U.S. Funded Study: Physics is Racist

“A $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation funded a 22-page “study” that used Critical Race Theory to argue that physics was racist, in part because it rewards students for getting the right answer and uses whiteboards.” — Luke Rosiak, Daily Wire

US Funded Study Claims Physics is Racist Because Students Are Rewarded for Being Correct

By  Luke Rosiak •  •  DailyWire.com

A $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation funded a 22-page “study” that used Critical Race Theory to argue that physics was racist, in part because it rewards students for getting the right answer and uses whiteboards.

The paper was funded through National Science Foundation Grant No. 1760761, which gave $500,000 to Seattle Pacific University for “understanding centrality and marginalization in undergraduate physics teaching and learning.”

“Critical Race Theory names that racism and white supremacy are endemic to all aspects of U.S. society, from employment to schooling to the law,” the paper reads. “We see the outcomes of this in, for example, differential incarceration rates, rates of infection and death in the era of COVID, and police brutality. We also see the outcomes of this in physics.”

In exchange for the hefty government funding, two scholars — a “chronically ill and disabled, physics-Ph.D.-holding, thin wealthy white woman” and a black man — watched videos of four science lessons, and spoke to two students and the teacher over Zoom.

[ … ]

Ironically, while the paper’s only finding of “whiteness” in a classroom was a Middle Eastern student supposedly oppressing his peers by helping them, it is the researchers themselves who seem to have the white person take up most of the space, with the white researcher conducting the Zoom interviews, referring to herself in the first-person in the text, and placing her name first.

Anticipating the rebuttal that cherry-picking a single exchange in one class lesson and turning it into a far-reaching metaphor is not rigorous research, the federally funded academics simply say anyone who said so would be “engaging in bad faith argumentation.”

Justifying how a Middle Eastern male working hard, getting the right answer, and helping his peers represents a negative trait called “whiteness” that is allegedly everywhere, they reason that “whiteness is pervasive, insidious, and complex.”

Yet they also could not describe it. “Part of the difficulty in characterizing whiteness lies with its having no genuine content,” the paper says.

Read more.



Top med school putting wokeism ahead of giving America good doctors

Where Does Your State Rank in Education Freedom?

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

Van Jones: Biden Wants Election to Be about Trump, Not Inflation

Monday on CNN’s Situation Room, CNN Political Commentator Van Jones stated that President Biden wants the election “to be a choice between Trump and himself” but that he needs to tell people, “I’m not just going to write you off” if you don’t vote Democrat.

Jones said, “I think he’s trying to do something that’s difficult. He wants this election, frankly, to be a choice between Trump and himself, and not just a referendum on inflation, etc. So, that’s a part of the political strategy here.”

To be clear, what Biden wants is to divert attention from his catastrophic presidency and demonize Trump and the Right as domestic terrorists, fascists, and threats to democracy. His “strategy” is fear-mongering and the politics of personal destruction.

Jones continued, giving the mentally decrepit and hateful Biden far more credit than he deserves: “What Joe Biden should be saying [to the GOP] is, ‘Guys, I’m not even asking you guys to become Democrats. I want you to become Republicans again. I want you to actually be true to your best values. You are the party of Lincoln. You are the party of Jack Kemp. I want to work with you, be your best self. I’ll fix my party. I’ve got nuts in my party, but you’ve got to be better in your own party.’ That kind of conversation from Joe Biden, I think would shock a lot of people. I think the idea that you only talk to people if you can convince them to vote for you, and if they won’t vote with you, you don’t care about them, that’s not us. That’s some new, weird stuff in America. It works on Twitter. It doesn’t work when you’re trying to run a country.”

Jones is right when he says that painting half the country as the enemy is no way to run a country. But that’s the Democrat way.

Van Jones

128 Known Connections

Jones says he became politically radicalized in the aftermath of the April 1992 Los Angeles riots which erupted shortly after four L.A. police officers who had beaten the now-infamous Rodney King were exonerated in court. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th,” says Jones, “and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.”

In early May 1992, after the L.A. riots had ended, Jones was dispatched by LCCR executive director Eva Patterson to serve as a legal monitor at a nonviolent protest (against the Rodney King verdicts) in San Francisco. Local police, fearful that the event would devolve into violence, stopped the proceedings and arrested many of the participants, including all the legal monitors. Jones spent a short time in jail, and all charges against him were subsequently dropped. Recalling his brief incarceration, Jones says: “I met all these young radical people of color. I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.”

To learn more about Van Jones, click here.


Jean-Pierre Struggles When Confronted with Her Record of Election Denial

Vet to Milley: Your Job is to Win Wars, Not Fight Climate Change

BLM Exec Accused of ‘Siphoning’ Over $10 Million from Donors

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

Here’s How Much The Federal Government Has Spent Studying Impact Of Sex Change Meds We’re Already Giving Kids

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spent at least $17,576,200 since 2008 researching the impact of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, NIH records show, drugs that are already widely administered to children who identity as transgender.

Researchers used NIH funds to study the impact these medications have on bone density and strength, reproduction, immunity, cardiometabolism and mental health, along with several other issues. Most of these grants were issued after 2017 as interest in the subject grew, although some date back as early as 2008.

Although researchers are still learning about the long-term effects of these drugs and whether they actually help reduce depression and suicide rates for youths, they are already widely administered to children who identify as transgender; the Gender Identity Development Service at Tavistock in the U.K., the largest pediatric gender clinic in the world, has referred about 1,000 patients to endocrinologists to be assessed for puberty blockers, a spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The NIH gave the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles more than $7.7 million in grants for a project studying the impact of puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones on children as young as 8, according to various documents reviewed by the DCNF.

The study aims to determine whether early medical interventions for youths reduce the health issues that disproportionately impact transgender people, including anxiety, depression, substance abuse and suicide. Researchers observed 391 patients aged 8 to 20 at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and the Benioff Children’s Hospital; 90 went on puberty blockers and 301 went on cross-sex hormones, researchers reported.

“Ultimately, we aim to understand if early medical intervention reduces the health disparities well known to disproportionately affect transgender individuals across their lifespan,” researchers wrote. “The lack of data supporting medical interventions for transgender youth, combined with a shortage of providers knowledgeable of the complex psychosocial risk factors facing these young people, contributes to a health disparity and public health crisis of considerable magnitude.”

An activist who goes by Billboard Chris drew attention to the NIH grants online, highlighting the young age of some of the participants in this taxpayer-funded study.

Researchers in this observational study have been collecting data on existing models of care for trans-identified youths for about a decade in response to an Institute of Medicine report calling for further research on the subject, according to the study. The NIH contributed $7,748,467 to the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in several separate grants for this project since 2015, according to the NIH website.

When undergoing medical sex change procedures beginning at an early age, children are administered puberty-blocking drugs then eventually put on cross-sex hormones such as testosterone or estrogen. The FDA has warned of a possible link between puberty-blocking drugs and serious symptoms like vision loss, and researchers in this study note the link between the drug and diminished bone density.

The drugs that are used to halt healthy puberty for transgender children have an official on-label purpose of delaying precocious puberty in young children, and they have also been used to chemically castrate sex offenders. Marci Bowers, a famous transgender surgeon, has publicly admitted that “every single child who was truly blocked at Tanner stage 2 [around 9 to 11 years old] has never experienced orgasm.”

Activists and medical professionals justify the administration of these drugs to children by claiming that, without them, transgender youths will commit suicide. Researchers have said that receiving these treatments in youth can reduce the risk of suicide and depression in numerous methodologically flawed studies which failed to control for confounding variables, failed to find causality and in some cases were funded by transgender activists groups and pharmaceutical companies that produce the drugs themselves, according to multiple DCNF investigations.

