“I skipped breakfast again this morning,” writes John Stossel. “I won’t worry about it.”
Yes, Stossel has heard the advice. “It’s the most important meal of the day.” It balances blood sugar levels, kick-starts your metabolism, stimulates the brain, etc.
But Stossel is not worried, because he now knows there’s no proof that skipping breakfast causes heart attacks or any other problem. In fact, just about all the claims about breakfast being especially important are unproven.
Former federal prosecutor and political neophyte Lori Lightfoot made Chicago history Tuesday night when she won a runoff nonpartisan election to become Chicago’s first black woman, and first openly-gay candidate, ever elected mayor. Winning with a staggering 74% of the vote after parlaying her leadership of a task force on police killings, Lightfoot’s outsider status gave her a huge edge over her opponent, Toni Preckwinkle, the head of the Cook County Board of Commissioners and a former boss of the city’s Democratic Party, who was also a black woman.
After Mayor Rahm Emmanuel declared he would not seek reelection in September as the city’s precarious finances and the appearance of a coverup of police misconduct tainted his image, 14 candidates vied for the position during a non-partisan election, which led to Tuesday’s runoff after none of the candidates managed to secure a majority in the first round. Both Preckwinkle and Lightfoot beat out Bill Daley, the brother of Emmanuel’s predecessor, Richard Daley, and a member of a Chicago political dynasty, a sign that voters were fed up with the city’s political class and its reputation for self-dealing.
Lori Lightfoot
Lightfoot triumphed despite being outraised by Preckwinkle, who touted her status as a political “boss” during her campaign, with Lightfoot starting the runoff with just $731,000 on hand, compared with Preckwinkle’s $3.9 million. In addition to securing the support of the city’s powerful unions, Preckwinkle also won the endorsement of Chance the Rapper, one of the city’s most prominent figures in the entertainment industry, according to Politico.
But in addition to her “insider” status, Preckwinkle also suffered from her association with longtime city Alderman Ed Burke, who was recently arrested on corruption charges.
When she is sworn in next month, Lightfoot will become Chicago’s second female mayor after Jane Byrne, who served one term from 1979 to 1983, and its third black mayor after Harold Washington, who was elected to succeed Byrne in 1983, and Eugene Sawyer, who became acting mayor when Washington died in 1987.
“She had the right message at the right time,” said Jason McGrath, a pollster and senior adviser to Lightfoot’s campaign. “We knew for months we had something special and just needed the right circumstance to evolve for us to get to a point where people were ready to listen to the message. At the end of the day, from every neighborhood from Beverly Park to Uptown, people wanted something different.”
Lightfoot, age 56, was an assistant US attorney before entering private practice. Despite her lack of political experience, she was endorsed by the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune newspapers, as well as Congressmen Jesus “Chuy” Garcia and Robin Kelly, as her “reformer” campaign picked up traction. She ran on a promise to drive out corruption from city hall, and to invest more resources in the western and southern ends of the city, NBC News reported.
Unsurprisingly in a city where the Republican Party has essentially ceased to exist, all 14 of the candidates who ran alongside Lightfoot in the runoff were associated with the Democratic Party to varying degrees.
During her victory speech, Lightfoot extended an olive branch to her defeated rival.
“In this election Toni and I were competitors, but our differences are nothing compared to what we can achieve together,” Lightfoot said. “Now that it’s over, I know we will work together for the city that we both love.”
“Today, you did more than make history,” Lightfoot said. “You created a movement for change.”
She also spoke of a “city reborn” and said her victory showed a city where “it doesn’t matter what color you are, where it sure doesn’t matter how tall you are, and where it doesn’t matter who you love.”
Watch her victory speech:
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2VeQaMf Tyler Durden
British parliament is now worse than a joke. And they have no one to blame but themselves.
As I watch the desperation of these people, obviously loyal to the European Union first and their constituents a distant fourth or fifth – after themselves, their party and any corporate lobbyists – it’s clear they don’t have any clue as to how to get out of the mess they’ve made for themselves.
Yesterday the British parliament again took over the business from the government and again was incapable of providing any direction to that government as to what kind or type of Brexit would be acceptable.
