Month: June 2023

Brickbat: Cornhusker Highway Robbery

Nebraska has 93 counties. The Flatwater Free Press reports that one-third of the state’s civil forfeiture cases start in just one of them. In fact, over the past five years, Seward County collected some $7.5 million from civil forfeiture, more than any other county in the state, including much larger ones. The newspaper reports that almost all of those start when a sheriff’s deputy stops a vehicle on Interstate 80, usually for a minor traffic violation, and almost all involve out-of-state drivers. Half the money the county collects goes to a state fund for schools. The rest goes to a fund controlled by the county attorney, the sheriff, local police chiefs, and the Nebraska State Patrol.

The post Brickbat: Cornhusker Highway Robbery appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/VJuD4A5
via IFTTT

We Are Finally Entering A Phase Of COVID “Narrative Collapse” Says Oxford Epidemiologist

We Are Finally Entering A Phase Of COVID “Narrative Collapse”, Says Oxford Epidemiologist

Authored by Sunetra Gupta, op-ed via The Telegraph,

Discussing the effects of lockdowns on children confirms that we are finally entering a phase of Covid ‘narrative collapse’…

It is now widely acknowledged that lockdowns caused immeasurable harm, particularly to children, and new research highlights that the interests of the young were forgotten by policymakers during the pandemic. Yet those who are now prepared to wring their hands about this situation are also adamant that lockdowns were unavoidable. Indeed, there is a general reluctance to criticise the very basis on which the measures that damaged children were adopted.

It is understandable that, during lockdown, some professionals were cautious so as not to antagonise those who had the power to put an end to these practices. But it is time to put such concerns aside and establish a rational framework that prevents such a disaster from recurring.

It was clear from the outset that the risk of dying from Sars-CoV-2 infection was negligible in healthy children. It follows that they did not need protection from infection.

Closing schools, forcing them to wear masks and endure the hardships of social distancing, and vaccinating them, could only be justified in terms of stopping community spread. None of these measures had a reasonable impact on the dynamics of infection.

So, is the lesson that, next time, we must lock down but keep schools open? Many of us would bargain for that, especially if we put higher education institutions into the mix, as young adults were also robbed of critical experiences at a delicate time in their lives. But by the time we implemented all these compassionate exclusions to lockdown, including the maintenance of all essential services, what we are looking at is the focused protection of the vulnerable rather than a policy that is effective against the spread of infection.

This is because there is no halfway house when it comes to halting the spread of a new pathogen. The curve between a full-scale lockdown and let-it-rip is anything but a steady slope.

It could be argued that the reason closing schools made hardly any difference was because lockdowns are, ultimately, an extremely ineffective way of stopping spread. Certainly, border closures can be used in very specific circumstances to prevent a pathogen from exiting or entering a community. But there were no credible empirical or theoretical reasons to believe that we could use social distancing measures to snuff it out once it was here. There were plenty of reasons to believe that trying to do so would cause a lot of harm.

The discussion around the effects of Covid policies on children confirms that we are entering a phase of “narrative collapse” in the perception of how the crisis was handled. But it still needs to be accepted that keeping a lid on the spread of Covid without closing schools is a fantasy; there is therefore no way to reconcile the philosophy of lockdown with avoidance of harm to children. The only coherent strategy is one of focused protection, in which vulnerable people are protected without imposing egregious costs on those not at risk.

It is my opinion that, rather than locking down earlier and harder, we should have put in place such a policy as soon as we were aware that the risks were so strongly stratified by age and linked to specific comorbidities. If the Covid Inquiry truly cares about the plight of the younger generation, it should be prepared to consider the option of immediately instituting focused protection, instead of being wedded to the notion that a rapid lockdown was the correct course.

Sunetra Gupta is professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 03:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/zAUan6N Tyler Durden

VW Curbs EV Production As EU Demand Falters Amid Gloomier Economic Picture

VW Curbs EV Production As EU Demand Falters Amid Gloomier Economic Picture

German newspaper Nordwest-Zeitung reports Volkswagen has temporarily reduced the production of electric vehicles at one of its plants.

Volkswagen’s Emden plant in Lower Saxony has reduced production of the electric ID.4 compact SUV and ID.7 sedan for the next two weeks because of weakening sales. 

Industry blog Autocar reported Manfred Wulff, head of the works council for the Emden plant, told German Press Agency in an earlier article published by the North West newspaper that while EV production was being reduced, production of combustion-engine models, including the Volkswagen Passat, are unaffected. 

Wulff said 300 of the current 1,500 temporary workers employed at the plant would not have their contracts renewed in August. And he noted EV demand is 30% below planned production figures. 

“We are experiencing strong customer reluctance in the electric vehicle sector,” he told the North West.

Wulff noted that the ID 7 saloon, planned to start production in July, would be delayed to “later this year.” 

North West interviewed the minister of economic affairs for Lower Saxony, Olaf Lies, who said, “Registration numbers of electric vehicles continue to be high, but what concerns us is the current dip in demand – not only at Volkswagen but across all manufacturers.” 

