AUN-TV NEWS: Federal Government Fines Missouri Doctor $500 Million for Suggesting Vitamin D for Covid thumbnail

AUN-TV NEWS: Federal Government Fines Missouri Doctor $500 Million for Suggesting Vitamin D for Covid

By Conservative Commandos Radio Show

AUN-TV GUESTS AND TOPICS

ALEX NESTER

Alex Nester is an Investigative Fellow for Parents Defending Education. Before joining Parents Defending Education, Alex reported on education at the Washington Free Beacon and produced podcasts for Nebulous Media.

TOPIC: What is Cracked Foundations?

DR. ERIC NEPUTE

Dr. Eric Nepute is a Licensed primary care provider in the state of Missouri. He is a License Doctor of chiropractic, Certified Doctor of natural medicine, a Certified nutritional specialist, and certified internal health specialists. Dr. Nepute has Advanced training, fellowships and certifications in functional neurology, Orthomolecular nutrition, Internal health, as well as advanced biomechanics.

TOPIC: Federal Government Fines Missouri Doctor $500 Million for Suggesting Vitamin D for Covid

RELATED ARTICLE: The Truth About Ivermectin

©AUN-TV and Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

Kevin McCarthy Threatens Biden’s DHS Secretary With Impeachment If He Doesn’t Resign thumbnail

Kevin McCarthy Threatens Biden’s DHS Secretary With Impeachment If He Doesn’t Resign

By The Daily Caller

House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy threatened President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas with impeachment Tuesday during a visit to the border in El Paso, Texas.

McCarthy, who is vying for the House speakership, said Republicans will push for Mayorkas’ impeachment if he refuses to step down. He was joined by several Republican colleagues, including Texas Rep. Tony Gonzales, who represents a southern border district, that made the trip to show support for Border Patrol.

“His actions have produced the greatest wave of illegal immigration in recorded history. Our country may never recover from Secretary Mayorkas’ dereliction of duty. This is why today I am calling on the secretary to resign. He cannot and must not remain in that position,” McCarthy said.

“If Secretary Mayorkas does not resign, House Republicans will investigate every order, every action and every failure to determine whether we can begin an impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy said.

The Republican Study Committee was previously pushing for Mayorkas’ impeachment, but McCarthy argued that he “wants to make the case before we go for the jugular,” Axios reported in April.

Under Mayorkas’ leadership, federal border authorities have been overwhelmed by a surge in illegal immigration. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encountered a record of over 2.3 million migrants in fiscal year 2022 and more than 230,000 at the start of fiscal year 2023.

Mayorkas, however, continues to insist that the southern border is “secure.” He most recently made the assertion during a House Homeland Security Committee on Nov. 15.

For months, Republican lawmakers have called on Mayorkas to resign for making the false claim.

“I’m not unhappy. I’m pissed. Secretary Mayorkas needs to resign: he’s incompetent,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told Martha MacCallum, host of Fox News’ “The Story,” in September, adding “The border is not closed. It’s been surrendered.”

“Secretary Mayorkas is proud to advance the noble mission of this Department, support its extraordinary workforce, and serve the American people. The Department will continue our work to enforce our laws and secure our border, while building a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system,” DHS said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Members of Congress can do better than point the finger at someone else; they should come to the table and work on solutions for our broken system and outdated laws, which have not been overhauled in over 40 years,” the department added.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Even Worse’: Illegal Migrants Will Flood The US Border When One Major Trump-Era Policy Ends

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

ARIZONA: Maricopa County’s Election Dysfunction Was More Widespread Than Officials Said, Memo Claims thumbnail

ARIZONA: Maricopa County’s Election Dysfunction Was More Widespread Than Officials Said, Memo Claims

By The Daily Caller

  • More Maricopa County voting centers saw tabulator or printer issues than officials had announced, according to a memo by an attorney who observed the election process.
  • “It seems very clear that the printer/tabulator failures on election day at 62.61% of the vote centers observed by 11 roving attorneys, and the resulting long lines at a majority of all vote centers, led to substantial voter suppression,” the memo said.
  • “It is certainly safe to assume that many voters refused to wait in such lines, left the vote center, and did not return to vote later,” the memo read. “A survey of the electorate could easily confirm such an assumption.”

Election day tabulator or printer issues affected more Maricopa County, Arizona, voting centers than authorities had previously claimed, according to a memo by an attorney who observed the voting process.

On Nov. 8, the day of the midterm elections, 11 of the roving attorneys tasked with observing election processes in the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) Election Integrity program in Arizona collectively visited nearly 52% of the county’s voting centers, according to a memo sent to party officials and candidates by roving attorney Mark Sonnenklar and obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The memo alleged that 72 of those 115 visited centers, or roughly 60%, saw “material problems with the tabulators not being able to tabulate ballots,” resulting in “substantial voter suppression.”

The findings of the memo would indicate that tabulation and printer problems at Maricopa County voting centers were more widespread than elections officials had previously claimed. Though the memo does not address whether tabulation and printer problems may have occurred at the Maricopa County voting centers that the attorneys did not visit, a significant number of those locations may have seen similar issues, given the large sample size of voting centers visited by the roving attorneys.

Sonnenklar wrote that the findings in the memo “directly contradict the statements of County election officials that (1) printer/tabulator issues were limited to only 70 of the 223 vote centers, (2) the printer/tabulator problems were resolved as of 3:00 p.m., and (3) the printer/tabulator issues were insignificant in the entire scheme of the election.”

READ:

Aggregated Roving Attorney Ge… by Daily Caller News Foundation

For instance, Maricopa County’s main Twitter account said Nov. 9 that an issue with printers had affected an estimated 17,000 ballots across 70 (about 31%) of the county’s 223 voting centers, with tabulators unable to read some ballots lacking dark enough timing marks.

“In many cases, the printer/tabulator issues persisted from the beginning of election day until the end of election day,” Sonnenklar wrote. “It seems very clear that the printer/tabulator failures on election day at 62.61% of the vote centers observed by 11 roving attorneys, and the resulting long lines at a majority of all vote centers, led to substantial voter suppression.”

Tabulators rejected ballots’ first insertion almost every time at many voting centers, and many ballots could not be machine-tabulated no matter how many attempts a voter made, Sonnenklar stated.

“The strong consensus regarding why the tabulators would not read certain ballots was that those ballots, in particular the barcodes on the side of the paper, were not printing dark enough for the tabulators to read them,” he wrote, claiming to have personally visited ten voting centers.

Material problems caused voters to either deposit their ballots into a box for later counting, spoil their ballots and re-vote, or “get frustrated” and leave without voting, the memo said. Many voters had to wait an hour or two to receive a ballot for voting, with the roving attorneys reporting “significant lines at 59 of the 115 vote centers” they collectively visited, it claimed.

The DCNF has not verified the claims in this memo, and the Maricopa County Elections Department did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

“It is certainly safe to assume that many voters refused to wait in such lines, left the vote center, and did not return to vote later,” Sonnenklar added. “A survey of the electorate could easily confirm such an assumption.”

Sonnenklar quoted the ten other roving attorneys in the memo, and five of them confirmed to the DCNF that they provided information to Sonnenklar that was included in the memo.

“Some of the issues I reported (in real time and later to Mark Sonnenklar) were based on the reports that I received from the Republican observers at the respective sites, except those which I specifically indicated that I witnessed myself,” Roie Bar, one of the roving attorneys and a Scottsdale-based lawyer, told the DCNF. “Each site only allows one observer from each party and all the locations I covered had Republican observers present all day (2 in each location, covering 2 shifts – morning and afternoon). I was in communication with the observers throughout the day and was receiving reports from them in real time.”

The memo quoted one roving attorney as reporting long lines at three of 15 voting sites they visited. Another reported that five of the nine centers they visited had long lines.

“To sum it up, it was a complete mess!” a third roving attorney said of observations they made, according to the memo. “There is no other way to put it.”

Sonnenklar was not the only legal professional to raise concerns over the voting process; Arizona Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Wright sent a Saturday letter describing reports of similar tabulation and printer issues.

“Due to the widespread problems in non-uniform printer configuration settings, many voters were unable to tabulate their ballots on Election Day using on-site tabulators. Instead, voters were instructed to deposit their ballot in ‘Door 3,’” Wright stated. “Maricopa County appears to have failed to adhere to the statutory guidelines in segregating, counting, tabulating, tallying, and transporting the ‘Door 3’ ballots.”

Despite the findings in the memo, Maricopa County election officials have attempted to characterize the voting issues as relatively minor and insubstantial.

“Nearly a million County residents voted early in the November General Election,” the county’s main Twitter account stated Friday. “On E-Day, most Vote Centers experienced no printer issues, most had wait times under 30 min. and @maricopavote gave voters the freedom to cast their ballot at any one of 223 locations.”

The DCNF obtained the memo from former Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen.

“I worked at a polling location,” Pullen told the DCNF. “The tabulators were not working.”

Arizona, we are still in the fight. pic.twitter.com/ytaGvqG5J0

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) November 17, 2022

Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake refused to concede Thursday after Democratic opponent Katie Hobbs was projected the winner in their race. Lake claimed “nearly half of all polling locations had problems with tabulating machines and printers,” forcing voters “to wait in line for hours.”

AUTHOR

TREVOR SCHAKOHL

Legal reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arizona Ballots Found “Underneath Some Concrete and Rocks”

Sunny Hostin Says She Filled Out Her Son’s Absentee Ballot

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

Italy’s PM Giorgia Meloni, ‘The solution is to free Africa from certain Europeans who exploit it!’ thumbnail

Italy’s PM Giorgia Meloni, ‘The solution is to free Africa from certain Europeans who exploit it!’

By Dr. Rich Swier

Italy’s first female Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is taking on the issue of bringing migrants from Africa to Europe head on.

She appeared on the news with a startling revelation about the CFA franc.

According to the International Monetary Fund,

What is the CFA franc zone?

The CFA franc zone consists of 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, each affiliated with one of two monetary unions. Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte D’Ivoire, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo comprise the West African Economic and Monetary Union, or WAEMU, founded in 1994 to build on the foundation of the West African Monetary Union, founded in 1973. The remaining six countries — Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon — comprise the Central African Economic and Monetary Union, or CAEMC.

Watch.

Holy shlit pic.twitter.com/ItJIJzXbHB

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 19, 2022

In our September 26th, 2022 column Why They Already Hate Giorgia Meloni The New Prime Minister of Italy we wrote,

Here’s why these woke, anti-liberty, anti-family, anti-faith media outlets hate Giorgia Meloni.

Watch:

They hate Prime Minister of Italy Giorgia Meloni because she is pro-woman, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-life, pro-Italy. Her message is “Make Italy Great Again” (MIGA) and very much like the American MAGA movement she is hated for her love of faith, family and country.

Prime Minister of Italy Giorgia Meloni is a woman of principle.

Now Giorgia is taking on the IMF and the French elites who use the Africans as slaves to enhance their wealth.

Giorgia is everything that the real fascists hate. She’s a mother, Catholic, wife and a strong independent woman who speaks truth to power.

She loves her country and its traditions.

In other words she is a normal and healthy woman!

Copyright Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Taking Stock of Election Integrity Efforts thumbnail

Taking Stock of Election Integrity Efforts

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

Believe what you like about the 2020 presidential election, but there’s no denying the widespread belief – even among Democrats – the election was stolen motivated a lot of people to work to tighten up future elections.  The way I hear the story, donors poured $30 million dollars into election integrity efforts on the professional Right.  You can add to that hundreds of citizen’s groups and thousands of individuals in the grassroots all working to secure elections like never before.  So what do they have to show for all that treasure and effort?

A lot, actually.  There were fewer reports of late night ballot drops and Republican poll watchers being blocked this time around.  A Republican lawsuit forced Nevada and Arizona to offer poll-worker data to ensure both parties are equally represented at voting sites.  Another Republican challenge struck down a New York law that would have added 900,000 noncitizens to the voter rolls.  There was yet another court ruling upholding voter ID, something most Americans support.  High voter turnout in Georgia put the nail in the coffin of the Democrat’s phony narrative new election integrity laws passed by Republicans in several states are voter suppression.  Jim Crow 2.0?  Hardly.  It was all Democrat hogwash.  Oh, and what happened to all that Republican violence and all those disruptive Republican election workers we were supposed to see on Election Day?  It didn’t happen.  It was just hogwash.  You can put it right next to all the other Democrat hogwash.  Now, left-wing organizations have to explain to their base why it didn’t happen and they’re saying it was because elections officials were ready for trouble.  Sure, and I’m the tooth fairy.

