iftttwall

Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

Swiss voters have resoundingly rejected a referendum calling for the Swiss Constitution to take precedence over international treaties and law.

Two-thirds (66.2%) of voters in the November 25 referendum opposed the “self-determination” initiative, put forward by the eurosceptic Swiss People’s Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei, SVP), the largest party in the Swiss parliament.

SVP leaders had argued that the new law was necessary to safeguard national sovereignty from further encroachment by supranational organizations such as the European Union and the United Nations.

The Swiss government countered that the proposal would undermine Switzerland’s economic stability as it would require Bern to amend existing bilateral agreements with the EU, the country’s largest trade partner, to bring them into compliance with the Swiss Constitution.

The proposal’s defeat comes ahead of pending decisions by the Swiss government over whether to sign a wide-ranging EU “framework agreement,” and a controversial UN “migration pact.”

Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but has gained access to the European single market by signing a series of bilateral agreements in which Switzerland has given away large slices of its national sovereignty, including control over boundaries and immigration. In all, Switzerland has more than 120 bilateral agreements that govern its relations with the European Union.

The EU is now pressing Switzerland to sign a comprehensive “framework agreement” that would require Bern to cede even more sovereignty to Brussels. The EU, for instance, wants Switzerland to subject itself to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). If Switzerland complies with the demand, the ECJ would outrank the Swiss Supreme Court as the final arbiter of legal disputes in the country.

The EU has now increased the pressure by resorting to blackmail: Brussels is making its continued recognition of Switzerland’s SIX Swiss Exchange, the fourth-largest stock market in Europe, contingent on Swiss acceptance of the framework agreement. Switzerland’s current stock exchange agreement with the EU expires at the end of December; failure to renew it would deprive the Swiss exchange of EU-based business that generates more than half its volume.

Swiss leaders have said they doubt that any proposed treaty could win the backing of parliament or voters in a referendum under the Swiss system of direct democracy.

Bloomberg News encapsulated the dilemma facing Switzerland:

“The Swiss government now faces the prospect of choosing between two evils: agree to the EU framework deal only to have it torpedoed by voters in a referendum, or renege on the treaty and risk reprisals from Brussels that hurt the economy.“

A key point of contention in Swiss-EU relations revolves around a long-running dispute over the EU’s “Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons.” The agreement, which Switzerland signed in June 1999, allows EU citizens to live and work in Switzerland, and vice versa. The original agreement applied to 15 EU member states, but with the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, 2007 and 2013, the agreement now applies to 28 EU member states, including the poorer countries in Eastern Europe.

In an effort to curb the increasing amount of crime associated with immigration, Swiss voters in November 2010 approved a referendum to deport foreigners who commit serious crimes in Switzerland.

The EU warned that deporting EU citizens for any reason would be a violation of Switzerland’s treaty obligations regarding the free movement of persons. The Swiss parliament, seeking to avoid economic reprisals, eventually passed a watered-down law aimed at reconciling the will of Swiss voters with Switzerland’s obligations under EU law.

SVP MP Adrian Amstutz argued that in its zeal to please the EU, the Swiss parliament’s new deportation law would prove to be worthless in practice:

“According to the parliament’s implementation of the law for the deportation initiative, courts would have the possibility to put aside a deportation — even in the case of the most serious offenses — via the hardship clause. Current legal practices show that judges would frequently make use of this option. As a consequence, hardly any foreign criminals would be deported.”

In February 2014, Swiss voters approved a referendum to reintroduce quotas for immigration from EU countries. Proponents of the quotas argued that foreign workers were driving down wages and increasing demand for housing, health, education and transport.

The EU warned that any restrictions on access to the Swiss labor market would violate the agreement on the freedom of movement of persons, and threatened“serious consequences.” The Swiss parliament again yielded to EU pressure, this time by passing watered-down restrictions on immigration.

Another flashpoint in bilateral relations involves the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In November 2014, the ECHR prohibited Switzerland from sending Afghan asylum seekers back to Italy. Although Italian authorities had agreed to take them back, the ECHR ruled that doing so would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Prohibition of Inhuman and Degrading Treatments) because of overcrowding and poor conditions at Italian asylum facilities.

SVP leader Christoph Blocher criticized the ECHR for ignoring the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that decisions should be taken, if possible, at the local level:

“Don’t we trust federal judges to decide on human rights issues? We had those principles written into our constitution well before the ECHR. The problem with the convention is that it decides things from far away. The consequences, what happens next, don’t concern the judges.”

Martin Schubarth, a former Swiss federal judge, echoed those concerns:

“It is unacceptable that a small panel of [ECHR] judges, who generally lack the expert knowledge about the [Swiss] legislative authority, handle matters in an undemocratic way instead of the [Swiss] authority itself.”

In February 2018, Swiss public television SRF reported that the European Commission had presented the Swiss government with a 19-page “sin list” of Swiss violations of EU law.

Switzerland’s ongoing disputes with the EU, and the concomitant erosion of Swiss sovereignty, prompted the SVP to sponsor the referendum to ensure the precedence of Swiss law.

The sponsor of the initiative, SVP MP Hans-Ueli Vogt, expressed surprise at the scale of the defeat — a rare setback for the SVP, one of the most successful anti-EU parties in Europe — but said he would continue to fight against “creeping EU accession.”

The measure was opposed by a coalition of Swiss business groups, which convincingly argued that the referendum was a question of economics and access to international markets for the export-dependent country. “Ultimately, it is about maintaining prosperity in Switzerland and keeping the companies and jobs here,” said Monika Rühl, director of the business group Economiesuisse.

