Senate Democrat Effort to Create Massive Expansion of Abortion via Federal Law Fails by 11 Votes

Senate Democrats wanted to manufacture a political optic using the hot button issue of abortion.  The senate pushed a bill for a massive expansion of abortion, far beyond Roe -v- Wade, to the floor.  However, the bill needed 60 votes to pass cloture, end debate.

Embarrassingly, and in a pure political stunt, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer summoned Kamala Harris to the upper chamber in the event she was needed for a “tie-breaking” vote.  However, cloture requires 60 votes, not 50, so the optics of Harris only highlighted the insufferable politics.

The cloture vote failed 49-51, far short of the 60 votes needed to end debate and attempt to pass the bill.  Democrat Senator Joe Manchin voted with republicans to block the cloture effort.  The federal abortion legislation now disappears back into the filing cabinet from which it came.

WASHINGTON – […] In a 49-51 vote, the Senate rejected the Democratic legislation, with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and all Republicans voting against the measure. While the outcome was no surprise and mirrored a similar vote on abortion protections the Senate took in February, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested the court’s draft opinion, published by POLITICO last week, had raised the stakes.

“Today’s vote is one of the most consequential we will take in decades because for the first time in 50 years, a conservative majority, an extreme majority on the Supreme Court, is on the brink of declaring that women do not have freedom over their own bodies,” Schumer said in a floor speech Wednesday morning, adding that the decision “will live in infamy.” (read more)

According to Manchin’s earlier statement, “Democrats are “trying to make people believe that this is the same thing as codifying Roe v. Wade. And I want you to know, it’s not,” he argued, referring to the bill’s ban on some state restrictions on the procedure currently allowed. “This is not the same. It expands abortion.”

Kamala Harris has a sad moment in the Senate, created by Chuck Schumer {Rumble} WATCH:

There Is No Honor in Abortion

Overruling Roe and Casey now is the only legally correct decision.

by Sean Ross Callaghan for American Greatness

“That leaves us with just one question: who’s Duvall?” My professor posed this question in his semicomedic crusty drawl, and the class of would-be lawyers sat silent. The professor—aptly named “Saltzburg”—carefully chose a digression from legal points for every class. His digressions, he intended, would give us the wisdom he knew we would someday need. 

On this particular day, he brought up an old Supreme Court case about hearsay, Queen v. Hepburn, decided in 1813. The case has no legal significance today. Saltzburg brought it up so he could talk about the one justice who dissented from the Court’s otherwise unanimous ruling: Gabriel Duvall. 

Duvall today is almost a no-name. He served in the shadow of the great Chief Justice John Marshall. And he hardly did any work. In 24 years on the Court, he authored only 15 majority opinions, all minor ones. Almost always, Duvall simply voted with Marshall. The only time he wrote an opinion dissenting from Marshall’s was Queen v. Hepburn. In Queen, a slave claimed her ancestor had come to America from England as a free woman. That would have entitled the slave to freedom. But she could prove her descent from a free English woman only by hearsay. Duvall wrote that the Court should make an exception to the age-old rule against hearsay and let the slave make her case. 

Duvall wrote that freedom is a “natural inherent right.” “It will be universally admitted,” he wrote, “that the right to freedom is more important than the right of property. And people of color, from their helpless condition under the uncontrolled authority of a master, are entitled to all reasonable protection.” 

And that was Duvall’s mark on history. So Duvall is maybe not quite a no-name. His name, in fact, lives on in honor. And his legal intuition lives on in the modern hearsay rule, which now has exceptions for family history.

Speculation today is that two associate justices of the current Supreme Court who have yet to seal their names to history are now tempted into the shadow of another chief justice: John Roberts. As the speculation goes, Roberts wants either Amy Coney Barrett or Brett Kavanaugh to join him in declining to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the abortion case currently before the Court. 

Overruling Roe and Casey is the only legally correct decision. It’s also the only honorable decision. Two centuries from now, a crusty law professor may ask “who’s Barrett?” or “who’s Kavanaugh?” And his students will learn who from our time readily admitted that the right to life is more important than freedom of choice—and that unborn babies, from their helpless condition under all of us, are entitled to all reasonable protection. 

