68.3 F
Chicago
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
Home Blog Page 3617

Where It’s Most (& Least) Common To Be LGBT+

Where It’s Most (& Least) Common To Be LGBT+

Nine percent of adults identify as LGBT+, according to a 2023 survey conducted online in 30 countries by Ipsos for Pride month.

In this survey, LGBT+ includes people who identify as Lesbian/gay/homosexual, Bisexual, Pansexual/omnisexual, Asexual, Transgender, Non-binary/gender non-conforming/gender-fluid and Other than male or female.

As Statista’s Anna Fleck shows in the following chart, there’s notable variation between countries.

Infographic: Where It’s Most (& Least) Common To Be LGBT+ | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Brazil has the highest share of people identifying as LGBT+, at 15 percent while Spain comes in a close second place with 14 percent of adults, followed by Switzerland (13 percent), Great Britain (12 percent) and the Netherlands (12 percent). Spain is the country where respondents were most likely to say they are gay or lesbian (6 percent) while Brazil and the Netherlands were where the highest share of respondents said they are bisexual (7 percent both).

Meanwhile, the United States comes in just above the 30-country average of 9 percent, with 10 percent of adults saying they identified as LGBT+ in 2023.

When looking at sexual orientation in the U.S., 3 percent of respondents identified as gay, 5 percent as bisexual and one percent pansexual or omnisexual.

At the lower end of the spectrum comes Ireland and Poland with 6 percent of adults identifying as LGBT+ in each. This contrast is somewhat surprising considering the countries’ vastly different stances on LGBT+ rights. Where Ireland legalized gay marriage in 2015 by popular vote with a landslide victory of 62 percent (versus only 38 percent no), Poland has seen a downturn of LGBT+ rights in recent years, with dozens of municipalities even declaring themselves so-called “LGBT-free zones”. Peru had the lowest share of people saying they were LGBT of the surveyed countries at only 4 percent.

There was also considerable variation across age groups: across the 30-country average, 18 percent of Gen Zers self-identified as LGBT+ population versus 10 percent of Millennials, 6 percent of Gen Xers and only 4 percent among Baby Boomers.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/08/2023 – 05:45

AI Could Threaten Humanity Within 2 Years, Warns UK AI Task-Force Adviser

AI Could Threaten Humanity Within 2 Years, Warns UK AI Task-Force Adviser

Authored by Savannah Fortis via CoinTelegraph.com,

The U.K. prime minister’s AI task force adviser said large AI models would need regulation and control in the next two years to curb major existential risks…

The artificial intelligence (AI) task force adviser to the prime minister of the United Kingdom said humans have roughly two years to control and regulate AI before it becomes too powerful.

In an interview with a local U.K. media outlet, Matt Clifford, who also serves as the chair of the government’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), stressed that current systems are getting “more and more capable at an ever-increasing rate.”

He continued to say that if officials don’t consider safety and regulations now, the systems will become “very powerful” in two years.

“We’ve got two years to get in place a framework that makes both controlling and regulating these very large models much more possible than it is today.”

Clifford warned that there are “a lot of different types of risks” when it comes to AI, both in the near term and long term, which he called “pretty scary.”

The interview came following a recent open letter published by the Center for AI Safety, signed by 350 AI experts, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, that said AI should be treated as an existential threat similar to that posed by nuclear weapons and pandemics.

“They’re talking about what happens once we effectively create a new species, sort of an intelligence that’s greater than humans.

The AI task force adviser said that these threats posed by AI could be “very dangerous” and could “kill many humans, not all humans, simply from where we’d expect models to be in two years’ time.”

According to Clifford, regulators and developers’ primary focus should be understanding how to control the models and then implementing regulations on a global scale.

For now, he said his greatest fear is the lack of understanding of why AI models behave the way they do.

“The people who are building the most capable systems freely admit that they don’t understand exactly how [AI systems] exhibit the behaviors that they do.”

Clifford highlighted that many of the leaders of organizations building AI also agree that powerful AI models must undergo some kind of audit and evaluation process before deployment. 

Currently, regulators worldwide are scrambling to understand the technology and its ramifications, while trying to create regulations that protect users and still allow for innovation. 

On June 5, officials in the European Union went so far as to suggest mandating all AI-generated content should be labeled as such to prevent disinformation.

In the U.K., a front-bench member of the opposition Labour Party echoed the sentiments mentioned in the Center for AI Safety’s letter, saying technology should be regulated like medicine and nuclear power.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/08/2023 – 05:00

CRE Warning Sign: Goldman Might Sell Ireland’s Largest Mall At Loss

CRE Warning Sign: Goldman Might Sell Ireland’s Largest Mall At Loss

The latest warning sign the commercial real estate market is sliding into a downturn is news from Bloomberg that Goldman Sachs is trying to unload Ireland’s largest shopping mall for a loss after acquiring it two years ago.

Bloomberg said a source had explained Goldman is asking €650 million ($695 million) for the Blanchardstown Shopping Centre in west Dublin. The property was acquired from Blackstone Group LP in the second half of 2020 for €750. 

The person said Goldman had discussions with CBRE and Eastdil Secured about a potential sale of the giant mall that contains 180 retail units and is anchored by several large tenants. 

And why Goldman thought purchasing a shopping mall, nevertheless the largest one in Ireland, was a good idea, considering the rise of e-commerce, is beyond our comprehension. 

The Irish CRE market has shown signs of a slowdown this year, with a significant reduction in investment volumes as high-interest rates make it challenging for properties to refinance or pull lines of credit. 

Across the Atlantic, first-quarter CRE prices in the US slid for the first time since 2011, according to data last month from Moody’s Analytics. 

And Goldman Sachs chief credit strategist Lotfi Karoui recently told clients “the most accurate portrayal of current market conditions” is data via the Green Street Commercial Property Price Index, which suggests trouble ahead:

That said, at the current juncture, they likely provide the most accurate portrayal of current market conditions with Green Street indicating a 25% year-over-year drop in office property values and a 21% drop in apartment property values.

Buy low and sell high, something Goldman isn’t going to do with Ireland’s largest shopping mall. Yet another sign CRE markets are likely peaked and turned down. 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/08/2023 – 04:15

Yacht Watch: Oligarchs Triumph in Courts (So Far)

Yacht Watch: Oligarchs Triumph in Courts (So Far)

By Bradley Hope of Whale Hunting,

Welcome to Whale Hunting, a weekly newsletter delving into the hidden worlds of wealth and power. This week contributor Alex Finley revives her #YachtWatch franchise to catch up on how a number of Russian tycoons are using legal tools to stop Western efforts to seize their assets in the aftermath of the Russian war on Ukraine.

