November 2022 – Page 194

Review of Oral Argument in Students for Fair Admission v. University of North Carolina

I’ve now had a chance to review the oral argument in the Students for Fair Admission v. University of North Carolina. I started to review the Harvard case, but didn’t get a chance to finish it yet. My immediate impression to the UNC case: every Justice came to the argument with their minds made up. I don’t think such predetermination was surprising. But I was struck at how settled the Chief Justice, as well as Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett were. I expected each of them to express some discomfort with what the Plaintiffs were asking for. But I sensed none. To be sure, Kavanaugh in particular had already figured out his limiting principles–more on that later. But the lawyers had very little room to sway the Court’s swing votes. Since there was very little interchanges on the bench, this post will review the positions of each justice.

Chief Justice Roberts

I often pay careful attention to the Chief’s questions for the conservative side. He often throws them a curveball, and signals some alternate saving construction he might adopt. But there was no middling from Roberts here. He came to play. Early on, Patrick Strawbridge (counsel for SFFA) raised a hypothetical about an Asian American student who discusses his heritage in application essay. There was some cross-talk with Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan, but the Chief Justice pushed through:

they also show a pretty –not very savvy applicant, right? Because the one thing his essay is going to show is that he’s Asian American, and those are the people who are discriminated against.

The University vigorously contests this premise, but the Chief stated this point without any equivocation.

Roberts repeatedly faulted the Universities for failing to set an end date.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I don’t see how –I don’t see how you can say that the program will ever end. Your position is that race matters because it’s necessary for diversity, which is necessary for the sort of education you want. It’s not going to stop mattering at some particular point. You’re always going to have to look at race because you say race matters to give us the necessary diversity.

I did a radio interview on Monday afternoon, and blurted out: “racial preferences today, racial preferences tomorrow, racial preferences forever.” I didn’t realize till afterwards that I unconsciously parodied George Wallace’s inaugural address: “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Roberts also pushed the attorneys on whether the universities can pursue other race-neutral approaches–of course they can. Given Roberts’s perspective on strict scrutiny, this line of questioning does not bode well for the respondents. Roberts also asked many questions about the race “check box.” I can see one possible holding is that the universities are not allowed to consider the “check box.”

Justice Thomas

Justice Thomas usually asks questions to help him draft a separate writing. Here, he asked several times if the advocates could provide a definition of “diversity.” As anyone in academia can attest, the word means whatever you want it to mean–except for ideological diversity, which is not important.

JUSTICE THOMAS: Mr. Park, I’ve heard the word “diversity” quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means. It seems to mean everything for everyone.

Thomas repeated his charge from Grutter and Fisher that the arguments in favor of racial preferences mirror the arguments made by segregationists:

JUSTICE THOMAS: Well, I guess I don’t put much stock in that because I’ve heard similar arguments in favor of segregation too.

Justice Thomas also asked at several points about the burden of proof in a Title VI case. The lawyer for the students even suggested that the caselaw is unclear about who bears the burden. No matter what the Court decides, the level of deference will be significantly ratcheted down, and the universities will bear the burden of proof.

Justice Alito

Justice Alito apparently reviewed David Bernstein’s amicus brief, prepared by Cory Liu. He asked about the status of an Afghani student:

What –what similarity does a family background to the person from Afghanistan have with somebody whose family’s background is in, let’s say, Japan?

The North Carolina Solicitor General had no response. He could only repeat, on loop, that each student is considered as an individual based on a holistic analysis. Alito fired back, somewhat irritated:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, then why do you have them check a box that I’m Asian? What do you learn from the mere checking of the box?

MR. PARK: So we think that it depends on the individual circumstances of that person, but I am telling –

JUSTICE ALITO: So you don’t need the –you don’t need the boxes at all?

Alito pursued a similar line of questioning about self-reporting. What if a person has a single black grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent and so on. Alito also seemed to invoke the Elizabeth Warren example, where “family lore” tells of an Indian ancestor. (Alito did not ask about high cheekbones.) At some point, we are veering into the one-drop rule. Again, the lawyer for UNC could not reply, as none of these claims are verified. Everything is self-reported.

Justice Sotomayor

According to Joan Biskupic, Justice Sotomayor was able to flip the votes in Fisher I by circulating a vigorous dissent. (Ultimately, she published the “race matters” tractate in her Schuette dissent.) That strategy will no longer work. There are not five votes for her position. Instead, Sotomayor focused a lot of her attention on the district court record, and the nuts-and-bolts of writing a majority opinion. Justice Sotomayor, at several junctures, repeated that race was not a “determinative” factor.

But isn’t that what this plan in UNC already does? Race is never the determinative factor. That was a finding by the district court.

If –if race is only one among many factors, how can you ever prove, given that the district court found against you, that it’s ever a determinative factor?

And we’re doing all this because race is one factor among many that is never solely determinative, correct?

I don’t think the findings of two district court judges will control the Court’s resolution of this case. And at one point, Sotomayor seemed confused about which case she was asking about:

MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Well, of course, there’s an e-mail exchange in the record, some of which is sealed, but I think that the Court’s familiar with its contents that –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That was one person and not the entire committee.

MR. STRAWBRIDGE: It was a –it was a –I think it was a chat between three people –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well –

JUSTICE JACKSON: Did that support each point –

MR. STRAWBRIDGE: –who were all admissions officers.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: –it’s a 40-member committee.

JUSTICE JACKSON: –as a result?

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Or is that the Harvard case? I’m sorry. It might be the Harvard case.

Justice Sotomayor’s colloquy with Solicitor General Prelogar on pp. 154-156 was fairly one-sided. I counted about then consecutive questions to which Prelogar simply responded “That’s correct” or “I agree” or “Yes.”

Justice Sotomayor suggested that there is still de jure segregation today:

-JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So, even if we have de jure discrimination now or segregation now, Congress can’t look at that? Because we certainly have de jure segregation. Races are treated very differently in our society in terms of their access to opportunity.

A moment later, Justice Alito interjected:

JUSTICE ALITO: Are you aware of de jure segregation today?

Cam Norris, lawyer for SFFA in the Harvard case, said there was not.

Sotomayor interrupted, and sounded peeved.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It’s not clear that there’s segregation between there are large swaths of the country with residential segregation, there are large numbers of schools in our country that have people of just one race, there are school districts that have only kids of one race and not multiple races or not white people? De jure to me means places are segregated. The causes may be different, but places are segregated in our country.

I don’t think that is what de jure means. She is describing de facto segregation.

Throughout the arguments, the Chief Justice seemed annoyed by how Justice Sotomayor was cutting off the lawyers, and not letting them answer questions. At page 48 of the UNC arguments, Sotomayor asked Patrick Strawbridge to explain how a model works. Strawbridge replied, “I think I disagree with that for a couple reasons.” Sotomayor interrupted, and said “Well the district court.” The Chief cut her off and spoke to Strawbridge, “Why don’t you tell us what the reasons are.” After Strawbridge finished, Roberts turned to the seriatim questioning and said, “You’ll be able to return to Justice Sotomayor in just a moment.” There were no questions from Roberts, Thomas, or Alito, so Sotomayor continued her colloquy.

Justice Kagan

Justice Kagan is the most effective questioner on the Court. And she repeatedly pushed counsel for SFFA to draw a limiting principle: would they favor racial preferences if race-conscious policies yielded zero minority students. I think SFFA had to hold the line, and say no.

JUSTICE KAGAN: It really wouldn’t matter if there was a precipitous decline in minority admissions, African American, Hispanic, one or the other, you know, if –I think there are some numbers in –in this case, but, you know, suppose that it just fell through the floor.

Would it –it just –you know, too bad?

MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Well, I don’t think that it’s going to fall through the floor if the university is actually committed to the broader diversity it wants because it didn’t –

JUSTICE KAGAN: Right. I know you think that. And there’s been –obviously, a lot of the litigation has been about that, how much will it decline and your expert and their expert. But the logic of your position suggests that that really doesn’t matter.

Later, Kagan repeated the theme that racial diversity really does not matter for SFFA:

But putting that aside, I mean, I -I –I –I guess what I’m saying is your brief –and this is very explicit in your brief -is, like, it just doesn’t matter if our institutions look like America.

Kagan also seemed ticked off by the notion that schools would have more latitude to use gender-conscious measures than race-conscious measures. (The former would be subject to intermediate scrutiny while the latter would be subject to strict scrutiny).

