- All Of Us Are In Danger: When Anti-Government Speech Becomes Sedition
All Of Us Are In Danger: When Anti-Government Speech Becomes Sedition
Authored by John and Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,
“If you can’t say ‘F@#k’ you can’t say, ‘F@#k’ the government.’”
– Lenny Bruce, comedian
Anti-government speech has become a four-letter word.
In more and more cases, the government is declaring war on what should be protected political speech whenever it challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.
Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation and prosecution: hate speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, extremist speech, etc.
Things are about to get even dicier for those who believe in fully exercising their right to political expression.
Indeed, the government’s seditious conspiracy charges against Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, and several of his associates for their alleged involvement in the January 6 Capitol riots puts the entire concept of anti-government political expression on trial.
Enacted during the Civil War to prosecute secessionists, seditious conspiracy makes it a crime for two or more individuals to conspire to “‘overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force’ the U.S. government, or to levy war against it, or to oppose by force and try to prevent the execution of any law.”
It’s a hard charge to prove, and the government’s track record hasn’t been the greatest.
It’s been almost a decade since the government tried to make a seditious conspiracy charge stick—against a small Christian militia accused of plotting to kill a police officer and attack attendees at his funeral in order to start a civil war—and it lost the case.
Although the government was able to show that the Hutaree had strong anti-government views, the judge ruled in U.S. v. Stone that “[O]ffensive speech and a conspiracy to do something other than forcibly resist a positive show of authority by the Federal Government is not enough to sustain a charge of seditious conspiracy.”
Whether or not prosecutors are able to prove their case that Rhodes and his followers intended to actually overthrow the government, the blowback will be felt far and wide by anyone whose political views can be labeled “anti-government.”
All of us are in danger.
In recent years, the government has used the phrase “domestic terrorist” interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.”
The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American with an opinion about the government or who knows someone with an opinion about the government an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.
You see, the government doesn’t care if you or someone you know has a legitimate grievance. It doesn’t care if your criticisms are well-founded. And it certainly doesn’t care if you have a First Amendment right to speak truth to power.
What the government cares about is whether what you’re thinking or speaking or sharing or consuming as information has the potential to challenge its stranglehold on power.
Why else would the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies be investing in corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram?
Why else would the Biden Administration be likening those who share “false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information” to terrorists?
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s terrorism bulletin, “[T]hreat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.”
By the government’s own definition, America’s founders would be considered domestic extremists for the heavily charged rhetoric they used to birth this nation.
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would certainly be placed on a terrorist watch list for suggesting that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties.
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Observed Franklin:
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, John Adams and Patrick Henry would certainly be labelled domestic extremists for exhorting Americans to defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights.
“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government,” insisted Paine.
“When the government violates the people’s rights,” Lafayette warned, “insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.”
Adams cautioned, “A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.”
And who could forget Patrick Henry with his ultimatum: “Give me liberty or give me death!”
Conduct your own experiment into the government’s tolerance of speech that challenges its authority, and see for yourself: stand on a street corner—or in a courtroom, at a city council meeting or on a university campus— and try denouncing the government with some of the founders’ rhetoric.
My guess is that you won’t last long before you get thrown out, shut up, threatened with arrest or at the very least accused of being a radical, a troublemaker, a sovereign citizen, a conspiratorialist or an extremist.
Or maybe you’ll just be fined.
It’s happening all across the country.
In Punta Gorda, Florida, for instance, two political activists were fined $3000 for displaying protest flags with political messages that violated the city’s ordinance banning signs, clothing and other graphic displays containing words that the city deems “indecent.”
During the first month of the new ordinance being enacted, Andrew Sheets was cited four times by police for violating the ordinance by displaying phrases which said “F@#k Policing 4 Profit,” “F@#k Trump,” and “F@#k Biden.” Richard Massey was cited for violating the ordinance by displaying a sign which proclaimed, “F@#k Punta Gorda, trying to illegally kill free speech.”
Coming to the defense of the two activists, The Rutherford Institute challenged the City of Punta Gorda’s ban on indecent speech as unconstitutionally vague and a violation of the First Amendment’s safeguards for political speech that may not be censored or punished by the government.
We won the first round, with the Charlotte County Circuit Court ruling against the City, noting that the ordinance was “designed to cause the preemptive self-silencing of speakers whose messages are entitled to constitutional protection.”
In other words, as the court recognized, the ordinance was clearly designed to chill political speech, which is protected under the First Amendment.
You see, the right of political free speech is the basis of all liberty.
No matter what one’s political persuasion might be, every American has a First Amendment right to protest government programs or policies with which they might disagree.
The right to disagree with and speak out against the government is the quintessential freedom.
Every individual has a right to speak truth to power using every nonviolent means available.
This is why the First Amendment is so critical. It gives the citizenry the right to speak freely, protest peacefully, expose government wrongdoing, and criticize the government without fear of reprisal.
Americans of all stripes would do well to remember that those who question the motives of government provide a necessary counterpoint to those who would blindly follow where politicians choose to lead.
We don’t have to agree with every criticism of the government, but we must defend the rights of all individuals to speak freely without fear of punishment or threat of banishment.
This is how freedom rises or falls.
As comedian Lenny Bruce, a lifelong champion of free speech, remarked, “If you can’t say ‘F@#k’ you can’t say, ‘F@#k’ the government.’”
Bruce, foul-mouthed, insightful, irreverent, and incredibly funny, was one of the First Amendment’s greatest champions who dared to “speak the unspeakable” about race, religion, sexuality and politics. As Village Voice writer Nat Hentoff attests, Bruce was “not only a paladin of free speech but also a still-penetrating, woundingly hilarious speaker of truth to the powerful and the complacent.”
Bruce died in 1966, but not before being convicted of alleged obscenity for challenging his audience’s covert prejudices by brandishing unmentionable words that, if uttered today, would not only get you ostracized but could get you arrested and charged with a hate crime.
Hentoff, who testified in Bruce’s defense at his trial, recounts that Lenny used to say, “What I wanted people to dig is the lie. Certain words were suppressed to keep the lie going. But if you do them, you should be able to say the words.”
Not much has changed in the 50-plus years since Bruce died. In fact, it’s gotten worse.
What we’re dealing with today is a government that wants to suppress dangerous words—words about its warring empire, words about its land grabs, words about its militarized police, words about its killing, its poisoning and its corruption—in order to keep its lies going.
What we are witnessing is a nation undergoing a nervous breakdown over this growing tension between our increasingly untenable reality and the lies being perpetrated by a government that has grown too power-hungry, egotistical, militaristic and disconnected from its revolutionary birthright.
The only therapy is the truth and nothing but the truth.
If the government censors get their way, there will be no more First Amendment.
There will be no more Bill of Rights.
And, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, there will be no more freedom in America as we have known it.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 23:40 - These Are The Top 10 EV Battery Manufacturers In 2022
These Are The Top 10 EV Battery Manufacturers In 2022
The global electric vehicle (EV) battery market is expected to grow from $17 billion to more than $95 billion between 2019 and 2028.
With increasing demand to decarbonize the transportation sector, companies producing the batteries that power EVs have seen substantial momentum.
Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti and Sabrina Lam have updated their previous infographic to show the world’s biggest battery manufacturers in 2022.
Chinese Dominance
Despite efforts from the United States and Europe to increase the domestic production of batteries, the market is still dominated by Asian suppliers.
The top 10 producers are all Asian companies.
Currently, Chinese companies make up 56% of the EV battery market, followed by Korean companies (26%) and Japanese manufacturers (10%).
The leading battery supplier, CATL, expanded its market share from 32% in 2021 to 34% in 2022. One-third of the world’s EV batteries come from the Chinese company. CATL provides lithium-ion batteries to Tesla, Peugeot, Hyundai, Honda, BMW, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo.
Despite facing strict scrutiny after EV battery-fire recalls in the United States, LG Energy Solution remains the second-biggest battery manufacturer. In 2021, the South Korean supplier agreed to reimburse General Motors $1.9 billion to cover the 143,000 Chevy Bolt EVs recalled due to fire risks from faulty batteries.
BYD took the third spot from Panasonic as it nearly doubled its market share over the last year. The Warren Buffett-backed company is the world’s third-largest automaker by market cap, but it also produces batteries sold in markets around the world. Recent sales figures point to BYD overtaking LG Energy Solution in market share the coming months or years.
The Age of Battery Power
Electric vehicles are here to stay, while internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles are set to fade away in the coming decades. Recently, General Motors announced that it aims to stop selling ICE vehicles by 2035, while Audi plans to stop producing such models by 2033.
Besides EVs, battery technology is essential for the energy transition, providing storage capacity for intermittent solar and wind generation.
As battery makers work to supply the EV transition’s increasing demand and improve energy density in their products, we can expect more interesting developments within this industry.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 23:20 - Vladimir Putin's Battle Cry Against The Deep State
Vladimir Putin’s Battle Cry Against The Deep State
Authored by Oscar Silva-Valladares via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,
The recent ceremony of accession of four Ukrainian regions to Russia brought a speech from President Putin that outlined the reasons behind Russia’s current struggles, the character and identify of its foes and, more importantly, laid the groundwork for Russia’s next level of confrontation with the West beyond the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine. In his speech, Putin clearly defined the present fight as a worldwide battle in which Russia plays a leading role against the Deep State that ultimately runs the West and which uses all available tools – including military, economic, cultural, and social – in its attempt to preserve unipolar world domination.
Putin’s words were directed to three distinctive audiences: the collective West, the Global South and Russia. He went back to Middle Ages history to remind the origins and impact of Western resource exploitation and colonialism in the Americas, Asia and Africa through imperialistic wars, racism, and slavery. He touched upon the military exploits of the 20th century led primarily by the US and its allies and its impact in Germany and Japan at the end of the Second World War, Korea in the 1950s, Vietnam in the 1960-70s and its latest failed adventures in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. He also highlighted the dire days of Russia during the 1990s and the Western powers’ attempts to turn it into a dismembered and passive cheap natural resources outlet. Putin’s message to Russians had nationalistic and religious tones, touching on the defence of traditional family values as a call to arms against the threat caused by dwindling population growth. He also named US monetary printing as one of the key tools used by the Western establishment to achieve its self-preservation and supremacy goals, reminding that paper doesn’t feed nor warms human beings.
