Society in General

Rx for American Identity Crisis

Posted on by Ron Clutz

There’s a new voice offering leadership in 2024 to reverse the US tailspin with Biden in the WH.  Vivek Ramaswamy is on to some things and his words and passion could resonate and inspire.  For those preferring to read his ideas, a transcript is below from the captions, in italics with my bolds and added images. TC is Tucker Carlson and VR is Vivek Ramaswamy.

TC: American Liberalism and Identity politics is a question that entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy has spent a great deal of time thinking about through two books as well as in his latest venture which he joins us to tell us about tonight. Vivek, thanks so much for coming on.

So it does seem like Don Lemon, you know just a cable host, but this is a perfect illustration of where identity politics wind up when you stray from Universal principles that bind us all under the same rules

VR: Exactly. I mean we are in the middle of this national identity crisis, Tucker where we have celebrated our diversity and our differences for so long that we forgot all of the ways we’re really just the same as Americans: Bound by a common set of ideals that set this nation into motion 250 years ago. And that’s what I’m proud to say tonight that I’m running for United States president to revive those ideals in this country. Those basic rules of the road include meritocracy–the idea that you get ahead in this country not on the color of your skin, but in the content of your character. The idea that you are allowed to speak freely, yes to be wrong sometimes, as long as your neighbor gets the same courtesy in return.

The idea that the people who we elect to run the government, by the way,
are the people who actually run the government.

Basic rules of the road are the things that bind us together. You and I have different shades of melatonin and I say so what. That’s not beautiful, that is not our strength. Our diversity is meaningless if there’s nothing greater that binds us together across that diversity. And the reason that I’m running for president is to revive those ideals, and I believe deep in my bones they still exist. Most Americans still believe in them but we need to rediscover that, and the only way we can do it is to start talking openly again.

TC: So I’m not going to ask you any political questions, because given my calls in the midterms, I don’t understand American politics. I’m not going to ask you what you’re doing in Iowa or whatever, other people can do that. Give us the bullet points of what you’re going to tell audiences as you embark from here on this campaign.

VR: I think we need to put Merit back into America in every sphere of Our Lives. I mean Merit in who gets into this country, let’s start with that okay. I think more people like my parents can be a good thing for this country, but people whose first act of entering this country as a law breaking one: We should say a hard no to that.

Merit not just who gets in but also  who gets ahead. Decimating affirmative action that has been a national cancer. One of my top priorities will be to end affirmative action in every sphere of American Life. And it’s not just meritocracy and who gets ahead, ending affirmative action yes. I mean our whole government is based on that idea. Well the funny thing Tucker, this would be an easy thing for a president to do. Lyndon Johnson issued an executive order that required anyone who does business with the US government–that covers over 20 percent of the U.S Workforce–to adopt race-based quota systems. Any Republican president since Lyndon Johnson could have taken a pen and crossed that out. We haven’t done it, yet I think that’s the kind of Courage we’re going to need to muster to go after these sacred cows from woke religion. In the form of affirmative action and to this new climate religion which is completely shackling the American economy and culture. We need to take the most sacred cows of these alternative secular religions, and I’m sorry to say this: Take them to the slaughterhouse.

Because that’s what what it’s going to take for this national revival where we stop apologizing for what it means to be American, for putting America first. But in order to put America first we have to begin by first rediscovering what America is. To me those are these basic rules of the road that set this nation into motion: from meritocracy to free speech to self-governance over aristocracy. Make the people who we elect actually run the government, rather than this cancerous Federal bureaucracy.

That’s going to be the heart of my message and I’ll tell you this we don’t have an option anymore. We face these external threats like the rise of China, which I think has got to be our top foreign policy threat to which we respond, not pointless wars somewhere else. That’s going to require some sacrifice, it’s going to require a declaration of independence from China, complete decoupling. And that’s not going to be easy; it’s going to require some inconvenience, since buying cheap stuff for so many years we got addicted to it.

But I think we can make those sacrifices if we know what we are sacrificing for. I want to see the GOP answer the question: What does it mean to be an American today? If we give an answer to that question, we dilute this woke agenda in these secular religions to irrelevance. Yes I’ve been complaining about them for the last three years because there’s a role for identifying the problem. But if we want to deliver a solution we’re need to rediscover that national identity that we all share. If we do that I still think in my bones that our best days, not in some cheesy politician kind of way, but truly I think our best days can be ahead of us. But it’s going to take that Revival to make it happen.

TC: I hope you’ll come back often because you are one of the one of the great talkers we’ve ever had. But very quickly: You identified China as the primary concern of American foreign policy; you don’t think it’s the war in Eastern Europe?

VR: Absolutely correct. Foreign policy is all about prioritization. We must wake up to the fact that China is violating our sovereignty. If that had been a Russian spy balloon, we’d have shot it down instantly, and ratcheted up sanctions. Why didn’t we do that to China?

The answer is simple: We depend on them for our modern way of life.
This economic co-dependent relationship has to end.

And the only other priority I’d add is: If you’re actually going to use the military for something, use it to decimate the cartels South of the Border in a failed Narco State that’s now actually killing people on American soil with fentanyl. That’s what a good use of a military looks like: Actually protecting American soil and American interests, not a pointless War somewhere else.

The heart of this goes to Reviving that national identity: What does it mean to be American. Then you know what you need to defend. That’s where our domestic policy vision and this cultural vision is inextricably linked to our foreign policy Vision too. And that’s why I’m running for president because I think that needs to be at the top of the GOP’s agenda. It needs to be at the top of this country’s agenda so I’m running for president to make it happen.

TC: That is so far from the current agenda it will be fascinating to see you weigh into this race, and we appreciate your announcing here tonight, thank you.

Footnote:

A second-generation Indian-American, Vivek Ramaswamy founded Roivant Sciences in 2014 and led the largest biotech IPOs of 2015 and 2016, eventually culminating in successful clinical trials in multiple disease areas that led to FDA-approved products.

He has founded other successful healthcare and technology companies, and in 2022, he launched Strive Asset Management, a new firm focused on restoring the voices of everyday citizens in the American economy by leading companies to focus on excellence over politics.

Covid Coercion Coverup in Canada

Posted on by Ron Clutz

In recent months, some demonstrators in Quebec have denounced what they consider government fear campaigns over COVID-19. The new measures included a mandatory rule on wearing masks during demonstrations. Sept. 2020 (Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press)

John Hardie et al. dissect a recent publication attempting to whitewash blacken over suspension of citizens’ rights as well public health principles during the pandemic.  Their Epoch Times article is Pandemic Performance Study Blatant Attempt to Justify Feds’ Actions? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The Public Health Agency of Canada study’s conclusions are a fantasy,
quite divorced from reality

Rather than learning from the painful lessons of the past three years, it’s obvious that we’ve entered a post-pandemic phase of government-led alarmism.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)—including Theresa Tam—has published a study in a Canadian public health journal declaring that pandemic-inspired restrictions substantially reduced the impact of COVID-19 in Canada. “Counterfactuals of effects of vaccination and public health measures on COVID-19 cases in Canada: What could have happened?” asks us to believe an imagined story about what may have happened had Canada’s public health measures not been implemented.

However, the result is a counterfactual narrative of a fantasized Canada quite divorced from reality.

An elementary school in Montreal North is seen, Thursday, May 14, 2020 in Montreal. PHOTO BY RYAN REMIORZ /THE CANADIAN PRESS

Recent debate on the study’s findings has made it evident that Theresa Tam and her collaborators (“the authors”) are victims of common modelling pitfalls that have stripped their objectivity and, accordingly, affected the quality of their model and its output.

