Brickbat: Uncharitable Fraud


A man tucks a wad of cash into a suit jacket pocket. | Chernetskaya | Dreamstime.com

A civilian employee of the U.S. Army has been charged with stealing $100 million from the military. Prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas said Janet Yamanaka Mello, who worked as a civilian financial program manager at Fort Sam Houston, “regularly” submitted fraudulent paperwork for funding for Child Health and Youth Lifelong Development, an organization she controlled which she claimed “provided services to military members and their families.” Prosecutors said she actually used that money to buy real estate, vehicles, and jewelry.

The post Brickbat: Uncharitable Fraud appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/SGAf7Cn
via IFTTT

Watch: Israeli Commandos Disguised As Medics Raid West Bank Hospital, Killed 3 Palestinian Militants

Watch: Israeli Commandos Disguised As Medics Raid West Bank Hospital, Killed 3 Palestinian Militants

Via Middle East Eye

Israeli commandos disguised as medics, patients and other Palestinian civilians raided a hospital in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin on Tuesday morning, in footage widely shared online.

The soldiers killed three people inside Jenin’s Ibn Sina Hospital. Footage shared online and in Israeli media showed around a dozen Israeli soldiers in the hospital, armed with assault rifles. 

Hamas responded to the attack saying that “Israel’s crimes will not go unanswered”, and said that the killings were a “continuation of the occupation’s ongoing crimes against our people from Gaza to Jenin”. 

The men killed (reportedly Palestinian militants) have been identified as Mohammed Jalamneh, and two brothers, Basil and Mohammed al-Ghazawi.

According to Israeli media, the raid took around 10 minutes and took place at 5.30am. One of the Israeli commandos was speaking Arabic at the time of the raid, Israel Hayom reported.

Meanwhile, the Israeli military said that one of the Palestinians was a Hamas member who was planning an attack inspired by Oct 7th. The brothers allegedly belonged to the Jenin Brigade and the armed wing of Islamic Jihad.

The raid left parts of the hospital destroyed, with beds upturned and blood stains covering the floor and equipment. 

Tawfiq Al-Shoubaki, the medical director of the hospital told Middle East Eye that some of the Israeli commandos were also dressed as nurses, and drew their weapons as soon as they entered the hospital.

He added that some of the Israeli forces entered Basil al-Ghazawi’s room, despite the fact that he was receiving treatment for wounds he sustained on October 25, following a missile explosion in the Jenin cemetery. 

“No gunshots were heard during their storming of the wounded man’s room. They immediately withdrew after a few minutes, and the hospital staff found the three young men covered in their blood, without any indication that they were alive, and the bullets were concentrated in the head,” he said.

Al-Shoubaki says that the assassinations mark new ways Israel is targeting hospitals and medical staff in Jenin.

The hospital director Naji Nazzal told AFP that the attack took place in the hospital’s rehabilitation ward where Basil Ghazawi had been undergoing treatment. “They [Israeli forces] used weapons fitted with silencers,” he told the news agency. 

An AFP photographer said that he saw a bullet hole in a pillow covered with blood following the raid, the news agency reported. The Palestinian Ministry of Health denounced the attack, saying that healthcare facilities are granted special protection under international law:

“The minister of health calls urgently on the United Nations General Assembly, international institutions and human rights organisations to end the daily string of crimes committed by the occupation [Israel]  against our people and health centers,” a ministry statement said.

This is not the first time Israeli forces have raided and targeted the Ibn Sina hospital since the start of the Gaza War on October 7. 

In November, Israeli forces and tanks surrounded the hospital during a raid on the city. At least four hospitals in the city were besieged, including the Ibn Sina Hospital. “Israeli forces turned up at Ibn Sina Hospital, one of the biggest in the occupied West Bank. They turned up in a raid where they asked medical staff to put their hands up and evacuate the hospital,” an Al Jazeera correspondent reported.

At least two paramedics were arrested in the raid, while drone strikes killed three in the Jenin refugee camp.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/31/2024 – 03:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/dP1ab8B Tyler Durden

Orban Hits Back After Secret EU Plan ‘To Sabotage Hungarian Economy’ Revealed

Orban Hits Back After Secret EU Plan ‘To Sabotage Hungarian Economy’ Revealed

“Hungary does not allow blackmail,” Hungary’s minister for European affairs, Janos Boka, has lashed out in response to the FT-reported secret document showing the EU stands ready to inflict intentional damage to Hungary’s economy if Orban’s government persists in rejecting more funding for Ukraine. “The document, drafted by Brussels bureaucrats only confirms what the Hungarian Government has been saying for a long time: access to EU funds is used for political blackmailing by Brussels,” Boka emphasized on X. 

EU leaders are expected in Brussels on Thursday (Feb 1st) in an effort to salvage and pass the €50bn four-year aid package to Ukraine which Budapest has been blocking. But if Orban doesn’t back down, EU leaders are reportedly ready to say ‘enough is enough’ – per Financial Times’ reporting, which openly uses the word “sabotage” to describe what other bloc members will seek to do to the Hungarian economy. Yet ironically enough, it remains officials in Brussels who are instead openly accusing Budapest of using blackmail related to Ukraine funding.

File image, EuroNews

“In a document drawn up by EU officials and seen by the Financial Times, Brussels has outlined a strategy to explicitly target Hungary’s economic weaknesses, imperil its currency and drive a collapse in investor confidence in a bid to hurt “jobs and growth” if Budapest refuses to lift its veto against the aid to Kyiv,” FT writes.

It appears the nuclear option of final threats. Continues FT: “If he does not back down, other EU leaders should publicly vow to permanently shut off all EU funding to Budapest with the intention of spooking the markets, precipitating a run on the country’s forint currency and a surge in the cost of its borrowing, Brussels stated in the document.”

Viktor Orban’s office said in reaction to the revelation in the FT article, “Now it’s crystal clear: this is blackmail and has nothing to do with the rule of law. And now they’re not even trying to hide it! Whatever happens, change is needed in Brussels!”

