McCarthy Proves What He’s Made Of with Gritty Budget Win

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) hasn’t had an easy path. After painstakingly working through conservatives’ gripes with House leadership this January, he finally squeaked out the votes he needed to assume the third most powerful job in Washington. But even after that chaos died down, questions loomed. Was he cut out to be speaker? Would he bring the fractious, competing corners of the GOP together? In a staring contest with Democrats, could he win? The answer, Americans learned from a hard-won victory on the budget bill, is a resounding yes.

With just two votes to spare, McCarthy accomplished something that seemed improbable even 48 hours ago: he held his fragile coalition together and passed a bill that all but forces Democrats to the negotiating table. Under the House proposal, America would not default on its loans. But there were strings attached. In exchange for raising the debt ceiling and protecting the country’s credit line, conservatives are demanding a massive overhaul of spending and deep cuts to bloated programs.

For starters, Republicans would set a $1.47 trillion limit on discretionary spending — with a 1% increase built in for each year. In a blow to the Democratic messaging machine, even the AP admits that the legislation poses no threat to Social Security and Medicare, which has been Joe Biden’s favorite scare tactic about the bill. To the cheers of most conservatives, the proposal also scoops up all of the unused COVID relief money from the series of bills passed between 2020-2022. Another way the GOP carved out savings was to roll back the $71 billion boost in IRS funding.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), all of this would make a huge difference in the country’s bleak financial picture, slashing the deficit by a whopping $4.8 trillion in a 10-year span.

Fueled by coffee and power naps, Republicans worked past 4 a.m. Wednesday to hammer out the deal. That all-nighter paid off. The bill eked through by a 217-215 margin that afternoon, putting Republicans in an unusual place — the driver’s seat.

In a triumphant press conference after the vote, McCarthy threw down the gauntlet. “We have lifted the debt ceiling, so nobody could worry about whether the debt ceiling is going to get lifted. We did it. The Democrats have not. [If] the president wants to make sure the debt ceiling is going to be lifted, sign this bill.”

Although Rules Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) made it clear that it’s “not the end of the road,” he insisted that “it’s a great personal and political victory for the speaker who got it done. He got a lot of people to vote for a debt ceiling increase who’ve never done that before.”

House Freedom Caucus Chair Scott Perry (R-Pa.) was equally complimentary, telling Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch” that the vote was “quite honestly, another historic moment in modern times here in Congress.” “For most people, this is just another day in the saga of Washington. But … as far as I know in modern times, this has never happened before.” And one of the reasons it was possible, he said, is because conservatives put specific conditions on the speaker in January — things like single-subject bills. More debate. Free-flowing amendments. In other words, Congress is back to operating how the Founders intended, not as a graveyard of ideas where decisions were predetermined by a powerful few.

Even if you go back to the 2011 days of Cut, Cap, and Balance, Republicans never insisted on “real cuts in that first year.” But this isn’t your 2011 GOP. And while the prevailing wisdom in Washington may be that the House has to cave to Joe Biden and Senate Democrats without demanding concessions like meaningful spending reform, Perry insists, “We’re not going to cave.”

“We have a narrow majority,” he conceded, but “we have worked for months — right up until about 4:00 in the morning last night to get this to where we can pass it. And, it is the beginning of the conversation, but what it does is … it shows [Biden] that we can pass something and he has no choice except to negotiate.”

For Republicans, who only control one part of the legislature, this is a “landmark occasion,” Perry says. “We’re supposed to be in a completely defensive posture. [But] we are on offense. And I will also take some pride in this: 90% of this bill has been written by the House Freedom Caucus — and we are driving and pulling our entire conferences … to the Right, to the side of principles that [say] we cannot keep spending and bankrupting our country.”

In a movement that’s watched Republicans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Wednesday’s developments were groundbreaking. “I’ve watched this process for 20 years,” Perkins said. “I’ve even watched the Republicans when they were in the majority and they had the numbers. … But the reality is, even when Republicans had a large margin to work with, they never ever drove a stake in the ground and stood on principle. That is a sea change here in Washington, D.C.”

And McCarthy’s week-long speaker drama is a big reason why. Even then, FRC believed Republicans — and the speaker in particular — would emerge stronger from that emotional debate. It was there that the California leader proved he was willing to listen, to compromise, and to pursue the tough changes voters demanded. Now, Perkins insisted, we’ve had time to see that McCarthy was sincere. “We’ve seen a succession of decisions that the speaker has made. He’s stuck to his word. … And Republicans have [also] kept their word and done exactly what they said they were going to do when they elected this speaker.” So Democrats need to realize, he warned, “you guys aren’t going to cave.”

Already, that message seems to be sinking in. Far-left senators like Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) are calling on Biden to negotiate — and negotiate now. Moderate Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) agreed, pointing out, McCarthy’s bill is the “only bill actually moving through Congress that would prevent default.”

As NRO’s Noah Rothman explains, “The White House and Senate Democrats have so far operated on the assumption that Republicans were too disunited to be worth negotiating with.” Now, the script has flipped. “And with the Republican position strengthening and Democrats’ eroding, it seems like it’s only a matter of time before the White House consents to good-faith negotiations with their Republican counterparts. The sooner, the better.”

In the meantime, Perry has a message for those “weak-kneed senators over there that always work with the Democrats: … You need to stick with your Republican colleagues [and] do the work of the American people. … There’s a fighting spirit in this House of Representatives,” he insisted, “but … we do expect our senators to stand up and stand for us.”


Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Sen. Tim Scott Introduces Legislation Redirecting $15 Billion From IRS To Border Security

Republican South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott introduced legislation Wednesday that would redirect $15 billion that was meant to help pay for 87,000 new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees and spend it on security measures along the southern border instead.

The Daily Caller first obtained the legislation, which is titled the Securing Our Border Act. The bill would specifically fund border inspections to better equip law enforcement to track down drugs and other illegal items or substances before they enter the United States. The bill would also fund border wall construction and other technologies to help with tracking and enforcement efforts along the southwest border.

Additionally, the legislation would give retention bonuses to Border Patrol agents and end the “catch and release” policy.

Republicans have expressed particular concern about the more than $80 billion in new funding for the IRS. Although Democrats claim the increased funding will boost revenue and enable Congress to pay down the federal debt, GOP officials argue that middle-class and poor Americans will face more audits. The funding allows the agency to hire up to 87,000 new employees.

“We have a crisis on our southern border. Rather than putting resources in place to address this major national security and humanitarian catastrophe, the Biden administration and congressional Democrats chose instead to spend $45 billion of taxpayer money to hire an army of IRS agents to audit the middle class,” Scott told the Caller before introducing the bill.


(DAILY CALLER OBTAINED) — … by Henry Rodgers

“While President Biden continues to drop the ball, I’m introducing legislation to fund border infrastructure and give our Border Patrol agents the tools they need to help stop the unaddressed flows of illicit goods and persons into this country. Americans need more border agents keeping them safe – not thousands more IRS agents looking over their shoulder,” Scott added.

The bill has five original cosponsors —Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Steve Daines of Montana, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, and James Lankford of Oklahoma — and has been endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council, a group representing 18,000 Border Patrol agents.



Chief national correspondent. Follow Henry Rodgers On Twitter.


Texas Passes Historic “America First” Law – It Bars Foreign Citizens from Owning Certain Types of American Land

Seeking Daylight On The Administrative State

Sen. Tim Scott Pressed The Treasury Department Over Inflation, Here’s Their ‘Unacceptable’ Response

Tim Scott Announces Exploratory Committee For Presidential Bid

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

Report: Annual Costs of Illegal Immigration Soars to $150.7 Billion a Year

A new report by FAIR, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration, finds that as of 2022, American taxpayers shell out at least $150.7 billion each year to cover the cost of illegal immigration. Broken down, the data reveals that taxpayers pay $182 billion annually to provide services and benefits to illegal aliens and their dependents. These costs are offset by about $31 billion in taxes that are collected from the estimated 15.5 million illegal aliens living in the United States, bringing the net cost to $150.7 billion annually.

