Despite pretty much the entire country making it clear that EV mandates are hurting the industry (with major automakers like Ford and GM slashing investment), President Biden is forging forward with his “green agenda” even further.

This go-round, Biden is “preparing to roll out the toughest-ever” emissions restrictions, according to Bloomberg. 

The report says that the Environmental Protection Agency is poised to implement emissions limits that (Biden thinks) could significantly boost electric vehicle sales, requiring EVs to constitute about two-thirds of new car and light truck sales by 2032, a sharp increase from less than 10% last year. 

Unless, of course, people stop buying new cars. 

Regardless, this regulation supposedly aims to cut down on pollution and carbon dioxide emissions, and marks a major action under President Joe Biden’s administration and a step toward meeting the US’s Paris Agreement goal of slashing its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

The transportation sector is currently the largest contributor to the US’s climate pollution, Bloomberg writes. 

Manish Bapna, head of the Natural Resources Defense Action Fund commented: “Cars and light trucks on their own are roughly 20% of the carbon footprint.” Bapna says cutting that is “absolutely essential to real, concrete progress.”

Biden faces a challenge in balancing new emissions regulations with concerns from Michigan voters and autoworkers wary of a swift move to electric vehicles. U.S. carmakers have argued that the proposed EV targets are unattainable without more charging infrastructure. The costs have also weighed against rising labor costs for U.S. automakers. 

John Bozzella, leader of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, emphasized to Bloomberg the crucial next few years for building out supply chains and charging networks.

To address these concerns, the EPA is expected to set less aggressive emissions reduction goals in the short term while still aiming for the same 2032 objectives. 

David Cooke, a senior analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists noted: “The rule doesn’t meet the moment,” but still creates “some guarantees around movement toward zero-emission vehicles nationwide.”

“We will end up with more EVs on the road as a result of these rules than if we didn’t have them,” he added. 

What can be said about such poor policy that flies in the face of economic common sense? We guess that’s just the miracle of Bidenomics, Jack. 

Ongoing attacks by Iran-backed Houthi rebels on commercial vessels navigating through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait have forced all liquefied natural gas tankers with destinations to Europe and the US to divert routes, which means longer and more expensive routes. 

“This is a dramatic picture for history books. Bookmark it!” Energy Outlook Advisors’ Anas Alhajji posted on X. 

Alhajji posted a map showing no LNG tankers transiting the Red Sea, Suez Canal, or the Gulf of Adan.

Using Bloomberg data, Alhajji’s map is correct when searching for LNG tankers with an end destination in North America, South America, Central America, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Australia, and Oceania. 

Alhajji explained LNG tankers are avoiding the southern Red Sea for two reasons:

1. Carries are super expensive and fairly new relative to average oil tankers
2. Insurance premium is very high

Analyst Andreas Steno Larsen responded to Alhajji’s post, “Not really news? It has been like that for a while.”

Not really news? It has been like that for a while

— Andreas Steno Larsen (@AndreasSteno) March 16, 2024

However, continuous Houthi attacks disrupting the critical shipping lane, which accounts for 12-15% of global trade and 20% of international container shipping, only indicates that shipping companies must continue to rejigger routes that are more costly and longer. These extra costs will only feed into global inflation. 

With President Biden’s Operation Prosperity Guardian mission failing, there is no immediate solution to resolve the Red Sea crisis. 

In a recent interview, former Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, Adm. James Stavridis, told Goldman’s Allison Nathan, “In my career, I’ve never seen a higher level of maritime risk than I do today. That owes first and foremost to the return of great power competition, which we thought was basically over when the Soviet Union collapsed.” 

Three decades after the Cold War ended, conflicts rage across Ukraine, Gaza, the Red Sea, Myanmar, the Sahel, Sudan, and potentially Taiwan and Iran. The rules-based system of international relations modeled on America’s liberal-democratic values is crumbling as the world stumbles into a nascent multipolar era. 