It would be tempting to see this speech narrowly as just another manifestation of Russia’s position in the big geopolitical battles, but what Putin has done is setting international rivalry in deep historical and cultural terms which have an undoubted appeal across the globe. Critics will see Putin’s benign characterization of Russia as a cynical ploy that hides the country’s role, through its commanding post in the Soviet Union, in the subjugation of Eastern European countries after World War II, but nevertheless the Global South will see things differently.
Putin’s scathing attack against the West is a multi-headed weapon as it rallied to the conservative segments of a population dismayed by globalism imposing a deeply disturbing agenda that goes against traditional views on family, marriage and sex, but it also has leftist tones, as his criticism also goes against the same globalism that is worsening wealth disparity, and even a libertarian appeal as he referred to the imposition of states of emergency, media control and sanctions on other societies as examples of Western made totalitarianism. Putin’s primary target was the Anglo-Saxon establishment, mainly the US and Great Britain, and he attempted to build a wedge within the West as he focused on sovereignty, a cry with resonance in countries like Hungary and Italy, and on traditional anti-war sentiments in Germany and Japan by remembering the horrors of the World War II bombings in Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
An immediate consequence of Putin’s rhetorical escalation will be increased US pressure on the Global South to follow anti-Russian sanctions. To successfully counter this menace, and as Russia needs its continuous support, it will have to combine ideology with pragmatic and tangible support in terms of access to critical energy and food resources to the poorer countries. The recent abstentions of China, India and Brazil on a UN Security Council resolution calling for condemnation of the Ukraine referenda no doubt were driven by these countries’ expectations on Russia’s future actions.
Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and as it gradually abandoned socialism, Russia lost the powerful ideological appeal that it had during decades in the Global South and in the West’s anti-establishment segments. The most remarkable aspect of Putin’s recent speech is bringing back ideological confrontation into the forefront. This new battle looks to present the West’s defence of democracy, freedom, and sovereignty as hollow and hypocritical. A combined message of anti-colonialism and conservatism is a powerful tool but Putin’s indirect and subtle appeal to people power as the only way to finally counter the Deep State is even stronger. Putin’s identification of the Deep State as humanity’s foe may be his ultimate ideological legacy, something avoidable if the US would have resigned itself to be just a normal country and to focus primarily on its people’s prosperity.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 23:00 - A Visual Guide To Stagflation, Inflation, & Deflation
A Visual Guide To Stagflation, Inflation, & Deflation
Today, high inflation and slowing economic growth have contributed to stagflation worries.
As of August 2022, the U.S. inflation rate has risen to 8.3%, above the central bank target of 2%. Yet unlike the last period of stagflation in the 1970s, unemployment – a key ingredient for stagflation – remains low.
Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld shows in this infographic from New York Life Investments, the key differences between stagflation, inflation, and deflation along with the broader economic implications of each.
Main Features of Inflationary Environments
What are the main characteristics of each inflationary scenario?
The key markers of stagflation are weak growth, persistent inflation, and structural unemployment—meaning that high unemployment levels continue beyond a recession.
In a stagflationary scenario, inflation expectations continue to rise each year. This can happen when inflation stays too high for too long, enough for expectations to shift across the economy. This was the case in the U.S. in the 1970s, until the Federal Reserve fought inflation with steep interest rate hikes.
Here’s a closer look at some of the main causes of each scenario and how they’ve historically impacted households and businesses.
1. Stagflation
The term stagflation is the combination of ‘stagnation’ and ‘inflation’.
The primary causes include the expansion of the money supply feeding into higher inflation, as well as supply shocks, which can drag on economic growth.
During periods of stagflation, consumers spend more on items such as food and clothing, while earning less—reducing their purchasing power. Less purchasing power can eventually cause people to buy less, leading to falling corporate revenues, which can ripple across the economy.
Case Study: 1970s Stagflation
The stagflation of the 1970s saw inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, increase from 1% to 14% between 1964 and 1980.
Price pressures, driven by skyrocketing energy prices in the 1970s, contributed to a sharp economic downturn. By 1980, unemployment reached 7.2%.
In response, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates as high as 20% in 1981. Soon after, inflation sank to 5% by 1982 and unemployment levels improved.
2. Inflation
Inflation is the rise in the price of goods and services across the economy. Broadly speaking, low and stable inflation is associated with periods of economic growth and low unemployment. It can be driven by rising consumer demand.
The expectation of predictable inflation allows consumers and businesses to prepare for the future, in terms of both their purchases and investments.
Case Study: 1990s-2000s
Over the 1990s and 2000s, the U.S. saw relatively low and stable inflation.
Rapid global population growth, the absence of oil shocks, and expanding global trade contributed to falling costs across industries. Between 1990 and 2007, inflation averaged 2.1% compared to 8.0% during the 1970s as price pressures became less volatile.
Today, several central banks adhere to a 2% inflation target to ensure prices remain stable and predictable.
3. Deflation
Deflation is the fall in prices of goods and services in the economy.
In many cases, its main causes are demand shortfalls, reduced output, or an excess of supply. For households, spending may stall as consumers wait for prices to fall. In turn, declining prices may lead to a lag in growth for businesses.
Sometimes, deflationary periods raise concerns of slower economic growth. However, supply-driven deflationary periods may be associated with lower prices, raising real incomes and boosting output as exports become more competitive.
Case Study: 1930s Great Depression
Prior to WWII, deflationary episodes were more common than today. One prime example is the Great Depression of the 1930s, when real GDP fell 30% between 1929 and 1933 and unemployment spiked to 25%.
Tightening monetary policy contributed to this environment. In fact, between 1930 and 1933, the U.S. money supply contracted roughly 30%, while average prices fell by a similar amount.
Historical Asset Class Performance
Which asset classes have historically tended to perform well across different types of inflationary environments?
Defensive assets like gold and commodities have historically performed well during stagflationary periods, with average returns of 22.1% and 15.0%, respectively.
Meanwhile, U.S. equities have typically performed well during moderate inflation, or ‘goldilocks’ environments, characterized by falling inflation and rising economic growth.
Both U.S. equities and Treasuries have shown the strongest real returns in deflationary or ‘disinflationary’ periods of slowing growth and inflation, at over 8% returns on average each.
Understanding Different Inflationary Environments
Today’s inflationary period is jarring for investors after an extended period of low and stable inflation. With this in mind, the economy has historically cycled through different types of inflationary periods.
While central banks aim to influence price stability and employment through monetary policy, investors can influence their portfolio by adjusting their asset allocation based on where the inflationary environment may be heading.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 22:40 - Biden's Secret Promise To OPEC Backfires: Shellenberger
Biden’s Secret Promise To OPEC Backfires: Shellenberger
Submitted by Michael Shellenberger,
In early September, United States Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm, told Reuters that President Joe Biden was considering extending the release of oil from America’s emergency stockpiles, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), through October, and thus beyond the date when the program had been set to end. But then, a few hours later, an official with the Department of Energy called Reuters and contradicted Granholm, saying that the White House was not, in fact, considering more SPR releases. Five days later, the White House said it was considering refilling the SPR, thereby proposing to do the exact opposite of what Granholm had proposed.
The hand of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin (right) is now strengthened within the OPEC+ cartel controlled by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (left), which today decided to cut production by 2 million barrels. The confusion around the Biden administration’s petroleum policy was cleared up yesterday after a senior official revealed that the White House had made a secret offer to buy up to 200 million barrels of OPEC+ oil to replenish the SPR in exchange for OPEC+ not cutting oil production. The official said the White House wanted to reassure OPEC+ that the US “won’t leave them hanging dry.” The fact that this offer was made through the White House, not the Department of Energy, may explain why a representative of the Department called Reuters to take back the remarks of Granholm, who has shown herself to be out-of-the-loop, and at a loss for words, relating to key administration decisions relating to oil and gas production.
The revelation poses political risks for Democrats who, in the spring of 2020, killed a proposal by President Donald Trump to replenish the SPR with oil from American producers, not OPEC+ ones, and at a price of $24 a barrel, not the $80 a barrel that the Biden White House promised to OPEC+. At the time, Trump was seeking to stabilize the American oil industry after the Covid-19 pandemic massively reduced oil demand. Trump and Congressional Republicans proposed spending $3 billion to fill the SPR. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer successfully defeated the proposal, and later bragged that his party had blocked a “bailout for big oil.”
Even normally strong boosters of the Biden White House viewed the Democrats’ opposition to refilling the SPR as a major blunder. “That decision,” noted Bloomberg, “effectively cost the US billions in potential profits and meant Biden had tens of millions of fewer barrels at his disposal with which to counter price surges.” Moreover, observed Bloomberg, it will take significantly more oil today to fill the SPR than it would have two years ago. In spring 2020, the SPR contained 634 million barrels out of a capacity of 727 million. Now, the reserve is below 442 million barrels, its lowest level in 38 years.
The decision looks even worse in light of the decision by OPEC+ today to cut production, which will increase oil prices. The Biden administration in recent days has been pulling out the stops trying to persuade Saudi Arabia and other OPEC+ members, a group that includes Russia, to maintain today’s levels of oil production. Last Friday, the Biden administration sought a 45-day delay in a civil court proceeding over whether Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman should have sovereign immunity for the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, for which bin Salman has taken responsibility.
The behavior by the Biden White House displays a willingness to sacrifice America’s commitment to human rights for the president’s short-term political needs. Instead of pleading with OPEC+ to maintain or increase high levels of oil production, the Biden administration could have simply allowed for expanded domestic oil production. Instead, Biden has issued fewer leases for on-shore and off-shore oil production than any president since World War II. As such, the pleadings by Biden and administration officials have backfired. The perception of the U.S. in the minds of OPEC+ members has weakened while the influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin has strengthened.
Why is that? Why did the Biden administration decide to spend so much political capital trying, and failing, to get Saudi Arabia and other OPEC+ members to expand production when it could have simply expanded oil production domestically? What, exactly, is going on?
