Russia To Supply Iran With 24 Advanced Sukhoi Fighter Jets
Starting a week ago reports began emerging in Middle East regional media, including in both Iranian and Israeli news sources, that Russia will soon provide Islamic Republic with dozens of Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets. Israeli reports are even citing “Western intelligence officials” in making the claim.
Iranian state Tasnimwrote days ago that “Iran will soon receive 24 of the fourth-generation twin-engine, super-maneuverable fighter jets that are primarily used for air superiority missions,” in what seems to be some level of confirmation.
The state-run outlet noted that Iran hasn’t been able to acquire any new aircraft from outside countries in years, and the last time jets were transferred from Russia was in the 1990’s.
The Times of Israel also recently reported the following, citing the country’s Channel 12 network:
The report by Channel 12 said the deal could include as many as 24 jets that were originally intended for Egypt, in a deal that the United States thwarted.
This left Moscow looking for a new potential buyer, which it has reportedly found in Tehran. The report comes after Iranian media said in September that Tehran was weighing such a purchase.
Intelligence indicated that Iranian pilots were already using the jets for training, the report said, without elaborating.
In all of these reports, the sourcing is anonymous and thus somewhat dubious, given also even Iranian state media is citing “reports say…”. However, the fact that state media is running headlines about acquiring the Sukhoi Su-35s is hugely significant nonetheless.
It could mean that Tehran and Moscow are at least in the early phases of negotiating such a transfer. This would indicate that their deepened military ties which has been on display throughout the Ukraine war, based largely on Iran controversially supplying its ‘Kamikaze’ drones which have been in use by the Russian army in Ukraine, is going the other way too as far as the defense supply chain.
On Thursday, Forbes asked the qestion: who will operate these sophisticated and advanced jets if they are acquired? Likely there would be a significant Russian-overseen training program…
The IRGC-AF has never operated more advanced aircraft than those vintage Soviet-era Su-22 Fitter or Su-25 Frogfoot attack planes — ex-Iraqi warplanes that fled from Operation Desert Storm to Iran in 1991, which Tehran promptly confiscated. The IRGC-AF returned the Su-25s to Iraq in mid-2014 to help Baghdad fend off the threat posed by the rampaging Islamic State (ISIS) group.
Forbes further reviews of Iran’s ageing air force planes: “Aside from procuring Chengdu F-7 fighters from China during the 1980s, post-1979 Iran only made one significant fighter procurement, in 1990 when it bought MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter jets and Su-24 Fencer bombers for the IRIAF from the Soviet Union.”
Thus any advanced fighter transfer could see the rare instance of Russian advisers training IRGC pilots. Meanwhile, the US and UK have continued to ratchet up sanctions on Iran’s defense manufacturing sector, especially in light of the drone supplies which appear to be ongoing in relation to the war in Ukraine.
With state legislatures entering their third sessions since the 2020 pandemic pumped trillions in federal recovery and stimulus assistance into state and local government coffers, tax reform across a range of levies is among front-burner priorities for lawmakers in 2023.
During 2022 sessions, Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation reports at least 38 states adopted “noteworthy tax changes” with most going into effect on Jan. 1, including trims in personal income tax rates in 11 states and flat income tax structures being implemented in three states, Arizona, Idaho, and Mississippi on New Year’s Day.
Here is a round-up of “noteworthy tax changes” that go into effect Jan. 1 provided by analysts at the Tax Foundation, Council On State Taxation, and Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy:
* ARIZONA: A flat personal income tax rate of 2.5 percent will replace Arizona’s tiered, or progressive, income tax structure that had a top rate of 4.5 percent.
* IDAHO: Under 2022’s House Bill 1, Idaho will move to a flat personal income tax rate of 5.8 percent, replacing a progressive tax structure with a top assessment rate of 6 percent, on Jan. 3.
* INDIANA: Under 2022’s HB 1002, Indiana’s flat personalincome tax rate will drop from 3.23 to 3.15 percent through 2024. Afterwards, the personal income tax rate will incrementally decline to 2.9 percent by 2029, depending on state revenues.
* IOWA: On Jan. 1, Iowa’s nine personal income tax rates will be consolidated into four, with the top declining from 8.53 to 6 percent. The state is set to implement a flat income tax rate of 3.9 percent in 2026.
Also beginning in 2023, Iowa will exempt retirement income, certain farm rental income, diapers, and menstrual products from taxation. The state will phase out its inheritance tax by 2025, with this levy also being incrementally slashed beginning in 2023.