The DCNF calculated the sums of grants the NIH gave for projects specifically examining the effects of medications administered as part of the gender transition process; its funding of transgender-related research generally is far more expansive.

The NIH, the project’s contacts and the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.



Social issues and cultural reporter.


Michigan Public School Appears To Hide ‘Gender Support Plans’ From Students’ Parents

California becomes sanctuary state for medical gender transition for kids, teens

Yes, Doctors Are Performing Sex Change Surgeries On Kids

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.

Hawaii is No. 1 In the World – In Tourist Taxes

Last month, the website money.co.uk published an article giving our Honolulu a claim to international fame (or infamy).  It listed the city as having the highest tourist tax of any city in the world.  It noted our 10.25% transient accommodations tax, to which is added 3% county TAT.  “That’s already a hefty tax anywhere in the world,” the article says, “but when consider that the average room in Honolulu costs £321 ($390), that equates to £42.53 ($51.70) a night.”

The runner-up, according to the article, was San Francisco, which charges a 14% transient occupancy tax.  Its average room night was a bit less pricey at $212 per night, leading to a tax bite of $29.61 per night.

Meaning that, even with the article’s numbers, Honolulu is 75% higher in taxes than the second most tourist-taxed city in the world.

But that doesn’t show an accurate picture.  The article seems to have screwed up.

You see, they forgot to include the GET, which appears on hotel folios on top of the 13.25% TAT.  So, our tax is actually higher.  Quite a bit higher.

Indeed, if 4.712% is added in, our tax toll rises to 17.962%, or $70.05 a night (£57.62 for those keeping score in British pounds sterling).  This astronomical total is almost double the levy in San Francisco and almost six times that in the priciest destination in a non-U.S. country, namely Amsterdam in the Netherlands, which was scored at 11.31 euros (£9.73 or $11.82) a night.

But wait!  There’s more.

The article also compares countries charging flat rate tourist taxes, such as departure taxes charged at the airport.  Mexico is currently the winner at 224 Mexican pesos ($11.12 with currencies being converted at the rate in effect on June 30, 2020).  The next few countries, Thailand at 300 baht ($8.53), Belgium at 7.50 euros ($7.87), and Japan at 1000 yen ($7.33), all impose departure taxes at less than $10.

Conservation groups in Hawaii have been pushing for enactment of a Hawaii “visitor green fee,” which would work much like these departure taxes.  They, as well as one University of Hawaii economist, have noted that some island destinations such as Palau and the Galapagos Islands levy a $100 visitor green fee, and have urged Hawaii to adopt such a fee.  In the 2021 legislature, two bills (HB 805 and SB 666) would have imposed a visitor fee of $40.

If we actually imposed such a fee, it would vault us to the top of this list as well, and by a wide margin.  (Apparently Palau and the Galapagos didn’t make the list of the 100 most visited cities according to Euromonitor International, which the rankings were based on, and thus weren’t included.)

Fortunately, as we have noted before, such fees would violate the U.S. Constitution and thus cannot be charged by any individual State or county.  So, we shouldn’t be spending more time and energy trying to make our state and cities even more of an international outlier when it comes to tourist taxes and fees.

For those of us who think tourists are bad news and should stay the heck away from Hawaii Nei, these taxes are probably going to accomplish what you want.  Tourists are going to think twice, or more, before shelling out for an experience in Hawaiian paradise.  We have seen the economic result of tourists staying home en masse, because this is what happened during the pandemic.  The pain of workforce layoffs and business closures continues to this day.  Is that the future you want?  Is that the future we want?

We need to stop winning international contests like this.


Tom Yamachika

President Tax Foundation Hawaii

RELATED ARTICLE: Honolulu: Highest Tourist Taxes on Earth

PODCAST: Help Wanted, IRS, Candidate Must Be Willing to Use Deadly Force

UPDATE: ‘In A Tyrannical State, You Have To Rule By Fear’ – Why Are IRS Agents Armed?

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” – Club of Rome, a premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations.

These globalists believe the common man is the enemy. So it makes perfect sense that the IRS is armed when they come for your taxes, or DOES IT? Will you comply?

All policies in the Green Broke Deal can be found in UN Agenda 21. This document is over 300 pages, 40 chapters of total control over the means of production and distribution of all means of human activity.

After the raid on Mar-a-Largo, do not for one minute think you will not be next. This is the way intimidation works. This is what globalists use to keep you in line. Prepare. Read about communists, and dictators taking over. They are at their end game, where they reveal themselves because they think they won. But they got sloppy and now will lose.

We are being set up, so be on your guard. Pay attention locally and to your state politics. Sadly Globalists have taken the worst plans their evil leaders offered, plans that ultimately hurt people without remorse, were definitely over budget, and full of graft and corruption.

We will be hit with many things that don’t make sense. Don’t pay attention. Choose your battles wisely.

Sometimes we must look at things through different lenses. Join us al listen to some stories of people who were forced to live under a communist regime.

Is America worth saving? Join us on The Prism of America’s Education and find out…


Chris Wright is an independent liberty activist in the leadership of the Potomac Tea Party, a national Tea Party based in Northern Virginia. He is also president of the first and only nonprofit formed to empower grassroots activists with small grants. A long-time student of public affairs, Mr. Wright, began his Daily Skirmish commentaries in 2020 to directly confront the Left and deconstruct its phony narratives. Daily Skirmish Commentaries, Website:  www.Liberato.US, and www.Spider-and-the-Fly.com.

Erik Seligman is co-host of the  Stories of Communism podcast. Erik served from 2013-2017 on the board Oregon’s 4th largest school district, helping to oversee the education of about 20,000 students. He was continually frustrated with the entrenched socialist philosophy being promoted in the schools. After leaving the board, he started the Stories of Communism podcast (with his friend Manuel Castaneda, a successful local businessman & immigrant), to share the real stories of those who had suffered under socialism. He earns his living as an engineer, having recently retired from Intel after nearly three decades there, and is now a Senior Product Engineering Architect at Cadence Design Systems. He also produces a podcast called Math Mutation in his spare time. He now lives in the suburbs of Wichita, Kansas, with his wife, daughter, and cats.

The Prism of America’s Education can be heard on weekends at 1 pm ET, with an encore at 9 pm ET. Listen on iHeart Radio, our world-class media player, or our free apps on AppleAndroid, or Alexa. All episodes can be found on podcast networks worldwide the day after airing on talk radio.

©. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: New IRS “Special Agent” Job Post Description: “Carrying Firearm and Willing to Use Deadly Force”

FDR Campaigned on Fiscal Restraint in 1932. He Delivered Just the Opposite

The 1932 election is perhaps the best example of the rule that prevails all too often in the political world: You get what you voted against.

With Labor Day upon us, the summer of 2022 is ebbing as the campaign season kicks into high gear. On November 8, American voters will decide the composition of the next Congress based largely upon what they hear over the next two months. Sadly, what candidates say when running often doesn’t look like what they do later when elected.

Such was the case 90 years ago in the year 1932, near the bottom of the Great Depression. All eyes focused on the presidential contest between incumbent Republican Herbert Hoover and Democrat challenger Franklin Roosevelt. When the smoke cleared, Roosevelt won in a landslide with 57.4 percent; Hoover trailed with 39.6 percent; Socialist Party nominee Norman Thomas came in third, drawing a scant 2.2 percent.