X22, Christian Patriot News, and more- May 11

 

Been on a gif making kick lately. Keeps me from thinking about May 22 and how much I really want to see Hetty again despite the stupid odds. Here's tonight's news:

Future Misery and Joe Biden

By 2024, America will be poorer, sicker, more terrorized, and economic growth will not have recovered from what it was in the Trump years.

by Theodore Roosevelt Malloch for American Greatness

No, I am not talking about listening to heavy metal—this is the other misery index.

Economist Arthur Okun years ago famously created what he called the economic misery index to calculate how bad things are for everyday Americans.

It is calculated by adding together the inflation rate and the unemployment rate as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number when combined generally characterizes the current economic condition—the state of the economy. On it fortunes rise and fall, people thrive or fail, and yes, politicians are elected or rejected.

Empirically, a high unemployment rate and a high inflation rate have a negative impact on economic growth.

Recall in 1980 when President Jimmy Carter was swept from office by Ronald Reagan, who asked the American people a simple but timely question: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

Well, you may ask, how bad can things really get as we look into the crystal ball of our coming future? What could things look like in 2024, in the last years of the Biden Administration? Would there be more or less misery or so much misery people would do anything just to be free of the senile nincompoop?

Barack Obama’s misery index stood at 9.41 at the end of his term, not as horrid as Carter’s at 16.26, or even Gerald Ford’s for that matter, but it was nothing to brag about. In fact, it was poor compared to most presidencies. Economic growth during Obama’s two terms was anemic to say the least. When it comes to job creation, he was a disaster. Donald Trump on the other hand, was very solid on both numbers and did more to create wealth for all groups of Americans, not just the wealthy, than any other president. So, how is Scranton Joe doing for the little guy, or for the economy as a whole?

Let’s review his dismal numbers. 

It’s true that 6 million jobs are coming back after the horrible and unnecessary COVID lockdowns. That was expected. Unemployment stood at 3.6 percent in April. That means some 5.9 million people are unemployed while there are over 11 million job openings. Those openings have been going up and now stand at a 49 percent increase from just a year ago. 

Unfortunately, it appears many people don’t want to work and many have left their jobs altogether, preferring a government handout. One other thing Biden has done that harms the middle class is open the borders—wide. Illegal immigration is up a whopping 317 percent in just a year and a half. 

Inflation is going through the roof under Biden. The consumer price index is up to 6.8 percent, the highest in 40 years, and the real measure of overall inflation puts the total closer to an out of control 10 percent. Gas alone is up an astounding 49 percent. Food is up close to 15 percent and baby formula is practically unavailable. Widespread food shortages are forecast. 

When you do the math, all that means total wages are down 2.2 percent, which is hitting the average Joe very hard. Many families cannot afford rent, food, or the basics and it is only going to get worse. I will predict now the Biden misery index will hit or exceed 16 percent.

What will Biden, or for that matter Kamala Harris, provide by 2024? Realistically, how bad could things get? 

The answer: They can get far worse. If the policies the Biden Administration want come to fruition, we will be in a full-blown recession. The stock market will have collapsed. Housing prices will be through the roof and gas prices will not abate, given that Biden and his leftist stalwarts insist on a decarbonized economy and persist in canceling oil and gas development here in America.

Recent research in technical economics shows that unemployment is much more closely correlated with unhappiness than inflation. Underweighting the effects attributed to unemployment rates is therefore politically and economically dangerous. Would the next Democrat be able to establish sustained economic growth? 

No. That party has clearly gone socialist and it will never return.

And here is what we know about the present unemployment rate. It is not good if measured correctly as the participation rate, given that so many people have dropped out of the economy altogether. 

We have more than 10 million unemployed persons in the United States, if counted correctly, and 47 million people on food stamps. In other words, unemployment looks much worse than the numbers suggest. In the African American and Latino communities, and especially among young people, unemployment is high and will go higher as the economy contracts.

So, the question Donald Trump and Republicans need to ask of Biden-Harris at the debates in the fall of ’24 and on the campaign trail constantly between now and then is this: How miserable do you plan to make the American people? 