So there were some wins, but we still have miles to go before we can express confidence in our elections again.  A number of suspicious things happened in the midterms.  Ballots arrived after the legal deadline with no adequate explanation at the Detroit bureau of elections, reminiscent of the 2020 election.  A Democrat candidate got 1,100 votes in a town in New Hampshire that only has 700 people – how does that happen?

Turning to another subject, there is now something of a split among conservatives as to how to deal with the changes Democrats have brought to the election process in the last couple of years – what should we do going forward?

One school of thought holds the Democrats are winning elections because they have succeeded in gaming the system.  People on this side of the debate point to Democrat victories in states that sent out over a million absentee ballots or states with permanent absentee ballot lists – ask for an absentee ballot once and you keep getting them in future elections.  Having this many ballots floating around facilitates fraud and produced Democrat wins in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona.  Republicans did better in Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia where absentee voting rules are stricter.  Swing states with same-day registration like Michigan and Wisconsin went blue in this election.  Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia don’t have same-day registration and went red.  This school of thought believes all went according to Democrat plan and that Republicans should work to reverse things like mail-in voting and drop boxes.

But a new school of thought holds Republicans should accept all these things are here to stay and should learn to adapt to the new environment.  Republicans should become aggressive in ballot curing, ballot harvesting where legal, and encouraging mail-in voting to avoid Election Day glitches.  Adherents to this school of thought attribute the Republicans flipping the U.S. House to aggressive Republican ballot curing and harvesting in California. Republican candidates in Arizona urged voters to make sure their ballots were counted and to cure them if they were not.

Call me old school, but I’m not convinced.  I get suspicious whenever anyone tells me I should do what the Democrats want me to do.  Look at Michigan – voters just approved a ballot initiative from the Democrat side that will loosen voter ID, institutionalize early voting, mandate the use of drop boxes, create a permanent absentee ballot list, narrow the ability of citizens to challenge elections, and allow private money to be used for election administration.  As for the latter, it’s pretty clear the true purpose of private money is to allow Democrat election officials to engage in voter registration drives to sign up more Democrats to vote.  The consequence of all these changes the Democrats wanted will be less secure elections in Michigan in the future.

That’s the Democrat plan and I, for one, am not going to go along with it.  I will continue my work with other activists in my state to fight all the changes the Democrats have made to our elections process.  The Democrats will not quit.  They will continue to try to subvert our elections.  We must continue to oppose them and keep working to right the ship.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

RELATED INTEGRITY TWEETS:

“This is a smoking gun! This document confirms that Obama was personally involved in trying to restrict info and the truth being told to Trump about the schemes to smear him as an agent for Russia,” @TomFitton.

READ: https://t.co/80LZO4xkgR……

Watch: https://t.co/PwHUDCJ2We pic.twitter.com/SXyWUyCVUH

— Judicial Watch ⚖️ (@JudicialWatch) November 18, 2022

Don’t forget, Democrats spent an entire year LYING about inflation.pic.twitter.com/DMNGcjQlbD

— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) November 19, 2022

VIDEO: Highways in The Sky—Aviation On The Road Ahead thumbnail

VIDEO: Highways in The Sky—Aviation On The Road Ahead

By P. Brooks

Highways in The Sky from Jorj Baker on Vimeo.

It can now be revealed how air transportation became so flawed – that two nominally qualified pilots were so spatially unaware, as to literally fly a serviceable, modern airliner into the ocean, despite installation of quote “Terrain Avoidance” Warning Systems (TAWS) unquote, which were functioning onboard, while under controlled flight, at the time of the accident.

In 1957, US Navy Commander George Hoover – a universal genius of far ranging intellect, vision and capacity – declassified his system of spatial awareness for Navy jet aircraft Aviators, known as the Command Flight Path Display (CFPD) and presented it to Capt. Dan Beard, Vice President of Flight for American Airlines (AAL), at a convening of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Aviation Committee, which Capt. Beard chaired.

The “Highway In The informally dubbed – Sky” – as CFPD was was so intuitive & immediate for spatial awareness that it would end unintentional “Controlled Flight Into Terrain” (CFIT) altogether, in air transportation, military and the larger aviation community.

Capt. Beard effected no action to install Cdr. Hoover’s system on American Airlines aircraft.

Over the years, mounting to decades, American Airlines and the industry, suffered ongoing fatal CFIT accidents, needlessly killing many thousands worldwide – including the devastating crash of an American Airlines Boeing 757 aircraft at Cali, Columbia on 20 December 1995, killing 160 – in spatial confusion circumstances not dissimilar to the present occasion in Micronesia, in September of 2018.

Three (3) years earlier, in 1992, First Officer P. E. Brooks, AAL, had briefed then AAL Vice President of Flight, Capt. Bill James, a former Naval Aviator, about Cdr. Hoover’s system, describing that even then – some nearly 40 years after first releasing his Navy system to American – Cdr. Hoover was ready to help install the system on American’s fleet.

Capt. James was untimely killed a few months later, in a skiing accident in Utah -ending for the nonce, official renewed initiative on the ‘Highway In The Sky’ at American, and sealing the fate of the 757 passengers & crew at Cali, Columbia, still some three years out from their appointed rendezvous with death. Ironically, unbeknownst to Capt. James – until just those few months prior to his own death -he had owed his life to a Geo. Hoover mandated ejection seat installation, while departing his troubled Navy F-8 Crusader.

James’ successor, Capt. was briefed in detail.

Cecil Ewell, AAL about the CFPD system, by FO Brooks in the very same office, in 1997, following receipt of the Cali, Columbia crash investigation report – in company of Capt. Rich LaVoy, AAL, President of the Allied Pilots Association (APA), Capt. Frank Nehlig, AAL (Ret.), and Mike Lewis, Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Aviation Safety Program.

Capt. Ewell install Cdr. aircraft likewise effected Hoover’s system no action to on American Capt. Ewell did advocate installing the “Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System” (EGPWS) on AAL aircraft.

See, “Highways In The Sky: Aviation On The Road Ahead”, by FO Brooks, in the July/August 1997 issue of “Flightline”, a publication of the Allied Pilots Association (APA).

This very same EGPWS system was installed aboard & operating correctly, during the crash of the Boeing 737 of this present occasion in Micronesia.

Those onboard could not have known however, the eventuality of their crash had been predicted two decades earlier, despite the EGPWS installation, in FO Brooks’ 1997 article.

On a flight deck jump seat awaiting pushback at that time, at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (KDFW), American Airlines’ AMR CEO Don Carty, was shown still images of the ‘Highway In The Sky’ system by FO Brooks, exclaiming,

“Wow, I didn’t even know we had this stuff!”

Then Mr. Carty readily accepted invitation for a complete briefing to follow.

Capt. Ewell later advised FO Brooks by telephone, CEO Carty would not be disposed to receive the CFPD briefing after all, nominally amid labor relations disputes, which had surfaced at American.

During this time, an AAL Boeing 727-223, crashed short of the runway, in controlled flight, low visibility, conditions – not dissimilar to the present instant – at Chicago O’Hare International Airport (KORD).

At nearly the same time, in August 1997, a Korean Airlines (KAL) Boeing 747-200 Jumbo Jet crashed on approach to Guam -in low visibility conditions similar to the present case – killing 229.

The morning following the KAL crash, during a ‘Flight Deck Technology’ conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, Capt. John Hutchison, British Airways (BA, Ret.), a Boeing 747 and later Concorde

pilot, offered remarks to several hundred breakfasting industry attendees, saying the only way to solve the CFIT problem, was to deploy the ‘Highway In The Sky’ system FO Brooks was advocating in his conference white paper.

In November 1997, FO Brooks travelled to England to address the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) about the ‘Highway In The Sky’, receiving their endorsement.

RAeS reprinted an updated version of the “Flightline” article and circulated it to RAeS membership in 130 countries.

While in Europe, FO Brooks recruited participation of others, at centers of advanced ‘Synthetic Vision’ work in Delft, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Darmstadt, Frankfurt & Munich.

Special Effects Wizard Douglas Trumbull, of “2001: A Space Odyssey” movie renown, teamed with FO Brooks to produce the short film “HIGHWAYS IN THE SKY: AVIATION ON THE ROAD AHEAD” premiered at the first of two “Synthetic Vision” conferences at NASA’s Langley, Virginia, Aviation Safety Program, attended by industry hundreds from around the world.

FAA Administrator Jane Garvey was shown the “HIGHWAYS” film at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC in a briefing prepared for her, by attending board members of the Allied Pilots Association -including President Capt. LaVoy, and Treasurer First Officer Bob Morgan, AAL. FO Brooks detailed to Mrs. Garvey, the impeccable credentials of Captain Nick Tafuri, AAL & First Officer Donnie Williams, AAL – much like the Micronesia crew – the highly experienced, former US Air Force, professional airman of the ill-fated Cali crash.

Administrator Garvey issued a public statement, saying ‘Highway’ type Synthetic Vision systems represented a potentially significant enhancement to the safety & e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e N a t i o n a l A i r Transportation System (NAS).

Later the “HIGHWAYS” film was exhibited to NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin, his staff and American Airlines’ AMR Vice Chairman, Bob Baker (deceased), at an Industry Conference hosted by NASA’s Cleveland Lewis Research Center at Cleveland International Airport (KCLE) in Ohio, in October of 1998.

A former TRW engineer involved in sensor-based spatial awareness, Administrator Goldin, in company with attending FAA Administrator Garvey on the dais, detailed to the five or six hundred other industry attendees, that one day soon, a business jet would depart from Cleveland, arrive at Teterboro, NJ and return safely, using

‘Synthetic Vision’ – never having seen anything through the cockpit windows.

It was beginning to appear The Sky’ would at last industry advancement.

the ‘Highway In lead to broad

That morning, at a private breakfast with FO Brooks, AMR Vice Chairman Baker had offered to set up a meeting in Seattle, Washington with Boeing CEO Phil Condit, to prime the pump for a ‘Highways’ paradigm shift among vendors and at American. To his credit, Baker later testified before Congressional committee, as to the desirability of commencing ‘Synthetic Vision’ cooperation between industry, the FAA & NASA – though internal AMR company communications would later omit this portion of his testimony from the AAL employee news publication.

Based on the ‘Highways’ Administrator Goldin, briefing, NASA earmarked an additional 50 Million USD for ‘Synthetic Vision’ programs in NASA’s Aviation Safety Program.

Later in December 1998, Goldin convened an executive level meeting with industry CEO’s, about larger cooperation with NASA on ‘Synthetic Vision’ and other necessary improvements to air transportation.  Mr. Goldin was at pains to demonstrate he regarded the industry as NASA’s customers. In fact, he vigorously asserted this doctrine to the NASA employees in attendance at the Cleveland conference – in front of everyone.

The knock in the industry was NASA folks enjoy ‘science projects’ with little practical effect in the marketplace.

To his credit – on his watch at least – this would not be so, for Administrator Goldin’s NASA.

Mr. Goldin specifically authorized the Space Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) to acquire topographic data over 80% of the Earth’s land mass, creating the first ever near-global data set of land elevations. The ten day mission flew from 11-22 February 2000, producing the terrain data necessary to populate the ‘Highway In The Sky’ terrain database for aviation.

Never before had industry & government functioned so well together.  It was happening!

Meanwhile, FO Brooks & Professor Wolfgang Kubbet of the University of Technology – Darmstadt, Germany agreed to write a proposal to NASA to fund creating terrain database protocols necessary for ongoing monitoring of changing surface obstacle data, into the future. FO Brooks dubbed the effort the “International Terrain Database Integrity Group” (ITDIG).  Commercial aviation chart manufacturer Jeppeson, Inc. hungrily joined in & the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) stood up an industry committee to manage the work. The Allied Pilots Association detailed a Graphic Navigation Committee member pilot to serve as secretary for the group.

NASA’s Aviation Safety Program issued a contract for the work.

NASA’s ’Synthetic Vision’ systems were flown on NASA 737 and 757 aircraft by technical pilots of American Airlines, Alaska Airlines and others – at KDFW, challenging Reno International Airport (KRNO) and elsewhere.

Sadly, labor relations descended further into long-simmering acrimony for Americans Airlines and its employee groups in the late 1990’s and abruptly, advances on shifting paradigm for true spatial awareness in air transportation aircraft, using the “Highway In The Sky”, were quietly subsumed by what can now be judged, as pecuniary, shortsighted considerations.