JUSTICE KAGAN: Yeah. I mean –I mean, you’re right about the levels of scrutiny, but that would be peculiar, wouldn’t it? Like white men get the thumb on the scale, but people who have been kicked in the teeth by our society for centuries do not?

MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Well, of course, our position is that white men could not get a thumb on the scale. That sounds like a racial classification. Men could perhaps.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Men could?

MR. STRAWBRIDGE: But not white men.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Oh. Uh-huh.

Go listen to the audio of Kagan saying “uh-huh.” I’m confident there was an eye-roll.

Last term in West Virginia v. EPA, Justice Kagan suggested that the Court’s conservatives are faux-textualists. Now, she is primed to write that the majority is a bunch of faux-originalists:

JUSTICE KAGAN: I would ask on a completely different question, but one notable thing about the argument here is that on both sides there’s been very little discussion of what originalism suggests about this question.

And I –so I just want to ask, what would a committed originalist think about the kind of race-consciousness that’s at issue here?

I thought Strawbridge handled this position well in light of modern doctrine: the Reconstruction-era statutes were designed as remedial measures. Still, I hope that Justice Thomas addresses these historical arguments head-on.

Justice Gorsuch

Justice Gorsuch focused at some length on Title VI, and asked whether Justice Stevens erred in Bakke. The Solicitor General countered that the word “discriminate” in Title VI is ambiguous. In response, Gorsuch raised the (pirate) flag of Bostock!

JUSTICE GORSUCH: But where –where did Justice Stevens err?

GENERAL PRELOGAR: In not recognizing that the term discrimination in this context is ambiguous. And I think that the legislative history therefore carries –

JUSTICE GORSUCH: We didn’t find it –

GENERAL PRELOGAR: –forth in this context.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: –ambiguous in Bostock. Why should we find it ambiguous now?

GENERAL PRELOGAR: Well, I think that –I think that the statute doesn’t define –

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Were we wrong in Bostock?

GENERAL PRELOGAR: No, I’m not suggesting that. But Justice Gorsuch, I know you asked me to put to the side that –

JUSTICE GORSUCH: I did.

GENERAL PRELOGAR: –the Court has already resolved this issue. I just would emphasize –

JUSTICE GORSUCH: All right. You can go back to that.

You get the government’s position? The word “discriminate” in Title VII is not ambiguous, but the word “discriminate” is not ambiguous in Title VI. Not the best argument, but what is the government going to do?

JUSTICE GORSUCH: On the text, though, do you have anything else?

GENERAL PRELOGAR: I would point to the ambiguity in the term discrimination.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: But it’s not ambiguous in Title VII?

GENERAL PRELOGAR: No, and we respect this Court’s decision in Bostock.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: It’s just ambiguus in Title VI, the same word?

GENERAL PRELOGAR: This Court has held that multiple times.

The best Prelogar could is turn to statutory stare decisis.

Gorsuch referenced the “cottage industry” of coaches who help Asian American applicants de-Asianafy their resumes.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Okay. What do we say to Asian Americans who there is a veritable cottage industry we’re told by the briefs that they are encouraging Asian applicants to avoid and beat “Asian quotas”? That’s how they perceive it. Is that an important consideration in

The Solicitor General was shocked, shocked, to find that there were allegations of bias against Asian-American students. Gorsuch also referenced Harvard’s history of discrimination against Jewish applicants. Seth Waxman of course vigorously repudiated those policies, but insisted that history is not relevant to the present case.

Justice Kavanaugh

Justice Kavanaugh has a terrible habit. He often writes concurrences that purport to narrow a conservative majority opinion, but in the process he reaches out to decide difficult legal questions that were not briefed. For example, in Dobbs he decided that states could not restrict a women’s right to travel to another state to obtain an abortion. And in Bruen, he lent his imprimatur to a law that requires a mental health check to obtain a carry license. Neither of these issues were presented, yet in an act of anti-modesty, Justice Kavanaugh thought best to decide them.

Kavanaugh’s very first question in the UNC case signaled what limiting principle he will adopt–or more precisely, three limiting principles.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: So, if they’re -if you prevail here, let’s say, and a university develops three race-neutral alternatives to consider in the wake of a decision here and they choose the one that’s going to lead to the highest number of African American students and they choose that race-neutral alternative for that reason, is that okay?

Kavanaugh didn’t get a chance at that juncture to list his three alternatives, but I (like Kagan) rolled my eyes. I knew they would come soon enough.

Later, Kavanaugh teased out two race-neutral alternatives that are in the record: socioeconomic plans and top 10% plans.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Your position will put a lot of pressure going forward, if it’s accepted, on what qualifies as race-neutral in the first place. You said socioeconomic is race-neutral. Top 10 percent plan, race-neutral. Is –do you want to respond to that?

Of course, neither policy is actually race-neutral. Justice Sotomayor accurately called them “subterfuges”:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So I don’t actually see why all the race-based –because all of the alternatives, whether it’s the 10 percent plan, whether it’s socioeconomic, they’re all subterfuges to reaching some sort of diversity in race. You’re touting them as race-neutral, but none of them are race-neutral. You’re doing them because you believe in racial diversity. I just don’t understand why considering race as one factor but not the sole factor is any different than using any of those other metrics.

Strawbridge’s answer to Kavanaugh wasn’t very important. Kavanaugh was simply setting up the third option:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Right. I’m just making sure what qualifies as race-neutral in the first place. What if a college says we’re going to give a plus to descendents of slaves? Is that race-neutral or not?

Kavanaugh asked the same question of Cam Norris during the Harvard case:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: So today a benefit to descendents of slaves would not be race-based, correct?

MR. NORRIS: I –I think that’s incorrect, Justice Kavanaugh.

From anti-modesty to anti-racism. Indeed, Kavanaugh’s position veers very close to an argument for reparations to descendants of slaves. Rather than permitting preferences for all under-represented minorities, only a single class of students would stand to benefit. Not even Justice O’Connor would go for that balkanized approach to admissions. Kavanaugh’s position would create internecine DEI strife on campuses nationwide. Hispanics, American Indians, and other groups would be left out. The technicolor intersectional pyramid would become a monochromatic obelisk, with only one racial beneficiary. Justice Scalia emphatically rejected this approach in Adarand Constructors v. Pena: “Individuals who have been wronged by unlawful racial discrimination should be made whole; but under our Constitution there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race.”

Critically, unlike with Grutter, there would be no stopping point to Kavanaugh’s position, as people could trace their lineage back to slaves in perpetuity. Cam Norris made this point:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: You –you said -you said, I think, to Justice Gorsuch, and I’m sorry to interrupt his question, but you said to Justice Gorsuch, I think, that the benefit for former slaves was not race-based. If that’s correct, then the benefit for descendents of former slaves is also not race-based. There -you can make other arguments if you want about that, but it does not seem to be race-based under what you said to Justice Gorsuch, correct?

MR. NORRIS: Well, not correct. I think there’s a difference between the former slaves themselves getting a benefit versus generations later. I think that’s the classification on the basis of ancestry, which is still problematic under this Court’s precedents.

Is any college in the United States taking that approach? Not to my knowledge. But this gerrymandered alternative would ensure that universities could continue to use racial preferences for most African-American applicants indefinitely. Is it legal? Patrick Strawbridge replied that the “slavery” bonus would just be a “pure proxy for race.” I agree. I hope this position does not make it into a concurrence. Justice Kavanaugh needs to stop making up arguments that none of the parties presented in landmark constitutional law decisions. No one benefits from it.

Justice Barrett

Justice Barrett seemed more settled than I expected. Her questions were thoughtful, but all seemed to lean towards SFFA. For example, she clarified that the Petitioners did not object to applicants discussing their race in an “experiential” personal statement. (Justice Sotomayor and Jackson seemed to suggest that SFFA was even opposed to considering race in the personal statement.)

Still, SFFA’s position does put a lot of weight on the essay:

JUSTICE BARRETT: I guess –I mean, I guess what I’m concerned about is if it puts a lot of pressure on the essay writing and the holistic review process. You could have viewpoint discrimination issues, I would think, depending on how admissions officers treat essays. You could have free exercise claims, not by religious mission –religiously affiliated universities who want to give bumps to, say, you know, LDS students, but, you know, if you have Harvard say –saying, well, we want this many Jews, but we also want this many Christians, you know, and –and, you know, this many Muslims in a classroom.

Strawbridge responded that Grutter did not identify campus diversity as a compelling interest. Rather, the interest was limited to the educational benefits from diversity in the classroom.

