Socialists Command, Failures Ensue. Here’s why.

quote-social-engineering-the-art-of-replacing-what-works-with-what-sounds-good-thomas-sowell-133-50-80We are witnessing again politicians attempting to command social outcomes, which in market societies not only fails but makes matters worse.

An insight is provided by an observer of the “Blue State Model” example of NY under Cuomo and DeBlasio.  At AMAC newsline Cuomo Might Be Leaving Office, But His Failed Blue State Model Remains.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Following a sexual harassment scandal that captured the attention of the nation over the past several months, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced Tuesday that he will resign as governor, effective two weeks from yesterday. But while New Yorkers may finally be rid of their creepy, handsy governor, the legacy of Cuomo’s disastrous policies will unfortunately continue its negative impact on the Empire State and weigh down attempts at economic recovery and growth.

Ironically, if Cuomo had prioritized working with small businesses, eliminating bureaucratic red tape, and removing onerous taxes, he could have had more small businesses and lower costs. But he instead chose to move in the opposite direction and, as is usually the case, more government involvement in private industry created a nightmare for companies and consumers.

One law in particular from earlier this year is a perfect case study, not only in Cuomo’s dreadful governing record, but in the bullying, Big Government, Blue State model that he so vividly represented. On April 16, 2021, Governor Cuomo signed legislation to impose price controls on high-speed internet. Under this bill, providers were only allowed to charge $15 a month to low-income residents, regardless of the cost of providing service. Governor Cuomo celebrated the law, stating, “This program – the first of its kind in the nation – will ensure that no New Yorker will have to forego having reliable home internet service and no child’s education will have to suffer due to their economic situation.

Almost immediately, the law was challenged by representatives of the telecommunications industry. They asserted that it was grossly illegal and that the state has no legal basis that would permit them to set or regulate the price of internet access.

Cuomo’s office was defiant. They immediately declared, “If these companies want to pick this fight, impede the ability of millions of New Yorkers to access this essential service, and prevent them from participating in our economic recovery, I say bring it on.” The infamously pugilistic Governor made it clear he wasn’t backing down – a trait that would again haunt him during his trial by media over sexual assault allegations a few months later.

In June, a federal court found merit in the industry’s challenge and temporarily banned the measure from being instituted. In the proceedings, it was revealed that the ban and its justification were almost ludicrously ill prepared and planned. When the state was challenged as to how it could legally set the price of a private industry service, they insisted that they weren’t actually setting the price at $15 because providers were free to charge less than $15. Additionally, the $15 price point wasn’t based on any research or knowledge. Even a cursory understanding of the telecom industry would reveal that many providers pay more than $15 per person in taxes and fees alone.

Needless to say, the judge wasn’t buying Cuomo’s argument. Within a matter of months of signing the bill, the state of New York abandoned it and chose to discontinue the case. The decision surprised few insiders. Some analysts theorized the Cuomo plan was mere “political theater.” They alleged that it was an attempt by the Governor to appear tough on corporations while accomplishing very little.

While Cuomo attempted to portray himself as standing up against “big business,” the truth is far more complicated. Many of the fiber optic cables laid across the country are not placed by large corporations. There are a number of small providers who specifically service areas that large providers ignore due to perceived inefficiency and cost. Currently, hundreds of thousands of homes are serviced by these small providers.

These companies had to spend millions of dollars and countless hours fighting Cuomo for their very survival. Additionally, although they technically won the battle, the legacy of the law could lead to a major chilling effect in which providers will be hesitant to provide low-cost fiber optic cables, out of fear they will be financially ruined should a future court rule in favor of a more cunning and well-prepared administration. In effect, Cuomo’s attempt to make internet access more ubiquitous and affordable would have made it more restricted and expensive.

Mercifully, with the three-term governor on his way out, New Yorkers will have a chance to pursue a different direction under hopefully more capable leadership. Unfortunately, however, the failed progressive model that tale exemplifies remains stubbornly in place in Blue State capitals across the country.

cg5bba871baa5aa

Of course the same Blue State model of governance has produced a mess in California, resulting in a recall campaign against the perpetrator, Gavin Newsom.  Meanwhile at the US federal level, 2021 has seen political command behavior on steroids, and social and economic destruction unprecedented in such a short period of time.

Lisa Benson cartoon

A deeper discussion of failed progressive administrative behavior is from a previous post reprinted below.

Why Technocrats Deliver Catastrophes

technorats-magazine-e1624833565281

Mark E. Jeftovic writes insightfully on the ways technology backfires when applied by bureaucrats in his article Why the Technocratic Mindset Produces Only Misery and Failure. H/T Tyler Durden at zerohedge. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Technocrats have the most fundamental aspect of reality backwards

Saw this article come across, come across my news alert for “Transhumanism”. In it Dr. David Eagleman talks about how not only can we augment human senses with fantastic new abilities (like to “see” heat and electromagnetic patterns), but how we’ll even be able to build machines that think too.

There is a line in his thinking that one can glean from the article: on one side of the line are enhancements and augmentations to the human experience which are startling and amazing and which will transform our societies: even more radical life extension will be in the cards quite soon (for those who can afford it).

Where Eagleman crosses into technocratic thinking is when he veers into the idea of being able to build thinking machines. The logic is that because we’ll be able to increasingly bioengineer our own living bodies, it means we should also be able to bioengineer a mind into machines using the same principles.

I think this is wrong and it’s the same theoretical mistake that leads directly to technocratically inspired catastrophes.

Yes, we continue to build on technological advancements, but we also commit a lot of unforced errors that inflict incalculable misery on humanity. These errors may manifest as policy blunders, economic crises and worse. Most recently, for example, we seem to have gotten ourselves into a global pandemic because a bunch of technocrats funded some gain-of-function experiments in hopes of preempting the next pandemic. Do you see the dynamic here?

Over the years a lot of thinkers have pointed out that technocratic policy tracks, devised by centralized groups of experts within an elite managerial class, often bring about the very conditions they were impaneled to obviate.