FT has cited the draft secret document directly. It declares that “in the case of no agreement in the February 1 [summit], other heads of state and government would publicly declare that in the light of the unconstructive behaviour of the Hungarian PM …  they cannot imagine that [EU funds would be provided to Budapest].”

While this is perhaps shaping up to be the most “overt” example of Brussels trying to force Budapest into line by targeting its whole economy, it’s certainly not the first time blackmail style rhetoric has been deployed, hearkening back to ‘rule of law’ issues and debate over “LGBTQ+” and other supposed ‘democratic backsliding’.

European Commission data indicates intra-EU trade accounts for 78% of Hungary’s exports, with a mere 3% going to the US and 3% to the UK. The EU plan cited in the report points out that “growth and jobs … depend to a large extent” on foreign money, including substantial EU funding. As news of the secret plan leaked the Hungarian currency, the forint, depreciated by 0.7% on Monday.

Interestingly, amid Hungary’s perceived intransigeance on the Ukraine funding issued (though it should be remembered it’s the Hungarian side saying the EU won’t compromise), some EU diplomats have begun to complain Europe is “starting to look weak”

Orban on Tuesday has been reported as being ready to soften his stance, per Reuters: “Hungary is ready to participate in the solution of the 27 (EU member nations) if you guarantee that each year we will decide whether or not to send this money. And this annual decision must have the same legal basis as today: it must be unanimous,” the prime minister was quoted as saying, which is being widely seen as an opening toward significant compromise.

* * *

Below, Philip Pilkington of the Multipolarity podcast dissects some of the underlying assumptions of FT’s reporting, and looks at the question of ‘weakness’ [emphasis ZH]…

The most obvious is the idea that Hungary has “very high inflation”. In reality, after being very high previously, inflation in Hungary has come down rapidly, and is now just above 5% and is beating expectations. Errors like this suggest whoever put together the ‘strategy’ probably isn’t a very, shall we say, data-oriented economist. More likely a lawyer vaguely remembering FT headlines from 6 months previous that are now out of date.

It also highlights Hungary’s public deficit. Hungary’s public deficit is large because of energy subsidies, but this is the case across Europe. The Hungarian public deficit is currently 5.9% of GDP. Compare that to the Italian at 8% or the French at 4.8%. Hungary is somewhere in the middle. And it has a low public debt at 74% of GDP. France’s is 112%, Italy’s is 142%. This suggests that the authors just did a quick Wikipedia job trying to get scary numbers without contextualising them.

But more egregious is the lack of basic macro understanding. Whoever wrote it seems to think that if EU funds are withheld from Hungary, the Hungarian currency, the forint, will collapse. This is the only really meaty threat in the piece. But the forint is determined like most other DM currencies: by Hungary’s relative inflation rate and the central bank interest rate. Throughout the previous inflation, the central bank managed the forint’s adjustment pretty well.

My guess is that there’s some projection going on here. The lawyers that wrote the ‘attack strategy’ are aware that Ukraine’s currency relies on foreign aid – the foreign aid that Hungary is disputing – and simply assume Hungary’s does too. Basic lawyer brain.

Maybe the Brussels crowd can convince the financial press to weaponize their headlines against Hungary – this seems an increasingly common tactic at certain outlets, which are haemorrhaging credibility doing so – but it likely won’t make a difference. FDI flowing into Hungary is being deployed by investors that are aware the country is a ‘black sheep’ and are fully used to interpreting headlines through this lens. You can just about get away with weaponising headlines against China, playing on peoples’ unfamiliarity with the statistics and low-key racism but if you start doing this to a country whose statistics are published by Eurostat you’ll just look ill-informed and idiotic.

All in all, the EU ‘attack strategy’ is unserious. It was very likely not devised by economists or market-adjacent people. More likely by lawyers whose macro understanding comes from half-remembered newspaper clippings. It all looks a bit desperate, to be honest. A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/31/2024 – 02:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/JfULpd4 Tyler Durden

Watch: Eco Loon Tells Brits “There Is A Moral Issue” With Having Children

Watch: Eco Loon Tells Brits “There Is A Moral Issue” With Having Children

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

An environmental lobbyist told viewers of British News channel GB News Tuesday that having children presents a “moral issue” because of the amount of carbon they will produce over the course of their lifetime.

Donnachadh McCarthy argued that people should have fewer children, and that having only one child is “great”.

McCarthy, an advocate of alarmist groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, told the news station “When my dad was born there were 1.6 billion people on the planet. When I was born there were 3 billion. Now there are 8 billion and we are heading towards eleven.”

“Women are working now and looking for a quality of life and they don’t want to spend their lives pregnant,” he continued.

“We’ve destroyed 70 per cent of nature. There’s a moral issue here,” McCarthy further proclaimed, adding “How can we pass that on to the next generation? Every child in an industrial country like ours has around 505 hundred tonnes of carbon over their lifetime.”

“That’s equivalent to 1000 years of electricity for a household. So each child has an impact and we’re saying one is great, two is plenty and three is selfish.

Parenting coach and mother of two Nicole Ratcliff took issue with the rhetoric, telling McCarthy “I’ll be honest, I feel quite angry by that kind of language. I am one of four. I’m sorry, We’ve got a lovely family and the idea of that three is selfish is shocking.”

Ratcliff argued that people who don’t have children tend to have more disposable income and freedom, so they travel more and have a deeper carbon footprint.

She continued, “I think that it is absolutely awful, for me I think if someone is choosing not to have children because of climate change that is not somebody who is driven to have them.”

“The need to have children is something that is built within us and if you are somebody that wants to have them then you can’t switch that urge off,” Ratcliff added.

“There are people out there spending every single penny that they have got to have a child and if they are made to feel guilty, I feel quite offended by the idea that bringing a much loved child into the world would be a bad thing to do,” Ratcliff further urged.

