US Army Establishes 1st Permanent Garrison On NATO’s Eastern Flank

US Army Establishes 1st Permanent Garrison On NATO’s Eastern Flank

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via The Libertarian Institute, 

The US Army has officially opened its first permanent military garrison on NATO’s “eastern flank” in a ceremony on Tuesday. 

Stretching from the Baltics to the Black Sea, the eastern portion of the North Atlantic bloc is made up of eight nations – all former members of the USSR or Warsaw Pact. The US Army’s V Corps will now have a lasting presence at Camp Kosciuszko in Poland

The V Corps’ commanding general, Lt. Gen. John Kolasheski, explained the garrison showed that Washington is deepening its military commitments in Eastern Europe. “The relationship of the US and Poland serves as an example of the deepening ties throughout the alliance,” he said, adding “today’s activation ceremony is a tangible reminder of the growth in our relationship.”

As the Soviet Union crumbled in the early 1990s, Western leaders repeatedly assured Moscow that NATO would not expand into former USSR states or establish bases in Eastern Europe. However, since the George H.W. Bush administration offered those guarantees, all subsequent US presidents have violated the pledge and pushed NATO’s military footprint closer to Russia’s borders

Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak described the garrison as “historic,” saying that Warsaw has been “striving for this for years – for this word ‘permanent’ – and it has now become fact.” He continued, “this is a historic moment, a sign that the United States is committed to Poland and NATO, and that we are united in the face of Russian aggression.”

The Pentagon currently has two officers stationed at Camp Kosciuszko and 200 additional troops at the base on a rotational basis. As Washington had already kept about 10,000 troops in Poland previously, an analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, Artur Kacprzyk, argued the significance of the new garrison “is primarily symbolic.”

Poland has been a key hub for Western arms shipments to Ukraine given its location. While Camp Kosciuszko is not located near the border, an American diplomat explained the garrison was created to confront Russia. In a statement shared on Twitter, US Ambassador to Poland Mark Brzezinski said the decision to open a long-term base proves that “the United States is committed to Poland and the NATO alliance, and that we are united in the face of Russian aggression,” using verbiage nearly identical to Warsaw’s defense chief.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 03/23/2023 – 02:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/5zEwivr Tyler Durden

Idaho Supreme Court Rules Fourth Amendment Violated When Drug-Sniffing Dog “Intermeddled” With Defendant’s Car


ddpphotos295840

Police dog

In State v. Dorff, a decision issued on March 20, the Idaho Supreme Court suppressed evidence obtained in a police search of a car because Nero the drug-sniffing police dog committed “trespass” by “intermeddling” with the defendant’s vehicle. More specifically, Nero put his paws on the side of the car:

For the reasons discussed below, a “search” occurs when a drug dog trespasses against the exterior of a vehicle during a “free air” sniff if its physical contact with the vehicle amounts to “intermeddling” at common law. In this case, a drug dog intermeddled with Dorff’s vehicle when it jumped onto the driver side door and window, planted two of its paws, and sniffed the vehicle’s upper seams. Accordingly, law enforcement conducted a warrantless and unlawful “search” of Dorff’s vehicle by way of its drug dog.

Nero should have studied the relevant legal precedents more carefully! His  more learned predecessor, Caligula, would never have made such an obvious mistake.

On a slightly more serious note, I am no Fourth Amendment expert. But the case does interest me in my capacity as both a property law professor, and a longtime dog owner.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Brody, reasons that a “search” occurs if a police officer (or, in this case, his dog) trespasses on the defendant’s property, and that physical contact with the property qualifies as a trespass if it rises to the level of “intermeddling”:

At common law, a “trespass” to chattel occurs when an actor violates “the dignitary interest in the inviolability of chattels,” PROSSER & KEETON, at 87, i.e., those “interests” that comprise the “bundle of sticks” (e.g., the right to use, possess, and exclude).An actor violates such interest“either by intentionally using or otherwise intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another or by continuing to use or intermeddle therewith after a privilege to do so has been terminated.” RESTATEMENT (FIRST) OF TORTS § 217 (1934) (emphasis added)….

The physical contact with the chattel must amount to “intermeddling” for a “trespass” to occur, and although some contact to the exterior surface of a chattel in every-day type commotions will be insufficient, entering into another’s chattel—and thereby intruding against the inviolability of the chattel’s “close”—is a form of “intermeddling” that suffers no de minimus exception.... Intermeddling is the difference between someone who brushes up against your purse while walking by—and someone who, without privilege or consent, rests their hand on your purse or puts their fingers into your purse…. It is alsothe difference between a dog’s tail that brushes against the bumper of your vehicle as it walks by—and a dog who, without privilege or consent, approaches your vehicle to jump on its roof, sit on its hood, stand on its window or door—or enter into your vehicle….

