Month: August 2024

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Over the years, I have written repeatedly (here, here, here, here, and here) about the interesting defamation case brought by Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, against the New York Times. The judge in the case U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff was previously reversed and proceeded to issue novel and deeply flawed rulings before dismissing her case. 

He has now been reversed again and Palin will have a new opportunity to sue the newspaper. Given Judge Rakoff’s dismal record in this case, it is concerning that he will be allowed to preside in any new trial.

In the opinion below, the three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a 2022 jury verdict in favor of the New York Times due to the errors of Judge Rakoff.

The case involves an editorial that suggested Palin inspired or incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). It was outrageously and demonstrably untrue. The editorial was published in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and other GOP members of Congress by James T. Hodgkinson, of Illinois, 66, a liberal activist and campaign supporter of Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). It appears The Times wanted to shift the narrative back to right-wing violence; it stated that SarahPAC, Palin’s political action committee, had posted a graphic that put Giffords in crosshairs before she was shot, described it as direct incitement of violence and opined that while not as guilty as Palin, “liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.”

In reality, the map SarahPAC distributed put targets on various districts that were viewed as possible flip districts by Republicans, and the map was published long before the shooting.

Previously, Rakoff insisted that he was “not at all happy to make this decision” but that he was, again, forced to dismiss the case because the Supreme Court established “a very high standard for actual malice” for public figures in seeking recovery for defamation. He was referring to the New York Times v. Sullivan standard requiring a showing that a false statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

The Times helped create this standard as the victim of a bias campaign. The status is far less obvious today. For many, the Palin controversy exposed the “advocacy journalism” now in vogue in the media. The hit piece on Palin was all-too-familiar for conservatives and Republicans routinely targeted by the newspaper. In that sense, the Times has become the very thing that the original decision sought to combat: a threat to free speech. The Times, they argue, often uses this protection to shield false attacks on political opponents.

Decades ago, The Times was being targeted by segregationists who wanted to deter media from publishing accounts of segregationists opposing the civil rights movement. This effort was creating such a threat that media had to choose between a type of self-censorship or insolvency. In his concurrence in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice Hugo Black said that “state libel laws threaten the very existence of an American press virile enough to publish unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of public officials.”

After he was reversed in dismissing the case, Rakoff proceeded to again dismiss the case after the jury was sent to reach a verdict. He declared that Palin had failed to offer evidence that would satisfy the minimum of the actual malice standard. I criticized that ruling as legally flawed. There was clearly sufficient evidence to allow a jury to render a verdict.

The Second Circuit agreed and reversed Rakoff in finding that Palin did cite sufficient evidence on actual malice.

However, it was the handling of the case by Judge Rakoff that added additional reversible errors. Rakoff had not sequestered the jury and his dismissal was reported widely. The jury learned of the decision and ruled against Palin. While some jurors said that the news did not impact their decision, the Second Circuit correctly rejected the claim. The appellate panel ruled that “[w]e think a jury’s verdict reached with the knowledge of the judge’s already-announced disposition of the case will rarely be untainted, no matter what the jurors say upon subsequent inquiry.”

To make matters worse, Rakoff instructed the jury not to speak to the media after the case, an abusive demand that worked to protect his own errors. Jurors are free to discuss cases after a dismissal or verdict.

Palin was already under a great disadvantage as a leading Republican being tried before a New York jury. Rakoff added to that burden with a series of flawed decisions. Even after being previously reversed, Rakoff appeared intent on dismissing the case.

I previously wrote about the case because it highlighted a concern about the extension of New York Times v. Sullivan from public officials to public figures.

As I wrote previously, Justice William Brennan wrote arguably his most eloquent and profound decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.

News outfits were being targeted at the time by anti-segregation figures in lawsuits to deter them from covering the civil rights marches. The court correctly saw civil liability as creating a chilling effect on the free press either by draining the publications of funds or inducing a type of self-censorship. Imposing a high standard for proof of defamation, Brennan sought to give the free press “breathing space” to carry out its key function in our system.

