413 private links
Secretary Pete Buttigieg @SecretaryPete
·
Extreme weather is expected to be the top factor in supply chain disruptions next year. It reminds us how urgently we must work to set up our infrastructure for climate resiliency.
foxweather.com
Extreme weather expected to be top logistics disruptor for supply chains in 2024
3:20 PM · Jan 7, 2024 //
After the lies we were told in 2020 and 2021, I've become a skeptic/cynic whenever the government warns me about something.
In theory, the supply chain disruption in 2020 and 2021 was caused by COVID. But was it? The disruption was caused by the government's regulatory response to a crisis they created and amplified. //
In short, I see this as the leading edge of a gaslighting campaign to increase government control over our lives, and that will peak in time for Joe Biden to blame a major disruption of US supply chains that they see coming on anything but his policies. //
Wilsonreagan
4 hours ago
They are setting us up for climate lock downs. Covid was the test.
If one drop was $1, the national debt would fill an Olympic pool... 4000 feet deep...
KilRoy-db
3 days ago
Fill a tractor trailer with 18,000# of $100. bills it would take 1225 of them to carry 1 trillion
dollars.
So it would take 41,650 truck loads of hundred dollar bills for 34 trillion dollars.
MIND BLOWING THE AMOUNT WE PISS AWAY FOR SHITTY PROJECTS.......
Doubtless Democrats will argue that they can enact new laws and regulations to remedy the problem their last “solution” caused.
But the socialist left ignores that no law requires companies to invest in new drugs at all — they only do so because it makes financial sense. If it does not, then companies may invest in cloud computing technology, driverless cars, or many other types of projects instead.
Thatch @THATCH_ARISES
·
Here is some good news!
I already have to run things through my dishwaser twice because it is so "efficient" compared to the ones which only had to be run once.
Attorney General Andrew Bailey @AGAndrewBailey
BREAKING: The Fifth Circuit has sided with us in our lawsuit against Joe Biden's Department of Energy, stating "it is unclear how or why DOE thinks it has any statutory authority to regulate 'water use' in dishwashers and washing machines."
12:38 AM · Jan 9, 2024 //
Margot Cleveland @ProfMJCleveland
·
Wait! Does this mean we'll be able to buy a dishwasher that doesn't take 3.75 hours to wash and dry?
1:22 AM · Jan 9, 2024
Direct democracy not only represents a threat to freedom, but it is a political order that rejects hierarchies both natural and spiritual. //
“American democracy is cracking,” warns Washington Post Chief Correspondent Dan Balz in a recent column that presents some ideas to repair it. His suggestions include, among other things, proportional representation, diminishing the power of the Senate, and eliminating the Electoral College. What these three suggestions have in common is a desire to remove any intermediary institutions between the will of the people and government action — otherwise known as “direct” democracy. //
The framers of our Constitution felt quite strongly that direct democracy was something to avoid. In Federalist 10, for example, the Father of the Constitution James Madison warned of “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority” on a government, or what has come to be called the “tyranny of the majority,” in which a majority of the population exerts great coercive power over minority factions. //
A generation after that founding generation, visiting French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville authored an extended survey of American politics and culture, Democracy in America. Tocqueville perceived that the American political system was created to resist the tyranny of the majority, “which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence.” //
Yet such a deliberative process of testing is slow and uneven. And we Americans are often eager for speedy solutions. Political theorists, journalists, and ordinary citizens throughout American history have been frustrated by the Constitution’s manifold methods of distributing power to deter the tyranny of the majority. If a majority of the nation’s populace wants something, they posit, why shouldn’t they be able to get it? After all, as the journalist H.L. Mencken wryly commented, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
Such demands especially increase at times of heightened political gridlock in which the country obviously has a particular problem or set of problems but constitutionally mandated laws and procedures thwart attempts to resolve them. When we are all vexed with our politicians for failing to act in what we believe to be the interests of the nation (and its voters), it’s easy to be sympathetic to that line of thinking.
Yet we must beware of this temptation, which reflects what conservative political theorist Russell Kirk calls a manifestation of vox populi, vox dei — the voice of the people is the voice of God. In other words, as long as they constitute a majority, whatever the people want becomes the law of the land. //
As that great French observer of American politics Alexis de Tocqueville observed: “If ever freedom is lost in America, that will be due to the … majority driving minorities to desperation…”
Let’s do everything we can to avoid that scenario.
Tax his land, tax his wage,
Tax his bed in which he lays.
Tax his tractor, tax his mule,
Teach him taxes is the rule.
Tax his cow, tax his goat,
Tax his pants, tax his coat.
Tax his ties, tax his shirts,
Tax his work, tax his dirt.
Tax his chew, tax his smoke,
Teach him taxes are no joke.
Tax his car, tax his grass,
Tax the roads he must pass.
Tax his food, tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his sodas, tax his beers,
If he cries, tax his tears.
Tax his bills, tax his gas,
Tax his notes, tax his cash.
Tax him good and let him know
That after taxes, he has no dough.
If he hollers, tax him more,
Tax him until he’s good and sore.
Tax his coffin, tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he lays.
Put these words upon his tomb,
“Taxes drove me to my doom!”
And when he’s gone, we won’t relax,
We’ll still be after the inheritance tax.
Turner's bill would extend Section 702 for nine new years, not fix any of the warrantless search problems; plus, it will require hotels, fast food places, etc., with public WiFi to hand over user data on demand.
My view is simple. Section 702 needs to go away. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." //
We have tried this experiment with warrantless searches and have seen it turn out pretty much as expected. The privacy violations will only increase as AI matures and makes more sophisticated searches possible, and more and more of our lives are conducted using smartphones and various apps. There is no reason to believe that agencies that have violated Section 702 for two decades have suddenly decided to become civil libertarians.
Speaker Johnson should show some leadership and let this bill die. But we know how this movie ends, don't we? //
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt the Younger, Speech in the House of Commons, Nov 18 1783
While a ton of mistakes have been made in Argentina to bring the country to where it is, the vast majority of these mistakes stem from the belief that government is the path through which to do good things. It is not. Government is a necessary evil. It cannot be a source of good. You don't expect a venomous snake to inject you with vitamins and minerals upon biting you, yet we look at the snake that is government in the same way. //
This isn't how a free people should see government.
The government is a restrictive force by nature. Its job is to get in your way, and if not yours, then somebody's. This is utilized properly when it comes to fighting necessary wars and conflicts. We want our military to get in other people's way pretty efficiently. However, this gets turned on its head when federal law enforcement agencies are created, or enforcement agencies within government departments.
For instance, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why the IRS needed billions of our tax dollars to train "enforcers." After watching the FBI be weaponized against its own citizens on behalf of a political party, I'm not entirely sure why we need that department either. //
This is going to be a long march. Like a stain, once it sets into the fabric of a nation, big government bureaucracy is hard to get out.
It's going to take the Argentinian people to maintain that view of government that they have now and realize that the less of it that there is, the more successful the people are.
The same has to happen here in America, and I have every confidence we'll get there someday, but things may have to get worse before they get better. Things have to get to a point where it becomes beyond clear where the problem is and that we need people willing to go into government to reduce it by leaps and bounds.
We need law-unmakers, not lawmakers.
Cafeblue32
21 minutes ago edited
Education, healthcare, culture, women’s rights etc out (Afuera!)
Gee, I recall a time when the federal government didn't have agencies to control any of those things here. Yet we managed to be better educated in the basics, we still came up with cures for diseases, we had a culture that was both blended and separated naturally, and after 1920, women had the same voting rights as men to vote for change.
Government is supposed to be like a wedding venue- it provides the facilities, takes care of liability, and offers electricity, water and heat/air conditioning. It doesn't plan the wedding, officiate it, decide who the wedding party will be and their gender/color/queerness makeup, or MC the reception. //
TheAmericanExperiment
2 minutes ago
"or they can turn tail and run back to the socialists the moment things get difficult."
