Month: March 2023

“Fu*king Amateur Hour”: Democrats Livid At Biden Over DC Crime Bill Flip-Flop

“Fu*king Amateur Hour”: Democrats Livid At Biden Over DC Crime Bill Flip-Flop

House Democrats are livid that President Biden is going to nix a Washington DC crime bill that would reduce the penalties for violent crimes such as carjackings and robberies.

The bill, which was unanimously passed by the District of Columbia City Council in January, was vetoed by DC Mayor Muriel Bowser.

The Council then overrode Bowser by a 12-1 vote, but because DC isn’t a state, this type of legislation must instead be approved by Congress – and then signed by the President, before it can become law.

Last month the GOP-controlled House threw a wrench in the Democrats’ plans, voting 250-173 for a Republican-sponsored resolution to overturn the DC crime bill. All but 31 Democrats voted for it, meaning most Democrats wanted to reduce the penalties for violent crimes in DC.

Licking their wounds from this expected loss, House Democrats then expected the Biden administration to veto the resolution overturning the original crime bill – which Democratic leadership told lawmakers Biden would do. The White House even issued a Statement of Administration Policy which opposed the resolution and backed the DC City Council.

But on Thursday, Biden announced that he would sign the resolution to block the DC bill – thus maintaining the status quo when it comes to penalizing crime in DC.

And Democrats are livid…

“The White House fucked this up royally,” one House Democrat told The Hill via text message.

“So a lot of us who are allies voted no in order to support what the White House wanted. And now we are being hung out to dry, the lawmaker continued. “FUCKING AMATEUR HOUR. HEADS SHOULD ROLL OVER AT THE WHITE HOUSE OVER THIS.”

The House Democrat told The Hill that several other lawmakers were “EXTREMELY pissed” about the situation.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), the No. 3 House Democrat, issued a rare rebuke of the White House during a Punchbowl News event at the caucus’s retreat in Baltimore, saying that Biden’s move was “disappointing.”

“It’s disappointing for me and anybody who believes in home rule, honestly. I’m a former mayor of a city of 70,000 and I wouldn’t want the federal government coming in and telling me what city ordinances to pass. … So I think it’s disappointing in that context,” Aguilar said.  

“I voted against it, but I understand and respect the president’s position here,” Aguilar, the former mayor of Redlands, Calif., continued. “We’ll see, the Senate has to pass that, and I know that they’ve said they have the votes but all of those things have to happen. But it’s disappointing for those of us who believe in home rule.” -The Hill

“Home Rule” refers to allowing DC to make its own laws.

One House Democrat aide texted that the Democratic caucus is “a little shocked” by the White House’s decision.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Thursday that “One thing that the president believes in is making sure that the streets in America and communities across the country are safe, that includes in D.C. That does not change,” adding “When it comes to what this proposal brings forth, which is really lowering penalties for car-jacking, he doesn’t believe that’s going to keep our communities safe.”

Jean-Pierre also pointed out that the DC crime reforms reduce maximum sentences “for offenses like murders and other homicides, armed-home invasion, burglaries, armed carjackings … armed robberies, unlawful gun and some sexual assault offenses.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/04/2023 – 16:00

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

An Important Wiretap Act Case Pending in the New Jersey Supreme Court

For decades, a major uncertainty about the scope of the Federal Wiretap Act has been how it applies to the repeated but discrete access that can often occur with electronic communications.   Telephone wiretapping occurs in real time; the eavesdropper listens in.  But electronic wiretapping can be periodic but discrete.  An eavesdropper can access an account discretely but repeatedly over time.  The question is, does the Wiretap Act, with its strong privacy protections, still apply?

Here’s how I phrased the question in the LaFave Criminal Procedure treatise, for which I have written the electronic surveillance chapter, Chapter 4:

[A]n acquisition occurs under the Wiretap Act only if the collection of the communication is ‘in flight’ in real-time, during prospective surveillance of an ongoing communication. Exactly what this means can be tricky in cases involving electronic communications, as electronic communications can be stored or transmitted for extremely short periods of time. The basic question is this: If a tool makes copies of a communication shortly after it arrives at its destination, is that acquisition contemporaneous with transmission or is it only after the transmission has been completed? Put another way, can surveillance circumvent the Wiretap Act by acquiring communications immediately after they have arrived at their destination? If an e-mail account is accessed once an hour, is that an intercept? What about one a minute, once a second, or once a milli-second?

2 Wayne LaFave et al, Crim. Proc. § 4.6(b).

I asked the same question in my computer crime law casebook:

[T]he Wiretap Act regulates prospective surveillance and not retrospective surveillance.

At the same time, the line between prospective surveillance and retrospective surveillance can become fuzzy. Imagine a government agent has access to a suspect’s e-mail account, and he can click a button and receive an update with all new incoming or outgoing messages. Is the access prospective or retrospective if the government agent clicks the button every hour? Every minute? Every second?

Orin Kerr, Computer Crime Law 667 (5th ed. 2022).

It turns out this hypothetical has turned into a real case, currently pending in the New Jersey Supreme Court, with oral argument scheduled for March 13.  The question: Can the government avoid the Wiretap Act by getting access to an account every 15 minutes?  New Jersey state prosecutors obtained Communications Data Warrants (CDWs) that required Facebook to hand over the contents of the suspects’ accounts every 15 minutes for 30 days.  Facebook objected, saying that the orders violate the Wiretap Act.

