News

Henry Kissinger, Influential Former US Secretary Of State, Dies At 100

(CTN News) – Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State and national security adviser, who fled Nazi Germany in his youth and went on to become one of the most influential and controversial figures in American foreign policy, passed away at the age of 100.

The announcement of his death was made by his consulting firm, Kissinger Associates, which did not disclose the cause of death.

Kissinger played a central role in shaping US foreign policy during the 1970s. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in facilitating the conclusion of US military involvement in the Vietnam War.

His secret diplomacy also contributed to President Richard Nixon’s historic opening of communist China to the United States and the West, culminating in Nixon’s visit to the country in 1972.

While Kissinger earned accolades for these achievements, he was also the subject of intense criticism. Many condemned him for the bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, which ultimately contributed to the ascent of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime.

Additionally, he faced backlash for supporting a coup against a democratically elected government in Chile. Kissinger’s legacy remains a complex and debated aspect of American diplomatic history.

In the Middle East, Kissinger pioneered what became known as “shuttle diplomacy,” intervening to broker agreements between Israeli and Arab forces in the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

His strategy of “détente” in handling US-Soviet relations played a significant role in easing tensions and fostering multiple arms control agreements, shaping the United States’ stance until the Reagan era.

Despite these diplomatic successes, the Nixon-Kissinger administration faced criticism from Congress members who objected to the secrecy surrounding its foreign policy initiatives.

Human rights activists also condemned Kissinger for what they perceived as a disregard for human rights in various countries.

The Vietnam War presented a particularly thorny issue in Kissinger’s legacy. When Nixon assumed office in 1969, pledging a “secret plan” to end the war, approximately 30,000 Americans had already lost their lives in Vietnam.

Despite attempts to shift combat responsibilities to the South Vietnamese government, American involvement persisted throughout Nixon’s administration, with critics accusing him and Kissinger of unnecessarily expanding the conflict.

The culmination of US engagement occurred with the fall of Saigon in 1975, resulting in the loss of over 58,000 American lives.

One of the most controversial aspects of Kissinger’s career was his sharing of the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize with his North Vietnamese counterpart, Le Duc Tho, for their role in the Paris peace accords.

Tho declined the prize, citing the absence of genuine peace in Vietnam, leading to the resignation of two Nobel committee members in protest against the award.

Vietnam War Backlash and Henry Kissinger’s Reflections

Domestic outcry in the United States during the Vietnam War predominantly revolved around the bombings in Laos and Cambodia.

These airstrikes, which became a rallying point for the brutal Khmer Rouge movement, played a role in their recruitment efforts before seizing power and perpetrating one of the most devastating genocides of the 20th century.

Reflecting on the Vietnam War’s impact, Kissinger expressed to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in 2005, “For me, the tragedy of Vietnam was the divisions that occurred in the United States that made it, in the end, impossible to achieve an outcome that was compatible with the sacrifices that had been made.”

Despite the diminishing influence of Kissinger’s era as a key architect of US foreign policy amid Nixon’s decline during the Watergate scandal, Kissinger remained a prominent and independent figure whose insights on diplomacy continued to resonate.

In 2008, he emphasized the importance of understanding the perceptions of both sides in negotiations, stating to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, “In order to negotiate, one has to understand the perception of the other side of the world.

And they have to understand our perception. And there has to be a decision on both sides that they’re going to try to reconcile these differences.”

Beyond the realm of international diplomacy, Kissinger garnered attention on a broader scale.

Topping Gallup’s “Most Admired Man” survey for three consecutive years in the 1970s, his personal life, public appearances, and nights at New York’s renowned Studio 54 club regularly made headlines.

Kissinger once humorously remarked, “The nice thing about being a celebrity is that if you bore people, they think it’s their fault.”

Survived by his wife, Nancy, along with two children from his first marriage, Elizabeth and David, as well as five grandchildren, Kissinger’s legacy extends beyond his diplomatic career.

Former President George W. Bush fondly remembered Kissinger, acknowledging “his wisdom, his charm, and his humor.”

Reflecting on Kissinger’s remarkable life journey, Bush highlighted his escape from Nazi persecution as a young boy from a Jewish family and his subsequent service in the United States Army, fighting against the very forces he had fled.

In a statement, Bush expressed gratitude for Kissinger’s contributions, noting, “When he later became Secretary of State, his appointment as a former refugee said as much about his greatness as it did America’s greatness.

He worked in the Administrations of two Presidents and counseled many more. I am grateful for that service and advice, but I am most grateful for his friendship.”

Shaping Perspectives: Kissinger’s Holocaust Experience and Statesmanship Journey

Kissinger’s worldview was profoundly shaped by his Holocaust experience. Born on May 27, 1923, in Furth, Germany, he fled Nazi persecution and arrived in the United States in 1938.

Recalling the impact of the Holocaust on his life, Kissinger revealed, “About half of the people I went to school with and about 13 members of my own family died in concentration camps.”

He attained naturalized citizenship in 1943 and served in World War II before pursuing a doctorate at Harvard University, eventually joining the faculty. Despite his academic path, Kissinger’s dedication to public service drew him into government roles.

Initially advising the State Department and Pentagon on national security matters, Kissinger ascended to the positions of national security adviser and later secretary of state under President Nixon.

Nixon acknowledged the historical significance of Kissinger’s appointment as secretary of state in 1973, emphasizing the global perspective a naturalized citizen brought to the role.

Their close relationship endured through the tumultuous period of Watergate, with Kissinger being the last original inner-circle adviser to Nixon as he resigned.

Reflecting on Nixon’s final night in the White House, Kissinger recounted, “Here was a man who had spent his whole life making himself president, and he had thrown it all away by his own actions. And as I was leaving, he said, ‘Why don’t we pray together?’” It marked a poignant moment amid a profound tragedy in Nixon’s life.

Post-Nixon, Kissinger continued as secretary of state under President Ford, but his later government years were marked by challenges.

Critics within the Republican Party opposed his “détente” approach with the Soviet Union, and South Vietnam fell to North Vietnam in 1975, despite earlier peace accords.

Kissinger, reflecting on his approach to government work, stated, “You want to leave your country better off than you found it. And there’s nothing in private life you can do that’s as interesting and as fulfilling.”

After leaving the State Department in 1977, Kissinger became an accomplished author and international consultant. His return to the federal government in 2002, leading a commission investigating the events leading to the September 11 terrorist attacks, was short-lived due to concerns about conflicts of interest.

Despite being a divisive figure, with instances like the 2016 Democratic presidential debate exchange between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Kissinger’s writings and geopolitical advice remain influential in the foreign policy community.

His enduring legacy, marked by both admiration and criticism, reflects a statesman who shaped diplomacy on his own terms.

In a 2008 interview, Kissinger acknowledged the natural clash of differing viewpoints, stating, “It would be unnatural, and probably would mean I haven’t done very much, if there were not other points of view that were expressed with some vehemence.”

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