Homegrown Evil thumbnail

Homegrown Evil

/in , , , , /by

By Jerry Newcombe

There is evil abroad in the land, and it’s a cancer to our society. Any naïve belief in the inherent goodness of man was shattered on July 4th, 2022 in Highland Park, Illinois.

What would possess—and that’s exactly the right word—a young man with his whole life ahead of him to take to the roof of a building and systematically shoot off about 60 bullets, killing many and wounding dozens?

He shot fellow Americans enjoying an Independence Day parade. As far as we know, he killed total strangers.

From what has been coming out, this young man apparently came from a terribly dysfunctional home. For example, Fox News tells of one incident where the police were called to the confessed shooter’s home in September 2019 because he had reportedly threatened to “kill everyone.” The police then confiscated his collection of knives.

In his End of Day Report, Gary Bauer wrote of the shooter:

“He’s just another sad example of the people we have increasingly seen in the streets of America. The anarchists owned the streets in the summer of 2020. Their goal is to tear down, destroy and intimidate. And they desperately want to see America burn.”

He made videos with violent themes, such as “Toy Soldier.” In this video he is seen rapping in a classroom, and one of his lines is “F- this world.” Marca.com writes of this video:

“Images of a heavily armed shooter entering a school and opening fire are cut between scenes of him battling police outside. The shooter is seen lying in a pool of blood in the final scene.”

I read some interesting reactions on the Highland Park massacre from acquaintances, commenting back and forth through a private email chain.

One person wrote of the shooter:

“A monster….To be so callous and disregarding of human life as to shoot children and elderly alike at a small town parade—and obviously choosing the 4th of July was no coincidence. We have a violent culture—plus we’re teaching the next generation to hate America and its founding—what can we expect from such a deadly combination?”

He went on to mention how Chicagoland, including Highland Park, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

Another person responded:

“I’m not going to get into a debate about guns but do feel we need stricter purchasing guidelines…. A 22 year old with recorded violent music and videos and/or an 18 year old (as in Uvalde) should not be able to just purchase an AR-15 type rifle without some serious background check.”

Someone else said in the email chain:

“What’s scary, too, is the attention this guy is getting.  News coverage was non-stop pretty much all day, every station.  Just have to wonder about the next unhinged maniac out there who wants to be famous.”

I refuse to mention his name.

Some want to blame this whole evil act on guns. But there were guns from the beginning of this country through the present. Yet there wasn’t this same kind of rampant immorality.

George Washington said that religion and morality are indispensable supports to our political prosperity and to human happiness.

John Adams observed:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

One of the reasons the founders thought the knowledge of God was so important was because they believed what the Bible says—that He will one day hold us all accountable. That view impacts how we live.

But our cultural elites today say that God has no place in the public arena.

In the 1960s and ‘70s, the Supreme Court systematically stripped God away from the public square. For example, in a case in 1980, they said that the Ten Commandments posted in schools are supposedly unconstitutional. They said that if they were hanging in the classroom, the children might read them, meditate on them, venerate them, and obey them.

Imagine —“Thou shalt not kill” was supposedly an unconstitutional message for our young people. We are reaping what we’ve sown. That Supreme Court case, by the way, was decided long before school shootings became common.

After the recent massacre, William Bennett, the former Secretary of Education in the Reagan Administration, commented that we need more exorcisms in our country to drive out the evil existing in the hearts of some of these sick fellow Americans.

I remember when Bennett once told me in a media interview: “Does anybody really have a worry that the United States is becoming overly pious? That our young people have dedicated too much of their lives to prayer, that teenagers in this country are preoccupied with thoughts of eternity?”

What America needs so desperately is a true revival of the soul, lest the moral cancer of godlessness overpower us. Let’s pray for America, before it’s too late.

©Jerry Newcombe. All rights reserved.

Is Crime Really Surging in America? Yes and No thumbnail

Is Crime Really Surging in America? Yes and No

/in , , , /by

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Violent crime is up. Burglaries and robberies are down. And progressive cities like Portland, Oregon are hiring more police. What’s going on?

For 36 years, Conrad Casarjian has owned and operated his Massachusetts jewelry store—the Gold-n-Oldies store on Revere Beach Parkway in Everett. He said he’d never experienced a burglary like he did in December when thieves smashed into his shop and made off with a handful of jewelry items.

“The break-in crew shattered the safety glass in the front door, must have reached in with a hammer, broke into one of the showcases, and made off with, at most, a few gold rings,” Casarjian told a local TV station.

The “smash and grab” was just one of a string of robberies in the area that police in Everett are investigating, and robberies like these appear to be happening in other parts of the country as well.

A couple weeks before Casarjian was robbed, CNN reported on a “wave of ‘smash-and-grab’ crimes” plaguing US cities.

The crime spree included a Nordstrom department store in Los Angeles where thousands of dollars of merchandise was stolen by at least 18 suspects, as well as a Nordstrom near San Francisco involving some 80 suspects. These burglaries followed hits in the area on Louis Vuitton, Burberry, and Bloomingdale’s department stores, as well as a Walgreens.

As Casarjian’s experience shows, the “smash and grabs” are not isolated to the Golden State. A Louis Vuitton store in Chicago, for example, also saw a dozen people storm in and steal $120,000 worth of merchandise. In Minnesota, meanwhile, organized thieves fell on Best Buy stores in Maplewood and Burnsville, suburbs of Minneapolis.

These incidents have left many wondering: Are we witnessing a nationwide surge in crime?

Police in Chicago have released CCTV footage of the moment a number of people ran in to a Louis Vuitton store and grabbed designer bags.

Latest videos here: https://t.co/O6B3yneE6C pic.twitter.com/cNb5bXOZy5

— Sky News (@SkyNews) November 22, 2021

Before wading into matters of criminal justice, it’s important to acknowledge a few realities about crime data. First, we don’t have immediate data. It takes time for information to be collected and analyzed, which means we won’t have aggregate data on the extent of last year’s “smash and grab” crime sprees until later this year.

Second, there is no standardized system for collecting data in the US. The vast majority of crimes are never even reported to police (often due to a lack of trust in the system). And the data we do have rely on reporting from local departments—if they choose to participate. (According to the Pew Research Center, NIBRS, one of several tracking systems, received data from less than half of law enforcement departments).

Statistics can give us a glimpse of general trends, but the data are varied, incomplete, and prone to manipulation—and not just by politicians. Police unions are powerful lobbyists who are adept at using the media to create fear so as to secure higher pay and more power for themselves. Likewise, retail trade groups have been known to use similar tactics.

All that to say, when dealing with crime statistics in the US—a vast country with a population of 330 million and nearly 39,000 general-purpose governments—it’s important to admit we’re never dealing with the full picture.

As many know, 2020 was a year that saw a vast increase in violence. What is less known, and perhaps counterintuitive, is that it was not a year of crime.

“There was no crime wave—there was a tsunami of lethal violence, and that’s it,” Philip Cook, a crime expert at Duke University, recently told The Atlantic, citing preliminary FBI statistics.

This tsunami of violence included a 30 percent increase in the murder rate, the largest ever recorded. (About 21,500 murders took place, roughly 6.5 for every 100,000 people). The most common form of violent crime, aggravated assault, also increased by 12 percent. Not all violent crime increased, however; rape saw no statistical change and robberies and burglaries fell.

Meanwhile, FBI data suggest many non-violent crimes—including burglary and larceny—decreased in 2020.

In a normal year, such a divergence would appear quite strange, but considering the nature of the pandemic, there appears to be some logic to it. More people were home than normal, which might explain why burglaries fell.

Others, however, are less sure that crime is truly down. Robert Boyce, a retired chief of detectives for the New York Police Department, told ABC police have backed off arresting suspects they’d normally apprehend.

“Nobody’s getting arrested anymore,” Boyce said.

This might explain why FBI crime data show total arrests nationwide plummeted 24 percent in 2020 even as violence surged.

David Graham, writing at The Atlantic, says it’s possible the FBI’s statistics are simply “wrong,” noting that 2020 saw reports of drug crimes plummet even as drug overdoses reached an all-time high—“suggesting that drug arrests, not use, had changed.”

This is why some reject the idea that we’re witnessing a decrease in crime.

“It’s disingenuous in the face of a historic 30 percent rise in homicide to say that overall crime is down, simply because the majority of crime is low-level misdemeanors,” Thomas Abt, a senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice and a former Justice Department official, told The Atlantic.

Whether one believes Cook or Abt, it should be noted that even with 2020’s surge in murders, the murder rate remains well below the rates experienced in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. The percentage increase is only so high because crime was previously at historic lows.

Murders saw a historic surge in 2020 and continued to rise in 2021.

BUT the murder rate is still well below the rate in the early 1990s.

Question for readers: What’s behind the recent surge in violence? pic.twitter.com/Vf9LoDcMIi

— Jon Miltimore (@miltimore79) March 2, 2022

Conservatives have been eager to tie the “defund the police” movement to increases in crime. There’s no evidence that things are that cut and dry, at least if one interprets “defund” to mean smaller police departments.

While it’s true violent crime is up in many cities, the reality is few cities ever passed “defund” policies. Some made budget cuts, many quickly restored them. To date, no one has gotten rid of their police department. In fact, some police unions have already used the Defund the Police talking point to secure pay increases.

While the Defunding movement failed to actually abolish police, they may have succeeded in changing how police operate. San Francisco, for example, has largely abandoned enforcement of shoplifting. The lack of enforcement prompted New York Times journalist Thomas Fuller, who recently moved to San Francisco, to ask a grocery store clerk, “Is it optional to pay for things here?”

The shoplifting was so bad it prompted Walgreens to close five Bay area locations.

“Organized retail crime continues to be a challenge facing retailers across San Francisco, and we are not immune to that,” Walgreens spokesman Phil Caruso said following the decision.

It’s not just San Francisco, either. In New York City, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg angered many—citizens and police alike—when he issued a Jan. 3 memo instructing prosecutors to downgrade most felony property crimes (including violent ones) to misdemeanors.

It should come as little surprise that lighter punishments and a lack of enforcement for such property crimes would incentivize the practice. Studies have shown that efforts to remove or reduce penalties for property crimes have led to increases in those kinds of offenses.