Let’s list the ways Biden misery could rise:

• His tax plans will raise taxes and hurt middle class Americans in the pocketbook.
• His trade policies (and bad deals) will cost the country new job creation while shipping jobs overseas and to Mexico. China will be the big winner.
• His health care regime will keep people from affordable healthcare and continue to raise the costs under extended Obamacare.
• His military policies will cost Americans their safety and weaken our national defense. 
• His economic policies will keep the unemployment rates in terms of participation high and fail to create badly needed economic growth. His monetary policy will cause a recession.
• His over-regulation of business and over-taxation will stop companies from building new facilities and expanding.
• His open immigration policies will continue to let droves of illegal aliens cross our borders unabated.
• His foreign policy and lack of a strategy to defeat Islamic extremism, China, North Korea and Iran (he can’t even utter those words) will threaten our ability to function as a society as well as our personal security.

By the year 2024 America will be poorer, sicker, more terrorized, and economic growth will not have recovered from what it was in the Trump years. Our misery index, and our unhappiness, will likely be the worst it has ever been. Biden won’t just be a joke or a woke mistake, he will be hated as the source of America’s decline according to every definition of the term.

And what would a second term President Trump do to improve our misery index overall?

• He would change the tax regime making taxes dramatically lower for individuals, the middle class and corporations, thereby putting more money into circulation. Economic growth would rebound.
• He would curtail our current trade policies and cancel the problematic new deals, put China in its place, thereby bringing jobs back to our shores.
• He would end Obamacare and institute health savings accounts providing better and more cost-effective insurance to Americans.
• He would build back our decimated military forces so as to defend the country. 
• He would work in every possible way to increase jobs for all classes and colors of Americans and make the economy competitive.
• He would cut regulation and bring back companies and entire supply chains that have relocated for tax reasons elsewhere.
• He would finish building a wall on the Mexican border and control illegal immigration.
• He would end the trade imbalances and the intellectual property theft with China, and enact a comprehensive strategy in intelligence, policing and coordinated rapid military action to insure America’s status as the preeminent power in the world.

In 2024 which scenario would you prefer? 

Taking a page from the Reagan playbook, ask: Will you be better off after four years under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?

Does the American public want jobs, security, and economic growth or more and deeper misery? 

Framed this way, Donald Trump defeats any Democrat, and we can restore America’s greatness. 

Trump says he wants to be the “jobs president” again. That is what we need: more, good, high-paying and rewarding jobs. It is what he did in his first round and what he would do again, if given another chance. Why wouldn’t the entire country jump with joy at the prospect?

Failure to vote on the part of the electorate—and that means every American voter, as an act of responsible citizenship—will doom us to greater misery by 2024. We will have no one to blame but ourselves. The midterms in November will get us partly there but the boom will not return until Trump himself is back in the White House.

Never before in American history have the stakes been so high or the choice so clear. Our very future as an economy, as a people, and as a country, depend on it.

Vindictive Left's Reaction To The SCOTUS Leak Proves They're Staying

Vindictive Left's Reaction To The SCOTUS Leak Proves They're Staying

Eddie Scarry - The Federalist

Looking at the way Democrats have reacted to the leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion, it’s almost funny to remember that a core promise from their most recent presidential nominee was that if elected, he would lower America’s collective blood pressure.

“We need a president who will lower the temperature and bring the country together — not one who raises it and tears us further apart.”— Joe Biden, Twitter, Sep. 1, 2020

“We’ve got to calm this whole situation down.”— Joe Biden, CNN, Aug. 27, 2020

“My hope and prayer is that all of our leaders will work to lower the temperature in our public dialogue.”— Joe Biden, University of Buffalo, Oct. 25, 2018

To wit, the entire Democratic Party was selling itself in 2020 as America’s choice for calm, cool and collected. 

“Make America relaxed again: Democrats promise less stress if elected”— CNN, Sep. 2, 2020

No doubt you fondly recall that the people who whipped up mass Covid hysteria and instigated months of violent Black Lives Matter rioting were the same ones who insisted that they were the party you should trust to settle everything down.

Almost two years later, the left is as obnoxious and bitter as ever. Winning the White House and taking full control of Congress didn’t assuage their resentment. It made it worse. 