McCarthy responded that he wants to see the birth rate fall naturally, and is “not advocating compulsory family planning.”

Here is the full segment:

All of this is absolutely insane when you factor in the stark reality that fertility rates globally are collapsing and almost every country is on course to have shrinking populations by the end of the century.

In countries like South Korea and Japan, there are twice as many people are dying as there are being born. You don’t have to be a mathematic genius to do the calculations on what’s going to happen very soon.

The figures have prompted influential figures like Elon Musk to warn that humanity is literally going to disappear if something is not done to reverse the trend.

The current UK fertility rate is 1.6, significantly below the “replacement rate” of 2.1, and it continues to fall. So no, having two children is not “plenty” and having three is not “selfish”, despite what eco-lunatics like Donnachadh McCarthy are baselessly claiming.

Despite this horrifying reality, it is now commonplace in modern culture for young people to genuinely believe they need to abandon their human instincts to reproduce, all for the greater good:

As we’ve previously highlighted, Extinction Rebellion co-founder Stuart Basden admitted that the group’s agenda “isn’t about the climate” and is instead about toppling western civilization, right down to ending the notion that heterosexuality is “normal.”

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/31/2024 – 02:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/UTEC9XD Tyler Durden

Greg Abbott And The Invasion Of The Border Snatchers

Greg Abbott And The Invasion Of The Border Snatchers

Submitted by Donald Jeffries via “I Protest”,

We’ve come a long way from the Boston Tea Party. What would happen to “extremists” throwing tea into a harbor today? Independence Hall. Lexington and Concord. The Articles of Confederation. Patrick Henry declaring, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to my dying day your right to say it.”

The Founding Fathers (sorry, there were no Founding Mothers, and certainly no Founding Transgenders) would all be marginalized if they were living and breathing in the Orwellian mess that is America 2.0. They’d be relegated to writing on Substack. Maybe some of them would be subscribers of mine. No mainstream media outlet would give them even a momentary platform. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Keep your “insurrectionist” thoughts to yourself. That little line should be confined to Ben Franklin’s womanizing. Yes, Ben actually used “would you like to join me in the pursuit of happiness?” as an eighteenth century pickup line. When he wasn’t consorting with prostitutes dressed as nuns in his demonic Hellfire Club.

Aside from Franklin, and certainly the bankers’ stooge Alexander Hamilton, the Founders were a legendary lot. The “greatest generation” if such a thing ever existed. As recently as 1963, Thomas Jefferson was thought so highly of that President Kennedy would tell a state dinner comprised of some of the leading cultural figures of the time, “The is the greatest assemblage of talent ever gathered together in the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” That kind of comment would get any Democrat, and probably any American, “cancelled” today. Sally Hemings was the real talent behind Jefferson. She wrote the Declaration of Independence. Designed Monticello. Ask any court historian. He was a racist rapist.

One of the few responsibilities ceded to the central government under the Constitution is defending the border. Article 4, section 4, states clearly that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion…” Our southern border has been under an invasion of illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, undocumented migrants, whatever you want to call them, for over forty years now. More significantly, the federal government has gone beyond enabling this invasion. They have assisted it. Made it possible. Probably financed much of it.

Greg Abbott has been governor of Texas since 2015. He epitomizes the Stupid Party’s tradition of issuing lukewarm rhetoric about “border security,” but ultimately doing nothing to stop the invasion. For unclear reasons, he has now stepped up the rhetoric decisively. After the Supreme Court- Trump’s supposed court, with his lovely nominee Amy Coney Barrett voting with the Left as usual- made one of its trademark disastrous decisions, Abbott threw down the gauntlet. The Court ruled that Texas can not try to stop the Feds from cutting down the barbed wire fencing they’ve put up in places, in a laughable attempt to stop the flow of immigrants.

Think about that; the highest court in the land- the Supreme Court- has ruled that a state cannot defend its borders. True, the Feds are constitutionally delegated with that power, but they quite blatantly have neglected to do this for several decades now. Under the Biden administration, the numbers coming across the border with literally no resistance from U.S. authorities, have reached such a critical mass that it has finally caught the attention of even the sleeping Republicucks. When you have one of the three branches in government- the Executive- aiding and abetting a foreign invasion, another- the Legislative- encouraging it as well, and now the Judicial branch giving the invasion a legal imprimatur, then you understand the situation.

Abbott’s fiery statements brought to mind visions of Sons of Liberty dancing in our heads. He has sounded remarkably like the Confederates did back in 1860, when he charged that the federal government has broken their “compact” with the states. This was the central premise behind the decision of the southern states to secede. Our fast food culture insists it was all about slavery. The dastardly, tobacco spitting whiter than White secessionists wanted their slaves, and that was that. Abraham Lincoln, the secular saint of our crumbling civilization, responded by declaring, “The Union of these States is perpetual.” That contradicted, of course, the guiding principle of our War for Independence, which was that all people have a right to consent to those who govern them. In 1860, the Confederate states no longer consented.

What exactly does “consent” mean, anyhow? In America 2.0, it has come to be a carte blanche power given to women (well, when there were women- now all gender is fluid), over whether a sexual act can take place. This power has been extended to well beyond the act itself, so that women who have had time to reflect on a bad decision can claim they were “date raped,” or simply maintain that they had said “no,” but the hapless, mindless, horny male used force. If you think about it, Abraham Lincoln was a rapist. Or at least a date rapist. Those poor southern states clearly said “No!” But Honest Able pushed on relentlessly, resulting in nearly a million American deaths. He took their consent and shoved it in them with extreme unconstitutional force.

Now I don’t know that Joe Biden has Lincoln’s raping capabilities, but he is certainly a time-tested hair sniffer and all around creep. Not that he’d be making any decisions anyhow. He’s barely capable of eating his own ice cream cone at this point. If I understood it correctly, the deadline for his first ultimatum to Texas has already passed. Videos of Texans firing their guns have gone viral. There is supposed to be a huge trucker convoy going to the border, to stand with the brave Texans. And most shockingly, the governor of twenty five other states have signed on with their support. This includes the putrid RINO in Utah. This is extremely uncharacteristic behavior on the part of Republicans. The Washington Generals. The apology experts.

