Categories
Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Crime Elections Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Leaders of the Biden Cartel? CIA Had Foreign Allies Spy On Trump Team, Triggering Russia Collusion Hoax, Sources Say.

Visits: 8

Leaders  of the Biden Cartel? CIA Had Foreign Allies Spy On Trump Team, Triggering Russia Collusion Hoax, Sources Say.

United States Intelligence Community targeted 26 Trump advisors for foreign spy agencies to “reverse target” and “bump”

Loading

43
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Drugs Elections Government Overreach Immigration Leftist Virtue(!) Politics Reprints from others. The Border Unions

‘Dear Joe…’ Border Patrol Union Unleashes on Biden in Short But Hard-Hitting Open Letter

Visits: 18

‘Dear Joe…’ Border Patrol Union Unleashes on Biden in Short But Hard-Hitting Open Letter

The Western Journal

Biden to blame. Tenor.com Gif.

Sometimes less says more. The Border Patrol Union proved it Monday with a social media post on X.

The union shared a very concise letter to President Joe Biden.

Fewer than 50 words, the message was short but sweet and to the point.

“Dear Joe, You OWN this catastrophic disaster at the border – lock, stock and barrel,” the union wrote on the National Border Patrol Council account. “You created it. You nursed it along. You encouraged it. You facilitated it. It’s all yours. Don’t run from it now like a coward. Signed, The BP agents you’ve thrown under the bus.”

I guess there is no arguing who owns this issue in the eyes of the Border Patrol agents. It can’t be passed off as former President Donald Trump’s by the current administration anymore.

Nor should it be. The Biden administration unleashed the kraken on the United States, with almost  9 million illegal immigrants infiltrating this nation since Biden’s inauguration.

Biden has welcomed the invasion with open arms, fanning the flames every step of the way. He’s done everything he could to assist in drowning our nation under the weight of this invasion. Illegals are receiving free everything while Americans look on in disgust. The evidence is clear.

Illegals are receiving free food, free healthcare, free lodgings, free medical care, free diapers, free relocation travel, and free money. The list continues. Whatever they need, it all comes free. He’s forced Americans to pay for all of it while they are barely getting by. And then those same illegal immigrants threaten Americans with words of pure hatred, warning us of what is to come. It worsens by the day.

And now that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has refused to allow the invasion to continue in his neck of the woods, the cartels have figured out how to carry on smuggling illegal immigrants through southern California and Arizona. The influx is simply changing course but not lessening.

According to a Fox News report from Feb. 1, over 71 percent of illegal entries are now happening through California and Arizona rather than Texas.

Where the Border Patrol’s Del Rio Sector, which covers part of the Texas border with Mexico (including hard-hit Eagle Pass), was averaging 3,000-4,000 illegal migrants invading our nation at their border per day in December, that number has reduced to 200, Fox reported.

It shows that effective policing of the border can provide huge results. But as the cartels are not only persistent but also rather well-versed in the best possible ways to get around these impediments, they are coming up with their own solutions.

It’s like watching water find its way through the cracks. This water, however, is tainted with violence, crime, perversion, and death.

More than 8.9 million illegal immigrants have arrived into the United States since Biden took office. This number is larger than the population of Arizona.

The one man who has promised to stop them, Democrats are attempting to bury in trumped up lawsuits and corrupt criminal cases. That speaks volumes.

The fact that the Border Patrol Union stood up and called Biden out is a very good sign for the United States in the face of this atrocity. It’s a sign of how strong resistance remains to the Biden administration’s rampant lawlessness.

The union — which endorsed Trump in both 2016 and 2020 — has locked horns with Biden many times over the course of his benighted administration. In 2021 it was blasting Biden’s approach to border security as a crisis, and that was when the invasion was in its infancy.

That was the same year the Border Patrol was the subject of an attack that included Biden himself over a hoax story about agents on horseback using whips against illegal immigrants from Haiti.

Now, with the 2024 election approaching, it seems that Border Patrol agents are drawing their own line in the sand, sending a powerful message that they stand on the right side of the Constitution. They see how wrong and corrupt the current president and his administration is.

I liken it to them saying, “Don’t count on us to be complicit without speaking our truth. That ship has sailed.” It is a wake-up call to anyone who might have had any doubt left in his head of how intentional Biden’s actions have been.

The Border Patrol agents are required to do a job but that doesn’t mean that they agree with what is happening.

Frankly, we don’t know what will come of this situation after the fact — so much depends on American voters righting the country’s course when November’s elections roll around.

At a minimum, however, it emphasized which side the Border Patrol union and agents are on.

It’s the side of the law, of history and of the American people. And the country can’t ask for more than that.+

Dementia Joe can’t even read the 4K jumbotron-sized teleprompter; he only knows what the devils(s) whisper in his ear. — TPR

 

Loading

68
Categories
Black Supremacy Commentary Corruption Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Reasons Companies flee NY and CA. Taxes, Legislatures, and Weaponization of Prosecutors.

Visits: 11

Reasons Companies flee NY and CA. Taxes, Legislatures, and Weaponization of Prosecutors. Common sense tells us that Blue states are not business friendly.

The taxes and state legislatures have gotten out of hand. But now your local prosecutors and AG’S have started crusades against Corporations and individuals like Trump and Cuomo. James in New York took over where Spitzer left off.

Below is a Newsmax Article.

New York businesses may leave the state following New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron’s historic $364 million verdict against Donald Trump, top financial services executives tell the New York Post.

They already considered the New York State Attorney General’s Office a major obstruction to doing business, starting with New York AG Elliot Spitzer, aka the sheriff of Wall Street. Despite forcing financial firms to fork over billions, Spitzer’s cases primarily focused on minor offenses.