The court believed that public officials have ample means to rebut false statements, but that it’s essential for democracy for voters and reporters to be able to challenge government officials. To achieve that breathing space, the court required that public officials had to prove “actual malice,” where the defendant had actual knowledge of the falsity of a statement or showed reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

Two justices have indicated that they might be open to the idea of revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan. Justice Clarence Thomas has been a long critic of the standard as unsupported in either the text or the history of the Constitution. Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch objected last year to the denial of certiorari in Berisha v. Lawson, in which author Guy Lawson published a book detailing the “true story” of three Miami youngsters who allegedly became international arms dealers.

It was a success and landed a movie deal. A central figure in the story was Shkelzen Berisha, the son of Albania’s former prime minister. He sued Lawson alleging defamation and claimed that he was not, as portrayed, an associate of the Albanian mafia and that Lawson used unreliable sources for his account.

Berisha is a public figure rather than a public official. The problem is that there is one missing element to imposing a higher burden on public figures like Berisha: furthering the democratic process. In teaching defamation, the actual malice standard rests convincingly on a democratic rationale that a free people and a free press must have breathing space to criticize the government and their leaders. It helps protect and perfect democracy.

For 30 years, I have struggled in class to offer the same compelling rationale for applying the standard to anyone who is considered a public figure. It takes very little to qualify as a public figure, or a “limited-purpose public figure.” However, why should private success alone expose someone like the Kardashians to a higher burden of proof for defamation? Writing about hot-dog-eating champion Michelle Lesco does not protect core democratic principles or even support core journalistic principles. To succeed, a Kardashian would still have to prove that a statement was false and unreasonable to print. Moreover, publications are protected in most states by retraction statutes limiting or blocking damages for corrected stories. Finally, opinion is already protected from defamation actions.

These are difficult questions that warrant serious discussion not only on the court but also in society. For example, there may be a more credible basis for imposing a higher standard on public figures on subjects of great public interest. However, what constitutes a legitimate public matter, particularly when that matter is based on a false account?

Take Nicholas Sandmann, who was pulled into a vortex of coverage due to the false claim that he abused an elderly Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Sandmann has secured settlements for the biased and false reporting of major media outlets. Defamation still protects opinion without the reliance on a higher constitutional standard for figures like Sandmann.

Clearly, the public figure standard is an obvious benefit to the media. However, without a compelling argument for a constitutional standard for public figures, it seems more like a judicially maintained subsidy or shield. The purpose of Times v. Sullivan was not to simply prop up the press. The Palin case and other cases could present a new opportunity for the court to review the doctrine.

Palin, however, must now go back before Judge Rakoff and a New York jury, something that has proven a deadly combination. If her case ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, it may allow for a reconsideration of the extension of New York Times v. Sullivan to public figures.

Here is the opinion: Palin v. New York Times

After tumbling in April, and rebounding modestly in June, analysts expected a continued gain in pending home sales in July, but it wasn’t meant to be: moments ago the NAR reported that in July, Pending Home Sales tumbled 5.5% MoM, a huge miss to the 0.2% expected gain (and down from a 4.8% increase in June), and also slumped 4.6% YoY, a modest improvement from the 7.8% plunged in June but also missing expectations of a -2.0% drop.

That dragged the Pending home sales index to 70.2%, a fresh record low.

The Pending Home Sales Index is a leading indicator for the housing sector, based on pending sales of existing homes. A sale is listed as pending when the contract has been signed but the transaction has not closed, though the sale usually is finalized within one or two months of signing.

“A sales recovery did not occur in midsummer. The positive impact of job growth and higher inventory could not overcome affordability challenges and some degree of wait-and-see related to the upcoming U.S. presidential election,” NAR Chief Economist Lawrence Yun said in a statement.

