Peter Myers Digest: Biden admin: Trans women must register for draft; trans men don’t have to

(1) Biden admin requires trans women to register for draft if they were born male
(2) Biden admin: Trans women must register for draft; trans men don’t have to
(3) Tulsi Gabbard leaves ‘Elitist, Woke, Anti-White’ Democratic Party
(4) European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) backs topless feminist who profaned Paris church
(5) Supreme Court to rule on University admissions’ discrimination against Whites & Asians
(6) Russia is ready to supply gas to Europe on the one undamaged line of Nord Stream 2 pipeline
(7) Germany rejects Russian to send gas via Nord Stream 2 pipeline
(8) German Left Calls for a Ban on AfD. It calls for Germany to reopen Nord Stream 2 & repair damage
(9) Central Banks should ditch 2% Inflation Target, for 4%. Higher Gov’t Spending is here to stay

(1) Biden admin requires trans women to register for draft if they were born male

https://thepostmillennial.com/biden-admin-requires-trans-women-to-register-for-draft-if-they-were-born-male

Biden admin requires trans women to register for draft if they were born male

“US citizens or immigrants who are born male and changed their gender to female are still required to register. Individuals who are born female and changed their gender to male are not required to register.”

Biden admin requires trans women to register for draft if they were born male

Oct 10, 2022

The Biden administration’s requirements for who must register for Selective Service in the event that there is a draft includes those persons that identify as trangender but are born male. “Almost all male US citizens and male immigrants, who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service,” and that includes males who identify as transgender.

“US citizens or immigrants who are born male and changed their gender to female are still required to register. Individuals who are born female and changed their gender to male are not required to register,” reads the guidance on requirements from the Selective Service System.

As soon as Biden took office, he enacted an executive order, one of many, that said that those who identify as transgender should be treated by the military according to their gender identity and not according to their biological sex. This could mean that those transgender males who identify as women would serve alongside women, in women’s units, in the event that they were called up by Selective Service.

The way that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) defines transgender is “people whose gender identity and/or expression is different from the sex assigned to them at birth (e.g. the sex listed on an original birth certificate).” In several states, people can legally change their original birth certificate to align with their gender identity and not their actual sex.

Interestingly, the Selective Service does not require those who were born female but identify as transgender to register for the draft, only those who were born male. For those who were born female but identify as transgender, Selective Service asks that they provide a letter explaining that this is the reason they do not have to register for the draft.

“Individuals who have changed their gender to male will be asked to complete a Status Information Letter (SIL) request form and provide a copy of their birth certificate,” they write.

A Status Information Letter gives the individual the opportunity to “describe, in detail, the circumstances you believe prevented you from registering and provide copies of documents” showing those reasons why.

“OPM Guidance further explains that the term ‘transgender woman’ is typically used to refer to someone who was assigned the male sex at birth but who identifies as a female. Likewise, OPM provides that the term ‘transgender man’ typically is used to refer to someone who was assigned the female sex at birth but who identifies as male,” the Selective Service states.

The CDC offers their own definition of “transgender persons,” saying that “Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity or expression (masculine, feminine, other) is different from their sex (male, female) at birth.”

The CDC goes on to define “Gender identity” as that which “refers to one’s internal understanding of one’s own gender, or the gender with which a person identifies. Gender expression is a term used to describe people’s outward presentation of their gender.”

For the Biden administration, “gender identity” is irrelevant when it comes time to register for Selective Service. Biden spoke on this year’s Trans Day of Visibility telling parents and their “transgender” children they were “so brave,” and urging parents to “affirm” their kids.

The Biden administration, and Joe Biden in particular, have been heavily promoting transgender and gender ideology since taking office in 2021. On his first day in office, he signed an executive order requiring that all federal agencies find ways to be more inclusive of gender identity in their policies and programs.

The Biden administration’s inclusion of biologically male transgender persons in those required to register for Selective Service belies their ongoing initiative to demand that Americans believe that males who say they are female are really, fully female and should be treated as such.

(2) Biden admin: Trans women must register for draft; trans men don’t have to

Biden admin: Trans women must register for draft; trans men don’t have to

OCTOBER 10, 2022

LIZ GEORGE

Under President Joe Biden’s administration, transgender women who are born male must register for the Selective Service, otherwise known as the military draft. Transgender men who are born female do not have to register for the selective service. While the policy was established before Biden took office, the Biden administration has not changed the standard.

According to the Selective Service System website, nearly “all male US citizens and male immigrants, who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service.” The website states that all biological males must register for the draft, including “U.S. citizens or immigrants who are born male and have changed their gender to female.”

The website also notes that “Individuals who are born female and have changed their gender to male” do not have to register.

The policy came to light after the Selective Service’s official Twitter account posted, “Parents, if your son is an only son and the last male in your family to carry the family name, he is still required to register with SSS. Learn more about who needs to register at https://sss.gov/register/who-needs-to-register/.”

Parents, if your son is an only son and the last male in your family to carry the family name, he is still required to register with SSS. Learn more about who needs to register at https://t.co/GYbRK99c09. pic.twitter.com/tzW6uKkyl5

— Selective Service (@SSS_gov) October 7, 2022

Many Twitter users pushed back on the Selective Service’s tweet, writing that their sons will simply identify as women to avoid the draft.

“My son’s a girl now so we good,” one user wrote.

My son’s a girl now so we good

— Nutshell0914 (@nutshell0914) October 10, 2022

“For the purpose of SSS my son will identify as a girl starting with his 18th birthday. Checkmate fascist,” another tweeted.

For the purpose of SSS my son will identify as a girl starting with his 18th birthday.

Checkmate fascist

— Nunya Business (@NWTallDad_2) October 10, 2022

While the Biden administration still treats transgender women as males when it comes to the currently male-only military draft, they have also voiced support for including women in the draft

Last year the White House said it supports including all women in the draft around the same time the House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders agreed to remove a provision requiring women to register for the Selective Service from the National Defense Authorization Act.

“The administration supports section 513 and the registration requirement for all citizens, which further ensures a military selective system that is fair and just,” the Biden administration said in a Sept. 21, 2021 statement of administrative policy.

(3) Tulsi Gabbard leaves ‘Elitist, Woke, Anti-White’ Democratic Party

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tulsi-gabbard-abandons-elitist-woke-anti-white-democratic-party

Tulsi Gabbard Abandons ‘Elitist, Woke, Anti-White’ Democratic Party

BY TYLER DURDEN

WEDNESDAY, OCT 12, 2022 – 12:10 AM

While not entirely surprising, the reasons that former Democratic candidate for President, Tulsi Gabbard, reveals for her decision to leave the Democratic Party should raise questions in all but the most-liberal of leftists…

I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are hostile to people of faith & spirituality, demonize the police & protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, believe in open borders, weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents, and above all, dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.

I believe in a government that is of, by, and for the people.

Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party does not.

Instead, it stands for a government of, by, and for the powerful elite.

I’m calling on my fellow common sense independent-minded Democrats to join me in leaving the Democratic Party.

If you can no longer stomach the direction that so-called woke Democratic Party ideologues are taking our country, I invite you to join me.

Gabbard did not declare herself a Republican, despite sharing many of the views of the anti-interventionist, ‘America First’ wing of the GOP.

During her four terms in office from 2013 to 2021, Gabbard advocated dialogue with America’s rival superpowers, coupled with a hardline policy on Islamic terrorism. Failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accused Gabbard in 2019 of being “a Russian asset,” likely referencing the Hawaiian lawmaker’s past praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s fight against terrorism in Syria.

While the Democratic Party has – with the backing of establishment Republicans – voted almost unanimously to send more than $52 billion to Ukraine in recent months, Gabbard has condemned Biden for “exploiting this war to strengthen NATO and feed the military-industrial complex.”

Does make one wonder if she is positioning herself for a VP seat on a DeSantis ticket in 2024?

Watch her full statement below:

@TulsiGabbard
I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are…

@TulsiGabbard
…hostile to people of faith & spirituality, demonize the police & protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, believe in open borders, weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents, and above all, dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.

@TulsiGabbard
I believe in a government that is of, by, and for the people. Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party does not. Instead, it stands for a government of, by, and for the powerful elite. I’m calling on my fellow common sense independent-minded Democrats to join me….

@TulsiGabbard
…in leaving the Democratic Party. If you can no longer stomach the direction that so-called woke Democratic Party ideologues are taking our country, I invite you to join me.

(4) European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) backs topless feminist who profaned Paris church

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/european-court-rules-topless-feminist-who-profaned-paris-church-had-right-to-freedom-of-expression/

European court rules topless feminist who profaned Paris church had right to ‘freedom of expression’

Eloïse Bouton, a freelance journalist working for the mainstream press who later left Femen in 2014, was the star of the event planned by the group to demand the protection of abortion ‘rights.’

Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent

Thu Oct 13, 2022 – 3:28 pm EDT

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has awarded almost 10,000 euros ($9791 US) in damages and legal costs to a former “Femen” member, Eloïse Bouton, on the grounds that her right to “freedom of expression” was violated by the French courts that condemned her for her shocking “topless” intrusion into the Parisian church of La Madeleine shortly before 10 a.m. on December 20, 2013.

The European judges decided that the French government, the defendant in the case, must pay 2,000 euros in damages and a further 7,800 euros to cover Bouton’s legal expenses because she received too heavy a penal sentence for acts that were intended to express a political opinion.