• Raising minimum wages increases unemployment.
• Holding interest rates to zero creates economic instability and increases wealth inequality.
• Forcing green energy initiatives creates systems with lower energy efficiency and higher carbon footprints.
• Banning guns increases gun violence.
• Censoring “hate” speech fosters more hatred and polarization.

It’s almost as if the managerial class has no awareness of second-order effects. When they inexorably come to pass they are often blamed on the very people who were counselling against the initial policy in the first place.

Thus, financial meltdowns are blamed on runaway free markets and capitalism gone wild. Global warming (if it truly plays out along prognosticated lines) is blamed on industries who are most rapidly transitioning toward greener energy anyway (like Bitcoin mining).

Climate change is another theme that exemplifies the technocratic dynamic: As a society we’re going to transition off of fossil fuels no matter what anybody thinks about the environment because we’re already past peak oil, and peak demand will probably flatline around 100M bpd and start coming down from there in a secular downtrend, for a variety of reasons (prolonged economic malaise and the ascent of green energy).

Yet the most viable pathway toward transitioning away from fossil fuels, nuclear (and in this I include Thorium), is currently relegated as problematic by technocrats and ideologues.

casper-landfill-2-e1624827835334

It all seems backwards and for a long time I’ve been positing a fundamental root cause of this backwardness. The premise is: We have the mind/matter equation completely backwards in the way we think about how the world works.

Conventional thought is that what we experience as consciousness is something that emanates from the brain. Like steam from a kettle. This is also the core assumption of AI. If we build something that resembles a brain, it’ll think. It’s a kind of Frankenstein approach that Eagleman alludes to in his article.

That won’t work and AI will never be achieved as long as the mechanistic, material reductionist worldview persists. Yet, technocrats put a lot of faith in AI, and they think models derived from AI are or will be superior to anything we can figure out on our own because they were outputted by machines with a bigger/faster/hardware brains.

It is completely… wrong.

I think that what we experience as matter are energy patterns that emanate from an underlying, and conscious sub-strata of reality. This is basic quantum theory. Quantum theory can be problematic because it opens the door to all kinds of New Age Woo Woo, which may not even be entirely wrong at its core, but is prone to deeply flawed implementations (like anything, I guess).

People, and probably most living things, have a sense, an intuitive awareness of this sub-strata of reality. Our mythology and sacred texts are probably the stories of sometimes being more attuned to it and sometimes less so. The late British writer Colin Wilson wrote at length on the consciousness of the Egyptians of the upper kingdom, possibly over 7500 years BC. Their consciousness and language was pictorial not linear. It may even be possible (my extrapolation, not his) that the demarcation point between conscious awareness between individuals was blurred somewhat. 

So what happened?

Into this awareness came religions. Organized structures that would begin to dictate the basis on which members of society were to comprehend and approach this Great Sub-Carrier. Priesthoods evolved – the first monopolies. Religions. Hierarchies. Rulers. Subjects.

One of the earliest forms of social deviance was heresy: approaching the Divine Sub-Carrier from a direction outside the religious structure. Can’t have that.

This dynamic is as old as humanity. It could even be argued that historical progress is the story of the public coming to realize that the monopoly thought structure they were in was flawed or obsolete and then society moving on to the next one. The elites of the day would endeavour to halt the progression or when that failed, co-opt whatever came next.

Then new elites would erect a new orthodoxy that placed them directly in the nexus of what was unknowable and what the rabble thought they needed to know in order to perform their primary function of ….servitude.

Today the great sub-carrier is best described by science, not religion. But again, the priesthood is saying that all knowledge of the sub-carrier should come through them. That’s Scientism. That’s Technocracy. Management by Experts.

The last two years of life on earth are a foretaste of a full blown technocracy. Follow The Science™, plebes.

Only our elites can fathom how to approach and extract knowledge from The Great Externality, but this time they’ve made things even worse because they have it exactly backwards. They think the Great Externality doesn’t even exist. It’s for flakes and Bible bangers. The technocratic priesthood holds that material reality is near completely understood and that our minds are side effects of chemical reactions in our brains.

They hold that if only we can crunch enough Big Data and calculate out all the models we’ll be, like God (who doesn’t exist), able to fix everything and eliminate all bad outcomes, for everybody, everywhere. We may even be able to eliminate death, and we could upload our consciousness (which is an illusion) into the cloud and live forever.

Because of this backwardation, we will always be careening from one catastrophe to the next, and most of them will be of our own making. We collectively suffer from an illusion that we are in control.

But we are not in control. We’re a pattern. A dance. A cycle. Waveforms. Vibrations. What we as humans do specifically well, which is our superpower and has led to our technological advancement which could conceivably continue on a trajectory that makes humanity an interstellar phenomenon, is adapt.

What technocrats can’t understand, or admit is that we can’t control what is going to happen. Either on an individual scale of people thinking in ways they’re not supposed to think, or geological, cultural, geopolitical or cosmic scales. We can’t get interest rates right, we can’t get everybody to agree on whether it’s “Gif” or “jif” and somehow we’re going to change the trajectory of the climate? Achieve immortality? Crank out a Singularity?

That is highly unlikely and in trying to preempt theoretical bad outcomes we typically bring about horrible actual outcomes.

The lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, if it occurred and it is looking increasingly likely that it did, was the result of gain-of-function studies on bat coronaviruses. They didn’t do it as a bioweapon. It’s not a global conspiracy to institute a Great Reset (all that talk is opportunism more than planning).

They were trying to figure out how to plan for a future global pandemic that may catch humanity off guard and cause incalculable damage. What did they accomplish? They unleashed a global pandemic that caught humanity off guard and caused incalculable damage. Soon to be compounded by global, de-facto compulsory inoculations with experimental vaccines that have a distinctly politicized impetus behind them.

That same dynamic is applied to economics (its where the .COM crash and Global Financial Crisis came from), and social policy (the Woke movement), to climate is all the same technocratic mindset that doesn’t understand the order of reality (mind, then matter) but even worse thinks it knows it.

We’re stuck with that for awhile because the technocratic mindset is incapable of introspection or entertaining the possibility of being wrong about anything. The only move it knows is to double-down on failure.