Sales decreased in all four US regions, especially in the Midwest and South. The Northeast registered the smallest decline last month, and Yun noted the New England region has performed better than others recently.

• The Northeast PHSI waned 1.4% from last month to 64.6, an increase of 2.4% from July 2023. The Midwest index reduced 7.8% to 67.8 in July, down 11.4% from one year ago.
• The South PHSI sank 6.5% to 83.5 in July, falling 11.5% from the prior year. The West index shrunk 3.8% in July to 56.2, down 6.0% from July 2023.

“In terms of home sales and prices, the New England region has performed relatively better than other regions in recent months,” added Yun. “Current lower, falling mortgage rates will no doubt bring buyers into market” said the NAR chief economist, although we have yet to actually see modestly lower mortgage rates translate into more buying.

The previously owned home market has been hamstrung by high borrowing costs and collapsing inventory for nearly two years. While mortgage rates have declined this month to the lowest in over a year, high prices and limited inventory are deterring prospective buyers who might still be holding out for cheaper rates.

The rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage is now below 6.5% in the wake of recent comments from Jerome Powell, who said last week “the time has come” for the central bank to cut interest rates.

Lower borrowing costs would help ease one the least affordable housing markets in history. An index of US home prices by S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller hit a fresh record on Tuesday, with prices up 5.4% in the year through June.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping met with US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Thursday at the end of the latter’s three day trip to Beijing, which is a first such trip for a sitting US national security adviser in eight years.

But the most interesting and tense moment came just before that, when Sullivan met one of China’s vice chairs of the Central Military Commission, Gen. Zhang Youxia. The top general confronted Sullivan on growing US support for Taiwan’s military. Zhang informed Sullivan that reunification of Taiwan with the mainland is “the mission and responsibility” of the Chinese PLA military and that it won’t be deterred. Sullivan looked nervous and unsettled throughout the whole encounter, with Zhang confident and beaming.

“China demands that the United States stop military collusion between the U.S. and Taiwan, stop arming Taiwan and stop spreading false narratives about Taiwan,” the statement issued by the defense ministry said.

Sullivan meekly opted for a diplomatic and conciliatory tone in response, saying “it is rare that we have the opportunity to have this kind of exchange” and underscored “the need for us to responsibly manage U.S.-China relations.”

A follow-up White House also statement sought to emphasize the two sides had “recognized the progress in sustained, regular military-military communications over the past 10 months.”

As for statements in the wake of Sullivan’s rare meeting with President Xi, there were the usual expressions of managing competition and avoiding direct conflict:

“We believe that competition with China does not have to lead to conflict or confrontation. The key is responsible management through diplomacy,” he told reporters at a news conference shortly before leaving Beijing.

“While great changes have taken place in the two countries and in China-U.S. relations, China’s commitment to the goal of a stable, healthy and sustainable China-U.S. relationship remains unchanged,” Xi said.

“President Biden is committed to responsibly managing this consequential relationship to ensure that competition does not veer into conflict or confrontation, and to work together where our interests align,” Sullivan continued, echoing the familiar theme.

But the fact that he was confronted by the PLA delegation and was essentially told off concerning the hot button Taiwan issue is likely going to be used by Republicans back home to point out the weaknesses of the Biden White House’s foreign policy.

A main campaign theme of Trump is that the world no longer “respects” America, and the hawks will most certainly highlight Sullivan’s cowering as a PLA general informed him essentially that ‘we will take Taiwan’.

Footage of the meeting shows the Chinese military delegation looking confident, with an unsettled and nervous Sullivan and his team appearing like deer in the headlights…

As for the surprise meeting with Xi, the Chinese leader’s tone was reported to be surprisingly conciliatory, perhaps realizing he’s dealing with a lame duck administration.

“Earlier on Thursday it was revealed that the two sides had agreed to plan a call between Xi and Biden,” The Guardian reports. However, there are “no known plans for the two leaders to meet again in person before the US election in November.”