President Joe Biden greets the Saudi Crown Prince on July 15, 2022. Substack subscribers can click here to read more…
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 22:20 - September Payrolls Preview: "Bulls Need A 100k Print For The Market To Alter Its Fed Expectations"
September Payrolls Preview: “Bulls Need A 100k Print For The Market To Alter Its Fed Expectations”
Prior to Friday’s NFP (and CPI next Wednesday), the market has been oscillating between the “hawkish Fed” and “Fed pivot” narrative. While the JOLTS Job Openings and the ISM Manufacturing employment index showed more evidence of a slowing labor market…
… yesterday’s stronger than expected ADP/ISM Services once again proved the economy still remains strong and therefore weakens the hope of a near-term pivot from the Fed. In a nutshell, according to JPM’s trading deks, with consensus expected tomorrow’s NFP to print +255k, Equity bulls would need a print ~100k to see the market alter its Fed expectations.
That said, many have said that in the absence of a huge outlier (to the downside) what markets and the Fed will be focusing on will be the participation rate (look for a big bounce here to confirm the recent slump in job openings) and hourly earnings: anything below 5.0% Y/Y and a 0.1% or lower sequential number will be greeted by the market.
Want more? Here is Newsquawk with a more detailed preview of what to expect tomorrow:
- The headline rate of payrolls growth is expected to resume cooling in September, with the consensus looking for 255k payroll additions (vs 315k in August);
- The jobless rate is seen unchanged at 3.7%, and there will also be focus on the participation rate after a welcome rise in August.
- Wage growth is expected to continue, although the annual rate is expected to cool a touch.
- Traders will be framing the data in the context of Fed policy; there are building hopes that the central bank might relent on some of its hawkishness if its policy tightening gives rise to financial stability concerns as it moves policy further into restrictive territory – these concerns could be exacerbated by soft economic data, as seen this week after the release of the Manufacturing ISM and JOLTs data, which fueled bets that the Fed would not be as aggressive with rate hikes ahead.
PAYROLL GROWTH: Analysts expect 255k nonfarm payrolls to be added to the US economy in September (Goldman estimates nonfarm payrolls rose by 200k in September, 50k below consensus and a slowdown from the +315k pace in August.), with the pace of jobs growth seen easing from 315k in August;
This would represent a resumption of recent trends where payroll growth has begun to cool (3-month average 378k, 6-month average 381k, 12-month average 487k). Jobless claims data that coincides with the reference period for the establishment survey in August and September augurs well for the headline: initial jobless claims eased to 209k vs the 245k level heading into the August jobs data, while continuing claims declined to 1.347mln vs 1.412mln into the previous jobs report. Meanwhile, while the ADP’s employment data bodes well for the official payrolls data (ADP printed 208k in September, a little above the expected 200k, and improving from the previous 185k), there is a great deal of scepticism about the payroll processor’s modelling, particularly given that its new methodology did not capture the trend of the August data in its inaugural release. Business surveys were mixed; the Manufacturing ISM report gave a sobering look at the labor market, where the Employment sub-index fell into contraction territory at 48.7, 5.5 points lower than the level recorded in August; the Services ISM however, saw the Employment sub-index rise to 53.0 from a previous 50.2, suggesting employment in the services sector continues to expand, while employment in the manufacturing sector is declining.
UNEMPLOYMENT: The unemployment rate is likely to have remained unchanged at 3.7%; analysts will also be watching the participation rate, which encouragingly rose by 0.3ppts in August to 62.4%. Additionally, there will also be focus on the U6 measure of underemployment after that picked-up to 7.0% in August from 6.7% in July. In terms of signposts about how these data will impact monetary policy, JPMorgan’s analysts point to the so-called non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU), a level which puts neither upward nor downward pressure on inflation. JPM explains that when unemployment is above NAIRU, inflation tends to go down, and vice versa. The CBO estimates NAIRU is currently around 4.4%, but the median estimate of FOMC participants is at 4%. JPM itself argues that the actual level might have moved higher after the pandemic: “the relation between unemployment and job openings is also consistent with a higher natural rate,” it writes, “massive sectoral reallocation over the past three years is a likely culprit for this increase.” The Fed’s most recent economic projections envisage the jobless rate rising to 4.4%, where it is expected to stay into next year.
WAGES: Average hourly earnings are seen rising 0.3% M/M, matching the rate seen in August, but with the annual measure expected to ease a little to 5.1% Y/Y from 5.2%. The Conference Board’s gauge of consumer confidence in September revealed that consumers were more optimistic about the short-term prospects for the labor market, although they were mixed about their short-term financial prospects. On this front, Fed officials have been closely monitoring the JOLTs data series, which offers a proxy on the tightness of labor market conditions (the tighter the labor market, the more wage growth economists expect ahead). In that regard, the latest JOLTs data may be welcomed by Fed officials, given that it showed labor market tightness eased significantly in the month, which might suggest that wage growth is to cool further in the months ahead. (NOTE: the latest JOLTs report was for August, not September).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Analysts will be framing the data in the context of the Fed’s mission to tackle surging consumer prices. BMO’s analysts argue that “as the market can now see the end of the rate hike cycle, market volatility around employment releases will increase,” adding that “the Fed has been very effective in communicating the fact that the strong underlying labor statistics have allowed it to be more aggressive in fighting inflation than they might have otherwise been; at some point this will turn, and as a result not only will the official BLS data be pivotal.” Accordingly, BMO argues that as the real economy enters the next stage of the cycle, the market will be on guard for any signs of undue stress in the labor market, given the ramifications it could have on the speed of Fed policy. Indeed, this week, soft ISM and JOLTs data both resulted in a re-pricing of Fed hike trajectory expectations (traders reason that soft data may compel the Fed to relent on some of its hawkishness, while any particularly strong economic data will embolden the Fed to continue to act aggressively with normalizing policy).
ARGUING FOR A WEAKER-THAN-EXPECTED REPORT
- Youth workers back to school. The loss of the youth summer workforce represents a headwind for September payrolls following strong summer employment gains for this segment. The household survey indicates that 1.3mn workers ages 16-24 were hired on net during the May-to-August payroll periods (nsa), the largest gain since 2016 outside of the 2020 reopening. As shown in Exhibit 1, September youth employment losses are strongly correlated with the summer pace of hiring in that segment, consistent with the vast majority of these workers returning to school in the fall. Additionally, this year’s particularly tight labor market suggests that many of these newly vacant positions remained unfilled during the September survey period. There is also find a negative correlation between youth summer hiring and the September nonfarm payroll surprise (relative to consensus, correlation of -0.47). These relationships would imply a roughly 35k nonfarm payroll miss and a roughly 110k drag on youth employment in tomorrow’s report (mom sa).
- Big Data. High-frequency data on the labor market were mixed-to-weaker inn September, with each of the three measures available this month consistent with at-or-below consensus job growth (see Exhibit 2).
- September first-print bias. As in August, payrolls have exhibited a tendency toward weak September first prints, which may reflect a recurring seasonal bias in the first vintages of the data. September job growth has missed consensus by at least 25k in 4 of the last 5 years and in 6 of the last 10 years. Relatedly, September payroll growth was subsequently revised higher by an average of 46k in the five years leading up to the pandemic, consistent with a negative bias in tomorrow’s report of roughly that magnitude.
- Employer surveys. The employment components of business surveys generally decreased in September. Goldman’s Services employment survey tracker decreased by 1.0pt to 52.2 and its manufacturing survey employment tracker decreased by 1.7pt to 52.9.
- Job cuts. Announced layoffs reported by Challenger, Gray & Christmas increased 28.9% month-over-month in September, following a 9.3% increase in August (SA by GS).
ARGUING FOR A STRONGER-THAN-EXPECTED REPORT
- Jobless claims. Initial jobless claims decreased during the September payroll month, averaging 220k per week vs. 246k in September but up from 175k in August. Residual seasonality and other non-economic factors explain much of the variation in initial claims over the last few months, and the overarching message from the jobless claims data is that layoff rates remained very low in Q3. Continuing claims in regular state programs decreased 66k from survey week to survey week, although they may also be affected by residual seasonality.
- Job availability. JOLTS job openings surprised to the downside, declining by 1.1mn to 10.1 million workers in August. However, the level of job openings nonetheless remains elevated relative to history. The Conference Board labor differential—the difference between the percent of respondents saying jobs are plentiful and those saying jobs are hard to get—edged up by 2.0pp to 38.0%.
NEUTRAL/MIXED FACTORS
- Seasonal factors. In contrast to those of the spring and summer months, the September seasonal factors have not evolved dramatically in recent years. The September month-over-month hurdle for private payrolls was -618k in 2021 compared to -665k in 2019 and -695k in 2017 (which unlike 2019 was also a 5-week September payroll). On this basis, September 2021 was sequentially more difficult by 50-75k. However, this could reverse for September 2022 based on the trend in recent months toward favorable year-on-year evolution in the factors. On net, Goldman is not assuming a significant tailwind or headwind from the seasonal factors (compared to a seasonality tailwind of as much as 100-200k in the previous report).
- ADP. Private sector employment in the ADP report increased by 208k in September,n in line with expectations for 200k.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 22:11 - What Really Divides America
What Really Divides America
Authored by Joel Kotkin via UnHerd.com,
The Midterms aren’t a battle between good and evil…
Reading the mainstream media, one would be forgiven for believing that the upcoming midterms are part of a Manichaean struggle for the soul of democracy, pitting righteous progressives against the authoritarian “ultra-MAGA” hordes. The truth is nothing of the sort. Even today, the vast majority of Americans are moderate and pragmatic, with fewer than 20% combined for those identifying as either “very conservative” or “very liberal”. The apocalyptic ideological struggle envisioned by the country’s elites has little to do with how most Americans actually live and think. For most people, it is not ideology but the powerful forces of class, race, and geography that determine their political allegiances — and how they will vote come November.
Of course, it is the business of both party elites — and their media allies — to make the country seem more divided than it is. To avoid talking about the lousy economy, Democrats have sought to make the election about abortion and the alleged “threat to democracy” posed by “extremist” Republicans. But recent polls suggest that voters are still more concerned with economic issues than abortion. The warnings about extremism, meanwhile, are tough to take seriously, given that Democrats spent some $53 million to boost far-Right candidates in Republican primaries.
Republicans are contributing to the problem in their own way, too. Rather than offering any substantive governing vision of their own, they assume that voters will be repelled by unpopular progressive policies such as defunding the police, encouraging nearly unlimited illegal immigration, and promoting sexual and gender “fluidity” to schoolchildren. They ignore, of course, the fact that their own embrace of fundamentalist morality on abortion is also widely rejected by the populace. And even Right-leaning voters may doubt the sanity of some of the GOP’s eccentric candidates this November.