The office has liberally used state laws, such as the Martin act, for political advancement, according to the Post.

In the cases against Trump and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York AG Letitia James has taken Spitzer’s strategies to a new level, Wall Street executives say.

Trump’s case centered on his real estate company’s valuations for its properties on loan applications to a major bank that did its own due diligence, hardly a capital offense.

James ran for office repeatedly vowing she would prosecute Trump. Just for that alone — believe business leaders, most of whom are not supporters of Trump — James should have been disqualified.

The AG’s case against Cuomo was based on sex-offense accusations that never materialized in court — but forced Cuomo from office.

Wall Street bigs are astounded at Friday’s judgment against Trump, the AG’s thirst for power, leftists running the state legislature, and Gov. Kathy Hochul making the state unlivable.

They also fear George Soros-funded Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

This is why major companies are now considering joining Goldman Sachs, which is moving to Texas; hedge funds pulling up stakes for Florida; and private equity titans like Blackstone leaving for Miami.

Bloomberg estimates $2 trillion in assets have left New York and California for Texas, Florida and other Sun Belt states where the cost of living is as much as 40% cheaper. Rampant crime, high taxes and exorbitant housing costs have been their main reasons for leaving — and now they can add to that a hostile political and legal environment.

In the three years through March 2023, 370 major investment firms with $2.7 trillion in assets under management—2.5% of the total assets managed by investment firms in the U.S.—moved their headquarters to a new state.

Even North Carolina and Tennessee saw more than $600 billion in assets seek refuge, primarily due to AllianceBernstein’s jump from New York to Nashville in 2021 and Allspring Global Investment giving up San Francisco for Charlotte in 2022.

The mass migration is taking a toll on California’s and New York’s tax revenue base, as well as career prospects for financial professionals. In 1990, 33% of all U.S. financial industry jobs were in New York, but by last year, New York’s share of these jobs had shrunk to 17.6%.

“It’s embarrassing what you have to put up with to do business here,” one top executive told the Post. “We look like idiots staying here.”

 

Loading

42
Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Government Overreach How funny is this? How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Life Links from other news sources. Media Woke Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Racism. Reprints from others. Satire Stupid things people say or do. Weaponization of Government. White Progressive Supremacy WOKE

Friday Funnies.

Visits: 8

Friday Funnies.


I consider Tucker a mentor of sorts. I strive to be more like Tucker.















Brought to you by Google.

The brainwashing of our youth – by social media corporations is out of control. Unfortunately, for all of us – it isn’t going to stop.

“We know best. We are going to remake the world. We are going to reshape kids around the world”

The government has a remedy for this type of unlawful business practice. The 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act has bee utilized many times to break up monopolies. The Sherman Act outlaws:

“every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.”

Google is out of control. They have not only monopolized the internet, they have monopolized the control of advertising. Both business strategies are being challenged by the DOJ in two separate lawsuits. Meta is also being sued for unfair business practices, as it has gobbled up its competitors in a series of buy-outs.




Or you might be watching MSM exclusively and using Google as your search engine.

Loading

46
Categories
Black Supremacy Commentary Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Racism. Reprints from others. WOKE

White People Embarrassing Themselves.

Visits: 23

White People Embarrassing Themselves.

 Taylor Swift, star of the LVIII Super Bowl, this year’s Grammys and a crackpot Fox News conspiracy theory that she’s a government PSYOP, is also the winner of my award for “Least Embarrassing Way To Attach Yourself to a Black Person When Accepting an Award.”

      For the uncouth among my readers, modern etiquette dictates that:

      1) Black people win all awards; and

      2) When that is absolutely impossible, the white winner must somehow latch onto a black person, stressing how fond he is of black people.

      In Taylor’s case, she recently made history by becoming the first musician to win four Album of the Year awards. This was despite her being, as The New York Times put it, “white and thin and blond in a world that continues to privilege whiteness and thinness and blondness.”

      Thus, according to protocol, Taylor had to attach herself to a black person. This she did by becoming part of the show when Tracy Chapman reprised her 1988 hit “Fast Car” at the Grammys. Taylor rose from the audience, like a mushroom popping up amid the moss, and sang along for the entire song.

      Boffo publicity! Twitter instantly exploded in gratitude and admiration for the Grammys champion. The media hailed Taylor’s performative tribute to Chapman as if she’d orchestrated the Peace of Westphalia. (The Times: “Taylor Swift singing along to Tracy Chapman and Luke Combs performing “Fast Car” is some kind of apotheosis of 2023 in music.”)

      Embarrassing, but nothing like Adele’s speech at the 2017 Grammys after she’d won Song of the Year, Record of the Year and Album of the Year for her work, “25.” She was up against Beyonce’s “Lemonade,” also a smash hit. (Stats: “Lemonade” sold 485,000 copies in its first week; “25” sold more than 3.38 million. “Lemonade” debuted at No. 1 in the U.S.; “25” debuted at No. 1 in 32 countries. “25” went on to become the fourth best-selling album of the 21st century.)

      After some brief throat-clearing, Adele quickly got to the point of her acceptance speech:

      “I can’t possibly accept this award. I’m very humbled and very grateful and gracious, but honestly, my life is Beyonce.

      “The ‘Lemonade’ album, Beyonce, was so monumental, so monumental, and so well thought out, and so beautiful and soul-bearing. And we all got to see another side of you that you don’t always let us see, and we appreciate that. And all us artists here, we f-ing adore you. You are our light.

      “And the way that you make me and my friends feel, the way you make my black friends feel, is empowering, and you make them stand up for themselves. And I love you. I always have. And I always will.”

