Scotland Set to Hold 2nd Independence Referendum As Sturgeon Prepares To Fight Johnson Veto

Scotland Set to Hold 2nd Independence Referendum As Sturgeon Prepares To Fight Johnson Veto

Scotland is set to hold its second independence referendum, Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon announced Tuesday, while at the same time proposing a future date of October 19, 2023 for her country to hold a new vote on a potential break from the United Kingdom.

Sturgeon’s Scottish National Party campaigns on a platform for Scotland to declare independence from the UK, and she’s been pushing for another referendum on the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” In 2014, the 32 council areas of Scotland voted “no” – with the “No” side winning at 2,001,926 votes over 1,617,989 for “Yes”.

Via The Herald

Sturgeon said this week, “​​What I am not willing to do, what I will never do, is allow Scottish democracy to be a prisoner of Boris Johnson or any prime minister” – in reference to British constitutional rules that stipulate consent must be gained from the UK prime minister to proceed with the vote. Johnson has been on record as saying he would decline such a request.

She further penned a letter to PM Johnson, saying, “In a voluntary union of nations where the people of one nation have voted in elections to give a mandate for a referendum, it is, in my view, unacceptable democratically that the route to a referendum has to be via the courts rather than by co-operation between the UK and Scottish Governments,” Sturgeon said the letter. 

And according to more details via EuroNews:

In a statement to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh on Tuesday, Sturgeon said she had written to Boris Johnson indicating she was “ready and willing” to negotiate a so-called Section 30 order with him, which gives the Scottish government temporary powers to hold a referendum. This was how the 2014 independence referendum was held. 

Johnson is likely only to continue to stand firm against granting a section 30 order while watching Scottish politics fragment over the “partisan” push for independence. 

The main opposition party, the Scottish Conservatives, and its leader Douglass Ross has slammed the “pretend poll” in which his party will refuse to take part. “This is becoming a parliament that doesn’t get anything done on people’s real priorities,” Ross said, who represents a region of the Scottish Highlands. 

“A parliament that only exists to further the Scottish National Party’s interests… a do-nothing parliament with a first minister obsessed with another referendum at all costs,” he added.

Thus the political road and fight to a second vote appears set to be a long haul, after the first was defeated by almost half a million votes in a country with only some 5.5 million people.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/29/2022 – 02:45

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

Ukrainian Elite Unit Claims Sabotage Ops Inside Russia

Ukrainian Elite Unit Claims Sabotage Ops Inside Russia

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via The Libertarian Institute, 

The Times spoke with an intelligence officer and two sergeants in the Ukrainian special forces elite Shaman battalion who claimed Kiev had conducted covert operations inside Russia. The officers said they successfully carried out raids involving explosions to sow confusion and dissent among Russians. 

One of the special operations officers explained the missions involved sabotage and explosives. “The most interesting missions are working behind enemy lines; planting explosives behind the front lines, beyond the border,” he said. The second sergeant indicated the Shaman battalion’s raid behind enemy lines was successful.

He claimed, “The Russians don’t know what happened, they often can’t believe we were there.”

The officers gave few details about their operations to The Times. There have been several explosions inside Russia since President Valdimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine on February 24. Kiev has not officially claimed responsibility for any attacks inside of Russia but has hinted it might be behind some of the explosions

During the war in Afghanistan, the “Shaman battalion” fought with US and UK special forces. A senior Ukrainian intelligence official said, “We send them [Shaman battalion] to take on the most difficult tasks because they’re the best and the bravest. They are hugely important to the war effort.”

The sergeants explain how their units have been deployed in several battles inside Russia and Ukraine. However, they say their forces and supplies are diminishing as the fight in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region drags on. One of the officers told The Times that half of their friends have been killed in recent weeks. 

An intelligence official confirmed that Ukrainian soldier casualties are on the rise. “Ukraine’s casualty rate, far lower than Russia’s in the first weeks of the war, is now approaching parity with the invading force,” he said. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/29/2022 – 02:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/GoEst3R Tyler Durden

Two Libertarians Debate Abortion


Speaking photo of John Stossel flanked by an abortion protest sign and an image of a fetus

Now abortion law is up to states. Some will ban it, while most blue states will allow it in some form.

Because libertarians want government out of our lives, people assume we are pro-choice. Some of us are. But like the rest of America, there are principled libertarians on both sides.

We freedom-lovers believe women (and men) own their bodies and should have control over what happens to them.

But we also believe that one of the few legitimate roles for government is stopping murder. If a fetus is a life, abortion is legally murder.