The lower court opinion held that Facebook was required to comply with the CDWs because compliance was not an “intercept” under the Wiretap Act:

[T]he CDWs did not grant access to the contents of prospective communications on Anthony’s and Maurice’s Facebook accounts while they were either “en route,” or “within the same second,” that they were placed on Facebook’s servers. Rather, police would not have access until, at earliest, fifteen minutes after any electronic communication’s  transmission. Though the CDWs compelled Facebook to disclose the entire stored contents of each target’s Facebook account for thirty prospective days, that did not make the disclosures contemporaneous with transmission. Luis, 833 F.3d at 627. Rather, once the communications would come to “rest” on Facebook’s servers, they would be in “electronic storage,” and thereby subject not to the wiretap acts, but to the SCA and the provisions of the NJWESCA that mirror that statute. Ibid.

The court then ruled that Fourth Amendment concerns limited this procedure to 10 days:

In formulating an acceptable constitutional solution to the disclosure of that information, we choose to apply a practical approach to the release of prospective electronically stored communications under a CDW. To remain within the parameters of state warrant procedure, the CDWs can be issued, assuming probable cause is once again established, and served on Facebook requiring that any information identified in the warrant and stored by Facebook during the period up to the day it is served with the warrant must be turned over. In addition, incorporating our state warrant procedures under Rule 3:5-5, going forward, if the State serves a CDW on Facebook for the disclosure of prospective electronic communications, no disclosures may be compelled beyond ten days from the issuance of the warrant. And, Facebook can comply with that requirement by producing the stored information on the day of or after the electronic communications have been stored.

Any further attempt to secure information from prospective time periods must be based upon new CDWs issued on new showings of probable cause. We believe that this practical approach, which modifies the trial courts’ dispositions, is consistent with the federal and state constitutions and our warrant procedures, comports with the applicable statutes, and fairly balances the interests of the parties before us.

The New Jersey Supreme Court then accepted review.

I think the lower court Wiretap Act’s analysis is wrong, and that the Wiretap Act applies to repeated access every 15 minutes.  This is one issue I felt strongly enough about that I included it in the LaFave treatise when I joined it, around 2008 or so.  Here’s how I recommend answering this issue in the LaFave treatise, with emphasis added:

The caselaw on the question suggests that copying within a short time of receipt counts as contemporaneous and is therefore regulated by the Wiretap Act. [FN28] This answer is consistent with the Fourth Amendment principles that should guide the answer. The Wiretap Act’s heightened protections beyond the ordinary Fourth Amendment warrant were inspired by Berger v. New York. Berger indicated that the Fourth Amendment triggers heightened scrutiny when surveillance is undertaken as “a series or a continuous surveillance” rather than as “one limited intrusion.”Under Berger, a statute that regulates “a series or a continuous surveillance” must include special privacy protections or risk facial invalidity under the Fourth Amendment. Given the Wiretap Act’s close connection to Berger,31 the meaning of “intercept” should mirror the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court in Berger. Acquisition is an intercept when it is part of “a series or a continuous surveillance,” such as ongoing prospective surveillance or its functional equivalent. Exact lines will be difficult to draw, but the essential question should be whether the means of monitoring is the functional equivalent of continuous surveillance or whether it is more like a one-time or otherwise limited access to communications.[FN32]

One narrow exception to the requirement of acquisition contemporaneous with transmission involves access to wire communications under the version of the statute in effect from 1986 to 2001. During this period, Congress attempted to protect the privacy of voicemail through the definition of “wire communication” rather than the more sensible protections of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2703. By adding communications in storage to the definition of wire communication, Congress appeared to have wanted to regulate access to stored wire communications under the Wiretap Act.The passage of Section 209 of the USA Patriot Act removed this language from the definition of wire communication, however, such that the concept of “intercept” is now consistent and applies only to access contemporaneous with acquisition.

[FN28: United States v. Szymuszkiewicz, 622 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2010) (Easterbrook, J.) (copying within a second counts as “contemporaneous” and therefore regulated by the Wiretap Act); Lazette v. Kulmatycki, 949 F.Supp.2d 748 (N.D.Ohio 2013) (Carr, J.); Luis v. Zang, 833 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2016) (claim in pleading that WebWatcher surveillance tool “immediately and instantaneously” copied communications deemed sufficient to satisfy intercept standard). In Boudreau v. Lussier, 901 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2018), the First Circuit rejected a “functional approach” to contemporaneity, in which the test would have been if the surveillance occurred using “technology linked to the fleeting moment in which the victim sent the electronic communication.” However, Boudreau ultimately leaves unresolved how the First Circuit’s understanding of contemporaneity would apply to a software program that took repeated screenshots on the technical ground that, at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff did not provide expert evidence that was required to explain on how the program worked. The New Jersey Supreme Court also has an important case pending on the meaning of intercept involving review of the Superior Court’s decision in Facebook, Inc. v. State, 471 N.J. Super. 430, 273 A.3d 958 (App. Div. 2022).]

