One month ago we joked that should the Delaware judge force Musk to buy Twitter, then none other than the US government would step in and prevent the South African from gaining control over the blue-checkmark echo chamber of record, the one social media network which congressional testimony after congressional testimony has argued it can manipulate the outcome of elections.

If Delaware orders Musk to buy TWTR how long until the Feds raid it and shut it down

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 15, 2022

Well, that prediction is about to come true, because according to Bloomberg, the Biden administration is discussing whether the US should subject some of Elon Musk’s ventures to national security reviews, including the deal for Twitter and SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network, citing people familiar with the matter.

In short, not only is the deep state government preparing to block Musk’s acquisition of TWTR on national security grounds (unlcear what that would achieve as the stock would crater to single digits, especially after today’s SNAP earnings, and so many of its employees have already quit), but it may “expropriate” Musk’s satellite pet project too, all for daring to ask a question about the US involvement in Ukraine, and what exactly the endgame there is.

As Bloomberg adds, “US officials have grown uncomfortable over Musk’s recent threat to stop supplying the Starlink satellite service to Ukraine — he said it had cost him $80 million so far — and what they see as his increasingly Russia-friendly stance following a series of tweets that outlined peace proposals favorable to President Vladimir Putin. They are also concerned by his plans to buy Twitter with a group of foreign investors.”

The discussions are still at an early stage, the people familiar said on condition of anonymity. Officials in the US government and intelligence community are weighing what tools, if any, are available that would allow the federal government to review Musk’s ventures.

One possible legal pathway is through the law governing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to review Musk’s deals and operations for national security risks. The CFIUS was used extensively in the Trump admin to block and undo numerous Chinese deals, arguing they could pose a national threat to the US. Now, it’s none other than Musk who has emerged as the deep state’s biggest nemesis.

As a reminder, the interagency panel known as CFIUS reviews acquisitions of US businesses by foreign buyers. That said, it is not clear if a CFIUS review — which would involve assessments by the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, among others — would offer the government a legal way to conduct a review.

But one may not be necessary: just like the infamous FISA courts, the CFIUS panel operates in total secrecy, behind closed doors, and rarely confirms when it is conducting reviews. CFIUS also holds the power to review deals that have already been consummated… such as Musk’s acquisition of twitter.

What apparently provoked the government into stepping in, is that Musk was reportedly chatting up a firestorm with persona non grata #1. Recall that ten days ago Vice reported that “Elon Musk Spoke to Putin Before Tweeting Ukraine Peace Plan“, which followed Musk’s frequent, and high abrasive to bluechecks and those with a ukraine flag in their profile, tweeted proposals to end Russia’s war and threats to cut financial support for Starlink internet in Ukraine. His tweets and public comments “have frustrated officials in the US and Europe and drawn praise from America’s rivals” as Bloomberg put it.

Musk later backed down from his threat to stop deploying Starlink and said he would continue to bear the costs of the service. Starlink has become an essential tool for communications in Ukraine during the Russian invasion. Musk has been providing the service for free but has said SpaceX loses $20 million a month providing it to Ukraine and he cannot be responsible for that cost indefinitely.

In short, Musk created just enough “pro-Putin” innuendo around himself – ostensibly even telling Ian Bremmer that he spoke directly with Vladimir Putin (Musk naturally denied this after it was published)…

Nobody should trust Bremmer

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 11, 2022

…  to provoke the US government to intervene on security grounds. After all, you can’t have the world’s most valuable public forum in the hands of a pro-Putin fanatic.

Which… may have been precisely what Musk wanted, as we said ten days ago when news of Musk’s Putin phone call first emerged, there is “No easier way to kill the Twitter deal than have DOJ step in and prohibit it.”

No easier way to kill the Twitter deal than have DOJ step in and prohibit it https://t.co/Fyr1iCha0x

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 11, 2022

Indeed, when Delaware Chancery court is about to rule that you must consummate your $44 billion acquisition of a company that, as SNAP today showed, is worth less than $10 billion, your best… no, your only bet is to force the government to step in and demand the deal falls apart. And how do you do that? Why demand the judge pushes back the court case by a few weeks in which you blast out what to the Biden admin seems to be unhinged pro-Putin propaganda.

Well, Elon old chap, golf clap to a beautifully executed plan.

And while the world’s richest man would never come out and confirm any this, he did the next best thing late on Thursday when in response to a fellow reader’s reaction to the Bloomberg article, that “It would be hysterical if the government stopped Elon from over paying for Twitter”, Musk responded simply “💯🤣”… Because the collapse of the deal would be just what Musk wanted (and intended) from the very beginning. 