The timing of this news comes as the eurozone economy was in a technical recession in the first three months of 2023.

The contraction was due to a downward revised second estimate from Germany’s statistics office showing that the eurozone’s largest economy was in recession in early 2023. 

A downturn in the euro area economy is weighing on demand for large ticket items, like fancy EVs. Many on the continent have been dealing with the highest energy and food inflation in a generation as living standards plunge. 

Stifel analyst Daniel Schwarz commented on the news. He said, “Reducing the number of temps and canceling a shift signals that VW is not expecting this to improve in the short term.” 

Could we be witnessing the beginning innings of EV demand cracking?  

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 02:45

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

AfD’s Success Is A Warning Sign To Europe’s Mainstream Parties

AfD’s Success Is A Warning Sign To Europe’s Mainstream Parties

Authored by László Szőcs via Remix News,

AfD’s recent successes are a warning to politicians that Europe is not being led as people want it to be…

All politics is local politics — this time, the lessons of this established axiom in America are being learned in Germany. On Sunday, the most right-wing party in the German parliament, the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), achieved its first electoral breakthrough in 10 years: Its victory in the Sonneberg district of Thuringia marked the first time it has become part of a local executive.

The significance of this should neither be overestimated nor underestimated. The AfD continues to be seen as a pariah in the German political system. It’s a party with which neither the center-right CDU/CSU alliance nor the parties to its left are willing to form a coalition, neither at the federal nor state level. At the same time, according to newspaper reports on Monday, the AfD’s breakthrough has caused serious unease and fear among Jewish and Turkish organizations in Germany. Some are claiming a general crisis of democracy.

Although the AfD is often described simply as anti-immigration, it is much more than that. Thuringia has the fifth-lowest proportion of immigrants of the 16 federal states, just a few percent, which is in line with the overall picture in east Germany, even if the proportion has risen sharply in recent years. And Thuringia is not a backward, underdeveloped region either. Sonneberg on the Bavarian border, for example, is part of the European metropolitan region of Nuremberg. When my photographer colleague and I were there on a reporting trip ahead of the 2021 Bundestag elections, traveling from Gera to Erfurt and Mühlhausen, we encountered many signs of discontent with the Merkel era in a province where the greats of German culture — Bach, Schiller, Herder, Goethe — all made their mark.

“Today, Germany is unfortunately far from being a democracy. In a democracy, other voices, including conservative ones, should be heard,” said Günter Oßwald, who, contrary to the stereotype, is not a marginalized, beer-swilling, unemployed man on a housing estate, but someone who employs 150 people in his car parts business in Mühlhausen.

Angela Merkel was — at least on paper — a conservative head of government. However, the supposedly center-right CDU/CSU coalition, the leading opposition force in Germany, has not yet overcome Merkel’s turn to the left and is unable to capture a large enough share of the right-wing electorate. The AfD is polling at 19 percent of the vote nationwide, overtaking the leading government party, the Social Democrats, and is in second place behind the Christian Union parties.

The forthcoming east German state elections could also confirm that dissatisfaction with the mainstream is making the AfD the most popular party in the eastern federal states — the former communist GDR. There is no communist nostalgia in this. As Timothy Garton Ash, who has been traveling in Germany, wrote 30 years ago, the Americanization of the GDR was more visibly successful than the Sovietization of GDR society. The far left in the east has an obvious upper limit, despite the fact that post-communists have manifested themselves in Bodo Ramelow, who is the prime minister of Thuringia.

Although it is only one district in Thuringia, the AfD’s victory in Germany is the latest warning sign for the European mainstream — which despises ordinary citizens — ahead of next year’s EU elections.

In Austria, the like-minded Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) is the most popular, while in France the National Rally is gaining strength. Sunday saw a conservative election victory in Greece, and in July, the ball is set to continue in Spain. Citizens in more and more places are openly fed up with the way Europe is being run today.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/28/2023 – 02:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/1dAzZJb Tyler Durden

Chief Justice Roberts Calls Out Counsel In Moore v. Harper

In Brackeen, Justice Barrett repeatedly faulted counsel for Texas and the adopting families. She wanted a “theory for rationalizing this body of law,” and was not willing to connect the dots plotted by the lawyers. In Moore v. Harper, Chief Justice Roberts found that counsel for the legislative defendants failed to adequately argue that the decision of the North Caroline Supreme Court violated the Elections Clause. And the failure to present this argument allowed the Court to avoid deciding what standard ought to apply to the Election Clause. Roberts wrote this argument wasn’t in their briefs:

We decline to address whether the North Carolina Supreme Court strayed beyond the limits derived from the Elections Clause. The legislative defendants did not meaningfully present the issue in their petition for certiorari orin their briefing, nor did they press the matter at oral argument.

And the position was disclaimed during oral argument:

Counsel for the defendants expressly disclaimed the argument that this Court should reassess the North Carolina Supreme Court’s reading of state law. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7 (“We’re not asking this Court to second-guess or reassess. We say take the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision on face value and as fairly reflecting North Carolina law . . . .”). When pressed whether North Carolina’s Supreme Court did not fairly interpret its State Constitution, counsel reiterated that such an argument was “not our position in this Court.” Id., at 54.