[FN32: The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir.2002) could be read as drawing the line between a communication that is collected “during transmission” versus one that is collected “while it is in electronic storage.” Konop, 302 F.3d at 878. To the extent Konop is so read, this line is not exactly correct. The scope of the Wiretap Act should be defined by whether the surveillance is undertaken as “a series or a continuous surveillance” rather than as “one limited intrusion,” Berger, 388 U.S. at 57, not whether the communication was moving or at rest at the moment of acquisition. The confusion may result from the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that a communication cannot be both stored (and therefore subject to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2701 to 2722) and yet also subject to interception under the Wiretap Act. However, the two statutes can in some circumstances regulate access and copying of the same communication. The Wiretap Act regulates prospective continuous surveillance of an account that may result in a particular communication being copied, while the Stored Communications Act regulates a single intrusion to access and copy that communication. The peaceful co-existence of the two statutes is aided by 18 U.S.C.A. § 2702(b)(2) of the Stored Communications Act, which explicitly permits a provider to disclose the contents of communications “as otherwise authorized” in Sections 2511(2)(a) or 2517 of the Wiretap Act.]

2 Wayne LaFave et al, Crim. Proc. § 4.6(b).

To really really date myself, this is the same position I took in an amicus brief in the First Circuit’s Councilman case in 2004, although the First Circuit didn’t reach the issue then in part because the facts didn’t require it. Almost twenty years later, the issue is finally teed up in a case that squarely raises the issue. As always, stay tuned.

Full disclose: I once did a short legal project for Facebook, and I have represented a client in a case against Facebook, too.

The post An Important Wiretap Act Case Pending in the New Jersey Supreme Court appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Models of Forum Shopping

There are a few different ways to think about the differences between judges, and about the related problem of forum shopping:

On one model, all judges are exactly the same. They all apply the law, which has uniquely right answers. It never matters who your judge is, because they will all apply the law, and all reach the right answer.

On a second model, there are two kinds of judges: fair, and unfair. Fair judges are basically the same. They all apply the law, which has uniquely right answers. But there are also unfair judges, who don’t apply the law. So it matters whether you get a fair judge or an unfair judge.

On a third model, all judges are political. Judges are different to the extent that their politics are different. It matters who your judge is, because judges have different politics, and judges will apply their politics. Some people think this model is fair, and some think it is unfair.

On a fourth model, all judges are fair, and non-political, and apply the law, but they are also not exactly the same. The law is complicated enough that even two fair judges, both applying the law, might not always reach the same answer in every case. Neither judge is unfair, but the judges are different.

These models affect how we think about things like forum shopping and judge shopping. On the first model, of course, forum shopping is pointless, and people who complaint about it are delusional. On the second model, forum shopping is presumably bad to the extent that people with bad cases are picking unfair judges, and we should take the cases away from the unfair judges, or get rid of them entirely if we can. Etc.

But suppose we believe in something like the fourth model. Excessive forum shopping will systematically bias adjudication in favor of the plaintiffs, even though the judges are not biased. So it would be a mistake, a category error, to ask those opposed to forum shopping whether they think the judge is biased. Instead we should ask whether judges are different, and if so, whether we care if the plaintiff gets to pick the same one of the different judges over and over again. Maybe we do, maybe we don’t, but that’s the question. This is why I don’t share Josh’s reaction to the litigation over the federal district judges in Texas.

The post Models of Forum Shopping appeared first on Reason.com.

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

The Case For A National Sales Tax

The Case For A National Sales Tax

Authored by Brian McGlinchey via Stark Realities

Sometime during this 117th U.S. Congress, the long-proposed “Fair Tax” will likely receive its first-ever floor vote in the House. A national sales tax, it would replace not only personal and corporate income taxes, but Social Security, Medicare, estate and gift taxes too.

Though every tax scheme has its pitfalls and moral failings, the net impact of a switch from the income tax to a sales tax could be positive for the citizenry and the economy. While entrenched interests and the opportunity for misleading political attacks on Fair Tax proponents make its adoption in the near-term a long shot, it’s a concept worth keeping on the country’s collective back burner.

Fair Tax Basics

HR25, the “Fair Tax Act of 2023,” advances a national sales tax “on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services in lieu of the current income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate and gift taxes.” The Internal Revenue Service would be sent into history’s dustbin, while a much smaller federal tax bureaucracy would administer the sales tax.

The federal tax rate would be a whopping 30%. The bill and many FairTax advocates describe it a 23% “tax-inclusive” rate, which means they arrive at by expressing the tax as a percent of the total outlay — including the tax itself.

While there’s actually some financial logic to that methodology when comparing it to income taxes, Fair Tax proponents should abandon the practice. Everyday Americans are fully accustomed to state and local sales taxes being expressed as a percent of the purchase price, and will never grasp the arcane reasoning that leads to 23%. They should emphasize the fact that paychecks would have no more federal income tax or payroll tax deductions and make the case for the 30% rate.

Opponents are quick to decry sales taxes’ lack of progressiveness. Setting aside the question of whether it’s actually just for governments to confiscate a higher proportion of money from those who earn or spend more of it, the proposed Fair Tax does include a “prebate” — money sent to every household that effectively negates federal sales tax for spending up to the poverty level.