Some Swiss newspapers described result of the referendum as a “fiasco” and a “serious setback” for the SVP. Others were more circumspect. “The object of the initiative was very legitimate: it was about national sovereignty and its relationship with international law in a globalized world,” noted La Liberté, a paper based in Fribourg. The Geneva-based L’Express added:

“The SVP suffered a defeat because it failed to mobilize and convince beyond its base. The voters wanted a pragmatic assessment between international law and national law. Depending on the situation, one or the other should apply. The definitive prevalence of one over the other, on the other hand, is not shared by the majority.”

La Tribune de Genève wrote: “What the Swiss have supported this Sunday is a pragmatic, negotiated, piecemeal approach to our national interests. Voting is in no way a declaration of love to a European Union in crisis.”

The Swiss People’s Party said that despite the loss, the referendum “brought a welcome and suppressed debate about the relationship between Swiss law and international law and the importance of direct democracy.” The SVP added that its fight for Swiss self-determination would continue:

“First of all, the SVP demands that Switzerland not join the UN migration pact. We are counting on the pledges of the representatives of the other parties, that at the very least it is presented to the parliament with the aim of holding a referendum on the matter, so that Swiss voters can have their say about such a far-reaching pact.

“Secondly, the SVP rejects a one-sided submission to EU institutions, aimed at establishing an institutional connection of Switzerland to the EU apparatus, with a dynamic EU legal takeover and, ultimately, the subordination of Switzerland to the EU Court of Justice. A dynamic adoption of EU law would be another massive erosion of our direct democracy.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2DPWALT Tyler Durden

A very mysterious bluish-green fireball seen streaking above Russia’s high-tech scientific city has sparked a debate that President Vladimir Putin could be developing space weapons.

The flash was spotted by stunned motorists with dashboard cameras mounted on their windshields near the research town of Akademgorodok, an educational and scientific hub in Siberia.

According to the Daily Mail, educational and scientific institutes in the area have been called Putin’s “secret weapon,” which have aided in the development of the country’s high-tech weapons.

The video was caught on several dashcams in the early morning on Tuesday.

The state-run Russia Today reported it as a meteor but acknowledged that scientists were confused by the incident. The video sparked rumors on social media that Moscow was testing “extremely advanced weapons,” while others put on their tinfoil hats and suggested it was a UFO.

Ilya Orlov, deputy director of the Big Novosibirsk Planetarium, told the Daily Mail it was a “beautiful phenomenon” but could not explain what caused it.

“Most likely, this is a flash of bolide, that is, the fall of a bright meteor with a flash,” Orlov said.

“It is all the more surprising because there are no active meteor showers now. It can be either the tail of a [Leonid] meteor shower or a lone meteor. We need to find out,” he added.

Local media outlets said no traces of space rock was found in the region, nor were there any reports of rocket launches or missile tests when the fireball was spotted Tuesday, which has undoubtedly excited the tinfoil hat community – believing that it could have been a UFO.

This is not the first time fears of Russia’s secretive weapons have been raised. Putin used his state-of-the-nation speech in March to deliver a stern warning to the US that Russia possesses hypersonic weapons that can render NATO’s US-led missile defense system completely “useless.”

Russia has “successfully” test-fired hypersonic missiles, one, in particular, the high-precision Kinzhal (Dagger) hypersonic missile was fired from a MiG-31 supersonic interceptor jet in late March that took off from an airfield in the South Military District in Russia’s southwest.

There was evidence from China last month that a similar fireball was indeed a Chinese People’s Liberation Army hypersonic missile, confirmed by Chinese state-run media outlets.

We’ll let you decide what lit up the night sky over Russia earlier this week…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2FQemkM Tyler Durden

Authored by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

The deal has been agreed, subject to Parliament. Mrs May now has the uphill task of selling the deal to MPs. The overwhelming majority who have expressed an opinion including both Remainers and Brexiteers have condemned it. As has President Trump. She will be praying for no further asides from him at the G20 in Buenos Aires.

The vote is scheduled for 11 December, after a five-day debate. The Government’s tactic is to rely on Mrs May’s deal being the only one on offer, the alternative being the supposed abyss of a no-deal. The risk to this strategy is that Brexiteers expose the choice as being false and that Mrs May should go back to Brussels and renegotiate. The EU stands ready to reaffirm they will not accept any other deal to cut off this option.

The Treasury and the Bank of England have cranked up their economic and financial models again to forecast maximum disruption in the event Parliament fails to support Mrs May’s deal. However, in the Commons, the Treasury backed off from its responsibility for its post-Brexit forecasts, saying it was based on analysis involving a wide range of government departments. One is left wondering why the Treasury Secretary felt unable to give it his wholehearted support.

The Bank of England has been less delicate in its approach, by claiming we are all doomed. The result after only one day of airing its forecast is a loss of public credibility for the Bank and particularly for Mark Carney, its Governor.

The frighteners extend to a hodgepodge of claims of many things vital to life and employment, put together by government quangos. Shortages of medicines, transport disruption, chemicals for water purification and many more are all documented in eighty different official papers. The deceit is to assume these supplies are provided at an inter-governmental level, and not by profit-seeking businesses, which would surely do everything in their power to secure continuing sales. The Port of Calais is expected to cut off its nose despite its face and turn away traffic.

This line of propaganda seems to be an irresistible line of attack for the Government, accustomed to frightening the populous into a preferred course of action. This is despite the failure of this tactic ahead of the Brexit referendum, when the public decided it was a stinking rat.

What is the deal, and why the fuss?

Britain leaves the EU on 29 March next year and under Mrs May’s plan enters an implementation period when there is no change in current trade arrangements, until at least 1 January 2020. After that, if the trade agreement is not in place (highly unlikely – it takes years to get the EU to agree to trade deals), Britain can either extend the implementation period for a time, or the backstop on the Irish border will be implemented.

The backstop ensures the Irish border would remain open to EU trade, as it is today, until a trade agreement is finally agreed and implemented. Until then, either the whole of the UK continues to be in the customs union, or Northern Ireland alone remains in it, effectively putting a border down the Irish Sea. The backstop, if it is implemented, can only be turned off “when we have fulfilled our commitments on the Irish Border.”