“Life begins from the moment conception is complete,” says Kerry Baldwin, host of the Dare to Think Podcast. “Abortion is murder.”

“The termination of a pregnancy is the right of any woman,” counters pro-choice Avens O’Brien of Feminists for Liberty.

I say to O’Brien, “That is a form of life in the womb. You’re not bothered terminating that?”

“I’m not sure I agree that it’s a person with rights,” she responds.

“At what point does the baby have a right to be protected by the state?” I continue. “You’re saying that one minute before birth, the baby does not, and one minute after, it does?”

“Individuals have rights,” she responds. “Individuals don’t exist inside other people.”

Baldwin counters, “Passing through the birth canal doesn’t change the humanity of the fetus.”

“As long as a fetus is inside a person, the person gets to determine whatever’s happening to it,” answers O’Brien.

Baldwin says the only time abortion should be legal is if a woman’s life is in danger. Rape is not justification. Rape, she says, is “a crime against women. They need restitution for that crime,” but the woman must carry the baby to term.

Baldwin is libertarian, so she usually opposes government force. I point out that abortion bans are government force.

“It is the role of civil governance to criminalize acts of violence,” she replies.

I wonder how such criminalization would work.

“If abortion is illegal,” I point out, “the state either has to punish the woman or doctor or both.”

“This is a woman who’s in crisis,” says Baldwin. “It doesn’t make sense to…throw her in prison.”

Before Roe v. Wade, prosecuting women was rare. Sometimes doctors were prosecuted.

“The way you enforce is not through a police state,” says Baldwin. “The way to get women to stop choosing abortion is to provide other options.” One such option, she says, is to make adoption easier.

Easier adoption would be good, but it certainly won’t persuade all women to carry babies to term.

Watching this week’s abortion protests, one thing puzzles me: Why do activists always turn to politics?

Celebrities like Lady Gaga and Rihanna attacked Alabama’s abortion bill. “Governor…SHAME ON YOU,” said Rihanna.

Instead of shouting at politicians, activists could put their money where their mouths are.

I say to Baldwin and O’Brien, “Lady Gaga and Rihanna by themselves have enough money to fly every woman…to a state where it’s legal. Why is this a government issue?”

“It would be great if celebrities spent their money on mutual aid and direct action instead of lobbying politicians,” says O’Brien.

“Currently there is a meme going around,” she adds. “People write, ‘If anyone needs to go camping because their state does not allow camping…come camping with me. We’ll never talk about your camping.'”

Why “camping” instead of “abortion”?

Because in “certain states, that would create a legal problem,” explains O’Brien.

The two sides will never agree about abortion.

Personally, I think it’s reasonable when states ban late-term abortion. An 8-month-old fetus sure seems like life to me.

But I’m mostly pro-choice. People should own their own bodies. If someone lives inside you, you have a right to control that life.

COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

The post Two Libertarians Debate Abortion appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/8awc4BR
via IFTTT

Two Libertarians Debate Abortion


Speaking photo of John Stossel flanked by an abortion protest sign and an image of a fetus

Now abortion law is up to states. Some will ban it, while most blue states will allow it in some form.

Because libertarians want government out of our lives, people assume we are pro-choice. Some of us are. But like the rest of America, there are principled libertarians on both sides.

We freedom-lovers believe women (and men) own their bodies and should have control over what happens to them.

But we also believe that one of the few legitimate roles for government is stopping murder. If a fetus is a life, abortion is legally murder.

“Life begins from the moment conception is complete,” says Kerry Baldwin, host of the Dare to Think Podcast. “Abortion is murder.”

“The termination of a pregnancy is the right of any woman,” counters pro-choice Avens O’Brien of Feminists for Liberty.

I say to O’Brien, “That is a form of life in the womb. You’re not bothered terminating that?”

“I’m not sure I agree that it’s a person with rights,” she responds.

“At what point does the baby have a right to be protected by the state?” I continue. “You’re saying that one minute before birth, the baby does not, and one minute after, it does?”

“Individuals have rights,” she responds. “Individuals don’t exist inside other people.”

Baldwin counters, “Passing through the birth canal doesn’t change the humanity of the fetus.”

“As long as a fetus is inside a person, the person gets to determine whatever’s happening to it,” answers O’Brien.

Baldwin says the only time abortion should be legal is if a woman’s life is in danger. Rape is not justification. Rape, she says, is “a crime against women. They need restitution for that crime,” but the woman must carry the baby to term.