Nero fell on the “intermeddling side of the line:

[W]hen Nero approached the driver’s side on his second pass, he clearly trespassed against Dorff’s vehicle. The footage reflects that when Nero reached the front driver side door, he jumped up onto the door, and planted his two front paws on the door (and then the window) as he sniffed the upper seams of the vehicle. Although the length of time Nero had his paws on the vehicle is not dispositive of whether Nero’s doing so amounted to intermeddling, the seconds that do pass while Nero stood on, and occupied, Dorff’s vehicle—without privilege or Dorff’s consent—is enough to objectively constitute a wrongful trespass against, and intermeddling with, Dorff’s vehicle, and his right to exclude. And as we have said before, “there is no asterisk to the Fourth Amendment excusing the unconstitutional acts of law enforcement when they are accomplished by means of a trained dog.”Howard, 169 Idaho at 382, 496 P.3d at 868. Thus, although it was accomplished by Nero, it was law enforcement who violated Dorff’s dignitary interest in maintaining the inviolability of his chattel….

Woof!

I think it’s pretty obvious that a drug-sniffing dog jumping on the side of your car and placing his paws on the window qualifies as a “trespass to chattel” under the common law. And that’s true regardless of whether it can be described as “intermeddling.” Such an action is also a trespass because it temporarily “dispossesses” the owner, in so far as he cannot safely drive the car so long as the dog is on it.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Moeller appears to agree that Nero’s actions may qualify as a search, but argues that it wasn’t an “unreasonable” one because it wasn’t a sufficiently grave “physical intrusion.” It therefore didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. I will leave that issue to the Fourth Amendment experts.

Chief Justice Bevan joined Moeller’s dissent, and also wrote a separate dissent arguing that “a dog’s instinct to jump cannot be imputed to its officer-handler when the dog acts without instruction” and therefore Nero’s actions do not qualify as a true search by the police. This argument makes little sense. The dog didn’t just spontaneously jump on the car. It did so while sniffing for drugs under the direction of his handler. Surely the officer is responsible for controlling the dog in such a situation.

If I am walking my dog down the street and she jumps on another pedestrian—or on a car—surely I am responsible, and am liable for any damage or trespass the dog inflicts. Police K-9 handlers should be held to at least the same standards as ordinary dog owners.

The possibility of trespass to chattel is far from the only problem with drug-sniffing dogs. They also often make mistakes, including ones motivated by the desire to please their law-enforcement handlers, who may want false alerts in order to facilitate asset forfeiture abuse. In an era of widespread marijuana legalization, drug-sniffing dogs have become even less reliable than before, because they may “alert” to marijuana, despite its no longer being illegal in a given jurisdiction.

 

The post Idaho Supreme Court Rules Fourth Amendment Violated When Drug-Sniffing Dog "Intermeddled" With Defendant's Car appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/yS1NavU
via IFTTT

Circus Politics Are Intended To Distract Us. Don’t Be Distracted

Circus Politics Are Intended To Distract Us. Don’t Be Distracted

Authored by John and Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“There is nothing more dangerous than a government of the many controlled by the few.”

– Lawrence Lessig, Harvard law professor

It is easy to be distracted right now by the bread and circus politics that have dominated the news headlines lately, but don’t be distracted.

Don’t be fooled, not even a little.

We’re being subjected to the oldest con game in the books, the magician’s sleight of hand that keeps you focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is being picked clean by ruffians in your midst.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

What characterizes American government today is not so much dysfunctional politics as it is ruthlessly contrived governance carried out behind the entertaining, distracting and disingenuous curtain of political theater. And what political theater it is, diabolically Shakespearean at times, full of sound and fury, yet in the end, signifying nothing.

We are being ruled by a government of scoundrels, spies, thugs, thieves, gangsters, ruffians, rapists, extortionists, bounty hunters, battle-ready warriors and cold-blooded killers who communicate using a language of force and oppression.

The U.S. government now poses the greatest threat to our freedoms.

More than terrorism, more than domestic extremism, more than gun violence and organized crime, even more than the perceived threat posed by any single politician, the U.S. government remains a greater menace to the life, liberty and property of its citizens than any of the so-called dangers from which the government claims to protect us.

No matter who has occupied the White House in recent years, the Deep State has succeeded in keeping the citizenry divided and at each other’s throats.

After all, as long as we’re busy fighting each other, we’ll never manage to present a unified front against tyranny in any form.

Unfortunately, what we are facing is tyranny in every form.

The facts speak for themselves.

We’re being robbed blind by a government of thieves. Americans no longer have any real protection against government agents empowered to seize private property at will. For instance, police agencies under the guise of asset forfeiture laws are taking Americans’ personal property based on little more than a suspicion of criminal activity and keeping it for their own profit and gain. In one case, police seized more than $17,000 in cash from two sisters who were trying to start a dog breeding business. Despite finding no evidence of wrongdoing, police held onto the money for months. Homeowners are losing their homes over unpaid property taxes (as little as $2300 owed) that amount to a fraction of what they have invested in their homes. And then there’s the Drug Enforcement Agency, which has been searching train and airline passengers and pocketing their cash, without ever charging them with a crime.