At length, Cdr. Hoover (USN, Ret.) died and was interred with full honors at Arlington National Cemetery in March of 1998, eulogized by former US Marine Corps Aviator, member of the ‘President’s Hundred’ at the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio, the Marine Corps High Power Rifle Team and the APA Graphic Navigation Committee (GNC), First Officer Jeffrey Cooper, AAL.     The US Navy refused a fly over.  American Airlines LAX Chief Pilot, Capt. Len Duncan, a former Navy S-3 Viking Aircraft Commander, refused First Officer Brooks’ attendance at the memorial despite request of Cdr. Hoover’s widow. Captain Duncan had, a decade earlier, handed an American Airlines pilot employment application to FO Brooks, a then US Coast Guard HU-25A Falcon Aircraft Commander.

Cdr. Hoover’s farsighted thumbprint on American Society is yet understood by but a handful of remaining admirers.

In fact, the flat panel display you are reading this recitation with now, extended as just one of the many innovations in his remarkable military, aeronautical & space programs.

Capt. Cecil Ewell, a Navy Combat veteran, (retired from AMR with full pension & perquisites intact) never realized his full charter for leadership in the air transportation sector, as Vice President of Flight for American Airlines, the largest air carrier in the world. His oft recited airman maxim,

“Enter no airspace your mind has not already occupied,” now echoes deficiencies hollow with tinny irony, as of the EGPWS system he advocated, are laid bare, in the operation.

Capt. Rich Lavoy, a former Navy P-3 Orion Aircraft Commander, later retired from American Airlines, having been shooed from office by impatient peers embroiled in labor strife with AMR, who felt compulsion to shift from his long-view, visionary leadership style, as President of the pilot’s association, to a ledger-oriented, dollars & cents approach. APA’s Graphic Navigation Committee – stood up to lead the industry to the necessary future beckoned by Cdr. Hoover’s insightful vision – was abdicated in near-sighted, even myopic focus, at the moment it was needed most for burgeoning air transportation. This was especially true in non-English speaking cultures, where international standard, English-placarded flight decks, are nevertheless a necessity to operability in global air traffic. Pilot Association board members never quite grasped that emoluments & remunerations they coveted to extract from an adversarial

Railway Labor Act (RLA) process, lay before them like a smorgasbord of professional credibility, in the industry leadership they eschewed to harvest, by shifting operational paradigms.

Design void, created by the American pilots association leaders’ folding their tent on ‘Synthetic Vision’, connects directly to the present Micronesian event. They had turned their backs on perhaps the greatest opportunity that would ever present itself, to reshape their entrenched industry -mired in decades of railroad style, ‘steam gauge’ thinking – to emerge as the new leaders of an improved, more humane, safer & more effective air transportation system.

CEO Don Carty of AMR stepped down, sometime after a teleconference call on the afternoon of September 11th, 2001, with his fellow US major airline CEO’s and the FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety & Security, General Michael Canavan, US

Army (Ret.), during which Mr. Carty and his peers strenuously & unanimously argued for getting US airliners immediately back up in the air, to prosecute airline business plans despite continuing, unmitigated, demonstrated threats to the American public

and to the nation’s strategic infrastructure by air terrorism – all of which registered on the chagrined, disbelieving ears of Administrator Canavan, who had just been seated in his FAA safety post, a short nine months earlier.

He would not last long.

Later it would be realized, as many as a dozen aircraft had been targeted for use in attacks from coast to coast.

AMR and American Airlines would pay a dear price for Mr. Carty’s stunning hubris, when a week into October of 2001, an American Airlines Boeing 767 wide body aircraft suffered another breach attack upon its cockpit, nearly causing loss of the aircraft and its over 170 passengers & crew, while on descent into heavily populated metropolitan Chicago, as a disturbed assailant burst through the cockpit door at a run, grabbing the captain’s control yoke, intent upon crashing the aircraft from altitude.

Air Transportation owed its very continuity to the courageous flight crew onboard that day, including Capt. Dean Weber, AAL and First Officer Vince Belzer, AAL who physically fought the intruder off and subdued him.

Capt. Weber managed to body jet in controlled flight cockpit melee keep the wide during the wild.

A former US Marine Corps Aviator and collegiate wrestler, FO Belzer exercised remarkable restraint in sparing the life of the assailant that day – literally while New York’s toppled Twin Towers were still smoldering, on the heels of September’s horrific 9/11 events just weeks earlier -realizing in the moment, a deadheading, uniformed American First Officer had raced forward, in company of other passengers, to appear at the cockpit door to assist FO Belzer with removing the attacker from the flight deck. It was a sticky instant as, all alone, Vince was compelled to quickly decipher what purpose brought them en masse to his door step, just then.

Had that aircraft gone down – so quickly on the heels of 9/11 tragedies – it is certain the entire air transportation industry would have been grounded once more, this time for an extended period, pending results of the accident investigation & deployment of substantive measures to secure the National Air Transportation System, something yet to be fully achieved…even now.

So much for business plans.

Several weeks earlier, an internal American Airlines memo, entitled “Airline Safety Action Plan” (ASAP), prepared by FO Brooks, had predicted such ‘copycat’ attacks upon the flight decks of transport aircraft.

In reflection, it was easy to see – now that it was understood how simple it was to enter the flight deck – there would follow more of the same.

The ‘ASAP’ memo was circulated among pilot officials, AAL Flight Managers and forwarded to Senior Vice President of Operations for American, Gerard Arpey, (later AMR CEO) describing concrete measures, in a ‘2 week, 2 month & 2 year’ response, to secure the nation’s air carrier operations.

The ‘ASAP’ plan would go largely unheeded – save perhaps for some well-meaning, but ineffectual Congressional interest – even to present.

Capt. Frank Nehlig, a former combat proven Naval Aviation Pilot (NAP) like Geo. Hoover and former American Airlines Base Manager at Los Angeles International Airport (KLAX) – during Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) lift provided by American Airlines, supporting opposition to Communist incursion in Southeast Asia in the 1970’s – was laid to rest along the banks of the Delaware River, on a little rise, underneath the approach path to Philadelphia International Airport (KPHL).

He maintains quiescent vigil there, peradventure, a lonely sentinel, should his brethren stray below glideslope, of a future dark & stormy evening in Pennsylvania.

Captain Nehlig had accompanied FO Brooks on several enjoyable visits to Cdr. & Mrs. Hoover’s lovely Pacific Palisades home to discuss American Airlines deployment of George’s ‘Highway’ system.

As his fellows long observed – Fate is the Hunter.

First Officer Brooks was excoriated by airline functionaries, when he and other American pilots across the system, stood to voice candid objections, to continuing operations – absent substantive mitigation of security threats in the weeks & months following the demonstrated breaches of the 9/11 attacks.

He had refused to choke down the perverse Big Lie, controlling airline managers had foisted upon pilots & cabin crew, to parrot before the traveling public that – All is Well and Not to Worry.

Once again, his admonitions had proved prescient.

Out of these contested chapters, returned the long-denied capacity of US air transport pilots to keep & bear arms, for protection of their passengers, crew and the American public.

Ten years later, on 1 November 2011, before AMR would prospectively declare bankruptcy, as parent corporation of American Airlines, FO Brooks retired per force, some fourteen years early – to preserve receipt of what pension had till then accrued.

Among the some 270 10,000 pilots at American only senior airmen managed to correctly decipher the signals, departing with pensions intact, before that door would promptly swing shut forever. Ironically, the sudden departure of these senior pilots -many populating the wide body, international routes, where the greater increment of revenue is yielded – forced the hand of CEO Arpey and his merry band of rapacious Wall Street privateers, to prematurely trigger the corporate bomb they had constructed, distastefully imploding the airline early, during the lucrative holiday travel season, as international crew ranks thinned alarmingly and the prospect of further early retirements loomed in the AAL pilot corps, creating a great sucking sound, as revenue waned among unserviced routes & pension obligations quickly mounted by an order of magnitude greater than customary – a double whammy.

Such were the sub-geniuses afoot at the helm of the world’s largest airline.

Their tens of millions in personal guarantees and more, at length did however, demonstrate a certain clever venality, by the bye.

Messieurs Arpey, Horton, et al, at AMR, while busy accounting their pre-packaged fortunes, would perhaps never realize the coded signals passed among experienced American airmen – in the clear, for all with ears to hear – portending of the Damoclean Sword about to befall them.

Again, Enter no airspace your mind has not already occupied.

Nonetheless, for the larger part, the dawning realization by pilot leaders that they had inadvertently backed their way into the control they had long coveted at American Airlines, by finally withholding their further service & choosing whole, lump sum retirements, rather than bindings of tenuous lifetime annuities from the Airline – in an industry with virtually no margin over it’s previous century of blood, sweat, tears & travail, among the wind scoured bones of many a defunct carrier -came too late for pilots to wield with practical effect.

The power yet available to them in withholding their service entirely – RLA be damned – would soon be smartly curtailed forever.

On November 29th, 2011, AMR motioned for Chapter 11 Reorganization, in the US Southern District Court of Manhattan, advised by Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital, in a secret, prepared action – months in the planning – that would see some 40% of employee pensions and more, dissolved at a stroke, under summary gavel of a complicit, buccaneer bankruptcy court.

AMR had some $5 Billion in cash and tens of billions more – in American Airlines routes & assets – at time of its gratuitous filing.

The soaring American Airlines Eagle was now become a Predatory Capital Vulture.

In Matthew 6:24 we learn, You cannot serve God and mammon.

T’was ever thus.

Thus did it come to pass, that at Chuuk in Micronesia, a perfectly good passenger jet could be accidentally driven into the water, with many lives precariously in the balance, in scheduled air transportation, as late as the year of our Lord 2018, while systems to preclude such an ignominious fate had flagged untended for six (6) decades and more, at the highest levels of air transportation authority.

And so it goes.

©P. Brooks. All rights reserved.

Biden climate speech in Egypt reveals bad science, massive spending and regulation thumbnail

Biden climate speech in Egypt reveals bad science, massive spending and regulation

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

President Biden, seeking to “greenwash” his failing energy policy, delivered a speech at COP 27, the big UN climate conference in Egypt.

The President falsely attributed a host of natural weather events to climate change and then went on to detail a massive laundry list of wasteful climate spending and destructive regulation.

The President said that:

In the United States, we’re seeing historic drought and wildfires in the West, devastating hurricanes and storms in the East.

Here in Africa — here in Africa, home to many nations considered most vulnerable to climate change, food insecurity [and] hunger follows four years of intense drought in the Horn of Africa.

Meanwhile, the Niger River in West Africa, swollen — swollen because of more intense rainfall, is wreaking havoc on fishing and farming communities.

In Nigeria, flooding has recently killed 600 people; 1.3 million more are displaced.

Seasonal livestock migration routes have been used for hundreds of years are being altered, increasing the risk of conflict between herders and local farming communities.

President Biden is wrong.

All of this is natural weather.  Government policy can help people suffering the impacts of extreme weather, but nothing on this list was meaningfully caused by our use of energy.

Floods, droughts, fires, storms, even African “livestock migration” are historically normal and not your fault.

Watch President Biden’s full COP 27 remarks at CFACT.org and read the full transcript and judge for yourself.

President Biden’s media office, joined by Climate Envoy John Kerry, released a lengthy U.S. climate “fact sheet” that summarizes Biden’s climate spending and regulation since he took office and their plans for the future.

Here’s a sample:

  • Double U.S. contributions to the UN “Adaptation Fund” from $50 to $100 million this year.
  • $150 million for “climate resilience in Africa.”
  • $20 million for small island states
  • $5 million to the Migration Multi-Partner Trust Fund to support “climate-affected vulnerable migrants.”
  • Launching a “Climate Gender Equity Fund”
  • $250 million for power generation in Egypt
  • Severe clampdown on methane emissions by American energy producers with $20 billion in spending
  • Close to $4 billion on “Green Shipping” initiatives
  • Require federal contractors to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and comply with government mandated emissions reductions
  • Commit U.S. national government operations to be “net zero” no later than 2050
  • Quadruple U.S. climate finance to over $11 billion a year
  • More than $65 billion in climate finance through the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and U.S. Export-Import Bank

Read the President Biden’s full climate “fact sheet” at CFACT.org.

In addition to Biden, Friday saw a presentation at COP 27 by the Republican “Climate Caucus,” who many see as “useful idiots” playing into the hands of the climate-Left.

As CFACT’s Adam House posted to CFACT.org: “by participating in this ‘Decarbonization Day,’ these Republican lawmakers have legitimized the UN’s message of collectivism, massive taxes and government spending, corrupt and alarmist science, and centralized power. In their attempt to be part of the conversation, they have only eroded the conservative message.”