Baldwin is libertarian, so she usually opposes government force. I point out that abortion bans are government force.

“It is the role of civil governance to criminalize acts of violence,” she replies.

I wonder how such criminalization would work.

“If abortion is illegal,” I point out, “the state either has to punish the woman or doctor or both.”

“This is a woman who’s in crisis,” says Baldwin. “It doesn’t make sense to…throw her in prison.”

Before Roe v. Wade, prosecuting women was rare. Sometimes doctors were prosecuted.

“The way you enforce is not through a police state,” says Baldwin. “The way to get women to stop choosing abortion is to provide other options.” One such option, she says, is to make adoption easier.

Easier adoption would be good, but it certainly won’t persuade all women to carry babies to term.

Watching this week’s abortion protests, one thing puzzles me: Why do activists always turn to politics?

Celebrities like Lady Gaga and Rihanna attacked Alabama’s abortion bill. “Governor…SHAME ON YOU,” said Rihanna.

Instead of shouting at politicians, activists could put their money where their mouths are.

I say to Baldwin and O’Brien, “Lady Gaga and Rihanna by themselves have enough money to fly every woman…to a state where it’s legal. Why is this a government issue?”

“It would be great if celebrities spent their money on mutual aid and direct action instead of lobbying politicians,” says O’Brien.

“Currently there is a meme going around,” she adds. “People write, ‘If anyone needs to go camping because their state does not allow camping…come camping with me. We’ll never talk about your camping.'”

Why “camping” instead of “abortion”?

Because in “certain states, that would create a legal problem,” explains O’Brien.

The two sides will never agree about abortion.

Personally, I think it’s reasonable when states ban late-term abortion. An 8-month-old fetus sure seems like life to me.

But I’m mostly pro-choice. People should own their own bodies. If someone lives inside you, you have a right to control that life.

COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

The post Two Libertarians Debate Abortion appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/8awc4BR
via IFTTT

Maximalists Threaten a Federalist Compromise on Abortion


NYC-abortion-rights-protest-6-24-28

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, it ostensibly freed states to regulate abortion as they see fit. But that won’t be possible if Congress manages to impose one abortion policy on the entire country or if states succeed in applying their own laws beyond their territory.

Both power moves are constitutionally dubious. They threaten to undermine or negate the federalist approach that was supposed to convert a winner-take-all national controversy into state-by-state debates that leave room for a diversity of policies based on a diversity of opinions.

If Democrats had the necessary votes in the Senate, they would codify a right to abortion that goes even further than the limits that Roe imposed on state legislators. You might wonder where Congress gets the authority to dictate abortion policies across the country.

A bill that the House passed last year locates that authority in the power to regulate interstate commerce. “Abortion restrictions substantially affect interstate commerce in numerous ways,” it says, citing the interstate purchase of equipment and drugs used to terminate pregnancies.

Republicans can play this game too. The 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, for instance, notionally applies to abortions “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.”

As Independence Institute scholar David Kopel and University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds noted in 1997, that language is baffling “to any person not familiar with the Commerce Clause sophistries of twentieth century jurisprudence,” since “it is not really possible to perform an abortion ‘in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce'” unless “a physician is operating a mobile abortion clinic on the Metroliner.”

Those sophistries were epitomized by a 2005 decision in which the Supreme Court said the Commerce Clause was broad enough to encompass state-authorized medical marijuana that was never sold and never crossed state lines or even left the grower’s property. “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause,” Justice Clarence Thomas warned in his dissent, “then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

Thomas, who last week joined four other justices in overturning Roe, might nevertheless be skeptical of the federal abortion ban that some Republicans would like to pass. When the Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act as consistent with Roe in 2007, Thomas left open the possibility that the law might not be “a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause.”

Thomas’ willingness to enforce constitutional limits on the federal government’s powers could make him an ally of Democrats who view him as an enemy. But such cross-ideological alliances are not possible as long as Democrats are committed to the absurdly expansive reading of the Commerce Clause on which they rely for much of their agenda. If Congress can force states to allow abortion, it can also prevent them from allowing it.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also voted to renounce Roe, is another unlikely ally of pro-choice Democrats. In his concurring opinion, Kavanaugh said “the constitutional right to interstate travel” would preclude states from standing in the way of women seeking abortions in jurisdictions where they remain legal.

Neither that constraint nor the general rule against extraterritorial application of state laws has deterred legislators from trying to stop abortions in places that allow them. A 2021 Missouri bill, for example, would impose that state’s restrictions on all abortions obtained by Missouri residents, no matter where they are performed.