We’re being taken advantage of by a government of scoundrels, idiots and cowards. Journalist H.L. Mencken calculated that “Congress consists of one-third, more or less, scoundrels; two-thirds, more or less, idiots; and three-thirds, more or less, poltroons.” By and large, Americans seem to agree. When you’ve got government representatives who spend a large chunk of their work hours fundraising, being feted by lobbyists, shuffling through a lucrative revolving door between public service and lobbying, and making themselves available to anyone with enough money to secure access to a congressional office, you’re in the clutches of a corrupt oligarchy. Mind you, these same elected officials rarely read the legislation they’re enacting, nor do they seem capable of enacting much legislation that actually helps the plight of the American citizen. More often than not, the legislation lands the citizenry in worse straits.

We’re being locked up by a government of greedy jailers. We have become a carceral state, spending three times more on our prisons than on our schools and imprisoning close to a quarter of the world’s prisoners, despite the fact that crime is at an all-time low and the U.S. makes up only 5% of the world’s population. The rise of overcriminalization and profit-driven private prisons provides even greater incentives for locking up American citizens for such non-violent “crimes” as having an overgrown lawn. As the Boston Review points out, “America’s contemporary system of policing, courts, imprisonment, and parole … makes money through asset forfeiture, lucrative public contracts from private service providers, and by directly extracting revenue and unpaid labor from populations of color and the poor. In states and municipalities throughout the country, the criminal justice system defrays costs by forcing prisoners and their families to pay for punishment. It also allows private service providers to charge outrageous fees for everyday needs such as telephone calls. As a result people facing even minor criminal charges can easily find themselves trapped in a self-perpetuating cycle of debt, criminalization, and incarceration.”

We’re being spied on by a government of Peeping Toms. The government, along with its corporate partners, is watching everything you do, reading everything you write, listening to everything you say, and monitoring everything you spend. Omnipresent surveillance is paving the way for government programs that profile citizens, document their behavior and attempt to predict what they might do in the future, whether it’s what they might buy, what politician they might support, or what kinds of crimes they might commit. The impact of this far-reaching surveillance, according to Psychology Today, is “reduced trust, increased conformity, and even diminished civic participation.” As technology analyst Jillian C. York concludes, “Mass surveillance without due process—whether undertaken by the government of Bahrain, Russia, the US, or anywhere in between—threatens to stifle and smother that dissent, leaving in its wake a populace cowed by fear.”

We’re being ravaged by a government of ruffians, rapists and killers. It’s not just the police shootings of unarmed citizens that are worrisome. It’s the SWAT team raids gone wrongmore than 80,000 annually—that are leaving innocent citizens wounded, children terrorized and family pets killed. It’s the roadside strip searches—in some cases, cavity searches of men and women alike carried out in full view of the public—in pursuit of drugs that are never found. It’s the potentially lethal—and unwarranted—use of so-called “nonlethal” weapons such as tasers on children for “mouthing off to a police officer. For trying to run from the principal’s office. For, at the age of 12, getting into a fight with another girl.”

We’re being forced to surrender our freedoms—and those of our children—to a government of extortionists, money launderers and professional pirates. The American people have repeatedly been sold a bill of goods about how the government needs more money, more expansive powers, and more secrecy (secret courts, secret budgets, secret military campaigns, secret surveillance) in order to keep us safe. Under the guise of fighting its wars on terror, drugs and now domestic extremism, the government has spent billions in taxpayer dollars on endless wars that have not ended terrorism but merely sown the seeds of blowback, surveillance programs that have caught few terrorists while subjecting all Americans to a surveillance society, and militarized police that have done little to decrease crime while turning communities into warzones. Not surprisingly, the primary ones to benefit from these government exercises in legal money laundering have been the corporations, lobbyists and politicians who inflict them on a trusting public.

We’re being held at gunpoint by a government of soldiers: a standing army. As if it weren’t enough that the American military empire stretches around the globe (and continues to leech much-needed resources from the American economy), the U.S. government is creating its own standing army of militarized police and teams of weaponized, federal bureaucrats. These civilian employees are being armed to the hilt with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment; authorized to make arrests; and trained in military tactics. Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles and LP gas cannons are the Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, IRS, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities. There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government civilians armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines. That doesn’t even begin to touch on the government’s arsenal, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, and the speed with which the nation could be locked down under martial law depending on the circumstances.

Whatever else it may be—a danger, a menace, a threat—the U.S. government is certainly no friend to freedom.

To our detriment, the criminal class that Mark Twain mockingly referred to as Congress has since expanded to include every government agency that feeds off the carcass of our once-constitutional republic.

The government and its cohorts have conspired to ensure that the only real recourse the American people have to hold the government accountable or express their displeasure with the government is through voting, which is no real recourse at all.