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

President Xi Jinping’s 1h45min speech at the opening of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing was an absorbing exercise of recent past informing near future. All of Asia and all of the Global South should carefully examine it.

The Great Hall was lavishly adorned with bright red banners. A giant slogan hanging in the back of the hall read, “Long Live our great, glorious and correct party”.

Another one, below, functioned like a summary of the whole report:

“Hold high the great flag of socialism with Chinese characteristics, fully implement Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, carry forward the great founding spirit of the party, and unite and struggle to fully build a modern socialist country and to fully promote the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”

True to tradition, the report outlined the CPC’s achievements over the past 5 years and China’s strategy for the next 5 – and beyond. Xi foresees “fierce storms” ahead, domestic and foreign. The report was equally significant for what was not spelled out, or left subtly implied.

Every member of the CPC’s Central Committee had already been briefed about the report – and approved it. They will spend this week in Beijing studying the fine print and will vote to adopt it on Saturday. Then a new CPC Central Committee will be announced, and a new Politburo Standing Committee – the 7 that really rule – will be formally endorsed.

This new leadership line-up will clarify the new generation faces that will be working very close to Xi, as well as who will succeed Li Keqiang as the new Prime Minister: he has finished his two terms and, according to the constitution, must step down.

There are also 2,296 delegates present at the Great Hall representing the CPC’s over 96 million members. They are not mere spectators: at the plenary session that ended last week, they analyzed in-depth every major issue, and prepared for the National Congress. They do vote on party resolutions – even as those resolutions are decided by the top leadership, and behind closed doors.

The key takeaways

Xi contends that in these past 5 years the CPC strategically advanced China while “correctly” (Party terminology) responding to all foreign challenges. Particularly key achievements include poverty alleviation, the normalization of Hong Kong, and progress in diplomacy and national defense.

It’s quite telling that Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who was sitting in the second row, behind the current Standing Committee members, never took his eyes off Xi, while others were reading a copy of the report on their desk.

Compared to the achievements, success of the Xi-ordered Zero-Covid policy remains highly debatable. Xi stressed that it has protected people’s lives. What he could not possibly say is that the premise of his policy is to treat Covid and its variants as a US bioweapon directed against China. That is, a serious matter of national security that trumps any other consideration, even the Chinese economy.

Zero-Covid hit production and the job market extremely hard, and virtually isolated China from the outside world. Just a glaring example: Shanghai’s district governments are still planning for zero-Covid on a timescale of two years. Zero-Covid will not go away anytime soon.

A serious consequence is that the Chinese economy will most certainly grow this year by less than 3% – well below the official target of “around 5,5%”.

Now let’s look at some of the Xi report’s highlights.

Taiwan: Beijing has started “a great struggle against separatism and foreign interference” on Taiwan.

Hong Kong: It is now “administered by patriots, making it a better place.” In Hong Kong there was “a major transition from chaos to order.” Correct: the 2019 color revolution nearly destroyed a major global trade/finance center.

Poverty alleviation: Xi hailed it as one of three “major events” of the past decade along with the CPC’s centenary and socialism with Chinese characteristics entering a “new era”. Poverty alleviation is the core of one of the CPC’s “two centenary goals.”

Opening up: China has become “a major trading partner and a major destination for foreign investment.” That’s Xi refuting the notion that China has grown more autarchic. China will not engage in any kind of “expansionism” while opening up to the outside world. The basic state policy remains: economic globalization. But – he didn’t say it – “with Chinese characteristics”.

“Self-revolution”: Xi introduced a new concept. “Self-revolution” will allow China to escape a historical cycle leading to a downturn. And “this ensures the party will never change.” So it’s the CPC or bust.

Marxism: definitely remains as one of the fundamental guiding principles. Xi stressed, “We owe the success of our party and socialism with Chinese characteristics to Marxism and how China has managed to adapt it.”

Risks: that was the speech’s recurrent theme. Risks will keep interfering with those crucial “two centenary goals”. Number one goal was reached last year, at the CPC’s 100th anniversary, when China reached the status of a “moderately prosperous society” in all respects (xiaokang, in Chinese). Number two goal should be reached at the centenary of the People’s Republic of China in 2049: to “build a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced and harmonious.”

Development: the focus will be on “high-quality development”, including resilience of supply chains and the “dual circulation” economic strategy: expansion of domestic demand in parallel to foreign investment (mostly centered on BRI projects). That will be China’s top priority. So in theory any reforms will privilege a combination of “socialist market economy” and high-level opening, mixing the creation of more domestic demand with supply-side structural reform. Translation: “Dual-circulation” on steroids.