Instead of relying on modelling forecasts, the authors resort to “back-casting” to state “what may have happened” or “what could have been” had governments not acted on our behalf.

However, giving credence to such questionable results occurs all too often when sensational outcomes are observed. Unfortunately for any modelling study, the historical path—the one involving no interventions—was foreclosed the moment pandemic responses began. Neither the authors, nor anyone else, can ever observe the simultaneous response and non-response of Canada’s experience with COVID-19.

Quebec Premier François Legault says police in the province’s red zones — regions where COVID-19 cases are surging — will be issuing $1,000 fines to those who violate newly strengthened public health rules.  With fees, those fines will top $1,500 and can be issued for gathering in private residences or protesting without a face covering.

Their most dramatic claim is that, without social restrictions and vaccines, up to 800,000 COVID-related deaths could have occurred. The figure below shows 12 years of all-cause mortality data in Canada (blue line), with the authors’ “worst case” superimposed (red line).

The figure shows 12 years of all-cause mortality data in Canada (blue line), with the authors’ “worst case” superimposed (red line).

For us, two things make the authors’ assertion incompatible with any reasonable view: one, there was no obvious increase in all-cause mortality between 2020 and 2021 that exceeded historical trends (blue line), and two, the death count of “up to 800,000 people” (red line) surpasses the number of Canadians killed in the 1918 influenza pandemic and two World Wars—combined. It begs the question:

Could an infection with a survival rate >99 percent really have been
the single most devastating health event in a century?
The reader can decide if they find these results plausible, or fantastic.

All models are unrealistic to a degree (although this is not a “fatal flaw”). However, models are only as good as the assumptions upon which they are based. Unfortunately, the authors have hung their results on assumptions that underestimate the acquisition, extent, and durability of natural immunity and that very likely overestimate early viral spread and the duration of vaccine-acquired immunity.

The authors also assume that the spread of infection dropped consistently with the stringency of closures and other social restrictions: when strict, transmission was low; when relaxed, transmission increased. However, there is evidence that these measures didn’t work “as advertised.” In many provinces, their effect may have plateaued by April 2020.

Stricter measures did not translate into a proportionately slower spread.

Unfortunately, this didn’t stop the authors from forcing their model to respond as if they had. In their “worst case” scenario, large amounts of infection and disease are—conveniently—a foregone conclusion unless they get flattened by top-down government actions. The agency of Canadians and its bottom-up influences on transmission, such as people’s natural tendency to avoid contagion, are never considered.

Their least subtle omission was the failure to disclose conflicts of interest. While PHAC scientists might claim they only provide guidance on sub-national pandemic responses, the interests of many federal health-related agencies are certainly evident.

For example, the federal government’s purchase of COVID-19 vaccines preceded their approval by Health Canada, and some of the most restrictive measures imposed on Canadians (such as vaccine requirements for commercial travel) came from the federal level. As it happens, four of the authors are also directly employed by the federal government.

The study’s authors can hardly be viewed as not having competing interests
in favourably evaluating pandemic policies.

All this leads us to wonder: was their article a genuine evidence-based analysis of government policies? Or, rather, a blatant attempt to justify these policies? To their credit, the authors admit that Canada’s response to the pandemic was imperfect and any unintended consequences need to be investigated. It will truly be a measure of the honesty and integrity of PHAC and their provincial partners if the latter is ever realized.

Footnote Quebec Covid Situation October 1, 2020

Note that testing has quadrupled since July and the number of new cases followed, especially in the last month.  Meanwhile daily deaths are unchanged at less than five a day, compared to Quebec losing 186 lives every day from all causes..  Recoveries are not reported to the public, perhaps due to the large number of people testing positive but without symptoms or only mild illness and no professional treatment.  The graph below estimates recoveries assuming that people not dying 28 days after a positive test can be counted as cured or in recovery.

Recoveries are the number of people testing positive (misleadingly termed “cases”) minus deaths 28 days later.  Obviously, the death rate was high early on, and now is barely visible.  Meanwhile the Positivity rate (% of people testing positive out of all subjects) went down to 1% for several months before rising recently.  Since there is a lag of 28 days, we don’t yet see the outcome of the rise in positives along with the increased testing.

And yet, with an edict, as of October 1 the government of Quebec put 60% of the provincial population under strict restrictions, about 4.8 million people.  The article from CBC News provides the details Quebec gives police legal tools to enter homes quickly to stop gatherings during COVID-19

Great Reset = Great Resentment

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Alan Korwin reports on how words are twisted in their meanings serving as weapons in the current culture war. His Town Hall article is The Great Reset Is Really Great Resentment.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

This fairly new thing, the so-called “great reset,” is more than the political left acting out their bottled-up fury at successes of the land in which they find themselves. Infuriated at how well freedom is working—the opulence, scientific and technological achievements, personal advancements at every level—even for the “downtrodden” compared to the rest of the world—they grouse. They can see (and deny) how poorly socialist utopian schemes they hold dear are doing. Like spoiled brats they nihilistically seek to overturn everything about this nation that is good and decent and pure.

America is in mortal danger from this actual mass psychosis afflicting so many of our countrymen. The psychiatric community calls it mass formation, a term and effect worth studying if you haven’t. The most striking modern example of course was in Germany before WWII, but communist China soon afterwards under the brutal dictator Mao Tse-dung wasn’t far behind. Pol Pot in Vietnam set new standards of depravity and evil, with popular support. Our own witch hunts in New England soon after we achieved independence were a similar thing—hysteria that knows no controls.

Words Are the Key

Using principles learned from Russian, Chinese and North Vietnamese communists, along with George Orwell, whose 1949 dystopian novel 1984 spelled it out with chilling clarity, leftists understand that whoever controls our language controls us. That battle is on. An entire generation of Newthink terms have entered the public mind, infiltrated newsrooms and classrooms everywhere, and threaten our health and liberty.

It boggles the mind how easily that disease has spread. People at the vaunted Associated Press have picked up the gauntlet, and what used to be a descriptive guide for journalists, like a dictionary, the AP Stylebook has become a proscriptive mandate. It now dictates which terms are acceptable and which must be cast aside as intolerant, offensive, biased and other inaccurate derogatory slurs.

America’s consciousness of this grew in a quantum leap, especially in the enormously influential Second Amendment community with the development and release in the year 2000 of The Politically Corrected Glossary, published by Bloomfield Press.  It changed some dialog and terminology, jump-starting reassessments, but the powerful mainstream media steamed right ahead regardless. The terribly sexist slur, gunman, appears constantly instead of killer, murderer or even criminal. Inanimate wholesome products like pistols or sidearms became fearsome semi-automatic handguns, which anti-gun forces publicly acknowledged misleads many into thinking machinegun.

To this day, despite constant complaints, reports call mass murderers “shooters,” denigrating 100 million American shooters who shoot for fun, sport and safety. Simultaneously, this linguistic trick avoids casting any shade on the criminal psychopaths who murder innocent people by the thousands annually. Those culprits are further protected by prosecutors and a judiciary that often avoids going after the perps, a shortening of perpetrators, now also frowned upon by the great resetters.

Assault is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware, outlawed everywhere under multiple laws, as it should be. That does little to stop resetters from attaching assault to weapon, so effective in turning the public against household firearms, the commonly used kind you’ll find in millions of American homes. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment holds extra special protection for such household arms in common use, a point leftists treat with disdain.

