A Noted Physician Advocates COVID Civil Disobedience thumbnail

A Noted Physician Advocates COVID Civil Disobedience

By Barry Brownstein

Famously, at the start of his 1849 essay, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau observed, “That government is best which governs least.”

Few policymakers or politicians during COVID were influenced by Thoreau, who also pointed out that “government never furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got of its way.”  Did government mandates and lockdowns make us safer or less safe during COVID? Healthier or less healthy?

Thoreau defined the “right of revolution” as “the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.”

Dr. Vinay Prasad is a practicing oncologist and a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. He is one of the foremost practitioners of evidence-based medicine in the world. He believes the time has come to “refuse allegiance” and “resist” the COVID bureaucracy, which resorts to lies

To those who justify irrational policies such as masking a toddler, Prasad writes, “Just because things are bad, or the disease is worse than the intervention, doesn’t mean the intervention helps, or should be done.” Prasad is bringing Frédéric Bastiat’s classic idea to medicine: Do not ignore consequences.

Prasad has become increasingly disturbed at policies made for political, not medical, reasons. Recently, responding to a report that N-95 masks are being mandated for children enrolled at a Montgomery County school, in Maryland (a suburb of DC), Prasad wrote, “Only non-violent resistance can halt irrational public health actors.” At this point, note that the original title of Thoreau’s essay was “Resistance to Civil Government.”

The following are the forms of non-violent resistance Prasad recommends: Even if you or your child are sick, do not test for COVID. Send your child back to school when he is well enough. “Stop reporting these illnesses” to schools and employers. “Complain to your employer about any mandates.”  “Decline any further COVID-19 vaccination, unless RCTs [randomized controlled trials] show benefit in your age group.”

In short, ignore authorities; they don’t have your best interests in mind. Prasad adds that this resistance “is the only logical course left… It’s time to go dark with all COVID data. If enough people don’t participate, the irrationality will stop. Eventually.”

If Prasad had advocated this in 2020 or 2021, he may have found his board certification subject to disciplinary hearings. But this is 2023, and despite censorship, evidence is mounting, and the intellectual climate is changing.

Isn’t all medicine evidence-based medicine? Dr Prasad would answer, if only. In 2015, with his colleague Dr. Adam Cifu, Prasad wrote Ending Medical Reversal. Prasad and Cifu observed:

Medicine is the application of science. When a scientific theory is disproved, it should happen in a lab or in the equivalent place in clinical science, the controlled clinical trial. It should not be disproved in the world of clinical medicine, where millions of people may have already been exposed to an ineffective, or perhaps even harmful, treatment.

In their book, Prasad and Cifu wrote, “Each of us recalls moments when we realized that what we had told our patients, or did for them, was wrong: We had promoted an accepted practice that was, at best, ineffective.” Notice the use of the qualifier “at best,” as often interventions are harmful.

Prasad and Cifu estimated “as much as 40 percent of the things doctors do are ineffective.” They give many examples, such as estrogen replacement for postmenopausal women and medical procedures such as “stenting open coronary lesions in people with stable angina.”

If you watch television, you have probably seen the incessant Pfizer ads promoting their COVID treatment drug, Paxlovid. Yet, Dr. Prasad tells us, that despite the Biden administration’s pushing and subsidizing the drug, there is little evidence that the drug works.

Even without cronyism showing the way, ineffective and dangerous drugs are not uncommon in the annals of medicine. Until 1992, the drug flecainide was part of the standard of care to stabilize patients with irregular heart rhythms. Prasad and Cifu reported, “a large study called the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (or CAST trial) showed that flecainide, as well as a similar drug, decreased PVCs as expected but also increased patients’ chance of dying.” (emphasis added.)

Prasad and Cifu drew the essential conclusion that “even the most careful reasoning and the best scientific models do not guarantee an effective clinical treatment. What works in the lab, or on a computer, or in the head of the smartest researcher does not always work in a patient.” 

Yet Prasad and Cifu acknowledge, “this is a lesson that many physicians and leading researchers still have not really learned.” Lack of learning contributed mightily to the devastating policy errors during COVID. 

Writing years before COVID, Prasad and Cifu observed, “What has happened in medicine is that the hypothesized treatment is often instituted in millions of people, and billions of dollars are spent, before adequate research is done.” During the pandemic, necessary economic tripwires were disabled when vaccine manufacturers were indemnified from liability for harm caused by their products.

Prasad and Cifu provide timeless insights into why ineffective and dangerous treatments persist without “a strong evidence base.” They observe, “The weak evidence base is often ignored because of doctors’ faith in mechanistic explanations or studies that were designed to be deceptive by industry.”

Prasad and Cifu described the “act now, data later” mindset so common in medicine and in life today: “We have a problem; we need a solution. We hear the mantra every day. We need to solve this problem now. Ten minutes ago. Yesterday. It is not just in medicine but everywhere.”  This mindset, adopted by millions of Americans, is behind every ill-conceived practice instituted during COVID and also behind the increasingly destructive rush to “green energy.”

Reversing errors is not easy. Prasad and Cifu explained,

It is very hard to accept evidence that something you have done for patients, something that you truly believed was beneficial, is not useful. The evidence is even harder to accept when you have been well compensated for your work. Because of this, acceptance of medical reversals is never easy and opposition to them is usually passionate.

Thus, the medical administrative state won’t easily change. Yet, Thoreau asserted, government “can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it.” We have conceded too much. With our concessions, we have lost our humanity. In Thoreau’s words,

The mass of men serve the state… not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies… In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs.

We can regain our medical freedom by being more than “straw or a lump of dirt.” We can expand our comfort zone to go against the herd. The time is now to resist pressure from friends and family and to stop obeying authorities. Non-violent resistance is a viable recourse.

*****

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

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Is America A Bad Place To Work? thumbnail

Is America A Bad Place To Work?

By Bruce Bialosky

Recently I encountered a study by an organization called Oxfam Research. That study: Where Hard Work Doesn’t Pay Off. As defined in Wikipedia, Oxfam was founded in 1942 as a confederation of 21 independent charitable organizations, centered in Oxford England focusing on alleviating global poverty and led by Oxfam International. There is an American affiliate. I thought the study would be worthy of a deep dive.

As the proverbial “big dog,” we can expect operations to take off after us. It did not take long to discern the orientation of this 39-page study – attacking America. After lauding the American economy by size, the authors made this statement, “Despite a powerful economy, one that largely drives the global economy forward, the United States does little to share revenue with workers and does even less to ensure workers are safe and protected while on the job. These are political choices, not inevitabilities.”

The introduction then launches into a tirade against the United States seemingly written by the lawless members of Black Lives Matter. Out of left field they made this statement, “The long legacy of slavery and subsequent immigration policies in the US underscore the ways in which the government of this country has written laws and policies meant to create hierarchies of workers in which workers of color, especially women of color, were excluded from protections, stable wages, and the ability to organize.”

I looked at the history of slavery and when the other 37 countries abandoned slavery. Some of the countries (like Iceland) did not exist or were barren of population during the 19th century. Some of the countries may not have had slaves, but they were involved in the slave trade. They also welcomed very few immigrants. An example, go to Sweden in the 19th century and try to find someone who wasn’t a native-born Swede.

The bottom line is the Western world abandoned slavery as a policy in varying stages during the first half of the 19th century, which timing was about concurrent with America. On the other hand, many of these countries had slavery within their borders but did not acknowledge it. Germany had slavery in the 20th century and two countries not in the study, China, and Russia, still have slavery up to today.

The United States ranks 36th out of thirty-eight countries in their survey of how employees thrive by the Oxfam standards. Mexico is ranked last, but it is a lawless mess. Interestingly, that “socialist heaven”, Denmark, ranks 37th. Notwithstanding that Bernie Sanders touted Socialism in Denmark as a model for the United States, their Prime Minister offered “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism,” he said. “Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

And where are people banging down the door to enter? America. Angela Merkel engineered a mass migration from Northern Africa during the first part of this century. This has caused unrest in most countries where mass migration happened. Look at the war on the streets of France. In Sweden, the immigrants have not exactly blended into their society as crime has soared and jobs have not.

Concurrent with the Oxfam study coming out stating how badly America treats its employees, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released information that income in the United States for employees had grown over the past fifteen years while all those ‘generous’ benefits have shrunk incomes for employees in Greece, Italy, France, etc.

Here are some fun facts about the economies that are lauded by the report:
The eurozone economy grew about 6% over the past 15 years, measured in dollars, compared with 82% for the U.S. Maybe all those “benefits” employees receive in the other countries come with a cost – like no jobs.

The United States has had a steady flow of over ten million job openings for a couple of years since the pandemic subsided. There are few job openings in the EU which is part of the strife caused by immigrants. There are no jobs.

Oxfam is another elitist organization attempting to establish criteria for employees who do not work in the real world. And then they insult the intelligence of people who decide to go where the jobs are – America — by telling them the jobs in America are tainted by racism. If the economy is so racist, why do Indian Americans and Asian Americans have higher average incomes than Caucasians? Why do immigrants have a higher homeownership rate than native-born Americans?

Here is another finding from diving into Oxfam’s anti-success attack on America. They have a separate study incorporated in the report showing the best places in America to work. The best places are in varying shades of green and the worst are in varying shades of red. The green states are places like California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York where people are moving from in the hundreds of thousands and the red ones are where the economies are booming.

Conclusion: Oxfam thinks the people relocating are just stupid and do not understand what they are giving up. On the other hand, the simpletons leaving for red states realized the only ones getting the benefits defined by Oxfam are the public employees. The transplants have given up paying the unsupportable cost of outsized benefits.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

A Shocking Sight in Tucson thumbnail

A Shocking Sight in Tucson

By Craig J. Cantoni

Something was seen in the city that is common in other cities but rare in Tucson.

My wife and I saw a shocking sight on a recent trip to the Barnes and Noble bookstore on East Broadway Blvd. in the City of Tucson.

The bookstore’s parking lot was crumbling, unkempt, and devoid of any landscaping.  But that wasn’t the shocking sight.  After all, the property resembled the many barren parking lots and ugly strip malls that we had passed for miles across the city on our drive to the bookstore, a drive almost totally devoid of any aesthetically pleasing properties or thoroughfares.

Two office buildings near the bookstore also weren’t shocking, although they were unusual for Tucson.  They were attractive class-A buildings of about eight stories.

The shock was the Marriott Courtyard hotel on a side street across from the office buildings. Its grounds were beautifully landscaped and maintained, with no bare dirt, weeds or litter along its frontage.  It looked so out of place in Tucson that I thought that we had been magically transported to another Sunbelt city or to one of the other cities where we used to live before moving to Tucson six years ago for family reasons.

An unfair, hyper-critical exaggeration?  Not at all.  Even a neighborhood ward office had foot-high weeds and litter in front of it.

