News

China’s Former Premier Li Keqiang Dead at Age 68

Former Chinese Premier Li Keqiang died of a heart attack on Friday, aged 68, just 10 months after leaving office after a decade in which his star had fallen. Considered a top Communist Party leadership candidate, Li was marginalised in recent years by President Xi Jinping.

Xi has tightened his grip on power and led the world’s second-largest economy in a more statist path.

The prestigious Peking University economist was considered as a backer of a more liberal market economy, but he had to yield to Xi’s inclination for greater state control.

“Comrade Li Keqiang, while resting in Shanghai in recent days, experienced a sudden heart attack on Oct. 26 and after all-out efforts to revive him failed, died in Shanghai at ten minutes past midnight on Oct. 27,” said CCTV, the state-run news agency. It was stated that an obituary would be published later.

Li served as China’s premier and cabinet chief under Xi for a decade until stepping down in March.

“No matter how the international winds and clouds change, China will unswervingly expand its opening up.” Li stated this at his most recent public appearance, a press conference in March. “The Yangtze River and the Yellow River will not flow backwards.”

He was born in the eastern Chinese province of Anhui, in an impoverished farming area where his father was an official and where he was sent to work in the fields during the Cultural Revolution.

He famously stated in 2020 that 600 million Chinese people paid less than the equivalent of $140 per month, igniting a broader debate about poverty and income inequality.

china-defence-minister

Meanwhile, China has fired General Li Shangfu as Defence Minister, making him the second senior official to be fired in three months with no reason. After weeks of speculation over the fate of the US-sanctioned general who has not been seen in public since the end of August, state broadcaster CCTV claimed on Tuesday that Li had been removed from his job.

The National People’s Congress Standing Committee endorsed the decision to dismiss him. The story did not specify who will replace Li.

Li is the second minister to be dismissed abruptly since Xi Jinping began his extraordinary third term as party leader last October. After a similar unexplained retreat from public engagements, Qin Gang was replaced as foreign minister in July by his predecessor Wang Yi. The cause for Qin’s removal remains unknown.

On Tuesday, Li and Qin were both ousted as state councillors, a senior cabinet position with a higher ranking than regular ministers. There were no replacements named.

Unlike their Western counterparts, China’s foreign and military ministers are mostly policy enforcers rather than senior decision-makers.

It comes just days before a Pentagon group is expected to arrive in Beijing for a regional security summit, paving the path for long-stalled high-level military discussion between the two sides.

According to the CCTV report, Li, 65, was also removed from the Central Military Commission, the PLA’s controlling body, by China’s top legislative body.

china

The NPC Standing Committee, which concluded its bi-monthly meeting on Tuesday, also named Liu Shaoyun as president of the Chinese military court, succeeding Major General Cheng Dongfang, who stepped down in September.

It is unclear whether Liu’s appointment has anything to do with Li’s removal. China’s defence leader made a solid Shangri-La debut, but one meeting slipped through the cracks.

It is also unclear whether Li’s demise will cause greater upheaval in the military, which is undertaking the most radical modernization in Chinese history. Xi has established a goal for the PLA to become a world-leading fighting force by 2049, which would imply parity with the US.

Xi has increased a sweeping assault on corruption in the last year, emphasising “zero tolerance” for wrongdoing in the party, government, and military.

Several former and current senior commanders of the People’s Liberation Army’s Rocket Force, a critical component of the country’s nuclear weapons, are allegedly under investigation for corruption. It is unknown whether Li is participating in that investigation. Between 2017 and 2022, he led the CMC’s equipment section.

Xi regards the anti-corruption drive as critical to the PLA being a world-class fighting force.

“The more the military fights against corruption, the stronger, purer, and more effective in combat it becomes,” defence ministry spokesperson Wu Qian said in August, in answer to an inquiry regarding the PLA Rocket Force command shake-up.

china

According to Chen Daoyin, (above photo) an independent political scientist, the anti-corruption campaign is the party’s “political machine” defending its legitimacy to rule.