Mike Shedlock has a good run-down of the votes themselves if you are interested in what terminal virtue-signaling looks like. Mike thinks:
There will likely be one more round of “indicative votes” and also likely May’s Deal vs No Deal or the result of the indicative vote.
There are options left. Theresa May will try to steer this to the vote she wanted all along: My Deal or No Deal.
If she can achieve that, I suspect it will pass but it is by no means certain.
I agree with the first point but the real challenge is neither of the options he lays out, there’s a bigger problem as of today. It is the latest betrayal of Brexit by Oliver Letwin and Yvette Cooper who will try and ram through a long-extension bill on Wednesday to put off Brexit for an indefinite period of time.
It will be yet another amendment of the Article 50 law that is, for all intents and purposes, a travesty of British parliamentary history since these amendments to the law have not gone through the normal review process which could easily take more time than these traitors have to stop Brexit happening on April 12th.
They are searching for a way to find a solution that involves them winning voter support while betraying Brexit. Project Fear hasn’t worked and now we’re into Project Attrition.
The problem is there is no such solution.
And the reason for that is has nothing to do with a house divided, party politics or anything else.
It’s all about them.
Politicians are a feckless and cowardly lot. They exist only to get re-elected and retain the perks of the office.
This is especially true in Britain as so many of them are incapable of holding, in Nigel Farage’s words, “a proper job” where they provide something of value in exchange for their time.
They are only good at one thing: being members of parliament, conniving for their own advantage.
And this has disheartened many British people, who rightly see their MPs imposing their will over those who voted for them.
It reeks of arrogance and entitlement. But it also reeks of fear.
Politicians care only about what we think. Their entire lives are spent checking the direction of the political winds to see what they can get away with.
And the reason Brexit is such a ‘cock-up’ is because MPs refuse to actually vote for what they want to do because they know what the backlash from voters will be.
Ignore the opinion polling, especially in Britain. As I’m fond of saying, “there are lies, damn lies, statistics and British polling.” If the MPs were so secure in their arguments that the “people didn’t know what they were voting for in 2016,” or “things change, let’s put this to another vote” they wouldn’t have voted down all forms of Brexit and all forms of Not-Brexit over the past three weeks.
They would have voted for something.
And that’s because the Remainer Tories are scared of losing their seats for betraying their mandate and so is most of Labour. The only ones who seem committed to their path are the Scottish Nationals, having put all of their eggs into the ‘IndyRef 2’ basket, hoping a 2nd referendum on Brexit will pave the way for a second one on Scottish independence.
That’s why the desperation is so thick right now. Letwin is a dyed-in-the-wook europhile, who has a history of stabbing Prime Ministers in the back (Poll Tax) for political gain and Cooper is simply angling for Jeremy Corbyn’s spot as leader of Labour.
Both are calculating that they can stop Brexit and win politically as the heroes who saved the country from a “No-Deal” Brexit. I’m sure they know just how much the U.K. would be punished in the short term by the financial markets, currency speculators, banksters and corporate raiders, standing behind them and their counterparts in Brussels.
The Davos Crowd in other words.
Remember, the mood at Davos this year was like a morgue. The oligarchs know they are fighting a defensive war now.
That is the plan at this point. To wear down opposition to their plans and blackmail the people into submission lest they lose trillions.
Don’t let the EU’s strong facade fool you. These people do not want a ‘no-deal’ Brexit anymore than my goats want steak for dinner. We already know this because we are into stoppage time on Brexit, handed out precisely because Theresa May went to them at the end of March with “No-Deal” in her back pocket.
But they have no other plan now. It’s more arm-twisting, desperation and hysteria. For now, it’s about the Letwin-Cooper amendment creating the illusion of cross-party support.
While Theresa May meets with Jeremy Corbyn to hash out what they can bring to the EU next week.
The EU wants the deal they dictated to Theresa May. She can’t deliver that. Now both will conspire to destroy both parties and betray Brexit.
In America, bipartisanship is just a euphemism for the two parties coming together to screw the people. That’s how we get everything bad in the U.S.
The same thing will happen here over Brexit.
Corbyn and May will lock horns and we’ll find out who is made of what. You know I think Theresa May is made of Gypsum, so all Corbyn has to do is access what’s left of his testosterone after a lifetime of selling it out to Marxism and Brexit will be over.