Last September, 250 German police officers fanned out across the country raiding villas and other properties belonging to Alisher Usmanov, a Russian oligarch who made his fortune from the ashes of the Soviet Union, building up an estimated wealth of $14.3 billion. Another 60 officials from Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office and tax authorities raided Dilbar, Usmanov’s 156-meter megayacht worth an estimated $600 million.

Authorities seized millions of dollars-worth of art and caches of documents. It looked like a massive haul of evidence for a money laundering investigation the state had launched against the oligarch, who was sanctioned by the European Union last year as Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

But last month a German court declared those search warrants were unlawful. The ruling marked a big win for Usmanov, who has joined a chorus of other Russian oligarchs aiming to use the free world’s rule of law and stable justice systems to get back their assets that were seized by governments claiming they were corruptly acquired using Russia’s crony kleptocracy.

According to reporting in Der Spiegel, German officials had moved to a money laundering and tax evasion investigation after sanctions law proved too feeble to do anything more than freezing Usmanov’s assets. While sanctioning oligarchs and detaining their megayachts had proved cathartic for a time, some governments were looking to get the assets off their hands because of the costs involved in maintaining them.

Indeed, German taxpayers have been paying around $70,000 a day to maintain Dilbar, which had been in drydock in a private shipyard in Hamburg when Usmanov was sanctioned. The shipyard eventually needed that space for other clients (Dilbar is the third largest private yacht by volume, with a gross tonnage of nearly 16,000 GT, so it was taking up a large part of the shipyard). The yacht was then tugged down the Elbe river to Bremen, where it has been kept ever since.

A hotel CCTV captures Dilbar being tugged along the Elbe river to Bremen

Dilbar

German officials decided criminal tax law would be better suited to seize Usmanov’s assets and sell them off. They began focusing on tax evasion and money laundering, uncovering 90 “suspicious” money laundering reports and an opaque web of shell companies in Dilbar’s ownership structure.

The yacht belongs to Navis Marine Limited, which is registered in the Cayman Islands. Navis Marine is owned by Almenor Holdings Limited in Cyprus, whose shares are held by Pomerol Capital SA in Switzerland, in a trust for The Sisters Trust, which Usmanov originally created but now claims is related to his sister.

In the raids of Usmanov’s properties on land, authorities found millions of dollars-worth of artwork, including four Fabergé eggs (Usmanov insists they are replicas). The raid on Dilbar and on a warehouse that was holding items that had been moved off Dilbar while she underwent maintenance uncovered at least thirty works of art, including a painting by the Russian-French expressionist Marc Chagall.

But the German courts have determined those raids were illegal. The court said there was no initial suspicion of money laundering when the assets were seized. The judge also criticized the government’s reliance on an investigation by imprisoned Putin critic Alexei Navalny and published on YouTube, declaring it was not evidence enough to have issued search warrants.

Russian President Vladimir Putin presents Alisher Usmanov with an award in 2018 (Kremlin)

Usmanov is pretty pleased with the outcome. His lawyers said the decision had renewed Usmanov’s faith in the German constitutional state. His lawyers are now filing an effort to force the government to pay for damages from the raids.

Usmanov isn’t the only oligarch who has relied on the courts to try to get back his assets, or at least avoid having them auctioned off.

After US authorities won a battle in Fijian courts and sailed away on the yacht Amadea last year, a lawyer for the company that owns the yacht filed a last-ditch effort to prevent the US from selling it off, as President Biden has claimed he wants to do.

The 106-meter yacht, worth an estimated $325 million, is now floating in a San Diego port and costs about a million dollars a month to maintain, according to court documents. The case for forfeiture of the yacht remains sealed, so it unclear if the US government has filed documents to move ahead with selling it. Likely, US officials had been waiting for a last-ditch court effort to play out in Fiji.

Feizel Haniff, a lawyer representing Millemarin Investments LTD, which is the company that—on paper—owns Amadea, filed an appeal to Fiji’s Supreme Court in an effort to overturn the decision that allowed the US government to take ownership of the vessel. He reiterated his argument that the yacht’s ultimate beneficial owner is Eduard Khudainatov—who is not sanctioned in the United States—and not, as the US government insisted, sanctioned Russian oligarch Suleiman Kerimov, whom the US claimed was involved in money laundering and sanctions evasion.

The US determined Kerimov was the owner of Amadea based on a number of documents found during a search of the yacht that proved a number of changes made on the boat had been done at Kerimov’s direction. Those included requests for the construction of a pizza oven and delivery of a spa bed and jet skis and other toys for his kids. The search also yielded another Fabergé egg. (Experts are still trying to determine if it is real or a replica.)

US investigators also rejected the notion that Khudainatov could possibly be the owner of Amadea. He has also been held up as the owner of Scheherazade. That megayacht has been detained by Italian officials and is suspected of being Putin’s yacht. An investigation by Navalny (similar to the one that German courts found insufficient as evidence for search warrants) revealed a number of names on Scheherazade’s crew list who were also members of the presidential security service. The yacht is worth an estimated $700 million.

US authorities questioned how Khudainatov, who, unlike Kerimov, is not a multibillionaire, could afford to own both Amadea and Scheherazade, two yachts with a combined worth of more than a billion dollars, suggesting Khudainatov was being held up as a straw owner of both yachts.

On May 18, Haniff lost his appeal to Fiji’s high court, which determined the US seizure of the yacht was legal and noting there was nothing to be done about it anyway since, well, that ship had already sailed. Now that Millemarin has run out of legal options and the Fiji court case has been resolved, we’ll keep our eyes open for when the US formally files for forfeiture of the Amadea.

The US has given a license to allow the auction of a different yacht to go forward, however.

The Amadea in Antibes, 2019 (Sukkoria)

The Alfa Nero has been docked in Antigua and Barbuda since March of last year, racking up maintenance and other costs of about $112,000 a month. The 81-meter, $81 million yacht (that’s a million dollars a meter) is believed to be owned by Andrey Guryev, a fertilizer magnate, but he denies it and says he only uses (or used) the boat every now and then.

The government of Antigua and Barbuda thus determined the yacht had been abandoned and the country’s Minister of Justice and attorney general declared the boat was “a hazard to shipping and to the harbor where it is moored.” It thus sought to have the yacht auctioned off.

In May, the US government granted a license to allow the Antiguan government to do just that. More than twenty bids have already come in for the yacht, even though the exact timing of the auction has not been determined. Local reports say the bidders, as well, had to seek licenses from the US Treasury to allow them to participate in the auction. This would allow authorities to do due diligence and ensure the oligarch is not simply buying his boat back.

This became an issue in the auction of a different Russian yacht, the $75 million dollar Axioma, which was seized last year by JP Morgan. The bank claimed the yacht’s owner, Dmitry Pumpyansky, had defaulted on a loan. It auctioned the vessel off in September for $37.5 million, among rumors that the Turkish buyer planned to bring it back to Turkey and possibly sell it back to Pumpyansky. The rumor has not been confirmed, but the yacht is now in Turkey and its builder, Dunya Yachts, is currently building a support yacht for Axioma.