Just two hours after (ultra) discount retailer Dollar General reported catastrophic earnings, moments ago the Biden Bureau of Economic analysis decided to pull a BLS, and reported in its first revision of Q2 GDP that the US actually grew much stronger than expected on the back of – drumroll – an unexpected surge in personal consumption.

According to the BEA, Q2 GDP was revised to 3.0% from the 2.8% advance estimate, and beat estimates of a 2.8% print.

The number was more than double the 1.4%  growth reported in Q1, and was driven almost entirely by a bizarro surge in personal consumption, which jumped 2.9%, up from 2.3% in the first estimate, and smashed consensus estimates of a 2.2% print.

That’s right: just moments after Dollar General nuked its outlook, blaming a “financially constrained core consumer”, which in this day and age is pretty much any one in what was once the US middle class, the BEA reported that Personal Consumption was a six-sigma beat to expectations!

Looking at the breakdown of GDP components, the BEA reports that the increase in the second quarter primarily reflected increases in consumer spending, private inventory investment, and business investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

• The increase in consumer spending reflected increases in both services and goods. Within services, the leading contributors to the increase were health care, housing and utilities, and recreation services. Within goods, the leading contributors to the increase were gasoline and other energy goods, furnishings and durable household equipment, and recreational goods and vehicles.
• The increase in inventory investment was led by increases in retail trade and wholesale trade industries that were partly offset by a decrease in mining, utilities, and construction industries.
• The increase in business investment reflected increases in equipment and intellectual property products that were partly offset by a decrease in structures.

Compared to the first quarter, the acceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected an upturn in inventory investment and an acceleration in consumer spending. These movements were partly offset by a downturn in housing investment.

Taking a closer look at the various segments we find that aside from personal spending, every other GDP component was revised lower.

• Personal consumption contributed 1.95% to the bottom line GDP, up from 1.57% in the first estimate.
• Fixed Investment was revised modestly lower, to 0.64% in the second revision from 0.53% a month ago.
• The Change in private inventories was also revised modestly lower, from 0.82% to 0.78%.
• Net trade also ended up detracting more from the bottom line print, with exports less imports reducing GDP by -0.77%, a modest deterioration from -0.71% originally reported.
• Finally, the contribution from government was also revised lower, to 0.46% from 0.53%

And visually

While it is far less relevant now, the BEA also reported that in Q2, prices actually rose more than expected, up 2.5%, vs estimates of 2.3%, and down from 3.4% in Q1. Core PCE dipped slightly from the 2.9% reported initially, to 2.8%, and also down from 3.7% in Q1.

In light of the unexpectedly strong spending data, and following up on the continued decline in initial claims reported earlier, one can kiss a 50bps September rate cut goodbye. Commenting on the numbers, UBS trader Simon Penn writes that while the market is pricing 100bp of cuts in the remaining three FOMC meetings of 2024, the economy probably only needs 50bp to recalibrate policy to the appropriate stance, and that “the Fed is likely to deliver 75bp to avoid causing a market upset and to ensure it stays ahead of the growth curve.”

Penn also says that while the upward revision to Q2 GDP might be somewhat rearview but back in June, the FOMC said the economy was sufficiently robust to switch the dot plot from 75bp of cuts to 25bp. Chair Powell noted at the time it was an incredibly fine decision and could have easily been 50bp of cuts. Since then the economy has slowed, but no more than the Fed had been expecting – and as pointed out by UBS chief US economist Jonathan Pingle, employment growth is likely just on the top side of the Fed’s forecasts.

Bottom line from UBS is that “yes, the US economy has slowed, but not to the extent the Fed should be very worried. It seems likely the Fed will cut too much this year (members like Bostic are talking about this concern) but that will mean less cuts next year. Yields should be higher and the curve should be bear steepening.”