The antidote to all this is massive decentralization on a global scale, which has the added benefit that decentralization by definition, is not something that gets decided from the top (it never is). It just happens, even in spite of the people in the centre of power who may feel something about their gravitas melting away.

That’s what has started to happen. A global opt-out. The Great Reject. As sure as the Reformation gave way to the Enlightenment despite the protestations of the Church, we’re headed into a world of networks and the sunset of nations. All the while the propagandists of the old order shrieking that in this direction lies certain doom.

The Enlightenment arose from an increase in the level of abstraction, structurally the universe changed from the Ptolemaic worldview (the world as the centre of all existence) to the Heliocentric solar system.

Now we’re experiencing a similar shift away from static top-down hierarchical structures as the natural shape of civilization and toward shifting, impermanent, overlapping networks.

Footnote:  Another Example of Technocratic Adventurism

From American Thinker The Grave Perils of Genetic Editing.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A company called Oxitec, based in the U.K., is piloting a program using gene-/information-modified mosquitos to eliminate the invasive female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in the Florida Keys. The mosquitoes potentially spread diseases such as Dengue fever and Zika.

Dr. Nathan Rose, head regulator of Oxitec, said mosquito-borne diseases are likely to worsen as a result of climate change. According to the CDC, in a ten-year span between 2010 and 2020, there were 71 cases of Dengue fever transmitted in Florida. In essence, the experiment is being conducted for fear of climate change causing a drastic increase in incidence of Dengue fever. In the Fox article, Rose states that Oxitec will first experiment in Florida, collect data, then “go to the U.S. regulatory agencies to actually get a commercial registration to be able to release these mosquitoes more broadly within the United States.”

Don’t think the Florida Keys just opened their arms with a great big bear hug to this experiment. No, there were pushback and questions. In fact, Oxitec had been pushing this experiment to Key Haven and Key West for years, only to be rejected. Many other places have also declined this experiment. When it was conducted in Brazil, it initially seemed to work, but in the end, the mutated mosquitos transferred mutations to the general public. Thankfully, gene drive was not used in the Brazil experiment, for this type of gene manipulation cannot be reversed and can wipe out a species over time.

Evidently, Oxitec has created a second-generation “friendly mosquito” technology, where new male mosquitoes are programmed to kill only female mosquitoes, with males serving and passing on the modified genes to male offspring for generations. Yes, they are programmed to kill. Oxitec CEO Grey Frandsen announced in 2020 that Oxitec looked forward to working with the Florida Keys community to “demonstrate the effectiveness of our safe, sustainable technology in light of the growing challenges controlling this disease-spreading mosquito.”

Let’s hope the Florida mosquitoes experiment is truly a necessity and not some type of climate-change fear-mongering “sustainable” technology based on speculation.

Biden Drops the Ball in Afghanistan. How Many Fumbles is He Allowed?

TOPSHOT-AFGHANISTAN-CONFLICT

James Carafano writes at Daily Signal Don’t Blame Trump for Afghanistan’s Collapse. Blame Barack Obama. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw abruptly from Afghanistan, without any discernable exit strategy, has plunged that nation into a bloody, ruinous chaos. After pleading with the Taliban to spare our embassy in Kabul, he has now redeployed 3,000 to conduct a hasty air evacuation of embassy staff.

At this stage, the only good that can come from this debacle is that our leaders might wake up and recognize that the Obama Doctrine of foreign policy is an abysmal failure and must be abandoned once and for all. Tragically, this lesson comes, yet again, at tremendous cost: widescale human misery and heightened threats to U.S. interests.

As we study what’s happened, let’s first dispense with the canards: that this fiasco was inevitable and that it’s all Donald Trump’s fault.

The reality is that, during Trump’s tenure and despite the Afghan government’s many imperfections, Afghanistan had made great strides. The government-controlled most of the country’s territory. There was real economic growth. Women could work. Children could go to school.

Further, the cost of fostering regional stability by maintaining a stable Afghanistan was well within reason. The U.S. was spending less in Afghanistan in a year than we used to spend in a week. American forces were training and advising Afghan forces. Our troops were not fighting wars and taking causalities. This was clearly sustainable.

And how, in heaven’s name, is Trump to blame for Biden’s disastrous decision to cut and run? Trump was negotiating with the Taliban, but there was nothing wrong with that. The negotiations were conditions-based, and Trump made clear the Taliban would be held accountable for their actions. Moreover, Trump’s team made sure that if, in the end, the Taliban proved untrustworthy, the remaining U.S. force had been sized and scoped to present a serious deterrent to the Taliban and be sufficient to protect U.S. interests.

Trump, in fact, handed Biden a problem mostly solved. All Biden had to do was negotiate a lasting settlement from a position of strength or maintain an economy of force presence in Afghanistan if the Taliban failed to deliver. Instead, Biden just decided to call it day and call the troops home regardless of what the Taliban did on the ground.

The Taliban’s offensive should surprise no one, given the conditions handed to them. Why would they not take advantage of Biden’s abandonment of Afghanistan? They knew full well the odds that this president would try to stop their orgy of murder, rape, forced marriages, and mayhem was near zero.

Of course, Biden will blame Trump. He will blame the Taliban. He can make all the excuses and spin all the narratives he wants, but a narrative can’t stop a bullet. This is a disaster. The situation did not collapse until he withdrew troops—and it is impossible not to conclude this happened because of what he decided.

Here is the bigger problem. This was not a one-off decision. This is part of a pattern of Obama-Biden foreign policy. And that should surprise no one since the current policies are being managed by much the same people.

In Iraq, after spending much time and effort stabilizing the country, Obama precipitously withdrew U.S. troops. It was like ordering firefighters who had extinguished a wildfire to not stick around after the wildfire in case the blaze rekindles. ISIS mushroomed overnight, creating the largest and most powerful terrorist state in modern history.

In Libya, Obama insisted on leading from behind. And once Gaddafi was gone from the picture, he ignored the spiraling decline in the security situation until our diplomatic facilities in Benghazi were smoking ruins.

This is the Obama-Biden playbook. Disengage in dangerous situations, and hope everything doesn’t go to hell in a handbasket. And when those fond hopes don’t pan out? Time to make excuses; shift blame; do anything but deal with the problem—unless there is absolutely no alternative.