The likelihood now is that they will craft the worst possible compromise and try and sell that to both of their backbenchers.
Letwin and Cooper have set the stage with the legislation.
Now it’s up to Corbyn and May to bring it on home.
And in no case does “England Prevail.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2uJGGg9 Tyler Durden
Speaking Tuesday in the House of Commons, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt issued a critique of US policy and stern rebuke to President Trump’s recent controversial move to bestow formal US recognition on the Golan Heights as sovereign Israeli territory.
Hunt’s words, which he said represents long-standing UK policy, came during a question and answer session in reaction to a fellow Conservative MP member, who raised the “matter of the greatest regret that our allies, the United States, are in clear contravention of UN Resolution 497.”
British Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt, file photo.
Hunt condemned Trump’s actions “with a heavy heart” because Israel was also “an ally and a shining example of democracy in a part of the world where that is not common… We want Israel is to a success and we consider them to be a great friend but on this we do not agree,” according to The Times of Israel.
Hunt agreed with Tory Grandee Nicholas Soames’ perspective that the White House’s signing into US law formal recognition of the disputed region previously wrested from Syria was “illegal”.
Soames said that “annexation of territory is prohibited under international law” and asked Hunt to “condemn unreservedly this breach of the rules-based order”.
Without hesitation Hunt declared he was “absolutely happy to do that,” and added:
“We should never recognize the annexation of territory by force… that has been one of the great achievements since the founding of the United Nations.”
Israel fully annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 after capturing it from Syria during the Six-Day War of 1967. The United Nations has never recognized Israeli annexation and settlement there, but has repeatedly condemned it.
President Trump’s reversal of half-century-old US policy was signed into effect on March 25 during a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House, and cited Israeli security concerns as of paramount importance.
Trump had tweeted days prior that “it is time” for the US to “fully recognize Israel’s sovereignty” over the Golan Heights.
“After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability,” Trump stated, first marking the dramatic reversal of US policy which had historically alongside global international allies seen the Golan as occupied territory.
Netanyahu, for his part, welcomed the move as he has for years declared Israel would “never give it up”.
After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!
But as Tuesday’s words from the UK foreign minister confirm, in practice Trump’s act of recognition will change little internationally as well as in terms of the on the ground strategic reality.
However, it could have far-reaching diplomatic reverberations, putting further distance between Washington and European capitals amid the ongoing standoff over Europe’s intent to skirt renewed US sanctions on Iran after Trump’s dumping the 2015 Obama-brokered nuclear deal, or JCPOA.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2I9PuUK Tyler Durden
The Arizona Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to allow a woman to use embryos fertilized by her ex-husband to become pregnant. The ex-husband objects to her plans. The two were dating in 2014 when the woman was diagnosed with cancer and told by her doctor she likely would not be able to bear children after chemotherapy. The man agreed to fertilize her eggs, and they signed a contract agreeing not to use the embryos without mutual consent. They later married and divorced. The man could become liable for child support if she has a child with the embryos.
French President Emmanuel Macron has called for a European Renaissance. This article examines the potential business risks this proposal portends for foreign investors.
On March 4th, French President Emmanuel Macron seized the spiritual banner of the European Union (EU) and made his case appealing for a Renaissance of the Union. The core principles of the EU are being challenged on many fronts. There is an ugly Brexit battle in the west, scorn and vitriol from Italy and Greece in the south, and nationalistic attacks on the EU’s structures in Warsaw, Budapest, and other capitals. Macron’s attempt to rekindle the European spirit is a very public attempt to repudiate the populist agenda simmering throughout the member states. But will there be a Renaissance; will the EU continue to centralize power and inspire European unity? Or will there instead be a period of policy strife and conflict? More importantly from a political risk perspective: how will the near future of the EU impact business interests on the continent?
Future of Europe: Gazing into the crystal ball
The United Kingdom’s torturous Brexit process serves one clear purpose for the rest of the EU: member states and their populations have seen that divorce from the Union is a painful and costly process. Nevertheless, it represents an extreme manifestation of the growing dissatisfaction of many European voters on the direction the EU has taken. Populist parties, especially, have seized on scapegoating the EU as a political ploy to drum up votes.