In the meantime, as Alfa Nero awaits its auction, her crew has shrunk from 44 to six. Those last hangers-on have been killing time playing Call of Duty in the master cabin and swimming in the yacht’s infinity pool.

Alexey Kuzmichev, the founder of Alfa Group and LetterOne, did manage to free his two yachts, La Petite Ourse and La Petite Ourse II, which French authorities had seized. While these yachts are less ostentatious as many of the megayachts we’ve focused on, they are still worth a few million dollars each.

Similar to the case involving Usmanov and Dilbar, French courts determined French officials did not follow proper procedure in detaining the yachts. The rulings granted Kuzmichev the right to use the vessels, but only in French territorial waters, while authorities continue with their investigation.

Practically speaking, Kuzmichev still cannot access his yachts, since he is sanctioned in Europe and cannot travel to France. But that doesn’t mean his friends and family cannot take the boats out for a spin. Additionally, the court ordered the French state to pay him 10,000 euros.

The fight over the yacht Amore Vero is also playing out in French courts. The $120 million yacht was one of the first captured in the frenzy of seizing oligarch assets last year. It is believed to be owned by Igor Sechin, chairman of Rosneft. Last June a lawyer representing the company that owns the yacht claimed the legal measure used to seize it was unlawful. The judge in that matter declared, months later, that he was not the right judge to make the decision, and he kicked it to a different tribunal in Marseille. It is unclear where that legal matter currently stands. However, the yacht’s lawyer recently told Le Figaro that French authorities seized the vessel for political, rather than legal, reasons, suggesting that in the end, the fate of Amore Vero will be decided between the Elysee Palace and the Kremlin.

The Tango (right), seized in Barcelona in 2022 (Maarten Visser)

Lastly, there is Tango, Viktor Vekselberg’s yacht, which Spanish authorities seized on behalf of the United States. Earlier this year, the US Department of Justice unsealed indictments of Richard Masters and Vladislov Osipov, claiming the two had helped Vekselberg evade sanctions. Masters runs a yacht maintenance company in Mallorca, and Osipov allegedly helped set up shell companies to help Masters hide the movement of money related to the yacht.

Masters was arrested by Spanish officials, but released in Madrid after having his passport confiscated. He must check in with authorities every two weeks and the United States is working on his extradition. An arrest warrant has been issued for Osipov, a Russian-Swiss citizen.

In the meantime, Tango remains docked in Palma de Mallorca, with the US government paying her bills.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/08/2023 – 03:30

“Coming Back To Earth”: UK House Prices Book First Annual Drop Since 2012

“Coming Back To Earth”: UK House Prices Book First Annual Drop Since 2012

Lender Halifax published a new report showing UK house prices recorded their first annual contraction in May in over a decade. The decline was attributed to an affordability crisis faced by buyers. A price reversal signals the possibility the housing boom has come to an abrupt halt. 

“House prices were largely unchanged in May, edging down very slightly (-£130) compared to April, with the average UK property now costing £286,532. More notably, the annual rate of growth fell to -1.0%, marking the first time since 2012 that house prices have fallen year-on-year. Given the effectively flat month, the annual decline largely reflects a comparison with strong house prices this time last year, as the market continued to be buoyant heading into the summer,” Kim Kinnaird, the director at Halifax Mortgages, wrote in the report. 

Kinnaird said, “Property prices have now fallen by about £3,000 over the last 12 months and are down around £7,500 from the peak in August. But prices are still £5,000 up since the end of last year, and £25,000 above the level of two years ago.” 

Kinnaird explained the Bank of England still has more interest rate hikes this year that will continue to exert downward pressure on the housing market:

“With consumer price inflation remaining stubbornly high, markets are pricing in several more rate rises that would take Base Rate above 5% for the first time since the start of 2008. Those expectations have led fixed mortgage rates to start rising again across the market.

This will inevitably impact confidence in the housing market as both buyers and sellers adjust their expectations, and latest industry figures for both mortgage approvals and completed transactions show demand is cooling. Therefore further downward pressure on house prices is still expected.” 

Using the WIRP function from the Bloomberg terminal, the market believes the BoE has at least three more hikes, maybe even four, by the end of the year, for a terminal rate of around 5.46%. 

Additional interest rate hikes will keep mortgage rates edging higher and send first-time buyers back onto the sidelines because home ownership costs are too expensive.  Recall the Brits have experienced a terrible cost-of-living crisis due to elevated inflation (read: here & here). And has caused the most labor actions since the late 1980s

As of Wednesday, the financial data provider Moneyfacts reported that the average rate for a new two-year fixed mortgage was 5.79%. This marked an increase from 5.26% at the beginning of May.

Some economists warn there is more downside to housing prices: “The UK housing market is coming back down to earth after a strong three years, not falling off a cliff,” Tom Bill, head of UK residential research at Knight Frank, told Bloomberg. 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/08/2023 – 02:45

BBC Is Biased “On Occasion”, Admits UK Culture Secretary

BBC Is Biased “On Occasion”, Admits UK Culture Secretary

Authored by Evgenia Filimianova via The Epoch Times,

The UK Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer has told a group of MPs that the BBC is biased on occasion, but refused to give any specific examples.

In her first appearance before the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee since she took up the post in February, Frazer said that she was a supporter of the BBC and the content it produces.

“But it does need to understand its duties in relation to partiality,” she told the committee.

The BBC, headed by Director General Tim Davie, is currently undergoing a review of the company’s compliance with editorial standards and effectiveness in representing audiences from working class backgrounds.

“I think that it is really important that the BBC takes its responsibility in terms of editorial standards and impartiality very seriously… I think Tim Davie takes that responsibility very seriously and I think we should ensure that the BBC, as a public service broadcaster which is meant to be there to provide impartial news to the public, fulfils that duty, and I think unfortunately it doesn’t always get that right,” Frazer said.

Media monitoring group News-Watch has called the BBC “unfit for purpose,” reporting (pdf) that out of 1.7 million complaints between 2017 and 2022, the broadcaster upheld only 126. In its survey submitted to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport in April, News-Watch argued that the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit was biased against complainants’ points of view.

“I’m not going to give any specific examples of the examples of bias, but I think there are often complaints about the BBC, some of which have been taken up by Ofcom, which have been shown to be biased,” Frazer told the committee.

The culture secretary said that her department was looking into issues of future sustainability of the broadcaster.

Pedestrians walk past a BBC logo at Broadcasting House in London, Jan. 29, 2020. (Reuters/Henry Nicholls/File Photo)

Funding and Controversy

Asked about alternative ways of funding the BBC, apart from license fee payments by UK households, Frazer said: “The license fee isn’t the only way to fund it. One issue that faces the BBC is the number of households with TV license has fallen by 1.2 million since 2017 to 2020. There is an issue with how much the license fee can raise and does raise.”