Those usual suspects—Marxist socialist democrats and other malfeasants—are actively pushing the overhaul of our language—and our freedoms. Tough to admit, but they’re pretty good at it. You may not even know you’ve been snookered, it’s so subtle and easy to miss. That’s what makes it so effective. Merely declaring yourself pro gun plays into their hands. How? Because they’ve cast guns as horrific instruments of the devil. If you say you’re pro gun you practically are the devil, to their addled minds. Try instead thinking of yourself as pro rights, a term they avoid, because if that’s you, what are they? Anti rights, which is pure truth on a platter, intolerable to them, and now you’re catching on.

Comment: 

Many have sensed this twisting of words attacking rights other than bearing arms for self-defense.  An overview of this lexicon of distorted terms was published at Canada Free Press by Linda Goudsmit, entitled Orwell’s Doublespeak: The Language of the Left.. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

To understand why the progressives speak doublespeak, their goals, who benefits, and the purpose of relabeling up as down and down as up, it is necessary to translate doublespeak into colloquial English. In an effort to translate the language of doublespeak a glossary with explanations is helpful. The glossary will decode the disingenuous Doublespeak of the radical left-wing liberals broadcast incessantly by the colluding mainstream media, taught in the infiltrated educational curricula, and dramatized by the Hollywood gliteratti and television programming in the entertainment industry. There is no informed consent in a society of lies and propaganda. If American democracy is to be preserved it is essential that an informed citizenry understand how they are being indoctrinated toward socialism by a deliberate program of propaganda and doublespeak.

GLOSSARY OF LEFTIST DOUBLESPEAK:

1. Diversity = Differences in appearance

Diversity is a word that refers to variety. It has an inclusive connotation and in a social context means the inclusion of multiple races and ethnicities – black, white, Asian, Hispanic etc. For Leftists, what the word does not include is any variation in thought. Leftist diversity only extends as far as appearances – it does not tolerate any variety of opinions. Leftism is tyrannical in its demands for conformity to its politically correct left-wing narrative of moral relativism and historical revisionism it does not include any conservative opinions or ideas. In Doublespeak diversity means differences in appearance.

2. Education = Indoctrination

Education is the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction especially at a school or university. In a democracy public education is “inclusive, both in its treatment of students and in that enfranchisement for the government of public education is as broad as for government generally. It is often organized and operated to be a deliberate model of the civil community in which it functions.” – Wikipedia Education in America has been commandeered by left-wing liberals and is now a vehicle for indoctrinating American youth from K-12 and throughout college. Conservative voices are no longer welcome in education. What was once a traditional American education of core subjects and pride in American democratic ideals has been transformed into an echo chamber of Leftist propaganda promoting globalism, socialism, American self-loathing, political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism. In Doublespeak education means Leftist indoctrination.

3. Freedom of speech = Approved speech

Freedom of speech is the foundation for democracy. Without freedom of speech there is no other freedom which is why tyrants always eliminate freedom of speech first. Leftists in America are determined to eliminate freedom of speech by enforcing their own code of political correctness which labels any opposing speech as hate speech. Speakers with conservative points of view are disinvited or intimidated through organized boycotts and violent protests. It is unAmerican to disallow the expression of opposing views but Leftists are tyrannical in their demand for conformity to their approved rhetoric. In Doublespeak freedom of speech means freedom of approved speech.

4. Globalism = One-world government

Globalism is defined as the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis. Globalism commonly refers to international trade among nations. Leftists seek to internationalize the world and are not using the word globalism to mean global trade. When Leftists say globalism they mean one-world government – their intention is to eliminate national boundaries, national sovereignty, and impose one-world government. The irony is that Leftists do not realize they are participating in their own destruction because the globalist elite who will rule the new world order consider the Leftists to be useful idiots. In Doublespeak globalism means one-world government.

5. Global warming/climate change = Redistribution of wealth

In 1992 UN scientists on The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on June 24, 2014 that: “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a ‘95-100% probability.’ But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been ‘invented’ as a construct within the IPCC report to express ‘expert judgment,’ as determined by the IPCC contributors.” Climate change is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on industrialized countries to transfer their wealth to non-industrialized countries. The United Nations is committed to globalization and one-world government and is supported worldwide by Leftists with the same objective. In Doublespeak global warming/climate change means the redistribution of wealth.

 

6. Income equality = Redistribution of wealth

Income equality in a democracy is achieved through equal opportunity – there is no guarantee of equal outcome. When Leftist’s speak of income equality they mean compulsory income redistribution that guarantees equal outcome. In Doublespeak income equality means redistribution of wealth.

7. Progressive = regressive

The word progressive has a positive connotation and is commonly understood to mean something that happens or develops gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step. Synonyms for progressive include continuing, continuous, increasing, growing, developing, ongoing, accelerating, escalating, gradual, step-by-step, and cumulative. In Doublespeak progressive is synonymous with regressive – the opposite of actual progress (see above).

8. Resistance = Anarchy

Resistance is the refusal to accept or comply with something. In a democracy there are laws and elections designed for citizens to legally and peacefully express their discontent at the voting booth. When Leftists speak of resistance they are fomenting the overthrow of the government. In Doublespeak resistance means anarchy.

9. Social justice = Reverse discrimination

Social justice in a democracy is achieved through laws and Constitutional protections that guarantee equal rights, equal opportunity, and equal protection under the law. When Leftists speak of social justice they mean reverse discrimination where a two-tier system of justice is acceptable, where sanctuary cities that protect illegal alien felons are endorsed, and where anarchy and violence are fomented to effect social change. In Doublespeak social justice means reverse discrimination.

10. Tolerance = Intolerance

The word tolerance has an inclusive connotation and is commonly understood to mean the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with. Synonyms for tolerance include acceptance, open-mindedness, forbearance. In Doublespeak tolerance is synonymous with intolerance – the opposite of tolerance. It is exclusively awarded to those who LOOK differently and withheld from those who THINK differently. Leftists tolerate differences in race, gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status but are extremely intolerant of differences of opinion.

Addendum:  Powerline Woke Jargon Decoder

Source: POWER LINE’S LEXICON OF LEFTIST TERMS, UPDATE 2

Examples:

Populism: When the wrong person or cause wins a free election, like Brexit or Trump.

[Alternative: “Populism is a term used by centrist liberals to describe political blowback from the disruption of society produced by their policies.” (John Gray’s definition—In The New Statesman.)

Nationalism: Patriotism that liberals don’t like.

The Administrative State: Rule by an overwhelming minority.

Woke (1): The belief that (1) all of society is currently and intentionally structured to oppress, (2) all gaps in performance between large groups illustrate this, and (3) the solution is ‘equity’—proportional representation without regard to performance. (From Wilfred Reilly)

Woke (2): A state of awareness only achieved by those dumb enough to find injustice in everything except their own behavior.

Racism: Any kind of resistance, conscious or unconscious, to the political program of the left.

Democracy: Any institutional design or voting system that enables the left to get what it wants. [Updated version: “Our democracyTM”—democracy as the left defines it]

“Threat to democracy”: When Republicans win an election.

Diversity: Where everyone looks different, but thinks the same thing, and speaks in identical cliches.

Inclusion: The deliberate exclusion of white males.

Disinformation: Anything a conservative says.

Root causes: Method of deflecting attention from solutions that can relieve a problem immediately (like locking up criminals instead of playing catch and release).

Property: Theft. (See Marx, Karl, & Proudhon, Joseph.)

“Hate speech”: Any statement that challenges the dogmas of the left. Usually deployed whenever a conservative is about to win an argument. (See also, “Racism,” above.)

Free speech: The firebombing of public buildings by Leftists.