Roberts even faulted counsel for pivoting to the argument during rebuttal!

Although counsel attempted to expand the scope of the argument in rebuttal, such belated efforts do not overcome prior failures to preserve the issue for review. See this Court’s Rule 28 (“[C]ounsel making the opening argument shall present the case fairly and completely and not reserve points of substance for rebuttal.”).

Talk about persnickety–knocking counsel for raising an argument during rebuttal. When the Chief wants to reach an issue, he will do pirouettes. When he doesn’t want to reach an issue, he will don a straightjacket. The Court of late has had a very fluid approach to oral argument. Top-side counsel may hold an argument in reserve for rebuttal, or the seriatim round. But Rule 28 is still on the books.

I am going to make an unpopular prediction about the affirmative action cases. Counsel for Students for Fair Admission declined to argue that the Title VI standard was different from the Equal Protection standard. This decision was strategic. They could have argued that Title VI imposed a more stringent standard, and dicta from Grutter suggesting the standard was the same should be overruled. But they did not choose this path. I think the Court will rely on Title VI to (a) reaffirm Grutter and Bakke on stare decisis ground, (b) hold Title VI is subject to the Grutter standard because the parties did not ask the Court to apply a different standard, and (c) rule for Harvard and UNC. I know, my prediction is very uncomfortable, but there it is. I have seen far too many criticisms of prominent conservative lawyers in decisions by conservative Justices. If this outcome happens, conservative lawyers will need to have a serious moment of reflection. Having a “6-3” Court is not enough. Arguments must cohere at all levels, and more narrow relief must be sought. Yes, there is an asymmetry, but those are the rules of the road for conservative cases. Governor DeSantis is not wrong. And progressives should thank President Trump.

The post Chief Justice Roberts Calls Out Counsel In <i>Moore v. Harper</i> appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/4CZvdRz
via IFTTT

What Is The Effect Of The “Judgment” From Harper I?

There is much to say about Moore v. Harper. I’ll start with the threshold issue: was there still a live controversy that the Court could decide? The majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts answered the question yes; the dissent by Justice Thomas answered the question no. I won’t even attempt to describe the tortured legal posture of this case. The Chief Justice somehow made the complicated litigation history straightforward. I think he cut a few corners here and there in the service of simplicity, but he illustrated once again why he is still, pound for pound, the best writer on the Court.

Here, I want to focus on one particular aspect of the mootness inquiry. The Court held that it could vacate the “judgment” from Harper I. Ultimately, the Court did not vacate that judgment, but it could have. Therefore, because the possibility of vacatur existed, the controversy was not moot. But what would have been the effect of vacating the judgment from Harper I? Chief Justice Roberts writes that if the Court vacated the judgment from Harper I, “the 2021 plans enacted by the legislative defendants would again take effect.” Roberts further quoted from counsel for the legislative defendants that the North Carolina Supreme Court “overruling Harper I [would] not negate the force of its order striking down the 2021 plans.” In these two sentences, Chief Justice Roberts succumbed to the writ of erasure fallacy.

A judgment does not operate against a statute; a judgment operates against parties.  Justice Thomas spelled out the “deeper” problems with the Court’s analysis.

But the error that actually drives the majority’s conclusion is much deeper. The majority evidently thinks that when Harper I held the 2021 Act unconstitutional, it entered a “judgment” affecting the 2021 Act as a statute, independent of its application to the legal rights of the litigants in this case. And the majority thinks that to reverse Harper I ‘s “judgment” would “negate the force of its order striking down” the Act, thus “alter[ing] the presently operative statutes of North Carolina.” But, of course, the judicial power does not “operate on legal rules in the abstract”; it operates on the rights and liabilities of contending parties with adverse legal interests. California v. Texas (2021). The majority’s reasoning cannot be squared with the judicial power vested by the Constitution, the case-or-controversy requirement, or the nature of judicial review.

Yes, California v. Texas. I remember that case well. The Supreme Court could not issue any order that ran against the Affordable Care Act. The judgment could only run against plaintiff’s who have injuries that can be remedied.

Justice Thomas illustrates the profound problems with the majority’s analysis:

Instead, its animating idea (uncritically borrowed from petitioners) is that Harper I ‘s “judgment” operated against the 2021 Act as a statute. The majority describes Harper I‘s “judgment” interchangeably as “enjoining the use of the 2021 ma[p]” and “striking down the 2021 pla[n].” It then reasons that reversing that “judgment” would “negate the force of its order striking down the 2021 pla[n],” thus “alter[ing] the presently operative statutes of North Carolina” such that the 2021 Act would “again take effect.” . . .