At the time of Bouton’s “performance” in front of the main altar of La Madeleine, France had only just emerged from months of confrontation between proponents and opponents of same-sex “marriage,” which became law in May 2013. For more than a year, all over Europe, female members of the originally Ukrainian feminist organization “Femen” had intruded upon public events and symbolic Christian locations, bare-breasted and displaying offensive slogans painted on their bodies.

Eloïse Bouton, a freelance journalist working for the mainstream press who later left Femen in 2014, was the star of the event planned by the group to demand the protection of abortion “rights.” Accompanied by a dozen journalists, including a writer for the major news service Agence France Presse, she entered La Madeleine during a choir rehearsal, stripping to the waist and placing a light-blue veil on her head together with a “crown” of red flowers.

The words “344e salope” (an obscene expression denoting a promiscuous woman) were painted in red on her chest, in reference to a manifesto by 343 self-proclaimed “salopes,” including celebrities, who admitted in 1971 to having had illegal abortions in order to put pressure on the authorities to legalize the killing of unborn babies. Abortion would be decriminalized in France soon after, in December, 1974.

On Bouton’s back were painted the words: “Christmas is canceled.”

She “simulated an abortion” and then stood facing the nave with arms outstretched as if crucified, bearing bloody chunks of beef liver in both hands. According to the parish priest of La Madeleine, she also urinated on the altar steps although this point was never confirmed. Bouton was arrested and taken into police custody for a few hours before being charged with “indecent exposure,” called “sexual exhibition” in the French penal code.

The reason for this choice of indictment is that French law does not criminalize desecration of sacred objects as such, or blasphemies; at most, it allows the prosecution of religious discrimination, calls for “hatred” or defamation insofar as they affect believers of a given creed.

Photos of the “performance” were immediately posted online, while Femen issued a statement:

“Christmas is canceled! From the Vatican to Paris. Femen’s international drive against the Catholic lobby’s anti-abortion campaigns continues, the holy mother Eloise has just aborted Jesus’ embryo on the altar of the Madeleine.”

Bouton herself published an article in the left-wing magazine Le Nouvel Observateur two days after the event, in which she called the pieces of meat “symbols of the aborted infant Jesus,” adding that she “left the bloody holy fetus at the foot of the altar.”

One year later, on December 19, 2014, she was condemned by the criminal tribunal of Paris to a one-month suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay the parish’s representative 2,000 euros in damages plus 1,500 euros to cover the plaintiff’s legal costs. LifeSite commented at the time that the sentence was <https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/hardly-a-slap-on-the-wrist-for-femen-nude-invasion-of-famous-cathedral/>“hardly a slap on the wrist” for the woman who desecrated the Parisian church.

Her recourse against the judgment was initially unsuccessful. On February 15, 2017, the Paris Court of appeal confirmed it in every detail, rejecting Bouton’s repeated plea that her “topless” intrusion into the church was never intended as “sexual exhibitionism” but as a political statement, using her naked breasts as a “weapon.” She had recognized that she hoped to “shock” and “offend the decency” of those Catholics who would witness the event because of the Church’s stance against abortion.

In January 2019, the Court of Cassation, one of France’s courts of last resort, confirmed the first instance and appeal decisions in its turn, noting that the “motives” invoked by Bouton to justify the indecent exposure for which she was sentenced were “irrelevant.” It invoked article?9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects citizens’ rights to practice their religion without being disturbed.

Bouton argued throughout the proceedings that going topless for a political reason has no sexual overtones because her chest was not a “sexual object” in the context – a claim rejected by the Court of Appeal, in particular because in reply to a judge’s questions, she admitted that if anyone were to touch her breasts without her consent that would constitute a “sexual aggression.”

The Court of Appeal took care to justify its decision, saying that while it was true that “Eloïse Bouton exhibited her breasts, without accompanying her action with an obscene gesture, she committed her action in a religious building, a place of prayer and meditation, at the entrance of which it is recalled that anyone entering the premises, whether a believer, atheist or agnostic, is obliged to observe decent dress.”

The judges added: “Eloïse Bouton acted without the slightest authorization from the parish priest, who is the assigned occupant of the religious building; (…) finally, the evolution of morals, conceptions of art and the notion of modesty cannot be taken into consideration to justify an act and attitudes committed in a religious building by Eloïse Bouton, who claims to have used her breasts as a weapon; (…) moreover, the exhibition was imposed in full view of others and in a place accessible to the gaze of others, the Madeleine church being open to the public at the time, the acts … (. …) were committed during the rehearsal of the Madeleine vocal ensemble in the vicinity of the altar and in the presence of the choirmaster, Mr [M.], who intervened firmly to put a stop to them immediately; (…) the exhibition by Éloïse Bouton of the sexual parts of her body also took place in full view of a non-consenting person.”