On the other side of the ledger, Iowans will no longer be able to claim a state deduction on federal income and property taxes.
* KENTUCKY: Under 2022’s HB 8, Kentucky’s income taxes will go down, and some sales taxes will go up on Jan. 1.
The state’s flat personal income tax rate will dip from 5 to 4.5 percent in 2023 and to 4 percent in 2024. Depending on state revenues, state lawmakers plan to implement further incremental cuts until the personal income tax is eliminated.
The income tax cuts will be countered by new or increased sales taxes on a range of services, such as a 6 percent levy on limousine, car rental, ride-sharing, car-sharing, and taxicab services. A 1 percent transient room tax will now apply to campgrounds and RV parks.
Kentucky will also impose a new excise tax of 3 cents per kilowatt hour for electric vehicle power distributed in the state by an electric vehicle power dealer or by electric charging stations located on state property.
* MISSISSIPPI: Under 2022’s HB 531, Mississippi will adopt a flat personal income tax beginning Jan. 1. The state’s 4 percent levy on income between $5,000 and $10,000 will be eliminated and a 5 percent tax on income above $10,000 imposed.
Under the bill, the 5 percent flat rate will decrease to 4.7 percent in 2024, 4.4 percent in 2025, and 4percent in 2026.
* MISSOURI: Under 2022’s Senate Bill 3, Missouri’s top personal income tax rate will be reduced from 5.3 to 4.95 percent, and the amount of income exempt from income taxation will increase from $100 to $1,000. The measure calls for incremental reductions in the top income rate levy to 4.5 percent.
Also on Jan. 1, Missouri will become the last state to assess state and local sales taxes on remote or online transactions under a 2021 bill.
* NEBRASKA: Under 2021 and 2022 bills, Nebraska will reduce its top personal income tax rate from 6.84 to 6.64 percent, and in its top corporate tax rate from 7.5 to 7.25 percent. The state will lower its top corporate income tax rate to 5.84 percent by 2027.
Also beginning in 2023, beneficiaries can deduct 60 percent of Social Security benefits, up from 40 percent in 2022, and exemptions from taxation for retirement and military pension incomes will be increased.
Property owners will also get some breaks in 2023 under 2022’s Nebraska Property Tax Incentive Act, which sets aside $660.7 million for income tax credits that will offset portions of school district and community college property taxes.
* NEW HAMPSHIRE: Under 2022’s HB 2, New Hampshire will start phasing out its income tax on interest and dividends income, lowering the levy from 5 to 4 percent on Jan. 1. The rate will decline by 1 percent until the tax is no more by 2027.
Under 2022’s HB. 1221, the state’s corporate income tax, or ‘Business Profits Tax,’ will drip from 7.6 to 7.5 percent beginning Jan. 1.
* NEW YORK: Under 2022’s SB 8009, New York will accelerate reductions in the state’s personal income tax rated for “middle-income earners” first adopted in 2016.
Beginning Jan. 1, the tax rate applied to income between $13,900 and $80,650 for single filers, and between $27,900 and $161,550 for joint filers, will be 5.5 percent, down from 5.85 percent. The tax rate on income between $80,650 and $215,400 for single filers, and between $161,500 and $323,200 for joint filers will decline from 6.25 percent to 6 percent.
Also beginning Jan. 1, New York will resume assessing its gas tax. The state’s 16 cents per gallon motor fuel tax had been suspended since June 1, 2022.
* NORTH CAROLINA: Under 2021’s SB 105, North Carolina’s flat personal income tax rate will decline from 4.99 to 4.75 percent on Jan. 1.
The rate is set to continue declining 3.99 percent by 2027, with North Carolina’s current 6.9 percent corporate income tax to disappear entirely by 2030.
Also beginning in 2023, the state’s franchise tax will be a simplified net worth levy instead of the three different franchise tax liability rates previously assessed.
* ALABAMA: Under 2022’s HB 162, Alabama will exempt the first $6,000 of retirement and military pension income for those 65 or older from income taxes beginning Jan. 1.
State lawmakers in 2022 also revised Alabama’s “business privilege tax,” reducing the minimum payment of $100 to $50 a year.
* DELAWARE: Under 2022’s SB 188, Delaware will increase its exemption from taxation on retirement and military pension income from $2,000 to $12,500 for those 60 and older beginning Jan. 1.