Does Tucson look like this because it is poor, or is it poor because it looks like this?  Are the conditions the result of decades of bad governance, citizen apathy, or what?

A clue to the answer can be seen in the wealthy part of the metropolis known as the Foothills, which is in unincorporated Pima County.  (An astonishing 36 percent of metro Tucson is unincorporated.)

Actually, with a median household income of about $91,000, the Foothills is not very wealthy compared to truly wealthy locales in America.  However, relative to the City of Tucson, it is wealthy.  As such, unlike Tucson, it doesn’t have poverty and a low tax base as excuses for its subpar upkeep and bad governance.

The saving grace for the Foothills is its pretty natural setting on the slopes of the Santa Catalina Mountains, its views of city lights and mountains, its abundance of natural vegetation, and its large residential lots.  But those positives don’t hide the negatives.

The negatives are the result of human actions, or inactions, not nature.  They include deteriorated roads, bare dirt and scraggly and poorly maintained shrubs in medians and rights-of-way, illegal signs on roadsides and on utility poles, tacky signs and banners in violation of sign ordinances in front of businesses and apartments, and my top annoyance, litter, which my wife and I pick up on our daily five-mile walks.

Local government and utilities don’t help matters.  After completing work along roads, they typically leave behind barricades, sandbags, piles of dirt, and litter.  Likewise, car parts and broken glass aren’t swept up after auto accidents.

A subject for another day is the fact that in the roughly 30 square miles of the Foothills, there is not one civic center, municipal park, or public ball field, except for ball fields at public schools.

The operative word is “bizarre.”

Why do Tucsonans settle for less?  I have no idea, but an experience of mine might be instructive.

Becoming tired of picking up trash and litter every day, I politely asked property owners along a one-mile stretch of a major street if they could help out by keeping their frontages clean.  The property owners were a gated community of homes costing more than a million dollars, a private golf course where an annual membership costs $18,000, and a high-end resort.  Only the resort agreed to do so.

Something is clearly amiss with the culture in Tucson.

This is in marked contrast to my experience in a city that Tucsonans think isn’t relevant to them, because they see it as hoity-toity and uber-wealthy, although it has the same median household income as the Foothills and was not very prosperous in its earlier years.  It just looks wealthier than it is, due to having a good government that makes attractiveness and competitiveness high priorities—and a government with nonpartisan elections that had a vision years ago of what the city could grow up to be.

The city is the City of Scottsdale, a municipality 100 miles north of Tucson with a population of 241,361.

I was on the board of an ungated HOA in Scottsdale with approximately 4,000 homes.  The desert landscaping along the HOA’s miles of public roadways was beautiful and well-maintained. It was also free of litter, for the simple reason that we had a worker drive around on a work cart once a day to pick up litter.

It helped that the City of Scottsdale, like other cities in metro Phoenix and across the land, has strict and strictly enforced ordinances and codes governing landscaping, property maintenance, and signs.

For example, one Scottsdale ordinance requires that property owners maintain the public rights-of-way along streets bordering their property, up to the curb of the street or the pavement.  Dead, dry, or bare dirt areas are prohibited, and it is required that desert landscaping be maintained free of grass and weeds.

Another ordinance requires a detailed landscaping plan for all new construction, specifying which of the city’s authorized shrubs and trees will be planted, what authorized ground cover will be put down, and the number of plantings and their spacing in accord with city requirements, including a specified ratio of trees to parking spots in parking lots.

The City of Tucson and Pima County also have ordinances governing landscaping, property maintenance, and signs, but the codes are obviously inadequate or unenforced.

There’s no mystery as to where high-paying companies would prefer to locate their headquarters or major operations.  But Tucson’s political, governmental and business establishment doesn’t seem to realize that curb appeal matters.

*****

Photo credit: Craig Cantoni for The Prickly Pear

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Judge rules Donald Trump defrauded banks, insurers while building real estate empire thumbnail

Judge rules Donald Trump defrauded banks, insurers while building real estate empire

By Editorial Staff

By Michael R. Sisak

NEW YORK (AP) — A judge ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump committed fraud for years while building the real estate empire that catapulted him to fame and the White House, and he ordered some of the former president’s companies removed from his control and dissolved.

Judge Arthur Engoron, ruling in a civil lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, found that Trump and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing loans.

Engoron ordered that some of Trump’s business licenses be rescinded as punishment, making it difficult or impossible for them to do business in New York, and said he would continue to have an independent monitor oversee Trump Organization operations.

If not successfully appealed, the order would strip Trump of his authority to make strategic and financial decisions over some of his key properties in the state.

Trump, in a series of statements, railed against the decision, calling it “un-American” and part of an ongoing plot to damage his campaign to return to the White House.

“My Civil rights have been violated, and some Appellate Court, whether federal or state, must reverse this horrible, un-American decision,” he wrote on his Truth Social site. He insisted his company had “done a magnificent job for New York State” and “done business perfectly,” calling it “A very sad Day for the New York State System of Justice!”

Trump’s lawyer, Christopher Kise, said they would appeal, calling the decision “completely disconnected from the facts and governing law.”

Engoron’s ruling, days before the start of a non-jury trial in James’ lawsuit, is the strongest repudiation yet of Trump’s carefully coiffed image as a wealthy and shrewd real estate mogul turned political powerhouse.

Continue reading at the Associated Press…

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Biden Impeachment Inquiry: Scoundrels, Sleaze, and Corruption thumbnail

Biden Impeachment Inquiry: Scoundrels, Sleaze, and Corruption

By Judicial Watch

Investigations into the Biden family are gaining steam. On September 12, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy opened an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. House Republicans, McCarthy said, have uncovered “serious and credible allegations” that “paint a picture of a culture of corruption.”  On another front, on September 14, David Weiss, the conflicted special counsel in the Hunter Biden probe, indicted the presidential son on three gun-related charges.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the impeachment inquiry “a necessary step for accountability and justice.” JW’s own investigations into the Bidens will continue. We’ve been at it for years. In 2020, JW Freedom of Information actions revealed new details about Ukraine corruption. We have repeatedly sued the State Department, Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and National Archives for information related to the Bidens. Read more about JW’s investigations here.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer—who will lead the impeachment inquiry along with Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith—has been banging away since January with an investigation of the Biden family’s foreign business practices and international influence peddling schemes, most notably the activities of Hunter Biden. Up to now, there’s little indication that Comer has gained direct access to the financial records of Hunter and Joe Biden. Opening an impeachment inquiry supercharges congressional powers and opens the way to a deeper probe into Biden finances.

But even without direct access to Biden family finances, the Comer Committee produced a remarkable array of witnesses, testimony and documents. The outpouring of facts, documents and witness testimony can be overwhelming to sort out, but Comer went a long way to clarifying the complex story with the release of a Biden family “Influence Peddling Timeline.” It’s an important document, painting an all-too-human picture of scoundrels, sleaze, and corruption.

According to the committee, Hunter Biden and a web of associated business entities and family members raked in over $20 million from 2014 to 2017—not coincidentally the last years of the Obama administration, when then-Vice President Joe Biden wielded considerable influence. The Hunter Biden hustle has all the hallmarks of a classic Washington influence-peddling operation: shady characters, murky deals, money moving between shell companies.

The gravy train started rolling in the spring of 2014, with money first flowing in from Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine: $142,000 from a well-connected Kazakh millionaire; $3.5 million from a Russian oligarch; $6.5 million from Ukraine. In 2015, a Romanian tycoon began payments eventually totaling $3 million. In 2017, $8 million materialized from China.

The Kazakh Connection: A Sports Car for Hunter

The first sign that something was not kosher in Biden World comes in April 2014, when a controversial Kazakh oligarch, Kenes Rakishev, transfers $142,300 to a key Biden-connected financial entity, Rosemont. The next day, Rosemont transfers exactly $142,300 to a New Jersey auto dealership for Hunter Biden’s purchase of a Fisker electric car, which he quickly trades up for a Porsche.

Rakishev was a close associate of Kazakhstan Prime Minister Karim Massimov. Around the time of Hunter Biden’s sports car windfall, someone had arranged for Rakishev and Massimov to be to be photographed at Washington’s Café Milano with Hunter Biden and a very special guest: then-Vice President Joe Biden.

Such a photograph is precious coin of the realm in corrupt countries—an advertisement of power and connections. Corruption in Kazakhstan is a serious concern, according to international watchdogs. Of course this was a fact well known to both Bidens, but it did not prevent them from joining Rakishev and Massimov for dinner at the Café Milano—twice.

According to a Comer Committee interview of Biden business partner Devon Archer, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden joined the Kazakhs for dinner in April 2014 and again in April 2015. It’s unclear if the famous photograph is from the first or second dinner. In May of 2014, Hunter Biden traveled to Kazakhstan to try to drum up business between the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, Kazakhstan’s KazMunay Gas (where Rakishev served as a director), and a Chinese energy company.

Enter the Russian: A $3.5 Million Payday

 The money trail in the Biden inquiry runs through a private investment firm that began life as Rosemont Seneca Partners and morphed over time into a web of limited liability companies. LLCs offer participants—legitimate companies and crooks alike—maximum secrecy. Rosemont Seneca Partners was founded in 2009 by Biden and two connections from Yale University: Devon Archer and Chris Heinz. Heinz is the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry and heir to the Heinz food company fortune. He departed the partnership in 2014.

The Comer Committee offers in its “Second Bank Records Memorandum” a mind-blowing list of twenty-one financial entities associated with the Biden enterprise. Most of them are LLCs and many have the name “Rosemont” or “Seneca” in them. We’ll refer to them simply as “Rosemont entity,” but the diligent reader can find details of the myriad Biden-connected LLCs in the three committee bank records memoranda linked at the end of this report.

Another guest at the Café Milano dinner in Washington in April 2014, according to the Comer Committee timeline: Russian oligarch Yelena Baturina. Two months earlier, Baturina had wired $3.5 million to a Rosemont entity. The Rosemont entity transferred $2.7 million to a bank account in a second Rosemont LLC jointly owned by Biden and Archer. Separately, $750,000 was sent from a Rosemont entity directly to Archer.

The Ukraine Connection: A $10 Million Bribe?

 2014 was a very good year for Hunter Biden’s finances. In May, Biden and partner Devon Archer joined the board of Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky’s embattled energy company, Burisma. Each would be paid $1 million per year.

The committee’s third bank memorandum notes that “then-Vice President Joe Biden visited Ukraine” on an anti-corruption drive aimed at Zlochevsky allies “soon after first payments” were sent to Archer and Hunter Biden. The payments were wired to a Rosemont entity and then “transmitted in incremental amounts to Hunter Biden’s different bank accounts.”

By the end of the year, Hunter Biden had met with a high-level Obama administration official about Burisma. Zlochevsky complained about “government pressure” and urged Biden to contact his father, the vice president. In the interview released by the committee, Archer notes that Hunter Biden “called DC” after being pressured by Zlochevsky and his associates.