Critically, Barrett repeated the admonitions from Grutter that racial preferences were “dangerous.” (And I take it, ACB uses reading glasses–her “readers”):

JUSTICE BARRETT: This Court’s precedents, I mean, Grutter also says –sorry, let me put my readers on here –you know, using racial classifications are so potentially dangerous, however compelling their goals, they can be employed no more broadly. Going down a little bit further, all governmental use of race must have a logical end point, reasonable durational limits, sunset provisions, and race-conscious admissions policies. And I gather, you know, Justice Alito’s saying, when does it end? When is your sunset? When will you know? Because Grutter very clearly says this is so dangerous. Grutter doesn’t say this is great, we embrace this. Grutter says this is dangerous and it has to have an end point. And I hear you telling Justice Alito there is no end point.

The lawyer for North Carolina bobbed and weaved about the end point. Barrett interrupted a few times:

JUSTICE BARRETT: But, if I could just interrupt for one second, how do you know when you’re done? You know, Justice Alito said, if you have exact correlations to the member –to the number –the percentage in the population of a particular group, and you said you’re not done then. So when would the race-conscious -when would you have the end point? I appreciate that you’re undertaking all those efforts, but when is the end point?

Barrett asked about what the state would say in 2040–when Barrett will likely still be on the bench, probably seated in the first row:

What if it continues to be difficult in another 25 years? I take it that you, because you’ve repeatedly said that the 25 years is aspirational and you told Justice Kavanaugh it wasn’t a holding, that you don’t think that University of North Carolina has to stop in 25 years, at that 2028 mark. So what are you saying when you’re up here in 2040? Are you still defending it like this is just indefinite, it’s going to keep going on?

Justice Jackson

The newest member of the Court came prepared with two distinct lines of questions. First, she raised a novel argument concerning standing. The University asserts that SFFA is not a traditional member group, or at least it didn’t have any actual members when the litigation began. Thus, the government argues, there is no associational standing. But Jackson argued that the Plaintiffs cannot show an injury in fact. Why? Because, according to the district court, there was no finding that Asian American students were harmed by the admissions policy. She repeated this point at least five times in very similar terms: that a person’s race did not automatically lead to their admission, and race was not determinative.

No one’s automatically getting in because race is being used.

And even if you check the box, I’m an African American, I’m a Latino, and all the other things, I live in this place, et cetera, et cetera, even if you check that box, in North Carolina’s system, do you get a point automatically for having checked that box?

And is anybody who did check the box, are they automatically entered or admitted into the university as a result?

Minorities don’t automatically get a boost under this system, so it’s hard to know whether anyone’s being disadvantaged from the mere fact that a minority could get a boost in this environment, right?

But when you have a situation like this in which you’re talking about a holistic review, other people are getting pluses in the system, no one is automatically getting a plus in the system, I wonder if the urge to end it -and what is the end it?

A lot has been written on how much Justice Jackson talks. I think more relevant is how often she repeats herself, and makes the same points over and over again.

Strawbridge responded that an injury was found in Grutter, even though race was used in a holistic fashion. I get Justice Jackson’s argument, but it seems undermined by Grutter.

JUSTICE JACKSON: –can you help me?

MR. STRAWBRIDGE: I’m sorry.

JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, please.

MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Even –even –even Grutter establishes that a holistic admissions process doesn’t make the injury go away.

JUSTICE JACKSON: But you’ve said Grutter needs to be overruled. So we can’t –I don’t think we can use that decision as the basis for standing.

The plaintiffs do not want to overrule the standing analysis from Grutter. I don’t think this standing argument will go anywhere.

Justice Jackson’s second line of questioning was much more powerful. If the plaintiffs prevail here, universities would be able to consider applicants on the basis of everything but race. Jackson suggested that the university could fairly consider certain points in a white student’s application, but could not consider related points in a black student’s application. This disparate treatment, Jackson said, could violate the Equal Protection Clause:

And so what I’m worried about is that the rule that you’re advocating, that in the context of a holistic review process, a university can take into account and value all of the other background and personal characteristics of other applicants, but they can’t value race, what I’m worried about is that that seems to me to have the potential of causing more of an equal protection problem than it’s actually solving.

Justice Jackson raised two hypotheticals, the second of which dovetailed with Justice Kavanaugh’s proposal to give preferences to descendants of slaves

The first applicant says: I’m from North Carolina. My family has been in this area for generations, since before the Civil War, and I would like you to know that I will be the fifth generation to graduate from the University of North Carolina. I now have that opportunity to do that, and given my family background, it’s important to me that I get to attend this university. I want to honor my family’s legacy by going to this school. The second applicant says, I’m from North Carolina, my family has been in this area for generations, since before the Civil War, but they were slaves and never had a chance to attend this venerable institution. As an African American, I now have that opportunity, and given my family –family background, it’s important to me to attend this university. I want to honor my family legacy by going to this school. Now, as I understand your no-race-conscious admissions rule, these two applicants would have a dramatically different opportunity to tell their family stories and to have them count. The first applicant would be able to have his family background considered and valued by the institution as part of its consideration of whether or not to admit him, while the second one wouldn’t be able to because his story is in many ways bound up with his race and with the race of his ancestors. So I want to know, based on how your rule would likely play out in scenarios like that, why excluding consideration of race in a situation in which the person is not saying that his race is something that has impacted him in a negative way, he just wants to have it honored, just like the other person had their personal background family story honored, why is telling him no not an equal protection violation?

My immediate reaction to this position was Schuette. In that case, the plaintiffs argued that the ballot referendum violated the so-called political process doctrine. People could advocate that universities make all sorts of changes to the admissions process through normal electoral channels. But it would take a state constitutional amendment to remove the prohibition on racial preferences. Of course, the plaintiffs in Schuette lost. Justice Jackson’s argument harkens to that sort of disparate treatment. I’m not sure Equal Protection is the precise frame. Accordingly, Strawbridge replied that universities would have to review the applications in a race-neutral fashion, so there would not be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

MR. STRAWBRIDGE: Well, for purposes of the hypothetical, I am assuming that the only significant factor in that story happens to be the fact of the race of the applicant and that the race was previously barred from attending UNC. Obviously, nothing stops UNC from honoring those who have overcome slavery or recognizing its –its –its past contribution to racial segregation.

But the question is, does –is that a basis to make decisions about admission of students who are born in 2003? And I don’t think that it necessarily is. I don’t think that the Equal Protection Clause suggests that it is.

This response also effectively replies to Justice Kavanaugh’s proposal.

***

I will have more to say after I have some time to review the Harvard case. I apologize in advance for typos. I did not have as much time as I would have liked to carefully proof the post.

The post Review of Oral Argument in <i>Students for Fair Admission v. University of North Carolina</i> appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/XhI31y9
via IFTTT

First Nuclear Power Plant In Poland To Be Constructed By US Company

Via Remix News,

The construction of the nuclear plant will commence in 2026 on the Baltic Sea shore in northern Poland…

Poland has chosen the Westinghouse group from the U.S. to construct the country’s first nuclear plant, with a government resolution on the matter to be adopted on Nov. 2, announced Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki on Saturday.

Morawiecki said the project will be realized using the proven and safe technology offered by the U.S. Westinghouse Electric Company. He delivered the news following successful talks with U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. State Secretary Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm.

Very pleased to see Poland will select Westinghouse technology to help produce safe, clean, and reliable nuclear power and create thousands of good paying jobs for both our countries. The United States is proud to be Poland’s strong partner for energy and security. https://t.co/r3X2wrfKiH

— Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) October 28, 2022

The markets had expected Poland to choose the U.S. technology but the two other offers from French and Korean companies were also taken into consideration by the government. However, Poland and the United States feature the strongest cooperation dialogue in the nuclear sector going back many years.

In January 2022, the Westinghouse Electric Company signed a memorandum of cooperation with ten Polish companies regarding the potential construction of six AP1000 reactors as part of the Polish Nuclear Energy Program. The company specializes in producing devices utilizing nuclear energy and their flagship projects are the AP1000 reactors that are used in countries such as China.

Poland’s decision to choose the U.S. firm does not mean that the other offers submitted by French EDF group and Korean KHNP are not at play, as two nuclear plants are to be constructed in Poland. According to unofficial information reported on Monday, KHNP will sign a letter of intent with Polish Energy Group and ZE PAK concerning the construction of nuclear units in Pątnów in central Poland on land owned by ZE PAK group. On Tuesday, Polish Deputy Prime Minister Jacek Sasin will be visiting Shin-Kori nuclear plant in South Korea.