In short, both major parties stoke polarisation, the primary beneficiaries of which are those parties’ own political machines. But most Americans broadly want the same things: safety, economic security, a post-pandemic return to normalcy, and an end to dependence on China. Their divisions are based not so much on ideology but on the real circumstances of their everyday life.
The most critical, yet least appreciated, of these circumstances is class. America has long been celebrated as the “land of opportunity”, yet for working and middle-class people in particular, opportunity is increasingly to come by. With inflation elevated and a recession seemingly on the horizon, pocketbook issues are likely to become even more important in the coming months. According to a NBC News poll, for instance, nearly two-thirds of Americans say their pay check is falling behind the cost of living, and the Republicans hold a 19-point advantage over the Democrats on the economy.
A downturn could also benefit the Left eventually. As the American Prospect points out, proletarianised members of the middle class are increasingly shopping at the dollar stores that formerly served working and welfare populations. Labour, a critical component of the Democratic coalition, could be on the verge of a generational surge, with unionisation spreading to fast food retailers, Amazon warehouses, and Starbucks.
To take advantage of a resurgent labour movement, however, Democrats will have to move away from what Democratic strategist James Carville scathingly calls “faculty lounge politics”: namely, their obsession with gender, race, and especially climate. For instance, by demanding “net zero” emissions on a tight deadline, without developing the natural gas and nuclear production needed to meet the country’s energy needs, progressives run the risk of inadvertently undermining the American economy. Ill-advised green policies will be particularly devastating for the once heavily Democratic workers involved in material production sectors like energy, agriculture, manufacturing, warehousing, and logistics.
To win in the coming election and beyond, Democrats need to focus instead on basic economic concerns such as higher wages, affordable housing, and improved education. They also need to address the roughly half of all small businesses reporting that inflation could force them into bankruptcy. Some progressives believe that climate change will doom the Republicans, but this is wishful thinking. According to Gallup, barely 3% of voters name environmental issues as their top concern.
Racial divides are also important — though not in the way that media hysterics about “white supremacy” would lead you to believe. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s decision to fly undocumented immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard was undoubtedly a political stunt, and one arguably in poor taste. But it succeeded in its main goal: highlighting the enormous divide between the border states affected by illegal immigration and the bastions of white progressivism who tend to favour it.
Under Biden, the Democrats have essentially embraced “open borders” — illegal crossings are at record levels, and few of the migrants who make it across the border are ever required to leave. This policy reflects a deep-seated belief among elite Democrats that a more diverse, less white population works to their political favour. Whether they are right to think so, however, is far from clear. Black people still overwhelmingly back the Democrats, but Asians (the fastest-growing minority) and Latinos (the largest) are more evenly divided, and have been drifting toward the Republicans in recent years.
Here, too, class is a key factor. Many middle and upper-class minorities are on board with the Democrats’ anti-racist agenda. But many working-class Hispanics and Asians have more basic concerns. After all, notes former Democratic Strategist Ruy Teixiera, these are the people most affected by inflation, rising crime, poor schools, and threats to their livelihoods posed by draconian green policies.
Culture too plays a role. Immigrants, according to one recent survey, are twice as conservative in their social views than the general public and much more so than second generation populations of their own ethnicity. Like most Americans, they largely reject the identity politics central to the current Democratic belief system. Immigrants and other minorities also tend to be both more religious than whites; new sex education standards have provoked opposition from the Latino, Asian, African American and Muslim communities.
The final dividing line is geography, always a critical factor in American politics. For decades, the country seemed to become dominated by the great metropolitan areas of the coasts, with their tech and finance-led economies. But even before the pandemic, the coastal centres were losing their demographic and economic momentum and seeing their political influence fade. In 1960, for example, New York boasted more electoral votes than Texas and Florida combined. Today, both have more electoral votes than the Empire State. Last year, New York, California, and Illinois lost more people to outmigration than any other states. The greatest gains were in Florida, Texas, Arizona, and North Carolina. These states are high-growth, fertile, and lean toward the GOP.Likewise, regional trends suggest that elections will be decided in lower density areas; suburbs alone are home to at least 40% of all House seats. Some of these voters may be refugees from blue areas who still favour the Democrats. But lower-density areas, which also tend to have the highest fertility rates, tend to be dominated by family concerns like inflation, public education and safety, issues that for now favour Republicans.
Put the battle between Good and Evil to one side. It is these three factors — class, race, geography — that will shape the outcome of the midterms, whatever the media says. The endless kabuki theatre pitting Trump and his minions against Democrats may delight and enrage America’s elites — but for the American people, it is still material concerns that matter.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 21:40 - Biden Warns 'Nuclear Armageddon' Threat Back 'For First Time Since Cuban Missile Crisis'
Biden Warns ‘Nuclear Armageddon’ Threat Back ‘For First Time Since Cuban Missile Crisis’
President Joe Biden said on Thursday that the threat of nuclear “Armageddon” is at its highest level since the Cuban missile crisis, and that the US is trying to find an “off-ramp” for Russia before they begin the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
“We’re trying to figure out what is Putin’s off-ramp? Where does he get off? Where does he find a way out?” Biden said at a fundraiser in New York City for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee at the New York home of James Murdoch, the son of News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch.
“Where does he find himself in a position that he does not, not only lose face but lose significant power in Russia?”
“He is not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological and chemical weapons, because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming,” Biden added, according to Bloomberg. “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily use tactical nuclear weapons and not end up with Armageddon.”
Are Biden’s comments related to why his admin is buying up to $290 million in anti-radiation drugs?
Putin has renewed his nuclear threats as he announced the annexation of Ukrainian territory, some of which Russia doesn’t control, and with the call-up of 300,000 reservists to reinforce his flagging invasion. “When the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people,” Putin said in a televised national address. “This is not a bluff.” -Bloomberg
Biden’s dire language comes in stark contrast to his National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, who said last week that the US doesn’t Putin is serious.
“We do not presently see indications about the imminent use of nuclear weapons,” he said. “We are, of course, monitoring that carefully and staying in close consultation with allies and partners.”
Sullivan added that the US has warned of severe consequences if Russia uses nukes.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 21:20 - A Preview Of The Igor Danchenko Trial
A Preview Of The Igor Danchenko Trial
Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary,
The trial of Igor Danchenko is scheduled for October 11, 2022. While it is only a false statement case, we can’t help but ask whether the trial will reveal any Danchenko contacts with the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign while he was acting as Christopher Steele’s primary subsource.
The reason for that question? More on that below.
First we start with the background. As you might recall, Danchenko was used by Steele as he conducted opposition research on Trump and his associates. Steele’s dossier (also called “Company Reports”) eventually made it into the hands of federal officials and the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who used it to prepare and submit applications for warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to spy on Carter Page (and to collect the communications of the Trump campaign).
As Special Counsel John Durham alleged in the Danchenko indictment:
“Each of the FISA applications set forth the FBI’s assessment that Page was a knowing agent of Russia and further alleged – based on the Company Reports – that Page was part of a “well-coordinated conspiracy of co-operation” between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government.”1
The charges against Danchenko stem from false statements he gave the FBI during multiple interviews from January 2017 through November 2017. These are the counts from the Danchenko indictment:
-
Count 1. June 15, 2017: Danchenko denied to FBI agents that he spoke with public relations executive Charles Dolan (a long-time participant in Democrat party politics) about materials in the Steele dossier. In fact, Dolan was the source of Danchenko’s and, as alleged by Special Counsel Durham, was “otherwise involved in the events and information described in the” dossier.
-
Count 2. March 16, 2017: Danchenko told FBI agents he received a call in late July 2016 from a person he thought was Sergei Millian, when Danchenko knew he had never received a call from Millian.
-
Count 3. May 18, 2017: Danchenko gave a false statement to FBI agents that he “was under the impression” that the late July 2016 call was from Millian.
-
Count 4. October 24, 2017: Danchenko falsely stated to FBI agents that he believed he spoke to Millian on the phone on more than one occasion.
-
Count 5. November 16, 2017: Danchenko lied that he “believed he has spoken to [Millian] on the telephone,” when Danchenko well knew he had never spoken to Millian.
This isn’t the easiest false statements case, so credit to Durham for bringing it. The reason isn’t because Danchenko told the truth. He’s most certainly a serial fabricator. It’s that Danchenko’s statements were made around 5 years ago to sloppy agents, and to an FBI and Department of Justice that was uninterested in uncovering and pursuing the truth.
Adding to the problems is that Sergei Millian, concerned about FBI abuses and generally untrustworthy of US assurances, remains somewhere overseas and will not testify at trial. At the same time, Durham must be conscious of the fact that the FBI was more than willing to allow Danchenko to lie.
Materiality
That brings us to “materiality.” Danchenko is charged under 18 USC § 1001, which criminalizes false statements to federal officials. Under this statute, Durham must prove that Danchenko’s statements were “materially false.”2
Normally, proving materiality in this context wouldn’t be difficult. But Durham faces the challenge of proving that Danchenko’s false statements were material to an FBI that invited and ignored Danchenko’s lies. If there is any relief to those waiting on justice to be administered, it is that Danchenko’s lies didn’t need to influence the FBI. They only needed to be “capable of influencing” the FBI. Danchenko’s false statements definitely meet that standard.
One way Durham will explain the materiality of Danchenko’s false statements will be to point to FBI obligations to notify the FISC about the misrepresentations from its witness under FISC Local Rule 13:
“the FBI and DOJ would be required to inform the FISC about the misrepresentations made in each of the applications it provided to the FISC. Had the FISC known of these misrepresentations, it could have terminated the surveillance of Carter Page and/or ordered the FBI and DOJ to destroy the information it had already collected.”3
Not that the FBI would have notified the FISC. As we have discussed, the FBI was generally aware of Danchenko’s contacts with Charles Dolan (and thus that one source of Danchenko’s information was a Clinton ally) and likely suspected back June 2017 that Danchenko had lied about his conversations with Dolan. Then there is the fact that the FBI refused to notify the FISC, contrary to the court’s rules, that Danchenko had contradicted some of Steele’s reporting.