      (Sorry for such a long quote; I figured you wouldn’t believe me otherwise.)

      But Adele’s performance was still not the most mortifying example of a white person using a personal triumph to affix himself to a black person.

      That honor goes to Novak Djokovic, who, upon winning his fourth U.S. Open title, incomprehensibly turned it into a tribute to Kobe Bryant, a professional athlete in a different sport, from a different country, who’d died three years earlier.

      In anticipation of his shining moment in the sun, Djokovic had even made a T-shirt, with his and Bryant’s faces surrounded by the words, “MAMBA FOREVER.” It would have been weird if he’d done this with his coach’s face, his father’s face, his wife’s face (all who also had something to do with his success). Bryant was an American basketball player with the Los Angeles Lakers, having nothing to do with professional tennis.

      That wasn’t the end of the sartorial tribute. Djokovic also donned jacket with a “24” patch, which — as he explained to the audience — was Bryant’s number with the Los Angeles Lakers.

      Naturally, the bulk of Djokovic’s victory speech was about his black friend — a “close friend,” with whom he “chatted a lot.” Congratulations, Novak! You had a black friend. And now that he’s gone, there’s only the memory of having once had a black friend.

      The whole production was so absurd, it seemed like a Borat sketch of a vulgar foreigner who’d never met a black person.

      Probably kicking himself for not having thought of mocking up T-shirts of himself and a black friend, actor Tom Hiddleston instead used his acceptance speech at the 2017 Golden Globes for Best Performance by an Actor in a Limited Series or a Motion Picture Made for Television to drone on about … Sudan.

      In case you were wondering, the TV series for which he’d won, “The Night Manager,” was not about Sudan. It was a spy caper based on a John le Carre novel. But Hiddleston thought it was important for everyone to know that he’d recently visited Sudan with the United Nations Children’s Fund.

      He told the audience that in Sudan, there was a “terrible situation happening for children.” But on the bright side, the people there loved “The Night Manager”! This he found deeply gratifying: “The idea that we could provide some entertainment and relief to people … who are fixing the world. I dedicate this to those out there who are doing their best.”

      The dedication didn’t involve actually giving anyone anything, mind you. It was more in the way of a verbal acknowledgment because he’s such a great guy.

      At the 2022 Critics Choice Awards, Best Director winner Jane Campion — translucently white — spent much of her speech praising random black people in the audience, such as Will Smith, Venus Williams and Serena Williams. They weren’t even “close friend[s]” who “chatted a lot,” like Djokovic and his black friend.

      Thinking she was really connecting with black people, Campion said, “Venus and Serena, you’re such marvels,” adding, “however, you don’t play against the guys, like I have to.”

      Recriminations and heartfelt apologies followed.

      In one of the earliest “I love black people” exhibitions, Adrien Brody skipped subtlety at the 2003 Academy Awards. After winning Best Actor for his performance in “The Pianist,” he grabbed the black presenter, Halle Berry, and passionately kissed her in a smooch that went on so long that by the time he was finished, the “get off the stage” lights were blinking.

      Berry later said the only thing going through her mind during the cringe-inducing kiss was, “What the f**k is happening right now?”

      What was happening was this: A white actor was making damn sure everyone knew how much he liked black people.

Originally found on Ann Coulter’s Substack. Unsafe    

Loading

51
Categories
Biden Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption COVID Daily Hits. Economy Education Elections Faked news Free Speech Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others.

10 News Stories They Chose Not to Tell You. Fully.

Visits: 14

10 News Stories They Chose Not to Tell You. Fully.

This is brought to us by the Vigilant Fox.

 

#10 – Ed Dowd reveals alarming excess death data in children. (Exclusive Interview)

#9 – The January 6 pipe bomber was actually a ‘former government official,’ according to reports.

#8 – RFK Jr. exposes Joe Biden’s racist past in viral post.

#7 – Megyn Kelly thinks E. Jean Carroll may have just handed the election to Donald Trump.

#6 – The data is clear: COVID-19 “vaccination” does not protect against severe hospitalization and death.

#5 – Iconic rapper Snoop Dogg makes a surprising statement about Donald Trump.

#4 – WHO chief admits info warriors are hindering the NWO agenda.

#3 – James O’Keefe drops viral video with top White House cyber official.

#2 – Tucker Carlson warns against the true motives behind the globalist agenda.

#1 – Australian man injured by Pfizer jab wins landmark claim against his employer.

 

Loading

66
Categories
Biden Commentary Elections Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

Trump Turns Biden’s Alleged Insult into Fundraising Fuel, Calls On ‘Every Patriot Reading This Message to Chip In’.

Visits: 47

Trump Turns Biden’s Alleged Insult into Fundraising Fuel, Calls On ‘Every Patriot Reading This Message to Chip In’. I found this on several websites, but this one is most interesting.

byRounak Jain, Benzinga Staff Writer

Former President Donald Trump is reportedly using President Biden’s alleged derogatory remarks about him as a means to raise funds.

What Happened: Trump is capitalizing on claims that Biden referred to him as a “sick f**k” during a private conversation. In a recent fundraising email to his followers, Trump suggested that Biden’s alleged remarks were not just targeted at him, but at all his supporters, reported The Hill.

The fundraising email also drew attention to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s infamous “deplorables” comment, implying that Biden “will spit on us” and use every curse word to describe his supporters.

Trump urged his followers to demonstrate their patriotism and support him, assuring them that they would be “the ones laughing on Election Day.”

This fundraising effort comes after reports that Trump’s fundraising committees spent nearly $30 million in legal fees for the former president in the second half of 2023.

This is another instance in a series of Trump’s fundraising attempts, which have also included capitalizing off his criminal indictments and state efforts to remove him from primary ballots.

