- America And Europe: Growing Differences Over Iran
Authored by Ezra Friedman via GlobalRiskInsights.com,
The United States’ and Poland’s co-hosted conference in Europe was a controversial event. It has united some American allies around President Donald Trump’s aggressive anti-Iran posturing while alienating some others.
The Summit demonstrated divisions amongst European Union member states on the current American administration’s foreign and security policies. It also exhibited new budding relations between various states in the region. Furthermore, it showed the growing polarity between America and the EU on issues concerning the Middle East, especially the Iran nuclear deal.
Iran: Consensus achieved? Or division on display?
The Trump Administration’s publicised Warsaw Middle East Summit intended to unify American allies in pursuit of Middle Eastern peace and security. The two-day eventbrought together representatives from 60 countries where they publicly discussed geopolitical issues facing the region. This included promoting America’s current policy toward Iran. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has denied claims that the conference was singularly aimed at Tehran despite the antagonistic rhetoric employed during the event.
Speeches by the US and high-level allied officials showed a united front through anti-Iran posturing. Both Secretary Pompeo and Vice President Pence railed against the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). They demanded Europe support the US and withdraw from negotiations. The landmark Obama era agreement placed limits on Iran’s nuclear program while guaranteeing relief from American, European, and UN sanctions. However, not all traditional US allies have supported President Trump’s actions of withdrawal and the subsequent return of sanctions. The makeup of states present at the Summit highlighted these differences. Other than the UK, no other major European ally sent high-level representation. Turkey, a major NATO member and regional force also chose not to attend.
The lack of support for the US’ Iran policy is emphasised as Russia and China, parties to the JCPOA did not engage with the conference agenda. This is a break from the Obama era trend, where they largely endorsed American intentions towards Iran. The unpopularity of President Trump’s policy can further be witnessed by the refusal of the EU delegate to join the summit. The underlying divisions of various states on whether to support or oppose the JCPOA as well as disagreement on how best to engage with the Islamic Republic seem to have led to a lack of tangible results at the end of the meetings.
Europe maintains unity – for now
The Trump Administration’s reinstituted extraterritorial sanctions against Iran have led to uncertainty for many European countries. These states have attempted to remain allied with the US and follow its Middle East policy while also supporting the EU’s united front on the JCPOA. Germany, France, the UK, amongst several others, withstood mounting pressure by the Americans to scrap the deal. Contrary to US’ expectations, the EU has rolled out INSTEX in an attempt to circumvent American sanctions and extend normalcy in relations with Tehran.
It is important to note that Eastern European states continue to diverge from the EU on several critical fronts. These states are increasingly finding affinity with the US in light of security issues vis-à-vis Russia. Poland is a strong example of a state that is trying to encourage an increased domestic presence of American troops while still supporting the EU’s stance on the JCPOA. Policy issues, including the erosion of democratic institutions, and differences on migration policy may create disunity within the EU. Member states may look increasingly to partisan interests over time.
Unknowns
Several factors may upend the status quo. This would allow for the Trump Administration to make some progress on its aggressive anti-Iran policies.
The United Kingdom: There is a possibility that Brexit may result in the UK leaving EU without a deal. In light of this, the UK is attempting to shore up its relationships with non-EU states, especially the US and Israel. If Brexit results in a no deal, the UK could seek to leverage withdrawing from the JCPOA to gain favour with the US. Though this outcome is unlikely as Brexit may be delayed, such a development could upend the current state of affairs.
Turkey-Iran- Russia: During the summit, Turkey, Iran and Russia held trilateral talks on developments in Syria. The three states are united on their opposition to US troops in Syria-albeit for different motivations. Turkey, a NATO member, is increasingly aligned with Russia and Iran on geopolitical issues, placing it at odds with the US, the Gulf States, and Israel. The US withdrawal from Syria is imminent and this will lead to an increased role for Turkey on the ground. Such a development could lead to direct clashes between Turkish and Syrian regime forces. If this were to happen, the current alignment of states risks facing changes. If Iran and Russia violently support of Assad could place Turkey squarely in support of the US anti-Iran policy in the region. However, the likelihood of this is negligible.
Iran’s considerations
The Islamic Republic is currently staying in the JCPOA. Tehran has weighed the stakes and believes it has much to gain under current conditions. The cost-benefit analysis shows that Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional activities are benefiting from the current disagreements between the world powers on the JCPOA. The European states, Russia and China’s continued support for the deal in opposition to the US and the return of sanctions will allow this situation to continue. This has furthered Iran’s standing within the international community. However, Iran is going through an intense economic crisis which is only intensifying with the return of US sanctions. If conditions continue to worsen, Tehran may have to reconsider its position on remaining in the agreement.
Winners and losers
The biggest winner is Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu. It is election season in Israel and Bibi is currently under an immense amount of pressure. Netanyahu has long touted warming ties with Arab Sunni states, especially in the Gulf. Clear agreement on policy issues, specifically on Iran’s role in the region, will likely win him much needed support within the Israeli public as he further brandishes the image of ‘Mr. Security’.
Another major winner is the EU which demonstrated yet again its resilience under American pressure. Under the leadership of Federica Mogherini, the EU continues to maintain its position on the agreement. This is while it continues to keep its member states in line with the official position on the nuclear deal process. This is no small featgiven the diplomatic blitz of the Trump Administration. The JCPOA is also a winner when reflecting on these developments. An American withdrawal from the deal in May last year had significantly raised the risks of the agreement collapsing. However, its continuedsurvival places it in the winner’s category. The JCPOA survival continues to provide some measurement of hope that military conflict over Iran’s nuclear program is not imminent.
Two major losers are evident. Firstly, the Trump Administration’s Iran policy continues toremain largely unsupported by crucial players needed for its success. Following Warsaw, it is unlikely this is going to change in the short term. Secondly, Arab states who attended may suffer from a public relations crisis at being seen so friendly in public with Israel.