Moreover, the FBI misrepresented to the FISC in 2018 that it had “no control over” Danchenko, when in fact the FBI made Danchenko a paid confidential human source (CHS) from March 2017 through October 2020. This hid Danchenko from inquiry, and thus protected the FBI (and the DOJ and the Mueller Special Counsel) from their own lies being exposed. “Sources and methods.”
To elaborate on that issue, I’m wondering if we’ll see any evidence as to who approved Danchenko as a paid CHS and why the FBI took that step. It might happen, if only because Danchenko lied while he was a confidential human source. If we had to guess a name, we’d venture it may have been former FBI Assistant Director for Counter Intelligence Bill Priestap who approved Danchenko as a CHS.
And if the past provides any guidance, we may also see the steps the FBI took – or refused to take – to corroborate Danchenko’s statements, and who at the FBI was involved in that effort. At the Sussmann trial, for example, it was revealed that FBI leadership stopped inquiry into Sussmann’s role as the source for the bogus Alfa Bank information. As we wrote a couple weeks ago:
“the dispute over the materiality of Danchenko’s lies almost requires the defense to prove government misconduct/ignorance. To which we say – good. Expose them.”
What of Charles Dolan and the Clinton Campaign?
Expect Charles Dolan to testify to his conversations with Danchenko and others relating to the dossier allegations at the trial. He’s already testified before a grand jury. For background, Dolan is described in the Danchenko indictment as having “maintained historical and ongoing involvement in Democratic politics.” His history includes serving as chairman of a national Democratic political organization, being a state chairman of Bill Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, and an advisor to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Based on his ties with the Clintons, one would think that the Clinton Campaign would have known about Dolan’s contacts with Danchenko. However, the Danchenko indictment states “individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign did not direct, and were not aware of, [Dolan’s] meetings with Danchenko and other Russian nationals.”
That statement concerns Dolan’s lack of interactions with the Clinton Campaign. It still leaves unanswered the question of whether Danchenko had any contacts with the Clinton campaign, and whether the Clinton campaign was aware of Danchenko’s activities.
Two theories on that. It’s possible that the Clinton campaign received updates on the opposition research but otherwise isolated itself from these matters, preferring its lawyers at Perkins Coie and its contractors at Fusion GPS (and their sources) get their hands dirty. That would be consistent with what we saw in the Michael Sussmann trial, a real-time demonstration of how the Clinton machine uses the the attorney-client and work-product privileges to manipulate the press, spread false accusations, and hide a number of sins.
It is also possible that the Clinton campaign had more knowledge about Danchenko than has been made publicly available. I bring that up because back in December, we discussed a curious filing by Durham, which confirmed that the Clinton campaign and “multiple former employees of that campaign” were subject to “matters before the Special Counsel.” In that filing, Durham discussed the potential conflict of interest of Danchenko’s lawyers, whose firm also represented the Clinton campaign and those former campaign employees.
Specifically, Durham raised these areas of inquiry that may become issues at the Danchenko trial:
-
The Clinton Campaign’s knowledge or lack of knowledge concerning the veracity of information in the dossiers sourced by Danchenko;
-
The Clinton Campaign’s awareness or lack of awareness of Danchenko’s collection methods and sub-sources;
-
Meetings or communications between and among the Clinton Campaign, Fusion GPS, and Christopher Steele regarding or involving Danchenko;
-
Danchenko’s knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the Clinton Campaign’s role in the activities surrounding the Steele Dossier; and
-
The extent to which the Clinton Campaign and/or its representatives directed, solicited, or controlled Danchenko’s activities.
All of those points are important, but that last one is particularly compelling and is worth repeating: “The extent to which the Clinton Campaign and/or its representatives directed, solicited, or controlled Danchenko’s activities.”
That implies the Clinton Campaign’s awareness of Danchenko and contacts with Danchenko. (After all, if the answer was “no,” then there would be no conflict.) Thus the potential conflict described by Durham:
“the Clinton Campaign and [Danchenko] each might have an incentive to shift blame and/or responsibility to the other party for any allegedly false information that was contained within the Company Reports and/or provided to the FBI.”
All this reminds us of a question we have previously asked. If the Clinton Campaign was being informed of the work by Fusion GPS, what of the likelihood that the Clinton Campaign was informing the work of Fusion GPS?
And here’s a follow-up question: from whom did Danchenko get the name Sergei Millian?
Furthermore, one has to ask whether those Clinton Campaign/Danchenko contacts, if they existed, stopped after the election – or whether they continued through Danchenko’s 2017 interviews with the FBI.
Will these issues be raised, and will we get answers on the Clinton Campaign’s ties to Danchenko (or Danchenko’s “sources”)? As outside observers, we can’t – and won’t – make guarantees. There’s danger in false promises just like there’s danger in false hope. Durham, however, has suggested the possibility of former representatives of the Clinton Campaign testifying at trial, stating:
“in the event that one or more former representatives of the Clinton Campaign are called to testify” at trial, Danchenko and the witness “would be represented by the same law firm, resulting in a potential conflict.”
Whether they testify remains to be seen. We haven’t yet seen a witness list.
Other Matters
If you’re interested about Danchenko’s potential defenses, they’re outlined in his motion to dismiss, which was ultimately denied by the Court. I’ll summarize briefly: during trial, expect his attorney to argue that Danchenko’s answers were literally true and that the statements were immaterial.
Read more here…
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 21:00 -
- Switzerland, Not USA, Is The 'Most Innovative' Country In The World
Switzerland, Not USA, Is The ‘Most Innovative’ Country In The World
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has released its 2022 Global Innovation Index. It evaluated innovation levels across 132 economies focusing on a long list of criteria such as human capital, institutions, technology and creative output as well as market and business sophistication, among others.
The 2022 index has found that innovation is still blossoming in some sectors despite the global economic slowdown and coronavirus pandemic, especially in industries to do with public health and the environment.
As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports, Switzerland topped the rankings with a score of 64.6 out of 100, the 12th time it has been named the world leader in innovation. The United States come second while the Sweden rounds off the top three.
You will find more infographics at Statista
One of the biggest winners of the ranking was South Korea, which climbed up from rank 10 in 2020 to rank 6 in 2022.
China is now the world’s 11th most innovative nation, up from rank 14 in 2020 and 2019 and rank 17 in 2018.
China was also named the most innovative upper middle-income country ahead of Bulgaria (overall rank 35), while India (overall rank 40) came first for lower middle-income countries, followed by Vietnam (overall rank 48).
Notably, China is now on a par with the United States in terms of the number of top 100 Science & Technology clusters
Finally, WIPO notes that on the one hand, science and innovation investments continued to surge in 2021, performing strongly even at the height of a once in a century pandemic. On the other hand, even as the pandemic recedes, storm clouds remain overhead, with increasing supply-chain, energy, trade and geopolitical stresses.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 20:40 - US Buying $290M Worth Of Anti-Radiation Drugs for Use In "Nuclear Emergency"
US Buying $290M Worth Of Anti-Radiation Drugs for Use In “Nuclear Emergency”
Authored by Chris Menahan via InformationLiberation.com,
The Biden regime is buying up $290 million in anti-radiation drugs for use in “nuclear emergencies” amid escalating tensions with Russia and heightened threats of a nuclear war.
From Health and Human Services:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 4, 2022Contact HHS Press Office
202-821-9446
asprmedia@hhs.gov
www.hhs.gov/news
Twitter: @HHSgovHHS purchases drug for use in radiological and nuclear emergencies
As part of long-standing, ongoing efforts to be better prepared to save lives following radiological and nuclear emergencies, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is purchasing a supply of the drug Nplate from Amgen USA Inc; Nplate is approved to treat blood cell injuries that accompany acute radiation syndrome in adult and pediatric patients (ARS).
Amgen, based in Thousands Oaks, California, developed Nplate for ARS with support from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), as well as the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health.
BARDA is using its authority provided under the 2004 Project Bioshield Act and $290 million in Project BioShield designated funding to purchase this supply of the drug. Amgen will maintain this supply in vendor-managed inventory. This approach decreases life-cycle management costs for taxpayers because doses that near expiration can be rotated into the commercial market for rapid use prior to expiry and new doses can be added to the government supply.
ARS, also known as radiation sickness, occurs when a person’s entire body is exposed to a high dose of penetrating radiation, reaching internal organs in a matter of seconds. Symptoms of ARS injuries include impaired blood clotting as a result of low platelet counts, which can lead to uncontrolled and life-threatening bleeding.
To reduce radiation-induced bleeding, Nplate stimulates the body’s production of platelets. The drug can be used to treat adults and children.
Nplate is also approved for adult and pediatric patients with immune thrombocytopenia, a blood disorder resulting in low platelet counts. Repurposing drugs for acute radiation syndrome that also are approved for a commercial indication helps to sustain availability of the product and improves healthcare provider familiarity with the drug.
“The US government said the procurement of Nplate was not in response to the war in Ukraine,” The Telegraph reported.
“An HSS spokesman told The Telegraph: ‘This is part of our ongoing work for preparedness and radiological security. It has not been accelerated by the situation in Ukraine.'”
The State Department last week urged all Americans to leave Russia “as soon as possible” in the wake of the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.
The official reasoning they gave was to avoid getting conscripted in their mobilization effort but that logic only applied to dual citizens and their advisory was for all Americans.
As I noted at the time, the real reason they told everyone to leave is more likely the risk of a full-blown war breaking out due to the US, Ukraine or Poland being responsible for the belligerent bombing of the Nord Steam pipelines.
While Russia has issued statement after statement warning the US they will use nuclear weapons to defend their territory and are “not bluffing,” the US has been shipping billions in high-tech weaponry to Ukraine to attack Russian forces and strike inside of Russia.
Just last week, Congress voted to send another $12.3 billion in military and economic aid to Ukraine.
Biden said in February after the war broke out that Americans should not be worried about a nuclear war then spent the next eight months antagonizing Russia (and China) with endless provocations to make nuclear war more likely than ever.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 20:22 - Media Spin On Gun Control Doesn't Match Voters' Opinions
Media Spin On Gun Control Doesn’t Match Voters’ Opinions
Authored by John Lott Jr via RealClearPolitics.com,
Red flag laws are the top priority of Democrats and gun control advocates.
Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support these measures – by margins ranging between 2-1 and 3-1. Congress recently passed legislation providing funding for states that adopted these laws.
But the polling doesn’t really gauge whether Americans understand how these laws operate. The surveys generally just ask people if they support laws that “allow guns to be temporarily confiscated by a judge from people considered by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others.”
Respondents might reasonably assume that a normal legal process is being followed, whereby complaints are made and witnesses are cross-examined. With a law that almost always involves fears of suicide, they might presuppose that mental health experts are involved in the process.
To examine this premise, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I head, hired McLaughlin & Associates to survey 1,000 general election voters from July 21-24, 2022. The survey began by asking people whether they supported red flag laws. It then informed respondents that there are no hearings before an individual’s guns are taken away, and that there are no mental health care experts involved in the process.
People initially answered by a two-to-one margin that they support red flag laws (58% to 29%), with the strongest support coming from Democrats, the wealthy, blacks and Hispanics, and people aged 18-29.
However, after being told that there are no court proceedings before an individual’s guns are taken away, and that there are no mental health care experts involved in the process, support changed to opposition (29% to 47%). Strong support plummeted from 34% to 14% and strong opposition rose from 18% to 29%.
Finally, people were asked if they prefer “involuntary commitment” or red flag laws. They were told that involuntary commitment laws provide for evaluations by mental health care experts, that an emergency court hearing takes place before a judge’s decision, and that a lawyer is provided if the person can’t afford one. They are also told that, under such rules, judges have a range of less extreme options, such as mandatory outpatient mental health care and weapon confiscation.
Survey respondents favored involuntary commitment by a 40%-to-33% margin. Only Democrats, the wealthy, blacks, and Asians supported red flag laws as their preferred option.
The shift in position by the strongest supporters of red flag laws when told about the laws is consistent with them being the least well-informed. But that isn’t the only evidence of that problem. In April, the CPRC hired McLaughlin & Associates to survey what people thought the percentage of violent crime committed using guns was. They found that those most strongly supporting gun control dramatically overestimated the percentage of violent crime committed with guns. While the average Democrat estimates that 56.9% of violent crimes involve guns and the typical Republican gave an answer of 37%. (The actual rate is less than 8%.)
We keep being told that there is 90+% support in polls for universal background checks on the private transfer of guns. But when these measures have been on the ballot, they haven’t been slam dunks. In 2016, despite Michael Bloomberg’s overwhelming financial backing, ballot initiatives failed in Maine by 4 percentage points and won in Nevada by less than 1%.
The Nevada initiative had $20 million in funding behind it, amounting to an incredible $35 per vote. That’s three times more than what was spent in opposition. In Maine, the opposition was outspent by a factor of 20. And in both states, the media coverage was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the gun control side.
While the Nevada initiative technically eked out a win, it wasn’t able to go into effect because it had been inaccurately sold to voters as not costing taxpayers any money.
Senate Republicans passed gun control earlier this year to take guns off the political agenda for this fall, but part of the compromise entailed providing federal funding to encourage states to adopt red flag laws. Democrats continue to cite surveys seeming to show that gun control will play a role in November’s election. Perhaps that’s right. Or is this perception more properly understood as an example of their consultants and pollsters not understanding the issues?
Americans keep being told by the media that they overwhelmingly support gun control laws. So why don’t the laws get passed? Might it be that the polls are inaccurate and biased? My own survey suggests just that.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 20:20 - Global Trade Forecast 'Darkens' On Central Bank Tightening, Inflation, Ukraine War
Global Trade Forecast ‘Darkens’ On Central Bank Tightening, Inflation, Ukraine War
The World Trade Organization published a new report that outlines a sharp slowdown in world trade is expected for next year under the weight of skyrocketing energy prices, soaring interest rates, and war-related disruptions, with increasing risks of a global recession.
WTO economists expect world trade to “lose momentum in the second half of 2022 and remain subdued in 2023 as multiple shocks weigh on the global economy.” These economists expect global merchandise trade volumes will increase only by 3.5% in 2022, slightly better than forecasts in April of 3%. They warned that 2023 would be a doozy, forecasting only a 1% increase in trade volumes, down from the previous estimate of 3.4%.
Source: Bloomberg Forecasts for world GDP will grow by 2.8% in 2022. The economists lowered their 2023 estimate to 2.3% from earlier expectations of 3.3% and warned, “major central banks are already raising interest rates in a bid to tame inflation but overshooting on tightening could trigger recessions in some countries, which would weigh on imports.” This means central banks could exacerbate the downturn by tightening too much next year.
The WTO’s downgrades to global trade align with new IMF and OECD projections. This is a drastic change and a considerable deceleration from last year’s 9.7% growth in international trade. Consumers, fueled by stimmy checks and ultra-low rates by central banks during Covid, are dialing back on spending as the hangover phase is underway.
“We’re looking at a situation in which a global slowdown is going to squeeze households even more, squeeze businesses and we may be edging into a recession.
“It’s looking quite grim — a little more grim than we had thought,” WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.
The pandemic boom trade has ended as the global economy faces a multipronged crisis. We noted the reversal in the “shortage of everything” bullwhip effect has led to container lines on major shipping routes canceling sailings as US importers do not need to increase purchases of foreign goods because of rising domestic inventory as consumers are on strike due to negative real wage growth, low savings, and maxed out credit cards amid worst inflation in decades.
Last month, FedEx Corp.’s CEO Raj Subramaniam delivered a chilling message while speaking with CNBC’s Mad Money with Jim Crammer: The global economy is “going into a worldwide recession.”
More evidence of the world stumbling into trouble is JP Morgan’s Global PMIs now sub 50, which means contraction.
WTO’s latest report is a reminder that 2023 economic outlooks for the world are quickly darkening as excess tightening by central banks could spark an even more significant downturn.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 20:00 - How Nation-States Will Use Bitcoin In The Power Projection Game
How Nation-States Will Use Bitcoin In The Power Projection Game
Authored by Jaime Gutierrez via BitcoinMagazine.com,
Bitcoin miners are the next level of power projection as they reinforce an incorruptible network that cannot be usurped by a single entity…
The military, today, is not considered an important element of society by the public. Why should it? It represents bloodshed and fights that seem pointless and have caused society a lot of pain. Similarly, studying Bitcoin as a property defense system is a misunderstood part of this asset and one that is biased by our own beliefs. How are they connected? Because both use brute force and physical power to defend property.
As a Mexican-born citizen, I have always wondered why, given the abundance of natural resources like oil and lithium available in our country, Mexico hasn’t become a world economic leader. You might also have a similar point of view in your country of residence. Especially if you are in a developing nation in Latin America or Africa or if you live in a small country that has a lot of influence from superpowers like Russia, the U.S. or China.
Throughout history, one of the reasons a country or empire has become a hegemonic power has been through what Jason Lowery calls the power projection game, which means the kinetic brute physical force of the military. This is important because if a nation doesn’t project power properly, how can it defend its natural resources and its sovereignty from another nation? And more importantly, as individuals, how can we defend our property from being stolen or confiscated by a corrupt agent? Here is where the role of The State arises.
According to Robert Breedlove, the main purpose of a State is the defense and preservation of life, liberty, and property.
“Property is the mutually acknowledged, exclusive relationship between an asset owner and any particular asset. As a relationship rather than any particular item, the essence of all property is informational.”
“The right to life is the source of all rights — and the right to property is their own implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.” — Ayn Rand
If property means a list of “Who owns what?” and life is the source of all rights, then how can we defend ourselves from a tyrant or a person that wants to steal our property? We want to be assured that the product of our daily life efforts gained through sweat, tears and sacrificed time will be safe for ourselves and our bloodline.
“Reliably storing, updating and communicating information in this list is property’s native application. And the limitation of this has been the need to trust (and pay) an authority to maintain this list and prevent falsification or duplication of its records.” — Robert Breedlove
For centuries, this authority has been the government. The government is the entity that determines the rule of law in a community. It works through the federal courts and its three main powers — legislative, judicial and executive — to defend the property rights of its citizens. It needs the third one — an army — to guarantee compliance with these rules if the other powers fail in doing so.
“The purpose of projecting power via the Militia is to preserve zero-trust and egalitarian control over what are fundamentally trust-based and inegalitarian rules of law. Our rules-based order only works insofar as we can project power to preserve our access to our rules-based order. And, the only physical signature of ‘ownership’ is the power projected to preserve one’s access to property.” — Jason Lowery
When we look at history, the government has often ended up being the actor imposing new rules and thereby violating these same property rights. In the U.S. this right is protected from corruption by the Second Amendment, which allows the people to form militias to combat the government if it becomes a bad actor in society.
Source: Congress
This concerns the protection of property rights within a self-organized state, but the same dynamics are true between states. And this is where international conflicts come from and where the importance of the military arises to defend their rule of law from outsiders.
Military development infrastructure.
Source: Jason Lowery
“Whenever a consensus as to property rights between states could not be reached through political means, conflict erupts.” — Robert Breedlove, 2021
“We forget how the state of ownership and chain of custody of virtually everything with mass, particularly the mass we monetize, is written in blood, not ink. This is the tragedy of good power projection and deterrence. The better we get at it, the less often we are reminded about why we need it.” — Jason Lowery
Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian general and military theorist of the 19th century stated: “War is merely the continuation of policy with other means.” So to understand the importance of the military having a hegemony we need to understand why wars happen.
As one of the most important classical strategic thinkers of history, he examined the nature of war and defined it with this trinity:
War is made of the same “blind natural forces” of “primordial violence” observed in nature.
It contains “the play of chance and probability” that rewards “creative spirits.”
It is a calculated instrument of national policy used to solve political disputes.
This means that the survival of the fittest, the creative spirits that are in the search beyond something greater than them and with a clear purpose to achieve it, are the ones that translated into governments and have become the superpowers that are influencing everything around them because they have become the best at projecting power.
“Moreover, winning this brute-force physical power game is not exclusively dependent on finding ways to amass larger quantities of power; it’s also about finding different strategies for projecting power in increasingly more creative ways.
And when we can’t trust the judge because we don’t respect their judgment, war gives nations access to an independent courtroom with a perfectly impartial judge who cannot be manipulated by emotion or corrupted by false interpretations. War is the judge of last resort, delivering incorruptible judgment and a very decisive ruling based on brute-force physical power.” — Jason Lowery
This is the judge in the rise and fall of civilizations and superpowers. And when new technology arises, the hegemony of the power that rejects it suffers the consequences and falls apart.
