Top Automaker Takes $1.3 Billion Dollar Bath On Key EV Line thumbnail

Top Automaker Takes $1.3 Billion Dollar Bath On Key EV Line

By The Daily Caller

Top American automaker Ford hemorrhaged over a billion dollars on electric vehicles (EV) in the first quarter, leading to massive losses per vehicle.

Ford sold 10,000 vehicles in its EV Model e unit in the first three months of the year, losing $1.3 billion on the line altogether, equating to a loss of $130,000 per vehicle sold, according to data from the company’s first quarter earnings report. Despite the loss on EVs, Ford’s net income was $1.3 billion, selling over a million vehicles with $42.8 billion in revenue in the quarter.

The Biden administration has sought to boost demand and production of EVs as part of the president’s sweeping environmental agenda, offering a $7,500 tax credit for some EVs in an attempt to ease high costs using funds from the $750 billion Inflation Reduction Act. Federal regulators have also put in place tailpipe emission standards for consumers that will effectively require 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 to be electric or hybrids.

“Ford Model e revenue was down, as wholesales declined and significant industrywide pricing pressure continued to affect electric vehicles currently on the market,” the company’s first quarter report reads. “The segment had an EBIT loss of $1.3 billion, with costs that were flat year-over-year. The company expects EV costs to improve going forward, but be offset by top-line pressure.”

I like how Ford breaks their earnings out by division.
You can see how much of a disaster the EV market is. pic.twitter.com/0ig3TGdijj

— Frog Capital (@FrogNews) April 24, 2024

Sales for Ford’s EV line were down 20% compared to last year, and revenue was down 84%. Ford’s combustion engine line, Ford Blue, sold 626,000 vehicles, which is a decline of 11% from last year, with revenue down 13% in that same time frame.

Not all EVs sold by Ford fall under its Model e unit, with commercial fleets being sold under the Ford Pro unit, including an unspecified number of EVs, according to the earnings report. The Ford Pro unit sold 409,000 vehicles, up 21% since last year, with revenue up 36%.

Ford lost $4.7 billion on EVs in 2023, higher than the $4.5 billion loss the company predicted mid-year. Other automakers have seen similar losses on EVs, such as General Motors, which reported a $1.7 billion loss in the fourth quarter of 2023.

EV demand across the whole U.S. economy slowed in the first quarter of 2023, with growth in EV sales decelerating to 2.7% compared to 5% for all vehicles. As a result, EVs’ market share dropped from 7.6% to 7.1%.

Ford did not immediately respond to a request to comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

WILL KESSLER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Boeing Posts Massive Loss Following Slew Of Safety Issues

Biden’s EPA Says Sweeping Power Plant Regs Won’t Harm America’s Grid — Experts Are Saying The Exact Opposite

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

NEW REPORT: ‘Over 98 percent’ of world’s central banks gearing up for new system of programmable, trackable ‘digital cash’ and 24 nations will have ‘live CBDCs’ by 2030 thumbnail

NEW REPORT: ‘Over 98 percent’ of world’s central banks gearing up for new system of programmable, trackable ‘digital cash’ and 24 nations will have ‘live CBDCs’ by 2030

By Leo Hohmann

All this despite almost zero coverage in the mainstream corporate media to date, most of which still refers to a fully digitized monetary system as ‘conspiracy theory’.


The era of cash money is nearing its end, and with it will come the end of privacy.

The World Economic Forum claims, in a new report, that 98 percent of the world’s central banks have agreed to implement the globalists’ long-awaited dream of a cashless society.

Most central banks, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve, are quasi-government institutions owned privately by billionaire bankers.

And the WEF is not the first to reveal the plans of the globalist elite, which have been preparing for years to eliminate paper fiat currencies. But this latest report indicates the grand plan is now very close to being realized, perhaps just awaiting a triggering event – a Black Swan event of some type – before making the switch to “digital cash.”

As first reported by Slay News, the latest revelation was made in a 83-page white paper from the WEF which declares that nations around the world will soon be ready to adopt a central bank digital currency, or CBDC, in place of traditional money.

In the report, titled Modernizing Financial Markets With Wholesale Central Bank Digital Currency, the WEF asserts that a CBCD will replace all other forms of money to serve as a single global digital currency system.

The report states that, “Over 98% of the global economy’s central banks are researching, experimenting, piloting or deploying central bank digital currency (CBDC) to determine how to modernize the capabilities of and improve access to central bank money (CeBM)… With this backdrop and a recent survey finding that there could be 24 live CBDCs by 2030, the importance of clarifying the role of CeBM and wholesale CBDC in the next generation of wholesale financial markets is underscored.”

It makes sense that when the petro dollar collapses, all paper currencies pegged to it will fall like dominoes. This collapse has already been pre-designed. The only question is whether it will continue to unfold gradually or if it will take place suddenly in the wake of a catastrophic cyber attack or some other “Black Swan” event. WEF founder and director Klaus Schwab is on record predicting a devastating cyber attack that will shut down all or nearly all communications, transportation and financial transactions for an extended period.

There was also this warning five years ago from the CEO of Charles Schwab (no relation to Klaus).

The end of fiat paper currency has been hinted at for many years, with perhaps the most clear indication coming from economist Dr. Pippa Malmgren in March 2022, when she addressed the World Governments Summit and said:

“And I’ll say this boldly, we’re about to abandon the traditional system of money and accounting and introduce a new one. And the new, the new accounting is what we call blockchain. It means digital. It means having an almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy, which will give us far greater clarity over what’s going on.”

Digital cash is not cash at all. It is not only digital but programmable, meaning someone outside of your control will have the ability to turn it on and off, or program it in such a way that makes it applicable only at certain stores or for certain goods and services, not others.

The WEF report states:

“CeBM is ideal for systemically important transactions despite the emergence of alternative payment instruments. Wholesale central bank digital currency (wCBDC) is a form of CeBM that could unlock new economic models and integration points that are not possible today.”

The report focuses on the claimed goal of streamlining cross-border transactions, but it’s much more than that.

According to the WEF, central banks are preparing to deploy different forms of CBDCs specifically designed to be used by different institutions for different reasons.

Wholesale CBDCs will be used by banks, governments, and transnational corporations. Retail CBDCs will be reserved for the general public.

The WEF report also confirms what we already knew, that converting to this new digital system means all physical assets will eventually be “tokenized,” in a scheme meant to bring more billions in profits to elites on Wall Street.

“The tokenization of assets involves creating digital tokens representing underlying assets like real estate, equities, digital art, intellectual property, and even cash.

“Tokenization is a key use case for blockchain, with some estimates pointing towards $4-5 trillion in tokenized securities on DLTa by 2030.”

Doesn’t that sound like fun?

And I’m sure our beloved politicians will protect us from these monsters, right?

Hold on tight to your loved ones. Pray and be in the word. It’s the only thing that is going to get us through. Physical preparations are advisable, but what’s coming will take mental and spiritual strength, because no one is coming to save us. Only the Lord Jesus Christ.

©2024. Leo Hohmann. All rights reserved.

Why Small Businesses Hate Bidenomics thumbnail

Why Small Businesses Hate Bidenomics

By Stephen Moore

If the economy is so good, why do small business leaders feel so bad?

The latest Small Business Optimism Index from the National Federation of Independent Business could hardly be more depressing.

The survey finds that the men and women who run our 33 million small businesses and hire more than half of American workers are in a somber mood. It also finds that small-business confidence has reached its lowest point in 12 years.

Amazingly, CEOs of small companies are even more fearful of the future today than during the COVID-19 pandemic, when most businesses were shuttered.

The confidence numbers have decreased every year President Joe Biden has been in office. Here are the numbers, according to the National Federation of Independent Business:

March 2020—102.0

March 2021—98.2

March 2022—93.2

March 2023—90.1

March 2024—88.5

Why are small-business owners feeling so dour at a time when the gross domestic product is growing? I asked that question of David Malpass, the former World Bank president who was Treasury Department undersecretary in the Trump administration. Malpass has observed, all over the world, what factors make small businesses successful and put their owners in a frame of mind to expand.

Smaller businesses are being crowded out by complex regulations and direct competition from the $35 trillion national debt,” Malpass concludes. “The Treasury borrowed $23 trillion in 2023 alone, much of it in the expensive short maturities needed by smaller businesses for working capital.”

The NFIB data is merely a survey, and sometimes business owners and investors act differently than they say they will. But there is more real data on how small companies are expanding.

The latest Federal Reserve data through March shows that commercial and industrial loans, a key resource for small business dynamism, fell over 5% in the last year in nominal terms, down over 8% after adjusting for inflation.

Yikes. Without investment, it’s hard for businesses to grow.

I asked Alfredo Ortiz, president and CEO of the Job Creators Network, which represents tens of thousands of small-business owners, what he sees in the business climate.

“Our members feel as though Biden has declared war on small businesses,” Ortiz said.

He also mentioned that his members are worried that a second Biden term would mean higher taxes, more regulations, and a continuation of high prices.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration seems frustrated and even indignant that more businesses aren’t supporting the White House program. But remember: Neither Biden nor nearly any of his top officials ever have started or even worked for a small or medium-sized business. They don’t have any feel for how their own policies impact the nation’s employers.

As an example, the Biden administration wants to put in serious jeopardy the franchise model where thousands of small entrepreneurs can start their own McDonald’s or Arby’s, or a retail store representing well-known and trusted brands. It wants the parent companies to be on alert that they can be sued for violations of labor laws, Environmental Protection Agency edicts, or federal “diversity” requirements, or can be on the hook for lawsuits against their franchises.

This could be the death of thousands of small, independent-owned franchises. The Labor Department wants small businesses to allow unions to run their stores.

What is so sinister here is that the franchise model for opening new businesses is an almost entirely unique American model of business growth. Entrepreneurial immigrants can come into the country, pool money as a family, then own and operate a Popeyes restaurant or a clothing store.

Biden also wants to nearly double the capital gains tax, which would scare away angel investors in small startup companies. If owners of a small or medium-sized business put the profits back into the company so it could expand, Biden would tax the “unrealized capital gains” on that investment.

Meanwhile, Biden is happy to give a big head start in the form of billions of dollars in grants and low-interest loans for large corporations such as General Motors and chipmaker Intel so they can expand operations on the taxpayers’ dime. These corporate welfare programs tilt the playing field in favor of the sharks, not the small-business minnows.

It’s no wonder that men and women who put their life savings on the line to build their businesses from scratch feel like they’re under assault. They are being taxed and regulated to death while too often inflation eats away their modest profits.

No one in Washington is going to be “forgiving” their loans when the business conditions get rough and high interest rates make it tough to get emergency loans. There is no safety net—and no “too big to fail” aid package—for the heroes of our economy, who have become the punching bag of big government.

*****

This article was published by Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

U.S. Economic Growth Slows Down Massively, Well Below Expectations thumbnail

U.S. Economic Growth Slows Down Massively, Well Below Expectations

By The Daily Caller

The U.S. economy grew at a rate of 1.6% in the first quarter of 2024, according to gross domestic product (GDP) statistics released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) on Thursday.

Slower growth in the first quarter follows above-trend growth in the third and fourth quarters of 2023, which measured 4.9% and 3.4%, respectively, according to the BEA. Economists expected that GDP growth would be around 2.2% in the first quarter, in line with typical U.S. economic growth rates.

High rates of growth at the end of 2023 have worried analysts about a possible “no-landing” scenario, where the economy remains hot with an elevated rate of inflation and substantial gains in GDP. Prices increased at a rate of 3.5% year-over-year in March, far faster than the Federal Reserve’s target range of 2%, and have not declined below 3% since peaking at 9% in June 2022.

The Fed has set its federal funds rate to a range of 5.25% and 5.50%, the highest range in 23 years, in an attempt to cool the economy, which would slow growth and bring inflation down. An increase in the federal funds rate has raised the cost of credit throughout the economy, disincentivizing spending and investment.

Next time Powell & Co. try telling you that inflation is going away, remember that the monetary base is almost twice the pre-pandemic level…
…and it’s still trending upward: pic.twitter.com/jiNjE802kj

— E.J. Antoni, Ph.D. (@RealEJAntoni) April 24, 2024

The Federal Open Market Committee is scheduled to announce whether it will cut the federal funds rate in May, depending on whether inflation is moving in the right direction, which could positively contribute to economic growth. A majority of investors currently do not expect a rate cut until September, according to CME Group’s FedWatch Tool.

The number of jobs added in recent months has also been running hot, totaling 303,000 nonfarm payroll positions in March and 275,000 added in February. Despite above-trend topline growth, gains in part-time positions have dominated total increases, with the number of people employed in full-time jobs declining by more than 1.3 million in the last year as of March, while part-time employment jumped by nearly 1.9 million.

Job gains have also been fueled by government positions, which totaled 71,000 in March, higher than the monthly average over the last year of 52,000. The federal government has also continued to pile on debt, which currently totals nearly $34.6 trillion and contributes to GDP, according to data from the Treasury Department.

