Categories
Economy Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Washington gasoline prices sky high.

Views: 22

Washington gasoline prices sky high.

Vacationers hitting the highways currently face a nationwide average price of $3.52 per gallon of gasoline, according AAA. However, the price varies widely among states.

California usually leads the nation and is currently at a sky-high $4.85 per gallon, but this year it has been eclipsed by Washington state at a hefty $4.98 per gallon. The reason is clear – costly climate change policies adopted by both states – and it provides lessons for the rest of the nation.

The cheapest gas is in Mississippi at $2.96 per gallon, and several other states are under $3.30. This gives a real-world yardstick of what is possible at current oil prices.

So what explains the almost $2 extra for gas in Washington and California? Part of it is state gasoline taxes. The 18.4 cents per gallon federal tax is uniform, but state taxes vary, and both Washington state and California are higher than the average of 39 cents per gallon. Further, tough state refinery regulations and gasoline specifications also explain part of the difference.

Like California’s measures, Washington’s effectively puts a price on the carbon content of gasoline sold in the state, and is a big reason behind the estimated 35 to 52 cent jump in prices compared to neighboring states, according to Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center. And it will get worse, as this is just the first year of the law, which gets progressively more stringent in the years ahead.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has similarly attempted to shift blame for his support of the Climate Commitment Act — as well as his earlier claims that the per gallon cost impact “would be pennies” — by making unsupported claims of industry price gouging. He has also noted that a pipeline serving the state is currently offline for maintenance, but the Olympic pipeline also serves Oregon, where gasoline prices are 35 cents per gallon lower.

Complete article is here at FOX.

Loading

118
Categories
Daily Hits. Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics

Yesterdays headlines.

Views: 9

Yesterdays headlines. Yesterdays articles that just won’t go away. Comment on these or anything else you feel that’s news worthy.

Breaking News

‘It would be devastating’: Local officials warn of wind turbine development’s impact to Jersey Shore’s tourism industry

July 09, 2023

‘It would be devastating’: Local officials warn of wind turbine development’s impact to Jersey Shore’s tourism industry

Local officials warn of wind turbine developments impact on tourism.

VIEW WEBSITE

Pennsylvania Republicans continue effort to end Act 77, mail-in voting

July 09, 2023

Pennsylvania Republicans continue effort to end Act 77, mail-in voting

Fourteen Republican members of the Pennsylvania House will ask the state Supreme Court to overturn Act 77.

VIEW WEBSITE

Indigenous chief wants to take back Ben & Jerry's HQ built on 'stolen' land

July 09, 2023

Indigenous chief wants to take back Ben & Jerry’s HQ built on ‘stolen’ land

Ben & Jerry’s headquarters is in the western part of the historic territory of the Abenaki tribal confederacy but doesn’t sit in any current tribal lands.

VIEW WEBSITE

Loading

172
Categories
Biden Pandemic COVID Crime Links from other news sources.

Looking back, how ridiculous was wearing masks?

Views: 42

Looking back, how ridiculous was wearing masks? Almost as bad as continuously getting jabbed. Based on nothing but Tony the Fauch’s word, millions of people were wearing these masks.

Sure I wore a mask where it was required, but knowing I didn’t have COVID and if I did, I knew the odds were slim to none that I would spread it.

My fear was folks who had COVID were spreading it because there were only two types of masks that kept most of the germs inside the mask.

Now the loons who wore the masks thinking that they couldn’t get COVID were the ones dying. But that was for so long kept a secret.

Even if you did have the N95 or KN95 AND HAD THE VACCINE, odds were that you were just as protected as the person who didn’t have a mask or the vaccine. In plane English the mask did not help to keep the virus out.

The Jan. 30 review found that based on existing randomized controlled trials — which tested the effectiveness of interventions encouraging people to wear masks, rather than testing the effectiveness of masks themselves — wearing masks in the community “probably makes little or no difference” to the number of people with influenza or COVID-19-like illnesses.

Loading

147
Categories
Biden Cartel Crime Links from other news sources. Uncategorized

Why the Delaware Supreme Court ( or the federal courts ) need to allow the Biden Senate papers to be viewed.