This is not the only example of cities choosing to not prosecute individuals committing property crimes. Cities such as New York and St. Louis decided to drop criminal charges against the vast majority of alleged looters. Such scenarios raise the possibility that, in some places at least, police have simply stopped arresting suspects for many crimes. Their motivation? Some will say it’s because prosecutors stopped pressing charges, but that doesn’t really bear out in the data. It seems more likely that many police departments and officers are acting maliciously, pulling back and not enforcing property crime violations so they can lobby for larger budgets and ward off reform efforts.

Even if one accepts the idea that violent property crimes are on the rise—again, we don’t yet have data for 2021 and the FBI’s preliminary data for 2020 don’t show a surge—it’s unclear what role Defund the Police played, if any. It seems just as likely that pandemic policies, including lockdowns and school closures, are the primary cause. These policies shut teens (who are the most likely demographic to commit crime) out of schools, community programs, and jobs that would have taken up their time. Many of these programs focus on keeping teens out of gangs and other illicit activities and help them access skills-training and jobs.

Programs that dealt with mental health and addiction were also impacted by lockdowns, meaning many have not gotten the healthcare they need to be in their right mind. The economic uncertainty created by these policies is also likely a factor, as we know poverty can play a major role in criminality.

If “Defund the Police” did play a role, it likely stemmed from decisions of police brass and city councils—who opted to not pursue some violent crime, perhaps incentivizing such crimes—and less from budget cuts and reduced police departments.

For those hoping to see violence rates return to normal after a year of unrest, 2021 proved a disappointment.

At least a dozen US cities set new homicide records last year. Some police officials say the violent crime is the worst they’ve ever seen.

“It’s worse than a war zone around here lately,” Capt. Frank Umbrino of New York’s Rochester Police Department said in December after the city broke its 30-year-old annual homicide record with 7 weeks to go in the year. “We’re extremely frustrated. It has to stop.”

While such data are of course saddening, claims that US cities are war zones are hyperbolic. Rochester had about 80 murders last year. This is hardly exemplary, but it’s still far below the most dangerous cities in the world, and more than 50 percent lower than St. Louis on a per capita basis.

As the FBI itself points out, “Fatal violence is relatively rare and often intensely personal: according to FBI data, many American homicide victims know their killers.” This is why much of this increase has come from communities that were already struggling with violent crime pre-pandemic, some communities continue to struggle more than others with violence. Americans remain very unlikely to die by homicide.

Nevertheless, many cities, including lefty-capital Portland, Oregon, are now hiring more police. It’s unclear, however, if these “re-fund the police” movements will have their desired effect.

As the New York Times recently pointed out, the evidence that adding more police reduces violent crime is mixed. Aaron Chalfin, a criminologist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the paper that research shows crime falling after police are added about 54 percent of the time.

“Crime goes up and down for a million reasons that are completely independent of the police,” Dr. Chalfin said. “But we know, on average, if you look across many cities for many years, there is an effect.”

Furthermore, we know that the biggest deterrent to crime is the assuredness one will be caught for their crime and punished. In America, it’s a pretty good bet that won’t happen. Police are very bad at solving crimes in the first place, and during the pandemic it appears many pulled out of certain areas altogether.

All that to say, recent crime statistics are hardly a reason to increase the size of police departments or give them more money and power.

It is commonly said that poverty causes crime. But as economist Roger M. Clites has observed, the opposite is also true: crime causes poverty.

“It is not just others who are adversely affected by criminals. Perpetrators themselves lose ground economically. A large portion of people charged with criminal activity are relatively young. Their criminal behavior harms them in several ways,” Clites explained. “They may spend time incarcerated when they could have been gaining employment experience. Their criminal record may hamper them in obtaining future employment. They develop attitudes and habits that are detrimental to participation in the workplace. For these reasons many criminals condemn themselves to poverty.”

This is why there is widespread agreement that crime is bad for everyone, perpetrators and victims alike. Solutions are difficult, however, because crime is complex.

Police unions would have you believe the solution is simple: hire more police! While it’s possible some departments suffer from a lack of police—police last year reported a retirement rate 45 percent higher than a typical year—there are better solutions than simply hiring more cops or creating a shiny new federal program.

One thing is certain, throwing more money at this problem—or expanding the government’s control in any other way—is not the solution. We already spend between $81 billion and $180 billion per year on our criminal justice system depending on the calculations. And we spend that without seeing results, little of it goes to even solving violent crimes, much less preventing them.

If we truly want safer communities, some of the prescriptions are obvious. For one, reduce the number of laws on the books. Take non-violent and victimless crimes off the shoulders of police. Quit giving them excuses to focus their attention on ridiculous, money-making schemes like the War on Drugs. We need to change the incentive structures around policing by removing things like civil asset forfeiture that make them more inclined to chase petty criminals so they can take their money. Instead, police should function like the fire department—you come when there’s a true emergency and we call you, then you focus on putting out the fire.

In addition, we need to ensure school closures and lockdowns never darken our doors again so children, especially those in high-risk communities, get the education and resources they need to stay out of trouble.

We also need to pass common sense reforms, like bail reform, that ensure violent people are not released back into communities and that ensure people who are not threats are not pushed into a life of crime by a justice system that strips them of their livelihood before they’ve even been convicted.

Lastly, we need to enact real transparency and accountability in policing. It is inexcusable that they continue to hold communities hostage, refusing to do their jobs until they get a pay increase and a pat on the head. Instead, they need to earn their keep and only get pay raises when the violence rate decreases and they prove they’re doing their jobs.

AUTHORS

Hannah Cox

Hannah Cox is the Content Manager and Brand Ambassador for the Foundation for Economic Education.

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

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

Uvalde Footage Underscores the Myth of Police Protection: ‘Just Call 9-1-1’ thumbnail

Uvalde Footage Underscores the Myth of Police Protection: ‘Just Call 9-1-1’

/in , , , /by

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The gunman walked into Robb Elementary School almost casually.

Minutes earlier he had crashed a vehicle near the school, spraying three bullets at a pair of men who approached the scene to see if he was okay. After walking into the school, AR-15 in hand, the gunman takes a right turn down a hallway. From a different hallway, a child sees the gunman. The child pauses, watches, and then jumps at a roar of gunfire. He darts away.

Less than three minutes later, police officers begin to fill the corridor, weapons drawn.

The scene described comes from new video footage obtained by The Statesman and KVUE News on the May 24 mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, which left 22 people dead and 18 injured. (Editor’s note: the footage, which is embedded below, does NOT show anyone being shot.)

NEW

The @statesman and @KVUE have obtained body cam footage and security camera footage from the shooting at Uvalde’s Robb Elementary.

Pay close attention to the time stamp in the upper left hand corner.

You don’t see anyone get shot in this video. https://t.co/HsytsOa0tR pic.twitter.com/L9JSse9SeD

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) July 12, 2022

The 77-minute video shows that police were on the scene minutes after the shooter entered the school, but they quickly retreated after receiving a burst of gunfire. As KVUE notes, over the next hour little is done, even as more and more police arrive.

In the video, 13 rifles can be seen arriving in the hallway in the first 30 minutes of the incident. The first shield arrives in under 20 minutes. Dozens of law enforcement officers can be seen in the hallway, along with equipment. No officers make entry into the classroom for more than 70 minutes.

The tragic events in Uvalde have naturally sparked both outcry and discussion. On good and evil. On mental health. On courage and cowardice.

A Uvalde mother was PLACED IN HANDCUFFS by Federal Marshalls on scene for attempting to enter the school to get her child. Another man was tased for trying to get his kid off a bus. All while Salvador Ramos was alive inside killing kids https://t.co/LqqhuIMGlP pic.twitter.com/CNIUZ2GYhk

— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) May 26, 2022

Above all else, however, Uvalde has reignited the debate over gun control.

Following the shooting, and heated demands for new gun control laws, lawmakers in DC passed federal gun legislation for the first time in nearly 30 years, imposing tougher background checks on younger buyers and encouraging states to impose “red flag” laws.

This is peculiar, because the events at Robb Elementary School actually undermined one of the key arguments used to argue for gun control.

As Richard W. Stevens pointed out in a FEE article more than two decades ago, a common—and false—belief underpins gun control ideology.

“Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime,” wrote Stevens, a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die.

This belief, Stevens noted, is false for two reasons. The first reason is the most obvious one, which was on full display in Uvalde. Police can’t protect everyone from crime, and rarely do. The primary purpose of police is to respond to crimes after they occur, and data suggests even this they do not do very well.

“In reality, about 11% of all serious crimes result in an arrest, and about 2% end in a conviction,” writes Shima Baughman, professor of criminal law at the University of Utah, in The Conversation.

Second, Stevens notes, the government generally and the police specifically have no legal obligation to protect people from criminal attacks in most localities. In fact, they don’t even have to show up, Stevens explains.

It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the ‘fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.’

The “no duty” rule was established in a particularly gruesome landmark case.

Just before dawn on March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door of a three-story home in Washington, D.C., shared by three women and a child. On the second floor one woman was sexually attacked. Her housemates on the third floor heard her screams and called the police. The women’s first call to D.C. police got assigned a low priority, so the responding officers arrived at the house, got no answer to their knocks on the door, did a quick check around, and left. When the women frantically called the police a second time, the dispatcher promised help would come—but no officers were even dispatched. The attackers kidnapped, robbed, raped, and beat all three women over 14 hours.

The horrifying events were made more horrifying in the legal aftermath. The victims sued the city and the police department for negligence to protect them (or even respond to the second call).

“The court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them,” Stevens writes. “Case dismissed.”

The court’s response was not unique. Most states have similar laws, Stevens notes, and some are quite explicit. A statute in Kansas precludes citizens from suing the government for negligence in police protection, while a California law states “neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service.”

While police may not be obligated to help people in need, it’s fair to assume that most want to help people. Unfortunately, by its very nature, bureaucracy tends to frustrate the ability of police departments to effectively do so.

An example of this can also be seen in Uvalde. A New York Times description of Uvalde Police Chief Pedro Arredondo’s decision making process reveals how bureaucratic processes and red tape appear to have cost lives.