If you were a socialist (or a modern “liberal” or “progressive”) in 1932, you faced an embarrassment of riches at the ballot box. You could go for Norman Thomas. Or perhaps Verne Reynolds of the Socialist Labor Party. Or William Foster of the Communist Party. Maybe Jacob Coxey of the Farmer-Labor Party or even William Upshaw of the Prohibition Party. You could have voted for Hoover who, after all, had delivered sky-high tax rates, big deficits, lots of debt, higher spending, and trade-choking tariffs in his four-year term. Roosevelt’s own running mate, John Nance Garner of Texas, declared that Republican Hoover was “taking the country down the path to socialism.”

Journalist H. L. Mencken famously noted that “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.” If you agreed with Mencken and preferred a non-socialist candidate who promised to get government off your back and out of your pocket in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt was your man—that is, until March 1933 when he assumed office and took a sharp turn in the other direction.

The platform on which Roosevelt ran that year denounced the incumbent administration for its reckless growth of government. The Democrats promised no less than a 25 percent reduction in federal spending if elected.

Roosevelt accused Hoover of governing as though, in FDR’s words, “we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible.” On September 29 in Iowa, the Democrat presidential nominee blasted Hooverism in these terms:

I accuse the present Administration of being the greatest spending Administration in peace times in all our history. It is an Administration that has piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs and the reduced earning power of the people. Bureaus and bureaucrats, commissions and commissioners have been retained at the expense of the taxpayer.

Now, I read in the past few days in the newspapers that the President is at work on a plan to consolidate and simplify the Federal bureaucracy. My friends, four long years ago, in the campaign of 1928, he, as a candidate, proposed to do this same thing. And today, once more a candidate, he is still proposing, and I leave you to draw your own inferences. And on my part, I ask you very simply to assign to me the task of reducing the annual operating expenses of your national government.

Once in the White House, he did no such thing. He doubled federal spending in his first term. New “alphabet agencies” were added to the bureaucracy. Nothing of any consequence in the budget was either cut or made more efficient. He gave us our booze back by ending Prohibition, but then embarked upon a spending spree that any drunk with your wallet would envy. Taxes went up in FDR’s administration, not down as he had promised.

Don’t take my word for it. It’s all a matter of public record even if your teacher or professor never told you any of this. For details, I recommend these books: Burton Folsom’s New Deal or Raw Deal; Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression; my own Great Myths of the Great Depression; and the two I want to tell you about now, John T. Flynn’s As We Go Marching and The Roosevelt Myth.

For every thousand books written, perhaps one may come to enjoy the appellation “classic.” That label is reserved for a volume that through the force of its originality and thoroughness, shifts paradigms and serves as a timeless, indispensable source of insight.

Such a book is The Roosevelt Myth. First published in 1948, Flynn’s definitive analysis of America’s 32nd president is arguably the best and most thoroughly documented chronicle of the person and politics of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Flynn’s 1944 book, As We Go Marching, focuses on the fascist-style economic planning during World War II and is very illuminating as well.

John T. Flynn was a successful and influential journalist with a reputation for candor and first-rate research. He was neither a shill for Big Government nor a puppet of Big Business. He railed against both when they conspired to undermine the Constitution, erode our freedoms, or suck the nation into foreign entanglements. He saw right through the public relations job depicting FDR as a valiant crusader for noble causes.

Was FDR a man of principles, a man guided in his thinking by a fixed set of lofty and non-contradictory ideas? Far from it, Flynn proves, in what is an important theme of the book. FDR’s thinking and behavior show him to be a real-life exemplar of an old Groucho Marx wisecrack: “Those are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others!”

FDR was less of an ideologue than he was a shallow opportunist capitalizing on the public’s demand for “action.” With the gift of an orator’s tongue, he could sell just about anything to a desperate public. As a candidate in 1932, he sold the antidote to the poison he later injected. Usually, these things are done in reverse order.

The depression that FDR inherited was still very much with us after two terms in the White House. He zigged and zagged from one Rube Goldberg policy contraption to the next. His elitist brain-trusters covered for his failures and cooked up new schemes, in what Flynn called “the dance of the crackpots.”

H. L. Mencken saw the events of the 1930s in similar fashion and could be even more sarcastic. He described FDR’s New Deal as “a political racket,” a “series of stupendous bogus miracles” with its “constant appeals to class envy and hatred,” promoting government as “a milch-cow with 125 million teats” and marked by “frequent repudiations of categorical pledges.”

Flynn’s critique of the Mussolini-inspired New Deal’s two main hallmarks—the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA)—remains one of the most devastating ever penned. The “crazy antics” of the NRA put a New York tailor behind bars for pressing a suit of clothes for 35 instead of 40 cents. With the AAA, “we had men burning oats when we were importing oats from abroad on a huge scale, killing pigs while increasing our imports of lard, cutting corn production and importing 30 million bushels of corn from abroad.”

Flynn’s view of FDR’s coterie of planners was right on target, each “a kind of little man who will tell you that he can’t hit a nail straight with a hammer, but who loves to spread a big country like the United States out before him on top of a table, pull up a chair and sit down to rearrange the whole thing to suit his heart’s content.” The result of all his interventions was to lengthen the Great Depression by seven years, according to economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian.

In 1939, Roosevelt was well into his second term when his Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau let something slip that no historian should forget:

We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot.

Flynn’s As We Go Marching and The Roosevelt Myth leave the reader with a sense of distaste that the liberties and the pocketbooks of a nation were placed in the hands of so beguiling a schemer as Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Given the lingering deification of FDR, John T. Flynn’s two books are relevant and necessary today as they were so many decades ago. Americans who prefer their history not be twisted to serve statist ends or sanitized by the politically correct should be sure to stock their libraries with these classics. No one who reads them with an open mind will ever think of Roosevelt the same way again.

As a final note, another fascinating book on the same subject is Hell-Bent For Election by FDR’s financial advisor James Warburg, who regarded the president poorly in hindsight. Warburg observed that FDR was “undeniably and shockingly superficial about anything that relates to finance.” He was driven not by logic, facts, or humility but by “his emotional desires, predilections, and prejudices.”

In the world of economics and free exchange, the rule is that you get what you pay for. The 1932 election is perhaps the best example of the rule that prevails all too often in the political world: You get what you voted against.

For Additional Information, See:

Media Still Peddling Great Depression Myths by Lawrence W. Reed

The Great Crash 90 Years Later by Lawrence W. Reed

The First Government Bailouts: The Story of the RFC by Burton Folsom

FDR’s Financial Advisor Explains What’s Wrong with His Client by Lawrence W. Reed

Cal and the Big Cal-Amity by Lawrence W. Reed

Hell Bent for Election by James Warburg


Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is FEE’s President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty, having served for nearly 11 years as FEE’s president (2008-2019). He is author of the 2020 book, Was Jesus a Socialist? as well as Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on LinkedIn and Like his public figure page on Facebook. His website is www.lawrencewreed.com.

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

Biden is Paying Osama bin Laden’s Old Airline to Fly Out Afghans

The Taliban are getting rich from the immigration business. And we’re paying for it.

Ariana Afghan Airlines used to fly Al Qaeda terrorists from Afghanistan to the Middle East. As a sideline, it also flew guns and drugs on behalf of the Islamic terrorist organization. While Ariana was controlled by Osama bin Laden, it was allegedly coordinated by Viktor Bout, the Russian arms dealer whom Biden has offered to trade for pothead WNBA player Brittney Griner.

But these days Ariana has a new mission and we’re the ones paying for it.

The Biden administration is buying bulk tickets on the Taliban airline, according to a congressional report, and paying “approximately $300,000 per flight to a Taliban controlled airline in order to allow U.S. citizens and Afghan allies to continue evacuating.”