* RHODE ISLAND: Under 2022’s HB 7123, Rhode Island will boost its exemption on taxation on retirement and military pension income from $15,000 to $20,000 beginning Jan. 1.
* ILLINOIS: Under SB 157, Illinois’ Child Tax Credit will increase from 18 to 20 percent of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) beginning Jan. 1.
On the other side of the ledger, the state’s gas tax inflation adjustment will be implemented on Jan. 1 following a six-month freeze. The state’s 42.3 cent tax on a gallon of gas will increase by 3.1 cents. Another inflation adjustment will be implemented in July.
* ARKANSAS: Under 2022’s HB 1002, reductions in personal and corporate income tax rates will be accelerated. Beginning Jan. 1, the top tax rate on personal income will dip from 5.5 to 4.9 percent, and the state’s corporate income tax rate will go down from 5.9 to 5.3 percent.
* PENNSYLVANIA: Under 2022’s HB 1342, Pennsylvania’s corporate income tax rate will be reduced from 9.99 percent to 8.99 percent on Jan. 1. The corporate tax rate will decline by a half-percent until it reaches 4.99 percent by 2031.
* OKLAHOMA: Under 2022’s HB 3418 in May 2022, Oklahoma will become the first state to make permanent a 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for investments in machinery and equipment beginning Jan. 1.
The state will also require that local sales taxes be levied on retail sales of tangible personal property in 2023.
* VIRGINIA: Under several 2022 bills, Virginia will exempt groceries and essential hygiene products, including menstrual products, from the state’s 1.5 percent sales tax beginning Jan. 1.
Also, retired military pensioners 55 and older will be eligible to subtract up to $20,000 in military benefits from taxable income in 2023, up from $10,000. That exemption will increase to $30,000 in 2024 and $40,000 in 2025.
* KANSAS: Under 2022’s HB 2106, Kansas will begin phasing out its 6.5 percent sales tax on groceries to 4 percent on Jan. 1. The sales tax on groceries will decline to 2 percent in 2024 before disappearing in 2025.
* COLORADO: Under 2022’s HB 22-1055, Colorado will exempt diapers and menstrual products from sales taxes.
So Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. (W.D.N.Y.) held yesterday in Spencer v. Nigrelli:
Plaintiffs argue that, by “prohibiting the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right in places of worship while permitting its exercise on other private property—and by denying to religious leaders the authority it reserves to other private property owners to permit firearms,” the State “treats comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise and discriminates on the basis of religion.” For this reason, and as set forth below, the houses of worship exclusion violates Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. …
“[A] plaintiff may carry the burden of proving a free exercise violation” by “showing that a government entity has burdened his sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not ‘neutral’ or ‘generally applicable.'” Should a plaintiff make such a showing, the Court must find a First Amendment violation “unless the government can satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ by demonstrating its course was justified by a compelling state interest and was narrowly tailored in pursuit of that interest.” {The Court need not resolve the issue of whether a threshold showing of a burden on a sincerely held religious belief is required [for religious discrimination claims -EV]. As discussed below, that requirement—if it exists—is met because the houses of worship exclusion does burden Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious practices.} Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claims….
Pastor Spencer believes that he has “a moral and religious duty to take reasonable measures to protect the safety of those who enter the Church.” He explained that the “Bible often refers to religious leaders as ‘shepherds’ and tasks them with caring for and protecting their ‘flocks.'” He therefore believes that “providing for the physical safety of the Church—the body of Christ—is [his] religious act and duty as a pastor.” He also believes that “the Bible calls on the Church—as members of a single family united in Jesus Christ—to love, serve, and protect one another.” These beliefs are “shared by the Church.”
Consistent with these religious beliefs, Pastor Spencer “regularly carried a concealed pistol” on Church campuses and allowed “security volunteers and other churchgoers with New York carry licenses” to do the same. In short, he “carried and allowed others to carry” concealed firearms at church “to ensure protection of the Church and its worshippers in case of violent confrontation” in accordance with their religious beliefs. He would have continued to do so “but for the enactment and enforcement” of the place of worship exclusion.
The State argues that the place of worship exclusion “does not foreclose Plaintiffs’ ability to protect worshippers at [the] [C]hurch with armed individuals.” The statute, it explains, “provides alternative mechanisms for Plaintiffs to secure the safety of their congregation” such as permitting certain categories of people—such as police officers and registered security guards—to carry at Church without violating the place of worship exclusion. This does not relieve the burden the new law places upon Plaintiffs’ religious practices.