In the face of America’s enemies, the default position of Obama-Biden foreign policy default is accommodation and appeasement. Unfortunately, the bad guys are not stupid. They had eight years to study the Obama playbook, and they know what to do with it: Exploit the deliberate self-weakening.

Biden is carrying on exactly the same foreign policy. Caving to Russia on Nord Stream 2. Refusing to confront China on the origins of COVID-19. Pleading with Tehran to let the U.S. back in the Iran nuclear deal.

No good will come of this.

Biden’s Record Worse than We Feared

gv072721dapr20210727064505

The Editorial Board presents at Issues and Insights Biden’s ‘Accomplishments’ So Far: A Troubling Tale In 8 Charts.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Months after President Joe Biden supposedly “rescued” the country from the COVID-19 pandemic and promised that he’d bring the country together, how is the nation doing? Well, there are several indicators on the rise. Unfortunately, they are all indicators of trouble.

The news Thursday that the GDP gained 6.5% in the second quarter (the first full quarter since Biden signed his American Rescue Plan) is good. But it is well below economists’ forecasts. The Blue Chip Consensus forecast was above 9%, and other surveys pegged Q2 growth at 8.5%. It was also just barely above the gain in Q1 — which was before any of Biden’s policies had taken effect.

Still, other things are on the rise under Biden, too, many of them well above expectations.

The misery index is up, for example, so is inflation, pessimism, and financial stress. Illegal border crossings are up and murders are way up. Oh, and cases of COVID-19 — the disease Biden said he would slay — are increasing again.

Naturally, while taking credit for the good GDP number, the Biden administration is trying to pin the blame for all these other things on President Donald Trump. But how convincing can that be, when Biden ostentatiously broke with just about every one of Trump’s policies and did so in ways that had an immediate effect?

We’ve put together eight charts that help tell this story, starting with the inflation rate.

Even liberal economists were warning that Biden’s spending spree — coming after two historically large stimulus bills under Trump and long after the COVID recession had ended — would set off an inflation spiral. And what do you know? Energy costs, food costs, and the costs of most everything else are climbing at a rapid clip, despite promises from Biden that the current spike is transitory.

inflation-rate-under-biden

While prices are rising, Biden’s unemployment bonuses and other payments to non-workers have kept people from taking jobs. Biden himself all but admitted as much when at a recent town hall, but told employers just to raise their wages. As a result, after falling rapidly under Trump, the unemployment rate has held steady since the beginning of the year.

lb210728cd20210727060246

The combination of high unemployment and soaring prices back in the 1960s gave rise to the Misery Index, which is derived simply by adding the inflation rate to the unemployment rate. As we reported recently, the Misery Index has climbed every month since Biden took office.

misery-index-under-biden-1

Despite the fact that the recession ended more than a year ago, and the economy had already made up most of the ground it lost during the lockdown when he took office, Biden talks endlessly about how he’s “rescued” an economy that was “on the brink.” He then rattles off lots of seemingly cheery statistics, crediting his $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan” and other government largesse for them all.

We’ve already detailed how this boast is based on a series of lies. But more to the point, if handing money out willy-nilly was supposed to rescue the economy and make families whole, why are people feeling more financial stress now than they were a few months ago? The IBD/TIPP Financial Stress Index has been on the rise since April.

stress-index-under-biden

Not only are people worried about their current financial condition, but they are also more pessimistic about their prospects for the coming year. An ABC News/Ipsos poll found pessimism about the way things are going shot up from April to July of this year.

pessimism-index-biden

The increase in pessimism and stress could be the result of the fact that wages haven’t been keeping up with inflation. The chart below shows the inflation-adjusted average hourly earnings for private-sector workers so far this year. Notice that this trend is not up.

real-wages-biden

Biden can hardly blame Trump for the sharp rise in violent crime, either, although he and his fellow Democrats keep insisting that it’s all because of insufficiently strict gun control laws. The real cause, of course, has been the demonization of the police by Democrats (up to and including Biden), and the often successful attempts to cut police department funding while hamstringing officers. The result has been a huge increase in murder and assaults in the nation’s major cities.

murders-under-biden

Biden also blames Trump for the crisis at the southern border. But as we’ve written about in this space already, Biden created a crisis where none existed by promising to throw open the border and grant citizenship to millions of people here illegally. Then he put Vice President Kamala Harris in charge of “fixing it,” and started blathering on about “root causes.” The results speak for themselves: an unprecedented flood of illegal immigrants, including unaccompanied children, many of whom are being released into the country.

illegals-under-biden

And to top it off, the one thing people apparently trusted Biden to do was tackle the COVID-19 virus. He said he had a plan. He and his fellow Democrats rushed through a massive new spending bill to carry it out. But now vaccination rates have stalled and new cases are growing again thanks to the Delta variant.

Biden and Co. have been busy trying to pin the blame for this on Republicans, but as we reported recently, it’s minority groups and other Democratic constituencies who are least likely to be vaccinated. And, because Biden has spent so much time raising the hysteria level about COVID, he can’t just admit that this virus will be with us forever and tell people to “live with it,” as Trump once (correctly) advised. Instead, he’s pointing fingers and fumbling about with new mask mandates, forced vaccinations, and other draconian measures.

covid-cases-under-biden

It is true that Biden has been in office for only six months. It’s also true things could turn around. But we don’t see that happening unless Biden changes course.

235762

We have no doubt that Biden was very much hoping one day to tell the public how he killed COVID and saved the economy (just as he once bragged that “Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive” while he and President Barack Obama where in the White House).

The way things are going right now, Biden might one day have to admit that “the economy is dead, but COVID is alive.”

payn_c18393920210723120100

Footnote:  How to Speak Bidenese

Democrats Need Four Illusions to Sleep

man-sleeping-counting-sheep-dream-man-sleeping-sheep-117145178

John Ellis writes at his blog Four Illusions.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.

Illusion #1: Biden is not too old.