Why It Matters: Biden had reportedly described Trump as a “sick f**k” who takes pleasure in others’ misfortunes in private conversations. Later that day, former National Security Adviser John Bolton affirmed Biden’s remarks, stating that Biden had accurately captured Trump’s personality.

Earlier, Biden mocked Trump for his incorrect prediction of a stock market collapse if Biden won the 2020 election.

Trump currently leads Biden in the 2024 presidential election race – a RealClearPolitics poll shows Trump with 46.6% support, while Biden has 44.8% support.

 

Loading

72
Categories
Back Door Power Grab Biden Biden Cartel Censorship Commentary Corruption Elections Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics Reprints from others. Uncategorized

Is the Electoral Fix Already In?

Visits: 17

Is the Electoral Fix Already In?

The fix is in. To “protect democracy,” democracy is already being canceled. We just haven’t admitted the implications of this to ourselves yet.

On Sunday, January 14th, NBC News ran an eye-catching story: “Fears grow that Trump will use the military in ‘dictatorial ways’ if he returns to the White House.” It described “a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers” that is “quietly” making plans to “foil any efforts to expand presidential power” on the part of Donald Trump.

The piece quoted an array of former high-ranking officials, all insisting Trump will misuse the Department of Defense to execute civilian political aims. Since Joe Biden’s team “leaked” a strategy memo in late December listing “Trump is an existential threat to democracy” as Campaign 2024’s central talking point, surrogates have worked overtime to insert existential or democracy in quotes. This was no different:

“We’re about 30 seconds away from the Armageddon clock when it comes to democracy,” said Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, adding that Trump is “a clear and present danger to our democracy.” Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward, one of the advocacy groups organizing the “loose” coalition, said, “We believe this is an existential moment for American democracy.” Declared former CIA and defense chief Leon Panetta: “Like any good dictator, he’s going to try to use the military to basically perform his will.”

Former Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice and current visiting Georgetown law professor Mary McCord was one of the few coalition participants quoted by name. She said:

We’re already starting to put together a team to think through the most damaging types of things that he [Trump] might do so that we’re ready to bring lawsuits if we have to.

The group was formed by at least two organizations that have been hyperactive in filing lawsuits against Trump and Trump-related figures over the years: the aforementioned Democracy Forwardchaired by former Perkins Coie and Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias, and Protect Democracy, a ubiquitous non-profit run by a phalanx of former Obama administration lawyers like Ian Bassin, and funded at least in part by LinkedIn magnate Reid Hoffman.

The article implied a future Trump presidency will necessitate new forms of external control over the military. It cited Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal’s bill to “clarify” the Insurrection Act, a 1792 law that empowers the president to deploy the military to quell domestic rebellion. Blumenthal’s act would add a requirement that Congress or courts ratify presidential decisions to deploy the military at home, seeking essentially to attach a congressional breathalyzer to the presidential steering wheel.

NBC’s quotes from former high-ranking defense and intelligence officials about possible preemptive mutiny were interesting on their own. However, the really striking twist was that we’d read the story before.

For over a year, the Biden administration and its surrogates have dropped hint after hint that the plan for winning in 2024 — against Donald Trump or anyone else — might involve something other than voting. Lawsuits in multiple states have been filed to remove Trump from the ballot; primaries have been canceled or invalidated; an ominous Washington Post editorial by Robert Kagan, husband to senior State official Victoria Nuland, read like an APB to assassins to head off an “inevitable” Trump dictatorship; and on January 11th of this year, leaders of a third party group called “No Labels” sent an amazing letter to the Department of Justice, complaining of a “conspiracy” to stop alternative votes.

Authored by former NAACP director Ben Chavis, former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, former North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Iran-Contra Special Counsel Dan Webb, the No Labels letter described a meeting of multiple advocacy groups aligned with the Democratic party. In the 80-minute confab, audio of which was obtained by Semafora dire warning was issued to anyone considering a third-party run:

Through every channel we have, to their donors, their friends, the press, everyone — everyone — should send the message: If you have one fingernail clipping of a skeleton in your closet, we will find it… If you think you were vetted when you ran for governor, you’re insane. That was nothing. We are going to come at you with every gun we can possibly find. We did not do that with Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, we should have, and we will not make that mistake again.

The Semafor piece offered a rare glimpse into the Zoom-politics culture that’s dominated Washington since the arrival of Covid-19. If this is how Beltway insiders talk about how to keep Joe Lieberman or Ben Chavis out of politics, imagine what they say about Trump?

We don’t have to imagine. Three and a half years ago, in June and July of 2020, an almost exactly similar series of features to the recent NBC story began appearing in media, describing another “loose network” of “bipartisan officials,” also meeting “quietly” to war-game scenarios in case “Trump loses and insists he won,” as the Washington Post put it.

That group, which called itself the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), involved roughly 100 former officials, think-tankers, and journalists who gathered to “wargame” contested election scenarios. The “loose” network included big names like former Michigan governor and current Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, and former Hillary Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, who in his current role as special advisor to President Joe Biden overseeing the handout of roughly $370 billion in “clean energy” investments is one of the most powerful people in Washington.

The TIP was hyped like the rollout of a blockbuster horror flick: In a second Trump Term, No One Will Hear You Scream… Stories in NPR, the Financial TimesThe AtlanticThe Washington Post and over a dozen other major outlets outlined apocalyptic predictions about Trump’s unwillingness to leave office, and how this would likely result in mass unrest, even bloodshed. A typical quote was from TIP co-founder, Georgetown law professor, and former Pentagon official Rosa Brooks, who told the Boston Globe that every one of the group’s simulations ended in chaos and violence, because “the law is… almost helpless against a president who’s willing to ignore it.”