A Gallup poll from March showed that the economy continues to be the most important issue for 30% of voters going into the 2024 presidential election. Nearly 60% of respondents to a recent AP/NORC poll found that President Joe Biden has “hurt” Americans’ cost of living, while only 40% said the same of former President Donald Trump.

The 1.6% figure is an advanced estimate and will be updated as additional data becomes available, according to the BEA.

AUTHOR

WILL KESSLER

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Oil And Gas Industry Might Be What’s Keeping Biden’s Economy Humming On Paper Despite ‘Regulatory Assault’

POST ON X:

Union Workers chanting “We Want Trump” and “USA”

pic.twitter.com/y7lGeIlvIT

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 25, 2024

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Climate Change Is Normal and Natural, and Can’t Be Controlled thumbnail

Climate Change Is Normal and Natural, and Can’t Be Controlled

By Frits Byron Soepyanfbs

Editors’ Note: The global warming crowd would like nothing better than to convince you that we are in a climate crisis and that they need to grab COVID-like emergency powers to dictate how you live your life. If it were not for the sinister nature of the movement, which wishes to control everything from the way we cook, drive, eat, our power sources, and the like, it would be amusing that they think their efforts to curtail C02, amidst all the other independent variables that are completely out of their control, can create what they imagine as the perfect climate.  They will fail to meaningfully change the climate but they may well succeed in taking our freedom, destroying all economic prosperity and impoverishing Americans.

NASA claimed that “Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate” and “human activity is the principal cause.” Others proposed spending trillions of dollars to control the climate. But are we humans responsible for climate change? And what can we do about it?

“The climate of planet Earth has never stopped changing since the Earth’s genesis, sometimes relatively rapidly, sometimes very slowly, but always surely,” says Patrick Moore in Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom. “Hoping for a ‘perfect stable climate’ is as futile as hoping the weather will be the same and pleasant, every day of the year, forever.”

In other words, climate change is normal and natural, and you can forget about controlling it.

For instance, a major influence of weather and climate is solar cycles driven by the Sun’s magnetic field over periods of eight to 14 years. They release varying amounts of energy and produce dark sunspots on the Sun’s surface. The effects of solar cycles on Earth vary, with some regions warming more than 1°C and others cooling.

Climatic changes occur as a result of variations in the interaction of solar energy with Earth’s ozone layer, which influences ozone levels and stratospheric temperatures. These, in turn, affect the speed of west-to-east wind flows and the stability of the polar vortex. Whether the polar vortex remains stable and close to the Arctic or dips southward determines whether winters in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere are severe or mild.

In addition to solar cycles, there are three Milankovitch cycles that range in length from 26,000 to 100,000 years. They include the eccentricity, or shape, of Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun. Small fluctuations in the orbit’s shape influence the length of seasons. For example, when the orbit is more like an oval than a circle, Northern Hemisphere summers are longer than winters and springs are longer than autumns.

The Milankovitch cycles also involve obliquity, or the angle that Earth’s axis is tilted. The tilt is why there are seasons, and the greater the Earth’s tilt, the more extreme the seasons. Larger tilt angles can cause the melting and retreat of glaciers and ice sheets, as each hemisphere receives more solar radiation during summer and less during winter.

Finally, the rotating Earth, like a toy top, wobbles slightly on its axis. Known as precession, this third Milankovitch cycle causes seasonal contrasts to be more extreme in one hemisphere and less extreme in the other.

Moving from outer space to Earth, ocean and wind currents also affect the climate.

For instance, during normal conditions in the Pacific Ocean, trade winds blow from east to west along the Equator, pushing warm surface waters from South America towards Asia. During El Niño, the trade winds weaken and the warm water reverses direction, moving eastward to the American West Coast. Other times, during La Niña, the trade winds become stronger than usual, and more warm water is blown towards Asia. In the United States and Canada, these phenomena cause some regions to become warmer, colder, wetter, or drier than usual.

In addition to El Niño and La Niña, there is also the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is driven by low air pressure in the North Atlantic Ocean, near Greenland and Iceland (known as the sub-polar low or Icelandic low), and high air pressure in the central North Atlantic Ocean (known as the subtropical high or Azores High). The relative strength of these regions of low and high atmospheric pressures affects the climate in the Eastern United States and Canada and in Europe, affecting both temperatures and precipitation.

Similarly, Hadley cells are the reason Earth has equatorial rainforests that are bounded by deserts to the north and south. Because the Sun warms Earth the most at the Equator, air on either side of the Equator is cooler and denser. As a result, cool air blows towards the Equator as the warm, less dense equatorial air rises and cools, releasing moisture as rain and creating lush vegetation. The rising, drier air reaches the stratosphere blowing north and south to settle in regions made arid by lack of atmospheric moisture.

These and other phenomena influencing our climate are well beyond the control of humans.

*****

This article was published by The C02 Coalition and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

As the University of Arizona Goes, so Goes Tucson thumbnail

As the University of Arizona Goes, so Goes Tucson

By Craig J. Cantoni

As the University of Arizona goes, so goes Tucson, the city where the university is located.

As Tucson goes, so goes the University of Arizona (UA).

Things haven’t been going very well for either of them. Both have been operating well below their potential for a long time, and both are suffering from problems that are largely self-inflicted.

UA is having a financial crisis, a leadership crisis, and a morale crisis among faculty and administrative staff. And, as will be discussed momentarily, it has been surpassed reputationally by other state universities, including land-grant colleges like itself.

The City of Tucson has high poverty and what comes with poverty: crime, human misery, blight, and low K-12 test scores. The surrounding county isn’t much better.

The Tucson metro area of nearly 1.1 million people is an economic backwater compared to many other Sunbelt metropolises, including compared to Phoenix, the megapolis a two-hour drive north on Interstate 10. This is in spite of Tucson having a milder climate and a prettier natural setting than Phoenix.

It hasn’t helped Tucson that UA has been a laggard in commercializing innovations and spinning off startups that have grown into high-paying enterprises.

An aside: In the spirit of leveling with the reader, I have connections to the University of Arizona. My son has done well from earning a bachelor’s and master’s in engineering from the university, and a former provost at the university was a client of my management consultancy while she was at UA and then while she was at another university.

I have lived and worked in big cities, small cities, corrupt cities, rich cities, impoverished cities, declining cities, and rising cities. Tucson tops all of them in provincialism, insularity, hubris, denial, and an aversion to prosperity.

Tucsonans take pride in their kindness, humanism, and concern for the disadvantaged. At the same time, paradoxically, they have embraced a governing ideology, a controlling political monopoly, and corresponding public policies that have hurt people by keeping the metropolis poorer than it would otherwise be.

The University of Arizona has similar traits.

Consider UA’s search for a new provost. Of the three finalists, one has taken a post elsewhere, and another was lambasted by faculty.

Curiously—or maybe it isn’t so curious—the rejected candidate had a track record of cutting costs, which would seem to be a top requirement given UA’s financial woes. But when he gave a presentation to faculty members, he apparently didn’t recite the correct platitudes and banalities about the disadvantaged, especially about so-called Hispanics.

According to a story in the Arizona Daily Star, over 100 faculty signed a letter bashing the candidate for his “very odd and concerning response” about being a provost at a “Hispanic serving institution.”

(Source: “U of A faculty members endorse 1 provost candidate, bash another,” by Ellie Wolfe, Arizona Daily Star, April 17, 2024.)

The above story further quoted the faculty letter as follows: “Our sense is that he has neither an understanding of nor a commitment to the values that define us as a land grant, and that constitute important areas of strategic opportunity and competitive advantage.”

The newspaper story went on to explain:

Hispanic serving institution is a federal designation by the U.S. Department of Education of universities with 25% or more total undergraduate Hispanic student enrollment.

Land grant universities, established by law in 1862, were initially created to teach agriculture, science, and engineering. Now, the universities provide education, research, and outreach meant to benefit their communities and address societal needs. The UA is one of 57 land grant universities in the country.

That’s almost laughable, considering that the politics and policies at the university and in the city have done little to reduce poverty and make metro Tucson more prosperous.

An aside: To level again with the reader, I earned two degrees long ago at a university that had a large Mexican student body. (They referred to themselves as Mexican back then, not Hispanic, just as I referred to myself as Italian, not White.) My Mexican buddies and I were in ROTC together and went through officer basic training and artillery training together. I also lived in the barrio of San Antonio, where I had my car stolen, my rims stolen another time, and got caught in the middle of a gun battle.

Contrast my experience with the provost candidate preferred by the UA faculty. She is a dean at Pennsylvania State University, located in State College, Penn., where Hispanics comprise four percent of the population. Yet the aforementioned letter from UA faculty said that they were impressed with her “commitment to the values of diversity and engagement of community that are central to our identity as a Hispanic serving institution and a land-grant university.”

If it sounds like blather, looks like blather, and smells like blather, it might be blather.

Speaking of blather, it’s particularly “blatherous” when university faculty talk about their commitment to community. It’s difficult to find a work environment more cutthroat, backstabbing, petty, and status-conscious than universities.

In addition to the search for a provost, another search has begun at UA to replace President Bob Robbins, who has announced his retirement date. It is critical for the future of UA (and Tucson) that the right person be found, but it’s difficult to be optimistic in view of past leadership.

The reputation of UA has suffered under its leaders while the reputations of other universities have shined under their leaders.

A case in point is Purdue University, the land-grant college in tiny West Lafayette, Indiana. News coverage abounds about how the recently retired president of Purdue, Mitch Daniels, the former governor of Indiana, had frozen tuition, improved the school’s already stellar reputation, established collaborative relationships with large corporations, and built a research park that has just attracted SK Hynix to construct a $4 billion advanced semiconductor fab and packaging plant.

Imagine what such a facility would do for the reputation of UA and for poverty in Tucson. It would do a lot more than the current blather is doing.

Daniels also had groomed his replacement. He has been replaced by Dr. Mung Chiang, the former dean of engineering and executive vice president for strategic initiatives.

Purdue receives special recognition in the New York Times bestseller, Where You Go Is Not Who You’ll Be, by Frank Bruni. The book decries the obsession of parents to get their kids into one of the Ivy League colleges and makes the case that there are plenty of excellent schools outside of the Ivy League. In addition to Purdue, another land-grant university, Texas A&M, is recognized in the book.

Only one university gets an entire chapter in the book: Arizona State University, which is located in the Phoenix suburb of Tempe. ASU President Michael Crow is lauded for changing the reputation of the university from a party school to a school of excellent academics. Corporations have ranked it as one of the top five sources of qualified graduates.

By contrast, the University of Arizona receives two brief references in the book. One reference is about a student who passed through UA and then went on to earn a degree at a more prestigious university. Another is about a student who attended UA’s School of Architecture but then applied her architectural knowledge to her true love of the theater, where she got her start by designing stage sets in New York.

In closing, perhaps Tucson and the University of Arizona deserve each other. But Tucson residents and UA students don’t deserve their provincialism, insularity, hubris, denial, and blather.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

A Coup Without Firing a Shot thumbnail

A Coup Without Firing a Shot

By Jeffrey Tucker

The last few years can be tracked at two levels: the physical reality around us and the realm of the intellectual, mental, and psychological.

The first level has presented a chaotic narrative of the previously unthinkable. A killer virus that turned out to be what many people said it was in February 2020: a bad flu with a known demographic risk best treated with known therapeutics. But that template and the ensuing campaign of fear and emergency rule gave rise to astonishing changes in our lives. 

Social functioning was wholly upended as schools, businesses, churches, and travel were ended by force. The entire population of the world was told to mask up, despite vast evidence that doing so achieved nothing in terms of stopping a respiratory virus.

That was followed by a breathtaking propaganda campaign for a shot that failed to live up to its promise. The cure for the disease itself caused tremendous damage to health including death, a subject about which everyone cared intensely before the shot and then strangely forgot about after.

Protests against the goings-on were met with media smears, shutdowns, and even the cancellation of bank accounts. However, and simultaneously, other forms of protest were encouraged, insofar as they were motivated by a more proper political agenda against structural injustices in the old system of law and order. That was a strange confluence of events, to say the least.

In the midst of this, which was wild enough, came new forms of surveillance, censorship, corporate consolidation, an explosion of government spending and power, rampant and global inflation, and hot wars from long-running border conflicts in two crucial regions. 

The old Declarations of rules on the Internet put free speech as a first principle. Today, the hosting website of the most famous one, signed by Amnesty International and the ACLU, is gone, almost as if it never existed. In 2022, it came to be replaced by a White House Declaration on the Future of the Internet, that extols stakeholder control as the central principle.

All the while, once-trusted sources of information – media, academia, think tanks – have steadfastly refused to report and respond in truthful ways, leading to a further loss of public trust not just in government and politics but also in everything else, including corporate tech and all the higher order sectors of the culture.