Predictions for the future
In the short to medium term, Iran will likely continue to adhere to the JCPOA. Its continued compliance has allowed Tehran to intensify its powerful ballistic missile program, support proxies and project its influence across the region. This includes the deployment of troops and economic projects. President Trump’s continued insistence on global compliance to US extraterritorial sanctions is causing serious friction between the US and countries around the world; thereby lending the regime in Tehran the legitimacy it covets.
A serious change likely in the status quo would be if the economic crisis in Iran worsens. Such a development would change the calculations of the Iranian government. It can lend domestic hardliners the upper hand in their argument for withdrawal from the agreement. Given the rampant corruption and stagnation in the Iranian economy, it is not an impossibility. When coupled with a severe water crisis and the return of US sanctions, such an outcome is plausible. Nonetheless, the government in Tehran may attempt to continue under current circumstances in an attempt to outlast President Trump who faces reelection in 2020.
- Top Philippine General Warns US Bomber Missions Near China Could 'Spark War'
After weeks of seeming relative quiet in the South China Sea, which previously witnessed steadily ratcheting tensions as US naval ships and planes passed near Chinese military assets with increased frequency in the latter part of 2018, the US has once again risked an encounter with Beijing by flying a pair of B-52 strategic bombers in close proximity with China.
The US Pacific Air Forces confirmed in a statement on Monday, “Two B-52H Stratofortress bombers took off from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, and participated in routine training missions, March 4, 2019.” It was the first such flight through the area of the South China Sea since November.
U.S. Air Force B-52H Stratofortress Bomber, via Defpost. Two US Air Force B-52H Stratofortress long-range bombers took off from Guam to conduct “routine training missions” over disputed airspaces of the South and East China seas, according to the statement.
“One bomber conducted training in the vicinity of the South China Sea before returning to Guam, while the other conducted training in the vicinity of Japan in coordination with the U.S. Navy and alongside our Japanese air force counterparts before returning to Guam,” the US Pacific Air Forces continued.
An ABC report identified the operations as part of the the U.S. Air Force’s Continuous Bomber Presence (CBP) based out of Andersen AFB in Guam, which involves rotating B-1, B-52 and B-2 long-range bombers to conduct training missions in Asia.
Locked in a continued trade war with Washington, Beijing was no doubt angered by the patrols though remained uncharacteristically quiet in its response, which is typically immediate. The last times B-52s transited the East and South China Seas were in September and in November of 2018.
Subi Reef, Spratly Islands, South China Sea, in May 2015, appearing to show Chinese military build-up. Image source: Wiki Commons. Meanwhile, in a surprising moment of possible tension among allies the Philippines’ top defense official on Tuesday has publicly questioned the US maneuvers.
Speaking Tuesday, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said the Philippines-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) runs the risk of causing “confusion and chaos during a crisis,” especially as the US ramps ups such aerial patrols of the region and “freedom of navigation” exercises.
“The Philippines is not in a conflict with anyone and will not be at war with anyone in the future. But the United States, with the increased and frequent passage of its naval vessels in the West Philippine Sea, is more likely to be involved in a shooting war. In such a case and on the basis of the MDT, the Philippines will be automatically involved,” Lorenzana said, according to CNN Philippines, using the local term for the South China Sea (the West Philippine Sea).
The United States, for its part, has long held its operations, even when sailing close to disputed islands claimed by China or flying overhead, are intended to assert that the area is international waters and in international airspace.
- Civil War Would Erupt If "Green New Deal" Socialists Actually Get What They Want
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
In the months preceding the 2016 presidential election, I predicted a Trump election win but tried to temper expectations with the reality that there were multiple scenarios exploitable by globalists which could turn the conservative elation into confusion and chaos. Just after the election, I published an article titled ‘Order Out Of Chaos: The Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost’. In that article I warned that the political Left, when confronted with failure, has displayed a habit of doubling or tripling down and becoming even more extreme in their rhetoric and policies. I also warned that this might influence the political Right to become more extreme in response.
This is the problem when attempting to explain the False Left/Right Paradigm to people who are new to the concept. Yes, at the top of the political pyramid, all the players support essentially the same policies of centralization and more power to the elites. But, at the bottom of the pyramid, there are numerous and legitimate divides among common citizens. The divides are real, not false, and it is these divides that the elites seek to exploit.
One divide that we are likely to hear much more about in the next two years is the divide between “old school” democrats and the new “green deal” socialists/communists. Another more vitriolic divide is the one between common sense conservatives and the “double down” socialist cult.
The narrative being constructed here is a fascinated but disturbing one. Consider the pattern on display:
Sovereignty activists unseat the old Republican guard and take control of the party through Trump during the 2016 election while pushing “populism” to the forefront of the mainstream. They supplant the social justice left who thought they had the world in the palm of their hand. In response, the left goes even more insane; searching for meaning in a world that obviously does not want them, they come to the realization that not only did they run the worst possible candidate in 2016 (Clinton), but their platform was not “extreme enough”. They now plan to not only take down Trump by any means necessary, but they also plan to break down their own “old guard” and rebuild the Democratic party into something openly communist (rather than closet communist).
Of course, this narrative is not reality. Trump didn’t push out the old guard neo-con Republicans. In fact, the elites run his administration today through globalist agents like Bolton, Pompeo, Ross, and Mnuchin. The Trump Administration, while perhaps rebellious in its rhetoric, has done nothing to “drain the swamp” in Washington DC. The left is rebelling against a fantasy. There was no populist takeover of the US government; there are no champions for liberty, free markets and individual sovereignty in the White House. Is was all a con game.
But who benefits from the con? The globalists, of course, but how does the “green deal” left play into the scheme?