Consider it: the penalties for civil disobedience, whistleblowing and rebellion are severe. If you refuse to pay taxes for government programs you believe to be immoral or illegal, you will go to jail. If you attempt to overthrow the government—or any agency thereof—because you believe it has overstepped its reach, you will go to jail. If you attempt to blow the whistle on government misconduct, you will go to jail. In some circumstances, if you even attempt to approach your elected representative to voice your discontent, you can be arrested and jailed.

You cannot have a republican form of government—nor a democratic one, for that matter—when the government views itself as superior to the citizenry, when it no longer operates for the benefit of the people, when the people are no longer able to peacefully reform their government, when government officials cease to act like public servants, when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, when the government routinely violates the rights of the people and perpetrates more violence against the citizenry than the criminal class, when government spending is unaccountable and unaccounted for, when the judiciary act as courts of order rather than justice, and when the government is no longer bound by the laws of the Constitution.

We no longer have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Rather, what we have is a government of wolves.

For too long, the American people have obeyed the government’s dictates, no matter now unjust.

We have paid its taxes, penalties and fines, no matter how outrageous. We have tolerated its indignities, insults and abuses, no matter how egregious. We have turned a blind eye to its indiscretions and incompetence, no matter how imprudent. We have held our silence in the face of its lawlessness, licentiousness and corruption, no matter how illicit.

How long we will continue to suffer depends on how much we’re willing to give up for the sake of freedom.

For the moment, the American people seem content to sit back and watch the reality TV programming that passes for politics today. It’s the modern-day equivalent of bread and circuses, a carefully calibrated exercise in how to manipulate, polarize, propagandize and control a population.

As French philosopher Etienne de La Boétie observed half a millennium ago:

“Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.”

The bait towards slavery. The price of liberty. The instruments of tyranny.

Yes, that sounds about right.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, “We the people” have learned only too well how to be slaves.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 03/23/2023 – 00:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/02TeBsG Tyler Durden

Why Hypersonic Weapons Change Everything

Why Hypersonic Weapons Change Everything

Authored by Alex Krainer via TrendCompass,

When it comes to all matters military, I have been following a handful of analysts among whom Croatian Admiral Davorin Domazet (retired) emerged as perhaps my favorite. He has deep and detailed command of technical matters (like Andreiy Martyanov he insists that you can’t prevail in modern warfare without deep knowledge of of advanced mathematics and probability). More importantly, he has perhaps the clearest understanding of the broad historical context of today’s clash between Russia and the western powers.

Unfortunately, Admiral Domazet does not give many interviews and none in English, but I thought that his last one was important enough to share more broadly in this article.

If you happen to speak Croatian/Serbian languages, you can find the interview, published on 17 March 2023 at this link. It runs over 2 hours.

The context is everything

Domazet is the only military analyst that I know of, who takes into account the history of western financial oligarchy, their Venetian roots, migration to Amsterdam where they formed the Dutch Empire, and subsequent move to London which, to this day remains the ideological and spiritual headquarters of the undead British Empire.

He has correctly labelled humanity’s enemy as the “western occult oligarchy,” and has even called the war in Ukraine as the clash between Christ and anti-Christ, underlining that the anti-Christ is in the west. Mind you Croatia is a NATO member state and is, like Poland, a catholic Slavic nation, sharing even some of its cultural Russophobia (though it may not be quite as rabid in Croatia as it is in Poland).

About Russia’s hypersonic weapons

However, the part of Domazet’s last interview that I found particularly worth sharing wass what he laid out about Russia’s hypersonic weapons.

It was in 2018 that Vladimir Putin took the stage to present Russia’s new hypersonic weapons. The term “hypersonic” refers to missiles that fly at speeds of 5 mach and higher. At the time, many in the west dismissed Putin’s claims and thought it was a bluff. We now know that he wasn’t bluffing. Russia is the only country in the world that has deployment-ready hypersonic missiles – not one but three types: Zircons, Kinzhals and Avantguards. 

Domazet explained why these weapons are radical game changers in warfare. Namely, in World War 1, tanks were the game changing military technology; since World War 2, it’s been the air-force. Aircraft carrier strike groups have been an irresistible force wherever they travelled, dominating the seas ever since. But hypersonic precision missiles have rendered that force obsolete overnight.

The main military front in today’s global conflict, according to Domazet, are the Anti-Ballistic (ABM) batteries which the US has set up on the Poland-Romania axis, and the Russians on the North Pole-Kaliningrad-Crimea-Syria axis. These are defensive systems, conceived to intercept incoming nuclear missiles. However, today’s ABM systems are only effective against missiles flying at speeds up to mach 3.5 (3.5 x the speed of sound).