These are the decisions Bouton took to the European Court of Human Rights, where her counsel argued that she could not have known beforehand that appearing topless in a church could be considered as the delict of “indecent exposure” because it is not precisely described under French law, and because her act was a political statement. Her counsel also maintained that her gesture was not sexual and complained that the one-month suspended prison sentence was far too heavy, implying that she could no longer join “Femen” performances because if found guilty once more of indecent exposure, she would immediately be forced to serve her suspended sentence.

This was a “disproportionate” violation of her liberty of expression, it was argued.

The European Court explicitly placed the affair under the light of article?10 of the European Convention on Human Rights that guarantees freedom of expression, thereby affording Bouton a first victory: her action was assessed not in its own right as an undue exhibition of nudity in a place of worship, but as a legitimate means of expressing a political agenda to which limitations may apply, but only to a certain extent.

Its intent, the Court acknowledged, was “to convey, in a symbolic place of worship, a message relating to a public and societal debate on the position of the Catholic Church on a sensitive and controversial issue, namely the right of women freely to dispose of their bodies, including the right to resort to abortion.”

Her act could be considered to have “ignored the acceptable rules of conduct in a place of worship” but, the judges added, the Court was “struck (…) by the severity of the penalty imposed by the domestic courts on the applicant without, however, explaining why a prison sentence was necessary to ensure the protection of public order, morality and the rights of others in the circumstances of the case.”

The ECHR decision went on to observe that “the suspended sentence of one month’s imprisonment imposed on the applicant was a custodial sentence which could be enforced in the event of a new conviction and which had been entered in her criminal record. The seriousness of the criminal penalty imposed was compounded by the relatively high amount of the sum payable by the applicant in respect of civil interest.”

Sticking to its point of view that the desecration of the Madeleine should be considered merely part of an ongoing “debate,” the ECHR decided that the French judiciary overstepped its rights regarding the choice of a punishment because when “freedom of expression” is in play, only the very lightest of sanctions are acceptable according to its own jurisprudence.

The judges also condoned Bouton’s reasoning that the prison sentence handed down by the French courts had no intention of punishing “a violation of freedom of conscience and religion,” even though her provocations were deliberately staged in a church in a way calculated to “offend not only the moral convictions of the religious ministers and those present, but also their religious beliefs.” The French courts set a limit to her freedom of expression without taking into consideration the “meaning” of the inscriptions on Bouton’s body and her explanations regarding the way she staged her act and the “meaning” Femen members give to their nude performances, thereby failing to balance the religious rights and freedom of expression that were in play, said the ECHR.

The European Court concluded that “the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression by the suspended prison sentence imposed on her was not ‘necessary in a democratic society’.”

In practice, Bouton’s suspended prison sentence was not sufficiently heavy to have a dissuasive effect: one year after Bouton’s deliberate provocation, calculated to shock and hurt Catholics while obtaining wide media coverage, and less than 24 hours after the sentence was first handed down, another member of the Femen group entered the church of the Madeleine where, stripped to the waist and wearing the same blue veil and a crown of red flowers, she mounted the steps of the main altar and displayed the inscription “345e salope” on her nude chest.

She was accompanied by another topless member of the Femen group and a photographer. Both women were ushered to the exit and the parish priest filed a complaint, but to date no action has been taken by the judiciary authorities.

Now that the ECHR has made clear that such actions may receive only the very lightest of sanctions, Femen members have no reason to fear committing repeat offenses.

(5) Supreme Court to rule on University admissions’ discrimination against Whites & Asians

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/will-supreme-court-end-affirmative-action

Will The Supreme Court End Affirmative Action?

BY TYLER DURDEN

THURSDAY, OCT 13, 2022 – 12:45 PM

<https://www.theamericanconservative.com/will-the-supreme-court-end-affirmative-action/> Authored by Peter Van Buren via TheAmericanConservative.com,

If you thought the Supreme Court threw up some dust overturning Roe v. Wade, watch this current term as the Court considers overturning <https://casetext.com/case/grutter-v-bollinger-et-al> Grutter v. Bollinger and decides whether “race-conscious” admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are lawful.

<https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/2022-10-12_10-38-49.jpg?itok=fkMhT0Aw> The two cases the Court might use to overturn <https://casetext.com/case/grutter-v-bollinger-et-al> Grutter, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of <https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college/> Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of <https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-university-of-north-carolina/> North Carolina, pose three questions. First, can race be a factor in admissions? Second, has Harvard violated <“https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-42-the-public-health-and-welfare/chapter-21-civil-rights/subchapter-v-federally-assisted-programs/section-2000d-prohibition-against-exclusion-from-participation-in-denial-of-benefits-of-and-discrimina> Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian-American applicants? And third, quoting the Court, can a university “reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity?”

The essential question, then, is this: can race continue to be a factor in university admissions?

In 2003, the Court in Grutter upheld affirmative action in academic admissions, saying race can indeed be considered in admissions decisions alongside things like tests and grades. After being denied admission to University of Michigan Law School, white student Barbara Grutter sued the school, alleging it discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to equal protection, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed, in the words of the <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html> Court, that she was rejected because the law school “used race as a ‘predominant’ factor, giving applicants belonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials” from disfavored racial groups such as whites and Asians.