In response to a question on defunding the BBC, Frazer said she was “definitely a supporter of the BBC” and her department would look into the ways the broadcaster is funded “very carefully.”

The committee asked several questions about the ex-BBC Chairman Richard Sharp, a former banker with Goldman Sachs, who helped former Prime Minister Boris Johnson secure an £800,000 loan facility.

“People outside this country look at this and they really think it’s shoddy, the idea that you can give hundreds of thousands of pounds to a political party and can end up getting a plumb public service job, even if, as in the case of Mr. Sharp, you have no experience whatsoever of broadcasting,” the SNP’s John Nicholson told Frazer.

Frazer said he met Sharp in person after his resignation and spoke to him about the direction of the BBC and called him “knowledgeable.” The secretary added that she would like “the broadest possible field” of candidates for the role of BBC chairman.

Since Sharp’s resignation, the Commissioner of Public Appointments has launched an inquiry (pdf) into the appointment process for the chair of the BBC Board, to be led by Adam Heppinstall, KC.

Frazer told the committee that she has “lots of views,” when questioned about the controversy caused by a Twitter post by BBC presenter Gary Lineker. However, she didn’t give any details, adding she would wait for the BBC’s report on the matter.

Lineker was temporarily taken off air earlier this year after saying the language used by the government to promote its asylum plans was not dissimilar to that used in 1930s Germany.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/08/2023 – 02:00

Rule By Decree: The Emergency State’s Plot To Override The Constitution

Rule By Decree: The Emergency State’s Plot To Override The Constitution

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

Rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.”

– Justice Neil Gorsuch

We have become a nation in a permanent state of emergency.

Power-hungry and lawless, the government has weaponized one national crisis after another in order to expand its powers and justify all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security.

COVID-19, for example, served as the driving force behind what Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch characterized asthe greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country.”

In a statement attached to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. Mayorkas, a case that challenged whether the government could continue to use it pandemic powers even after declaring the public health emergency over, Gorsuch provided a catalog of the many ways in which the government used COVID-19 to massively overreach its authority and suppress civil liberties:

Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too. They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.

“Federal executive officials entered the act too.  Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide. They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans.  They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement.  Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.

“While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent.  Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them. In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmaking-by-litigation.”

Yet while the government’s (federal and state) handling of the COVID-19 pandemic delivered a knockout blow to our civil liberties, empowering the police state to flex its powers by way of a bevy of lockdowns, mandates, restrictions, contact tracing programs, heightened surveillance, censorship, overcriminalization, etc., it was merely one crisis in a long series of crises that the government has shamelessly exploited in order to justify its power grabs and acclimate the citizenry to a state of martial law disguised as emergency powers.

These attempts to use various crises to override the Constitution are still happening.

It doesn’t even matter what the nature of the crisis might be: civil unrest, the national emergencies, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”

They have all become fair game to a government that continues to quietly assemble, test and deploy emergency powers a long laundry list of terrifying powers that override the Constitution and can be activated at a moment’s notice.

We’re talking about lockdown powers (at both the federal and state level): the ability to suspend the Constitution, indefinitely detain American citizens, bypass the courts, quarantine whole communities or segments of the population, override the First Amendment by outlawing religious gatherings and assemblies of more than a few people, shut down entire industries and manipulate the economy, muzzle dissidents, “stop and seize any plane, train or automobile to stymie the spread of contagious disease,” reshape financial markets, create a digital currency (and thus further restrict the use of cash), determine who should live or die.

While these are powers the police state has been working to make permanent, they barely scratch the surface of the far-reaching powers the government has unilaterally claimed for itself without any pretense of being reined in or restricted in its power grabs by Congress, the courts or the citizenry.

As David C. Unger, observes in The Emergency State: America’s Pursuit of Absolute Security at All Costs:

“For seven decades we have been yielding our most basic liberties to a secretive, unaccountable emergency state – a vast but increasingly misdirected complex of national security institutions, reflexes, and beliefs that so define our present world that we forget that there was ever a different America. … Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have given way to permanent crisis management: to policing the planet and fighting preventative wars of ideological containment, usually on terrain chosen by, and favorable to, our enemies. Limited government and constitutional accountability have been shouldered aside by the kind of imperial presidency our constitutional system was explicitly designed to prevent.”

This rise of an “emergency state” that justifies all manner of government tyranny in the so-called name of national security is all happening according to schedule.

The civil unrest, the national emergencies, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters,” the government’s reliance on the armed forces to solve domestic political and social problems, the implicit declaration of martial law packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security: the powers-that-be have been planning and preparing for such a crisis for years now.

The seeds of this ongoing madness were sown several decades ago when George W. Bush stealthily issued two presidential directives that granted the president the power to unilaterally declare a national emergency, which is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.

Comprising the country’s Continuity of Government (COG) plan, these directives (National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20), which do not need congressional approval, provide a skeletal outline of the actions the president will take in the event of a “national emergency.”

Just what sort of actions the president will take once he declares a national emergency can barely be discerned from the barebones directives. However, one thing is clear: in the event of a national emergency, the COG directives give unchecked executive, legislative and judicial power to the president.

The country would then be subjected to martial law by default, and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be suspended.

Essentially, the president would become a dictator for life.

It has happened already.

As we have witnessed in recent years, that national emergency can take any form, can be manipulated for any purpose and can be used to justify any end goal—all on the say so of the president.

The emergency powers that we know about which presidents might claim during such states of emergency are vast, ranging from imposing martial law and suspending habeas corpus to shutting down all forms of communications, including implementing an internet kill switch, and restricting travel.

Yet according to documents obtained by the Brennan Center, there may be many more secret powers that presidents may institute in times of so-called crisis without oversight from Congress, the courts, or the public.

Remember, these powers do not expire at the end of a president’s term. They remain on the books, just waiting to be used or abused by the next political demagogue.

So, too, every action taken by the current occupant of the White House and his predecessors to weaken the system of checks and balances, sidestep the rule of law, and expand the power of the executive branch of government makes us that much more vulnerable to those who would abuse those powers in the future.

Although the Constitution invests the President with very specific, limited powers, in recent years, American presidents (Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) have claimed the power to completely and almost unilaterally alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill.

The Executive Branch’s willingness to circumvent the Constitution by leaning heavily on the president’s so-called emergency powers constitutes a gross perversion of what limited power the Constitution affords the president.

As law professor William P. Marshall explains, “every extraordinary use of power by one President expands the availability of executive branch power for use by future Presidents.” Moreover, it doesn’t even matter whether other presidents have chosen not to take advantage of any particular power, because “it is a President’s action in using power, rather than forsaking its use, that has the precedential significance.”

