Why we could easily see $5000 gold

On the 18th of September, in the year 324 AD, 52-year old Constantine the Great finally won the victory that he had been fighting for two decades to achieve: sole control of the Roman Empire.

At that point the Roman Empire had suffered more than a century of extreme turmoil– recession, inflation, invasion, humiliation, and endless civil wars, just to name a few of its challenges.

But after finally vanquishing his remaining political opponents, Constantine was ready to turn the page and institute some much needed reforms. And one of his first orders of business was to restore much-needed confidence in the currency.

Previous emperors had heavily debased Rome’s coinage to almost hilarious levels; the silver content in the denarius coin, for example, had been reduced 98% purity, all the way down to just 5% purity.

Nobody trusted Roman currency anymore. So in order to restore confidence, Constantine turned to gold.

The solidus gold coin had been originally introduced by one of his more notorious predecessors– Diocletian– in the early 300s. But the coin wasn’t really widely used.

Constantine chose the solidus as the gold standard for Roman currency, and he minted large quantities of it for circulation across the empire. More importantly, he standardized the coin at a fixed weight and high level of purity… and this standard remained untouched for centuries.

The value of the solidus was so stable, in fact, that it eventually became used for trade and commerce across the world– from the Mediterranean to the Silk Road.

By the 500s AD, the wide acceptance of the solidus became a source of pride for the Empire, leading one emperor to comment that the solidus was “accepted everywhere from end to end of the earth”, and that the coin was “admired by all men in all kingdoms, because no kingdom has a currency that can be compared to it.”

And he was right. Only the solidus was as widely accepted for international trade… sort of like the US dollar’s status today.

The solidus certainly had a great run; its dominance lasted for centuries. But ultimately, as the Roman Empire (then known as the Byzantine Empire) decayed, emperors once again began to debase the solidus.

Over a period of about three decades in the mid 11th century, the solidus lost roughly two-thirds of its value.

This was a time in history when there were other rising powers in Europe. And these foreign kingdoms started thinking about alternatives.

Soon wealthy Italian city-states like Venice and Florence began minting their own coins– the ducat and florin. And as these coins quickly gained acceptance for international trade, the Roman solidus was displaced forever.

I’ve consistently argued that the US dollar would likely suffer the same fate as the solidus ever since I started Sovereign Man.

As far back as 2012, for example, I wrote:

History’s lesson is quite simple — when the issuing authority of the world’s reserve currency engages in wanton debasement, the market seeks an alternative. This time is not different, and the dollar will suffer the same fate.
This will likely happen gradually rather than suddenly; over time, the US government will no longer be able to export the most deleterious effects of its monetary policy to destitute people in developing countries. The negative consequences will remain in the US, once and for all.
The sensible course of action is to plan for this trend by trading out paper currency for real assets like precious metals and productive land that will hold their value over time.

11 years ago when I wrote that passage, the idea of the dollar losing its reserve status was controversial. In fact, most of what I wrote back then was considered highly controversial; I said that Social Security was in serious trouble, that the US government would eventually be unable to pay its debts, and that America was in serious decline.

Today these ideas are no longer controversial. And the proof is in the news headlines on an almost daily basis.

In particular, the dollar’s potential loss as the dominant global reserve currency is now a mainstream idea that is being openly discussed around the world.

(Naturally the Federal Reserve and US Treasury Department are completely ignoring the risk altogether.)

So what does the future hold? Does loss of reserve status mean that the US dollar will simply vanish?

No, of course not. And at this point I don’t necessarily that the Chinese yuan will become THE dominant reserve currency.

China is obviously a major player in global trade and one of the largest economies in the world. They’re big. They’re powerful. And at this point, they’re able to force many of their trading partners to start using yuan for trade.

Think about it like this: Australia currently exports around $150 billion each year to China. And right now, most of that trade takes place in US dollars… because the US dollar is STILL the world’s primary reserve currency.

This means that the central banks in both China and Australia have to stockpile large amounts of US dollars in order to facilitate this trade. And this is an ENORMOUS benefit for the US economy; the rest of the world is essentially forced to invest in America.

But what if China demands that all trade with Australia now be denominated in yuan, instead of dollars. Australia certainly wouldn’t want to alienate its biggest trading partner, so they might happily agree.

What does this mean in practice? Australia makes its exports to China. Instead of receiving $150 billion US dollars, they receive $150 billion worth of Chinese yuan.

What does Australia do with all that yuan? Well, there aren’t too many options. China has a very closed economy with highly regimented capital controls. You can’t freely move money in and out of China.

Now, Australia does import around $70 billion from China each year. So the easiest option is to pay for those Chinese imports using their new pile of yuan.

But that still leaves around $80 billion worth of yuan left over. And again, since it’s so difficult to invest that money in China, Australia will need to figure out something to do with it.

One solution is that Australia’s central bank could exchange its excess yuan for gold. Gold is a traditional asset that central banks around the world have always held. They can use it to settle debts and trade accounts, or simply keep it as a reserve.

So what does this mean for the gold price? Well, the math is fairly simple. China’s global trade surplus in 2022 was nearly $900 billion.

As China continues to push its trading partners to accept yuan, if even 20% of that trade surplus ends up being exchanged for gold, we could easily see a $5,000 gold price given gold’s current supply and demand fundamentals.

I’ll discuss this much more in future letters, but if you’re thinking about ways to hedge the risk of the US dollar losing some of its dominance as the world’s reserve currency, gold is a good place to start.

Source

from Sovereign Man https://ift.tt/AafFOIU
via IFTTT

Watch: Biden Department Of Education ‘Pride’ Seminar Advocates Puberty Blockers For Kids

Watch: Biden Department Of Education ‘Pride’ Seminar Advocates Puberty Blockers For Kids

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

The Biden Department of Education held a ‘Pride’ seminar last week where it presented, among other things, an eighth grader advocating puberty blockers for children.