Taliban Air flies Afghans to Qatar, a close ally and state sponsor of Islamic terrorists, and then they go on to America. With tens of thousands to over a hundred thousand Afghans in the pipeline, the Taliban could see over $100 million in payments from Biden for its airline.

Ariana Afghan Airlines, notorious for its terrorist connections and its poor safety record (the Europeans banned it some years back and it’s ranked as one of the most dangerous airlines in the world although face masks and probably burkas are compulsory), is once again under the control of the Taliban. And it’s a crucial part of the Taliban business model.

The Taliban sabotaged Biden’s retreat, keeping Americans and Afghans with visas trapped behind enemy lines to profit from their evacuation. And they’ve been doing just that. While the media has been shy about covering what’s going on, the Taliban have been quite open.

Taliban officials have boasted of handing out over 700,000 passports to collect $50 million.

“We are issuing up to 4,000 passports daily and we aim to increase the number to 10,000,” Shirshah Quraishi, deputy director of Afghanistan’s passport department, bragged.

It’s a myth that the Taliban are not allowing Afghans to leave. They’re happy to facilitate the trip for the right price. They’re also willing to let Americans and other foreigners visit since “the Taliban leadership also made more than $1 million in visa fees paid by more than 4,100 foreign nationals who have visited Afghanistan over the past year.” Many if not most of those visitors are involved in humanitarian aid organizations which the United States is also financing.

The Taliban profit from the Biden administration buying bulk tickets on its terrorist airline, they profit from issuing the visas to Afghans leaving the country and they profit from them once they come to America. A Los Angeles Times profile of a family of Afghan refugees describes them getting welfare payments and then sending money back home to Afghanistan.

Such remittances are a commonplace reality among immigrants and a major incentive for mass migration. A number of Latin American economies depend on remittances leading them to encourage mass migration to America. The Taliban have done the same thing in Afghanistan.

In 2020, total Afghan international remittances were estimated at $780 million making up 4% of the failed state’s GDP. Between the mass migration and the collapse of Afghanistan’s economy, the numbers fell, but will likely rebound to become much higher in the coming years.

Much of this money is sent through the Islamic ‘Hawala’ system often used by terrorists.

The Biden administration deliberately insulated remittances from sanctions on the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s Haqqani network going so far as “authorizing transactions involving the U.S.-blacklisted Taliban or Haqqani Network that are incident and necessary to the transfer of noncommercial, personal remittances to Afghanistan.”

Biden had created a massive loophole for funding Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Afghans in America are collecting welfare and sending cash back home. Some of it may be going to their family members while other payments may end up in the hands of the terrorists. Either way, the Taliban and Al Qaeda will take their cut.

And the flow of remittances will make the Taliban Air flights and the visa payoffs seem minute.

Taliban financial institutions break up remittances into installments, thereby potentially profiting from interest rates (despite the formal Islamic stricture against it), charge fees and peg payments to their artificial exchange rate against the dollar which has little connection to reality.

The Taliban profit in three separate ways from just the payments alone, and will profit in many more ways as the money is injected into an economy that they control. That’s why they want to hand out 10,000 visas a day if they can. The more Afghans come to America, the more money the terrorists make when they send payments back home. It’s also why so many of the Afghan migrants are young military-age men. They were never refugees, but guest workers meant to move to America, get jobs, collect aid and send the money back to the Taliban terror state.

The flow of military-age men also helps disguise a terrorist infrastructure allowing Taliban, ISIS and Al Qaeda to inflitrate America, build criminal and terror cells to provide more cash and plot attacks among the huge number of undocumented migrants flown out by Biden in the last days.

The Afghanistan refugee crisis is actually a deliberate effort by the Taliban to create a sustainable funding model for their failed terrorist state through humanitarian aid, passports, flights and remittances. And Americans are footing the bill at every stage of the scam.

Under Osama bin Laden, Ariana Afghan Airlines was a system for transporting terrorists. Under the Taliban, it will play that role once again. Even the Clinton administration had sanctioned Ariana, while Biden is funding Ariana flights, allowing the terror airline to maintain its legitimacy and finance its operations. On September 11, Al Qaeda infiltrated our nation and flew airplanes into our buildings. Now, the terrorists are inflitrating their cash cows and terrorists into America.

And we’re paying their airline for the tickets.


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


Video: This Week in Jihad with David Wood and Robert Spencer

France: Muslim migrant threatens cops, ‘I will find you, you questioned a Muslim, you will go to hell’

France: Muslim confesses to killing man because he was Jewish, authorities discount confession and search for motive

Canada’s spy agency CSIS accused of ‘smuggling’ UK teens including Shamima Begum to the Islamic State

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

REPORT: Biden’s IRS Handed Prison Inmates Over $1 Billion In COVID Relief

President Joe Biden’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) gave a huge number of prison inmates at least $1.3 billion in COVID-19 stimulus checks, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

There are more than 1.1 million incarcerated individuals who took in the stimulus money, according to IRS data provided to the Free Beacon, as part of Biden’s $1.4 trillion American Rescue Plan. Those incarcerated who received the stimulus money includes roughly 163,000 people serving life sentences without parole, the IRS told Republican Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon in a letter obtained by the outlet.

“Democrats had every opportunity to stop taxpayer dollars from going to convicted criminals,” Mike Palicz, federal affairs manager for Americans for Tax Reform, a group seeking to lower federal spending, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Instead, Democrats blocked a Republican amendment that would’ve prevented inmates from receiving stimulus payments and sent up to $1,400 checks to more than one million incarcerated criminals.”

The American Rescue Plan was signed by Biden in March 2021 in order to provide relief to Americans amid the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. Americans earning $75,000 or less per year were eligible for a $1,400 stimulus check under the plan and married couples filing jointly earning $150,000 or less were eligible for a $2,800 check.

Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the stimulus package, claiming its price tag was far too high. Republican senators backed an amendment put forth by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy in March 2021, which Democrats rejected, that would have blocked prisoners from getting stimulus checks.

“Individuals were not denied Economic Impact Payments solely because they were incarcerated,” the IRS says on its website under a frequently asked questions page about The American Rescue Plan, explaining that inmates may have received funds if they filed a tax return in 2019 and 2020.

It is unclear how many inmates facing the death penalty received stimulus checks.

A spokesman for the IRS told the DCNF the agency “does not track the information related to incarcerated individual’s sentences” and IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig told the Free Beacon he does not have data on the matter.

Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton had raised concerns in 2021 about the fact that under the plan prisoners would receive money, slamming the idea that someone like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 2013 Boston Marathon bomber, would get $1,400. Tsarnaev ended up raking in $1,400 in connection to the plan, the Boston Herald reported in January 2022.

“The Democratic Party is drunk with power, and their reckless billions in spending continue to funnel out of the United States Treasury with little to no guidance,” Republican Florida Rep. Byron Donalds told the DCNF upon learning of the IRS payments to prisoners.

The Treasury Department did not respond to a request for comment nor did The White House.



Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Most Americans Don’t Buy Claims That Biden’s 87,000 New IRS Employees Will Target The Rich

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.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Calls for IRS Audits on Lawmakers Who Voted for the Inflation Reduction Act

DeSantis! Our voice! He’s a giant.

Why shouldn’t these scoundrels suffer the pain they’ve inflicted upon us.

DeSantis calls for IRS audits on lawmakers who voted for Inflation Reduction Act

By Heather Hamilton, The Washington Examiner, August 31, 2022:

Gov. Ron DeSantis suggested every lawmaker who voted to pass the Inflation Reduction Act should face mandatory annual audits by the Internal Revenue Service.