They elected Macri in 2015 whop ran on the same platform as Milei and after one term the "turned tail" elected a socialist to replace him. Argentina is probably already a failed state. I have friends there and they have all moved across the Rio del la Plata to Montevideo. It's completely unsafe there. The half of the population that hasn't sunk into abject poverty and hunger is becoming prey for those who have.
Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which challenges the authority of the administrative state. The defendant is George Jarkesy, a conservative radio host who was fined over half-a-million dollars by the SEC for allegedly defrauding investors and appealed this sentence by arguing that the SEC does not have the constitutional authority to do this. //
Ignoring the alarmism, Rosenblum’s reasoning somehow combines naivety and cynicism into an incoherent yet typically leftist argument. The cynical aspect is that he confuses the whole government with an executive agency. This means that instead of protecting the rights of its citizens, as is explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence, the government exists to tell its citizens what to do and how to do it. If the government is prevented from doing this, then Americans will automatically degenerate into savages and resort to harming one another in every way possible.
The naive aspect is that he assumes that executive agencies are actually neutral, trustworthy, and competent. Whether it’s the SEC, IRS, or the FBI, their agents are professionals with a heart of gold. They could never be corrupted with unbridled authority or gargantuan budgets. They would never target specific Americans, conduct political witch hunts, or neglect their actual responsibilities. //
Moreover, it is highly debatable just how honest and effective the SEC has been in keeping investors safe and preventing market manipulation. Whether it’s the insider trading of politicians like Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi, the multibillion-dollar fraud of scammers like Sam Bankman-Fried, or the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, it seems questionable that the SEC focuses its efforts on the financial shenanigans of a relatively small investor like George Jarkesy. And in today’s political climate, it would be foolish to assume that Jarkesy’s conservative positions didn’t also factor into the charges. //
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Jarkesy, it could make the market free once again and significantly weaken an unruly administrative state.
The audit found that Disney had complete dominance over the RCID. The Board of Supervisors was an extension of Disney’s corporate will. Board votes were allocated based on land ownership, which allowed Disney, as the primary landowner, to control Board elections, which ensured that the Board’s decisions always aligned with the company’s.
Even further, Disney used employee benefits as tools of influence. Members of the Board, along with RCID employees, received substantial benefits that were usually reserved for Disney’s own employees. These included annual passes, discounts on Disney products and services, and access to exclusive events. //
The audit found that Disney’s stewardship of the RCID was marked by a significant lack of development in public services and amenities. Even though its workforce continued to grow and more visitors were visiting the park, the company never invested in essential infrastructure such as workforce housing, schools, or public transportation.
"Under Disney’s control, the RCID built no workforce housing or schools and did not develop any public services directed at anyone but Disney tourists. The RCID never made Disney pay impact fees as all other developers in Orange and Osceola Counties must pay."
Disney was allowed to get away with refusing to give financial contributions that are typically expected from developers. For example, the company did not pay transportation impact fees, which are essential for funding infrastructure development and maintenance.
Sarcasm aside, the article accurately diagnoses the problems facing the housing market, and ultimately the economy, as a result of current interest rate policies. But particularly given events of the last several years, count this conservative highly skeptical that the “solution” to a problem caused in part by poor Federal Reserve policy can come via yet another policy intervention by Fed officials. //
Given that poor decision-making by the Federal Reserve helped cause the mess the housing market is currently in, what on Earth makes Alpert think that asking the Fed to meddle more will end in anything other than tears? //
The past quarter-century has seen all manner of, as Alpert put it, “creative policies” on the fiscal and monetary fronts. Those policies — ultra-low interest rates, quantitative easing, and massive fiscal stimulus — have in rapid succession brought us a housing crash, a financial crisis, years of economic stagnation, bubbles in nearly every asset class, tens of trillions of dollars in federal debt, and most recently the highest inflation in generations.