Complaining about the structure or policies of the EU has been a trend for many years. However, now the tone has shifted to a cri de coeur from voters who are frustrated by economic stagnation and are grappling with the dramatic wave of recent migration into the EU.
The EU is likely entering a challenging period of bureaucratic stagnation and painful public debate. Macron’s public spat with populist leadership in Italy is emblematic of this Sturm und Drang struggle in Europe. Progressive, liberal EU-oriented leadership will be forced to reckon with underlying symptoms of the populist wave. Spurred by both economic discontent and a strong desire for ‘tradition’ (which is often simply xenophobiain its myriad manifestations), the populist movements are almost universally challenging the value and direction of the EU.
Macron’s attempt to ignite a counter-movement is generally well-received by the public in other EU nations. However, the vitriol poured on him by political opponents in France underscored that his position as a long-term spur to European renewal is fragile at best.
What political risks do businesses in Europe face?
This struggle over the direction of the EU will also determine how it is positioned as a business platform vis-à-vis other major trading powers in the next decade. Of special interest, of course, are the competitive markets in China and the United States. Recent calls to create ‘European Champions’, especially in the tech industry, suggest member state leaders are willing to embrace a more protectionist position. This would help them to compete against the United States and China for their share of global trade. Additionally, what else can we expect from the internal struggle to renew or revamp the EU in the wake of ‘Brexit’? With strong populist forces dictating the terms of public debate, what political risks will businesses face?
Fortress America will encourage a similar reaction in Europe
The Trump administration’s hardline stance with China, which has slowed global growth, may at long last be paying some dividends in opening China, at least on paper, to more favourable terms for U.S. trade. While the U.S. – EU trade war has been in abeyance pending discussions between the trade offices in the two countries, those negotiations have shown little progress. If the U.S. uses similar tactics with the EU, the resulting trade conflict could drag on for an extended period. It will, in the short-to-medium term, risk that further trade barriers will be set up against U.S. companies and other competitors to protect EU interests.
Combined with German and French shared interests to challenge the U.S. on tech and fight the influence of U.S.-based companies such as Apple, Google and Microsoft; there is a substantial risk that both direct and indirect methods of regulation (such as the GDPR) will be imposed to limit U.S. access to the EU market.
Competition law will change, ostensibly in favour of EU consolidation
Despite wrenchingly different perspectives among member state constituencies, the national governments seem committed to change. They want to restructure competition law in the EU to support European mergers so that they are theoretically more competitive. Since the issues are complex and don’t appear to lend themselves to populist scare-mongering, endeavours to support the creation of ‘European Champions’ of industry should meet with comparatively little public interest or resistance. The Franco-German alliance is, on this issue, stable and strong. Other nations have signed up to reforming the competition system as well, agreeing that the system is outdated. With Commissioner Vestager leaving her position, the bureaucracy which supports EU competition reviews and policies will be more open (and vulnerable) to change.
Increased scrutiny of financial transactions and the role of the European bank
Banks moving operations out of the UK due to Brexit were already warned of a forthcoming increase in scrutiny as the traditional financial centre of London becomes diffused over the EU. These moves have been to Frankfurt, Luxembourg, Paris, and Dublin, among others. The growing concern over Russian funds being whitewashed by banks in the Baltic States and Scandinavia means that this is an area where member states and the EU will find common ground to enhance scrutiny and tighten the rules on foreign funds entering the EU banking system. However, a greater role and further autonomy for the European Central Bank in monetary policy is likely not in the cards due to concerns from populist parties as to its role in the economy.
The Brexit crucible
Regardless of the political battles to determine the direction of the EU in the next few years – whether to centralize and re-invigorate the ‘ever closer union’, or to decentralize powers back to the member states in certain areas – the painful divorce process that the globe has witnessed with the UK’s attempt to leave the EU serves one positive purpose. For most observers, watching the UK struggle to extricate itself has cooled their ardour to do the same. From a political risk perspective, the risk of further fracturing of the union has decreased in the immediate future. While no one can be certain of what direction the EU will take, it will at least move forward as a unit.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2CPBc8g Tyler Durden
Odds of a ‘no deal’ Brexit next week have risen markedly over the past week, as the Commons has twice failed to coalesce around a viable alternative to Theresa May’s deal, while once again rejecting the “best possible deal” negotiated between the prime minister and the EU27, albeit by a smaller, yet still considerable, margin than in the past.