The agreement states that both the EU and the UK will use best endeavours to reach a trade agreement. But given it can be blocked by EU member countries which are not a party to the agreement, this reassurance must be worthless. Even before the ink was dry, Spain forced concessions on Gibraltar, and President Macron of France made it clear France would withhold its consent to a trade agreement if French fishing vessels were denied fishing rights in British waters.

The problem with the agreement is that by not agreeing, EU member states can ensure, in the words of Boris Johnson, Britain remains a vassal state. Worse than that, with this agreement it is a zombie state, a walking-dead captive of the customs union.

Even the Remainers don’t like it, because it is as plain as a pikestaff that Britain is in a far worse position with this agreement than it would be remaining in the EU. It is chained to the customs union with no influence over the regulations imposed upon it. Accordingly, Remainers of all parties are united in the call for a second referendum, which they hope will reverse the first, allowing Britain to remain as a full member of the EU. But to concede a second referendum would be unprecedented, and also an admission of failure by the government. Furthermore, it would take months to go through Parliament, time which it does not have. With no practical alternative, many prominent Remainers are expected to vote against the agreement.

For the Brexiteers, it is already an admission of failure, particularly since the Prime Minister always refused to consider a Plan B. Britain has agreed unconditionally to pay the EU £39bn as the divorce settlement and will continue to pay into Brussels the annual tribute of roughly £9bn until the new trade terms are agreed and implemented (which could be never). While the agreement generally limits the European Court of Justice’s powers to adjudicate on trade and related matters, it means Britain does not have control over future trade arrangements during implementation and backstop periods, and it will be impossible for Britain to strike her own trade deals until that time has passed. Hence President Trump’s remarks.

We have confirmation it is Hotel California: you can check out but never leave. The deal is so unpopular that already the media are saying it will never get through Parliament. The Daily Telegraphhas aggregated various sources of information to estimate 221 MPs will vote for it and 418 against. But much can change in a short fortnight.

Let us look at it from Downing Street’s point of view, to try to understand the Government’s strategy. 96 Conservative MPs have said they will vote against, out of a parliamentary party of 314 (excluding Speaker Bercow). The Democratic Unionist Party, with ten MPs who provide the Conservatives with their slim Commons majority, have also vowed to vote against it. The Labour Party with 257 MPs have said they will vote against it, but there are perhaps 60 Labour rebels. The Scottish National Party has 35 MPs, who will also vote against it. Liberal Democrats, with 12 are probably against it, but may not be united on the threat of no deal.

That leaves 216 Conservatives likely to support the Government (including 94 Ministers), perhaps 240 after the whips have done their work. 74 MPs from the other parties are then required, at least 60 of which must be Labour MPs. It is worth recalling that 64 Labour MPs defied the Labour whip over an amendment tabled to remain in the customs union last December, close to the number of Labour MPs required to rebel this time for Mrs May to win the vote. And that’s assuming Labour isn’t persuaded to abstain, which would guarantee Mrs May gets it passed by a comfortable margin.

Clearly, the key to success is Labour’s intentions, which is why Downing Street is wooing their MPs. However, two weeks ahead of the vote, talk of a heavy defeat for the government looks, on Downing Street’s likely assessment, wide of the mark.

All this assumes Labour will resist the temptation to topple Mrs May and create havoc for the Tories. That is a big assumption, because it is definitely in Labour’s interest to defeat the government to see what opportunities might arise. Consequently, while the Downing Street assessment may turn out to be too optimistic, the Brexit camp cannot afford to be complacent.

Brexiteer tactics

The Brexiteers will concentrate on mustering as much support as possible to reject the proposed agreement. They already have the ten DUP members on side, and 96 Conservatives who have said they will vote against. They need to work on the other 218 Conservative MPs, of which 94 are ministers, leaving a pool of 124 possible votes.

It would help their case enormously if more Brexit-supporting ministers resigned from the government ahead of the vote, so they are likely to be privately encouraged to do so. This would benefit the Brexit cause by fatally undermining the Government’s claim that the agreement is in the spirit of Brexit.

Brexiteers will also have to build cross-party alliances. Above all, they must come up with an alternative strategy acceptable to both Brexiteers and Remainers to force the Government to return to Brussels for better terms, despite Brussels saying the only alternative is no deal.

To achieve the necessary parliamentary support, Brexiteers are likely to focus on the least contentious issue, being the failure to achieve total parliamentary sovereignty in the draft agreement. Even Jeremy Corbin and others on the far left of the Labour Party can agree on this, because they want to be free from all Brussels regulations so that they can nationalise and subsidise unionised industries.

Sovereignty is the one issue the Government cannot argue convincingly, which is why it deflects the issue into one of taking control of immigration. The economic effects, which are a transitional problem, are less important to the bigger picture, but are more immediate to the electorate. For these reasons the Government is focusing on the economic effects, promoting hypothetical problems that grab the headlines and divert attention from the sovereignty issue.

The scope for half-truths and downright deception is enormous and is being exploited by both the Government and allegedly independent analysts. In the last few days, we have been told that stockpiling food has left Amazon short of warehouse space. This follows earlier assertions from Barclays Bank research that extra tariffs on food and drink imports could cost £9.3bn per annum, leading to higher food prices.

This must assume the Chancellor imposes, Trump-like, yet higher import tariffs on food than the ones being dropped on a no-deal Brexit. It might assume sterling will crash (we’ve heard that one before) but ignores the possibility the euro will fall even more. These scare stories are easy to counter and should be given no credence, but the media is always more likely to take as gospel truth the information spoon-fed to it by background government briefings, while questioning reasoned argument from Brexiteers with relative scepticism.