Think of the Middle Ages, and one of the first things that probably leaps to mind for us is castles. Those immense, strongly fortified structures that were the power bases of their day. Gunpowder would change all of that, as the shattering of the walls of Constantinople demonstrated.
Constantinople Harbor painting: Cobija/CC BY-SA 4.0/Public domain
Picture yourself in Constantinople, which was seen at the time as the ultimate metropolis, the ultimate object of desire; and the Ottoman Turks were determined to capture it. It is the year 1452. Orban the engineer, an artillery expert, is working in Constantinople and goes to Emperor Constantine XI and his armies to offer them his newest invention; a dreaded weapon, a monster cannon using gunpowder to protect the city from outside invaders. But the Emperor ran out of money and couldn’t buy it from him. So Orban goes to the Turks, who couldn’t realistically reject it, and, at a better price, offers it to them.
The monstrous cannon, constructed by Orban.
Jumping ahead, it is now Easter Monday, April 2, 1453, a year later. The young Ottoman sultan, Mehmet II, and his armies are in Constantinople to begin the siege of the city. The monstrous cannon, constructed by Orban the engineer, had to be hauled more than a hundred miles to the besieged city. The largest cannon ever, 27 feet long with the ability to shoot a 1,500-pound stone ball at the defenses of the beleaguered city, is now in position. With deafening thunder, the cannon fired. This weapon pounded the walls of Constantinople and eventually broke them down, allowing the Ottoman army to breach the city.
In addition to this monster, many other smaller cannons continued the bombardment. This was the sound of a military revolution, making stone walls, towers and battlements largely obsolete. It would devastate the certainties, traditions and way of life of the medieval age.
The city of Constantinople fell on May 29, 1453, eight weeks after the first siege. And the key to the Ottoman Turks conquering Constantinople was the cannon constructed by Orban the engineer, a professional artillery master.
“Keep your sword in front of you. Your swords and your shields are fully sufficient and will prove very effective in battle.” — What Emperor Constantine XI probably said during the final siege of Constantinople.
Those last words would have been a lie because they couldn’t defend themselves from the cannons unless they would have bought them the year prior to the siege. This is an important history lesson because the last innovation in power projection was nuclear weapons. We saw what they are capable of in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If used, the outcome is mutually assured destruction of humanity. And the countries that have them became the new world superpowers that no one wants to attack because the cost of it may be irreparable. These countries are China, Russia and the world superpower hegemon, the U.S.. We have some other exceptions with nuclear weapons like North Korea, but they don’t have the influence of these three countries throughout the world.
Yet, another power projection technology arrived in 2009. Satoshi Nakamoto, inspired by Adam Back’s paper “Hashcash – A Denial Of Service Countermeasure”, built “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” A network with a cost function that brings a challenge to its miners to be able to create tokens we call satoshis. By the proof-of-work mechanism, miners have to solve a challenge every 10 minutes to be able to validate Bitcoin transactions, and by doing so they receive bitcoin as a reward. Miners need to connect their specialized computers like Antminer’s S19 Pro in order to generate valid blocks.
This cost function has also a mathematical succession to impose a cost if someone wants to attack the network:
The Bitcoin halving formula.
Fuente: Blog.lopp.net
When the Bitcoin network was released, miners started receiving 50 bitcoin per block, which was mined every 10 minutes. Every 210,000 blocks bitcoin rewards will be cut in half, which happens approximately every four years until we reach 32 halvings (”halving” is the term referring to the Bitcoin rewards cut by half), which is expected to happen in the year 2140. We are now in the third halving, during which miners are receiving 6.25 bitcoin per block.
If someone wants to attack the Bitcoin network, he or she would need to have a 51% majority of the hash rate. If, despite major roadblocks preventing such an event, a person does have this majority, the Bitcoin full nodes around the world would then have to validate and accept these new attacker blocks, which they are not incentivized to do so. Not to mention, this 51% attempt to attack the Bitcoin network would take approximately $6.7 billion per year.
The proof-of-work mechanism imposes a physical cost to any belligerent agent that wants to corrupt the network. Using electrical power via their computers, they are using electrical brute force physical power instead of kinetic one like the military’s gunpowder. This is a continuation of the power projection game but in cyberspace, now done by protecting our purely digital property and energy, which we call Bitcoin. Miners are a continuation of our military power.
What are the implications of this? Jason Lowery expresses it as follows and is making a great thesis called “Softwar: Bitcoin And The Future Of Our National Strategic Defense.”
Lowery illustrates here:
“We cannot forget how history plays out. We cannot forget that power is everything if we want to defend what we hold valuable. Hopefully, we can convince the people who are in charge of policy making. This is the goal of my research. They should at least take Bitcoin mining seriously because we don’t want to be like the end of Constantinople. We want to be the superpower of the future. If this is the power projection play, cyber. If this is how you achieve zero trust egalitarian control over cyber property, we want to posture this country to continue to be a superpower.”
The U.S. has become the world superpower through its military force and the use of its currency, the U.S. dollar, as the world reserve money in the world. They managed to secure this after getting out of the gold standard in 1971 and following that with the petrodollar system.
Why is this important?
After the U.S. sanctions against Russia removing them from the SWIFT system, now every country is asking themselves these questions:
“Can I trust my savings in the banking system?
…
If I go against the U.S., could I be thrown out of the SWIFT system as well?
…
How can we protect our property and sovereignty from the influence of this superpower?”
They do so by building their military kinetically and electrically so that they can impose a cost on any attacker that wants to inflict their rules.
The power projection game is a natural law that has existed for millions of years and is now evolving. Now, the U.S. has to make a smart move if it wants to maintain its role as the most powerful nation in the world.
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 19:40 - Most Americans In Over 25 Years Suffer 'Real' Pay Cut Under Biden Admin; Fed Report Shows
Most Americans In Over 25 Years Suffer ‘Real’ Pay Cut Under Biden Admin; Fed Report Shows
As The Wall Street Journal recently reported “…vast numbers of Americans find their cost of living is rising faster than the income they’re bringing home,” under the Biden administration.
How ‘vast’?
Well The Dallas Fed just issued a report showing that, rather shockingly, a majority of employed workers’ real (inflation-adjusted) wages have failed to keep up with inflation in the past year.
For these workers, The Dallas Fed finds that the median decline in real wages is a little more than 8.5 percent…
All individuals to the left of the dashed line experienced wage growth that was less than the CPI inflation rate – that is 53.4% of all Americans.
And, taken together, these outcomes appear to be the most severe faced by employed workers over the past 25 years…
While this is all Putin’s fault – or price-gouging retail gas station owners – we do note The Dallas Fed researchers conclusion perhaps explains why the Democrats face an uphill battle into the Midterms… “While the past 25 years have witnessed episodes that show either a greater incidence or larger magnitude of real wage declines, the current time period is unparalleled in terms of the challenge employed workers face.”
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 19:20 - Democrats Attack Lake As 'Extremist' As 2024 Republicans Flock To Her
Democrats Attack Lake As ‘Extremist’ As 2024 Republicans Flock To Her
Authored by Philip Wegmann via RealClear Wire,
It is a busy week for Kari Lake and for Republicans who harbor White House ambitions. Several are more than eager to share the stump with the Arizona gubernatorial candidate, a fact that Democrats believe underscores their arguments about the “ultra MAGA” right and the rise of GOP extremism.
Courtesy of the University of Texas Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin U.S. Geological Survey 2001 Tuesday morning in Scottsdale, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem will have coffee with Lake and her supporters. The next afternoon in the Phoenix suburbs, Lake will share the stage with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Former President Donald Trump arrives Sunday to host a rally in the town of Prescott Valley.
Some have already stumped for Lake, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in August. Others have promised they will, like Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, but haven’t yet put a date on the calendar.
“Why is it a surprise that Republicans are helping Republicans?” a Noem spokesman asked RealClearPolitics before getting a plug in for the candidate: “South Dakota is proving that freedom gets results, and Kari Lake will bring the same principles to Arizona.”
But Lake isn’t a generic Republican candidate. A longtime former Phoenix television anchorwoman who routinely excoriates her former profession, she has called for the 2020 presidential election to be decertified, condemned the vaccine mandates as government overreach, and aggressively mixed it up with regional and national reporters alike. In short, Lake is a Republican after Trump’s heart. Other politicians, despite the criticism, want in.
The race between Lake and Democratic nominee Katie Hobbs remains a tossup. In a state Biden narrowly won, the RealClearPolitics Average has the Republican out front with a slim 2.2-point lead., so it would be on the national radar anyway. But Lake, who brings an undeniable energy to the stump, adds a heightened level of controversy to the mix.
“Kari Lake is as extreme as they come – from touting Arizona’s 1901 abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest to endorsing Donald Trump’s Big Lie that incited an attack on our Capitol,” DNC spokesperson Ammar Moussa told RCP. “It’s no surprise that national Republicans are flocking to Arizona to embrace Lake and echo her ultra-MAGA agenda because this is exactly what the Republican Party stands for today.”
Democrats and President Biden are eager to make the midterms a referendum on what they see as GOP extremism, rather than the economy or inflation where the White House remains underwater in polling. And while Biden and his aides haven’t singled out Lake, they have happily pointed to abortion restrictions, in particular a national ban proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham and backed by former Vice President Mike Pence, as examples of the rightward shift of the Republican Party.
“If you are not with where the majority of Americans are, that is extreme,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told RCP last month. “That is an extreme way of thinking.”
Lake has repeatedly denied the 2020 election, calling for the outcome of that contest to be decertified more than a year later. Traditional conservatives point to those statements while urging 2024 contenders to stay away from Arizona. Henry Olson, a conservative columnist at the Washington Post, wrote this summer that “nothing defines Lake more than her embrace of election denial” and begged Arizona Republicans not to nominate her. After she won that nomination and Virginia’s governor announced plans travel to the state, a National Review op-ed warned Youngkin to “hew closely to the lane he has staked out for himself” because “Trump sycophants are clogging up the rest of the road.”
