Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

In an excellent display of how US foreign policy can be used as a means of pandering to domestic interest groups, the Biden administration has threatened to impose sanctions on Uganda as punishment for that regime’s adoption of new laws criminalizing some types of homosexual behavior. 

While it is abundantly clear that this move from the Ugandan state presents absolutely no threat to any vital US interest, the Biden administration apparently believes the situation requires immediate action by the US regime.

According to Axios, the Biden Administration’s proposed actions

includ[e] whether the U.S. will continue to safely deliver services under the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and other forms of assistance and investments. … Biden administration officials will also review Uganda’s eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which provides eligible sub-Saharan African countries with duty-free access to the U.S. market for hundreds of products.

What exactly are these new laws that require the State Department to get involved in the internal affairs of a country 8,000 miles away? According to The Hill, 

The new anti-gay law would impose the death penalty in cases of “aggravated homosexuality” and would impose a life sentence for engaging in gay sex. The state defines “aggravated homosexuality” as homosexual acts carried out by those infected with H.I.V. or homosexual acts that involve children, disabled people, or those drugged against their will. 

Or put another way, the death penalty will be imposed in many cases on those found guilty of engaging in sex with children and with people unable to consent. Even in those cases, these are pretty harsh penalties, and certainly few Americans—from any part of the political spectrum—would support such measures. 

The proposed method of punishing Ugandans is rather curious, however. Note that the sanctions being discussed include—ironically—cutting off AIDS relief dollars, plus dollars that the regime has long insisted are absolutely vital to economic development and poverty relief in the developing world. If that’s true, then the US regime proposes trying to impoverish ordinary Ugandans as punishment for acts of the Ugandan regime. 

It is also notable that the US regime appears to now be fixated on such laws in Uganda when similar laws already exist on the books of several US allies. For example, the death penalty can be imposed for various homosexual acts in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. “Death by stoning” is also inflicted on alleged homosexuals in US ally Pakistan. Moreover, after 20-years of US occupation, Afghanistan imposes similar punishments. Those are just the places where the death penalty is potentially imposed. Homosexual acts are criminalized in a variety of countries that retain friendly relations with the US including Egypt—the top recipient of US foreign aid—plus Iraq, Jordan, South Sudan, and Nigeria. Homosexual sex between males can bring life imprisonment in Tanzania. 

So why is Uganda now so much in the crosshairs while Saudi Arabia escapes notice? 

The fact is the US regime is threatening sanctions on ordinary Ugandans because it can.  Given that there is no sizable or electorally powerful Ugandan population in the US, it costs the administration nothing to denounce Uganda while also virtue signaling to extremely powerful and well-funded domestic LGBT interest groups. Denouncing the Saudis or the Qataris, on the other, hand might bring geopolitical “complications” and thus you won’t hear much about Saudi or Qatari punishment of homosexual acts in the US media or in Washington. 

The US’s Moralistic and Imperialist Impulses 

Moreover, Washington’s willingness to immediately begin threatening sanctions against some faraway country has been part of the overall imperialist impulse that has prevailed in Washington since the end of the Cold War. This was when the US shifted toward become an ever-more-aggressive world morality police that would attempt to globally “protect right” in vague mimicry of how the federal government—via the federal courts and threats of cutting off federal funding—dictates to the states what counts as acceptable law.

This new scheme was apparent by 1994 when Murray Rothbard wrote a sarcastic article suggesting that the US be prepared to invade any foreign country where the local regime has not sufficiently embraced the American regime’s cultural ideals. The key, Rothbard contends, was to define every foreign “deviation” as a threat to US national security. Rothbard noted that even by the mid 1990s, American interventionists such as the neoconservatives had already “cunningly redefined ‘national interest’ to cover every ill, every grievance, under the sun.”

This naturally would lead, Rothbard suggested, to the need to intervene in nearly every foreign country on earth:

Is someone starving somewhere, however remote from our borders? That’s a problem for our national interest. Is someone or some group killing some other group anywhere in the world? That’s our national interest. Is some government not a “democracy” as defined by our liberal-neocon elites? That challenges our national interest. Is someone committing Hate Thought anywhere on the globe? That has to be solved in our national interest. …And so every grievance everywhere constitutes our national interest, and it becomes the obligation of good old Uncle Sam, as the Only Remaining Superpower and the world’s designated Mr. Fixit, to solve each and every one of these problems. For “we cannot stand idly by” while anyone anywhere starves, hits someone over the head, is undemocratic, or commits a Hate Crime.