This is why, for the first time in a while, speculation about ‘no deal”s impact, not only on the UK, but on the European, and broader global, economy is at the forefront of the market’s mind, as investors have finally been forced to confront the reality that the UK crashing out of the EU next week isn’t only possible, but extremely probable.
To that end, analysts at Goldman Sachs, who have been closely chronicling the Brexit trainwreck since the referendum, have attempted to quantify the economic impact of Brexit in the two-and-a-half years since the referendum, and use it to extrapolate what might be in store not just for the UK, but for all of Europe, if Britain leaves without a deal next week.
The bank’s findings are alarming, to the say the least.
To begin, its analysts quantified how the uncertainty bred by the chaotic and dysfunctional Brexit negotiations has inspired businesses and consumers to put off investments and consumption, and compared it with a “doppleganger” model illustrating the counterfactual state of the UK in an alternate reality where voters elected to remain.
Using these models, Goldman calculated that Brexit has already knocked 2.4% off the UK’s GDP, or about £600 million pounds ($671.3 million) every week since the referendum.
Given that the bulk of this (theoretical) loss has been attributed to business investment, Goldman has extrapolated that analysts have underestimated the impact of the “political uncertainty” surrounding the Brexit process.
And after establishing via a complex event-based factor analysis that Brexit-related uncertainty has been the primary driver of uncertainty in UK markets and investment over the past 2.5 years…
…The analysts concluded that the flare-up in Brexit-related uncertainty since the start of the year shaved 5% off QoQ investment growth during Q1.
In a finding that raises questions about the pan-European manufacturing recession that has emerged over the past few months, the analysts found that investment in large capital goods (planes, trains and equipment) and services (hotels and restaurants) are the most exposed to this type of uncertainty.
Looking beyond the British isles, Goldman illustrated how the Brexit referendum result rippled across global markets, exerting the biggest impact on the riskiest debt across the world, but especially in Europe. And since a ‘no deal’ Brexit could be just as much of an economic shock, there’s reason to believe that this type of reaction could repeat itself…
…Even though Brexit-related event risk since then has mostly been confined to countries with significant export exposure to the UK.
Yet, while leaving next week with a deal could be a tailwind for the UK economy, according to Goldman’s analysis of output costs, “no deal” could have a substantial impact on European GDP for years to come.
With the EU declaring that a “no deal” Brexit is now a “likely” scenario, the Telegraph’s International Business Editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard offered a haunting analysis of the ramifications of ‘no deal’ for the fragile European financial system, warning that the economic shock of a no-deal Brexit – coming at a time when manufacturing activity is already weak – could redound to a pan-European “Lehman-style” crisis, thanks the disruption in trade and its impact on growth.
The European Central Bank can – presumably – handle the immediate shock of a financial and trade rupture by relaunching bond purchases and compressing Italian yields. What the ECB cannot handle is a third economic recession in a decade. This will lead to a credit crunch and play havoc with Club Med debt dynamics.
Let us call it creeping Lehmanisation – until the dam breaks and risk spreads go non-linear.
Taken literally, the EU’s Brexit position implies barriers (certification, delays etc) on imports of Airbus components for factories in Toulouse and Hamburg. Every wing is built in the UK at a hi-tech plant in Broughton and there are no stockpiles.
Airbus has already stated that a full breakdown in cross-channel trade would lead to losses of €1bn a week. The supply chain would “fall apart”. Some 4,000 UK firms supply more than 10,0000 aircraft parts. These include Rolls-Royce engines. The biggest industrial venture in Europe with 108,000 employees would be hobbled for as long as Brussels stuck to its hard-line policy.
What’s worse, with the ECB already backing away from its plans to tighten money policy by leaving interest rates on hold at least through the end of the year, the Continent’s one bulwark against unmitigated financial peril would have few options to quell the fallout.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2TUluhM Tyler Durden
The simplicities of the postwar order have just begun to pass into history…
It would be difficult to overstate the importance of Xi Jinping’s visits to Rome, Paris and Monaco last week. In bringing his much-remarked Belt and Road Initiative to the center of Europe, the Chinese president has faced the Continent with the most fundamental question it will have to resolve in coming decades: Where does it stand as a trans–Atlantic partner with the U.S. and — as of Xi’s European tour — the western flank of the Eurasian landmass? The simplicities of the postwar order, to put the point another way, have just begun to pass into history.