Pro-choice states have responded with legislation that aims to frustrate such threats. Those interstate disputes pose complicated issues that will play out in the courts for years.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia complained that Roe “destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level.” The compromise that Scalia envisioned—letting states go their own way on abortion—is today threatened by maximalists on both sides of the issue.

© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post Maximalists Threaten a Federalist Compromise on Abortion appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/aZ3i1M0
via IFTTT

Maximalists Threaten a Federalist Compromise on Abortion


NYC-abortion-rights-protest-6-24-28

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, it ostensibly freed states to regulate abortion as they see fit. But that won’t be possible if Congress manages to impose one abortion policy on the entire country or if states succeed in applying their own laws beyond their territory.

Both power moves are constitutionally dubious. They threaten to undermine or negate the federalist approach that was supposed to convert a winner-take-all national controversy into state-by-state debates that leave room for a diversity of policies based on a diversity of opinions.

If Democrats had the necessary votes in the Senate, they would codify a right to abortion that goes even further than the limits that Roe imposed on state legislators. You might wonder where Congress gets the authority to dictate abortion policies across the country.

A bill that the House passed last year locates that authority in the power to regulate interstate commerce. “Abortion restrictions substantially affect interstate commerce in numerous ways,” it says, citing the interstate purchase of equipment and drugs used to terminate pregnancies.

Republicans can play this game too. The 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, for instance, notionally applies to abortions “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.”

As Independence Institute scholar David Kopel and University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds noted in 1997, that language is baffling “to any person not familiar with the Commerce Clause sophistries of twentieth century jurisprudence,” since “it is not really possible to perform an abortion ‘in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce'” unless “a physician is operating a mobile abortion clinic on the Metroliner.”

Those sophistries were epitomized by a 2005 decision in which the Supreme Court said the Commerce Clause was broad enough to encompass state-authorized medical marijuana that was never sold and never crossed state lines or even left the grower’s property. “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause,” Justice Clarence Thomas warned in his dissent, “then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

Thomas, who last week joined four other justices in overturning Roe, might nevertheless be skeptical of the federal abortion ban that some Republicans would like to pass. When the Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act as consistent with Roe in 2007, Thomas left open the possibility that the law might not be “a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause.”

Thomas’ willingness to enforce constitutional limits on the federal government’s powers could make him an ally of Democrats who view him as an enemy. But such cross-ideological alliances are not possible as long as Democrats are committed to the absurdly expansive reading of the Commerce Clause on which they rely for much of their agenda. If Congress can force states to allow abortion, it can also prevent them from allowing it.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also voted to renounce Roe, is another unlikely ally of pro-choice Democrats. In his concurring opinion, Kavanaugh said “the constitutional right to interstate travel” would preclude states from standing in the way of women seeking abortions in jurisdictions where they remain legal.

Neither that constraint nor the general rule against extraterritorial application of state laws has deterred legislators from trying to stop abortions in places that allow them. A 2021 Missouri bill, for example, would impose that state’s restrictions on all abortions obtained by Missouri residents, no matter where they are performed.

Pro-choice states have responded with legislation that aims to frustrate such threats. Those interstate disputes pose complicated issues that will play out in the courts for years.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia complained that Roe “destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level.” The compromise that Scalia envisioned—letting states go their own way on abortion—is today threatened by maximalists on both sides of the issue.

© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post Maximalists Threaten a Federalist Compromise on Abortion appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/aZ3i1M0
via IFTTT

Escobar: Behind The Tin Curtain – BRICS+ Vs NATO/G7

Escobar: Behind The Tin Curtain – BRICS+ Vs NATO/G7

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Cradle,

The west is nostalgically caught up with outdated ‘containment’ policies, this time against Global South integration. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the world is moving on, together.

Once upon a time, there existed an Iron Curtain which divided the continent of Europe. Coined by former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the term was in reference to the then-Soviet Union’s efforts to create a physical and ideological boundary with the west. The latter, for its part, pursued a policy of containment against the spread and influence of communism.

Fast forward to the contemporary era of techno-feudalism, and there now exists what should be called a Tin Curtain, fabricated by the fearful, clueless, collective west, via G7 and NATO: this time, to essentially contain the integration of the Global South.

BRICS against G7

The most recent and significant example of this integration has been the coming out of BRICS+ at last week’s online summit hosted by Beijing. This went far beyond establishing the lineaments of a ‘new G8,’ let alone an alternative to the G7.