This reasoning bears no connection to the judicial power of this Court or the court below. . . . Thus, a judgment binds the rights of the parties in that case, see Taylor, and it awards remedies that “operate with respect to [those] specific parties,” California. In deciding any case, the court must “ascertai[n] and declar[e] the law applicable to the controversy”; this duty, in turn, implies “the negative power to disregard an unconstitutional enactment” in deciding the case. Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923); accord, Nicholson; Marbury v. Madison (1803). But this negative power of judicial review is not a “power per se to review and annul acts of [legislation] on the ground that they are unconstitutional,” Mellon; “to change or to repeal statutes,” or to issue orders that “operate on legal rules in the abstract,” California. Courts of law simply do not render “judgments” that toggle statutes from “operative” to “inoperative” and back again, as if judicial review were some sort of in rem jurisdiction over legislative Acts.

Roberts has no response to Justice Thomas on this foundational point. If Justice Thomas is right, then the case was moot, and should have been dismissed.

I am disappointed that Justice Barrett joined this analysis. The Chief will do jurisdictional pirouettes like Baryshnikov to reach the result he wants. But Justice Barrett knows better.

The post What Is The Effect Of The “Judgment” From <i>Harper I</i>? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/1ucGRMC
via IFTTT

Trump Can’t Decide Whether To Free Drug Dealers or Kill Them

Donald Trump can’t seem to decide whether he wants to execute drug dealers or free them from prison. The former president’s debate with himself reflects a broader clash between Republicans who think tougher criminal penalties are always better and Republicans who understand that justice requires proportionality.

Trump has long admired brutal drug warriors like Rodrigo Duterte, the former president of the Philippines. Consistent with that affinity, he has repeatedly floated the idea of imposing the death penalty on drug traffickers.

Trump returned to that theme in November, when he officially launched his 2024 presidential campaign. “We’re going to be asking everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs, to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts,” he said.

Trump reiterated that position during an interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier last week, saying, “That’s the only way you’re going to stop it.” But as Baier pointed out, a policy of executing “everyone who sells drugs” is inconsistent with Trump’s record as president, which included sentencing reforms and acts of clemency aimed at reducing drug penalties that Trump described as “very unfair.”

Defending that record, Trump cited the commutation he granted to Alice Johnson, a first-time, nonviolent drug offender who was serving a life sentence for participating in a Memphis-based cocaine trafficking operation. “But she’d be killed under your plan,” Baier noted, “as a drug dealer.”

That observation flummoxed Trump. “No, no, no,” he said. “It would depend on the severity,” he added. He also noted that the death penalty he has in mind would not apply retroactively to Johnson herself and suggested that, had it been the law at the time, it would have deterred her from getting involved in drug dealing.

All of that is beside the point, of course. If a life sentence was excessively severe for Johnson, a death sentence obviously would have been inappropriate as well—and not just for her specifically but for anyone guilty of similar offenses.

Trump’s confusion on this point is especially striking because Johnson became a symbol of his purported opposition to unjust drug penalties: She attended his 2019 State of the Union address, appeared in a Trump campaign ad during the 2020 Super Bowl, and spoke at the Republican National Convention that summer. Trump repeatedly linked Johnson to the broader cause of sentencing reform, which he proudly championed by embracing the FIRST STEP Act.

Among other things, that 2018 law reduced several mandatory minimum sentences, authorized the resentencing of crack offenders in line with current penalties, expanded the “safety valve” that allows some drug defendants to avoid mandatory minimums, increased “good time” credit for federal prisoners, and facilitated “compassionate release” of elderly and ailing inmates. With Trump’s backing, the bill attracted support from 182 Republicans in the House and 38 in the Senate.

During the 2020 presidential race, Trump used the FIRST STEP Act to attack Joe Biden from the left on criminal justice, highlighting the Democrat’s long history of supporting draconian drug penalties that disproportionately hurt African Americans. Now Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump’s leading rival for the Republican presidential nomination, is using the FIRST STEP Act to attack Trump as soft on crime.

Last month, DeSantis hyperbolically described the law as “a jailbreak bill,” saying it endangers public safety by “releasing people who have not been rehabilitated.” As president, he said, he would urge Congress to repeal that “huge, huge mistake.”

Trump could respond by noting that several provisions of the FIRST STEP Act are designed to promote rehabilitation. He also could cite data indicating that the recidivism rate for prisoners who have benefited from the law is relatively low.

Trump might even argue that the goal of preventing crime by keeping people locked up must be balanced against the goal of ensuring that punishment is commensurate with the offense. Instead, Trump seems determined to show, by re-upping his kill-them-all proposal, that he can be even more mindlessly punitive than DeSantis.

© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post Trump Can’t Decide Whether To Free Drug Dealers or Kill Them appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/K0Cj6QG
via IFTTT

Escobar On Russia’s Coup-Gate: Putin Wins… On All Counts

Escobar On Russia’s Coup-Gate: Putin Wins… On All Counts

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

When the lightning of History strikes, better cut to the chase in our first draft…

Here we go.

After the extraordinary events in Russia during The Longest Day, President Putin wins on all counts.

Among other feats, he has made an absolute, inter-galactic ass of the whole collective West MSM – all over again.