In the future, when I think about the textbook definition of America’s failed pseudo-elite, I’ll think of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.
In a Nov. 8 speech to Western state governors in Wyoming that was unearthed Monday, Cardona delivered this line about delivering technical assistance to states.
“As, I think it was President Reagan, said—‘We’re from the government, we’re here to help,’” he said. //
That’s certainly not what Ronald Reagan said.
The original, famous line comes from a 1986 press conference about agricultural policies in which Reagan said: “I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Of course, Reagan was channeling the strong belief of many Americans at the time that the federal government had become too big and too intrusive, and was mostly incompetent at delivering solutions to the problems of American society. //
T. Becket Adams @BecketAdams
·
The "education secretary" misstating a well-known quote regarding bureaucratic incompetence is too on-the-nose even for absurdist fiction. Any good editor would send it back and say, "Too much."
Townhall.com @townhallcom
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona:
"I think it was President Reagan who said, 'We're from the government. We're here to help!'"
Here's the actual quote:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
Embedded video
4:18 PM · Nov 27, 2023 //
Has American education really improved since the department was created in 1980? What does it say that the man who now leads it seems to be lacking in a basic understanding of history?
Whatever Cardona’s reason for botching the Reagan quote, it is an excellent illustration of the shallowness of our nation’s overcredentialed ruling class. Lacking both wisdom and a real education, they instead thrive on bland ideological conformity that stifles independent thought and elevates mediocrities.
America has had plenty of corrupt, incompetent, sinister, and downright crazy politicians and government officials in the past. But never before in our history have we had such uniform incompetence and ignorance embedded in positions of power. //
Let’s say you buy into the progressive-era ethos of replacing constitutionally limited government with an empowered, educated elite. How can one look at our current system and conclude that trading in America’s long tradition of self-government ushered in the rule of wise philosopher- bureaucrats? //
This problem isn’t just about Cardona or the Biden administration. It’s about the current failures of Western civilization and the United States.
When we think of the large and long-term failures of our government, when we think of the frayed and failing domestic institutions that have lost the trust of the American people, we should consider that our problem is not a few clowns in high places. The problem is an entire elite ecosystem that rewards the wrong values, that fails to develop the thinkers and leaders capable of leading a great society.
Our leaders know little about where we came from and less about where we are going.
Maybe one of the many reasons the leaders of our elite institutions stood by and watched, or outright cheered, when the mob came for the statues of our great men is that toppling monuments relieved them of embarrassing comparisons.
There seems to be no end to warrantless surveillance... //
PaulBart • November 27, 2023 7:14 AM
Yawn. Wikileaks Assange still in jail. Snowden still fugitive in Russia. Hillary and the “missing” emails still not “found”.
Lets have state-sponsored health care. Nothing says government boot tastes delicious like having your medical records and health issues handled by the state. Mmm-mmm good. //
Aaron • November 27, 2023 10:19 AM
A government should know next to nothing about its people.
A people should know almost everything about their government.
The world is upside-down
For those who jumped all over @PaulBlart, you’re missing his point.
People who exposed illegal government actions are still prosecuted as criminals.
Government individuals who perform illegal actions are still in government.
The world is upside-down
The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits programs like this.
Yet it persists and gains funding
The world is upside-down. //
JonKnowsNothing • November 27, 2023 11:50 AM
@Aaron
re: You missed the memo – along with millions of others
The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits programs like this
No, No, No it doesn’t – anymore.
A good number of years back, before the NSA lost control of the narrative, they used to claim they did everything according to the “commonly understood meaning” of the 4th amendment: Get a Warrant.
Once they began to lose control, they were confronted by their real usage of this amendment. There are videos of the debate with Gen Michael Hayden on this topic along with a laugh track at what he said. He said it plain and clear.
Gen Hayden is one smart guy and you never want to enter a debate with him.