Mrs May’s future

Press reports suggest that Downing Street believes that if the vote is not passed, Mrs May could probably survive if it is rejected by less than a hundred votes. Any more than that, and she is toast.

This is probably too simplistic, and ignores the fact that David Cameron immediately resigned when he lost the Brexit referendum, irrespective of margins. It also relies on the ten DUP MPs continuing to give her a majority, which they have already withdrawn. If she relies on Labour votes, having failed to get sufficient support from her own party (which Downing Street is already doing), she will be ejected whatever the outcome. For the moment, everyone is being very polite, saying she has admirable qualities of perseverance and determination against all odds. And don’t we all love a fighter. This can rapidly elide into being pig-headed, domineering and deliberately misleading.

Act too early, and MPs who wish to ditch her will be accused of disloyalty and naked ambition. Furthermore, Brexiteers do not have control of the agenda. For these reasons, rival candidates for the leadership remain in the shadows. But they will be watching for that change of emphasis, which is likely to come in the wake of the Commons vote, if not before.

The only way Mrs May can save herself and the integrity of the Conservative Party is to cancel the debate and tell Brussels it simply won’t wash. She must remind them of the consequences of their rejection of David Cameron’s demands, and tell them they will have to come up with better terms, otherwise it is no deal.

Will she do it? We shall see. She has some leverage, if she can understand it. Brussels is bust and needs money urgently. The knock-on effects of a no deal might be unpredictable for the UK, but, and this is the point few have taken on board, it would be catastrophic for the EU.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Rlzj8o Tyler Durden

Some of America’s most influential think tanks and the Pentagon have likely underestimated the number of Chinese nuclear submarines under construction, a new report suggests. 

Satellite imagery of the Bohai Shipyard and Longpo Naval Facility taken by Planet Labs shows that “China does not yet have a credible sea-based deterrent,” Catherine Dill of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey told Defense One. Two of China’s four Jin-class submarines “appear to not be in operation and are undergoing maintenance or repairs at the Bohai shipyard, suggesting to us that credibility is still in question.”

Defense One said that contradicts the US Defense Department’s 2018 China Military Report and the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ (CSIS) report, which had stated that China had four operational Jin-class subs.

The report said there is one additional submarine under construction that the Pentagon missed.

Jeffrey Lewis, a colleague of Dill, discovered that China had one more nuclear submarine in development than previously believed. He observed a total of five submarine hulls in production, three at Longpo and two at the Bohai shipyard, indicating that China’s modernization efforts are ahead of schedule to meeting its goal of eight.

“China is continuing to modernize its nuclear weapons program, broadly,” Dill said. “There’s a big emphasis on the SSBN program because all of their deliverable nuclear weapons are on land-based systems. Expanding into these SSBNs gives China more flexibly and credibility.”

She added, “These observations would not have been possible without the high cadence of the Planet imagery, which gave us 244 days of exploitable imagery to monitor from July 2017 to November 2018.”

By comparison, the US nuclear-armed submarine fleet features 14 Ohio-class subs, which are comparable in size to China’s Jin-class sub and Russia’s Borey-class. 

Boston College Geopolitical Professor Robert Ross, an expert on Chinese defense and security policy, released a new report entitled “The End of US Naval Dominance in Asia,” it warns that at the current rate of modernization by China, US Navy’s global dominance could be displaced sometime in the mid/late 2020s. 

“The rapid rise of the Chinese Navy has challenged US maritime dominance throughout East Asian waters,” Ross writes. “The US, though, has not been able to fund a robust shipbuilding plan that could maintain the regional security order and compete effectively with China’s naval build-up.”

“The resulting transformation of the balance of power has led to fundamental changes in US acquisitions and defense strategy. Nonetheless, the US has yet to come to terms with its diminished influence in East Asia.”

Ross provides documentation that shows China is well on its way to deploying a naval fleet that could rival the US, but increasingly more modern. 

Sometime around 2038, roughly two decades from now, China will surpass the US in military spending, and become the world’s dominant superpower not only in population and economic growth – China is set to overtake the US economy by no later than 2032 – but in military strength and global influence as well.

While it might not seem like much when American think tanks and the Pentagon underestimated the number of Chinese nuclear submarines in development, it could otherwise show how unprepared the West is for a rising China. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2FP6aRQ Tyler Durden

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”– Justice William J. Brennan, City of Houston v. Hill

What the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.

What the First Amendment protects – and a healthy constitutional republic requires – are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

It’s not an easy undertaking.

Weaponized by police, prosecutors, courts and legislatures, “disorderly conduct” charges have become a convenient means by which to punish those individuals who refuse to be muzzled.

• Deyshia Hargrave, a language arts teacher in Louisiana, was thrown to the ground, handcuffed and arrested for speaking out during a public comment period at a school board meeting.

• Fane Lozman was arrested for alluding to government corruption during open comment time at a City Council meeting in Palm Beach County, Fla.

• Dan Heyman, a reporter for the Public News Service, was arrested for “aggressively” questioning Tom Price, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during an encounter in the West Virginia State Capitol.

• College professor Ersula Ore was slammed to the ground and arrested after she objected to the “disrespectful manner” shown by a campus cop who stopped her in the middle of the street and demanded that she show her ID.

• Philadelphia lawyer Rebecca Musarra was arrested for exercising her right to remain silent and refusing to answer questions posed by a police officer during a routine traffic stop. (Note: she cooperated in every other way by providing license and registration, etc.)

• Robert Bartlett was arrested during an Arctic Man festival in Alaska, allegedly in retaliation for refusing to be interrogated by police and intervening when police attempted to question other people. His case is before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cases like these have become all too common, typical of the bipolar nature of life in the American police state today: you may have distinct, protected rights on paper, but dare to exercise those rights and you put yourself at risk for fines, arrests, injuries and even death.

This is the unfortunate price of freedom.