Earlier this year, Senator Chuck Grassley released a bombshell FBI informant report of a 2016 meeting with Zlochevsky. In the report, Zlochevsky claimed he had been coerced into paying a $10 million bribe to Hunter and Joe Biden. It “cost 5 [million] to pay one Biden, and 5 [million] to another Biden,” the FBI informant reported Zlochevsky saying.

Zlochevsky told the informant the payments were well hidden. It “would take them ten years to find the records,” he said.

In total, notes the committee, a total of $6.5 million went to “the Biden family and their associates” from the Ukraine connection.

The Romanian Payout: The Robinson Walker Shell

 By November 2015, Hunter Biden had struck up a lucrative relationship with a controversial Romanian real-estate tycoon, Gabriel Popoviciu. Meanwhile, over at the White House, Vice President Biden was taking point on an anti-corruption campaign aimed at Romania. In September, Vice President Biden had welcomed the Romanian president to the White House, declaring his support for the country’s “anti-corruption efforts.”

Popoviciu was fighting bribery and corruption charges connected to a high-profile land deal near Bucharest. Hunter Biden joined the Popoviciu defense team. From 2015 to 2017, according to the Comer timeline, Biden met twice with the U.S ambassador to Romania and traveled at least once to the country. Meanwhile, more than $3 million from Popoviciu flowed to Robinson Walker LLC, an account controlled by a close Biden family associate, John Robinson “Rob” Walker.

According to the committee’s second bank memoranda, the Robinson Walker LLC is at the center of many payments to the Biden family and associates. Robinson Walker “received $3 million from Romanian Gabriel Popoviciu’s Cypriot company and then made payments to the Biden family,” the memo notes. Among the recipients was Hallie Biden, the widow of Hunter’s brother, Beau.

The committee noted that “while Vice President Biden advocated publicly for anti-corruption policies in Romania, bank records show Biden family members and business associates were simultaneously reaping in significant amounts of money” from Popoviciu.

China: “10 held for the big guy?”

 By January 2017, the Obama administration was coming to an end and Hunter Biden and his associates were angling for their biggest score of all: China.

The target, cultivated for years, was the giant conglomerate CEFC China Energy. The Biden business plan was to sell U.S. energy products to CEFC and expand into other deals. CEFC was interested in a relationship.

The total amount paid to “the Biden family and their associates” by China, notes the Comer Committee, is “over $8 million.” Payments by CEFC were sent to the Robinson Walker shell—the same LLC used for the Romanian payouts—and distributed to various Biden family members and associates.

In March 2017—two months after Joe Biden left the vice presidency—a $3 million CEFC payment arrived at the Walker shell. Rob Walker distributed “over $1 million of that money to Biden family members,” notes the second bank memoranda, including payments to Hunter Biden; Hallie Biden; Joe Biden’s brother, business consultant and dealmaker James Biden; and a still-mysterious account simply labeled “Biden.”

Another beneficiary was Hunter Biden’s business partner James Gilliar. The Walker shell wired him $1 million. The British energy consultant was a key figure in putting the Biden network together with CEFC—including, seemingly, Joe Biden.

In a May 2017 email to Hunter Biden and associates about profit-sharing from the CEFC deal, Gilliar asks, “10 held by H for the big guy?”

An IRS agent who worked on the Hunter Biden case was pressed about the Gilliar email in July testimony before Congress. Joseph Ziegler told the House Oversight Committee that “all I can do is speak to the evidence there” and “that email, ‘ten held by H for the big guy’ and from what I understand that to be is his dad, President Biden.”

In August 2017, in the biggest payday of all, CEFC wired $5 million to a new LLC formed by Hunter Biden and Gongwen Dong—a top aide to CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming. The new company would pursue energy and infrastructure deals. Hunter would receive a $500,000 retainer and a $100,000 monthly payment. James Biden would be paid $65,000 per month. Hunter Biden also received an additional $1 million retainer to represent Patrick Ho, a high-ranking CEFC official in the United States.

A month after the $5 million CEFC wire, Hunter Biden was busy in Washington setting up a new office for himself and his CEFC partners. “Please have keys made available for new office mates,” he emailed building management. “Joe Biden, Jill Biden, Jim Biden, Gongwen Dong (Chairman Ye CEFC emissary).” Hunter Biden added: “I would like the office sign to reflect the following: Biden Foundation, Hudson West (CEFC US).”

It looked like happy days were here again for the Bidens and their new Chinese friends. But in fact, the end was near.

The Fall of the House of Hunter

 In November 2017, Patrick Ho—the high-ranking CEFC agent—was arrested in New York on suspicion of bribery and money laundering. Four months after Ho’s arrest, CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming vanished. According to news reports, he was suspected of widespread economic crimes at the helm of CEFC and arrested on the orders of Communist Party boss Xi Jinping. Ye has not been heard from since. CEFC collapsed into bankruptcy. Ho was convicted of bribery and money laundering in 2019 in connection with African oil deals and sentenced to three years in prison.

With Ho’s arrest, Biden business came to a screeching halt. Hunter Biden, by his own account, spiraled deep into a crack cocaine addiction. Many of his associates also did not fare well. Former client Gabriel Popoviciu, the Romanian real-estate tycoon, fought a six-year, ultimately successful battle to prevent his extradition from London to Bucharest to face bribery and corruption charges. Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky has been fending off corruption charges since 2012, accused of large-scale theft of government funds. He is believed to be living in Monaco. Karim Massimov, the former Kazakhstan prime minister who dined with Hunter and Joe Biden in 2014 and 2015, was sentenced to eighteen years in prison for attempting a coup. Business partner Devon Archer was found guilty of fraud in 2018 in a conspiracy to cheat a Native American tribe in a bond scheme; he is appealing the conviction.

Doubtless there will be more to come about Hunter Biden as the impeachment inquiry digs deeper into bank records and the money trail. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. But what about Joe Biden? Some questions are obvious.

Who is connected to that mysterious account named “Biden?”

Is Joe Biden “the big guy” and was “10”—or anything—held for him? Where is it?

Did a Ukrainian oligarch funnel $10 million in bribes to the Bidens? Where are the records?

Other questions may lead the committee deep into a wilderness of mirrors.

For example, is there a relationship between Vice President Biden’s anti-corruption statements and payments to Hunter Biden-connected accounts?

Are there other, unidentified accounts?

What is the financial relationship between James Biden to his brother Joe?

Did foreign intelligence services—no doubt tipped off to Hunter Biden’s activities—play any role in the Biden affair?

Interesting times ahead.

AUTHOR

MICAH MORRISON

Micah Morrison is chief investigative reporter for Judicial Watch. Tips: mmorrison@judicialwatch.org

SOURCES:

Read the first House Oversight Bank Memorandum (China) here.

Read the second House Oversight Bank Memorandum (China, Romania) here.

Read the third House Oversight Bank Memorandum (Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan) here.


Investigative Bulletin is published by Judicial Watch. Reprints and media inquiries: jfarrell@judicialwatch.org


EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Here’s How Biden Admin Destroyed Our Immigration Law thumbnail

Here’s How Biden Admin Destroyed Our Immigration Law

By Victor Davis Hanson

Since early 2021 we have witnessed somewhere between 7 million and 8 million illegal entries across the now-nonexistent southern border of the U.S.

The more the border vanished, the more federal immigration law was rendered inert, and the more Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas spun fantasies that the “border is secure.” He is now written off as a veritable “Baghdad Bob” propagandist.

But how and why did the Biden administration destroy immigration law as we knew it?

The Trump administration’s initial efforts to close the border had been continually obstructed in Congress, sabotaged by the administrative state, and stymied in the courts. Nonetheless, it finally had secured the border by early 2020.

Yet almost all of the Trump administration’s successful initiatives were immediately overturned in 2021.

Construction of the wall was abruptly stopped, and its projected trajectory was canceled. The disastrous Obama-era “catch and release” policy of immigration nonenforcement was resurrected.

Prior successful pressure on Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to stop the deliberate export of his own citizens northward ceased.

Federal Border Patrol officers were forced to stand down.

New federal subsidies were granted to entice and then support illegal arrivals.

No one in the Democratic Party objected to the destruction of the border or the subversion of immigration law.

However, things changed somewhat once swamped southern border states began to bus or fly a few thousand of their illegal immigrants northward to sanctuary city jurisdictions—especially to New York and Chicago, and even Martha’s Vineyard.

The sanctuary-city “humanists” there who had greenlighted illegal immigration into the southern states suddenly shrieked. They were irate after experiencing the concrete consequences of their own prior abstract border agendas. After all, their nihilism was always supposed to fall upon distant and ridiculed others.

New York Mayor Eric Adams went from celebrating a few dozen illegal immigrants bused into Manhattan to blasting his own party for allowing tens of thousands to swamp his now bankrupt city.

But why did the Biden administration deliberately unleash the largest influx across the southern border in U.S. history?

The ethnic chauvinists and Democratic Party elites needed new constituents, given their increasingly unpopular agendas.

They feared that the more legal Latino immigrants assimilated and integrated into American society, the less happy they became with left-wing radical abortion, racial, transgender, crime, and green fixations.

Democratic grandees always had bragged that illegal immigration would create what they called “The New Democratic Majority” in “Demography Is Destiny” fashion. Now they slander critics as “racists” who object to left-wing efforts to use illegal immigration to turn southwestern red states blue.

Mexico now cannot survive as a modern state without some $60 billion in annual remittances sent by its expatriates in America. However many illegal immigrants rely on American state and federal entitlements to free up cash to send home.

Mexico also encourages its own abject poor and often indigenous people from southern Mexico to head north as a safety valve of sorts. The Mexican government sees these mass exodus northward as preferable to the oppressed marching on Mexico City to address grievances of poverty and racism.

The criminal cartels now de facto run Mexico. An open border allows them to ship fentanyl northward, earn billions in profits—and kill nearly 100,000 Americans a year. Illegal immigrants pay cartels additional billions to facilitate their border crossings.

Don’t forget American corporate employers. Record labor nonparticipation followed the COVID-19 lockdown. In reaction to the dearth of American workers, the hospitality, meat packing, social service, health care, and farming industries were desperate to hire new—and far cheaper—labor.

Human rights activists insist that the borders themselves are 19th-century relics. And the global poor and oppressed thus have a human right to enter the affluent West by any means necessary.

Many in the tony suburbs and in universities do not live anywhere near the southern border. So they pontificate on the assurance that thousands of unaudited illegal immigrants will never enter their own enclaves or campuses.

The result is elite-bottled piety—but not firsthand experience with the natural consequences of millions chaotically fleeing one of the poorest countries in the world to pour into the wealthiest. Without background checks, vaccinations, and health audits, legality, high school diplomas, English facility skill sets, or capital, the result is an abject catastrophe.