The Polish nuclear program envisions the construction of six reactors, one every two years.

The construction of the first reactor is to begin in four years, and its launch is planned for 2033. It will be able to provide energy to 4 million households. The last reactor of the second power plant will start functioning in 2043.

If both investments are completed, Polish nuclear power could amount to between 8.8 and 11.8 gigawatts, with the government estimating the cost of their construction at around €39 billion (185 billion Polish zloty).

In December 2021, Polish Nuclear Plants (PEJ) reported that the seaside area of Lubiatowo-Kopalino was selected as the preferred location for the construction of the first nuclear plant in Poland. The second possible location is in nearby Żarnowiec, where a nuclear plant of the Soviet-era remains unfinished to this day.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/01/2022 – 02:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3s4Lh9P Tyler Durden

COVID-19: A Universe Of Questions In A Time Of Universal Deceit

Authored by Michael Bryant via Off-Guardian.org,

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act“

-George Orwell

As we approach the third year of the ‘Covid Crisis’, the once unassailable Covid Story – reported and repeated by politicians, public health mandarins and all mainstream media – has been replaced by contradictions and inconsistencies.

The original Covid Story narrated by health ‘experts’ and government officials told of a particularly virulent pathogen which besieged the planet in 2020 and spread like wildfire– terrorizing, infecting, and killing people en masse.

It was the story of a “pandemic level event” in which people were told to stay indoors, entire sectors of society were forced to shut down and humans were told to do everything possible to avoid contact with one another.

It was a story of closed down schools, closed down businesses, closed down churches and soon-to-be overwhelmed hospitals.

In later chapters the Covid Story morphed from ironclad truths, “Follow the science”, to ever changing definitions, “The science evolves.” Countless aspects of the “official” narrative changed overnight. Gradually the tale became fraught with pages of questionable statistics and ever shifting storylines.

What was one to make of all of these contradictions and ministerial mutations?

Did today’s story make sense with yesterday’s? Will tomorrow’s make sense with today’s?

Soon the only certainty within the Covid narrative became its uncertainty– the moment the Covid story “you thought you knew” was on solid footing the sands shifted yet again.

Attempting to make sense of the Covid conundrum soon required navigating a complex labyrinth of deceits, manipulations, obfuscations and concealments. Separating fact from fiction became more challenging each day.

While most persisted with the media storyline and government edicts, some began to take notice of the numerous anomalies and started asking questions.

The most glaring question was simply: “Why was no one allowed to ask questions?” Once this Pandora’s Box opened, a stream of questions came tumbling out.

Why wasn’t the media asking any questions? How were they all operating in lockstep?

Were we alerted to this “pandemic-level event” by our direct observations and experiences?

Were we surrounded by sick people, in our homes, neighborhoods and workplaces who were succumbing to a quick-spreading and dangerous virus?

If we were truly in a pandemic of biblical proportions would there be so much discussion of the epidemiological minutiae?

Bit by bit as most of the accepted narrative began to unravel, questioning the “official story” became more than a revolutionary act it became an obligation.

If you have to be persuaded, reminded, pressured, lied to, incentivized, coerced, bullied, socially shamed, guilt-tripped, threatened, punished and criminalized. If all of this is considered necessary to gain your compliance — you can be absolutely certain that what is being promoted is not in your best interest. Ian Watson

To sell the Covid Story a mass marketing campaign rife with its own nomenclature was launched. The constant drumbeat of the Covid battle cry became inescapable resembling military grade propaganda rather than public health messaging.

Were these Covid watch words and rallying cries intended to serve public health or were they designed merely to be obeyed? Where did these ideas and phrases come from?
Why did the media and government relentlessly stoke public fear and anxiety?
Why were millions spent on behavioral management teams?
How did the phrase “the new normal” emerge within the first weeks of the pandemic?
Was sustained psychological manipulation utilized to create fear and coerce the public?
Were Covid symptoms genuinely unique or were we being conditioned to believe there was a new disease?
Were statistics about Covid deaths being manipulated to create the perception of a crisis?
Were lockdowns about protection or social control?
Did lockdowns reduce deaths or cause increased mortality?
Was there ever any evidence for ”asymptomatic spread” or was this overstated to frighten the public?
How did we go from “two weeks to flatten the curve” to permanent emergency “laws?

“Hospitals and doctors are getting rich off a sickened mass population.“

– Steven Magee, Hypoxia, Mental Illness & Chronic Fatigue

One of the earliest Covid Campaign methods used to alert the public to the coming storm of dire illness centered on the belief that hospitals were going to be overwhelmed by a cascade of the Covid infected.

“Two weeks to flatten the curve” became a national rallying cry.

The public was flooded with stories of overflowing hospital corridors and swamped ICU’s. Makeshift hospitals were swiftly constructed to take in the excess casualties. The unquestioning media amplified these stories creating a climate of widespread panic and hysteria.

Was any of this true?

Were US hospitals really overwhelmed? What does the data say?
Were NYC hospitals overwhelmed in Spring 2020?
Was Elmhurst hospital, the ‘epicenter of the epicenter’, overflowing in Spring 2020?
Were ICUs flooded with patients?
Were US hospitals busier in 2020 than they were in 2019?
Are hospitals regularly overrun during cold and flu season?

“Fear is a market. To instill fear in people also has advantages. Not only in terms of drug use. Anxiety-driven people are easier to rule.”

– Gerd Gogerenzer, Director Emeritus, Max Planck Institute for Educational Research

As the pandemic picked up speed, the “Covid death toll” became a daily marker hammered home by media bullhorns and mortality scoreboards.

Ghastly tales of the “first wave” of Covid fatalities were plastered all over media channels in lockstep. Harrowing tales of overflowing morgues and refrigerated trucks filled with Covid cadavers saturated the evening news. While a simpler explanation for these trucks was readily available, a compliant and complicit media plugged its ears and continued to manufacture mass hysteria.

Again all questions that might sow seeds of skepticism were kept away from public discussion.

But was this advertised death march verifiable or was this yet another feature of the Covid fear campaign?

Were Covid death counts and death certificates accurate or were Covid deaths artificially inflated?
What was the average age of Covid deaths and how did that compare with normal life expectancy?
What percentage of Covid deaths were from people who already had multiple comorbidities?
Were the photos of coffins from Bergamo, Italy, in March 2020, used to terrify the world, authentic?
Why did CNN report that a 7-year-old Georgia boy died from Covid when he drowned in a bathtub after a seizure.
How many Covid deaths due to “intentional and unintentional injury, poisoning and other adverse events” were placed in the CDC COVID death count?
Why were 14,369 injury deaths, 1,265 deaths due to falls, drowning deaths and suicides listed in the Covid-19 death count?
Why did the CDC change recording methods exclusively for Covid deaths and did this inflate Covid fatality numbers?

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth.“

– Carl Sagan

As the purported wreckage of the “first wave” subsided and the body count failed to add up to the predicted totals, the narrative abruptly shifted.

“The Covid Death” was replaced by “The Covid Case” as the main vector of fear. What defined a “Covid Case” generally seemed up for grabs. “Case” definitions ranged from anyone “suspected of having Covid” to those who were ‘positive’ as established through PCR testing.

Nowhere in the media could one find an inquiring reporter who would question what it meant to be a “probable case.” Even as the PCR became a regular feature of daily life never was the soundness of its usage as a diagnostic tool examined by any mainstream source.

Were these case counts and the methods used situated on solid scientific ground?

Was Covid-19 a novel virus?
How did the peer-review process of the critical publication about the Covid PCR tests only take one day?
Were Covid PCR test results accurate?
Were Covid case counts and diagnoses accurate?
Were PCR tests used deceptively to invent Covid “cases?”
Why was the definition of a Covid “case” altered?

“Big Pharma needs sick people to prosper. Patients, not healthy people, are their customers. If everybody was cured of a particular illness or disease, pharmaceutical companies would lose 100% of their profits on the products they sell for that ailment. What all this means is because modern medicine is so heavily intertwined with the financial profits culture, it’s a sickness industry more than it is a health industry.“

– James Morcan

Once it was firmly established in the public’s mind that a pathogenic menace was lurking just outside their door a non-stop barrage of messaging, gaslighting and coercion kicked in from all angles.