He rallied virtually every Russian to end the Special Military Operation (SMO) – or “almost war” (according to some business circles) quicker.

He – and the FSB – amassed a formidable list of traitors and 5th and 6th columnists, which will be properly dealt with.

And he now enjoys unlimited freedom to deploy de facto Counter-Terrorist Operation (CTO) martial law powers.

As much as Putin helped perennial Lukashenko in August 2020, preventing regime change in Belarus, good ol’ Luka prevented Russia from sliding into civil war in June 2023.

A complex wide-ranging counter-terror op is now in effect in Moscow and beyond, while assorted Western sub-zoology specimens are stunned, dazed and confused: wasn’t that supposed to be Putin meeting his Czar Nicholas II moment?

A first glance at the chessboard tells us that all the pieces seem to be falling in their right places.

  • Prighozin gets a golden parachute in Belarus.

  • Shoigu may be about to be sacked, perhaps even Gerasimov (yes, there are deeply dysfunctional layers inside the Ministry of Defense).

  • The Wagner musicians will be incorporated as a regular Army Corps.

  • They may keep doing business in Africa: demand is huge.

So what really happened after The Longest Day?

Hefty CIA funds may have changed hands. But in the end the “coup” could turn out to be the Greatest Russian Trolling of the West Ever.

The Mother of All Maskirovkas

Once again, facts on the ground prove Putin is the undisputed champion of Russia. After keeping a strategic silence for a few hours, his intervention gathered full support from the civilian population, the FSB, the Chechens, the Army, the Communists, everyone.

The exact terms of the deal between Luka and Prighozin, with help from the governor of the Tula region, Alexey Dyumin, are still unclear.

Prighozin said he was satisfied with the terms. Peskov confirmed on the record that a criminal case against Prigozhin would be dropped. A key Prighozin demand was the twin resignation of Defense Minister Shoigu and Chief of Staff Gerasimov. That may – or may not – happen in the immediate future.

And that brings us to the still fascinating possibility this was the Mother of All Maskirovkas. Prigozhin sets up all this circus just to get a meeting in Moscow with Shoigu and Gerasimov.

Talk about an overkill just to go out on a date.

The Mother of All Maskirovkas scenario also implies a move worthy of 5D chess.

On Saturday, Wagner was 200 km away from Moscow.

Yet on Sunday, Wagner was 100 km away from Kiev.

Next level Sun Tzu Art of War, anyone?

Between sovereignty and betrayal

Alexander Dugin correctly points out how this was also an exercise in Sovereignty: “Only Sovereign Lukashenko, together with Sovereign Putin himself, confronted [Prighozin]…It turned out that many can frame the President and the people, acting in the shadows and apparently on his behalf, but saving the Fatherland in a critical situation is not their specialty.”

The corollary is that Russia needs “a sovereign elite, otherwise everything will repeat itself.”

As for the dazed and confused collective West, especially the NATO-Kiev junta, with everyone instantly rebranding Wagner from “terrorists” to “freedom fighters”, getting bogged down in their own swamp is the art they excel in.

Mainstream media spun that the proverbial “Western officials” were “taken by surprise” by the mutiny. That depends on the amount of funds that changed hands, and in which direction, during the preparation.

The SMO, now CTO keeps rolling along. The Russian Army continues to fight, undisturbed. The “counter-offensive” remains teetering over the edge of a cliff, ready to kiss the black void.

Putin winning on all counts implies the whole civilian population – and the military – engaged into preserving him and the Russian institutions, as well as perfecting them. There’s absolutely no nation anywhere across the collective West where we find this level of citizen support.

Russian politics is a special animal. It works at the highest level and also at grassroots level – unlike in the West, where the norm is deep hatred between the elites and the people.

Of course it should always be stressed it’s the less patriotic Russian oligarchs who run away every time something approaching The Longest Day takes place.

For a few hours, the West was betting heavily on the dismemberment of Russia. Not now. And not in the foreseeable future.

The succession is already being prepared, by Team Putin and selected patriotic oligarchs. Among the contenders, there’s a secret name that will stun everyone when it pops up. He’s still invisible in terms of public opinion, and works in the shadows. His name should remain secret for the time being.

As it stands, what matters is that Russia as whole emerged even stronger out of The Longest Day. The man and woman in the street showed himself and herself, once again, as a true patriot, ready to defend the Motherland whatever it takes.

There was no confrontation between those who are pro-Russian institutions and those who are pro-Wagner. People actually support both. People regarded Wagner like the “polite green men” who helped to peacefully retake Crimea in 2014. Facing them, there was not a single policeman or military.

So Putin is stronger than ever. But everyone should always keep this in mind: the one thing he can’t forgive is betrayal.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/27/2023 – 23:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Wx0RsF5 Tyler Durden

Tucker Carlson Dares To Ask “Why Exactly Are We At War With Russia?”

Tucker Carlson Dares To Ask “Why Exactly Are We At War With Russia?”

“Why exactly are we at war with Russia?”