The 2022 costs represent a 30 percent increase to taxpayers in just five years. A former version of this study, conducted in 2017 by FAIR, placed the annual net cost of illegal immigration at $116 billion. Most of the additional costs have been added in the past two years, as the Biden administration’s de facto open borders policies have triggered a historic surge of new illegal migrants pouring across our borders.

The updated $150.7 billion price tag is a conservative estimate as there are additional costs incurred from illegal immigration, but there is currently insufficient data to provide reliable cost estimates. The report also does not take into account the impact of the Biden administration’s expansive (and legally questionable) use of parole authority to allow hundreds of thousands of ineligible migrants to enter the country each year is certain to balloon these already staggering costs to taxpayers. Those admitted under the administration’s latest abuse of parole authority are quickly eligible to access government services and assistance programs (while they wait for years to plead their case to remain here) that are off-limits to illegal aliens who sneak across the border or overstay their visas.

FAIR’s comprehensive analysis looks at available federal, state, and local programs and services that are directly accessible to illegal aliens, or indirectly, through their U.S.-born children who qualify for all means-tested programs. In addition to the surge of illegal immigration since 2021, state and local governments have offered a variety of new benefits and services to illegal aliens, which have exacerbated the situation for struggling taxpayers.

Among the key findings in FAIR’s report, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers: 

The gross annual cost of illegal immigration (the total amount before taxes paid by illegal aliens are factored in) is now $182 billion, annually.

  • Taxes paid by illegal aliens only cover around 17.2 percent of the costs they create for American citizens, bringing the net cost to $150.7 billion a year. For every dollar in taxes paid by illegal aliens, they and their dependents consume six dollars in benefits and services.
  • The largest component of the cost is K-12 education, which must be provided under a 1982 Supreme Court ruling, Plyler v. Doe. The annual K-12 education cost for illegal aliens (and their U.S.-born children) is $78 billion, of which $70.4 billion is borne by states and localities.
  • Health care for illegal aliens costs taxpayers about $42.7 billion annually.
  • A variety of food assistance and nutritional programs used by illegal aliens and their children cost taxpayers about $13.5 billion annually.
  • Combined federal, state, and local criminal justice costs associated with illegal immigration run about $47 billion annually – not including the cost of damages to victims.
In additional to the cumulative national costs of illegal immigration, the FAIR report breaks down each state’s cost burdens. These state costs provide vital information to citizens and local lawmakers as they struggle to address the burdens imposed upon them by the Biden administration’s de facto open borders policies. As the costs mount, many are considering legislation that discourages illegal aliens from settling in their jurisdictions.

The release of FAIR’s study received national and local news media attention and has been cited by members of Congress who are pushing back against the Biden administration’s bankrupt (literally and figuratively) policies. The report was also widely discussed on talk radio programs across the country.

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration is the product of a prodigious effort by FAIR’s Research Department which spent months combing through numerous databases to find information which is often deliberately obscured to keep American taxpayers in the dark about the costs of illegal immigration. The report was compiled by FAIR researchers: Spencer Raley, Pawel Styrna, and Michael Capuano.

The full report, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration.


Ira joined FAIR in 1986 with experience as a journalist, professor of journalism, special assistant to Gov. Richard Lamm (Colorado), and press secretary of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. His columns have appeared in National Review, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, and more. He is an experienced TV and radio commentator.



Biden Administration Claims Credit for Reducing Illegal Migration Even Though the Numbers Actually Went Up

60 Minutes Profile of Mayorkas Demonstrates that the Media Have Become Willing Accomplices to the Border Crisis

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

Comer Threatens Kerry’s ‘Powerful, Unchecked’ Climate Office With Subpoena

Republican Rep. James Comer of Kentucky has threatened to subpoena the office of special climate envoy John Kerry, over a failure to disclose documents to the House Oversight Committee, in a letter released Tuesday.

Comer slammed the Biden administration for failing to respond to nearly two years of oversight requests from the House Oversight Committee — which Comer chairs — and requested information related to the budgets, names of staffers, internal communications and activities of Kerry’s office. The congressman threatened to take further action if the administration failed to respond by May 9, including “compulsory processes.”

“John Kerry continues to negotiate deals with foreign governments, including the Chinese Communist Party, that potentially undermine the United States’ interests and the Biden Administration has refused to respond to Committee requests for information on Kerry’s powerful, unchecked position,” the House Oversight Committee wrote in a press release.

The committee in February called for Kerry to provide information regarding his negotiations with China, which the committee alleged “undermine” both U.S. economic interests and congressional authority. In Comer’s Tuesday letter, the committee questioned Kerry’s ability to negotiate binding agreements on behalf of the U.S., despite the fact his position did not require Senate confirmation.

“Envoy Kerry is engaging in activities that skirt congressional authority, threaten foreign policy under the guise of climate advocacy, and could undermine our economic health,” wrote Comer Monday. “Yet, Envoy Kerry and his office are refusing to be transparent about their activities, spending, and staffing with the Committee—and the American people.”

In early 2021, the Boston Herald filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the payrolls of Kerry’s staff, which the State Department estimates will not be completed until late 2024, despite the availability of the relevant records, according to the outlet.

Comer’s office directed a Daily Caller News Foundation request for comment to the Oversight Committee’s statement. The White House did not immediately respond to a DCNF request for comment.





EXCLUSIVE: GOP Reps Target House Members For ‘Collaboration’ With Chinese Intelligence

American Weakness Invites Aggression

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

NYC Mayor Adams Rebukes Biden for Border Crisis, Citing $4.2 Billion in Costs

New York City Mayor Eric Adams last week issued a sharp rebuke to President Biden for his immigration policies that have left the City inundated with illegal aliens.  “The president and the White House have failed New York City on this issue,” Mayor Adams said during a press conference at City Hall.

Mayor Adams’ press conference came the day before he was scheduled to meet with federal officials to discuss the surge of migrants into New York City. Already infamously crowded and expensive, the City has been lurching from crisis to crisis as its services are overwhelmed by newly arriving illegal aliens. According to the New York Times, more than 55,000 migrants have arrived in New York City since the spring of 2022. Close to 35,000 are being housed by the city and are receiving services.

To deal with the influx, New York has opened more than 100 emergency shelters, and eight Humanitarian Emergency Response and Relief Centers. In March, Mayor Adams announced a new 24-hour center to welcome migrants, as well as the creation of a new agency to help coordinate the arrival of migrants.  Last week, the city announced the opening of another emergency shelter, this one at a 492-room Holiday Inn in the Financial District.

Finally, at Tuesday’s press conference, Mayor Adams put a price tag on the cost of caring for the surge of illegal aliens: “$1.4 billion this fiscal year, 2.8 the next. Those are the numbers.”  “This is one of the largest humanitarian crises that this city has ever experienced. It will impact every service in the city,” Mr. Adams said. “Why isn’t every elected official in Washington, D.C., asking the national government, ‘Why are you doing this to New York?’”

Looking ahead, Mayor Adams noted that the end of Title 42 would drive more illegal aliens into his city.  He also cautioned that the price tag to care for illegal aliens could also grow.

Mayor Adams is one of the few Democratic leaders willing to acknowledge the out-of-control costs of illegal immigration and rightly blame the Biden administration. This comes out of necessity; the mayor can’t simply explain away the $4.2 billion dollars that illegal immigration will cost the city over two years.

Unfortunately for the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who elected him, Adams sees more destructive policies as the only proper solution for the migrant crisis that “sanctuary” laws and lax border controls created. For example, Adams has asked  President Biden to simply hand out work permits to illegal migrants in his city. This non-solution, in addition to being a gross misuse of our immigration laws, would only make the problem worse. Allowing tens of thousands of illegal aliens into New York City’s job market just pushes out Adams’ struggling American constituents while making the city even more attractive for costly illegal migration.

What’s happening to New York City is proof that “sanctuary” policies are not only illegal but extremely self-destructive because they attract illegal aliens. Loosening federal immigration laws, as Adams calls for, will not end the costly flood of illegal immigrants that has left immigration courts with waits of up to a decade. The changes Adams proposes would only attract more migrants and further overwhelm expensive, inflation-wracked “sanctuary” cities across the country.