The entire world was repeatedly informed that the only salvation for the human species was a genetically engineered experimental medical product concocted at “Warp Speed” by giant Pharmaceutical companies. This and only this medication could save humanity from catastrophe.

Like many other facets of the Covid Story, the tale of Big Pharma and their magical potions unraveled upon further scrutiny. Multiple questions arose:

If Big Pharma is truly in the business of public health what is their historical record towards safeguarding public health?
What is Pfizer’s previous track record of fraud and corruption?
Has Big Pharma captured the FDA and the political and regulatory processes?
Does Big Pharma control the CDC?
Does Big Pharma influence clinical trials?
Were Pfizer’s clinical trials for Covid vaccines properly run trials?
Why did the FDA try to conceal Covid vaccine trial data for 75 years? What did the trial data reveal?
Why has the FDA refused to make its vaccine safety monitoring public?
How did the CDC decide the Pfizer clinical trials proved a ‘safe and effective’ vaccine?

“I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.“

– Malcolm X

When the mass rollout of the experimental Covid vaccines was launched, a compulsory campaign silencing all voices who dare question the vaccine imperative was set in motion. Even so, some voices of apprehension slipped through the cracks. Many of these voices were some of the most renowned medical practitioners in their field.

Why were their voices not allowed into the mainstream conversations?

Why were thousands of dissenting physicians censored and silenced?
Why were doctors who spoke out about early treatment vilified and censored?
Were the Covid vaccines necessary, effective or safe?
Would the Covid Vaccines stop hospitalizations or deaths?
Was evidence of harm and serious adverse events from the clinical trials covered up?
Why did the media maintain silence about potential dangers of the Covid vaccine?
Were people given proper informed consent for the Covid vaccines?
What did multiple studies as early as 2020 say about the Covid vaccines and microvascular injury?
Why weren’t independent scientists allowed to examine the mRNA vaccine vials?
Was there a connection between heart inflammation and the Covid vaccines?
Why were kids targeted for vaccination when it was known they were at zero risk from the disease in question?
Were there doctors calling for a halt to the Covid vaccine program?

Ultimately a comprehensive and complete reckoning with the ‘Covid Story’ is not possible without a thorough examination of the policies which unfolded in hospitals and nursing homes and the catastrophic consequences.

While hospital workers were feted as heroes, reports began to leak out hinting that what actually occurred inside these medical institutions was contrary to the sustained media narrative. As more stories surfaced, suspicions escalated that this too was part of the Covid mythology.

Questions concerning treatments in hospitals and nursing homes emerged and allegations about monied interests materialized.

Were hospitals incentivized to manufacture Covid patients?
What were the Covid hospital treatment protocols?
Were hospitals incentivized to put Covid patients on ventilators and to use Remdesivir?
Did these incentives and protocols endanger people?

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.“

– Dietrich Bonhoeffer

In the early chapters of the Covid Story, perhaps no other storyline trapped our imaginations and pulled on our heartstrings quite like the “Saving Grandma” shibboleth. We were told that “Covid-19” targeted the old and the sick and multiple reports from across the globe revealed a consistent pattern of how ghastly situations in long-term care facilities unfolded.

As more information on this piece of the sordid Covid puzzle surfaced more questions came to light.

Did thousands of elderly die because of Covid or was the management of their end-of-life treatment withdrawn actively putting them in a situation that ensured their death?

What did they mean when they said “taking care of the elderly?”
How did they “take care of the elderly in Canada?” In the UK? In France? In Maryland?In Massachusetts?In Washington DC? In Mississippi? In NewYork? In New Jersey? In Minnesota? In Indiana? In Louisiana? In Michigan? In Rhode Island?
Were conditions for high death rates at Care Homes created on purpose?

“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of “Admin.” The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.“

– C.S. Lewis

All intricate stories require a cast of characters and the Covid Chronicle was no different. Neil Ferguson and Christian Drosten played significant supporting roles behind the scenes while others, like Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates, took center stage. As we moved through the Covid narrative we “came to know” these personalities through the portraits painted by a uniformly deferential media.

Were these images of our Covid cast of characters accurate depictions? How much about them did we really know?

What did Neil Ferguson’s original computer models predict about Covid deaths and what was his well documented track record?
How did his calamitous and inaccurate predictions play such a central role in determining government policy?
Who is Christian Drosten and how did he develop the now famous Covid PCR test?
Who is The Real Anthony Fauci?
What role did Anthony Fauci play in the HIV/AIDS crisis?
Given that Bill Gates has no medical training, why did he play such a central role in determining government policy?
How did Bill Gates know in 2019 that vaccines would be “one of the best buys” in 2020?
How did Bill Gates use medical investments to turn $10 billion into $200 billion?
Why did the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invest $55 million in the shares of BioNTech in August of 2019?

“They failed to see that globalisation was merely a tactic to prise power from nation states towards international conglomerates. Once the power was siphoned from the people and democratic control was circumvented, the ability to assert global governance without any democratic restraint was available.“

–James Tunney

Finally, to understand the totality of the Covid Story it’s necessary to understand how the public health industry is inextricably linked to global financial markets and operates based on the demands of those financial conglomerates. Manufactured pandemics are now considered one of the biggest investment opportunities to increase the wealth of billionaires and consolidate their power.

The medical industry is no longer a system whose primary focus is to serve the health and well-being of the public. It is a system whose primary function is as a financial instrument for investors. The present-day policies that define the medical industry are designed to serve socioeconomic and political agendas which benefit these same financial elites.

Was the entire ‘Covid Crisis’ a genuine health emergency or was it an agenda rooted in fear to enrich the pockets of Big Pharma and their monied investors.

Here again the mainstream media remain dutifully silent, refusing to ask the most basic of questions:

Who owns Big Pharma?
Is it a coincidence that the Covid Public Health Emergency created over 500 new billionaires and coincided with one of the largest upwards transfers of wealth in human history?
Why were Big Banks being bailed out during the Covid era while small businesses were being pushed out?
How did workers around the world lose $3.7 trillion in the pandemic while billionaires around the world gained $3.9 trillion in the pandemic?
Is it possible to “follow the science” if the science is controlled by money?
What did the Head of the IMF say about the fate of the world’s economy and vaccines?
What is the “Great Reset?”
What is the Great Reset?
What are Central Bank Digital Currencies?

After a deeper dive into the Covid Hall of Mirrors one wonders if even a single strand of the story withstands scrutiny. Three years on and the wreckage from the fusillade of Covid policies continue to pile up. With every passing day more holes appear in the official narrative and more admissions come to light as officials scurry to avoid accountability.

As the dust settles in the aftermath of the Covid carnage we are left asking one final question:

“Was the entirety of the Covid Story a lie?”

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 23:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/W3dTFl7 Tyler Durden

“Dangerous Escalation”: US To Deploy Six Nuclear-Capable B-52 Bombers To Australia

America’s great power competition against China is gaining momentum as the Pentagon plans to deploy a fleet of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in northern Australia in what is being dubbed a “signal” to Beijing, the Australian Broadcasting Corp. reported.

“Having bombers that could range and potentially attack mainland China could be very important in sending a signal to China that any of its actions over Taiwan could also expand further,” Centre for New American Security’s Becca Wasser told the ABC.

The Australian broadcaster’s current affairs show, Four Corners, revealed the US documents detailing up to six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers were set for deployment at the Tindal air base, south of Darwin in Australia’s Northern Territory. The airbase would also receive $100 million in upgrades for the maintenance and parking areas for the bombers, expected to be finished by 2026.

“The ability to deploy US Air Force bombers to Australia sends a strong message to adversaries about our ability to project lethal air power,” the US Air Force told Four Corners.

Meanwhile, Greens Senator David Shoebridge tweeted:

“This is a dangerous escalation. It makes Australia an even bigger part of the global nuclear weapons threat to humanity’s very existence — and by rising military tensions it further destabilises our region.”

This is a dangerous escalation. It makes Australia an even bigger part of the global nuclear weapons threat to humanity’s very existence – and by rising military tensions it further destabilises our region https://t.co/OTSSfV25fJ

— David Shoebridge (@DavidShoebridge) October 30, 2022

The long-range heavy bombers send a clear “signal to the Chinese” that the Americans and its allies are “planning for a war with China,” Richard Tanter, a senior research associate at the Nautilus Institute and anti-nuclear activist, explained to Four Corners.