And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S., I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World! Sanctions are peanuts; we must invade every country in the world, perhaps softening them up beforehand with a wonderful high-tech missile bombing show courtesy of CNN. 

The good news in the Uganda case is that at least we’re not hearing any calls for actual regime change or “boots on the ground” in Uganda (so far). 

Fortunately, many Americans haven’t yet bought into the idea that every objectionable act by foreign regimes can be defined as a threat to US national interests. This is why even today, when Washington targets some foreign regime for “regime change” or economic sanctions or a volley of cruise missiles, the American interventionists usually try to at least suggest that the target regime is some kind of threat to US “national interests.” 

Experience suggests that if the regime really wants to get the American public riled up about a new war, Washington has to make the case for something beyond mere “humanitarian” intervention. This is why the Bush administration felt it had to trump up accusations of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. It’s why President Obama claimed the US has a “national security interest in … ensuring that we’ve got a stable Syria.” It’s why those who wanted a US war with Bosnia insisted that conflict in the Balkans in the mid 1990s provided a threat to “vital” US interests such as “European stability” and NATO unity. 

Sometimes, though, some foreign countries are so obviously not a threat to the US that “humanitarian” meddling through military action isn’t politically viable. In those cases, the regime usually falls back on “sanctions.” 

This strategy has been around a long time. Murray Rothbard noticed this trend in 1994 as well, and he listed just some of the real-life suggested sanctions that could be employed to whip foreign regimes into line:

In recent weeks, in addition to humanitarian troops, there had been escalating talk of American “sanctions”: against North Korea of course, but also against Japan (for not buying more U.S. exports), against Haiti, against the Bosnian Serbs… Jesse Jackson wants the U.S. to invade Nigeria pronto, and now we have Senato[r] Kerry (D., Mass.) calling for sanctions against our ancient foe, Canada, for not welcoming New England fishermen in its waters.

Uganda is just one of a great many regimes targeted in this fashion in recent decades. 

Yet the landscape has changed considerably since 1994. In 2023, the US obsession with sanctioning dozens of countries has backfired and begun to isolate the US more and more from the developing world and from any regime that doesn’t enjoy taking orders from Washington. This includes the regimes in some of the world largest economies, including China, India, and Brazil. The US’s tendency to incessantly turn to sanctions to make a political point—and the apparent capriciousness with which the US regime is willing to do so—only motivates the world’s regimes to insulate themselves from the US, whether through minimizing dollar transactions or forming tighter alliances with potential allies outside the US orbit. We may soon find Uganda looking for a similar way out. 

Read More:

• “Thanks to Sanctions, the US Is Losing Its Grip on the Middle East“

• “Will Biden Sanction Half the World to Isolate Russia?“

• “Why Sanctions Don’t Work, and Why They Mostly Hurt Ordinary People” 

The war from across the border has impacted citizens in the Belgorod region of Russia to the point that many towns and villages have been evacuated, with some looking like ghost towns–this after armed groups mounted multiple raids since the war’s start–as well as increased shelling and rocket fire. Just two days ago the anti-Moscow “Russian Volunteer Corps” said they launched another attack out of Ukraine, after a bigger one nearly two weeks ago left multiple casualties and many saboteurs killed. 

The New York Times wrote on Saturday that “Shebekino, a town of 40,000 six miles from the border, has effectively become a new part of the front line as Ukraine has intensified attacks inside Russia, including on residential areas near its own borders.” This is all upending the lives of residents in the border region, akin to what already happened long ago on the Ukrainian side of the border. “The spate of assaults, most recently by militia groups aligned against Moscow, has sparked the largest military evacuation effort in Russia in decades,” the report underscored. The past days have witnessed area residents move into temporary shelters, including the large Belgorod arena in the oblast capital.

On Saturday the controversial founder and leader of Russia’s Wagner mercenary group has offered in a message to the public that he stands ready to send his fighters to protect the border region. 

But as part of the ongoing public spat with the regular military chain of command, Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin blamed the army for failing in its duties, given all the latest Ukrainian attacks on Belgorod. 