With conflict only expected to worsen, David Asher, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, has warned about increasing risks that Saudi Arabia’s refineries could come under drone and or missile attack by Houthi rebels and spark a global financial shock.

By Gregorz Adamczyk of Remix news

In Portugal, the election results led to several conclusions.

First, they demonstrated how Europeans are reacting to the EU-enforced Green Deal: Two environmental parties did not even make it into the parliament, which aligns with disastrous polls for the Greens across Europe.

One of these Portuguese eco-parties, in a bid for survival at all costs, formed an alliance with the Communists, who had been strong in the country for many years after the Salazar era. It turns out that the Portuguese do not want the left in government, nor the radical left in parliament.

Additionally, it is evident that the socialists are in retreat, as is also the case in many countries across Europe.

For the center-right to govern, it must have the support of the right-wing Chega party, which quadrupled its number of parliamentary seats.

We’ve seen this previously in Scandinavia (Sweden and Finland) and to some extent in Italy, although there the right (Brothers of Italy) is a stronger coalition partner than the center-right (Forza Italia).

With few exceptions, Europe is turning to the right, even if – as is the case in Poland and Spain – despite an electoral victory, it is not in a position to govern.

This is an excellent prognostic before the European Parliament elections, which will take place between June 6 and 9.

By John Cody of Remix News

Every year, migrants and refugees transfer billions of euros from Germany to family members in their home countries, with the Bundesbank estimating this to be at least €6.8 billion per year.

Now, some German political parties want to crack down on this development, with the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) seeking to “reduce poverty migration to zero” with restrictions on cash payments and social benefits.

Some of the money sent abroad is earned from work, but a substantial amount is likely from social welfare payments transferred to migrants, who then send it out of the country to support their families across the world. Since many of these social welfare benefits are distributed as cash, there is little oversight in how this money is used and transferred by migrants.

These foreigners have a substantial incentive to send this money overseas, where due to exchange rates and different standards of living, the euro can go far further than it can in Germany. However, these social welfare payments were never designed to be sent overseas, and are meant to provide the necessary support for migrants within Germany.

The debate on these remittances is only growing, with pro-migration parties working to stop efforts to disburse social welfare through electronic cards rather than cash. There is an awareness that if migrants stop receiving this money in cash, it may even serve as an incentive to leave the country. Not only would cash remittances become far more difficult, but prostitutes, drugs, and alcohol could also face restrictions.

However, so-called vices such as alcohol and cigarettes may still be freely available with the new bank cards for migrants, with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) working to enact restrictions on certain products.

“Established politics is once again misleading the German public. The goal of all reforms of asylum seeker benefits must be to reduce poverty migration to Germany to zero. To achieve this, all false incentives must be eliminated immediately. This is not feasible with a payment card for asylum seekers that continues to provide cash benefits and does not even exclude things like alcohol or cigarettes,” said AfD parliamentary group spokesperson, René Springer.

“We need a strict principle of benefits in kind for asylum seekers — bread, bed, and soap. There should be nothing more. Only then can we really assume that people who ask for asylum here are actually seeking protection. Asylum is only intended for this purpose and not as an access portal to German social benefits,” he continued.

It is not just the AfD working to abolish cash benefits. Free Democrats (FDP) parliamentary group leader Christian Dürr said these cash benefits have been a “real pull factor. A lot of money was then sent home. We don’t want that.”

However, other pro-migrant politicians such as the Green Party’s Erik Marquardt claim that migrants sending this tax money home is actually a good thing, saying that it is an “important part of development cooperation.” The argument is that these migrants are helping their families out of poverty.

Continue reading at rmx.news

Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Cradle,

BRICS doubled its membership at the start of 2024, and faces huge tasks ahead: integrating its newest members, developing future admission criteria, deepening the institution’s groundings, and most importantly, launching the mechanisms for bypassing the US dollar in international finance.