Views: 8

Why the Delaware Supreme Court ( or the federal courts ) need to allow the Biden Senate papers to be viewed. In case you missed it, the Delaware Supreme Court said no when it came to Joe Biden’s 1,850 boxes of his time in the Senate. 

In 2012, when Biden was vice president, he gave his alma more than 1,850 boxes of archived papers and 415 gigabytes of electronic records from his 36 years in the Senate. The donation is subject to a gift agreement that prohibits the records from being made publicly available until two years after Biden “retires from public life.”

Now Biden is still in public office, but back in 2016 Biden left public office. The request was made after he had been out of office for almost four years. Those Senate records should have been unsealed.

Also we may find out about the different charges of sexual harassment that have been made against Joe over the years. Hopefully this is taken to the Federal courts.

Loading

125
Categories
Economy Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Voters are smarter than Biden thinks.

Views: 10

Voters are smarter than Biden thinks. Poll shows an electorate that is simply not buying the president’s happy economic talk.

Pick almost any poll over the past decade and you’ll find that voters always cite the economy as their top issue. Depending on the survey, the economy issue is also often more broadly defined in surveys as “jobs,” and, in the past couple of years, as “inflation.” But, however you look at the issue of the economy, we’re seeing a subtle change in how people process the constant flow of economic data that bombards them every day.

They are becoming more educated and more sophisticated on federal fiscal issues and how they impact their own economic futures. More leery of politicians spouting data points that clash with the reality of their own personal “economies.” Less trusting of economic happy talk, when 60 percent of them are living paycheck to paycheck as inflation continues to outpace wages.

Until the past two years, for the millions of Americans under 50, inflation has been an abstraction, a topic in their econ class, not something that directly impacts their lives. Perhaps it’s understandable. America hasn’t had to deal with serious inflation in over 40 years, not since Jimmy Carter’s presidency.

Many people don’t remember 1979, when their parents or grandparents sat for hours in long gas lines just to fill up their tanks. Even now, looking back, it’s hard to grasp that in March 1980, inflation reached 14.8 percent, and the bank prime lending rate hit a staggering 21.5 percent a few months later. Within a year, the 30-year fixed rate mortgage average was 18.6 percent.

It was a terrible time for the country. A perfect economic storm of high unemployment and inflation (stagflation), slow economic growth, increased government spending and tax hikes. Add to that contractionary monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, a savings and loan crisis and bank failures, and it isn’t surprising that it took until the summer of 1983 to right the economic ship of state.

The country, for all its problems since, has successfully avoided, until now, the kind of devastating inflation and misguided spending and tax policies that wreaked havoc on families and businesses back in the day.

For many Americans, this has been a painful wake-up call to the reality that there is a price to be paid for reckless government spending, and we’re seeing the impact of this realization in how voters view the economy and the Biden administration’s economic policies. They understand that inflation impacts almost every aspect of what is a complicated and connected economy.

Today, people are assessing their personal economic situation through the lens of inflation, but they’re also making connections among rising costs, deficit spending and the skyrocketing federal debt. Like inflation, government spending and rising deficits have been abstract constructs unconnected to most people’s everyday lives.

‘Strong as hell’

For decades, people have focused on family economics, not the federal debt in 10 years. After all, who can really grasp the magnitude of a billion dollars — much less a trillion?

But data is showing that people are not buying the argument that the economy is “strong as hell,” as President Joe Biden is fond of saying, and his trillion-dollar domestic spending bills may be two of the reasons why.

People have seen the federal budget hit $6 trillion for three consecutive years. The first such over-$6 trillion budget year, under President Donald Trump, included a significant emergency response to the COVID-19 crisis. But Biden’s budgets can’t claim the same rationale.

It’s clear that people are becoming more sophisticated economic consumers when it comes to the dynamics of the economy, but this increased awareness and understanding extends to other issues as well.

For instance, how the public looks at wages is changing. It’s no longer a matter of whether or not you get a raise. The question today has become whether that raise gets you — and keeps you — above water.