People who have been around American politics for a long time know Joe Biden well. The eldest among them have known Joe Biden for nearly five decades. What they will tell you is that he didn’t seem to age during his two terms as vice president. If you look at video of Biden 2016 and Biden 2008, you’re taken by how little he appears to have aged. Biden at 74 seems every bit as alert and physically vigorous as Biden at 66.

That’s no longer the case. Somewhere along the way of the last few years, Biden transitioned from “young old” to “old.” Veteran reporters describe the transition in code. “He’s lost a step or two.” Or: “he’s lost something off his fastball.”

alg072321dapr20210723034504

You’re not supposed to talk about it. If you do, and you’re a Democrat, you’re scolded for aiding and abetting the enemy. If you do, and you’re a Republican or (God forbid) a MAGA voter, you’re a horrible hate-mongerer, trying to overturn the results of a free and fair election (and you probably watch Fox News to boot).

mrz070221dapr20210702054513

The problem is that it’s there for all to see. Pretending not to see it is untenable. It’s a bit like being the first car in a line of cars at a stop light and pretending that the light hasn’t turned green. Eventually, the cars behind you honk.

sk071821dapc20210716084507

Illusion #2: Harris “has what it takes.”

The widely shared assessment of Kamala Harris’s performance (so far) as vice president also comes in code: she’s “not ready for primetime,” she needs to “step up her game,” and “she’s off to a rocky start.” Few if any of the political cognoscenti think she is (a) “presidential timber” and/or (b) capable of winning the 2024 presidential election, should it come to that.

alg070521dapr20210705034505

These two truths — Biden is old, Harris isn’t ready — haunt Democrats and their media allies. When they imagine the 2024 presidential election without Biden or Harris, they notice another truth: there’s no bench. Gavin Newsom? Not. Andrew Cuomo? Not. Tim Kaine? Not. There’s a long list of superb military officers that would be formidable (and admirable) candidates, but the chances of a Democratic Convention nominating, say, Admiral William McRaven, are similar to my chances of buying the winning $1 billion Powerball ticket.

stg070621dapr20210705054507

Illusion #3: Trump is done.

Where in the world did this come from? Wishful thinking explains part of it. Maybe all of it. But it’s clearly not true. The amazing thing is that he’s not done, given his disgraceful post-election conduct and evident disdain for long-established, essential norms of American democracy; “consent of the losers” chief among them. It’s August (almost) and he still maintains that he won an election that he lost. That’s the dictionary definition of “delusional.”

stg071921dapc20210718064517

And yet it hasn’t hurt him. He remains the front-runner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination. Republican elected officials at the federal, state and local level genuflect at the mention of his name. Would-be rivals for the 2024 nomination pledge their allegiance, and not just to Trump’s “populism” but to Trump personally. And then there’s Fox News.

mrz062321dapr20210623054504

The 2024 Republican presidential nomination campaign will “happen” on Fox News. It will also “happen” on right-wing talk radio and on right-wing websites and in right-wing chat rooms, but Fox will frame the choice; controlling who gets exposure (and in what time slots) and who sets the agenda. Those decisions are driven by one consideration and one consideration only: Does it rate?

Trump rates. The others don’t. End of story.

And lest anyone think that Fox will ignore the ratings, turn on Trump and do what it can to bring to the fore the next generation of GOP leaders, please call me and I will sell you my winning Powerball ticket. For $1 million.

Illusion #4: Trump can’t win.

Can’t win what? The GOP nomination? Really? Want to bet? Who’s going to beat him? Josh Hawley? Marco Rubio? Ron DeSantis? Nikki Haley? Take your pick.

My guess is that none of them will run if Trump announces his candidacy in, say March of 2023. Would you? You’d be signing a political death warrant if you did; forever alienating vast swaths of the Trump coalition by challenging their champion. You’d be asking your major donors to invite Trump’s wrath. You’d be asking Republican elected officials at every level to risk ruin by endorsing your candidacy. It’s a non-starter from the start.

gv062521dapr20210625074502

Well, you say, Trump can’t possibly win the general election, can he? On paper, probably not. Fifty-two percent of the country would eat nails to vote against him.

But as we learn again and again, the national popular vote isn’t evenly distributed across the Electoral College. State-by-state, the Electoral College is almost perfectly distributed to make GOP victories possible, even when the party loses the national popular vote by a substantial margin. (Biden beat Trump by 7 million votes in the 2020 general election.)

mrz062721dapc20210626064506

It’s also the case that Trump enjoys an advantage over, say, Biden (or Harris or any Democrat, for that matter) on “cultural issues.” In the key Electoral College states (like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, to name three) general election voters align more comfortably with Trump’s views on cultural issues; on immigration especially, but also on crime, “defund the police,” the undoing of welfare reform, and the rise of Woke.

That’s enough to make him competitive, but probably not enough to put him over the top. He’s so toxic, he hits a ceiling. And the Democrats (and their media allies) will do everything in their power to make Toxic Trump the issue, above all others. They’ll borrow a line from the Reagan re-election campaign: “Why would we ever want to return to where we were, less than four short years ago?”

cb072021dapr20210720054517

But what happens if Trump is not the issue? What happens if inflation is the issue? That would bring to mind the Carter re-election campaign, the one that ended in a GOP landslide at the state and local level and a 10-point win for Ronald Reagan (who received 50% of the national vote). Inflation destroyed Jimmy Carter’s presidency. It literally kicked him out of office.

What if Larry Summers is right and inflation is ready for launch and will likely take off next year? If Biden Administration policies are seen as the proximate cause of inflation, will “swing voters” view the administration as the best option for bringing inflation back under control? Probably not. Is inflation the kind of issue that can render Trump’s toxicity less salient? Yes it is.

The light is green. Let the honking begin.

afb062221dapr20210622054527

Four Blunders in EU Climate Plan

theherculeantaskofkeepingco2emissionsdown_800x533_l_1626765909

Pieter Cleppe writes at Real Clear Energy Four Flaws With the EU’s New Climate Plans Excerpts in italics wtih my bolds and images.

Last week, the European Commission presented its so-called Fit for 55 proposals, a raft of legislative initiatives intended to adapt EU law to the 2030 target of reducing CO2 emissions by 55 percent from 1990 levels. The idea is to adapt legislation originally intended to achieve a 40% reduction.