Pastor Spencer testified that members of the Church’s security team of congregants protect the congregation pursuant to a calling from God. Hired outside security, Spencer believes, is not an adequate substitute because such individuals would be working for a paycheck—not acting pursuant to a spiritual calling. For this reason, he believes hired security would be far less effective than the organic security team at protecting the flock. But it does not ultimately matter whether he is correct that hired security—armed or not—would effectively protect the congregation. Pastor Spencer and Church members have a religious belief that they, themselves, must protect the flock. Indeed, religious beliefs “need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.”
In any event, the Church congregation includes—at most—only a handful of police officers or other individuals who might fit into a statutory exception. Even if these individuals were to volunteer to provide security at the Church, they could not conceivably protect the approximately 800 individuals who worship at the Church throughout each week—given that they have day jobs and “work a lot of hours.” And to the extent the Church hired private security guards or police officers to protect the congregation, the financial burden would necessarily reduce the amount of ministry the Church could perform. This is precisely the sort of meddling in religious practices that courts find time and again violates the Free Exercise Clause. Further, like in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, the State has not “questioned the sincerity” of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs….
The place of worship exclusion is neither neutral nor generally applicable and, therefore, must satisfy strict scrutiny…. Under its plain text, it restricts concealed carry in “any place of worship or religious observation.” … [T]he place of worship exclusion is directed at religious activity. Careful drafting ensured that carrying of concealed weapons for religious reasons at place of worship is prohibited, while the same carrying in numerous other circumstances remains permissible. For these reasons, the place of worship exclusion is not a “neutral” law.
Nor is it generally applicable…. It specifically targets carrying of firearm motivated by religious beliefs while permitting concealed carry in relation to numerous secular activities….
The State asserts that it has a “purpose of the highest order in the protection of its citizens from gun violence.” It explains that the statute prohibits carrying of firearms in locations that create “risks for gun violence” because they are “often busy, crowded, and dense locations where individuals are often seated or moving slowly.” But other private property owners—such as proprietors of hair salons, retail stores, shopping malls, gas stations, office buildings, garages, and countless other private actors hosting secular activities—may decide for themselves whether to permit the carrying of firearms on their property. See N.Y. Pen. L. § 265.01-d(1) (prohibiting carry of firearm on private property only where property owner has not expressly permitted it).
In sum, on this record, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the State permits countless other private actors hosting secular activities to do what a house of worship may not. The houses of worship exclusion is not a neutral law of general applicability….
Faced with Plaintiffs’ showing that the houses of worship exclusion burdens their sincerely held religious practices pursuant to a policy that is not neutral or generally applicable, the State must demonstrate that the exclusion survives strict scrutiny—which is “the most rigorous of scrutiny.” … To satisfy strict scrutiny, the government must show that “its restrictions on the plaintiff’s protected rights serve a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored to that end.” The standard is “not watered down[,] but really means what it says.” Thus, a law that “targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment or advances legitimate governmental interests only against conduct with a religious motivation will survive strict scrutiny only in rare cases.” …
Plaintiffs concede that the State “has a compelling interest in preventing violent crime.” The State, however, fails to establish that the houses of worship exclusion is narrowly tailored to advance that interest. It argues that “in a sensitive location such as a religious institution, there is no narrower way to prevent” gun violence than “by ensuring that only trained individuals specifically tasked with protecting the community are armed.” …
[But i]n an analogous case, the Supreme Court explained that “narrow tailoring requires the government to show that measures less restrictive of the First Amendment activity could not address its interest in reducing [gun violence].” Where “the government permits other activities to proceed with precautions, it must show that the religious exercise at issue is more dangerous than those activities even when the same precautions are applied. Otherwise, precautions that suffice for other activities suffice for religious exercise too.”
The State allows a broad swath of private property owners to decide whether to permit the otherwise-lawful carrying of firearms on their property. There is no evident justification for the view that secular business owners are more qualified than religious leaders to determine whether to allow armed self-defense on their property. Moreover, a bad-intentioned armed person looking to attack worshippers will not be deterred in the by the fact that the State can now add unlawful carry in a “sensitive location” to the slew of criminal charges that would stem from such an attack. The houses of worship exclusion is therefore not narrowly tailored to advance the State’s interest in protecting citizens from gun violence. The State fails to satisfy strict scrutiny.