Solving this crisis will require ending the free-for-all at the border and being tougher, not weaker, in enforcing existing immigration laws. The Biden administration has simply stood by as hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens cross our borders every month, and actively aided hundreds of thousands more in flying directly into the U.S. It shouldn’t surprise Mayor Adams that many of these migrants will come to the city he insists is a “sanctuary” despite the huge costs to the city’s services. Ending the uncontrolled influx is the only solution to New York’s, and America’s, woes.

Ultimately, Adams is correct in saying that the Biden administration needs to clean up its mess. If Adams wanted to be truly courageous, he would admit that advertising New York City as a “sanctuary city” was a mistake, work with ICE to remove criminal aliens from the country, and call on the Biden administration to secure our borders.


Michael Capuano

Michael Capuano joined FAIR in 2022. As a researcher and staff writer, he contributes to the work behind FAIR’s long-form research publications as well as topical content responding to immigration-related issues as they happen. Before joining FAIR, Michael worked in the Enforcement and Removal Operations Law Division at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during law school at George Washington University and then as an immigration attorney at a Spanish-speaking law firm. Having grown up in Southern California and with experience on both sides of the issue, he is acutely conscious of the importance of the immigration issue to everyday life and the necessity of FAIR’s vision for reform. Michael’s background before law school was in Urban Studies/Planning at the University of California, San Diego, informing a deep concern for the environment and good urban design, two issues very relevant to the current immigration crisis.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden’s domestic policy chief steps down


It’s Time to Separate School and State

The public school system is a failure and ripe for replacing.

The state-run school system as it stands is a one-size-fits-all monstrosity which crowds out private alternatives and spreads socialistic and anti-Christian propaganda. It’s time to think bigger than Friedman’s school vouchers, it’s time to separate school from state.

If there is any stigma against private schools, it is their cost versus the public system. This leaves room for the public-school supporter to claim: “if there was a market for low cost, private education, it would be provided but since it is not widely met, the general consensus must remain with the public system.” The argument would be correct but for one detail: the market is being distorted by the political power of the state, preventing the entry of the firms needed to fill the void.

Public schools are funded through the taxes of a city’s citizens, which necessarily means that taxpayers without children enrolled will also pay for their upkeep; even taxpayers without children at all are subsidizing the public education of those using the system. As a result, the cost of public education is artificially low to the parents using it, a situation that could not be replicated in a free market. If the state system was a private enterprise, it would not last one year before going bankrupt since it can only survive on the subsidies provided by taxation, by political power.

Private enterprise is enormously competitive, and when unleashed, it can nearly work miracles, but what it cannot do is compete effectively with state-run firms which can bankroll their losses with taxation. As a result, it is not currently possible for private schools to fill the same niche as the public ones, they must branch out and specialize to offer a fundamentally different good than the one offered by the state. KIPP charter schools as explored by Thomas Sowell in his new book Charter Schools and their Enemies promise better academic results, and Parochial schools promise a traditional and religious education. All of these are fundamentally different goods than the one provided by the state system, and this is a place to start.

So long as the public system is able to pass on its losses to the taxpayers, there will be few cracks in the state’s monopolistic control of the industry. Should the edifice finally break and a state decides to take the plunge into full privatization, the market will surge back with a vengeance and provide more options, and do so more affordably than is currently available.

The state always and everywhere aims at monopolizing education and there is a non-benevolent reason for this: youth are impressionable and ideas inculcated early are difficult to uproot. If the state can decide what the next generation learns, it can instill a statist ethic and worldview which quells resistance before it would take hold. State-run education is not an act of charity in practice so much as a defense mechanism against non-statist thinking.

Nothing is new about the state looking to reproduce itself and quell resistance early through education. The tactic was an invention of Prussia’s at the close of the 18th Century. Vladimir Lenin, a man whose inclinations towards class and production were much different than the Prussians is popularly, possibly apocryphally, quoted as saying: “give me four years to teach the children, and the seed I have sown shall never be uprooted.” Whether the verbiage is precise or not, it is certainly consistent with the maximization of the state requisite for his socialism to take root. What Lenin and the Prussians had in common was the state; whatever their differences, they were both arch-statists and sought to instill the state’s ethics into the next generation.

The state instilling obedience and fomenting socialism through schools is hardly surprising. What is relatively new is an all out assault on the norms of western civilization in general, and Christianity in particular. Anyone who has any connection with the public schools and colleges in the past few years can affirm the immense hostility of faculty to anything which contravenes the intersectional agenda.

Schools routinely put on drag events now which flaunt sexuality in front of minors

Further, it is an act of aggression to sexualize someone underage and thus flagrantly violates the libertarian non-aggression axiom, not to mention established law. The libertarian regardless of his actual views on the lifestyles in question, cannot condone preaching blatant sexuality to minors in state-run institutions for which attendance next to mandatory, and the barriers to opting out through the private road are kept purposefully, and artificially high. This is blatantly hostile to dissenters, especially Christians, who do not wish to partake in this lifestyle nor have it pushed on them, something which is perfectly covered by the right of free association, the property in one’s person and social interaction.

The best answer to heinous acts such as this is to allow the market to decide what sort of sex education the next generation should get in schools. Surely, some will offer precisely this sort of sex education in leftist strongholds, but it will not extend into the hinterlands where there is still some belief in standards and decency. Mass privatization will break the stranglehold of Washington, not to mention state governments, over the curriculum and could stem the teaching of the ahistorical and racist 1619 Project, drag shows for minors, etc.

In many libertarian and conservative circles, Milton Friedman’s voucher plan is considered to be the gold standard in free market school solutions. Instead of the current system, Friedman suggested giving a voucher for each student which could be used at public or private schools, thus opening the latter up to federal funding and presumably, helping them proliferate. Indeed, this system would be an improvement, but it is hardly the gold standard.

State money comes with strings attached. One can hardly imagine the state not coming out with guidelines of institutions eligible for the vouchers which presupposes the state setting universal standards and guidelines for all schools public and private. A consequence of the Friedman plan is total control by the state on what is and is not acceptable anywhere, not just for public schools. This would start out with relatively benign concerns about safety and mathematics standards, but would undoubtedly extend into peripheral areas which there is much disagreement about. Schools which do not provide separate bathrooms for transgender students, fail to teach a curriculum of racialized history, or even all boys or all girls schools would sooner or later find themselves on the chopping block.

If vouchers are introduced into the economics of private schools not now accustomed to this cash inflow, they will quickly build it into their operating costs, and soon it will not be a windfall but a necessity for operation. Work expands to fit the budget allowed for it. It follows that losing these vouchers would be a calamity, even if the institution had previously operated without them, and many if not most, would bend their rules and principles to keep the state dollars flowing. Surely there would be some obstinate private schools content to lose funding rather than accommodate the state’s demands, but this cannot be expected of the majority, since this is, after all, a business.

Libertarians and conservatives taken with the Friedman model are on the right track but are not thinking bold enough. The answer is not get the state to fund the private schools too, but privatize the public school infrastructure, remove the regulatory burden on starting up a new school, and achieve the total separation of education and state.

By removing the state from education, a number of things will happen: the absolute size of the behemoth will shrink, teacher’s unions will have less power over the student’s educational continuity, different sorts of education will be offered, and Christians, rightists, libertarians, anti-statists, and free thinkers will not be forcibly subjected to the state’s propaganda.

Without the need to oversee the education of most children in the third largest country on earth, the size of the state will decrease. There will be no need for legions of teachers to be employed by the state, but most of them will not be out of the job, they will form the backbone of the new, private teaching workforce.

Without massive public school districts, strikes by teacher’s unions will be less likely and less destructive, making the recent Los Angeles teacher’s strike—which took 420,000 students out of the classroom—next to impossible. Presumably, with the regulatory environment lightened, there will be a return of yellow dog contracts which would prevent school employees from joining unions at all as a condition of employment.