Yet these are not new developments.

We have been circling this particular drain hole for some time now.

Almost 50 years ago, in fact, Lewis Colten was arrested outside Lexington, Kentucky, for questioning police and offering advice to his friend during a traffic stop.

Colten was one of 20 or so college students who had driven to the Blue Grass Airport to demonstrate against then-First Lady Pat Nixon. Upon leaving the airport, police stopped one of the cars in Colten’s motorcade because it bore an expired, out-of-state license plate. Colten and the other drivers also pulled over to the side of the road.

Fearing violence on the part of the police, Colten exited his vehicle and stood nearby while police issued his friend, Mendez, a ticket and arranged to tow his car. Police repeatedly asked Colten to leave. At one point, a state trooper declared, “This is none of your affair . . . get back in your car and please move on and clear the road.”

Insisting that he wanted to make a transportation arrangement for his friend Mendez and the occupants of the Mendez car, Colten failed to move away and was arrested for violating Kentucky’s disorderly conduct statute.

Colten subsequently challenged his arrest as a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sided with the police.

Although the Court acknowledged that Colten was not trespassing or disobeying any traffic regulation himself, the majority affirmed that Colten “had no constitutional right to observe the issuance of a traffic ticket or to engage the issuing officer in conversation at that time.”

The Supreme Court’s bottom line: protecting police from inconvenience, annoyance or alarm is more important than protecting speech that, in the government’s estimation, has “no social value.”

While the ruling itself was unsurprising for a judiciary that tends to march in lockstep with the police, the dissent by Justice William O. Douglas is a powerful reminder that the government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.

Stressing that Colten’s speech was quiet, not boisterous, devoid of “fighting words,” and involved no overt acts, fisticuffs, or disorderly conduct in the normal meaning of the words, Douglas took issue with the idea that merely by speaking to a government representative, in this case the police—a right enshrined in the First Amendment, by the way—Colten was perceived as inconveniencing and annoying the police.

In a passionate defense of free speech, Douglas declared: 

Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us?

The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet. The situation might have indicated that Colten’s techniques were ill-suited to the mission he was on, that diplomacy would have been more effective. But at the constitutional level speech need not be a sedative; it can be disruptive.

It’s a power-packed paragraph full of important truths that the powers-that-be would prefer we quickly forget: We the people are the sovereigns. We have the final word. We can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy. We need not stay docile and quiet. Our speech can be disruptive. It can invite dispute. It can be provocative and challenging. We do not have to bow submissively to authority or speak with reverence to government officials.

Now in theory, “we the people” have a constitutional right to talk back to the government.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded as much in City of Houston v. Hill when it struck down a city ordinance prohibiting verbal abuse of police officers as unconstitutionally overbroad and a criminalization of protected speech.

In practice, however, talking back—especially when the police are involved—can get you killed.

The danger is real.

We live in an age in which “we the people” are at the mercy of militarized, weaponized, immunized cops who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

While violent crime in America remains at an all-time low, the death toll as a result of police-sponsored violence continues to rise. In fact, more than 1,000 people are killed every year by police in America, more than any other country in the world.

What we are dealing with is a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out against individuals posing little or no real threat.

I’m not talking about the number of individuals—especially young people—who are being shot and killed by police for having a look-alike gun in their possession, such as a BB gun. I’m not even talking about people who have been shot for brandishing weapons at police, such as scissors.

I’m talking about the growing numbers of unarmed people are who being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or looking a certain way, or moving a certain way, or not moving fast enough, or asking a question, or not answering a question, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

This is not what life should be like in a so-called “free” country.

Police encounters have deteriorated so far that anything short of compliance—including behavior the police perceive as disrespectful or “insufficiently deferential to their authority,” “threatening” or resistant—could get you arrested, jailed or killed.  

The problem, of course, is that compliance is rarely enough to guarantee one’s safety.

Case in point: Miami-Dade police slammed a 14-year-old boy to the ground, putting him in a chokehold and handcuffing him after he allegedly gave them “dehumanizing stares” and walked away from them, which the officers found unacceptable.

According to Miami-Dade Police Detective Alvaro Zabaleta, “His body language was that he was stiffening up and pulling away… When you have somebody resistant to them and pulling away and somebody clenching their fists and flailing their arms, that’s a threat. Of course we have to neutralize the threat.”

This mindset that any challenge to police authority is a threat that needs to be “neutralized” is a dangerous one that is part of a greater nationwide trend that sets the police beyond the reach of the First and Fourth Amendments.

When police officers are allowed to operate under the assumption that their word is law and that there is no room for any form of disagreement or even question, that serves to destroy the First Amendment’s assurances of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Then again, this is what happens when you take a police recruit, hype him (or her) up on the power of the gun in his holster and the superiority of his uniform, render him woefully ignorant of how to handle a situation without resorting to violence, drill him in military tactics but keep him in the dark about the Constitution, and never stress to him that he is to be a peacemaker and a peacekeeper, respectful of and subservient to the taxpayers, who are in fact his masters and employers.

The problem, as one reporter rightly concluded, is “not that life has gotten that much more dangerous, it’s that authorities have chosen to respond to even innocent situations as if they were in a warzone.”

What we’re dealing with today is a skewed shoot-to-kill mindset in which police, trained to view themselves as warriors or soldiers in a war, whether against drugs, or terror, or crime, must “get” the bad guys—i.e., anyone who is a potential target—before the bad guys get them.

Never mind that the fatality rate of on-duty police officers is reportedly far lower than many other professions, including construction, logging, fishing, truck driving, and even trash collection.

The result of this battlefield approach to domestic peacekeeping is a society in which police shoot first and ask questions later.

The message being drummed into our heads with every police shooting of an unarmed citizen is this: if you don’t want to get probed, poked, pinched, tasered, tackled, searched, seized, stripped, manhandled, arrested, shot, or killed, don’t say, do or even suggest anything that even hints of noncompliance.