President Biden’s climate and energy agenda is based on unsound science, would lead to massive erosion of national sovereignty, individual liberty, and prosperity that will weaken the free world and empower its adversaries.

This cannot stand.

Yet what lies in store for those of us with the courage to marshal the facts and correct the record on climate?

Take a look at this photo Marc Morano posted of a climate radical calling for the “death penalty” for “climate deniers” to CFACT’s Climate Depot.

If world leaders go on shamelessly egging them on, could climate radicals go from attacking great works of art to attacking people?

AUTHOR

Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president.

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

COVID Amnesty? How About Unconditional Surrender? thumbnail

COVID Amnesty? How About Unconditional Surrender?

By Selwyn Duke

Brown University professor Emily Oster has created quite a stir with her recent article asking for a “pandemic amnesty.” In it, she calls for “both sides” in the COVID debate to forgive each other so we can focus on solving current problems. If Oster wanted exposure, she certainly got it, with commentators far and wide responding to her plea. If she wanted to heal wounds and close chasms, however, she failed miserably. Many have told her to go pound sand.

Genuine calls for forgiveness are noble, but, Professor Oster, you (and your critics) miss a significant point here: Forgiveness does not obviate punishment. Were it otherwise, following Jesus’s “70×7” prescription would mean emptying the prisons and hurting our beloved children by never holding them accountable for misbehavior.

So I’ll do my best to forgive, Professor Oster, but forgetting? No! I speak for many in saying that your plea is rejected — and offensive. And for there to be even the beginning of a rapprochement, there are two requirements (I’ll speak in this piece of “two sides” even though, of course, there’s much variation within each):

  1. You must hand over your “leaders” for judgment and justice.
  2. You must issue a genuine mea culpa and demonstrate that you’ve learned from your mistakes.

This matters immensely. Many on my side are angry, but I’ll nonetheless do what I and others did during the pandemic — not what you did, professor. I’ll react based on reason and not emotion and say that I’m not seeking retribution, viscerally pleasurable though it may be. And reason’s application informs that, as Herbert Spencer put it, “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.” Thus must the foolish and often fiendish pandemic puppeteers be in the dock — and thus must their erstwhile puppets demonstrate that they’ve learned from the past.

Unfortunately, though, professor, you appear to have learned virtually nothing. You speak as if the COVID battles were some kind of mutual misunderstanding that degenerated into an ugly rift. This is yet another slap in the face. There was nothing mutual about it, not in terms of misunderstandings or malevolence or power or persecution.

Though many of us counseled against COVIDian madness, my side was content to let you and your fellow travelers wear a mask, or three masks; take a genetic-therapy agent (GTA) shot, or five; social distance by six feet, or 60; shut down your businesses and lock yourselves indoors for one month, or six; and generally behave like mysophobic Chicken Littles. But that wasn’t good enough.

Not only did you impose your mask empire and distancing fancies on us, but you shut down our businesses as part of a COVID regulation regime; destroyed livelihoods; impoverished people; caused untold numbers of lockdown-induced, secondary-effect deaths; and tried coercing us into taking the GTAs under pain of career destruction, firing tens of thousands of Americans who resisted your will. Why, CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen, cheered on by millions of you and speaking for many more, actually said that people such as me, GTA realists, should be prohibited from participating in society and banished to our homes. You also censored us when we dared explain our dissent, said we were killing people and impugned our character and patriotism.

By the way, Wen more recently renounced much COVIDian theology and wrote an article about how she no longer believes in masking children because her young son suffered mask-induced developmental problems. Yet as with you, professor, she issues no apology for her ill-informed, life-rending prescriptions.

Speaking of which, Professor Oster, you wrote of our correct prescriptions that in “the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck. And, similarly, getting something wrong wasn’t a moral failing.” “We didn’t know,” you protested. Well, speak for yourself, professor.

Of course, some did oppose COVID regulations based purely on a desire for liberty or relied on instinct. Yet a twist on a famous saying comes to mind here: The more I research, the “luckier” I get.

Was it luck, professor, when I cited Dr. Knut Wittkowski — former longtime head of the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at the Rockefeller University in New York City — as warning in an April 1st and 2nd, 2020 interview that lockdowns were counterproductive? He also provided sage but unheeded prescriptions for managing the disease.

Was it luck, professor, when I cited experts as saying in February 2020 that the vast majority of us will contract the coronavirus, that most cases are mild and that “vaccines” wouldn’t save us? This information, by the by, was printed in the liberal Atlantic, the very magazine that published your piece! Did you miss it?

Was it luck, professor, when I cited early data out of Italy showing that the COVID mortality victims were aged 79.5 on average and more than 99 percent had comorbidities, again indicating that it wasn’t a disease imperiling the majority? Was it luck when I, presenting research, warned in 2020-’21 of masks’ lack of efficacy and the perils they pose, especially to the young? I could mention additional data, studies and experts I and others drew upon, but the point is this:

You could have known, professor. But you didn’t show due diligence. You had your head buried in establishment media and wouldn’t pay any mind to those who dared contradict it. Hey, only Ivy League input need apply, right, professor?

This matters because the problem isn’t that you fell victim to COVID propaganda; it’s that you’re the kind of person who could fall victim to COVID propaganda. And unless this changes — unless you learn from past mistakes — you’ll just make similar ones again during a future crisis. In fact, we see the same phenomena even now with climate change.

You also say, professor, that we should be willing to move on because most of those adopting bad policy had good intentions. Yet even if this were true, it’s irrelevant. A doctor can have the absolute best intentions but still be sued into oblivion for malpractice.

What of your claim, however? Does it reflect good intentions

  • when politicians, such as Governor Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), imposed onerous COVID restrictions on us but then arrogantly violated those rules themselves?
  • when officials said we knew little about a “novel” virus but then made continual cocksure pronouncements and, colluding with Big Tech, censored anyone contradicting them (including the aforementioned Dr. Wittkowski)?
  • when an effort was launched to turn COVID “heretics” into second-class citizens?
  • when even today some schools have GTA mandates for young people, despite the well-known health risks?
  • when Dr. Anthony Fauci and other officials continually lied to America while accusing dissenters of peddling “misinformation”?

Of course, it’s true that man is complex and people rationalize — aka, lie to themselves — perhaps more than they lie to others. But if the above is the result of good intentions, professor, who needs bad ones?

The point, however, is that these COVIDian “leaders,” such as Fauci and Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D-Mich.), must be held to account and not survive, in power, to tyrannize another day. Yet our pseudo-elites instead continue to fail upwards, with your support, professor. But, then, you enjoy the same benefits, don’t you? Why, you say you’re now actually co-teaching a college class on COVID. Talk about an idiocracy!

In conclusion, Professor Oster, you opened your article mentioning that in “April 2020, with nothing else to do, my family took an enormous number of hikes.” This brings us to my response to your amnesty proposal: You can go take another one.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Gettr or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: No chance of pandemic amnesty for enforcers of false COVID narrative

UN Climate Conference Does Not Value Our Freedom But Loves Our Cash thumbnail

UN Climate Conference Does Not Value Our Freedom But Loves Our Cash

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

CFACT is at the big UN climate conference in Egypt where we are engaging in climate diplomacy with a far different perspective than most.

CFACT questions fearlessly, informs diligently, and communicates relentlessly.  Underlying our approach is our bedrock confidence that individual freedom is both the most efficient way to order human society and an “unalienable right.”

At the UN climate conference a freedom-oriented approach can be a lonely endeavor.  Freedom creates prosperity.  One thing the ideologues and profiteers here assembled do value, however, is our cash.

CFACT’s Marc Morano told Mark Steyn on GB TV that, “Al Gore went beyond billions, tens of billions, he’s now talking four trillion dollars annually and he doesn’t even want it from governments. He wants some kind of corporate spending on climate. Al Gore has upped the money game like I’ve never seen in the history of all these climate summits.”

CFACT’s Peter Murphy engaged a COP 27 energy panel and reports that, “when I questioned her about the concern that many people do not want to live in cities and enjoy having their own car, and that such government mandates are at variance with democracy, she retorted that “we are not against democracy…we are about showing people that it benefits them.”

Murphy saw the climate command and control mindset was on full display when urban planner Kathleen Cameron told the panel “if we make roads narrower so people can’t speed through them, people feel inconvenienced, and they’ll want to go to alternative forms of transit. If you make it less fun to drive, you will soon discover that riding a bike is incredibly free and empowering.”

There are some signs that government officials are waking up to our continued need for fossil fuels, but sadly they would rather import them than produce them at home.  Real Clear Energy published an article I submitted where I write, “European and other countries are finally realizing that they still need fossil fuel energy – that wind and solar are too expensive and unreliable to power modern economies, preserve jobs, and keep people warm during frigid winters. Russia’s war on Ukraine has driven this home dramatically.

So Europe wants to switch from Russia to Africa for oil, gas and maybe coal – while still refusing to finance fossil fuel projects for Africa’s own needs, and telling Africa to rely on wind and solar.”

While Europe and America definitely need to wake up and unleash domestic energy production, Duggan Flanakin points out at CFACT.org that one positive note being repeated at COP 27 is that Africa has vast energy resources that can lift up that continent and the world.  “The message that.. countless African entrepreneurs and growth-oriented officials have for COP 27 is to get out of the way and let us “Drill, Baby, Drill.” The world, they argue, will benefit from a prosperous, energized African continent.”

The UN climate folks are intent on wrecking our energy economy and are making a concerted push for vast power as they seek unimaginable riches.

Too many people are unaware of what the UN is up to in Egypt and just how dangerous climate extremism has become.  That needs to change.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UN demands $2 trillion per year for climate!

COP 27: Watch CFACT’s Morano on GB news — “Gore has upped the money game”

CFACT’s Murphy confronts UN over its central planning strategies at COP 27

COP 27: UN climateers hoisted by their own alarmist petards

The real promise of COP 27: African energy can build Africa and save Europe

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

Congress needs to investigate the criminal snooping of the FBI and HHS thumbnail

Congress needs to investigate the criminal snooping of the FBI and HHS

By Martin Mawyer

Federal law enforcement agencies are violating the 1974 Privacy Act by gathering, storing, and demanding social media posts be throttled or censored.


The sensible ambition of every human is to feel secure. To feel safe. To be worry-free from random or intentional attacks.

We desire it so much, that most are willing to sacrifice a little less freedom to obtain it.

Normally, those precious freedoms are gobbled-up by some government agency promising to snatch only a small portion of our personal sovereignty if we allow them to act as an iron shield against organized mobsters, gangs, criminal syndicates, and terrorists.

So, track us. We don’t care. Monitor us. Listen to what we say. Put a camera on every corner. Review what we write. Frisk us. Scan us. Snoop all you want. We have nothing to hide. We know the difference between right and wrong.  After all, it’s not about us.

Heck, we hardly notice those freedoms being scarfed up. The invasion of our privacy rights is ghostly, invisible, and ethereal.

All is fine and dandy‚ until…

…the government redefines what’s right and wrong.

Then we see it.

Now, we’re the bad actor. And good luck trying to reclaim those freedoms that could have protected us in the past.

Last week, Intercept (a leftwing, online news publication) shook America with the astounding revelation that the FBI and Homeland Security are working with Big Tech to scrub the internet of information they label “inaccurate.”

“Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the US government has used its power to try to shape online discourse,” the article reveals.

The goal of the Government is to scrub the internet of social media posts that “drive a wedge between the populace and the government.”

To that end, agencies inside the FBI and Homeland Security – that previously focused on international terrorists, such as ISIS – are using their snooping tools to go after Americans who post “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation.”

If any of these law-enforcement employees determine a social media post will lower the nation’s “trust in government,” the content is flagged, stored, and then sent back to the originating social media platform with the expectation the message will be suppressed, throttled, or eliminated.

The snooping tools of the FBI: Babel X, Dataminr, ZeroFox

As much as I would like to reveal more about the findings in the Intercept story, that’s not the intent of this article.

I aim to broaden the discussion on a few things the Intercept article briefly mentioned.

Intercept reports that government officials have a unique portal to Facebook to request takedowns or throttling of postings they don’t like, which means anything that harms the “cognitive infrastructure” of the United States.

(The “cognitive infrastructure” would mean everything would be game)

But one of the most puzzling questions I wanted to be answered was how the FBI has the manpower to review virtually every social media message posted on the World Wide Web.

One of the answers is Babel X.

In April of this year, the FBI spent $27 million to purchase 5,000 licenses from Babel X.