In industries as complicated as education, no two firms will be alike (as opposed to snowplowing firms, which are quite alike). This diversity ensures that a greater variety of goods will be offered, allowing parents to have more control over what and how their children learn. Some schools will hone mathematics and raise engineers quicker and cheaper, others will bring the humanities to the forefront and build a new cadre of well-rounded citizens to think up tomorrow’s big ideas, still others will provide a strictly Christian or otherwise religious education and offer a whole host of classes on theology. The possibilities are as endless as they are exciting.

Finally, those who dissent from the statist, racialized, and anti-Christian outlook which has seized the public schools will not be compelled to attend them. There will be schools modeled on free men and free markets, God and country, or any other motifs there is a market for. America’s vibrant Church community will undoubtedly get in on the action and build self-funding schools of their own as the Catholics have been doing for over a hundred years. As a bonus, with the multiplicity of firms, it will be impossible for the socialistic, racialized, and anti-Christian mindset to invade all schools as it currently does under the state system. How would it do so without an easy point of entry at the administrative level and renewed resistance from empowered private schools?

Considering all these points, the case for total liberty in education is not a hard one to make. Indeed, the hard sell is maintaining the statist system as it currently stands. In light of failing schools, teacher’s strikes, anti-Christian propaganda across the board, and skyrocketing costs, a reasonable person might say the statist system is a failure and ripe for replacing. Total liberty in education is an idea whose time has come, America deserves it. It is time to separate education and state.


Cruz Marquis

Cruz Marquis is a former U.S. Marine, a current economics student, and the administrator of

RELATED ARTICLE: What Parents Really Want from the Education Establishment

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

Plundering Biden Creates New Government Agency, the “Office of Environmental Justice”

G-d help us. The climate and racial  hoax on steroids.

  • President Joe Biden will sign an executive order directing federal agencies to invest in disadvantaged communities disproportionately affected by pollution and climate change, the White House said.
  • The president, who is preparing to announce his reelection bid next week, will make the announcement during a ceremony at the White House Rose Garden.

Biden Signs Executive Order Creating ‘Office of Environmental Justice’

By Brittany Bernstein, National Review, April 21, 2023:

President Biden signed an executive order on Friday directing all federal agencies to make it their “mission” to work toward “environmental justice for all.”

The order, which comes one day before Earth Day, also creates a White House Office of Environmental Justice. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.”

The order aims to “better protect overburdened communities from pollution and environmental harms.” It claims that “racism is a fundamental driver of environmental injustice,” according to the White House.

“For far too long, communities across our country have faced persistent environmental injustice through toxic pollution, underinvestment in infrastructure and critical services, and other disproportionate environmental harms often due to a legacy of racial discrimination,” the White House said.

The directive would also require federal agencies to notify communities if toxic substances are released from a federal facility.

“This is about people’s health. It’s about the health of our communities. It’s only about the future of our planet,” Biden said during a signing ceremony at the White House on Friday.

Read more.




Climate Hoax

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


PERPETUAL WAR: Biden Announces New Ukraine Military Aid Package of Another $325 Million

Robbing Americans who can ill afford this rampant legal plunder to prop a brutal dictatorship. This is nothing short of war against our own country.

Billions for this evil clown (who closed the churches, imprisoned the priests, shut down the free press) and a big middle finger to Americans. America should be punishing this behavior not heaping billions, accolades and endless, sycophantic puff pieces in the government press.

U.S. announces new Ukraine military aid package of $325 million

By: Mike Brest, Washington Examiner, April 19, 2023:

The Biden administration has agreed to provide Ukraine with another $325 million of military equipment, officials announced on Wednesday.

This security package, which came via the presidential drawdown authority (meaning the weapons will come from existing U.S. stockpiles), provides Ukraine with more ammunition for U.S.-provided weapons, such as HIMARS, artillery rounds, anti-arms systems, small arms, logistics support vehicles, and maintenance support.

“We will continue to stand with our Ukrainian partners in response to Russia’s continued war of aggression,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement. “This new security assistance will enable Ukraine to continue to bravely defend itself in the face of Russia’s brutal, unprovoked and unjustified war. Russia could end its war today. Until Russia does, the United States and our allies and partners will stand united with Ukraine for as long as it takes.”

The administration’s announcement did not specify the quantity of munitions, but this package resembles other recent deliveries. This is the 36th package to come from the Defense Department’s stocks that will go to Ukraine since the war began in February 2022, and it brings the total U.S. military aid to nearly $36 billion.

This aid package comes days ahead of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s meeting with defense leaders from across the globe. On Friday, he and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will convene with the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which meets monthly, this time at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, to discuss Ukraine’s latest needs in the war.

Ukraine is expected to launch its offensive in the coming weeks to recapture occupied territory, though the Pentagon has not painted overly optimistic expectations. Some classified documents regarding the status of the war were among the hundreds allegedly released by Massachusetts Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira.

One document, labeled “top secret,” which was from early February, warned that large “force generation and sustainment shortfalls” make it more likely that their offensive will result in only “modest territorial gains,” according to the Washington Post. There’s also a document dated Feb. 23 that provided an insight into the fighting in Ukraine’s Donbas region, which predicted a “grinding campaign of attrition” by Russia that “is likely heading toward a stalemate, thwarting Moscow’s goal to capture the entire region in 2023.”

Another leaked document indicated Ukraine has, at times, had alarmingly low levels of Western-supplied weaponry, specifically air defense and ammunition.

Keep reading.





 Zelensky, Ukrainian officials embezzled $400 million from US aid: report

Dictator Zelensky Rejected Putin’s Offer For Christmas Peace After Banning Churches

Ukraine’s Zelenskyy Officially Declares Himself A Dictator

Standard Charted Bank helped Al Qaeda buy bomb materials: lawsuit

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

Biden’s HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra Violated The Hatch Act, Office of Special Counsel Says

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra violated the Hatch Act after he advocated for the election of a Democrat, a new investigation found.

Special Counsel Henry J. Kerner said in a letter to President Joe Biden that Becerra spoke “in his official capacity” at an awards gala in September of 2022, breaking the law.

“As explained in the accompanying report, OSC concluded that Secretary Becerra violated the Hatch Act by expressing support for Senator Alex Padilla’s reelection while speaking in his official capacity at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Annual Awards Gala on September 15, 2022,” Kerner wrote.

“In delivering his speech, Secretary Becerra impermissibly mixed his personal electoral preference with official remarks,” the letter continued. “While federal employees are permitted to express support for candidates when speaking in their personal capacity, the Hatch Act restricts employees from doing so when speaking as a government official.”

“With a presidential election approaching next year, this report offers an opportunity to deter violations by reminding federal employees at all levels of the Hatch Act’s restrictions.”

Becerra said he regrets his “inadvertent violation,” according to The Washington Post.

“While I did not realize at the time that my off-the-cuff remarks concerning my personal voting intentions were in violation of the Hatch Act, I now understand why they were not permitted.”



News and commentary writer.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden HHS Secretary Unable To Say How Many Gov’t Workers Actually Show Up To Work In Federal Buildings

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

U.S. Army Teaching Officers at Fort Leavenworth that White People Can’t Experience Racism

Apparently these people have never heard of the teachings of the racist, Marxist BLM, CRT, DEI which promote hate and violence towards our country and that target white, black, Asian and Hispanic conservatives and other people considered to be “oppressors” as well as the TRUTH.

Let’s hope these officers are still capable of critical thinking rather than being brainwashed!

 Army teaching officers that white people can’t experience racism —

The U.S. Army at the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth is teaching officers in intermediate level education (ILE) that white people can’t experience racism, defining racism as “a complex system of believes and behaviors that result in the oppression of people of color and benefit the dominant group.”

The definition of racism is taught in an elective course called “Race and Gender in U.S. Military History,” which is available for up to 32 students each year. The course is taught by Angela Riotto, an assistant professor at the college, according to TRMLX, who first reported on the course.

The course description states that “an effective military only functions under the principles of equality and inclusion.”