The event, titled Creating Inclusive and Nondiscriminatory School Environments for LGBTQI+ Students, was closed to the press. However, video of the seminar has emerged, which also involved officials from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Civil Rights, and the Centers for Disease Control.

It featured a thirteen year old trans identifying child named ‘Hildy Edwards’ imploring “please just let [my generation] access their health care that they need, because I just started estrogen and I have never felt even more like a woman if I’m being honest.”

The student, who claims to have been trans since the age of five, continued “Like I feel so womanly, and I feel so much more like myself and it just feels so good. I have never been happier.”

The eighth-grader also admitted reporting other classmates for ‘dead-naming’ and ‘misgendering’.

“I have had to report people at school a lot more than I would have wanted to this year for multiple reasons, like dead-naming, misgendering, slurs,” the student said, adding “But the time that I did get dead-named, I was literally like freaking out. I was like ‘how? I haven’t told anyone my dead-name since like five-years-old ever since I first transitioned.”

“A day later [the principal] was like ‘[the student] confessed, he was very sorry’ blah blah blah, ‘he will get lunch detention,” the trans student continued, adding “And I was like yes. I feel heard. He is getting punished. Sucker. When you mess with me, you have to pay.”

Another trans student on the panel celebrated feeling “affirmed” when an Alabama school principal checked whether their gender transition should be kept a secret from their parents.

“He pulled me aside and he was like, ‘are you out to your mom?’ ‘What name should I use when I talk to her?’ ‘What pronouns do you use?’ and things of that nature. I just remember chills going through my body,” the student stated.

The event also featured trans Biden official ‘Admiral’ Rachel Levine advocating gender altering surgery on children as “medically necessary.”

Biden’s Secretary of Education also chimed in to relate the message that ‘acceptance isn’t enough.’

DOJ Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clark also discussed prosecuting ‘harassment and taunts’ against LGBTQ+ students, taking on cases where schools have been preventing biological male students from competing against girls in sports, and scoring ‘victories’ in certain states for trans surgeries on children.

The event coincides with the administration releasing an LGBTQ toolkit for schools that discourages the use of the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ and encourages schools to support student ‘sexuality clubs’.

Related:

Video: Biden Trans ‘Health’ Official Claims Gender Surgery On Kids Is “Literally Suicide-prevention Care”

250 Hollywood Celebrities Sign Letter Demanding Big Tech Censor Anyone Who Opposes Trans Surgeries On Kids

Report: Washington School District Declines Requests For Students To Opt Out Of ‘Pride’ Lessons

Biden Creates New LGBTQ+ “Book Ban” Resistance Within Department Of Education

Video: Washington Students Marched To Principal’s Office And Lectured For Wearing ‘There Are Only Two Genders’ Shirts

“We’re Not After Your Kids”

Report: The Pentagon Created A ‘Pride’ Coloring Book For Kids

California Bill Would Punish Parents For Misgendering Children

Video: High School Kids Threatened With Detention For Booing LGBT Video

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 11:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/6bk1Ue2 Tyler Durden

Round 2: Toxic Wildfire Smoke From Canada Set To Blanket Northeast Cities

Round 2: Toxic Wildfire Smoke From Canada Set To Blanket Northeast Cities

This week, smoke from Canadian wildfires has blanketed Chicago and much of the Upper Midwest. By Wednesday morning, air quality warnings are in effect for Pittsburgh, Pennaysvia, and Rochester, New York, as the smoke is being blown into the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions. 

After weeks of smoke relief, metro areas from Washington, DC to Baltimore to Philadelphia to New York City will receive another blast of toxic smoky haze from Canadian wildfires. 

On Tuesday, Governor Kathy Hochul said, “We’re expecting smoke and haze to come all across the state.” However, the potential intensity of the smoke wasn’t clear, but air quality maps tweeted by the governor this morning show unhealthy air quality in Western New York, Central New York, and the Eastern Lake Ontario regions. 

Smoke forecast maps via The New York Times show the polluted air is expected to arrive in major Mid-Atlantic and Northeast metro areas this afternoon. 

According to AirNow.gov, unhealthy air conditions have been reported as far east as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

Bryan Jackson, a forecaster with the Weather Prediction Center, told Bloomberg the reason for the smoke shifting to the east is a weather pattern that brought rain across the Northeast is moving out, forcing wind from north to south. This will allow Canada’s wildfire smoke to move south. 

Fox News Weather explains more about the wildfire smoke pouring into the US. 

NOAA’s weather satellites captured the “grayish smoke” plume drifting across the US. 

The smoke has even spread across the Atlantic into Europe. 

For those of us residing on the East Coast, brace yourselves for another round of  smoke.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 11:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/jPpBTK4 Tyler Durden

Zelensky Says No Elections In Ukraine Until War Is Over

Zelensky Says No Elections In Ukraine Until War Is Over

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told BBC last week that there will be no Ukrainian presidential election in 2024 if martial law is still in effect, The New Voice of Ukraine reported.

Zelensky’s five-year term is due to end in 2024, but his comments suggest that it will be extended indefinitely if the war isn’t over by then. He made similar comments about Ukraine’s parliamentary elections, which are due to be held in October of this year, in an interview with The Washington Post last month.

When asked if parliamentary elections will be held this fall, Zelensky said, “If we have martial law, we cannot have elections. The constitution prohibits any elections during martial law. If there is no martial law, then there will be.”

However, in the latest interview he “expressed hope that there would be peace in Ukraine next year, and life would be returning to normal.”

Ruslan Stefanchuk, the speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, also said this month that elections can’t happen in Ukraine under martial law, which Zelensky declared when Russia invaded. “Ukrainian legislation stipulates it is impossible to hold any elections during martial law. And this makes sense,” he said.

Stefanchuk added that if elections happen, it could “lead to the rupture of the state, which our enemy is waiting for. That is why I think the most correct and wise decision is to hold elections immediately after the end of martial law.”