“If the defense ministry, in the near future, does not stop what is happening in the Belgorod region.. then of course we will come to defend Russian land,” Prigozhin said on Telegram. 

“The civilian population is dying in Belgorod,” he added, and warned that he would not wait for an “invitation” to deploy his forces there. Earlier in the week Prigozhin went so far as to say some top Russian military commanders should be investigated for crimes related to failure of duty.

Already the Russian military has been active in the region, particularly after the May 21-22 ground incursion by a militia group sent from Ukraine, which saw armed groups take over multiple villages for a short period of time. 

On Saturday two more civilians were killed in cross-border fire from Ukraine. This brings the overall death toll from the area to seven killed just this week. “Since this morning, the district of Shebekino has been under shelling of the Ukrainian armed forces,” Belgorod governor Vyacheslav Gladkov said in a statement. One victim was described as an elderly woman, while another woman died from her wounds in the village of Bezlyudovka. 

⚡️Town of Shebekino in the Belgorod region of Russia; June, 2023.

Due to the nonstop shelling of the armed forces of Ukraine, some residents have resorted to looting local stores. pic.twitter.com/urk1LrfsE2

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) June 3, 2023

A couple of others were wounded in the shelling. Prigozhin’s message of potentially sending his fighters to defend the area comes amid rising frustration over the ramped-up attacks. Governor Gladkov has as of the end of this week counted 500 total attacks throughout the conflict, which has included instances of rocket and mortar fire. 

Authored by Bryan Jung via The Epoch Times,

Some Apple customers have found it difficult to access their savings from a new account program in partnership with Goldman Sachs.

After the new Apple savings account was launched in April to great fanfare, the system has been facing serious teething problems, according to customers.

The annual yield on an Apple savings account offers a generous 4.15 percent interest rate, dwarfing the current savings account yield of 0.39 percent, according to Bankrate.

The account’s interest rate is about ten times the average yield offered by mainstream banks, making it attractive to new customers and falls well below the Federal Reserve’s borrowing rate of between 5 percent and 5.25 percent.

This allows users to earn a sizeable amount in interest over the course of a year.

Some reports suggest that the launch had already attracted as many as $1 billion in deposits within four days of launch.

Goldman is the primary issuer of Apple’s new credit card, which is the only way a customer can open a savings account with the tech giant.

Apple views its new account program as a way to expand iPhone usage into its customer’s daily financial interactions and keep them linked to its networks, while Goldman benefits from additional depositors.

After signing up for the credit card, Apple users can open an account in less than a minute from their iPhones, with no minimum balance requirement.

The accounts have zero deposit fees and offer a maximum balance of $250,000.

Depositors are free to access their money at any time, unlike many normal bank accounts, which limit customers to six major cash withdrawals a year.

New Apple Accounts Face Severe Teething Issues

However, some customers have faced delayed money transfers, while others reported having trouble transferring money from their new Apple accounts, according to the Wall Street Journal.

A few are even reported having trouble accessing their funds or even seeing them vanish during transfers from Apple to another bank.

Nathan Thacker, a resident of Georgia, told The Wall Street Journal he had trouble transferring $1,700 from his Apple account to JPMorgan Chase since May 15.

After contacting Goldman Sachs’ customer service department multiple times, he was told to wait a few days.

The money only arrived in Thacker’s account after The Wall Street Journal contacted the bank about his problem and similar experiences from other customers.

Stories on social media are filled with similar experiences from customers unable to access their Apple savings accounts.

Large transfers from new account programs like Apple’s have been triggering anti-money laundering red flags or other security concerns that require additional reviews by the banks, according to experts in the AML field.

The experts said that anti-money laundering alerts tend to cause delays that last, on average, about five or so days.

Kevin Smyth, from Minnesota, wrote in a May 25 post on Twitter directed at Apple CEO Tim Cook: “Was your plan to partner with a bank that holds people’s life savings hostage?”

Smyth claimed he had been trying to transfer $10,000 from his Apple account to U.S. Bank on May 16.

The following morning, he was forced to sell about $12,000 of stock in order to have cash on hand.

Smyth has since decided to pull $200,000 savings from his Apple account, move it back to American Express and close it, despite Goldman having resolved the issue.