In its purchase request, the FBI notified Babel X:

“The tool shall be able to gather information from the following mandatory online and social media data sources: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn, Deep/Dark Web, VK, and Telegram,” the bureau said.

But they’re hoping for a far greater reach.

The FBI also asked Babel X to give them the ability to search Snapchat, TikTok, Reddit, Gab, Parler, Discord, and others.

Bable X aside, the FBI also uses Dataminr to scour the data highway.

The FBI has 200 agents plugged into Dataminr (with its “advanced alerting tool”) to review Twitter posts that meet the bureau’s interest.

Of course, the FBI claims they need these tools to combat “terrorists and other criminals” that “communicate, recruit, and raise funds for illegal activity.”

But thanks to FBI official Laura Dehmlow [quoted in the Intercept story] we know the FBI also wants to eliminate the threat of “subversive data utilized to drive a wedge between the populace and the government.”

That “subversive” information, according to Intercept and a lawsuit filed by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, includes “malinformation” or “disinformation” of Joe Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal, Covid vaccines, the Hunter Biden laptop story, racial justice, the Ukraine war, and the 2020 election fraud claims.

The answer to how the FBI can monitor and takedown posts believed to harm “trust in government” is also found in a program called ZeroFox.

In court records, the FBI said they also monitor the Internet with ZeroFox (a $14 million contract) that surveils organizations across social media, including web domains, online news sites, blogs, forums, deep/dark web, and even email.

The “great” feature of ZeroFox is that it provides its customers with a “takedown service,” which allows the FBI to hide, delete and block posts they don’t like.

Read this from ZeroFox:

“Although ZeroFox will initiate a takedown request on behalf of a customer [such as the FBI], the social network or other online provider assesses the request against its own terms, rules and policies and decides whether to act on, or reject, the request. In other words, the third-party provider controls whether the material is removed.”

Of course, big corporations may fail to convince Facebook, for instance, to remove an unflattering post. But a request coming from the FBI?

Who wants to get on the wrong side of the FBI?

The 1974 Privacy Act protects American citizens

At one time, the FBI and Homeland Security focused their surveillance efforts on ISIS and other international, radicalized terrorist organizations and cartels.

For the most part, Americans applauded these law enforcement agencies and their zeal to protect America from another 9/11 attack. We weren’t ignorant, though. We knew it meant the FBI and DHS would resort to monitoring every crevice of the virtual world in all its forms, styles, and behaviors.

But we convinced ourselves we would never become the target of the US Government and their massive and invasive snooping tools that can collect, store, suppress or eliminate what we post.

Now, we know better.

But we can fight back.

The 1974 Privacy Act makes it illegal for the Federal Government to engage in any activity that gathers, maintains, keeps secret files, or releases to non-government parties the identity of citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

Here are two important sections found under 5 US 552a of the 1974 Privacy Act that we can reasonably believe are currently being violated by many federal law-enforcement agencies:

“Each agency that maintains a system of records shall maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statue or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.” (emphasis added)

“Any officer or employee of an agency…who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.” (emphasis added)

The takeaway is:

  1. It is illegal for the Federal Government to maintain, collect, or use any social media post that falls under the protection of the First Amendment.
  2. It is illegal for any federal employee to release that social media post to any person or agency (think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.) that is not entitled to receive it.

In addition, the 1974 Privacy Act requires the Federal Government to explain when the information is being gathered, why it is needed, and how it will be used. They must also ensure that those records are handled only for the reasons given.

Who believes the feds, when gathering up posts on Joe Biden’s failed withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example, are completing the process of explaining why that collection was needed and how it will be used?

America needs answers.

The way to get those answers is for Congress to immediately launch a full-scale investigation using its sledgehammer power of subpoenas to determine the numerous violations of the 1974 Privacy Act, including criminal offenses.

©Marin Mawyer. All rights reserved.

Italy’s Conservative New Prime Minister Stands Up to Migrant Smugglers thumbnail

Italy’s Conservative New Prime Minister Stands Up to Migrant Smugglers

By Jihad Watch

The new Italian government refused to let male migrants leave the smuggling ships and enter Italy.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni vowed to resist mass migration. The low bar at stake here is the migrant smuggling operation in which NGOs pick up mostly Muslim migrants and “rescue them” by transporting them to Italy.

The new Italian government lightly put its foot down and refused to let the male migrants leave the smuggling ships and enter Italy.

Cue Das Outrage.

Charities have branded the actions of the Italian government “illegal” after it prevented 250 people disembarking two migrant rescue ships.

They’re not “rescue ships”. That’s a legal fiction, they’re human smuggling ships. And Italy has said that they’re welcome to take their “rescuees” who are no longer in any danger, anywhere they please.

So long as it isn’t Italy.

Migrants set sail in small, overcrowded boats from North Africa – often they get into distress and are rescued by charity vessels.

Correction, they get into the boats as a starting point for a feigned rescue and transportation to Europe where they can rob, rape and bomb to their hearts’ content.

In total 144 people were allowed to disembark the Humanity 1, which sails under a German flag, on Sunday morning. In the afternoon, 357 people were allowed off the Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF)-run Geo Barents, which sails under a Norwegian flag.

Italian Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi said those who did not qualify as vulnerable would have to leave Italian waters and should be taken care of by the “flag state”.

Why can’t Germany, the home of Wir Schaffen Das, take them? Or Norway?

The charity, known in English as Doctors Without Borders, added that “a rescue operation is considered complete only when all of the survivors have been disembarked in a safe place”.

Both charities said everyone on board their ships was vulnerable as they had been rescued from the sea.

That’s how this legal fiction works. The migrants pretend to be in distress. The smugglers pretend to rescue them. And now suddenly the illegal migrants are entitled to invade Italy because all the men are “vulnerable”.

“Free all the people, free them,″ Italian lawmaker Aboubakar Soumahoro said, calling the government’s new policy “inhuman”.

“Italian lawmaker”.

Soumahoro, 40, arrived in Italy from Ivory Coast at age 19 and went to work in the fields picking crops. But he aimed higher. He enrolled in the University of Naples and earned a degree in sociology.

Just think of all the sociologists and politicians on board those boats.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran: Islamic Republic forces murder man who honked his car horn in support of the protests

Australia: 15-year-old Muslim pledged allegiance to Islamic State, provided guidance on bomb-making

Iran Warns Saudi Arabia to Stop Reporting on Protests

Philippines: Muslims murder one, injure 11 in jihad attack on bus, Christians and Muslims condemn attack

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

MILITARIZING ELECTIONS: Florida Bans Biden’s DOJ Federal ‘Election Monitors’ From Polling Places thumbnail

MILITARIZING ELECTIONS: Florida Bans Biden’s DOJ Federal ‘Election Monitors’ From Polling Places

By The Geller Report

National Guard Cybersecurity Units Activated in 14 States Ahead of Midterm Elections: Reports

pic.twitter.com/LGnEmbDjzs

— 1970Brat (@1970Brat) November 8, 2022

Florida Department of State to DOJ:

“federal election ‘monitors’ are not permitted inside polling places as it would be counterproductive and could potentially undermine confidence in the election.” pic.twitter.com/I3TdaozUxG

— Jason Delgado (@byJasonDelgado) November 8, 2022

BREAKING REPORT: Biden’s Department of Justice Announces List of 64 JURISDICTIONS WHERE THEY WILL MONITOR POLLING PLACES ‘For Compliance’…

— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) November 8, 2022

Florida Department of State hits back at The Department of Justice –

“FEDERAL ELECTION ‘monitors’ ARE NOT PERMITTED INSIDE POLLING PLACES as it would be counterproductive and could potentially undermine confidence in the election.”

The Democratic Party is militarizing our elections.

233 years of American elections and this is unprecedented. Only a party that wants to steal elections engages in such behavior.

THIS is ‘voter intimidation.’ 👇 pic.twitter.com/UazvKOQBQ7

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) November 8, 2022

The National Guard doesn’t “oversee” our elections. The American people, independent poll watchers who are non-partisan or from each party, and the state legislatures “oversee” our elections.

Enough of this anti-democratic behavior from this lawless, authoritarian Biden regime.

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) November 8, 2022

pic.twitter.com/LGnEmbDjzs

— 1970Brat (@1970Brat) November 8, 2022

BREAKING: Florida Department of State sent a letter to Biden’s DOJ telling them their federal election monitors are banned from going inside polling places

The Dept says it would be counter productive and undermine confidence in the election

— Brendon Leslie (@BrendonLeslie) November 8, 2022

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED TWEETS:

I just received this text message: A friend from Indiana, please pray for them also Dr. Swier. No results at all. But all electric was shut off in the city from 12-1:00. We have a Democrat mayor….a lot of people vote at noon 😡 #TheDemElectonStealIsOn

— Dr. Rich Swier (@drrichswier) November 8, 2022

KJP: “We may not know all the winners of elections for a few days. It takes time to count all legitimate ballots in a legal and orderly manner. That’s how this is supposed to work, and it’s important for us to all be patient…” pic.twitter.com/7u4YeaT4yO

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) November 7, 2022

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats are right: Democracy is on the ballot today

BREAKING: Voting Machines Down in New Jersey’s Mercer County, “County-Wide System Outage.”

ABC News Preps The Steal: “Republican Leads Will Crumble Completely, After Perceived ‘Dumps’ of Votes’

Arizona Maricopa County: Machines “Not Working” and Ballots Being “Misread”

IT BEGINS: NYC Polling Station Temporarily Shut Down Due To Pipe Bomb Threat

Democrats Are Not Going To Relinquish Power Peacefully

RNC Prepares For Election Integrity Legal Fights As Midterms Get Underway

Fetterman Sues to Have Illegal, Undated, Misdated Ballots Counted in PA

Officials Report Voting Machine Malfunctions, Issues Just Hours Into Election Day

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

Who Authorized the Department of Homeland Security to Police Online Speech? Not Congress thumbnail

Who Authorized the Department of Homeland Security to Police Online Speech? Not Congress

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Newly published documents obtained by the Intercept show the US government is actively shaping online discourse and policing speech. This invites a question: who gave them this authority?

When George W. Bush signed the Homeland Security Act in 2002, the goal was to improve national security by strengthening government at various levels and helping them identify and respond to threats, particularly terrorism.

”The continuing threat of terrorism, the threat of mass murder on our own soil, will be met with a unified, effective response,” said Bush. ”Dozens of agencies charged with homeland security will now be located within one cabinet department with the mandate and legal authority to protect our people.”

The law contained “severe privacy and civil liberties problems,” the ACLU argued, but the legislation enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Only nine Senators voted against it (eight Democrats and one Independent).

Bush tapped Tom Ridge as the first secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, but public policy experts admitted it was unclear precisely what the new department would do.

”The first challenge is to lower expectations,” Paul C. Light of the Brookings Institution told The New York Times. ”People should think they will be safer, but remember we have a long way to go.”

One thing not mentioned in the Homeland Security Act is free speech. The word “speech” does not appear on even one of the law’s 187 pages.

Nevertheless, newly-published documents published by The Intercept show the extent to which the DHS is now actively involved in using the power of the US government to shape online discourse and police speech by pressuring private platforms behind closed doors.

“In a March meeting, Laura Dehmlow, an FBI official, warned that the threat of subversive information on social media could undermine support for the U.S. government,” The Intercept wrote of one message. “Dehmlow, according to notes of the discussion attended by senior executives from Twitter and JPMorgan Chase, stressed that ‘we need a media infrastructure that is held accountable.’”

According to a copy of the DHS’s capstone report outlining top priorities in the coming years, the department intends to hold media accountable by targeting “inaccurate information” on a range of controversial topics such as “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine.”

That DHS was seeking to police speech and shape online discourse was not in itself a revelation. In April 2022, the Biden administration announced the creation of a Disinformation Governance Board, but the initiative was paused after just three weeks over widespread public outcry after the board was dubbed “the Ministry of Truth” by critics.

What the Intercept’s story reveals is the overt pressure the government was exerting on private companies to censor speech. For example, the Intercept described a “formalized process” government officials used to flag content on platforms such as Instagram and Facebook to throttle or remove problematic content.

The story also shows how the revolving door between government and the corporate world created enthusiasm for DHS initiatives.

“Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain,” Microsoft executive Matt Masterson, a former DHS official said to DHS official Jen Easterly in a February text message, according to the Intercept.

Though the most overt government attempts to shape and censor online discourse began under the Biden administration, the road to DHS’s “Ministry of Truth” project began under the Trump administration.