After declaring martial law, Zelensky took steps to consolidate his power, including banning the main opposition party in Ukraine’s parliament, Opposition Platform — For Life, which held 44 seats at the time. He also banned ten other opposition parties and nationalized the media.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 10:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/0I6VjGc Tyler Durden

WTI Rallies After Big Crude Draw; Biden Admin Drains SPR For 13th Week In A Row

WTI Rallies After Big Crude Draw; Biden Admin Drains SPR For 13th Week In A Row

Oil prices slipped to the lower-end of their recent range yesterday – WTI back below $70 – shrugging off any ‘war premium’ from Russia’s coup-gate and seemingly weakening on expectations of a more hawkish Fed after strong econ numbers today.

“The market appears to have quickly discounted any meaningful supply risk tied to the short-lived uprising by Russian paramilitary forces over the weekend. That comes amid a broader trend that has seen Russian crude exports frequently come in above expectations over the past year as the country continues to find buying interest from China and other developing markets to counter lost market share in the U.S. and EU,” said Robbie Fraser, manager of global research and analytics at Schneider Electric, in a note.

For now all eyes will be on crude stocks after last week’s unexpected draw (and API’s reported draw)…

API

  • Crude -2.4mm (-1.47mm exp)

  • Cushing +1.45mm

  • Gasoline -2.85mm

  • Distillates +777k

DOE

  • Crude -9.6mm (-1.47mm exp)

  • Cushing +1.2mm

  • Gasoline +603k

  • Distillates +123k

US crude stockpiles plunged 9.6mm barrels last week – far greater than expected. Products saw small builds…

Source: Bloomberg

Inventories at the Cushing Hub rose to their highest since June 2021

Source: Bloomberg

Despite the ongoing promise by the Biden admin to start refilling, the SPR was drained last week for the 13th straight week (-1.35mm bbl)

Source: Bloomberg

The US oil rig count has plunged in recent weeks – now at its lowest in over a year – but US crude production has not inflected yet…

Source: Bloomberg

WTI was trading just below $68 ahead of the print – at the low end of its recent range – but rallied back above $68 after the big draw…

“Oil is well and truly stuck and rangebound, taking all the news on the chin,” said Ole Hansen, head of commodities strategy at Saxo Bank.

In fact, as Bloomberg’s Grant Smith reports, oil price spreads are sending an ever-stronger signal of oversupply in global markets, and flashing a warning sign for the OPEC+ alliance.

Timespreads will continue to face headwinds due to pessimistic views on demand and high interest rates, Goldman analysts wrote in a note to clients.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 10:37

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/65hDbwI Tyler Durden

CISA Tried To Cover Up Domestic Censorship Big Tech Collusion: House Report

CISA Tried To Cover Up Domestic Censorship, Big Tech Collusion: House Report

Authored by Caden Pearson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal government agency set up to protect cybersecurity and critical infrastructure tried to cover up its domestic censorship practices, according to an interim report released by the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.

The report released on Monday sheds light on the concerning nexus among the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Big Tech companies, and government-funded third parties. CISA is a little-known agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Previously undisclosed, nonpublic documents have revealed that CISA acted beyond its power to surveil speech on social media and colluded with Big Tech companies like Twitter and government-funded third parties to “censor by proxy.” Messages presented in the report show that CISA then tried to conceal its “plainly unconstitutional activities” from the public.

The report accuses CISA of trying to circumvent the First Amendment by using government-funded third parties to collude with Big Tech companies to suppress certain viewpoints.

“CISA is not a law enforcement agency and is not authorized to act as an intelligence agency. But, in practice, that is how CISA has behaved, arrogating to itself the authority to conduct surveillance of Americans on social media,” the report states.

“CISA expanded its unconstitutional practice by developing an elaborate social media censorship apparatus spanning multiple organizations in order to facilitate the censorship of Americans’ political speech both directly and by proxy.”

The report highlights particularly concerning practices, such as CISA’s contemplation of establishing a “rapid response” anti-misinformation team, relocating censorship operations to a third-party nonprofit to avoid negative perceptions, and the agency’s intention to employ the non-profit as a mouthpiece to evade accusations of government propaganda.

What Is the CISA?

CISA sits within the Department of Homeland Security with the statutory mission to lead “cybersecurity and critical infrastructure security programs, operations, and associated policy.”

The agency was created to protect the electrical grid and other “critical infrastructure” sectors from cybersecurity threats. However, after the 2016 elections, former DHS secretary Jeh Johnson designated “election infrastructure” as a “critical infrastructure subsector.”

Furthermore, CISA director Jen Easterly argued in November 2021 that the term critical infrastructure, along with the agency’s remit, also included “cognitive infrastructure.”

“One could argue we’re in the business of critical infrastructure, and the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure, so building that resilience to misinformation and disinformation, I think, is incredibly important,” Easterly said.

CISA set up a subcommittee known as MDM, which focused on misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. Malinformation refers to factual information that requires “context” to ensure it isn’t spun into what CISA considered a “harmful” narrative. Twitter’s censoring of the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop falls into this category.

CISA’s cybersecurity advisory board established a “Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Misinformation and Disinformation” subcommittee known as the “MDM Subcommittee.”

The MDM Subcommittee brought together government, Big Tech, and academic misinformation experts. This included Kate Starbird, co-founder of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public; Vijaya Gadde, the former chief legal officer of Twitter; and Suzanne Spaulding, a former assistant general counsel and legal adviser for the Central Intelligence Agency.

Rapid Response Misinformation Team

The report highlighted one instance as a “particularly notable departure from [CISA’s] legal authority,” which occurred at an MDM meeting on June 14, 2022.

Messages and meeting notes show that CISA considered establishing an anti-MDM “rapid response team” to physically deploy across the United States. The idea was well-received by attendees.