This is the “thin blue line” over which you must not cross in interactions with police if you want to walk away with your life and freedoms intact.

If ever there were a time to scale back on the mindset adopted by cops that they are the law and should be revered, feared and obeyed, it’s now.

It doesn’t matter where you live—big city or small town—it’s the same scenario being played out over and over again in which government agents, hyped up on their own authority and the power of their uniform, ride roughshod over the rights of the citizenry.

Americans as young as 4 years old are being leg shackled, handcuffed, tasered and held at gun point for not being quiet, not being orderly and just being childlike—i.e., not being compliant enough.

Americans as old as 95 are being beaten, shot and killed for questioning an order, hesitating in the face of a directive, and mistaking a policeman crashing through their door for a criminal breaking into their home—i.e., not being submissive enough.

And Americans of every age and skin color are being taught the painful lesson that the only truly compliant, submissive and obedient citizen in a police state is a dead one.

As a result, Americans are being brainwashed into believing that anyone who wears a government uniform—soldier, police officer, prison guard—must be obeyed without question.

Of course, the Constitution takes a far different position, but does anyone in the government even read, let alone abide by, the Constitution anymore?

If we just cower before government agents and meekly obey, we may find ourselves following in the footsteps of those nations that eventually fell to tyranny.

The alternative involves standing up and speaking truth to power. Jesus Christ walked that road. So did Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and countless other freedom fighters whose actions changed the course of history.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the American dream was built on the idea that no one is above the law, that our rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, and that our government and its appointed agents exist to serve us.

It may be that things are too far gone to save, but still we must try.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2FQM49M Tyler Durden

A brand new expose by Bloomberg shines light on modern day loan sharks: city officials that are armed with badges like Vadim Barbarovich, who earned $1.7 million last year, easily giving him the most lucrative job within the government of New York City. His official title is City Marshal, and he’s one of 35 that the mayor has appointed to compete for fees from recovering debts. While traditionally marshals evict tenants and tow cars, Barbarovich has found his place in part of a debt collection industry that allows them to use their legal authority on behalf of predatory lenders.

It’s a practice that dates back to the 17th century. Back then, jobs across the Hudson River for marshals yielded the highest fees. Under current law, marshals are entitled to keep 5% of cash that they collect. The city also has a Sheriff’s office that does similar work, but those employees get a salary. Several mayors have called for an end to the marshal system over the last few decades, but nobody has been successful in getting the state legislature to act upon it.

While Barbarovich’s jurisdiction is supposed to end at city limits, he has worked to recover debts from places like California and Illinois, among others nationwide.

One person he “recovered” debt money from, to the tune of $56,000, Jose Soliz, asked: “How could they pull all that money? I’ve never even been to New York.” 

When asked about Barbarovich’s practices, a spokesman for the New York City Marshals Association said that marshals simply “enforce court judgments”.

The genesis of these judgments are often lenders who advance money to people at rates that can sometimes top 400% annualized. They have found a loophole around loansharking rules by stating that they are instead buying the money that businesses will likely make in the future at a discounted price. Courts have been supportive of this distinction and, as such, the “merchant cash advance” industry has grown to about $15 billion a year.

As soon as lenders see that borrowers have fallen behind they call marshals, whose job is to force the banks to handover whatever cash is left. They do this by using a court order stamped by a clerk that’s obtained without going before a judge. Banks generally comply immediately, without checking if the marshal has the right to actually take the funds. The borrower often doesn’t understand what’s going on until the money is gone.

Prior to becoming a marshal, Barbarovich worked in property control earning about $70,000 a year and sometimes volunteered as a Russian translator. Upon starting as a marshal in 2013, he earned about $90,000. When cash advance companies discovered the power he had, his income skyrocketed and his earnings increased almost 20 fold.

His financial disclosures show that his work enforcing Supreme Court property judgments skyrocketed dramatically over the last two years, as did the amount of cash he recovered. In some respects, the collection process is like the wild west: marshals don’t draw a salary, earn fees from customers and are encouraged to compete with one another, which can catalyze aggressive behavior. 

Avery Steinberg, a lawyer in White Plains, New York, who represents a few clients whose accounts were seized by Barbarovich, told Bloomberg: “He goes about it in any which way he can. He has a reputation of being a bully.”

The Bloomberg article tells the story of Jose Soliz, whose company builds concrete block walls for schools and stores in the Texas Panhandle. He had started borrowing from cash advance companies several years ago and found himself trapped in a cycle of debt.

He eventually wound up taking out a $23,000 loan that he agreed to pay back within nine weeks – to the tune of $44,970: an 800% annualized interest rate.

He says that the fees were more than expected, so he stopped payment. When he went to go pay his employees a couple days later, he noticed that his Wells Fargo account had been frozen and his paychecks bounced.

He found out the hard way that cash advance companies like the one he used required him to sign a document agreeing in advance that if there’s a legal dispute, the borrower will automatically lose, rendering any type of judicial review useless. Those who are signing these agreements don’t often realize the power that they are waiving. Based on these agreements, the lender can accuse the borrower of defaulting, without proof, and have a court judgment signed by a clerk on the same day.

This is exactly what happened to Soliz. His lender obtained such a judgment against him in Buffalo, New York and called in Barbarovich to collect. Even though his Wells Fargo account was opened in Texas, and the judgment was only valid in New York State, the bank turned over $56,764 to the marshal. The rule is supposedly that marshals can go after out of state funds as long as they serve demands at a bank location in New York City, according to the New York City Department of Investigation.

On the other hand, it’s not clear whether or not banks have to comply with these orders. Some banks reject these demands but most have a policy of following any legal order they receive so as to avoid the hassle of reviewing them and not to ruffle any feathers.