[Arredondo] ordered the assembled officers to hold off on storming the two adjoining classrooms where the gunman had already fired more than 100 rounds at the walls, the door and the terrified fourth-graders locked inside with him, the state police said. (…)

Officers were told, under Chief Arredondo’s direction, that the situation had evolved from one with an active shooter — which would call for immediately attacking the gunman, even before rescuing other children — to one with a barricaded subject, which would call for a slower approach, officials said.

That appeared to be an incorrect assessment, according to the state police director, Steven McCraw: Gunfire could sporadically be heard inside the rooms, including on continuing 911 calls by the children.”

Police officers standing around debating protocols while a gunman in a nearby room executes children is both horrifying and mind-boggling to most people, but it perfectly illustrates the very real problems inherent in bureaucracies noted by economist Ludwig von Mises, who wrote about the inherent “slowness and slackness” pervasive in bureaucratic institutions.

On Tuesday, the Uvalde City Council accepted the resignation of Uvalde school district police chief Pedro Arredondo, who rightly stepped away from his position under pressure. But make no mistake: the lack of response by the Uvalde Police Department is a characteristic of bureaucracy itself, a problem that goes far beyond Arredondo’s leadership shortcomings.

Uvalde school district police chief Pedro Arredondo finally resigned from the City Council yesterday:

49 days after the massacre, when he was guilty of the most egregious dereliction of duty imaginable.

That’s how insulated government bureaucrats are from accountability.

— Dan Sanchez (@DanSanchezV) July 13, 2022

The bottom line is that police usually have no obligation to protect individuals from crimes, and even if they do they lack the ability to effectively do so. The idea that Americans can protect themselves just by calling 9-1-1 is simply not true, and the tragic events in Uvalde and countless other examples show this.

When they say you don’t need a firearm because the police will protect you, don’t believe it.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Was the Uvalde Massacre a Drug Cartel Warning to Border Agents to Back Off?

The Key to the Uvalde Massacre is: The Critical Importance of One Brave Good Guy with a Gun

PODCAST: What the Uvalde Cops Were Probably Thinking

How Bureaucracy May Have Cost Lives in Uvalde

The Devil Went Down to Texas: The Utter Evil of the Uvalde Massacre

For 77 Minutes, Cops Never Even Tried to Enter Classroom, Police Could Have Stopped Uvalde Shooter ‘3 Minutes’ After Entering School

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

Republicans Demand DOJ Release J6 Surveillance And Police Body Cam Footage thumbnail

Republicans Demand DOJ Release J6 Surveillance And Police Body Cam Footage

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

House Republicans are demanding the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) release body and surveillance camera footage as well any other footage in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, according to a letter obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert and South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman first requested the information from the DOJ in October 2021. Now, they are re-upping their inquiry, asking Attorney General Merrick Garland to release the information since their constituents have a “growing concern” with the DOJ’s “apparent failure” to do so.

“Many Americans question why their government, and the Department in particular, has been so selective in its release of footage,” the lawmakers said in their letter. “We believe all Americans, including Members of Congress, the media, and the public at-large, should be able to view footage from January 6th that the Department has in its possession.”

The committee investigating Jan. 6 has publicized some degree of unaired footage during its ongoing hearings. The Republicans want to know “what percentage of body camera, surveillance camera, and any other footage related to the events surrounding January 6th” in the DOJ’s possession has actually been made public.

Most of the 14,000 hours of surveillance footage from Jan. 6 has not been made public, Buzzfeed News reported in August 2021. It is unclear how things have changed roughly one year later.

“From every camera on the Capitol grounds – including body and fixed surveillance cameras – every second of footage from January 6, 2021 ought to be in the public domain by now,” Norman told the DCNF. “It is baffling to me why the Attorney General has failed to make the entirety of footage available, especially while the Select Committee is cherry-picking clips to suit its narrative.”

While lawyers and defendants charged in the Capitol riot have gained access to watch related surveillance footage, the footage is given under protective orders, which does not allow the parties to release it, Buzzfeed News reported. The Capitol Police’s chief lawyer said in a March 2021 affidavit that members of Congress can watch Jan. 6 footage on a case-by-base basis under the supervision of a police employee.

“The disclosure of any footage from these cameras is strictly limited and subject to a policy that regulates the release of footage,” said the lawyer.

The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the Capitol Police.

“It continues to be our hope that all Americans have faith in our systems of government, including our criminal justice and judicial system,” wrote the Republicans in their letter, setting an August 4 deadline. “For this reason, it is imperative that the Department adequately respond to our requests in timely manner.”

READ:

07-14-22_Follow Up Letter t… by Gabe Kaminsky

AUTHOR

GABE KAMINSKY

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Rodney Davis Demands Answers From Legislative Branch Agencies On Their Work For Jan. 6 Committee

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Two and 3-Year-Old Vaxxed Kids With Seizures Is ‘The New Normal’ thumbnail

Two and 3-Year-Old Vaxxed Kids With Seizures Is ‘The New Normal’

/in , , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

ONLY vaxxed kids. The only thing these kids have in common is that they were given the COVID vaccine just days earlier (two to five days earlier).

This is the new normal. Like the new ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.’

Two and 3-year-old kids with seizures is “the new normal”

I’m getting multiple reports from my nurse friends about kids 2 and 3 years old having seizures. It is ONLY happening on vaccinated kids, and symptoms start 2 to 5 days after the COVID vaccine.

By: Steve Kirsch, July 5, 2022:

Doctors are mystified by a rash of seizures, rashes, etc. happening to 2 and 3-year-old kids.

The only thing these kids have in common is that they were given the COVID vaccine just days earlier (two to five days earlier).

The doctors cannot figure out what is causing the seizures (since it couldn’t be the vaccine since those are safe and effective). The medical staff is not permitted to talk about the cases to the press or on social media or they will be fired.

One nurse posted something to the effect of “how is this legal????” I had to paraphrase to protect the poster.

This is why you are hearing these reports from me. They can’t fire me.

There is nothing on the mainstream media about this since the nurses and doctors aren’t allowed to talk about it.

This will all come out some day, but for now, everyone is keeping quiet about it and the doctors are instructed to convince the parents that it isn’t vaccine related and that they are the only ones having the problem.

Because that’s how science works.

Keep reading…..

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED TWEET:

Cruise ships full of only the vaccinated are experiencing large outbreaks of Covid.

What does that tell you?

— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) July 14, 2022

RELATED ARTICLES:

Data Proves ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome’ Fiction Is Death by Covid Vaccination

Vaxxed Young Adults are 92% More Likely to Die than Unvaccinated

Are We Now in the Era of the ‘COVID Matrix’ with the Mandated Vaxxed Passports?

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

Biden’s Transportation Department Targets CO2 Emissions of Cars on Highways to Push EVs thumbnail

Biden’s Transportation Department Targets CO2 Emissions of Cars on Highways to Push EVs

/in , , , , , /by

By Bonner Cohen

One week after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency could not regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants because the agency lacks congressional authorization to do so, the Biden Department of Transportation (DOT) proposed a rule targeting CO2 emissions from highway vehicles, for which DOT also has no legal authority.

DOT’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is proposing a rule that would require states and municipalities to “track and reduce greenhouse gas emissions on their highways.” In keeping with a regulatory tradition that is as longstanding as it is misleading, DOT assures the public that the “carbon reduction program” contained in the rule will be “flexible,” allowing state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to “set their own targets.” That flexibility quickly disappears, however, when the DOT adds that the declining targets must “align” with the Biden administration’s “net-zero targets” as outlined in two executive orders and commitments made at the International Leaders Climate Summit.

The scheme to have state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations set ever-declining targets for emissions from on-road vehicles has no basis in law. Congress has never instructed DOT to take any such step. As close as it came were a few provisions in last year’s bipartisan infrastructure bill that established a few CO2 emissions-reduction programs at DOT. But nowhere in that legislation was DOT granted the authority to require vehicular emissions targets, much less targets that serve any “net-zero” goal.

In the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA, the High Court ruled that EPA lacked statutory authority to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants. The same legal principle applies here. DOT’s proposed rule will trigger lawsuits arguing that the Biden administration’s action violates the separation of powers the court upheld in West Virginia v. EPA. Citing that precedent, plaintiffs will say that executive branch DOT officials acted unconstitutionally by assuming powers that only the legislative branch can grant. If the case makes it to the Supreme Court (and that could take years), and if that body is composed as it is now, the DOT’s power grab is likely to go the way of the Obama/Biden plan to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.

Clearing the Way for EVs

In a rare moment of regulatory candor, the administration acknowledges in the docket supporting DOT’s proposed rule that DOT’s scheme will ultimately encourage Americans to switch from gasoline-powered cars to EVs.

“The potential benefits that may flow from the proposed greenhouse gas measure stem from its potential to support more informed choices about transportation investments and other policies to achieve net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050, including projects eligible under the Carbon Reduction Program and the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program, both established under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” the docket said.

Doing away with conventionally-powered automobiles, and replacing them with EVs, has been part of the Biden administration’s larger war on fossil fuels. While sales of EVs continue to creep up, so do their prices, keeping them well beyond the reach of ordinary Americans. The cost of the raw materials that go into EV batteries continues to soar, and the recharging infrastructure needed to support the millions of EVs said soon to be zipping down our highways is barely in its infancy.

Neither the Biden administration nor the automakers thumping their chests over their embrace of EVs have offered any realistic explanation for where the electricity for all these EVs will come from in a post-fossil-fuel world. Certainly not from windmills and solar panels. Nor has sufficient thought been given to how today’s already shaky grid is going to hold up under the stress of providing power to a growing number of EVs.

*****

This article was published by CFACT, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

The End of Private Car Ownership thumbnail

The End of Private Car Ownership

/in , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

You will drive nothing and you will be happy.

The term “pedestrian” has a derogatory meaning because peasants walked while nobles were “equestrians” and rode horses. The industrial revolution eliminated this class difference, as it did so many others, by making car ownership available to the masses until eventually Herbert Hoover was able to boast that “Republican prosperity has reduced and increased earning capacity” to “put the proverbial ‘chicken in every pot’ and a car in every backyard to boot.”