If history is an indicator, Abbott will return to form and back down. The other Republican governors will become Republicucks again. “State’s Rights” is an anachronistic term in America 2.0. It brings to mind images of Strom Thurmond, back before he married that pretty woman some forty years younger than him. Or George Wallace, trying to block Black students from entering the University of Alabama, and proclaiming, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” But in both those instances, the underlying motivation appears to have been race. Call it “White supremacy” if you must. You have to go back to 1860 to understand the real principles at stake. The Confederacy and Lincoln weren’t on the same page. Neither are the Biden administration and Texas.

I’ve written extensively about our immigration policy. Which has become a no enforcement policy. A policy of overt favoritism towards those entering this country illegally. Free healthcare. Free VISA cards. Free transportation to various spots across America, usually by a startling coincidence to Republican enclaves with lots of “White privilege.” Free housing and food in some very nice hotels. And now, the Biden administration is supposedly instructing banks not to turn down loans to illegals. I don’t know, maybe that’s all Republican propaganda. It certainly seems hard to comprehend. Especially given that so many American citizens are sleeping in tents on the street, and foraging in dumpsters for food.

I confess to feeling an illicit thrill over the prospect of Texas state authorities standing up to the biggest and most odious Goliath that ever existed. Maybe that’s how people felt nearly 190 years ago, when Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, and a small band of other worthies steadfastly defended the Alamo against far superior forces. Remember the Barbed Wire! doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. To whatever degree our horrific leaders still care about public relations optics, it might give them pause before attempting to forcefully overpower Texas officials, and perhaps a lot of angry truckers. Maybe they’ll send a special Transgender SWAT team.

I don’t know how any American could possibly support the federal government sending agents to a sovereign state, to remove the only weak blockade put up to repel a nonstop foreign invasion. But I know millions do. The Supreme Court does. So does the state controlled mainstream media. So does the entire entertainment world. Why would any American citizen be in favor of flooding the job market, and our tenuous government safety net, with unimaginable numbers of the poorest people in the world? We have way too many poor people of our own, and have little desire to help them, so why such generosity for poor people from other countries?

Could this all turn into a Civil War II? Think of the ugly logistics involved. In my own family, outside of my wife and kids, I’m not sure any of my other large collection of relatives would be on my side in any such conflict. Not that I’d be taking up arms, mind you, but I’d have a logical rooting interest for those that are resisting tyranny. If brother fought brother in Lincoln’s war, think how many would be opposing each other in Civil War II. You would have father versus son, mother versus daughter, wife versus husband. As if American families weren’t already dysfunctional enough. I don’t think any of us would be literally fighting, with blue and red uniforms I guess, but the ideological battle would be brutal. And centered around Trumpenstein.

Trump has praised Governor Abbott for his resolve. Frankly, by merely putting up barbed wire, Abbott has done more than Trump did in four years. It’s not much, of course, but it beats tweeting out toothless threats to put troops on the border, end sanctuary cities, end birthright citizenship, deport millions, and the like. Trump couldn’t even end DACA, which Obama created with an executive order. It wasn’t legislation. But he’s preoccupied, what with being ordered to pay millions to an off-the-wall woman who can’t remember the year in which he raped her. The border may be the boiling point, but this conflict is centered around a corrupt and politicized “justice” system, taxation without representation, and a huge cultural divide.

I guess it’s fitting that illegal immigration should be the triggering mechanism for whatever battle that follows. It was Trump’s foundational issue in 2016, and what turned out to be his empty rhetoric on the subject precipitated an intense hatred towards him unlike that for any other public figure in our history. Ever since Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration “Reform” Act in 1986, this has been a bubble issue, waiting to explode like the “dream deferred” Langston Hughes wrote about. The Reagan Supreme Court, no friendlier to liberty than Trump’s Court, decreed that the children of illegals must be given a free public school education. And the 1965 “Reform” Act directed that almost all legal immigrants be nonwhite persons.

As a fiery young radical, I watched all those old timers, along with the yuppies and soccer moms, accept bilingual signs. Bilingual ballots. Shouldn’t you have to be able to read a ballot in the predominant language of the country you’re voting in? Can you imagine being able to vote in France, or Greece, without understanding either language? But no, it’s “Press 2 for Spanish.” Is cheap labor really worth all that? Worth rendering your citizenship status meaningless? After all, if you don’t have to be a citizen to vote, just what advantage is there to being a citizen? And every “Woke” person in America supports noncitizens being able to vote. They’re the ones who will be opposing us in any prospective Civil War.

I have said many times that America cannot continue in its present, balkanized state. I hate quoting the despot Lincoln, but a house divided against itself cannot stand. There is not a single foundational principle today which all Americans agree upon. God? Millions not only don’t believe in God, but mock and ridicule the concept. We don’t agree on when life begins. Probably at least 80 million Americans will never accept the transgender madness. Cancel us all you want, but you cannot make us believe that men can give birth. We will not accept the mutilation of little boys and little girls, sacrificed on the altar of identity politics.

More Whites are becoming fed up with the Great Replacement. And that lies at the heart of what’s happening at the border. Everyone coming across that border is nonwhite. Persons of color. We who oppose this are cast as colorless and privileged. As I’ve noted, this massive influx of nonwhite migrants is happening exclusively in Western nations. Majority White nations. At least for now. Where is the shrill “Woke” demands that China experience some of our “diversity?” Japan? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? India? This is a very simply equation; import nonwhites into White nations. Sure, it’s expensive, but obviously someone is paying for Haitians and Africans to travel great distances to “diversify” England, Canada, Australia, and the U.S.