Across the Global South, countries are lining up to join the multipolar BRICS and the Hegemon-free future it promises. The onslaught of interest has become an unavoidable theme of discussion during this crucial year of the Russian presidency of what, for the moment, is BRICS-10.  

Indonesia and Nigeria are among the top tiers of candidates likely to join. The same applies to Pakistan and Vietnam. Mexico is in a very complex bind: how to join without summoning the ire of the Hegemon.  

And then there’s the new candidacy on a roll: Yemen, which enjoys plenty of support from Russia, China, and Iran. 

It’s been up to Russia’s top BRICS sherpa, the immensely capable Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, to clarify what’s ahead. He tells TASS: 

We must provide a platform for the countries interested in rapprochement with the BRICS, where they will be able to work practically without feeling left behind and joining this cooperation rhythm. And as to how the further expansion will be decided upon – this should be postponed at least until the leaders convene in Kazan to decide.

The key decision on BRICS+ expansion will only come out of the Kazan summit next October. Ryabkov stresses that the order of the day is first “to integrate those who have just joined.” This means that “as a ‘ten,’ we work at least as efficiently, or, rather, more efficiently than we did within the initial ‘five.'”

Only then will the BRICS-10 “develop the category of partner states,” which, in fact, means creating a consensus-based list out of the dozens of nations that are literally itching to join the club. 

Ryabkov always makes a point to note, in public and in private, that the twofold increase of BRICS members starting on 1 January 2024 is “an unprecedented event for any international structure.”

It isn’t an easy task, Ryabkov says: 

Last year, it took an entire year to develop the admission, expansion criteria at the level of top officials. Many reasonable things were developed. And many of the things that were formulated back then got reflected in the list of countries that joined. But it would probably be improper to formalize the requirements. At the end of the day, an admission to the association is a subject of political decision.

What happens after Russia’s presidential elections 

In a private meeting with a few select individuals on the sidelines of the recent multipolar conference in Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke effusively of BRICS, with particular emphasis on his counterparts Wang Yi of China and S. Jaishankar of India. 

Lavrov holds great expectations for BRICS-10 this year – at the same time, reminding everyone that this is still a club; it must eventually go deeper in institutional terms, for instance, by appointing a secretariat-general, just like its cousin-style organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

The Russian presidency will have its hands full for the next few months, not only navigating the geopolitical spectrum of current crises but, most of all, geoeconomics. A crucial ministerial meeting in June – only three months away – will have to define a detailed road map all the way to the Kazan summit four months later. 

What happens after this week’s Russian presidential elections will also condition BRICS policy. A new Russian government will be sworn in only by early May. It is widely expected that there will be no substantial changes within the Russian Finance Ministry, Central Bank, Foreign Ministry, and among top Kremlin advisers. 

Continuity will be the norm. 

And that brings us to the key geoeconomics dossier: the BRICS at the forefront of bypassing the US dollar in international finance. 

Last week, top Kremlin adviser Yury Ushakov announced that BRICS will work towards setting up an independent payment system based on digital currencies and blockchain. 

Ushakov specifically emphasized “state-of-the-art tools such as digital technologies and blockchain. The main thing is to make sure it is convenient for governments, common people, and businesses, as well as cost-effective and free of politics.”

Ushakov did not mention it explicitly, but a new alternative system already exists. For the moment, it is a closely, carefully guarded project in the form of a detailed white paper that has already been validated academically and also incorporates answers to possible frequently asked questions. 

The Cradle was briefed on the system via several meetings since last year with a small group of world-class fintech experts. The system has already been presented to Ushakov himself. As it stands, it is on the verge of receiving a final green light from the Russian government. After clearing a series of tests, the system in thesis would be ready to be presented to all BRICS-10 members before the Kazan summit. 

This all ties in with Ushakov publicly declaring that a specific task for 2024 is to increase the role of BRICS in the international monetary/ financial system. 

Ushakov recalls how, in the 2023 Johannesburg Declaration, the BRICS heads of state focused on increasing settlements in national currencies and strengthening correspondent banking networks. The target was to “continue to develop the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, primarily regarding the use of currencies different from the US dollar.” 

No single currency for the foreseeable future 

All of the above frames the absolute key issue being currently discussed in Moscow, within the Russia–China partnership, and soon, deeper among the BRICS-10: alternative settlement payments to the US dollar, increased trade among “friendly nations,” and controls on capital flight.  

Ryabkov added more crucial elements to the debate, saying this week that the BRICS are not debating the implementation of a single currency: 

As for a single currency, similar to what was created by the European Union, this is hardly possible in the foreseeable future. If we are talking about clearing forms of mutual settlements such as the ECU [European Currency Unit] at an early stage of development of the European Union, in the absence of a real means of payment, but the opportunity to more effectively use the available resources of the countries in mutual settlements to avoid losses due to differences in exchange rates, and so on, then this is precisely the path along which, in my opinion, BRICS should move. This is under consideration.

The key takeaway, per Ryabkov, is that the BRICS should not create a financial and monetary alliance; they should create payment and settlement systems that do not depend upon the shifty “rules-based international order.” 

That’s exactly the emphasis of the ideas and experiments already developed by Minister of Integration and Macroeconomy at the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) Sergei Glazyev, as he explained in an exclusive interview, as well as the new groundbreaking project on the verge of being greenlighted by the Russian government.  

Ryabkov confirmed that “a group of experts, led by the Ministries of Finance and representatives of the Central Banks of the respective [BRICS] countries,” is working nonstop on the dossier. Moreover, there are “consultations in other formats, including with the participation of representatives of the ‘historical west.'”

Ryabkov’s own takeaway mirrors what the BRICS as a whole are aiming at: 

Collectively, we must come up with a product that would be, on the one hand, quite ambitious (because it is impossible to continue to tolerate the dictates of the west in this area), but at the same time realistic, not out of touch with the ground. That is, a product that would be efficient. And all this should be presented in Kazan for consideration by the leaders.

In a nutshell: the big breakthrough may be literally knocking at the BRICS door. It just depends on a simple green light by the Russian government. 

Now compare the BRICS devising the contours of a new geoeconomics paradigm with the collective west mulling the actual theft of Russia’s seized assets to the benefit of the black hole that is Ukraine.

Apart from being a de facto declaration by the US and EU against Russia, this is something that carries the potential, in itself, of totally smashing the current global financial system. 

A theft of Russian assets, would it ever happen, will render livid, to put it mildly, at least two key BRICS members, China and Saudi Arabia, who bring to the table considerable economic heft. Such a move by the west would completely destroy the concept of the rule of law, which theoretically underpins the global financial system. 

The Russian response will be fierce. The Russian Central Bank could, in a flash, sue and confiscate the assets of Belgian Euroclear, one of the world’s largest settlement and clearing systems, on whose accounts Russian reserves were frozen. 

And that on top of seizing Euroclear’s assets in Russia – which amount to roughly 33 billion euros. With Euroclear running out of capital, the Belgian Central Bank will have to revoke its license, causing a massive financial crisis.

Talk about a clash of paradigms: western robbery versus a Global South-based equitable trade and finance settlement system. 

Part 3 in the series “From pioneer to fallen giant: How Hewlett Packard’s long list of failed acquisitions cost its reputation.” 

Read Part 1 “Billion dollar bungles” here;

and Part 2 “The Autonomy Deal – Part 1: Leo Apotheker’s Downfall“ here.

The Autonomy deal – part 2: Corporate conspiracy and cover-up

In the first article in this series, we looked at how in the first decade of the 21st century, Hewlett Packard lurched from one disastrous acquisition to another. We then zoomed in on one of the most controversial of HP’s acquisitions – the Autonomy deal – which quickly fell to pieces.

In this article, we’ll pick up the story in summer 2012. Meg Whitman, HP’s CEO, had signaled she had given up on any attempt to properly integrate the newly purchased Autonomy by firing its founder, Dr Mike Lynch.