I suspect that the leftists will find themselves in a similar position as liberty conservatives down the road as the “green new deal” is forced into the mainstream consciousness. With “socialists” like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez receiving more public and media attention than ever, it is clear that there is an agenda by the establishment to generate manufactured excitement over socialist/communist policies. To be clear, the way our system operates today is ALREADY quite socialist, with big government interference in almost every aspect of business and life. However, the green new deal represents a full blown Marxist approach to government control. It is essentially soviet level communism, repackaged as environmental socialism.
The Democrats are about to have their own fake internal revolution, which the elites plan to control just as they have controlled Trump’s “takeover” of the Republican Party.
The political Left is more vulnerable than ever to this kind of transition. As noted above, they feel they lost the 2016 election because they ran an establishment candidate on policies that were not extreme enough, and some of them also still believe the debunked notion that the election was stolen by Russian hackers. But, if they do campaign in 2020 on a socialist/communist platform, it will be the same old elitist establishment that benefits. The old guard will become the new guard, just as the old guard became the “new guard” when Trump entered office.
I will try to break the situation down as clearly as I can…
Globalists patterns tend to repeat. They use the same strategies over and over again because these strategies have worked for them in the past. As I noted in my article ‘Trump Trade Wars A Perfect Smokescreen For A Market Crash’, Trump’s presidency strangely echoes that of Herbert Hoover’s. Almost every Trump policy from large corporate tax cuts to infrastructure spending programs to aggressive trade tariffs is reminiscent of Hoover’s presidency just before the onset of the Great Depression (also, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates into economic weakness during Hoover’s presidency, just as they are doing during Trump’s presidency).
Hoover was a one term president unseated by economic collapse. He was then replaced by perhaps the most openly communistic leader the US has ever had; Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” was the catalyst for most big government socialist programs for decades to come.
I do not think it is a coincidence that Trump’s presidency closely matches Hoover’s.
I do not think it is a coincidence that the Federal Reserve is tightening policy into weakness today (cutting $65 billion in assets from their balance sheet in February alone) just as they did during Hoover’s term.
I do not think it is a coincidence that the US is currently suffering a vast economic downturn in fundamental data in housing markets, auto markets, credit markets, manufacturing, and retail.
And, I do not think it is a coincidence that as we enter the third year of Trump’s first (and perhaps last) term, the extreme left suddenly proposed a highly socialist “new deal” program from left field. This pattern is rather familiar.
Some people might argue that the green new deal is a sideshow, and that the American people would never support such measures or any presidential candidates that would implement them. And I would agree IF we were to hold an election today. After all, front-muppet Cortez comes off like an angry teenager who just discovered Marx and Alinsky and decided to base her entire identity around the cliff notes of their manifestos.
But, by 2020 the story may be much different.
If the globalist scheme is as I have been predicting, and they plan to bring down the US economy into recession/depression territory under Trump’s watch, then the ensuing public fear could develop into support for measures citizens might have originally thought absurd. Trump would likely be voted out even if the Democratic candidate is a full blown socialist, or the election could be rigged by the elites in favor of the Democrat candidate.
During the recent testimony of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer suggested in a rather odd exchange with Congress that if Trump were to lose the election in 2020 that the transition “would never be peaceful…”. The leftist media has already pounced on this comment and asserted that conservatives would support Trump in a kind of violent retroactive coup should the Dems win in the next election.
Generally I find the expositions of leftists in the media so delusional it is painful. Their vision is so clouded by bias and fantasy that many of them could be mistaken for institutionalized schizophrenics. They see racists and fascists under every rock and behind every tree, and they justify their insanity by creating enemies that simply do not exist. That said, in this case, I actually agree with their assessment.
If the left runs on a new green deal platform and wins in 2020, conservatives would likely revolt violently, and even though I know that the elitist establishment would seek to ultimately benefit from a civil war in the US, and even though I know that Trump is a pied piper for the globalists, I could not admonish such a rebellion.
The green new deal would be so devastating to the US economy that it could only result in complete destabilization and eventually mass extermination. The consequences of its policies need to be examined more thoroughly not just by conservatives but people on the left that have not yet fallen off the fence into extremism. The agenda is frightening.
Government Support Of Non-Profits To Manage Local Economies: Green deal proponents pretend as if they will fight for more localized economies, but their brand of “support” is aimed at cooperation between non-profits and government. Non-profits are some of the most corrupt organizations active in the US. Also, while giving government incentives to promote localism does not sound like a bad idea, government should not be involved in economic management at all. How far will government go to ensure that local economies are given priority? What if incentives are not enough and regulation follows as it usually does? Enforcing localism is like enforcing charity. If localism is enforced, it is not localism. It must be voluntary.
100% Clean Energy By 2030: It’s interesting that this policy matches exactly with the UN’s sustainability agenda for 2030. First and foremost, there is no concrete evidence whatsoever that carbon causes global warming or “climate change”, and certainly no evidence that man-made carbon affects the environment. But, the UN’s sustainability plans hinge on the idea of carbon “pollution” and taxation, and so does the new green deal. With a stated cost of $13.4 Trillion to convert to 100% renewable energy (an extremely low estimate), the money to pay for everything has to come from somewhere.
The funds will come from the average consumer and fuel taxation; taxes high enough to make driving a gas vehicle prohibitive over time. And of course carbon taxation of what is left of US manufacturing and industry, leaving the US completely non-competitive in global trade. This portion of the green new deal would essentially sink the US into third world status.
Full Employment Program: We’ve seen the results of “full employment” policies in communist countries in the past, and they generally do not work out too well for the average person. The only way to implement such standards is through forced wealth redistribution and much lower wages. Meaning, once again, American living standards would have to be sharply decreased.