Geoff Hale, the director of CISA’s Election Security Initiative, commented that “this is a fascinating idea that takes CISA’s existing operational responsibilities to consider MDM as part of its core mission set.”

Twitter’s former head of legal, Vijaya Gadde, noted “that the idea of a rapid response team must include the ability to engage whether or not a cyber component is present.”

“Dr. Starbird agreed with Ms. Gadde’s point that threats to critical infrastructure are not limited to cyber threats,” meeting notes stated.

CISA has transformed into a domestic intelligence and speech-police agency, far exceeding its statutory authority,” the report states.

After Joe Biden took office, CISA admitted in a 2022 pamphlet titled, “Planning and Incident Response Guide for Election Officials,” that it was also targeting MDM originating from domestic sources.

The report describes CISA’s involvement in policing MDM as “a direct and serious threat to First Amendment principles.”

At its peak, CISA’s MDM team had 15 dedicated part- and full-time staff, who focussed on disinformation activities targeting elections and critical infrastructure, the report states.

Censorship by Proxy, Switchboarding

Shedding light on the extensive censorship machine, the report highlights instances of CISA outsourcing its activities to third parties to facilitate so-called “misinformation reports” from across the country and deliver them to social media companies during the 2020 and 2022 elections.

“CISA has transformed into a domestic intelligence and speech-police agency, far exceeding its statutory authority,” the report states.

CISA funds a nonprofit called the Center for Internet Security (CIS). It provided $27 million for fiscal year 2024 to operate the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) and Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC).

Election officials around the country used EI-ISAC as a “singular conduit” to send purported false or misleading online content about the 2020 elections to social media companies.

During the 2020 election cycle, CISA was involved in what Brian Scully, the head of its MDM team, called “switchboarding.” This was the resource-intensive process of CISA officials passing on alleged misinformation reports to social media companies for censorship.

This process was outsourced to EI-ISAC for the 2022 midterm elections, Scully said when he was deposed as part of ongoing litigation in federal court.

In August 2022, a Loudoun County, Virginia, government official reported a post on Twitter featuring an unedited video of a county official “because it was posted as part of a larger campaign to discredit the word of” that official.

“The Loudon County official’s remark that the account she flagged ‘is connected to Parents Against Critical Race Theory’ reveals that her ‘misinformation report’ was nothing more than a politically motivated censorship attempt,” the report states.

Messages show CISA officials implicitly and explicitly acknowledged on multiple occasions that the agency was not authorized to conduct the kind of surveillance and censorship.

Messages, meeting notes, and comments on documents obtained by the committees show Starbird, Twitter’s Gadde, and the CIA’s Spaulding discussing “ the limitation of CISA’s work regarding monitoring” of Americans’ speech.

On March 15, 2022, Starbird “posed how CISA could work with or otherwise support external groups, such as researchers and non-profits, to support MDM response and how this work would be funded in the future.”

Gadde, who was then Twitter’s chief legal officer, “highlighted the many sensitivities, beyond legal ones, in terms of the relationship between social media companies and government concerning media monitoring and the perception this plays globally.” She also noted the need for this government-social media partnership not to result in “any form of surveillance.”

Starbird responded that “this work should come from outside of government due to the sensitivities in this relationship.

“Rather than abandon the consideration of surveilling Americans, Starbird and Gadde attempted to find ways to circumvent the First Amendment’s strictures by outsourcing the ‘monitoring’ activity from the government to private entities,” the report states.

In the same meeting, Spaulding warned that “the government cannot ask an outside party to do something the Intelligence Community cannot do.” But further notes left by Spaulding on MDM’s June recommendation reveal that the MDM members were still considering relying “upon third parties” months later.

Covering Tracks

After the Biden administration’s Disinformation Governance Board draw strong criticism in April 2022, and before it was disbanded in May 2022, CISA officials expressed worry about perceptions of their work as “government propaganda.”

Meeting notes show that MDM officials Spaulding and Hale proposed outsourcing the censorship work to the EI-ISAC, making it a sort of “clearing house for trusted information.” On July 26, 2022, CISA’s Kim Wyman expressed concern about CISA operating the so-called switchboard “given the current lawsuit filed by Louisiana and Missouri against CISA over perceived suppression of free speech.”

On May 10, 2022, Starbird suggested refining the name of the subcommittee to avoid public confusion with the work of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board. Gadde agreed and warned the group not to pursue any social listening recommendations in the June quarterly meeting.

On May 19, 2022, Starbird sent an email to the other members of the MDM Subcommittee, stating that she “removed ‘monitoring’ from just about every place where it appeared” in the group’s June recommendations.

On May 20, 2022, Spaulding expressed her concerns about growing public attention in an email to Starbird, writing: “It’s only a matter of time before someone realizes we exist and starts asking about our work … I’m not sure this keeps until our public meeting in June.

“As CISA’s operational scope expanded further into unconstitutional territory, the agency and its advisors tried to cover their tracks and cover up CISA’s censorship of domestic speech and surveillance of American citizens’ social media activity,” the report states.

As public awareness of CISA’s role in government censorship increased, CISA scrubbed its website of references to domestic “misinformation” and “disinformation.” It previously stated under a section titled, “What is MDM?” in which it is written that “foreign and domestic threat actors use MDM campaigns to cause chaos, confusion, and division. These malign actors are seeking to interfere with and undermine our democratic institutions and national cohesiveness.”

“Now, the same URL redirects to a different page titled ‘Foreign Influence Operations and Disinformation,’ which omits any reference to ‘domestic’ MDM,” the report states.

The investigation by the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is ongoing. It’s report comes after the weaponization select subcommittee held two hearings about social media censorship and published an interim report exposing the Federal Trade Commission’s “politically motivated harassment campaign against Elon Musk’s Twitter.”

The Epoch Times contacted CISA for comment.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 10:15

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

Modi’s Rotten Human Rights Record Didn’t Keep Biden From Hosting Him

President Joe Biden is once again facing criticism from human rights advocates, this time for hosting a leader overseeing a backsliding democracy filled with religious violence and attacks on journalists.