Those are the verboten words that Tucker Carlson to utter at the start of Episode 7 Of his Tucker on Twitter series where he highlights the irony that the so-called ‘war for democracy’ is actually enabling dictatorship and tyranny.

With nuclear extinction a possibility and 1000s of lives and billions of dollars already wasted, “what’s the point” he asks, “are we really doing this so that the Biden family can repay its debts to the oligarchs that financed their beachhouse.”

“Thankfully” the former Fox News star explains, “we have an answer.”

“The war against Putin and for Ukraine is in fact a war for democracy.”

Sounds familiar?

“Democracy must prevail” exclaims Nancy Pelosi as Carlson offers bipartisan examples of warmongers pushing for ‘democracy’ and all the military-industrial complex enrichment that comes with it.

Carlson further mocks the rhetoric surrounding the war as a fight for democracy, highlighting the irony of supporting Ukrainian President Zelensky, who suspended democracy in his own country.

“we are currently fighting a war for democracy on behalf of a leader who just casually announced he’s happy to end democracy and our democracy and supporting leaders have no problem with that“

In fact, the Biden administration continual support for Ukraine despite Zelensky’s disregard for democracy, implies that their motives are questionable.

He argues that during wartime, politicians become powerful and can justify any action, including silencing political opponents, leading to a potential erosion of democracy.

Carlson suggests that those in Washington, including Republicans, support Biden’s stance on Ukraine because ending the war would threaten their power.

He concludes by speculating on the future of Joe Biden, pointing out his age-related decline and potential implications for the Democratic Party, suggesting that Gavin Newsom may be a potential successor.

Watch the full episode below:

Full transcript below:

Hey it’s Tucker Carlson, you may have found yourself wondering recently as the world slides closer to nuclear Annihilation than any time in human history why exactly are we at war with Russia.

It seems like there’s a pretty significant downside to this particular foreign policy decision, starting with economic collapse and ending potentially with Extinction so is there a good reason we’re doing it so many innocent young people have been killed so many hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted some of them from the U.S treasury so what’s the point are we really doing this so the Biden family can repay its debts to the oligarchs who finance their beach house in Rehoboth.

We’re doing it so our government can continue to lie about its illicit bio labs in Eastern Europe so that flabby losers like Toria Newland and Tony Blinken can feel like they’re doing something important with their sad empty lives.

Really honestly there’s got to be a better reason for waging this the most pointless war of all.

What is it.

Well thankfully we have an answer: the war against Russia ladies and gentlemen the war against Putin and for Ukraine is in fact a war for democracy.

Watch and recall the motive the president has said many times “we’re focused on what we can do to support Ukraine’s effort to fight for their democracy”.

“Democracy must prevail. The Ukrainian people are fighting the fight for their democracy and in doing so for ours as well.”

“Assisting and helping Ukraine win this fight for democracy and freedom and of course Ukrainian president zielinski understand that what’s at stake in Ukraine is bigger than just his Nation it is literally a battle for freedom and democracy themselves.”

“They are showing the world what an existential fight for democracy looks like.”

“President Zelenky and the Ukrainians have changed the course of history for the better and we unequivocally are with the Ukrainian people in their fight to remain a sovereign democracy.“

Unequivocally with the Ukrainian people to remain in democracy it’s a bipartisan view democracy must Prevail.

You just heard noted democracy expert Nancy Pelosi say the daughter of the mobbed up mayor of Baltimore as Pelosi puts it the Ukrainian people are fighting the fight for their democracy and for ours as well that’s right for ours as well without Ukrainian democracy in other words we can have no democracy here if the ukrainians aren’t free.

Neither are we we must make sure they can vote in Kiev so we can continue to vote in Kansas City.

It’s really that simple and yet tonight we regret to tell you that we have a problem it looks like they’re not going to be able to vote in Kiev anymore and no for once it’s not Putin’s fault.

Democracy in Ukraine seems to be suspended by the world’s foremost democracy Advocate himself Field Marshal zielinski.

Watch:

“If we win” he says “we’ll let people vote otherwise no you vote” and we feel like it because ultimately we’re completely in charge and make all the rules.

Your job is to obey or be punished.

That’s our version of self-government.

Self means me – I’m the government now.

That’s not just any autocrat that’s our chief Ally in the war for democracy.

This is the guy who just announced he’s like did you cancel next year’s elections.

So you’ve got to wonder what the Biden Administration thinks of this – we can’t possibly continue to support zielinski, that guy, after he said that can we because in a clip less than 30 seconds long he just blew up our entire rationale for supporting his side in the war.

So we can’t support him.

Oh of course we can and we will.

Here’s Joe Biden from yesterday reaffirming America’s unequivocal support for Ukraine no matter what happened in Russia “we the United States should continue to support Ukraine’s defense and its sovereignty and its territorial integrity”.

So to recap we are currently fighting a war for democracy on behalf of a leader who just casually announced he’s happy to end democracy and our democracy and supporting leaders have no problem with that in fact they’re strongly for it.

Shocked?

You shouldn’t be.