Goldman Sachs Defends Partnership With Apple

Goldman Sachs said the difficulties were being faced by a “limited” number of customers and that the delays were often added due to rigorous processes designed to protect user identity.

A spokesman for Goldman Sachs told The Daily Mail in regard to consumer complaints, “The customer response to the new Savings account for Apple Card users has been excellent and beyond our expectations.”

“While the vast majority of customers see no delays in transferring their funds, in a limited number of cases, a user may experience a delayed transfer due to processes in place designed to help protect their accounts,” he added.

“While we would not comment on specific customer interactions, we take our obligation to protect our customers’ deposits very seriously and work to create a balance between a seamless customer experience and that protection,” the spokesman said.

Meanwhile, Goldman has announced cutbacks on its consumer lending and announced in February that it was “considering strategic alternatives” for the unit that operates its credit-card partnership with Apple.

The investment bank has also faced recent controversies over problems such as regulatory probes, particularly when dealing with lower net-worth clients.

The Epoch Times reached out to Apple for comment.

Recovery efforts are underway, with large excavators trying to untangle the wreckage, after India’s worst train disaster in decades happened in the eastern state of Odisha on Friday.

At least 288 people have been confirmed killed with more than 900 injured, many seriously, in what’s being described as a “three-way accident”. Two passenger trains collided, with the massive wreck then impacting a nearby idled freight train. 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi traveled to the site on Saturday, seeking to console the families of the deceased. “The people we have lost, we will not be able to bring them back. But the government is with their families in their grief,” Modi said. “This is a very serious incident for the government. We have given directions for all lines of inquiry, and whoever is found responsible will be given the strongest punishment. They will not be spared.”

International correspondents from the site are describing gut-wrenching, horrific scenes. “In humid air filled with the odor of human flesh, relatives went through the harrowing exercise of identifying their loved ones from about 120 dead bodies lined up on the ground after the crash on Friday night,” a New York Times report describes. 

“Among those searching was Miyah Jan Mullah, who had come from neighboring West Bengal to look for his son, Musavir, who had been on his way to his tailoring job in Chennai,” the tragic account continues. “When Mr. Mullah finally found Musavir’s body, most of it was burned, but his face was largely intact.”

Footage shows a huge area of mangled wreckage stretching dozens of cars…

Amid rising frustration and anger directed at authorities among families searching for answers, a preliminary government reports has said the derailment was possibly the result of a signal error.

A consensus sequence of events and timeline has emerged as follows: 

The high-speed passenger train traveling from Kolkata, the Coromandel Express, slammed into a freight train that had been idling at a small-town station, Bahanaga Bazar, around 7 p.m. local time Friday. The passenger train was “going at full speed across the station as it was not supposed to stop” there, the report said, according to The New York Times.

After hitting the freight train, the passenger train, which was carrying 1,257 passengers, derailed. Twenty-one of its coaches bounced off the track, with three more cars landing onto another track.

 “Simultaneously” the Yesvantpur-Howrah Express, a passenger train with 1,039 aboard heading in the opposite direction from Bengaluru to Kolkata, was on the track that the three dislocated coaches lay. This second collision knocked the two coaches of the third train off its tracks.

Emergency services with rescue dogs have reportedly halted the search for live victims and have now turned to body recovery and identification. One survivor and eyewitness told Reuters he saw “Families crushed away, limbless bodies and a bloodbath on the tracks.” 

BREAKING: Drone footage of damage from India train crash, as death toll nears 300.pic.twitter.com/u8XaWi6CSQ

— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) June 3, 2023

Given the still rising death toll this could in the end surpass the country’s biggest disaster in its history, which occurred in August 1995. The Firozabad Train Collision near New Delhi killed 358 people.

Authored by Jessie Zhang via Thje Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

An Australian and Swedish investigation has found that among the hundreds of COVID-19 research papers that have been withdrawn, a retracted study linking the drug hydroxychloroquine to increased mortality was the most cited paper.

With 1,360 citations at the time of data extraction, researchers in the field were still referring to the paper “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis” long after it was retracted.

Authors of the analysis involving the University of Wollongong, Linköping University, and Western Sydney Local Health District wrote (pdf) that “most researchers who cite retracted research do not identify that the paper is retracted, even when submitting long after the paper has been withdrawn.”

“This has serious implications for the reliability of published research and the academic literature, which need to be addressed,” they said.