This could have been the end of it. Like so many of HP’s previous failed acquisitions, the Autonomy story might be now remembered as an embarrassing footnote in HP’s long history.

Instead, more than a decade on, the HP-Autonomy saga is still playing out in the headlines and in courtrooms in the UK and US. The origins of this battle are the day in November 2012 when HP launched a calculated attack on Autonomy’s leadership, claiming with extraordinary bluster it had been defrauded when acquiring the company. The latest season in this long-running drama will start in a few days in a California court, where Dr Lynch is being tried as a criminal.

Backing up a few months to July 2012, it was plain that HP was in serious trouble. Since the start of 2011, its share price had fallen from $20.5 to barely over $6.

By this point, it was obvious that HP would have to conduct a write-down of its assets to bring its book value back in-line with its market value. This accounting exercise was the responsibility of CFO Cathie Lesjak. As explained in the previous article in the series, Lesjak was firmly against the Autonomy acquisition and fought tooth-and-nail to kill the deal. She asked her team to conduct an analysis of Autonomy’s value to see if an impairment should be recognized.

Her team concluded that the fair value of Autonomy approximated the carrying value. In other words, no impairment was necessary. Indeed, as documents uncovered in the various court cases that followed show, HP’s accountants still saw potential in Autonomy. They suggested its poor performance was due to “execution issues caused by challenges with operating Autonomy in the HP environment and loss of the legacy Autonomy management team.” In their opinion, Autonomy was still worth what HP paid for it.

This was an unhelpful view insofar as HP still needed to find ways to bring its book and market cap in-line with one another. Logic would dictate other HP assets and business lines would have to be written down.

But CEO Meg Whitman was desperate to avoid that outcome. Let’s consider her position. Whitman had recently lost a bruising gubernatorial race, where she came under personal attack for hiring an illegal immigrant as a housemaid, and managed to blow $140m of her own money.

It is reasonable to assume that if she took the job at HP, she would recoup some of those losses, both financial and reputational. Whitman would be forgiven if she was utterly dismayed when she walked into the dumpster fire that was HP. Presiding over the rapid decline of what was once a Silicon Valley giant would not do much for her resume.

HP’s eyes turned to Autonomy once gain – as detailed in the previous article, it was a deeply annoying leftover from the Apotheker regime. Cathie Lesjak, still CFO, didn’t want to HP to acquire it in the first place.

HP began to create a negative narrative about the Autonomy business. They were going to ruthlessly target it so it would become the scapegoat for the failings of HP’s declining empire.

To reach the end goal of publicly pointing the finger at Autonomy, HP embarked on a series of financial manipulations.

First, they fiddled with growth rates. Documents show that HP dramatically cut the projected revenue growth for Autonomy on the basis that its revenues had declined while under HP’s management.

Then, in October, HP’s accountants took out the expected synergies. That allowed them to reach a valuation of $1.6bn.

But of course, under that analysis, HP would effectively be admitting to the market that it had made a mess of the integration, and wouldn’t gain a cent of revenue growth it said it would when it acquired Autonomy. Such a narrative would make it appear that Meg Whitman and her allies had failed to make anything of the Autonomy deal. Whitman realised this. Internal HP communications show how she had the figures changed to put $2.3bn worth of synergies put back in.

The third move was to play with discount rates. A higher rate was applied to Autonomy to make its value smaller. While HP had applied a discount rate of 9.5% to Autonomy in August 2012, by October, it artificially increased that rate to 15% to come up with the impairment it wanted. As with the synergies, Whitman intervened at the 11th hour, the night before the board was due to meet to discuss the impairment, asking that this was increased again to 16%.

HP’s finance team were, understandably, getting worried about these entirely arbitrary calculations that they were being asked to make. One HP accountant described the results as “nonsensical”.