In sum, Plaintiffs have demonstrated, on this record, that the State has burdened their sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not “neutral” or “generally applicable,” and the State fails to demonstrate that its course was justified by a compelling state interest and was narrowly tailored in pursuit of that interest. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims under the Free Exercise Clause….
That seems correct to me, given the facially discriminatory treatment of religious institutions. The court also concluded that the prohibition likely independently violated the Second Amendment, for reasons similar to those given in Judge Sinatra’s earlier decision in Hardaway v. Nigrelli; and the court also concluded that the law violates the Establishment Clause (I’m more skeptical about that).
The court added:
ORDERED that this preliminary injunction is stayed pending appeal, consistent with Defendant Nigrelli’s representation at the December 19, 2022, status conference that the stays entered by the Second Circuit in Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 22-2908, and Hardaway v. Nigrelli, No. 222933 permit Plaintiffs to designate individuals otherwise authorized by law to carry a firearm to do so on church premises for the purposes of keeping the peace, without regard to whether they fall within any of the exceptions set forth in N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01e(3).
Brazil’s First Corn Shipment To China Indicates Shifting Trade Flows Could Endanger US Dominance
Brazil, the world’s second-largest corn exporter, sent its first vessel carrying corn to China this month. Global trade flows are shifting away from the US, the largest exporter of corn, as China reduces its reliance on the Midwestern US farm belt.
Commodity traders have tracked the Star Iris, the bulk carrier hauling 68,000 metric tons of grain for Chinese trader Cofco Corp., which left Brazil late last month and just arrived in Singapore.
Bloomberg said Beijing decided to purchase Brazilian grains in May to “reduce dependence on the US and replace supplies from Ukraine cut off by the Russian invasion.”
Reuters recently quoted Brazil’s National Association of Grain Exporters as saying Brazilian corn exports could surge next year because of China.
There’s still a while until Brazil threatens the US dominance of the China ag market. More than 20 bulk carriers with US corn are currently en route to China. Still, Brazil’s first corn shipment to China might indicate global trade flows are shifting.
There are now an estimated 1.7 million electric vehicles (EVs) on U.S. roads, compared to roughly 400,000 in spring 2018. That means that a lot more Americans are experiencing the joys and pitfalls of EV ownership, from silent, swift acceleration and emission-free driving on the positive side to slower fueling times and shorter driving ranges on the negative side.
More Americans are also learning that frigid temperatures affect EVs differently than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, chiefly by cutting into their driving range to a greater extent. While a typical ICE vehicle might have its range reduced by 15% to 25% in below-freezing temperatures, an EV’s range will be slashed 20% to 50% depending upon driving speed, temperature, and interior climate preferences. Combustion reactions occur more inefficiently at colder temperatures, accounting for the range decline in ICE vehicles. But cold slows the physical and chemical reactions in EV batteries to a larger degree, limiting the energy and power the battery can deliver to the motors. Moreover, while ICE vehicles utilize otherwise wasted heat from the engine to warm car interiors in winter, EVs use electric heaters to perform much of the climate control, further draining the already hamstrung battery.
The Arctic blast that chilled much of the “Lower 48” last week showcased the EV range hit to more Americans than ever, and also yielded a few more lessons.
EV owners sounded off about their experiences on social media and subreddits. Here are a few of the takeaways:
1. EVs are not ready for frigid road trips.
I warned about this in August: Driving an EV on the highway in extreme cold will produce a range loss of 40% or more. EV owners of various brands traveling for the holidays shared numerous stories verifying this annoying (and potentially dangerous) reality. Drivers traveling in temperatures at or around zero with a headwind could go only 100 to 150 miles before needing to stop and recharge, depending upon the car, significantly increasing travel time. When they did charge, they had to deal with another disconcerting problem with EVs and winter…
2. EV fast-chargers operate much more slowly in extreme cold, if they work at all.
The colder the EV battery, the slower the rate of charge that it will accept, making “fast-charging” in subzero temperatures a potentially miserable and plodding experience. Think a 45 to 60 minute charge instead of a 25 to 35 minute one. To top it off, users reported that fast-charging equipment, particularly from Electrify America, often just didn’t work in temperatures below -10 °F. Tesla’s proprietary Superchargers didn’t seem to have the same reliability issues. The generally sorry state of charging infrastructure shed light on another takeaway…
3. EVs driven in regions with a cold winter need to be charged at home.
Preferably with a garage. Owners simply can’t rely on public infrastructure in its present state with current battery technology. However, this situation could easily change in five to ten years with novel batteries that suffer less range loss and more widely available chargers, preferably housed indoor.