Polls continue to show that the American people support measured, diverse, legal, and meritocratic immigration as much as they oppose mass illegal immigration into their country and the subsequent loss of American sovereignty on the border.

They understand what the Biden administration does not: No nation in history has survived once its borders were destroyed, once its citizenship was rendered no different from mere residence, and once its neighbors with impunity undermined its sovereignty.

Ending illegal immigration now depends solely on the American people overriding the corrupt special interests and leaders who profit from the current chaos and human misery.

*****

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

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Premiere Racist Scholar Ibram X. Kendi Under Investigation thumbnail

Premiere Racist Scholar Ibram X. Kendi Under Investigation

By Chrissy Clark

Editors’ Note: This investigation follows the July dismissal of Florida State University professor Eric Stewart, a criminology “scholar” who was found to have faked data and rigged research.

Boston University is investigating the head honcho of “anti-racism” studies, Ibram X. Kendi, according to a reporter from The Boston Globe.

Kendi, who I consider to be the Al Sharpton of the millennials, opened an “anti-racism” center at Boston University in 2020. There’s an investigation into the center following accusations that Kendi mismanaged grant funding, failed to deliver on key projects, and unleashed “employment violence” on staff.

This is the natural consequence of making race-baiting, and not merit, the guiding principle of an education center.

Former employees allege there is “employment violence,” even though no violence allegedly occurred. People are simply unwell and use the word “violence” flippantly. These former employees allege that layoffs are akin to “employment violence.”

This is going exactly as poorly as I expected it to go.

*****

This article was published by The Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Rand Paul Comes Out Swinging Against Lindsey Graham Over Ukraine Aid thumbnail

Rand Paul Comes Out Swinging Against Lindsey Graham Over Ukraine Aid

By Brianna Lyman

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul called out his fellow Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham over Ukraine aid Thursday while on Fox Business.

Graham told reporters Wednesday those opposed to giving Ukraine more aid should stay out of it until they’ve visited Ukraine and seen the war firsthand.

“Somebody needs to remind the Senator that we don’t have any money. We are about $1.5 trillion dollars in debt for this year. Over the last three months we’ve accumulated almost a trillion dollars in three months. The total is $33 trillion, so we don’t have like an extra rainy day fund or a surplus we can send them,” Paul said in response.

“We have to borrow the money from China to send to Ukraine, so no matter what your sympathies are in the war, and I am sympathetic to Ukraine fighting off the Russian aggressors, but at the same time I think it’s irresponsible to think about their country before I think about my country.”

Paul claimed U.S. funding is also helping Ukrainian government worker pensions, and he believes most Americans agree with him that aid needs to be cut.

Paul then went on to criticize Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy for saying he’s not holding elections next year, claiming it would be inconvenient during a war and expensive. Paul then argued Europe has a greater incentive to help Ukraine fight off Russia, and Ukraine should rely on its neighbors.

Zelenskyy is visiting the White House and Capitol Hill this week to ask the U.S. for more aid in addition to the $100 billion that Congress has already approved, per The Wall Street Journal. President Joe Biden’s administration has called for an additional $24 billion in aid amid a spending conflict that threatens a government shutdown Sept. 30. (RELATED: ‘Huge Catastrophe’: JD Vance Says US ‘Blank Check’ Spending Focus On Ukraine Is ‘Massive Strategic Victory’ For China)

Other Republicans have expressed opposition to additional funding.

“There’s no money in the House right now for Ukraine,” Florida Rep. Byron Donalds told The Recount. “It’s not a good time for [Zelenskyy] to be here, quite frankly. That’s just the reality.”

Republican Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar told the Daily Caller News Foundation he would never support additional funding for Ukraine, since there are more dire issues domestically.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

DHS’ Disinformation Governance Board Sought to Censor Opposing Views on Racial Justice, the Afghan Withdrawal and Other Political Subjects thumbnail

DHS’ Disinformation Governance Board Sought to Censor Opposing Views on Racial Justice, the Afghan Withdrawal and Other Political Subjects

By The Geller Report

This is a government at war against its own people.

The Defunct Disinformation Governance Board Sought to Censor Opposing Views on Racial Justice, the Afghan Withdrawal and Other Political Subjects

By: Jonathan Turley, September 24, 2023:

We previously discussed the defunct Disinformation Governance Board and its controversial head Nina Jankowicz. After the outcry over the program, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas finally relented and disbanded the board while insisting that it was never about censoring opposing views. Jankowicz has sued over the portrayal of her views. Now, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) has exposed just how broad the scope of the censorship efforts were under the board in combatting “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (MDM). This range of authority in what the agency called the “MDM space,” included targeting views on racial justice and the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

New documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) argued that the agency could regulate speech related to “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine” as well as “irregular immigration.” Those subjects stretch across much of the “space” used for political speech in the last few years.

Notably, within DHS, Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” I testified earlier on this effort.

So DHS asserted the authority to target viewpoints on racial justice, Ukraine, and other political subjects, including views based on fact but viewed as misleading in context.

What is also troubling is the continued effort to conceal these censorship activities. Homeland redacted much of this information on a now defunct board under FOIA Exemption 7(E), which protects “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations.” That claim is itself chilling.

After the demise of the board, National Public Radio ran an interview entitled “How DHS’s disinformation board fell victim to misinformation.”

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Indicted for Bribery and Corruption NJ Senator Menendez Spent Years Helping Developer and Imam Behind Grotesque Ground Zero Mosque

BIDEN: “I’ve directed my team to make a HISTORIC INCREASE in the number of refugees”

Cracked Segregationist Joe Biden calls rapper LL Cool J ‘boy’ while speaking to Congressional Black Caucus

RELATED TWEET:

Them: MAGA is a cult

Also them: pic.twitter.com/KcTjfK1feq

— TheDeplorableVeteran🇺🇸 (@DeplorableVet84) September 24, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Gift That Keeps On Giving thumbnail

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

By Doug Bandow

Washington’s involvement in the Russo–Ukrainian war is encouraging new and hostile combinations of powers.

Last week, North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un visited Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. The meeting was serious, in contrast to their perfunctory summit four years ago. This time Moscow was the suitor, seeking artillery shells, missiles, and perhaps more for its war against Ukraine.

American commentators chortled at the once grand Russian state’s supplications to such an isolated and impoverished regime. Yet whatever embarrassment Putin may feel is undoubtedly minor compared to the potential benefits for his government. Russia already outproduces Ukraine, Europe, and the U.S. in critical materiel, and is seeking to increase its edge, possibly to prepare another offensive.

In contrast, Ukraine’s allies are, if not quite useless, then significant disappointments. General Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s highest-ranking soldier, complained that Kiev’s artillery forces “have been outshot tenfold at times because of limited resources.” It seems the U.S. has been unable to keep up with Ukraine’s demand. Europe has done no better. Oops!

Indeed, European military efforts barely qualify as pathetic. Germany’s once-celebrated Zeitenwende has turned into a bust, as the Scholz government has retreated from its lofty goals. Even worse, the British government, despite its Churchillian rhetoric, has moved backward on defense outlays as a share of GDP and announced cutbacks in its ground forces since it is protected by water and ships—and by the United States, of course. European officials prefer to leave the latter factor unstated, and Washington continues to play the patsy, especially under President Joe Biden. Rather than laugh at Moscow, Washington should ask why its allies are so much less prepared for war than the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Putin’s turn to the DPRK highlights the failure of Washington’s policy of war against all. Although still the world’s most powerful nation, the U.S. has encouraged the formation of a growing antagonistic coalition.

For years, Moscow and Beijing were divided on key issues, and both governments tempered their cooperation with Pyongyang and Tehran. Today, American hostility has driven all four together. Their grouping remains ungainly, but both the DPRK and Iran are strengthening Russia’s war effort and likely will gain much in return. China has increased its political influence with and won economic concessions from Iran, while the DPRK offers a potential military deus ex machina that could greatly complicate Washington’s task in any war with the People’s Republic of China.

Indeed, a few years ago, both Moscow and Beijing were generally opposed to Iranian and North Korean nuclear efforts. Today, perceived necessity has degraded or even dissipated those sentiments. Russia is expanding economic ties with both governments to ease the impact of American sanctions. Forging a new relationship with Moscow has been especially important for the North, which is suffering from serious food shortages. More worrisome for Americans, Russia might also aid Pyongyang’s missile development, including ICBMs capable of targeting the U.S. If so, Washington officials have no one to blame but themselves, having bragged about helping to kill Russian generals and sink Russian ships. Moscow now has a chance to return the favor. Unfortunately for the U.S., proxy wars don’t run only one way.

China has been more cautious but has nevertheless benefited from the purchase of cheap Iranian oil. The PRC has also helped keep North Korea afloat. Although Beijing would prefer a pliant, house-broken ally without nukes, a well-armed, aggressive North offers at least two benefits. The first is to unsettle Northeast Asia and especially Washington’s allies, discouraging them from looking beyond their own security. The second is to pose an especially serious threat if Seoul supports the U.S. in a conflict with China.

To allied officials, the failure of much of the so-called Global South to commit to the West in its campaign against Russia has been a shock. History weighs heavily on one-time colonial relationships. Moreover, the U.S. of late has proved to be inconsistent, reckless, and destructive. Not even its friends feel comfortable dealing with arrogant officials who have carelessly, and often callously, started or supported wars that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people while insisting that “the price is worth it.”

Most members of the Global South still oppose Moscow’s aggression. Nevertheless, they rejected the West’s claim to moral leadership and eagerly took advantage of discounted oil shipments and sanctions-busting opportunities. Even India, seen as a major counterweight to Beijing, has resisted allied affection.

Yet Washington has learned nothing. For instance, the Biden administration fulminated against North Korea for aiding Moscow. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan suggested that the DPRK would suffer from global scorn: Its support for Russia is “not going to reflect well on North Korea and they will pay a price for this in the international community.” Alas, Pyongyang’s rulers are not known for feeling shame. Countries that maintain relations with the North are unlikely to change their position because of an arms deal with Russia. Other states aren’t likely to pay much attention.

Indeed, an air of unreality surrounds Washington’s well-demonstrated ability to make enemies. The Russia-China axis is of greatest concern. Neither country has any interest in warring against the U.S., but mutual cooperation makes it more difficult for Washington to counter their activities in their respective regions. And when their efforts align, as in the Middle East, where both are engaging Iran and Saudi Arabia, American influence suffers.

Unfortunately, antagonism toward America, or at least American policy, is the strongest force pushing them together. For instance, Beijing and Moscow compete for influence in Central Asia and elsewhere, including North Korea. Territorial disputes between China and Russia reach back in history. Beijing has brazenly stolen Russian technology and is ruthlessly using its current geopolitical advantage for economic gain. The PRC also is concerned about its ties with the West amid Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Nevertheless, the Sino-Russian entente looks solid.