By October 2012, HP had formulated a valuation for Autonomy of $2.2 billion – a write down of $8.8 billion – through a combination of lower growth rates, lower margins, lower projected synergies, and the “nonsensical” discount rate. This wasn’t the result of methodical review based on detailed accounting or a report from external advisors.

But all this begs a huge question: where does fraud come into this?

After all, Dr Mike Lynch is about to be tried for wire and securities fraud as a result of HP’s claim. However, as seen in court documents, in October 2012 after weeks of work by HP’s finance team, there was nothing to suggest a suspected fraud orchestrated by Autonomy’s people was the reason behind their write-down of the company. 

That’s what made HP’s next move all the more incomprehensible.

On November 20, 2012, it told the market it had been the victim of “serious accounting improprieties, misrepresentations and disclosure failures” during the course of the Autonomy acquisition. HP said this was the reason for $5.2bn of the $8.8bn write-down announced that day. In a press release, HP said that it had run an “intense internal investigation” into these “improprieties”, which included a “forensic review by PwC” of Autonomy’s financial records.

This was a flat-out lie. No investigation took place, let alone a “forensic” review. The conclusion HP came to – that Autonomy and its leadership was somehow crooked – was pre-determined to fit HP’s narrative. The $5.2 billion figure was cooked up in the weeks preceding, it was not the result of extensive evidence gathering.

HP peddled this myth all in a bid to save face and direct the market away from its own steep decline. On the same day, HP released its latest set of disappointing results: reporting revenue was down 7% and net losses reached $6.9 billion. It was a “tough quarter across the board” as CNN put it.

After the initial shock of HP’s bombshell write-down announcement, investors and the media began poking around more deliberately.

HP’s Head of Investor Relations was clearly uncomfortable, stating in internal communications that he thought it “disingenuous” that HP were not being up front about the fact that the expected synergies had not been achieved post-acquisition.

And it wasn’t just HP staffers who were unhappy. As a New York Times piece points out, HP’s external accounts, Ernst & Young, did not believe there were accounting irregularities involved.

An email exchange involving Lesjak and HP’s Chief Communications Officer highlighted that the media couldn’t understand how HP had reached the $5.2 billion figure. The CCO asked if the finance team could prepare an infographic to help show HP’s working.

But of course, there was no detailed working. So when Lesjak asked for more details, she received an email on 30 November from a member of her team stating, “we’ve never formally prepared anything to attribute the irregularities to the amount of the write down”.

In another email trail between Lesjak and the HP communications team she argued it would be better not to “go down this path” with the media, since she herself could not explain how the $5.2 billion figure had been arrived at.

The fact that a major corporation’s CFO could not explain the basis of a market-critical announcement speaks volumes. Lesjak’s haziness on the matter was exposed when she was cross-examined in a British court years later.

HP could not justify its claims then, nor can it justify them now. The company’s track record on acquisitions was so poor, and its overall performance so abysmal, that its leadership made a calculated decision to concoct a claim of fraud rather than admit the Autonomy integration was yet another HP management disaster. And when difficult questions arose about the write-down, HP’s leadership closed ranks and doubled down on their claim, despite the doubts of colleagues and external consultants.  

To this day, HP continues to demand its pound of flesh, somehow convincing itself it has been a victim.  It has spent millions of dollars on lawyers and PR in the process. This is shareholder’s money, all to protect the reputation of Meg Whitman and her CFO.

All too predictably, the Silicon Valley company and its army of lawyers has got its way. The US Government orchestrated the extradition of Autonomy’s founder, Dr Mike Lynch, and he will face trial in California this month.

It is a stark and shocking reminder of two things: one, the once great Hewlett Packard lost its way long ago, and has burnt through cash trying to acquire its way out of trouble, and two, the lengths corporate America will go to avoid facing up to difficult truths.

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Public officials may block people on social media in certain situations, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on March 15.

At the same time, the court held that public officials who post about topics pertaining to their work on their personal social media accounts are acting on behalf of the government. But such officials can be found liable for violating the First Amendment only when they have been properly authorized by the government to communicate on its behalf.