There is a longer list of green deal directives which you can read about here. The devil is in the details, and how such measures would actually be enforced. The level of state control and involvement in business and our lives would have to be far more extensive that it is today, and that is saying a lot. So, how could this possibly come about without massive resistance?
The only way that a majority of average Americans would support these vast changes to our culture and our economic system is if we are already in the midst of a financial disaster and we feel as though we have nothing left to lose. The economic decay currently initiated by the Fed through their deliberate implosion of the “everything bubble” they created over the past decade indicates that this may very well be the case by 2020. What I’m saying is, just as I predicted Trump would win in 2016, I am now predicting Trump will lose in 2020 if economic conditions continue to decline.
The establishment could develop this scenario one of two ways:
First, a Trump attempt to keep the White House, backed by conservative support and unconstitutional martial law.
Second, Trump steps down willingly to be replaced by a Democrat energized by green deal fanaticism.
The first option would depend on how many conservatives realize Trump is controlled opposition and refuse to go along with the theatrics.
In either case, a peaceful transition is not going to happen. Millions of conservatives would not accept the institution of green deal measures. They would revolt against them, along with the host of other predictable policies socialists would pursue, from gun control to increased taxation in every area of life. Domestic warfare would be inevitable. Perhaps even preferable. The problem is, would a conservative rebellion against green deal socialists be a grass roots affair, or would it be manipulated in a top-down farce?
The ultimate solution to the problem would be for conservatives to focus their efforts not on leftists, but on the globalists that are attempting to pull strings on both sides of the political divide. The globalists are the root of the cancer infecting our civilization, and they must by cut out.
If this is not done, then the only outcome I see in this situation would be mindless civil war. The globalists would work to control both sides through puppet leadership while we are hyperfocused only on the political left. Which means, they could control who wins, and who loses.
* * *
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
- Florida Man Redeems Rare Stolen Coins Worth $33,000 In Supermarket 'Coin Star' Machine
“Florida Man” has really outdone himself this time.
After stealing a rare coin collection from an elderly and disabled retiree, Shane Anthony Mele dumped what their owner said was at least $33,000 worth of collectible coins down a Coin Star star machine at a Florida supermarket and collected their face value, receiving about $30 – enough for a couple of 12 packs.
Shane Anthony Mele
At least that’s what Michael Johnson, the victim of the theft, told the Palm Beach Post. Johnson said He had befriended Mele after being introduced by a mutual friend a few years ago. And earning his trust, Mele stole the coins – robbing Johnson of his entire retirement.
With most of his retirement savings gone, Johnson has been left to figure out how he will manage to survive.
Michael Johnson envisioned Shane Anthony Mele sending those commemorative presidential dollarsspiraling down a slot, to be converted from $33,000 worth of collectibles to just enough store credit to buy a couple of 12-packs of beer.
“He easily had $33,000 worth, and he dumped it in a Coin Star machine,” Johnson said.
Authorities said Mele, 40, of Riviera Beach confessed he stole rare coins and other items, valued at $350,000, from Johnson’s North Palm Beach office in December.
Mele reportedly said he sold some, then ran many through change machines, where he got just face value.
Johnson, who said he’s disabled and mostly not working, said Mele wiped him out of his life savings.
“I was using those coins to help stay alive,” he said.
“There’s no insurance that covers this kind of thing, really. Not at the losses we’re talking about,” he said. “It’s put me in a world of hurt.”
North Palm Beach Police swiftly arrested Mele – who still had some of the coins in his possession – and booked him on charges of grand theft with a value of more than $100,000. In a sign that drug addiction may have motivated the theft, he was also booked on a 10-count drug charge that police said was unrel;ated to the theft. In addition to the spare change he received from the Coin Star machine, Mele said he took some of the coins to a local coin & jewelry shop, where he sold them for roughly $4,000.
Mele was booked the evening of Feb. 1 at the Palm Beach County Jail, charged with grand theft of more than $100,000, along with a unrelated 10-count drug charge. He left Feb. 4 after posting bond, jail and court records show.
Mele could not be located for comment. A North Palm Beach Police report shows no address, and the telephone number shown for Mele was disconnected.
Johnson, who’s in the finance industry, said he inherited a large coin collection, as well as a love of collecting, from his father, who died about six years ago. He said he started collecting at age 16 and estimated he had more than 100,000 coins in 80 boxes, some worth just a little and some extremely valuable.
Now, he said, they’re mostly gone.
Whether Johnson might have the chance to recover the coins remains unclear.
- Forced Blood Draws & Implied Consent Laws Make A Mockery Of The Fourth Amendment
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official.”
– Herman Schwartz, The Nation
You think you’ve got rights? Think again.
All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.
This is the grim reality of life in the American police state.
Our so-called rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs.
Consider a case before the U.S. Supreme Court (Mitchell vs. Wisconsin) in which Wisconsin police officers read an unconscious man his rights and then proceeded to forcibly and warrantlessly draw his blood while he was still unconscious in order to determine if he could be charged with a DUI.
To sanction this forced blood draw, the cops and the courts have hitched their wagon to state “implied consent” laws (all of the states have them), which suggest that merely driving on a state-owned road implies that a person has consented to police sobriety tests, breathalyzers and blood draws.
More than half of the states (29 states) allow police to do warrantless, forced blood draws on unconscious individuals whom they suspect of driving while intoxicated.
Seven state appeals courts have declared these warrantless blood draws when carried out on unconscious suspects are unconstitutional. Courts in seven other states have found that implied consent laws run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. And yet seven other states (including Wisconsin) have ruled that implied consent laws provide police with a free pass when it comes to the Fourth Amendment and forced blood draws.
With this much division among the state courts, a lot is riding on which way the U.S. Supreme Court rules in Mitchell and whether it allows state legislatures to use implied consent laws as a means of allowing police to bypass the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in relation to forced blood draws and unconscious suspects.