Precedent was not on her side. The earlier <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811> Bakke case was seen as binding precedent establishing that fostering diversity was a “compelling state interest.” The Grutter Court similarly claimed that, in light of Bakke, the “Law School’s use of race was narrowly tailored because race was merely a potential ‘plus’ factor.” Viewing a candidate’s race as a “bonus” was allowed, but using race as the predominant criteria for admission was not.

The Court found the Law School’s “narrowly tailored use of race” in admissions decisions furthered “a compelling interest in the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body and is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause.” What some came to call “reverse discrimination” was allowed within certain boundaries because it furthered the “compelling interests” of a more diverse student body and broader access to higher education.

The premise behind the Grutter decision is that <https://unherd.com/2022/07/harvard-must-fall/> disparities between groups in things such as admissions are always the result of discrimination. In this view, the focus on individual rights (such as Barbara Grutter’s) distracts from the more important struggle against systemic racism.

The problems with this idea are manifold. Space at all academic institutions, and especially at the top tier ones, is limited. To explicitly favor one group necessarily means excluding other groups. That is why Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College has amici groups that believe Harvard is violating the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian American applicants in favor of blacks. These groups include Chinese American Citizens Alliance, the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, the Asian American Coalition For Education, and the Asian American Legal Foundation. Also included is the Coalition for TJ, a group representing Northern Virginia’s super magnet school Thomas Jefferson High, which <https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/tj-high-schools-race-problem/> won a suit recently that deemed the school’s race-based admissions policy illegal.

The tide is turning around the nation. In addition to the win for a return to merit-based admissions at Thomas Jefferson High, the San Francisco School Board <https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/san-francisco-school-board-lowell/661470/> returned the admissions policy at Lowell, the city’s most prestigious public high school, to the merit-based system it had used for more than a century. New York City’s most sought-after high schools, including Stuyvesant, held on to their merit-based system even as other high schools switched to a lottery system.

If Grutter is overturned, that would end 45 years of precedent holding that race could be used as one factor among many in evaluating applicants. The universities argue race-based decisions are lawful, and serve an important national interest.

Colleges have a long, sordid history of discriminatory admissions policies. Kenneth Marcus, assistant secretary for civil rights at the Trump administration’s education department, <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/politics/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html> said Harvard’s treatment of Asian students was reminiscent of its efforts to limit Jewish enrollment.

“Just as Harvard in the 1930s thought that Jewish students lacked the character to make them good Harvard men,” he said, “so today they often view Asian students as lacking the appropriate character.”

One defender of affirmative action in admissions almost seemed to confirm the opposition’s point, <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/24/us/politics/supreme-court-affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html> telling the New York Times that “Race-conscious admissions policies are a critical tool that ensures students of color are not overlooked in a process that does not typically value their determination, accomplishments and immense talents.”

Like Roe, Grutter and Bakke represent efforts by the Supreme Court to remake society through judicial fiat. With Grutter, the Court took it upon itself to endorse the use of race in admissions by claiming the nation had a “compelling interest” in a racially diverse higher-education system.

And the potential fallout from overruling Grutter is huge. According to <https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-documents-racial-preferences-massively-133000831.html> documents filed with the Supreme Court, a reversal of the current race-conscious standard could shrink the percentage of black students admitted to Harvard by more than two-thirds.

While they are significantly more likely on a proportional basis to be enrolled at Harvard than whites, black applicants’ SAT scores were significantly lower than those of whites. Harvard’s existing policies roughly quadruple the likelihood an African-American applicant would be accepted relative to a white student with similar academic qualifications. Most African Americans fell into the bottom 20 percent of all applicants to both Harvard and UNC, but were admitted at the highest rate in almost every performance decile.

In the two upcoming cases, the Court has a chance to realign itself and college admissions with popular opinion. A 2019 survey found <https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/> 73 percent of Americans said colleges and universities should not consider race or ethnicity when making decisions about student admissions. Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson will <https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-move-allows-jackson-200741406.html> not recuse herself from these cases despite having been involved with one of them in the lower courts. She will join liberals Kagan and Sotomayor in likely support of affirmative action. Those justices will be largely unsupported by the public and their Court colleagues. The next class at Harvard and other sought-after schools may look very different from the one that starts this fall ahead of the Court’s decision.

(6) Russia is ready to supply gas to Europe on the one undamaged line of Nord Stream 2 pipeline

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/putin-says-russia-ready-send-natural-gas-europe-nord-stream-2

Putin Says Russia Ready To Send Natural Gas To Europe Via Nord Stream 2

THURSDAY, OCT 13, 2022 – 03:20 AM

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Russia is ready to supply gas to Europe on the one undamaged line on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline if the EU wants to start the route, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at an energy forum in Russia on Wednesday.