4. Aside from range issues, EVs handled the Arctic air well.
Owners reported that their cars started without issue, drove well (albeit with slightly reduced power), and heated quickly thanks to their fast-acting electric heaters. For drivers who didn’t need to worry about traveling long distances, their EVs were functional, comfortable, and relatively untroubled by the cold.
Sullivan To Visit Israel, Meet With Netanyahu, On Concerns Of Democratic Backsliding
On Thursday we took note of President Joe Biden’s strained and slightly awkward congratulation message sent to newly sworn-in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his most hard-right wing and religious government in the nation’s history.
In issuing the formal congratulations, Biden stressed that his administration will “oppose policies that endanger” the two-state solution or “contradict our mutual interests and values” – given Netanyahu’s newly formed far-right government has vowed precisely to expand West Bank settlements, directly threatening the possibility of the kind of future two-state solution Washington says it’s long sought.
On Friday it’s been revealed the White House is planning to dispatch national security adviser Jake Sullivan to Israel after the start of the new year, in mid-January.
Israeli and US officials confirmed to Axios that Sullivan will hold talks with PM Netanyahu over his government’s controversial policies, especially the most concerning ones which threaten to harm US-Israeli ties.
Listed among Sullivan and the White House’s list of concerns is the potential for Israel’s backsliding on democracy and human rights, given the new government plans to legalize Jewish outposts in the occupied West Bank.
U.S. concerns extend to policies that could harm Israeli democracy.
Those include measures that would decrease the independence of Israel’s judicial system, and challenge the rights of its Arab minority and the LGBTQ+ communities.
What’s more is that a visit by Secretary of State Antony Blinken could soon follow the Sullivan trip. While high-ranking US officials have frequently visited Israel across US administrations, and Israel continues receiving $3.3 billion annually in foreign military aid from America, the hardline make-up of the new government has apparently sent the White House scrambling.
Netanyahu has sworn in Israel’s most far right government ever… he’ll lead a coalition including figures once considered fringe extremists
Key line in its mission statement: promise to expand settlements in the Occupied West Bank where violence has already been flaring pic.twitter.com/Gpva0fc5ds
Other issues expected to be focus US-Israel intense dialogue in the coming months will likely be Iran and its nuclear program, as well as normalization efforts with Saudi Arabia.
Netanyahu is expected to get more hawkish on Iran, and could mull the possibility of preemptive strikes on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities. As for the Saudis, the new prime minister has been vocal of late in wanting to normalize relations, with the Trump era Abraham Accords serving as the foundation.
So…it turns out we crazy conspiracy theorists aren’t so crazy after all. In fact, we can knock “crazy” right off that moniker. Again. Elon Musk has allowed the curtain to be pulled back on Twitter to reveal corruption, collusion, and straight-up propaganda that have changed the course of American history. Musk is catching all sorts of flack for the Twitter Files from the mainstream media, who are somehow trying to defend the indefensible actions that have taken place behind the scenes and paint Musk as the bad guy for exposing it.
Many things that non-liberals have been saying for years have been shown to be true. There was indeed collusion between the Biden campaign and Twitter, conservatives were absolutely shadowbanned, the FBI is involved in social media, and points-of-view that were not in line with the narrative were suppressed by the social media giant.
What are the Twitter Files?
Elon Musk has provided journalists like Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Lee Fang, and Michael Schellenberger access to years of internal documents and chat logs showing the trend of biased moderation behind the scenes. (You can sift through Musk’s own Twitter account to read these reveals yourself.
It’s a story of censorship cloaked as moderation and political bias cloaked as safety. Favors were done, and stories were either suppressed or allowed to trend based on the whims of a handful of people behind the scenes. Regardless of how many times the MSM says “alleged” in conjunction with these revelations, it’s very clear that there’s a real problem.
And keep in mind this is only the tip of the iceberg. I’d be willing to bet everything I have that similar conversations have gone on behind the scenes at Google and Facebook too. That means that Big Tech has been responsible for illicitly influencing the course of history, something we here at The Organic Prepper have been saying for a decade. While you personally may not have been influenced by things on social media, the people around you have been and the consensuses that were formed in America were based on biased information.
That’s a real problem. Propaganda works and the position our country is in shows the heinous aftermath of it.
Here’s what we learned from the Twitter Files so far.