Nothing reveals the deterioration of America like our immigration policies. That open southern border is the poster child for America 2.0. And that’s with political prisoners everywhere, and citizens fired for politically incorrect social media posts, made on their own personal time. Legal precedents are being set to sue Thought Criminals for speculating about national events, or “exaggerating” the extent of their wealth. Or for even suggesting electoral fraud. The Orwellian term “Hate Speech” is accepted by almost all. Free speech is more unpopular than ever, and not allowed as a defense in American courtrooms. And our infrastructure “rebuild” consists of renaming “racist” roads, not fixing pot holes. Click your heels and repeat “Build Back Better.” But it’s that open border that epitomizes everything. The Beatles of corruption.

If Greg Abbott and other Republicans surprise us all and stand strong, they will be thoroughly demonized. In a society run by the worst criminals in the world, dissent must be crushed. And so it has been. But it’s gone beyond that. The notion of dissent must be as demonized as any present-day dissenters. So the Founders become dead White male “racists,” memorable only as examples of “White Supremacy.” The stirring fight for liberty and independence becomes converted into endless lectures on how awful American slavery was, juxtaposed against the amazing accomplishments of Black Americans who were simultaneously prevented from accomplishing anything. The Civil War was about slavery. Period. Ask the great Nikki Haley. And World War II was a “good war.” It was about the Holocaust. Period. All enemies are “Nazis.”

If the crisis at the border turns out any other way than the Texas officials skulking back to their offices with their tails between their legs, I’ll be shocked. They aren’t going to let states secede. Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president, demonstrated that to the tune of about 800,000 deaths. You aren’t leaving. Our government is like a cheating, abusive spouse, who won’t give us a divorce. The majority of brainwashed, unthinking Speeple have a special brand of Stockholm Syndrome. Let’s say the unthinkable happens, and the Texas guard and trucker convey defeats federal forces decisively. Would the state controlled media even report it? How would they spin even a federal victory? “U.S. Forces Prevent Texas From Defending its Border?”

One senses that we are in the final act of a play. America 2.0, staggering around the ring, primed to be counted out. Have Texans, at least, been pushed perhaps a bit too far? Despite decades of non-enforcement at the border, has the incredible increase in migrants finally got their attention? Are Texans, or any appreciable number of Americans, capable of saying enough is enough? Our ancestors sacrificed everything for the right of self-determination. I’ll be watching with keen interest, remembering Bull Run, and Valley Forge, and Yorktown, and whistling “Dixie.” Just don’t tell the authorities. I’m pretty sure that’s a Thought Crime at this point.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/30/2024 – 23:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Bugi8wy Tyler Durden

Argentina, Once One of the Richest Countries, Is Now One of the Poorest. Javier Milei Could Help Fix That.


John Stossel is seen next to Argentinian President Javier Milei | Stossel TV

Argentina actually elected a libertarian president.

Javier Milei campaigned with a chainsaw, promising to cut the size of government.

Argentina’s leftists had so clogged the country’s economic arteries with regulations that what once was one of the world’s richest countries is now one of the poorest.

Inflation is more than 200 percent.

People save their whole lives—and then find their savings worth nearly nothing.

They got so fed up they did something never done before in modern history: They elected a full-throated libertarian.

Milei understands that government can’t create wealth.

He surprised diplomats at the World Economic Forum this month by saying, “The state is the problem!”

He spoke up for capitalism: “Do not be intimidated by the political caste or by parasites who live off the state…. If you make money, it’s because you offer a better product at a better price, thereby contributing to general well-being. Do not surrender to the advance of the state. The state is not the solution.”

Go, Milei! I wish current American politicians talked that way.

In the West, young people turn socialist. In Argentina, they live under socialist policies. They voted for Milei.

Sixty-nine percent of voters under 25 voted for him. That helped him win by a whopping 3 million votes.

He won promising to reverse “decades of decadence.” He told the Economic Forum, “If measures are adopted that hinder the free functioning of markets, competition, price systems, trade, and ownership of private property, the only possible fate is poverty.”

Right.

Poor countries demonstrate that again and again.

The media say Milei will never pass his reforms, and leftists may yet stop him.

But already, “He was able to repeal rent controls, price controls,” says economist Daniel Di Martino in my new video. He points out that Milei already “eliminated all restrictions on exports and imports, all with one sign of a pen.”

“He can just do that without Congress?” I ask.

“The president of Argentina has a lot more power than the president of the United States.”

Milei also loosened rules limiting where airlines can fly.

“Now [some] air fares are cheaper than bus fares!” says Di Martino.

He scrapped laws that say, “Buy in Argentina.” I point out that America has “Buy America” rules.

“It only makes poor people poorer because it increases costs!” Di Martino replies, “Why shouldn’t Argentinians be able to buy Brazilian pencils or Chilean grapes?”

“To support Argentina,” I push back.

“Guess what?” Says Di Martino, “Not every country is able to produce everything at the lowest cost. Imagine if you had to produce bananas in America.”

Argentina’s leftist governments tried to control pretty much everything.

“The regulations were such that everything not explicitly legal was illegal,” laughs Di Martino. “Now…everything not illegal is legal.”

One government agency Milei demoted was a “Department for Women, Gender and Diversity.” DiMartino says that reminds him of Venezuela’s Vice Ministry for Supreme Social Happiness. “These agencies exist just so government officials can hire their cronies.”

Cutting government jobs and subsidies for interest groups is risky for vote-seeking politicians. There are often riots in countries when politicians cut subsidies. Sometimes politicians get voted out. Or jailed.

“What’s incredible about Milei,” notes Di Martino, “is that he was able to win on the promise of cutting subsidies.”

That is remarkable. Why would Argentinians vote for cuts?

“Argentinians are fed up with the status quo,” replies Di Martino.

Milei is an economist. He named his dogs after Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Lucas, all libertarian economists.

I point out that most Americans don’t know who those men were.

