US Military Shuffle From Germany To Poland Is Imminent

US Military Shuffle From Germany To Poland Is Imminent

Tyler Durden

Thu, 06/25/2020 – 05:00

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

Trump is relocating 9500 US troop and lots of fighter planes from Germany to Poland.

Troop Movements on the German-Polish Border

In a tongue-in-cheek headline Eurointelligence reports Troop Movements on the German-Polish Border.

We couldn’t quite resist this headline, but it looks that a relocation of 9500 US troops from Germany to Poland is imminent. 

Polish Media Details

  • a new contingent of US troops, some from Germany and some from the US;

  • a relocation of 30 F-16 US fighter planes from Germany to Poland;

  • the headquarters of the V corps of the US army to be moved from Fort Knox to Poland;

  • adding 5 C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft, not clear whether this is a purchase or a relocation;

  • a deal on attack helicopters;

  • a bilateral defence co-operation act between the US and Poland.

Robert O’Brien, the White House national security adviser admits openly that this decision is linked to Germany’s failure to meet the promise of raising defence spending to 2% of GDP by 2024, which is a Nato commitment. He writes that Germany is the world’s fourth largest economy, yet spends only 1.4% of its GDP on defence. 

O’Brien also makes a link to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, and to Berlin’s choice of 5G telecoms provider. If this goes to Huawei, as we expect it might, the relationship with the US is set to deteriorate further.

Trump Pulls Troops From Germany, It’s a Good Start

On June 7 I commented Trump Pulls Troops From Germany, It’s a Good Start.

No Start at All

I was mistaken. This is not a start, no troops are coming home. 

I am in favor of moving the troops, not from Germany to Poland, but from anywhere and everywhere back to the US. 

If the EU is concerned about Russia enough to have troops, let the EU fund the troops.

Trump Shuffleboard

Instead, of bringing the troops home, Trump is playing troop shuffleboard. 

The US cannot afford to be the world’s policeman and should not try.

Phooey.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3dzwScJ Tyler Durden

Brickbat: Safe at Home

eviction_1161x653

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has passed an ordinance that will permanently ban landlords from evicting tenants who say they can’t pay their rent for coronavirus-related reasons such as losing their jobs. Mayor London Breed had already issued an executive order barring evictions during the public health emergency and for two months after it ends if tenants can’t pay their rent for coronavirus-related reasons. Landlords said the law is simply shifting the costs of the disease to them. “I’m a mom-and-pop business,” said Barbara Dwyer, who owns a three-unit building.”If my tenants were to decide to stop paying rent, I still have to pay my property taxes, utilities, insurance and cost of repairs.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hYSz9u
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Safe at Home

eviction_1161x653

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has passed an ordinance that will permanently ban landlords from evicting tenants who say they can’t pay their rent for coronavirus-related reasons such as losing their jobs. Mayor London Breed had already issued an executive order barring evictions during the public health emergency and for two months after it ends if tenants can’t pay their rent for coronavirus-related reasons. Landlords said the law is simply shifting the costs of the disease to them. “I’m a mom-and-pop business,” said Barbara Dwyer, who owns a three-unit building.”If my tenants were to decide to stop paying rent, I still have to pay my property taxes, utilities, insurance and cost of repairs.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hYSz9u
via IFTTT

Trump Claims Germany Owes $1 Trillion In NATO Obligations

Trump Claims Germany Owes $1 Trillion In NATO Obligations

Tyler Durden

Thu, 06/25/2020 – 04:15

President Trump lashed out at “delinquent” NATO members as he again called on all members of the transatlantic alliance  – particularly Germany –  to spend 2% of GDP on defense spending. Speaking at a joint press conference with Polish president Andrzej Duda at the White House, Trump asserted that Poland was one of eight European NATO members to meet its financial commitments to the alliance, according to the Irish Times.

“The United States is defending a lot of countries that are delinquent in what they are supposed to be paying,” the president said. Confirming that the US would be withdrawing troops from Germany, Trump claimed that Germany owed “close to a trillion dollars” to Nato “when you add it all up.”

While he claimed that the US had secured an extra $400 billion in new spending from NATO members, he said “we will be only satisfied when all members are paying their fair share”.

“The United States is the major participant [in Nato],” he said. “We defend Europe, but Europe also takes tremendous advantage of the United States on trade – advantage like you wouldn’t believe.”

Trump also confirmed that the US would “probably” going to be sending troops to Poland from Germany, noting that the number of US military personnel in Germany would reduce from 52,000 to 25,000, as previously reported . “Some will be coming home, some will be going to other places in Europe. Poland will be one of the places,” he said. He added that Poland would be paying for the troops to be stationed there, while he also praised Poland for the purchase of 32 F35 fighter jets.