For 2023, it would be about $6,900 a year for a family of four. It should be noted that the least prosperous Americans currently receive money through the income tax system, via “refundable” credits. If Congress wants to replace that largesse, it will have to create new entitlements.

Ridding America of The Income Tax’s Worst Traits

A federal sales tax would addresses the worst evils of the income tax, which include:

Complexity. Even for the financially astute, the income tax code is mind-numbing. Congress and the IRS create a wickedly complex maze, and then — with threats of penalties and jail time — put the burden of navigating it on people and businesses.

Wasted time and money. Americans spent an estimated 6.5 billion hours and more than $200 billion to comply with IRS filing and reporting requirements in 2022. While tax preparation fees and effort are top-of-mind, the income tax is a weed that drains time, money and energy throughout our economy — from all the record-keeping required by financial institutions, to the legions of lawyers and financial advisors straining to find loopholes for corporate and individual clients.

Intrusiveness. The income tax requires individuals and businesses to disclose an enormous amount of information — and to be prepared to share much more if the IRS comes knocking. With a sales tax, the government doesn’t need to know about your choice of charities, your marital status, how many nights you slept in your vacation home, how much alimony you paid, which investments you sold and how much you paid for them.

A magnet drawing money into politics. A sales tax would certainly invite corporate lobbying and political contributions aimed at exempting certain goods and services from the tax, but the scale of that effort would be a fraction of what’s goes on vis-a-vis the income tax.

Tax-free criminals and illegal residents. Sales taxes reach those whose income is derived from illegal commerce or otherwise hidden from the government, from drug dealers and illegal immigrants to “under-the-counter” employees. Regardless of its origin, when money is spent, it’s taxed.

No tax system achieves 100% compliance and each one invites evasion, but it seems safe to say sales taxes outperform income taxes on those fronts.

Hiding the cost of federal government. That cost is obscured by the tax code’s complexity, and Americans’ obliviousness to the fact that businesses’ taxes and tax-compliance costs are largely passed on to them in the prices they pay. With a sales tax, the cost of government is printed on every receipt.

Seeking to collect about the same amount of total tax as the array of taxes it would replace, the Fair Tax would be set at 30%. For people used to state and local taxes of say, 4 to 8%, that’s a jarring figure — and that sticker shock is one of the best aspects of a national sales tax: forcing people to directly confront the cost of our enormous federal government and its sprawling military empire.

The rate would initially be set at 30%, but politicians would certainly run on promises to cut it. That, in turn, might make politicians more amenable to actually reducing the growth rate of the federal budget.

On the downside, politicians may seek to exempt certain classes of individuals from the sales tax.

Resetting Americans’ Understanding of Social Security, Medicare

The income tax isn’t the only problematic tax that the Fair Tax would abolish. For example, doing away with Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes would go a long way toward curing Americans of the false belief that Social Security taxes are “contributions” that fund individual “accounts.”

Rather, these programs that are hurtling toward insolvency would be seen for what they are: entitlement programs that redistribute money among Americans. Viewing them in their true light would help foster support for changes that will prevent their ballooning costs from turning into a higher sales tax rate at the register.

Tax-Code Profiteers Will Resist

Any effort to bring about major change must confront the tyranny of the status quo, as those who benefit from the current arrangement rise to preserve it.

Enactment of the Fair Tax would, overnight, render obsolete a great many American businesses and professions. Intuit — the maker of TurboTax — already has a history of lobbying against efforts to make federal income-tax filing simpler and free.

Income tax repeal doesn’t just threaten tax preparation outfits, accountants and tax lawyers. For just one example, consider that repeal of the income tax means no more investment taxes — rendering 401(k) custodians irrelevant too.

There’s a huge political headwind as well: An incumbent’s vote for the Fair Tax is a huge gift to any challenger. As has been already demonstrated, challengers will run alarming ads proclaiming the incumbent supported a new, 30% sales tax, conveniently neglecting to disclose that the tax would replace all the other federal taxes, allowing Americans to keep every penny of their employment and investment income.

Buyer Beware

Even among the most impassioned opponents of the income tax, you’ll find strong resistance to a national sales tax, over fear we’ll end up with the current array of taxes and a new federal sales tax too.

The Fair Tax Act would do away with the income, payroll, estate and gift taxes and the IRS, but with no guarantee against their return. It’s therefore essential that adoption of a federal sales tax be accompanied by simultaneous repeal of the 16th Amendment, which cursed the country with the federal income tax in 1913.

Stark Realities undermines official narratives, demolishes conventional wisdom and exposes fundamental myths across the political spectrum. Read more, comment and subscribe at starkrealities.substack.com

Stark Realities with Brian McGlinchey: Invigoratingly unorthodox perspectives for intellectually honest readers 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/04/2023 – 15:30

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

Rep. Greene To Zelensky: “Leave Your Hands Off Of Our Sons & Daughters”

Rep. Greene To Zelensky: “Leave Your Hands Off Of Our Sons & Daughters”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has lashed out at recent controversial remarks of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during her Friday speech before the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

She addressed the Ukrainian leader by name, telling him to keep his “hands off of our sons and daughters” over the Russian invasion in Ukraine, after last month he had issued an appeal to the American public in which he chastised and berated those either unsupportive or on the fence about continuing massive defense aid.