A recent op-ed in the Australian Financial Review titled “Australia’s alliances in Asia are a tale of two regions” points out that the Biden administration’s chip restrictions on China to crush its technological capabilities “is unambiguously a new cold war.” He said Australia has a complicated juggling act of catering to its top trading partner China and its top security partner, the US, while Washington pressures Canberra and other countries in the region to distance themselves from Beijing.

Besides the bombers, Australia, the UK, and the US recently announced a new security deal known as AUKUS, allowing the Australian military to procure a fleet of nuclear submarines by 2040.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian responded to the news Monday and wasn’t all too thrilled:

“The US’s move escalates regional tensions, gravely undermines regional peace and stability, and may trigger an arms race in the region.”

The US military’s expanding footprint in northern Australia shows Washington’s quest to build a ‘friends circle’ of bombers and stealth fighter jets around China.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 23:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/68yXNiA Tyler Durden

Democrats ‘Fearful’ Over Where ‘Momentum Is Going’ In Midterm Elections: Former Press Secretary

Authored by Lorenz Ducahmps via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Oct. 28 that Democrats are worried that the momentum has shifted toward Republicans as polls continue to tighten in the leadup to the Nov. 8 midterm elections.

*Former White House press secretary Jen Psaki attends Vox Media’s 2022 Code Conference in Beverly Hills, Calif., on Sept. 7, 2022. (Randy Shropshire/Getty Images for Vox Media)*

Psaki was asked to comment on an Oct. 27 hot mic moment when Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was overheard telling President Joe Biden on the tarmac of a New York airport that Democrats are “in danger” of losing a seat and are “going downhill” in Georgia.

“What we heard there and what you saw on the screen is similar to a lot of the conversations Democrats are having behind the scenes and a lot of people I talked to as well,” Psaki said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“People are fearful about where the momentum is going in some of these races,” she added. “Yes, there are very encouraging signs like the record early vote numbers, but numbers in some of the House races are not where they should be.”

The former White House official also said that it appears Democrats are encouraged to vote for candidates “at the top of the ticket” but lack enthusiasm for down-ballot races.

“A lot of people I talked to are worried about voters being encouraged and excited about people at the top of the ticket, and maybe not excited enough to vote for the congressional candidates, and that’s a real concern,” Psaki said.

It isn’t the first time Psaki expressed concern about the Democratic Party ahead of the midterms. In late September, she said the party will lose if they are seen by the electorate as a “referendum” on the leadership of Biden.

Republicans now consistently lead Democrats on the generic congressional ballot. As of this writing, the RealClearPolitics average has Republicans up 2.9 percent in the generic congressional ballot polling average; only two of the past 15 polls show a Democratic lead.

Last-Ditch Effort

Psaki also said witnessing “all these people out on the trail,” including former President Barack Obama and Biden, is a reflection of Democrats’ concerns over where the midterm elections are headed.

“That’s why I think you see Barack Obama, Joe Biden all these people out on the trail because they’re trying to light a fire with Democrats right now,” she said.

*President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris wave to supporters during the Democratic Party’s Independence Dinner in Philadelphia on Oct. 28, 2022. (Mark Makela/Getty Images)*

Obama recently traveled to Georgia to attempt to bolster Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) and Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. In an event outside Atlanta, the 44th president said that the “basic foundation of our democracy” is under threat and that voters should elect Democrats.

Last week, Obama also campaigned in Michigan and Wisconsin, two key Midwestern states. He will visit Nevada on Tuesday and then hold multiple events in Pennsylvania alongside Biden on Saturday.

Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, meanwhile, made a rare joint appearance on Oct. 28 in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania in an effort to boost Senate hopeful John Fetterman, a fellow Democrat, in the closing stretch ahead of the midterm elections.

“Democracy is literally, not figuratively, on the ballot this year,” Biden told the event. “I’m going to be spending the rest of this time making the case that this is not a referendum. It’s a choice, a fundamental choice.”

Fetterman, who suffered a stroke five months ago, appeared on stage on Oct. 25 to debate rival Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz as the two vie for a key Senate seat. The impact of the stroke was apparent during the debate as Fetterman used closed-captioning posted above the moderator to help him process the words he heard, which led to occasional awkward pauses.

The Senate stands at 50–50, with Harris serving as a tiebreaker. In the House, Republicans need to gain a total of five seats. Historically, the party that occupies the White House tends to lose seats in Congress.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 23:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/8RG169M Tyler Durden

NASA Captures Creepy ‘Jack-O’-Lantern’ Image Of Sun

NASA’s space-based Solar Dynamics Observatory tweeted what appeared to be a jack-o’-lantern-esque creepy smile of the sun — just in time for Halloween.

“Seen in ultraviolet light, these dark patches on the Sun are known as coronal holes and are regions where fast solar wind gushes out into space,” NASA said, adding the sun appeared to be “smiling.”

The United Kingdom’s Science and Technology Facilities Council responded to the space agency’s tweet with a photoshopped pumpkin of the sun.

According to NASA, coronal holes are areas of high magnetic field that emit solar wind streams into the universe. If the coronal holes are Earth-facing, a flow of protons, electrons, and other particles collide with Earth and cause geomagnetic storms, ranked on a scale from G1 (minor) to G5 (extreme).

And solar storms can cause a whole lot of disruption if powerful enough.

The coronal hole trio prompted a minor geomagnetic storm watch over the weekend. As of the late afternoon, SolarHam indicates there’s no notable space weather event today.

As a reminder, the sun goes through 11-year solar cycles. It’s currently in Solar Cycle 25

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 22:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ZN7VMc9 Tyler Durden

Can A Republican Become California’s Top Cop?

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClear Wire,

In an attack ad blasting California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a woman named Rachel describes her deep frustration over the five-month probation sentence for the juvenile driver who slammed into her and her 8-month-old child in Los Angeles last year.

The disturbing incident was caught on tape and quickly went viral on social media, cited by countless critics as yet more evidence of a spike in brazen and violent crime across the state.

Rachel, a Democrat, says she will vote for Nathan Hochman, the GOP candidate for attorney general. Even though she and Bonta share other political beliefs, she said the Democratic attorney general isn’t doing enough to stop the surge in violent crime across the state. She’s particularly angry that Bonta has declined to take over her case from embattled Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón.

“The kid tried to murder me and my child, and the state couldn’t have cared less, and they proved that by only giving him five months of probation,” she says. “California Attorney General Rob Bonta has the ability to step in and take over from district attorneys like George Gascón, but Bonta chooses not to. It’s about voting for the right candidate, and the right candidate is Nathan Hochman.”

The ad is part of a soft-on-crime barrage Republicans are deploying across the country to skewer Democrats’ public safety records. Too many Democratic officials have pushed liberal policies that emboldened criminals, critics argue. Top policy targets include cashless bail, early release for tens of thousands of prisoners, and reduced punishment for many convicted of theft and other nonviolent offenses.

Over the last three months, worries about rising crime have helped power New York Rep. Lee Zeldin to within striking distance of incumbent Gov. Kathy Hochul. And growing anxiety over public safety ranks among the top three to five issues in many urban areas across the country.

In California, rising violent crime has been a flash-point all year, before and after San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who was accused of coddling criminals and neglecting rampant drug use on city streets, was recalled in early June. In Los Angeles, critics of Gascón, who is known as the “godfather of progressive prosecutors” and preceded Boudin as San Francisco DA, claimed to have collected 715,000 signatures to launch a recall of him. County officials, however, invalidated 200,000 of the signatures, preventing a recall but prompting an ongoing legal fight.

A Harvard/Harris poll released Oct. 14 found that 68% of respondents considered crime to be “very important” and are more likely to vote Republican than Democratic in the upcoming midterm election because of that concern. Earlier this year, two-thirds of registered voters in California said crime had risen in their neighborhoods, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times. Just more than half of voters surveyed said California Gov. Gavin Newsom was doing a poor job on crime and public safety, up 16 percentage points from 2020.

Hochman, a federal prosecutor with 30 years of experience, is running to replace Bonta, a former state assemblyman for Oakland who previously served as the deputy city attorney for San Francisco. Newsom appointed Bonta to replace Xavier Becerra when he stepped down to become President Biden’s secretary of Health and Human Services.

Hochman says he’s running because Bonta has failed to intervene in counties where crime has risen sharply, and policies he’s championed, including cashless bail, have placed the interests of criminals above victims. Bonta has countered that he’s “strong, effective, and smart on crime” and can make the criminal justice system fairer without compromising public safety.