Gas and energy prices are now seen through a different lens, as well. The country has faced significant increases in gas prices before, most recently in 2008. But inflation wasn’t a complicating factor in the recovery from the Great Recession.

This time around, with staggering inflation, people have a better understanding that high energy prices impact far more than the price at the pump. Energy prices are now seen as a driver behind the cost of everything, upsetting the supply chain, emptying store shelves and creating a challenging economic environment for businesses to create jobs.

Our latest “Winning the Issues” survey (conducted March 1-3) confirms an electorate that is simply not buying the president’s narrative that his policies are working to lower inflation and spur growth.

When it comes to the right track/wrong track question, Biden has actually lost ground over the past year. In our survey, only 28 percent of people said the country is on the right track; 60 percent said we’re on the wrong track. In April 2022, right track was at 33 percent, while wrong track was at 57 percent.

Voters were asked, “Do you think inflation is getting better, worse, not changing?” Twenty percent said better, while 57 percent replied worse and 20 percent said “not changing.” That’s over a 75 percent consensus that Biden’s inflation policies aren’t working.

Case closed

For months, Biden has tried to claim credit for “lowering” gas prices from their near-record highs after imposing anti-domestic production policies, but people apparently see through the numbers game he’s playing.

They believe, by a margin of 47 percent to 39 percent, that gas prices are down over $1.50 from their peak. But when asked if “gas prices are comparable to what they were when President Biden took office,” only 32 percent believe that claim, while 52 percent said they don’t believe it.

On the statement, “Annual inflation has been down for 6 months,” Biden has been able to convince only 22 percent of voters that he’s making progress, while 61 percent aren’t buying that inflation is on the way out.

We also tested one of Biden’s favorite claims, asking: “Under President Biden’s economic plan, the deficit has come down by a record $1.7 trillion.” Fifty-one percent of those surveyed didn’t believe the statement; only 25 percent did.

But this question ought to worry Biden and his Democratic colleagues on the Hill as they unveil a budget blueprint expected to be characterized by critics as built on more spending, more taxes and more debt.

Our survey asked: “Which is a bigger problem, government spending or not enough revenue coming in from taxes?” Government spending: 70 percent. Not enough revenue: 23 percent. Case closed.

As the budget battle begins, Biden should be straight with the American people, because they are smarter than he thinks.

David Winston is the president of The Winston Group and a longtime adviser to congressional Republicans. He previously served as the director of planning for Speaker Newt Gingrich. He advises Fortune 100 companies, foundations, and nonprofit organizations on strategic planning and public policy issues, as well as serving as an election analyst for CBS News.

Loading

139

Categories
Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Uncategorized

Extremists’ on SCOTUS Are ‘Screaming’ About Rulings that Follow Liberal Principles

Views: 20

Extremists’ on SCOTUS Are ‘Screaming’ About Rulings that Follow Liberal Principles.

On Thursday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Harvard Law Professor, author, and Newsmax Legal Analyst Alan Dershowitz stated that the Supreme Court’s rulings on President Joe Biden’s loan program, racial preferences in college admissions, and free expression are consistent with liberal views, but “it’s extremists, both on the court and off the court, that are screaming and yelling that somehow this ends democracy in America.”

Dershowitz said, “All three of these decisions are close cases that — I’m a liberal, I’ve been a liberal for 60 years, I happen to agree with all of these three cases. I have been arguing against using race in affirmative action since 1974. I have always preferred free expression and the First Amendment over any other laws, whether it be public accommodation laws or hate speech laws. So, many civil libertarians, people who are left and right, support the decision in the web case, it’s a close case. And many civil libertarians also support the decision that says that, in a democracy, important decisions about spending fortunes of money should be made by the legislature, not by the unelected executives. So, these are all close cases that many liberals agree with, and many Democrats agree with.”

He continued, “And it’s extremists, both on the court and off the court, that are screaming and yelling that somehow this ends democracy in America.” He added that “the color of a person’s skin, the accident of race should never be a factor. That’s the liberal perspective. That’s the constitutional perspective.”