Rather than consider revising policies that have backfired so spectacularly, some U.S. policymakers assume that eventually one of the contrary powers will defect. For instance, three years ago the Atlantic Council’s John Herbst wrote: “The Chinese-Russian temporary alignment of interests is unlikely to overcome the fundamentals of geopolitics.” Alas, Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine undercut that theory, with Russia becoming dependent on the PRC. Nevertheless, Herbst still insists that Russia will eventually come the West’s way, choosing to be a docile junior partner to America rather than China.

There is similar talk about the PRC and North Korea. American analysts insist that Chinese support for the North is not to Beijing’s benefit, which should give its nominal ally to the U.S. If only Xi Jinping properly understood his own nation’s interest, he would encourage Korean unification under a government allied with America, strengthening Washington’s containment policy toward the PRC. Moreover, Moscow’s burgeoning dealings with the DPRK, assert American policymakers, should spark concerted Chinese pressure against the North’s ongoing military expansion. If only American officials explained Beijing’s interests to Beijing’s solons, the latter would enthusiastically advance U.S. interests.

These are charming sentiments of the “wouldn’t it be great” variety. Wouldn’t it be great if the U.S. could do whatever it wanted without the slightest response from its adversaries? Wouldn’t it be great if American officials merely needed to state their wishes and foreign leaders would rush to comply? Wouldn’t it be great if even the most foolish, self-serving, and counterproductive American policies were greeted with wild acclaim and complete acquiescence around the globe?

Unfortunately, that isn’t our world today.

The anti-American coalition might not last because its internal pressures are so great. Washington, however, is doing its best to hold its adversaries together. Warring against Moscow and threatening other states both politically and militarily creates an obvious common bond. Challenging the serious, even vital interests of such governments cannot help but foster shared antagonism toward America. Absent a change in American policy, confrontation seems certain and conflict is possible.

Yet American policymakers never seem to learn. Today, Capitol Hill is filled with demands to wage war in (and effectively on) Mexico in the name of combating the drug trade. If the U.S. invades, one can imagine the hostile reaction in Mexico and across Latin America, which long have bridled at imperious Washington policies. Some of those governments might seek greater cooperation with China and Russia in response.

The Putin-Kim détente reflects decisions made in Moscow and Pyongyang—but also in Washington. Myopic American policies are encouraging cooperation among several unfriendly governments. The U.S. may outlast or overcome any such combinations. If the past is prologue, however, many brave Americans may end up dying unnecessarily along the way. Such is the price of Washington’s “war against all” approach to the world.

*****

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

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Truck This: Why I’m Leaving the Long-Haul Industry thumbnail

Truck This: Why I’m Leaving the Long-Haul Industry

By Christopher Wilcox

I’ve been a truck driver for over 20 years. I suppose I always knew I would be, ever since that career day in the third grade when among all the kids dressed like doctors and baseball players, there I stood dressed like Jerry Reed from Smokey and the Bandit. Pop culture in the 80s painted the picture of truckers as rugged men, wild and free, burdened by nothing except their own wanderlust. That romanticized version of the American truck driver still lingers in the back of my mind, but in recent years the burden of government regulation has proven to be greater than my desire to see what’s over the next hill.

Oppressive regulation in the trucking industry has been around almost as long as the iconic chrome bulldog on the hood of Mack trucks. Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Federal Motor Carrier Act (FMCA) of 1935 during his first term. This gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), an agency originally formed to regulate railroads, the authority to regulate the burgeoning business of moving goods by tractor-trailer. The ICC ultimately decided which companies could haul certain goods, for whom, where, and what they could charge. The ICC even decided if new transportation companies could enter the market by requiring eager upstarts to prove their services were “needed.”

The only exemptions to these laws were in the agricultural sector. FDR and his horde of central planners did not want to cause an increase in food prices during a time when many Americans were already struggling to put food on the table. Never mind the tacit admission that the FMCA would raise prices on all other goods. This exemption had its own unintended consequences. While independent drivers, commonly referred to as wildcatters in driver slang, were not subject to the price floors previously mentioned, they were limited to hauling only agricultural goods. This limitation caused a significant logistical dilemma for wildcatters delivering in industrialized parts of the country and is largely responsible for the mythos of the outlaw truckers we all know today from music and film. Whether in an old country song from Red Sovine or Kurt Russell’s character in Big Trouble in Little China, such renegades are almost always hauling agricultural goods.

Thankfully, a trend towards deregulation began in the 1970s, and the cesspool of cronyism and perverse incentives created by FDR was substantially reined in with the FMCA of 1980. This is why we now see hundreds, if not thousands of company names sprawled along the sides of 53-foot trailers. Granted, we still have the ICC, though today it is known as the Department of Transportation, and any truck driver that has had to spend 10 hours at a scale house without a shower or a hot meal over a minor infraction of hours of service rules (another specter of the FMCA of 1935) will tell you it remains quite burdensome. But things are still better than they used to be.

Unfortunately, the federal government continues its misguided attempts to control an industry regulators know little to nothing about. But today’s attempts tend to focus more on something they understand even less than trucking: technology.

The electronic logging device (ELD) has been around since the late 1980s. The devices were first adopted by large nationwide fleets to simplify managing their plethora of drivers and eventually became a way to lower insurance costs. Manufacturers and employers claimed the devices prevented drivers from driving longer than legally allowed, therefore reducing the number of tractor-trailer-related crashes. It was under the latter premise that the DOT mandated that all trucks be equipped with ELDs no later than the end of 2017. Unfortunately, fatal accidents involving tractor-trailers have seen a recent increase following a sharp decline. This correlation suggests that mandating ELDs has not had the promised or intended safety improvements.

More recently, environmental regulations requiring manufacturers to reduce emissions gave us the diesel particulate filter (DPF), an exhaust treatment system that replaces a standard muffler. While there is no current federal mandate requiring a DPF, the filters are required by the 2008 California Statewide Truck and Bus Rule, which has incentivized many nationwidwie fleets to adopt them. The problem with DPFs is the filter system clogs. A lot.

When DPFs go down, trucks roll to a stop. Truckers report having to have a DPF serviced as often as every 5,000 miles, which means lots of lost productivity and stranded cargo. I’ve had four breakdowns over the past two years, and three were due to my DPF. A tow truck driver I spoke to on one of those occasions told me half of his business comes from malfunctioning DPFs. Repairs are a specialized affair, and replacements can cost up to $2,000. When my truck isn’t moving, I’m not earning. And these regulators have required that my truck stand still far too often.

Next up on the government’s list of ways to make truckers’ lives miserable are proposed speed limiters. Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, wants to limit all tractor-trailers to the same speed. Imagine being stuck behind a pair of tractor-trailers side by side, who can’t speed up to pass each other. It’s relatively rare right now, but it will become the norm. Every single interstate nationwide will be populated by moving roadblocks, inspiring road rage and blocking critical services. What happens when the fire truck or ambulance is stuck behind these unbreakable pairs?

However well-intentioned these rules and regulations might be, it’s clear that no one is consulting with the long-haul truckers about the totally foreseeable bad outcomes. The great problem with all central planning is that regulators lack local knowledge, and are not inclined to speak to the people living with the consequences of their decrees. Probably because we would tell them what idiots they are.

The last two decades I’ve spent traversing this beautiful nation have, by and large, been a wonderful experience. I have countless stories to share with other drivers over a cup of coffee at my favorite fuel stops or with my more stationary friends over a cold beer. I wouldn’t trade the things I’ve seen, the binds I’ve been in, or the successes I enjoyed, for anything. But the burden that has been laid on these old tired shoulders by bureaucrats and central planners has become more than I’m willing to bear. I’ll always yearn for the open road, but now I’ll have to satisfy that wanderlust in my pick-up truck. I’m pulling the parking brake on this Peterbilt for the last time.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Soros’ Open Society Foundation Funds Purchase of 22 Papers in Maine thumbnail

Soros’ Open Society Foundation Funds Purchase of 22 Papers in Maine

By The Geller Report

More evil.

Hostile foreign actor buying up legacy and social media. America is living under the boot of a hostile regime.

George Soros Helped Fund Purchase of 22 Papers in Maine

By Peter Malbin | Newsmax | 19 September 2023

George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and the medical-device billionaire philanthropist Hansjörg Wyss were instrumental in the nonprofit purchase of nearly two dozen respected local newspapers in Maine, including the Portland Press Herald, the Lewiston Sun Journal, and the Kennebec Journal, Semafor.com reported.

The National Trust for Local News says it received funding from Soros’ organization, but denies that the Open Society Foundations provided funding specifically for the purchase of the local papers.

But Semafor reported that Soros and Wyss did donate funds so the National Trust could acquire the papers, and the donations had not been previously reported.

In total, the Soros-backed National Trust acquired five daily papers and a further 17 weekly publications in Maine, the Daily Caller reported.

Both Open Society and Wyss gave millions to the National Trust for the purchase of the Maine newspapers, Semafor reported.

Wyss is a major funder of American progressive organizations, funneling nearly $500 million into left-wing advocacy groups. Americans for Public Trust, a watchdog group, alleges that the Swiss billionaire uses a foreign influence loophole to perform his philanthropy.

A Media Research Center report found that Soros has donated $52 million to media organizations since 2003. According to the MRC, some of these donations breach the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethical code regarding conflicts of interest.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Soros Backed Joe Biden TikTok Influencers

‘Conflict Of Interest’: DCNF Reporter Questions Implications Of Soros-Backed Nonprofit Acquiring Local Newspapers

RELATED TWEET:

Everyone needs to see this… pic.twitter.com/3GC5zSw0SA

— A Man Of Memes (@RickyDoggin) September 22, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

To Whom Do America’s Children Belong?

By Elizabeth Grace Matthew

This week on the West Coast, the San Bernardino Superior Court blocked a policy requiring schools to notify students’ parents if their children change gender identities, names, and/or pronouns. According to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, this ruling “protects kids from harm” by “ensuring the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of inclusivity.”

According to this worldview, in which schools form an intimate attachment with students that by law excludes these minors’ parents, public schools and by extension, the state—not parents—are the best and most natural custodians of children’s well-being.

Meanwhile, in the Midwest, Chicago Teachers Union President Stacy Davis-Gates—who opposes school choice and has called private schools racist and fascist while maintaining that her own children attend Chicago public schools—was recently found to be sending her son to a Catholic high school. In defending this hypocrisy, Davis-Gates stated that youth in Chicago’s poorer, mostly minority neighborhoods have “unfair choices,” given that “in many of our schools on the South side and the West side, the course offerings are very marginal and limited.” Chicago Public Schools spend over $29,000 per student, yet in 2022 80% of students failed to meet reading standards and 85% failed to meet math standards.