Violence: The expression of conservative ideas.

Living Constitution: The written Constitution is dead.

Meritocracy: Created originally by liberals, now means racism/white supremacy.

Voter Suppression: Elimination of Democrat election fraud.

Divisive: Any opinion the left doesn’t like.

Advocate: People without real jobs who live to complain.

Denier: Label for anyone who dissents from leftist positions that can’t be successfully defended (or who didn’t vote for Liz Cheney)

 

Bypass Contrived Catastrophes

Posted on by Ron Clutz

“Nothing so focuses the mind as the sight of the gallows.” wrote Samuel Johnson.  He went on to say,

“Executions are intended to draw spectators. If they don’t draw spectators, they don’t answer their purpose”,  Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

Terrence Keeley discusses how to resist our current crop of elites who govern by declaring emergencies instead of solving problems. His insights are timely since this week PM Trudeau was given a free pass by a Canada Appeals court judge to repeat his emergency sanctions against protesting truckers should anyone else object to his policies. The article at Real Clear Wire is Navigating Contrived Catastrophes Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Perhaps this explains why political leaders repeatedly fabricate existential crises in lieu of governing responsibly. Without the sword of Damocles overhead, policymakers just can’t seem to get the adulation they so desperately crave.

Take the fake debt ceiling crisis. The U.S. federal debt cap was first enacted in 1917 when our national debt stood at $5.7 billion. Congress has since raised it more than 90 times with broad bipartisan support. There is ZERO chance they won’t do so again, yet we are told we must quiver and quake until they do. For some reason, a $31.4 trillion limit just isn’t enough to run the greatest country on earth properly.

Or better yet, consider the much-ballyhooed “Net Zero by 2050” time bomb. There was no science behind its selection of the 1.5 degree above pre-industrial temperature target. It was intentionally contrived so politicians and pundits could insist we spend hundreds of trillions of dollars reconfiguring every personal and industrial process to mute it, possibly by a degree or two. Anthropogenic activities are clearly taxing our air, water, and lands. Depending upon tradeoffs like affordability and reliability (and what China, India, and Russia decide to do), less carbon-intensive energy sources may well be preferable, too. Convincing our younger generation they will all die unless the globe urgently reduces its net carbon footprint to zero is another matter altogether. Being more mindful about our consumption patterns while preparing our communities for the probability of more violent weather would be too simple. Better to scare everyone out of their wits so we can get on with doing witless things.

Great societies thrive on consistent policy competence. Failing ones lurch
from crisis to crisis. Contriving catastrophic scenarios all but ensures
hysteria will supplant sober, reasoned analysis.

Some will argue extreme threats are needed to force modest, salutary changes. After all, a handful of U.S. debt ceiling votes brought about useful policy changes, like the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings breakthrough and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Similarly, threats of impending climate doom have led many individuals and corporations to examine their energy use, seek cleaner alternatives, and eliminate unnecessary waste.

But have these modest advances been worth the price of the abject delirium
that has accompanied them? And are recurrent, contrived catastrophes
somehow producing better policy outcomes?

Evidently not. Three essential U.S. social programs – Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – are barreling along towards insolvency. Just as the retirement age in France must rise to reflect longer life expectancies and taxation tipping points, so too must U.S. retirement programs respect demographic realities. Maintaining peace through strength in an increasingly dangerous world requires that the U.S. spend more on defense, not less. Unless the current debt ceiling crisis leads to an honest rUeckoning about our most urgent tax and spending priorities, heightened hysteria serves no useful end. Worse, all the faux debt ceiling dynamics convince politicians they’ve somehow done their jobs when instead, they’ve abrogated them entirely.

Similarly, we speak about an “energy transition,” but no realistic projection of future fossil fuel consumption shows any meaningful decline in the century to come. Rising populations, improved living standards, reliability needs for the three billion humans who are still energy insecure, and the first order demands of national security reveal oil and gas will remain crucial sources of our energy mix for as far as the eye can see. The most logical response would be to prioritize energy reliability while recalibrating our emissions mitigation spending towards more climate adaptation priorities. Why spend $100 trillion or more on something that has been entirely contrived and is all but certain to fail when you can spend $50 trillion or less on something that would demonstrably save human lives while improving their livelihoods?

History is festooned with countless ruses about the end of time, some more disruptive than others. They include those of French Bishop Martin of Tours in 375 A.D., and Jim Jones in 1967. Many thousands believed the so-called Y2K cliff would crash every computer, triggering global economic ruin and the rise of the Antichrist. Yet, remarkably, here we all still are, higher in number than ever.

In time, trillions of dollars of investment products now priced against
Net Zero 2050 deadlines will need to be abandoned.

Similarly, the U.S. debt ceiling will be lifted multiple times before responsible members of both parties finally put our tax and spending trajectories into sustainable balance. Panic, like blackmail, compromises sensible thinking. Calm acceptance of measurable risks and their reasonable mitigation are the essence of wise decision-making.

The next time a politician tells you Armageddon is nigh, remind them it’s their only job to make sure it isn’t. If you’ve got the patience for it, you can also show them how easy it would be to avoid.

 

EU Makes ESG Regs Inescapable

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Mish writes at his blog based on a report from South China Morning Post 

The EU Warns “There is No Escape” from its ESG Environment Madness Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images. H/T Tyler Durden

The demand for highly paid ESG nannycrats to enforce nonsensical rules is on the rise. This will cause a rippling impact of higher inflation everywhere.

From South China Morning Report: Please note Impending EU Laws on ESG Disclosures Will Be a Matter of Survival for Asian Suppliers.

Impending regulations in the European Union, which is at the forefront on ESG legislation, will soon require tens of thousands of suppliers across the supply chain in Asia to report their ESG performance, said Amfori president Linda Kromjong.

“If you don’t start preparing now, you will be late if and when
the legislation kicks in,” she told the Post.

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, due to be rolled out next year, will require companies to disclose how sustainability issues, such as climate change, impact their business and how their operations in turn affect people and the planet.

Some 50,000 companies – all large companies and listed small and medium-sized firms – will have to make such disclosures, up from 11,700 large companies and public entities with more than 500 employees mandated under existing legislation. Auditing of the disclosures will be mandatory.

These companies will in turn require their global suppliers to disclose their sustainability data, such as greenhouse-gas emissions, so that they can calculate their own environmental footprints and social risk exposure.

The European Parliament’s environment committee last Thursday backed tougher legislation that will force firms with over 250 staff and annual worldwide turnover of more than €40 million (US$42.8 million), to check and report whether their suppliers within and outside Europe use slave or child labour, or pollute the environment.

Escape From the Madness

‘There is no escape’ from impending European Union rules requiring sustainability reporting, Amfori president Linda Kromjong warns Asian suppliers

Also note that Brussels-based Amfori provides digital tools and training for suppliers to do self-assessments on ESG performance and compare themselves with industry benchmarks, based on international standards.

And you probably can guess what that means

If not, then please make another note: Hong Kong to pay 30 per cent more for ESG jobs as companies fight for talent to meet sustainability targets.

If you don’t think this madness is hugely inflationary, then you just are not thinking at all. 

My Comment

Indeed, we can see where this is going.  RegulationFare is like LawFare:  The process is the punishment.  Ronald  Reagan’s observation comes to mind:

In the end, the state directs business to meet state objectives, either through ownership or through agency rules. That brings in the reality described by Trotsky:

 

Gas Stove Just a Starter

Posted on by Ron Clutz

As explained  below, the move against gas stoves is just an opening into a larger war against methane because of its CO2 emissions.  Coal was bashed as a fuel already long ago, and now activists want to disqualify gas lest it serve as a bridge energy source with much lower CO2 emissions, delaying the desired upheaval.  The current assault on domestic appliances should be seen as the thin edge of a wedge to destroy natural gas supply, in parallel with actions against coal and oil.