 

 

Loading

148
Categories
Uncategorized

Ketanji Brown Jackson made ‘mathematically absurd claim’ on Black newborns: WSJ op-ed. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued affirmative action ‘saves lives’

Views: 18

Ketanji Brown Jackson made ‘mathematically absurd claim’ on Black newborns: WSJ op-ed. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued affirmative action ‘saves lives’

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made a “mathematically absurd claim” about Black newborns in her dissenting opinion in the affirmative action decision, attorney Ted Frank wrote in a Wednesday Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Jackson argued in her dissent that diversity “saves lives” and that it was essential for “marginalized communities.”

“It saves lives. For marginalized communities in North Carolina, it is critically important that UNC and other area institutions produce highly educated professionals of color. Research shows that Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and treat them accordingly (including, for example, prescribing them appropriate amounts of pain medication). For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die,” she wrote.

Frank responded to the argument in his Journal opinion piece: “A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible. Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week. But even so, that’s a 60% survival rate, which is mathematically impossible to double. And the actual survival rate is over 99%.”

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued in her dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling that promoting diversity “saves lives.” (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File )

 

Frank, a senior attorney at Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in SFFA v. Harvard, according to the WSJ.

“How could Justice Jackson make such an innumerate mistake?” he wrote.

Frank wrote that Jackson’s claim came from a 2020 study, according to a footnote in the dissent, but added that the study didn’t match Jackson’s claim.

“The study makes no such claims. It examines mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015 and shows a 0.13% to 0.2% improvement in survival rates for black newborns with black pediatricians (though no statistically significant improvement for black obstetricians),” he said.

Supreme Court members

The Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in a landmark 6-3 ruling on June 29. (Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States via Getty Images)

 

The Supreme Court rejected the use of race as a factor in college admissions at the end of June, citing a violation of the 14th amendment.

In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that, “A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrim­ination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination.”

President Joe Biden Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

President Biden nominated Jackson to the high court in 2022 and the first Black female Supreme Court Justice began her first term last October.  (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Frank said the study cited in Jackson’s dissent was “flawed.”

 

“So we have a Supreme Court justice parroting a mathematically absurd claim coming from an interested party’s mischaracterization of a flawed study. Her opinion then urges ‘all of us’ to ‘do what evidence and experts tell us is required to level the playing field and march forward together.’ Instead we should watch where we’re going,” Frank continued.

Loading

100

Categories
Education Links from other news sources. The Law Transgender WOKE

Is it time to impeach this loon? NC Governor protecting the LBGQ Alphabet crowd. Not the children.

Views: 8

Is it time to impeach this loon? NC Governor protecting the LBGQ Alphabet crowd. Not the children. Three laws vetoed by him. The governor was elected to work with the legislature.

North Carolina’s Democrat Governor Roy Cooper has vetoed three bills related to transgender issues, one banning sex changes for minors, another keeping biological males out of girls’ sports, and a third that would limit school instruction on gender ideology. Maybe it’s time for impeachment?

Now hopefully with super majority the legislature will override his veto. This isn’t the first time that good legislation has been passed and he’s vetoed it. So just maybe it’s time for a change in NC.

 

 

Loading

138

Categories
Biden Pandemic COVID Links from other news sources. Medicine Reprints from others. Tony the Fauch

Top Fauci Adviser Admits to Using Private Email to Avoid FOIA Requests.

Views: 9

Top Fauci Adviser Admits to Using Private Email to Avoid FOIA Requests. “I Will Delete Anything I Don’t Want to See in the New York Times” So how does he get away with this?

Federal records obtained by the House Oversight Committee reveal one of Dr. Fauci’s top advisers said he used his personal email account in order to avoid any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and even went as far to imply he has deleted emails during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The House Oversight Committee released possibly incriminating emails from Dr. David Morens who has served as an adviser at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for the last 25 years.

In one of his emails that was uncovered by Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, Dr. Morens wrote to his colleagues, “As you know, I try to always communicate on Gmail because my NIH email is FOIA’d constantly.” In the conclusion of his email, Morens wrote, “I will delete anything I don’t want to see in the New York Times.”

The whole article is here.