Yet, the enthusiasm for Lake is undeniable in the GOP grassroots where her belligerence toward the media is not seen as a drawback. Lake has said that if elected she would enforce Arizona’s bygone abortion ban, a law on the books before Roe v. Wade was passed a half-century ago. It prohibited abortions and criminalized abortionists. When pressed on her position, Lake said she supports “saving as many lives as possible” and then turned the question back on the reporter.
“What I really want to know, and I’ve been waiting, I tune into you guys all the time, I want to know where Katie Hobbs stands. I never hear you guys ask her that,” Lake said.
“Let me tell you where she stands. She supports abortion right up until birth and after birth. She supports that if a baby survives a botched abortion that that baby die on a cold metal tray. And none of you ever try to get her to talk about her stance,” the candidate continued.
A clip of the exchange went viral. Cruz shared the video on Twitter and said Monday “This is how it’s done.”
It is an open question whether that kind of rhetoric does more to get Arizona voters to the polls or animate the online conservatives. For now, regardless of controversy, potential presidential contenders are eager to associate with Lake who is becoming a rising star on the right.
“Kari Lake does as much to help Ted Cruz, Kristi Noem, or Glen Youngkin in Arizona as they do to help her,” said Barrett Marson, an Arizona GOP strategist. “It’s mutually beneficial for some of these candidates to come here and stand next to Lake. Whether they add to her vote total, it may not matter, they are still associating themselves with a very popular Republican candidate.”
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 19:00 - Air Force Scrambles Jets After North Korea Flies 12 Warplanes Near Inter-Korean Border
Air Force Scrambles Jets After North Korea Flies 12 Warplanes Near Inter-Korean Border
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,
At least 12 North Korean military planes flew in formation close to the South Korean border on Thursday, prompting U.S. allies to scramble dozens of fighter jets.
A group of eight fighter jets and four bombers operated by North Korea flew in formation near the inter-Korean air boundary at around 2 p.m. local time, officials with the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff told Yonhap. They are believed to have carried out air-to-surface military drills, the officials said.
In response, South Korea mobilized 30 fighter jets and scrambled them to near where North Korea carried out its drills, authorities told Yonhap.
South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff told news outlets that the 12 North Korean warplanes “flew in squadron this afternoon in the South Korean side … to stage a protest.”
“Reportedly, North Korea’s Air Force has not been able to train properly due to the scarcity of fuel, it is extremely unusual for North Korea to have flown 8 fighter jets and 4 bombers,” Cheong Seong-Chang, the head of the Center for North Korean Studies at the Sejong Institute, told ABC News.
North Korea has previously sent military aircraft near the border, but Yonhap news agency said this is likely the first time it has mobilized so many warplanes for such a provocative flight and firing exercises.
Tensions
Tensions have risen sharply on the Korean Peninsula amid North Korea’s recent barrage of missile tests prompted South Korea, the United States, and Japan to conduct joint drills in response.
Earlier Thursday, North Korea launched two short-range ballistic missiles toward its eastern waters. The launches came after the United States redeployed an aircraft carrier near the Korean Peninsula in response to North Korea’s launch of a nuclear-capable missile over Japan earlier this week.
A TV screen shows a file image of a North Korean missile launch during a news program at the Seoul Railway Station in Seoul, South Korea, on Sept. 28, 2022. (Ahn Young-joon/AP Photo)
U.S., South Korean, and Japanese destroyers launched joint drills Thursday off the Korean Peninsula’s east coast to hone their abilities to search, track, and intercept North Korean ballistic missiles, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said.
Also, the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier group returned to the sea east of the Korean Peninsula on Wednesday to stage a naval exercise with Japan and South Korea
President Yoon Suk-Yeol noted tensions on the Korean Peninsula remain high, but he pledged that Seoul would remain cautious.
“Since the situation is not easy to deal with, the USS Ronald Reagan returned to our waters at around 8 p.m. yesterday,” Yoon said, reported the Korean Times.
“The public would be worried about the current security circumstances, but the government will not miss a single step in protecting the people based on the strong South Korea-U.S. alliance and the security cooperation between Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo.”
North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un (L) and sister Kim Yo Jong attend the Inter-Korean Summit at the Peace House in Panmunjom, South Korea on April 27, 2018. (Korea Summit Press Pool/Getty Images)
North Korean Threat
South Korea will face “extermination” if it “adopts military confrontation” against North Korea, top North Korean official Kim Yo Jong said in a threat earlier this week.
“In case south Korea adopts military confrontation against us, our nuclear combat forces are inevitably obliged to carry out its mission,” Kim, the high-ranking sister of dictator Kim Jong Un, said. “If the situation develops to such an extent, terrible attack would be mounted and the south Korean army would have no other choice but to suffer tragic lot of extermination.”
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 18:40 - Hundreds Of Thousands Of Americans Sought Medical Care After COVID-19 Vaccination: CDC Data
Hundreds Of Thousands Of Americans Sought Medical Care After COVID-19 Vaccination: CDC Data
Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Hundreds of thousands of Americans sought medical care after getting a COVID-19 vaccine, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data released on Oct. 3.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta, Ga., in a file photograph. (Jessica McGowan/Getty Images) Some 782,900 people reported seeking medical attention, emergency room care, and/or hospitalization following COVID-19 vaccination. Another 2.5 million people reported needing to miss school, work, or other normal activities as a result of a health event after getting a COVID-19 vaccine.
The reports were made to the CDC’s V-safe program, a new vaccine safety monitoring system to which users can report issues through smartphones.
The CDC released the data to the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) after being sued over not producing the data when asked by the nonprofit. ICAN posted a dashboard summarizing the data.
“It took numerous legal demands, appeals, and two lawsuits, and over a year, but the CDC finally capitulated and agreed to a court order requiring them to do what they should have done from day one, release the V-safe data to the public,” Aaron Siri, a lawyer representing ICAN in the case, told The Epoch Times in an email.
About 10 million people utilized V-safe during the period of time the data covers: Dec. 14, 2020, to July 31, 2022. About 231 million Americans received at least one vaccine doses during that time.
The V-safe users reported about 71 million symptoms.
The most commonly reported symptoms were chills (3.5 million), swelling (3.6 million), joint pain (4 million), muscle or body aches (7.8 million), headache (9.7 million), fatigue (12.7 million), and general pain (19.5 million).
About 4.2 million of the symptoms were of severe severity.
Users of V-safe filled in data for about 13,000 infants younger than two, reporting over 33,000 symptoms, including pain, loss of appetite, and irritability.
The data produced so far by the CDC does not include free-text responses, according to ICAN. The data covered fields where users checked boxes.
ICAN, founded by film producer Del Bigtree, said that the newly revealed data “reveals shocking information that should have caused the CDC to immediately shut down its COVID-19 vaccine program,” citing the percentage of people who reported needing to get care or missing school, work, or other normal activities, as well as the reported adverse events.
Read more here…
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 18:20 - DACA Ruled Illegal After Appeals Court Cites 'Severe Deficiencies'
DACA Ruled Illegal After Appeals Court Cites ‘Severe Deficiencies’
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is unlawful.
The program was designed to shield certain immigrants known colloquially as “anchor babies” from deportation.
In its ruling, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a July 2021 decision by a Texas federal judge, US District Judge Andrew Hanen, who declared DACA illegal and blocked new applications, while allowing current beneficiaries to continue receiving protection.
The 5th Circuit maintained the same policy, and sent the case back to Hanen so he can review a revised set of rules that the Biden administration announced in august, to determine whether those rules are legal.
The Biden administration’s new final rule to “preserve and fortify” DACA codifies the existing policy, with limited changes, into federal regulation. It was subject to public comments as part of a formal rule-making process intended to improve its chances of surviving lawsuits challenging it. It’s set to be effective Oct. 31 to replace the 2012 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum that had created DACA. -Epoch Times
As Jonathan Turley notes;
Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit (with U.S. Circuit Judges James Ho and Kurt Engelhardt), Chief Judge Priscilla Richman found that President Obama did indeed circumvent Congress and evaded the limits imposed in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) when it enacted DACA in 2012. The court declared:
“Under the first factor, DACA’s deficiencies are severe. The district court’s excellent opinion correctly identified fundamental substantive defects in the program. The DACA Memorandum contradicts significant portions of the INA. There is no possibility that DHS could obviate these conflicts on remand.”
The court, however, did not change the status of the roughly 600,000 people from 150 countries enrolled under DACA. It sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
The Biden Administration fought to block any judicial review by challenging the standing of Texas to bring the action. However, it did little to refute the claims of injury raised by the state, including an expert who estimated that DACA recipients overall impose a cost of more than $250,000,000 on Texas per year and another $533,000,000 annually in costs to local Texas communities.
In addition, the court noted that:
“Texas contends that the rescission of DACA would cause some recipients to leave, thereby reducing the financial burdens on the State. It cites a survey of over three thousand DACA recipients in which twenty-two percent of respondents said they were likely or very likely to leave the country if DACA ended.130 The Government presents evidence that many recipients would remain without DACA, but that does not controvert Texas’s showing that some would leave.”
The Fifth Circuit also rejected the common claim that this is nothing more than the exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute cases:
“As our court held in DAPA, “‘[a]lthough prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not “unfettered.”’ Declining to prosecute does not transform presence deemed unlawful by Congress into lawful presence and confer eligibility for otherwise unavailable benefits based on that change.”
Even if the INA were ambiguous, DACA would fail at step two because it is an unreasonable interpretation of the INA. Like DAPA, DACA “undoubtedly implicates ‘question[s] of deep “economic and political significance” that [are] central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that decision to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly.’”
There is no “clear congressional authorization” for the power that DHS claims.”
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen will now get the case back. He previously decided that the Department of Homeland Security had implemented DACA in violation of the APA.
In response, the Biden administration has developed a new DACA rule and published it on the Federal Register to satisfy the public notice-and-comment process. The new rule is scheduled to become active on Oct. 31.
The case could ultimately find its way to the Supreme Court but such a move could only magnify the bad precedent already created in the case for the Administration.
* * *
And according to the Daily Caller, the Biden administration says it will take legal action after the 5th Circuit decision.
As a result of the stay that remains in place, no one who currently has #DACA will lose their protection from removal or work authorization. (2/)
— Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (@SecMayorkas) October 6, 2022
Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/06/2022 – 18:00
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