In other words, each successive president continues to add to his office’s list of extraordinary orders and directives, expanding the reach and power of the presidency and granting him- or herself near dictatorial powers.

All of the imperial powers amassed by Obama, Bush, Trump and now Biden—to kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects (including American citizens) indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to wage wars without congressional authorization, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which he might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to establish a standing army on American soil, to operate a shadow government, to declare national emergencies for any manipulated reason, and to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountability—have become a permanent part of the president’s toolbox of terror.

These presidential powers—acquired through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements and which can be activated by any sitting president—enable past, president and future presidents to operate above the law and beyond the reach of the Constitution.

This is what you might call a stealthy, creeping, silent, slow-motion coup d’état.

As an investigative report by the Brennan Center explains:

“There are currently 41 declared national emergencies, most of which have been in place for more than a decade… Some of the emergency powers Congress has made available to the president are so breathtaking in their vastness that they would make an autocrat do a spit take. Presidents can use emergency declarations to shut down communications infrastructure, freeze private assets without judicial process, control domestic transportation, or even suspend the prohibition on government testing of chemical and biological agents on unwitting human subjects.”

If we continue down this road, there can be no surprise about what awaits us at the end.

We must recalibrate the balance of power.

For starters, Congress should put an end to the use of presidential executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements as a means of getting around Congress and the courts.

At a minimum, as The Washington Post suggests, “all emergency declarations [s]hould expire automatically after three or six months, whereupon Congress would need to vote upon any proposed extension. It is time for both parties to recognize that governing via endless crises — even when they are employed to implement broadly popular policies that win plaudits from key political constituencies — subverts our system of constitutional government.”

We’ve got to start making both the president and the police state play by the rules of the Constitution.

As Justice Gorsuch recognized:

“Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat. A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force. We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes. We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms. Of course, this is no new story. Even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.”

Unfortunately, the process of unseating a dictator and limiting the powers of the presidency is far from simple but at a minimum, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it must start with “we the people.”

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/07/2023 – 23:40

Two Tiers Of Justice: Kash Patel

Two Tiers Of Justice: Kash Patel

Authored by Kash Patel via RealClear Wire,

The elite set of individuals that sit atop our federal agencies have completely weaponized our entire government apparatus. It is no longer a one-off “mistake,” but rather the intentional creation of a two-tier system of justice that has gone unchecked. The resulting impact is a death knell for American faith in all three branches of government. 

Allow me to preface with one important factor: This is not an indictment of the men and women who are our “boots on the ground.” They remember every day why they signed up to serve. They investigate real crimes, protect the public from acts of terror, and root out rampant corruption. These men and women across the country serving in all agencies remain heroes and are equally as frustrated with the leadership at the top of our federal government.   

The two-tier system of justice is not Democrats vs. Republicans. It is anyone who is part of the administrative state and the D.C. beltway versus those who seek to destroy this political demon of the deep state. It is government gangsters against everyone else.

When it comes to the U.S. government, there are no coincidences. Anything that masquerades as such is a strategic move to protect the upper echelons from ceding power to the proletariat they once rose from. Whether it’s Russiagate, Impeachment #1, Impeachment #2, Jan. 6 Committee, Hunter’s laptop, classified docs, or an intel letter from 51 of our highest “servants,” they layered this two-tier system of justice by doing the same thing at each level – breaking the law. Illegal surveillance, unlawful congressional overreach, and judicial hustling have joined forces, and the result is a destruction of justice. 

Case in point: Christopher Wray, a stunning example when it comes to the dual standard of justice and hypocrisy. Wray violated a congressional subpoena. By doing so, the director of the FBI has continuously broken the law and simultaneously destroyed the leadership reputation of the FBI. The days of justice and accountability within our federal government are fleeting, at best. What if you violated a congressional subpoena, what are the ramifications? No need to wonder, just ask Steven Bannon and Peter Navarro. Don’t count on this DOJ to police its own, especially when the narrative being put forth by the document in question nukes the radical left’s pyramid of Jenga justice.

Yesterday, he had one final out, and showed his true lack of institutional control, or better yet its hijacking. He told Chairman Comer to pound sand, so now Congress must hold the line. Ransack these agencies and departments, and hold those who exploit the two-tier system of justice accountable – every single one of them. For starters, take their money, take their fancy government toys, and take Wray’s government-funded G5 jet. You must produce these critical documents and show them to the world, then do it again and again. 

Congress’ oversight authority is the last bulwark against the total erosion of justice. When you have leadership at DOJ, FBI, and the intelligence community all bending the knee to radical agendas to feed their own egos for the sole purpose of maintaining power, someone must answer the call. Some in Congress have shown exceptional leadership with their steadfast approach to exposing criminality and government corruption. They must stay the course and utilize Congress’ budgeting process to bring our agencies back into the fold. The only thing these corrupt leaders yield to is money, our taxpayer dollars. And so now, it must be taken, in part. No overcorrection, just enough to remind them they serve the American people, and to restore respect for each coordinate branch of government.

I’d sum it up, but Sen. Chuck Grassley’s recent assessment of Director Wray that he is treating Congress like “second-class citizens” resonates impactfully enough. Will it shake loose congressional hammers, or will we continue to live in two-tier systems of justice? America’s constitutional mandate to return to a single system of justice is at stake.

Kash Patel is an attorney and author and served as the chief of staff to Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller in the Trump administration.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/07/2023 – 23:00

Comparing Military Spend Around The World

Comparing Military Spend Around The World

One of the easiest ways to identify a nation’s priorities is by tracking its expenditures, and military spend is no different.

Usually spending is measured, and ranked, in absolute amounts. For example, countries around the world collectively spent $2.1 trillion on their militaries in 2021, with the most coming from the U.S. ($800 billion), China ($293 billion), and India ($77 billion).

But, as Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao details below, these eye-popping figures are best understood in the context of each country’s economy. Using data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Varun Jain has visualized 158 countries’ military expenditures, both as a percentage of their total GDP as well as in average per-capita spend.

Countries’ Military Spend as a Percentage of their Economy

To begin, Jain identified three categories of military expenditure as a percent of GDP, using the five-year (2018‒2022) average for more consistent data:

Under this categorization, the stand outs are the countries spending an outsized amount of their economic output on military, rather than the highest total spenders in absolute terms.

At the top of the table is Ukraine, which has earmarked a staggering average of 9.46% of its total economic output on defense over the past five years. That’s well ahead of second-place Saudi Arabia, which is slightly above 8%.

In Ukraine’s case, its high ranking shows how quickly priorities can change. From 2018 to 2021, the country spent 3.2-3.8% of its GDP on its military, but the outbreak of war with Russia saw its expenditures jump to one-third of economic output.

Other countries from the Middle East and North Africa follow in this tier, with Oman third at 8.11% and Qatar fourth with 5.88%. Rounding out the top seven high spenders are Algeria, Kuwait, and Israel.