Earlier this month, President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act that included $80 billion to overhaul the IRS, with more than 80,000 new positions largely intended for taxation enforcement.

“I think every member of Congress that voted for that bill should be required to be audited every year by the IRS,” DeSantis said while speaking in Fort Pierce, Florida, Tuesday as those in attendance responded with laughter.

The Republican governor objected to the legislation, saying that it would be used to target those who the “government doesn’t like.”

“Those IRS agents are going to be mobilized to go after people that the government doesn’t like,” DeSantis said. “They’re going to be going after people who are not going to be able to defend themselves against these audits.”

DeSantis also said the Democrats’ touting of taxation enforcement on billionaires is misleading, noting that the wealthy have accountants and lawyers to handle the audits.

The Republican governor previously equated the expansion of the IRS to the Biden administration giving people “the middle finger.”



Gavin Newsom’s Father and Mother in-law DONATED to Ron DeSantis, Records Show

REALITY! Joe Biden Speaks in Pennsylvania, Can’t Even Fill High School Gym

U.S. Military Runs Low On Ammo, Biden Regime Gave It To Corrupt Oligarchs in Ukraine

NEW KING OF LATE NIGHT: FOX’S Greg Gutfeld Beat EVERYONE In Late Night Ratings Race

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

Afghan Refugees in U.S. Are Sending Our Tax Dollars Back to Afghanistan

Not actually a surprise.

Some countries run their entire economies around remittances, promoting mass migration to America, and then profiting from the money sent back to their families. Once we enabled money to enter Taliban territory, this was inevitable.

But this little detail emerges from what is supposed to be a sympathetic profile of Afghan migrants by the Los Angeles Times, but is actually an exercise in entitlement.

In many ways, Musafer said, America has provided him and his family with the safety and opportunity they had hoped for. He quickly found a full-time job at an Apple warehouse. His children — Sefatullah, 18; Rabia, 16; Muqaddas, 12; and Subhanullah, 10 — are enrolled in school. He and Yalda take English-language courses. Many in Yalda’s family immigrated to California several years ago, during an earlier phase of the U.S. occupation, and on weekends the Musafers spend time with her sister’s family, cooking together or exploring Northern California.

But America sucks.

About 10 miles from Musafer’s home, Ali Zafar Mehran questioned why the resettlement process for Afghans hasn’t gone more smoothly. Since arriving in the U.S. in April, Mehran, 36, has struggled to find housing. His caseworker told him that it could take months for the resettlement agency to help him find a place to live.

It can take Americans months to find a place to live. And we do it without subsidies or a government-funded agency.

“This resettlement system and refugee services are not fair,” said Mehran, who worked as a budget advisor for the Justice Sector Support Program — an international partnership with the U.S. and Afghan governments to help reform the Afghan criminal justice system and curb the flow of narcotics. “Some of my friends received good services. But most are in bad situations like me.”

His resettlement agency didn’t help him find a home, he said.

Why should it? The vast majority of people coming to this country don’t have government agencies finding them homes. They have to do that on their own.

He found his current apartment through another friend, who said he knew the leasing office manager in a complex in the Arden Arcade area where many Afghans have resettled.

That’s how it works.

Mehran used his “welcome money,” about $3,500 disbursed by the resettlement agency, to pay for the apartment that he has furnished with hand-me-downs and items he’s salvaged from the street. His wife, Karima, 31 — a former nurse who gave birth to their second daughter after moving to California — sleeps on a mattress he pulled from the trash. The decorative pillow cases that he brought from Afghanistan are also filled with things he found in the garbage.

Mehran works in a warehouse, he got $3,500 in aid and is getting government aid now. Why can’t he afford a mattress for his pregnant wife?

He borrowed roughly $12,000 from friends to purchase a car, a rug and other household items.

Buying the rug is a priority, but your wife can sleep on a mattress from the trash. That’s a cultural value.

“I really didn’t expect it, that life will start like this in the United States,” Mehran said. “I have lots of other problems. I must earn money to send to my parents in Afghanistan.”

Each month, he receives roughly $1,400 from Sacramento County in the form of cash aid and food stamps.

Between a full-time job and $1,400 in state welfare, Mehran might have more money, but he’s sending it to his family who live in Talibanstan. One way or another, the terrorists will get a cut of money brought into Afghanistan.

How much money is he sending to them? We’re not told.

The bottom line though is that Mehran is surly and complaining about the country that took him in and is lavishing cash on him because it’s not doing enough, meanwhile he’s sending money back to his home country.

We haven’t left Afghanistan.



What’s Behind the Cover-Up of the Kabul Suicide Bombing?

Kabul airport jihad bomber was known days before explosion, CIA and Pentagon wouldn’t give permission to kill him

U.S. Colonel blocked busloads of Americans and US allies trying to escape Afghanistan

Biden’s Open Door to Jihad Terrorists

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

What Is Really Behind The Climate Agenda?

Noah Harari, a futurist advisor to the World Economic Forum (WEF), told the forum that they must become the majority and leave the rest behind. He was saying we don’t need regular folks. We don’t need carpenters, plumbers, hairdressers, mechanics automobile workers, farmers and ranchers. They are all lesser lights. What we want to accomplish on this planet is all for us, Harari was saying.

For the WEF and other related organizations making this statement was actually acknowledging the globalist elites desire to activate Eugenics. It was introduced in the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century in Russia where all science that did not fit their desired narrative was rejected. In the end it set back Russia for decades. It is happening here in the US and will likely have the same result setting our nation back decades if we don’t stop it. Deciding that man’s’ emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are bad with no science to support is an example of Eugenics, which disregards all science it does not agree with.

It was based on the idea that there are lesser lights among us, some people with birth defects and other people who frankly are just not up to snuff and need to be removed from society or at least measures should be taken to ensure that they never enter society.

Eugenics was a very fashionable belief then. Two American presidents, both self professed progressives like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were in the thick of eugenics. Then along came a failed artist who managed to get himself the head of Germany, and he made eugenics or a version of it the central organizing principle of the Third Reich.

Now as we all know that did not end well and so eugenics went out of fashion or at least the term eugenics went out of fashion, but not the idea. It resurfaced in the 1950’s and 1960’s this time under the guise of population control, the notion that Mr. Harari pointed out—just too many people in the world, and measures must be taken to ensure that we reduce the numbers. Either to seeing to it that they’re never born in the first place or through other means.

By 1968 Paul Ehrlich had come up with the book Population Bomb. The book stated among other things that the planet was becoming too crowded and that we were moving beyond its carrying capacity. He said it was the biggest threat facing mankind. Five years later the Club of Rome came out with a report titled Limits to Growth accepting the premise of Paul Ehrlich and others claiming there were just too many people on the planet.

The book went beyond that premise to say that we were putting a strain on resources and that ultimately there would not be enough resources to take care of the rest of us on the earth. Between the two documents a narrative was developed that coincided with the rise of the environmental movement ignited by Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring, which said that trace elements of chemicals and other substances pose a threat to humanity.

By the late 1980’s we were told that we were living beyond our limits and that human beings through their use of fossil fuels and their agricultural practices were contributing to a potentially catastrophic warming of the planet.

This was popularized as we all know by Al Gore and throughout Europe by the former Prime Minister of Sweden.

It was not a new idea, it actually had been rafting around Europe in the 19th century, but not everywhere until Gore picked it up in college. While he had no scientific sophistication whatsoever, he liked what he read and decided to make it the cause of his life and in that sense he actually succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

This kind of pseudoscience itself was not new at all. It went in Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union back the 1930’s when soviet scientist Lysenko came up with the idea human genetics was a bourgeois science and had to be suppressed at all costs.

