock craze, but he has seen less success in recent years.

    The DOJ wrote in a press release out Friday morning:

    According to the indictment, Andrew Left, 54, formerly of Beverly Hills, California, and now a resident of Boca Raton, Florida, was a securities analyst, trader, and frequent guest commentator on cable news channels such as CNBC, Fox Business, and Bloomberg Television. Left conducted business under the name “Citron Research” (Citron), an online moniker he created as a vehicle for publishing investment recommendations. Citron’s online presence included a website and a social media account on X, formerly known as Twitter.

    His media presence amplified his impact, leading followers to mimic his trades, prosecutors said:

    As alleged in the indictment, Left commented on publicly traded companies, asserting that the market incorrectly valued a company’s stock and advocating that the current price was too high or too low. Left’s recommendations often included an explicit or implicit representation about Citron’s trading position—which created the false pretense that Left’s economic incentives aligned with his public recommendation—and a “target price,” which Left represented as his valuation of the company’s stock. Sometimes, the commentary represented Left’s own work. Other times, Left disseminated the commentary of third parties as his own. The commentary routinely included sensationalized headlines and exaggerated language to maximize the reaction it would get from the stock market. As alleged, Left knowingly exploited his ability to move stock prices by targeting stocks popular with retail investors and posting recommendations on social media to manipulate the market and make fast, easy money.

    The Wall Street Journal reported that Left faces charges of securities fraud and lying to federal investigators, with accusations of manipulating at least 15 stocks to earn $16 million over five years. Prosecutors claim he exaggerated potential stock price declines, sometimes closing positions after minimal price drops.

    The press release continued: 

    As further alleged in the indictment, in the leadup to publication of Citron’s commentary, Left established long or short positions in the public company on which he was commenting in his trading accounts and prepared to quickly close those positions post-publication and take profits on the short-term price movement caused by his commentary. Left allegedly used his advance knowledge and control over the timing of a market-moving event to build his positions using inexpensive, short-dated options contracts that expired from the same day that he published his commentary to within five days. Left also allegedly submitted limit orders, often prior to publication of his commentary, to close his positions as soon as the company’s shares reached a certain price and at prices vastly different from the target prices that Left recommended to the public. While Left made false representations to the public to bolster his credibility, behind the scenes, Left allegedly took contrary trading positions to reap quick profits off the stocks he either promoted or pilloried through Citron.

    Left’s indictment concludes a three-year investigation into short sellers’ tactics. Prosecutors also allege Left concealed ties to hedge funds that traded on his early research, sharing profits with him. He denied these allegations to investigators in January 2021.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 18:00

  • NY Church Plans Supreme Court Appeal On Abortion Coverage Ruling
    NY Church Plans Supreme Court Appeal On Abortion Coverage Ruling

    Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    A Roman Catholic diocese is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court a New York appeals court ruling that requires religious charities to provide abortion coverage in their employee health insurance packages.

    The Supreme Court of the United States in Washington on Dec. 4, 2018. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)

    Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, confirmed during an online news conference on July 25 that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, New York, is preparing a petition for certiorari, or review, to be filed in coming weeks with the nation’s highest court. The Becket organization is part of the diocese’s legal team.

    The case is Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Harris. Adrienne A. Harris is Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, the agency that issued the health care insurance regulation that’s in dispute.

    The deadline for filing the petition for certiorari, or review, was originally Aug. 19, but on July 26, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor extended the deadline to Sept. 18.

    The case has been working its way through the judicial system for years.

    In 2017, the New York Department of Financial Services issued a regulation requiring that employers fund abortions through their employee health insurance plans. The regulation exempted religious entities whose “purpose” is to inculcate religious values and who “employ” and “serve” primarily coreligionists. At the same time, the regulation forced religious organizations to cover abortions if they have a broader religious mission, such as serving the poor, or if they hire or serve people regardless of their faith.

    Various Roman Catholic dioceses, along with Anglican nuns and Lutheran and Baptist churches, sued.

    The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York ruled in favor of the state in July 2020.

    But in November 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily vacated that decision.

    The nation’s highest court sent the case back to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for further consideration in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2021 ruling in Fulton v. Philadelphia.

    In the Fulton ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Roman Catholic charity in Pennsylvania may refuse on First Amendment religious freedom grounds to place children with same-sex couples.

    Writing for the court in that case, Chief Justice John Roberts said that Philadelphia had violated the other side’s First Amendment rights.

    The religious views of the diocese-affiliated Catholic Social Services “inform its work in this system,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. The charity believes that “marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.”

    “Because the agency understands the certification of prospective foster families to be an endorsement of their relationships, it will not certify unmarried couples—regardless of their sexual orientation—or same-sex married couples.”

    However, when the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reconsidered the case in June 2022, it ruled in favor of the state, finding that the Fulton ruling didn’t apply to the case and that the abortion insurance mandate did not violate the First Amendment.

    On May 21 of this year, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Appellate Division.

    “Under Fulton, both the regulation itself and the criteria delineating a ‘religious employer’ for the purposes of the exemption are generally applicable and do not violate the Free Exercise Clause,” the court held.

    Ms. Windham said in recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of employers “every single time” in three cases when they have objected to having to provide coverage for contraception or abortion medication for their employees.