Of course they’re for it. You should have seen this coming.

Wars for democracy always cancel democracy in the process – that’s why our leaders love them and they all do it – even The Virtuous leaders Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the British government under Winston Churchill through an entire opposition party into prison and let them rot for the duration – in some cases with their families.

So in a war for democracy you can do anything.

Imagine what a man might do who has fewer principles.

If that man say ran Ukraine he might seize churches arrest priests ban all criticism of himself disappear his political opponents and that’s happening.

Just last month zelinski threw a man called Gonzalo Lira into prison indefinitely for the crime of daring to write about the Ukrainian government in unflattering ways.

Now what’s interesting what separates this from other such cases is that lira is an American citizen, so Joe Biden who was quite a bit of SWAT as they say in Ukraine could have freed Gonzalo Lira within hours, but he didn’t. He didn’t want to – he didn’t say a word about it – he remains in prison tonight.

So that makes you wonder what’s the real motive here when normal people see War they see death and destruction, sadness and suffering; but that’s not what demagogues see – they understand it differently they know that War means power mostly for them.

During wartime everything they do can be justified – war is the gravest of all emergencies – imagine the coveted lockdowns times a thousand plus drones.

Once War breaks out politicians become Gods with the power of life and death. So in a peaceful democracy you have to debate your political opponents in public and that’s tiresome but in a war for democracy you can just throw them in jail or have them executed. You can see that many in Washington are looking forward to that moment and that may be why they so fervently support Joe Biden – even many Republicans – against a potential opponent – the only opponent who opposes the war in Ukraine.

If you were to end the war their power would evaporate.

Last week a whistleblower produced WhatsApp messages from Hunter Biden proving that at the very least his father knew about his influence peddling businesses abroad and probably participated in them “I’m sitting here with my father” Hunter Biden wrote to his Chinese Partners demanding money as much as anything reported about the bidens over the last several years this was The Smoking Gun.

There it is right there in the message that would have been enough to a normal president it would have been more than enough to keep a normal president from running for office again but had virtually no effect on Joe Biden.

Most media Outlets ignored it completely or tried to spin Biden’s relationship with his son as some kind of moral Victory “the real meaning of the hunter Biden Saga as I see it” wrote Nick Kristoff of the New York Times “isn’t about presidential corruption but is about how widespread addiction is and about how a determined parent with unconditional love can sometimes reel a child back.”

He actually wrote that and if you doubt it you should know that view was common.Here’s the take from ABC “the hunter Biden story, the Scandal, the this, that, it’s also the story of a Father’s Love and Joe Biden has never and will never give up on his son Hunter and will never treat him lesser than and so he is a father first take it or leave it.“

So whistleblower produces a text message showing that Joe Biden was in the room with his son when his son was selling influence to an enemy power the Chinese government and ABC’s take on it Joe Biden is a father first take it or leave it.

What accounts for a response like that?

Well that’s the way you talk when you’ve got nothing to fear from an upcoming presidential election – you don’t even bother to think of an excuse for your candidate because you don’t need to. Your country has electronic voting machines – Joe Biden got 81 million votes in 2020 and you’re pretty sure he can do it again.

In fact you know he can you’re not worried but actually they should be a little worried

The people who control Joe Biden – Susan Rice and the rest – know they can continue to run our government, writing the press releases, formulating the policies, and they can do it effectively forever, as long as Joe Biden gets dressed in the morning, and of course that’s their strong preference.

These are fervent opponents of change but the one thing these people cannot control is aging.

Joe Biden is old he’s 80 now he will be 85 at the end of the next term.

People imagine that old age is a long predictable progression from Acuity to permanent unconsciousness but often that’s not at all how it actually works.

When old people start to slide they tend to Slide fast.

Joe Biden has begun that descent.

Here he was yesterday and here’s what she wrote to me and I quote you can imagine my joy she called them right away and the next day they sent someone out to survey her yard as Beth wrote this is the best thing that’s happened in Rural America since the rural electrification act for electricity to farms in the 30s and 40s end of quote.”

End of quote you weren’t supposed to hear that – Joe Biden read the stage directions out loud –  that’s like eating the garnish that comes with your entree you’re supposed to know not to do that.

Joe Biden no longer does in a year or two he will be gone completely and there will be no hiding it at that point the Democratic party will face a secession problem.

If Joe Biden is re-elected next year and then forced to leave office during his term due to disability or death that means Kamala Harris will become president of the United States and nobody wants that not even her husband.

In real life nobody likes Kamala Harris.

That’s not an attack on her in fact it’s possible to feel pity for someone who’s so universally reviled. It is instead an observation of unchanging physical reality like gravity or photosynthesis nobody wants Kamala Harris to be president no one will benefit if she becomes president so logic suggests there’s going to be a change.

It’s going to have to be somebody else and whoever that person is is going to have to enter the race soon before the election after Biden drops out.