Podesta played Joe Biden in one TIP simulation, and in one round refused to accede to a “clear Trump win,” threatening instead to seize a bloc of West Coast states including California (absurdly dubbed “Cascadia”) and secede. Podesta’s “frankly ridiculous move,” as one TIP participant described it, was so over the top that a player leaked it to media writer Ben Smith of the New York Times.

The latter in Timesian fashion stuck the seeming front-page tale near the bottom of an otherwise breezy August 2nd story titled, called “How The Media Could Get the Election Story Wrong”:

A group of former top government officials called the Transition Integrity Project actually gamed four possible scenarios, including one that doesn’t look that different from 2016: a big popular win for Mr. Biden, and a narrow electoral defeat… They cast John Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in the role of Mr. Biden. They expected him, when the votes came in, to concede…

But Mr. Podesta… shocked the organizers… he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College. In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office…

News that Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chief rejected a legal election result, even in a hypothetical simulation, was obvious catnip to conservative media, which took about ten minutes to repackage Smith’s story using the same alarmist headline format marking earlier TIP write-ups. Breitbart published “Democrats’ ‘War Game’ for Election Includes West Coast Secession, Possible Civil War,” and a cascade of further red-state freakouts seemed inevitable.

“At that point,” says Nils Gilman, COO and EVP of Programs at the Berggruen Institute think tank, who served alongside Brooks as TIP’s other co-founder, “we decided we needed to be out about having run this exercise, to prevent the allegation that this was a ‘shadowy cabal’ — not that that narrative didn’t take hold anyways.”

The final TIP report was released the next day, August 3rd, 2020. Titled “Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition,” the full text was, as any person attempting an objective read will grasp, sensational.

The Podesta episode was worse than reported, with the secession proposal coming on “advice from President Obama,” used as leverage to a) secure statehood for Washington, DC and Puerto Rico b) divide California into five states to increase its Senate representation, and c) “eliminate the Electoral College,” among other things. TIP authors also warned Trump’s behavior could “push other actors, including, potentially, some in the Democratic Party, to similarly engage in practices that depart from traditional rule of law norms, out of perceived self-defense.”

More tellingly, there were multiple passages on the subject of abiding by and/or trusting in the law, and how this can be a weakness. TIP authors concluded that “as an incumbent unbounded by norms, President Trump has a huge advantage” in the upcoming election, and chided participants that “planners need to take seriously the notion that this may well be a street fight, not a legal battle.” They added the key observation that “a reliance on elites observing norms are [sic] not the answer here.”

Asked about that passage, Gilman replied that it was “the right question,” i.e. “Why can’t we just rely on elites to observe/enforce norms?” Noting that two-thirds of the GOP caucus voted not to certify the 2020 election, he went on: “If I had had total confidence in the solidity of the institutions, I wouldn’t have felt the need to run the exercises.”

This answer makes some sense in the abstract, but ignores the years-long campaign of norm-breaking in the other direction leading up to the TIP simulation. In the eight-plus years since Donald Trump entered the national political scene, we’ve seen the same cast of characters appear and reappear in dirty tricks schemes, many of which began before he was even elected (more on that below). The last time we encountered this “loose-knit group” story, the usual suspects were all there, and the public by lucky accident of the Smith leak gained detailed access to Democratic Party thinking about how to steal an election — if necessary, of course, to “protect the democratic process.”

That incident acquires new significance now in light not only of this NBC story, but also the dismal 2024 poll numbers for Biden, a host of unusually candid calls for preemptive action to prevent Trump from taking office, the bold efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in states like Colorado and Maine, and those lesser-publicized, but equally important campaign to keep third party challengers like No Labels or Robert F. Kennedy from gaining ballot access in key states.

The grim reality of Campaign 2024 is that both sides appear convinced the other will violate “norms” first, with Democrats in particular seeming to believe extreme advance action is needed to head off a Trump dictatorship. Such elevated levels of paranoia virtually guarantee that someone is going to cheat before Election Day in November, at which point the court of public opinion will come into play. The key question will be, who abandoned democracy first?

The TIP report provided an answer. It contained long lists of theoretical Trump abuses that sounded suspiciously more like the extralegal maneuvers already deployed against Trump dating back to mid-2016, particularly during the failed effort to prosecute him for collusion with Russia. Interpreted by some as a literal plan to overturn a legal Trump victory, its greater significance was as a historical document, since it read like a year-by-year synopsis of all the home team rule-breaking. In other words, the TIP read like a Team Clinton playbook, only with hero and villain reversed.

Bearing in mind that many of the people involved were also Russiagate actors, here’s a abbreviated list of abuses the TIP authors supposedly feared Trump would commit:

“The President’s ability… to launch investigations into opponents; and his ability to use Department of Justice and/or the intelligence agencies to cast doubt on election results or discredit his opponents.”

It’s true a president so inclined can do these things, and possible a re-elected Trump might, but they were clearly done first to Trump in this case. The FBI’s road-to-nowhere Crossfire Hurricane probe of Russian collusion, which made use of illegally obtained FISA surveillance authority, began on July 31, 2016. Trump opponents have been “launching investigations” really without interruption ever since, with many (including especially the recent Frankensteinian hush-money prosecution) obviously politicized.

Likewise, the office of the Director of National Intelligence published an Intelligence Community Assessment in early January 2017, again before Trump’s inauguration, that used information from the bogus Steele dossier to conclude that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances.” If that isn’t using intelligence agencies to “cast doubt on election results,” what is? Worse, the trick would be repeated, over and over:

“The President and key members of his administration can also reference classified documents without releasing them, manipulate classified information, or selectively release classified documents for political purposes, fueling manufactured rumors.”