“Manpower policy regarding inclusion and equality has only changed when forced to by the necessities of war or from outside social and political influence,” it continues. “This course will examine the history of service of minority groups and women in the U.S. Military, major amendments to manpower policy, and historic problems with presenting a less than unified force.”

Lt. Col. Josh Camara told American Military News in an email that the course is “discussion-based” and said it “provides a historical overview of minority groups and women in the U.S. Military.”

“Definitions for terms like ‘racism’, ‘sex’, and ‘gender’ provided in this class are used as baseline definitions to facilitate discussion on this topic. Students are intellectually challenged, and not taught to accept any one point of view, but to critically examine and discuss sometimes controversial concepts in the coursework,” Camara said.

The course also defines gender as “a set of socially constructed characteristics, such as norms and behaviors, typically associated with being masculine, feminine, androgynous, or other.”

“The Command and General Staff College is at the forefront of building Army leaders ready to fight and win our nation’s wars,” Camara told American Military News in an email. “Students receive top-of-the-line instruction from some of the very best minds in the country. Training is regularly updated to provide engaging, and relevant courses that prepare Army leaders to succeed in a wide range of challenging environments.”

In order to become qualified for a promotion to Lieutenant Colonel, Army Majors must attend ILE, according to the FY 23 ILE Enrollment Guide.

“The Command and General Staff Officer Course (CGSOC) is the Army’s graduate-level curriculum and instruction for field grade officers and is commonly referred to as Intermediate Level Education (ILE),” the guide states. “It is the next required professional military education course to be completed after Captains Career Course. ILE Educates and trains leaders to conduct Decisive Action in a JIIM environment and advances the art and science of the profession of arms to support the operational requirements of the Army.”

Camara told American Military News that definitions for the course come from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and provided a link to the department’s “Key DEI Terms.” “DEI” is an acronym for “diversity, equity and inclusion.”

Other DEI definitions listed on the HHS website include:

  • Antiracism “is the policy or practice of actively and consciously opposing racism and promoting racial equity.”
  • Social justice “is a vision of a society that distributes equal resources to all individuals.”
  • Undocumented “is a foreign-born person living in a country without legal citizenship status.”
  • Cisgender “refers to a people whose assigned sex at birth aligns with their gender identity.”
  • Gender identity “is one’s internal sense of being a man, a woman, neither of these, both, or another gender(s). Gender is a social—not biological—construct.”
  • Heteronormativity “is the assumption that heterosexuality is natural, ideal, or superior to other sexual preferences.”
  • Misgendering “is referring to or using language to describe a transgender person that doesn’t align with their affirmed gender—for example, calling a transgender woman ‘he’ or ‘him.’”
  • Non-binary “refers to a person whose gender is neither only male nor only female.”
  • Sex assigned at birth “is the biological category (female, male, or intersex) given at birth based on biological characteristics (i.e., physical anatomy and hormones).”
  • Environmental racism “is the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards on people of color.”

©2023 All rights reserved.

A fresh look at the scandal of poverty in America, the world’s richest country

Regardless of its shortcomings, Desmond deserves much credit for telling harsh truths about the lives of the least fortunate members of society.

Poverty, by America
By Matthew Desmond. Crown. 2023. 304 pages

Published to much acclaim in March, Matthew Desmond’s Poverty, by America focuses on one of the most distinctive aspects of American life: abnormally severe poverty existing alongside abundant wealth.

This sociologist has previously written about aspects of poverty such as the housing crisis which is afflicting poorer Americans.

Poverty, by America is broader in its focus, and consciously echoes Michael Harrington’s ground-breaking 1962 work, The Other America, which captured public attention and inspired much of the action later undertaken as part of President Johnson’s “War on Poverty.”

Though income inequality exists all across the developed world, the human stories he reports emphasise a harsher edge to American poverty.

More than 3.6 million eviction notices are provided to occupants each year in the US, with “eviction movers” being a well-known feature of life.

Absent the stricter employment legislation in place in Western Europe, job security is increasingly hard to find in an environment where permanent unionised positions have been replaced by temporary contracts, and Desmond adds that half of all new positions are eliminated within a year.

America’s social safety net is also more porous and harder to access, meaning that billions of dollars are spent annually on litigation by people seeking to claim benefits. In 2019, almost 400,000 payments were made to parties representing people who had applied for disability.

This book is not called “Poverty in America,” however, as Desmond’s central thesis is that the actions taken by wealthier Americans inflict major harm on the poor.

The payment of low wages allows corporations to increase dividends to shareholders (a category which includes most Americans, who either own stock or have retirement funds), and efforts to change this situation such as Walmart’s decision to raise wages in 2015 can come at a cost in terms of lost market value.

More affluent people can also profit from the range of possibilities offered by the rise of companies like Uber and Amazon, while avoiding ever having to experience the work conditions and wages of those in temporary or precarious employment.

“Fast and cheap – that’s how we prefer to consume in America,” Desmond writes. “But somebody has to pay for it, and that is the rag-and-bone American worker. Poverty wages allow rock-bottom prices. Relentless supervision and control facilitate fast service. The working class and working poor – and, now, even the working homeless – bear the costs of our appetites and amusements.”

Though firmly of the Left, Desmond resists the temptation to lay the blame for this problem at the door of any one political party, instead suggesting that the economic choices of those in the more advantaged classes lie at the heart of the injustices he sees across American society.

Calling for higher taxes and highlighting the degree to which existing tax breaks and benefits are skewed towards those who need help the least, he assails the tendency of some to close their eyes to poverty while shutting themselves off from it within economically segregated communities.

While he describes the significant racial disparities in income, Desmond retains his focus on the core divide between the haves and the have nots, while urging that there be a greater focus on economic inequality, for instance, by calling on businesses that hang Black Lives Matter signs and trans flags to also publicise their starting wages.

Most people are implicated in all of this, and therefore an all-encompassing societal solution is necessary.

“Don’t we benefit when we see our savings go up and up, even when those returns require a kind of human sacrifice? Consumers benefit from worker exploitation, too,” he writes. “We can now, with a few clicks, summon rides and groceries and Chinese takeout and a handyman, all at cut rates. We have become masters in this new servant economy, where an anonymised and underpaid workforce does the bidding of the affluent.”.

Desmond puts forward a range of proposals which he believes could end poverty in America, beginning with income and corporation tax rises aimed at bringing America’s tax revenue in line with Western democracies.

This revenue, he suggests, could then be used to rebalance the social safety net, with an emphasis on universal income support programmes which avoid distinctions between those who qualify for assistance and those who narrowly fall outside the current limits.

Elsewhere, he backs more government spending on public housing, more restrictions on predatory lending practices and reforms to labour laws which would make it easier for collective bargaining to take place across entire economic sectors.

While it is impossible to question the sincerity of his concern for the poor, some of Desmond’s analysis appears shallow.

Surveying the evidence as to whether minimum wage increases create unemployment, he pronounces that any employment effect is “inconsequential.”

If that is true – that raising the price of labour does not lessen demand for labour – one wonders why he does not support far more dramatic minimum wage hikes.

Regarding the decline of labour unions, the author reiterates the conventional left-wing explanation about hostile government action by highlighting President Reagan’s decision to fire striking air traffic controllers in 1981.

The work of Robert Putnam and others has made clear that the weakening of unions forms part of a broader pattern of enhanced atomisation and community decline, where individuals are less likely to join unions, churches or other social institutions.

One interesting parallel between the work of Desmond and that of his crusading forerunner Michael Harrington is the religious background to their activism.

In Harrington’s case, his original inspiration was made clear in his own words, when he wrote that it was “through Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement that I first came into contact with the terrible reality of involuntary poverty and the magnificent ideal of voluntary poverty.”

By the time he published The Other America, the religious faith of this former editor of the Catholic Worker had been replaced by a growing commitment to socialism, but the lasting imprint of Catholicism remained obvious.

Decades later, Christian social activism would play a crucial role in Matthew Desmond’s life, when his family moved to a downtrodden community in Arizona in which his father had been appointed as a pastor.