Just look at the interlocutors of the five historical BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa): we find a microcosm of the Global South, encompassing Southeast Asia, Central Asia, West Asia, Africa and South America – truly putting the “Global” in the Global South.

Revealingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s clear messages during the Beijing summit, in sharp contrast to G7 propaganda, were actually addressed to the whole Global South:

  • Russia will fulfill its obligations to supply energy and fertilizers.

  • Russia expects a good grain harvest – and to supply up to 50 million tons to world markets.

  • Russia will ensure passage of grain ships into international waters even as Kiev mined Ukrainian ports.

  • The negative situation on Ukrainian grain is artificially inflated.

  • The sharp increase in inflation around the world is the result of the irresponsibility of G7 countries, not Operation Z in Ukraine.

  • The imbalance of world relations has been brewing for a long time and has become an inevitable result of the erosion of international law.

An alternative system

Putin also directly addressed one of the key themes that the BRICS have been discussing in depth since the 2000s — the design and implementation of an international reserve currency.

“The Russian Financial Messaging System is open for connection with banks of the BRICS countries.”

“The Russian MIR payment system is expanding its presence. We are exploring the possibility of creating an international reserve currency based on the basket of BRICS currencies,” the Russian leader said.

This is inevitable after the hysterical western sanctions post-Operation Z; the total de-dollarization imposed upon Moscow; and increasing trade between BRICS nations. For instance, by 2030, a quarter of the planet’s oil demand will come from China and India, with Russia as the major supplier.

The “RIC” in BRICS simply cannot risk being locked out of a G7-dominated financial system. Even tightrope-walking India is starting to catch the drift.

Who speaks for the ‘international community?’

At its current stage, BRICS represent 40 percent of world population, 25 percent of the global economy, 18 percent of world trade, and contribute over 50 percent for world economic growth. All indicators are on the way up.

Sergey Storchak, CEO of Russian bank VEG, framed it quite diplomatically: “If the voices of emerging markets are not being heard in the coming years, we need to think very seriously about setting up a parallel regional system, or maybe a global system.”

A “parallel regional system” is already being actively discussed between the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) and China, coordinated by Minister of Integration and Macroeconomics Sergey Glazyev, who has recently authored a stunning manifesto amplifying his ideas about world economic sovereignty.

Developing the ‘developing world’

What happens in the trans-Eurasian financial front will proceed in parallel with a so far little known Chinese development strategy: the Global Development Initiative (GDI), announced by President Xi Jinping at the UN General Assembly last year.

GDI can be seen as a support mechanism of the overarching strategy – which remains the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), consisting of economic corridors interlinking Eurasia all the way to its western peninsula, Europe.

At the High-level Dialogue on Global Development, part of the BRICS summit, the Global South learned a little more about the GDI, an organization set up in 2015.

In a nutshell, the GDI aims to turbo-charge international development cooperation by supplementing financing to a plethora of bodies, for instance the South-South Cooperation Fund, the International Development Association (IDA), the Asian Development Fund (ADF), and the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

Priorities include “poverty reduction, food security, COVID-19 response and vaccines,” industrialization, and digital infrastructure. Subsequently, a Friends of the GDI group was established in early 2022 and has already attracted over 50 nations.

BRI and GDI should be advancing in tandem, even as Xi himself made it clear during the BRICS summit that “some countries are politicizing and marginalizing the developmental agenda by building up walls and slapping crippling sanctions on others.”

Then again, sustainable development is not exactly the G7’s cup of tea, much less NATO’s.

Seven against the world

The avowed top aim of the G7 summit in Schloss Elmau at the Bavarian Alps is to “project unity” – as in the stalwarts of the collective west (Japan included) united in sustainable and indefinite “support” for the irretrievably failed Ukrainian state.

That’s part of the “struggle against Putin’s imperialism,” but then there’s also “the fight against hunger and poverty, health crisis and climate change,” as German chancellor Scholz told the Bundestag.

In Bavaria, Scholz pushed for a Marshall Plan for Ukraine – a ludicrous concept considering Kiev and its environs might as well be reduced to a puny rump state by the end of 2022. The notion that the G7 may work to “prevent a catastrophic famine,” according to Scholz, reaches a paroxysm of ludicrousness, as the looming famine is a direct consequence of the G7-imposed sanctions hysteria.

The fact that Berlin invited India, Indonesia, South Africa and Senegal as add-ons to the G7, served as additional comic relief.