In Rome, the populist government of Premier Giuseppe Conte brought Italy into China’s ambitious plan to connect East Asia and Western Europe via a multitude of infrastructure projects stretching from Shanghai to Lisbon and beyond. The memorandum of understanding Xi and Deputy Premier Luigi Di Maio signed calls for joint development of roads, railways, bridges, airports, seaports, energy projects and telecommunications systems. Along with the MoU, Chinese investors signed 29 agreements worth $2.8 billion.
Xi Jinpeng: Plenty to celebrate in Europe. (Wikimedia Commons)
Italy is the first Group of 7 nation to commit to China’s BRI strategy and the first among the European Union’s founding members. It did so two weeks after the European Commission released “EU–China: A Strategic Outlook,” an assessment of China’s swift arrival in Europe that goes straight to the core of the Continent’s ambivalence. Here is the operative passage in the E.C. report:
“China is, simultaneously, in different policy areas, a cooperation partner with whom the E.U. has closely aligned objectives, a negotiating partner with whom the E.U. needs to find a balance of interests, an economic competitor in the pursuit of technological leadership, and a systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance.”
There is much in this document to chew upon. One is the mounting concern among EU members and senior officials in Brussels about China’s emergence as a global power. This is natural, providing it does not tip into a contemporary version of the last century’s Yellow Peril. At the same time, the Continent’s leaders are highly resistant to the confrontational posture toward China that Washington urges upon them. This is the wisest course they could possibly choose: It is a strong indicator that Europeans are at last seeking an independent voice in global affairs.
Looking for Unity
They are also looking for a united EU front in the Continent’s relations with China. This was Emmanuel Macron’s point when Xi arrived in Paris. The French president made sure German Chancellor Angela Merkel and E.C. President Jean–Claude Juncker were there to greet Xi on his arrival at the Élysée Palace. The primary reason Italy sent shockwaves through Europe when it signed onto Xi’s signature project is because it effectively broke ranks at a highly charged moment.
But unity of the kind Macron and Merkel advocate is likely to prove elusive. For one thing, Brussels can impose only so far on the sovereignty of member states. For another, no one wants to miss, in the name of an E.U. principle, the opportunities China promises to bring Europe’s way. While Macron insisted on EU unity, he and Xi looked on as China signed contracts with Airbus, Électricité de France, and numerous other companies worth more than $35 billion.
There is only one way to read this: Core Europe can argue all it wants that China is unrolling a divide-and-conquer strategy, but one looks in vain for on-the-ground resistance to China’s apparent preference for bilateral agreements across the Continent. On his way home, Xi stopped in Monaco, which agreed in February to allow Huawei, China’s controversial telecoms company, to develop the principality’s 5G phone network.
In numerous ways, Italy was fated to demonstrate the likely shape of China’s arrival in Europe. The Conte government, a coalition led by the rightist Lega and the Five-Star Movement, has been a contrarian among EU members since it came to power last year: It is highly critical of Brussels and of other member states, it opposes EU austerity policies, it is fiercely jealous of its sovereignty in the EU context, and it favors better ties with Russia.
Closer to the ground, the Italian economy is weak and inward investment is paltry. Chinese manufacturers have made short work of Italian competitors in industries such as textiles and pharmaceuticals over the past couple of decades. A map, finally, tells us all we need to know about Italy’s geographic position: Its ports, notably Trieste at the northern end of the Adriatic, are gateways to the heart of Europe’s strongest markets.
BRI’s six proposed corridors, with Italy circled, on maritime blue route. See Wikipedia’s “Belt and Road Initiative” entry for more details. Map not meant for latest national boundaries. (Lommes, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
As the westward destination of Xi’s envisioned Belt and Road, Europe’s economic and political relations with China were bound to reach a takeoff point. The accord with Italy, Xi’s European tour and an EU–China summit scheduled to take place in Brussels on April 9 signal that this moment has arrived.