“Retraction is the final safeguard against academic error and misconduct, and thus a cornerstone of the entire process of knowledge generation.”

Scientists Question Findings

Over 100 medical professionals wrote an open letter, raising ten major issues with the paper.

These included the fact that there was “no ethics review” and “unusually small reported variances in baseline variables, interventions and outcomes,” as well as “no mention of the countries or hospitals that contributed to the data source and no acknowledgments to their contributions.”

Other concerns were that the average daily doses of hydroxychloroquine were higher than the FDA-recommended amounts, which would present skewed results.

They also found that the data that was reportedly from Australian patients did not seem to match data from the Australian government.

Eventually, the study led the World Health Organization to temporarily suspend the trial of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 patients and to the UK regulatory body, MHRA, requesting the temporary pause of recruitment into all hydroxychloroquine trials in the UK.

France also changed its national recommendation of the drug in COVID-19 treatments and halted all trials.

Currently, a total of 337 research papers on COVID-19 have been retracted, according to Retraction Watch.

Further retractions are expected as the investigation of proceeds.

Demographic data can reveal all kinds of insights about a population, from the country’s fertility and mortality rates to how certain events and policies have shaped the makeup of a population.

As Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte and Bhabna Banerjee detail below, population pyramids are one of the best ways to visualize population data, and comparing the pyramids of various countries and regions side-by-side can reveal unexpected insights and differences between groups.

This graphic uses population data from the United Nations to compare the demographics of some select nations and regions of the world, showcasing how much age distributions can vary.

Three Types of Population Pyramids

Although population pyramids can come in all shapes and sizes, most generally fall into three distinct categories:

• Expansive Pyramids: Recognized by their traditional “pyramid-like” shape with a broad base and narrow top, expansive pyramids reflect a population with a high birth rate along with a high mortality rate which is most common in developing countries.

• Constrictive Pyramids: With a narrow base and thicker middle and top sections of the pyramid, constrictive pyramids often occur in developed economies whose populations have low birth rates and long life expectancies.

• Stationary Pyramids: These pyramids showcase an evenly distributed population across age groups, often found in newly-developed countries which have stable birth and mortality rates.

Each population pyramid is essentially a visual snapshot of a nation’s current demographic breakdown, shaped by fluctuating birth and mortality rates as well as changes to immigration and social policies.

Understanding the inherent risks associated with different pyramid types can help give insight into the challenges these populations face.

The Risks of Different Population Pyramid Types

Each type of population pyramid structure has unique challenges and advantages often characterized by the country or region’s current stage of economic development.

Populations with expansive pyramids, such as the one representing the continent of Africa, have the advantage of a larger youth and working-aged population, however this advantage can be rendered null if job growth, education, and health care aren’t prioritized.

Countries with constrictive pyramids like Japan face the challenge of supporting their outsized aging population with a diminishing working-aged population. While immigration and increasing birth rates can help in both the short and long term, due to the working population being outnumbered, countries with constrictive pyramids must find ways to increase their productivity to avoid potential declines in economic growth.

China and India’s Demographics Compared

After the world’s population reached eight billion people last year, 2023 brought a new population milestone as India overtook China as the world’s most populous country.

When you compare the two nations’ population pyramids, you can see how India’s population has a strong base of young and working-aged people compared to China’s more constrictive population pyramid that also features a higher median age.

This demographic difference is largely shaped by China’s one-child policy which since 2021 was loosened to be a three-child policy. As a result, China’s total fertility rate is around 1.2 today, in contrast to India’s total fertility rate of 2.0.

While India is set to ride the productivity boom of its large working-age population, the country will have to ensure it can keep its population pyramid stable as the majority of the population ages and total fertility rates continue to decline.

More than $1.3 billion U.S. tax dollars were sent to Russia and China over the past five years (since 2017), according to a new analysis released today by Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and OpenTheBooks.com auditors. This amount likely doesn’t reflect the total amount because federal agencies do not follow the trail of tax dollars to their final destination.

Senator Ernst and Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.) are leading the charge to create transparency and accountability for the taxpayer dollars that are being handed out in China and Russia. Today, they are introducing the Tracking Receipts to Adversarial Countries for Knowledge of Spending (TRACKS) Act that would require every penny from a government grant paid to any organization in China and Russia to be tracked and publicly disclosed.