Democrats have spent two generations trying to get those cars out of every backyard.

Biden is trying to bring back Obama’s mileage standards that were estimated to raise car prices by 20%.The goal is to “nudge 40% of U.S. drivers into electric vehicles by decade’s end.”

Will 40% of Americans be able to afford electric cars that cost an average of $54,000 by 2030?

Not likely. Nor are they meant to. Biden’s radical ‘green’ government, which includes Tracy Stone-Manning, the former spokeswoman for an ecoterrorist group as the head of the Bureau of Land Management, isn’t looking to nudge drivers into another type of cars, but out of cars.

Gas prices are a way to price Americans out of car ownership under the guise of pushing EVs.

Biden’s Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm responded to American concerns about high gas prices by urging them to buy electric cars. Granholm, who had promoted a green energy tycoon who spent years in prison for fraud, who had served on the board of directors of an electric battery company, and made millions divesting stock in an electric vehicle manufacturer, is a fan.

“Most electric vehicles are now cheaper to own than gas-powered cars from the day you drive them off the lot,” Granholm tweeted.

That isn’t actually true, but actual cars have become more expensive to own, largely because of efforts by the Biden administration, and by various states, including California. That hasn’t however made electric cars any more affordable for ordinary Americans.

The average price of an electric car shot up to $54,000 in May. Car prices in general have risen in the Biden economy, but electric cars are naturally expensive. The raw material costs for an average electric car are up to over $8,000. That’s compared to $3,600 for an actual car.

When your raw material costs are that high, electric cars will be inherently unaffordable.

The Obama administration pumped billions in taxpayer money into battery and electric car manufacturing, the majority of which failed, on the theory that enough government subsidies would lower battery costs. Not only was much of that money lost, but currently electric battery costs hover around the $160 kilowatt-hour mark. Green boosters cheer that’s far down from over $1,000 per kWh a decade ago, but that still adds up to the reality that an electric car capable of traveling for even short distances needs a battery that alone costs thousands.

The Nissan Leaf, which approaches $30,000 once the reality of MSRP in the current sales market is taken into account, is one of the cheapest electric cars around, and has a range of only 149 miles. Replacing its battery can set back car owners $6,500 to $7,500. And that’s even when you can manage to find one or someone willing to replace it. In less than 3 years, Leafs lose 20 miles of range. By the fifth year, they have lost 30 miles. And it’s all downhill from there.

The Nissan Leaf was initially a hit, but car manufacturers quickly realized that anyone willing to overpay that much for substandard performance had money to burn. The electric car market is now thoroughly dominated by luxury vehicles subsidized by taxpayers. And the Leaf went from 90% market share to less than 10%. The EV market is now a taxpayer-funded status symbol.

The dirty truth about the “clean” car market is that it consists of traditional car companies and Tesla frantically trying to unload a limited share of luxury electric cars on wealthy customers to cash in on the emissions credits mandated by states like California. Tesla makes more money reselling these regulatory credits to actual car companies than it does selling cars. Taxpayers and working class car-owners pick up the bill for the entire luxury electric vehicle market.

A market that they are shut out from by design.

The “green” vision is not a world in which everyone has their own electric car. It’s one of collective transport, of buses, light rail, and car-pooling through shared rides and roving self-driving cars. The only vehicle the average consumer is supposed to own is a bicycle.

While the Biden administration is still pretending that it’s out to “encourage” electric car ownership by making actual cars too expensive for much of the country to afford, others are saying the quiet part out loud.

“Car-lovers will doubtless mourn the passing of machines that, in the 20th century, became icons of personal freedom. But this freedom is illusory,” an Economist article predicted.

“There will be fewer cars on the road—perhaps just 30% of the cars we have today,” the head of Google’s self-driving car project predicted.

“The days of the single occupancy car are numbered,” Brook Porter at G2 Venture Partners, a green energy investment firm, thundered in an article titled, The End of Cars in Cities.

Dan Ammann, the former president of GM, claimed that “the human-driven, gasoline-powered, single-passenger car” is the “fundamental problem” in a post titled, “We Need to Move Beyond the Car”. He has since gone to work for Exxon-Mobil.

Predictions are cheap, but car bans are expensive and all too real. The European Union voted to back a ban on the sale of non-electric cars by 2035. California is also pushing for a similar 2035 ban on the sale of new actual cars in the state. Officials noted that the ban would push more than half of mechanics out of work and leave much of the state unable to afford cars.

Canada has its own 2035 car ban. Last year, Governor Newsom and Governor Cuomo, along with 10 other governors, urged Biden to impose a 2035 car ban on all Americans.

Electric cars aren’t actually “cleaner”. The mining processes that produce “green” technologies are as dirty, if not dirtier, and trade dependence on oil for dependence on rare earth metals, and dependence on the Middle East for dependence on Communist China. The one thing that they decisively accomplish is to make it impossible for ordinary Americans to own cars.

And that is what environmentalists really want. But not just them.

The vision of a nation in which private car ownership is a luxury good, in which cars have been priced out of the reach of most people through environmental measures that concentrated on gas-powered vehicles, and then added more taxes and fines for the waste” and “inefficiency” of an individual owning a vehicle is not very far away.

The technocratic sales pitch is that ride-sharing and self-driving cars will make car ownership unnecessary. Why own a big clunky machine when you can own nothing and be happy?

The reality is that car ownership offers mobility and independence. That is exactly what the leftist radicals making social policy want to eliminate. Gas prices are not Putin’s price hike, they’re the green dream. And that dream isn’t to put you in a Nissan Leaf. It’s the Pol Pot dream of dismantling civilization and rolling back the industrial revolution.

Once the dark age norms of their dark enlightenment are restored, peasants will go back to being pedestrians and only the progressive philosopher kings will ride.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

FABRICATING REALITY: Climate Change, Atmospheric Transgenderism and Mental Masturbation

FACT: All Electric Vehicles (EVs) Are Powered by Coal, Uranium, Natural Gas or Diesel-Powered Energy

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

Marx and the Banning of Elements in the Periodic Table thumbnail

Marx and the Banning of Elements in the Periodic Table

/in , , , /by

By Vlad Tepes Blog

Examining the problem, reaction, solution/thesis, counter thesis, solution, or the dialectic scam of the left.

There certainly seems to be more than one understanding of this phrase. Here is our shot at it. Of course, there are scholars of Hegel/Marx who read this site, and we welcome any corrections or other interpretations of this well known phrase.

Picking Global Warming as an example, we have a completely invented problem which of course can be manipulated in any way needed to end up at the point you want to land on. Primarily, the destruction of the West with its notions of free market economy and individual rights. Since the problem is fake, and created and enforced by “consensus” (See video below) all the reactions from people calling it out as fake must be dealt with using the dialectic attack of hate speech. This was fabricated by a second generation Frankfurt School acolyte, a certain Habermas, in the form of “Discourse Theory”.

For the past many decades, various leftist controlled governments and leftist think tanks, have attempted to use the element of Carbon as a means to control industry and humanity in a highly selective manner. Like slavery as an issue, we must only examine the ‘problem’ of CO2 production in Western and free market nations, more accurately perhaps, in cultures with the concept of individual rights as being sacrosanct. We must not look at slavery in Africa or Islam ever but must focus on the past actions in The USA pretty much exclusively in terms of passing moral judgment. And we must not look at really dirty industrial activity, let alone CO2 production in China or India but must pretend that CO2 produced by any and all means connected to humans in the West as an existential threat to the entire planet.

There should be no need to try and disprove the idea that CO2 is a problem on this site. I do have a dedicated page to the science of it here on Vlad but I don’t maintain it very well as to engage in a debate based on a lie is to lose that debate since only one side seeks to know the truth and the power of the lie is much greater in the short run. At least where the goal is destruction.

One fact though, is that where CO2 is produced, more life happens. Plants grow etc. Plants, and life, are made of carbon. Even on the side of highways, plants tend to thrive from a truly poisonous form of carbon, CO1 or Carbon monoxide. CO2 is actually pumped into greenhouses to help plants hit their optimal growth rate.

But let’s pretend that CO2 production was a problem. Then why are those who wrap themselves in a false flag of environmentalism, so opposed to nuclear power? Its the obvious solution to those who claim that carbon dioxide is an existential threat to the planet. Whatever the issues with nuclear power, it cannot be as bad as that.

And then there is this:

Geothermal

A very worthy deeper dive:

So we have a solution now for food production that is safe, energy efficient and absorbs far more carbon than it produces.

Global Warming is a consensus based thing though. Meaning communists agreed on creating it and presenting it as an existential problem in order to get to the solution they want, which is communism. No real world approach to solving even the non-problem of “global-warming” will be entertained and any attempt to expose it as the fraud it is will be met with charges akin to hate speech. “Climate-denier” for example, makes moral equivalence with a Holocaust denier to one who would deny the ‘existential threat of global warming’. A fairly palpable use of the Hate-Speech tactic.

More recently, in order to destroy farming in the Netherlands and replace these farms with what will almost certainly be beehive brutalist housing for illegal mostly Muslim and African migrants forced on the local population since before 2015, a new element and compound had to be demonized as an existential threat. Nitrogen, which makes up damn near 80% of the total atmosphere, and ammonia.

I won’t even bother to deal with the issue of nitrogen. To think that the tiny amount of nitrogen released on a few dutch farms justify the actions against farmers we see in the Netherlands is even worthy of rebuttal on that basis, means a lack of understanding of the tactic at play. Much like when one knows that nearly all human beings are born either a man or a woman (with the exception of extremely few genetic mutations which end with those individuals as they tend to be sterile) and to pretend these are fungible is, well risible.

So let’s look at the new threat of ammonia.

How could we somehow solve the issue of ammonia in a way that would satisfy those who claim its a problem while maybe at the same time, solving other problems many are concerned about:

The bottom line is:

The problems we are bombarded with, from Covid to vaccine hesitancy. From global warming to cow flatulence. From Nitrogen to ammonia, are all fake problems which, even by engaging about it, causes us to lose. These are not problems at all, and some, to the extent they might be, are selectively enforced against the Western nations and peoples with zero effort to deal with these non-problems in places like China, North Korea, India and other places where the raw production of these gasses and so on are orders of magnitude higher than in the West.