A more comprehensive analysis of contemporary American poverty would have involved more serious reflection about the degree to which secularisation – and the accompanying tragedy of family breakdown –  has hampered efforts to eradicate poverty in an increasingly prosperous country.

Writing in the early 1960s, Harrington observed that among the poorest in society, “marriage was somewhat irregular,” while adding that it “was not uncommon to meet two or three sets of half brothers and half sisters living under the same roof.”

Even as a lapsed Catholic, Harrington perceptively noted another change already setting in when he described how the social function of churches was increasingly “a phenomenon of the middle class” rather than something which impacted heavily on those at the bottom rung of society.

Decades of social science research by Charles Murray, Putnam and others have made clear how significant this change has been.

Yet Desmond is clearly sceptical, focusing attention on economic rather than social factors and dismissively that the “bourgeois model of the two-parent family is made possible by the same stuff that made the bourgeoisie: money.”

His social liberalism is even more pronounced elsewhere, when he bemoans the existence of pro-life laws in many American states while arguing that “when reproductive choice is constricted, women and their children are often cast into poverty.”

Later on, and without any sense of irony, he laments the fact that poverty means there are “many ‘lost Einsteins’ who would have made enormous contributions had they been allowed to reach their full potential.”

Poverty, by America is nonetheless a thought-provoking book which addresses economic trends and public policy issues far beyond America’s borders.

Regardless of its shortcomings, Desmond deserves much credit for telling harsh truths about the lives of the least fortunate members of society, and more importantly, for asking the awkward questions about the complicity of the comfortable.


James Bradshaw

James Bradshaw writes on topics including history, culture, film and literature. More by James Bradshaw

RELATED ARTICLE: Technocracy à la Macron threatens Western democracy

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

The Biden Admin Hands Out Millions To Green Groups That Supported His Climate Bill

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded $177 million to environmental groups, including some who publicly supported the Biden administration’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, the agency announced Thursday.

The funding will be spread across 17 groups, which will each receive a minimum of $10 million to serve as Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Technical Assistance Centers (EJ TCTACs), to help “underserved and overburdened communities” access government funding to support environmental justice initiatives, the EPA reported in a press release. Groups named by the EPA include the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), WE ACT for Environmental Justice and the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSCFEJ), which each supported the president’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act.

While the NWF supported the law in its totality, the other two organizations offered more measured support, over concessions made to fossil fuels at the behest Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. The EPA also tapped the Research Triangle Institute — a nearly billion-dollar nonprofit with a longstanding working relationship with the agency — to serve as an environmental justice center.

“These EJ TCTACs are in direct response to feedback from communities and environmental justice leaders who have long called for technical assistance and capacity building support!” the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights said in a tweet thread Thursday. “The EJ TCTAC program is partnered with [the Department of Energy] and is part of the Federal Interagency Thriving Communities Network to deliver on the Biden Administration’s Justice40 Initiative to ensure that 40% of the benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities.”

The funding represents a significant boost to groups like the NWF and DSCFEJ, two environmental groups tapped by the EPA. In 2021, the NWF generated roughly $118 million in revenue, while the DSCFEJ generated just $3.54 million in 2020, according to publicly available documentation.

“We know that so many communities across the nation have the solutions to the environmental challenges they face,” said EPA Administrator Michael Regan in the press release. “Unfortunately, many have lacked access or faced barriers when it comes to the crucial federal resources needed to deliver these solutions. Today we’re taking another step to break down these barriers.”

Including Thursday’s announcement, the EPA has announced a combined $827 million in funding for environmental justice initiatives in 2023, according to the agency’s press release.

RTI, NWF, DSCFEJ and WE ACT did not immediately respond to a Daily Caller News Foundation request for comment.





California Electric Utilities Announce Income-Based Billing Proposal

After Pushing To Shut Coal Plants Down, Biden Shells Out Millions For Green Projects In Coal Towns

Fox News Host Spars With Liberal Activist Over Biden’s New Electric Vehicle Rules

Germany will shut down its last nuclear plants amid warnings of new energy crisis

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

Hey Joe, How many U.S. Soldiers Lives will be Needlessly Lost after you Convert to a All Electric Military Fleet of Land Vehicles (EVMLVs)?

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. has made it his mission to go all electric when it comes to vehicles. To do this he is mandating new car-pollution standards in a way that’s meant to dramatically speed the adoption of all electric vehicles (EVs).

The Associated Press asked the following,

Q. What is the EPA proposing?

A, The proposed tailpipe pollution limits don’t require a specific number of electric vehicles to be sold every year, but instead they mandate limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Depending on how automakers comply, the EPA projects that at least 60% of new passenger vehicles sold in the U.S. would be electric by 2030 and up to 67% by 2032.

For slightly larger, medium-duty trucks, the EPA projects 46% of new vehicle sales will be EVs in 2032.

[ … ]

Q. What is the auto industry saying about the proposed rules?

A. John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing most automakers, called the EPA proposal “aggressive by any measure” and wrote in a statement that it exceeds the Biden administration’s 50% electric vehicle sales target for 2030 announced less than two years ago.

The Washington Post reported on the biggest hurdle facing America’s EV revolution,

Most electric vehicle drivers charge their vehicles at home. But as Americans buy EVs – to the tune of 7 percent of all new vehicle registrations in January – more and more people are finding that the public charging system is unreliable, inconvenient and simply confusing.

“I’ve seen people wait because there are only four chargers and two of them are out of service,” said Bill Ferro, the founder of EVSession, a software firm that tracks charger reliability. “Everything that I’ve seen shows that it’s driving away current and potential EV owners.”

Read more.

QUESTION: What about our military land vehicle fleet?

U.S. Military Land Vehicle Fleet

The Biden EPA vehicle standards also apply to all the cars, trucks, postal vehicles and military land vehicles in the current inventory.

Let’s just look at the military land vehicle fleet.

According to here is a list of military land vehicles:

Main Battle Tank

Infantry Fighting Vehicles

Armored Personnel Carriers

Light Armored Vehicles

Mine Protected Vehicles

Combat engineering vehicles

Self-Propelled artillery and Anti-Air

Prime Movers and Trucks


Unmanned Combat Vehicles

So our U.S. military has 81 different models of military land vehicles, that number in the thousands of vehicles that must now meet Biden’s new EPA rules.

Are you getting the picture?

The Bottom Line

According to the Modern War Institute,

The US military is the largest institutional consumer of petroleum fuels on the planet, using as many as 4.2 billion gallons of fuel each year. The military pays a premium for its fuel—the Defense Logistics Agency spent over $9 billion dollars on fuel in 2019. Expenditures went down significantly during the pandemic but in 2022 Congress had to appropriate more money for fuel purchases not once, but twice for a total of $3 billion extra. Furthermore, the ongoing war in Ukraine and OPEC’s commitment to reduce production will keep fuel prices high for the foreseeable future. The price of delivering fuel to remote outposts can cost the Pentagon as much as $1,000 per gallon, according to the Army. And dollars aren’t the only way the military pays for fuel; it also pays for it with the blood of service members. Between 2003 and 2007 one out of every eight casualties in Iraq came as a result of protecting fuel convoys.”

Read more.

The U.S. military is investing around $2.4 billion towards integrating hybrid (HEV) and plug-in electric (PEV) vehicles into its fleet in order to become net-zero in energy consumption by 2050. The Army plans to electrify light-duty non-tactical vehicles by 2027 and all non-tactical vehicles by 2035, along with energy efficiency improvements and microgrid systems at all Army installations. Training and leadership development will incorporate climate change topics no later than 2028.

So, our military will gradually become HEV or PEV and our troops will be schooled on climate change.

When I was in the military we always refueled all of our vehicles whenever we stopped in a new tactical location.

Please, Joe, explain to me how will we re-charge and refuel all of these HEVs and PEVs in the field during combat?

Is the U.S. military going to tow around generators in the combat zone? Will they only be deployed into those countries that have sufficient charging stations that our PEV military land vehicles can plug into?

Get the idea?

Biden is weakening our military and putting our soldiers and national security at great risk just to reduce America’s carbon footprint. Why?