The case is important because nowadays public officials routinely reach out to voters through social media on the same pages where they discuss personal matters unrelated to government business.

“When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the nation’s highest court.

The case is separate from but brings to mind a lawsuit that several individuals previously filed against former President Donald Trump after he blocked them from accessing his social media account on Twitter, which was later renamed X. The Supreme Court dismissed that case, Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, in April 2021 as moot because President Trump had already left office.

At the time of the ruling, the then-Twitter had banned President Trump. When Elon Musk took over the company he reversed that policy.

The new decision in Lindke v. Freed was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Respondent James Freed, the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, used a public Facebook account to communicate with his constituents. Petitioner Kevin Lindke, a resident of Port Huron, criticized the municipality’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including accusations of hypocrisy by local officials.

Mr. Freed blocked Mr. Lindke and others and removed their comments, according to Mr. Lindke’s petition.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled for Mr. Freed, finding that he was acting only in a personal capacity and that his activities did not constitute governmental action.

Mr. Freed’s attorney, Victoria Ferres, said during oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Oct. 31, 2023, that her client didn’t give up his rights when using social media.

“This country’s 21 million government employees should have the right to talk publicly about their jobs on personal social media accounts like their private-sector counterparts.”

The position advocated by the other side would unfairly punish government officials, and “will result in uncertainty and self-censorship for this country’s government employees despite this Court repeatedly finding that government employees do not lose their rights merely by virtue of public employment,” she said.

In Lindke v. Freed, the Supreme Court found that a public official who prevents a person from comments on the official’s social media pages engages in governmental action under Section 1983 only if the official had “actual authority” to speak on the government’s behalf on a specific matter and if the official claimed to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social media posts.

Section 1983 refers to Title 42, U.S. Code, Section 1983, which allows people to sue government actors for deprivation of civil rights.

Justice Barrett wrote that according to the so-called state action doctrine, the test for “actual authority” must be “rooted in written law or longstanding custom to speak for the State.”

“That authority must extend to speech of the sort that caused the alleged rights deprivation. If the plaintiff cannot make this threshold showing of authority, he cannot establish state action.”

“For social-media activity to constitute state action, an official must not only have state authority—he must also purport to use it,” the justice continued.

“State officials have a choice about the capacity in which they choose to speak.”

Citing previous precedent, Justice Barrett wrote that generally a public employee claiming to speak on behalf of the government acts with state authority when he speaks “in his official capacity or” when he uses his speech to carry out “his responsibilities pursuant to state law.”

“If the public employee does not use his speech in furtherance of his official responsibilities, he is speaking in his own voice.”

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the 6th Circuit with instructions to vacate its judgment and ordered it to conduct “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Also on March 15, the Supreme Court ruled on O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, a related case. The court’s sparse, unanimous opinion was unsigned.

Petitioners Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane were two elected members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees in California who used their personal Facebook and Twitter accounts to communicate with the public.

Respondents Christopher Garnier and Kimberly Garnier, parents of local students, “spammed Petitioners’ posts and tweets with repetitive comments and replies” so the school board members blocked the respondents from the accounts, according to the petition filed by Ms. O’Connor-Ratcliff and Mr. Zane.

But the Garniers said they were acting in good faith.

“The Garniers left comments exposing financial mismanagement by the former superintendent as well as incidents of racism,” the couple said in a brief.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found in favor of the Garniers, holding that elected officials using social media accounts were participating in a public forum.

The Supreme Court ruled in a three-page opinion that because the 9th Circuit deviated from the standard the high court articulated in Lindke v. Freed, the 9th Circuit’s decision must be vacated.

The case was remanded to the 9th Circuit “for further proceedings consistent with our opinion” in the Lindke case, the Supreme Court stated.

Planet Fitness is defending its decision to ban the membership of a customer in Alaska who spoke out about a “man in women’s locker room shaving.”