We need to understand that so much of what we engage with on a day to day basis is we, the intellectual descendants of Socrates, being constantly basted with pseudo-reality and false cosmologies in order to destroy Western civilization where it actually lives.

In our own minds.

Eeyore for VladTepesBlog.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Man Charged With Rape In Connection To 10-Year-Old Who Traveled For Abortion thumbnail

Man Charged With Rape In Connection To 10-Year-Old Who Traveled For Abortion

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

A man was arrested Tuesday and charged with the felony rape of a 10-year-old girl who later travelled to Indiana for an abortion, The Columbus Dispatch reported.

Police said 27-year-old Gershon Fuentes confessed to raping the child on at least two occasions, according to the Dispatch. The child reportedly obtained an abortion in Indianapolis June 30.

Franklin County Children Services referred the case to the police June 22, and the suspect is being tested for paternity.

Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, shared the story with the press July 1 and said the child had gone to Indiana for the abortion because it was illegal in her home state of Ohio, a fact that has been contested by the state’s attorney general. She has since been disciplined for a HIPAA violation for publicizing the patient’s details, Fox News reported.

“A Columbus man has been charged with impregnating a 10-year-old Ohio girl, whose travel to Indiana to seek an abortion led to international attention  following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade and activation of Ohio’s abortion law.”https://t.co/EMWfJyq3V2

— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) July 13, 2022

Fuentes is being held on a $2 million bond, which the judge said was especially high in order to protect the child’s safety.

Bernard did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

LAUREL DUGGAN

Social issues and culture reporter.

RELATED TWEET:

BREAKING: The suspected rapist accused of impregnating the 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio was arrested Tuesday and booked into Franklin County Jail.

Columbus Dispatch says bond was set at $2 million and that Gershon Fuentes, 27, is believed to be an “undocumented” immigrant. pic.twitter.com/x3GJ36Y5iY

— Mia Cathell (@MiaCathell) July 13, 2022

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Considers Declaring Public Health Emergency To Help Secure Abortion Access

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

PODCAST: What the Uvalde Cops Were Probably Thinking thumbnail

PODCAST: What the Uvalde Cops Were Probably Thinking

/in , , , /by

By Center For Security Policy

This is Frank Gaffney with the Secure Freedom Minute.

Heartbreaking video from inside Uvalde elementary school documenting the protracted failure of police to stop the slaughter underway there is prompting afresh disbelief and fury at the officers involved. What on earth were they thinking?

After weeks of conflicting official descriptions of what went down, this video further undermines public confidence in law enforcement. And those most critical of its conduct, especially towards minorities, are emboldened to renew and generalize their condemnations and efforts to demean and, if possible, defund the police.

Given all that, it seems likely what the Uvalde cops were thinking was: If they took unauthorized initiative to stop the shooter, their risk-averse chain of command would throw them to the wolves.

It’s not an excuse, just a possible explanation. And one that surely is operating elsewhere at a time when we need robust policing more than ever.

This is Frank Gaffney.

AUTHOR

Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Founder and Executive Chairman

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Inflation Hits Yet Another Record High As Americans Feel The Squeeze thumbnail

Inflation Hits Yet Another Record High As Americans Feel The Squeeze

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Inflation climbed 9.1% over the past 12 months, the highest year-over-year percentage increase since December 1981, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced Wednesday.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased 1.3% between May and June, according to the DOL report released Wednesday. Economists had predicted that CPI would increase by 1.1% last month and 8.8% over the 12-month period ending in June.

“The energy index rose 7.5 percent over the month and contributed nearly half of the all items increase, with the gasoline index rising 11.2 percent and the other major component indexes also rising,” the DOL said in their report. “The food index rose 1.0 percent in June, as did the food at home index.”

The White House preemptively downplayed the inflation data, saying the metric was already outdated as prices have begun to supposedly decrease.

“June CPI data is already out of date because energy prices have come down substantially this month and are expected to fall further,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Tuesday.

BREAKING: Inflation just hit 9.1% in the United States.

Unreal.

— Pomp 🌪 (@APompliano) July 13, 2022

“I don’t think that number peaks until September and I think at that point it will be in double digits,” E.J. Antoni, research fellow for Regional Economics at The Heritage Foundation told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Wednesday’s report follows a steady stream of negative polling for President Joe Biden, including one New York Times survey that found a majority of Democrats would prefer the 79-year-old not run in 2024. Voters have cited the economy and inflation as major issues ahead of the midterms.

The gasoline index rose 11.2%, while the food at home index increased 10.4%,  year over year, BLS reported. Almost all aspects of American purchases increased in June, including shelter, airline fares, new and used cars and trucks, medical care, household furnishings and operations, recreation and clothing, according to BLS.

CPI surpassed the Federal Reserve’s 2% target in May 2021 and has continuously climbed higher and higher since, according to federal data.

AUTHOR

MAX KEATING

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: The DeSantis Boom: Florida Economy Soars As State Records Highest Budget Surplus Ever

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Racist Jill Biden Calls Latinos ‘Tacos’ thumbnail

Racist Jill Biden Calls Latinos ‘Tacos’

/in , , , /by

By The Geller Report

Now imagine the backlash from the mainstream media if Melania Trump said this. These double standards are really disgusting.

At a “Latinx IncluXion” conference, Jill Biden says the Hispanic community is as “unique” as tacos.pic.twitter.com/Vb5wJyYGWB

— RNC Latinos (@RNCLatinos) July 11, 2022

Jill Biden fails at Spanish again, calling bodegas “bo-ga-duhs” and saying Hispanics are as unique as tacos. Cringe.

pic.twitter.com/WENC5KZQxH

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 12, 2022

Right rips Jill Biden for saying Hispanic community as unique as ‘breakfast tacos’

By The Hill, July 11, 2022

First lady Jill Biden is receiving flak from the right for comments in which she said the Hispanic community was as “unique” as the “breakfast tacos” in San Antonio.

Biden was speaking at the 2022 UnidosUS Annual Conference titled “Siempre Adelante: Our Quest for Equity” in San Antonio on Monday.

AUTHOR

Geller Report Staff

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘SIT DOWN’: Biden Shouts Down Father Of Murdered Parkland Shooting Victim To Listen After Gun Control Speech Interruption

FBI Confidential Human Source INFILTRATED Proud Boys, Ran FBI Operation on J-6, Reported They Were INNOCENT

‘Liz Cheney Epitomizes Never Trumpers’ Betrayal Of Our Nation’

Elon Musk Laughs Off Twitter Lawsuit Threat

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

The Arizona 2022 Primary Election Is Underway – Who Should Our Next Attorney General Be? thumbnail

The Arizona 2022 Primary Election Is Underway – Who Should Our Next Attorney General Be?

/in , , , , /by

By John R. Ammon

The 2022 Republican primary for Attorney General is underway. The winner of the August 2nd primary will face the Democrat choice in the general election on November 8th. The outcome of the general election for Arizona’s next Attorney General will impact every citizen in our state.

There is a crisis in American law and order that is getting worse throughout the nation. A fundamental responsibility of federal, state, county and local governments across the United States is protecting the safety of its citizens and the foundational premise of ‘equality before the law’.

The ideologic perversion of citizens’ rights and the role of the protective services at every level of government by the radical left and increasingly most of the Democrat party are profound and proximal threats to the well-being of every American. Ergo, the outcome of our Attorney General 8/2 primary and 11/8 general elections is critical to the welfare, the safety and the rights of all Arizonans. Our glorious state cannot and must not hand over the reigns of Attorney General to a Democrat, especially in these tumultuous and threatening times.

Given the importance of this vital office and position, what should voters look for and expect in the candidate most qualified to be the next Attorney General of Arizona? What history, professional experience, and personal characteristics are most likely to be successful in the core mission to protect the citizens of Arizona, i.e., to be ‘the people’s lawyer’? Please consider the following:

  • The Attorney General, as stated, is the ‘people’s lawyer’. Yes, the Attorney General’s office is a very large and diverse law practice, the most important in Arizona. To manage an office of this size and importance, the candidate’s experience is vital for success. What has the candidate achieved in his or her career? What have they managed? How have they demonstrated their commitment to the ‘Rule of Law”? What is their record?
  • The Attorney General is the ‘Prosecutor-in-Chief’. There are 465 prosecutors in the Attorney General’s office. They are engaged in complex prosecution involving litigation at trials and the arduous work of accurate discovery for criminal cases and civil cases for the state of Arizona. These 465 prosecutors report to the Attorney General. The Attorney General is their boss – an individual who must command their respect. The Attorney General is the quality control person for the AG office who assesses and evaluates the work of every prosecutor employed for the state in this office. The candidate for this important office and role must have the experience and reputation justifying this very important and elevated position.
  • What is the AG candidate’s experience as a prosecutor and a litigator? What is his or her trial experience? Will that individual, Arizona’s chief legal officer, command the respect and loyalty of the prosecutors serving under the Attorney General?
  • Arizona and all of America are experiencing invasion by millions of illegal migrants because of the dangerous open-border policy of the Biden administration. Issues of growing cartel strength, fentanyl deaths, human and sex-trafficking, crime and violence, etc., are in front of all Arizonans every day. Does the most qualified candidate for the AG office have experience with border issues and what is now a border catastrophe for Arizona? This is a key question for voters to ask.
  • A subtle but significant question for voters to ask about the next AG is that relating to judges. In both criminal law and  civil law, a judge is partially influenced by the respect that judge has for the attorneys on both sides in a trial. The cases brought by an experienced prosecutor, especially one with a substantial history and knowledge (and possibly experience) of the judicial side of trials are influenced by this qualification. Inexperience is a disadvantage as it is in all professional arenas and should be a factor in the decision to pick the next Attorney General.
  • Be assured that the Democrat party and its Attorney General candidate for the general election will utilize the charge of ‘inexperience’ ruthlessly if the Republican primary result on August 2nd is that of a candidate with little or inadequate prosecutorial history. Please factor this in to your decision when you vote in this primary.