Russia is ready to deliver additional volumes of natural gas to Europe this winter, but the ball is in the EU’s court to decide, Putin said, as carried by the Russian news agency Interfax.

Putin also said that repairing the Nord Stream 1 and 2 lines that were found to have been sabotaged would only make sense if they will be used later, Interfax quoted the Russian president as saying.

Nord Stream 2 was never put into operation after Germany axed the certification process following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia, for its part, shut down Nord Stream 1 indefinitely in early September, claiming an inability to repair gas turbines because of the Western sanctions.

Before the Nord Stream 1 and 2 leaks were detected at the end of September, Putin said that Russia had nothing to do with Europe’s energy crisis and that if Europe wanted more gas, it just had to “push the button” on Nord Stream 2 and “everything will get going,” that is, lift the sanctions on Nord Stream 2.

A few days later, Stephan Weil, Minister-President of the northwestern German state of Lower Saxony, said that Germany could never rely on Russia for energy supply again, and the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project would never go ahead.

Another few days later, the suspected sabotage on Nord Stream 1 and 2 lines in Swedish and Danish territorial waters in the Baltic Sea put Europe on heightened alert over the security of its energy infrastructure.

Norway posted soldiers from its Home Guard to protect energy infrastructure as Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producer, and its Scandinavian neighbors are increasing security following the suspected sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.

(7) Germany rejects Russian to send gas via Nord Stream 2 pipeline

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/361098

Germany rejects Russian offer to renew Nord Stream gas exports

Putin’s offer to reestablish natural gas exports to Germany through Nord Stream 2 pipeline rebuffed by German government.

Israel National News

Oct 12, 2022, 11:01 PM (GMT+3)

Germany rejected in offer on Wednesday from Russian President Vladimir Putin to renew exporting natural gas through its Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

The offer was rejected out of hand by Germany, with government spokesperson Christiane Hoffmann responding to Putin’s offer by saying, “Nice try.”

“Independently of the possible sabotage of the two pipelines, we have seen that Russia is no longer a reliable energy supplier, and that even before the damage to Nord Stream 1 there was no longer any gas flowing,” Hoffman said. “So for us, there is no reason to believe that that would change.”

Russia has severely limited oil and gas exports to Europe in response to sanctions from NATO countries resulting from its invasion of Ukraine.

On Wednesday, Putin continued to insist that the mysterious blasts that damaged Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in September were not Russian sabotage but an “an act of international terrorism” carried out to damage the relationship between Russia and the EU, Fox News reported.

“The act of sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 is an act of international terrorism aimed at undermining energy security of the entire continent by blocking supplies of cheap energy,” Putin said. “Those who want to rupture ties between Russia and the EU are behind the acts of sabotage on the Nord Stream.”

Neither of the pipelines were in operation when the sabotage took place. Four explosions hit the pipelines at the bottom of the Baltic Sea, two in Swedish territory and two in Danish territory.

An ongoing investigation into possible sabotage was opened by Germany, Sweden and NATO.

Russia is ready to supply gas to Europe on the one undamaged line on the Nord Stream 2

(8) German Left Calls for a Ban on AfD. It calls for Germany to reopen Nord Stream 2 & repair damage

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/left-calls-ban-germanys-afd-party-just-party-surges-popularity

The Left Calls For A Ban On Germany’s AfD Party Just As The Party Surges In Popularity

BY TYLER DURDEN

THURSDAY, OCT 13, 2022 – 04:00 PM

Authored by John Cody via Remix News,

Despite Germany’s claims of democracy, politicians are calling to ban the AfD party…

Members of the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Left party (Die Linke) are calling for a ban on the conservative Alternative for Germany (AfD) party just as it surges in the polls, raising fears that Germany, which prides itself on being democratic, will attempt to completely ban one of the largest parties in the country.

Dorothea Marx (SPD), a member of the Thuringian state parliament, is one of the politicians calling for the AfD party to be banned.

“The time is ripe,” Marx told the dpa news agency. Above all, she said, the Thuringian state assembly must act quickly.

She said that although numerous state branches of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution were monitoring the party, it was only logical for the state to take further measures and exclude it from party funding.

“The next logical thing then is a ban procedure,” the SPD politician stressed. According to Marx, it would also be possible to ban individual state associations.

“AfD’s hatred and agitation must no longer be equated with democratic freedom of expression.”

As Remix News has previously <https://rmx.news/article/germany-entire-afd-party-ruled-suspected-threat-to-democracy-opening-door-to-mass-surveillance-of-opposition-party/> reported, AfD is currently facing extreme surveillance and monitoring, which interferes with the party’s ability to operate. The powerful Office for the Protection of the Constitution domestic intelligence agency has deemed AfD a “suspected threat” to democracy, which enables agents to read emails and listen to phone calls of members without a warrant. It would be the equivalent of the FBI in the United States deeming the Republican Party a “suspected threat” to the constitution and having the power to surveil any party member merely on the basis that they belong to the party.