Also part of this has been a political crisis in many nations, including the use of sketchy election strategies justified by epidemiologic emergency: the only safe way to vote (said the CDC) is absentee via the mails. Here we find one of many overlapping parallels to a scenario hardly ever imagined: infectious disease deployed as a cover for political manipulation.

Crucially and ominously, all of these mind-blowing developments took place in roughly similar ways the world over, and with the same language and model. Everywhere people were told “We are all in this together,” and that social distancing, masking, and vaxxing was the correct way out. Media was also censored everywhere, while anti-lockdown protestors (or even those who simply wanted to worship together in peace) were treated not as dissidents to be tolerated but irresponsible spreaders of disease. 

Can we really pretend that all of this is normal, much less justified? The exhortation we receive daily is that we can and must.

Really? At what point did you realize that you had to start thinking for yourself?

We all have a different starting place and journey but each of us has the following in common. We’ve realized that official sources, the ones we’ve trusted in the past, are not going to make any sense of the above for us. We have to seek out alternatives and put the story together ourselves. And this we must do because the only other choice is to accept that all of the above consists of a random series of disconnected and pointless events, which is surely not true.

That leads to the second layer of comprehension; the intellectual, mental, and psychological. Here is where we find the real drama and incalculable difficulties.

At the dawn of lockdowns, what appeared to be a primitive public health error seemed to be taking place. It seemed like some scientists at the top, who gained an implausible amount of influence over government policy, had forgotten about natural immunity and were under the impression that it was good for health to stay home, be personally isolated, avoid exercise, and eat only takeout food. Surely such preposterous advice would be revealed soon as the nonsense it was.

How in the world could they be so stupid? How did they gain so much influence, not just nationally but all over the world? Did the whole of humanity suddenly forget about all known science in every field from virology to economics to psychology?

As time went on, more and more anomalies appeared that made that judgment seem naive. As it turns out, what was actually taking place had something to do with a move on the part of security and intelligence services. It was they who were given rule-making authority on March 13, 2020, and that’s why so much of what we needed to know was and is considered classified.

There were early initial reports that the virus itself might have been leaked from a US-backed lab in Wuhan, which introduces the entire subject of the US bioweapons program. This is a very deep rabbit hole itself, thoroughly exposed in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s The Wuhan Cover-Up. There was a reason that topic was censored: it was all true. And as it turns out, the vaccine itself was able to bypass the normal approval process by slipping through under the cover of emergency. In effect, it came pre-approved by the military

As the evidence continues to roll in, more and more rabbit holes appear, thousands of them. Each has a name: Pharma, CCP, WHO, Big Tech, Big Media, CBDCs, WEF, Deep State, Great Reset, Censorship, FTX, CISA, EVs, Climate Change, DEI, BlackRock, and many more besides. Each of these subject areas has threads or thousands of them, each connecting to more and to each other. At this point, it is simply not possible for a single person to follow it all. 

To those of us who have been steeped in following the revelations day by day, and trying to keep up with putting them together into a coherent model of what happened to us, and what is still going on, the ominous reality is that the traditional understanding of rights, liberties, law, business, media, and science were dramatically overthrown in the course of just a few months and years.

Nothing operates today as it did in 2019. It’s not just that functioning broke. It was broken and then replaced. And the surreptitious coup d’etat with no shots fired is still ongoing, even if that is not the headline. 

Of this fact, many of us today are certain. But how common is this knowledge? Is it a vague intuition held by many members of the public or is it known in more detail? There are no reliable polls. We are left to guess. If any of us in 2019 believed we had our finger on the pulse of the national mood or public opinion generally, we certainly do not anymore.

Nor do we have access to the inner workings of government at the highest levels, much less the conversations going on among the winners of our age, the well-connected ruling elites who seemed to have gamed the entire system for their own benefit. 

It’s so much easier to regard the whole thing as a giant confusion or accident on grounds that only cranks and crazies believe in conspiracy theories. The trouble with that outlook is that it posits something even more implausible; that something this gigantic, far-reaching, and dramatic could have happened with no real intentionality or purpose or that it all fell together as a huge accident.

Brownstone Institute has published more than 2,000 articles and 10 books exploring all over the above topics. Other venues and friends are out there helping us with this research and discovery, issue by issue. Even so, a great deal of responsibility falls on this one institution, the main work of which is providing support for dissident and displaced voices, which is implausible since it was only founded three years ago. We are deeply grateful for our supporters and would welcome you to join them.

As for the intellectuals we once revered for their curiosity and wisdom, most seem to have gone into hiding, either unable to adapt to the new realities or just unwilling to risk their careers by exploring hard topics. It’s understandable but still tragic. Most are happy to pretend like nothing happened or celebrate the change as nothing but progress. As for journalists, the New York Times publishes daily commentaries dismissing the Constitution as a dated anachronism that has to go and no one thinks much about it.

There is a lot to sort out. So much has changed so quickly. No sooner than the dust seems to be settling from one upheaval, there is another and then another. Keeping up with it all causes a level of psychological brain scramble on a scale we’ve never previously experienced.

It’s easier to wait for the historians to tell the next generation what happened. But maybe, just maybe, by stepping up and telling the story as we see it in real time, we can make a difference in stopping this madness and restoring some sane and normal freedom back to the world.

*****

This article was published by the Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Why Young Men and Women in America ‘Have Every Reason To Be Outraged!’ thumbnail

Why Young Men and Women in America ‘Have Every Reason To Be Outraged!’

By Dr. Rich Swier

“For the first time in our nation’s history, a 30 year old isn’t doing as well their parents were at 30. They see exceptional wealth across my generation… and we’re running it up on their credit card.” — Scott Galloway


We have been warning for over a decade that there is a war being waged in America against our youth. From kindergarten, to trade school, to college, to university our children are not being taught the skills to make them healthy, happy and prosperous.

Add to this the growth of bigger and bigger government from the city to the county to some states and to Washington, D.C. politicians have put up more and more roadblocks that have kept our youth from being prosperous. From getting a job, to purchasing an automobile to buying an home, government has piled on more and more regulations, higher taxes, added mandates that keep our young from achieving what their parents did.

Scott Galloway, bestselling author, NYU professor, and co-host of the Pivot podcast, has published a new book titled

is a must-have guide to optimizing our youth’s lives for wealth and success. Click here to read the introduction to the book.

Watch Scott on MSNBC explain why our youth are suffering.

Today’s workers have more opportunities and mobility than any generation before. They also face unprecedented challenges, including inflation, labor and housing shortages, and climate volatility. Even the notion of retirement is undergoing a profound rethink, as our life spans extend and our relationship with work evolves. In this environment, the tried-and-true financial advice our parents followed no longer applies. It’s time for a new playbook.

In The Algebra of Wealth, Galloway lays bare the rules of financial success in today’s economy. In his characteristic unvarnished, no-BS style, he explains what you need to know in order to better your chances for economic security no matter what. You’ll learn:

  • How to find and follow your talent, not your passion, when making career decisions.
  • How to ride and optimize big economic waves (hard truth: market dynamics always trump individual achievement).
  • What small steps you can take that pay big returns later, including diversification and tax planning.
  • How stoicism can help you minimize spending and develop better financial habits.

Bursting with practical, game-changing advice from one of the world’s most popular business school professors, The Algebra of Wealth is the practical guidebook you need to win today’s wealth game.

WATCH: The Algebra of Wealth | The Prof G Show

ABOUT SCOTT GALLOWAY

Scott Galloway is a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business. A serial entrepreneur, he has founded nine firms, including L2, Red Envelope, and Section4. He’s the author of many best-selling books, including, The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google, The Algebra of Happiness: Notes on the Pursuit of Success, Love, and Meaning, and most recently, .

Watch this extensive interview with Scott Galloway with Ryan Hawk host of the The Learning Leader Show.

©2024. All rights reserved.

POSTS ON X:

MUST WATCH:

Clip of the year by Scott Galloway

“For the first time in our nation’s history, a 30 year old isn’t doing as well their parents were at 30. They see exceptional wealth across my generation… and we’re running it up on their credit card.”pic.twitter.com/fEsHFVc4Y4

— Geiger Capital (@Geiger_Capital) April 24, 2024

NEW: Jewish NYU professor Scott Galloway blasts the double standard of the anti-Israel protests, says he would be fired if he said “l*nch the blacks or b*rn the gays.”

“I can tell you, if I went into the NYU square with a white hood on and said, ‘l*nch the blacks or b*rn the… pic.twitter.com/0NI6NlNTf6

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 24, 2024

The FED’s Dilemmas thumbnail

The FED’s Dilemmas

By Neland Nobel

The Federal Reserve is an unelected board of bureaucratic experts that holds great sway over the US economy, the world economy, and the standard of living of the people of the United States.

Because of the arcane nature of its work, its responsibilities are not something we would want under the sway of political operatives.  The FED likes to say it is “independent” but history shows it often bends the political knee.  That is dilemma number one.  The FED is often not truly independent. Historians generally think FED Chair William Martin comes off fairly well versus Lyndon Johnson but Arthur Burns looks like he caved to Richard Nixon.  How Jerome Powell will turn out remains to be seen. Remember the President appoints people to the Federal Reserve Board and to head the FED. Is it likely they will appoint potential political adversaries or those more likely to be compliant?

Like all powerful bureaucracies, it must not only protect its institutional power (and by the nature of bureaucracy expand its powers), but it must also deal often with contradictory directives.  For example, Congress says the FED should  seek “full employment”, at the same time maintain “price stability.” Often, the two objectives come into conflict with each other.

The second dilemma is the FED is often wrong.  Not only has it made foolish statements and decisions quite recently such as “inflation is too low below 2%”, “inflation is too high at 9%”, “inflation is transitory”, “there will be multiple rate reductions”, and now today “maybe no rate reductions until next year”, but the FED has also presided over a catastrophic decline in the value of money.  Our current dollar is worth a tad more than 3 cents on the dollar of 1913, the year of the FED’s founding. As a maintainer of price stability, they are an abject failure. Meanwhile, financial panics and market crashes have become more frequent, and certainly more severe, since it and the political authorities have decided to interfere to  “fine tune” the business cycle.

This problem of being wrong gets deep into economic theory that we have little space to elucidate.  However, the FED has the challenge of any price-fixing scheme. Absent market forces that truly represent what supply and demand are in reality, a bureaucrat must pick a price he thinks the market will clear or sadly, a price that will elicit political support.  Either way, if the guess is too high, it creates a surplus of X because profits are excessive for those that produce X, and prices the buyers of X out of the market because the price is too high, thus crimping demand.  If the guess for X is too low, it creates a shortage of X because producers lose money and consumers binge because X is too cheap.

The FED is the chief price fixer of the most important signal in the economy, interest rates. Interest rates are the traffic signal for the deployment of capital. Quite recently, the FED had interest rates at nearly zero, off and on for almost 20 years.  This has never happened before in economic history. This has created a huge asset bubble and the worst inflation in 50 years.

The FED is also nominally in charge of the exchange rate of the dollar, which can influence world trade and commodity prices.

In this complex process, the current FED, staffed by university experts, has managed to lose about $160 billion dollars with a capital base of around $40 billion.  This is largely because the FED bought so many bonds to keep interest rates low. When they raised interest rates to fight inflation, it caused their bond portfolio to lose value. For an agency that supposedly wisely controls money, to owe so much more than you are worth is a remarkable accomplishment.

Of course, private holders of bonds have also lost corresponding billions, due to the FED action.

All that begs the question. How does the FED know what the exact money supply should be?  How does it know the right interest rate for any given time in history?  How does it know the right inflation rate? What is the “correct” level of employment? What is the correct dollar exchange rate? It can’t know all these critical economic determinants. It has all the problems of any price-fixing board that substitutes bureaucratic fiat for a genuine free market of supply and demand. And if they get any of it wrong, we are all screwed.

The institution was founded in 1913, in part because of the Panic of 1907, and the theory derived from that event and past panics that argued for a flexible or “elastic currency”.  The theory was the FED was to lend to good creditors when money was desperately needed, to avoid banking panics.  Later, the FED got integrated into the general body of Keynesian thought that the government and its agencies should act as a counterbalance to the business cycle.  When the economy is contracting, add money to relieve the severity of the downswing in economic activity, and reduce or remove money when the economy is overheating and creating inflation.  The levers are monetary policy with the FED and fiscal policy with Congress and the President.

That theory, while elegant in concept, has not operated very well because the FED cannot control the budget (fiscal policy as opposed to monetary policy).  Congress has decided to run deficits both large and small, regardless of the business cycle.  The Biden Administration as we have pointed out in the past has spent more money in inflation-adjusted terms, than that needed to fund World War I, World War II, and 30 years of deficit spending.  It did so with the economy recovering and not in recession.  As a result, the economy has overheated and gone into a debt binge at the national all the way down to the household level. Hence, where is the sense that the government is acting to counterbalance the swings in the business cycle?  Keynes’s idea falls flat as a pancake when it comes to actual implementation within a democratic political process. Who can you find in Congress who does not want to raid the public treasury to gain votes?