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

The Iran-aligned Houthis have agreed to allow salvage crews including rescue ships and tugboats to access an oil tanker that the Houthis hit with a missile in the Red Sea earlier this month.

“Several countries have reached out to ask Ansarullah (the Houthis), requesting a temporary truce for the entry of tugboats and rescue ships into the incident area,” Iran’s mission to the United Nations in New York said, as carried by Reuters.

The Houthi movement has agreed to this request, “in consideration of humanitarian and environmental concerns,” the Iranian mission to the UN added.

Reports last week said a tanker on fire was drifting in the Red Sea. It later emerged that the vessel had come under attack by armed groups traveling on small vessels some 90 miles from the Yemeni port city of Hodeida. The tanker was also reportedly struck by missiles or drones.

“The vessel reports being not under command,” the UK Maritime Trade Operations office said at the time, likely meaning it lost all power. “No casualties reported.”

The Greek-flagged oil tanker, the Sounion, had 25 crew members and was traveling from Iraq to Cyprus. The crew was rescued by a European warship and transported to Djibouti.

Earlier this week, U.S. Pentagon officials said that the Greek tanker that the Yemeni Houthis struck in the Red Sea a week ago is now leaking oil.

“The MV Sounion now sits immobilized in the Red Sea, where it is currently on fire and appears to be leaking oil, presenting both a navigational hazard and a potential environmental catastrophe,” Pentagon Press Secretary Major General Pat Ryder said, as quoted by the Maritime Executive.

The oil tanker holds close to a million barrels of crude oil and if it spills as a result of the strikes, it could become one of the largest oil spills from a vessel in recent history.

Initial jobless claims continue to drift along in the same range it has been in for three years, with unadjusted claims literally near record lows, just in time for the Fed to cut rates following the recent near-record revision to payrolls. Almost as if one hand of the Dept of Labor (initial claims reports) is unaware of what the other hand (Payrolls and especially revisions) is doing.

Broken down by region, the bulk of initial claims (unadjusted) was in the West, followed by the South and Northeast.

The decline in SA and NSA claims appears driven by the normalization of Texas claim post-Beryl…

The weekly change in claims, broken down by state, shows no notable outliers this week.

But we note that continuing jobless claims remains at its highest since Nov 2021…

With all the attention piled on to initial claims to support bullish-narrative-supporting thesis, how the hell can The Fed then turn around and cut rates to ‘save the labor market’ before it’s too late?

As New York City and the MTA devises their next plan to tax or hike prices on everything from owning a vehicle to ‘congestion’ to having a driver’s license to living within 10 miles of the Lincoln Tunnel, we have a thought: maybe just focus on collecting fares from existing riders…

We know it’s controversial, but in the wake of a new New York Times report claiming that 48% of MTA Bus riders fail to pay fares, we can’t help but ask.

The Times reports that before the pandemic, about 20% of bus riders didn’t pay, but this has worsened recently.

Despite this, officials have mainly focused on the subway, deploying police and security to enforce fares, while bus fare evasion remains much higher. In early 2024, nearly half of bus riders evaded fares, compared to 14% on the subway, even though subway ridership is twice as high.

The evasion has cost the MTA “startling” losses—$315 million from bus riders and $285 million from subway riders in 2022, according to a 2023 report.

David R. Jones, an MTA board member and the chief executive of the Community Service Society said: “In the public’s mind, they don’t see the bus system as the real source of fare evasion. We have to get people to recognize that this is no longer acceptable.”

Drivers are increasingly afraid to collect fares due to violent, the report says. Bus driver Robert Freeman said: “First and foremost, I avoid all confrontation. Me, I just concentrate on driving, and I don’t say nothing.”

The NYPD commented:  “New Yorkers have come to expect and rightfully deserve to use the city’s mass transit system without being subjected to acts of lawlessness.”

Some paying riders resent free riders, while advocates for low-income residents fear stricter enforcement will disproportionately impact vulnerable people. The bus system, which serves many older and poorer individuals, has become a focal point in this debate, the Times reported. 