Duda and Trump.

Trump’s comments came after Duda told reporters he had asked the US not to remove troops from Europe at all, arguing that their presence was needed to guarantee security for Poland and other nations against the threat of “Russian aggression.” The US has had a military presence in Germany since the end of WWII and while talks with Poland about a permanent US base there have not been successful, Duda has been keen for an additional US military presence on a rotational basis.

Moscow has denounced Poland’s calls for US presence as irresponsible, and the country’s new security strategy claiming a threat from Russia as “propagandist” and fictitious. “Whatever military potentially ends up threatening us from Polish territory,” Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov told RIA Novosti earlier this month, Russia “will take comprehensive measures in response.”

President Duda, who faces an election on Sunday, was the first foreign leader to meet Trump at the White House since Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s visit in March. It is his fifth meeting with the US president. Trump praised Poland’s protection of its borders, and “vigilant efforts to uphold the rule of law”, an issue that has provoked fury in Brussels as Poland’s right-wing government has pushed through a series of laws its has deemed “anti-democratic.” Trump also predicted that Duda would do very well in the election.

“He’s doing a terrific job. The people of Poland think the world of him…I don’t think he needs my help. He will do very well with or without us. He’s going to have a great success.”

Asked about the possibility of further police reform in the wake of George Floyd’s death after Democrats blocked legislation put forward by the Republican-controlled Senate this week, Trump accused Democrats of wanting to defund the police.  

“The Democrats want to weaken our police, take away our community….they want to take away a lot of strength from our police and law enforcement generally. We won’t do anything that’s going to hurt our police.”

Trump then pledged to issue an executive order on statues before the end of the week, although he said there were “very strong laws already on the books” which can lead to prison sentences of 10 years for those who desecrate monuments.

“Many people who are knocking down the statues don’t have any idea who the statue is….now they’re looking at Jesus Christ, they’re looking at George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson. Not going to happen while I’m here.”

Earlier, during a meeting with Duda in the Oval Office, Trump accused the Obama administration of spying on his 2016 election campaign as he welcomed a court ruling ordering the dismissal of a case against his former national security adviser Michael Flynn. “What happened to General Flynn should never happen again,” Mr Trump said. “He was treated horribly by a group of very bad people.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3eyeZfB Tyler Durden

Norway Is Expanding Its Arctic Oil Drilling Operations

Norway Is Expanding Its Arctic Oil Drilling Operations

Tyler Durden

Thu, 06/25/2020 – 03:30

Authored by Charles Kennedy via OilPrice.com,

Norway is looking to offer 136 blocks for oil and gas exploration in the licensing round for less explored areas on its shelf, including 125 blocks in the Arctic Barents Sea that are currently not available for drilling, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy said on Wednesday.   

The so-called 25th numbered licensing round – expected to be announced in the fall of 2020 after consultation on the proposed areas for oil drilling – typically includes frontier parts of the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS).

According to Norway’s oil ministry, it will be the frontier regions that are most likely to host large new discoveries.

The ministry proposes nine frontier areas for exploration, including eight areas in the Barents Sea and one area in the Norwegian Sea. The proposal is now submitted for public consultation, which should be completed by August 26.

Access to new exploration areas is crucial to maintaining activity on the Norwegian continental shelf, Petroleum and Energy Minister Tina Bru said in a statement. Norway needs new discoveries to maintain employment in one of its most important industries and its supply chain, especially after the last few challenging months, the minister added.  

Norway is currently reducing its oil production by the end of the year because of the slump in oil prices. But after Johan Sverdrup and the planned Johan Castberg oilfield reach peak production in a couple of years, Norway’s oil production is set for a natural decline after 2023 in the absence of significant discoveries.

According to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD), Norway has so far produced 48 percent of the recoverable resources on the shelf. This means that more than half are still untapped.

Last week, Norway announced the annual licensing round for oil and gas exploration in mature areas on the shelf, expanding the total acreage up for grabs by 36 blocks west of the Norwegian Sea. The so-called Awards in Predefined Areas (APA) are announced every year and comprise the mature parts with known geology and good infrastructure already in place, allowing tie-backs to existing infrastructure for any new discoveries.   