This creates third dilemma: the FED either faces down a wild spending Congress, or it becomes the facilitator of a wild spending, monetary alcoholic. It has become the latter.  It would be fair to say if the FED historically had kept its original charter for sound money and price stability, the Federal government could not have grown into the freedom-killing intrusive monster that it has become. It would not have had the money to do so.

It is through lavish Federal spending that we get situations like the Biden Administration forcing local schools to embrace the idiocies of the transgender lobby.  If schools don’t toe the line to this bureaucratic edict, the Federal government will cut off the funds local school districts have become addicted to. Or, to paraphrase the Supreme Court, that which the Federal government subsidizes, it should control.

One can’t blame the FED directly for such an abuse of democratic processes by centralizing it in the Federal administrative state, but the FED kept the heat off Congress for the consequences of its actions.  If Congress had to raise every dollar through taxes, or borrowing,  rather than having huge inflationary deficits to play with, the democratic feedback mechanism of voters howling to their Congressmen about taxes and high-interest rates, would have worked its magic. The FED, by printing money, and buying government bonds, has facilitated Congressional and Presidential spending excesses and the subsequent concentration of power in the Federal government.

This creates the fourth dilemma number for the FED. The politicians want inflation, and so does the public, sort of wants inflation.  We must credit James Grant, the financial columnist for this insight. Inflation can make its appearance in two forms.  One is asset price inflation, which rarely gets computed in the government CPI numbers.  For example, easy money and ultra-low interest rates create a flow of money that eventually finds assets.  This may “feel good” both to the public and politicians.  Who does not want their stock portfolio and 401k to go up sharply in price?  After you buy a home,  don’t you want the price to go up? It makes you feel smart and richer and now you have a rising asset you can borrow against (HELOCS and second mortgages) and deduct interest charges. You feel smarter and wealthier when your house and portfolio are rising sharply.

But then there is the other form of inflation that comes usually a little later after the asset boom.  That is consumer price inflation or what we have called “in-your-face inflation” where the cost of fuel, electricity, food, car payments, house payments, car insurance, and interest on credit cards; all start rising more sharply than wages.  The squeeze lowers the standard of living of people and this kind of inflation is anything but “feel good” inflation. Desperate households start to borrow heavily to stay afloat, setting the economy up for a deflationary crash.  This creates the kind of economic instability the FED was originally designed to moderate, but instead, the FED itself becomes the instrument of this excess.

How does the FED quell “feel good inflation” and “feel bad inflation” at the same time?  End one and you end the other. That is where the FED is right now. The steps necessary to stop the painful inflation will clobber the feel-good inflation because assets are highly leveraged with a lot of borrowed money.  This may explain why the severity of business cycle swings and financial panics have gotten worse and more frequent over the past decades.  The FED has hardly tamed the business cycle. Rather it has made them more ferocious.

Moreover, the FED has conveyed to markets it will rush to the rescue even during fairly modest contractions in the economy or bear markets in equities. By doing so repeatedly over the past 30 years or so,  it has created what insurance people call a moral hazard.  The prospect of having not to pay for reckless behavior makes the insured more reckless than before.  Why not, you will get a bailout.

A further complication is that when economic distortions are not corrected, they compound on top of each other. It is a little like the Forest Service rushing to put out every small fire that burns down old timber and underbrush. Soon the dry brush and old timber grow to such an extent the next lightning strike causes a fire so large it can’t be controlled.

Since Congress will not quit spending, the main tool the FED has is to raise interest rates. But that adds more pain on top of the inflation and runs the real risk of deflating the highly leveraged asset bubble that it has blown. This increases the risk of a serious recession, which will trigger, once again, another spending spree and rescue effort from Congress.

In short, the way the FED has morphed in its role over the years has brought it a long way from the argument that originally brought it into existence.

More tragically, its many dilemmas are now ours.

Photo by Paul Morigi

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Biden Admin Weighs California’s Latest Green Gambit That Could Set Off Chain Reaction Of Economic Pain thumbnail

Biden Admin Weighs California’s Latest Green Gambit That Could Set Off Chain Reaction Of Economic Pain

By The Daily Caller

The Biden administration could allow California to implement a rule designed to push green locomotives, but a growing list of stakeholders are warning that the regulation would severely impact the state’s economy and the national rail industry.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could soon determine whether it will allow the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to move forward with a state regulation that would ban the use of locomotives that are more than 23 years past their manufacturing date unless they run using zero-emissions technology, according to Progressive Railroading.

The rule could disrupt supply chains and saddle the state’s railway industry with huge new costs that would flow to consumers, with the effects of the rule potentially spilling out in other parts of the country, according to numerous trade groups, lawmakers and policy experts who believe the Biden administration should reject CARB’s request.

CARB passed the locomotive rule in April 2023, but the agency must first receive the EPA’s permission before it enacts a regulation that goes above and beyond federal rules, according to the EPA’s Federal Register entry on the request. Monday was the last day to file comments with the EPA about the matter, signaling that a final determination could be coming soon.

“When you look at regulations in California, they’re being promulgated by people who don’t really understand the ramifications of what they’re requiring,” Edward Ring, a veteran of the railroad industry who is now the director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “CARB is asking for something — zero-emissions locomotives — that do not yet exist. And what’s going to happen is it’s going to dramatically raise the cost of shipping anywhere in California, and that’s going to have a ripple effect across the country. This is another example of California’s environmentalist regulations raising the cost of living.”

California Is Staring Down The Barrel Of A Yawning Budget Deficit. Can It Even Be Fixed? https://t.co/pxy1zh0Smp

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 11, 2024

The rule for locomotives would take effect in 2030, assuming EPA allows CARB to proceed. Some of the rule’s critics say that timeline is too tight to meet given the current lack of dependable, affordable zero-emissions technology available for locomotives on the market.

Moreover, the rule also would require locomotive operators to pay into their own trust accounts to fund the acquisition of zero-emissions locomotives and related infrastructure, according to CARB. The payment structure requires operators to contribute more into the accounts for operating dirtier locomotives than they have to put up for running cleaner ones.

Because many other states adhere to CARB guidelines, the EPA’s approval could set off a chain reaction expanding the impact of the rule well beyond California’s borders, according to Ted Greener, vice president of public affairs for the Association of American Railroads (AAR).

“If EPA approves the waiver the rule becomes a national matter on the first day. Roughly 65% of the locomotive fleet goes in and out of California and almost all of the freight rail traffic that moves in the state of California traverses state lines,” Ted Greener, vice president of public affairs for the Association of American Railroads (AAR), told the DCNF. “Moreover, EPA granting the waiver enables other states to opt-in and replicate the regulation in full – including the phase out dates and the spending accounts. Such a balkanized system would be unspeakably costly, but also disruptive to the flow of goods.”

A “large number” of locomotives would be impacted by the rule, Greener told the DCNF. Typically, locomotives have a lifespan ranging from 30 to 50 years, and they are regularly upgraded or otherwise modified to be more fuel-efficient, Greener added.

Other rail industry interest groups, such as the American Short Line and Railroad Association (ASLRRA), have also opposed the rule.

“While the spirit behind this rule is consistent with short lines’ environmental commitment, the rule itself is impractical, unworkable, and simply not feasible for most short lines,” Chuck Baker, president of ASLRRA, said of CARB’s rule in May 2023. “In addition, this rulemaking does not acknowledge the impact of the elimination of some short line rail service to Californians … Short lines would not in fact be able to pass on these costs to their customers and some of them would be eliminated by this rule.”

For its part, CARB downplays most of these criticisms and concerns.

“Despite the availability of cleaner options, railroad companies have failed to make investments to replace their outdated, dirty locomotives that contribute to the state’s air quality problems and endanger the lives and health of Californians,” a CARB spokesperson told the DCNF. “Passenger vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, ocean-going vessels, heavy off-road equipment, small off-road engines used in landscaping, among other emissions sectors are all doing their part. It’s time for the rail industry to join and work with us to become part of the solution rather than focusing their efforts on litigation and PR campaigns.”

“In addition, under CARB’s Locomotive Regulation, railroads need not purchase new locomotives, but instead have many options available to them, including the use of zero-emission tender cars, rail electrification, or retrofitting of their existing locomotive fleet to ensure zero-emission operation while operating within California,” the spokesperson continued.

California is suing oil companies over climate change https://t.co/jM65aSB2px

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 17, 2023

Labor unions, including the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, have filed comments with EPA making their opposition to CARB’s rule clear.

Moreover, a diverse coalition of more than 60 trade groups — including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Beer Institute and the Aluminum Association — wrote a letter Friday to Karl Simon, the director of EPA’s Transportation and Climate Division, expressing significant concerns with the rule should CARB be allowed to proceed.

“This regulation from CARB has the potential to create significant disruptions in the supply chain for all sectors of the U.S. economy, especially manufacturers and shippers who rely on consistent, reliable rail service,” the letter reads. “This rule could lead to delays for businesses and increased costs for both shippers and consumers that could ultimately lead to a massive supply chain crisis. If railroads are forced to spend large amounts of money to ensure compliance with this rule, those costs will be passed along the entire supply chain and could inhibit rail service at facilities across the country – not just in California.”

“The issue is that no viable technology exists today to move freight beyond yards on a zero-emissions basis,” the letter continues. “Despite aggressive [research and development] and innovation in the rail sector and significant private investments, the technologies to achieve this rule simply do not exist at this point.”

Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and 11 Republican Senators also wrote their own letter expressing concern about the CARB rule to EPA Administrator Michael Reagan on April 16. In addition to raising questions about the legality of CARB’s rule, the lawmakers urged the EPA to “carefully consider the environmental, supply chain, and modal shift implications that EPA approving CARB’s waiver request would have.”

The EPA did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

California’s High-Speed Rail Isn’t Built, But It Is Putting Money In Unions’ Coffers

What Has California’s War On Fossil Fuels Actually Accomplished?

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Biden’s Title IX Rewrite Strips Away Protections For Women, Denies Women Equal Opportunity thumbnail

Biden’s Title IX Rewrite Strips Away Protections For Women, Denies Women Equal Opportunity

By Editors of The Independent Women’s Forum

Editors’ Note: Democrats cast themselves as the party of “women’s rights”, while they actually are the party of unrestricted abortion to be paid for with public money.  We hope the knowledge of this most recent decision will change the minds of not only Arizona women, but women across the nation. By using school lunch money for extortion, they impose by bureaucratic non-democratic means the whole of the transgender agenda. No elected representative accountable to the people even got to vote on this. This is pure bureaucratic fiat, showing the grotesque nature of the Administrative State in action. They would rather take the food out of children’s mouths than listen to the public will, which overwhelmingly rejects this action. It defines women as nonexistent. And they will be doing this from the college level down to kindergarten. Wherever schools use Federal money, they will by the nature of the incentives adopt the program of the radical transgenders. This action by the Biden Administration will do great damage to the cause of female advancement, will harm and confuse our children, curtail the rights and prerogatives of parents, and severely damage the public school system. It needs to be fought aggressively and tenaciously. 

”Taking opportunities from women and giving them to men doesn’t enforce Title IX, it violates it. That was true before the Administration dropped this rule, and it is still true today.” – Jennifer C. Braceras

Today, the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), the nation’s most impactful policy organization for women, condemned the Biden administration’s unlawful Title IX regulation, which unilaterally rewrites the landmark sex equality law and undermines women’s rights, and free speech, and due process. This new Omnibus Rule, which governs all aspects of the educational experience, turns Title IX on its head through extra-statutory regulations that require schools to allow males to self-identify into women’s spaces, opportunities, and athletics.

Independent Women’s Forum and Independent Women’s Law Center (IWLC) are preparing to sue the Biden administration to enjoin this unlawful action.

Announcing IWF’s lawsuits against the administration, May Mailman, director of Independent Women’s Law Center said, “Title IX was designed to give women equal opportunities in academic settings. It forbids discrimination on the basis of “sex,” which it affirms throughout the statute is binary and biological. The unlawful Omnibus Regulation re-imagines Title IX to permit the invasion of women’s spaces and the reduction of women’s rights in the name of elevating protections for “gender identity,” which is contrary to the text and purpose of Title IX. This is illegal, and we plan to sue.”

”Taking opportunities from women and giving them to men doesn’t enforce Title IX, it violates it. That was true before the Administration dropped this rule, and it is still true today,” added Jennifer C. Braceras, vice president for legal affairs at IWF and founder of IWLC. “The Department of Education can’t just rewrite the statute by administrative fiat. We are confident the courts will remind the Department of this basic principle and strike down this unlawful rule.”

By claiming that Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of “gender identity,” a term never mentioned in the original statute, the Biden administration’s rewrite forces schools to let male who identify as women take women’s scholarships and invade women’s private spaces — including women’s athletic teams.