The Kinzhal turns mighty aircraft carrier strike groups into sitting ducks

Russia’s new Kinzhal missile flies at speeds of mach 12 to mach 15 and nothing in western defensive arsenals can stop its strike. During the war in Ukraine, Russia a stunning demonstration of its power. The first Kinzhal strike, delivered one month after the beginning of hostilities in Ukraine, was perhaps the most significant: Russian forces targeted a large weapons depot in Ukraine which had been built to withstand a nuclear strike. It was buried 170 meters (over 500 ft) underground and protected by several layers of armored concrete.

The Kinzhal flies at altitudes of between 20 and 40 km, with a maximum range of 2,000 km. When above target, it dives perpendicularly and accelerates to 15 mach, gathering enormous kinetic energy in addition to its explosive payload. That first strike with a single Kinzhal missile destroyed Ukraine’s nuke-proof underground weapons depot. This was a message for the west. 

Moscow calling: we can sink ALL your carriers

The Kinzhal was developed with the express purpose of destroying aircraft carrier strike groups. If it could destroy a warehouse built to withstand a nuclear strike, it can cut through an aircraft carrier like a hot knife through butter.

According to Admiral Domazet, neither the western powers nor China are anywhere near having weapons like that. He explained that the critical issue with hypersonic weapons are the extreme temperatures reached during hypersonic flights on the surface of missiles, which can cause the missiles to break apart mid-flight. Russia is the only nation that has developed special materials that enable the missiles to withstand this stress, so their flight can be controlled throughout its trajectory and delivered with pinpoint accuracy.

Western intelligence estimated that Russia had some 50 Kinzhals at the start of the war in Ukraine, and thus far it has used only 9 of them. Last week, they fired six Kinzhals in a single salvo. That too, was a message. Here’s how Domazet explained it: United States have 11 aircraft carrier strike groups. Of these, fewer than half will be active at any one time (while others are in dock for maintenance, or in preparation). Firing six Kinzhals in one go is military-speak for, “we have the capability to sink ALL of your aircraft carriers in at once.”

Russia will run out of ammunitions any minute now, (experts say)…

Russia has the capacity to build about 200 of them per year and now has means of delivering them anywhere from aircraft, ships and submarines. In addition to destroying aircraft carriers, they can destroy NATOs ABM missile sites also. In a nutshell, Russia has – for now – won the arms race.

It could take the western powers 10 years or longer to catch up and until then, the only way to avoid losing the war is to either concede defeat and accept Russia’s security demands, or to escalate the conflict to nuclear exchange.

A conservative estimate suggests that at least a billion people would perish in such a conflict and nobody would win. Who would do such a thing? The idea of using nuclear weapons is, in fact, so repugnant that we can be assured that our leaders will never chose the path of escalation. Surely, nobody’s that evil, are they?

Alex Krainer – @NakedHedgie is the creator of I-System Trend Following and publisher of daily TrendCompass reports. For US investors, we propose an inflation/recession resilient portfolio covering a basket of 30+ financial and commodities markets; in 2022, we significantly outperformed the S&P 500 as well as the 60/40 death trap investment model. For more information, you can drop me a comment or an email to xela.reniark@gmail.com

Alex Krainer’s TrendCompass is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/22/2023 – 23:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/OV4HYFx Tyler Durden

Coronal Hole ’30 Times Earth’s Size’ Hurls Solar Plasma Towards Earth

Coronal Hole ’30 Times Earth’s Size’ Hurls Solar Plasma Towards Earth

NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory released a photo showing a massive coronal hole forming in the sun’s atmosphere, ejecting a stream of fast-moving solar winds toward Earth. 

“The current coronal hole, the big one right now, is about 300,000 to 400,000 kilometers across,” Alex Young, the associate director for science at NASA Goddard’s Heliophysics Science Division, told Bussiness Insider. He said, “that’s about 20-30 Earths lined up back-to-back.” 

Young said coronal holes unleash solar winds that can travel between 500-800 km per second. He explained the coronal mass ejection would reach Earth by Friday. 

“We will probably start seeing the effects of the high-speed wind on March 24.

“When the high-speed wind reaches Earth, the particles and the magnetic field it carries will interact with Earth’s magnetic field, effectively rattling it or like ringing a bell,” he said. 

Space Weather website SolarHam said when the solar winds hit Earth, it will produce a moderate (G2) geomagnetic storm. 

Here’s a visual of the CME’s impacts on modern society

In addition to this week’s geomagnetic storm risk, Sunspot Cycle 25 has already started and is anticipated to be active. This could spell trouble for the digital economy, as disruptions caused by solar flares may lead to economic harm.

Last year, Elon Musk’s satellite internet service Starlink lost 40 satellites after a geomagnetic storm knocked them out of orbit. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/22/2023 – 22:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Gkp3KwU Tyler Durden

A Headline Few Saw Coming: “Barney Frank Was Right About Signature Bank”

A Headline Few Saw Coming: “Barney Frank Was Right About Signature Bank”

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The FDIC all but confirms Signature was closed to send a message about crypto…

Barney Frank Was Right About Signature Bank

The Wall Street Journal comments Barney Frank Was Right About Signature Bank

We never thought we’d write that headline. But on Sunday the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. announced that New York Community Bancorp’s Flagstar Bank will assume all of Signature Bank’s cash deposits except for those of crypto companies. This confirms Mr. Frank’s suspicions—and ours—that Signature’s seizure was motivated by regulators’ hostility toward crypto.