In November 2018, following a series of high-profile cyber attacks, Trump signed into law legislation known as the CISA Act, which created the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a standalone federal agency dedicated to fighting cyberterrorism.

Like the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the word “speech” doesn’t appear anywhere in the legislation. Nor do the words “misinformation” or “disinformation.” However, one line in the sprawling law (Section 318) contains these four words: “Social media working group.” It is presumably this line that led CISA to boast of its “evolved mission” to, in the words of the Intercept, “monitor social media discussions while ‘routing disinformation concerns’ to private sector platforms.”

In 2018, to respond to election disinformation, DHS created the Countering Foreign Influence Task Force and began flagging voting-related “disinformation” that appeared on social media platforms—even though the words “election” and “vote” appear nowhere in the CISA Act. By the following year, DHS was employing fifteen full- and part-time staff tasked with “disinformation analysis,” and in 2020 the department’s disinformation focus had expanded to include Covid-19.

In 2021, CISA created a “Misinformation, Disinformation and Malinformation” team—replacing the Countering Foreign Influence Task force—and disinformation agents were now focused on domestic transgressions as well foreign.

A law that had been passed to protect critical infrastructure in the US from cyber attacks was now being used to censor Americans on social media.

The mission creep of DHS is breathtaking. Nowhere in the Homeland Security Act or the CISA Act is the department authorized to police speech, yet since 2018 it has led the broadest and most dangerous assault on free expression in modern American history.

The newly published documents vindicate those who’ve argued the true threat to speech and online discourse is not “misinformation”—as many progressives contend—or woke tech companies—as many on the right have argued—but the government itself.

The reality is, the government is not uniquely benevolent, knowledgeable, or honest. In fact, governments are arguably the most dishonest organizations in history, and the US government is no exception, as some have noted.

“Our government produces lies and disinformation at industrial scale and always has,” journalist Jack Shafer wrote in Politico after the White House unveiled its disinformation board in April. “It overclassifies vital information to block its own citizens from becoming any the wiser. It pays thousands of press aides to play hide the salami with facts.”

To find evidence that government is not in the truth business, one need look no further than the DHS, who for the better part of a year targeted online “disinformation” that explored the possibility that the virus may have originated from a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

While the origins of Covid-19 remain uncertain, government officials, media, and social media administrators treated the lab leak theory as a crackpot conspiracy unfit for discussion. For the better part of a year, people who speculated about the lab leak theory on platforms such as Facebook faced censorship and suspension, because of the DHS’s active role.

That the federal government—which had been funding the Wuhan lab and gain-of-function research—might have motives beyond altruism to suppress this narrative was conveniently ignored, as were pertinent facts. This included a US intelligence assessment in early 2020 that acknowledged the virus may have been released accidentally from an infectious diseases lab, as well as reports that State Department officials had previously acknowledged concerns about safety protocols in Wuhan.

By mid 2021 the White House itself had acknowledged the credibility of the lab leak theory, but only after DHS had waged a prolonged disinformation campaign against it.

Twenty years ago when the Department of Homeland Security was created, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold was one of the few Senators to vote against the Homeland Security Act.

“We have to protect both the people and their freedoms,” said Feingold while speaking of his broader opposition to the Bush administration’s War on Terror policies.

It’s now clear that Feingold was right when he said the laws failed to strike “the right balance between law enforcement and civil liberties.” In their effort to make people more safe, federal lawmakers created a bureaucracy that is now trampling the very rights it was created to protect, a fact that would not have surprised the 19th Century economist Frédéric Bastiat, who noted the state’s tendency to grow and become an oppressor of rights.

“Instead of checking crime, the law itself [has become] guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!” wrote the author of The Law.

The American Founders, in their quest to create a limited government to prevent this evil, created the First Amendment. It plainly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

We now know the DHS has now been working quietly for years to abridge free speech, and it has done so with no explicit legal authority; the laws Congress passed speak not a whisper about regulating speech.

The Department of Homeland Security needs to be put in check, and it reminds us of an ancient question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who guards the guardians)?

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

The Country Is In The Middle Of A Diesel Crisis — And The Biden Admin Is Making It Worse, Experts Say thumbnail

The Country Is In The Middle Of A Diesel Crisis — And The Biden Admin Is Making It Worse, Experts Say

By The Daily Caller

  • The Biden administration’s policies reduced diesel production and caused stockpiles to fall to dangerously low levels, experts told the DCNF.
  • “There’s an enormous tax and regulatory burden that the Biden administration has put on refining along with other industries,” Josh Young, chief investment officer and founder of energy investment firm Bison Interests, told the DCNF.
  • “At the moment refining capacity cannot meet demand, even when we have enough oil,” Institute For Energy Research Senior Vice President Dan Kish told the DCNF. 

The Biden administration has implemented policies that have hurt diesel production and caused stockpiles to hit their lowest levels since 2008, experts told the DCNF.

The U.S. is facing a diesel shortage which is causing the Biden administration to consider taking action to shore up supplies as fuel refiners struggle to produce enough fuel to meet heavy demand. Diesel supplies have become dangerously low due to recent refinery closures that have been exacerbated by the Biden administration’s regulations as well as increased fuel demand following the coronavirus pandemic, experts told the DCNF.

“There’s an enormous tax and regulatory burden that the Biden administration has put on refining along with other industries,” Josh Young, chief investment officer and founder of energy investment firm Bison Interests, told the DCNF. “Emissions rules and general regulations have increased tremendously under the Biden administration, raising operating costs and causing some refineries to either shut down or not expand operations.”

“There’s an enormous tax and regulatory burden that the Biden administration has put on refining along with other industries,” Josh Young, chief investment officer and founder of energy investment firm Bison Interests, told the DCNF. “Emissions rules and general regulations have increased tremendously under the Biden administration, raising operating costs and causing some refineries to either shut down or not expand operations.”

Crude oil, which is pumped in the U.S. or imported, must be processed at refineries to produce distillate fuels like diesel and gasoline. The Biden administration has continuously imposed environmental policies to cut carbon emissions and achieve “environmental justice” which have damaged refiners’ output.

Limetree Bay Energy in June closed down its U.S. Virgin Islands refinery, a facility that could process 210,000 oil barrels per day, as it could not afford to install special emission monitors that were mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency, according to Reuters. The refinery reopened in February; however, in May the EPA forced the plant to temporarily close and ordered the plant to install 18 sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide monitors before it restarted operations.

The EPA in April rescinded exemptions that would have allowed over 30 refiners to avoid blending renewable biofuels into diesel even though refiners claimed that this would hike costs and decrease output, according to an agency docket. Companies in the U.S. have also not built a major oil refinery in 50 years due to regulatory concerns and anticipation that the green transition will kill demand for fossil fuels.

The coronavirus pandemic, which shut down economic activity, has also contributed to diesel shortages, according to Patrick De Haan head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy.

“COVID caused demand to suddenly plummet to the point where refineries started to idle and companies shut down their facilities back in 2020,” De Haan told the DCNF. “As we recovered from COVID there was a surge in demand that we saw for not only diesel but other products as well and that’s put us in a situation where we have only 25 days of distillate supply remaining.”

Diesel demand recovered much faster than refiners anticipated, meaning that production has to catch up to meet demand, Institute For Energy Research Senior Vice President Dan Kish told the DCNF. The U.S. has lost more than one million barrels per day of refining capacity since 2020, according to the Energy Information Administration.

“At the moment refining capacity cannot meet demand, even when we have enough oil,” Kish said.

White House National Economic Council Director Brian Deese said on Oct. 19 that the administration is “very concerned” about diesel shortages, particularly in the northeast of the country, and indicated that the White House may limit or ban exports of refined petroleum products. The American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, two industry groups, sent a letter to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Oct. 4 claiming that an export ban would exacerbate shortages.

“An export ban would distort the market and essentially force refineries out of business which is the opposite of what is needed right now,” Young said.

The administration could also deploy the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve’s one million barrels of diesel to address shortages in New England. However, because diesel demand is so high, the reserve’s supply would last less than six hours, according to The Washington Post.

Diesel inventories are in good shape when there are around 35 to 40 days of supply available; however, when there are just 30 days of supply left or fewer, problems can start to arise, according to Mansfield Energy. When there are only 25 days left of diesel supply, there is not enough fuel to keep industries operating if supplies are significantly disrupted, as fuel must be delivered via pipelines, meaning that vast quantities of fuel are days or weeks away from getting to where they need to be.

Diesel demand will further increase as cold weather approaches since 82% of households use diesel to heat their homes during the winter, according to the EIA.

“As NOAA’s forecasts warmer-than-average temperatures in the Southeastern U.S. and along the Atlantic coast this winter, DOE remains fully engaged and partnered with state, industry, and interagency partners as the country prepares with the winter season,” an Energy spokesperson told the DCNF.

The White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

JACK MCEVOY

Energy & environmental reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here’s How Biden’s Backroom Deal To Boost Oil Production Ahead Of The Midterms Fell Apart

Dem Pollster Claims Party Doesn’t Acknowledge People’s ‘Legitimate Concerns’

McCarthy, GOP Poised To Pounce In ’23. Here’s Their ‘Number One Promise’

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.

Will Elon Musk ‘free the bird’? I certainly hope so. thumbnail

Will Elon Musk ‘free the bird’? I certainly hope so.

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

European regulation of online speech will be a speed bump for the new owner of Twitter.


After a complicated, winding, and tense standoff between Musk and the Twitter board, as well as a pending legal trial at a Delaware Chancery Court, the eccentric billionaire finally agreed to abide by his original agreement and purchase Twitter in its entirety. Elon Musk is now the sole owner and CEO of Twitter. In typical Musk style, he wandered into Twitter headquarters carrying a sink, to “let that sink in.”

Musk has repeatedly expressed his disapproval of Twitter’s heavy-handed and politically inflected moderation policies, and has insisted on various occasions that Twitter ought to become an open and inclusive “digital town square,” where citizens of diverse political persuasions can exchange opinions freely. In a recent tweet aimed at advertisers, Musk said:

The reason I acquired Twitter is because it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence. There is currently great danger that social media will splinter into far right wing and far left wing echo chambers that generate more hate and divide our society.

The notion of a “common digital square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner,” is the very opposite of Twitter today. Right now, Twitter is essentially a “safe space” to express Woke, leftist, pro-lockdown, and pro-Big Pharma opinions, and a very dangerous place for anyone who wanders from the fold of left progressivism or says something that could potentially endanger Big Pharma’s profits.

Twitter has been shamelessly suppressing inconvenient truths, if they happen to run against Twitter’s version of reality, in which Covid vaccines are about as safe as paracetamol, male and female biology are an assault on citizens’ rights to “gender identity,” and Big Pharma CEOs are altruistic saviours of humanity.

If this were just a silly game, the suppression of one side of the debate would be annoying, but no big deal. However, it is a game in which the stakes are extremely high. As things stand, Twitter is arguably the most important digital forum in the world, so suppressing important medical information concerning issues like vaccine harms and potential Covid treatments may literally be a matter of life and death.

The question is, can and will Elon really “free the bird,” as he so colourfully put it himself? Recently, in a query from Jordan Peterson’s daughter, Mikhaila concerning whether he can get her Dad back on Twitter, he has indicated that “anyone suspended for minor & dubious reasons will be freed from Twitter jail.” In a separate tweet, Musk has indicated that “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints. No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes.”

@elonmusk can you bring my dad @jordanbpeterson back on here but also somehow make sure he doesn’t spend all his time on Twitter? 🙃

— Mikhaila Peterson (@MikhailaFuller) October 28, 2022

It is true that Musk has, in the past, backtracked on important statements, including his original offer to purchase Twitter. But his stance in favour of free speech has been quite consistent, so I see no reason to doubt that he sincerely intends to “free the bird” from the heavily biased, politicised, and frankly Orwellian censorship policies it has been weighed down by for the past few years. Not to mention that it may be very good business to welcome non-lefties and non-Covideans back onto the platform.

If Musk manages to follow through on his free speech dream, then we could see the release of thousands of people from permanent Twitter “jail” over the coming months, including yours truly (Twitter handle @davidjthunder), as well as a radical revamping of Twitter’s anti-scientific and politically partisan moderation policies, which have served, principally, to protect certain scientists, politicians, and corporations from serious public scrutiny and challenge.

But dreaming is one thing, implementing another. Even if Musk manages to pull off the Solomonic task of keeping advertisers, investors, and customers more or less happy with his new moderation policies, he will also have to contend with governments that are increasingly enthusiastic about using their legislative and regulatory powers to shut down speech they object to.