“Whole-process democracy”: that was the other new concept introduced by Xi. Translates as “democracy that works”, as in rejuvenating the Chinese nation under – what else – the CPC’s absolute leadership: “We need to ensure that people can exercise their powers through the People’s Congress system.”

Socialist culture: Xi said it’s absolutely essential “to influence young people”. The CPC must exercise ideological control and make sure the media fosters a generation of young people “who are influenced by traditional culture, patriotism and socialism”, thus benefitting “social stability”. The “China story” must go everywhere, presenting a China that is “credible and respectable”. That certainly applies to Chinese diplomacy, even the “Wolf Warriors”.

“Sinicise religion”: Beijing will continue its drive to “Sinicise religion”, as in “proactively” adapting “religion and the socialist society”. This campaign was introduced in 2015, meaning for instance that Islam and Christianity must be under CPC control and in line with Chinese culture.

The Taiwan pledge

Now we reach the themes that completely obsess the decaying Hegemon: the connection between China’s national interests and how they affect the civilization-state’s role in international relations.

National security: “National security is the foundation of national rejuvenation, and social stability is a prerequisite of national strength.”

The military: the PLA’s equipment, technology and strategic capability will be strengthened. It goes without saying that means total CPC control over the military.

“One country, two systems”: It has proven to be “the best institutional mechanism for Hong Kong and Macau and must be adhered to in the long term”. Both “enjoy high autonomy” and are “administered by patriots.” Xi promised to better integrate both into national strategies.

Taiwan reunification: Xi made a pledge to complete the reunification of China. Translation: return Taiwan to the motherland. That was met with a torrent of applause, leading to the key message, addressed simultaneously to the Chinese nation and “foreign interference” forces: “We will not renounce the use of force and will take all necessary measures to stop all separatist movements.” The bottom line: “The resolution of the Taiwan issue is a matter for the Chinese people themselves, to be decided by the Chinese people.”

It’s also quite telling that Xi did not even mention Xinjiang by name: only by implication, when he stressed that China must strengthen the unity of all ethnic groups. Xinjiang for Xi and the leadership mean industrialization of the Far West and a crucial node in BRI: not the object of an imperial demonization campaign. They know that the CIA destabilization tactics used in Tibet for decades did not work in Xinjiang.

Shelter from the storm

Now let’s unpack some of the variables affecting the very tough years ahead for the CPC.

When Xi mentioned “fierce storms ahead”, that’s what he thinks about 24/7: Xi is convinced the USSR collapsed because the Hegemon did everything to undermine it. He won’t allow a similar process to derail China.

In the short term, the “storm” may refer to the latest round of the no holds barred American war on Chinese technology – not to mention free trade: cutting China off from buying or manufacturing chips and components for supercomputers.

It’s fair to consider Beijing keeps the focus long-term, betting that most of the world, especially the Global South, will move away from the US high tech supply chain and prefer the Chinese market. As the Chinese increasingly become self sufficient, US tech firms will end up losing world markets, economies of scale, and competitiveness.

Xi also did not mention the US by name. Everyone in the leadership – especially the new Politburo – is aware of how Washington wants to “decouple” from China in every possible way and will continue to provocatively deploy every possible strand of hybrid war.

Xi did not enter into details during his speech, but it’s clear the driving force going forward will be technological innovation linked to a global vision. That’s where BRI comes in, again – as the privileged field of application for these tech breakthroughs.

Only this way we can understand how Zhu Guangyao, a former vice minister of finance, may be sure that per capita GDP in China in 2035 would at least double the numbers in 2019 and reach $20,000.

The challenge for Xi and the new Politburo right away is to fix China’s structural economic imbalance. And pumping up debt-financed “investment” all over again won’t work.

So bets can be made that Xi’s third term – to be confirmed later this week – will have to concentrate on rigorous planning and monitoring of implementation, much more than during his previous bold, ambitious, abrasive but sometimes disconnected years. The Politburo will have to pay way more attention to technical considerations. Xi will have to delegate more serious policymaking autonomy to a bunch of competent technocrats.

Otherwise, we will be back to that startling observation by then Premier Wen Jiabao in 2007: China’s economy is “unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated and ultimately unsustainable”. That’s exactly where the Hegemon wants it to be.

As it stands, things are far from gloomy. The National Development and Reform Commission states that compared to the rest of the world, China’s consumer inflation is only “marginal”; the job market is steady; and international payments are stable.