Zelensky had uttered the words in a late February press conference when asked by a reporter about growing ‘Ukraine fatigue’ among the US public. He began his response by saying, “If they do not change their opinion…they will lose NATO, they will lose the clout of the United States, they will lose the leadership position they are enjoying in the world.”

He then quickly pivoted to saying that if Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, it will expand the invasion to other European nations. The Russian army will “enter the Baltic states, NATO member states,” Zelensky claimed, before saying, “then the US will have to send their sons and daughters exactly the way as we are sending their [sic] sons and daughters to war.”

Rep. Greene in her Friday speech blasted Zelensky’s claim in the following: 

Greene on Friday told the CPAC crowd that she was still “committed to saying no money to Ukraine, and that country needs to find peace, not war.”  

“And while I will look at a camera and directly tell Zelensky, you’d better leave your hands off of our sons and daughters because they’re not dying over there,” she continued. 

While MTG’s scathing criticism is predictably being greeted with outrage among staunch Kiev supporters, who will likely argue that the White House has ruled out sending American troops to fight in Ukraine, the ‘mission creep’ on display of the last many months has become obvious.

Among many examples, Pentagon ‘advisers’ and weapons trackers have been sent into Ukraine, and more recently tanks and longer-range rockets have been approved, with F-16 jets now entering the Washington debate. But a small group of GOP outliers in Congress – especially MTG and Matt Gaetz – have lately pushed to halt the unaccountable billions flowing into Kiev’s coffers, regardless of how unpopular that position remains in D.C.

Reps Greene and Gaetz’s stances are rare also given the vast majority of Congressional leaders treat Zelensky with rock star status, which was on display when he received long, enthusiastic standing ovations during his in-person speech before Congress last December. 

As for MTG’s words at CPAC, the crowd appeared to be on her side, given they loudly cheered her rebuke of Biden’s Ukraine policy, while also at one point booing Zelensky’s name.

Watch her full speech below…

Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/04/2023 – 15:00

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

India: The Next Front In The War On The BRICS

India: The Next Front In The War On The BRICS

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

There is far more to the current multi-modal geopolitical war than just what’s happening in Ukraine. This conflict has led to a myriad of downstream effects and moves which are just as important as what the encirclement of Bakhmut means.

For years the wildcard in the BRICS Alliance has been India. India’s rivalry with China as well as its complicated relationships with both Russia and the West have always served as wedge issues to drive the alliance apart.

During the Trump years the “I” in BRICS, India, was slowly working its way under Prime Minister Narendra Modi back into the West’s orbit. It led to me thinking that that “I” had been replaced by Iran, especially pre-COVID-19.

Today with the ascendence of Lula to the presidency in Brazil, the BRICS have, for now, lost the “B” in their alliance. So, with all of the talk about the BRICS coming into their own as a global economic and political force the situation is far from settled because the West and Davos are simply not going to let this just happen without a fight.

The relationship between Russia and China is dominating the headlines with major US officials making significant threats to China, in particular, about supporting Russia. These threats are, of course, very real, coming from people like Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

At the same time, they are also not overtures to real negotiations. Making demands that only promise the abeyance of the stick with no carrot is not an opening offer, it’s a closing offer. So, while Yellen travels to Kiev to pledge Zelenskyy unlimited support of US taxpayer funds while the “Biden” administration dithers over how to deal with the situation in E. Palastine, Ohio, tells us where the priorities of our leadership is.

Winning the geopolitical war must take precedence over everything else, even if there is no real ‘country’ left after the war is over.

There is a saying by Sun Tsu making the rounds today in social media that is wholly appropriate here:

“An evil enemy will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes.” – Sun Tzu

This describes the actions of Yellen, Blinken and their fellow travelers in Europe perfectly. Now, I know this is not news to anyone who’s read my work for the past few years. You know I view them as vandals, not incompetents, but it’s important to keep this in mind at every step in this march towards global conflict.

Because this is the way most of the BRICS nations and their growing list of sympathizers also view the situation. Russia has made this very clear. Vladimir Putin, his Foreign Minster Sergei Lavrov, and former Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev, have all expressed this.

The longer this conflict goes on the more adamant about these points they become. The same can be said for China and its leadership.

China says less than the Russians do, but does more with who they choose to talk to and when. Foreign Minister Wang Xi’s recent visits to Moscow and Tehran further cemented a triangular foundation of support. These visits were contemporaneous to the convocation of warmongers in Munich two weeks ago. That was not an accident.

Neither was Premier Xi’s visit to Riyadh and the major Arab summits where he made sincere overtures to welcome them into the forming pan-Asian economic sphere. Don’t think for a second these events don’t have knock-on effects and reverberate in national capitols all over the world.

We’ve seen a spate of major announcements further underscore just how far along the entire BRICS project, with or without Brazil, is.

This brings me back to India as the wildcard. Modi’s journey from a guy with one foot on two islands (East v. West) to planting his feet firmly with the East has been an interesting and vital one.

If we’ve learned nothing else over the past year of war in Ukraine it is that most of the world is unphased by threats by the US by the countries I’ve just discussed. Iran clearly doesn’t care. China understands that if Russia falls militarily, China is next. Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC+ understand who their future trade partners really are.

This is why India is now in the crosshairs of Davos. They are the last major power in the region left to stymie Asian integration.