AfD’s leadership has long warned that the country’s left-liberal ruling bloc <https://rmx.news/germany/german-government-intends-to-ban-conservative-afd-party-warns-party-chairman/> would move to ban the party entirely. Given AfD’s surging popularity, with the party rising to <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-election-poll-idUSKCN11S2PP> 16 percent in the polls, its highest level ever, many of these rival parties would like to see the opposition party removed entirely from the democratic system.

SPD”s Marx received support from Thuringia’s Left party politician Katharina König-Preuss, who is known for her connections to Antifa.

“A ban can help deprive AfD of state funding,” said the state parliament member.

“A ban can also help to disarm AfD members more quickly. We know of demonstrably around 50 AfD actors armed with live firearms in the state.” The party, she said, is no less “fighting against human dignity, the principle of democracy, and the rule of law than NPD.”

The idea that banning a party to save democracy is widespread in Germany’s left-wing circles; however, AfD has argued that nobody in the party has ever advocated anti-democratic principles. In fact, there is evidence the party wants to strengthen it by introducing Swiss-style citizen referendums, which would allow citizens to vote on specific issues, which is currently only allowed in some states such as Berlin.

As Germany’s entire political leadership has moved to slap sanctions on Russia over the war in Ukraine, AfD has <https://rmx.news/germany/germanys-conservative-afd-party-receives-electoral-boost-with-anti-sanctions-policy/> pushed for Germany to reopen the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and repair any damage. Germany’s industrial sector is highly reliant on cheap Russian energy, and <https://rmx.news/netherlands/dutch-inflation-soars-to-unprecedented-17-1-10-eurozone-countries-in-double-digits/> surging inflation is <https://rmx.news/article/energy-crisis-will-spark-riots-that-make-covid-19-protests-look-like-kids-birthday-party-says-german-law-enforcement-official/> threatening political unrest. As a result, politicians may be seeking to head off the party before it grows in popularity, as the economic crisis is only expected to worsen.

Can AfD be banned?

The far-left is not the only political force seeking to ban AfD, with the center-left Christian Democratic Union (CDU) also <https://rmx.news/article/germany-cdu-politician-demands-afd-ban-claims-rival-party-is-wicked/> calling for a ban on the party in the past. However, despite many of these parties looking to eliminate their rival, there is only one institution, the Federal Constitutional Court, that can truly ban the party.

In the past, only the Socialist Reich Party (1952) and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD, 1956) were banned. Corresponding proceedings against the ultra-nationalist NPD failed after Germany’s highest court was unable to clarify in the first attempt how great the influence of informers from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution was. In the second attempt, the Karlsruhe body ruled that although NPD wanted to abolish the free democratic state order, it was ultimately too insignificant.

AfD has never promoted any of the ultra-nationalist policies of NPD, but given its recent success, the party is certainly not insignificant.

(9) Central Banks should ditch 2% Inflation Target, for 4%. Higher Gov’t Spending is here to stay

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/10/06/a-new-macroeconomic-era-is-emerging-what-will-it-look-like

Leaders | After the chaos

A new macroeconomic era is emerging. What will it look like?
A great rebalancing between governments and central banks is under way

Oct 6th 2022

For months there has been turmoil in financial markets and growing evidence of stress in the world economy. You might think that these are just the normal signs of a bear market and a coming recession. But, as our special report this week lays out, they also mark the painful emergence of a new regime in the world economy—a shift that may be as consequential as the rise of Keynesianism after the second world war, and the pivot to free markets and globalisation in the 1990s. This new era holds the promise that the rich world might escape the low-growth trap of the 2010s and tackle big problems such as ageing and climate change. But it also brings acute dangers, from financial chaos to broken central banks and out-of-control public spending.

The ructions in the markets are of a magnitude not seen for a generation. Global inflation is in double digits for the first time in nearly 40 years. Having been slow to respond, the Federal Reserve is now cranking up interest rates at the fastest pace since the 1980s, while the dollar is at its strongest for two decades, causing chaos outside America. If you have an investment portfolio or a pension, this year has been gruesome. Global shares have dropped by 25% in dollar terms, the worst year since at least the 1980s, and government bonds are on course for their worst year since 1949. Alongside some $40trn of losses there is a queasy sense that the world order is being upended as globalisation heads into retreat and the energy system is fractured after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

All this marks a definitive end to the age of economic placidity in the 2010s. After the global financial crisis of 2007-09 the performance of rich economies assumed a feeble pattern. Investment by private firms was subdued, even at those making monster profits, while governments did not take up the slack: the public capital stock actually shrank around the world, as a share of gdp, in the decade after Lehman Brothers collapsed. Economic growth was sluggish and inflation was low. With the private and public sectors doing little to stimulate more activity, central banks became the only game in town. They held interest rates at rock-bottom levels and bought huge volumes of bonds at any sign of trouble, extending their reach ever further into the economy. On the eve of the pandemic central banks in America, Europe and Japan owned a staggering $15trn of financial assets.