The Tin Curtain is up

It would be futile to expect from the astonishing collection of mediocrities “united” in Bavaria, under de facto leader of the European Commission (EC), Fuehrer Ursula von der Leyen, any substantial analysis about the breakdown of global supply chains and the reasons that forced Moscow to reduce gas flows to Europe. Instead, they blamed Putin and Xi.

Welcome to the Tin Curtain – a 21st century reinvention of the Intermarium from the Baltic to the Black Sea, masterminded by the Empire of Lies, complete with western Ukraine absorbed by Poland, the Three Baltic Midgets: Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Czechia and even NATO-aspiring Sweden and Finland, all of whom will be protected from “the Russian threat.”

An EU out of control

The role of the EU, lording over Germany, France and Italy inside the G7 is particularly instructive, especially now that Britain is back to the status of an inconsequential island-state.

As many as 60 European ‘directives’ are issued every year. They must be imperatively transposed into internal law of each EU member-state. In most cases, there’s no debate whatsoever.

Then there are more than 10,000 European ‘rulings,’ where ‘experts’ at the European Commission (EC) in Brussels issue ‘recommendations’ to every government, straight out of the neoliberal canon, regarding their expenses, their income and ‘reforms’ (on health care, education, pensions) that must be obeyed.

Thus elections in every single EU member-nation are absolutely meaningless. Heads of national governments – Macron, Scholz, Draghi – are mere executants. No democratic debate is allowed: ‘democracy,’ as with ‘EU values,’ are nothing than smokescreens.

The real government is exercised by a bunch of apparatchiks chosen by compromise between executive powers, acting in a supremely opaque manner.

The EC is totally outside of any sort of control. That’s how a stunning mediocrity like Ursula von der Leyen – previously the worst Minister of Defense of modern Germany – was catapulted upwards to become the current EC Fuhrer, dictating their foreign, energy and even economic policy.

What do they stand for?

From the perspective of the west, the Tin Curtain, for all its ominous Cold War 2.0 overtones, is merely a starter before the main course: hardcore confrontation across Asia-Pacific – renamed “Indo-Pacific” – a carbon copy of the Ukraine racket designed to contain China’s BRI and GDI.

As a countercoup, it’s enlightening to observe how the Chinese foreign ministry now highlights in detail the contrast between BRICS – and BRICS+ – and the imperial AUKUS/Quad/IPEF combo.

BRICS stand for de facto multilateralism; focus on global development; cooperation for economic recovery; and improving global governance.

The US-concocted racket on the other hand, stands for Cold War mentality; exploiting developing countries; ganging up to contain China; and an America-first policy that enshrines the monopolistic “rules-based international order.”

It would be misguided to expect those G7 luminaries gathered in Bavaria to understand the absurdity of imposing a price cap on Russian oil and gas exports, for instance. Were that to really happen, Moscow will have no problems fully cutting energy supply to the G7. And if other nations are excluded, the price of the oil and gas they import would drastically increase.

BRICS paving the way forward

So no wonder the future is ominous. In a stunning interview to Belarus state TV, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov summarized how “the west fears honest competition.”

Hence, the apex of cancel culture, and “suppression of everything that contradicts in some way the neoliberal vision and arrangement of the world.” Lavrov also summarized the roadmap ahead, for the benefit of the whole Global South:

“We don’t need a new G8. We already have structures…primarily in Eurasia. The EAEU is actively promoting integration processes with the PRC, aligning China’s Belt and Road Initiative with the Eurasian integration plans. Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are taking a close look at these plans. A number of them are signing free trade zone agreements with the EAEU. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is also part of these processes… There is one more structure beyond the geographic borders of Eurasia.”

“It is BRICS. This association is relying less and less on the Western style of doing business, and on Western rules for international currency, financial and trade institutions. They prefer more equitable methods that do not make any processes depend on the dominant role of the dollar or some other currency. The G20 fully represents BRICS and five more countries that share the positions of BRICS, while the G7 and its supporters are on the other side of the barricades.”

“This is a serious balance. The G20 may deteriorate if the West uses it for fanning up confrontation. The structures I mentioned (SCO, BRICS, ASEAN, EAEU and CIS) rely on consensus, mutual respect and a balance of interests, rather than a demand to accept unipolar world realities.”