Polling reflects that 69% of Americans believe athletes should play on teams that correspond with their biological sex.

In an election year, the Biden administration’s lie that this Title IX rewrite does not impact women’s sports is a dishonest attempt to hide their woke agenda from to the American people.

In addition to its impact on sports, the Title IX Omnibus Rule also redefines “sexual harassment” to encompass a single instance of speech, which will, in effect:

1. force students and teachers to use “preferred pronouns” or face discipline;
2. require schools to eliminate all sexual misconduct, even such conduct of which they are unaware, pressuring schools to create woke bureaucracies to police speech; and
3. dissolve protections for accused students (again, whose action may be failure to use the “correct” pronouns), including the right to see evidence against them.

The administration’s draft rules, released on June 23, 2022, “in celebration” of the 50th anniversary of Title IX, generated overwhelming public opposition, with citizens filing a record number of comments with the Department of Education.

Independent Women’s Voice, IWF’s 501(c)(4) sister organization, drove more than 20,000 public comments to the Department of Education opposing the Biden administration’s plan to gut Title IX. The legal and policy objections filed by IWF and Independent Women’s Law Center can be read below:

Female athletes and IWF ambassadors react to the Biden administration’s Title IX Omnibus Rule:

Coach Kim Russell, former Head Women’s Lacrosse Coach at Oberlin College and Independent Women’s Forum ambassador, said: “Make no mistake, this rule will be used by schools as justification for unlawfully punishing anyone who dares to dissent from the orthodoxy of gender ideology. I experienced first hand the desire of woke bureaucrats to punish people who speak out on behalf of women. For now, the Biden administration has provided those bureaucrats cover. But I am confident that this rule will not stand and will be struck down as a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.”

Paula Scanlan, former University of Pennsylvania swimmer and Independent Women’s Forum ambassador said: “If allowed to stand, the Biden administration’s new rule will set women back decades, eroding the impressive gains that Title IX ushered in.”

Riley Gaines, former 12-time All-American swimmer at the University of Kentucky and Independent Women’s Forum ambassador, said: “With its new Title IX rewrite, the Biden administration is unilaterally erasing fifty years of equal opportunity law for women. The president and his administration can’t act like they care about women or our opportunities and then go and wipe out women’s protections under the country’s landmark sex equality law.”

Independent Women’s Forum has been leading the fight to Take Back Title IX and save women’s sports. Learn more below:

Independent Women’s Forum ambassadors recently joined the “Take Back Title IX” roundtable, hosted by U.S. Senators on Capitol Hill, to advocate fairness in women’s sports. Read their written testimonies here.

IWF and IWLC have produced a first-of-its-kind report entitled, “Competition Report: Title IX, Male-Bodied Athletes, and the Threat To Women’s Sports,” to help athletic associations, policymakers, and courts understand the growing threat to female athletes.

IWF’s Female Athlete Storytelling drive featuring real stories from real women athletes can be found here.

IWF organized the first Our Bodies, Our Sports Rally in Washington DC on June 23, 2022 to take back Title IX. The rally, held across the street from the White House, featured female athletes, coaches, parents, and advocates and 17 organizations across the political spectrum to celebrate 50 years of Title IX and urge policymakers to help keep women’s sports female.

*****

This article was produced by the Independent Women’s Forum and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

The Illegals Are Truly a Benefit thumbnail

The Illegals Are Truly a Benefit

By Bruce Bialosky

Of course, they are not really “illegals” as they should properly be referred to as “undocumented immigrants,” “unauthorized immigrants,” “non-citizens,” “without status,” and/or “unlawfully present.” As the Left stumbles over the correct characterization of people who have entered this country with no compliance to our national laws and remain here despite their continuing non-compliance, the Left is now telling us they are actually enhancing our economy.

Our national press and elected leaders have finally woken up to the fact that Democrats have been conflating “illegal” immigrants with “legal” immigrants and combining them in one big punch bowl. This has been something the Left has been touting for years (and has been pointed out in this column for years) to validate the illegals and taint their political opponents as “anti-immigrant.” We are now being told that the Illegals are actually a huge benefit to the economy.

The timing for this claim is odd, to say the least. Mayors across the country (nearly all Democrats) have been pounding President Biden to provide funds from that money tree just outside the Oval Office to pay the staggering costs of housing, feeding, and caring for the mass illegal immigration that finally has slapped them on their sanctuary derrieres. As the mayors call for cuts in essential services to provide support for their cities’ interlopers, it is quite startling that the residents of these cities don’t demand a change of course as they drive over their unfilled potholes and by their uncollected trash.

A perfect example of the new way of thinking about our illegal immigrants is illustrated in the Washington Post’s column by Catherine Rampell who writes on economic issues. Ms. Rampell has the same qualifications on economics as Jared Bernstein, Mr. Biden’s chair of United States Council of Economic Advisors – meaning none. Her biography states that her mother is an accountant, arguably the closest Ms. Rampell comes to having a background in the area. Yet she keeps writing things like: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/13/immigration-economy-jobs-cbo-report/. She cites in her column, “As CBO Director Phill Swagel wrote in a note accompanying the forecasts: As a result of these immigration-driven revisions to the size of the labor force, ‘we estimate that, from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and revenues (taxes) will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise.’”

People can make an effective argument that we need to have some immigrants because of our declining birthrate. The most recent figures show a birthrate of 1.6 children while the replacement rate for a population is considered 2.1 children. The rate ticked up slightly in 2022, but only a smidgeon.

The most fascinating statement in her column: “The CBO has now factored in a previously unexpected surge in immigration that began in 2022.” Unexpected by whom? Biden’s open border policy had illegal immigrants flooding into the country for over a year by that time.

The facts say that the average of legal immigrants over the past 20 years has been a little over 1,000,000 per year. Given that our country had a Republican administration during 12 of those years (you know, the “anti-immigrant party”), that certainly seems like a significant number. The numbers show that the total of legal immigrants actually plummeted in 2020 and 2021 to an average of close to 725,000 per year. That should not surprise anyone since we are experiencing a worldwide pandemic. It is actually a little surprising the numbers were that high because the legal immigration process was largely shut down prior to a reopening.

So how was the CBO factoring in this unexpected surge? It shows you that not only did Ms. Rampell and the Washington Post willy nilly conflate illegal and legal immigrants, but the Congressional Budget Office does the same.

One must wonder how they create their figures when the illegal immigrants are missing two things that legal immigrants have – defined skills and green cards giving them the right to work here. Despite the touted new jobs numbers each month, there are still 8.9 million job openings in the United States. That number is down some but has been consistently between nine and ten million for a while.

There are two challenges to filling these jobs. First, getting native born Americans off their butts to get to work. The employment rate for American men ages 25-54 has been and remains dismal. The other challenge to filling these jobs is matching applicants’ skills to the available positions. Even if we provided all the illegals with green cards that doesn’t mean they come here with job skills unlike legal immigrants. One might argue you can train them, but the ones crossing the border these days are from all over the world and come with significant language barriers to being trained.

Some of the people coming here illegally may have serviceable skills. Most are qualified to be schleppers at construction sites or housekeeping help at hotels. We only have so many of those positions while we feed and clothe their children. Then there is medical care.

The CBO and Ms. Rampell have been smoking a lot of hooch here. There is no question legal immigrants add a lot economically to our country and we are letting in a huge number each year. There is no way that these Biden illegal immigrants are going to be anything other than a drain on our economy for years to come. Dispelling the CBO and Ms. Rampell’s myths is imperative.

*****

This article was published by Flash Report and is reproduced with permission from the author.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

A Pulitzer Awaits the Arizona Daily Star thumbnail

A Pulitzer Awaits the Arizona Daily Star

By Craig J. Cantoni

A recent Wall Street Journal column on the scam of the federal student-loan program brought to mind the financial, governance, and ethical mess at the University of Arizona (UA).

The Arizona Daily Star’s coverage of the UA mess has been commendable, thanks to reporter Ellie Wolfe.  A Pulitzer Prize awaits her if she ties UA’s travails to the moral hazards created by the federal student-loan program, a program that has been implicitly endorsed, if not explicitly endorsed, by UA’s faculty and administrative staff.

The Wall Street Journal column in question was written by the superb columnist Allysia Finley.  (“The Big Bank Elizabeth Warren Loves,” April 14, 2024). Finley drew two conclusions about the federal student-loan program that seem hyperbolic but aren’t:

Never has there been a bigger taxpayer scam than the federal student-loan program.

The student-loan office is the biggest government monopoly and predatory lender in U.S. history.

How is this related to the UA?  Because it stands to reason that student loans have distorted UA’s finances, economics, academic standards, admission numbers, and graduation rates. It stands to reason because empirical studies have documented the distortive effects on higher education in general of billions in federal loans sloshing about.

Certainly, the billions have not resulted in the UA and other universities being more efficient, productive and cost-conscious.

Nor has the money transformed the bastions of social justice into paragons of justice.  To the opposite, colleges have become grifters by taking money from students who would be better off in trade school instead of college, who have little chance of graduating, who are in degree programs with little financial payoff, who can’t pay off their student loans, and who, thanks to the munificence of President Biden, can now expect taxpayers instead of the college grifters to eat the loans.

This is justice?  This is ethical?

Research leading to a Pulitzer could delve into such important questions as the following:

The Global Campus

Would UA have made the questionable acquisition of the on-line “university” known as Global Campus if it were not for student loans?  Related questions:  How many Global Campus students have outstanding loans and in what amount, how many of these students can expect to graduate, what is their loan balance upon graduation or dropping out, and what are their expected earnings, by degree, if they do graduate?

The Brick-and-Mortar Campus

Similar questions as above could be asked and answered about loan balances, graduation rates, and expected earnings of students on the main campus.

University Costs Before and After the Tuition-Loan Bonanza

What were the key metrics and financials at the UA before and after the federal student-loan program became entrenched and caused a skyrocketing of student debt?  What was the amount of administrative overhead before and after, the amount of capital spending on country-club amenities for students before and after, the amount of money spent on athletics before and after, graduation rates before and after, tuition fees before and after, and the cost of room and board before and after?

Political and Ideological Effects

How has the loan money and other government monies affected the political and ideological leanings of students, faculty, and administrators?  Have they become more or less in favor of redistribution, collectivism, and bigger government?

In addition to the above, parallels could be drawn between the rising cost of college and the rising cost of mortgages and housing.  The tuition-loan program played a role in the former, and government housing programs and policies played a role in the latter—along with the Federal Reserve’s years of quantitative easing and zero interest rates, which drove up asset prices to the benefit of owners of assets.  Now, to counter the inevitable economic distortions resulting from the government’s economic distortions, the Fed has raised interest rates, thus making mortgages more expensive and reducing the supply of houses.

Distortions beget distortions beget distortions.

If Arizona Daily Star reporter Ellie Wolfe were to use her talents in exposing the truth about student loans, she might win a Pulitzer.  Even if she didn’t, her work could become a template for other newspapers and could put Tucson in the limelight as a center of excellent journalism free of political bias.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

‘No Tech For Apartheid’: Google Workers Protest Company’s Services To Israel thumbnail

‘No Tech For Apartheid’: Google Workers Protest Company’s Services To Israel

By The Daily Caller

A group of Google employees protested Tuesday in California and New York against the information technology corporation’s provision of cloud computing services to Israel, according to reports.

The protesters in Google’s Sunnyvale, California location entered the office of Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian Tuesday morning and said they would leave only if Google would withdraw from Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion joint contract with Amazon to provide cloud services and data centers to the Israeli government, the Washington Post reported.

A similar protest took place in a common space within Google’s New York office, Zelda Montes, one of the protesters, told the outlet. A banner reading “Google Worker Sit-In”, “Against Project Nimbus”, and “No Tech for Genocide” hung above the common space, the outlet revealed.

A protester wore a T-shirt sporting the slogans “Googler against Genocide” and “No Tech for Apartheid” according to Gizmodo.

The provision of public cloud services to the Israeli government is the first of five “central layers” of the “multi-year, large-scale flagship project” that started in 2019, according to Israel’s Government Procurement Administration. Google and Amazon shrugged off Microsoft, Oracle and IBM, the other tenderers who also bid for the contract, in Apr. 2021, Reuters reported.

A group of Google employees staged sit-ins at the company’s offices to protest the tech giant’s work with Israel’s government, escalating the conflict inside tech companies over the war in Gaza and whether U.S. companies should sell technology to Israel. https://t.co/xGxXOnXrGW

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) April 16, 2024

Protests from within Google and Amazon have erupted in various forms since then. More than 90 Google employees and more than 300 Amazon employees collectively signed an anonymous Oct. 2021 letter accusing the companies of “aggressively” pursuing military and law enforcement contracts that “are part of a disturbing pattern of militarization, lack of transparency and avoidance of oversight.” They called on both companies to “pull out of Project Nimbus and cut all ties with the Israeli military.”