Xi’s work report and pledges may also be seen as turning the usual Anglo-American geopolitical suspects – Mackinder, Mahan, Spykman, Brzezinski – upside down.

The China-Russia strategic partnership has no time to lose with global hegemonic games; what drives them is that sooner rather than later they will be ruling the Heartland – the world island – and beyond, with allies from the Rimland, and from Africa to Latin America, all participating in a new form of globalization. Certainly with Chinese characteristics; but most of all, pan-Eurasian characteristics.

The final countdown is already on.

Authored by Frank Fang and Eva Fu via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) is demanding answers from the Department of Justice (DOJ) after the agency refused to release all documents regarding how it intended to implement a 2021 executive order on expanding voter access. Republicans have opposed this order as an unlawful exercise of federal power over elections.

In March last year, President Joe Biden signed an executive order (EO 14019) directing the head of every federal agency, including the DOJ, to come up with a strategic plan on how to “promote voter registration and voter participation.” Their plans should be submitted to Susan Rice, the president’s domestic policy advisor.

The executive order also mandates these agencies work with “approved” third-party organizations to provide voter registration services on federal agency premises.

Since then, Republican lawmakers have questioned whether the administration has constitutional and statutory authority to enact such an order. Meanwhile, government watchdogs, including Florida-based public policy think tank the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), have filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with federal agencies seeking documents relating to Biden’s order.

On Oct. 18, Norman, who sits on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, demanding to know why the DOJ has failed to properly respond to FGA’s FOIA request, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Epoch Times before its public release.

“The U.S. Constitution makes it clear that states must manage their own elections, without meddling by the federal government,” Norman told The Epoch Times in an email.

“We’re looking at a Department of Justice that appears to be overstepping that Constitutional boundary at the direction of President Biden, and then deliberately defying court orders. Add that to the list of problems we have with the DOJ,” he added, referring to a July district court ruling that ordered the DOJ to produce the documents under the FOIA request.

The federal government, Norman said, should “keep their hands out of our election process” and modify the voting policies so that they are “easier for citizens to vote, and harder to cheat.”

“The DOJ’s reputation with public trust is already minimal at best. What could the DOJ have to gain from hiding their plan to promote voter participation from the public?” Norman said.

Other signatories to the letter include Reps. Randy Weber (R-Texas), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Fred Keller (R-Pa.), Chip Roy (R-Texas), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Ben Cline (R-Va.).

Legality Challenged

In his letter, Norman argued that Biden should not have issued such an order in the first place.

“[T]he President has no legal basis to order all federal agencies to engage in voter registration, nor does he have the authority to order any federal agency to engage in efforts to promote voter participation,” the letter stated. “Yet, that is precisely what he is seeking to do through this EO.”

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t grant the president authority to “transform all federal executive agencies led by his political appointees, including DOJ, into get-out-the-vote machines for the left, paid for by federal taxpayers,” according to the letter.

Norman warned that federal officials following Biden’s order run the risk of violating the Hatch Act, which bans federal government officials from taking part in certain political activities.

In carrying out the order, the DOJ could also violate the Antideficiency Act, the letter says, which prohibits federal agencies from “spending funds Congress has not authorized or accepting volunteer services from ‘approved’ third-party organizations as EO 14019 directs.”

The FGA came to a similar legal conclusion. Aside from referencing the two U.S. laws, the group argued that Biden’s order “oversteps the limited federal agency involvement in voter registration allowed under the National Voter Registration Act.” As a result, the FGA concluded that the executive order “is illegal, unethical, and unconstitutional.”

Additionally, the FGA argued that the Biden administration is using the executive order to benefit Democratic candidates.

“With the lack of oversight and transparency, there is a genuine concern that this effort will primarily target Democrat strongholds to help turn out voters that the Biden administration believes are more likely to vote Democrat,” the FGA wrote in a May report.

FGA

The FGA filed its FOIA request with the DOJ on July 30, 2021. After the DOJ failed to turn over a single document for over 200 days, the group filed a lawsuit against the department in April. A federal district court ruled in favor of the FGA in July, ordering the DOJ to disclose all requested documents under the FOIA before the Nov. 8 midterm elections.

Read more here…

Update: As expected, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 15-0 on Thursday to add Covid-19 shots to the children’s recommended vaccine schedule.

As the Post Millennial notes,

Speaking earlier in the morning, Dr. Patricia Wodi said that the Covid-19 vaccine has been placed as a recommendation from 6 months of age and older.