Mind you, this is the third time in as many years that the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of warrantless blood draws.
In 2016, the Court ruled 7-1 in Birchfield v. North Dakota that states may not prosecute suspected drunken drivers for refusing warrantless blood draws when they are arrested. However, the Court also tossed the cops a bone by giving them a green light to require a warrantless breath test incident to arrest. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito rightly recognized the danger of allowing the government to warrantlessly take possession of—and preserve indefinitely—one’s biological and genetic material.
In 2013, a divided Supreme Court held in Missouri v. McNeely that people suspected of drunken driving can’t automatically be subjected to blood tests without a warrant and without their consent.
The differences between McNeely, Birchfeld and Mitchell are nuanced, but it is in these nuances that the struggle to preserve the Fourth Amendment can best be seen.
The Fourth Amendment has been on life support for a long time.
Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be strangulated by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases: these are just a few ways in which Americans are being forced to accept that we have no control over our bodies, our lives and our property, especially when it comes to interactions with the government.
Worse, on a daily basis, Americans are being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are now guilty until proven innocent.
Such is life in America today that individuals are being threatened with arrest and carted off to jail for the least hint of noncompliance, homes are being raided by police under the slightest pretext, property is being seized on the slightest hint of suspicious activity, and roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity.
Remember what happened to Utah nurse Alex Wubbels after a police detective demanded to take blood from a badly injured, unconscious patient without a warrant?
Wubbels refused to go along with the cop’s order, citing hospital policy that requires police to either have a warrant or permission from the patient in order to draw blood.
The detective had neither.
Irate, the detective threatened to have Wubbels arrested if she didn’t comply. Backed up by her supervisors, Wubbels respectfully stood her ground only to be roughly grabbed, shoved out of the hospital, handcuffed and forced into an unmarked car while hospital police looked on and failed to intervene (take a look at the police body camera footage, which went viral, and see for yourself).
Michael Chorosky didn’t have an advocate like Wubbels to stand guard over his Fourth Amendment rights. Chorosky was surrounded by police, strapped to a gurney and then had his blood forcibly drawn after refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. “What country is this? What country is this?” cried Chorosky during the forced blood draw.
What country is this indeed?
Unfortunately, forced blood draws are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the indignities and abuses being heaped on Americans in the so-called name of “national security.”
For example, 21-year-old Charnesia Corley was allegedly being pulled over by Texas police for “rolling” through a stop sign. Claiming they smelled marijuana, police handcuffed Corley, placed her in the back of the police cruiser, and then searched her car for almost an hour. No drugs were found in the car.
As the Houston Chronicle reported:
Returning to his car where Corley was held, the deputy again said he smelled marijuana and called in a female deputy to conduct a cavity search. When the female deputy arrived, she told Corley to pull her pants down, but Corley protested because she was cuffed and had no underwear on. The deputy ordered Corley to bend over, pulled down her pants and began to search her. Then…Corley stood up and protested, so the deputy threw her to the ground and restrained her while another female was called in to assist. When backup arrived, each deputy held one of Corley’s legs apart to conduct the probe.
The cavity search lasted 11 minutes. This practice is referred to as “rape by cop.”
Corley was eventually charged with resisting arrest and with possession of 0.2 grams of marijuana. Those charges were subsequently dropped.
David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found.
During a routine traffic stop, Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic, while her two children—ages 1 and 4—waited inside her car. During the second strip search, presumably in an effort to ferret out drugs, a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. No contraband or anything illegal was found.
Thirty-eight-year-old Angel Dobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley, were pulled over by a Texas state trooper on July 13, 2012, allegedly for flicking cigarette butts out of the car window. Insisting that he smelled marijuana, the trooper proceeded to interrogate them and search the car. Despite the fact that both women denied smoking or possessing any marijuana, the police officer then called in a female trooper, who carried out a roadside cavity search, sticking her fingers into the older woman’s anus and vagina, then performing the same procedure on the younger woman, wearing the same pair of gloves. No marijuana was found.
Sixty-nine-year-old Gerald Dickson was handcuffed and taken into custody (although not arrested or charged with any crime) after giving a ride to a neighbor’s son, whom police suspected of being a drug dealer. Despite Dickson’s insistence that the bulge under his shirt was the result of a botched hernia surgery, police ordered Dickson to “strip off his clothes, bend over and expose all of his private parts. No drugs or contraband were found.”
Meanwhile, four Milwaukee police officers were charged with carrying out rectal searches of suspects on the street and in police district stations over the course of several years. One of the officers was accused of conducting searches of men’s anal and scrotal areas, often inserting his fingers into their rectums and leaving some of his victims with bleeding rectums.
It’s gotten so bad that you don’t even have to be suspected of possessing drugs to be subjected to a strip search.
A North Carolina public school allegedly strip-searched a 10-year-old boy in search of a $20 bill lost by another student, despite the fact that the boy, J.C., twice told school officials he did not have the missing money. The assistant principal reportedly ordered the fifth grader to disrobe down to his underwear and subjected him to an aggressive strip-search that included rimming the edge of his underwear. The missing money was later found in the school cafeteria.
Suspecting that Georgia Tech alum Mary Clayton might have been attempting to smuggle a Chik-Fil-A sandwich into the football stadium, a Georgia Tech police officer allegedly subjected the season ticket-holder to a strip search that included a close examination of her underwear and bra. No contraband chicken was found.
What these incidents show is that while forced searches may span a broad spectrum of methods and scenarios, the common denominator remains the same: a complete disregard for the dignity and rights of the citizenry.
In fact, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Florence v. Burlison, any person who is arrested and processed at a jail house, regardless of the severity of his or her offense (i.e., they can be guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic offense), can be subjected to a strip search by police or jail officials without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is carrying a weapon or contraband.