Reports circulated the same weekend as the Munich Security Conference that none other than George Soros was behind the attacks on PM Modi through a report from Hindenberg Research. They targeted one of Modi’s big financial supporters, Guatam Adani William Engdahl covered this in detail.

In January Hindenburg targeted an Indian billionaire, Gautam Adani, head of the Adani Group and at the time reportedly the richest man in Asia. Adani also happens to be the major financial backer of Modi. Adani’s fortune has multiplied hugely since Modi became Prime Minister, often on ventures tied to Modi’s economic agenda.

Since the January 24 Hindenburg report alleging improper use of offshore tax havens and stock manipulation, Adani Group companies have lost over $120 billion in market value. Adani Group is the second largest conglomerate in India. Opposition parties have made a point that Modi is tied to Adani. Both are long-term friends from Gujarat in the same part of India.

But Engdahl doesn’t stop there. He very smartly ties this to George Soros’ speech at Munich, you know, the one he skipped this year’s WEF conference in Davos to give. Soros called out Modi directly saying his days were numbered and he’s no ‘democrat.’

Soros is beyond being coy about these things anymore. He’s telling you what he’s doing.

RT ran a similar story, much more focused on Soros and the Indian Foreign Minister’s response to him the same day as Engdahl’s article:

Soros said during the Munich Security Conference on Thursday that fraud allegations against the multinational conglomerate, headed by the PM’s long-time associate Gautam Adani, would “significantly weaken Modi’s stranglehold on India’s federal government… I may be naive, but I expect a democratic revival in India.”

Those comments didn’t go unnoticed in New Delhi, with Jaishankar firing back on Saturday at the 92-year-old billionaire and neo-liberal political activist. The foreign minister described Soros as “old, rich, opinionated and dangerous” because he’s willing to invest his money in “shaping narratives.”

“People like him think an election is good if the person they want to see wins and, if the election throws up a different outcome, then they will say it is a flawed democracy,” he added.

For another take on the same subject I recommend you read Andrew Korybko’s piece from the same day on this subject, digging up the building propaganda campaign against Modi starting with the NY Times, passing next through the BBC documentary and ending with Soros’ Munich speech.

The need to cleave India from the BRICS is now acute. The war in Ukraine is reaching the next phase as Russia forces what’s left of the Ukrainian army from Bakhmut clearing the way for Russia to establish logistical dominion in the center of the Donbass.

Because of this there is an even greater sense of urgency within Davos to upgrade not just Ukraine but also pick a new fight with China. The clock is ticking down on the old financial system. The end of LIBOR is nigh.

The bodies are piling up in the Fed’s war on leverage as high as the ones on the battlefield in the Donbass. Malign actors like Soros may still they have the ability to avoid these things but, in the end, they are fronting strength while privately they are freaking out.

Moreover, global opinion of the West’s potency as seen through the lens of Russian potency has shifted in a way that make the decisions of Asia’s leadership that much easier.

These results are themselves revelatory of the biases within the populations polled, especially in the heavily propagandized West. But those from both Turkey and India are eye-popping and confirm my long-held belief that once someone finally stood up to the US and Europe and survived it would radically change the psychology of the geopolitical game board.

One only need to look at how brazen Davos’ moves are, how heavily they are flooding the zone with headlines, emerging crises, and easily-debunked lies to see what’s really going on.

In light of that it should be noted just how ineffectual Davos’ moves against Modi and India have been. The recent regional elections in three important Indian provinces left the clear impression that Modi’s influence over electoral politics is still very much intact.

Modi has made it a point to engage the northeastern provinces, normally ignored by Indian politics, to entrench his hold on power in India. This is clearly his counter-move to anything the West would attempt to throw at him.

I’m no expert on Indian politics, but from the commentary I’ve seen, this opens up the possibility of Modi gaining a super-majority in next year’s elections. Regardless of whether that is true or not, what we know now is that the next year will be a minefield as Davos throws its weight around to topple another government it does not control.

The question I leave you with is will this be another Hungary, where polls had Viktor Orban in a tight race with Davos’ Anyone-But-Orban coalition only to see Orban cruise to his biggest victory ever, or will it Brazil, where the campaign against Bolsonaro was just strong enough to remove him from power.

Game on, George.

*  *  *

Join my Patreon if you you don’t want to be another front in Davos’ war.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/04/2023 – 14:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/hz0X7cS Tyler Durden

Watch: Samantha Power Lets Slip The US Is At War With Russia, But “Ukrainians Doing The Fighting”

Watch: Samantha Power Lets Slip The US Is At War With Russia, But “Ukrainians Doing The Fighting”

In a CNN panel last week, the head of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Samantha Power issued some very revealing words on the Russia-Ukraine war, wherein she admitted that the US is at war with Russia but that it’s “Ukrainians doing the fighting”. 

Her words came during a CNN ‘town hall’ event, which also featured Biden national security adviser Jake Sullivan, marking the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion. She had specifically responded to a question from an audience member, who asked: “What vital interest does to the US have in Ukraine?” At one point in forming a response she actually gave what ranks among the most ridiculously simplistic clichés sometimes uttered by D.C. policymakers – that America stands up to “bullies”. 