During a question period, one member of the committee raised questions over the vaccine being included on the schedule when it’s been recommended for use under an Emergency Use Authorizations, to which Wodi said they spoke with the Office of General Counsel, who said that it would be okay to add.

The vote comes after the committee approved 15-0 to add the vaccination to the federally funded Vaccine for Kids program, which provides vaccines to children at no or low cost to families.

*  *  *

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee is set to vote on Thursday over whether to add the Covid-19 vaccine to the recommended schedule of vaccines for children.

And while left-wing fact checkers were quick to point out that this doesn’t automatically mean schools will require students to take the jab – a decision made at the local level – even ABC News admits; “If the CDC does update its list of suggested vaccinations to include the COVID vaccine, which is available to anyone 6 months or older, that will open the door for states to begin making those calls, too.“

The CDC also pushed back, stating that it’s Thursday meting is an annual gathering to simply update which vaccines doctors should recommend to their patients – with no acknowledgement that most doctors are going to follow it.

“Thursday, CDC’s independent advisory committee (ACIP) will vote on an updated childhood immunization schedule. States establish vaccine requirements for school children, not [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] or CDC,” the agency wrote in response to a segment by Fox News‘ Tucker Carlson, who reported that the updated childhood vaccine schedule would soon mean that kids “will not be able to attend school without taking the COVID shot.”

“State laws establish vaccination requirements for school children. These laws often apply not only to children attending public schools but also to those attending private schools and day care facilities,” the CDC writes on its website, adding “All states provide medical exemptions, and some state laws also offer exemptions for religious and/or philosophical reasons.”

Tucker responds:

The CDC complained about our segment on the Covid vaccine being required for kids to attend school. We stand by what we said. Here’s our response. https://t.co/R5DqVkzef4 pic.twitter.com/y2srvIgAHf

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 20, 2022

On Wednesday, a CDC advisory committee separately decided to add the COVID vaccine to the Vaccines for Children program, which provides government-funded jabs to children who aren’t insured or can’t afford to pay.

CDC Votes 15-0 to Add COVID-19 Vax to “Vaccines for Children (VFC)” Program
Source: https://t.co/vPG7a5vS2r pic.twitter.com/fF3pqSsFUL

— Wittgenstein (@backtolife_2023) October 19, 2022

“Equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines for all ages and populations remains critically important,” said the CDCs Dr. Sara Oliver at the meeting, ABC News reports. “This includes now, while the vaccines are being supplied by the federal government, and in the future, when we one day move to a commercial program.”

Sen Rand Paul (R-KY) slammed the decision, calling it “Appalling!”

This is the same committee that approved booster vaccines for children despite no evidence that COVID boosters reduce transmission, hospitalization, or death among children. Appalling! https://t.co/KWVEM6wI7f

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) October 19, 2022

Paul had more to say on the topic:

With even Big Pharma tempering their enthusiasm for mandating COVID vaccines on young people, will Fauci-enthusiasts at CDC still vote to mandate COVID vaxx on kids? https://t.co/dwdkAinebT

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) October 19, 2022

And as Summit News notes, Paul responded recent revelations from Boston University, which recently made headlines for genetically engineering a strain of Covid with an 80% mortality rate in mice.

more deception…And they wonder why no one trusts Fauci and his cronies 🤔 https://t.co/Tz6fh0bh38

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) October 19, 2022

Others noted that there’s little to no data on how the Omicron strain of Covid-19 affects children.

I’d love to see the data on the Omicron vaccine in children but the Biden admin will not release it. Dr. Jha claims he’s (privately) seen it and it’s good. Why can’t it be made public? https://t.co/ocEyPGtXUj

— Marty Makary MD, MPH (@MartyMakary) October 18, 2022

So – while adding the Covid-19 vaccine to the list of recommended childhood immunizations does not automatically mean kids will be forced to get it if they want to attend school – it’s nothing more than a game of semantics when it’s clear that most schools will follow the guidance.

These are the pediatric cases of vax myocarditis CDC will acknowledge. They know it’s 10x more likely to occur in males than females, and they claim their advice is based on risk-benefit, yet their recommendations do not account for this greatly increased risk in males vs females pic.twitter.com/6ZlGJWf1bV

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) October 20, 2022

As Alex Berenson writes in The Burning Platform;

If I were a Republican candidate in a blue state, I would have ads about school Covid vaccine mandates ready to go today, assuming the the CDC vaccine committee is foolish enough to throw this chum in the water. At a time when countries all over the world are now rejecting mRNA shots for kids, can our public health “experts” really be this stupid? Or this beholden to the mRNA companies?

Experience suggests the answer is yes.