The MTAs ongoing struggle with fare evasion has sparked discussions about whether mass transit should be free, funded by taxes like public services. Assemblyman Zohran K. Mamdani, a Democrat, recently supported a bill for free rides on select bus routes, arguing that New Yorkers cannot afford the current costs.

But the MTA urgently needs fare revenue, facing a projected $1 billion deficit by 2028 due to higher-than-expected fare evasion. Before the pandemic, fares accounted for about 42% of the MTA’s revenue.

The situation worsened when Governor Kathy Hochul canceled a planned congestion pricing program, costing the MTA $15 billion in potential funding.

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

In the wake of three fatal stabbings by a Syrian immigrant whose asylum was denied, the anti-immigration AfD may win three state elections in September.

Knife Attack

NPR reports Man claiming to be behind Solingen knife attack turns himself in, German police say.

A 26-year-old Syrian asylum-seeker turned himself in to police, saying he was responsible for the Solingen knife attack that left three dead and eight wounded at a festival marking the city’s 650th anniversary, German authorities announced early Sunday.

On Saturday the Islamic State militant group claimed responsibility for the attack, without providing evidence. The extremist group said on its news site that the attacker targeted Christians and that he carried out the assaults Friday night “to avenge Muslims in Palestine and everywhere.” The claim couldn’t be independently verified.

The attack comes amid debate over immigration ahead of regional elections next Sunday in Germany’s Saxony and Thueringia regions where anti-immigration parties such as the populist Alternative for Germany are expected to do well. 

According to Reuters, Thuringia and Saxony vote on Sept. 1 and Brandenburg follows on Sept. 22. Combined, the three states have around 8.5 million inhabitants and account for 10% of Germany’s population.

The far-right AfD is expected to emerge as the strongest party in these elections. It may be difficult or impossible for an anti-AfD coalition to suppress AfD.

AfD Crowds Cheer Nation’s Most Feared Politician

The Guardian reports AfD Crowds Cheer Nation’s Most Feared Politician

Three eastern German states hold elections next month and, by a quirk of the calendar, the regions up for grabs are among those with the most supporters of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland. If the polls are accurate, the AfD could wind up the strongest party in all three, a year before the planned date of Germany’s next general election. Depending on who you ask, it would be a political earthquake, a catastrophe or a wake-up call for the country.

The strength of the AfD and a new populist upstart, the “leftwing conservative” Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance), underlines dovetailing trends in Europe’s top economy: mounting frustration with incumbents, anxiety about Germany’s military support for Ukraine and festering divisions between east and west more than three decades after reunification.

Höcke, 52, co-heads the state chapter of the AfD in Thuringia, which will vote on 1 September along with Saxony. The AfD, polling at about 30%, has been classed as “confirmed rightwing extremist” by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the domestic security watchdog, in both states. Brandenburg, the largely rural state surrounding Berlin, will hold its election on 22 September. Its AfD chapter is listed as “suspected rightwing extremist”.

Government Future in Danger

DW reports German Government’s Future in Danger in Regional Elections

Though eastern Germany is often seen as a homogenous region, there are major political differences among the states. While Thuringia has been governed for the last decade by the socialist Left Party under State Premier Bodo Ramelow, Saxony has been led by Michael Kretschmer of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) since 2017.

In both states, the only possible coalitions that keep the AfD out of government (and all the other parties have promised to do that) appear to be an uncomfortable alliance between the CDU and Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW). It would be bizarre partnership: The former is a centrist party that likes to present itself as a rock of stability, tradition, and conservatism, the latter an upstart outfit less than a year old run by a former communist with a gift for populist rhetoric.

“Sahra Wagenknecht is a cult figure in eastern Germany. She leads the party autocratically, and she is a focus of the yearning for authority and leadership in the east,” as Vorländer puts it.