Senator Ernst and OpenTheBooks determined more than $490 million from U.S. grants and contracts were paid to organizations in China over the past five years and another $870 million were paid to entities in Russia.

“Holding firms responsible to publicly report where and how they use their grants and contract awards can deputize private citizens and make them part of the solution. Radical transparency is revolutionizing U.S. public policy and is the information machine for democracy. Everyone has a stake in a more transparent, effective government.”

Some of these projects in Russia and China funded by taxpayer dollars already tracked down include:

• $58.7 million from Department of State, including $96,875 for gender equality through exhibition of New Yorker magazine cartoons

• $51.6 million from Department of Defense, including $6 million for tech support of the military “deployment and distribution command” software – delivering equipment and supplies anywhere our military is deployed, even though the DOD Inspector General warned the Pentagon about using Chinese IT companies on DOD projects

• $4.7 million to a Russian company for health insurance that was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2022

• $4.2 million from Health and Human Services, including $770,466 to a state-run lab in Russia to put cats on treadmills

• $2.4 million on Russian alcohol and addiction research

• $2 million funneled to China’s state-run Wuhan Institute of Virology to conduct dangerous experiments on bat coronaviruses and transgenic mice

• $1.6 million to Chinese companies from National School Lunch Program, which means taxpayer dollars from the CARES Act meant for American farmers went to Chinese ag exporters

• $1.45 million for pandemic virus tracking in Russia

• Subsidies for the Russian space program by funding the Russia Space Agency and vendors

* * *

And while it’s great that the US is tracking “every penny” paid to adversarial countries, why doesn’t the government also track every penny spent to friendly countries – what little is left of them – not to mention domestic recipients? Last time we checked, the Pentagon – the biggest money laundering machine in the world, far greater than bitcoin ever could be – which can only account for 39% of its $3.5 trillion in assets and racked up $35 trillion in accounting changes in just one year, and has never passed a full audit. Maybe instead of worrying so much about the few billions going to the Wuhan lab – what’s done is done – someone can rein in the trillions in untracable spending and money laundering that takes place right under the noses of America’s elected bureaucrats.

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times,

President Joe Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act on Saturday, suspending the debt ceiling for 19 months and bringing a monthslong political battle to a close.

The compromise legislation negotiated by Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support this week, averting a potential default on the nation’s financial obligations.

“Passing this budget agreement was critical. The stakes could not have been higher,” Biden said in a Friday evening address to the nation from the Oval Office.

Congressional leaders in both parties, eager to avoid financial disaster, endorsed the bill.

McCarthy referred to the legislation in historic terms, calling it the biggest spending cut ever enacted by Congress. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, “We’ve saved the country from the scourge of default,” after the bill passed the Senate on June 1.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) both supported the bill.

Biden vs. McCarthy

The president’s signature ends a monthslong cold war with McCarthy over terms for raising the nation’s $31.4 trillion debt ceiling.

The Financial Responsibility Act suspends the debt ceiling until Jan. 1, 2025, cuts non-defense discretionary spending slightly in 2024, and limits discretionary spending growth to 1 percent in 2025.

The agreement also contains permitting reforms for oil and gas drilling, changes to work requirements for some social welfare programs, and clawbacks of $20 billion in IRS funding and $30 billion in unspent COVID-19 relief funds, among other provisions.

President Joe Biden hosts debt limit talks with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other congressional leaders in the Oval Office at the White House on May 9, 2023. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

In the absence of congressional action to allow additional borrowing, the United States would have lacked the ready cash to pay all of its bills on June 5, according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

Yellen announced in January that the country was in danger of reaching its limit.

McCarthy then said Congress would not increase the limit without an agreement from the White House to cut spending. Biden said he would not negotiate over lifting the limit because that would put the full faith and credit of the United States at risk.

The impasse was broken in late April when the House passed the Limit, Save, Grow Act, authorizing a $1.5 trillion increase in borrowing along with spending cuts and other measures favored by Republicans.

Biden then agreed to negotiate with McCarthy, resulting in the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

Opposition

A vocal minority of lawmakers in both parties opposed the bill.

Some Republicans believed the agreement conceded too much to Democrats. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) nearly blocked the bill in committee, but it cleared by a single vote.