Tin Curtain? More like Torn Curtain.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/29/2022 – 00:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/NRQB12c Tyler Durden

EY Valued Israeli Spyware Company NSO At $2.3bn Months Before Emergency Bailout

EY Valued Israeli Spyware Company NSO At $2.3bn Months Before Emergency Bailout

Just months before secretive Israeli spyware company NSO Group required an emergency bailout and its equity was declared worthless, Big Four accounting firm EY valued the privacy-invading enterprise at $2.3 billion, the Financial Times has reported: 

“The EY valuation, more than twice what NSO had been valued at two years earlier, was made by analysts in the firm’s Luxembourg office in July last year, according to documents seen by the Financial Times. The estimate of NSO’s enterprise value was made without visiting the company or verifying the information its analysts had been provided.”

The valuation by EY—known as Ernst & Young until 2013—came at a time when NSO was facing shrinking revenue, lawsuits, public condemnation and harsh media scrutiny over its Pegasus spyware, which had been used by various governments against activists and journalists. Two female associates of Saudi-slaughtered journalist Jamal Khashoggi were reportedly among those targeted.

By October, NSO required an emergency $10 million loan. In December—just four months after the $2.3 billion valuation had been finalized by EY in August—creditors informed NSO’s majority stockholders that the firm was insolvent.

“Pegasus allows operators to clandestinely surveil a suspect’s mobile phone—access contacts and messages, as well as the built-in camera, microphone, and location history,” reported the Epoch Times. Strikingly, the spyware reportedly can be transmitted by sending a link to a phone in a way that creates no notification, and activated without the phone’s owner doing anything at all.

Earlier this year, Berkeley Research Group, working for NSO’s private equity owners, declared the company’s equity “valueless”  

On May 31, the Financial Times reported that, with the company in a “financial spiral” and struggling to meet payroll, “foul-mouthed CEO” Shalev Hulio alarmed a group of investors when he said he was contemplating selling the spyware to governments previously flagged as posing “elevated risk” of misusing it. 

NSO has sold the spyware to dozens of countries, including many authoritarian governments. In addition to the United States and Israel, NSO’s long list of clients reportedly includes Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Mexico, South Africa and India. Last week, NSO said “at least” five European Union governments have purchased its spyware, and that the firm canceled one of the contracts after an EU country misused it.

NSO founders Shalev Hulio, Niv Karmi and Omri Lavie

NSO—a name derived from the first names of its founders—Niv Karmi, Shalev Hulio and Omri Lavie—says all its sales are subject to the approval of Israel’s defense ministry. The New York Times found several instances in which the sale of Pegasus coincided with the recipient government’s increased support for Israel.

NSO’s value is under renewed scrutiny, as the firm entertains a spin-off of its core assets to U.S. defense contractor L3Harris. The White House objects to the proposal; the Department of Commerce had earlier barred NSO from doing business with U.S. companies. This month, Moody’s withdrew its rating of NSO’s half-billion dollars of junk bonds, citing “inadequate information.”

NSO is the target of lawsuits filed by WhatsApp and Apple. WhatsApp, a subsidiary of Meta, says 1,400 users of its encrypted instant messaging and voice-over-IP application were targeted by NSO software.

In April, NSO asked the Supreme Court to consider an argument that the firm deserved protection from Meta under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which protects foreign governments from civil cases filed by American citizens. Last year, the 9th Circuit rejected that notion by a 3-0 vote. Judge Danielle Forrest wrote:

“The question presented is whether foreign sovereign immunity protects private companies. The law governing this question has roots extending back to our earliest history as a nation, and it leads to a simple answer—no. Indeed, the title of the legal doctrine itself—foreign sovereign immunity—suggests the outcome.”

In an interview with a Hebrew-language podcast, NSO founder Lavie blamed anti-semitism for the worldwide backlash against his firm over governments’ use of its spyware against political adversaries, activists and journalists. “We have no way to know what they do with the system,” he said. “I don’t want to know. I don’t want to be an intelligence partner.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 23:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/97MufxG Tyler Durden

Social Media Study Shows Growing DeSantis Boom Among Swing Voters

Social Media Study Shows Growing DeSantis Boom Among Swing Voters

Authored by John Ransom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

An analysis of social media posts shared with The Epoch Times shows growing momentum for Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis as the GOP presidential nominee in 2024 among voters who aren’t solidly in the Trump camp.

“A sizable portion of the positive discussion (32 percent) speak of him as preferable to Trump,” said the summary analysis of the research paid for by the Ready for Ron Committee—a draft committee that is encouraging DeSantis to run for president.

To them, he is the rightful heir and suggest the former president step aside and allow the younger man to run the gauntlet,” the analysis said of the majority of surveyed voters.