There are three candidates considered to be competitive for the Arizona AG August 2nd Primary election. They are Andrew Gould, Abraham Hamadeh and Rodney Glassman.  Making your choice based on the qualifications above for the best and most qualified candidate to be the next Attorney General for the state of Arizona will be clear.

Andrew Gould is a long-time Arizona resident and constitutional conservative. He is a recognized expert in constitutional law. He graduated from the Northwestern University School of Law in 1990. Andrew Gould has many years of experience in trial law and as a prosecutor, serving the state of Arizona for most of his career. Mr. Gould spent the first four years of his legal career in private practice as a civil litigator in Phoenix. He then served as a deputy county attorney prosecuting major criminal cases for Yuma and Maricopa Counties. He has served as chief civil deputy for the Yuma County Attorney’s Office. He served as the state prosecutor in Yuma for five years and had extensive experience with border crime and cartel prosecution. He experienced death threats to himself and his family while serving in this role. He also has long and respected experience as a judge, appointed to the Yuma County Superior Court in 2001 and serving as an associate presiding judge until he was named presiding judge in 2006 through 2011. He was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 2012 and then to the Arizona Supreme Court in 2016. He is endorsed by former Arizona Attorney General Bob Corbin, former Senator Jon Kyl, former Congressman John Shadegg and Governor Doug Ducey.

Abraham Hamadeh is a graduate of the Arizona University College of Law. He passed the Bar Exam in 2017 and has two years of service as a prosecutor for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. He prosecuted twelve trials during his time at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. He then went on to serve as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army Reserve. He deployed to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for 14 months involved with the training and security cooperation needs for two Saudi security ministries. Thereafter, he returned to the United States and declared his candidacy for Arizona Attorney General. Donald Trump has endorsed Mr. Hamadeh in this race.

Rodney Glassman is a graduate of the University of Arizona College of Law. He was a Democrat until late 2015. He served as a legislative aide for Raul Grijalva. He served as a Democrat member on the Tucson City Council from 2008 to 2010. He resigned in his third year on the Council to run for the U.S. Senate against John McCain, pledging to bring back a “progressive Democrat to Washington, DC”. During his years as a Democrat activist, he was on record supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants. Mr. Glassman changed his party affiliation in late 2015 to Republican after running and losing the race for Arizona Democrat Chair twice. Mr. Glassman has some prosecutorial experience, serving as a military JAG attorney in the United States Air Force Reserve for more than a decade. He describes his prosecutorial experience as having “prosecuted complex financial cases” in his position as a JAG attorney when serving in the U.S. Air Force Reserve.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

Buttigieg Defends Harassing Conservative Justices Over Abortion thumbnail

Buttigieg Defends Harassing Conservative Justices Over Abortion

/in , , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

It’s never an insurrection when your side is the one doing it. Just ask good ol’ Mayor Pete.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Sunday defended protesters against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh who gathered earlier this week outside Morton’s steakhouse, where he was eating dinner.

Buttigieg’s boyfriend, Chasten, tweeted in response to the news: “Sounds like he just wanted some privacy to make his own dining decisions,” a shot toward Kavanaugh’s vote to overturn Roe v. Wade last month, ending a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

During an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” moderator Mike Emanuel asked Buttigieg if his Chasten’s tweet about the incident was “appropriate.”

“Look, when public officials go into public life, we should expect two things. One, that you should always be free from violence, harassment, and intimidation,” Buttigieg replied. “And two, you’re never going to be free from criticism or peaceful protest, people exercising their First Amendment rights.”

Speaking out is a First Amendment right. Harassing people in their private life isn’t. There’s a huge difference between protesting outside the Supreme Court, and outside the homes and private gatherings of individuals.

Buttigieg isn’t very bright, despite trying to make that into his brand, but he knows the difference quite well and is being disingenuous when he pretends that he doesn’t.

“So, yes, people are upset,” Buttigieg concluded. “They’re going to exercise their First Amendment rights.”

If they were exercising “their First Amendment rights” outside Sotomayor’s cafe, the conversation would be quite different.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

RELATED ARTICLES:

Leftist Group Offers Venmo Payments to Harass Supreme Court Justices

France: Afghan Muslim migrant guilty of rape, says ‘In my country, it is normal to have sex with young boys’

Germany: Teacher tries to stop forced marriages, is told by the victims ‘That’s the way things are in Islam’

Biden thanks CIA for warning of Putin’s plans to invade Ukraine, Russian TV mocks: ‘Biden is of course our agent’

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

Why We Should Take the ‘Socialism’ Part of Democratic Socialism Seriously thumbnail

Why We Should Take the ‘Socialism’ Part of Democratic Socialism Seriously

/in , , , /by

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Democratic socialism isn’t the same as autocratic communism, but there are problems with socialism that democracy can’t solve.

In the wake of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s recent primary victory, many writers have made the cases for and against democratic socialism. Both its defenders and its critics have tried to insist, quite rightly, that those who support democratic socialism are serious about the “democratic” part.

And it is important that critics take this point seriously: arguing that someone like Ocasio-Cortez is just a Stalinist wannabe is not an effective counter-argument. Those making the case for democratic socialism really do wish to avoid the totalitarianism of the 20th-century history of socialism. Whether they can avoid that outcome, despite their good intentions, is an issue I will return to in what follows.

Critics and supporters should also take the “socialism” part of democratic socialism seriously.

The website of the Democratic Socialists of America is clear about their desire to eliminate the profit motive, or the very least to subordinate it to “the public interest” in a large number of sectors of the economy. A good number of democratic socialists would expand public ownership and control into many of those same sectors. And all of them seem to agree that democratic control is needed for major decisions about “social investment” as well as trade, monetary, and fiscal policy.

The question is whether—even if we assume that the process is as democratic as the democratic socialists desire—they can actually create a world of peace and prosperity given the degree to which they wish to abolish markets and profits. I will argue that the answer is no.

As is often the case with these sorts of proposals, the details of how more democratic control over economic decision-making would work are left vague, but if they are serious about the “democratic” part, it will necessarily involve the participation of as many people as possible, presumably through some sort of voting mechanism. If instead, such decisions were left in the hands of a small group, even if they were elected by people in general, it would risk reproducing the same alienation and exploitation of the masses supposedly committed by capitalists and their bought-off politicians today.

In a recent piece for The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf raised the important critical point that leaving economic decision-making to majority voting imperils the ability of those with minority tastes to acquire the things they desire. For example, if we let Americans vote on whether resources should be devoted to the medical needs of transgender people, would it happen? Would residents of Utah vote to make sure that those who wished to consume alcohol and caffeine could do so?

That we aren’t sure that the answers to both questions are “yes” is a matter of much concern about the democratic-socialist vision. How a democratic and participatory process would ensure that the needs of minority consumers were met without over-riding the will of the people is not clear.

As important as Friedersdorf’s point is, there is an even deeper problem at the heart of the socialist part of the democratic socialist vision. If public ownership is expanded and the profit motive removed, this implies the elimination of markets as the way in which resources in those industries are allocated. It certainly eliminates markets for ownership of capital resources by eliminating private and tradeable ownership claims to firms.

The question facing democratic socialists is this: how, in the absence of market prices, profit and loss signals, and private ownership of the means of production will even the most purely motivated actors in a deeply democratic process know what their fellow citizens want and need and, what’s more important, how best to produce those goods and services?

Even if “the people” want to ensure that minority tastes and needs are accommodated, how will they know what those are? In a market economy, the exchange of private property generates prices that work to signal producers about what is wanted and how urgently. The ability of owners of private resources to risk those resources on their best guesses about what is wanted, and to have the feedback of profits and losses to inform them whether they judged correctly, is what enables us to figure out what people want.  And that’s true whether it’s the masses or more specialized tastes. Markets are processes of discovery by which we learn things we otherwise would not, and could not, know.

Those same prices and profits of the market help us figure out how best to make the things that people want. This part of what markets do is often overlooked by socialists of all stripes. They might be able to offer mechanisms by which consumers could communicate their desires so that “the people” could know what needs to be produced. Even then, however, socialists over-estimate how much of what we know can be effectively communicated in words and statistics.

A good deal of human knowledge, including the knowledge relevant to economic decision-making, is tacit. There are things we know yet are unable to articulate. Think about how you keep your balance on a bicycle. You know how to do it, but you cannot explain to someone else exactly how it’s done.

Acts of buying and selling in the market enable us to make tacit knowledge usable by others in the form of prices and profits. This is the sense in which prices are knowledge surrogates that enable our fields of economic vision to overlap such that we can coordinate our actions and use resources wisely. Market exchange is a process of communication that enables us to go beyond the articulate knowledge of words and numbers.

Given this role of prices, what socialists don’t have an answer to is how democratically controlled industries—in which there are no market prices, profits, or private property in the means of production—will know which inputs to use to make the outputs they believe people want. If you want to socialize health care, how do you know how many nurses, NPs, doctors, and lab techs you will need in each state, city, or hospital?  You want people to get medical care without paying a monetary price for it?  How will you decide who should provide that care?  And with what machines?  Made out of what materials?

We completely take for granted the way in which markets smoothly enable producers to make these decisions using the signals of prices and profits.  Prices and profit calculations enable resources-owners to determine what combination of inputs appears to be the least wasteful in order to make what people want before they start producing, thereby not wasting valuable resources. Prices work as knowledge surrogates to help producers know how valuable people think those resources are so that producers make decisions that are the least wasteful possible.

Prices are the ways we make our private assessments of value publicly available for others to use to make their decisions before they produce. Profits and losses tell entrepreneurs after the fact just how well they decided. Those profits or losses inform the next round of decisions by entrepreneurs, all the time helping them figure out how to best provide what we want using the least valuable resources possible. Without prices or profits, what will perform this task under socialism, even the most widely democratic socialism one can imagine? How will this dispersed, contextual, and tacit knowledge be mobilized and made available for others to use?

Notice that this is not a matter of people’s motivation or psychology. Socialists sometimes like to invoke a version of “New Socialist Man” to escape these problems. They argue that people will just be different under socialism and that they will be motivated to serve the public interest. But motivation isn’t the problem here—knowledge is. How even New Socialist Man will acquire knowledge from others that they cannot express in words or numbers is a question most socialists have never faced.