Some Democrats opposed the agreement because it cuts discretionary spending and changes work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They said those provisions would hurt working Americans and those in need.

​​House Rules Committee member Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) speaks at the Capitol on Jan. 30. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

A group of Senate Republicans led by Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) initially opposed the bill due to concerns about the level of defense spending. They were brought on board by assurances from Schumer and McConnell that emergency defense appropriations could be added later if needed.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 314 to 117 on May 31. Forty-six Democrats and 71 Republicans voted no.

The Senate passed the measure 63 to 36 the next day. Four Democrats, one Independent, and 41 Republicans voted no.

Mixed Reactions

Outside the Capitol, some observers applauded the bipartisan effort while others echoed the complaints of congressional dissenters.

“This kind of compromise is exactly how divided government should work,” Kelly Veney Darnell, interim CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center, said in a June 2 statement.

EJ Antoni, a research fellow at The Heritage Institute, said “conservatives have little to celebrate with this deal, and much about which to complain.” According to Antoni, the bill doesn’t actually cut spending. He called it “left-wing legislation” in a statement published June 1.

Navin Nayak, counselor at the Center for American Progress, endorsed the legislation unenthusiastically, saying it was imperfect but necessary in a May 31 statement. Nayak said the Mountain Valley Pipeline, green-lighted by the bill, puts the safety of thousands at risk and the added work requirements will increase hunger in America.

Congress must now work the provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act into a federal budget and the dozen appropriations bills required to fund the government in the coming year.

The 2024 fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.

Washing State has fired their anti-racist ‘director of the Office of Equity’ for being a huge racist, according to findings from an internal investigation obtained by The Center Square.

Hired in 2021, Dr. Karen Johnson was fired on May 17 by Gov. Jay Inslee after an internal investigation launched in November – and published nine days later – found that she engaged in “inappropriate conduct,” which included “inappropriate or insensitive comments,” including ethnic remarks.

For example, Johnson, pictured above, told one female employee that she couldn’t wear her hair in braids because it was “cultural appropriation.” (Oh?)

More specific allegations via The Center Square;

• Dr. Johnson accusing certain OFM employees of being paternalistic during a meeting, then getting “infuriated” and telling her staff to log off the meeting when Chief Financial Officer David Schumacher indicated that she did not know what the term meant and the dictionary definition was read.
• Dr. Johnson “alluding” to employees that she received messages from God and telling specific people that “God had instructed her to hire them and that they would be disappointing God by not accepting the role.”
• Dr. Johnson, who is Black, telling a Mexican employee that “this may take some time for me because I generally distrust Mexican people. Mexican people have the option of being White when it is convenient for them.”

The investigation, which involved more than a dozen witnesses and 2.649 pages of documentation, also found that Johnson “was disorganized and lacked adequate structure and process,” and publicly criticized employees.

In a letter to the law firm which conducted the investigation, Johnson said: “If this decision means that, by default, what has been said about me without me stands as fact, so be it,” adding “I must keep a clear conscious by not participating in this triangulating behavior, one of my non-negotiables. My truth is that I am more than willing to make myself available to meet with you and the person(s) bringing the allegation(s)/concern(s), as is my custom. Seeking reconciliation is more important to me than seeking to prove who is right. My destiny depends on this decision and destiny demands that I move forward.”

Investigators also found that since the office was set up in 2021, five out of 17 employees resigned. “Each of the individuals who resigned attributed their decision to leave, at least in part, to a chaotic, overburdened, and disrespectful workplace culture created by Dr. Johnson.”

Employees raised several concerns, including a lack of organizational process and procedures, micromanagement, and a lack of work-life balance, as well as “inappropriate or insensitive comments.”

One employee was “publicly chastised” for attending a meeting they had been invited to at the governor’s office without getting permission or notifying Johnson, and another reported being “shamed” by Johnson in a private meeting and in public.

Investigators said several people raised concerns of “biased and insensitive conduct,” including stereotyping and bias based on gender, bias against Mexicans, and tokenism related to military veteran status. –Seattle Times

Two employees “were told to wear makeup, specifically lipstick,” according to the report – a claim denied by Johnson.

According to Johnson, “the staff she was given did not have the skill set needed to operate with emotional maturity. Her staff operated like they needed a boss to tell them what to do. They could not operate at the speed of trust with character and competence.”