Rank Country Military Spend % of GDP
1 🇺🇦 Ukraine High 9.46%
2 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia High 8.19%
3 🇴🇲 Oman High 8.11%
4 🇶🇦 Qatar High 5.88%
5 🇩🇿 Algeria High 5.70%
6 🇰🇼 Kuwait High 5.66%
7 🇮🇱 Israel High 5.09%
8 🇯🇴 Jordan Medium 4.81%
9 🇦🇲 Armenia Medium 4.53%
10 🇦🇿 Azerbaijan Medium 4.53%
11 🇱🇧 Lebanon Medium 4.01%
12 🇷🇺 Russia Medium 3.98%
13 🇧🇭 Bahrain Medium 3.79%
14 🇵🇰 Pakistan Medium 3.75%
15 🇲🇦 Morocco Medium 3.72%
16 🇺🇿 Uzbekistan Medium 3.56%
17 🇺🇸 U.S. Medium 3.48%
18 🇨🇴 Colombia Medium 3.24%
19 🇬🇷 Greece Medium 3.15%
20 🇳🇦 Namibia Medium 3.09%
21 🇧🇳 Brunei Medium 3.09%
22 🇸🇸 South Sudan Medium 3.05%
23 🇹🇬 Togo Medium 3.03%
24 🇲🇱 Mali Medium 2.90%
25 🇨🇺 Cuba Medium 2.88%
26 🇸🇬 Singapore Medium 2.86%
27 🇧🇼 Botswana Medium 2.86%
28 🇲🇲 Myanmar Medium 2.76%
29 🇧🇫 Burkina Faso Medium 2.70%
30 🇮🇶 Iraq Medium 2.69%
31 🇰🇷 South Korea Medium 2.69%
32 🇨🇬 Republic of Congo Medium 2.68%
33 🇹🇩 Chad Medium 2.66%
34 🇮🇳 India Medium 2.58%
35 🇹🇳 Tunisia Medium 2.58%
36 🇪🇨 Ecuador Medium 2.34%
37 🇮🇷 Iran Medium 2.32%
38 🇻🇳 Viet Nam Medium 2.28%
39 🇰🇭 Cambodia Medium 2.26%
40 🇲🇷 Mauritania Medium 2.24%
41 🇳🇪 Niger Medium 2.21%
42 🇧🇮 Burundi Medium 2.21%
43 🇹🇷 Turkey Medium 2.19%
44 🇵🇱 Poland Medium 2.17%
45 🇱🇻 Latvia Medium 2.14%
46 🇱🇹 Lithuania Medium 2.13%
47 🇪🇪 Estonia Medium 2.13%
48 🇬🇧 United Kingdom Medium 2.12%
49 🇺🇾 Uruguay Medium 2.11%
50 🇷🇸 Serbia Medium 2.06%
51 🇺🇬 Uganda Medium 2.02%
52 🇭🇷 Croatia Low 1.97%
53 🇦🇺 Australia Low 1.93%
54 🇨🇱 Chile Low 1.92%
55 🇫🇷 France Low 1.91%
56 🇨🇾 Cyprus Low 1.90%
57 🇷🇴 Romania Low 1.87%
58 🇧🇬 Bulgaria Low 1.85%
59 🇸🇿 Eswatini Low 1.82%
60 🇳🇴 Norway Low 1.81%
61 🇨🇫 Central African Republic Low 1.78%
62 🇱🇰 Sri Lanka Low 1.77%
63 🇵🇹 Portugal Low 1.77%
64 🇹🇼 Taiwan Low 1.76%
65 🇨🇳 China Low 1.72%
66 🇬🇪 Georgia Low 1.71%
67 🇸🇰 Slovakia Low 1.67%
68 🇬🇼 Guinea-Bissau Low 1.65%
69 🇰🇬 Kyrgyzstan Low 1.62%
70 🇬🇳 Guinea Low 1.61%
71 🇫🇮 Finland Low 1.60%
72 🇸🇳 Senegal Low 1.58%
73 🇭🇳 Honduras Low 1.56%
74 🇬🇦 Gabon Low 1.56%
75 🇲🇿 Mozambique Low 1.56%
76 🇱🇸 Lesotho Low 1.56%
77 🇲🇪 Montenegro Low 1.54%
78 🇫🇯 Fiji Low 1.54%
79 🇯🇲 Jamaica Low 1.49%
80 🇦🇴 Angola Low 1.48%
81 🇮🇹 Italy Low 1.48%
82 🇭🇺 Hungary Low 1.48%
83 🇧🇴 Bolivia Low 1.46%
84 🇸🇨 Seychelles Low 1.43%
85 🇳🇱 Netherlands Low 1.41%
86 🇸🇩 Sudan Low 1.39%
87 🇷🇼 Rwanda Low 1.39%
88 🇳🇵 Nepal Low 1.36%
89 🇩🇰 Denmark Low 1.36%
90 🇦🇱 Albania Low 1.34%
91 🇪🇸 Spain Low 1.34%
92 🇹🇭 Thailand Low 1.33%
93 🇦🇫 Afghanistan Low 1.33%
94 🇳🇿 New Zealand Low 1.32%
95 🇨🇦 Canada Low 1.32%
96 🇩🇪 Germany Low 1.31%
97 🇲🇰 North Macedonia Low 1.30%
98 🇧🇷 Brazil Low 1.29%
99 🇧🇿 Belize Low 1.28%
100 🇸🇻 El Salvador Low 1.28%
101 🇧🇩 Bangladesh Low 1.26%
102 🇿🇲 Zambia Low 1.25%
103 🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea Low 1.24%
104 🇬🇾 Guyana Low 1.22%
105 🇨🇮 Cote d’Ivoire Low 1.22%
106 🇪🇬 Egypt Low 1.20%
107 🇵🇪 Peru Low 1.20%
108 🇧🇾 Belarus Low 1.18%
109 🇸🇪 Sweden Low 1.17%
110 🇰🇪 Kenya Low 1.13%
111 🇸🇮 Slovenia Low 1.10%
112 🇹🇱 Timor Leste Low 1.08%
113 🇹🇿 Tanzania Low 1.05%
114 🇨🇲 Cameroon Low 1.04%
115 🇹🇯 Tajikistan Low 1.03%
116 🇯🇵 Japan Low 1.03%
117 🇧🇪 Belgium Low 1.02%
118 🇱🇷 Liberia Low 1.00%
119 🇲🇾 Malaysia Low 0.98%
120 🇵🇭 Philippines Low 0.96%
121 🇵🇾 Paraguay Low 0.95%
122 🇽🇰 Kosovo Low 0.95%
123 🇿🇦 South Africa Low 0.94%
124 🇲🇼 Malawi Low 0.92%
125 🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina Low 0.84%
126 🇰🇿 Kazakhstan Low 0.83%
127 🇦🇹 Austria Low 0.78%
128 🇬🇲 Gambia Low 0.76%
129 🇹🇹 Trinidad & Tobago Low 0.75%
130 🇮🇩 Indonesia Low 0.74%
131 🇨🇭 Switzerland Low 0.73%
132 🇨🇿 Czech Republic Low 0.71%
133 🇩🇴 Dominican Republic Low 0.70%
134 🇲🇳 Mongolia Low 0.69%
135 🇲🇬 Madagascar Low 0.68%
136 🇨🇩 Dem. Rep. of Congo Low 0.64%
137 🇳🇬 Nigeria Low 0.64%
138 🇪🇹 Ethiopia Low 0.64%
139 🇸🇱 Sierra Leone Low 0.64%
140 🇦🇷 Argentina Low 0.63%
141 🇱🇺 Luxembourg Low 0.61%
142 🇲🇽 Mexico Low 0.61%
143 🇳🇮 Nicaragua Low 0.60%
144 🇨🇻 Cape Verde Low 0.54%
145 🇧🇯 Benin Low 0.54%
146 🇲🇹 Malta Low 0.48%
147 🇬🇹 Guatemala Low 0.45%
148 🇬🇭 Ghana Low 0.43%
149 🇵🇬 Papua New Guinea Low 0.38%
150 🇲🇩 Moldova Low 0.36%
151 🇮🇪 Ireland Low 0.27%
152 🇿🇼 Zimbabwe Low 0.26%
153 🇻🇪 Venezuela Low 0.20%
154 🇭🇹 Haiti Low 0.17%
155 🇲🇺 Mauritius Low 0.16%
156 🇨🇷 Costa Rica Low 0.00%
157 🇮🇸 Iceland Low 0.00%
158 🇵🇦 Panama Low 0.00%