“I think Americans understand bullies and the importance of standing up to bullies,” she said. But here’s where she said the quiet part out loud, letting it slip that in some sense the US sees Ukraine as a pawn in the greater geostrategic game of ultimately defeating Russia: She explained the need for a broad coalition of countries in order to show “This isn’t just the United States and Russia, this in fact is Ukrainians on the front lines, Ukrainians doing the fighting…” The set of assumptions behind this statement by a top Biden admin official is very revealing, however casually she may have slipped it in. Watch the clip below:

Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/04/2023 – 14:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/HTa05r3 Tyler Durden

Auditors Are Finding Millions In Mishandled COVID-Era Education Funds

Auditors Are Finding Millions In Mishandled COVID-Era Education Funds

Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Millions of dollars in pandemic-era relief spending that went to K-12 public education and universities was misspent, according to federal and state audits.

Students walk to an elementary school in Chicago on Jan. 12, 2022. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

As COVID-19 spread around the world in 2020, federal, state, and local officials encouraged or ordered policies that led to the closures of businesses and schools around the United States. Between 2020 and 2021, Congress appropriated about $7 trillion in economic stimulus spending, including about $280 billion for states, K–12 schools, school districts, and institutions of higher education.

The U.S. Department of Education’s (DoE) Office of Inspector General has compiled audit reports from several states, at times finding state governments had insufficient procedures for distributing pandemic-era funds given to them by the federal government.

For example, a DoE audit of funds (pdf) given to Oklahoma through the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) fund found that the state lacked assurances that $31 million, out of the $40 million appropriated to the state, was used appropriately. An audit of Michigan’s GEER-related spending (pdf) found potentially insufficient assurances that $5.4 million, of the $89.4 million the state received, was used properly.

In a comment to the Wall Street Journal, Republican Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt blamed the lack of accounting for pandemic-relief money in part on pressure from the federal government to quickly disburse education relief money without clear guidance on how it was to be awarded.

“That’s what happens when big government goes out just throwing money around,” Stitt told the publication.

A DoE audit of pandemic relief money for the University of Cincinnati (pdf) determined the university “did not provide complete and accurate student eligibility and financial data to support 3,297 (totaling $3.4 million), or 6 percent, of its award determinations.”

Local officials have also uncovered evidence of mishandled COVID relief. In February, California’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) published a report (pdf) faulting the  Stockton Unified School District for awarding a $6.6 million contract to install air purification systems in schools to an out-of-state firm without a competitive bidding process.

Fraud and Scams

While the DoE found some states and schools lacked a sufficient documentary process to ensure the eligibility of their pandemic-era relief fund awards, some individuals have been charged with outright fraud in their handling of education relief money.

In January, a Louisiana man was sentenced to 11 years in prison and ordered to pay restitution of millions of dollars. Prosecutors alleged the man, who ran an education consulting firm, used the information of 180 of his student clients to enrol them in education programs that received pandemic-era relief funding; and instead, directed all of that funding to his personal bank account. The Louisiana man received $1,468,239 in pandemic-era federal student aid loans through this scheme.

The DoE has issued a warning that the pandemic-era scams “can take many shapes, like missing school funds or property, irregularities in contracts or undue influence by people in decision-making positions, identity theft and fraudsters posing as students to steal student aid, or scammers targeting student loan borrowers offering to provide services related to coronavirus student loan relief for a fee.”

Even without being able to directly defraud education relief spending programs, fraudsters have appeared to take advantage of the confusion surrounding pandemic education relief to scam students out of their money.

In September, the Central Connecticut State University Police Department warned students of a scam in which the perpetrator would contact individual students, telling them that they were eligible for financial aid through a “Covid Relief Fund.” Victims would receive a check and believe it to be real, only for the fraudsters to claim that there was an error and request that the money be returned. The victim student would repay out of their own funds only to see the original check they had been issued bounce, leaving them short the amount of money they originally believed they had been awarded. The university warned that one student had already fallen victim to the scam.

On Thursday, President Joe Biden’s administration joined calls for Congress to approve more funding and resources and extend statutes of limitations to investigate and prosecute pandemic-era fraud.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/04/2023 – 13:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/SJjl3HT Tyler Durden

More Than 75% Of Americans Aged 17-24 Aren’t Fit For Military Service: DOD

More Than 75% Of Americans Aged 17-24 Aren’t Fit For Military Service: DOD

As the US military struggles to fill the ranks with new recruits, a new report from the Department of Defense reveals that the vast majority of Americans aged 17-24 are unfit for military service.

Citing a Feb. 16 congressional hearing, a DoD report reveals that 77% of Americans in the above age group could not physically qualify to enter the armed forces – a 6% increase from 2017.

A key factor is obesity – which hit nearly 42% in 2020. Meanwhile, a 2022 study cited by the Epoch Times found a link between receiving government food assistance and a greater chance of becoming obese through the consumption of unhealthy foods. A 2015 USDA analysis found that 40% of total SNAP participants were obese.

Last month, Military.com reported on an Army initiative to whip fat, low-scoring recruits into shape in ‘pre-basic training courses.’