BTY, most of the batteries currently used in EVs and in the new PEVs will most probably be made in China.

It doesn’t get any worse than this.

War fighting and winning on the battlefield is being replaced with the Biden Green New Deal political agenda.

Biden wants to “save the planet” while he puts American soldiers, sailors and Marines at ever greater risk.

Our enemies are watching and laughing at the U.S.

Biden’s green policies are a clear and present danger to America and its citizens.

©2023 Dr. Rich Swier, LTC, U.S. Army (Ret.). All rights reserved.


‘I Want You To Answer’: GOP Rep Presses Biden Energy Secretary On Military’s Electric Vehicle Overhaul

Next Generation AbramsX Tank Will Have Hybrid Power Plant

VIDEO: This Is Why ‘Green Solutions’ Are a Gigantic Scam

Energy as a Vehicle of Control and the War on Carbon.

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola


  • According to the globalists, climate change is the No. 1 threat to humanity, necessitating radical quality of life sacrifices and the total relinquishing of privacy and freedom
  • Climate change is also being used to explain away food shortages, justify the need to move people from the countrysides and suburbs into smart cities, and promote the replacement of beef with insects. The COVID-19 pandemic was even blamed on it
  • Globalists want health (which includes both medicine and food, under the new “food is medicine” agenda), climate action and energy control to be addressed not as three separate issues but as one
  • One of the globalists’ fraudulent solutions to the purported climate crisis is Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) investing. A company’s ESG score is supposed to tell investors how socially conscious the company is, but recent scandals have revealed ESG is a scam
  • Carbon trade refers to the buying and selling of credits that allow a company to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide. By buying credits from nonpolluters, industry can continue to pollute. Basically, like ESG investing, the carbon trade is a globalist scam intended to lower the living standards of the poor and usher humanity into carbon slavery

According to the globalists, climate change is the No. 1 threat to humanity, necessitating radical quality of life sacrifices and the total relinquishing of privacy and freedom. Germany’s health minister Karl Lauterbach, for example, in December 2020 proclaimed that addressing climate change will require restrictions on personal freedom, similar to those implemented to “flatten the curve” of COVID.1

Similarly, British economics professor Mariana Mazzucato in September 2020 warned that “In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again — this time to tackle a climate emergency.”2 The World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations and the World Health Organization have also published articles stating their intent to “fight climate change” by shutting down society.3

Climate change is also being used to explain away food shortages, justify the need to move people from the countrysides and suburbs into smart cities, and promote the replacement of beef with insects. The COVID-19 pandemic was even blamed on it.

Health, Climate and Energy To Be Addressed as One Issue

Just about anything is now being justified on the basis that it helps address climate change. Indeed, dietary controls, energy control, carbon restrictions and climate change are increasingly tied together, whether it makes sense or not, and the reason for this can be found in a September 2022 WEF article4 co-written by the director of WHO’s Environment and Health Department. As noted in this article, titled “How to Fight the Next Threat to Our World: Air Pollution”:

“[W]orld leaders must put health at the core of climate action and social equity. The fight for clean air can accelerate the reduction of climate-warming emissions, the shift to cheaper and more reliable energy sources and justice for the marginalized and most vulnerable communities … We can confront these crises more effectively and fairly if we address them as one …”

In other words, health (which includes both medicine and food, as government has now launched a “food is medicine” agenda), climate action and energy control are to be addressed not as three separate issues but as one. The potential implications of this are enormous.

If the WHO ends up having sole power over global health, combining health, climate and energy issues into one will automatically give the WHO the de facto power to seize control over society in general.

They could issue climate lockdowns, for example, on the basis that lockdowns reduce pollution, hence improving public health. That the WHO will jump at the opportunity to implement climate lockdowns in particular can be seen in the WHO “Manifesto for a Healthy Recovery From COVID-19,” which states:5

“The ‘lockdown’ measures that have been necessary to control the spread of COVID-19 have slowed economic activity, and disrupted lives — but have also given some glimpses of a possible brighter future. In some places, pollution levels have dropped to such an extent that people have breathed clean air, or have seen blue skies and clear waters, or have been able to walk and cycle safely with their children — for the first times in their lives …

Opinion polls from around the world show that people want to protect the environment, and preserve the positives that have emerged from the crisis, as we recover …

Decisions made in the coming months can either “lock in” economic development patterns that will do permanent and escalating damage to the ecological systems that sustain all human health and livelihoods, or, if wisely taken, can promote a healthier, fairer, and greener world.”

This manifesto also lays out many other aspects of The Great Reset agenda, including smart cities, travel restrictions, new food systems, a complete transition to green energy and more. But again, the thing that will really facilitate all of these changes is to have a centralized powerbase, and that is the WHO.

We’re now told we have to sacrifice our standard of living because we have a responsibility to save the planet. However, ‘green solutions’ are a gigantic scam designed to disempower and control everyone but the ones at the very top of the power pyramid, while accomplishing little in terms of producing a cleaner environment, let alone having a distinct effect on climate. The WHO could also mandate individual carbon footprint tracking,6 as carbon emissions are claimed to be a primary contributor to climate change. A likely argument would be “We have to rein in our personal carbon footprint because pollution is deadly, and if you don’t, you’re responsible for the death of others.”

Sacrificing selfhood and the rights of individuals to “serve the greater good” is a hallmark call of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, and they used this “care for others” argument during COVID to pressure people into compliance with everything from lockdowns and social distancing to wearing a mask and getting the jab.

The same narrative is also being used to prop up the “climate emergency.” We’re now told we have to sacrifice our standard of living because we have a responsibility both for others and for the earth itself.

However, while pollution is a reality that needs to be addressed, the solution the totalitarian cabal is offering is a gigantic scam designed to disempower and control everyone but the ones at the very top of the power pyramid, while accomplishing little in terms of producing a cleaner environment, let alone having a distinct effect on climate.

The ESG Scam

One of the globalists’ fraudulent solutions to the purported climate crisis is Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) investing, first popularized in 2004.7 In more recent years, ESG funds have gained steam and now make up about 10% of all invested assets.8

A company’s ESG score is supposed to tell investors how socially conscious the company is, based on its behavior within the environmental, social and corporate sphere. For example, does the company have safeguards in place to protect the environment or policies to address climate change?

How “equitable” is its relationship with employees, suppliers, customers and the local community? And how does it stack up in terms of company leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls and shareholder rights?

Has the company taken steps to eliminate conflicts of interest that encourage self-dealing by executives? Does it conduct independent audits and is there a traceable line of fiduciary duty? And so on.

ESG investing is supposed to encourage companies to act responsibly, but it’s actually having the opposite effect. Somehow or other, companies are greasing the right hands and getting great ESG ratings, only to later turn out to have the worst governance possible and/or a track record of environmental destruction.9

One of the latest in a long line of scandals is that of FTX, a cryptocurrency exchange that went belly up overnight while its CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried absconded with up to $2 billion of client funds.

John Ray, the appointed CEO of FTX’s bankruptcy stated: “Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here.”

FTX’s ESG score really ought to have been nonexistent. Cryptocurrencies are extremely energy-intensive and wasteful (the “E” in the score), customer satisfaction (part of the “S” in the score) within the crypto space had been tanking for over a year, courtesy of the repeated evaporation of wealth.

As for the “G,” FTX had no board of directors, an “irregular ownership structure,” was rife with conflicts of interest and self-dealing, and had no financial controls whatsoever. Bankman-Fried didn’t even keep an accurate list of accounts. Yet at the time of FTX’s demise, it had a higher governance score than Exxon Mobil. As reported by Forbes:10

“Of the many dimensions of the FTX fiasco, the most shocking is the comprehensive failure of corporate governance, now becoming clear as the bankruptcy process unfolds. Sloppy and likely illegal management practices at FTX have raised doubts that extend beyond the company to call into question the whole crypto premise. They also cast doubt on the integrity of the ESG rating business …

ESG — broadly, let us call it ‘virtuous investing’ — is now a big business in the investment world. ESG ratings … purport to score capitalists (i.e., private-sector profit-driven corporations) against a melange of ‘goodness’ indicia of all sorts. Does the company’s business model help or hurt the Amazon forest?