Two months after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 terror attack on Israel, workers staged a “die-in” at Google’s downtown San Francisco offices to protest against Israel’s reported use of what appeared to be a separate artificial intelligence program—termed “the Gospel”—in its military response to Hamas, according to the San Francisco (SF) Chronicle.

Google fired an employee who heckled the corporation’s top executive in Israel during a conference in New York in March, leading Montes to contemplate the possibility of being fired, too, according to the Washington Post report. “I have been waiting for months for people to be in the same position as me and be ready to put their job on the line,” Montes told the outlet in part.

‘Google is directly profiting from what’s taking place in Gaza’

Zelda Montes, a software engineer and No Tech For Apartheid activist, says tech workers are mobilising to put an end to Google and Amazon’s project Nimbus which enables Israeli apartheid ⤵️ pic.twitter.com/VF3bC4PPSb

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 6, 2024

Montes also reportedly alleged that Google lied to its employees about Project Nimbus.

Google spokesperson reportedly told the SF Chronicle that Project Nimbus was a public service program, not a military one.

AUTHOR

JOHN OYEWALE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Kill All Jews” at Google Leads to Anti-Jewish Google Employees ARRESTED While Occupying CEO’s Office With Terrorist Demands

Hamas Applauds Ex-Google Employee Who Resigned Over Company’s Israel Ties

Police Enter Google Offices, Arrest Nine Employees After Some Refuse To Leave Google CEO’s Office For Hours

Video Appears To Show Pro-Palestinian Activist Shoving Israeli Arab At Columbia University

Biden Admin Funded Study Involving Researcher From Iranian University Linked To Nuclear Program

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Weekend Read – Expropriation: The End Game of Anti-Whiteness

By Jeremy Carl

If they don’t act, white Americans will soon be subsidizing their own destruction.

This article is adapted from Jeremy Carl’s book, The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart, which is currently available for pre-order and will be published on April 23.

“I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today for sins of my own generation, and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.” – Senator Joe Biden, 1975

Major political and social phenomena do not spring up fully armored and ready for battle, like Athena from Zeus’s head. They have powerful motivations that drive them and gestate for years before they can come into being—they also have powerful interests that they serve. I believe that many of the fundamental trends in anti-white politics and rhetoric serve a common ideological purpose. That purpose is to create an intellectual and cultural environment to justify the expropriation of land, property, and other wealth from whites while instituting a permanent regime of anti-white employment and legal discrimination.

While this statement may seem alarmist, in fact, this expropriation is already ongoing. In many cases, it is still on the margins of our popular politics, but like so many other leftist political movements of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, what was marginal will soon become mainstream.

This is not to suggest that direct expropriation is the conscious strategy of most participants in these movements. Like every good political strategy, anti-whiteness has an exoteric and esoteric meaning—there is an “inner party,” a limited group that understands what the end game is, even if at times they may not even express it to themselves, and a far larger, more diverse, and less sophisticated “outer party” that simply thinks that in attacking “white privilege” they are fighting for “justice.”

Different anti-white political actors are working in their own fields to obtain benefits and status at the expense of whites. These individuals and groups are not engaged in an active conspiracy—there is no “Protocols of the Elders of Anti-Whiteness.” But there is a conscious effort by those in the political system to delegitimize whites and to retell the American story in a way that makes whites the villains to justify expropriating the vast wealth and prosperity largely produced by whites over several centuries on behalf of the new American people.

The social phenomenon of expropriation is, of course, not unique to American whites. The forced expropriations of the Chinese in Indonesia, Jews in Nazi Germany, Tutsis in Rwanda, and Indians in Uganda are just a few of the many recent historical examples where this has occurred. I do not suggest that violence on the scale that we witnessed in these countries is the likely outcome in the United States. (For one thing, even in a white-minority America, white numbers will be much larger, and there will be no one dominant group to oppress them.) On the other hand, for those who have eyes to see it, a great deal of interracial violence of which whites are disproportionately and increasingly victimized has an overt or scarcely hidden undertone of racial revenge.

Sadly, there is a long tradition worldwide of financially and socially successful but politically less powerful groups being expropriated by politically more powerful but financially and socially less successful groups. Multiethnic democracies in which political power is determined by the number of people you can get out to vote, and in which most citizens are members of clearly definable groups, are particularly at risk. And this is not a remote long-term risk but a contemporary and immediate one.

According to the Census Bureau, by 2045 whites will be a minority in America, and that minority will be disproportionately older and less active in society. Already, the median age for white Americans is 43.7, compared to 37.5 for Asian Americans, 34.6 for African Americans, 29.8 for Hispanics, and 20.9 for multiracial Americans.

For now, appeals to expropriation are usually indirect. But over time, these appeals will become more direct and in need of less justification as the political power of white Americans continues to decline.

Reparations

While calls for reparations also sounded absurd when Ta-Nehisi Coates proposed them in 2014 in an article in The Atlantic, a decade later they are increasingly close to reality. It is not a coincidence that the initial push for reparations came not from former slave states (which have large black populations but are generally run by largely white GOP majorities) but from states and localities where whites have reduced political power or where those whites who are present are on the far Left. Evanston, Illinois (home of Northwestern University), implemented one of the first reparations plans, followed by proposals from San Francisco and the state of California.

This expropriation will continue over a matter of decades and will use the government and America’s public institutions, largely built and paid for by several generations of white Americans, as its engine. Universities, built over centuries with hundreds of billions of dollars in donations from white and often conservative donors, have already been captured and turned into engines of racial wealth and status redistribution and anti-white ideology. The value of American university endowments alone is rapidly approaching $1 trillion. Many of these wealth transfers will be disguised as benefits for the poor and disadvantaged, though their racial component will be implicit, and, at times, explicit.

In the modern era, trillions of dollars of “reparations” have been paid in the name of welfare programs, set-asides, quotas, affirmative action, and other programs, much of which has gone to people (African immigrants, Latinos, etc.) who are not even distantly descended from those harmed. Black immigrants and their descendants now represent almost one-fifth (and rapidly rising) of the U.S. black population. Vice President Kamala Harris is one of these, descended from a Jamaican immigrant who was a professor of economics at Stanford. President Obama was descended from an African immigrant who repatriated to Kenya after earning a degree at Harvard. More than half of young adults in Africa want to emigrate, with the United States being the dream destination. Someone clearly forgot to tell all these immigrants—and those who are desperate to cross the border every day—that the United States is a hellhole of systemic racism that discriminates against them.

Nonetheless, the reparations train moves on. California’s, and specifically San Francisco’s, efforts are exemplars of how intellectually vacuous the arguments for reparations are. Keep in mind these are states and cities that never enslaved anyone. And that slavery ended more than 160 years ago, several lifetimes before anyone living today. There are no children of former American slaves living today. Even the last grandchildren of former slaves are passing from the scene. Ironically, before he passed, the last known living child of an American born into slavery spoke of his father’s love and appreciation for his country. “We could never talk negatively about America in front of my father…. He did not have much but he really, really loved America. Isn’t that funny?” It is only funny if you lack the historical perspective that this wise gentleman clearly had.

But, of course, logic and a sense of perspective have nothing to do with reparations. Never mind that African Americans are the wealthiest African-descended people in the entire world by far, and they are infinitely wealthier and better off on average than the Africans whose ancestors were largely responsible for selling their ancestors into slavery. Black Californians should get $350,000 each, said the reparations committee there, while San Francisco has suggested providing up to $5 million and a host of other benefits. The Right loves to mock San Francisco, but pretending that what happens in San Francisco stays in San Francisco is pure wishcasting. Despite dysfunction and emigration, the greater Bay Area has enormous cultural, financial, and technological clout in our current era. For decades now, San Francisco movements that once seemed marginal have been entering and then becoming mainstream. The first legal same-sex marriage was performed under the administration of then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004. In 2015, the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges made it mandatory nationwide. It took just 11 years to go from “crazy thing only people in San Francisco do” to “constitutionally mandated throughout the country.”

The broader philosophical claims of reparations are equally absurd. Collectively, the United States does not owe anyone anything just because they have a certain skin color or because of the experience of their ancestors. The experience of Jews and Asian Americans serve as illustrative examples—both groups have experienced undeniable discrimination in the historical United States, yet both groups are among the most successful in America. Jews today make up approximately one-third of the 400 richest Americans despite being just 2 percent of the population. Asian Americans have the highest income of any ethnic group. Are we going to hand Jewish billionaires and Asian technology executives reparations? History is inherently messy, and the attempt to divide it between perpetrator groups and victim groups is intellectually incoherent and dishonest. It’s also politically explosive. What Thomas Sowell calls the “quest for cosmic justice” invariably, as he notes, causes greater injustice.

Reparations Beyond Black and White

Calls for black reparations for slavery are just the edge of the anti-white expropriation racket. Just as “medical” marijuana opened the door to mass decriminalization and legalization, black reparations will open the door to massive multi-trillion-dollar payments to any group that can seize the holy grail of victimhood—payments that will, implicitly or explicitly, come from the white “perpetrator” class. As my Claremont Institute colleague and longtime Californian Steve Hayward said in a recent interview, “This is an invitation to open ethnic conflict in the country.” But attempting to make sense of reparations in the context of logic and facts misses the point. The current quest for reparations is a pure racial shakedown.

We aren’t going to win this fight by nibbling around the edges, by compromising, or by saying that groups deserve reparations for this but not that. We must pull up root and branch the entire concept of mass racial reparations. Otherwise what will follow will be an attempt at racial extortion on an almost unimaginable scale, one far more likely to lead to inter-ethnic violence and a collapse of American society.

America needs to decide: Does it want mass interracial score-settling or does it want something resembling a functioning multiethnic democracy? How we deal with demands for reparations will determine what future lies before us.

Land Acknowledgments and Land Expropriation

If white Americans are gullible enough, or politically weak enough, to fall for this, they can be sure every discernible minority or “marginalized” group from left-handed lesbians to transgender Native Americans will be next in line. Asian Americans (the Chinese Exclusion Act, limitations on citizenship) will step up. Hispanics (Operation Wetback, the Mexican-American War) will have even more claims.

The entire white population will become a lower caste with “liabilities” in the trillions. These are more likely to be taken from communal American assets than individual white people per se, because when acting through large government programs and policies, it is easier to hide what is really being done. But functionally the net result will be similar, with some trade-off in expropriation efficiency being an acceptable compromise to at least provide a fig leaf of respectability for what is going on. Some of this can be done through the tax code. Another likely method will be the “return” of “stolen” lands, whether to “indigenous communities” or to Mexican Americans for whom “the border crossed them.”

The ideological predispositions for this can be seen in the birth and growth of so-called “land acknowledgments”—a practice that began among left-wing Canadians and has exploded in popularity within American universities and governments. It is customary in many spaces now to use “a carefully crafted public statement to express a commitment to the past history, current reality and future relationship between the institution, Indigenous Peoples/Nations and the land.”

Such “land acknowledgments” quickly devolve into laughable intellectual incoherence. Multiple lands were claimed by multiple tribes in warfare over countless generations. Many tribes were exterminated entirely by groups claiming their land. But “we’d like to honor the Chippewa, who drove the Sioux out of their ancestral lands into new lands where they could massacre the Pawnee, Omaha, and Kiowa” just doesn’t sound as touchy-feely as anti-white leftists would like it to be.

Land acknowledgment is an intellectual precursor to expropriation and needs to be treated as such. Those angrily demanding land acknowledgments are sitting in their natural gas-heated homes, watching television and driving internal combustion cars over paved roads, all largely developed by white Americans or their European “cousins.” Such demands for redress merely need to serve the grubby ideological or financial interests of those making them.

Others demand reparations for land allegedly stolen from ancestors, often based on highly contestable claims. A 2020 article describes Mexican Americans as also seeking their “stolen” lands. This claim is based on their opinion that land agreements were not honored (largely because the terms of those agreements were not agreed to by the U.S. Senate, which ratifies treaties). “We come from Spanish communities that came over, [and from] Native American communities as well,” one interviewee said. “So we really are sort of mestizo. We’re mixed…We’re a land-based people. Half of our soul was here before Columbus ever hit the sand.”

She seemed less eager to acknowledge that the Spanish land grants her family received were merely expropriating the natives. “Losing their land” in many cases simply means the families sold the land—not because they were legally expropriated. They, like anyone who sells land, simply needed or wanted the money for other things. Yet legislation is being pushed in Congress to give a “federal definition of traditional uses on federal lands for land grant communities…. Access to fuelwood, for example, to heat your home. Access to pasture to graze livestock [a huge economic value]. And it would also require that the federal agencies work with land grant communities and consult with them.” In other words, this is a shakedown for land they sold and don’t own. Expect to see much more of this in the future.