On Thursday, Biden hosted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for an official state visit that included ceremonial displays of unity, an Oval Office meeting, a press conference, and a lavish state dinner. The visit marked the third official state visit of Biden’s presidency—the other two were French President Emmanuel Macron and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol—and is Modi’s first of this kind in the U.S. 

In a bicameral letter written by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D–Md.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D–Wash.) and signed by over 70 other members of Congress, the lawmakers encouraged Biden to make human rights and democratic values a priority in the meeting.

“A series of independent, credible reports reflect troubling signs in India toward the shrinking of political space, the rise of religious intolerance, the targeting of civil society organizations and journalists, and growing restrictions on press freedoms and internet access,” said the letter. “We do not endorse any particular Indian leader or political party—that is the decision of the people of India—but we do stand in support of the important principles that should be a core part of American foreign policy.”

“It is deeply concerning that the Indian government continues to implement policies that negatively impact Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindu Dalit communities,” noted the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s Stephen Schneck in a press release. “During this state visit, we ask President Biden to raise religious freedom with Prime Minister Modi directly, including by urging him to amend or repeal policies that target and repress religious minorities.”

“Certainly, the optics of President Biden, who emphasizes the importance of a values-based foreign policy, pulling out all the stops for and feting a leader with Modi’s record on rights are suboptimal,” explains Michael Kugelman, the director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center. “But then again even a values-based administration will ultimately defer to that adage of international relations: Interests trump moral and values-based considerations.”

The visit provided the U.S. with an opportunity to strengthen its relationship with India by agreeing to increased military and economic cooperation, new deals involving drones and semiconductors, and the removal of tariffs on U.S. products.

Because of its growing economy and proximity to China, India is an important ally. 

“India values cooperation with Washington for the tangible benefits it brings but does not believe that it must, in turn, materially support the United States in any crisis—even one involving a common threat such as China,” explains Ashley J. Tellis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in Foreign Affairs.

Before the meeting, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan claimed that Biden would privately raise issues with India’s violations of human rights and democratic backsliding, but insisted that it would be diplomatic. During a Tuesday interview, Sullivan told reporters that Biden would “try to indicate where we stand without coming across as somehow talking down to or lecturing another country that has a proud history of sovereignty.” 

During the visit, Biden could have refrained from deep public embraces of Modi or from emphasizing India’s democracy. He chose to do neither,” says Kugelman. “Rights activists and other critics will be disappointed, but ultimately from the administration’s perspective the strategic imperative of partnership rules out doing anything that could rock the boat. That explains the kid gloves treatment on rights.”

Until the Biden administration takes tangible steps to put human rights concerns at the forefront of its foreign policy, it cannot claim human rights as a priority.

The post Modi’s Rotten Human Rights Record Didn’t Keep Biden From Hosting Him appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Supreme Court Refuses To Expand the ‘True Threats’ Exception for Free Speech

SCOTUS ruling in Facebook threats case “neither the most speech-protective nor the most sensitive to the dangers of true threats.” For statements to be considered true threats, unprotected by the First Amendment, the person making them must have some understanding the statements could be construed as threatening, the Supreme Court held yesterday. The case—Counterman v. Colorado—involves a defendant convicted of stalking after sending a bevy of Facebook messages to someone identified as C.W.

In a 7-2 ruling issued yesterday, the Court vacated the conviction and remanded the case back to the lower court. The court’s three liberal justices were joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.

“True threats of violence are outside the bounds of First Amendment protection and punishable as crimes,” noted Justice Elena Kagan in the majority’s opinion:

Today we consider a criminal conviction for communications falling within that historically unprotected category. The question presented is whether the First Amendment still requires proof that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements. We hold that it does, but that a mental state of recklessness is sufficient. The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence. The State need not prove any more demanding form of subjective intent to threaten another.

In this case, Billy Counterman sent C.W.—a singer and musician who lived in his community—hundreds of Facebook messages between 2014 and 2016. “Some of his messages were utterly prosaic (‘Good morning sweetheart’; ‘I am going to the store would you like anything?’)—except that they were coming from a total stranger,” notes Kagan. “Others suggested that Counterman might be surveilling C. W.,” and some expressed anger at her.

“Fuck off permanently,” said one message. Another read: “You’re not being good for
human relations. Die.”

Understandably, the messages frightened C.W., who worried that Counterman was following her and might hurt her. She contacted local police, who charged him under a Colorado stalking statute that prohibits “repeatedly . . . make[ing] any form of communication with another person” in “a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress.”

Counterman argued that his messages were not true threats and thus were protected by the First Amendment.

The trial court weighed whether Counterman’s messages were true threats using a “reasonable person” standard: would some hypothetical, objective “reasonable person” find them threatening? It found that they would, meaning the messages were not protected speech. The case was put before a jury, which found Counterman guilty under the stalking statute.

The Colorado Court of Appeals then affirmed this decision, holding that “a speaker’s subjective intent to threaten” is not necessary to convict the speaker for threatening communications. The Colorado Supreme Court declined to review the case.

“Courts are divided about (1) whether the First Amendment requires proof of a defendant’s subjective mindset in true-threats cases, and (2) if so, what mens rea”—that is, level of intent or knowledge—”standard is sufficient,” noted Kagan. Thus, the Supreme Court decided to hear Counterman’s case.

The majority’s opinion explains:

The law of mens rea offers three basic choices. Purpose is the most culpable level in the standard mental-state hierarchy, and the hardest to prove. A person acts purposefully when he “consciously desires” a result—so here, when he wants his words to be received as threats. … Next down, though not often distinguished from purpose, is knowledge. Ibid. A person acts knowingly when “he is aware that [a] result is practically certain to follow”—so here, when he knows to a practical certainty that others will take his words as threats. A greater gap separates those two from recklessness. A person acts recklessly, in the most common formulation, when he “consciously disregard[s] a substantial [and unjustifiable] risk that the conduct will cause harm to another.” That standard involves insufficient concern with risk, rather than awareness of impending harm. But still, recklessness is morally culpable conduct, involving a “deliberate decision to endanger another.” In the threats context, it means that a speaker is aware “that others could regard his statements as” threatening violence and “delivers them anyway.”