For the Soviet Union that made perfect sense because the USSR was in the midst of creating the new soviet man. That new Soviet man was to be created from scratch when according to human genetics traits are passed from parents to biological children and so on. So all of that was suppressed and any scientist or doctor or anyone who spoke out against the suppression of the notion of Human Genetics lost their jobs or could wind up in the Gulag somewhere. We are experienced the same situation now as to climate change except thus far without the gulag.

No less than Al Gore said, this would require a wrenching transformation of society. Well how do you pull off a wrenching transformation of society, well it turns out that this transformation was already under way. The person who should, but rarely receives the credit for the new rise of Communism in our lives is Antonio Gramsci, one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party.

He recognized that the proletariat was not about to rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie.He had a contempt for working people which is a constant characteristic of the left.

Gramsci came up with the idea for a long march through the institutions. What that meant was over time societies institutions would be infiltrated and transformed from within. These institutions would retain their names, but they would have entirely different ways and have entirely different character. These were not just universities and schools, this was as we now know, corporate board rooms, school boards, the media and when it finally came along, social media, all scientific publications and professional organizations. An example is that of our senior authors father was an architect and member of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Today the AIA carries the ball for climate change.

It insists on a construction of buildings which are climate friendly, so AIA is just one example of many organizations which have been transformed from within. And this all goes back to Gramsci. It occurred over decades and people did not really notice, but all of a sudden you find yourself with organizations with names you recognize that can be federal bureaucracies like NOAA and NASA or it can be organizations like the National Geographic Society.

Regardless of what they are they bear very little resemblance to what they were a few decades ago. They have been infiltrated and transformed and they then become self perpetuating entities.

President Kennedy recognized what was going on which likely lead to his assassination. He said the following in a speech during his Presidency.

We are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies and secret oaths and secret proceedings but we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence on infiltration instead of invasion on subversion instead of elections on intimidation instead of freedom of choice. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources for the building of a tightly knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed and not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Sola decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. Confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be, free and independent.”

The major takeover of our freedom was enabled by the crackpot idea of human caused global warming which has moved society toward communism not only in the United States, but throughout Europe.

One of the important elements of this is the suppression of dissent, no one is allowed to call this into question. If you do and if you are a researcher somewhere thinking you’re going to get a federal grant to look into some aspect of the climate or if you have a public record of being in opposition, you will get no grants—you cannot be in opposition. Everyone must be on the same page and what this does is in the spirit of Lysenkoism. This gradually snuffs out legitimate scientific inquiry, the give and take that goes on.

But look around and you will find there is only a numerically small group of people who have benefited immensely while the rest of have suffered.

One of the most effective weapons the political left possesses today is its perceived appearance of popular support, when it instead depends entirely on institutional authorities to force its delusions down American throats. The left’s control is a complete and utter charade.

JB Shurk writing at American Thinker August 19, 2022 said:

“The vast majority of Americans are worried not about quixotic battles against a naturally changing climate or sex changes, but rather about the harsh realities of inflation, illegal immigration, and out-of-control crime.”

The political Establishment in D.C. and their enablers in the mainstream media dedicate all their time and resources to promoting racial conflict, job-killing globalism, open borders, and criminal conspiracies against President Trump! “

The prevalence of the left’s worldview, in other words, is an illusion constructed on lies told over and over by people in positions of power, authority, and influence. When the left’s sacred tenets are questioned, belittled, or mocked, their legitimacy unravels quickly.

We remember when The Center for Disease Control (CDC ) was respected as a venerable institution for scientific study, but now its partisan agendas and politicization render it untrustworthy. One day, the mainstream news is trusted as a viable defender of the people against the corruptions of government, and it is now widely understood as an engine for propaganda.

Positive signs do exist with a couple of developments. One of which was a recent Supreme Court decision called West Virginia versus the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) one of the ways in which the whole global warming movement has succeeded. It had a friendly regulatory culture backing it up.

When Congress acts with legislation like the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, the language is often very vague. It is then up to an agency with jurisdiction under the law to fill in the blanks. They write the rules and regulations under which these laws operate. These rules and regulations however have the force of of law behind them. What this Supreme Court ruling effectively does is end the ability of unelected unaccountable bureaucrats through out the federal government bureaucracy whether it’s EPA, FDA, CDC Department of Transportation to make rules and regulations with the force of law behind them. This has been the deep state we have heard so much about.

It has never been a deep conspiracy against the public. It has been running our lives right in front of us.

The Supreme Court decision against EPA versus West Virginia told EPA they no longer have Congressional authority to regulate emissions from certain power plants. If they wanted that authority it would have to go to Congress to get it.

The phrase that was used by the Supreme Court was that if rules and regulations have a major economic impact, they must be approved by the Congress. Well we know practically any rule and regulation implemented by federal regulatory agencies is going to have a major economic impact.

What this means is that the regulatory agencies no longer have the power to control so much of our lives. This new precedent has been set by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court restored the way the division of powers was envisioned by the founding fathers. They meant to always use three branches of government. The executive branch, the legislative branch and the court system.

None of these three was allowed to be completely dominant over the others. It was entirely up to the legislative branch to enact laws not the executive branch. The precedent set here will be far reaching because it will go way beyond the power plants of West Virginia. It will enter into all regulatory debates occur in the Federal bureaucracy. For the foreseeable future while the court is composed of the justices currently sitting on the bench, It is going to make it extremely difficult for these unelectable unaccountable administrative agencies to do what they have been getting away with as what we called the deep state going back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal.

It was a substantial set back to this administrative regulatory state and it was a victory for the Constitution and the Rule of law. Fred Smith, the founder of the Competitive Enterprise Institute once said, “the US Constitution isn’t perfect but it’s a hell of a lot better than what we have now.” Well Fred Smith was referring exactly to the phenomenon of unconstitutional regulations being imposed on the populace by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. They have now been sharply curtailed. It is indeed a very popular very positive development.

I think you are going to see it play out in the near term when other cases come before the Supreme Court when bureaucratic agencies have gone beyond what Congress authorized them to do. One of those cases which bears directly on the whole climate debate is going to decide efforts to impose restrictions on water use.

Something called the Waters of The United States is a scheme for the federal government to take control of ore land under the guise of protecting bodies of water which were initially thought to be navigable. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over navigable waters of the US and over the discharge that goes into those bodies of water. Over time the word navigable was allowed to be ignored thanks to the vague language contained in the clean water act. The Obama Administration supported this overreach then Trump canceled the rule and then Biden put it back. It amounts to Federal zoning on private land all over the country,

It violates all property rights. It will help suppress production of energy on private land because the case will be made that that fracking operation or the extraction of oil or gas endangers a nearby body of water which could be 100 miles away and therefore is in violation of the clean water act. This will end in front of the Supreme Court in the future.

This is a very positive development and it is one that coincides with the beginning of resistance to the deep state breaking out at the local level against various pieces of regulatory control both in terms of the climate debate and the fallout from our disastrous experience with battling COVID-19.


Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT, where he focuses on natural resources, energy, property rights, and geopolitical developments. Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Business Daily, The New York Post, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Hill, The Epoch Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers around the country. He has been interviewed on Fox News, Fox Business Network, CNN, NBC News, NPR, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, N24 (German-language news network), and scores of radio stations in the U.S. and Canada. He has testified before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee. Dr. Cohen has addressed conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh. He has a B.A. from the University of Georgia and a Ph. D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.