This undertaking, however, is marked by serious shortcomings. Herewith, I summarize what’s wrong with it, listing four main flaws.

  1.  The European Commission is employing a top-down approach, riddled with taxes and spending

The European Commission seems to take former U.S. president Ronald Reagan’s characterization of “government’s view of the economy” as a manual, rather than as a warning. As Reagan summarized government’s approach: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

2615928-milton-friedman-quote-the-big-problem-for-a-democratic-government

Most remarkable here is the Commission’s intention to impose a de facto ban on gasoline and diesel cars by 2035, even if France seems keen to extend this until 2040. When even France is less restrictive, you’re not in a good place. Feeling the need to resort to outright prohibition, the Commission is clearly not putting great trust in innovation to come up with economically efficient, CO2-neutral cars.

A notable change is the expansion of the EU’s cap and trade scheme, which puts a price on emitting CO2 but allows companies to buy and sell their right to do so. The Commission wants to expand this so-called Emissions Trading System (ETS) – set up 16 years ago and covering power plants, intra-EU aviation, and energy-intensive industries – to include buildings, road transport, and shipping. The expansion would start gradually in 2023 and be phased in over three years, as the emission-rights regime for aviation is being tightened up and sectors not covered by ETS are made subject to emission-reduction targets, with binding targets per member state. EU minimum excise-duty rates on various energy sources, like motor or heating fuel, would also need to be increased, and a jet-fuel tax would need to be introduced on intra-EU flights, on top of a tax on maritime fuel.

taxcartoon

Opponents of the proposals, which still need to be approved by both EU member states and the European Parliament, include the shipping industry, which hasn’t exactly welcomed its inclusion into the ETS system. The International Chamber of Shipping described the proposal as “an ideological revenue raising exercise, which will greatly upset the EU’s trading partners,” as it would involve “non-EU shipping companies to be forced to pay billions of euros to support EU economic recovery plans.”

This doesn’t even account for another part of Fit for 55, whereby the Commission intends to create the world’s first carbon border tariff, to be levied on imports of goods including steel, cement, and aluminum, to be phased in from 2026. This step is deemed necessary because two-thirds of CO₂-emissions are likely to continue, only now outside of the EU, causing “carbon leakage” – a phenomenon notably hard to estimate, although we know that China has long outpaced the U.S. and the EU in terms of carbon emission.

border-carbon-taxes

In response, Belgian employer federation VBO-FEB issued a warning about this “carbon border adjustment mechanism,” stating that “policy makers must be careful that (…) this will not cause other countries to impose countermeasures or cause supply chain distortions, leading us to import more finished products than raw resources.” The question remains as to whether this is not a protectionist measure in violation of the WTO agreement – especially when certain European producers would be exempt. In any case, it will unleash lots of extra bureaucracy, especially for small companies.

Also in line with Reagan’s description of government thinking is the European Commission’s plan to spend billions of euros to compensate for the damage done by its own measures – such as its proposal for a new “social climate fund” “to prevent fuel poverty,” using one-fifth of ETS revenue, on top of another fund, the €100 billion Just Transition Mechanism to help coal-dependent countries like Poland make the transition away from coal. Combined with the Commission’s demand to get at least 50% of the income derived from the new ETS transport and buildings revenue, this would mean that the ETS system would morph into an outright EU tax – a dream eurocrats have been pursuing for years.

2.  The proposed measures disproportionately hurt the poor

The European Commission itself has admitted that measures like putting a carbon price on heating fuels “will not affect households equally, but would likely have a regressive impact on disposable income, as low-income households tend to spend a greater proportion of their income on heating.” It is testimony to how divided opinion is even within the Commission, where many are questioning the rather extreme approach of EU Climate Commissioner Frans Timmermans.

fuel_poverty

The predicted hardship for the poor then serves as yet another excuse to spend money – now to alleviate the damage done by the measures. The Commission is seemingly unaware that to finance spending, taxes are needed, and even corporate taxes are ultimately disproportionately borne by low-skilled workers. There is no free lunch, even when paying tribute to the Climate Gods.

Over the last few years, as exemptions for the CO2 emission-trading system have been reduced, this scheme has put upward pressure on energy prices, so it can be feared that this will cause more damage to the economy, particularly hurting the poor. The Commission thinks that CO2 prices in Europe will increase by 50 percent by 2030 if its plans are implemented – but some hedge funds already project an increase of almost 100% by the end of this year, with the more modest current arrangement in place.

france3

Pascal Canfin, chair of the European parliament’s environment committee, who started his career with the greens but is now a key ally of French president Emmanuel Macron, has called the plan to create an emissions trading system (ETS) for transport and buildings “politically suicidal” and “a huge political mistake.” He stated: “It’s a very bad idea,” adding that the Commission was “going to trap” lower middle-class families, noting that those hit the hardest would be people in regions with poor public transport and residents who could not pay for energy-efficiency upgrades to their homes. This follows the French government’s experience with the “gilets jaunes” (yellow vest) protesters, who managed to get Macron to abandon a fuel-tax hike in 2018.

France will take over the EU’s rotating presidency in 2022; let’s see how much then remains of the European Commission’s grand plans.

473193-14713695863266695_origin

Germany’s automobile industry has also warned that the proposed measures may have a “substantial” impact on jobs at auto suppliers – so even if the greens form part of the new German government, this may not all sail through so smoothly.

3.  The European Commission is not respecting the idea of “tech neutrality”

It’s one thing to impose a target to reduce CO2 emissions. It is quite another to try to micromanage how this can be achieved. Nevertheless, that is what the European Commission is doing with its so-called “EU taxonomy for sustainable activities,” a classification system meant to clarify which investments are environmentally sustainable, in the context of the “European Green Deal,” of which Fit for 55 forms a part.

5595539040_f33f4eb050_b

Several MEPs (mainly Greens) hold up anti-nuclear posters at the debate.