Wells Fargo, when contacted by Bloomberg, stated that it “carefully review[s] each legal order to ensure it’s valid and properly handled.”

Barbarovich claims that he serves all legal orders by hand, though that is disputed by Soliz’s lawyer.

The Department of Investigation reportedly “continues to review” Barbarovich’s work and offered few specifics to Bloomberg.

The Department has stated that they’re conducting multiple investigations into the enforcement of judgments and focusing on whether not marshals are serving orders by hand.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2AB4w0k Tyler Durden

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Tijuana health officials have said that of those migrants in the caravan at the United States’ border with Mexico, about one third is being treated for health concerns. Migrants who came with the caravan are suffering from respiratory infections, tuberculosis, chickenpox, and some other serious health issues, Tijuana’s Health Department warned on Thursday morning.

A spokesman for the Tijuana Health Department told Fox News that out of 6,000 migrants currently residing in the city, over a third of them (2,267) are being treated for health-related issues. There are several migrants who have contracted serious diseases that are life-threatening. So far, there have been three confirmed cases of tuberculosis and four cases of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus)/AIDS (advanced immunodeficiency syndrome). Lesser illnesses that pose little threat to life include four separate cases of chickenpox, the spokesman said. And at least 101 migrants have lice and multiple instances of skin infections, the department’s data shows, according to a Fox News report.

There’s also a looming threat of a Hepatitis outbreak due to unsanitary conditions in and around the shelter caused by the migrants, the spokesman said.  The location also has only 35 portable bathrooms and a sign reading “No Spitting” had to be put up because coughing and spitting by migrants are rampant in the shelter.

There are thousands of migrants being sheltered at the Benito Juarez Sports Complex near the San Ysidro U.S.-Mexico Port of Entry, despite the place being capable of providing for 1,000 people.

Tijuana’s Mayor, Juan Manuel Gastelum, said Tuesday that the city only has enough money to assist the migrants only for a few more days, with the city saying it’s spending around $30,000 a day.

“We won’t compromise the resources of the residents of Tijuana,” Gastelum said during a press conference.

“We won’t raise taxes tomorrow to pay for today’s problem.” It’s difficult to say what the lack of funding will mean for the migrants at this time.

Despite the disturbingly disgusting conditions most of the migrants find themselves in today, most are still committed to entering the U.S. A few have “self-deported” and others have been deported by Mexico, but there are thousands remaining determined to cross the border at all costs.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Sm3NHz Tyler Durden

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has cast serious doubt over the “bizarre” California midterm election results, where it appears that seven GOP-held seats will flip to Democratic control, weeks later. 

The election result “just defies logic to me,” said Ryan during a Washington Post live event. 

“We were only down 26 seats the night of the election and three weeks later, we lost basically every California race. This election system they have — I can’t begin to understand what ‘ballot harvesting’ is.”

Ryan, who is retiring after this year, has previously declined to side with President Trump and other Republicans who have complained of election related irregularities and suspected fraud in places such as Florida and California, according to The Hill. 

California does have a more liberal policy when it comes to counting ballots. The Golden State allows absentee ballots to be counted if they are mailed by Election Day and arrive at the registrar by the Friday after the election. That’s why results in a handful of close California House races were not called until days, or weeks, after Nov. 6.

In many cases, the GOP candidates had been leading on Election Night, but Democrats ultimately prevailed as additional absentee and provisional ballots were tallied in the days after. –The Hill

“In Wisconsin, we knew the next day. Scott Walker, my friend, I was sad to see him lose, but we accepted the results on Wednesday,” said Ryan following the election. In California, however, “their system is bizarre; I still don’t completely understand it. There are a lot of races there we should have won.“

When pressed about his California comments, Ryan said it seemed “bizarre” and “strange” that Democrats would win all seven competitive House races in California. Democrats ousted GOP Reps. Mimi Walters, Dana Rohrabacher, Jeff Denham and Steve Knight, and won seats held by retiring GOP Reps. Ed Royce and Darrell Issa. GOP Rep. David Valadao is trailing Democrat TJ Cox, but the race is too close to call. –The Hill

“The way the absentee-ballot program used to work, and the way it works now, it seems pretty loosey goose,” said Ryan. “When you have candidates who win the absentee ballot vote and then lose three weeks later because of provisionals, that’s really bizarre. I just think that’s a very very strange outcome.”

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla defended the process in an interview with CNN. 

“The philosophy here is, while it may take a little bit longer to finish counting ballots in California, the policies are in place to ensure that all votes can be properly processed and added to the tally — and I guess better said, that all voices can be heard in the political process,” said Padilla. 

 

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2DS5kRA Tyler Durden

Authored by James Petras via The Unz Review,

US Mass Mobilizations: Wars and Financial Plunder

Introduction

Over the past three decades, the US government has engaged in over a dozen wars, none of which have evoked popular celebrations either before, during or after. Nor did the government succeed in securing popular support in its efforts to confront the economic crises of 2008 – 2009.

This paper will begin by discussing the major wars of our time, namely the two US invasions of Iraq . We will proceed to analyze the nature of the popular response and the political consequences.

In the second section we will discuss the economic crises of 2008 -2009, the government bailout and popular response. We will conclude by focusing on the potential powerful changes inherent in mass popular movements.

The Iraq War and the US Public

In the run-up to the two US wars against Iraq, (1990 – 01 and 2003 – 2011) there was no mass war fever, nor did the public celebrate the outcome. On the contrary both wars were preceded by massive protests in the US and among EU allies. The first Iraqi invasion was opposed by the vast-majority of the US public despite a major mass media and regime propaganda campaign backed by President George H. W. Bush. Subsequently, President Clinton launched a bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 with virtually no public support or approval.

March 20, 2003, President George W. Bush launched the second major war against Iraq despite massive protests in all major US cities. The war was officially concluded by President Obama in December 2011. President Obama’s declaration of a successful conclusion failed to elicit popular agreement.