Dr. Jay Lehr

CFACT Senior Science Analyst Jay Lehr has authored more than 1,000 magazine and journal articles and 36 books. Jay’s new book A Hitchhikers Journey Through Climate Change written with Teri Ciccone is now available on Kindle and Amazon.

RELATED ARTICLE: This Remote Mine Could Foretell the Future of America’s Electric Car Industry

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

Biden Admin Handed California The Power To Mandate EVs Nationwide

  • California instituted a new regulation on Thursday that will ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035; the rule, which was permitted by the Biden administration, could accelerate the nationwide transition to electric cars.
  • “I don’t think Congress gave that authority to California, specifically to set their own standards for greenhouse gases,” former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • “Blue states will follow California’s lead and hand manufacturers a mandate to make only EVs, regardless of what is economically or physically possible,” Steve Milloy, a member of former President Donald Trump’s EPA transition team, told the DCNF.

California has passed a new regulation that will ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles; the new emissions rule, which was permitted by the Biden administration, will have wide-ranging effects beyond California and could accelerate the nationwide transition to electric cars.

California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) finalized a rule Thursday that will outlaw the sale of gas-fueled cars by 2035. The law may push an increasing number of states to adopt similar rules and force Americans to exclusively buy electric vehicles (EVs) as numerous Democrat-run states such as New York, Massachusetts and Maryland routinely adopt California’s “clean car” standards, according to data from the Maryland Department of the Environment.

President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) restored California’s Clean Air Act waiver in March, which gave the state legal authority to set its strict vehicle emissions standards, according to a press release. The Trump administration formally revoked the waiver in September 2019, stating that California did not need specific emissions standards as the environmental problems caused by emissions were not unique to the state.

“During the Trump administration, we tried to codify and articulate that California did not have the authority to set greenhouse gas standards,” former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “I don’t think Congress gave that authority to California, specifically to set their own standards for greenhouse gases.”

Furthermore, 17 Republican attorneys general filed a lawsuit in May against the EPA after it reinstated California’s waiver, according to legal filings.

“This leaves California with a slice of its sovereign authority that Congress withdraws from every other state,” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey told the DCNF about the EPA’s ruling. “The EPA cannot selectively waive the Act’s preemption for California alone because that favoritism violates the states’ equal sovereignty.”

Moreover, the attorneys general argue that California’s waiver puts a “burden of compliance on auto-manufacturers” as automakers will have to cater to both California’s new rules and the mainline federal regulations, according to legal documents.

The state’s ban will require 100% of new cars sold in California, the country’s largest auto market, to be free of fossil fuel emissions by 2035. Interim targets also require 35% of vehicles sold in the state by 2026 to produce zero emissions, rising to 68% by 2030.

“It’s 100% by 2035, but it’s 35% by 2026, California has between 11% and 13% EVs as its total share of cars,” Wheeler said. “It’s unrealistic … they can’t get to 35% EVs by 2026 let alone 68% by 2030.”

California hopes to enforce this rule through a mandate which could penalize automakers up to $20,000 per vehicle if they fail to meet the state’s sales quotas, a CARB spokesman told the DCNF.

“The California ban represents an irresponsible and likely illegal approach to rulemaking, given the highly integrated interstate nature of the auto industry, one national standard is extremely important,” Mandy Gunasekara, former chief of staff of the EPA, told the DCNF. “California is attempting to create a legally dubious workaround where vehicle standards are set by liberal politics instead of technical realities.”

The 14 Democrat-led states, including California, make up roughly a third of the U.S. auto market, according to NPR.

“Blue states will follow California’s lead and hand manufacturers a mandate to make only EVs, regardless of what is economically or physically possible,” Steve Milloy, a member of former President Donald Trump’s EPA transition team, told the DCNF. “You’re going to force people to buy a more expensive car that will last half the time.”

The average price of a new electric car is approximately $66,000, according to Kelley Blue Book.

“If automakers are only making electric cars because of the rule and government subsidies, then there won’t be any gas cars on the market,” Milloy stated.

The EPA also reinstated and enhanced an Obama-era federal fuel regulation in December 2021 that is less strict than California’s proposed standards, stating that passenger cars must have a fuel economy of 55 mpg by 2026, up from the current 40 mpg, according to an EPA regulatory update. Both the California and government regulations will support the Biden administration’s aggressive climate agenda, which seeks to phase out fossil fuels and promote “clean energy” technologies.

“It’s being done for PR purposes … the electricity infrastructure isn’t there and it’s not anticipated to be there,” Wheeler stated. “Nobody in the electricity industry will tell you that they will be able to power a state fleet consisting of only EVs by 2035.”

The average number of EVs sold in the U.S. was roughly 607,000 in 2021 while the total number of cars purchased was about 3.34 million, according to Statista.

Newsom’s office and the EPA did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.



Energy and environmental reporter.


China’s flood of new electric cars cost 20% more to insure than fuel-powered cars

‘First Major Renewable Energy Economy’ Now Collapsing Into Power Poverty

‘Extremely Challenging’: California Poised To Ban Gas-Powered Car Sales

What is really behind the climate agenda?

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

Biden’s Student Loan Bailout Is a Textbook Example of ‘Legal Plunder’

The president is attempting to pervert the law and use it for naked clientelism.

UPDATE VIDEO: Top Biden officials set to benefit from loan forgiveness

There’s an apocryphal quote often misattributed to Ben Franklin that goes something like this: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” While we’re not quite nearing the collapse of our republic, we are actively witnessing the corrosive effect it has when the political power of redistributionism is abused.

President Biden is “canceling” (transferring) student debt for millions of Americans and forcing the rest of us to pay for it. His plan “cancels” $10,000 for borrowers who earn less than $125,000 individually or $250,000 for their household. It also includes two other forgiveness plans that bring the total cost to taxpayers up to $500 billion, a whopping $3,500 per federal taxpayer.

Simply put, we’re all going to have to pay more in taxes so that a relatively affluent slice of society doesn’t have to repay their investment on college degrees that will, on average, earn them $1 million more over a lifetime.

People are pissed off. And for good reason, as the manifest unfairness of punishing those who scrimped and saved to bail out those who didn’t is obvious and maddening. But there’s an even deeper injustice to this: President Biden is trying to, legally, buy votes and reward his party’s voter base.

Think about the simple facts.

Student debt “cancellation,” by definition, only financially rewards those who attended college. College graduates are a voting block that voted for President Biden overwhelmingly. So, too, this bailout disproportionately aids those living in major cities and those living in the Midwest and Northeast, where student debt is geographically concentrated. These just so happen to be places that voted for Biden as well.

Click here for Figure 1.

You get the point.

President Biden’s student loan bailout is perfectly calibrated to benefit a slice of society that voted for him, and, more importantly, a voting block that is key to the Democratic Party’s success this November. Through it, he is attempting to use public policy to reward his voters at the public’s expense.

This is precisely what French economist Frédéric Bastiat once dubbed “legal plunder.” He famously noted that, “Government is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”

To this end, Bastiat explained, “Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”

To be clear, something being “legal” plunder doesn’t always mean it is actually legal. In this case, Biden’s attempt to unilaterally cancel student debt is highly suspect both constitutionally and legally. It’s legal plunder nonetheless, however, because it attempts to pervert the law and use it for naked clientelism.

That might win the president some votes. But it’s exactly the kind of partisan plunder that corrodes a republic.