Examples of minor infractions which have resulted in strip searches include: individuals arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, driving with an inoperable headlight, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell, making an improper left turn, engaging in an antiwar demonstration (the individual searched was a nun, a Sister of Divine Providence for 50 years).
Police have also carried out strip searches for passing a bad check, dog leash violations, filing a false police report, failing to produce a driver’s license after making an illegal left turn, having outstanding parking tickets, and public intoxication. A failure to pay child support can also result in a strip search.
As technology advances, these searches are becoming more invasive on a cellular level, as well.
For instance, close to 600 motorists leaving Penn State University one Friday night were stopped by police and, without their knowledge or consent, subjected to a breathalyzer test using flashlights that can detect the presence of alcohol on a person’s breath.
These passive alcohol sensors are being hailed as a new weapon in the fight against DUIs. (Those who refuse to knowingly submit to a breathalyzer test are being subjected to forced blood draws. Thirty states presently allow police to do forced blood draws on drivers as part of a nationwide “No Refusal” initiative funded by the federal government.
Not even court rulings declaring such practices to be unconstitutional in the absence of a warrant have slowed down the process. Now police simply keep a magistrate on call to rubber stamp the procedure over the phone.)
The National Highway Safety Administration, the same government agency that funds the “No Refusal” DUI checkpoints and forcible blood draws, is also funding nationwide roadblocks aimed at getting drivers to “voluntarily” provide police with DNA derived from saliva and blood samples, reportedly to study inebriation patterns.
In at least 28 states, there’s nothing voluntary about having one’s DNA collected by police in instances where you’ve been arrested, whether or not you’re actually convicted of a crime.
All of this DNA data is being fed to the federal government.
Airline passengers, already subjected to virtual strip searches, are now being scrutinized even more closely, with the Customs and Border Protection agency tasking airport officials with monitoring the bowel movements of passengers suspected of ingesting drugs. They even have a special hi-tech toilet designed to filter through a person’s fecal waste.
Iris scans, an essential part of the U.S. military’s boots-on-the-ground approach to keeping track of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, are becoming a de facto method of building the government’s already mammoth biometrics database. Funded by the Dept. of Justice, along with other federal agencies, the iris scan technology is being incorporated into police precincts, jails, immigration checkpoints, airports and even schools. School officials—from elementary to college—have begun using iris scans in place of traditional ID cards. As for parents wanting to pick their kids up from school, they have to first submit to an iris scan.
As for those endless pictures everyone so cheerfully uploads to Facebook (which has the largest facial recognition database in the world) or anywhere else on the internet, they’re all being accessed by the police, filtered with facial recognition software, uploaded into the government’s mammoth biometrics database and cross-checked against its criminal files. With good reason, civil libertarians fear these databases could “someday be used for monitoring political rallies, sporting events or even busy downtown areas.”
While the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent government officials from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause—evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot—the founders could scarcely have imagined a world in which we needed protection against widespread government breaches of our privacy, including on a cellular level.
Yet that’s exactly what we are lacking and what we so desperately need.
Unfortunately, the indignities being heaped upon us by the architects and agents of the American police state—whether or not we’ve done anything wrong—are just a foretaste of what is to come.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government doesn’t need to tie you to a gurney and forcibly take your blood or strip you naked by the side of the road in order to render you helpless. It has other methods—less subtle perhaps but equally humiliating, devastating and mind-altering—of stripping you of your independence, robbing you of your dignity, and undermining your rights.
With every court ruling that allows the government to operate above the rule of law, every piece of legislation that limits our freedoms, and every act of government wrongdoing that goes unpunished, we’re slowly being conditioned to a society in which we have little real control over our bodies or our lives.
- TSA Confiscates Rocket Launcher At Pennsylvania Airport
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) confiscated a “rocket-propelled grenade launcher” at Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley International Airport on Monday.
TSA Public Affairs spokesperson Lisa Farbstein tweeted, “
@TSA officers detected the unassembled parts of a military rocket-propelled grenade launcher in a man’s checked bag at@FLYLVIA yesterday. When assembled, the launcher was determined to be non-functioning and the grenade an inert replica. (Thank goodness!).”.@TSA officers detected the unassembled parts of a military rocket propelled grenade launcher in a man’s checked bag at @FLYLVIA yesterday. When assembled, the launcher was determined to be non-functioning and the grenade an inert replica. (Thank goodness!) pic.twitter.com/hrBt5ECdpJ
— TSAmedia_LisaF (@TSAmedia_LisaF) March 5, 2019
In a press release, TSA said the inert grenade launcher belonged to a Florida man who tried to pass it through a checkpoint of high-tech security scanners.
The unassembled pieces were spotted by TSA personnel who were operating an X-ray machine. TSA said there was a barrel, trigger, sights, and an inert round.
Pictures from the TSA indicate it was an inert Russian RPG-7, a portable, reusable, unguided, shoulder-launched, anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade launcher.
The unidentified man, from St. Augustine, Florida, was detained by airport police. He told police that he thought a replica grenade launcher could be allowed on a plane.
Though the TSA website indicates “realistic replicas of firearms” may be permitted in checked bags, no weapons of “military nature” are permitted in checked or carry-on luggage, a TSA official said in the press release.
Passengers who attempt to bring weapons of “military nature” through a checkpoint can face civil penalties of up to $13,000, TSA said.
However, in this situation, the inert grenade launcher was confiscated, and the man was allowed to continue his flight to Orlando Sanford International Airport, reportedly without a fine.
This comes one day after Farbstein tweeted another incident that occurred over the weekend where someone tried to sneak a fake grenade, pellets and other paraphernalia through a security checkpoint at New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International Airport.
Someone on Twitter replied to the TSA spokesperson post and asked: Is this a “trial run”?