Despite all the evidence that nuclear power is CO2 neutral, the Commission refuses to acknowledge this reality. This denialism is the result of pressure by Germany, which decided to shut down all its nuclear plants, a policy that has driven energy prices in that country to record levels while also supporting the coal-energy sector. Germany thereby goes against the in-house scientific body of the European Commission, the Joint Research Centre, which declared earlier this year that nuclear power is a safe and climate-friendly energy source and should be considered as “green” under the EU’s classification system.

To add insult to injury, the Commission considers biomass a renewable energy – despite the fact that burning wood for energy, which is what biomass is ultimately all about, typically emits 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and three times more than natural gas. The EU is the world’s largest net importer of wood pellets; the main net exporters are the United States, Canada, and Russia.

MoS2 Template Master

Green campaigners have been complaining about EU member states like Estonia that allow intensive clear-cutting of trees in forests protected under EU Natura 2000 rules. One NGO, the Estonian Fund for Nature, has also pointed out there is a direct connection between the subsidized growth in the biomass industry and EU renewable-energy policies.

More than 500 scientists have urged the EU to stop treating biomass as carbon-neutral. Even if one disagrees, and believes that biomass can be sustainable and renewable, it still doesn’t make sense to privilege biomass over nuclear power.

Biomass represents almost 60% of renewable-energy consumption in the EU, so the implications of no longer considering it as renewable energy would be grave: wind and solar power contribute only marginally to the EU’s energy provision, irrespective of their environmental downsides. Changing biomass’s renewable status would make it almost unavoidable to recognize nuclear power, which would be embarrassing for the likes of German chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been putting so much political capital into defending Germany’s nuclear exit.

4.  The EU’s grand plans may not do that much for climate change

At the end of the day, the goal of all this is to counter CO2 emissions in a bid to halt climate change.

Here, an interesting contrarian view comes from Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg, author of the bestseller “The Skeptical Environmentalist.”

Lomborg has highlighted UN Climate Panel estimates that the negative impact of climate change in the 2070s would be equivalent to reducing the average income between 0.2% and 2% – meaning that global incomes would increase only by 356% by then, and not by 362%. He then contrasts this with the enormous cost of EU climate policies, which would “quadruple electricity wholesale prices in just a decade,” and he cites academic studies showing the real costs of EU climate policies to be four times higher than optimistic EU estimates, ultimately amounting to a whopping €4 trillion to €5 trillion.

Lomborg estimates that the new EU target of 55% carbon-emission reduction will reduce the global temperature by the end of the century by an immeasurable 0.004°C – “equivalent to postponing global warming by six weeks in 2100.”

Surely we can agree that it is hard for both proponents and skeptics of expensive climate policies to provide hard proof that they are right in their arguments. But these estimates should make even the most committed EU Commission climate fanatic pause for reflection.

msfig7-1

screenshot-2019-09-24-09.03.15-768x266-1

Global warming is in our mental models.

Systemic Election Malpractice in Maricopa County

On the technical operations of election processing, the audit in Maricopa County, AZ, has provided this overview published at Gateway Pundit Cyber Ninjas Found So Many Issues with the Voting Machines and Processes in Maricopa County It’s a Wonder the Previous Auditors Didn’t Find These Issues Too.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Ben Cotton’s team is auditing the IT-related practices and policies in the 2020 Election in Maricopa County. He shared some important items during his presentation last week that any good IT auditor would find.  We pointed out previously that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors hired two election firms because they knew these firms would give them a clean bill of health.

But Ben Cotton and his team were selected by the Cyber Ninjas to address the IT work related to Maricopa County’s results in the 2020 Election.  Investigator Cotton from CyFIR performed work that the previous auditors should have covered.

It’s a difficult task for these auditors because Maricopa County has been completely uncooperative, even with basic questions, referring auditors to lawyers.  This all provides more support that the subjects under audit, the auditees, are guilty and doing everything they can to postpone the evaluation.

Dominion has two full-time staff onsite servicing the Maricopa County election system. The current Dominion software was installed in August 2019. Since that date, there have been no antivirus updates, no operating system updates, or any security patches. Administrator accounts were also created on that date, each having the exact same password. These are actions of a ‘worst in class’ IT Department and it is a deliberate subterfuge of an election system.  Common practice is to update patches on a much more regular basis.

Below is a list of items addressed by Cotton during his presentation to the Arizona Senate last Thursday.

  1. Auditors have collected over 2,000 Terabytes of data, the vast majority is video footage.
  2. What Maricopa County has told the public is often drastically different than their response to the legal subpoena.
  3. Maricopa didn’t use a forensically secure process to clone drives. Dates and times were altered by their cloning process.
  4. On March 11th, 2021 someone with Admin access to the (EMS) election management system ran a script that produced 37,646 queries looking for blank passwords. The system has only 8 user accounts. (see below)
  5. Windows Security Event Logs before February 5th, 2021 are missing.
  6. Every election Administrator account, no matter the user, all have the same password.
  7. When the Dominion software was installed in August 2019, Administrative passwords were created, and haven’t been changed since.
  8. The vulnerabilities that exist on the Maricopa election systems would take an average script kiddie less than 10 minutes to gain access to these systems.
  9. Maricopa’s election system uses ibutton key fobs as the 2nd step in logins. Maricopa and Dominion have refused to provide these fobs to auditors. (see below).
  10. It’s become readily apparent there are severe cybersecurity problems with the way the election management system and network was maintained.
  11. We are seeing anonymous logins at the system level that do not follow that pattern of normal Windows behavior.
  12. After both sides agreed on a solution, Maricopa County then refused to release that router data.
  13. Maricopa can’t check the configuration of its own election system without relying on Dominion employees.
  14. The two EAC audits hired by Maricopa earlier in the year appear not to have addressed cybersecurity aspects, not even shared passwords.
  15. Not a single bit of data was changed on any device in the auditor’s possession. Use of a “write block” device prevented this. Images were made bit by bit, then an MD5 hash value was applied. There is no need to purchase new machines.
  16. There have been no antivirus updates, operating system updates, or security patches applied to the election system since August 2019, the date Dominion software was installed.