-
The 4th states that “unreasonable” searches require a warrant
-
It does not say ALL searches require a warrant, only “unreasonable” ones
So, it was quite simple logic shift -
All searches are now “reasonable” and not “unreasonable”
-
All searches include “everything” the new definition of “relevant”
So the NSA, CIA, All USA Leas do not need a warrant unless they want to.
If they want to arrest someone and charge them with some crime, they will get a warrant via parallel construction for the courts. //
Aaron • November 27, 2023 6:29 PM
@JonKnowsNothing
I didn’t miss the memo
I served under Gen. “Porky the Pig” Hayden
The memo is an illegitimate power grab from a long line of 3 letter agencies that no longer serve the purpose in which they were commissioned for.
The FBI and CDC neglected to thoroughly investigate a CA biolab operated by Chinese nationals containing deadly transmissible pathogens. //
It’s worth mentioning that the CDC based its classifications on the vial labels and refused to test any of the samples, knowing that “absent testing, local officials would have to destroy all samples pursuant to a forthcoming abatement order.” Despite already being deemed an “illegal enterprise,” the agency also issued a three-page report concluding there was no evidence UMI violated U.S. law and that there weren’t any “select agents or toxins.”
While destroying the pathogens and materials, local officials discovered a freezer filled with silver bags containing samples of Ebola. According to the report, the CDC did not appear to be aware of such materials. Nonetheless, the pathogens were destroyed pursuant to the court order. //
“The CDC’s refusal to test any potential pathogens with the understanding that local officials would otherwise have to destroy the samples through an abatement process makes it impossible for the Select Committee to fully assess the potential risks that this specific facility posed to the community,” the report reads. “It is possible that there were other highly dangerous pathogens that were in the coded vials or otherwise unlabeled. Due to government failures, we simply cannot know.”
etba_ss
10 hours ago
I do not understand all the pearl clutching over hateful speech, "misinformation", etc. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not less. Regulating, stifling and controlling speech is always a bad idea. Expose the bad ideas and expose the lies.
If you try to ban them, whoever has the power to ban them gets to be the one who tells you what is true and what is not. I don't trust anyone or any organization to do that. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Yes the result of free speech will be people saying really bad, nasty things and lying. That has always been true and is the price paid for liberty. If something is really egregious and violates actual laws, there are methods that can be employed to track and trace the origin. Platforms can suspend accounts, etc. There are some controls already in place and frankly, many of us have been arguing the controls are already too restrictive with social media companies censoring what they don't want to be heard and viewpoints they don't like. If anonymity is removed, this will only get worse, not better. Do we want the government controlling the algorithms? Is that better than big tech doing it? I don't like either, but the government has a lot more power over my life than big tech.
Weminuche45 etba_ss
9 hours ago edited
Theae people control the populace and overthrow foreign governments by way of speech, so they are acutely aware of its power. Not surprisingly, they assume other are trying to do the same thing they do, so they want to make sure they are they only ones who can win at that game.
They do it for your own good and they know what's best for everyone else.
etba_ss Weminuche45
7 hours ago
I was making this argument earlier in a discussion about just how bad her instinct is. The government controlling speech, which is what her proposal does, is just as bad as the government controlling who has and doesn't have firearms. In order to keep a government in check or correct a tyrannical one you have to have the ability to organize in secret, speak out anonymously and have weapons to fight back. Free speech and the right to bear arms are equally important in keeping the government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Speech without guns makes you of little threat because you can be killed and beaten down. Guns without speech prevents your ability to join with like minded individuals, thus also making you of little threat more than a nuisance.
Having the government know who every social media account belongs to is the equivalent of having the government register every firearm in this country. We've argued for years how bad that it because it allows the government to take them one day. The same is true for speech. If they know who everyone is, silencing them becomes much easier. //
anon-csn0
10 hours ago edited
Big Mommy government is likely worse than Big Daddy government.
etba_ss anon-csn0
7 hours ago
Steve Deace often says the only thing worse than the patriarchy is a matriarchy.