“The fact that he’s naming his dogs after these famous economists,” replies Di Martino, “shows that he’s really a nerd. It’s a good thing to have an economics nerd president of a country.”

“What can Americans learn from Argentina?”

“Keep America prosperous. So we never are in the spot of Argentina in the first place. That requires free markets.”

Yes.

Actually, free markets plus rule of law. When people have those things, prosperity happens.

It’s good that once again, a country may try it.

COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

The post Argentina, Once One of the Richest Countries, Is Now One of the Poorest. Javier Milei Could Help Fix That. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/kKaA5Z2
via IFTTT

The 5th Circuit Says Criminalizing Journalism Is Not Obviously Unconstitutional


Priscilla Villarreal | Saenz Photography/FIRE

Five years ago, the Harris County, Texas, Institute of Forensic Sciences sent me reports on the autopsies of two people who had been killed in a Houston drug raid. After I wrote an article based on those reports, the county attorney’s office told me they were not public information because they were part of an ongoing investigation.

Although I did not realize it at the time, I had committed a felony just by asking for that information. You might think a law that criminalizes journalism is obviously unconstitutional. But if so, you are wrong, according to a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued last week.

The case involves Priscilla Villarreal, a Laredo gadfly and DIY journalist who was arrested in 2017 for violating Section 39.06(c) of the Texas Penal Code. Under that law, a person who “solicits or receives” information that “has not been made public” from a government official “with intent to obtain a benefit” commits a third-degree felony, punishable by two to 10 years in prison.

Villarreal allegedly did that by asking Laredo police officer Barbara Goodman about a suicide and a fatal car crash. Goodman confirmed the name and job of a U.S. Border Patrol employee who had jumped off a Laredo overpass and the last name of an accident victim. Villarreal included that information in reports on her locally popular Facebook page.

Texas defines “benefit” as “anything reasonably regarded as economic gain or advantage.” According to the arrest affidavits, the “benefit” that Villarreal sought was a boost in Facebook traffic.

Section 39.06(c) defines “information that has not been made public” as “any information to which the public does not generally have access” that is also “prohibited from disclosure” under the Texas Public Information Act. The arrest affidavits did not address the latter requirement at all.

Although this law has been on the books for more than two decades, no one has ever been convicted under it. Nor had Laredo police ever charged anyone with violating it.

After a Texas judge blocked Villarreal’s prosecution, deeming the statute unconstitutionally vague, she filed a federal lawsuit against the officers who were involved in her arrest, arguing that they targeted her because they were irked by her vocal criticism of local law enforcement agencies. She noted that several cops had mocked her after the arrest, laughing while snapping pictures with their cellphones.

A federal judge dismissed Villarreal’s lawsuit after concluding that the officers were protected by qualified immunity, which allows federal civil rights claims only when they allege misconduct that violated “clearly established” law. A 5th Circuit panel overruled that decision in 2021.

“Priscilla Villarreal was put in jail for asking a police officer a question,” Judge James Ho wrote. “If that is not an obvious violation of the Constitution, it’s hard to imagine what would be.”

After rehearing the case, nine of Ho’s colleagues disagreed, ruling that the officers had probable cause to arrest Villarreal and that the law was not so blatantly unconstitutional that they should have recognized it was inconsistent with the First Amendment. The majority faulted Villarreal for using a “backchannel source,” a routine reporting practice that has exposed abuses such as Watergate, the My Lai massacre, Vietnam War deception, and torture at the Abu Ghraib prison.

Seven judges dissented. They noted that Laredo police had spent months investigating Villarreal—a far cry from the “split-second judgments” to which qualified immunity supposedly applies. “If the First Amendment means anything,” Ho wrote, “surely it means that citizens have the right to question or criticize public officials without fear of imprisonment.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) represented Villarreal, who drew support from ideologically diverse groups, including press associations, the Institute for Justice, the Cato Institute, the Constitutional Accountability Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Project Veritas, and Young America’s Foundation. Unlike the 5th Circuit majority, they recognized the perils of treating journalism as a crime.

© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post The 5th Circuit Says Criminalizing Journalism Is Not Obviously Unconstitutional appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/Ghc3nAY
via IFTTT

FOMC Preview: No More Tightening Bias

FOMC Preview: No More Tightening Bias

While the market is split about the March – and subsequent – Fed meetings, tomoorrow’s FOMC decision is clear: the Fed will keep rates unchanged at 5.25-5.50% while tweaking the statement further to signal the end of the tightening bias and tipping the balance towards futures rate cuts. And since there are no new Economic Projections (i.e., “Dot Plot”) at this meeting after the December release saw three rate cuts pencilled in for 2024, markets will focus on the statement and Powell’s messaging for clues on the path ahead.

Here, as Newsquawk notes, the March meeting is likely to remain an open question after Powell concludes this week, given the Fed is walking the tightrope of a faster-than-expected fall in inflation against the resilient economic backdrop, causing debate amongst policymakers on how fast to move ahead with rate cuts despite the level of real monetary restrictiveness continuing to drift higher amid concerns the growth strength could keep inflation buoyed moving forward. The market is pricing in just under half a rate cut for the March FOMC, a steep from from December when in the aftermath of the Fed’s dovish pivot, it was briefly expecting 1 full rate cut.

On the balance sheet, no decision is expected to be made on the pace of the runoff at the January meeting, although it is expected to be an active discussion.

RATE EXPECTATIONS: All 123 economists surveyed by Reuters expect the Fed to keep rates unchanged on Wednesday, with money markets also priced for no change. The central bank is expected to begin cutting rates in Q2, according to 86 of 123 surveyed (55 thought June was more likely, while 31 see a reduction in May) – money markets are pricing a 43% chance of a first cut in March with more than one 25bp cut priced for May.

Additionally, the Reuters poll shows that most economists (72 of the 123) believe the Fed will cut rates by 100bps or fewer this year – that compares to money market pricing, which currently sees five 25bps rate cuts fully priced, with a good chance of a sixth.