The best synopsis I’ve seen of the Twitter Files comes from the account of journalist Benjamin Carlson. Carlson wrote, “No agency should be unaccountable. No institution is indispensable.”
What is the real story of the Twitter Files? It’s a much bigger deal than many realize.
I’ve spent hours reading the great reporting (now thousands of words in 7+ parts) by
@mtaibbi, @bariweiss, and @ShellenbergerMD
Here are 7 crucial takeaways everyone needs to know:
1. History changed because of this:
Hunter Biden’s alleged corruption censored
Covid 19 lockdown debate stifled
Trump silenced
You may agree with each decision. But there is no denying that halting information flow and free debate had real consequences.
2. Many things called conspiracy theories were true:
FBI was working w Twitter and paid TW $ millions
Blacklists & shadow bans were real
US intel lobbied to censor accounts
Covid-19 convo heavily manipulated
Twitter rules changed & enforced by whim
3. Censorship is being cloaked in the language of safety:
‘Safety, harm, violence’ redefined to apply to ideas
Opinions & info deemed ‘unsafe’ subject to silencing
Jokes, memes, questions about origin of covid off limits
4. The government is policing opinion:
FBI has 80 staff monitoring speech
Small accounts on left and right flagged
FBI held frequent meetings w TW
Facebook, Youtube, and Instagram = similar?
Private censors & police control what you say to whom.
5. Social media executives lie freely:
Twitter execs repeatedly and publicly denied shadow bans
In reality, bans were in place as “visibility filtering”
Ultimately, no accountability to public
6. Free speech is controlled by a small group:
Biggest decisions in Twitter Files made by 3-4 individuals
Despite misgivings and doubts, once made, decisions stuck
Now it’s Musk.
One difference: his embrace of public polls to set policy.
7. The slippery slope is real:
Staff rebellion led to Trump ban
Staff called for more covid-19 censorship
2021-22 saw increase of bans and ‘one-offs’
This is how you get Billy Baldwin in the crosshairs.
Once you silence a president, who has a right to speak?
8. Musk has made enemies:
Leaking to indy media
Expressing opinions on Fauci
Suspending journalist accounts
I expect his businesses will see counterattacks. Now is a good time to refocus—and let the users decide how to uphold free speech.
TLDR
History changed
Conspiracy theories true
‘Safety’ = censorship
Government policed ideas
Executives lied
Speech controlled by small group
Slippery slope is real
Musk must watch out
The MSM is outraged.
Unsurprisingly, those who have been shown to be biased and corrupt are displeased and the MSM is leaping to their defense and attacking Musk for using his platform to expose it.
Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, is feverishly promoting his “Twitter Files”: selected internal communications from the company, laboriously tweeted out by sympathetic amanuenses. But Musk’s obvious conviction that he has released some partisan kraken is mistaken — far from conspiracy or systemic abuse, the files are a valuable peek behind the curtain of moderation at scale, hinting at the Sisyphean labors undertaken by every social media platform.
Vanity Fair dismisses the claims in the Twitter Files and focuses its wrath on Musk.
Right-wingers are reveling in the latest batch of Elon Musk’s Twitter Files, which Republicans continue to dubiously frame as bombshell revelations into the platform’s squelching of far-right accounts. But amid all the brouhaha, a simple question remains: What new information has actually emerged from these splashy document dumps?
…All that can be gleaned from the latest Twitter Files release is this: Musk, likely under pressure from spooked advertisers to justify his conservative rebrand of the company, wants everyone to know that at least a few right-wing users were sent to varying degrees of Twitter time-out.
The Intelligencer is equally dismissive and but far more sarcastic as they strive to discredit Musk.
..the Twitter Files are best understood as an egregious example of the very phenomenon it purports to condemn — that of social-media managers leveraging their platforms for partisan ends…
…The Constitution does not give you an inalienable right to retweet Hunter Biden’s genitals…
…The Twitter Files provide limited evidence that the social-media platform’s former management sometimes enforced its terms of service in inconsistent and politically biased ways. The project offers overwhelming evidence that Twitter’s current management is using the platform to promote tendentious, partisan narratives and conservative misinformation. In that sense, Taibbi and Weiss have performed revelatory journalism.
Musk’s conspiracy-baiting has quickly turned ugly, as he uses a project that purports to be about transparency to discredit Twitter’s former leadership and harass people he disagrees with. That’s giving his 120 million Twitter followers easy targets…
…many tech journalists, social media experts and former Twitter employees say Musk’s claims are over-hyped, given that the documents shared so far largely corroborate what is already known about the messy business of policing a large social network.