According to this worldview, in which school choice is anathema for those without the resources to exercise it sans governmental assistance but perfectly acceptable for those with resources, public schools are the only appropriate place for poor and predominantly minority students. Parents with enough income, by contrast, are apparently permitted to buy parental rights, and then make the same sound educational decisions for their children that parents with fewer resources would make if those like Davis-Gates would only let them.

These phenomena—state-employed adults validated for keeping secrets with other people’s children, and low-income children stuck in failing schools while those that keep them there access better for their own children—reveal that progressive educational activists fundamentally see other people’s children as wards of the state.

This puts such activists profoundly out of step with the bipartisan majority of American parents, who want: (1) to know how their children are identifying in school, and (2) universal school choice.

Given America’s rapidly decreasing fertility rate, and the overwhelming concentration of unmarried non-mothers in the progressive wing of the Democratic party that advocates against these parental interests, one can be forgiven for wondering if we could solve several problems at once were such women to have kids after all.

Not only would the fertility rate tick up, but those invested in children’s “rights” to gender themselves as they see fit without parental knowledge and failing public schools’ “rights” to exert unearned dominion over America’s children would suddenly have an equal stake in the ramifications of these dreadful policies. At least then, they could act in accordance with their alleged beliefs without coopting only other people’s children.

They mostly wouldn’t, though, since parenthood introduces  a reality principle unlike any other. And some of them might even be honest about that.

*****

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

Top Pro-Life Leaders Slam Trump for Calling Heartbeat Protections for Unborn ‘Terrible’ thumbnail

Top Pro-Life Leaders Slam Trump for Calling Heartbeat Protections for Unborn ‘Terrible’

By Mary Margaret Olohan

Former President Donald Trump is drawing fire from pro-life leaders for describing Florida’s heartbeat protections for the unborn as “terrible.”

“I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake,” Trump told NBC’s new “Meet the Press” host, Kristen Welker, in an interview that aired Sunday. The former president was referring to Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signing state legislation banning the abortions of babies after a heartbeat has been detected.

Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, and Iowa all have passed similar laws, though Ohio’s and Iowa’s laws are held up in court. Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia have almost completely banned abortion with limited exceptions, such as for preserving the life of the mother.

And to the chagrin of top pro-life groups, Trump also would not say whether he would support protections for babies after 15 weeks of gestation, suggesting that he would seek solutions to the abortion debate that both Republicans and Democrats could embrace.

“What’s going to happen is, you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months,” Trump said. “You’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy.”

While Trump’s recent remarks have provoked concerns from pro-life groups that he does not support strong legislation protecting life, he has previously been heralded as the most pro-life president in American history—and he will always have the lasting legacy of appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

Trump also made history as the first president to attend the national March for Life in person, for appointing a slew of pro-life federal judges throughout his four years as president, for signing an executive order protecting infants born alive through botched abortions, and for significantly cutting Planned Parenthood’s federal funding.

But his newest comments sparked a strong response from pro-life leaders.

“Laws protecting the unborn are not a ‘terrible mistake,’” Alliance Defending Freedom CEO and President Kristen Waggoner said Sunday. “They are the hallmark of a just and moral society. Governors who protect life should be applauded, not attacked. And while we’re at it, men can’t become women. This is also based on a simple biological reality and one necessary for a just and moral society.”

Live Action’s founder and president, Lila Rose, decried Trump’s remarks as “pathetic and unacceptable” in a Sunday post on social media.

“Trump is actively attacking the very pro-life laws made possible by Roe’s overturning. Heartbeat laws have saved thousands of babies,” she said. “But Trump wants to compromise on babies’ lives so pro-abort Dems ‘like him.’ Trump should not be the GOP nominee.”

The pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America called for “every single candidate” to be “clear on how they plan to” save “the lives of children and serving mothers in need.”

“It begins with focusing on the extremes of the other side, and ambition and common sense on our own,” SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said. “Anything later than a 15-week protection for babies in the womb (when science proves they can feel pain) as a national minimum standard makes no sense.”

CatholicVote President Brian Burch said that the former president’s remarks have “sparked concerns among Catholics over whether he is committed to leading on this issue in the way he did during his first term.”

“Pro-life Catholic voters helped deliver him the White House in 2016, and a record number of votes in 2020,” Burch warned. “He cannot expect to win again without these same voters. Any Republican presidential hopeful must draw a clear contrast to the extreme, taxpayer-funded, unlimited abortion agenda of [President] Joe Biden.”

Some, like American Principles Project’s Terry Schilling, pushed for conservatives to hold their fire and wait to hear what type of protections for the unborn that Trump supports.

“Let’s at least see what national limit he backs before the hysterical takes,” Schilling said in a tweet pointing out that Trump had appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

Daily Wire host Michael Knowles similarly suggested that Trump has “been extremely pro-life (e.g., Dobbs, 1st POTUS to speak at March For Life)” and has “proved himself capable of winning at least 1 general election.”

“Doesn’t excuse bad answers, but actions speak louder than words,” Knowles said.

Bob Vander Plaats, a prominent pro-life activist and president and CEO of The Family Leader, argued that “when a leader doesn’t have convictions on the most basic right of all, the right to #life, this is what you get.”

“Ugh,” he continued. “The ‘let’s make a deal’ message isn’t a win for babies, and it won’t win the #POTUS.”

The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh described Trump’s remark as “an awful answer from a moral perspective” and also “stupid politically.”

“You can’t win over Democrats by going squishy on this issue,” Walsh said. “Republicans have tried that brilliant strategy for decades and accomplished exactly nothing by it. Defend life clearly powerfully and unequivocally. That’s the only way.”

Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Daily Signal. His former vice president, Mike Pence, told The New York Times on Sunday: “Donald Trump continues to walk away from the pro-life legacy of our administration.”

“There’s no negotiating when it comes to the life of the unborn,” Pence said. “We will not rest, we will not relent, until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the nation.”

And DeSantis responded to Trump’s remarks in an interview Monday with Radio Iowa.

“Donald Trump may think it’s terrible. I think protecting babies with heartbeats is noble and just and I’m proud to have signed the heartbeat bill in Florida and I know Iowa has similar legislation,” the Florida governor said.

“I don’t know how you can even make the claim that you’re somehow pro-life if you’re criticizing states for enacting protections for babies that have heartbeats,” he added.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

FBI Had So Many Jan. 6 Plants It Lost Count thumbnail

FBI Had So Many Jan. 6 Plants It Lost Count

By Catherine Salgado

The latest news is that the FBI (otherwise known as the Federal Bureau of Immorality) had so many paid plants in the crowd on Jan. 6, 2021, that it lost count. The fedsurrection” is real, not a conspiracy theory.

It was an FBI plant that later testified to the innocence of the Kansas City Proud Boys (the FBI has also been accused of destroying evidence for the Proud Boys’ case). We have video footage from one undercover cop who mingled with the crowd that day and urged people on into the Capitol. Likely federal asset Ray Epps boasted that he had “orchestrated” Jan. 6. We know that the majority of protestors there that day were peaceful and that at least some if not most of the violent minority were also plants, or at least not Trump fans; MAGA protestors tried to intervene to stop the destruction, identifying the violent rioters as Antifa. Nancy Pelosi had a camera crew set up before the event.

It was a set-up to destroy Donald Trump and MAGA. Since then, innocent Jan. 6 prisoners have been imprisoned, tortured, and denied both their rights and basic necessities in jail.

“[InfoWars, Sept. 20] The former head of the FBI’s Washington D.C. field office, Steven D’Antuono, is blowing the whistle on the bureau’s countless number of paid informants who took part in the Jan. 6th debacle.

D’Antuono told the New York Post this week his field office had ‘Confidential Human Sources’ (CHS) embedded in the J6 crowd, but also explained ‘informants run by other field offices’ were taking part in the protest unbeknownst to him at the time…Former Capitol Hill Police Chief Steven Sund previously told The Post the FBI ‘had at least 18 undercover agents in the crowd plus another 20 from the Department of Homeland Security’ in addition to the unknown number of CHSs.”

Jan. 6 really was a fedsurrection.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

President Donald J. Trump says if re-elected he will carry out the ‘largest domestic deportation operation in American history’ thumbnail

President Donald J. Trump says if re-elected he will carry out the ‘largest domestic deportation operation in American history’

By The Geller Report

G-d willing!

Trump says he will carry out the ‘largest domestic deportation operation in American history’ if elected

Trump’s comments come as more than 4,000 migrants crossed the US Southern Border Wednesday

By Brooke Singman, Fox News, September 20, 2023:

Over 4,000 migrants cross US border in one morning

BREAKING: Former President Donald Trump says he will carry out the ‘largest domestic deportation operation in American history’ if re-elected in 2024.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) September 21, 2023

Former President Trump announced his plans to carry out “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” if he is elected to a second term in the White House.

Trump, who leads the 2024 Republican primary field by a massive margin, delivered a speech in Dubuque, Iowa Wednesday evening, blasting President Biden for the “nation-wrecking catastrophe on our southern border.”

“Under my leadership, we had the most secure border in U.S. history. Now, we have the worst border in the history of the world,” Trump said Wednesday— the same day that more than 4,000 predominantly Venezuelan adult illegal migrants crossed the border into Texas.

Trump, in Iowa, said that if elected, his second term would begin by “immediately” terminating “every Open Borders policy of the Biden Administration.”

“Following the Eisenhower Model, we will carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” Trump said.

The former president said he plans to also “invoke the Alien Enemies Act to remove all known or suspected Gang Members, drug dealers, or Cartel Members from the United States”—an effort he says will end the “scourge of illegal alien gang violence once and for all.”

Trump also said he plans to “shift massive portions of federal law enforcement to immigration enforcement,” including parts of the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

“I will make clear that we must use any and all resources needed to stop the invasion—including moving thousands of troops currently stationed overseas to our OWN southern border,” Trump said, stressing that “before we defend the borders of foreign countries, we must secure the border of our country.”

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

DEMOCRATS’ INVASION: 35,000 Illegals Cross U.S. Border in Just 4 Days

SHOCKING VIDEOS: Trains, Massive Transports of Thousands of Migrants Shipped to USA, “It’s a Pipeline. It’s All Coordinated. It’s All Controlled”

US Sees 1,000% Surge In Migrants From Afghanistan, China

NYC School Kids KICKED OUT to Make Room for Illegal Migrants, “No More Room” For American Students

Biden Regime To Order Illegal Migrants to Stay in Red States, Not To Go To Blue States

BIDEN OPENED THE FLOODGATES: Tens of Thousands of Illegal Immigrants Overflowing Into Arizona Through Literal OPEN Floodgates in the Border Wall

RELATED TWEETS:

JUST IN: Fox News stops at bar in Bozeman, Montana.

Shocked to find out that out every single one of the patrons is voting for 47..