STATEMENT: There are expectations for another dovish tweak to the statement guidance after the December statement’s adjustment: “In determining the extent of ANY [new word] additional policy firming that may be appropriate…”. WSJ’s Timiraos writes, “Fed officials are likely to take a symbolically important step this week by no longer signalling in their policy statement that rates are more likely to rise than fall.” That is a view held by many analysts too. Using the 2006-07 guidance history as a benchmark, BofA suggests the following, “in determining any future policy rate adjustments that may be appropriate…”.  There is BofA’s proposed statement redline…

… and here is Barclays:

VOTER ROTATION: A more hawkish bent… With the January meeting comes a new rotation of voters on the committee. Rotating onto voting status are Cleveland Fed President Mester, Richmond Fed President Barkin, Atlanta Fed President Bostic, and San Francisco Fed President Daley. Rotating off voting status are Chicago Fed President Goolsbee, Philadelphia Fed President Harker, Minneapolis Fed President Kashkari, and Dallas Fed President Logan. This rotation results in a slightly more hawkish group of FOMC voters given recent communication (see recent comments from Bostic, Mester and Daly). That said, BofA doesn’t put too much emphasis on the views of voters versus non-voters given the trend toward fewer dissents and preference for unanimous decisions. Hence, while the mix of FOMC voters may skew more hawkish in 2023 versus 2024, all voices on the committee matter and can influence the policy decision at any given meeting.

POWELL: Fed Chair Powell, in his Presser/Q&A, is unlikely to go into specifics on rate cuts beyond acknowledging that they are on the horizon, likely retaining the optionality for a March cut via “data dependence”. Powell may also temper aggressive expectations around policy easing by framing any future rate cuts as “gradual” or “methodical”/”technical”. Powell is also likely to give a nod to discussions over tapering the Fed’s balance sheet runoff.

INFLATION: Core inflation, as measured by the Fed’s preferred index (PCE), rose at 2.9% Y/Y in December, the lowest since early 2021 and beneath the Fed’s December SEP forecast of 3.2%. There is even more focus on the three-month and six-month annualized figures, which have fallen beneath the Fed’s 2% target; the three-month annualized rate now at 1.5% and the six-month annualized rate is now at 1.9%. The large inflation decline through year-end has seen the level of real restrictiveness (Fed policy rate minus inflation) drift higher, with the Fed Funds Rate having been on hold at 5.25-5.50% since August, causing some policymakers to bring forward their discussion and calls for rate cuts as they look to avoid excessive tightening. The pushback against this view is that the disinflation has been heavily led by the decline in goods inflation, whilst services inflation has been much more sticky, which could leave the headline inflation readings above target if the goods disinflation fades.

GROWTH: A major conundrum of rushing into rate cuts is that GDP and the consumer have remained resilient, while there have been little signs of a material breakdown in the labour market despite its gradual rebalancing, leaving inflation at risk of reacceleration, or at least suppressing the chances of returning to 2%. The flash Q4 real GDP reading printed at 3.3%, well above the analyst forecast for 2.0%, which would see 2023 GDP at 2.5%, which is actually a tenth less than the Fed’s SEP forecast of 2.6% but likely far above what is required for the aggressive rate cut cycle priced by markets.

BALANCE SHEET: No decision is expected to be made on the pace of the runoff at the January meeting, although it is likely to be an active discussion, as the December meeting minutes and recent Fed Speak have indicated. That was also suggested by WSJ’s Timiraos, “Fed officials are to start deliberations on slowing, though not ending, [QT] as soon as their policy meeting this month”. The WSJ summarised the rationale in three points:

  1. The current USD 60bln/month pace is twice as fast as its prior QT period, raising the risk that reserves drain too quickly vs the money market’s ability to redistribute reserves, so a cut could allow the Fed to continue the runoff for longer;
  2. The RRP, a proxy for cash  surplus, is falling faster than expected, and once that is completely drained, forecasting demand for reserves becomes uncertain;
  3. Officials have expressed a preference for retaining more reserves than the prior QT period.

Analysts have been pencilling in forecasts for a QT taper to begin between March and June.

Much more in the full FOMC preview folder available to pro subs in the usual place.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/30/2024 – 23:05

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

Utah Passes Bills Banning DEI And Men Using Women’s Bathrooms

Utah Passes Bills Banning DEI And Men Using Women’s Bathrooms

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Utah Legislature on Jan. 26 approved two conservative-minded bills that prompted Democrats to don all black in mourning—one that bans men from women’s bathrooms and another that ejects diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from public education.

The Utah State Capitol building in Salt Lake City on Jan. 17, 2021. (George Frey/AFP/Getty Images)

Utah state lawmakers in both chambers gave final legislative approval on Jan. 26 to H.B. 257, titled the Sex-based Designations for Privacy, Anti-bullying, and Women’s Opportunities Act. The measure prohibits men who identify as women from accessing women’s bathrooms in schools and government buildings.

Keeping men from women’s spaces is an appropriate and much needed boundary in Utah and across America,” the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Kera Birkeland, a Republican, said in a post on social media platform X.

Men don’t belong in women’s bathrooms,” competitive swimmer Riley Gaines said in a post on X. “Thanks @KeraBirk for your leadership on this.”

The other bill, H.B. 261, titled the Equal Opportunity Initiatives Act, prohibits government employers and institutions of higher education and public education from engaging in discriminatory practices, including those based on DEI principles.

The measure, sponsored by state Rep. Katy Hall, a Republican, would ban “requiring an individual, before, during, or after admission or employment, to provide certain submissions or attend certain training that promotes differential treatment.”

Former NFL player Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) took to X to express his appreciation for the bill’s passage.

“Thank you, Rep. Katy Hall, @KeithGroverUT, and Utah legislators for continuing to lead the way,” he wrote. “We’re leaving divisive DEI behind.

Mr. Burgess has criticized what he earlier described as the “leftist mantra of systemic racism.”