Among those standards, recklessness offers the right path forward. We have so far mostly focused on the constitutional interest in free expression, and on the correlative need to take into account threat prosecutions’ chilling effects. But the precedent we have relied on has always recognized—and insisted on “accommodat[ing]”—the “competing value[s]” in regulating historically unprotected expression. Here, as we have noted, that value lies in protecting against the profound harms, to both individuals and society, that attend true threats of violence—as evidenced in this case.

The recklessness standard gives enough “breathing space” to protected speech “without sacrificing too many of the benefits of enforcing laws against true threats,” Kagan continued:

As with any balance, something is lost on both sides: The rule we adopt today is neither the most speech-protective nor the most sensitive to the dangers of true threats. But in declining one of those two alternative paths, something more important is gained: Not “having it all”—because that is impossible—but having much of what is important on both sides of the scale.

As you can see, the Court does not take lightly the idea that speech can cause harm even when it is not explicitly intended as a true threat. But in considering a speaker’s intent but also holding it to the lower recklessness standard, the Court attempts to balance the competing interests of protecting free expression (and avoiding overcriminalization) and protecting against the harms that can come from true threats of violence.

So, it’s frustrating to see some portray this ruling as “gut[ting] protections for cyberstalking victims” or decree “that stalking is free speech.”

In Counterman’s case, he was not convicted for physically stalking C.W. but rather for his communications, so the idea that this reaches all sorts of stalking is wrong.

Nor does the fact that these were Facebook messages make a difference. The court’s ruling turns on the intent of the speaker, not whether their messages were sent via social media or the Postal Service.

The ruling has been commended by civil liberties and First Amendment groups.

“We’re glad the Supreme Court affirmed today that inadvertently threatening speech cannot be criminalized,” Brian Hauss, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, & Technology Project, said in a statement. “In a world rife with misunderstandings and miscommunications, people would be chilled from speaking altogether if they could be jailed for failing to predict how their words would be received. The First Amendment provides essential breathing room for public debate by requiring the government to demonstrate that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly.”

“Today’s Supreme Court decision in Counterman v. Colorado is largely good news for the First Amendment because it sets a higher bar for punishing speech as a ‘true threat,'” commented the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) on Twitter. “Fewer prosecutors will be able to criminalize speech tomorrow than was possible yesterday.”

“FIRE and other civil liberties organizations had also advocated for an even stricter First Amendment test beyond recklessness to ensure that Americans would not face prosecution for parody or political commentary that unintentionally seemed threatening to a ‘reasonable person,'” notes the organization. “While the Court did not adopt the stricter standard, we are heartened by the Court’s statement that hyperbole will not constitute a true threat and that recklessness sets a high bar for any prosecution.”

There was some divide among the justices over what mens rea standard to embrace.

“Two justices—Sotomayor and Gorsuch—think that the recklessness standard is sufficient for this case, because it involves repeated unwelcome contact, but that true threats more generally should require intent to threaten,” notes First Amendment lawyer Ken “Popehat” White. “Two justices—Barrett and Thomas—think the First Amendment doesn’t require a subjective component to the true threats test at all.”

White himself worries that “the recklessness standard merely repeats the problems of the so-called ‘objective standard.'”

Let’s take the familiar example of Justin Carter, a stupid kid on a gaming forum trash-talking, whose trash-talking is observed by a middle-aged mom from, say, Canada. I’m not picking on Canada, that’s a real-world example. Under the Supreme Court’s decision today, to punish the trash-talking Justin for a true threat the government would have to prove that (1) a reasonable person would take the trash-talk as a sincere expression of intent to do harm, and (2) Justin consciously disregarded a substantial risk it would be taken that way.

But how is that danger evaluated, exactly? Is Justin required to assume that people outside the League of Legends forums (a dump site of arrested adolescence and jibbering mother-shamers) are going to read his post, and therefore assess how his post will be taken by Canadian mothers? Or is he only required to consider his intended or likely audience? Is it enough that Justin can introduce evidence about his expectations of how the unbathed denizens of his forum would understand him, perhaps through expert testimony? Is it enough to argue to the jury that idiot manchildren rarely comprehend their words may land differently on different ears? I know how “reckless disregard” would work in a monoculture, but what about in a swarm of violently disputing subcultures?

Ultimately, the court’s decision in Counterman was “neither as speech-protective nor as censorship-friendly as it could be,” White suggests.


FOLLOW-UP

Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, has signed into law a measure to partially decriminalize prostitution. The measure removes criminal penalties for people selling sex in some circumstances, while continuing to criminalize anyone who attempts to pay for sex as well as sex workers found guilty of “publicly soliciting patrons.” It also keeps in place criminal penalties for “causing or aiding another to commit or engage in sexual conduct or sexual acts in exchange for a pecuniary benefit,” “leasing or otherwise permitting a place” to be used for prostitution, and other activities surrounding sexual exchange even when consent is involved. And it redefines many of these activities—which previously fell under the banner of prostitution—as acts of “commercial sexual exploitation.”

We covered Maine’s measure earlier this month, noting that this model of prostitution law has many critics among sex workers and human rights advocates:

Essentially, the Maine measure would institute what’s known as “asymmetrical criminalization” or the “Nordic Model” of prostitution laws, a scheme criminalizing people who pay for sex but not totally criminalizing those who sell it. This model has become popular in parts of Europe and among certain strains of U.S. feminists.