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hXUJGp Tyler Durden

Jihadist Arrests In The EU Fall As Left-Wing/Anarchist Attacks Soar

Jihadist Arrests In The EU Fall As Left-Wing/Anarchist Attacks Soar

Tyler Durden

Thu, 06/25/2020 – 02:45

According to a new report from Europol, the EU saw a total of 1,004 arrests for terrorism offences in 2019. The overall number of completed, failed and foiled terrorist attacks continued to decrease in the EU in 2019 compared to the previous year, mainly due to a continued downward trend in ethno-nationalist and separatist terrorist attacks.

Ten people died as a result of terrorist attacks in the EU and 27 people were injured. All deaths and the injuries of 26 people were the result of jihadist attacks; one person was injured in a rightwing terrorist attack. In addition to these terrorist attacks, Germany reported two major violent extremist attacks that killed three people and injured several others.

For the territory of the EU, a total of 119 completed, failed and foiled terrorist attacks in 2019 were reported by a total of 13 EU Member States.

The total number of jihadism-related incidents in the EU decreased slightly (21 in 2019; 24 in 2018), but continued to be geographically widespread.

France dominated its EU neighbors in terms of jihadist suspects arrested (with 202) followed by Spain (56) and Austria (43)…

All but one of the seven completed or failed attacks were committed by individuals acting alone, while most foiled plots involved multiple suspects.

However, while Jihadist attacks declines modestly, the number of arrests on suspicion of leftwing or anarchist terrorism in 2019 more than tripled, compared to previous years.

The majority of arrests were linked to violent demonstrations and confrontations with security forces in Italy.

 

Europol defines Left-wing and anarchist terrorism as follows:

Left-wing terrorist groups are pursuing via violent means to trigger the revolution against the political, social and economic system of a state, in order to introduce socialism and eventually establish a communist and a classless society.

Their ideology is often Marxist-Leninist. Examples of left-wing terrorist groups are the Italian Brigate Rosse (‘Red Brigades’) and the Greek Revolutionary Organisation 17 November.

Anarchist terrorism, is an umbrella term, is used to describe violent acts committed by groups (or to a lesser extent by individuals) affiliated with different anarchist ideologies. They promote a revolutionary, anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian agenda. Examples of anarchist terrorist groups are the Italian Federazione Anarchica Informale (‘Informal Anarchist Federation’) or the Greek Synomosia Pyrinon tis Fotias (‘Conspiracy of Cells of Fire’).

For left-wing and anarchist terrorists and violent extremists, the internet remained the preferred tool for awareness-raising, propaganda and recruitment activities. Websites containing left-wing and anarchist rhetoric served as platforms to spread ideology, through the posting of communiqués and the exchange of ideas.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2NuDdeM Tyler Durden

Polish President Vows To Oppose “Social Experiments” Designed To Harm Family-Unit

Polish President Vows To Oppose “Social Experiments” Designed To Harm Family-Unit

Tyler Durden

Thu, 06/25/2020 – 02:00

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Polish President Andrzej Duda has vowed to oppose the kind of “social experiments” performed on children in some western countries that have led to the erosion of the traditional family unit.

Speaking during a campaign rally in the town of Poronin before elections on June 28, Duda asserted that he would continue to pursue pro-family policies.

“These were policies of dignity for Poles and Poland — a dignified fight for Polish interests anywhere, where the truth about those interests had to be spoken. I never feared doing that,” he said.

Same-sex marriage, which is opposed by the majority of the population, is banned in the Polish constitution, and Duda emphasized his concern over how the LGBT movement has grown in other countries as a political power grab, not a civil rights cause.

“They are trying to persuade us that LGBT is a category of people, but it’s an ideology,” he said.

Adding that social benefits to encourage strong families would be maintained, Duda also vowed to defend children from “social experiments,” which presumably refers to the sexualization of children at a young age.

“Until I have no strength left, I promise you, I will always protect our family, our traditional family in accordance with our Polish model. I will not permit the introduction of experiments, especially if our children were to be used in these experiments. I do not permit that,” said the president.

Poland has largely resisted policies of multiculturalism and identity politics followed by other western nations and has blocked EU demands that it take in migrants from Muslim countries.

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawieck previously echoed Duda’s sentiment, encouraging people to have more children while asserting, “There is no strong Poland without strong families.”

*  *  *

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31hRhjY Tyler Durden

In re Michael Flynn as Bush v. Gore

Today a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit’s handed down its decision in In re Michael Flynn. The appellate court ordered the district court to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn.  Reading the decision, it reminds me a lot of another decision from another field in another time by another court.  That other decision is Bush v. Gore.  I wanted to say a bit about why I see them as similar.