This phenomenon also began before Trump’s election, notably with the story leaked on January 10, 2017, about four “intel chiefs,” including FBI Director James Comey, who presented then-President-elect Trump with “claims of Russian efforts to compromise him,” including the infamous pee tape. “Selective” release of “classified documents” then continued through the Trump presidency. Other incidents involved the “repeated contacts with Russian intelligence” story (February 2017), a Washington Post story about Jeff Sessions speaking to the Russian ambassador (March 2017), the (incorrect) story about Trump lawyer Michael Cohen being in Prague (April 2018), the infamous “Russian bounty” story (June 2020), and many, many, others.

Podesta himself participated in one of the first and most damaging “manufactured rumor” episodes, beginning in late 2016, involving the use of the Elias-commissioned Steele dossier to illegally obtain a FISA warrant on former Trump aide Carter Page. Podesta, who of course knew the real source of the story, reacted to it as if it was news generated by government investigators and publicly derided Page as a Russian cutout, before adding that the 2016 election “was distorted by the Russian intervention.” This was a textbook example of using “manufactured rumors” from intelligence agencies to “cast doubt” on election results as you’ll find.

“Additional presidential powers subject to misuse include… his ability to restrict internet communications in the name of national security.”

As for restricting internet communications “in the name of national security,” Racket pauses to laugh. The growth of state-aided censorship initiatives like the ones we studied all last year in the Twitter Files began well before Trump’s election, for instance with the creation in Barack Obama’s last year of the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which later worked with Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership to focus heavily on posts deemed to be attempts at “delegitimization” in the 2020 election. Stanford’s group even flagged a story about the TIP in its final report as “conspiracy theory.”

Not to say that these bureaucracies couldn’t be abused by a second Trump administration, but so far they’ve been a near-exclusive fixation of Democratic politicians and security officials. There’s a reason Joe Biden is the only candidate slated to enjoy a censorship-free campaign season, while Trump and third-party challenger Robert F. Kennedy have been repeatedly removed or de-amplified from various platforms.

“There is considerable room to use foreign interference, real or invented, as a pretext to cast doubt on the election results or more generally to create uncertainty about the legitimacy of the election.”

This may have been the most amazing line in the TIP report, given that the entire Trump presidency was marked by stories like “How Russia Helped Swing the Election for Trump” (New Yorker) “Did Russia Affect the 2016 Election? It’s Now Undeniable” (Wired), “Russia ‘turned’ election for Trump, Clapper believes” (PBS), “Yes, Russian Election Sabotage Helped Trump Win” (Bloomberg), and a personal favorite, “CIA Director Wrongly Says U.S. Found Russia Didn’t Affect Election Result” (NBC). There was so much “Russia hacked the election” messaging between 2016 and 2020, in fact, that our Matt Orfalea made two movies about it. Here’s one:

In the 2018 midterm elections, officials warned that Russia was going to “attack” the congressional vote. Stories like “U.S. 2018 elections ‘under attack’ by Russia” (Reuters) and “Justice Dept. Accuses Russians of Interfering in Midterm Elections” (New York Times) were constants, until the Democrats retook the House in a “blue wave,” at which point headlines began saying the opposite (“Russians Tried, but Were Unable to Compromise Midterm Elections, U.S. Says” from the Times was a typical take). The TIP was written during a repeat version, as stories like “Lawmakers are Warned that Russia is Meddling to Re-Elect Trump” (New York Times) were near-daily fixtures in 2020 pre-election coverage. After Biden won, headlines like “Putin Failed to Mount Major Election Interference Activities in 2020” again became fixtures in papers like the Washington Post.

This brings us to the last and most controversial angle on the TIP report. When the original TIP text came out, Michael Brendan Daugherty in National Review wrote in an offhand tone that he got the feeling “some progressives are steeling themselves for a Color Revolution in the United States,” because winning a normal election “just isn’t cathartic enough.”

To this day, the color revolution idea makes TIP organizers laugh.

“The idea that some rando in Los Angeles,” Gilman says, referring to himself, “was secretly planning a color revolution (which he published a report about months in advance, which you gotta admit is a pretty weird move for a guy allegedly plotting a revolution) is a textbook example of Hofstadter’s Paranoid Style.”

Brooks is also incredulous, saying the color revolution thesis is a “profound misunderstanding” of the TIP report. “They aren’t plans or predictions, they’re efforts to understand how things might play out,” she wrote, adding that the TIP participants were merely asking, “What could go wrong?”

They may have asked that. Still, the group’s final report contained a string of references to “plans and predictions,” with entries like “Plan for a contested election,” “Plan for large-scale protests,” and “Make plans now for how to respond in the event of a crisis.” As for the “profound misunderstanding,” Brooks gave a friendly interview to a New York Times writer who was apparently laboring under the same “profound” delusion.

Weeks after the National Review piece, Michelle Goldberg in the Times wrote of Daugherty: “He’s right, but not in the way he thinks.” She explained that Democrats don’t relish the thought of an uprising, but look upon it as something to be dreaded, that “must nonetheless be considered.”

She then quoted Brooks. The Georgetown professor, who in her most recent book about life in the Defense Department described getting “a coveted intelligence community ‘blue badge’” to pass into “the sacred precincts of the CIA,” told Goldberg that in the event of a Trump power grab, “the only thing left is what pro-democracy movements and human rights movements around the world have always done, which is sustained, mass peaceful demonstrations.”