 

Loading

147

Categories
Biden Pandemic COVID Links from other news sources. Medicine Reprints from others. Science

Serious adverse events from Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine are not “rare”

Views: 8

Serious adverse events from Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine are not “rare”

Despite repeatedly claiming that serious harms of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine are RARE, an investigation found no drug regulator could quantify the rate. Experts say it’s “hypocritical.”

Share

Drug regulators and public health agencies have saturated the airways with claims that serious harms following covid vaccination are “rare.”

But there has been very little scrutiny of that claim by the media, and I could not find an instance where international agencies actually quantified what they meant by the term “rare” or provided a scientific source.

The best evidence so far, has been a study published in one of vaccinology’s most prestigious journals, where independent researchers reanalysed the original trial data for the mRNA vaccines.

The authors, Fraiman et al, found that serious adverse events (SAEs) – i.e. adverse events that require hospitalisation – were elevated in the vaccine arm by an alarming rate – 1 additional SAE for every 556 people vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine.

According to a scale used by drug regulators, SAEs occurring at a rate of 1 in 556 is categorised as “uncommon,” but far more common than what the public has been told.

Therefore, I asked eight drug regulators and public health agencies to answer a simple question: what is the official calculated rate of SAEs believed to be caused by Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, and what is the evidence?

The agencies were FDATGAMHRAHCPEICDCECDC and EMA.

The outcome was startling.

What is the official SAE rate?

Not a single agency could cite the SAE rate of Pfizer’s vaccine. Most directed me to pharmacovigilance data, which they all emphasised does not establish causation.

The Australian TGA, for example, referred me to the spontaneous reporting system but warned, “it is not possible to meaningfully use these data to calculate the true incidence of adverse events due to the limitations of spontaneous reporting systems.”

Both the German regulator (PEI) and European CDC referred me to the European Medicines Agency which, according to its own report, saw no increase at all in SAEs. “SAEs occurred at a low frequency in both vaccinated and the placebo group at 0.6%.”

The UK regulator MHRA went so far as to state it “does not make estimations of a serious adverse event (SAE) rate, or a rate for adverse reactions considered to be causally related for any medicinal product.”

The US FDA, on the other hand, did conceded that SAEs after mRNA vaccination have “indeed been higher than that of influenza vaccines,” but suggested it was justified because “the severity and impact of covid-19 on public health have been significantly higher than those of seasonal influenza.

Despite analysing at the same dataset as Fraiman, the FDA said it “disagrees with the conclusions” of the Fraiman analysis. The agency did not give specifics on the areas of disagreement, nor did it provide its own rate of SAEs.

Expert response

In response to the criticism, Joe Fraiman, emergency doctor and lead author on the reanalysis said, “To be honest, I’m not that surprised that agencies have not determined the rate of SAEs. Once these agencies approve a drug there’s no incentive for them to monitor harms.”

Joe Fraiman, emergency doctor, New Orleans, Louisiana

Fraiman said it’s hypocritical for health agencies to tell people that serious harms of the covid vaccines are rare, when they have not even determined the SAE rate themselves.

“It’s very dangerous not to be honest with the public,” said Fraiman, who recently called for the mRNA vaccines to be suspended.

“These noble lies may get people vaccinated in the short term but you’re creating decades or generations of distrust when it’s revealed that they have been misleading the public,” added Fraiman.

Dick Bijl, a physician and epidemiologist based in the Netherlands, agreed.  “It goes to show how corrupted these agencies are. There is no transparency, especially since regulators are largely funded by the drug industry.”

Dick Bijl, physician and past President of the International Society of Drug Bulletins

Bijl said it’s vital to know the rate of SAEs for the vaccines. “You must be able to do a harm:benefit analysis, to allow people to give fully informed consent, especially in young people at low risk of serious covid or those who have natural immunity.”

Bijl said the mainstream media has allowed these agencies to make false claims about the safety of vaccines without interrogating the facts.

“The rise of alternative media is strongly related to the lies being told by the legacy media, which just repeats government narratives and industry marketing. In the Netherlands, there is a lot of discussion about the distrust in public messaging,” said Bijl.

Loading

102

Verified by MonsterInsights