First, the context.  Both Bush v. Gore and In re Flynn occurred in hyper-partisan political environments.  In Bush v. Gore, the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election hinged on the result in Florida.  The vote counting was being overseen by the Florida Supreme Court, which was a liberal court that many conservatives believed was trying to stack the deck on the recount to help the 2000 Democratic candidate.

In Flynn, the defendant is a close supporter of the President.  The President strongly wants the charges dismissed in Flynn’s case so he can use the resulting narrative of that case as part of his campaign in the upcoming election. The district court proceeding is being overseen by Judge Sullivan, a liberal judge who conservatives think is trying to interfere with the dismissal of Flynn’s case to help the 2020 Democratic candidate.

Next, the timing.  Both Bush v. Gore and In re Flynn involve extreme time pressures. In Bush v. Gore, we needed to know who won the election.  The Court had heard an earlier case from the Florida Supreme Court earlier, but the Bush v. Gore round was lightning fast: The Florida Supreme Court ruled on December 8th, the U.S. Supreme Court took the case and had argument on December 11th, and the opinion came down the next day, December 12th.

In Flynn, there is less of a timing pressure—the election is coming up in a few months, not behind us.  But still, the proceedings happened very quickly. The emergency mandamus petition was filed May 19th, oral argument was June 12th, and the opinions were handed down twelve days later on June 24th.

Next, both cases pair a novel merits question and a remedies question. As to the merits, in both cases the question of was how the lower court was supposed to apply a general principle to a new context.  And in both cases, the remedies question was whether to let the lower court then apply the law on remand.   In a normal case, the higher court would say what the law is and remand to the lower court.

But here’s the most interesting part, I think.  In both cases, the court told the lower court to just flat out stop what it was doing.  And in both cases, that remedy was pretty astonishing.

In the 2000 election case, Bush v. Gore, you would have expected the state court to decide what kind of election recount state law permitted.  Instead, the Supreme Court ordered the Florida Supreme Court to halt the recount. “Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed,” the majority held, “we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.”   Remarkably, Supreme Court just took control and told the lower court to stop it.

Similarly, in Flynn, you would have expected the lower court to be able to rule on the motion. A motion to dismiss was filed, and the district court was considering it and wanted to hear different perspectives before ruling.  Judges get motions, consider them, have hearings, and rule on them all the time.  That’s the way it normally works.  Instead, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the district judge couldn’t even consider the question.  Merely having a hearing on how to decide the motion is a harm, the court concluded.  And the court didn’t trust the district court to approach the law the right way if they let him proceed in the normal way.  So remarkably, the D.C. Circuit just took control and told the lower court to stop it.

Finally, there’s another obvious and perhaps inevitable (although sad) similarity. In both cases, the opinions were divided along party lines, with the majority judges on the side that helped the President of the party that nominated them.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YZWRVi
via IFTTT

In re Michael Flynn as Bush v. Gore

Today a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit’s handed down its decision in In re Michael Flynn. The appellate court ordered the district court to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn.  Reading the decision, it reminds me a lot of another decision from another field in another time by another court.  That other decision is Bush v. Gore.  I wanted to say a bit about why I see them as similar.

First, the context.  Both Bush v. Gore and In re Flynn occurred in hyper-partisan political environments.  In Bush v. Gore, the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election hinged on the result in Florida.  The vote counting was being overseen by the Florida Supreme Court, which was a liberal court that many conservatives believed was trying to stack the deck on the recount to help the 2000 Democratic candidate.

In Flynn, the defendant is a close supporter of the President.  The President strongly wants the charges dismissed in Flynn’s case so he can use the resulting narrative of that case as part of his campaign in the upcoming election. The district court proceeding is being overseen by Judge Sullivan, a liberal judge who conservatives think is trying to interfere with the dismissal of Flynn’s case to help the 2020 Democratic candidate.

Next, the timing.  Both Bush v. Gore and In re Flynn involve extreme time pressures. In Bush v. Gore, we needed to know who won the election.  The Court had heard an earlier case from the Florida Supreme Court earlier, but the Bush v. Gore round was lightning fast: The Florida Supreme Court ruled on December 8th, the U.S. Supreme Court took the case and had argument on December 11th, and the opinion came down the next day, December 12th.

In Flynn, there is less of a timing pressure—the election is coming up in a few months, not behind us.  But still, the proceedings happened very quickly. The emergency mandamus petition was filed May 19th, oral argument was June 12th, and the opinions were handed down twelve days later on June 24th.

Next, both cases pair a novel merits question and a remedies question. As to the merits, in both cases the question of was how the lower court was supposed to apply a general principle to a new context.  And in both cases, the remedies question was whether to let the lower court then apply the law on remand.   In a normal case, the higher court would say what the law is and remand to the lower court.