An alliance with the BSW, which is polling at nearly 20% in Thuringia and over 10% in Saxony, is likely to be difficult to digest for some in the CDU. Apart from the fact that Wagenknecht was once a member of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED) in the communist East German dictatorship, she is already making demands that will be difficult for the CDU to accept. For instance, that it should declare itself against the stationing of US medium-range ballistic missiles in Germany.

And though the BSW has consistently distanced itself from the far-right AfD and ruled out any cooperation, one fact looms uncomfortably over this election: The two parties have more in common than sets them apart.

All this leaves Scholz’s SPD in a desperate situation, especially because another eastern German state, Brandenburg, will hold an election three weeks later. Here, too, the AfD is leading the polls, with the SPD and CDU vying for second place.

Yet in some ways, it is Scholz’s coalition partners that have the most to fear from these three elections. The Green Party, currently in government in all three states, is likely to lose that influence, while the neoliberal Free Democrats (FDP) are facing annihilation in the East — probably as punishment for hitching their wagon to the Scholz train. That does not bode well for Scholz’s already fractious coalition.

SPD on the Brink of Extinction

SPD is hovering around 5 percent in opinion polls in both Saxony and Thuringia.

That is the threshold to have any representation in Government.

Saxony Polls

Die Linke (the Left), the Greens, SPD, and FDP are all on the 5 percent boot threshold.

They all deserve the boot. But that does not imply cheering for any of them.

Thuringia Polls

Die Linke is much stronger in Thuringia than Saxony.

Brandenburg Polls

Be prepared to kiss FDP goodbye in a clean sweep.

The Greens appear to go up in flames in Thuringia and hopefully across the board.

The more parties that get booted, the harder it will be to form any coalitions.

It will be impossible to exclude both AfD and BSW. Both are anti-immigration, pro-Russia.

National Elections

The next national election has been set for Sept. 28, 2025.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz says he will run for a second term, but support for his SPD party has collapsed.

The famed traffic light coalition is unworkable with combined support down to 48.5 percent with FDP on the bubble. FDP deserves to get booted for agreeing to join the current coalition mess.

Anyone for another failed “Grand Coalition” between CDU/CSU and SPD?

In a sharp escalation of Italy’s ongoing crackdown on illegal migration across the Mediterranean, the government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has impounded a humanitarian rescue ship for the 23rd time. The vessel, Geo Barents, operated by the international medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), was detained in the port of Salerno this week following its rescue of 191 migrants.

The 60-day detention order, issued on Monday night, is one of the most severe actions taken in an 18-month campaign against humanitarian groups operating in the Mediterranean. Italian authorities accused Geo Barents of endangering lives and failing to provide timely information during a night-time rescue last Friday, when the crew intervened to save migrants from a small fiberglass boat that was being approached by a Libyan coastguard vessel, FT reports.

MSF, however, has rejected these accusations, stating that their crew had “no choice” but to carry out the rescue after witnessing a significant number of people falling—or being pushed—overboard. The charity has labeled the Italian government’s decision as “arbitrary and inhumane.”

The impoundment is in-line with Meloni’s vow to curb irregular migration – a key promise of her administration, which has led to a sharp decrease in migrant arrivals—just over 39,500 this year, compared to 112,500 in the same period last year.

NGOs Protest…

The groups ferrying in illegals – including MSF, Oxfam Italia, and SOS Humanity – have decried the measures as a “systematic obstruction of civilian search and rescue activities,” which they say are now taking a toll in human lives. The groups filed formal complaints with the European Commission over a year ago, questioning whether Italy’s regulations comply with EU and international law. Brussels is still evaluating the matter.

“They are selling this to public opinion as success, but the price is death and very severe human rights violations,” said Juan Matias Gil, who leads MSF’s Mediterranean search and rescue operations.