The medium group consists of 44 countries and is led by four nations (Jordan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Lebanon) that all spend more than 4% of their GDP on their militaries. Other familiar countries known to have large military budgets, like Russia, Pakistan, the U.S., India and the UK, are also in this category.

The low spend group has a total of 107 countries, but also contains some surprises. For example, China, France, and Germany—all in the top 10 countries by absolute military spend—actually have similar amounts of military spend as a percent of GDP as Georgia, Cyprus, and North Macedonia respectively.

At the bottom of the table are countries with either low military importance, or strange technicalities. For example, Mauritius is one of the countries with the lowest military budgets because it doesn’t officially have a standing military, instead relying on two paramilitary forces (a special mobile force and a Coast Guard).

Similarly, Iceland allocates 0% of its GDP towards military spending. In place of a standing army, the country maintains a specialized peacekeeping force, a substantial Coast Guard, and relies on security alliances within NATO, of which it is a member and provides financial support to.

Ranking Defense Spending Per Capita

While the measure above equalizes military spend on economic strength, per-capita military spending shows how much countries allocate while accounting for population size.

On a per-capita basis (again using a five-year average), Qatar leads the ranks with a per-capita spend of $4,564, well-ahead of Israel at $2,535, and Saudi Arabia at $1,928.

Rank Country Per Capita Spend ($)
1 🇶🇦 Qatar $4,564
2 🇮🇱 Israel $2,535
3 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia $1,928
4 🇸🇬 Singapore $1,837
5 🇰🇼 Kuwait $1,815
6 🇺🇸 U.S. $1,815
7 🇳🇴 Norway $1,438
8 🇴🇲 Oman $1,254
9 🇦🇺 Australia $1,131
10 🇧🇳 Brunei $959
11 🇬🇧 UK $913
12 🇰🇷 South Korea $894
13 🇧🇭 Bahrain $863
14 🇩🇰 Denmark $861
15 🇫🇷 France $811
16 🇫🇮 Finland $801
17 🇳🇱 Netherlands $765
18 🇱🇺 Luxembourg $694
19 🇸🇪 Sweden $662
20 🇨🇭 Switzerland $647
21 🇨🇦 Canada $645
22 🇬🇷 Greece $629
23 🇩🇪 Germany $623
24 🇳🇿 New Zealand $610
25 🇪🇪 Estonia $535
26 🇹🇼 Taiwan $495
27 🇮🇹 Italy $494
28 🇧🇪 Belgium $487
29 🇷🇺 Russia $467
30 🇱🇹 Lithuania $463
31 🇵🇹 Portugal $417
32 🇱🇻 Latvia $405
33 🇨🇾 Cyprus $399
34 🇯🇵 Japan $398
35 🇪🇸 Spain $395
36 🇦🇹 Austria $393
37 🇵🇱 Poland $359
38 🇺🇾 Uruguay $354
39 🇸🇰 Slovakia $334
40 🇱🇧 Lebanon $334
41 🇸🇮 Slovenia $302
42 🇺🇦 Ukraine $302
43 🇭🇷 Croatia $294
44 🇨🇱 Chile $292
45 🇷🇴 Romania $258
46 🇭🇺 Hungary $248
47 🇮🇪 Ireland $235
48 🇸🇨 Seychelles $230
49 🇦🇿 Azerbaijan $226
50 🇩🇿 Algeria $219
51 🇦🇲 Armenia $217
52 🇧🇼 Botswana $215
53 🇯🇴 Jordan $207
54 🇹🇷 Turkey $199
55 🇨🇴 Colombia $197
56 🇧🇬 Bulgaria $194
57 🇨🇳 China $183
58 🇲🇹 Malta $175
59 🇨🇿 Czech Republic $175
60 🇮🇷 Iran $169
61 🇳🇦 Namibia $159
62 🇮🇶 Iraq $145
63 🇪🇨 Ecuador $138
64 🇲🇪 Montenegro $137
65 🇷🇸 Serbia $133
66 🇹🇹 Trinidad & Tobago $131
67 🇬🇦 Gabon $124
68 🇲🇦 Morocco $122
69 🇬🇶 Equatorial Guinea $112
70 🇲🇾 Malaysia $109
71 🇧🇷 Brazil $107
72 🇹🇭 Thailand $97
73 🇬🇾 Guyana $92
74 🇹🇳 Tunisia $91
75 🇫🇯 Fiji $83
76 🇲🇰 North Macedonia $83
77 🇰🇿 Kazakhstan $82
78 🇵🇪 Peru $81
79 🇬🇪 Georgia $80
80 🇧🇾 Belarus $80
81 🇯🇲 Jamaica $77
82 🇦🇱 Albania $76
83 🇸🇿 Eswatini $72
84 🇱🇰 Sri Lanka $69
85 🇦🇷 Argentina $66
86 🇧🇿 Belize $60
87 🇲🇽 Mexico $59
88 🇩🇴 Dominican Republic $58
89 🇻🇳 Viet Nam $58
90 🇿🇦 South Africa $56
91 🇸🇻 El Salvador $54
92 🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina $54
93 🇮🇳 India $53
94 🇨🇬 Republic of Congo $53
95 🇵🇾 Paraguay $52
96 🇧🇴 Bolivia $51
97 🇵🇰 Pakistan $49
98 🇺🇿 Uzbekistan $44
99 🇦🇴 Angola $43
100 🇽🇰 Kosovo $42
101 🇲🇷 Mauritania $42
102 🇭🇳 Honduras $42
103 🇪🇬 Egypt $41
104 🇰🇭 Cambodia $36
105 🇲🇲 Myanmar $35
106 🇵🇭 Philippines $33
107 🇲🇳 Mongolia $33
108 🇮🇩 Indonesia $31
109 🇧🇩 Bangladesh $27
110 🇹🇱 Timor Leste $27
111 🇲🇱 Mali $26
112 🇸🇳 Senegal $24
113 🇨🇮 Cote d’Ivoire $23
114 🇹🇬 Togo $21
115 🇰🇪 Kenya $21
116 🇰🇬 Kyrgyzstan $20
117 🇧🇫 Burkina Faso $20
118 🇬🇳 Guinea $19
119 🇱🇸 Lesotho $19
120 🇨🇻 Cape Verde $19
121 🇬🇹 Guatemala $19
122 🇹🇩 Chad $18
123 🇸🇸 South Sudan $18
124 🇸🇩 Sudan $18
125 🇺🇬 Uganda $18
126 🇿🇼 Zimbabwe $17
127 🇿🇲 Zambia $16
128 🇲🇺 Mauritius $16
129 🇨🇲 Cameroon $16
130 🇳🇵 Nepal $15
131 🇳🇬 Nigeria $14
132 🇳🇮 Nicaragua $12
133 🇬🇼 Guinea-Bissau $12
134 🇹🇿 Tanzania $12
135 🇨🇺 Cuba $11
136 🇷🇼 Rwanda $11
137 🇲🇩 Moldova $11
138 🇵🇬 Papua New Guinea $10
139 🇳🇪 Niger $10
140 🇹🇯 Tajikistan $9
141 🇨🇫 Central African Republic $8
142 🇲🇿 Mozambique $8
143 🇬🇭 Ghana $8
144 🇧🇯 Benin $7
145 🇧🇮 Burundi $7
146 🇦🇫 Afghanistan $6
147 🇬🇲 Gambia $6
148 🇪🇹 Ethiopia $5
149 🇻🇪 Venezuela $5
150 🇲🇼 Malawi $4
151 🇸🇱 Sierra Leone $3
152 🇲🇬 Madagascar $3
153 🇨🇩 Dem. Rep. of Congo $3
154 🇱🇷 Liberia $3
155 🇭🇹 Haiti $2
156 🇨🇷 Costa Rica $0
157 🇮🇸 Iceland $0
158 🇵🇦 Panama $0