I wish I could say that it only private actors like Microsoft and Google that suppress free speech. But it turns out that many of the people who currently stand at the helm of our governments, most notably in the European Union, seem to be determined to “protect” the public from what they happen to deem “dangerous or harmful” speech.

The aggressive regulation of speech by governments may come in the shape of notoriously malleable “hate speech” laws, which inevitably end up criminalising speech that is disagreeable to this or that political tribe, or “misinformation” laws that require people to only express opinions on matters of medicine and science that certain powerful actors in the political, pharmaceutical, and scientific establishment approve of.

It is worth noting that as soon as Musk announced that the “bird is freed,” Thierry Breton, EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, replied, “in Europe, the bird will fly by our rules.” He was referring to increasing efforts by the European Commission to clamp down on what they perceive as “misinformation” and to potentially impose enormous fines on Big Tech platforms that do not live up to the EU’s expectations concerning the regulation of “misinformation.”

👋 @elonmusk

In Europe, the bird will fly by our 🇪🇺 rules.#DSA https://t.co/95W3qzYsal

— Thierry Breton (@ThierryBreton) October 28, 2022

Twitter is one of the 37 signatories of the 2022 Code of Practice on Disinformation promoted by the European Commission, which includes a set of commitments which appear from the official website to rely heavily on self-regulation, even though the Commission monitors compliance with the code. Even if this code of practice is difficult to police in practice, it provides a political tool to pressure Big Tech companies into doing the Commission’s bidding.

What is especially worrying is the Digital Services Act, which was passed into law by the European Parliament on 5th July 2022. The Digital Services Act, as reported by Ecommerce Europe,

aims to set an ambitious framework to guarantee a safe and trustworthy online environment for consumers, mainly by introducing new obligations for digital service providers. Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), designated as ‘online platforms which reach a number of average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union equal to or higher than 45 million’, will have to comply with stricter rules, enforced by the Commission.

According to Thierry Breton, one of the Act’s most fervent advocates, one of the features of the Digital Services Act is that it introduces “a harmonised system to fight ALL forms of #illegal content – from counterfeit or dangerous products to hate speech. Any national authority will be able to request that illegal content is removed, regardless of where the platform is established in Europe.”

1️⃣ With great power comes great responsibility 🕷

 

The DSA is setting clear, harmonised #obligations for platforms – proportionate to size, impact & risk.#DSA

— Thierry Breton (@ThierryBreton) April 22, 2022

Breton goes so far as to suggest that the European Union could impose steep financial and regulatory sanctions for non-compliance: “The DSA imposes effective and dissuasive #sanctions. From #fines for breaches of obligations of up to 6% of global turnover to a #ban on operating in the EU single market in case of repeated serious breaches.” Don’t ask me if any of this would withstand judicial scrutiny. But the threat of massive fines and bans for non-compliance is coming from the highest level of the European Union, so I imagine Mr Breton has thought through the legal ramifications of these threats, and is not just bluffing.

🔟 A possible mechanism of #emergency response in the event of a crisis⚡️

 

We cannot rely solely on platforms’ goodwill when facing crises, pandemics or wars.

 

Europe needs a legal tool to require large digital players to react quickly in case of emergency.#DSA

— Thierry Breton (@ThierryBreton) April 22, 2022

To cut a long story short, if the laws of any given jurisdiction become an instrument of tyranny and Groupthink, Mr Musk will be put in a tough spot, and might find himself under enormous pressure to back away from his free speech commitments. That would feel like a terrible betrayal of his declared mission of creating an inclusive “digital town square.”

On the other hand, if Elon Musk is willing to fight the Eurocrats, he might be able to win some legal battles for free speech. Undoubtedly, the European Commission is flexing its muscles in the hopes of intimidating Musk into compliance. But if Musk cares about free speech as much as he says he does, he might just dig in and put the legality of the Commission’s threats to the test in a court of law.

All of this assumes, of course, that we can take Musk at face value in his fighting words on behalf of free speech. Only time will tell if that is true. But there aren’t too many glimmers of hope in the world of Big Tech and free speech these days, so I’ll take whatever breadcrumbs of hope I can pick up along the way.

This article has been republished from David Thunder’s Substack, The Freedom Blog.

AUTHOR

David Thunder

David Thunder is a researcher and lecturer at the University of Navarra’s Institute for Culture and Society. More by David Thunder

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

EXCLUSIVE: Migrants Are Given ‘Literal Roadmaps’ To Reach The U.S. Border. And Big Tech Is Funding It! thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE: Migrants Are Given ‘Literal Roadmaps’ To Reach The U.S. Border. And Big Tech Is Funding It!

By The Daily Caller

  • Doctors Without Borders is handing out maps to migrants that show several different routes to the U.S. border, according to a map seen by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • “As a medical humanitarian organization providing medical and mental health care to people on this migration route, MSF [Médecins Sans Frontières] prints and distributes these maps to ensure that people know where to find shelter and humanitarian assistance and how to access mental health services along the migration route,” Doctors Without Borders spokeswoman Jessica Brown told the DCNF.
  • The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) labels the documents “literal roadmaps to guide migrants from Central America to our southern border,” in a statement to the DCNF.

GUATEMALA CITY, Guatemala — Doctors Without Borders, a medical aid nonprofit which is funded by a number of prominent tech companies, is publishing and distributing maps to migrants showing routes through Central America that reach the U.S., according to a copy of the map seen by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The map is labeled “shelters for people on the move” in Spanish and lists a number of clinics and other areas where aid can be found along the journey to the U.S., according to the document. While Doctors Without Borders hasn’t received U.S. government funding since 2002, the group still receives sizable donations from American companies, including from tech giants Microsoft, Google.org and Amazon.

The group has also gotten millions in donations from the foundations of billionaires Elon Musk and Michael Bloomberg, according to its website.

“As a medical humanitarian organization providing medical and mental health care to people on this migration route, MSF [Médecins Sans Frontières] prints and distributes these maps to ensure that people know where to find shelter and humanitarian assistance and how to access mental health services along the migration route,” Doctors Without Borders spokeswoman Jessica Brown told the DCNF.

Click here to view the Daily Caller News Foundation map.

The map shows paths starting in Guatemala that lead up to the U.S.-Mexico border. Each path is marked with locations for shelter and aid along several different routes through Central America that end in the U.S.

The map also lists the locations of clinics and shelters along the Mexican border across from major U.S. cities, such as El Paso, Texas and San Diego, California.

“The fact that an international medical NGO with billions in the bank is making literal roadmaps to guide migrants from Central America to our southern border is not only an affront to its core mission, but a globalist attack on our sovereignty,” Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Director of Government Relations and Communications RJ Hauman told the DCNF.

The map is labeled “Medicos Sin Fronteras,” which is the name used by the organization’s offices in Argentina and Spain, which have separate finances in addition to a combined international account with the U.S. office.

Doctors Without Border has previously highlighted its work “assisting migrants on their dangerous journeys.”

“We provided treatment for people emerging from the Panama side of the jungle, who are mainly from Cuba or Haiti, although our teams have seen people from West Africa. Regardless of origin, everyone passing through the Gap is heading north, where they still face the dangerous route through Mexico, in search of a better life in the United States,” the group noted in a 2021 report.

Between October 2021 and September 2022, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encountered roughly 2.3 million migrants at the U.S. border with Mexico. Many of the migrants made the trek through South and Central America, where some are receiving the map, which Hauman compared to the smuggling operations of cartels.

“No American citizen, company, or foundation should give a dime to Doctors Without Borders until they quit working hand in glove with cartels and smugglers to enhance mass migration in the region While the federal government hasn’t funded Doctors Without Borders since 2002, there are plenty of other NGOs with similar missions that do quietly receive taxpayer dollars. Republicans must examine this immediately next Congress,” Hauman said.

Bloomberg, Google, Amazon and Microsoft also didn’t respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

The Musk Foundation couldn’t be reached for comment.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: Guatemalan President Lays Out How One Biden Policy Caused Migrants To Swarm The Border

Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation

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.

Biden Gives Divisive Speech: We Will Steal It and You Will Like It [Or Else]! thumbnail

Biden Gives Divisive Speech: We Will Steal It and You Will Like It [Or Else]!

By The Geller Report

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” – Edward Bernays, American theorist, considered a pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda – 1928


Questioning that is “unlawful.” Biden sounds like Stalin who said, “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

The Democrat media axis has it marching orders, prepare the American people for delayed election results so they can rejigger the numbers.

And while Elon is a pip, Twitter has joined the latest election putsch. Sign on and you get this:

Twitter: It takes time to count the votes

And yes, Pamela Geller and Geller Report am still banned from Twitter.

Joe Biden: Democracy Itself at Stake if You Vote for Republicans in the Midterms

By: Charlie Spiering, Breitbart News, 2 Nov 202281

President Joe Biden again warned on Wednesday of Republicans taking power in the midterm elections, arguing the “very soul of America itself” was in danger.

“We the people must decide whether the rule of law will prevail or whether we will allow the dark forces and … thirst for power put ahead of the principles that have long guided us,” Biden said during a speech delivered inside Union Station.

Biden began his speech by recalling a deranged individual’s attack on Paul Pelosi on Friday after the assailant could not find Speaker Nancy Pelosi in their home in San Francisco.

The president again tried to connect the attack against Pelosi to January 6, when Trump supporters stormed Capitol Hill to protest the 2020 presidential election.

Biden blamed former President Donald Trump for challenging the results of the 2020 election, which he argued only increased the number of incidents of political violence.

“We don’t settle our differences in America with a riot, a mob, or a bullet or a hammer, we settle them peacefully at the battle box — ballot box,” he said.

Biden’s speech was sharply partisan, ignoring Democrats who protested the results of the 2016 election falsely declaring Trump an illegitimate president elected because of Russian influence. He also ignored incidents of Democrat political violence and political figures who refused to acknowledge legitimate elections.

Instead, he blamed “extreme MAGA” Republicans.

“In this moment, we have to confront those lies with the truth. The very future of our nation depends on it,” he said, calling it a “defining moment” in American history.

He warned that over 300 Republicans running for office had questioned the 2020 presidential election, which symbolized the “appetites of autocracy” versus American democracy.

“We must with one overwhelming unified voice speak as a country and say there is no place for voter intimidation or political violence in America,” he added. “No place period, no place ever.”

Biden repeated many of the talking points about democracy he has pursued since his inauguration, again blaming Republicans for endangering the future of democracy in the United States.

The president argued that the future of democracy was more important than all other issues, implicitly calling for Americans to vote Democrat in order to save the future of the country.

“We must vote, knowing what’s at stake, and not just the policy of the moment,” he said.

Joe Biden’s speech tonight was one of the most divisive speeches ever given by a sitting President.

— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) November 3, 2022

Fixing our fraudulent elections is easy. Paper ballots:

As Geller Report reader SR explains, “France has a good system – voters show up in person on election day, the voter roll is checked and if they are on it they are given sets of cards of candidates for each party. In a curtained compartment they put a pre-printed card with just their own candidate’s name on it into a paper envelope, show their photo ID to an official who reads the person’s name aloud and validates that they just have one envelope, then the voter inserts it into a locked transparent box called an “urn”. At the end of election day, both locks on the urns are unlocked and under supervision the envelopes are put into batches of 100, and then the batches are distributed to several on-site teams who count the votes for each candidate with a lot of supervision and unambiguous “chain of custody”. The same thing is done the prior day by French citizens in foreign territories and living abroad, so that despite the time zone being later, their vote too will be counted and included on election day in France, instead of the final results having to wait until the next day due to the time zone.

On the other hand, electronic systems, provided by sketchy corporations some with links to Venezuela, where piles of ballot batches can optionally be fed in multiple times, or unofficial pre-filled ballots can be shipped in and introduced by partisan operatives, are prone to manipulation. Plus the voting software in some of these systems can “count” in an unconventional way that is hard to track and in theory accessed from outside or have their thumb drive controller swapped out. In addition, the mail-in ballots, unmonitored drop boxes, voter rolls padded with deceased and out-of-state relocated people who miraculously “vote”, and of course the lack of voter ID in many states. Even India has had a mandatory national voter ID card (the Electors Photo Identy Card – EPIC) since 1993. The “icing on the cake” is the scam of having nursing home personnel who routinely collect their residents’ ballots and vote for them.”