Furthermore, consider what happens to firms in markets when they consistently fail in this task. Firms whose profits are negative period after period must either change their behavior or find themselves out of business. Firms with publicly traded private ownership shares will find the value of those shares (their stock) falling, reducing the firm’s value and making it more likely that other people might buy up those shares and take over the firm.

The opportunity to purchase the means of production and use them more wisely than the current owners is a key advantage of markets. In the absence of private ownership of the means of production, what will be the comparable corrective process? The long history of wasted resources and unwillingness to change that describes so many government programs would be spread to additional sectors of the economy. There is a reason that the stock market is the very heart of a market economy: it is where those who think they can do things better are free to take their shot. Even the most democratic version of socialism lacks that feature.

If what one supports, however, is something like worker-owned or worker-managed firms who still compete with each other in a genuine market, the argument above does not apply nearly as strongly. Such a system might well be immune to the problems associated with eliminating prices, profits, and private property. Whether such firms would face significant collective action problems associated with worker ownership or management is a separate issue for another time.

Without prices, profits, and a market for the means of production, the areas that democratic socialism would socialize would fail consumers and waste resources, impoverishing societies that adopted such policies. Those failures would force democratic socialists into an unresolvable dilemma.

Critics might argue that specialized experts were needed to run these industries better than the people at large, undermining the democratic part of democratic socialism. Other critics might argue that it was necessary to re-introduce prices and profits, undermining the socialism part. Either way, the democratic socialist vision collapses. Down the first path lies the very totalitarianism they wanted to avoid, and down the second lies the market economy they are committed to rejecting.

This process also demonstrates how even the best-intentioned democratic socialism can end up with 20th-century style totalitarian socialism. As the socialism part of democratic socialism fails to reduce poverty and ensure that people get the goods and services they want and need, and as it becomes clearer that public ownership cannot provide anything close to responsible use of resources, the democratic planning process will become increasingly dominated by those with a comparative advantage in using the levers of power it has created.

As Friedersdorf points out, putting economic control in the hands of the people actually centralizes control over resources in comparison to the decentralized ownership we see in the market. Such centralized control, even in the hands of “the people,” requires institutions of power and domination. Democratic socialists might be confident in their belief that “the people” would handle such power responsibly, but because they overlook the inevitable failure of an economic system lacking prices, profits, and private ownership, they have not thoroughly considered what might happen when the socialism half fails. When public ownership fails at allocating resources in any rational fashion, it is ripe to be taken over by those who care much less about meeting the needs of humans and much more about exercising power over them.

Marx never intended Stalin, but the latter is an unintended consequence of the Bolsheviks trying to put Marxism into practice in the immediate aftermath of the Russian Revolution. Democratic socialists can emphasize the adjective as much as they want, but the realities of socialism’s flaws will ultimately undermine both its democracy and its socialism.

Until socialists of all stripes come to grips with the role that prices, profits, and private ownership play in helping us to figure out both what people want and how best to produce it, they will continue to be mystified by socialism’s continued failure. Increased democratic control will not solve the structural problems that arise whenever people attempt to abolish the institutions of the market. In the end, the problem with democratic socialism is that it’s socialist.

Reprinted from Libertarianism.org

AUTHOR

Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Distinguished Professor of Free Enterprise in the Department of Economics at Ball State University, where he also is Director of the Institute for the Study of Political Economy. He is the author of Austrian Economics: An Introduction.

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

GOP Set To Win Massive Majority In House, Analysis Finds thumbnail

GOP Set To Win Massive Majority In House, Analysis Finds

/in , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Republicans are expected to take control of the House of Representatives with a potentially massive majority, according to the Fox News Power Rankings.

The GOP is predicted to win between 225 and 255 seats in the November midterm elections, according to the Fox News Power Rankings, which uses data such as historical trends, fundraising and other polling to create projections for elections. Currently, there are 33 seats that the GOP will likely win, with another 30 seats considered as “toss-ups” come this November, according to the analysis.

One such seat is New York’s 18th Congressional District, which has a 65% chance of flipping red, according to FiveThirtyEight. The district was once a Democratic stronghold, but with redistricting Republican New York Assemblyman Colin Schmitt appears poised to win the seat.  

“The issues at hand are economic and crime-related,” Schmitt told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Crime is affecting our community, and the economic issues are crushing us in the Hudson Valley.”

Roughly 56% of voters said that the economic state of the nation was the most essential issue to them this election cycle, according to polling from Republican State Leadership Committee.

🚨🇺🇸🚨🇺🇸 Fox News Power Rankings shift our race to Lean Republican this morning!!!

Momentum keeps building toward victory!

We will take back #NY18 for our Hudson Valley values and restore checks and balances to the failed Biden agenda. Help us win —> https://t.co/7RSEELBIr9 pic.twitter.com/61U8EdwKmm

— Colin Schmitt (@colinschmitt) July 11, 2022

The nation has seen a slight rightward shift with states such as Florida and minorities groups like Hispanics becoming more right-leaning, exemplified by the election of Texas Republican Rep. Mayra Flores in a special election. 

Oregon’s 5th Congressional District could see its first Republican member of Congress ever, according to FiveThirtyEight. Republican Lori Chavez Ramirez is projected to cruise to victory against her leftist challenger.

Other outlets such as Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight also predicted the GOP would win the House handily.

“Joe Biden’s failed agenda has led to record-high prices at the gas pump and grocery store, and put every vulnerable Democrats’ reelection efforts in jeopardy,” National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Michael McAdams told the DCNF.

The predictions by Fox News come at a time when President Biden’s approval numbers hover around 33% and Democrats are losing faith in his ability to win an election, according to a poll by The New York Times.

AUTHOR

CARL DEMARCO

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Republicans Are Turning A Massive Swing State Solidly Red

POLL: More Americans Want Trump To Run In 2024 Than Biden

New NYT Poll Shows ‘Staggering’ Amount Of Americans Believe US Heading In Wrong Direction

Jean-Pierre Responds To Poll Finding Majority Of Democrats Prefer Different Presidential Candidate In 2024

National Hispanic Org To Jill Biden: ‘We Are Not Tacos’

GOP Eyes Garland Impeachment for Ignoring Abortion Terrorism

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

VIDEO: Ten Minute Lesson on the Nature of Money thumbnail

VIDEO: Ten Minute Lesson on the Nature of Money

/in , , , , /by

By Vlad Tepes Blog

I was sent this by a gentleman who has a financial magazine read by some of the top people in finance. This is not my field and am uncomfortable even thinking about it in some ways. But I am reliably informed by a few people now, that there is truth in this world view, and profundity. In fact, this is not the usual video about how things work or what to invest in, so much is its an attempt to explain an entire world view about how money is created and destroyed, what wealth is, and so on. I plan to watch it a few more times and hopefully develop an understanding that gives me some predictive ability.

To the extent that I get it now, it doesn’t necessarily change much. It still appears that we are moving from a more or less credit driven free market system into what might be a more controlled feudal system. I dunno. Hopefully this offers insight. Looking forward to the comments on this.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column by  Eeyore is republished with permission.

The Push for Permanent Vote by Mail: Amber McReynolds thumbnail

The Push for Permanent Vote by Mail: Amber McReynolds

/in , , /by

By Hayden Ludwig

The Push for Permanent Vote by Mail

Leftists fell in love with all-mail elections in 2020. Now they want to make vote by mail permanent.

Transforming our country’s elections into a mail-in fiasco is a big step toward handing power over elections from the states to the federal government, empowering professional activists, inviting fraud, and damaging America’s constitutional system. It places the integrity of the republic in the hands of the U.S. Postal Service, the government agency that routinely delivers your neighbor’s mail to your house. And it promises to undermine public trust in electoral outcomes from now until doomsday, which could make the problems of the 2020 election routine.

I’ve documented progressives’ relentless effort to federalize elections, from the $400-million flood of private cash Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg sent to elections officials in 2020 to the $80 million “dark money” campaign for permanent vote by mail ahead of the 2022 and 2024 elections. That reporting builds on Capital Research Center’s year-and-a-half-long investigation into the role of “Zuck bucks” in battleground states and our discovery that they targeted areas rich with Democratic votes, like Philadelphia and Atlanta.

At the heart of that misadventure is the Center for Tech and Civic Life, Arabella Advisors’ $1.7 billion activist empires, and the National Vote at Home Institute. But Americans should be familiar with the true face of vote by mail: Amber McReynolds.

She’s often labeled a reform-minded “independent” and is listed on the website of the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers and in Governing Magazine’s 2018 Top Public Officials of the Year. In interview after gushing interview with left-leaning outlets, she’s touted as a good-government advocate uninterested in petty partisan goals.

But make no mistake: Amber McReynolds is a product of Activism, Inc.

McReynolds started her career registering voters in Iowa—a key primary state—in the 2004 election with the New Voters Project, part of a multi-million-dollar activist nexus called the Public Interest Network, whose oldest elements—the Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs)—started in the 1970s under legendary community organizer Ralph Nader.

If you’ve ever been solicited on the street for a donation to the American Civil Liberties Union or Sierra Club by a “clipboard kid,” you’ve probably had a run-in with these guys, who are famous for generating new liberal activists—and a president. As Barack Obama put it in 2004, “I used to be a PIRG guy. You guys trained me well.”

Revealingly, the network lauds McReynolds alongside two other notable progressive alumni: Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and eco-activist-turned-Colorado State Sen. Faith Winter.

In 2005, McReynolds was hired by the Denver Elections Commission. In 2011, she became the agency’s director. A year later, the city’s Democratic mayor awarded her with the “rising star” award for overseeing the creation of Denver’s ballot-tracking and electronic petition-gathering software (Ballot TRACE). A year after that, in 2013, McReynolds successfully pushed for Colorado’s adoption of all-mail voting and election-day registration, reportedly downplaying the threat of voter fraud in her testimony before the state legislature by claiming ignorance of the concept: “I’m not sure, to be honest, what is an illegal vote…. What does that mean?”