The program, known as the Future Soldier Preparatory Course, is designed to expand the pool of eligible Americans who can join the service by creating short camps that help applicants reach Army standards. The service came up short of its recruiting goal last year, bringing in 45,000 new active-duty troops — well below its goal of 60,000. This year, the service is even more ambitious, seeking 65,000 new recruits. -Military.com

“The Future Soldier Prep Course is giving young Americans who want to serve the chance to do so, by helping them not only meet our standards, but in many cases rise above them,” said Gen. James McConville, the Army’s top officer. “We started seeing positive results early on in the program, and I am happy to see it expand to additional installations so we can continue to attract and invest in our nation’s best talent.”

U.S. Army trainees exercise as part of a course aimed at preparing potential enlistees who don’t meet fitness or test standards at Fort Jackson in Columbia, S.C., on Sept. 28, 2022. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Applicants in the programs have 90 days to boost their scores or lose enough body fat to come into compliance with Army standards. So far, just 3,206 students have attended one of the courses, of which 2,965 have graduated and moved on to basic training.

More via the Epoch Times,

A Dangerous Dilemma

In September 2022, a U.S. Army general bluntly said that young Americans are either too obese, too sick, or too criminal to serve in the military.

“Some of the challenges we have are obesity, we have pre-existing medical conditions, we have behavioral health problems, we have criminality, people with felonies, and we have drug use,” Lt. Gen. Xavier Brunson told The Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington.

Brunson called it a “condition,” saying that “this is not an Army problem, so nationally what we have to look at is what’s going on with our youth.”

The general’s statement came as a response to difficulties the U.S. military had reaching their target goals for recruits in 2022. This struggle, prevalent in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, has prompted security analysts and some U.S. institutions to declare obesity a threat to national security.

Obesity a Security Threat

“Each year, more than $60 million goes toward replacing the 1,200-plus first-term enlistees discharged for excess weight,” Irina Tsukerman, a security analyst and the owner of Scarab Rising, told The Epoch Times.

She said high obesity rates have narrowed the recruiting pool considerably, coupled with “falling intelligence and education standards.” She also noted that, along with reduced resiliency and flexibility, the military is less prepared to meet “asymmetrical or conventional challenges.”

Police departments struggle with similar challenges, according to Tsukerman.

“We have also seen the impact of poor fitness and obesity among police forces in urban areas,” she said. “Unfit officers facing high-risk scenarios are less likely to perform well at their jobs … the same can become a dangerous trend on the battlefield.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also classifies America’s obesity challenge as a security threat. The organization estimates that 1 in 5 children and 2 in 5 U.S. adults are now obese.

CDC statistics also show that 19 percent of active-duty service members suffered from obesity in 2020, which is up from 16 percent in 2015.

Active-duty soldiers struggling with obesity are also 33 percent more likely to suffer musculoskeletal injuries.

Lowering the Bar?

In response to this challenge, the U.S. military is adjusting its fitness requirements for some jobs, especially those that aren’t physically demanding, such as technology-based positions.

Tsukerman cautioned that lowering the bar within the U.S. military could set a dangerous precedent.

“While it is true that technical developments such as the use of UAV [unmanned aerial vehicles] and AI [artificial intelligence] have displaced some human participation in the field, much of the combat still relies on conventional human performance,” she said. “Therefore, national security directly depends on human forces being astute, situationally aware, and agile.”

Hunnes said it comes down to getting people on track with proper nutrition right out of the gate. She said healthy breakfast and lunch options for children and better nutrition for pregnant mothers is a good start to tackle obesity issues among today’s youth.

“We need communities, individuals, and governments to step up.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/04/2023 – 13:00

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

Russia Suspended New START Because Of Attacks On Strategic Sites

Russia Suspended New START Because Of Attacks On Strategic Sites

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Thursday that one of the reasons Moscow suspended its participation in the New START treaty was because the US helped Ukraine attack a facility housing Russian nuclear weapons.

New START is the last nuclear arms control treaty between the US and Russia and limits the deployment of warheads and launchers, including heavy bombers assigned to nuclear missions. Ryabkov said Ukraine launched an attack on facilities declared under New START.

Aftermath of a Ukrainian drone attack on Russia’s Engels air base.

“The situation was further escalated by US attempts to probe the security of Russian strategic facilities declared under New START by helping the Kiev regime to carry out armed attacks on them,” he told the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

In December, Ukrainian drones targeted the Engels airfield, a base deep inside Russian territory that houses Russian strategic bombers that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads, although it’s not clear if they were at the time. 

NATO military sources told Asia Times that Ukraine employed drones in the attack on Engels and another airfield that used US satellite GPS data to hit their targets.

Ryabkov said Ukraine wouldn’t be able to target Russian infrastructure without help from the US. “We know that those attacks would never be possible in absence of a very deep and sophisticated assistance by the US to the Ukrainian military,” he said.

The Russian diplomat said that even though Russia suspended its participation in New START, it would still keep its nuclear deployments within the limits of the treaty.

“Under these circumstances, we were forced to announce the suspension of the New START Treaty. At the same time, as it has already been stated, we will continue to adhere to the quantitative restrictions enshrined in New START,” he said.

Ryabkov also warned that US support for Ukraine could lead to a direct clash between nuclear powers. He said the US and NATO’s “increasing involvement in the military confrontation is fraught with a direct military clash of nuclear powers with catastrophic consequences.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 03/04/2023 – 12:30

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