Mark Krebs and Tom Tanton explain the ins and outs of this new phase encroaching upon the citizenry where they live.  Their Master Resource article is Gas Stoves: The Beloved Blue Flame is Just Better.  Some excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images and headers.

The Larger Federal Goal:  Transition Away from Natural Gas

The concern should not be about gas stove usage but the public policy of The Biden Administrative State to wean consumers off the direct use of natural gas and propane and on to electric appliances, ASAP. This “transition” includes how to heat your home, heat your water, cook, and drive.

Gas cooking is highly valued by consumers, virtually all of whom have normal taste buds. It is the one gas appliance that consumers see and use daily. The blue flame is part of home life, as is the fireplace run by gas or propane.

In contrast, the furnace and water heater usually tucked away in the basement or equipment closet and operate unseen. Also unseen are the legions of new electric power plants transmission lines and battery storage system to provide ostensibly “clean” juice for these new electric appliances and the serious environmental, strategic, and human rights impacts from mining and processing heavy metals and rare earths.

In fact, no one has done a comparative full fuel cycle analysis to document whether electrification is a good idea or a bad one; at least not a transparent analysis that has been subject to independent technical debate. Neither have the all-electrification busybodies presented a comprehensive plan to produce the millions of batteries necessary for the electrical grid to be able to handle all these new uses, while burdened by intermittent wind and solar.

Govt. Misdirection:  Claims Gas Stoves Hazardous to Indoor Air Quality

The first ploy was to claim gas stoves are unsafe concerning air pollutants.  Several problems with this attempt to regulate away these cooking appliances.

Fear mongering about the “existential threat” from Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hasn’t been working as well as planned. So maybe, they hope, additional fearmongering about how parents are putting their own children at risk due to respiratory ailments, such as asthma from your stove will do the trick.

There are at least three agencies leading the Biden Administration’s whole-of-government fossil-fuel eradication efforts. These are:

  • DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy” (EERE)
  • The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

None of these agencies have Congressional authority to regulate “indoor air pollution.” EERE has been pushing electrification at least since the Obama Administration, and it continued even throughout the Trump Administration. The Biden Administration simply removed the nominal (if any) restraints there may have been under Biden’s “whole of government” executive orders (EOs) to reduce GHG’s: e.g., Executive Order (EO) 13990.

In EERE’s case certain EO obstacles include that they still must act “as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.” The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) is one such law. EPCA is also supposed to promote regulatory objectivity. Under EPCA, DOE/EERE must also “consider” safety.

The science that the Biden Administration claims to guide such regulatory decisions
is far from conclusive that gas stoves are harmful.

Instead, the Biden Administration and its supporters “cherry pick” data that supports regulatory expansion. In this case, the science comes from the highly partisan Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). A major activity (and bias) of RMI is its “Electricity Innovation Lab. It reiterates RMI’s mission to achieve a carbon-free electricity monopoly.

According to independent scientific researchers with a deep knowledge of this subject, most of the “indoor air pollution” is emitted from the food itself being cooked. Such pollution is in the form of particulates from cooking food regardless of what form of energy is doing the cooking. Those particulates may be especially harmful to adolescent asthmatics.

More Govt. Hype: Replacements More Efficient than Gas Stoves

Government Orange Gas?

What is it exactly that DOE wants to force on consumers under the guise of “energy efficiency in the case of gas stoves? It appears to be a relatively new type of gas stove burner that glows orange (infrared, a.k.a., “radiant”) instead of the blue flames present in traditional burners that consumers are accustomed to. Infrared burners have been around for a long time, especially for gas BBQ grills but they don’t last long. Infrared burner adoption for consumer kitchen cooking appliances have been limited to a few high-end “prosumer” gas ranges. Costs for such models tend to be in the vicinity of $7,000 to $9,000. One example is Wolf/Sub Zero’s Model # GR364G with a MSRP of $8,760. And only the griddle portion of that model is infrared. According to DOE, there may be one model that is all infrared but good luck finding it.

In comparison, a basic electric range can be purchased for under $500. Granted, if DOE mandates infrared gas burners, mass production could decrease cost premiums. But for cost-conscious consumers, such premiums will likely far exceed those of electric stoves, even induction electric stoves.

Forcibly moving the market via equipment costs is a typical DOE strategy.
And then they say, “let the market decide.

Part of DOE’s bag of tricks for justifying higher gas appliance efficiencies is to minimize maintenance costs and safety concerns.  At a minimum, “worst-case scenario” analyses are needed to determine how infrared burners perform in the “real world” of “messy” stoves. In messy situations, infrared burners may turn into product liabilities. And they may have to be replaced; that can quickly get expensive. It is at least possible that “dirty” infrared burners emit more pollutants than traditional blue flame burners. DOE needs to “consider” safety consequences of its energy efficiency proposals going forward.  It is not evident that they have.

Likewise, DOE tends to minimize its estimations for what the increased prices will be that consumers must bear from increased efficiency.  Taken together with other forms of analytical “trickery,” consumer cost-effectiveness can quickly become negative.

Since pictures are “worth a thousand words, see Shutterstock’s 223 images of infrared gas stoves. Several of these are pictures of infrared burners that have experienced obvious degradation from cooking spills.

There’s also movement on the electrical stove side of all this. That is, electric stoves continue to change and the technology du jour is the induction stove. Induction stoves electro-magnetically couple the stove with the pan, directly heating the pan and not the stove. They are more efficient than tradition hot coil electric resistance stoves but are also more expensive and require magnetic cookware. They too, have associated health risks (Induction stoves may not be safe to use with pacemakers; “People with pacemakers are better off avoiding induction stoves.”)

Perverse Incentives in Inflation reduction Act

The so-called Inflation Reduction Act provides perverse incentives for switching to electricity.  These incentives are summarized as follows:

DOE also needs to consider the safety feature of having a gas stove during extended electric grid blackouts that may make the difference between consumers and their water pipes freezing or not.  This benefit was widely observed in Texas during Winter Storm Uri.

To make a logical scientific argument about consumer safety concerns with gas burners, DOE must clearly and transparently demonstrate a safety issue with conventional “blue flame” burners.  Instead, DOE is proposing a one-way move to infrared burners based upon theoretical economic operating cost advantages of a few percentage points.

Meanwhile, DOE is not mandating a move from electric resistance stoves to higher efficiency  electric induction  stoves that, according to the EPA,  can be “5-10% more efficient than conventional electric resistance units.”  EPA’s verbiage following that quote states: “and about 3 times more efficient than gas.”  That latter verbiage is tantamount to professing a belief that electricity is magically created inside of the house’s electric meter. This is pretty much “par for the course” for the Biden Administration’s “Green New Deal” energy and environmental policies.

Under EPCA’s anti-backsliding provisions, once infrared burners are mandated, there is no going back to traditional (blue flame) gas burners. Thus, if consumers want to regain better cooking maintenance and reliability, they can only switch to electric stoves. We think that’s their plan! Consumers will probably choose electric resistance varieties due to their relatively low initial purchase cost. What this portends, at least for the next few decades, is that energy efficiency when measured over the complete fuel-cycle is massively reduced throughout most of the United States where fossil fuels still dominate electric grid generation. The same goes for emissions when measured along the complete fuel-cycle.