Also, at least two of them were Mexican – so Johnson would “generally distrust” them.

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via AntiWar.com,

The Secretary of State called for Washington to continue to put militarism before diplomacy…

The US will focus its efforts on arming Ukraine and not attempting to bring the war to a negotiated settlement, America’s top diplomat said. Secretary of State Antony Blinken laid out a plan to massively expand Kiev’s military before talks begin.

In a speech delivered in Finland on Friday, Blinken stated, “The United States – together with our allies and partners – is firmly committed to supporting Ukraine’s defense today, tomorrow, for as long as it takes.” He continued, “We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression.”

Blinken dismissed the idea of even a temporary pause in the fighting. “Some countries will call for a ceasefire. And on the surface, that sounds sensible – attractive, even. After all, who doesn’t want warring parties to lay down their arms? Who doesn’t want the killing to stop?” He said. “But a ceasefire that simply freezes current lines in place and enables Putin to consolidate control over the territory he’s seized…It would legitimize Russia’s land grab. It would reward the aggressor and punish the victim.”

The Secretary of State offered an ambitious vision of Kiev’s future military capabilities. “America and our allies are helping meet Ukraine’s needs on the current battlefield while developing a force that can deter and defend against aggression for years to come.” He added, “That means helping build a Ukrainian military of the future, with long-term funding, a strong air force centered on modern combat aircraft, an integrated air and missile defense network, advanced tanks and armored vehicles, national capacity to produce ammunition, and the training and support to keep forces and equipment combat-ready.”

It is unclear how long it would take to build the deterrence force envisioned by Blinken. American arms stockpiles are dwindling as Washington attempts to transfer Kiev enough military equipment to keep its army fighting. The US additionally has plans to significantly increase arms transfers to Taiwan.

Blinken claimed, “Our support for Ukraine hasn’t weakened our capabilities to meet potential threats from China or anywhere else – it’s strengthened them.” In November, the Wall Street Journal reported, “US government and congressional officials fear the conflict in Ukraine is exacerbating a nearly $19 billion backlog of weapons bound for Taiwan, further delaying efforts to arm the island.”

Additionally, the White House may not have the support it needs in the Capitol for such a massive military buildup in Ukraine. Blinken asserted that “in America, this support is bipartisan.” However, at the beginning of May, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said future support for Ukraine would be contingent on success in Kiev’s long-planned counteroffensive.

Since McCaul’s statement, Ukraine has slowly lost more territory to Russian forces, including Bakhmut. Zelensky committed endless resources to the city in a months-long battle despite the advice from his Western backers. The White House is now preparing for the counteroffensive to fail.

Washington’s strategy, as laid out by Blinken, calls for arming Ukraine and weakening Russia. “Russia is significantly worse off today than it was before its full-scale invasion of Ukraine – militarily, economically, geopolitically,” he stated, adding, “President Putin has diminished Russian influence on every continent.”

However, Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the commander of US European Command, told Congress in April that Moscow’s ground forces are “bigger today” than before Moscow launched its invasion of Ukraine last year.

While the White House has attempted to isolate the Kremlin, Moscow has weathered Western sanctions by developing relationships in the global south. On Friday, Russian officials met with prospective members of the BRICS coalition, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and the UAE. In September, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi said in a meeting with Putin, “The relationship between countries that are sanctioned by the US, such as Iran, Russia or other countries, can overcome many problems and issues and make them stronger.”

Blinken justified the Biden administration’s commitment to a militaristic approach by claiming the White House attempted to engage the Kremlin in meaningful diplomacy before the invasion of Ukraine. “President Biden told President Putin that we were prepared to discuss our mutual security concerns – a message that I reaffirmed repeatedly – including in person, with Foreign Minister Lavrov.” The Secretary of State continued, “We offered written proposals to reduce tensions. Together with our allies and partners, we used every forum to try to prevent war, from the NATO-Russia Council to the OSCE, from the UN to our direct channels.”

In April 2022, Biden administration official Derek Chollet admitted that the White House refused to negotiate with the Kremlin on Putin’s core concern, Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. “We made clear to the Russians that we were willing to talk to them on issues that we thought were genuine concerns,” Chollet said, adding that the administration didn’t think that “the future of Ukraine” was one of those issues and that its potential NATO membership was a “non-issue.”