After the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion draft last week that would fully open abortion to state and federal regulation, Democrats immediately began reminding us how uncomfortable things can be when they don’t get their way.

At a protest last week in New York City, one woman told a journalist for New Yorker magazine, “If we really scare the shit out of them (the justices) they’ll change their minds.”

Four days later, a mob descended on the Washington-area home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to scream outside his door. Beforehand, a protester smiled as she told a reporter, “You don’t get to take away our bodily autonomy and enjoy your Saturday night at home. You get to do one or the other.”

The next day, a pro-life group’s headquarters in Madison, Wis., was set ablaze and defaced with menacing graffiti declaring, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either.”

There is no sense of shame or even discretion when any policy dispute doesn’t land in their favor. Ian Millhiser at the left-wing Vox.com wrote on Twitter last week, “Seriously, shout out to whoever the hero was within the Supreme Court who said ‘f-ck it! Let’s burn this place down.’”

So much for wanting to “lower the temperature.” The same people who put that guy in office now talk about turning the country into the pits of hell because they didn’t get their way. And they mean it.

It was always a lie that the left had any interest in bridging divisions and promoting “civility.” No, what they intended was to take power, push their policies, and crush all dissent. It can be very civil in America when political opposition is either thrown in prison or coerced through threats of violence.

They’ve done it before. It worked. They’re doing it again. The angry, vindictive left is here to stay.

---

A Frequent Question About Trump Hires Working Against the America First Agenda

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

When Donald Trump won the 2016 election, even before he took office, CTH warned about the permanent bureaucratic class in Washington DC and what it meant for an outside to enter this system.  With a consistent question being raised, it is well worth the reminder – because the answer has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

First the question:

The short answer is, it’s not that complicated. There is one permanent bureaucratic class in/around DC (two wings, same bird). The pool of appointees comes from this UniParty system. Donald Trump as an outsider faced animosity from the system itself. There are no MAGA bureaucrats.

That said, the more fulsome answer is the real issue. Because it doesn’t matter who the ‘outsider’ is, they are going to suffer the same fate until a structural change takes place.

If you take a small potential pool of America-First administrators, and then overlay the DC filtration system in the Senate, ‘advise and consent’, what you realize is that any appointment has to be approved by the same system that is opposed to the agenda the nominee would represent.

In essence, the DC system is designed to protect itself.

It doesn’t matter who the next presidential candidate is. If that President wants to advance a policy agenda in favor of the American people, they will face the same problem.  So let me give one perspective on how to tackle the issue.

To give one example as a baseline, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not block President Trump’s ability to have recess appointments because the republican controlled Senate supported Donald Trump.

Senator McConnell blocked President Trump because the DC system was opposed to President Trump.

Machiavelli said, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”  A prescient and oft repeated quote that is pertinent to the situation.

When our founders created the system of government for our constitutional republic, they built in layers of protection from federal control over the lives of people in the states.  Over time those protections have been eroded as the federal bureaucracy has seized power.  One of the biggest changes that led to the creation of the permanent political class was the 17th amendment.

Our founders created a system where Senators were appointed by the state legislatures.  In this original system the senate was bound by obligation to look out for the best interests of their specific states.  Under the ‘advise and consent‘ rules of Senate confirmation for executive branch appointments, the intent was to ensure the presidential appointee -who would now carry out regulatory activity- would not undermine the independent position of the states.

When the 17th amendment (direct voting for Senators) took the place of state appointments, the perspective of ‘advise and consent’ changed.  The senate was now in the position of ensuring the presidential appointee did not undermine the power of the permanent bureaucracy, which is the root of power for the upper-chamber.

Senate committees, Homeland Security, Judiciary, Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, etc. now consists of members who carry an imbalanced level of power within government.  The senate now controls who will be in charge of executive branch agencies like the DOJ, DHS, FBI, CIA, ODNI, DoD, State Dept and NSA, from the position of their own power and control in Washington DC.

In essence, the 17th amendment flipped the intent of the constitution from protecting the individual states to protecting the federal government.