Mr. Frank alleged last week that regulators seized Signature, whose board he served on, “to send a message to get people away from crypto.” 

CoinDesk reported last week that crypto firms were looking for bank accounts off-shore such as at FV Bank in Puerto Rico, Jewel Bank in Bermuda, and Tether and FTX-tied Deltec in the Bahamas. Moving dollar deposits of U.S. crypto companies and their customers offshore will make them less safe and potentially more vulnerable to money laundering.

In other words, regulators are undermining their ostensible goals. As usual, financial regulators shoot first, and make others pay later.

Everything But Crypto

PYMNTS reports Everything But the Crypto: Flagstar Scoops Up Failed Signature Bank

While the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) denied reports that any buyer of Signature Bank would need to divest its crypto business, the buyer, New York Community Bancorp-owned Flagstar Bank, did anyway.

This, as the FDIC noted in a press release announcing the sale, that Flagstar Bank’s bid for Signature Bank did not include around $4 billion of deposits tied to the failed institution’s digital banking business.

“The FDIC will provide these deposits directly to customers whose accounts are associated with the digital banking business,” the agency said in a Sunday (March 19) announcement.

The shuttering of both Silvergate Bank, which voluntarily liquidated, and Signature Bank, which failed, has made it increasingly difficult for crypto platforms and investors to transfer traditional currencies by closing two critical banking on-ramps for the digital asset industry. 

FDIC Statement 

Depositors of Signature Bridge Bank, N.A., other than cash depositors related to the digital-asset banking businesses, will automatically become depositors of the assuming institution. All deposits assumed by Flagstar Bank, N.A., will continue to be insured by the FDIC up to the insurance limit. 

Flagstar Bank’s bid did not include approximately $4 billion of deposits related to the former Signature Bank’s digital-assets banking business. The FDIC will provide these deposits directly to customers whose accounts are associated with the digital-asset banking businesses. Questions may be directed to (866) 744-5463.

The FDIC estimates the cost of the failure of Signature Bank to its Deposit Insurance Fund to be approximately $2.5 billion. The exact cost will be determined when the FDIC terminates the receivership.

FDIC Statement Translated

The FDI made a Statement on Signature Bank. Here is my translation: 

To punish crypto, we are willing to lose $2.5 billion, even though our solution will require offshore funding, which in turn will make the deposits less safe and more vulnerable to money laundering.

Zero Reserve Banking

Meanwhile, please note Fed Policy: It’s Not Fractional Reserve Banking, It’s ZERO Reserve Banking

If you think I am joking, I am not. 

We are in a banking crisis precisely because of Fed actions coupled with zero reserve requirements on deposits.

*  *  *

Please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/22/2023 – 22:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/abq8Ath Tyler Durden

China Backs Russia’s Draft UN Resolution On Nord Stream Probe

China Backs Russia’s Draft UN Resolution On Nord Stream Probe

China is backing Russian efforts to get to the bottom of the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage attacks, with state-run Xinhua on Wednesday announcing the foreign ministry’s support for a UN Security Council (UNSC) draft resolution.

Russia has gotten more vocal about alleging that Washington was behind it, following the publication of legendary journalist Seymour Hersh’s report which detailed a CIA and US Navy covert op in coordination with Norway’s intelligence services. 

Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Citing a foreign ministry spokesperson, Xinhua reported “Wang made the remarks at a regular press briefing in response to a media query on Russia’s draft resolution at the UNSC in February calling for an international independent investigation commission on the gas pipeline incident.”

“Russia is said to have started the silence procedure on the draft, but the United States and some other Western members of the UNSC broke silence and objected to such a commission.”

Moscow and Beijing have taken Washington’s resistance to its resolution as a sign of guilt, while also suggesting Western allies are obfuscating

Wang said China has also noticed the attitude of some Western members of the UNSC and hopes they will truly abandon geopolitical selfish interest, earnestly fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of UNSC members, and constructively participate in the consultations of the draft to make positive efforts for an early consensus on the resolution. 

The Kremlin has also lately highlighted that the latest mainstream media narrative out of the West is meant to distract and divert the spotlight off Washington.

The theory that’s gained prominence is that rogue Ukrainian partisans blew up the natural gas pipelines on September 26. However, Russian officials have laughed this off, stressing that the bombing would have been of such difficulty as to require the resources of a government and military/intelligence apparatus. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/22/2023 – 22:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/gtEdWQ5 Tyler Durden

Stanford Dean’s Letter and Limited-Purpose Institutions

To second an important point made in Dean Martinez’s new letter (discussed in David Bernstein’s post below): law schools, like other institutions, sometimes have good moral reasons to stay silent on important moral questions.

At the same time, I want to set expectations clearly going forward: our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion is not going to take the form of having the school administration announce institutional positions on a wide range of current social and political issues, make frequent institutional statements about current news events, or exclude or condemn speakers who hold views on social and political issues with whom some or even many in our community disagree. I believe that focus on these types of actions as the hallmark of an “inclusive” environment can lead to creating and enforcing an institutional orthodoxy that is not only at odds with our core commitment to academic freedom, but also that would create an echo chamber that ill prepares students to go out into and act as effective advocates in a society that disagrees about many important issues. Some students might feel that some points should not be up for argument and therefore that they should not bear the responsibility of arguing them (or even hearing arguments about them), but however appealing that position might be in some other context, it is incompatible with the training that must be delivered in a law school. Law students are entering a profession in which their job is to make arguments on behalf of clients whose very lives may depend on their professional skill. Just as doctors in training must learn to face suffering and death and respond in their professional role, lawyers in training must learn to confront injustice or views they don’t agree with and respond as attorneys.

The more that we disagree, the more that we need limited-purpose institutions, in which people can come together on discrete issues notwithstanding their disagreements on others. That kind of neutrality isn’t moral indifference; it’s moral commitment to achieving the institution’s goals. As I argued in 2020:

Some of those people might have been surprised at political spam from their expense reporting company. . . . And a few customers have dropped Expensify since, protesting the misuse of their email lists. But whatever happens to Expensify, the episode reminded me of a passage by Yuval Levin, on treating institutions as platforms:

We now think of institutions less as formative and more as performative, less as molds of our character and behavior, and more as platforms for us to stand on and be seen. And so for one arena to another in American life, we see people using institutions as stages, as a way to raise their profile or build their brand. And those kinds of institutions become much harder to trust.

Institutions get weaker as their purposes expand. Once every #brand has had to pick a side on Kashmir or the filioque clause, no one can tell them apart. Whatever makes Expensify distinct, whatever unique contribution it offers—saving time and money! making employees’ lives easier!—seems pale and wan next to the great causes of the day.

But the great advantage of limited-purpose institutions is that they let us achieve their limited purposes while still disagreeing on other things. Everyone gets this instinctively when it comes to “Sir, this is a Wendy’s.” Sometimes mundane things like lunch take precedence over great moral conflicts: not because the conflicts are unimportant, but because we shouldn’t hold up the drive-thru line until the great conflicts are resolved. It’s precisely when the issues are important—and divisive—that we need limited-purpose institutions most.

The post Stanford Dean's Letter and Limited-Purpose Institutions appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/WmtVPvx
via IFTTT

Detransitioned Teen Girl Sues Kaiser Permanente Over Gender Transition Gone Wrong

Detransitioned Teen Girl Sues Kaiser Permanente Over Gender Transition Gone Wrong

Authored by Elizabeth Dowell via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A detransitioned teen is suing Kaiser Permanente hospital because doctors removed her breasts during her transgender procedure.

A Kaiser Permanente hospital in Anaheim, Calif., on March 24, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

Layla Jane is an 18-year-old woman who began to identify as transgender at age 11. Jane, at the time, wanted to transition to a male. Initially, doctors at Kaiser denied her any transition hormones, saying she could take them after turning 16. However, doctors changed their minds, approved her request, and performed a double mastectomy when she was 13.

Jane wrote on Twitter, “Mind boggling to me that a doctor signed off on a double mastectomy for me before I took a sex ed course. I barely started 8th grade, I was 13.”

Chloe Cole participates in a demonstration in Anaheim, Calif., on Oct. 8, 2022. (Brad Jones/The Epoch Times)

In the letter of intent to sue (pdf), her attorneys at LiMandri and Jonna LLP accused the doctors of approving the breast-removal surgery “without performing an adequate evaluation and treatment of Layla’s extensive mental health co-morbidities.”

According to the letter, Jane suffers from anxiety, depression, pubertal struggles, body dysmorphia, and serious self-image concerns.

These doctors also pushed Layla and her parents down this transition path engaging in intentional, malicious, and oppressive concealment of important information and false representations,” the letter states.

The lawsuit demands unspecified amounts of pay for damages related to her health issues during her transition period from ages 12 to 17. The case listed Jane as suffering from permanent, irreversible mutilation, an induced state of endocrine disease, an increased risk of being infertile, and the fact that she would never be able to breastfeed a child.

During an appearance on Fox News with her attorney, Harmeet Dhillon, Jane said, “I don’t think I’m better off for the experience, and I think transition just completely added fuel to the fire that was my pre-existing conditions.”

In a statement to DailyMail, Kaiser said that its doctors “practice compassionate, evidence-based medicine founded on sound research and best medical practices.”

When adolescent patients, with parental support, seek gender-affirming care, the patient’s care team carefully evaluates their treatment options,” Kaiser spokesman Marc Brown said. “The care decisions always rest with the patient and their parents, and, in every case, we respect the patients and their families’ informed decisions about their personal health.”