- The Intelligent Cryptocurrency Investor
Authored by Boss Cole via HackerNoon.com,
If you wish to be an intelligent investor in the cryptocurrency markets, you are about to get your chance. The speculators have gone home, the optimists have packed their bags and the pessimists are running the show.
While we may be lacking in the financial data required to obtain true intrinsic value estimations we now have the opportunity to look for real companies, building the future, expanding their size and generating revenues and profits.
If we assume to know that the current sentiment is negative and that we are likely sitting in the depression stage of the market cycle, we can then compare this list of high-quality companies to the current pricing, stage in the cycle and their past market values to arrive at a value approximation.
The Intelligent Cryptocurrency Investor
Recently I have been reading “The Intelligent Investor” By Benjamin Graham. I have read a lot of trading and investing books, so it was interesting that I had not read this iconic piece already. There is a wealth of old knowledge in this book that still rings true today. In fact, I have found recently that reading old books, or “classics” often gives you a better summary of the core principles around a topic than the new editions.
Let me set the scene with a quote from the book.
The whole point of investing is not purely to earn more money than average, but to earn enough money to meet your own needs. The best way to measure your investing success is not by whether you are beating the market right now, but whether you have put in a financial plan and a behavioural discipline that are likely to get you to where you want to go. In the end what matters isn’t crossing the finish line before anybody else but making sure that you do cross it.
It’s easy for us to lose focus on this, with the constant feed of price data and news headlines our brains can become completely overwhelmed. Cryptocurrency investing is unique. It involves a much larger degree of speculation than stock market investing because there is a distinct lack of hard, factual and financial data.
This means you need new frameworks for valuation and trading, which is why for cryptocurrency I have leaned towards focussing on the technical analysis of long term trends and market psychology. I believe this is the approach I will be using for a long time yet, as I cannot see a wealth of new data flooding the scene any time soon.
The Intrinsic Value Of A Cryptocurrency
While we cannot accurately speculate on the intrinsic value of a cryptocurrency without insider knowledge of assets, revenues and profits we can evaluate the opinion and beliefs of the market participants. In value investing the first step is to run the numbers and decide what the overall value of the business is by looking at its current net assets, its past performance and conservative future revenue earning potential. Yet in cryptocurrency, we do not have this data. What we are left to make our judgments from is past market values and market psychology at that time. Doing this will give us an approximation to the “true market value” (different to the intrinsic value).
For example, if a cryptocurrency has been falling into an area that it held previously on a number of occasions, you can assume that this level was a fair market value for that cryptocurrency. However, what you need to add into this technical calculation, is the emotional state of the market at previous times, and at this current time.
Let’s say that as price approached this specific level, and it then broke down. Did the price break down because of the overall negative market sentiment? Or was it due to more negative market opinions of the individual asset in question? If it was caused by an overall shift in the market sentiment, there is a chance this asset dropped below its true market value due to the manipulation in overall emotions. However, if the price dropped in a time of overall positive market sentiment, it is more likely that there is something specific and different about the asset in question.
Determining The Top Of An Asset Bubble
Now, all of this information is useful to determine the potential bottoms, and the true market value of cryptocurrencies, however, it is most helpful when judging and profiting from the overvaluation of assets.
As we talked about earlier individual cryptocurrencies are highly speculative in nature. Combine this with the fact that the majority of the investors are non-institutional or “average” people we can begin to create a clearer picture. The result is a market environment much like the early years of the stock market. A plethora of new valuation methods are being created, and the market is still dominated by emotion.
To use the terminology of Howard Marks, we see the pendulum of investor psychology swing back and forth, at an incredibly fast speed. What would usually take weeks, months or years, happens in hours and days. This is due to a lack of sophistication, liquidity, and players in the market. One of the main lessons I have learned in cryptocurrency is that what goes up, will almost always come back down.
We can use our framework of fair market value to observe assets that have been pushed up above this level and are likely headed for a retracement. We can also use this framework to inform potential buying opportunities as prices approach fair market valuations.
The Psychology Of An Intelligent Investor
Back in the spring of 1720, Sir Isaac Newton owned shares in the South Sea Company, the hottest stock in England. Sensing that the market was getting out of hand, the great physicist muttered that he “could calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of the people.” Newton dumped his South Sea shares, pocketing a 100% profit totaling £7,000. But just months later, swept up in the wild enthusiasm of the market, Newton jumped back in at a much higher price — and lost £20,000 (or more than $3 million in today’s money). For the rest of his life, he forbade anyone to speak the words “South Sea” in his presence.
Why is this relevant?
The problem illustrated above is that nobody can predict the top of such bubbles or price increases. In the case of cryptocurrency, prices often take time to return to their fair market value, but they usually do. There are miniature bubbles confined to a handful of assets expanding and popping constantly because nobody believes, or can accurately assess the “intrinsic value” of these cryptocurrencies. There always becomes a price so high, that nobody wants to pay it anymore. Then the news turns negative, sentiment shifts, and the crowd moves from that “hot” asset to the next “hot asset”.
“The market is a pendulum that forever swings between unsustainable optimism (which makes stocks too expensive) and unjustified pessimism (which makes them too cheap). The Intelligent Investor is a realist who sells to optimists and buys from pessimists.” — Benjamin Graham
In cryptocurrency, our main role is to assess the cycle of emotions, and how that cycle is correlated to price, and I believe the above quote serves that purpose. In cryptocurrency, the optimists are usually proved wrong, and when the last pessimist falls, those optimists will take control yet again.
If you wish to be an intelligent investor in the cryptocurrency markets, you are about to get your chance. The speculators have gone home, the optimists have packed their bags and the pessimists are running the show. While we may be lacking in the financial data required to obtain true intrinsic value estimations we now have the opportunity to look for real companies, building the future, expanding their size and generating revenues and profits. If we assume to know that the current sentiment is negative and that we are likely sitting in the depression stage of the market cycle, we can then compare this list of high-quality companies to the current pricing, stage in the cycle and their past market values to arrive at a value approximation.