Over the last week, Hochman has been touring the state on a bus emblazoned with his promise to “stop the spiral of lawlessness.” Along the way, he’s touted his endorsements from across the political spectrum – from Death Row Records founder Michael “Harry-O” Harris and Hollywood A-lister Gwyneth Paltrow to former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic Los Angeles Sheriff Alex Villanueva. Two dozen district attorneys from across the state and Female Business Leaders, a Democratic-leaning group in Los Angeles have also endorsed him. In late September, Hochman received the backing of the San Diego Union-Tribune, which said both candidates are strong, but Hochman has a “better plan for responding to growing crime.”

In numerous interviews and a recent ad, Hochman has hammered Bonta as “missing in action” when it comes to the state’s fentanyl crisis. Fentanyl is responsible for 5,722 California deaths in 2021, including 224 between the ages of 15 and 19, according to the California Department of Public Health.

In mid-October, Bonta appeared to respond, arguing that the state is “all-in when it comes to protecting California families from the dangers of fentanyl” and issuing an update to the state Department of Justice’s work to address the crisis.

Both MSNBC and Fox News in recent days have dubbed the race one of the most competitive in the country. RealClearPolitics talked to Hochman about his chances on Election Day and the current political mood in California. Here are excerpts from that interview:

Q: The district of attorney recall efforts in several cities, including San Francisco, shows that many California voters, including Democrats and independents, are looking for new leadership. Still, no Republican has won statewide in California since 2006. How can you overcome that big hurdle?

Hochman: I would classify myself as a moderate Republican and [someone] who has the best chance in a generation to win this office. Here’s why: The first is a change in conditions on the ground. 2014 was considered one of California’s safest years in the last 30. [This year] public safety has risen to a top-three issue in polling for the first time in a generation.

When people are afraid to send themselves, their kids, their parents out at night in their neighborhoods … when you have what I’ve described as a ‘spiral of lawlessness’ that starts with one or two people going into a small business and stealing just under $950 and not being prosecuted because it’s now a misdemeanor and the prosecutors aren’t doing their jobs … and that turns into three people running out of Walgreens and people running out of Nordstroms in smash-and-grab robberies, home robberies, train robberies and a double-digit rise in homicides … That’s a wake-up call for not just Republicans, but Democrats and independents.

I believe California voters are going to look to the one statewide position that’s identified with safety and security, and that’s the attorney general position. The kind of conditions on the ground are ripe for change – people are crying out for change.

The Boudin recall and the issues that arose there show that a Republican can win. Chesa Boudin was recalled 55% to 45%. Republicans make up only 8% of the vote in the city of San Francisco, and roughly three-quarters of the votes to recall Boudin came from Democrats and independents.

Secondly, in the last 20 years, you had Jerry Brown, Kamala Harris, and Javier Becerra serving as attorney general. Those are fairly unbeatable candidates with great statewide name recognition and some level of law enforcement background. They were also presiding over a time when safety and security was much more under control.

Rob Bonta was appointed by Gov. Newsom, and shockingly, he had zero law enforcement experience before he took the job. Gavin Newsom appointed an Oakland assemblymember –basically a politician – to be your chief law enforcement officer, someone who’s never argued a criminal case or conducted a criminal investigation, dealt with victims or [handled] criminal sentencing and dealt with judges. He is absolutely inexperienced and unqualified to hold that position. Coupled with that, he also has brought along a criminal justice agenda that I believe is too far to the left. I believe it’s very pro-criminal.

Q: But aren’t the laws that California voters approved a few years ago the problem, and your job would be enforcing them? Proposition 47 was passed by voters. It reclassified felony drug and theft offenses as misdemeanors and raised from $400 to $950 the amount for which theft can be prosecuted as a felony. Two years later, voters approved another proposition that allowed prisoners to be released earlier.

Hochman: They call [the attorney general] the top cop in the state for good reason, because under the California constitution, the chief law enforcement officer has the power to go into any one of the 58 counties and take over any case, if you believe it’s not being properly prosecuted.

It’s an enormous power that’s somewhat unique to California, and I wouldn’t hesitate to use it.

[Bonta’s] opened up the middle ground. That’s where I exist.

In contrast to his zero years of criminal-justice experience, I was a judge’s clerk. I was then an assistant U.S. attorney, a federal prosecutor for seven years in Los Angeles where I went after narcotics traffickers, gang members, international money launderers, tax evaders, public corruption cases, dirty sheriffs. I ran the environmental crimes unit. Then [I served as] assistant attorney general running the U.S. Department of Justice’s tax division. We had 350 lawyers and a $100 million budget to go after tax cheats across country. I’ve also been a defense attorney.

Thirty years of experience gives me the perspective to figure out the true public safety threats to our society – who should and shouldn’t be in jail. It requires an individualized analysis of three things: the level of crime that’s committed, the defendant’s criminal history, which is often overlooked, as well as the impact on the victim.

Q: What specifically can a state attorney general do to stop fentanyl overdoses? Fentanyl is coming across the border, and most Republicans argue it’s a border security issue that the Biden administration needs to fix.

Hochman: The fact that Rob Bonta since he took over the position has not been a central figure, front-and-center, leading the task force to go after all the fentanyl dealers that are bringing millions of counterfeit tablets in, spiking marijuana, cocaine and other drugs with fentanyl, is a dereliction of duty. We’re talking about people who are poisoning Californians. It would be like if there were a sniper killing 17 people a day in San Francisco or Los Angeles with a high-powered rifle, and it’s not front-page news in California.

As attorney general, you have the power to educate. You can hold press conferences, you can go into high-school communities … you can do your own PR campaign in connection with all the other state and federal government agencies. By leading an enforcement and an education effort, you could really make a difference. You could save lives tomorrow.

Q: After the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade earlier this summer, Newsom pledged to make California an abortion sanctuary state and signed several new laws strengthening abortion access. What is your position on abortion, and how would you carry out these news laws?

Hochman: I am pro-choice and will fully enforce all the laws on the books in protecting a woman’s reproductive rights. Full stop.

Q: What do you think of Brooke Jenkins, the interim district attorney appointed following the recall of Chesa Boudin – her effort so far to reverse Boudin’s record? She has decided to try some juveniles who committed heinous crimes as adults and has overturned some of Boudin’s plea deals.

Hochman: Anyone from any part of the political spectrum that has safety and security as one of their top goals, and actually enacts policies to do that – I think that’s great. Safety and security and justice should not be political issues. If Jenkins is reversing policies and doing her best to bring safety and security back to San Francisco, I applaud that.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 22:25

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

Alberta’s New Premier Under Attack For Refusing To Associate With WEF

Recently noted as an opponent of vaccine and mask mandates, new Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is breaking previously established ties with the World Economic Forum, which has been deeply involved in a “health consulting agreement” revolving around the province’s covid response.

“I find it distasteful when billionaires brag about how much control they have over political leaders,” Smith said at a news conference Monday after her new cabinet was sworn in. “That is offensive … the people who should be directing government are the people who vote for them.”

The United Conservative Party premier said she is in lockstep with federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who has stated he and his caucus will having nothing to do with the World Economic Forum. Earlier this month, on her first day as premier, Smith stated that people not vaccinated against covid are the most discriminated group she has seen in her lifetime.

In response, the Canadian mainstream media is pursuing a thorough hatchet campaign against Smith, consistently referring to all opposition to the WEF as being based in “conspiracy theory.” As they say, if you want to know who is really in power, all you have to do is find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

After two years of authoritarian lockdowns and attempts to enforce vaccine passports in Canada, Alberta was one of the only regions in the country that asserted political opposition to executive dictates. This helped to support the anti-passport protests by truckers and other Canadians, and led to Justin Trudeau using provisions for terrorism to confiscate donations to the movement. Alberta’s covid averages in terms of infections and deaths are no worse than provinces with strict mandates, proving once again that the mandates achieved nothing in terms of safety, but everything in terms of control.

The Canadian Press and other media outlets claim that criticism of the WEF is built on “online conspiracy accusations, unproven and debunked, that the forum is fronting a global cabal of string-pullers exploiting the pandemic to dismantle capitalism and introduce damaging socialist systems and social control measures, such as forcing people to take vaccines with tracking chips.”

Every “conspiracy” noted in that statement is true – none of them have been “debunked” except perhaps the “tracking chip” claim, which is unnecessary because the WEF was already encouraging governments to use cell phone tracking apps to monitor the vaccine status and movements of their respective populations. Many of these apps were approved by the CDC in the US, and in countries like China they are mandatory.