The extraordinary challenge of the pandemic led to extraordinary actions which helped unleash today’s inflation: wild government stimulus and bail-outs, temporarily skewed patterns of consumer demand and lockdown-induced supply-chain tangles. That inflationary impulse has since been turbocharged by the energy crunch as Russia, one of the largest exporters of fossil fuels along with Saudi Arabia, has isolated itself from its markets in the West. Faced with a serious inflation problem the Fed has already raised rates from a maximum of 0.25% to 3.25% and is expected to take them to 4.5% by early 2023. Globally, most monetary authorities are tightening too.

What on earth comes next? One immediate fear is of a blow-up, as a financial system that has become habituated to low rates wakes up to the soaring cost of borrowing. Although one mid-sized lender, Credit Suisse, is under pressure, it is unlikely that banks will become a big problem: most have bigger safety buffers than in the past. Instead the dangers lie elsewhere, in a new-look financial system that relies less on banks and more on fluid markets and technology. The good news is that your deposits are not about to go up in smoke. The bad news is that this system for financing firms and consumers is opaque and hypersensitive to losses.

You can already see this in the credit markets. As firms that buy debt shy away from risk, the interest rate on mortgages and junk bonds is soaring. The market for “leveraged loans” used to finance corporate buy-outs has seized up—if Elon Musk buys Twitter the resulting debts may become a big problem. Meanwhile investment funds, including pension schemes, face losses on the portfolios of illiquid assets they have accumulated. Parts of the plumbing could stop working. The Treasury market has become more erratic (see Buttonwood) while European energy firms have faced crushing collateral calls on their hedges. Britain’s bond market has been thrown into chaos by obscure derivatives bets made by its pension funds.

If markets stop working smoothly, impeding the flow of credit or threatening contagion, central banks may step in: already the Bank of England has done a u-turn and started buying bonds again, cutting against its simultaneous commitment to raise rates. The related belief that central banks will not have the resolve to follow through on their tough talk is behind the other big fear: that the world will return to the 1970s, with rampant inflation. In one sense this is alarmist and over the top. Most forecasters reckon inflation in America will fall from the present 8% to 4% in 2023 as energy price-rises ebb and higher rates bite. Yet while the odds of inflation going to 20% are tiny, there is a glaring question about whether governments and central banks will ever bring it back down to 2%.

A moving target

To understand why, look beyond the hurly-burly to the long-term fundamentals. In a big shift from the 2010s, a structural rise in government spending and investment is under way. Ageing citizens will need more health care. Europe and Japan will spend more on defence to counter threats from Russia and China. Climate change and the quest for security will boost state investment in energy, from renewable infrastructure to gas terminals. And geopolitical tensions are leading governments to spend more on industrial policy. Yet even as investment rises, demography will weigh ever more heavily on rich economies. As people get older they save more, and this excess of savings will continue to act to depress the underlying real rate of interest.

As a result the fundamental trends in the 2020s and 2030s are for bigger government but still-low real interest rates. For central banks this creates an acute dilemma. In order to get inflation down to their targets of roughly 2% they may have to tighten enough to cause a recession. This would incur a high human cost in the form of job losses and trigger a fierce political backlash. Moreover, if the economy deflates and ends up back in the low-growth, low-rate trap of the 2010s, central banks may once again lack enough stimulus tools. The temptation now is to find another way out: to ditch the 2% inflation targets of recent decades and raise them modestly to, say, 4%. That is likely to be on the menu when the Fed begins its next strategy review in 2024.

This brave new world of somewhat higher government spending and somewhat higher inflation would have advantages. In the short run it would mean a less severe recession or none at all. And in the long run it would mean that central banks have more room to cut interest rates in a downturn, reducing the need for bond-buying and bail-outs whenever anything goes wrong, which cause ever-greater distortion of the economy.

Yet it also comes with big dangers. Central banks’ credibility will be damaged: if the goalposts are moved once, why not again? Millions of contracts and investments written on the promise of 2% inflation would be disrupted, while mildly higher inflation would redistribute wealth from creditors to debtors. Meanwhile, the promise of moderately bigger government could easily spiral out of control, if populist politicians make reckless spending pledges or if state investments in energy and industrial policy are poorly executed and morph into bloated vanity projects that drag down productivity.

These opportunities and dangers are daunting. But it is time to start weighing them and their implications for citizens and businesses. The biggest mistakes in economics are failures of imagination that reflect an assumption that today’s regime will last for ever. It never does. Change is coming. Get ready.?