    Despite that, New York decided to impose an abortion coverage mandate and “go all the way in the face of these three Supreme Court decisions.” First, the state enacted the insurance regulation and then the New York State Legislature decided to codify the regulation in state law, she said.

    The exemption from the mandate is narrow, Ms. Windham said.

    “If you primarily serve people of your own faith, then you can have an exception, but if you open your doors to all … [to] care for anyone regardless of your faith, if you’re out there offering a cup of soup to anyone who’s hungry, regardless of what their faith background is, then you lose your religious freedom protections, you lose your exemption under the statute, and you must also pay for abortions.”

    This means that a “religious test” is being imposed on religious groups that provide social services, she said.

    “All of these different groups are stuck with this abortion mandate, and all of them because of the work they do, and because of the good that they try to do within their communities, are being hit by this,” Ms. Windham said.

    The New York Department of Financial Services didn’t respond by publication time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 17:40

  • "No Manual Action Taken": Google Responds To Assassination Autocomplete Controversy
    “No Manual Action Taken”: Google Responds To Assassination Autocomplete Controversy

    Update (1035ET):

    Google has responded to the uproar on X regarding potential election interference and information warfare against former President Donald Trump. 

    It appears that big tech and the Democrats might not want the American people to remember the assassination attempt on Trump, as it doesn’t appear on Google’s autocomplete search function, which is designed to help users find information faster and more accurately. 

    “We’ve got protections in place against Autocomplete predictions associated with political violence, which is normally a good thing. That said, we’re working on improvements to ensure our systems are more up to date. Regardless of what Autocomplete shows, you can always search for whatever you want to and we’ll provide access to the info available, including about this horrific incident,” Google wrote on X.

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

    O’rly… Everyone but Trump.

    Google also wrote, “That’s right — we have protections in place for topics like political violence, which typically work well. But we’re working on improvements to make our predictions more up to date. Regardless of what Autocomplete shows, people can always search for whatever they want to, and we provide access to the info available, including about this horrific incident.” 

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

    But that’s not the point, Google. The autocomplete algorithm can easily censor suggestions to discourage people from searching for topics that are not government-approved.

    Also, a Google spokesperson told The New York Post that no “manual action was taken on these predictions,” and its algos include “protections” against autocomplete predictions “associated with political violence.”

    Move along. Nothing to see here… 

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

    Bingo. 

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

    *   *   *

    Information warfare may be underway as Google’s safeguards to ensure accurate and unbiased search results seem skewed. Users on X are reporting that the world’s most popular search engine is not showing autocomplete results for the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. These concerns are unsurprising, given that the big tech firm has been accused of election interference. 

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

    “Big Tech is trying to interfere in the election AGAIN to help Kamala Harris. We all know this is intentional election interference from Google. Truly despicable,” Donald Trump Jr. posted on X on Sunday morning. 

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

    Fox News sheds more color into Google’s autocomplete elimination of Trump from the list that appears when users type in ‘assassination attempt’:

    Google users searching for the attempted assassination of former President Trump were miffed when the desired results failed to populate on the search engine.

    Instead, the website autocomplete feature omitted the results of the July 13 shooting, drawing criticism from social media users who accused the Big Tech giant of trying to influence the presidential election.

    Screenshots from Google instead showed recommended search results of the failed assassination of Ronald Reagan and the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, whose death sparked World War I, the shooting of Bob Marley and the failed attempt on former President Ford. -Fox News 

    As X user Autism Capital noted, “They really tried to memory hole the Trump assassination Jesus Christ. Information warfare and the revision of history is real.” 

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

    This is why trust in mega tech companies and MSM are at lows. 

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

    Even Musk was surprised. He asked, “Election interference?” 

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

    James Lindsay shared an image of Facebook’s Meta AI, which appears to have safeguards in response about Trump’s assassination. 

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

    However, X’s Grok bot was one of the few platforms that accurately responded to a search query about Trump’s assassination attempt. 

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

    Sigh. 

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

    Meanwhile, a Google spokesperson told The New York Post that no “manual action was taken on these predictions,” and its algos include “protections” against autocomplete predictions “associated with political violence.”

    However, not everyone believes Google’s nonsense because the giant tech firm has been accused of election interference before.

    “Why is @Google suppressing the search about the Trump assassination attempt? These are all screenshots from this morning. Has there been a dramatic increase in Truman biographers in the last two weeks?” Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) wrote on X. 

    He added: “I’ll be making an official inquiry into @google this week – I look forward to their response.”

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

    Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey wrote on X, “On it.” 

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

    Earlier this year, Media Research Center founder and president Brent Bozell told Fox News, “No organization has more control over information than Google, and they have repeatedly used that power to manipulate the public to vote for the most left-wing candidates in every major election since 2008.” 

    Bozell said, “It’s un-American to attempt to manipulate elections this way. It’s time Congress acts to shut down this massive election interference scheme.” 

    “It’s time Congress acts to shut down this massive election interference scheme,” he continued. 

    Maybe it’s time for the tech billionaires who support Trump to introduce a rival search engine to Google.

    *   *   * 

    “Don’t be evil” is Google’s former motto… 

    Sigh. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 07/29/2024 – 17:35

Digest powered by RSS Digest