Patricia Silva left the gym in Fairbanks, Alaska and shared a video on Facebook where she said: “I just came out of Planet Fitness. There is a man shaving in the women’s bathroom.”

She also said the man “woman” was in the locker room at the same time as a 12 year old girl. 

Woman in Planet Fitness claims she went into the bathroom and this man who thinks he’s a woman was in there shaving.

Why does @PlanetFitness allow men to use the women’s bathroom and invade women’s private spaces?? pic.twitter.com/qVJ0YUFQvc

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 12, 2024

She added: “I love him in Christ. He is a spiritual being having a human experience. He doesn’t like his gender so he wants to be a woman, but I’m not comfortable with him shaving in my bathroom.”

Planet Fitness didn’t take kindly to the interaction and cancelled Silva’s membership, telling ABC affiliate WDPE: “As the home of the Judgement Free Zone, Planet Fitness is committed to creating an inclusive environment.”

The gym said: “Our gender identity non-discrimination policy states that members and guests may use the gym facilities that best align with their sincere, self-reported gender identity. The member who posted on social media violated our mobile device policy that prohibits taking photos of individuals in the locker room, which resulted in their membership being terminated.”

Planet Fitness’ website currently states: “At Planet Fitness, we celebrate and champion diversity and provide an environment where everyone feels accepted, respected and like they belong. Planet Fitness prohibits discrimination and harassment that is based on gender identity or gender expression in the workplace and in our clubs. The following is our corporate policy regarding the accommodation of our members and team members in terms of their gender identity.”

“Planet Fitness prohibits discrimination and harassment that is based on gender identity or gender expression in the workplace and in our clubs.”

WOW. Planet Fitness is standing by their decision to allow men in women’s locker rooms.

Their policies actually allow males in female spaces. They instruct women to just deal with their discomfort and make sure not to misgender the trans person in their locker room.… https://t.co/1fA52PY21Q pic.twitter.com/wl5ZCxMtVs

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 15, 2024

Submitted by Decensored News

Decensored News joined forces with independent news outlet The Grayzone this week, producing/editing a video based around footage of Grayzone contributor Liam Cosgrove confronting several pro-Israel congressmen over their hypocritical condemnation of the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” (see above).

They suddenly didn’t find it inherently “genocidal” anymore when Cosgrove quoted from the 1977 original Israeli Likud party platform for them, which contains a similar phrase (bold added):

The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

Much more recently, Benjamin Netanyahu said during a January 2024 news conference that “in any future arrangement… Israel needs security control over all territory west of the Jordan River.”

“This is a necessary condition, and it collides with the idea of sovereignty,” he added. “What can you do?”

“Rep. Rashida Tlaib was censured by her colleagues for calling for Palestinians to be liberated from apartheid ‘from the river to the sea,’ ” said Grayzone editor-in-chief Max Blumenthal while sharing the video above on X.

“Rep. Brian Mast declares, ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will never be,’ knowing nothing will happen except more AIPAC donations.”

Democratic congressmen Dan Goldman and Jared Moskotwitz also appear in the video, engaging in what The Grayzone called “obscene levels of hypocrisy.”

This is Decensored News’ second collaboration with Cosgrove, having previously worked with him on a video based around interviews he conducted with congressmen Dan Crenshaw, Byron Donalds, August Pfluger, and Juan Ciscomani a few months ago.

See from November: “Pro-Israel Congressmen pressed on Israel’s long history of deliberately propping up Hamas“

MUST SEE: Journalist @cosgrove_iv presses pro-Israel Congressmen about Benjamin Netanyahu & the Israeli government’s long history of propping up Hamas

“Shouldn’t you look into this BEFORE we send billions of dollars over to Israel?”

Ft. @ScottHortonShow & @ComicDaveSmith pic.twitter.com/BwJXrcAJst

— Decensored News (@decensorednews) December 12, 2023

For more reporting like this, please follow Decensored News on your favorite social media platforms and bookmark the website. Liam Cosgrove can be found on X (@cosgrove_iv).