“Even though Xi loyalists hold all key positions, there are various networks of Xi supporters.” “Their political rivals can report corruption to Xi,” Chen warned. “To defend his authority, Xi has to take action to remove those with problems, even when they were newly promoted by Xi himself.”

Both Li and Qin were reported to have been hand-picked for advancement by Xi personally less than a year ago.

Analysts say the dismissal of two ministers within months of each other, as well as the secrecy surrounding their departure, is fueling concerns about China’s opaque decision-making.

“Normally, when government ministers are fired, no one blinks. “What distinguishes China is the lack of transparency and the mystery surrounding key people’s disappearances,” said George Magnus, a research associate at Oxford University’s China Centre.

“You could argue both ways – that it reveals the strength of China’s political system, but also its fundamental weakness.”

Before the official pronouncements, Chinese state media had stayed mute on the fates of both Li and Qin, and censors had restricted most conversation about them on social media.

When international media inquired about the officials’ whereabouts, the foreign ministry either stated that they were missing due to “health reasons” or that it had no information to share, while insisting that the ministries were operating normally.

Xi China

“It reflects poorly on Xi’s judgement or credibility.” “But we simply don’t know whether the misjudgment is viewed with empathy or as joining other missteps in economic and foreign policy,” Magnus added. “I think we should probably assume that Xi will weather this but maybe not without some harm to his prestige.”

Alfred Wu, an associate professor at Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, believes Xi’s popularity will be unaffected since he will be perceived as a tough on corruption leader.

“To some extent, any corruption case, particularly big ones, will help Xi Jinping to boost his popularity,” he said.

Li spent more than three decades in China’s crewed space programmes, including as director of lunar missions at the Xichang satellite centre and commander of the Chang’e 2 probe launch. In 1978, he joined the PLA.

In 2013, he became a top consultant in the general armament department, and in 2016, he was named deputy commander of the Strategic Support Force. From 2017 to 2022, he led the CMC’s equipment development team.

In 2018, Washington placed secondary sanctions on him and the department for assisting China in purchasing Su-35 fighter jets and S-400 missile system hardware from Rosoboronexport. The US previously sanctioned Russia’s major state arms exporter for breaking American law, which barred arms transactions with Iran, North Korea, and Syria.

One of Xi’s goals for the PLA is to modernise military equipment and weapons. A military-civil fusion policy is part of the plan, and it enlists private companies to produce and research cutting-edge military technology, which has resulted in improvements in drones, electronic warfare, and hypersonics. By 2035, Xi hopes to have a modernised military.

According to Neil Thomas, a Chinese politics fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Centre for China Analysis, Li’s dismissal will further damage Xi’s image of political infallibility and stable government to domestic and foreign audiences.

“It would show Xi still has a way to go in eradicating high-level corruption in the military,” he said. “It would show that Xi’s obsession with national security and military modernisation trumps his loyalty to hand-picked leading officials, although it’s important to note neither Li nor Qin were ever part of Xi’s inner circle,” he said.

“Xi’s disappointment with Qin and Li could make him draw even closer to his inner circle of political confidantes, further centralising decision-making and intensifying the secrecy and uncertainty of Chinese elite politics.”

China’s Xi Jinping Sacks Minister of National Defence

China’s Xi Jinping Sacks Minister of National Defence Li Shangfu

News

Trudeau’s Gun Grab Could Cost Taxpayers a Whopping $7 Billion

Trudeau plans to purchase 2,063 firearm from legal gun owners in Canada - Rebel News Image

A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.

The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.

This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.

The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.

In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.

Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened

“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.

Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).

“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.

Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.

In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.

An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.

Enforcement efforts Questioned

By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.

“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).

The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.

The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.

“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.

Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem

Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.

“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.

Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.

Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.

“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.

“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP