PODCAST: What the Uvalde Cops Were Probably Thinking

This is Frank Gaffney with the Secure Freedom Minute.

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

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

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

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

This is Frank Gaffney.

AUTHOR

Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Founder and Executive Chairman

RELATED ARTICLE: WATCH: New Footage Shows Uvalde Cops Running Away As Killer Shoots School Children Dead

RELATED VIDEO: CHILLING NEW UVALDE VIDEO Shows Delayed Police Response Before Gunman’s Mass Murder

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

Inflation Hits Yet Another Record High As Americans Feel The Squeeze

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

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

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

The White House preemptively downplayed the inflation data, saying the metric was already outdated as prices have begun to supposedly decrease.

“June CPI data is already out of date because energy prices have come down substantially this month and are expected to fall further,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on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

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

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

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

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

AUTHOR

MAX KEATING

Contributor.

RELATED TWEET:

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

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

Racist Jill Biden Calls Latinos ‘Tacos’

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

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

By The Hill, July 11, 2022

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

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

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

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

Elon Musk Laughs Off Twitter Lawsuit Threat

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

The End of Private Car Ownership

You will drive nothing and you will be happy.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A market that they are shut out from by design.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUTHOR

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Another Ford EV Recall: Here’s the Dangerous Defect This Time

FABRICATING REALITY: Climate Change, Atmospheric Transgenderism and Mental Masturbation

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

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

Buttigieg Defends Harassing Conservative Justices Over Abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Leftist Group Offers Venmo Payments to Harass Supreme Court Justices

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reprinted from Libertarianism.org

AUTHOR

Steven Horwitz

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

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

GOP Set To Win Massive Majority In House, Analysis Finds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUTHOR

CARL DEMARCO

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Poll: Just 18% of Americans say Biden should run for reelection in 2024

Republicans Are Turning A Massive Swing State Solidly Red

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

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

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

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

GOP Eyes Garland Impeachment for Ignoring Abortion Terrorism

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

Court Blocks Pennsylvania’s Carbon Pricing Scheme

“Don’t let activists who believe that putting Pennsylvanians out of work will help ‘save the planet.’ It’s time to confront the wannabe planet savers here in this room and this state and tell them not only NO, but HELL NO.”

That’s what CFACT’s Marc Morano declared before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives when Governor Tom Wolf tried to push The Keystone State into “The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative” (aka RGGI) scheme without authorization by law.

A state court agreed and blocked Wolf’s power grab as an attempt to establish an “unlawful tax.” The court said plaintiffs “raised a substantial legal question” since taxing is a power that is supposed to be wielded by the Pennsylvania General Assembly rather than the Executive.

As reported by the AP, “The Power Pa Jobs Alliance, a coalition of industry and labor groups, said that power plant operators would have started paying what it called the ‘carbon tax’ on Friday had the court not issued its injunction. It contends the carbon policy will impose higher electricity costs on consumers. The group called Friday’s ruling a ‘significant win for working families.’”

Winning court decisions are important and cause for celebration. But we must remind ourselves that oftentimes they’re only isolated “battles” and don’t necessarily determine the larger outcome.

Take, for example, how the Biden Administration is brazenly moving forward on its climate agenda despite the fact the Supreme Court handed them a stinging defeat on regulating carbon dioxide emissions in West Virginia v. EPA.

No sooner did the court wallop them, than Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg rolled out plans to regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles and boost his power over the states in ways Congress never intended.

As CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen reported at CFACT.org:

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

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

For those on the Left, court decisions are a useful tool if they propel their agenda forward — but if they suffer a setback then they proceed on as though it’s just business as usual. They need to lose again and again to force compliance.

Let’s hope the courts continue to teach Governor Wolf, Secretary Buttigieg and their armies of bureaucrats a sorely needed lesson in constitutional checks and balances.

RELATED VIDEO: COVID lockdowns morphing into climate lockdowns

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s Transportation Department targets CO2 emissions of cars on highways to push EVs

No excuse for Texas energy debacle

Electric vehicles a tool ripe for abuse

Government benefits more from fuel sales than oil companies!

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

The FDA Is Considering a Change That Would Have Huge Implications for Birth Control

The downsides of government mandates requiring a prescription are significant.


With the Supreme Court’s recent abortion decision, unplanned pregnancies are top-of-mind for many Americans. So, whatever one believes about abortion, the timing of a new debate on birth control policy within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) couldn’t be more important.

The FDA just received a request from a contraceptive company seeking authorization to sell its birth control pills over-the-counter—without a prescription, as is required nationwide under current laws. This has prompted renewed calls for the FDA to approve this change. And, according to the New York Times, it’s seriously considering it this time.

Why? Well, the downsides of government mandates requiring a prescription are significant.

For one thing, it makes birth control harder to access for people without health insurance or the time/resources to obtain professional medical care. It also adds significantly to the cost of birth control by introducing middlemen and additional steps.

The current restrictive regime is defended in the name of safety. After all, hormonal birth control pills can have serious side effects and some women shouldn’t take them if they have certain medical factors that conflict with the medication.

Still, while the medication is indeed serious, it should still be made available over the counter. Right now, the government is needlessly standing in the way between the medical community and countless women who could benefit from care but can’t necessarily obtain a prescription.

You don’t have to take my word for it. The American Medical Association (AMA) has firmly endorsed making birth control available over-the-counter and called on the FDA to approve the change.

“Providing patients with [over-the-counter] access to the birth control pill is an easy call from a public health perspective,” AMA Board Member David H. Aizuss, M.D. said. “Access is one of the most cited reasons why patients do not use oral contraceptives, use them inconsistently, or discontinue use. Expanding [over-the-counter] access would make it easier for patients to properly use oral contraceptives, leading to fewer unplanned pregnancies.”

Studies have shown that, in absence of a required doctor consultation, women are able to self-screen and determine if they meet any of the conditions where one shouldn’t take hormonal birth control. (You know, like people do all the time with various medications). They can also always consult the pharmacists, which doesn’t typically require insurance or even an appointment.

Other expert groups like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also support making the medication available without a prescription.

It would hardly be an unprecedented move.

Dozens of other countries don’t require a prescription for birth control, including Mexico, Portugal, India, Greece, and Brazil. It’s mostly western Europe, the US, Canada, and other advanced nations—with big, bloated bureaucratic governments—that have barriers in place. But in the countries where it is available, it seems to work out just fine.

More fundamentally, it’s a matter of who gets to decide. Can women weigh the risks and benefits of a medication and decide for themselves? Or should that decision be made for them by supposedly benevolent bureaucrats and the nanny state?

For those who believe in individual liberty, the answer is clear.

“Freedom over one’s physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies,” former Congressman Ron Paul, himself a medical doctor, once said. “When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies.”

The FDA shouldn’t own women’s bodies. They should.

As one long-time advocate of making birth control available over-the-counter, (my friend) the Washington Examiner writer Tiana Lowe, put it, “[The FDA] could do something that not only is broadly supported by people of all political stripes but also has a marked ability to prevent unplanned pregnancies from occurring in the first place.”

All it has to do is get out of the way.

AUTHOR

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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

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

If only the rest of America was governed like Florida. Governor DeSantis is the greatest governor in America. And it’s not even close. DeSantis will lead the post-Trump Republican Party. #DeSantis2028!

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

By The Daily Caller, July 9, 2022

Florida ran a budget surplus of $21.8 billion in fiscal year 2021-22, the highest in state history, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on Thursday.

“Despite the headwinds created by the Biden administration’s policies, Florida is in a strong fiscal position because we preserved freedom and kept our economy open,” said DeSantis. “Our responsible policies have allowed us to make record investments to support our communities, promote education, protect the environment, and provide record tax relief for Floridians, all while building record reserves to protect the state against the reckless fiscal policies from Washington.”

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTCILES:

Make America Florida: The Case for DeSantis

FLORIDA: Governor DeSantis Activates Florida State Guard

PODCAST: Can They Stop Governor Ron DeSantis?

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

REPORT: Hunter Biden’s iCloud Account Cracked, Holds Data from 46 Different Devices He Interacted With

The contents of Hunter Biden’s iCloud account have allegedly been hacked by users of the 4chan community, who posted screenshots purported to be from his phone and computer on the website’s main political forum late Saturday night.

Hunter allegedly calls his father “Pedo Pete.” Hunter Biden’s e-mail account appears to show that his father, former Vice President Joe Biden, used the pseudonym “Peter Henderson” when trading e-mails with his family, the National Pulse can exclusively reveal.

Watch this video titled “Biden Hypocrisy” about then Senator Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.(a.k.a. Pedo Pete) talking about crack cocaine and the law.

Democrat media axis figuring out how to bury, downplay, ignore, excuse the new Hunter Biden materials.

Western Journal reports:

A new claim has emerged that Hunter Biden’s iCloud account has been hacked, creating the possibility of yet more disclosure of the activities of President Joe Biden’s son.

The Washington Examiner reported that members of the 4chan community are claiming to have hacked the account.

By way of proof, screenshots that were claimed as being taken from Hunter Biden’s phone and computer were posted late Saturday. The claims, however, could not be immediately verified.

Threads that contained material from the alleged hack were later pulled down.

It was unclear if the material allegedly accessed included that from the laptop computer formerly owned by Hunter Biden that emerged in the fall of 2020 to reveal tantalizing nuggets about the business activities of Hunter Biden, who had extensive business connections in China, Ukraine and Russia.

According to a forensic examination of the laptop conducted by Konstantinos Dimitrelos for the Washington Examiner, Hunter Biden’s iCloud account was synced to his MacBook Pro, iPhone and iPad as of March 2019.

Hunter Biden’s Apple ID account has been linked to 46 separate devices since 2011, Dimitrelos said. Hacking the iCloud account in theory could create access to all those accounts, making accessible communications yet unseen.

Text messages on an iPhone backup stored on the laptop computer show Hunter Biden showing contempt for Jill Biden, according to The Sun.

The exchange from late December 2018 related that Jill Biden supposedly mocked a plan of Hunter Biden’s to live with his uncle, James, and teach. The texts claim she told him: “Well you’re not going to be doing anything at all for yourself or your family if you just refuse to get sober.”

The texts to his uncle claimed, “I said Yang ow [you know] what mom you’re a f****** moron. A vindictive moron.”

“I suooorted [supported] my GM family including some of the costs you should have used your salary to lay [pay] for – for the last 24 years,” the text read, according to The Sun. (Keep reading)

Releasing 450GB MORE Private Data Including Passwords — “Ladies & Gentlemen, We are in!”

By: Jill Schrider, Daily Veracity, July 9, 2022

Researchers on 4Chan have begun examining an offline backup of Hunter Biden’s phone. They found the password and are going through all the files.

There is reportedly approximately 450GB of data still remaining hidden on the President’s son’s iPhone backup log.

“I was told Hunter had sexual relationships with a lot of people in the so-called ‘elite’ and families are ashamed,” said the anonymous individual, adding that ‘the elite’ want to “prevent the humiliation because he f-cked half the kids, sisters and wives in the small ‘elite’ circles.”

The data is alleged to have come from an iPhone backup drive that contained everything from deleted phone calls and text messages, to web-search history including pornography habits.

The data released on 4Chan alleges Hunter Biden searched for porn videos of himself on popular pornography websites, with search terms including “Hunter Biden Fucking a Hooker.”

The alleged documents also show text messages claiming there are “more weapons in your son’s room than in an armory,”

The 4Chan info dump is currently ongoing and can be followed here. We will continue to provide any updates if important information is to be revealed.

Keep reading…..

AUTHOR

RELATED VIDEO: Hunter Biden Videos Himself on the Beach Showing How He Lost His Pants

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hunter Biden Text Messages Reveal Hatred For First Lady

HUNTER BIDEN Is Officially Under Federal Surveillance!

Biden’s Treasury DENIES Access To 150 Suspicious Activity Reports on Hunter Biden

OUTRAGE! Israeli President Isaac Herzog To Present Antisemitic Biden with Presidential Medal of Honor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Electric Vehicles Are Worse for the Environment

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

Keep reading.…..

AUTHOR

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

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

NY DA Bragg Charges VICTIM of Bodega Attack by Violent Ex-Con

In an op-ed Friday at Fox News Channel, retired FBI agent James Gagliano blasted Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s “shameless body of work,” highlighting his charging of a 61-year-old bodega clerk, Jose Alba, with Murder in the Second Degree in the self-defense stabbing death of a violent ex-con who threatened and assaulted him in the shop.

The entire incident in Upper Manhattan last week was caught on the store’s surveillance video. “Alba was charged with murder and subjected to a ridiculously high quarter-million-dollar bail package (half of what the DA’s Office requested, but later reduced to $50,000.00 in the self-defense case) and transported to Rikers Island to be housed with real criminals,” Gagliano wrote. “Welcome to the dystopian hellscape that Alvin Bragg’s prosecutorial discretion has wrought on New York. Is it any wonder city dwellers consider fleeing in droves?”

Gagliano went on to note that the thug Alba stabbed was a career criminal, while Alba has no criminal record. “What kind of message does Alba’s arrest for defending himself send?”

“Bragg’s refusal to serve as the people’s prosecutor, while coddling criminals and charging those who act in clear defense of self, make him unfit for duty,” Gagliano correctly noted.

“Decades of Democratic stranglehold on the Office have seen moderate D’s accede ground to progressives like Bragg. The leftward lurch isn’t working — it is harming a once great city,” Gagliano concluded.


Alvin Bragg

6 Known Connections

On January 8, 2022 in New York City, Bragg appeared at a National Action Network rally alongside activist Al Sharpton to discuss his (Bragg’s) criminal-justice agenda. “We know that our first civil right is the right to walk safely to our corner store,” said Bragg. “But we also know that safety has got to be based in our community and fairness. It cannot be driven solely by incarceration.” In defense of his tepid approach to punishing criminals, the new D.A. said: “This is going to make us safer. It’s intuitive. It’s common sense. I don’t understand the pushback.”

When asked during a January 2022 interview with Fox News if his policies would “give criminals a green light,” Bragg answered: “No, I mean, it at least depends upon your definition of a criminal. And for all too long we’ve kind of dealt with this othering of anyone we put in jail is a criminal. Well, you know what, we’re putting in jail homeless people who, literally, in one example, used one counterfeit bill to buy food and toothpaste, got a sentence of [several] years. So, if that’s your definition of a criminal, I suggest we need to really reorder ourselves…”

To learn more about Alvin Bragg, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Buttigieg Defends Harassment of Kavanaugh at Restaurant

CNN’s Bell Wears T-Shirt Vowing to ‘Aid and Abet Abortion’

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Great Reset is Communism’s Final Solution

“We will see how contact tracing has an unequalled capacity and a quasi-essential place in the armory needed to combat COVID-19, while at the same time being positioned to become an enabler of mass surveillance.” ― Klaus Schwab,  Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum

“The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.” — Karl Marx

“I consider that the Communist Party of the United States is one of the few Communist Parties to which history has given decisive tasks from the point of view of revolutionary movement.  You must forge real revolutionary cadres and leaders of the proletariat, who will be capable of leading millions of American workers toward the revolutionary class wars.” —  Joseph Stalin in his speech to the American Communist delegation in Moscow, May 6, 1929


The 19th Century Victorian scholar of freedom, Lord Acton, made it plain to the people when he said, “Socialism is slavery.”  It is also starvation and death.

Terror By Starvation” is Charles Scaliger’s latest article in the June 13th issue of the New American Magazine.  He states, “The practice of deliberate starvation as a tool of war and oppression was fine-tuned by communists in the 20th Century.”

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known by the pseudonym Lenin, died on the 21st of January 1924, having killed an estimated 3 million of his people and that’s beyond the six million who died in the civil war with the Marxists gaining power. He had built a totalitarian horror, and it fell to a monster after his death.

The communist state took the place of God. Under the rhetoric of liberation, Lenin’s Red Terror plundered the rural middle class, known as Kulaks, and when they resisted, it slaughtered.  The confiscation and redistribution of grains from Kulaks in Ukraine and Russia led to starvation on an epic scale.  The urban middle classes in general, and free-thinkers in particular, suffered a similar fate.

Other mass murderers followed Lenin.  Stalin, who through mass starvation murdered at least 20 million, and Chairman Mao, most prominent among them, who starved at least 45 million Chinese.  Scaliger writes, “Mao Tse-tung’s Great Leap Forward, which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese, primarily by starvation, was a deliberate imitation of Stalin’s Great Turn.”

Millions upon millions died of starvation when communism’s collectivism took over farms, production and ultimately property. By the time the Soviet Union collapsed the engineered famines and sweeping purges of Lenin and Stalin had murdered from 40 to 60 million, probably even more.

Remember the truckers of Canada and now the farmers of the Netherlands.  We’re seeing the beginning “tools of oppression” ultimately leading once again to mass starvation.  It was the key in the 20th Century and it’s now the 21st Century plan for the entire world and it started long, long ago.

Communists Emigrate to America

In previous articles, I’ve mentioned the 48ers, European communists who emigrated to America in 1848.  The 48ers left Europe after a series of revolutions, including Germany where Marx and his colleagues worked and fought.  Bourgeois liberals and communists fled their countries and emigrated to various countries across the world, including the United States.  The 48ers played a large roll in American leftist movements in the middle and late 1800s.

But they weren’t the first communists to come to the US.  There is a tradition of socialism and communism in the United States tracing back almost to the very origins of the movements and much further back than many of the things we consider “American” today.  Matthew Britt, author of The First Communists in the United States writes, “Only a selective reading of American history will tell you that socialism and communism don’t have a place in America’s history or society today.”

Not long after America’s founding, members of the first Marxist organization known as the Communist League moved to the states to avoid political persecution in Europe.  Robert Owen, a socialist from Wales, emigrated to America in 1824.

Owen created the Utopian Socialist Society of New Harmony, Indiana in 1825.  He tested some of his writings and speeches in both Scotland and Indiana and his experiments were very influential on Marx, Engels, and other socialists and communists at the time and later on. This led to Owen being mentioned in the Communist Manifesto and would lead to the creation of other utopian societies around the country.

Robert Owen’s influence reached key members of society.  In February and March of 1825, Owen gave two speeches to Congress when figures such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and others were present.  Wouldn’t you love to know what our early presidents and founders thought of Owen’s speeches!

One of Owen’s sons later became a member of Congress from Indiana. Robert Dale Owen was a Democrat steeped in his father’s utopian socialism.  Later in life, he was into spiritualism as were President Lincoln and his wife, Mary.

Many of the early American communists were figures in history and have been mentioned in numerous books and articles.  Let’s take a look at just a few of the many.

Edward Bellamy, born in 1850 in Massachusetts, was another latter 19th century utopian socialist.  His claim to fame was his best-selling book, Looking Backward.  His book, still popular today, is nothing more than a socialist polemic promoting a communist society for America.  Charles Beard and John Dewey (the famous Dewey of progressive/leftist education, no relation to the John Dewey of the decimal system) considered Bellamy’s book to be the second most important book of the 19th century.  The book cited by Beard and Dewey as the most influential book of the 19th century was Marx and Engels’ Das Capital.

On page 16 of Crimes of the Educators by Samuel Blumenfeld and Alex Newman, the authors state, “Even after the rise of Hitler’s National Socialism in Germany and the Marxist-Leninist communism in Russia, Dewey still clung to Bellamy’s vision of socialist America.”  On page 17 of Crimes of the Educators, the authors write, “Dewey, who spent his professional life trying to transform Bellamy’s fantasy into American reality, is responsible for the dysfunctional public education we have today—a minimal interest in the development of intellectual, scientific, and literacy skills, and a maximal effort to produce socialized, politically correct individuals who can barely read.”

Education was a massive target of the early communists.

Francis Bellamy was the socialist minister cousin of Edward Bellamy and the original author of the Pledge of Allegiance.  Francis believed the Civil War was the defining event in American history and desired a pledge that would reinforce the meaning of the North’s victory over the south, (and the centralized federal government).  On page 292 of Lincoln’s Marxists, the author Al Benson Jr. and Walter Donald Kennedy write, “His pledge was designed to incorporate into the mind-set of all Americans the views of Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Webster, and the radical abolitionists, who he believed held the correct view of what America should be.” (One nation, indivisible.)

Joseph Weydemeyer was one of the first major figures to arrive as a forty-eighter.  He was part of the League of Communists and headed its Frankfurt chapter before moving to the US.  Prior to emigrating, Weydemeyer participated in the 1848 revolution and was a close friend of Marx and Engels.  In 1852, Weydemeyer founded the first Marxist organization in the US called the American Workers League.

In 1860, he became involved in the campaign to elect Abraham Lincoln.  Weydemeyer joined the army soon after Lincoln was elected, and during the Civil War, he led volunteer units from Missouri. With his socialist faith in strong central government, he was an avid supporter of the Union cause.

Marx even wrote a letter to Lincoln on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association congratulating him on his second electoral victory, which you can read here.

Weydemeyer stayed politically active, which continued after the end of the war, even handing out copies of Marx’s Inaugural Address of the International Working Men’s Association to troops under his command. In his post-war career, he was elected as a county auditor in Missouri.

August Willich was a Brigadier General in the Union Army and was often referred to as “the Reddest of the Red 48ers.”  He fought in the 1848 Revolution in Germany and Friedrich Engels was his aide-de-camp, which is basically the highest-level personal aide.  Marx called Willich a “communist with a heart,” even though Willich had publicly insulted him and called him too conservative. Willich was actually more “radical” than Marx, and was part of the opposition group against Marx when the Communist League split. He wasn’t fond of Lincoln’s close ties with big-business interests, but he still supported the Republican Party and the Union’s war efforts against the South.

William Tecumseh Sherman – On page 296 of Al Benson Jr. and Walter Donald Kennedy’s book, Lincoln’s Marxists, is the following:

While doing research for this book, the author came across Sherman’s name in a list of “approved” socialists/communists in America.  The press of the Communist Party of the United States published the book from which this name, as well as the names of other leading socialists/communists, was taken.  The editor of this communist book noted that Sherman was an “outstanding” general of the Union Army.  It should be noted that the co-founder of modern-day communism, Fredrick Engels, also held this opinion.  Both Gen. William Sherman and Sen. John Sherman, his brother, believed in a strong, indivisible, central government.

General William Tecumseh Sherman’s Union “Army of the West” marched from Atlanta, Ga., to the seaport of Savannah. Enroute, Sherman’s forces intentionally devastated a 60-mile-wide swath of countryside.  Sherman’s March to the Sea was a hideous five-week destruction of “total war.” Sherman’s engineers and foraging “bummers” — were scorched-earth devils, burning Atlanta and then plundering the countryside.

Sherman’s order was clear: Thoroughly destroy every building and every piece of equipment that might be militarily valuable.  Lincoln’s army, especially those under the command of Sherman, left a swath of destruction.  Congressman Zachariah Chandler said this about the rights of Southerners, “A rebel has sacrificed all his rights.  He has no right to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness.  Everything you give him, even life itself, is a boon which he has forfeited.” (Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 1st sess.)

Horrors were visited on the civilian population of the South, even upon women and children; mass starvation, pillaging of homes and churches, rapes of both white and black, yes, raped and murdered, thousands of citizens, both white and black, left homeless and forced to forage for whatever morsel of food they could find in the rubble left desolate after the slaughter.  Destruction of all means of production, even of medicines and medical supplies, cemeteries were looted, colleges and libraries were obliterated, a massive blight on the land and her people.

Sherman, upon hearing in 1864 that continued attacks on his army were being conducted by Southern partisans, said this, “There is a class of people (Southerners) men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order.”  Sherman wasn’t the only one, Grant was in on the murder of non-combatants.  Grant stated, “It is our duty to weaken the enemy by destroying their means of subsistence, withdrawing their means of cultivating their fields, and every other way possible.”  And it was an order from on high, Lincoln did not dissuade his Union Army from these atrocities on Southern Americans.

With the blessing of President Abraham Lincoln, General Sherman and his 62,000
battle-hardened Union troops fulfilled his promise, raping, pillaging and burning their way through South Carolina and Georgia.

General Henry Halleck, Army Chief of Staff wrote to General Grant the order to annihilate the south, “…make all the valley south of the Baltimore and Ohio road a desert.”

Sherman obliterated the ability for men, women and children, and the elderly and infirm to sustain life.  One need only search, “The War Crimes of William T. Sherman.”

Sherman didn’t retire after the war.  He took his “scorched earth” tactics to the American Indians and wiped out their food supply.  In the late 1860s and early 1870s, nearly every Buffalo herd of the plains was slaughtered by Sherman and his men.  In an 1867 letter to Grant, Sherman referred to his policy against the native Americans as “the final solution to the Indian problem,” the same sentence Hitler said some 70 years later.

Nationwide Infiltration

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to warn the American people that communists had infiltrated every branch and department of government, and society.

Hollywood romanticized communism by promoting “world peace” in the 1933 movie, Gabriel Over the White House.  The movie was a promotion for the 1945 United Nations Charter and was funded by William Randolph Hearst.

The pulpits of America were slowly infiltrated with black churches being the first targets for subversion.

But the real quarry was education.

As Lenin stated so long ago, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”

John Dewey’s plan to dumb down America was launched in 1898 and today it is alive, well, and flourishing with communist propaganda. Academic education is gone, a collective utopia runs in the veins of every public school and most private and religious schools. Dewey has destroyed the literacy of millions upon millions of American children, most of whom have attained only a third-grade level of reading.  Phonics is long gone, English literature is a thing of the past, simple math has become a nightmare.

Dr. Theodore Brameld, an avowed communist, was professor of education at New York University and right-hand man of Dean Ernest 0. Melby. Dean Melby was perhaps the most conspicuous champion of progressive education, and also was most vocal in his criticism of any investigation of subversion in education.

The Turning of the Tides by Paul W. Shafer and John Howland Snow was first published in 1953.  It is an expose of the destruction of academic education in America by the communists.  On Page 47, the authors expose Dr. Brameld’s device for circumventing opposition via slyness and outright deception.

In 1935, Brameld said, “Teachers favorable to the collectivist philosophy and program must influence their students, subtly, if necessary, frankly, if possible, toward acceptance of the same position.”   

It is the method referred to in the May 1937 issue of The Communist: Only when teachers have really mastered Marxism-Leninism will they be able skillfully to inject it into their teaching at the least risk of exposure, and at the same time to conduct struggles around the schools in a truly Bolshevik manner.