Tyranny is tyranny, but it is also a scientific fact that on the average women think and react more emotionally and relationally and men think and act more rationally and instinctively. Therefore, there is a lot of truth to that statement.
While arguing against the kill-switch provision, Rep. Massie referred to it “a backseat driver” for American drivers. During an appearance with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, he laid out the issues with the requirement.
People said I’m a conspiracy theorist for saying this is in the legislation, but I actually had to read the Democrats the bill that they passed two years ago. They passed this in 2021 as part of a 1,039-page bill to require that your car can monitor your driving performance and if it thinks you are not driving well, it could disable your vehicle. //
The provision is included in Section 24220 and mandates that all cars manufactured after 2026 would have to feature the kill-switch. Massie’s amendment would have removed this provision, but it was defeated by a 229 to 201 vote. Interestingly enough, 19 Republicans voted to keep the kill-switch requirement in the legislation. //
I’m reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s famous line: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” This requirement almost perfectly embodies Franklin’s warning and presents a deceptive trade-off: Allow the government to have control over your car in exchange for possibly saving a few lives from drunk driving. //
stickdude90
a day ago
Great way to make sure you don't drive more than your allotted mileage each week - to save the environment, of course...
As exhausting as it is to read that list, the FCC itself says it is not an exhaustive list. The Biden administration’s plan empowers the FCC to regulate every aspect of the internet sector for the first time ever. The plan is motivated by an ideology of government control that is not compatible with the fundamental precepts of free market capitalism.
But it gets worse.
The FCC reserves the right under this plan to regulate both “actions and omissions, whether recurring or a single instance.” In other words, if you take any action, you may be liable; and if you do nothing, you may be liable.
There is no path to complying with this standardless regime. It reads like a planning document drawn up in the faculty lounge of a university’s Soviet Studies Department.
There is a plan underway to close the great open spaces of the American West to you, me, our children, and our children’s children. The federal government — which owns most of this land — is determined to move from a “use and let use” system of accessing Western public lands to a permission-based system that will mean reservations, permits, and closures.
Just last month, the Bureau of Land Management issued a final decision to close 317 miles of historic and popular off-road trails near Moab, Utah. //
Zooming out, the aggressive rate of federal trail closures is part of the larger “30×30” plan that President Joe Biden announced shortly after taking office. The alleged intention is to “conserve at least 30% of U.S. lands and waters and 30% of U.S. ocean areas by 2030.”
There is no evidence that users of these trails have been damaging them. //
If the Biden administration can close these lands, it can close them anywhere. Americans have shown themselves to be responsible stewards of their public lands, and they deserve to be able to enjoy them — freely — for generations to come. ///
The federal government has no business owning land in states, only in unincorporated territories. All "federal land" (an oxymoron in a federal republic) should be handed over to the states.
President Joe Biden says 24 million Americans "suffer from food insecurity!"
News anchors were shocked that there is "food insecurity in the richest country in the world!" ABC hosts turned "insecurity" into "hunger."
But in my new video, Rachel Sheffield, who researches welfare policy at the Heritage Foundation, explains, "Food insecurity is not the same thing as hunger. It just means that they had to rely on cheaper foods, store-brand alternatives ... or reduce variety."
Really? The alarm about "food insecurity" is based on that? Well, yes. Even the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in its fine print, admits that "for most food-insecure households, the inadequacies were in the form of reduced quality and variety of food rather than insufficient quantity." //
Expanding welfare seems to be the government's goal. "We've spent more on the War on Poverty than all the military wars combined in the United States without any success," says Sheffield.
Really? More than all our wars combined? Well, yes. We've spent $23 trillion on the War on Poverty. So far.
"Actually," says Sheffield, "it's been a success in one way. It increases dependence on the federal government." That's what bureaucrats consider success.
The handouts are good for the people who dole out the money. They're good for politicians who get to look like "good guys."
But they're bad for poor people.
Before government handouts began, private charities helped people escape poverty. They encouraged people to learn how to take care of themselves. Work gradually lifted people out of poverty.