The direct use of natural gas makes the most sense economically and environmentally for consumers. Consumers are losing that choice.

Conclusion–Why The Crusade?

Why is the Biden Administration messing with a piece of Americana. Is it to try the hardest part first? Or because “clean” electrification is where the money is? With passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, it is definitely where the subsidies are. The enormity of these subsidies are like an all-you-can-eat buffet for Green New Deal enrichment.

Phasing out natural gas and propane is not merely for the U.S. to meet its commitments for “deep decarbonization” per the UN’s Paris accords. It’s also about “great reset” social control. With the advent of “smart” electric meters and appliances, it’s relatively easy to centrally control electricity usage.

Coupled with digital currency, it then becomes relatively easy to control behavior, such as remotely changing YOUR living room thermostat or disabling your car. Early dinner? No: you’ll cook when the power is temporarily turned on to your stove.  But if you project the correct attitude of cheerful compliance, you may be awarded with an extra ration of electricity.

DOE needs to stop politicizing energy appliances on unfounded predictions that “clean” renewable electricity will soon dominate the grid. This scenario is not at all probable given the cost and enormity of the quest. Big Brother is already running wild and must be leashed/removed. Given that DOE’s proposed rule calls for yearly energy consumption limits for cooking appliances, rationing might not be totally far-fetched. The time to expose and eradicate is now.

Appendices to Master Resource Article

Appendix A: Call To Action (Next Steps, What You Can Do)

Appendix B: Further Reading

Footnote

Obviously, bans against ICE vehicles will also prohibit those running on LNG (Liquified Natural Gas). See Consumers Report: Tesla Road Trip

As for fertilizer banning,  half of the people on Earth are alive today thanks to nitrogenous fertilizers made of and with natural gas.  So why are governments at home and abroad scrambling to cut off humanity’s natural gas supply?

See Natural Gas – Generated Nitrogenous Fertilizers Prevent Worse World Hunger

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Florida to Ban Woke ESG Banking

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Amber Jo Cooper reports at Florida’s Voice DeSantis proposes banning social credit scores in banking, targets ESG. Excerpts in italics with my bolds. H/T Tyler Durden

On Monday Gov. Ron DeSantis announced a proposal to target
 ESG banking and investment policies 

DeSantis said he aims to enact protections for Floridians against discrimination by big banks and large financial institutions for their religious, political, or social beliefs.

ESG – environmental, social, and governance – is a business framework that determines investment based on political factors such as renewable energy and social justice initiatives.

DeSantis said ESG has developed into a “mechanism to inject political ideology into investment decisions, corporate governance, and really just the the everyday economy.”

“That is not ultimately something that is going to work out well for us here in Florida,” he said.

DeSantis said it violates the fiduciary duty that executives have to the shareholders of publicly traded companies.

“Your pension money, your retirement money, is likely invested in some of these funds, and those funds should be done to try to produce the best result for you using the available investment options,” DeSantis said.

“What ESG says is no, we’re not going to do, even if it would do a better return – we’re not going to allow you to invest in certain areas, you’re not allowed to invest in oil and gas, you’re not allowed to invest in disfavored areas,” he explained.

The proposal includes prohibiting the financial sector from considering “social credit
scores” in banking and lending practices that aim to prevent Floridians
from obtaining loans, lines of credit, and bank accounts.

“That is a way to try to change people’s behavior. It’s a way to try to impose politics on what should just be economic decisions,” he said.

“We are also not going to house in either the state or local government level deposits. And we have a lot of deposit, we got a massive budget surplus in Florida, you have deposits all over the place that go in where state and local government use financial institutions, none of those deposits will be permitted to be done in institutions that are pursuing this woke ESG agenda,” he said.

The proposal would also aim to make sure ESG will not “infect decisions” at both the state and local governments, such as investment decisions, procurement and contracting, or bonds.

The Governor’s press release said the legislation would also:

  • Prohibit banks that engage in corporate activism from holding government funds as a Qualified Public Depository (QPD).
  • Prohibit the use of ESG in all investment decisions at the state and local level, ensuring that fund managers only consider financial factors that maximize the highest rate of return.
  • Prohibit all state and local entities, including direct support organizations, from considering, giving preference to, or requesting information about ESG as part of the procurement and contracting process.
  • Prohibit the use of ESG factors by state and local governments when issuing bonds, including a contract prohibition on rating agencies whose ESG ratings negatively impact the issuer’s bond ratings.
  • Direct the Attorney General and Commissioner of Financial Regulation to enforce these provisions to the fullest extent of the law.

Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis praised DeSantis’ proposal to crack down on ESG.

“When it comes to ESG, many of us have been boiled like a frog,” Patronis said. “The Governor is right that over time ESG has wound its way into too many aspects of American society, and pulling it back is going to take work.”

“This proposed legislation puts returns first, it puts the Constitution first, and it puts corporate America on notice that if they play politics with Florida residents, we’ll have the tools to hold them accountable. I look forward to working with the DeSantis Administration, as well as Senate President Passidomo and House Speaker Renner in getting this legislation over the finish line,” Patronis said.

Patronis previously barred ESG funds’ participation in the deferred compensation program and divested around $2 billion from BlackRock due to their utilization of ESG.

House Speaker Paul Renner said Bob Rommel, R-Naples, will introduce the bill in the House.  “The biggest thing that I think ESG represents is a total hijacking of democracy,” said Renner.

“We’re lucky here in the state of Florida, that we’ve got a governor who will stand up to things like ESG, when others will not,” he said.

“This is amazing what he’s doing for our state, our state is just rocketing,” said Senate President Kathleen Passidomo.  “I look forward to having the governor come back here again and again and again to sign all these bills,” she said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There’ll Be Hell to Pay

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Adam Mill writes at American Greatness There’s Going to Be Hell to Pay.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

America is piling up civilization-ending debts, and the people incurring them for the sake of feel-good social priorities will be justifiably cursed when the consequences finally come.

It’s just a matter of how long the U.S. Government can stall before the bill finally comes due. Let’s start with the math.  The U.S. national debt now exceeds $31.5 trillion. On the day Joe Biden took office, the average interest rate on this debt was around 1.61 percent and interest payments were a mere $549 billion a year. Since then, higher spending and higher interest rates have accelerated the problem at breakneck speed. As older bonds with the historic low interest rates mature and disappear, they are replaced with the higher interest rate bonds now being issued. According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the annualized interest rate cost in December reached an eye-popping $853 billion.

The older, lower interest rate bonds have kept the average at around 2 percent, still much higher than normal. Econofact.org estimates that “most of the current government debt will mature within the next three years,” which means that the federal government will soon be financing most of its $31.5 trillion debt at market rates-which are approaching 4 to 5 percent.   We’re looking at a total annual interest bill of over $1 trillion in the very near future. By comparison, the total tax revenue collected by the U.S. government in 2023 is projected to be $4.6 trillion.

As soon as next year, interest will consume approximately one-fifth
or even a quarter of all government revenue.

That’s not the bad news.

The bad news is that we’re fast approaching the point at which we have to accelerate borrowing just to keep up with the interest payments. The treasury has to find buyers for its whopping $1.4 trillion in deficit spending. And for now, the Federal Reserve is saying it will not buy more treasuries, even to replace the maturing treasuries that roll off its portfolio.

Until recently, the dollar’s resilience made it possible for the government to effectively fund operations with money from the printing press. But inflation, the offspring of deficit spending, has begun to collect its due from the public. As interest payments claim increasingly more and more of the budget, the government must borrow more to make up the difference, thus accelerating the growth of the debt and inflation. This leads to still higher interest rates which lead to higher interest payments requiring even more borrowing

When you have to borrow money to pay interest on existing debt, you’re in big trouble.