Does the firm have enough ADA-rated bathrooms? Does it offer paternity-leave to its employees (regardless of gender)? Does it have board members who check all the right diversity boxes? …

ESG has captivated many, on both the ‘buy-side’ of the market … and on the ‘sell-side’ … But ESG is still a fluid concept, and much has been made recently of the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the ratings. For many, the core of ESG is G … Governance is the tip-of-the-spear when it comes to creating sustainable business models. It all starts from the top, which guides every other aspect all the way down …

According to a recent academic study of six prominent ESG rating agencies … ‘ESG ratings from different providers disagree substantially…’ Most of the divergence/confusion arises from differences in measurement methodology and execution. But there is also evidence of bias: ‘we detect that the rater’s overall view of a firm influences the measurement of specific categories’ …

The panoramic failure of FTX this month highlights a flawed governance framework, which today’s simplistic virtue metrics fail to reflect accurately — hence the absurd rankings cited for FTX vs Exxon and others.”

FTX isn’t alone in falling short of expectations though. According to a September 2021 report by climate change think tank InfluenceMap, more than half of the 723 funds marketed using ESG claims failed to meet the Paris Accord rules on carbon emissions and clean energy, and more than 70% of funds with broad ESG goals failed to meet global climate targets.11

Similarly, a May 2021 report12 by the Economist concluded some of the largest ESG funds in the world are “stuffed full of polluters and sin stocks.” A 2019 report by the Wall Street Journal13 also noted, “Eight of the 10 biggest U.S. sustainable funds are invested in oil-and-gas companies, which are regularly slammed by environmental activists.”

In short, the ESG investing scheme is yet another globalist scam that allows them to promote their own agenda outside of the democratic process.

Wind turbines, solar panels and electric-everything is touted as the answer to the purported climate crisis, yet most of these “green” solutions are far more environmentally destructive than oil and gas.14

Many also end up requiring more fuel rather than less. Importantly, there aren’t even enough minerals in the world to allow even a single country to go 100% electric. As just one example, to replace the 31.5 million vehicles in the U.K. with electric cars will require twice the global supply of cobalt!15 The math just doesn’t work.

So, are the globalists stupid? No. They’re fully aware they can’t replace all gas-powered cars with EVs, be it by 2030 or 2050. See, they know you won’t even be allowed to travel very far by the time the EV goals and mandates go into effect, so you won’t need a car in the first place.

Forcing states and countries to transition to EVs merely speeds up the end goal of preventing you from owning a car and driving anywhere. It also justifies the creation of “15-minute cities.”

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Farmers Are Being Pushed Into Carbon Slavery

As Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., cofounder of the Indian NGO Navdanya, has warned, we are being ushered into carbon slavery. As explained in Navdanya’s report, “Earth Democracy: Connecting Rights of Mother Earth to Human Rights and Well-Being of All”:16

“If ‘feeding the world’ through chemicals and dwarf varieties bred for chemicals was the false narrative created to impose the Green Revolution, the new false narrative is ‘sustainability’ and ‘saving the planet.’

In the new ‘net zero’ world, farmers will not be respected and rewarded as custodians of the land and caregivers … the providers of our food and health. They will not be paid a fair and just price for growing healthy food through ecological processes, which protect and regenerate the farming systems as a whole.

They will be paid for linear extraction of fragments of the ecological functions of the system, which can be tied to the new ‘net zero’ false climate solution based on a fake calculus, fake science allowing continued emissions while taking control over the land of indigenous people and small farmers.

‘Net Zero’ is a new strategy to get rid of small farmers … through the burden of fake carbon accounting. Carbon offsets and the new accounting trick of ‘net zero’ does not mean zero emissions. It means the rich polluters will continue to pollute and also grab the land and resources of those who have not polluted — indigenous people and small farmers — for carbon offsets.”

Bill Gates has alluded to this double-standard in responding to those who criticize him for the hypocrisy of being a serious polluter himself, with a 66,000 square-foot mansion, a private jet, 242,000 acres of farmland and investments in fossil fuel-dependent industries such as airlines, heavy machinery and cars.17

This pollution is acceptable, Gates said, because, “I am offsetting my carbon emissions by buying clean aviation fuel, and funding carbon capture and funding low-cost housing projects to use electricity instead of natural gas.”18

Focusing solely on carbon reductionism also misses the point that lands, forests and ecosystems are more than just the carbon stored in them, and putting carbon conditions on small farmers will only make environmental injustices worse. As noted by Navdanya’s report, “Conditionalities put on the nonpolluters by the polluters who want to continue to pollute is unjust and ecologically, morally and ethically bankrupt.”

The Carbon Trade Scam

Carbon trade refers to the buying and selling of credits that allow a company to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide, and by buying credits from nonpolluters, industry can continue to pollute. Basically, like ESG investing, it’s nothing but a globalist scam that lowers the living standards of the poor while having no negative impact on the wealthy.

Indeed, you can be assured that the carbon restrictions that will be placed on humanity will not apply to the globalists. They can simply buy enough carbon credits to maintain their lifestyle, while the lower-, middle- and even upper classes of “regular” folk will be forced to make major sacrifices to theirs. Ultimately, carbon slavery will apply not just to farmers but to all of us, as our personal carbon footprint will be part of our social credit score.

The first credit card with a carbon-emission spending limit was introduced in April 2019. As explained by the World Economic Forum,19 “Everything we put in our shopping basket comes at an environmental cost … Swedish fintech company Doconomy has launched a new credit card that monitors the carbon footprint of its customers — and cuts off their spending when they hit their carbon max.” Isn’t that nice? They’re helping you do your part to save the planet!

Or are they? “Helpful” tools like this will ultimately become tools for control. Eventually, your carbon footprint will dictate what you can eat and wear, where you can live and how far you can travel, and you won’t even need a special credit card. Meanwhile, there will be plenty of loopholes for the rich.

ESG, the carbon trade and personal carbon footprint tracking will all become barriers of entry — a way to keep the peons out of the rich boys’ club. Needless to say, rigged schemes like ESG and the carbon trade also make it difficult for startup companies to compete, which will facilitate consolidation of companies and industries into mega-monopolies.

Last but not least, the focus on carbon emissions has made the world turn a blind eye to other far more harmful kinds of pollution, such as dioxin — thought to be the most toxic molecule on Earth — which in March 2023 was allowed to contaminate huge areas of Ohio without government lifting a finger to address it.20

Sources and References

EXCLUSIVE: Trump Campaign Responds To Biden Afghanistan Review

Donald Trump’s campaign responded to President Joe Biden blaming the former president’s administration for the Afghanistan withdrawal.

The Biden administration released a review of the August 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan on Thursday, blaming the former administration for leaving “difficult realities” behind for Biden and “severely” constraining him.

The document criticized Trump for calling for talks with the Taliban, ordering the drawdown of U.S. troops, negotiating a withdrawal deadline for May 1 of 2021, and not giving Biden plans on how to conduct the final withdrawal during the presidential transition.

Trump’s team responded to Biden’s criticisms by saying the Biden administration is “trying to gaslight the American people.”

“Biden and his administration are trying to gaslight the American people for their disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan that directly led to American deaths and emboldened the terrorists,” Trump’s spokesperson Steven Cheung told the Daily Caller.

“Biden’s complete erosion of American deterrence can be directly assigned blame for Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, Kim’s decision to restart missile launches, and Xi’s pending decision to invade Taiwan and Chinese spy balloons surveilling American. And those are only the nation-state threats we’re aware of. The world has become a more dangerous place under Joe Biden,” Cheung added.

The U.S. completely withdrew from Afghanistan in August of 2021, ending the 20-year war. Thirteen Americans died during the withdrawal.

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates. 




Explosive Afghanistan IG Report Rocks Biden Administration

Biden Admin Review Blames Trump For ‘Challenges’ In Afghanistan Withdrawal

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