The Epoch Times reached out to Kaiser for comment.

Chloe Cole, 18, is another young woman who detransitioned and filed a lawsuit against the hospital giant.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/22/2023 – 21:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/6sz4Akj Tyler Durden

“We Are Headed For Another Train Wreck”: Bill Ackman Blames Janet Yellen For Restarting The Bank Run

“We Are Headed For Another Train Wreck”: Bill Ackman Blames Janet Yellen For Restarting The Bank Run

Yesterday morning we joked that every time Janet Yellen opens her mouth, stocks dump.

Well, it wasn’t a joke, and as we repeatedly noted today, while Jerome Powell was busting his ass to prevent a violent market reaction – in either direction – to his “most important Fed decision and presser of 2023”, the Treasury Secretary, with all the grace of a senile 76-year-old elephant in a China market, uttered the phrase…

  • YELLEN: NOT CONSIDERING BROAD INCREASE IN DEPOSIT INSURANCE

… and the rest was silence… or rather selling.

Commenting on our chart, Bloomberg’s Mark Cudmore noted it was Yellen who was “to blame for the stock slump”, pointing out that “the pessimistic turn in US stocks began within a minute of Janet Yellen starting to speak.”

The S&P 500 rose almost 1% in the first 47 minutes after the Fed decision. Powell wasn’t the problem either: the index was 0.6% higher in the first 17 minutes after his press conference started.

Why am I picking that exact timing of 2:47pm NY time? Because that is the minute Yellen started speaking at the Senate panel hearing. The high for the S&P 500 was 2:48pm NY time and it fell more than 2.5% over the subsequent 72 minutes. Good effort.

Picking up on this, Bloomberg’s Mark Cranfield writes that banking stocks globally are set to underperform for longer after Janet Yellen pushed back against giving deposit insurance without working with lawmakers. He adds that “to an aggressive trader this sounds like an invitation to keep shorting bank stocks — at least until the tone changes into broader support and is less focused on specific bank situations.” Earlier, we addressed that too:

Looking ahead, Cranfield warns that US financials are likely to be the most vulnerable as they are the epicenter of the debate. Although European or Asian banking names may outperform US peers, that won’t be much consolation for investors as most financial sector indexes may be on a downward path.

The KBW bank index has tumbled from its highs seen in early February, but still has a way to go before it reaches the pandemic-nadir in 2020. Traders smell an opening for a big trade and that will fuel more downside. Probably until Yellen blinks.

And if Bill Ackman is right, she will be doing a whole lot of blinking in days if not hours.

Ackman crying in public

While we generally make fun of Ackman’s self-serving hot takes on twitter, today he was right when he accused Yellen of effectively restarting the small bank depositor run which according to JPMorgan has already seen $1.1 trillion in assets withdrawn from “vulnerable” banks. This is what Ackman tweeted:

Yesterday, @SecYellen  made reassuring comments that led the market and depositors to believe that all deposits were now implicitly guaranteed. That coupled with a leak suggesting that @USTreasury, @FDICgov and @SecYellen  were looking for a way to guarantee all deposits reassured the banking sector and depositors.

This afternoon, @SecYellen walked back yesterday’s implicit support for small banks and depositors, while making it explicit that systemwide deposit guarantees were not being considered.

We have gone from implicit support for depositors to @SecYellen explicit statement today that no guarantee is being considered with rates now being raised to 5%. 5% is a threshold that makes bank deposits that much less attractive. I would be surprised if deposit outflows don’t accelerate effective immediately.

Ackman concluded by repeating his ask: a comprehensive deposit guarantee on America’s $18 trillion in assets…

A temporary systemwide deposit guarantee is needed to stop the bleeding. The longer the uncertainty continues, the more permanent the damage is to the smaller banks, and the more difficult it will be to bring their customers back.

… but as we noted previously pointing out, you know, the math…

… absent bipartisan Congressional intervention – which is very much unlikely until the bank crisis gets much, much worse – this won’t happen and instead the Fed will continue putting out bank fire after bank fire – even as it keeps hiking to overcompensate for its “transitory inflation” idiocy from 2021, until the entire system burns down, something which Ackman’s follow-up tweet was also right about:

Consider recent events impact on the long-term cost of equity capital for non-systemically important banks where you can wake up one day as a shareholder or bondholder and your investment instantly goes to zero. When combined with the higher cost of debt and deposits due to rising rates, consider what the impact will be on lending rates and our economy.

The longer this banking crisis is allowed to continue, the greater the damage to smaller banks and their ability to access low-cost capital.

Trust and confidence are earned over many years, but can be wiped out in a few days. I fear we are heading for another a train wreck. Hopefully, our regulators will get this right.

Narrator: no, they won’t.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 03/22/2023 – 21:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/M9yUJX6 Tyler Durden