Several questions arise:

Why mass opposition at the start of the Iraq wars and why did they fail to continue?

Why did the public refuse to celebrate President Obama’s ending of the war in 2011?

Why did mass protests of the Iraq wars fail to produce durable political vehicles to secure the peace?

The Anti-Iraq War Syndrome

The massive popular movements which actively opposed the Iraq wars had their roots in several historical sources. The success of the movements that ended the Viet Nam war, the ideas that mass activity could resist and win was solidly embedded in large segments of the progressive public. Moreover, they strongly held the idea that the mass media and Congress could not be trusted; this reinforced the idea that mass direct action was essential to reverse Presidential and Pentagon war policies.

The second factor encouraging US mass protest was the fact that the US was internationally isolated. Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush wars faced hostile regime and mass opposition in Europe, the Middle East and in the UN General Assembly. US activists felt that they were part of a global movement which could succeed.

Thirdly the advent of Democratic President Clinton did not reverse the mass anti-war movements.The terror bombing of Iraq in December 1998 was destructive and Clinton’s war against Serbia kept the movements alive and active To the extent that Clinton avoided large scale long-term wars, he avoided provoking mass movements from re-emerging during the latter part of the 1990’s.

The last big wave of mass anti-war protest occurred from 2003 to 2008. Mass anti-war protest to war exploded soon after the World Trade Center bombings of 9/11. White House exploited the events to proclaim a global ‘war on terror’, yet the mass popular movements interpreted the same events as a call to oppose new wars in the Middle East.

Anti-war leaders drew activists of the entire decade, envisioning a ‘build-up’ which could prevent the Bush regime from launching a series of wars without end. Moreover, the vast-majority of the public was not convinced by officials’ claims that Iraq, weakened and encircled, was stocking ‘weapons of mass destruction’ to attack the US.

Large scale popular protests challenged the mass media, the so called respectable press and ignored the Israeli lobby and other Pentagon warlords demanding an invasion of Iraq. The vast-majority of American, did not believe they were threatened by Saddam Hussain they felt a greater threat from the White House’s resort to severe repressive legislation like the Patriot Act. Washington’s rapid military defeat of Iraqi forces and its occupation of the Iraqi state led to a decline in the size and scope of the anti-war movement but not to its potential mass base.

Two events led to the demise of the anti-war movements. The anti-war leaders turned from independent direct action to electoral politics and secondly, they embraced and channeled their followers to support Democratic presidential candidate Obama. In large part the movement leaders and activists believed that direct action had failed to prevent or end the previous two Iraq wars. Secondly, Obama made a direct demagogic appeal to the peace movement – he promised to end wars and pursue social justice at home.

With the advent of Obama, many peace leaders and followers joined the Obama political machine .Those who were not co-opted were quickly disillusioned on all counts. Obama continued the ongoing wars and added new ones—Libya, Honduras, Syria. The US occupation in Iraq led to new extremist militia armies which preceded to defeat US trained vassal armies up to the gates of Baghdad. In short time Obama launched a flotilla of warships and warplanes to the South China Sea and dispatched added troops to Afghanistan.

The mass popular movements of the previous two decades were totally disillusioned, betrayed and disoriented. While most opposed Obama’s ‘new’ and ‘old wars’ they struggled to find new outlets for their anti-war beliefs. Lacking alternative anti-war movements, they were vulnerable to the war propaganda of the media and the new demagogue of the right. Donald Trump attracted many who opposed the war monger Hilary Clinton.

The Bank Bailout: Mass Protest Denied

In 2008, at the end of his presidency, President George W. Bush signed off on a massive federal bailout of the biggest Wall Street banks who faced bankruptcy from their wild speculative profiteering.

In 2009 President Obama endorsed the bailout and urged rapid Congressional approval. Congress complied to a $700-billion- dollar handout ,which according to Forbes (July 14, 2015) rose to $7.77 trillion. Overnight hundreds of thousands of American demanded Congress rescind the vote. Under immense popular protest, Congress capitulated. However President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership insisted: the bill was slightly modified and approved. The ‘popular will’ was denied. The protests were neutralized and dissipated. The bailout of the banks proceeded, while several million households watched while their homes were foreclosed ,despite some local protests. Among the anti-bank movement, radical proposals flourished, ranging from calls to nationalize them, to demands to let the big banks go bankrupt and provide federal financing for co-operatives and community banks.

Clearly the vast-majority of the American people were aware and acted to resist corporate-collusion to plunder taxpayers.

Conclusion: What is to be Done?

Mass popular mobilizations are a reality in the United States. The problem is that they have not been sustained and the reasons are clear: they lacked political organization which would go beyond protests and reject lesser evil policies.

The anti-war movement which started in opposition to the Iraq war was marginalized by the two dominant parties. The result was the multiplication of new wars. By the second year of Obama’s presidency the US was engaged in seven wars.

By the second year of Trump’s Presidency the US was threatening nuclear wars against Russia, Iran and other ‘enemies’ of the empire. While public opinion was decidedly opposed, the ‘opinion’ barely rippled in the mid-term elections.

Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the Democratic Party. Before the movements can turn direct action into effective political and economic transformations, they need to build struggles at every level from the local to the national.

The international conditions are ripening. Washington has alienated countries around the world ;it is challenged by allies and faces formidable rivals. The domestic economy is polarized and the elites are divided.

Mobilizations, as in France today, are self-organized through the internet; the mass media are discredited. The time of liberal and rightwing demagogues is passing; the bombast of Trump arouses the same disgust as ended the Obama regime.

Optimal conditions for a new comprehensive movement that goes beyond piecemeal reforms is on the agenda. The question is whether it is now or in future years or decades?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2E5HgMe Tyler Durden