Brad Polumbo

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


MCDANIEL: Biden’s Student Loan Bailout Abandons Hardworking Americans

DAY FOUR: White House refuses to say who will pay for Biden $500,000,000,000 student loan handout

Beware the Incentives of “Forgiving” Student Loan Debt

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

U.S. Commits $7,000,000,000 More to the Taliban Despite Severe Human Rights Abuses

It isn’t enough that Joe Biden left behind $7 billion (at least) worth of sophisticated military equipment that the Taliban quickly seized. It wasn’t enough, either, that he left Americans to die violent deaths in Afghanistan. Now the Biden administration is discussing giving the Taliban $7 billion more. Biden claims that any money donated to Afghanistan for relief will be kept out of the Taliban’s hands or used by the Taliban in a humanitarian fashion.

At it celebrates its windfall, the Taliban mocks America. Last year, Taliban members dressed up as US troops, as the NY Post reported:

After a humiliating swift takeover of Afghanistan amid President Biden’s botched troop withdrawal, Taliban leaders and fighters are now rubbing it in America’s face — showing off their new uniforms and gear taken from US special forces stockpiles provided to the Afghan army.

The Taliban are becoming wealthier and more powerful thanks to their chief benefactor, Joe Biden.

Report: Biden Admin to Discuss Gifting Taliban Afghan’s Billions

by John Hayward, Breitbart, August 22, 2022:

The Biden administration is proceeding with talks to unfreeze the $7 billion in Afghanistan’s assets held by the U.S. Federal Reserve, Reuters reported on Monday, despite the Taliban failing to meet human rights commitments and harboring al-Qaeda mastermind Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul.

Reuters on Monday quoted “three sources with knowledge of the situation” who said the administration is prepared to overlook a great deal of misbehavior by the Taliban because of Afghanistan’s growing humanitarian crisis.

The United Nations and U.S. Special Investigator General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) both warned this month that nearly half of the Afghan population will experience “extreme levels of hunger” in the coming winter, with millions facing “near-famine conditions.”

SIGAR also warned about the Taliban’s growing “repression of women and girls,” a clear violation of promises the Islamist regime made to the United Nations after President Joe Biden’s catastrophic withdrawal one year ago brought the Taliban back to power.

The contrast between SIGAR’s warnings captures the dilemma facing the civilized world, as the Taliban refuses to hear Western demands or implement needed reforms until America unfreezes the funds it holds, while humanitarian groups warn they cannot deliver aid to sick and starving Afghans while the national economy lies in ruins.

On the other hand, unfreezing Afghanistan’s assets would put billions of dollars at the disposal of a violent extremist regime that was just caught giving aid and comfort to al-Qaeda leadership and would effectively reward the Taliban for taking the people of Afghanistan hostage.

The American people will not look kindly on handing $7 billion over to the Taliban after a failed 20-year, $5 trillion effort to turn Afghanistan into a democracy, especially since much of the Taliban leadership is currently under U.S. sanctions or wanted by the FBI on terrorism charges….



Afghanistan: Muslims murder 21 other Muslims with bomb in rival mosque

Denmark: Muslims boast that soon they will outnumber Danes, ‘soon you will be exterminated’

UK: Senior RAF female recruitment officer resigns over pressure to meet woke ‘diversity’ targets

Canada: Diversity Minister was warned about consultant’s anti-Semitic tweets before news broke

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

Biden’s Student Loan Dilemma and the Political Business Cycle

Political incentives shape policy decisions, which is why the freeze on student loan payments is unlikely to be rescinded without some forgiveness this close to midterms.

The White House recently announced that President Biden’s decision on whether to continue the freeze on student loan payments would come sometime in the next week.

“We’ve been talking daily about this and I can tell you that the American people will hear within the next week or so,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

The payment freeze is set to expire at the end of the month, which means payments will resume in September if no new action is taken.

The freeze on payments was initially put in place by President Trump during the Covid-19 lockdowns. However, the freeze has been extended for the last two years. This is perplexing given that the lockdowns, which were used as justification for the policy, are no longer in place.

What’s more, each month payments and interest are frozen, the government gives up revenue which could be used to pay for spending. Without this revenue, the government must take on more debt, which will ultimately be paid for by taxpayers in the future.

The downsides of the freeze are leading many, including former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, to call for the payment freeze to finally end.

Summers, along with 59 percent of Americans, are worried that a move to forgive these paused loans will lead to more inflation. While most people recognize that indefinitely suspending payments makes for an unsuccessful loan program, ending the freeze on payments will be difficult for Biden.

To see why, consider the incentives at hand.

First, we should think about who is benefitting from the student loan freeze. This is the easy part. Around 45 million Americans have outstanding Federal Student loans.

Those with the largest student loans are saving the most in payments and frozen interest each month. For these borrowers, the benefit of keeping their money each month is what they lose if the freeze is allowed to expire. When this happens many of these borrowers will resume paying thousands of dollars a year.

On the other hand, who would benefit from the resumption of student loan payments? In short, taxpayers—present and future. (As previously explained, Taxpayers foot the bill for paused student loan payments.)

This is a problem, because the benefits to all taxpayers present and future are much harder to see. It will be clear to borrowers when their payments resume. It won’t be as clear to taxpayers when their taxes don’t increase as much 10, 20, or 30 years in the future because the payments were allowed to continue.

This is a textbook example of what economists would call a situation of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.

Because the benefits of the student loan freeze are clear and concentrated, there is a comparatively large incentive to defend them. The incentive by the taxpayers who foot the bill is weaker because the costs they experience are vague and far from immediate.

The logic of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs creates an incentive for politicians. As elections (such as the upcoming midterm elections in November) approach, politicians who want to get re-elected must convince voters and donors that voting and donating are in their best interests.

So politicians promise groups of voters and special interest groups taxpayer dollars or special privileges, which is what prompted twentieth century journalist H.L. Mencken to quip that “[e]very election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

So long as the benefits promised to these groups are clear and present, and the costs to others are vague and far-off, the politician can improve electoral outcomes by promoting these kinds of policies.

In fact, these institutional incentives are so systemic that some theorize that the economy will appear to boom near elections. As politicians work to provide benefits and kick the costs down the road into the future, the present economy may improve at the expense of the future.

This isn’t real economic improvement, of course, as the seeming growth comes at the cost of lower future growth. But, nonetheless, it may appear like the economy booms before elections for this reason.

The name of this theory is the political business cycle theory. And although it by no means explains every economic boom and bust, it certainly appears to be true in some fundamental sense—and it creates difficult decisions for politicians.

Biden’s decision with student loans is a case in point. If the president allows the student loan freeze to expire, it’s possible he’ll alienate progressive voters prior to the midterms. This would spell doom for Biden’s ability to get things done in the last two years of his term.

As a result, I’d be surprised if Biden allowed the freeze to expire at this point without some sort of bribe to borrowers. In this case, the bribe would likely take the form of some amount of student loan forgiveness.

By delaying payments or forgiving some amount of student loans, Biden may be able to improve the economic fortunes of some, leading to a small “boom.” But like any manufactured boom, the day of reckoning will eventually come.

If Biden takes this road, the political business cycle is alive and well.

So, while many recognize the payment freeze has overstayed its welcome (not that it was welcome in the first place), I think it’s unlikely Biden will rescind it without some forgiveness option this close to midterms.

Politicians have incentives to bribe voters and interest groups insofar as it helps their chances at elections, and Biden is no different. But, I’d be happy to be wrong here.


Peter Jacobsen

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


Biden Unable To Coherently Justify Student Debt Forgiveness

After Destroying Your Livelihood With Covid Mandates, Biden Wants You Subsidizing Rich College Grads

7 Ways Biden’s Student Loan Bailout Is Immoral

Biden’s Marxist student loan election gambit is bad for America

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