Almost every source of federal issue: ex. spending, intervention and foreign assistance, conflict with the states, burdensome regulation, surveillance and spying on American citizens, the two-tiered justice system and the erosion of liberty & individual rights (see COVID examples), can be sourced back to the problem created by the 17th amendment.

As long as the United States senate is more concerned with retaining their own power, no executive branch office holder can break through that system.

In the balance of power dynamic, the Senate has an inordinate amount of unilateral power within the congressional branch.  This power dynamic is a direct outcome of the 17th amendment.  Indeed, many have argued – myself included, that no single modification to the constitution was as structurally damaging to the framework of government, specifically the balance of power within it, as the 17th amendment.

The House of Representatives was created to be the voice of the people, ie, “The Peoples’ House.”  However, the U.S. Senate was structurally created to be the place where state government had representation in the federal government decision-making.  The 17th amendment completely removed state representation, and we have been in an escalating battle over state’s rights ever since.

It doesn’t matter who the President is, they do not choose their cabinet.  Ultimately the senate does.  That’s the core problem.

Overlay that DC structural issue with the fact that almost all of the bureaucracy created by this skewed DC system is now in place to defend itself from any outside effort to change it, and you get this problem that Donald Trump exposed.

Repeal the 17th amendment and you will see the most significant restoration of freedom, liberty and social balance in our lifetime.

Making America Great Again, requires repealing the 17th amendment…..

….. Learn More Here

IRS Stole Money and Hid the Details for Years

IRS Stole Money and Hid the Details for Years

As law enforcement agencies patrol for profit, the secrecy surrounding cash seizures must stop.

Kathy Sanchez and Daryl James - Reason  510.2022 7:00 AM

(Institute for Justice)

The Internal Revenue Service demands transparency when its agents conduct audits. They open ledgers, snoop through bank accounts, and review receipts. But its appetite for disclosure disappears when the roles reverse.

The IRS stonewalled for more than six years when our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, sought access to the agency's forfeiture database. Initially, the IRS wanted $750,000 in fees before it would accommodate the request—an unreasonable demand that would render the Freedom of Information Act useless for all but the wealthiest citizens.

Once in court, the IRS attempted a bait and switch. Rather than provide the actual data, it released a summary report that was 99 percent redacted. It then declared that it had gone above and beyond the legal requirements. The ruse worked at the district court level, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against the agency in 2019. After a second trip to the district court, the IRS finally coughed up the full database in April 2022.

For anyone without a law degree or the resources to endure a long legal battle, the message from the IRS is clear: Do not try this at home. Accountability is good for the taxpayer, but not for the tax collector.

Institute for Justice client Lyndon McLellan saw the double standard firsthand when IRS agents reached into his bank account and took his life savings without warning or cause in 2014. McLellan had purchased a small convenience store on the side of the road in Fairmont, North Carolina, in 2001 and had worked for 13 years to build the business. Over time, he expanded it to include a restaurant and lunch counter.

McLellan worked long hours and rarely took vacations. More importantly, he ran an honest enterprise. Yet federal agents accused him of violating so-called structuring laws because his business frequently made bank deposits in amounts under $10,000.

Structuring, a type of money laundering, occurs when a person divides cash for the specific purpose of evading bank reporting requirements. There is no reason to believe that McLellan ever did that, but the IRS seized more than $107,000 anyway.

"It took me 13 years to save that much money," he says. "And it took fewer than 13 seconds for the government to take it away."

McLellan was never charged with a crime, but the government tried to keep his money permanently using a law enforcement maneuver called civil forfeiture. This scheme does not require a conviction or arrest; vague allegations are good enough. And once the process ends, Congress allows federal agencies to keep 100 percent of the proceeds for themselves.

The perverse incentive invites abuse, and the IRS got greedy. Between 2013 and 2015, the Institute for Justice represented small-business owners in Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, New York, and North Carolina. All of the targets shared the same experience—one day they had money in their bank accounts, and the next day they didn't.

Lawmakers eventually clamped down on the abuse of structuring laws, and all of the Institute for Justice clients got their money back. But questions remained. How many innocent people had suffered? What was the annual revenue from the scheme? And how did federal agencies spend their ill-gotten gains?