Shift in Relationship
But it is not yet clear whether Europeans have grasped the strategic magnitude of last week’s events. In effect, the Continent’s leaders have started down a path that is almost certain to induce a shift in the longstanding trans–Atlantic relationship. In effect, Europe is starting — at last — to act more independently while repositioning itself between the Atlantic world and the dynamic nations of the East; China first among them by a long way.
No European leader has yet addressed this inevitable question.
Let us not overstate this case. Trans–Atlantic ties have been increasingly strained since Barack Obama’s presidency. President Donald Trump’s antagonisms, most notably over the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear agreement, have intensified this friction. But there is still no indication that any European leader advocates a rupture in relations with Washington.
Can U.S.–European ties evolve gradually as China’s presence on the Continent grows more evident? This is the core question. Both sides will determine the outcome. The Europeans appear to be preparing for a new chapter in the trans–Atlantic story, but there is simply no telling how Washington will respond to a reduction in its long-unchallenged influence in Western European capitals.
There is one other question the West as a whole must face. The E.C.’s “strategic outlook” terms China “a systemic rival promoting alternative forms of governance.” There are two problems with this commonly sounded theme.
First, there is no evidence whatsoever that China has or ever will insist that other countries conform to its political standards in exchange for economic advantage. That may be customary practice among Western nations and at institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It is not China’s.
Second, as we advance toward a condition of parity between West and non–West — an inevitable feature of our century — it will no longer be plausible to assume that the West’s parliamentary democracies set the standard by which all others can be judged. Nations have vastly varying political traditions. It is up to each to maintain or depart from them. China understands this. So should the West.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2FJlH2g Tyler Durden
In response to Russian and Chinese war threats, the U.S. Army debuted its new Air and Missile Defense framework, or AMD, on March 27 that will pursue multimission units and counter hypersonic missile or unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attacks, the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Commander told Defense News in an interview during the Association of the U.S. Army’s Global Force Symposium.
Lt. Gen. James Dickinson said AMD would provide synchronized efforts to execute multi-domain operations, defend the country for emerging threats and succeed in future operational environments.
Top objectives of the new strategy include ensuring AMD forces can protect ground forces and defend critical assets on the modern battlefield and in the homeland. AMD forces are designed to help “create windows of superiority” in the air, so those infantry units have the ability to commandeer enemy territory successfully, Defense News said.
AMD forces align with the Army’s 2028 goal of modernized forces executing multidomain operations.
“Our vision is that the AMD force of 2028 will provide the combatant commanders with a flexible, agile, and integrated AMD force capable of executing multi-domain operations and defending the homeland, regional joint and coalition forces, and critical assets in support of unified land operations,” said Lt. Gen. Dickinson. “To do this, we will execute four lines of effort. We will modernize and develop AMD capabilities; build AMD capacity for multi-domain operations; provide trained and ready AMD forces; and maintain forward presence and build allied and partner capacity.”
AMD also erects the next generation Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense, or LTAMD, sensor as the replacement for the MIM-104 Patriot missile system.
The Army will continue developing Indirect Fire Protection Capability, or IFPC, that provides short-range defense against rockets, artillery, and mortars as well as hypersonic missiles and drones.
The service is also developing Short Range Air Defense, or M-SHORAD, that addresses an important capability gap in the European theater.
AMD is expected to link all of the service’s defense and missile systems into an integrated command system.
The strategy is expected to add directed-energy weapon systems to aircraft and ground vehicles to protect ground forces against rocket, artillery, mortar and drone threats.
The Army’s last AMD strategy was in 2012, according to Lt. Gen. Dickinson.
In the last five years, the threat of hypersonic missiles and drone attacks have sent American war planners back to the drawing boards. With AMD, the framework is now in place to develop a missile system that can not just protect American allies and troops on the modern battlefield, but protect critical assets in the homeland in the event of war.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2FKCQJ1 Tyler Durden
A Colorado sheriff has stated that he opposes a proposed new gun control law so much that he is willing to go to jail rather than enforce it.
Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams told CNN that “It’s a matter of doing what’s right.”
Here’s a bit of background on the bill Reams is referring to. It is likely to become law this week.