Measured this way, we get a perspective of how small defense budgets can be per person, even if the total expenditure is large.

For example, India has the fourth-highest total defense expenditure in 2022, but because of its massive population only sets aside $53 per resident for its military, putting it solidly at the bottom third of the per-capita rankings.

Patterns Revealed By Measuring Military Spend

Changing how we look at a country’s military budget can reveal a lot more than just looking at absolute numbers.

For example, the Middle East is the region with the highest spenders on defense as a percentage of their GDP, giving us insight into regional security concerns.

Countries from the medium group of military spending—including parts of Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia—highlight past or recent conflict zones between neighbors, countries with internal strife, or countries wary of a regional aggressor. Ukraine’s average per capita military spend, for example, was just $122.4 from 2018 to 2021. The next year, it jumped nearly 10 times to $1,018.66 per person after Russia’s invasion.

In fact, European military spending saw its sharpest one-year jump in 30 years as a direct result of the war.

Alongside European anxieties, ongoing tension between China and Taiwan has also contributed to increased military spending in Asia and Oceania. Will these budgets continue their dramatic ascent or will they rise evenly alongside their relative economies in 2023?

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/07/2023 – 22:40

Nurse Injured By COVID-19 Vaccine Heading To Trial Against Former Employer

Nurse Injured By COVID-19 Vaccine Heading To Trial Against Former Employer

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Danielle Baker in a file image. (Courtesy of Danielle Baker)

A nurse diagnosed with a COVID-19 vaccine injury is headed to trial in a case against her former employer.

Danielle Baker, 43, is trying to compel Ohio’s Hospice Inc. to pay worker’s compensation for her COVID-19 vaccine injury, suffered after she went to get vaccinated in June 2021 because she believed the company would mandate vaccination.

A state officer rejected the claim, finding that Baker did not show her injury came “in the course of and arising out of her employment” because Ohio’s Hospice had not yet mandated vaccination. The Ohio Industrial Commission refused to hear the appeal.

But a judge intervened in May, scheduling a trial date that sets up the possibility a jury could side with the nurse.

“It was a win,” Baker told The Epoch Times’ sister media NTD, recounting when she learned of the development. “I cried. We’ve been fighting this for a while.”

Baker hopes to receive a large award based on lost wages and medical bills.

New Developments

Baker said she knew Ohio’s Hospice would eventually mandate vaccination for employment—it did so in August 2021—and she did not want to lose her job, so she went to get Pfizer’s shot.

Baker quickly began experiencing symptoms such as severe back pain and went to the hospital. She eventually suffered loss of feeling in her extremities and was diagnosed with transverse myelitis, or spinal cord inflammation. Multiple doctors have assessed that the condition was caused by the vaccine.

Ohio’s Hospice Inc., which did not respond to requests for comment, has said in court filings that Baker’s complaint was barred by statutes of limitations and that she has failed to “declare an injurious event that occurred at work and/or a diagnosis for any such event that occurred at work.”

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, has also opposed the legal action, arguing no valid claim has been offered.

But Miami County Common Pleas Judge Jeannine Pratt disagreed, at least for now. The judge has scheduled a trial that would start on Jan. 31, 2024, if the case is not thrown out or settled.

Baker said she is not inclined to accept a settlement.

Unless they give something that I can’t refuse I plan on taking it all the way,” Baker told NTD.

James Gardner, a lawyer representing the nurse, said via email that “most cases are resolved, but the diverse positions taken by the parties in this case might make settlement difficult.”

Nurse for 20 Years

Baker was a nurse for 20 years, primarily working in hospice care. She worked for 17 years at Ohio’s Hospice.

After suffering the vaccine injury, she went on short-term disability, which eventually turned into long-term disability.

Ohio’s Hospice ultimately said that there were no reasonable accommodations that could be made, so Baker was let go, though she was deemed eligible to rejoin the company at a later date.

Baker has continued receiving disability payments as she’s unable to work because of her symptoms.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/07/2023 – 22:20