They trained the teachers.  And we willingly gave them our children!

Homeschool your babies and grandbabies!

Conclusion

The tentacles of socialism/communism are deeply ensconced in our culture, but the Great Reset is nothing new.  It has been around from the beginning of time, the desire of man to eliminate opposition and subjugate survivors into slavery.  It’s the same serpent from the Garden and his fallen minions.  The Great Reset may be communism’s final solution, but an all-powerful Creator is still in control.

We’ve recently seen breathtaking answers to prayer.  We must keep working in our local communities, keep praying, and as my friend Roger Anghis says, “God has everything in control.  It’s time to get the popcorn.”

©Kelleigh Nelson. All rights reserved.

U.S. Devotes $195 Mil to ‘Redress the Legacy of Harm’ in Racist Transportation Infrastructure

In the Biden administration’s latest racial equity project, American taxpayers will spend $195 million to help connect minority communities that are cut off from economic opportunities by racist transportation infrastructure. The costly plan is known as Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) and it is part of the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) “Equity Strategy Goal to reduce inequities” across the nation’s transportation systems and the communities they effect. In its announcement, the DOT writes that “preference will be given to applications from economically disadvantaged communities, especially those with projects that are focused on equity and environmental justice, have strong community engagement and stewardship, and a commitment to shared prosperity and equitable development.” The language sounds like material found in a communist manifesto.

DOT Secretary Pete Buttigieg justifies the investment by explaining that “transportation can connect us to jobs, services, and loved ones, but we‘ve also seen countless cases around the country where a piece of infrastructure cuts off a neighborhood or a community because of how it was built.” RCP is the first-ever initiative funded by the federal government that is completely dedicated to unifying neighborhoods living with the impacts of infrastructure that divides them, Buttigieg adds. It will help reconnect communities that are cut off from economic opportunities by what the administration seems to claim is a racist transportation infrastructure. In fact, the lengthy grant announcement states that the multi-million-dollar community reconnection program “seeks to redress the legacy of harm caused by transportation infrastructure.” The “harm” includes barriers to opportunity, displacement, damage to the environment and public health, limited access and “other hardships,” according to the document.

In pursuit of redressing the legacy of harm, RCP “will support and engage economically disadvantaged communities to increase affordable, accessible, and multimodal access to daily destinations like jobs, healthcare, grocery stores, schools, places of worship, recreation, and park space,” the administration writes in the grant announcement. Thus, the new program will be implemented in line with a multitude of other federal initiatives launched by a 2021 Biden executive order to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government. Besides the DOT’s Equity Action Plan, the agency grant document identifies them as federal actions to address environmental justice in minority and low-income populations, affordable housing in the nation’s most desirable neighborhoods and a program to strengthen the economy through the creation of good-paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union, strong labor standards, and workforce programs. There are many more that were left out of the RCP document.

In the last year, key federal agencies have implemented racial equity plans as per Biden’s order. The Department of Justice (DOJ) created a special initiative to advance equity for marginalized and underserved communities. The Department of Labor (DOL) dedicated $260 million to promote “equitable access” to government unemployment benefits by addressing disparities in the administration and delivery of money by race ethnicity and language proficiency. The Treasury Department named its first ever racial equity chief, a veteran La Raza official who spent a decade at the nation’s most influential open borders group. The Department of Defense (DOD) is using outrageous anti-bias materials that indoctrinate troops with anti-American and racially inflammatory training on diversity topics. The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) created an equity commission to address longstanding inequities in agriculture. The nation’s medical research agency has a special minority health and health disparities division that recently issued a study declaring COVID-19 exacerbated preexisting resentment against racial/ethnic minorities and marginalized communities. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently hired a Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer even though most of its employees come from “underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.” Just a few days ago Judicial Watch reported that the administration is spending $6 million to advance racial equity in the government’s food-stamp program that already serves a large minority population.

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