The final destination is a world in which whites have been stripped of political power and resources, which are then redistributed to non-whites using both “legal” and “democratic” processes. Again, this is already underway, but its speed and scale will dramatically increase as white political power diminishes. That the expropriators may not succeed is only true to the extent that whites can politically organize themselves and sympathetic non-white allies to oppose the state-sanctioned theft of their wealth and assets. White Americans already pay billions each year to subsidize our cross-border invasion and cultural erasure. If we don’t fight harder, we will soon be subsidizing our own expropriation.

*****

This article was published by The American Mind and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: YouTube Screenshot

‘Rather Despicable’: John Eastman Speaks Out After Bank Of America, USAA Shut Down His Accounts thumbnail

‘Rather Despicable’: John Eastman Speaks Out After Bank Of America, USAA Shut Down His Accounts

By The Daily Caller

One of the left’s biggest political targets recently found himself “de-banked” with no warning and little avenue for recourse, the Daily Caller has learned.

John Eastman, once an attorney for former President Donald Trump, was de-banked twice in the span of several months by two prominent financial institutions, Bank of America and USAA, he told the Daily Caller. His accounts were closed as he faced substantial backlash for his work advising Trump around the time of the 2020 election.

Eastman said he had switched most of his banking from Bank of America to USAA, a company that provides financial services exclusively to military veterans as well as their families, due to the former’s “wokeness.” Both corporations are federally insured, and Bank of America was bailed out with billions of dollars in taxpayer funds during the global financial crisis.

Bank of America alerted Eastman in September of 2023 that it would be closing his accounts, a letter obtained by the Daily Caller shows. Shortly thereafter, USAA notified Eastman in November that his two bank accounts with the company would be closed, a separate letter shows.

“And then two months later, we get a similar letter from USAA saying that they’ve decided that they’re going to close your account and they did like three weeks later,” Eastman told the Daily Caller. “And so that was where all of our automatic payments were coming out of, all our automatic deposits. So it was a real pain to shift everything. We had to get a new bank account opened and shift everything over.”

Eastman was notified of his USAA accounts being closed on Nov. 20, 2023. A few weeks prior, a California judge made a preliminary decision saying that Eastman was culpable of ethics violations in a state bar disciplinary case, CNN reported.

USAA claimed in its letter that it was “exercising its right to no longer do banking business” with Eastman per its “Depository Agreement.”

“We may close your account for any reason without advance notice. We may require you to give us a minimum of seven (7) calendar days advance written notice when you intend to close your account by withdrawing your funds,” a section of the agreement reads.

USAA did not respond to the Daily Caller’s multiple requests for comment.

When Eastman inquired about the closures, the banks said it was their policy to not provide any more information on the matter, he told the Daily Caller. An audio recording of Eastman’s call to Bank of America, provided to the Daily Caller, reflects as much.

LISTEN: 

“De-banking” is a phenomenon in which financial institutions refuse financial service to the targets of political activism, who often end up being conservatives.

“What these banks are doing is they’re saying you’re either high risk, or we don’t want to do business with you, or whatever it is. There’s no methodology behind this. There’s no kind of reason that matches traditional indicators or traditional metrics that a bank would use to calculate your liquidity, your credit score, whatever it is. They’re using these non-financial factors, and then making these decisions and just like closing people’s accounts,” Eric Bledsoe, an expert on de-banking for the Foundation for Government Accountability, told the Daily Caller.

In typical de-banking situations, it is normal for the banks to withhold their reason for suddenly closing their clients’ accounts, Bledsoe added.

Eastman told the Daily Caller he was using the accounts he had set up with Bank of America and USAA for personal finances. He and his wife qualified for USAA bank accounts because his father-in-law served in the Navy in WWII and in the Marines in the Korean War, the attorney told the Daily Caller.

“We had Bank of America accounts for about 40 years. But just because of their wokeness we kind of quit a couple of years ago, using them much. They’ve got physical locations and therefore easy ATM, so we kept our accounts there, but we didn’t use much. And about four or five years ago, we opened USAA bank accounts and we were using those as our primaries,” Eastman said.

The Daily Caller reached out to the Bank of America for comment, giving the corporation multiple days to respond. Bank of America initially told the Caller it would answer, though about an hour before the deadline provided, the company decided not to comment.

“Just as a general policy, we don’t comment on client matters. So I don’t have a comment at this point on the situation,” Bill Haldin, from Bank of America media relations, told the Daily Caller after asking if the focus of the story was solely on Eastman.

Bledsoe spoke to the political nature of de-banking and how it can make Americans’ lives harder.

“I’m gravely concerned. It really is the kind of next step in [Environmental, Social and Governance]. So ESG across the board, it really is about like, re-directing capital away from the politically disfavored and to the politically favored at the moment, without going through the political process at all,” Bledsoe said.

Neither bank specified to Eastman whether the closing of his accounts was for political reasons, though he has his suspicions.

“I’m 99.9% confident,” he said. “What I don’t know is whether they didn’t want to do business with me, or whether they didn’t want to continue to be hassled by federal regulators for doing business with me. I don’t know which of those two it is, either one of them is rather despicable.”

Eastman’s confidence could, in part, be attributed to the litany of challenges he has faced following the 2020 presidential election.

Since Eastman argued that Vice President Mike Pence had the power to help deliver Trump the 2020 presidential election, the attorney has seen his life be uprooted by his opponents. Just days after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, Eastman resigned as a law professor from Fowler School of Law at Chapman University after the school faced pressure to oust him, Forbes reported. In a statement of his own, Eastman said he had “mixed feelings” about resigning, though the school said the pair had reached an agreement on the matter.

Then, at the end of that month, the University of Colorado’s Benson Center for Western Civilization banned Eastman from speaking at the institution despite being a visiting scholar, according to Forbes.

“The University of Colorado Boulder relieved John Eastman of duties related to outreach and speaking as a representative of the Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization,” the institution said in a press release.

Nearly a year later, in June 2022, FBI agents seized Eastman’s phone as he was leaving a restaurant, the Associated Press reported. Eastman and his wife have also experienced death threats, graffiti threats in their neighborhood and have had spikes planted in their driveway, his friend Josh Hammer wrote in a column.

A number of red state attorneys general — including from Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana and Montana — voiced their opposition to the de-banking trend after the Daily Caller laid out Eastman’s situation. Many of the state AGs pointed to politics as a potential reason Eastman’s accounts were closed.

“No American should lose their bank account because banks want to play politics. Time and time again, we are seeing banks target and cut off those they disagree with and refuse to explain why. That is unacceptable,” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird told the Daily Caller.

“De-banking contradicts the very character of our nation, as elites wrongfully use their power to punish their political opponents. Here’s the bottom line: If financial institutions are punishing consumers who don’t fall in line with their political beliefs, that could constitute a violation of both state and federal law,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told the Daily Caller.

Now, Eastman is being prosecuted by Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis as part of her case against Trump. On March 27, a California judge ruled that Eastman should be disbarred due to his legal advice in the wake of the 2020 election. The case will now move to the state Supreme Court for a final decision.

“I just think this is a terrible trend. I think it’s harmful. I think it prohibits people from bringing their values and the public square into the marketplace. And they have every constitutional right under the Free Exercise clause to bring their values into the marketplace. And I think this is also I think this is something we’re just gonna have to fight against,” Sam Brownback, an attorney and former U.S. Senator whose Christian non-profit was de-banked, told the Daily Caller.

AUTHOR

REAGAN REESE

White House correspondent. Follow Reagan on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘It’s Dangerous’: Daily Caller Reporter Reagan Reese Rips ‘De-banking’ Of John Eastman, Christian Groups

In Defense of Dr. John Eastman, Esq. Who Questioned the 2020 Election – Part 1

In Defense of Dr. John C. Eastman, Esq. Who Questioned the 2020 Election – Part 2

Defending John Eastman — Part 3

Judge Says Fani Willis Must Ditch Nathan Wade Or Step Aside From Trump Case

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Ex-TikTok Employee Alleges American Executives Were ‘Completely Complicit’ In Giving ‘U.S. Data To China’ thumbnail

Ex-TikTok Employee Alleges American Executives Were ‘Completely Complicit’ In Giving ‘U.S. Data To China’

By The Daily Caller

U.S.-based TikTok executives were totally “complicit” in efforts to hand over Americans’ data to China despite company assertions to the contrary, a former senior data scientist at the social media platform alleged, according to Fortune.

The House of Representatives passed legislation in March that would compel Chinese parent company ByteDance to sell TikTok for the social media app to continue operating in the United States because of the potential national security threats of its ownership. Evan Turner, a former senior data scientist who worked for the popular app in 2022 from April to September, alleged TikTok hid the participation of ByteDance in the app’s operations during his tenure, which overlapped with an initiative intended to solve the issue of Chinese data access, Fortune reported Monday.

Other ex-TikTok workers interviewed spoke of the progress TikTok has made to separate itself from its China-based parent and segregate U.S. user data from China.

— Alexandra Sternlicht (@iamsternlicht) April 15, 2024

“I literally worked on a project that gave U.S. data to China,” Turner told Fortune. “They were completely complicit in that. There were Americans that were working in upper management that were completely complicit in this.”

Turner first reported to a Beijing-based ByteDance executive but the company then announced Project Texas, a $1.5 billion initiative to establish an isolated unit to safeguard American data, leading him to receive a documented reassignment to a Seattle manager, he told Fortune. However, a human resources representative acknowledged Turner would persist in collaborating with the ByteDance executive.

The former senior data scientist participated in short meetings with the ByteDance executive on a weekly basis, where he would provide rudimentary updates on his progress with key assignments, Fortune reported.

Turner was allegedly required to send spreadsheets containing hundreds of thousands of American TikTok users’ data, including names, emails and locations to ByteDance staff every 14 days, he told Fortune. The project’s intention was to use the data to learn trends to make users more hooked on the app, and it occurred after Project Texas launched.

Fortune interviewed 11 ex-employees, many alleging TikTok’s operations were connected to ByteDance to an extent while they worked there despite the company’s claims it was prohibiting the Chinese parent company from having access. Some of the former employees spoke anonymously because of concerns of revenge against them, according to the outlet.

Managers within TikTok were directing employees to send similar data to ByteDance, bypassing authorized channels, according to current and previous employees as well as company records The Wall Street Journal saw in January. Executives believe it is crucial to distribute the data supposedly protected by Project Texas to ByteDance because it controls TikTok’s algorithm, individuals with knowledge of the project’s unit told the WSJ.

TikTok and ByteDance did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s response for comment.

AUTHOR

JASON COHEN

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Members Of Congress Propose Banning TikTok Nationwide

‘That’s A Joke’: Biden’s Demand For More Border Agent Funding Misses The Point, Former CBP Commissioner Says

Unions Revolt Against Dem Gov Over Job-Killing Climate Move

Biden Labor Regulator Rolls Out Final Rule Requiring Employers To Give Time Off For Abortions

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Deborah Birx Gets Her Close-Up thumbnail

Deborah Birx Gets Her Close-Up

By Bill Rice

Most Americans will remember Dr. Deborah Birx as the “scarf lady” who served on the White House’s Covid Response Team beginning in February 2020.

According to a recently-released (but little-seen) 24-minute mini-documentary, it was Birx – even more so than Anthony Fauci – who was responsible for government “guidelines,” almost all of which proved to be unnecessary and disastrous for the country.

According to the documentary, the guidelines ran counter to President Trump’s initial comments on Covid, but ultimately “toppled the White House (and Trump) without a shot being fired.”

The mini-documentary (“It Wasn’t Fauci: How the Deep State Really Played Trump”) was produced by Good Kid Productions. Not surprisingly, the scathing 24-minute video has received relatively few views on YouTube (only 46,500 since it was published 40 days ago on Feb. 26).

I learned of the documentary from a colleague at Brownstone Institute, who added his opinion that “Birx (is) far more culpable than Fauci in the Covid disaster…Well worth the time to see the damage an utter non-scientist, CIA-connected, bureaucrat can do to make sure things are maximally bad.”

I agree; the significant role played by Birx in the catastrophic national response to Covid has not received nearly enough attention.

Brought in from out of Nowhere…

From the video presentation, viewers learn that Birx was added to the White House’s Coronavirus Task Force as its coordinator in latter February 2020.

Birx worked closely with Task Force chairman Vice President Mike Pence, a man one suspects will not be treated well by future historians.

According to the documentary, “career bureaucrats” like Birx somehow seized control of the executive branch of government and were able to issue orders to mayors and governors which effectively “shut down the country.”

These bureaucrats were often incompetent in their prior jobs as was Birx, who’d previously served as a scientist (ha!) in the Army before leading the government’s effort to “fight AIDS in Africa” (via the PEPFAR Program).

When Birx was installed as coordinator of Covid Response she simply rehashed her own playbook for fighting AIDS in Africa, say the filmmakers.