“Investing isn’t about beating others at their game. It’s about controlling yourself at your own game.”
- Forget $8 Billion: Company Will Build 234 Miles Of Trump's Border Wall For $1.4B
A North Dakota company is offering to build 234 miles of President Trump’s border wall for a fraction of the $8 billion President Trump wants for the same stretch.
Telling the Washington Examiner that President Trump is overpaying, Fisher Sand and Gravel Company CEO Tommy Fisher says his company can do the job for just $1.4 billion, or $4.31 billion if the US government wants to incorporate paved roads and border technology – plus a warranty!
“Our whole point is to break through the government bureaucracy,” Fisher told the Examiner. “If they do the small procurements as they are now … that’s not going to cut it.”
Of the $8 billion Trump is hoping to spend, he already has $1.375 billion of that amount from Congress, which can only be used to build fencing in the Rio Grande Valley. Trump is seeking to repurpose another $3.1 billion in defense funding for more border wall and $3.6 billion more through his emergency declaration that Congress and the courts will challenge. –Washington Examiner
According to Fisher, the $1.4 billion would cover 20 miles of levee wall in the Rio Grande Valley, along with an additional 214 miles in the surrounding area. According to the bill Congress passed to approve said funds, the construction is restricted to the Rio Grande region, and was originally slated to cover around 55 miles of steel slat fencing.
According to a representative of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Trump administration has yet to decide how the $8 billion Trump wants to spend will be allocated.
The corps is considering how to spend money Congress gave DHS last fiscal year and has not requested bids from the private sector because it’s still in the procurement process.
Replacement and new wall projects have struggled to get underway in Trump’s first two years in office. Just 35 miles of wall have gone up in that time. The Army Corps of Engineers has procured around 75 miles but has not awarded $900 million for the project of the $1.35 billion that was in the 2018 omnibus. –Washington Examiner
Lawmakers along with DHS officials are expected to travel to the Arizona border this week to survey current work being performed on the border.
- Trucking Boom U-Turns
Authored by Wolf Richter via WolfStreet.com,
Another Gauge of the Goods-Based Economy Heads South.
Orders for Class-8 trucks – made by Daimler (Freightliner, Western Star), Paccar (Peterbuilt, Kenworth), Navistar International, and Volvo Group (Mack Trucks, Volvo Trucks) – plunged 58% in February compared to February last year, to 16,700 orders, according to FTR Transportation Intelligence after they’d already plunged 58% year-over-year in January and 43% in December.
The orders in January and February were back in the range of the “transportation recession” that had hit the industry in 2015 and 2016. At the time, truck and engine manufacturers reacted with layoffs. But for now, they’re sitting on a massive backlog from the boom in orders last year (data via FTR):
The business is infamously cyclical, with regular booms that lead to over-ordering and then overcapacity, followed by busts that then sort it all out again. The industry is also seasonal, so we can use year-over-year comparisons to eliminate most of the effects of seasonality.
The chart below shows the percent change of Class-8 truck orders for each month compared to the same month a year earlier. The year-over-year plunges over the past three months are of the same magnitude as the plunges during the last transportation recession (data via FTR):
“The weaker orders mean that backlogs will tumble for the second straight month, but they remain at historically high levels,” FTR says. These backlogs will keep plants running at capacity until mid-2019, and some truck makers “are booked solid for 2019 with limited sales slots open for the remainder of the year,” according to FTR.
So truck makers are going to stay busy for a while, and fleets are getting their trucks, and trucking capacity is expanding and will continue to expand, even as orders get slashed.
This rising capacity finally provides some relief to shippers, such as retailers or industrial companies that need to ship their products to their customers. The transportation recession – as tough as it was on truckers, railroads, and truck and component makers – was nirvana for shippers: lower freight rates and no bottlenecks. But in 2018, they’d been complaining about soaring freight rates and shipping delays, and any loosening of those shipping conditions is a godsend to them.
Now, shippers are getting a break as the trucking sector is cooling off, according to FTR’s Shippers Conditions Index. The index, which gauges the temperature of the freight market — including trucking, rail, and intermodal — from the shippers’ point of view, combines freight demand, freight rates, fleet capacity, and fuel price into an index value.
A positive index value signals “good, optimistic conditions” for shippers – not truckers. A value around zero represents a neutral operating environment. A negative value signals “bad, pessimistic conditions” for shippers, according to FTR. “Double digit readings (both up or down) are warning signs for significant operating changes.”
Index values had been deeply negative, with several months in the double digits, until late last year, then the pressure came off. The index for November, released a month ago, turned positive for the first time since August 2016, and index for December, released at the end of February, rose further into positive territory (data via FTR):
“Stable fuel prices, a turn in rail service levels, and loosening truck capacity have combined to create a favorable environment for shippers seeking to move freight,” said FTR’s VIP of rail and intermodal, Todd Tranausky.
Now there’s the same problem on the horizon that contributed to the transportation recession of 2015 and 2016: Inventories have been piling up. In December, latest data available, wholesale inventories rose 7.3% from December 2017, to a record $662 billion, even as sales have begun to stall. As companies react by whittling down their orders, shipments decline.
This is already happening, according to the Cass Freight Index – and it’s causing a peculiar situation. “In 30 years, I’ve never seen anything like this,” fretted the CEO of warehouse operator Pacific Mountain Logistics. Read… Inventory Pileup Sounds Alarm for Goods-Based Economy
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://i0.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/Boeing-B-52-Stratofortress.jpg?ssl=1){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://i0.wp.com/www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/spratley%20islands.jpg?ssl=1){kind=link}