The IRS wasn't talking, so the Institute for Justice sued with outside counsel to get answers. The database is large, and sorting through the raw information will take time. But once findings are available, they will be shared. Sadly, government efforts to hide forfeiture data will continue—and not just at the federal level. Many state and local agencies withhold information, making scrutiny difficult.

"Policing for Profit," a 2020 report by the Institute for Justice, represents the largest and most comprehensive forfeiture study ever attempted. Yet gaps remain.

Some states require law enforcement agencies to report only combined data, allowing them to leave out the details necessary to detect abuse. Other states do not require any reporting. Records are never created in the first place, making public disclosure impossible. The worst offenders are Alaska, Delaware, Louisiana, and Montana, which all earn failing grades on a transparency report card included within "Policing for Profit."

The best policy solution is simple: Lawmakers should follow New Mexico's example and end civil forfeiture, an inherently corrupt practice. Short of that, lawmakers should improve transparency.

IRS auditors don't ask politely for information. Neither do police officers when serving a warrant. They bust open doors, rummage through closets, and pore over computer files. Along the way, if they find cash, they take it. The least the government could do is provide detailed accounts of every seizure and track the money through the system.

The information belongs to the public anyway. The more the public knows about civil forfeiture, the less they like it. The IRS and other agencies know the score, which is why they prefer secrecy.

Hong Kong cardinal Joseph Zen arrested under China's security law

 

One of the Catholic Church's most senior members has been arrested in Hong Kong for breaking China's national security law, police have confirmed.

Cardinal Joseph Zen, 90, is one of four people detained for being associated with a now-defunct organisation that helped protesters in financial need.

The others are a Cantopop singer and actor Denise Ho, ex-legislator Margaret Ng, and academic Dr Hui Po Keung.

They are accused of colluding with foreign forces.

If found guilty, they could face life in prison.

Human Rights Watch called it a "shocking new low for Hong Kong."  

Hong Kong Police told the BBC that the group was suspected of appealing to foreign countries or organisations to impose sanctions on Hong Kong, hence threatening China's national security.

Cardinal Zen fled Shanghai for Hong Kong after the communists took over China 70 years ago, and is a former bishop of Hong Kong. He has long been a critic of the government in Beijing, speaking out for Catholics in mainland China and for more democracy in Hong Kong.

He once publicly admonished the Vatican for "selling out" to China by forcing bishops to retire in favour of replacements picked by Beijing.

"Arresting a 90-year-old cardinal for his peaceful activities has to be a shocking new low for Hong Kong, illustrating the city's free fall in human rights in the past two years," Human Rights Watch said.

The Vatican is concerned about the cardinal's arrest, spokesman Matteo Bruni said in a statement.  

Dr Hui, a scholar with Hong Kong's Lingnan University, was arrested at the airport as he tried to fly to Europe to take up an academic posting, Hong Kong Free Press reports, citing two legal sources.

This is the second time Denise Ho has been arrested in as many months - she was detained late last year under the same law.

Margaret Ng has also been arrested in the past - in 2021 she was handed a one year suspended sentence for participating in unauthorised demonstrations. During the hearing, the barrister dismissed her own lawyer and gave such a rousing speech, the court erupted into applause.

Hong Kong Police told the BBC the four defendants would be released on bail, but must hand over their passports.

They are believed to have been associated with the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund, which helped pro-democracy protesters pay their legal and medical fees.

The organisation was disbanded last year after the national security police demanded it hand over sensitive information including details about its members and donors. 

Scores of pro-democracy activists and protesters in Hong Kong have been arrested under the national security law since it was imposed by China in 2020.

It essentially bans sedition, secession and treason, and therefore makes it easier for authorities to crack down on protesters and punish them.

The arrests come days after the Chinese government appointed a new hard-line pro-Beijing leader for Hong Kong, John Lee Ka-chiu.

"The arrests... [are] an ominous sign that its crackdown on Hong Kong is only going to escalate," Human Rights Watch said.   

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-61413335?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_custom3=%40BBCWorld&at_medium=custom7&at_custom4=6E7048FA-D14B-11EC-BFF1-5EBE4744363C&at_campaign=64&at_custom2=twitter&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D