But keeping sex work customers criminalized keeps in place many of the harms of total criminalization. The sex industry must still operate underground, which makes it more difficult for sex workers to work safely and independently. Sex workers are still barred from advertising their services. Customers are still reluctant to be screened. And cops still spend time ferreting out and punishing people for consensual sex instead of focusing on sex crimes where someone is actually being victimized.

A recent study of prostitution laws in European countries found full decriminalization or legalization of prostitution linked to lower rape rates, while countries that instituted the Nordic model during the study period saw their rates of sexual violence go up.

The nonprofit advocacy group Decriminalize Sex Work (DSW) noted in a statement that “Maine is now the first and only state to enact the policy model referred to as the Nordic model, the Entrapment model, or the End Demand model.” While pushed “as a means of curtailing prostitution and combating trafficking… evidence from around the world shows it does neither,” the group adds.

“Lots of supporters of Entrapment model legislation are feminists who support bodily autonomy as it relates to abortion but do not think people should have that same right to bodily autonomy should they choose to engage in sex work,” commented Rebecca Cleary, a staff attorney at DSW. Such laws “are misguided and misinformed, driven by harmful and stigmatizing ideology and the false promise that they will abolish the sex industry.”


FREE MINDS

No foul play, but Epstein was “provided with the opportunity” for suicide. A new investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s death found “significant misconduct and dereliction of their duties” by federal jail staff at the Manhattan facility where Epstein hung himself while awaiting trial for sex trafficking. The investigators “did not uncover evidence” to contradict the finding that Epstein killed himself. More from The New York Times:

Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead in a cell with a bedsheet tied around his neck in 2019, died by suicide, not foul play—after a cascade of negligence and mismanagement at the now-shuttered federal jail in Manhattan where he was housed, according to the Justice Department’s inspector general.

In a report released on Tuesday after a yearslong investigation, the inspector general said that leaders and staff members at the jail, the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center, created an environment in which Mr. Epstein, a financier awaiting trial on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges, had every opportunity to kill himself.

The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, referred two employees, including one supervisor, for criminal prosecution by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York after they were caught falsifying records. But prosecutors declined to bring charges, the report said.

The inspectors did not uncover evidence to suggest any foul play, but did find what the Times describes as “a remarkable, at times unexplained, succession of circumstances [that] made it easy for him to kill himself.” Despite an earlier suicide attempt by Epstein, staff allowed him to stockpile blankets, linens, and clothing. And they left him without a cellmate for a full day, contra a jail psychologist’s recommendation that he always have one. “The combination of negligence, misconduct and outright job performance failures documented in this report all contributed to an environment in which arguably one of the B.O.P.’s most notorious inmates was provided with the opportunity to take his own life,” the new report states.


FREE MARKETS

Former Vice President Mike Pence has some words (in Reason) for conservatives who are abandoning free market principles. “Today, some conservatives are losing confidence in themselves, our movement, and our fellow Americans and are instead looking to government to be the solution to problems in the free market,” Pence writes:

This stunning about-face is of great concern to traditional conservatives like me who remain unabashed advocates of the free market, the greatest engine for prosperity in human history. Free markets have done more than any other system to raise standards of living, generate broad-based wealth, spur technological innovation, cure debilitating illness, and improve quality of life for billions of people around the globe. The entirety of American history proves that the free market, not government, has the ultimate power to shape society for the better.


QUICK HITS

• The government’s crackdown on flavored vaping products hasn’t stopped their proliferation; it simply led to relatively regulated and safe products being replaced by “unauthorized disposable vapes from China,” notes the Associated Press. Since 2020, the number of different electronic cigarette devices sold here has nearly tripled—a surge that “stands in stark contrast to regulators’ own figures, which tout the rejection of some 99% of company requests to sell new e-cigarettes.”

• State legislatures can’t ignore the Constitution or evade judicial review when it comes to election rules, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

• An update on the court proceedings concerning the government’s attempt to block Microsoft from acquiring Activision Blizzard:

• President Joe Biden is rolling out a $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) plan. “That is an obscene amount of money to invest in technology that will be obsolete by the time it’s built,” Reason‘s Ronald Bailey writes.

• Artificial intelligence is wreaking havoc on all sorts of digital platforms and processes, writes Platfomer‘s Casey Newton.

• The U.K.’s Online Safety Bill “poses a serious threat” to end-to-end encryption, Apple says.

The post Supreme Court Refuses To Expand the ‘True Threats’ Exception for Free Speech appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/9dgnpDi
via IFTTT

After Ukraine Failed To Capitalize On Wagner Turmoil US Sends $500 Million More In Weapons

After Ukraine Failed To Capitalize On Wagner Turmoil, US Sends $500 Million More In Weapons

Just on the heels of the New York Times’s observation that Ukrainian forces failed to capitalize on the weekend turmoil in Russia of the Wagner uprising, the Biden administration announced a new $500 million military aid package on Tuesday.

First, in a Sunday report the NYT cited anonymous “American officials and independent analysts” as acknowledging that “there did not seem to be any immediate defensive gaps to exploit” in Russian lines. They said that “according to a preliminary analysis” no Russian units were pushed back or abandoned their positions in the east and south, despite the Wagner rebellion having been a major distraction for Russian command Friday and Saturday. The US officials went on to say that at least for the near future, the “front lines in Ukraine are likely to remain unchanged.”

Strangely, one of the arguments that could be heard from Western pundits over the last days is that the Wagner mutiny episode shows that Washington must keep up its support for a “weakened” Russia. On Wednesday, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda commented of Wagner’s leader being exiled to Belarus: “If Wagner deploys its serial killers in Belarus, all neighboring countries face even bigger danger of instability,” he said after meeting with some NATO allies.

As for the new US aid, it comes after The New York Times tallied that some 17% of the Bradley fighting vehicles already given to Ukraine had been damaged or destroyed thus far. This new half-billion in assistance comes via the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), meaning the new shipments will be taken directly from Pentagon stockpiles. 

Ukraine will surely look to take advantage of the chaos caused by Mr. Prigozhin, but there did not seem to be any immediate defensive gaps to exploit, according to American officials and independent analysts.

And Mr. Prigozhin’s march, at least according to a preliminary analysis, did not cause any Russian units on Friday or Saturday to leave their positions in southern or eastern Ukraine to come to Moscow’s defense, American officials said. While the drama was unfolding, there was no letup in the war: Russian forces fired more than 50 missiles across Ukraine before dawn on Saturday. — NY Times

Below is the State Department’s new talking point of more aid being vital in light of events centered on Wagner:

A Pentagon announcement this week indicated the fresh package will include:

  • Additional munitions for Patriot air defense systems
  • Stinger anti-aircraft systems
  • Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS)
  • Demolitions munitions and systems for obstacle clearing
  • Mine clearing equipment
  • 155mm and 105mm artillery rounds
  • 30 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles
  • 25 Stryker Armored Personnel Carriers
  • Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW) missiles
  • Javelin anti-armor systems
  • AT-4 anti-armor systems
  • Anti-armor rockets
  • High-speed Anti-radiation missiles (HARMs)
  • Precision aerial munitions
  • Small arms and over 22 million rounds of small arms ammunition and grenades
  • Thermal imagery systems and night vision devices
  • Testing and diagnostic equipment to support vehicle maintenance and repair
  • Spare parts, generators, and other field equipment

Keeping track of the massive US funding and defense aid to Ukraine, which far outpaces all NATO allies..

There’s lately been controversy over the Pentagon claim of an “accounting error” – which overvalued weapons sent to Ukraine by $6.2 billion. Additionally, concerns over US and Western arms being shipped with lack of oversight and proper tracking haven’t gone away, with reports they’ve even illicitly shown up in the Middle East, in the hands of Israel’s enemies.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 09:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/xTKtAn3 Tyler Durden

North And South

North And South

By Elwin de Groot, Head of Macro Strategy at Rabobank

North and South

For those who didn’t grow up in the 1980s, today’s Global Daily title refers to the famous mini-series of the early eighties that is set during the time of the American Civil War and is about a friendship that gets caught up in the North-South divide. Although ‘civil war’ couldn’t be much further from the truth when describing the divisions in contemporary Europe, upheavals of tensions have regularly occurred. Through the early days of Eurozone membership, where the Northern member states were accused of having entered monetary union at an advantageous exchange rate, to the heady days of the sovereign debt crisis in which the Southern member states were accused of having mismanaged their economies and government finances.

The US-China trade war, the corona pandemic, the ensuing supply chain disruptions and war in Ukraine, however, all turned out to be a set of unifying shocks for the EU as a whole. It led to the NGEU/RRF funds, the first small steps towards a common industrial policy, and measures to reduce supply chain fragilities as well as a unified approach vis-à-vis Russia.

Although fresh bickering has been taking place over the new EU fiscal rules, there is reason to be more optimistic that a compromise will be found before the end of the year, despite the strong reservations that Germany and several other ‘Northern’ member states expressed about the Commission’s proposals earlier this year. In a joint press conference in Weimar, together with their Polish colleague Magdalena Rzeczkowska, French and German finance ministers Bruno Le Maire and Christian Lindner yesterday argued that they have made some progress overcoming the differences of opinion. These divergences center around the need for stringent and automatic rules to ensure debt consolidation (as sought by Germany et al.) and the need for flexibility and something that fits with new strategic aims (as advocated by France et al.), whilst preserving sound public finances and maintaining the trust of investors.

There are only a few snippets from what had been discussed in detail, but Lindner said that “we need to find the right balance with EU fiscal rules, we need to make the economy ready for climate neutrality and global competition. We cannot finance the past with interest that we must pay – instead, we need to find a way to finance the future […]” Although rather speculative, his comments may hint at a willingness by Germany to allow for more flexibility in the rules for strategic investments. For example, by keeping them out of the budget deficit calculations.

Another reason to expect these matters to be ultimately resolved is that the economic cards have been reshuffled in recent years, suggesting there is a better economic power balance in the EU now. Next to the Polish ‘growth miracle’ (which aptly puts that joint press conference in context) the South of Europe has generally surprised positively with its economic performance, whereas the North, and in particular the German economy, is increasingly showing signs of structural weaknesses. Indeed, if it weren’t for the Southern member states, the Eurozone economy would probably have slipped into a real recession in the previous quarters already. Unemployment in those economies has continued to fall and is now close to, or in the case of Portugal, even below the level it stood at before the sovereign debt crisis hit.

The recent growth pattern also goes some way in explaining the better spread performance since mid-2022, despite rising interest rates. Especially Spain, Greece and Portugal (together good for some 14% of GDP) have performed quite well since mid-2021. To some extent this is because these economies had more room to ‘catch-up’ after Covid-19, given their relatively high share of services, particularly in the food, accommodation and travel sector. A disproportionate sum of funding for investments in greening and digitalization has also worked to the South’s advantage. More recently, though, it is the German economy that has underperformed due to its high industrial sector share, high energy costs and its role in global supply chains, with a large exposure to China. Domestically, a tight labor market has limited Germany’s capacity to expand.

Meanwhile, US data out yesterday only further strengthened the case for a resumption of Fed hikes following this month’s ‘skip’. Durable goods orders for May rose 0.6%. New home sales, also for May, came in almost 100k above consensus, providing further evidence that the housing market is recovering despite Fed tightening. That gels with the overall easing of financial conditions as reflected in the Chicago Fed credit conditions index in recent months and it indicates that Skipper Powell and Crew’s reliance on credit conditions to slow down activity and inflation has not paid off yet. The Conference Board’s survey of consumer confidence for June also improved markedly, with the jobs-plentiful-minus-jobs-hard-to-get measure up again, completing a slew of (second-tier) data that pushed the 10s/2s yield spread to its lowest level since 9 March.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 09:40

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