HAS AMERICA FINALLY HAD ENOUGH? pic.twitter.com/BIBxfERe9e

— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) September 22, 2023

Lying liars lying about the border catastrophe that is gutting our beloved nation…pic.twitter.com/DcujC9D14r

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) September 22, 2023

WOW: Karine Jean-Pierre REFUSES to answer questions on the record-breaking 10,000 illegal immigrants crossing the southern border in a single day pic.twitter.com/7jUdCS7mHF

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) September 21, 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Hunter Biden Suggested Lobbying Sen. Bob Menendez On Behalf Of Foreign Client, Emails Show thumbnail

Hunter Biden Suggested Lobbying Sen. Bob Menendez On Behalf Of Foreign Client, Emails Show

By The Daily Caller

Hunter Biden and his business associates appeared to suggest lobbying indicted Democratic New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez to protect a Spanish rail company after regulators scrutinized the firm, public emails on the younger Biden’s abandoned laptop archive show.

Spanish rail company Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF) hired Hunter Biden’s investment firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, to lobby the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Amtrak for government contracts on railway projects, according to emails on Biden’s publicly available laptop archive.

The younger Biden and his business associates at Rosemont Seneca spoke with Menendez’s office about CAF and secured meetings between CAF and DOT officials, archived emails show.

CAF hired Rosemont Seneca in June 2010 and Hunter Biden’s firm appeared to discuss potential contracts with Amtrak shortly thereafter, according to the laptop archive. Biden and his associates also appeared to work with CAF on a letter sent by the Spanish ambassador to Amtrak advocating for the firm, emails show.

Hunter Biden sat on Amtrak’s board from July 2006 to February 2009 after he was nominated by former President George W. Bush. Prior to his Amtrak position, Biden worked in former President Bill Clinton’s commerce department and at a Washington, D.C., law firm.

Amtrak awarded CAF’s American subsidiary a contract worth $298.1 million in July 2010 to manufacture 130 new rail cars at a plant in Elmira, New York, CNN reported at the time. Hunter Biden’s firm appeared to negotiate a “success fee” with CAF following the announcement of the contract, according to the archive.

“We may very well be because we don’t have anything in writing, but my point has been that we be firm, have Hunter call the CEO and congratulate him, say we are looking forward to working with CAF as they implement the Amtrak contract and then follow it up with a letter to memorialize the success fee arrangement,” Hunter Biden’s business associate Eric Schwerin said in a July 27, 2010, email.

“IF and only if they push back let’s not let CAF make us think we didn’t do enough work to deserve the fee, as it is a minor percentage compared to what we would normally get for working on a project like this,” Schwerin added.

Rosemont Seneca sent a letter to CAF at the end of July 2010 outlining its request for a “success fee” worth more than $800,000 because of the firm’s work on securing the contract.

Schwerin appeared to get Menendez’s office involved with CAF in early August 2010 by holding a call with Menendez’s then-Chief of Staff Daniel O’Brien, according to an email Schwerin sent Hunter Biden.

“Talked to Danny re: CAF and he is looking into it,” Schwerin said, according to the archive. “He was very interested in finding out more mainly because of Menendez’s chairing the U.S.-Spain Council. Also, mentioned they are doing an event in NY on Sept. 24th (when we will be up there for CGI anyway) with the Spanish President if you want to attend. I’ll hold the date.”

O’Brien communicated with Hunter Biden on multiple occasions and the pair appeared to be friends. Hunter Biden emailed O’Brien in June 2010 about attending a Washington Nationals game during a conversation about his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, attending a forum Menendez was holding with U.S. and Spanish officials, emails show.

Hunter Biden and O’Brien spoke again in March 2011 about the younger Biden stopping by Menendez’s office, emails on the laptop archive show.

“The Senator wants to talk to you,” O’Brien wrote March 9, 2011, and Hunter Biden proceeded to send O’Brien his new cellphone number.

“You’ll hear a message from the Senator if you haven’t already. He felt badly due to his mistaking you for Beau. You were kind to stop by,” O’Brien said later that day.

The “success fee” for Rosemont Seneca had apparently not come in by September 2010, and Hunter Biden appeared to be frustrated with CAF for allegedly undercutting them.

“I just tell people it’s a minimum of 250k just to talk to me- you don’t show up on a call or in a room unless we are getting 20% of the deal. No overhead- no offices no salaries,” Biden said in an email exchange regarding CAF. “I cc’d Eric b/c he gave me A big talk on how CAF really wanted him on this and didn’t really care if I was there and how we wouldn’t have to do much work and the fact he didn’t read the contract regarding success fee.”

Rosemont Seneca and lobbyists from the Democratic lobbying firm SKDK appeared to schedule a meeting with DOT official Peter Rogoff around Sept. 14, 2010, after the firm was hired in early September to bolster CAF’s lobbying operation. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) found the Harris County, Texas, metro system violated federal procurement and Buy America laws in its contract award with CAF, causing the firm to worry and hire additional lobbyists, emails show.

“Further to Hunter’s earlier email, the meeting between CAF and Rogoff is scheduled for Friday at 3:30pm at DOT. They are working on their message to Rogoff between now and then and hope to be able to persuade him to delay implementation of the ruling,” Schwerin said in an email dated Sept. 14, 2010.

“Mentioned Florida and Tomar said they are still focused on it and in fact he has gotten some calls from other consortia this week which he took as a good sign that CAF’s image has not been affected by this Houston issue. He wants our help on this still and asked that we talk after the Rogoff meeting on Friday to figure out a plan on Florida going forward,” he added.

Hunter Biden suggested getting Menendez and other Democratic senators involved — in addition to Rogoff — in a Sept. 14, 2010, conversation with SKDK lobbyists, according to the email archive.

“They need Menendez (very involved in US- Spain business counsel) to take the lead (not Lautenberg- they hate each other) they need him to go to Schumer and raise an alarm that NY is in jeopardy of loosing [sic] hundreds of jobs and go to Steny and point out that MD faces the same fate in the loss of supplier jobs,” Biden said. “And they need that to happen yesterday. So far I don’t think anyone has even reached out to Gillibrand.”

Hunter Biden and SKDK lobbyists on Sept. 14 strategized ahead of the meeting with Rogoff, and Biden corresponded separately with Schwerin about the SKDK strategy, according to the archive.

“First, it is vitally important that you spend time identifying a Congressional champion (if not more than one) that would be willing to weigh in directly on your behalf to DOT and/or the White House,” Schwerin told Biden, who responded by approving Schwerin’s plan, emails show. “This will involve CAF going up to the Hill and meeting directly with members or hiring a lobbyist who can do so. At the very least, you should be in contact with Senators Schumer, Gillibrand and Menendez.”

“Tomar is going to keep working Menendez, Schumer, Gilibrand [sic] (though she hasn’t been a focus to date), the Elmira Mayor and the County Executive,” an SKDK lobbyist emailed the following day.

Rosemont Seneca and SKDK assisted CAF in its fight to have the FTA overturn its decision on the Houston violations and retain its contract. In October 2011, CAF and Harris County officials agreed to a revised contract in order to settle the FTA issues, a Houston-based ABC News affiliate reported at the time.

Federal prosecutors on Friday indicted Menendez and his wife, Nadine, for allegedly accepting bribes in order to steer U.S. foreign policy in Egypt’s favor and securing lucrative contracts for three business associates, according to the indictment.

“Those bribes included cash, gold, payments toward a home mortgage, compensation for a low-or-no-show job, a luxury vehicle, and other things of value,” the indictment reads. “Over $480,000 in cash — much of it stuffed into envelopes and hidden in clothing, closets, and a safe — was discovered in the home.”

Menendez defended his conduct in a statement released Friday, accusing prosecutors of making false claims and misrepresenting his work. “Since this investigation was leaked nearly a year ago, there has been an active smear campaign of anonymous sources and innuendos to create an air of impropriety where none exists,” the senator said.

“They have misrepresented the normal work of a Congressional office. On top of that, not content with making false claims against me, they have attacked my wife for the longstanding friendships she had before she and I even met,” he added.

Hunter Biden was indicted Sept. 14 for three counts relating to his 2018 purchase of a Colt Cobra revolver while he was allegedly addicted to crack cocaine. Biden’s attorney said Tuesday he would plead not guilty to the gun charges.

The Biden family and its business associates received more than $20 million worth of payments from Ukrainian, Russian, Chinese, Romanian and Kazakhstani business associates, according to bank records released by the House Oversight Committee.

Ukrainian energy firm Burisma paid Hunter Biden more than $80,000 per month as a board member despite his lack of experience in Ukrainian affairs and the energy sector, House Oversight bank records show. Biden served on Burisma’s board from spring 2014 to spring 2019.

The Daily Caller reached out to Menendez’s office and Hunter Biden’s attorney but did not hear back with a comment by the time of publication.

AUTHOR

JAMES LYNCH

Investigative reporter. James Lynch can be reached on Twitter @jameslynch32

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hunter Biden’s Legal Team Met With DOJ Tax Attorneys Unusually High Number Of Times, IRS Official Testifies

Transportation Department Rejects Ernst’s Request To Review Telework Policies

RELATED TWEET:

FLASHBACK: While Democrat Senator Bob Menendez was slandering Trump in 2019 for being a “Russian agent”, he himself was working on behalf of Egypt’s government.

They are always doing what they accuse others of…

In February of 2019, Menendez expressed his concerns about… pic.twitter.com/Vwz07jGJHF

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 22, 2023

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

4 Ways Washington’s Spending Spree Caused Inflation With Trillions in Waste, Fraud thumbnail

4 Ways Washington’s Spending Spree Caused Inflation With Trillions in Waste, Fraud

By David Ditch

Americans are justifiably unhappy with the state of the economy.

The inflation figures for August took a turn for the worse—meaning, families have now lost $5,100 in purchasing power since President Joe Biden entered the White House.

In addition to the burden of inflation, rising interest rates are making home mortgages unaffordable, pushing the American dream out of reach for millions.

While month-to-month economic numbers tell part of the story, a new report from The Heritage Foundation explains how Washington’s reckless spending pushed the economy to this tipping point. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

The special report, “The Road to Inflation: How an Unprecedented Federal Spending Spree Created Economic Turmoil,” reveals that Congress passed an astonishing $7.5 trillion in new spending between 2020 and 2022—or more than $57,000 per household.

Pushing such an unprecedented amount of deficit spending had predictable consequences.

>>>Read the full report here: “The Road to Inflation

At a time when supply chains were strained by the COVID-19 pandemic and harmful government-imposed lockdowns, throwing more money at a lower volume of goods and services could only drive prices up.

It would be one thing if the spending spree had been made up of good investments. Unfortunately, most of the initiatives were poorly designed, based on faulty economic reasoning and/or motivated by political opportunism.

The following are just four of the areas where the federal government misused trillions of dollars in taxpayer resources during the spending spree:

Welfare Expansion Causes World Record Fraud

At the start of the pandemic, Congress expanded eligibility and increased payments for the unemployment insurance program.