Of course, globalist leaders have denounced the measures – including Pope Francis. In a strong rebuke during his weekly audience on Wednesday, the pontiff slammed the refusal of aid to migrants crossing the Mediterranean as a “grave sin.”

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has noted that while irregular arrivals to Italy have decreased, the number of shipwrecks and drownings has not seen a corresponding decline. The IOM estimates that at least 1,027 migrants have died or gone missing in the central Mediterranean this year, making the crossing more perilous than ever.

Furthermore, 13,763 migrants intercepted at sea have been returned to Libya, where they often face imprisonment and abuse, according to the IOM.

Maybe if they weren’t promised a government-funded life abroad they wouldn’t have attempted the crossing?

Right after Meloni took office in late 2022, her government implemented strict new rules to limit the ability of humanitarian groups to rescue migrants. These include warnings that vessels failing to comply with the protocols will be impounded—a threat that has been repeatedly realized. Ten search and rescue boats have been detained by Italian authorities, some more than once, resulting in a cumulative loss of 480 days at sea for rescue operations this year alone, according to SOS Humanity.

The impounding of Geo Barents marks the vessel’s third detention, and MSF has vowed to challenge the “unlawful detention” in court. However, such cases are often not heard until long after the boats have been released, effectively undermining the legal process.

“The government knows very well that the speed of justice is much slower than the administrative measure,” said Gil. “We are losing money . . . and all that time we are locked in port is never coming back.”

Meanwhile, other rescue vessels, like the MV Louise Michel—funded by the artist Banksy—continue their operations under increasing pressure. After being released from a 20-day detention on August 7, the crew of the Louise Michel reported rescuing 229 people from seven boats in distress in the Mediterranean just this week.

As the Meloni government tightens its grip on the Mediterranean, the future of humanitarian rescue missions in the region remains fraught with uncertainty, and the human cost of this geopolitical struggle continues to rise.

Authored by Ross Pomeroy via RealClearScience,

At the dawn of the millennium, Germany launched an ambitious plan to transition to renewable energy. “Die Energiewende” initiated a massive expansion of solar and wind power, resulting in a commendable 25 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2022 compared to 2002.  

But while Energiewende slashed pollution through building out renewable energy sources, it also phased out Germany’s fleet of safe, carbon-free nuclear power plants, a longtime goal of environmental activists afraid of nuclear’s salient – but in actuality small – dangers. The result, according to a new analysis recently published to the International Journal of Sustainable Energy, has been a boondoggle for consumers and for the environment. 

In 2002, nuclear power supplied about a fifth of Germany’s electricity. Twenty-one years later, it supplied none. A layperson might think that cheap wind and solar could simply fill the gap, but it isn’t so simple. Once up and running, nuclear reactors provide reliable, affordable “baseload” power – electricity that’s available all the time. Ephemeral renewables simply can’t match nuclear’s consistency. And since an advanced economy like Germany’s requires a 100 percent reliable power grid, fossil fuel power plants burning coal and natural gas were brought online to pick up wind and solar’s slack.  

The net result of German politicians’ shortsightedness in phasing out nuclear power is a vastly pricier grid. The new analysis shows that if Germans simply maintained their 2002 fleet of reactors through 2022, they could have saved themselves roughly $600 billion Euros. Why so much? Well, in addition to their construction costs, renewables required expensive grid upgrades and subsidies. Moreover, in this hypothetical scenario where nuclear remained, Germany enjoyed nearly identical reductions in carbon emissions.  

Jan Emblemsvåg, a Professor of Civil Engineering at Norway’s NTNU and the architect of the analysis, imagined another scenario out of curiosity. What if the Germans had taken the money spent on expanding renewables and instead used it to construct new nuclear capacity? According to his calculations, they could have slashed carbon emissions a further 73% on top of their cuts in 2022, while simultaneously enjoying a savings of 330 billion Euros compared to the massive costs of Energiewende.  

Policymakers in other countries looking to decarbonize their grids should take note.