“What is really coming through in the Twitter Files for me is: people who are confronting high-stakes, unanticipated events and trying to figure out what policies apply and how,” said Renée DiResta, research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, who studies how narratives spread on social networks…
…But with his drumbeat of Twitter Files releases and gleeful tweets dunking on the company’s former employees, Musk has successfully hijacked the conversation.
“It is being processed as punitive and sort of owning the last regime, as opposed to saying, ‘Here are things that we can see in these files and here is how it’s going to be done differently under our watch,’” DiResta said.
I suppose the bottom line here is that when faced with one set of facts, people with different philosophies will always draw diverse and strongly held conclusions.
2022 will come to a close without the Supreme Court issuing a single opinion in an argued case during October Term 2022. Nor has the Court issued a per curiam merits opinion. This is unusual, particularly considering the (relatively) small size of the Court’s docket.
While the Supreme Court does not usually issue many Fall opinions, it typically issues a few opinions in argued cases, along with the occasional merits opinion in a case summarily reversing the opinion below. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was often the first justice to issue an opinion in an argued case each term, but she was rarely alone in getting an opinion out the door before the New Year.
While the justices may not be writing much yet (other than in opinions related to orders) they are certanly talking. The Court’s oral arguments have become substnatially longer this term, owing in part to the new format in which traditional, free-for-all argument is supplemented by seriatim questioning by the justices.
Over at SCOTUSBlog, Jake S. Truscott and Adam Feldman examine the 27 oral arguments the Court has held thus far this term and find that arguments are longer, the justices are speaking more, and the Court’s newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is speaking most of all (and it is not particularly close).
In the first three months of the 2022-23 term, the Supreme Court’s newest member, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, was by far the most active participant in oral arguments, according to an analysis of the written transcripts for the 27 cases the court has heard so far.
Jackson has spoken, on average, nearly 1,350 words per argument. The court’s next most-talkative members — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch, in that order — each have spoken, on average, between 800 and 900 words per argument. . . .
Truscott and Feldman also find that Justice Jackson does not speak more often than her colleagues. Rather, when she speaks she tends to speak longer.
Whether these trends will continue into the spring is anyone’s guess. Presumably we will start to get opinions in January. I doubt, however, we will see significantly shorter arguments, particularly given some of the difficult and high profile questions on the Court’s docket in the coming months.
Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released their released a final rule revising the federal definition of “waters of the United States”(aka “WOTUS”), which defines the scope of federal regulation under the Clean Water Act. This rule is less expansive than the WOTUS definition promulgated by the Obama Administration, but more expansive than adopted by the Trump Administration.
The CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants in the navigable waters of the United States. The CWA further defines “navigable waters” as “the waters of the United States.” This new rule, in turn, adopts a regulatory definition of “waters of the United States.”
The new rule covers all waters and wetlands with a continuous surface connections with navigable waters, as well as those waters and wetlands which, “either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity” of navigable waters. The legal question is whether this definition extends the agencies’ authority beyond that which is auhtorized by the CWA, or extends beyond the scope of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, which (combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause) allows the federal government to regulate that which “subtantially affects” interstate commerce.
The EPA and Army Corps will argue that those waters and wetlands which “significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity” have a significant affect on interstate commerce. At least as applied to some lands, I expect this assertion to be challenged in federal court. However much it make sense to the agencies to reuglate all waters with a significant hydrological connection to navigable waters, the federal governent’s regulatory authority is not defined in such terms.
This is the third WOTUS definition issued in the past eight years, and the third attempt to adopt a definition that is consistent with the Surpeme Court’s SWANCC and Rapanos decisions, each of which concluded the two agencies had adopted unduly expansive interpretations of their own jurisdiction. The rule also purports to provide additional guidance as to the extent to which (in view of the two agencies) wetlands near or adjacent to navigable waters are subject to regulation as part of the “waters of the United States,” a question currently before the Court in Sackett v. EPA.
The rule will take effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
I wrote about the unsealing order in 2020; the order was then affirmed earlier this year, and just today Judge Jed Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) unsealed “the minimally redacted version” of the letter. (Judge Rakoff’s opinion starts with, “Time to close the books.”) You can see that redacted version, which is too inside baseball for me to comment on, at pp. 3-4 of this PDF.