The World Economic Forum, acting as a kind of globalist think-tank for future policy initiatives, was instrumental in promoting many of the failed restrictions used by various national governments during the pandemic.

WEF head Klaus Schwab specifically mentions in his writings that the institution saw covid as a perfect “opportunity” to implement what he calls the “Great Reset” which includes the concept of the “Shared Economy,” a global socialist technocracy meant to replace free markets and end capitalism as we know it. As the WEF states, you will “own nothing, have no privacy” and you will like it.

This is not conspiracy theory. This is openly admitted conspiracy fact. It is undeniable.

The use of the “conspiracy theory” label is generally a tactic designed to circumvent fair debate based on facts and evidence. If the Canadian Press was forced to defend their position based on the information at hand, they would lose. So, they instead try to inoculate their readers to opposing arguments by calling them “conspiracy theory” in the hope that those readers will never research the information further.

The Canadian media then cites quotations that specifically argue that not working with the WEF would put the Alberta public at a disadvantage because it would cut them off from information that the WEF provides.

It’s important to mention that there is no evidence that the WEF has provided any life saving health information to date concerning the covid pandemic. In fact, there is no evidence that the WEF is useful to the Canadian public in any way. The mainstream media’s bizarre and antagonistic reaction to Smith’s shunning of a foreign organization of elitists that has no loyalty to the Canadian citizenry suggests that they may be operating from a foundation of bias.

Danielle Smith’s bravery in cutting off WEF influence from Alberta is being met with a dishonest media response, but in the long run, she is making the best decision possible. Taking advice from a potential parasite is not good leadership.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 22:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/gZcC9qj Tyler Durden

FBI Asks Court For 66 Years To Release Seth Rich Laptop Information

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The FBI is asking a U.S. court to reverse its order that it produce information from Seth Rich’s laptop computer.

If the court does not, the bureau wants 66 years to produce the information.

Rich was a Democratic National Committee staffer when he was killed on a street in Washington in mid-2016. No person has ever been arrested in connection to the murder.

U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant, an Obama appointee, ruled in September that the bureau must hand over information from the computer to Brian Huddleston, a Texas man who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the info.

The FBI’s assertion that the privacy interest Rich’s family members hold outweighed the public interest was rejected by Mazzant, who noted the bureau cited no relevant case law supporting the argument.

But the ruling was erroneous, U.S. lawyers said in a new filing.

The bureau shouldn’t have to produce the information because of FOIA exemptions for information that are compiled for law enforcement purposes and “could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source,” the lawyers said in a motion for reconsideration. Another exemption, which enables agencies to withhold information that would disclose law enforcement techniques also applies, they said.

“Given the Court’s findings that except for the information related to Seth Rich’s laptop withheld pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C) based on privacy interests, the FBI properly withheld or redacted all other information responsive to Huddleston’s requests, the production order seems inconsistent with the rest of the order,” the motion stated.

The FBI, after claiming it never possessed Rich’s laptop or any information from it, acknowledged in 2020 that it had thousands of files from the computer.

The bureau “is currently working on getting the files from Seth Rich’s personal laptop into a format to be reviewed,” the government said at the time.

Information and material extracted from the computer were provided by a source to an FBI agent during a meeting on March 15, 2018, FBI records officer Michael Seidel said in a declaration. He said the files included photographs and documents, among other material.

In the new filing, government lawyers said the FBI never extracted the data, which it revealed as originating with a law enforcement agency. They said the information is on a compact disc containing images of the laptop.

“The FBI did not open an investigation into the murder of Seth Rich, nor did it provide investigative or technical assistance to any investigation into the murder of Seth Rich. As a result, the FBI has never extracted the data from the compact disc and never processed the information contained on the disc,” they said.

To produce the information, the FBI would have to convert information on the disc into pages and then review the pages to redact information per FOIA, according to the government.

If Mazzant upholds his order, the FBI wants a lengthy period of time to perform the work—66 years, or 500 pages a month.

“If the court overrules the FBI’s motion, the FBI wants to produce records at a rate of 500 pages per month. At that rate, it will take almost 67 years just to produce the documents, never mind the images and other files,” Ty Clevenger, a lawyer representing Huddleston, told The Epoch Times in an email.

CEOs Cutting Back Or Pausing Their ESG Efforts: KPMG Study

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times,

Despite U.S. companies championing their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investments and results, many others are planning to suspend or reconsider their ESG efforts in the coming months over growing recession fears, according to a new report.

In August, KPMG published an in-depth report titled “2022 U.S. CEO Outlook.” It assessed a wide variety of issues facing businesses over the next 12 months, including economic turbulence, finding and retaining talent, and technological developments. The paper also looked at the ESG trend sweeping America and the rest of the world.

The authors pf the report noted that a majority of CEOs (79 percent) think the public will look to the private sector to address major social challenges rather than governments, be it climate change or income inequality.

But while this form of social investing has become integral in the private marketplace, organizations acknowledged that there is a demand for increased reporting and transparency on ESG issues, particularly as more of the public becomes skeptical over “virtue signaling” and “greenwashing.”

The former consists of a business expressing a specific moral viewpoint to communicate an impeccable character, typically one that favors an establishment talking point. The latter is when consumers are deceived into thinking a company’s products are environmentally friendly or socially responsible.

Fumes emit from factories of Keihin Industrial Area in Kawasaki, Japan, on Dec. 1, 2009. (Koichi Kamoshida/Getty Images)

But the key finding from the report was that 59 percent say they “plan to pause or reconsider their ESG efforts in the next six months” to help prepare for the anticipated recession.

The report suggested that diminishing investment in ESG strategies “may lead to long-term financial risk,” as a possible recession tests CEOs’ commitment to the latest craze in Corporate America. Seventy percent of CEOs noted that ESG has improved their firms’ financial performance.

“As CEOs take steps to insulate their businesses from an upcoming recession, ESG efforts are coming under increasing financial pressure,” said Jane Lawrie, global head of corporate affairs at KPMG.

Eighty percent of CEOs expect a recession within the next 12 months, according to the KPMG survey.

Is ESG Still a Priority?

Central banks worldwide have abandoned their pandemic-era easy-money policies, with market experts warning that these tightening efforts will lead to an economic downturn in either 2023 or 2024. This type of climate will make borrowing more expensive, forcing companies and investors to tighten their belts and be more conservative with their dollars and cents.

Will ESG still remain a top priority for businesses and traders in such a fiscally prudent environment?

While speaking at CNBC’s Delivering Alpha Conference in September, Lauren Taylor Wolfe, Impactive Capital co-founder and managing partner, explained that financial performance is the chief objective for companies.

“We believe that ESG without returns is simply not sustainable,” she said.

“We are exclusively focused on risk-adjusted returns.”

Meanwhile, a broad array of studies points to greater skepticism and less enthusiasm over everything related to ESG.

A recent Capital.com poll, for example, found that investors and traders are not prioritizing ESG. The online brokerage firm’s research indicated that 52 percent never picked a stock based on ESG factors. Nearly half (46 percent) reported not knowing how to do so, while 12 explained that ESG investments were too expensive.

A separate survey from global investment manager Ninety One discovered that 55 percent say the risk and return performance of their holdings remained the chief concern. Interestingly enough, 40 percent of asset purport that investing in funds related to ESG goals, such as climate change, will cause a reduction in their returns.

Many states across the country, including Florida, Arizona, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Kentucky, have rejected ESG strategies, divesting billions from financial institutions that make investment decisions based on the system. Wall Street appears mixed on the issue, with 45 percent of CFOs telling a CNBC survey that they supported the moves. Thirty percent stated they were neutral, while 25 percent opposed these decisions.

“I think the criticism is deserved,” Wolfe added.

Last week, Strive Asset Management, led by activist investor Vivek Ramaswamy, launched a nationwide campaign that aimed to “promote excellence over ESG priorities.” The initiative suggests that some of the world’s largest companies, such as Amazon, Citigroup, ExxonMobil, and Home Depot, maintain “untapped potential” that could be unleashed if they were not beholden to ESG.

“Everyday Americans have extraordinary yet unrealized power at their fingertips,” said Ramaswamy in a statement. “They don’t just vote as citizens at the polls in two weeks. They vote every day with their investment dollars, which are too often used by other asset managers to inject political agendas into corporate America’s boardrooms.”

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 21:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ntVYBW2 Tyler Durden