Entitlements such as Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, make up the vast majority of the budget. Every year, the bills get bigger as drugs get more expensive and the Social Security Administration indexes existing payments to keep up with inflation.

It’s hard to say exactly when or how the federal budget will hit some sort of wall. But the scenario I consider most likely is that inflation will reignite as the Federal Reserve backs off its interest rate increases. Get ready to go long for single-digit inflation.

Unfortunately, the same geniuses who enabled politicians to run up these irresponsible debts will also be in charge of helping politicians set inflation-fighting policies. For the Left, the go-to tools never work but will always be tried because of political ideology. These include wage and price controls, tax increases, and criminalizing market pricing as “price gouging” or “hoarding.” As taxes go up and the government attempts to regulate its way out of inflation, economic output falls. If the fall is drastic enough, it can have a counterinflationary effect. But only after inflicting extreme misery on working Americans.

In the 1980s, Reagan’s formula of low taxes, less regulation, and higher interest rates created the conditions to dramatically reverse the Carter economic malaise, an era often compared to the present. While really smart economists will argue that the economy is totally dependent on government spending, this is sophistry. Government spending degrades efficient and wealth-enhancing transactions. The government gets its money by taking value out of a legitimate economic transaction and redistributing it to a political objective. Low-interest rates encourage scams and enable marginal businesses to chug along.

Profit, not borrowed money, is the key to economic revival. Produce things that legitimately add to the stock of goods and services, and you will increase national income. Shift money around with loans and government grants, and you will idle otherwise productive resources as people chase free money.

Economic freedom isn’t about helping the rich. If anything, the opposite is true. During the economic expansion that followed Reagan’s reforms, income inequality fell. The percentage of low-income houses fell from 27 percent in 1980 to 25.3 percent in 1989. In contrast, economic inequality increased under Obama’s economic policies.

The dirty little secret of leftist economic theories is that they benefit powerful people who are in a position to influence economic meddling. Who do you think got most of the COVID relief money?

Historians will scratch their heads and wonder why Americans spent so much time obsessing over Ukraine and gender identity while the debt piled up to catastrophic levels. Unfortunately, the people who govern us simply refuse to adhere to basic rules of fiscal discipline. Through ignorance or craven corruption, they continue aggressively driving up debt to unprecedented levels. These are civilization-ending debts and the people incurring them for the sake of feel-good social priorities will be justifiably cursed when the consequences finally come.

 

 

 

 

Update on Sovereign Election Fraud in US

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Jay Valentine explains the threat in his American Thinker article Your Government Wants to Keep You from Seeing Voter Rolls.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The narrative about “free, safe, secure elections” changed 180 degrees since November 2022.  Almost nobody is crazy enough to say America has free, fair elections.

After Kari Lake and Adam Laxalt, the most wimpish George Bush RINO hesitates to say “elections are fair.”

Since our team processed billions of election roll “snapshots” taken since 2020, we run the largest election database in the world.  We concluded that U.S. elections are rigged by both parties, and they are rigged with the active help of election officials or their acquiescence.

Sovereign fraud — institutional election fraud by your government, first discussed on American Thinker — is real.  We have the data to prove it!

Fractal technology and vigilant election integrity teams in 2022 pulled back the curtain on much of this rigging — reported at www.Omega4America.com.

Why was the election fraud, which existed years before Trump became a candidate, so invisible?

Election officials of both parties do not want pesky citizens looking at voter rolls.  We know this because we have been in the room with them, virtually, demonstrating the most egregious voter roll anomalies, and they just refuse to see them.

Let’s get into just how virulent, common, widespread is the hiding of election registration info from you — the citizen.  How much does a voter roll cost?  Yeah, dollars.  In some states, it is free.  Download it, or pay a modest fee and get a CD of the entire election roll every 30 days.

In Alabama, $30,000.  You pay Alabama $30,000 for a copy of your election roll. In Wisconsin, $12,500. Why so much?  Is it a profit center? 

Well, in Alabama, they have scores of voters older than Julius Caesar — some registered in the last couple of years using a birthdate around the time St. Paul was proselytizing.  Think maybe there is a data roll cleaning problem there?

Wisconsin has voter IDs with hidden characters. 

You can find over 180,000 Wisconsin voters with the same voter ID.  Oops!  They aren’t the same IDs.  They are actually different — but you cannot tell with your software because the Wisconsin Election Commission uses a hidden character inserted that is invisible to you.  We made them admit it!

Go to our website, www.Omega4America.com, and read the expert witness reports.

In some states, you cannot get the voter roll unless you are a candidate or political party.  If you let anyone else see it, you can be prosecuted — Virginia and California.

There is North Carolina.  They insert control characters into election rolls so citizens have a hard time combining necessary rolls for analysis.

Creating databases with incorrectly inserted control characters shows one of two motivations:  massive incompetence or sinister intent.  You decide.

Our analysis of the various states, about 20 or so we have seen, is that the level of database competency is less than 8th-grade in most.  Let me state that clearly: in almost every state where we processed the election rolls, the level of database competence, from a secretary of state, spending millions of dollars a year — is less than high school level.

If the amount of undeniably false information in every state election database we have seen existed in a public company, the CEO, under Sarbanes Oxley rules, would probably go to jail.

How do you check a database?  Download it.  To what do you compare it?

Here’s an idea!  Let’s compare the county voter registration files with the state voter files.  They ought to reconcile, with a little float for registrations in transit.  Nope!  In state after state, there is a 5- to 10-percent difference between those two sets of ostensibly identical data.

Let’s check the state voter rolls with the county tax rolls.  After all, an address is an address.  The reconciliation between the voter roll and the tax roll shows hundreds into thousands of addresses that cannot, by law, house a voter.  Yet those addresses house thousands — regularly over 200,000 anomalies in a single state.

In 2022, we learned that election rolls have internal motion — waves of registrants who swell the roll up to election time — then gently slide back into the sea.

In Nevada and Arizona, we ran the rolls for several months.  Our graphical analysis shows the graph of people living in R.V. parks, hotels, other transient locations slowly rise to peak at election time, then disappear 30–60 days later.

Since we snapshot data — comparing every voter roll with every previous roll — the snapshots show mass migration to the election date, then mass de-migration afterward. This was never visible before Fractal technology, but now it is, from a phone.  Pretty soon we are going to visualize this and put up on the website for all to see.

Let’s not pick on Nevada — we see it in most states.  Harris County, Texas rivals Nevada.

If voter rolls aren’t opaque enough with hidden characters (Wisconsin), inserted control characters (North Carolina), prohibitive costs (Alabama, Wisconsin) or stupid laws that you can be prosecuted for looking at voter rolls if you are not an approved species (Virginia, California), we have a new trend.

Make it a crime to look at voter rolls!  Make it a crime to go door-to-door for election canvassing. 

Criminalize the audit of the criminalization of election rolls!  That’s a double-criminalization!  What does that mean?  Think we are kidding?  Welcome to New Mexico.

Among the army of unsung heroes, giving up jobs, risking safety to fight election fraud — which, dear reader, means they are fighting for your most cherished freedom — is David Clements in New Mexico. 

David is an attorney, professor of law, all-around patriot.  You will catch him on some obscure podcast, from his parked car on a roadside on the way to an election integrity event in the middle of nowhere.

Professor Clements, in a recent interview, reported how New Mexico is legislating to criminalize election integrity efforts.  They want to make it a felony to clean voter rolls.  Go door-to-door to see why the empty construction site has 27 registered voters?  In New Mexico, they want to put you in jail for it!