The research, which was conducted by Impact Social, looked at 40,000 “swing” voters on social media and categorized them into ten segments, from “Disillusioned Trump” voters, Obama-turned-Trump voters, to “Bernie Sanders” voters.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis hold a COVID-19 and storm preparedness roundtable in Belleair, Fla., on July 31, 2020. (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump Gets More Traction, But More Attacks Too

While the name Trump is more prominent on social media than DeSantis, Impact Social reported that Trump-related posts attract more negative sentiment, including among right-leaners who would otherwise favor the GOP in 2024.

Impact Social analyzed approximately 93,000 posts mentioning Trump and around 8,000 posts mentioning DeSantis made by the swing voters from June 1 to June 14.

“It is interesting to note that, despite many of these floating voters emanating from the right of the political spectrum, only a relatively small number come to Trump’s defense,” Impact Social said.

The recent hearings regarding the Jan. 6 breach also haven’t helped Trump among undecided voters. While the hearings have fallen far short of proving that an insurrection occurred in a legal sense, they certainly didn’t burnish the image of the former president.

“Well, I think in retrospect, I think it would have been very smart to put [Republicans on the committee] and again, I wasn’t involved in it from a standpoint so I never looked at it too closely but I think it would have been good if we had representation,” Trump told conservative radio host Wayne Allen Root earlier this month, blaming Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) for a “bad decision” on declining to put someone on the Jan. 6 House Committee.

Former President Remains Popular

U.S. President Donald Trump, daughter Ivanka Trump, and son Donald Trump Jr., make their way to board Air Force One before departing from Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Ga., on Jan. 4, 2021. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

Still, Trump remains the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination, with a recent poll by Quinnipiac showing that 69 percent of Republicans think Trump bears little blame for the Jan. 6 riots.

Polling continues to show that Trump has a commanding lead against DeSantis, who is not well-known outside of Florida or outside the GOP activists base, even as DeSantis is reported by some to be eating into Trump’s lead as of late.

A recent Granite State Poll by the University of New Hampshire showed Trump and DeSantis in a statistical dead heat in New Hampshire, more than doubling the DeSantis support since October.

But as the head of the Ready for Ron Committee, former Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins previously told The Epoch Times that it’s doubtful that DeSantis would run against Trump if Trump actually seeks the nomination.

The committee’s goal isn’t to supplant Trump, but to make sure there is a candidate that can carry on Trump’s legacy if Trump declines to run, is unable to run, or runs into trouble, Rollins said.

Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the United States enjoyed record unemployment, economic stability, safety, and global respect. Many are yearning for a return to these policies and the prosperity good leadership can bring,” Ready for Ron legal counsel and spokeswoman Lilian Rodríguez-Baz told The Epoch Times via video.

“The era of President Trump was wonderful, but now, since he isn’t currently running, we must get ready for a new leader, we must be Ready for Ron,” Rodríguez-Baz added.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 23:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/0wp2AmU Tyler Durden

Debate Ensues After Mysterious Lights Appear Over San Diego

Debate Ensues After Mysterious Lights Appear Over San Diego

Residents across San Diego on Monday night reported mysterious lights in the night sky. The unidentifiable lights were spotted south of downtown San Diego. 

A flood of Twitter users posted pictures and videos of “weird lights” above San Diego. The bizarre footage showed three to six glowing balls of fire hovering in the night sky. 

Residents across San Diego, parts of Mexico, and even San Clemente reported seeing fireballs over the ocean. 

It was reported by local news ABC7 that “there weren’t any commercial or military aircraft on the radar in the area” during the time the fireballs left many San Diegans scratching their heads. 

The sight was so bizarre that Google searches across the region for “UFO” spiked last night as some thought Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman’s alien invasion was underway. 

The sight of an alien invasion would’ve made Krugman very happy, though some on Reddit revealed that the fireballs appeared to be flares from military planes flying around the area. 

“Here is your answer to all those lights in the sky,” said one Redditor. They tweeted a picture of flight tracking website Flightradar24 showing at least two military airplanes, one a Lockheed Martin KC-130, off San Diego’s coast, flying in circles. 

Another Redditor snapped one of the clearest pictures of the fireballs from La Jolla, showing what could be military flares. Smoke trails are visible in the top two fireballs, though nothing is confirmed. 

Similar lights in the night sky spooked San Diegans in August 2018 but were later confirmed as military flare during a training mission 30 miles off the San Diego Coast, according to CBS 8.

With no confirmation from the military, the internet remains abuzz about last night’s mysterious light show. 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/28/2022 – 23:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/cbuv7aG Tyler Durden