But here’s the most interesting part, I think.  In both cases, the court told the lower court to just flat out stop what it was doing.  And in both cases, that remedy was pretty astonishing.

In the 2000 election case, Bush v. Gore, you would have expected the state court to decide what kind of election recount state law permitted.  Instead, the Supreme Court ordered the Florida Supreme Court to halt the recount. “Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed,” the majority held, “we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.”   Remarkably, Supreme Court just took control and told the lower court to stop it.

Similarly, in Flynn, you would have expected the lower court to be able to rule on the motion. A motion to dismiss was filed, and the district court was considering it and wanted to hear different perspectives before ruling.  Judges get motions, consider them, have hearings, and rule on them all the time.  That’s the way it normally works.  Instead, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the district judge couldn’t even consider the question.  Merely having a hearing on how to decide the motion is a harm, the court concluded.  And the court didn’t trust the district court to approach the law the right way if they let him proceed in the normal way.  So remarkably, the D.C. Circuit just took control and told the lower court to stop it.

Finally, there’s another obvious and perhaps inevitable (although sad) similarity. In both cases, the opinions were divided along party lines, with the majority judges on the side that helped the President of the party that nominated them.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YZWRVi
via IFTTT

Congress Drops the Ball on Small Business Coronavirus Rescue

sipaphotosten736655

The Payroll Protection Program, or the PPP, is the crown jewel of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act’s attempt to rescue small businesses from effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Unfortunately, the program has been a mess in its implementation and its results. This predictable failure is likely to distort and delay our economic recovery.

Here’s the idea behind the PPP: The Small Business Administration, with the help of the Treasury Department, would issue hundreds of billions of dollars in low-interest-rate loans to small businesses. In theory, all small businesses with fewer than 500 employees qualified. Also in theory, if a business used 75 percent or more of its loan to cover payroll costs and keep paying workers for an eight-week period after the loan was granted, that loan would be forgiven.

In practice, things didn’t work out as planned. First, the application process was a mess. Lenders kept changing the terms or decided they would only lend to businesses that already had an account with them. Many small businesses were thus left looking for lenders. Then, the SBA—an agency infamous for its terrible record helping small businesses after disasters—rejected applicants for all sorts of reasons, including not being able to jump through the agency-made regulatory requirements.

Data also reveal that some enterprises with far more than the maximum of 500 employees—many of them publicly traded—got large loans approved before many others could even get access to a bank to apply. Some large firms, including Ruth’s Chris Steak House and Shake Shack, returned the money, but others have dragged their feet. Companies like these usually have plenty of access to capital elsewhere, which is not always the case with small businesses. The size of the loans these big guys got would make your eyes pop, especially compared with what smaller companies in direr straits got.

Meanwhile, a fair number of self-employed workers—who constitute 81 percent of all small businesses—could not get a PPP loan because in the eyes of the federal government, they don’t actually exist as businesses.

Take science-based syndicated columnist and author Amy Alkon. As she told me via email a few weeks ago, because of coronavirus, she’s had a big cutback in earnings. She explained, “I need to avoid just burning through my savings until I’m living in a tent under an underpass.” Yet, she hasn’t been able to get a loan with PPP.

The anecdotal evidence that PPP didn’t make it to the right places is confirmed by several academic papers so far. The authors of a National Bureau of Economic Research paper titled “Did The Paycheck Protection Program Hit the Target?” find that the funds didn’t flow to where the economic shock was greatest.

According to calculations by MIT’s Lawrence Schmidt and Northwestern University’s Dimitris Papanikolaou, the professional and technical services sector received the largest number of PPP loans—around $65 billion in total. This sector also has the highest fraction of workers who are remote and, hence, are least exposed to pandemic-related disruptions. They also reported that nonremote, lower-paid workers were 15 percentage points more likely to be unemployed compared with workers in sectors where working remotely is an option.

Using 2017 estimates of employment in firms with fewer than 500 employees, the professional and technical services sector received $12,500 per employee. By contrast, accommodation and food services, a sector hit much harder, received a mere $4,800 per employee.

Finally, while the PPP allows for loan forgiveness in theory, generous and easy-to-get unemployment benefits given to workers during the coronavirus response mean that many firms will have a hard time retaining enough employees to qualify for it. That will be an unwelcome surprise to those who received a loan under the lure of forgiveness.

The bottom line is that the PPP was poorly thought through, implemented, and administered, and even more poorly targeted—in other words, typical congressional carelessness.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Z5LUSr
via IFTTT