McReynolds was key to many of the last-minute voting-law changes in Pennsylvania ahead of the 2020 election, which conservatives criticized as unconstitutional and vulnerable to fraud. She’s cited extensively in an amicus briefing filed by the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, Common Cause Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia-based Black Political Empowerment Project, and the Latino-focused Make the Road PA—all left-wing get-out-the-vote groups—supporting the Pennsylvania Democratic Party’s lawsuit against Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, demanding the state adopt drop boxes and “alternatives to in-person voting.”

McReynolds’ sworn testimony (paid for at a rate of $225 per hour) notes that “ballot drop-boxes can be an important component of implementing expanded mail-in voting,” “do not create an increased opportunity for fraud,” and “are generally more secure than…post office boxes.” She also supports the adoption of “text-to-cure,” a system adopted in 2020 in Colorado wherein voters are invited to email, fax, or send a text message to “cure” mistakes in their ballots (e.g., a missing signature) instead of sending an affidavit.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately ruled in the Democratic Party’s favor, determining that county elections boards may accept mail-in ballots in “unmanned drop-boxes” and extending the deadline for mail-in and absentee ballots by three days—even for ballots missing a postmark.

All of these controversial factors later featured prominently in the 2020 election in Pennsylvania and other battleground states, thanks to funding from Mark Zuckerberg and the Center for Tech and Civic Life.

Pennsylvania’s Republican-controlled state Senate banned both private funding for elections and drop-boxes in April 2022; the bill is expected to be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, and drop boxes were still in place for the state’s June primary. In Wisconsin, the state supreme court ruled drop boxes were illegal in February 2022 after 570 were used in 66 of the state’s 72 counties between 2020 and early 2021.

New Voting System diagram. Source: Kathy Hoell, testimony before the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

Interestingly, McReynolds also oversaw Denver’s adoption of the now-controversial Dominion Voting Systems in May 2015, lauding the system in a presentation before election officials (only a grainy image of her presentation exists). The liberal Brennan Center for Justice profiled Denver’s adoption of Dominion in a 2015 case study, noting that it was designed to promote vote by mail given that 95 percent of Denver voters cast their ballot by mail under the state’s all-mail system. McReynolds later defended Dominion against claims of ballot fraud days after the 2020 election, tweeting:

No, Dominion voting machines did not cause widespread voting problems. Don’t be fooled by conspiracies & disinformation. Instead rely on trusted sources of information like election officials.

In a Denver Post op-ed in 2017, McReynolds in her capacity as Denver’s director of elections accused President Donald Trump’s new Commission on Election Integrity of “frightening away Denver voters” and leading voters to withdraw their registration due to its supposed partisanship (it was bipartisan) and unclear mission. The commission was formed to investigate “improper voter registrations,” “voter suppression,” and fraud. In late 2017, the left-wing group United to Protect Democracy sued the commission for attempting to gather voter information from the states. McReynolds provided sworn testimony alleging that the commission had caused Denver voter registration withdrawals to surge.

*****

This article was published by Capital Research and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

EPA Now Stuck Between A Rock and A Hard Place on CO2

/in , , , , , /by

By David Wojick

EPA is stuck. What they will now do is anybody’s guess. Enjoy their dilemma!

There are lots of happy reports on the Supreme Court’s ruling throwing out EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan. Some go so far as to suggest that EPA is barred from regulating power plant CO2 emissions.

It is not quite that simple and the result is rather amusing. EPA is still required to regulate CO2 under the terms of the Clean Air Act, but that Act provides no way to do that regulation. The Clean Power Plan attempted to expand an obscure minor clause in the Act to do the job but SCOTUS correctly ruled that the clause does not confer that kind of massive authority.

EPA is between a rock and a hard place. It should tell Congress that it cannot do the job and needs a new law, along the lines of the SO2 law added to the Act in 1990, curbing emissions. But such a law has zero chance of passing in the foreseeable future.

EPA is stuck. What they will now do is anybody’s guess. Enjoy their dilemma!

Here is a bit more detail on the situation.

On one hand, EPA’s legal mandate to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is clear. First the (prior) Supreme Court ruled that CO2 was a “pollutant” under the Act. This is because buried in the 1990 Amendments was a clause adding causing climate change to the definition of “pollutant”. The Court accepted the government’s claim that the CO2 increase could cause climate change. The new Court could change this but is unlikely to do so.

Given CO2 is a pollutant under the Act, EPA was required to decide if it was dangerous to human well-being or not. It then produced an “endangerment finding” saying that CO2 was indeed a threat.

Given these two steps, the Act then requires EPA to regulate CO2. It has been trying to figure out how to do so ever since.

The deep problem is that the Clean Air Act specifies very specific regulatory actions, none of which work for CO2. This is because CO2 is nothing like the true pollutants that the Act was developed to regulate.

The Act’s mainline mechanism is the NAAQS (pronounced “nacks”) which stands for National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These standards specify the ambient concentration levels allowed for various pollutants. Carbon dioxide’s cousin carbon monoxide is one of these pollutants. Locations that exceed the NAAQS receive stiff penalties.

Clearly, this mechanism assumes that local levels are due to local emissions, which can be controlled to achieve and maintain compliance.

But CO2 is nothing like that. There is no way America can control the ambient CO2 level. Even if humans are causing that level (which is itself controversial), it is then based on global emissions. CO2 is not a local pollutant.

For a CO2 NAAQS EPA could either set the standard below the global level or above it. If below then all of America would be out of compliance and subject to the Act’s penalties, with no way to comply. It is very unlikely that the Court would allow these universal endless penalties.

If the CO2 NAAQS were above the present level then there would be no legal basis for EPA taking any action, since compliance was complete.

So the NAAQS mechanism simply does not work.

Another major mechanism is to control the emissions of what are called “hazardous air pollutants” or HAPS. EPA explains it this way:

“Hazardous air pollutants are those known to cause cancer and other serious health impacts.  The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate toxic air pollutants, also known as air toxics, from categories of industrial facilities.”

But CO2 is nontoxic, so not a HAP. In fact, our exhaled breath contains over one hundred times the ambient level of CO2, that is over 40,000 ppm. Clearly, if ambient 400 ppm CO2 were toxic we would all be dead. It would be absurd for EPA to try to classify CO2 as a HAP. No Court would stand for it.

The only other piece of the Clean Air Act that EPA might try to use is called “New Source Performance Standards” but as the name says they only apply to new construction (or major modifications). The myriad existing fossil-fueled power plants that supply our daily juice would not be covered. Even worse if EPA drove up the cost of new gas-fired plants we would likely restart the host of retired coal-fueled plants. What a hoot that would be!

So there you have it. EPA bought itself CO2 as a Clean Air Act pollutant, but there is no way under the Act to regulate it. To mix metaphors, EPA is all dressed up with no place to go. The Supreme Court decision returned EPA to its regulatory dead end.

I find this ridiculous situation to be truly laughable. What were they thinking? Does the EPA Administrator understand this? Has he told the President? How about Congress?

EPA’s problem with CO2 is much deeper than the latest Supreme Court Decision. The Clean Air Act simply does not work for CO2. What will EPA do?

*****

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

Studies Show The Electric Vehicles Democrats Insist You Buy Are Worse For The Environment And Lower Quality thumbnail

Studies Show The Electric Vehicles Democrats Insist You Buy Are Worse For The Environment And Lower Quality

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

It was never about the climate. It was always about destroying our way of life, our standing in the world and transferring our wealth to left-wing elites with nonsensical, failed ‘businesses’.

Studies Show The Electric Vehicles Democrats Insist You Buy Are Worse For The Environment And Lower Quality

By: Helen Raleigh, The Federalist, July 11, 2022:

Two recent studies have shown that electric vehicles have more quality issues than gas-powered ones and are not better for the environment.

Many people believe electric vehicles are higher quality than gas-powered vehicles and are emissions-free, which makes them much better for the environment. But two recent studies have shown that electric cars have more quality issues than gas-powered ones and are not better for the environment.

J.D. Power has produced the annual U.S. Initial Quality Study for 36 years, which measures the quality of new vehicles based on feedback from owners. The most recent study, which included Tesla in its industry calculation for the first time, found that battery-electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles have more quality issues than gas-powered ones.

According to J.D. Power, owners of electric or hybrid vehicles cite more problems than do owners of gas-powered vehicles. The latter vehicles average 175 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100), hybrids average 239 PP100, and battery-powered cars — excluding Tesla models — average 240 PP100. Tesla models average 226 PP100. Given the average cost of an electric car is roughly $60,000, about $20,000 more than the cost of a gas-powered car, it seems owners of EVs didn’t get the value they deserve.

Some blamed the supply-chain disruptions caused by pandemic-related lockdowns as the main reason for EVs’ quality issues. EV makers have sought alternative (sometimes less optimal) solutions to manufacture new vehicles. But the same supply-chain disruption affected makers of gas-powered vehicles. Yet the three highest-ranking brands, measured by overall initial quality, are all makers of gas-powered vehicles: Buick (139 PP100), Dodge (143 PP100), and Chevrolet (147 PP100).

Some pointed to the design as a main contributing factor to EVs’ quality issues. According to David Amodeo, global director of automotive at J.D. Power, automakers view EVs as “the vehicle that will transform us into the era of the smart cars,” so they have loaded up EVs with technologies such as touch screens, Bluetooth, and voice recognition. EV makers also prefer to use manufacturer-designed apps to “control certain functions of the car, from locking and unlocking the doors remotely to monitoring battery charge.” Increasing technical complexity also increases the likelihood of problems. Not surprisingly, EV owners reported more infotainment and connectivity issues in their vehicles than owners of gas-powered vehicles. Amodeo acknowledged that “there’s a lot of room for improvement” for EVs.

Electric Vehicles Are Worse for the Environment

Besides quality issues, a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that electric vehicles are worse for the environment than gas-powered ones. By quantifying the externalities (both greenhouse gases and local air pollution) generated by driving these vehicles, the government subsidies on the purchase of EVs, and taxes on electric and/or gasoline miles, researchers found that “electric vehicles generate a negative environmental benefit of about -0.5 cents per mile relative to comparable gasoline vehicles (-1.5 cents per mile for vehicles driven outside metropolitan areas).”

Keep reading.…..

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: FACT: All Electric Vehicles (EVs) Are Powered by Coal, Uranium, Natural Gas or Diesel-Powered Energy

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

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.