Who could that person be? We don’t know obviously this is all just guessing but we do know whoever that is we’ll have to have two essential criteria he’ll have to be as shallow ruthless and transactional as Joe Biden is and he’ll need to have flattery skills that are so polished and advanced they’d be considered Superior even in the Saudi Royal Court and there’s only one man in modern America who fits that description Gavin Newsom the governor of California and perhaps not coincidentally Joe Biden’s new closest friend.

“I am here Mr President” Newsom told Biden at an event that they did together last week. “I am here as a proud American as a proud Californian mesmerized by not just your faith and your Devotion to this country and the world we’re trying to build but by your results by your action by your passion by Your Capacity to deliver.”

I get mesmerized by you Joe Biden – imagine saying that as a compliment you couldn’t do it.

Few human beings could do it but Gavin Newsom had no problem at all those words rolled right off his Fork tongue. He never stopped smiling so if you’re looking for the leader of the coup there he is right there she’s in Kennedy’s motorcade.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/27/2023 – 23:38

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/1ZFCHVv Tyler Durden

Nvidia Slides As Biden Prepares New AI Chip Export Curbs To China

Nvidia Slides As Biden Prepares New AI Chip Export Curbs To China

One month ago, Wall Street lost its mind when Nvidia reported guidance that blew away consensus: in the aftermath of ChatGPT, it seemed as if the entire world suddenly wanted the company’s flagship A100 chip, helping send NVDA stock higher by almost 50% in days, pushing the company into the vaunted “cuatro comas” club.

And maybe they did… but maybe not. Maybe instead of a scramble by everyone to become the Apple of AI, something which only a small handful of cash-rich companies can even hope of achieving due to the vast capex sums required, all that happened was a rush by Chinese companies to rush and front-load orders before the chip export ban hammer falls, something we discussed most recently two weeks ago.

To be sure, it wouldn’t be the first time that Chines firms were double and triple ordering precious chips (it happened all throughout the post-Covid supply chain crunch) and it certainly wouldn’t be the first time Nvidia was caught in the middle of the US-China chip war. Recall, it was just last August that NVDA stock tumbled (amazing to think it was “only” $150 back then) to get ahead of US chip export crackdowns, after the US has implemented new license requirements for Nvidia’s A100 and forthcoming H100 integrated circuits – Nvidia’s highest-performance products for servers – in sales to China and Russia. Nvidia said last September the restrictions would cost it $400 million in that quarter.

But while the market quickly forgot that one of Nvidia’s largest revenue streams could be shut off at any time, and resumed bidding up the stock following the release of ChatGPT in late 2022 as the world lost its collective mind in the historic AI frenzy, the reality is that nothing had actually changed.

And early Tuesday evening the world got a reminder of just how little things had changed, when the WSJ reported that Washington could soon close loopholes in the sale to China of powerful chips used to train AI models, potentially denting sales to the world’s largest semiconductor market.

The Commerce Department could move as soon as early next month to stop the shipments of chips made by Nvidia and other chip makers to customers in China and other countries of concern without first obtaining a license, the people said.

The action would be part of final rules codifying and expanding the export control measures announced in October, some of the people said.

The move would further crimp China’s ability to build out AI capabilities after restrictions last year that cut off the most advanced AI chips made by Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices. Nvidia responded to that move by making a version of its AI chips for the Chinese market called the A800 that fell below performance thresholds outlined by the Commerce Department. That chip replaced the A100, which is widely used in data centers to do AI computations.

But the new restrictions being contemplated by the Commerce Department would ban the sale of even A800 chips without a license, according to the WSJ sources.

The news sent Nvidia stock sliding more than 3% in after-hours trading in New York. Why? Because as we said last August, Nvidia gets about a fifth of its revenue from China, and any trade intervention by the US – which at this stage in the new cold war is just a matter of time – would cripple Nvidia’s value proposition.

While Nvidia led declines in shares of US chipmakers after hours, rival AMD also fell about 3%. The two lead the market for chips vital to the development of generative AI models such as ChatGPT.

In response to last summer’s regulations, Nvidia designed less-capable chips that fall under thresholds that require a license from the Commerce Department before export to China or other countries of concern. But Biden is now weighing action as soon as next month to expand the curbs to include those lower-powered semiconductors, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing anonymous sources.

Such a move underscores the Biden administration’s determination to contain China’s technological rise and could stoke tensions between the two countries. The US is increasingly concerned about Beijing’s technological ambitions, including around the use of AI in military and scientific advances that could tilt the geopolitical balance.

Nvidia, which with a market cap just over $1 trillion has become the world’s most valuable chipmaker with a more than 80% share of the market for data center accelerator chips, and has been operating under rules that required approval for shipments to China of its A100 and new H100 parts. It was able to partially alleviate the impact on its finances by selling a modified version of the A100 that’s slower at accessing data, and therefore didn’t trigger the restriction.

But now Biden’s minions are going after those chips as well in hopes of delaying China in the global AI race, and the question is with the market having priced in virtually unlimited growth for the chip company, what will the threat of losing as much as 20% of its total revenue (and growth) mean to NVDA stock.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/27/2023 – 23:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/k2iFzUW Tyler Durden