That did sound like a description of the Eastern European color revolutions, which generally involved mass street actions, sustained negative press pressure, and calls by NGOs and outside countries for the disfavored leader to step down. A major reason the “color revolution” theme struck commentators in connection with TIP had to do with the presence in the TIP simulation of Barack Obama’s former chief ethics lawyer, Norm Eisen. Eisen wrote a manual called The Democracy Playbook for the Brookings Institution that is often referred to as the unofficial how-to guide for America-backed regime-change operations abroad. Anyone who’s been forced to read a lot of “democracy promotion” literature, as I had to in Russia, will recognize familiar themes in the TIP report.

One of the controversial features of “color revolution” episodes is that the U.S. has at times supported ousters of perhaps unsavory, but legally elected, leaders. Was the TIP group contemplating the “sustained” protest scenario only in the event of Trump stealing an election, or if he merely won in an unpleasant way, i.e. via the Electoral College with a popular vote deficit? Brooks at first indicated she didn’t understand the reference.

“I am not sure what the question is?” she wrote. “Peaceful protests, mass or otherwise, are constitutionally protected.”

I referred back to the Times piece and the “movements around the world” quote, noting that while those outcomes might arguably have been desirable, it’d be hard to call them strictly democratic.

“I am not an expert on the color revolutions,” she replied. “It is certainly true that on both left and right, in both the US and abroad, there are nearly always… I guess I’d say spoilers, or violence entrepreneurs — who try to hijack peaceful protest movements.”

Lastly: one TIP simulation also predicted, with something like remarkable anti-clairvoyance, that Trump would contrive to label Biden supporters guilty of “insurrection” for protesting a “clear Trump win”:

The Trump Campaign planted agent provocateurs into the protests throughout the country to ensure these protests turned violent and helped further the narrative of a violent insurrection against a lawfully elected president.

That passage was published on August 3, 2020, long before most Americans knew or cared that the word “insurrection” had political significance. We’d be instructed in its use within hours of the riots, when Joe Biden said, “It’s not protest. It’s insurrection,” and everyone from Mitt Romney to Mitch McConnell to media talking heads to the authors of the articles of impeachment like Jamie Raskin fixated on the word. Still, not until December 2021 did a public figure explain how the 14th Amendment might be deployed strategically in the post-January 6th world. The insight came from Elias, who has since deleted the tweet:

We’re of course now seeing that litigation, notably in the form of a Colorado Supreme Court decision to remove Trump from the ballot, which was handed down after complaints filed citing the 14th Amendment provision alluded to by Elias.

 

All this is laid out as background for the coming nine months of campaign chaos, if we even end up having a traditional campaign season. Revolt of the Public author and former CIA analyst Martin Gurri summed up the situation in a piece for The Free Press titled “Trump. Again. The Question is Why?” The money quotes:

The malady now exposed is this: the elites have lost faith in representative democracy. To smash the nightmare image of themselves that Trump evokes, they are willing to twist and force our system until it breaks… The implications are clear. Not only Trump, but the nearly 75 million Americans who voted for him, must be silenced and crushed. To save democracy, it must be modified by a possessive: “our democracy.”

The Biden campaign, stuck in a seemingly irreversible poll freefall, has put all its rhetorical chips on the theme of “protecting democracy.” Biden mentions Trump’s “assault on democracy” at every opportunity, and even recently resorted to Apollo Creed-style imagery, campaigning at Valley Forge flanked by a dozen American flags and red, white, and blue lights. (Red-and-white striped trunks can’t be far off.) The DNC’s daily “talkers” memos for months have asked blue-party pols and friendly reporters to stress “the existential threat to freedom and democracy that Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans represent,” while pointing to stories like Vanity Fair’s, “There Is No ‘Both Sides’ to Donald Trump’s Threat to Democracy,” in its CONTENT TO AMPLIFY section.

This messaging would likely have worked after January 6th, when Trump’s post-electoral conduct rankled voters, as evidenced by an exit approval rating of 34%. It can’t now, since the word “democracy” has been appropriated to refer exclusively to the party that declared its New Hampshire primary “non-binding” and “meaningless,” canceled its Florida primary, is preparing mass technical challenges against third-party challengers like No Labels or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (and has a rich history in that area; see accompanying Nader piece), is seeking to kick the GOP front-runner off the ballot, has mass-filed bar complaints against attorneys who represented that candidate, and has piled criminal counts atop its main electoral opposition.

Many who couldn’t stand Trump, would never vote for him, and have been willing consumers of the awesome amount of propaganda published on the Trump subject, now need to face the fact that they’ve been had. Transformed into the avatar of all bad things — a crude domestic combo platter of Saddam, Milosevic, Assad, and Putin — this vision of the über-villain, Trump, has been used to distract mass audiences from the erosion of “norms” at home. “Protecting democracy” in the Trump context will be remembered as having served the same purpose as Saddam’s mythical WMDs, the shots fired in the Gulf of Tonkin, or Gaddafi’s fictional Viagra-enhanced army. Those were carefully crafted political lies, used to rally the public behind illegal campaigns of preemption.

Voters, by voting, “protect democracy.” A politician who claims to be doing the job for us is up to something. The group in the current White House is trying to steal for themselves a word that belongs to you. Don’t let them.

 

Loading

53
Categories
Commentary EV Green Energy Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Are EVs Actually Cheaper to Own? Maybe Not.

Visits: 17

Are EVs Actually Cheaper to Own? Maybe Not.

Electric vehicles (EVs) have undeniably entered the mainstream in the United States. According to estimates from Kelley Blue Book, more EVs were sold last year than were sold between 2011 and 2018. The roughly 1.2 million new EVs put into service in 2023 represented 7.6% of the total U.S. car market. Cox Automotive’s Economics and Industry Insights team boldly predicted that this share will climb to 10% in 2024.