The law Reams says he will not enforce is a red flag gun confiscation law.
House Bill 19-1177, also known as a red flag bill or the Extreme Risk Protection Orders bill, passed the Colorado Senate 18-17 on Thursday and is scheduled Monday for the House floor. With Democratic majorities in both chambers, state Republicans have too few votes to stop the bill.
Last month, we reported that legislators and sheriffs in the state have been pushing back against the bill:
Officially called Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), “red flag” laws permit police, healthcare providers, or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.
Weld County recently joined the growing list of counties in Colorado that have passed Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions in response to the impending red flag law.
We also reported that Reams (among others) is in opposition to the bill:
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, one of HB 19-1177’s harshest critics, said “The severity of this bill cannot be overstated. The name of this bill is the Extreme Risk Protection Orders. I think that’s a façade, and I think it’s fraudulent. I think actually, this bill should have been titled: ‘The Extreme Order to Confiscate Your Firearms, Eliminate Due Process, and Violate your Constitutional Rights Bill.”
“The bill is so riddled with constitutional problems that it makes it hard to understand how professional lawmakers could have constructed something so terrible,” Reams said, adding the bill, “raises some serious concerns about due process, in that a person can have their guns taken away and their rights violated, all without ever having a chance to appear in an initial court hearing and cross examine accusers and witnesses in person. In legal terms, this is an exparte hearing.” (source)
Reams added that one of the biggest problems with the law is it does not address actual mental health issues – it only allows for guns to be taken away, leaving the person in the same position and without medical help. (source)
Sheriffs could find themselves locked inside of their own jails for refusing to enforce gun control laws.
Failure to enforce a court order to seize a person’s guns could mean sheriffs being found in contempt. A judge could fine them indefinitely, or even send them to jail to force them to comply.
Reams told CNN it’s a sacrifice he’d be forced to make.
He isn’t the only sheriff to voice opposition to red flag laws. A growing number of states, counties, cities, and towns are declaring themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” and are refusing to enforce gun-control laws that infringe on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
David Kopel, a constitutional law expert who has written extensively about gun policy in the United States, says he thinks the bill is generally a good idea but that he has serious reservations about how it is written, reports CNN:
“The gun ban lobbies are getting more and more extreme and aggressive,” he said.
The bill allows a judge to order a person’s guns to be seized before the person has a chance to appear in court. The bill does require a second hearing with the gun owner present to be held within 14 days, where the owner could make a case to keep the weapons — but if the owner is unsuccessful, a judge could order the guns seized for as long as a year.
Kopel said it would be difficult to prevent a nightmare scenario in which someone misuses the law to take guns away from a person they intend to target violently.
The burden of proof is low — “preponderance of the evidence,” which is the same standard used in civil cases, and a much lower bar than the criminal standard, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” (source)
Reams added that he is concerned about the potential to aggravate an already volatile person by taking their weapons:
“Going in and taking their guns and leaving the scene, I can’t see how that makes them less of a risk. It just takes one tool away,” said Reams, arguing that a person bent on hurting someone could do it with a knife or a car. (source)
He makes a great point. Last October, Maryland’s red flag law went into effect. Less than a month later, the law claimed its first victim. Gary J. Willis was killed by police when they showed up at his home at 5 am to serve him with a court order requiring that he surrender his guns.
Reams is not the only sheriff who is publicly voiced his intent to not enforce unconstitutional gun control laws.
Of the 33 sheriffs in the state, 29 have voiced disapproval of the package of anti-gun legislation by issuing a declaration through the state sheriffs’ association, stating that the “rush to react to the violence by proposing controls on guns is ill-conceived and is truly a distraction to the real problems proliferating violence in our counties and our state.” (source)
And, earlier this year, some sheriffs in Washington state publicly vowed not to enforce new unconstitutional gun laws.
In a statement, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said he is “confident that when and if the time comes, all law enforcement officials will follow the rule of law.”
But Reams said he is serious: “I’ve explained that time and time again,” he said. “I’m not bluffing.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2CQTGoJ Tyler Durden
“I skipped breakfast again this morning,” writes John Stossel. “I won’t worry about it.”
The Arizona Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to allow a woman to use embryos fertilized by her ex-husband to become pregnant. 