At the time, it was easy to predict that this would have negative consequences, incentivizing workers to actively seek joblessness or otherwise game the system to maximize their handouts.

Incredibly, even the most cynical analysis underestimated just how big a problem would result from this welfare expansion.

A combination of individual scammers and organized crime rings using identity fraud bilked the federal government for at least $100 billion, with upper-end estimates of $350 billion to $400 billion.

To put that in perspective, the Bernie Madoff scheme that generated extensive media coverage and numerous documentaries was worth $65 billion. (Naturally, the press is less interested in publicizing fraud enabled by a welfare program.)

Slush Funds for State, and Local Governments

In addition to increased federal payments for mass transit, education, and Medicaid, the spending spree included a whopping $500 billion in few-strings-attached handouts to state and local governments.

The first batch of this money, $150 billion, was approved as protection against potential tax revenue declines at the start of the pandemic. However, it soon became clear that most areas were not experiencing a tax decline, and the total amount of revenue loss was much smaller than expected.

Despite that reality, Democrats passed an additional $350 billion in slushy funds.

Since there was no revenue gap, state and local governments blew through their second round of handouts with inflationary check-cutting, record-setting levels of corporate welfare, bailing out government-owned golf courses, tax credits for Hollywood studios, promoting tourism, special bonuses for government employees, and much more.

As with the unemployment insurance fraud, we will never know the total amount of money wasted on “relief” payments to state and local governments.

Teachers Unions Held Schools Hostage

Perhaps the most infuriating part of the spending spree took place in early 2021.

Amid a raging debate about reopening schools, with children receiving substandard educations, teachers unions were pressing to keep schools closed. That was part of a pressure campaign to give government-run K-12 schools a massive federal handout.

The Biden administration kowtowed to teachers unions, and it was later revealed that officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention colluded with union officials on school-reopening guidance to help stack the deck.

In the end, Democrats approved $123 billion for public K-12 schools, rewarding the unions for holding schools hostage.

Since there was no pandemic-related need for such a huge amount of money, much of it went toward hiring sprees and raises for school employees.

Regrettably, the obscure nature of how funds were distributed means that we will likely never know what public schools did with that windfall.

Business Support Program Defrauded

The Paycheck Protection Program passed early in the pandemic, was designed to help businesses keep employees on the payroll during the lockdown-driven economic downturn.

However, the $835 billion program—with Congress intending to get money out the door quickly—suffered from a lack of guardrails. Hundreds of billions of dollars in spending were flagged for review. There were hundreds of billions of dollars in improper payments, and the volume of fraud overwhelmed the system.

While some violators (such as a man who used the program to buy a $57,000 Pokémon card) were caught, countless others got away scot-free.

Conclusion

In the wake of the spending spree, the national debt is now more than $33 trillion, or an average of $253,000 per household.

Ignoring the dangers of such an incomprehensible amount of debt, and ignoring the ongoing damage that elevated inflation is having on family finances, many in Washington are still determined to keep the federal gravy train rolling.

  • The pending set of appropriations bills is loaded with pork, including goodies for left-wing activist groups and frivolous recreational projects.
  • These bills also contain tens of billions in fraudulent budget gimmicks that hide spending.
  • Several other measures that would or could increase spending are also looming on the horizon, including the so-called farm bill (where most of the money goes to welfare programs), and supplemental appropriations that would throw tens of billions more at Ukraine and to leftist nonprofits that encourage illegal immigration.

It’s crucial for the American public to be on guard against politicians whose default response to most problems is to throw other people’s money around.

That has been a bad habit for many years, but now it has turned into a chronic addiction the country can’t afford.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Arizona News: September 23, 2023 thumbnail

Arizona News: September 23, 2023

By The Editors

The Prickly Pear will provide current, linked articles about Arizona consistent with our Mission Statement to ‘inform, educate and advocate’. We are an Arizona based website and believe this information should be available to all of our statewide readers.

Former National Intelligence Director: Democrats Didn’t Count All AG Votes in Arizona

Arizona officials share outcry in mass release of migrants

Yuma Official Says Cost Of Caring For Migrants ‘Not Sustainable’ For County

ASU’s Required Inclusivity Training Violates State Law, Says Goldwater Institute

Arizona State University releases report over conservative event backlash

Report: COVID learning loss could cost Arizona 18,000 high school grads by 2032

Lead Ammo Ruling A Win For 2nd Amendment Advocates

Glendale Public Library To Host ‘Why Pronouns Matter’ Event Funded By Taxpayers

Arizona ports fear federal border policies could lead to ‘another 9/11 tragedy’

Hobbs Ensures Closure Of Historic Racetrack, Costing Thousands In Jobs And Millions In Revenue

Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego Is Lying Through Her Teeth

Ugenti-Rita Announces Run For Maricopa County Board Of Supervisors

Judge Orders Phoenix To Clean Up ‘The Zone’ Homeless Encampment By November

Universal licensure law continues to economically benefit Arizona

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

China’s Communist Party Infiltrates American K-12 Schools

By Robert Williams

The Chinese Communist Party has, or has had, ties to 143 school districts in the United States, including 20 near military bases, through its “Confucius Classrooms.” This means that Chinese state propaganda is probably now pretty much all over American K-12 classrooms.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has or has had, ties to 143 school districts in the United States, including 20 near military bases, through its “Confucius Classrooms,” according to a recent report, “Little Red Classrooms: China’s Infiltration of American K-12 Schools” by Parents Defending Education (PDE), a grassroots organization.

Confucius Classrooms, are, purportedly, “centers that teach Chinese language and culture.”

According to the book Hidden Hand: Exposing How the Chinese Communist Party is Reshaping the World, by Clive Hamilton and Mareike Ohlberg:

“Initiated in 2004 as an innocuous way to spread the Party narrative… ostensibly devoted to teaching Chinese language and promoting Chinese culture they are, as former propaganda chief Li Changchun put it, ‘an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up.’”

In 2020, the US Department of State and the US Department of Education warned about the Confucius programs at American colleges and universities, and designated them as foreign agents:

“There is increasing evidence that they are also tools of malign PRC influence and dissemination of CCP propaganda… with the Beijing-based funding that comes with it, [they] can provide an institution with financial and other incentives to abstain from criticizing PRC policies, and may pressure the institution’s faculty to censor themselves.”

Attention to Confucius Institutes has mainly been centered around colleges and universities, but less so on K -12 education. This means that Chinese state propaganda is probably now pretty much all over American K-12 classrooms.

Nicole Neily, president of Parents Defending Education, said recently:

“The alarming evidence uncovered by our investigation should concern parents, educators, and policymakers alike. Families deserve to know who is influencing the American education system so that they can make informed choices about what their children are learning behind closed doors.

“The Trump administration took steps to rein in Confucius Institutes at colleges and universities. It is frightening, however, that no such transparency mandate exists at the K-12 level. Accordingly, it is imperative that elected officials at both the federal and state levels take immediate action to gauge the extent of these programs in order to ensure that American schoolchildren receive a high-quality education free from undue foreign interference.”

PDE observed that more than $17 million had been spent by the CCP on Confucius classrooms in the US between the years 2009-2023. According to PDE:

“Three of the nation’s top science and technology high schools have ties to Chinese government affiliated programs including Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology has had ties to Tsinghua University High School—the high school affiliated with one of China’s top military schools, Tsinghua University…The CCP has had ties to school districts near 20 U.S. military bases. While the United States is not officially part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Chinese state media has touted the work done by Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms to further the Chinese Communist Party’s global influence.”

According to Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, China’s propaganda in American K-12 schools works through omissions and praise of the Communist country that influences how children will see China as they grow up. Wood told the Daily Signal in a recent interview:

“Part of this is simply propagandizing the students so that they learn about China, but they don’t learn about the South China Sea, which is being heavily militarized by China. They don’t learn about the plight of the Uyghurs, the efforts to gauge in organ harvesting, the efforts to suppress Tibet.

“There are in China so many policies that violate human rights and which signal the aggressiveness of the regime there, which has its designs on becoming a worldwide hegemon, that need to be presented to Americans in a softer light.

“So what’s happening in these schools is that they learn that China is a benevolent institution, the heir of an ancient civilization that means nothing but goodwill to the rest of the world…

“And the notion that you can take children who have some aptitude for the hard sciences and math and get them to view China as a potential partner and friend, I think, is very disturbing as well.

“So we have, on one hand, the broad misleading imaging of China, but also the notion that China can be a partner to these students all through their educational careers. We’re creating an assembly line for talented young men and women who will be unable to distinguish the American national interest from the Chinese national interest. They’re getting blurred together at a young age and that’s very difficult to undo once it’s done.” [Emphasis added.]

Wood noted that CCP infiltration of American K-12 schools is “almost everywhere.”

“That is, in every state that we’ve looked at, we have found instances of it, but I would say it’s concentrated in the feeder schools to elite education, which means mostly West Coast and East Coast, but not exclusively those.

“The effort here is, China’s not just spreading around its resources promiscuously across the land. It’s looking for places where buying influence will yield results in the long term. So, it’s widespread, but much more prevalent here on the East Coast and California.”

China’s influence in New York schools, for example, is so prevalent that several Republican Members of Congress from New York sent a letter to New York Governor Kathy Hochul, asking her to take action:

“An alarming new report has exposed how millions of dollars of funding from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have flowed into America’s K-12 classrooms. Programs vetted and managed by China’s government have infiltrated 34 states and Washington, D.C., which impacts approximately 170,000 students across 143 school districts. Unfortunately, this investigation discovered 12 school systems in our own state have received money from the CCP. This includes the New York City Department of Education, which received $375,575.00 in CCP-connected funding. Considering China’s adversarial relationship with the United States, this is deeply problematic and presents a national security concern for our constituents and state

“We are writing to not only share this dangerous situation, but to request that you address this concerning report and the underlying issue of CCP influence in New York K-12 education.” [Emphasis added.]

Hochul reportedly has close relations with CCP representatives in New York. She has repeatedly met with Huang Ping, China’s New York Consul General, who once described Hochul as “an old friend,” an honorific bestowed on those who have “rendered great services to China,” as Clive Hamilton and Mareike Ohlberg write in their book, Hidden Hand.

Huang has denied any Chinese wrongdoing on human rights, Taiwan or the Uyghur concentration camps, which he has said are mere “campuses” for reeducation. Most recently, Hochul sent Elaine Fan, a senior aide who is Director of Asian Affairs at the New York State Governor’s Executive Chamber, to participate in an annual Chinese propaganda event, known as “An Evening of Chinese Culture” jointly hosted by the New York Mets and the Sino-American Friendship Association, a CCP-linked outfit.

Perhaps it is time for a deep-dive investigation by the US House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, chaired by Rep. Mike Gallagher.

*****

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