EVs’ impressive growth has played out even though they remain significantly more expensive to purchase than gasoline-powered cars, with only a handful of options priced below $40,000. EV proponents counter this drawback by claiming that EVs are actually cheaper to own over the long term, with lower fuel and maintenance costs making up for the higher sticker price. Studies examining cars’ total cost of ownership back their assertions.

However, these studies (and there are many) are only as reliable as their completeness. After all, a wide variety of expenses factor into a vehicle’s lifetime cost, and excluding or miscalculating one could drastically skew the calculation. That’s why researchers at the University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable Systems reviewed the dozens of “total cost of ownership” studies to craft their own. Published on January 3rd in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, their analysis aimed to correct for the shortcomings of previous research.

A closer look at EV costs

Maxwell Woody, a research assistant pursuing Ph.Ds in resource policy and behavior and mechanical engineering, led the effort. He and his colleagues accounted for all the usual costs, such as purchase price, fuel, maintenance, repairs, insurance, annual fees, and financing. Unlike prior analyses, however, they also:

  • adjusted for the effect of temperature on fuel efficiency
  • tracked vehicles over 25-year lifetimes
  • categorized vehicles by size, range, and type
  • accounted for different EV charging behaviors, and explored the cost of ownership in 14 cities from across the U.S.

The findings broadly challenge the optimistic cost-of-ownership assessments frequently touted by EV enthusiasts. The researchers found that while small and low-range EVs capable of traveling around 200 miles are indeed less expensive to own than their gas-powered counterparts, larger, long-range EVs that can cover 400 miles are more expensive. Midsize SUV EVs — currently the top-selling models by far — only reach cost parity if government incentives are applied.

“EVs are more competitive in cities with high gasoline prices, low electricity prices, moderate climates, and direct purchase incentives, and for users with home charging access, time-of-use electricity pricing, and high annual mileage,” the researchers summarized.

Since EVs are broadly more expensive to purchase upfront than comparable gas vehicles, the best way to assess whether an EV will ultimately be cheaper to own over the long term is by looking at its break-even time: when its lower recurring costs make up for its higher upfront cost. Woody and his team found that 200-mile range compact and midsize electric sedans reach this point in 3 to 7 years, while 300-mile range variants take nine to 20 years to break even. Electric SUVs and trucks with 300 miles of range generally take more than 20 years, while 400-mile range EVs will never break even over their lifetimes.

Keep in mind, however, that this assessment did not include the Federal EV tax credit, which reduces the purchase price of certain EVs by $3,750 or $7,500. When included, the affordability scale tips decidedly toward EVs.

“For 200-mile range BEVs, the breakeven time is under 2 years for compact vehicles and sedans, and under 5 years for small and midsize SUVs in each city,” the researchers reported. “Small 300-mile range vehicles break even in under 10 years in each city, and larger 300-mile range vehicles break even in under 10 years in many cities…there are a few cities in which 400-mile BEV compact and midsize sedans will break even with [gas-powered] counterparts after 15−20 years.”

Cost parity down the road

Still, there are numerous unknowns in the assessment, such as whether a substantial number of EVs will require battery replacements outside of their warranties, mandated to be a minimum of 8 years and 100,000 miles. Also unknown is how the costs of gasoline and electricity will change in the future. The study also didn’t compare vehicle costs in rural areas.

Overall, the greatest factor in determining whether an EV will be cheaper to own than a gas vehicle is the ability to charge at home, where electricity is cheapest. (In their analysis, the researchers assumed that EV owners charge at home 80% of the time and at public charging stations 20% of the time.) Without home charging, an EV will likely never be cheaper over its lifetime.

“Home charging access reduces the lifetime cost by approximately $10,000 on average, and up to $26,000,” Woody and his team reported.

The study is just a snapshot in time, the researchers noted. An EV’s battery constitutes a significant portion of its upfront cost. With battery prices predicted to continue steadily declining in the coming years, the math is likely to shift more in favor of EVs.

This article was first published at Big Think.

Loading

59
Categories
Abortion rights? America's Heartland Commentary Links from other news sources. Opinion Reprints from others.

Thousands Protest Abortion at March for Life Rally in DC.

Visits: 19

Thousands Protest Abortion at March For Life Rally in DC.

Below is the Allsides summary of yesterday’s March for Life. Below that are three articles covering it. Left, Right, and Center.

Summary from the AllSides News Team

Thousands attended the 51st National March for Life in Washington, D.C., on Friday in protest of legalized abortion.

Details: The annual march marks the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision that enshrined abortion access as a constitutional right. This court decision was overturned in the summer of 2022. The organization’s website states the annual march continues because “the necessary work to build a culture of life in the United States of America is not finished.”

Key Quotes: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) spoke at the rally, stating, “We can stand with every woman for every child, and we can truly build a culture that cherishes and protects life.”

Political Fight: The overturning of Roe in the summer of 2022 placed abortion at the center of elections across the country, with many Democratic candidates positioning themselves as defenders of abortion access, and many Republican candidates positioning themselves as champions of the pro-life cause. From congressional races to state supreme court races, the issue of abortion has repeatedly been credited as benefitting Democratic candidates at the ballot box, and is expected to be a key issue in 2024 elections.

How the Media Covered It: Outlets across the spectrum covered the rally, but right-rated outlets covered the event more prominently. The Associated Press (Lean Left bias) and The Hill (Center bias) labeled the attendees “opponents of abortion rights,” while the Washington Times (Lean Right bias) labeled them “pro-life activists.”

Featured Coverage of this Story

Loading

59

Verified by MonsterInsights