The three tenets of this response were:

  1. “Treat every case of this virus as a killer.”
  2. “Focus on children,” who, the public was told, were being infected and hospitalized in large numbers and were a main conduit for spreading the virus.
  3. “Get to zero cases as soon as possible.” (The “Zero Covid” goal).

The documentary primarily uses quotes from Scott Atlas, the White House Task Force’s one skeptic, to show that all three tenets were false.

Argued Atlas: Covid was not a killer – or a genuine mortality risk – to “99.95 percent” of the population. Children had virtually zero risk of death or hospitalization from Covid. And there was no way to get to “zero cases.”

Atlas Didn’t Shrug, but was Ignored…

Furthermore, the documentary convincingly illustrates how the views of Atlas were ignored and how, at some point, his ability to speak to the press was curtailed or eliminated. 

For example, when Atlas organized a meeting for President Trump with Covid-response skeptics (including the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration) this meeting was schedule to last only five minutes.

The documentary also presents a report from the inspector general of the Department of State that was highly critical of Birx’s management style with the African “AIDS relief” program she headed.

Among other claims, the report said she was “dictatorial” in her dealings with subordinates and often “issued threats” to those who disagreed with her approach.

Shockingly, this highly-critical report was published just a month before she was appointed medical coordinator of the Coronavirus Task Force.

A particularly distressing sound bite from Birx lets viewers hear her opinion on how controversial “guidance” might be implemented with little pushback.

According to Birx, she intentionally buried the more draconian elements of the lockdowns in text at the end of long documents, theorizing (correctly apparently) that most reporters or readers would just “skim” the document and would not focus on how extreme and unprecedented these mandates actually were.

The documentary points out that Birx’s prescriptions and those of President Trump were often in complete conflict.

Birx, according to the documentary, once pointed this out to Vice President Pence, who told her to keep doing what she believed.

Indeed, the Vice President gave Birx full use of Air Force 2 so she could more easily travel across the country, spreading her lockdown message to governors, mayors, and other influencers.

Several Covid skeptic writers, including Jeffrey Tucker of Brownstone Institute, have noted that President Trump himself went from an opponent of draconian lockdowns to an avid supporter of these responses in a period of just one or two days (the pivotal change happened on or around March 10th, 2020, according to Tucker).

Whoever or whatever caused this change in position, it does not seem to be a coincidence that this about-face happened shortly after Birx – a former military officer – was named to an important position on the Task Force.

(Personally, I don’t give Anthony Fauci a pass as I’ve always figured he’s a “dark master” at manipulating members of the science/medical/government complex to achieve his own desired results.)

This documentary highlights the crucial role played by Deborah Birx and, more generally, how unknown bureaucrats can make decisions that turn the world upside-down.

That is, most Americans probably think presidents are in charge, but, often, they’re really not. These real rulers of society, one suspects, would include members of the so-called Deep State, who have no doubt installed sycophants like Fauci and Birx in positions of power.

I definitely recommend this 24-minute video.

I also enjoyed the Reader Comments that followed this video. The first comment is from my Brownstone colleague who brought this documentary to my attention:

“… As I said, things can change over the period of 20 years but in the case of Birx/Fauci, I do not believe so. I have never seen people entrenched in the bureaucracy change.”

Other comments from the people who have viewed the mini-documentary on YouTube:

“Pence needs to be held accountable.”

“What does Debbie’s bank account look like?”

“(The) final assessment of President Trump at the 23:30 mark is, while painful, accurate. He got rolled.”

“This is very hard to find on YouTube. You can literally search the title and it doesn’t come up.”

“Excellent summary, hope this goes viral. Lots of lessons to learn for future generations.”

“Eye opening. Great reporting.”

Post from One Month Ago…

“37 likes after 3 years of the most controversial and divisive action in recent history. How can this be?”

“Oh never mind. YouTube hid it from the public for years.”

“Probably hasn’t been taken down yet for that reason, relatively low views.”

“Thanks for this! Sounds like everyone below President Trump was on a power trip and I didn’t think it was possible to despise Pence more than I already do.”

“…the backing of CDC, legacy media, WHO and government schools, business folding in fear are ALL responsible. Accountability for every person and agency is paramount!”

“Should be noted that her work on AIDS in Africa was just as useless and damaging.”

“First, any mature, adult woman who speaks with that much vocal fry should be immediately suspect. And the glee with which she recounts her role at undermining POTUS is remarkable and repulsive. This woman should NEVER be allowed to operate the levers of power again.”

*****

This article was published by the Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: YouTube screenshot

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Nike Stocks Still Tanking a Year after Mulvaney Partnership thumbnail

Nike Stocks Still Tanking a Year after Mulvaney Partnership

By Family Research Council

A lot has happened since Dylan Mulvaney pranced around his yard in a Nike sports bra last April. Days after his face appeared on Bud Light cans — the controversy that launched a thousand boycotts — the sight of him doing jumping jacks in women’s workout gear was almost worst. And a stock chart that looks like a downhill ski slope proves it. Months after the country protested with a bonfire of bra burning, the only swoosh Nike hears now is the sound of profits gushing.

While Bud Light hogged most of the spotlight with its historic collapse, the devastation of Nike’s trans advocacy is real. By August of last year, the brand of Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods was experiencing what experts called “its biggest losing streak since 1980.” With catastrophic losses — upwards of $13 billion dollars in market value — consumer outrage was packing a serious punch.

Angry women led the charge, lashing out at the company as an insult to females everywhere. “The ad feels like a parody of what women are. … That Nike would do this feels like a kick in the teeth,” one posted. Others blasted the brand for making a “mockery out of women,” vowing never to buy another thing from a company that chose a man “over all the hardworking women who workout regularly in your activewear.” It’s “absolutely disgusting.” Most people just couldn’t understand the marketing logic. “Why doesn’t Nike pay a real women to promote a product that is solely for women?” they wanted to know.

Almost a year later, the pressure hasn’t let up. Market analysts have been shocked by the company’s inability to rebound, a nosedive they wrongly assumed was temporary. According to Yahoo Finance, Nike’s stock is down 11.3% since the beginning of the year, and it’s trading “26.1% below its 52-week high.” And while experts are blaming everything from weak overseas demand to slowing sales and pricing challenges, their theories miss the most important reality: shoppers won’t put up with social extremism anymore. LGBT activism, the kind flaunted by Mulvaney and embraced by tone-deaf board rooms, continues to be the kiss of death to corporate profitability.

A long line of woke CEOs can testify to that — including Anheuser-BuschTargetDisneyPlanet FitnessRipCurl, and Doritos (although the latter two took the bold step of apologizing and course-correcting). Nike, on the other hand, only dug in — a decision that forced them to lay off 1,600 people in February, with a second round of cuts expected in May.

Nike boss John Donahoe has called the company’s downturn “a painful reality and not one that I take lightly.” “We are currently not performing at our best, and I ultimately hold myself and my leadership team accountable,” he said, leaving out any mention of the poor decisions that put Nike in this position in the first place.

Unfortunately, the company has a long and frustrating history of political activism. Millions of customers called it quits on Nike after their endorsement of anti-American quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who, along with disrespecting our national anthem, persuaded the company to shelve its patriotic shoes. They were the first sports retailer to fan the flames of racial tension during the George Floyd riots, voicing support for controversial groups like Black Lives Matter. They’ve fought against religious freedom in adoption billsgirls sports and privacy, even launched a special trans line of clothing called Be True.

Most egregiously, Nike was one of the few brands openly using slave labor to stitch their iconic shoes together. A 2020 expose from The Washington Post talked about the Uyghurs who were spared China’s concentration camps only to hunch over tables sewing Nike’s logo on an endless line of shoes — up to seven million pairs a year.

“Everyone knows they didn’t come here of their own free will,” a Chinese woman told reporter Anna Fifield at the time. “They were brought here … because they didn’t have an option. The government sent them here.” It’s how the Chinese government is “exporting the punitive culture and ethos of Xinjiang’s ‘reeducation camps’ to factories across China,” one expert told the Post.

Incredibly, when a bipartisan bill threatened to outlaw the use of slave labor for American companies, ending our country’s role in these human rights atrocities, Nike fought to kill it. Company spokesmen denied that, responding to The New York Times allegations that they were only in “constructive conversations” with lawmakers. But even today, three years after Joe Biden signed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, the Canadian government is investigating complaints that Nike is still using slave laborers in Xinjiang, which they consider a “crime against humanity.”

Now, a year into their Dylan Mulvaney fiasco, the Oregon-based headquarters is reaping the whirlwind. Instead of taking their foot off the gas of an agenda Americans have so clearly rejected, Nike is stubbornly leaning into the radicalism that’s bankrupting other brands. At a time when almost 300 companies are backing off their LGBT advocacy, Nike scored a perfect 100% on the Human Rights Campaign’s Equality Index this year (quite a feat considering HRC’s steep transgender benchmarks).

If Nike wants to enrage consumers at a time of record pushback, that’s their business. But better advice might come from their peers, who believe a smarter company slogan would be: Just don’t.

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

There Will be ‘Negative Findings’ in Planned Parenthood Transgender Investigation: State AG

Trans-Identifying Female Boxer KO’d in 21 Seconds by Biological Male

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Another Dismal Tax Day: Can It Drive Fiscal Reform? thumbnail

Another Dismal Tax Day: Can It Drive Fiscal Reform?

By Vance Ginn

April heralds two markers in Americans’ financial calendar. Neither brings joy. Their anguish reminds us of the dire need for fiscal reform before it’s too late.

The first day is Tax Day on April 15, when you must file taxes to the IRS. The other day is Tax Freedom Day on April 16. The latter is the 104th day of the year, which represents when Americans, on average, can stop working to pay taxes and start working to improve their own lives and further their economic goals. We work 30 percent of our days to pay the government alone.

This stark division of the year into earning to pay for the government versus for oneself casts a revealing light on taxation’s burden. These dismal dates indicate an urgent need to overhaul the fiscal regime of excessive government spending that drives taxes higher.

The pain and uncertainty from an ever-changing federal progressive marginal individual income tax system with forced withholding and payment or refund later are destructive. These costs distort our ability to prosper.

Central to minimizing these burdens and distortions is for the federal government to spend less, thereby reducing the amount needed from taxes. And the tax system should be simplified by moving to a broad-based, flat-income tax. Eventually, we could eliminate income taxes and fund our significantly reduced spending with a broad-based, flat final sales tax, but politics too often takes precedence over prudence.

States without personal income taxes, such as Texas and Florida, often showcase stronger economic performance, underscoring the potential benefits of a consumption-based tax model. The Tax Foundation’s analysis shows that these states enjoy higher growth rates and attract businesses and residents alike, advocating for the efficiency of a less burdensome tax system.

Unlike taxes on income, a consumption tax better aligns with economic volatility and taxpayers’ decisions. It introduces a transparent, simpler tax system, starkly contrasting the current convoluted income tax code, thereby supporting more freedom to choose, increased savings, and faster economic growth.

But the looming uncertainty inevitably generated by temporary tax measures and seemingly endless, excessive government spending demands attention.

For instance, the individual income tax rate reductions, full-expensing, and other provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 expire over the next year, creating a cloud of uncertainty. Moreover, the multi-trillion-dollar deficits from overspending result in further economic destruction because of higher interest rates and less investment.

The economic impact was notable, with the Congressional Budget Office reporting a surge in GDP growth following the TCJA’s implementation. But the uncertainty surrounding its future dampens long-term economic prospects and investments. Permanent tax reform, aimed at fostering stability and growth, requires a commitment to fiscal discipline and a reevaluation of government spending priorities.

The erratic nature of such spending and tax policies erodes the stability crucial for economic prosperity. Uncertainty, particularly around taxes, inhibits investment and innovation. Predictability is key to strategic planning and growth. For entrepreneurs, uncertainty is a strong disincentive. The fluctuating tax landscape presents a significant barrier to economic expansion.

Addressing this uncertainty requires permanent growth-oriented tax policies and controlling government spending.

The direction of tax reform must be twofold: advocating for broad-based, flat taxes and championing sustainable government budgets. This dual approach promises to enhance economic liberty and lay a foundation for robust growth, which should also reduce the number of days to Tax Freedom Day so more money is in our pockets.

Reflecting on Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day sparks a broader discussion on tax reform. We can envision a society that values freedom, peace, and prosperity by championing pro-growth policies of a simplified, flat tax system and sustainable spending.

Dispelling tax uncertainties and controlling government spending pave the way for economic policies that foster rather than hinder human flourishing.

The journey toward a more rational tax system is not merely fiscal; it’s a moral imperative. It demands bold, persuasive advocacy for policies that champion economic soundness while embracing the principles of liberty and opportunity.

We can inspire a movement toward genuine economic reform on this Tax Day by addressing the challenges posed by the current tax code and advocating for a shift toward a better fiscal regime with more days working for ourselves instead of Uncle Sam.

*****

This article was published by AIER, the American Institute for Economic Research, and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.