On Jan. 25, when the bills had already passed one of the Utah Legislature’s chambers but before they cleared final legislative hurdles the next day, a group of Democrats staged a protest against the two measures—wearing all black as a sign of mourning.

That’s because we are hurting as we join with our communities, our marginalized communities and vulnerable communities, through this process and we just came out of the Senate floor that passed H.B.257 and H.B. 261 and they may move really fast to the governor’s desk,” one of the state representatives said, according to a video posted on an account on X called End Wokeness.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, is expected to sign both bills into law. During a news conference in December, Mr. Cox voiced strong support for the anti-DEI bill.

“I can assure you, after this legislative session, it will not be happening here in the state of Utah, these diversity statements that you have to sign to get hired,” Mr. Cox said.

“It’s bordering on evil, that we’re forcing people into a political framework before they can even apply for a job, by the state.”

More Details

The bathroom bill, H.B. 257, bars people from using bathrooms for the opposite sex in schools and government-owned or -controlled buildings.

The measure also stipulates that the state’s definition of “male” and “female” are based on biological characteristics such as genitalia as opposed to gender identity.

There are exceptions for unisex or single-occupant facilities, changing rooms not open to the general public, and intersex individuals.

Supporters of the bill have argued that it’s needed to protect women from male predators seeking to enter bathrooms or changing rooms under the pretense that they are transgender.

Opponents claim that the bill unfairly singles out people from the transgender community.

The DEI bill, H.B. 261, would prohibit universities and government entities from having offices that promote certain policies or require employees to submit statements of allegiance to DEI principles. It also prohibits mandatory DEI training.

So far this year, Republican lawmakers have proposed several dozen bills across at least 17 states that restrict various DEI initiatives or require their public disclosure, according to an Associated Press legislative tally.

Democrats, by contrast, have filed at least 20 bills in nine states that would promote or require DEI measures.

Deluge of DEI

The rise of DEI has been pronounced across businesses, colleges, and other institutions in the United States.

For instance, more than 60 percent of U.S. companies have a race- or gender-based DEI program, according to a 2022 Harvard Business Review survey.

Also, a recent report from The Heritage Foundation shows that DEI initiatives were present at 81 percent of community colleges reviewed; that figure was 96 percent when counting only community colleges with more than 10,000 students.

But the backlash against DEI also has been pronounced.

In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the use of racially discriminatory admissions policies at educational facilities that receive federal funding.

Subsequently, state attorneys general from a dozen states urged major U.S. corporations to abandon their use of racial quotas and race-based preferences in hiring and contracting.

Later, a report published by DEI consultancy firm Paradigm Strategies Inc. identified a decline in corporate DEI budgets and a drop in the number of organizations with a set DEI strategy.

The year “2023 has undeniably shifted the DEI landscape for years to come,” according to the report.

“External forces are no longer pushing companies to invest in DEI; instead, in some cases, external forces are pushing back on companies’ investment in DEI,” it reads.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/30/2024 – 22:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/41NF9wt Tyler Durden

Calling Someone ‘Transphobic’ In Florida Could Cost Accusers $35,000 Or More Under New Law

Calling Someone ‘Transphobic’ In Florida Could Cost Accusers $35,000 Or More Under New Law

In what could very clearly become the slipperiest of slopes, a bill introduced in the Florida Senate would make calling someone ‘transphobic’ , ‘homophobic’ , racist, or sexist a form of defamation.

Introduced on Friday, SB 1780 “Defamation, False Light, and Unauthorized Publication of Name or Likeness,” would make it easier for people to sue each other for defamation.

According to the bill, “an allegation that the plaintiff has discriminated against another person or group because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity constitutes defamation per se,” which means that even when said allegations are false, they are automatically defamatory – meaning that anyone accused of said ‘isms’ wouldn’t have to prove “actual malice,” a higher standard set for defamation suits following a 1964 Supreme Court case, New York Times vs. Sullivan.

In instances where someone is accused of homophobia or transphobia, defendants charged with defamation wouldn’t be allowed to use the plaintiff’s religious or scientific beliefs as part of their defense, and could face fines of at least $35,000.

The bill, which has a counterpart in the Florida House (HB 757), would also significantly narrow the definition of “public figure” in defamation lawsuits to exclude non-elected or appointed public employees, as well as individuals who became publicly known for defending themselves against accusations – either by giving interviews or being the subject of a viral “video, image, or statement uploaded on the Internet,” CBS News reports.

The bill also weakens protections for anonymous sources for journalists – and classifies their statements as “presumptively false,” making journalists vulnerable to lawsuits.

As Not the Bee notes, if passed, the law would not require actual malice to be proved for:

  • A person made famous solely from a video or pictures uploaded to the internet.
  • Statements made by a person defending their reputation.
  • Granting an interview on a subject.

And just to be safe, the law also redefines when a famous person can claim actual malice. It says that judges should infer that statements are actually malicious when:

  • The source of the claim is unidentified and anonymous.
  • The allegation is fabricated solely in the imagination of the defendant.
  • The allegation is so implausible that only a reckless person would put it into circulation.
  • There are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the report.
  • The defendant willfully failed to validate or corroborate the claim.

And finally, the law carves out protections for religion and science.

  • A defendant cannot prove the truth of an allegation of discrimination with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity by citing a plaintiff’s constitutionally protected religious expression or beliefs.
  • A defendant cannot prove the truth of an allegation of discrimination with respect to sexual orientation or gender identity by citing a plaintiff’s scientific beliefs.

Of course, as the Bee‘s ‘Mister Retrops’ notes: “While I appreciate the law as a worthy effort to deal with these legal loopholes the Left is employing to attack anyone they see as a standing in the way of “real communism,” one has to wonder if there’s anything in this law that would keep it from being used as a cudgel of the Left.”

To read a thorough breakdown of what’s going on, click here.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/30/2024 – 22:25

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