Guess which party is doing this.  Not much of a guess, is it?

While we are just data guys, we cannot hold back our admiration for guys like Clements, Seth Keshel, and an anonymous army of voter integrity teams fighting against bipartisan, government-funded, supported, and enforced phantom voter fraud.

We are stunned by the lack of support by the Republican wealthy class for these guys.  If they were leftists, trying to scam voter rolls, there would be an entire infrastructure in place to support them.  They might get book deals!

Alas, since they are patriots, the wealthy class stands aside. Well, we aren’t.  The Fractal team is giving patriots — of any party — the disruptive tools to clean voter rolls.

When you have better technology than the government, it does even things up a bit!

 

Testimonial: No Climate Emergency

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Recently OAN’s Stella Escobedo interviewed Dr. Matthew Weilicki concerning his joining the declaration against any climate “emergency.”  The video can be accessed by clicking on the red link above.  Below I provide a transcript with my bolds along with some exhibits. SE refers to Stella Escobedo and MW to Matthew Weilicki

SE:  Well, you have probably heard that climate change is an existential threat and we need to do something about it right away. The World Economic Forum was just held in Davos, Switzerland, with discussions of the climate crisis front and center. Biden has persuade Democrats in Congress to provide hundreds of billions of dollars to fight climate change.

But there are hundreds of scientists around the world who say there is no climate emergency. In fact, they have signed the World Climate Declaration. And one of the biggest things they say is climate science should be less political. And I’d like to welcome to the show Dr. Matthew Weilicki. He’s currently a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Alabama. Dr. Weilicki., thank you so much for joining us.

MW: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

SE: Of course..So before we get started, Dr. Weilicki, I want you to tell our viewers a little bit about your educational background and why you’re educated enough to to have this conversation and to talk about this topic.

MW:  Yes, absolutely. So my original bachelor’s degree is actually biochemistry and cellular biology. I worked in four novel vaccine companies for them through my original degree, and I went on to kind of shift gears and I went and got a Ph.D. in geochemistry from UCLA. And because I don’t really work in climate science per se, and I also don’t work in oil and gas exploration, I am an Earth scientist that uses a lot of the same tools that both of these types of fields will use. But I felt that I could take an objective look in and offer my expert opinion without really having any kind of, you know, any sort of motivation on either side. And I thought that would allow me to take an objective view. But the background that I have is very similar to the way that we try to identify what the climate looked like in the past, which is mainly through geochemistry.

SE: So, Dr. Weilicki, you are one of more than a thousand scientists who have signed this petition that says there is no climate emergency. Explain why you say that.

MW:  I think if we take an objective look at the data, it’s very difficult to see any metric that would allow us to explain the state of the climate as in an emergency or in a crisis, as you commonly hear. If we look at, for example, human lives lost from natural disasters, I ask my students this all the time and they are convinced that there has been significantly more lives being lost in natural disasters today than over the last hundred years. Let’s say that number has decreased by something like 97%.

Source: Bjorn Lomborg

And so it’s clear. And the graphic you’re showing now, another question that I ask is how often are how many natural disasters are occurring? And so these students are usually freshmen and sophomores and things like that. And I ask them these questions about about the state of the climate. And I’m noticing that they have the exact wrong view of what’s happening. They’re convinced that more people are dying, more disasters are happening. And if you look at the empirical evidence, the data just doesn’t support that claim. And I think that the mental health effects are really damaging to these young people.

Source: Roger Pielke, Jr.

SE: Well, any time we do have massive flooding, heat waves or wildfires, as you just mentioned, we’re constantly being told it is climate change. Even the World Meteorological Organization has legitimized it. What are your thoughts on that?

MW: This is really part of the problem. This is this is why I blame these organizations. I don’t blame these young people for for believing this. I think if I was in my twenties, I would probably believe that the world is in catastrophe mode. But, you know, these these constant catastrophizing of weather events, weather is not climate. And to to harp and to take advantage of every extreme event to try to push your narrative is so disingenuous.

And these are smart people. They know that weather is not climate. Climate is very different. We’re talking about long term trends and variability in weather patterns and to try to catastrophize a single flood or a single hurricane and make the claim that if we didn’t burn fossil fuels or if we lowered atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions, somehow the flood wouldn’t have occurred or the hurricane wouldn’t have occurred. That is absurd. We know in the geologic record that these events happen. Sometimes they happen worse more than other times. But these happen. This is not has nothing to do with the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.  This is a much larger issue.

And to suggest that we wouldn’t have extreme weather if we could just change
one trace gas in the atmosphere is absolutely not scientific.

SE: Well, you have so many smart people like yourself who are speaking up saying there is no climate emergency. And yet do you feel like people like yourself are getting any real attention? In fact, many scientists get defunded for speaking out, get called climate deniers. How do you respond to that?

MW:  Yes, absolutely. I think that’s such a it’s such a derogatory term. It’s. Clearly trying to link people that are skeptical about climate and making questions about science with Holocaust deniers. I was born in Poland, just a few hours from the gates of Auschwitz. I lost many family members in the Holocaust. To try to link me because I have questions about science to denying the Holocaust is absolutely disingenuous. It’s an ad hominem attack because people realize that the empirical evidence doesn’t support what they’re saying and how catastrophize they’re trying to make the climate and such. They don’t want to discuss the actual data, so they’d rather label you a name and try to deplatform you or defund you. And, you know, I find it to be a very disingenuous way of having a scientific discussion.

SE: You know, just a few days ago, you announced you’re leaving the university and a post on Twitter. I saw you say some of it is personal family related. But you also mentioned it’s no longer a place that embraces freedom of exchanging ideas. Can you elaborate?

MW:  Yes. My life dream was to be a professor. My father was a professor ever since I was about 12 years old. And we made a pretty big sacrifice by moving from all of our families in California. We moved to Alabama because I really wanted to pursue this career, and I really started to realize pretty quickly that it wasn’t the way that my father remembered it. And when we would have discussions and this rise of illiberalism, that’s what I like to call it, this idea, these ideological ideas, the fact that there are certain things that are undiscussed that you can’t discuss.

What I was talking about was DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion.
And even having a discussion about this is very similar to climate.

If you just want to look and investigate whether something that’s probably has good intentions like inclusivity. I understand it’s a noble cause, but if we don’t look at the outcomes, it’s very difficult to figure out whether this is having the intent that we want. And I started to realize that just speaking out about some of these things was really enough to get you labeled, you know, a certain degree bigotry term, whichever one it is, a denier or sometimes even a racist, because you’re having questions about the outcomes of some of these diversity equity inclusion policies.

And it was clear to me once I made my my Twitter thread, I was attacked by faculty members from all over the place, even UA, calling me a racist. They tried to link me to some anti-Semitic writings that happened on the sidewalk somewhere on campus. It just made it prove to me very clearly that if you have genuine questions and you see negative impacts on students, even bringing that up is, is is, you know, paradigm to being a heretic and you get ostracized and people call you out. And so that’s definitely one of the reasons that made it easier for me to start walking away from from this profession.

SE: Well, you’re not alone. And it’s unfortunate that this is happening. It’s happening in your industry. It’s happening to parents who are speaking out, you know, for their children in schools. So it’s unfortunate. But I do hope that this doesn’t push smart people like you completely out of science. Dr. Weiliki, thank you so much for being here.

Dr. Matthew M. Weilicki Homepage

Footnote:

 

Background   

Click to access WCD-version-100122.pdf