Biden says it’s “Unlawful” and “Unamerican” to not commit to blindly accepting the results of an election pic.twitter.com/5lKQ0pV2B7

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 2, 2022

BIDEN: “In some cases we won’t know the winner of the election for a few days, until after a few days after the election.” pic.twitter.com/oaRPAo3XZI

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 2, 2022

Joe Biden’s speech tonight was ugly and cruel and goblin-like to Americans suffering REAL WORLD problems.

Our civilization is on the brink of collapse and Biden used a primetime address from the Union Station DC slum to fear monger in a venal attempt to cling to power.

Demonic

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 3, 2022

LOL – @JesseBWatters nukes Biden: “That was the President of the United States confessing that he’s about to get wiped out a week from now” pic.twitter.com/KVp2uPUCDS

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 2, 2022

BIden calls for unity, hehe.

“We must stand against political violence. We don’t settle our differences with a mob, a riot, or a hammer.”

More about voter intimidation. “It has to stop now.”

Something about not giving in to political violence. pic.twitter.com/ekL4bVu6NZ

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) November 2, 2022

He’s slurring as usual.

“America is under attack,” because of Trump denying outcome of 2020 election. “He abused his power. He made a Big Lie an article of faith in the MAGA Republican Party.”

Biden says 2020 election was the most secure in history. “More than 300 election…

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) November 2, 2022

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Says Illegal Mail In Ballots Will Not Be Counted

Biden Regime Openly Interfered With Brazil Presidential Election As Millions of Brazilians Protest Rigged Results

LESSONS IN HISTORY….

As COVID Hit, Leftist and RINO Elites Traded Stocks ‘With Exquisite Timing’

MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan Brings On Jew-Hater Ilhan Omar to Discuss…Anti-Semitism

Democrat WI Senate Candidate Mandela Barnes Praises Iran’s Supreme Leader For His ‘Black Lives Matter’ Tweet

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

The Biden Administration’s Proxy War on Free Speech thumbnail

The Biden Administration’s Proxy War on Free Speech

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

Hold on to your hats.  We’re going to be learning a lot more about the Biden administration’s efforts to silence free expression through its proxy stooges in Big Tech.

A federal judge just rejected the Biden administration’s attempt to stop depositions of government officials in a lawsuit alleging a wide-ranging conspiracy by the administration and Big Tech to censor free speech.  Anthony Fauci’s deposition is set for November 23rd.  House Republicans sent a letter to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas calling him out for his agency’s role in censoring free speech.

More details about that role have come to light.  You might remember the agency’s Disinformation Governance Board that got shut down pretty quickly.  But DHS continues its efforts to curb free speech to this day.  Records from the conspiracy lawsuit, leaked emails and memos, and public documents show DHS pivoted to monitoring social media for the purpose of suppressing ‘misinformation’ the government doesn’t like about a wide range of topics, including the origins of COVID-19, COVID vaccine safety, and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Facebook created a portal for DHS and other government agencies to flag posts they don’t like, for quick action.  The portal is still in operation.  Facebook and the FBI won’t comment.  A previous report showed social media companies remove or post warnings on over a third of posts government agencies flag as objectionable.

Other agencies are also involved.  The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) on its own motion formed a misinformation team and expanded the agency’s mission beyond infrastructure to ‘building resilience to misinformation’.  The agency wants social media platforms to be more responsive to its directives.  An FBI official was criticized last year after falsely telling Congress the FBI does not monitor Americans’ social media posts.  The fact of the matter is the FBI has spent millions on social media tracking software.

Hunter Biden’s laptop shows you clearly why we do not want the government in the business of deciding what is true and what is false.  According to polls, many people would not have voted for Joe Biden if they had known the truth about Hunter Biden’s laptop.  But government officials called it ‘Russian disinformation’ and social media companies at the FBI’s urging dutifully suppressed the story before the 2020 election, a decision they now say they regret.  Thanks a bunch.

There’s really no difference between the government suppressing free speech and government officials getting private actors to violate the First Amendment for them.  That’s called the state actor theory and it’s at the heart of the Missouri Attorney General’s ongoing conspiracy case against the Biden administration and Big Tech where depositions are going forward and will soon give us a lot more information about all these bad actors violating your rights.

But there’s more.  The federal government paid four private companies to flag so-called ‘misinformation’ on social media during the 2020 election, resulting in the censorship of election coverage from conservative news outlets.  The CDC told Facebook COVID vaccines for young children are safe and effective when there was no evidence of that, all so the CDC could suppress contrary information through Facebook in a campaign to overcome ‘vaccine hesitancy’.  Twitter has a portal for CDC officials to flag COVID-related posts it deems ‘misinformation’.  Documents from inside Twitter show the White House pressured Twitter to ban a New York Times writer who was raising questions about phony government COVID narratives.  Facebook spies on private messages and reports users to the FBI for expressing ‘anti-government sentiments’, whatever that means.

The Biden administration is waging a proxy war on our free speech.  The social media giants are only too happy to play along.   But with 47 more government defendants recently added to the conspiracy lawsuit, the day of reckoning is drawing closer and I, for one, can’t wait to see these overbearing authoritarian government officials and their fascist buddies in Big Tech get hammered for messing with the First Amendment.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

RELATED TWEET:

LOVING THE NEW DNC AD!!!🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/0P8xl0mK0a

— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) November 2, 2022

Why Do Big Cities Tend to Have Bigger Government? thumbnail

Why Do Big Cities Tend to Have Bigger Government?

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Like any place that generates significant wealth, cities also generate significant incentives to capture the wealth.


Last week I answered a question from a FEE reader on how the Federal Reserve creates money. This week, Aaron, a FEE Daily reader, asks a very different question:

“Why is it that more populous cities seem more inclined to adopt laws and regulations that restrict individual autonomy, and attract residents more likely to vote for representatives who advocate such policies?

What can residents in growing cities do to avert this tendency?”

This question is a little less straightforward than a typical economics question. As we learned last week, there’s a clear relationship between interest on reserves and the supply for money. But there’s no clear direct channel which explains why cities skew anti-autonomy.

Nonetheless, economics is a valuable tool we can use to explain all kinds of behavior. We’ll begin by considering Nobel prize-winning economist James Buchanan’s dichotomy of the romantic view of politics versus politics as exchange.

There are two potential views of politics. The first is a romantic view. In this view, politicians are altruistic, sacrificial public servants. Voters are well-informed and always choose those candidates who have the best interest of the public at heart.

In other words, politicians are angels. If the romantic view of politics is true, there’s a simple explanation to why cities seem more inclined to adopt laws that restrict individual autonomy. People who live in cities believe that is what’s best, and politicians cater to that desire.

There are clear problems with the romantic view of politics, but the biggest is that it is inconsistent with how we analyze most institutions.

Take businesses, for example. If businesses have the opportunity to increase profits by polluting, what will they do? Generally, economists will assume they will choose to pollute. Firms are assumed to be interested in making the most profits and will pollute if they don’t bear the costs of doing so.

So we assume business owners are selfish. This begs the question, why would we assume politicians are selfless?

It would be arbitrary and unconvincing to take a sober view of business but a romantic view of politics. Nothing about existing in government confers angel wings on individuals. If anything, we should expect the opposite.

It would be more symmetric to assume politicians, like business-owners, are pursuing their own ends which will not necessarily align with the ends of the public as a whole (though there is good reason to believe businesses will align with the public more often).

For example, it will sometimes be in the best interest of politicians to restrict liberty. They could do this by passing higher taxes to increase their budgets, doing favors for special-interest groups, or lobbying political actors to increase their influence.

In this alternative view, politics involves self-interested exchanges between politicians and, for example, interest groups.

But this still leaves us the question, why do big cities tend to have more of this seemingly selfish political exchange, assuming that’s often what’s going on with big-government policies?

Wealth is a dangerous thing to flaunt. When I have to run into a store quickly, and I have my laptop bag with me, I’m always careful to place it out of sight in the car. Sometimes I put it under a seat cover, sometimes I move it into the trunk, and, on occasion, I decide to take it with me.

It’s not difficult to understand why. I hide my laptop when I leave it for the same reason people store their valuables out of sight. When you have more wealth, and people know it, you are a bigger target for extortion and theft.

It’s no secret that cities tend to have a lot of wealth concentrated in a small area. This isn’t to say everyone in the city is rich, but all the production and exchange in cities make them hubs of wealth.

And, like any place that generates significant wealth, cities also generate significant incentives to capture the wealth.

Consider, for instance, that a group of taxi cab drivers is seeking to keep its would-be competitors out of the market. In order to do this, the company might lobby for regulations (like a limited number of permits) that would restrict competition.

What sorts of cities would be the best places to create this kind of monopoly? Big cities with a lot of customers would seem like a good target. The return to cutting out competition by lobbying the government is pretty low when your potential customer base is in the hundreds rather than the thousands.

So, the group of cab drivers could form an association which donates to the mayor’s campaign and lobbies for a permit system.

But if politicians did something so egregious as this, couldn’t citizens vote them out? They could, but it’s unlikely that they will. Let’s say the city has one million people and there are one hundred drivers in the cab driver association. If the regulation adds $10 of cost to the one million people, that generates $10 million to be divided among the one hundred cab drivers. That’s $100,000 per cab driver.

So the cab drivers can earn a lot more money by getting the regulation passed. The citizens only lose $10 each. They don’t like this, but it’s hardly worth the time to organize against the regulation (or even learn about it in the first place). This is known by economists as the logic of special interest groups.

Smaller cities are different. First, there are less people to take money from. Second, the average income is probably lower. Lastly, it’s easier for a small number of people to organize and oppose regulations like this than a large number.

Admittedly, this increased lobbying of big municipal governments would increase competition for lobbying, but as long as there’s some fixed cost of lobbying that exists without regard to city size, I’d expect this problem would be bigger in large cities.

Another group that has more ability to capture wealth in big cities is bureaucrats. If we assume bureaucrats are only interested in the welfare of citizens, they would keep the size of their bureaucracy down. But if bureaucrats care about power and prestige, they may seek to grow in size beyond what makes sense.

It seems obvious that bigger cities will need more workers than smaller towns. Services like road maintenance, utilities, sewage management, courts, fire departments, and administrative workers will grow as the population grows.

If the number of bureaucrats merely kept up with the growing population then there’s no problem. But if each of the new bureaucrats lobbies for larger budgets, bigger office buildings, and more coworkers, we can imagine bureaucratic growth feeding on itself.

Each new government worker brings with them demands for an even larger government (and the taxes necessary to fund it).

In big cities, this sort of growth can be hard to track. How many bureaucrats are needed to successfully manage the budgets of the municipal water provision in New York City? I haven’t the foggiest.

In my town, I know exactly where the office for that manager is. There is one employee there and I know her by name. If they added another employee it wouldn’t be a big deal. But if I walked in and there were five new people working there, I’d probably be a little suspicious about why that was necessary.

It’s much easier for voters to gauge bureaucratic bloat when they live in small towns.

If my above thinking is right, then government overreach is to some extent a function of what makes a city, a city. A very dense, large number of people seems to result in this sort of overreach.

The fact that this question was asked in the first place is a good indication that big cities and big governments go somewhat hand-in-hand (at least in the US).

But not all is hopeless. I’m not keen on political solutions, but I’m very optimistic about bottom-up entrepreneurial solutions.

For example, the taxi medallion cartel in New York City wasn’t broken up by regulatory change. Uber, Lyft, and rideshare apps juked regulators and their special-interest cronies.

This seems to me to be a model of the best way forward. Rather than spending resources trying to overcome bad political incentives, I trust entrepreneurs’ profit incentive to keep innovation one step ahead.

AUTHOR

Peter Jacobsen

Peter Jacobsen teaches economics and holds the position of Gwartney Professor of Economics. He received his graduate education George Mason University. His research interest is at the intersection of political economy, development economics, and population economics.

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

TAKE ACTION: Tell Biden ENOUGH Regulations! thumbnail

TAKE ACTION: Tell Biden ENOUGH Regulations!

By Heritage Action

Between these two regulations, millions of franchise owners and workers will be in jeopardy of losing their jobs as the franchise business model would be destroyed.

Furthermore, independent workers such as truck drivers, freelancers, Lyft and Uber drivers, and more will be forced into an employer-employee relationship that strips away the advantage and appeal of being an independent worker. They will lose the ability to choose their hours or choose their clients.

Biden’s plans have all failed to help our economy, but as President Reagan also said “The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.”

In the middle of an economic downturn restrictive regulations are the absolute last thing we need.

Help your fellow Americans—take two minutes to submit two comments to oppose these two rules!

Use our action center—Submit your comments now!

Janae Stracke

Director of Grassroots

Heritage Action

©Heritage Action. All rights reserved.