Maricopa repeatedly told the public the election system did not touch the internet but this was not true. If so the system could not have comingled with other Maricopa County department’s data. To prevent the release of router information, the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff then said election router data DID mingle with critical information from other county departments. By using EAC auditors, Maricopa told the public election machines were safe and secure. They now say those same auditors can’t be hired to test the same machines. This week they approved the purchase of new Dominion machines at $3 million.

The use of ibuttons is unusual for PC logins, and is very old technology. These ibuttons are typically used to verify a location or for access control. For instance, a security guard touches his ibutton to various doors to verify he walked his patrol. In Maricopa County, after you login as an election Admin, you must also use a preprogrammed ibutton to obtain access to the Dominion election system. Maricopa County stated only Dominion staff have the Admin ibuttons and both organizations have refused to help the auditors obtain them.

Overall, the IT-related observations of control practices to date are horrible. In some cases, the County is using old technology. In other cases, the processes are broken or even non-existent. With such as mess, how did the IT election auditors hired by the county not notice them?

A Look into Arizona Ballot Forensics

e94dca46-8a82-4615-98e4-4b84a0a5ad03

At Gateway Pundit is an article explaining the techniques for validating ballots used in 2020 elections Maricopa County Auditor Bob Hughes Shares How They Are Using High Tech Forensic Digital Cameras and OCR to Validate Ballots.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Any massive vote fraud in Maricopa County Arizona is going to be identified. The Democrats must be terrified.

One of the auditors working for the Arizona Senate, Bob Hughes, discussed the audit and the reasons why the Democrats are absolutely frightened of the Arizona audit and it being performed in other states:

The other thing that I think is interesting is they keep saying, ‘They don’t know what they are doing’. ‘They’re idiots’. ‘These people are ridiculous’. ‘They have no idea what they are doing’. ‘They’ve never done this before’.

This is the first time in the history of the United States, number one, that it’s ever been done, but more important it’s the first time it’s ever been needed. And it was done.

I can tell you that I could go over all the process and you’d all understand, but when a ballot gets created, think about this. It’s like your bill being paid from SRP. They go out and get your voter identification number and they find out what precinct you live in, what city, what county, where your school districts are. All that information has to be accessed to create the proper ballot exactly for you. Because you have to vote for the right candidates in a city mayoral election, council elections, JP elections, the legislative district, the congressional district. [In fact, in 2020 there were 667 different versions of Maricopa County ballots.]

Think of those as maps that overlay the Maricopa County area and it creates all these little sections, and all these people get a very different ballot. So if somebody did what we were told they might have done, which is gone out and just duplicate a bunch of ballots, or put the same ballot in many times, or any of these kinds of things, I knew there was a way to find that out.

And so what we did is we, the cameras are not only cameras. They’re digital cameras. Digital cameras that are forensic. They’re actually police forensic cameras. They’re very, very high speed, high definition digital cameras. They make a scanned ballot.

So we scan that ballot. We then use optical character recognition (OCR). We’re looking at what’s in place on that ballot. Based on who that ballot is. How many should be? Can there be this many?…

What I can tell you is you now will have the most authentic count of every legal authentic ballot you could possibly have.

See Hughes’ speech in the video here.

AZ Ballot Audit

 

 

 

Georgia Ballot Review Case Going Forward

fulton-county-voter-fraud-696x252-1

AP reporter Kate Brumback writes at SFGATE Judge allows Georgia ballot review case to move forward.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

ATLANTA (AP) — A judge on Thursday allowed a lawsuit alleging fraud in Georgia’s most populous county during the November election and seeking a review of absentee ballots to move forward.

Originally filed in December, the lawsuit says there is evidence of fraudulent ballots and improper ballot counting in Fulton County. The county, county elections board and county courts clerk had filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. They argued, among other things that the the lawsuit was barred by sovereign immunity, a principle that says state and local governments and can only be sued if they agree to it.

After holding a hearing on those motions Monday, Henry County Superior Court Chief Judge Brian Amero, who was specially appointed to preside over the case, agreed. He ruled that the constitutional claims against those three entities are barred by sovereign immunity and dismissed them. But he also granted a request by the petitioners to add the individual members of the county election board as respondents in the lawsuit instead.

The suit was filed by nine Georgia voters and is spearheaded by Garland Favorito, a longtime critic of Georgia’s election systems. As part of the suit, they are seeking to inspect some 147,000 absentee ballots to determine whether there are illegitimate ballots among them.

Several election workers and volunteers have signed sworn statements saying they saw absentee ballots during the audit that weren’t creased from being mailed, appeared to be marked by a machine rather than by hand and were printed on different paper. The lawsuit also repeats a widely circulated claim of fraud based on security video that shows cases of ballots being pulled from under a skirted table and counted while observers and the news media weren’t present.

Fulton County officials have consistently defended the integrity of the election and have criticized the ballot review effort. The secretary of state’s office says it has investigated the claims and found no evidence of fraud. An independent monitor who observed Fulton County’s election operations as part of a consent agreement said he witnessed sloppy practices and systemic mismanagement but said there was nothing that should cast doubt on the county’s election results.The ballots are kept under seal in the custody of the clerk of Fulton County Superior and Magistrate courts. Amero in April ordered the court clerk to release the scanned absentee ballot images. At a hearing last month, Amero ordered that the paper ballots themselves be unsealed so that the petitioners who filed the lawsuit can inspect and scan them.

He had set a meeting for May 28 with the parties to sort out the logistics of how that review and scanning of paper ballots would proceed. But that meeting was canceled so he could hear the motions to dismiss first.

VoterGA Comment:

“We are pleased that the court has ruled in our favor again for the fifth time. The ruling substitutes Defendants by replacing currently named government organizations with individual board members we named originally in our lawsuit. It also moots Don Samuels’ attempt to dismiss our case. This continues the string of victories we have including how we obtained the original protective order, conditional approval to inspect ballots, access to ballot images, and the order to unseal the ballots.”

screen-shot-2021-06-21-at-9.58.17-am

,

Heartland Wisdom from Iowa

iowa-flag-us-state-metal-xl

Todd Blodgett writes at the Des Moines Register Biden paving the way for Trump to win again.  (Full disclosure:  My mother, Dagmar Henningsen was born near Des Moinres, and I am 1/2 Danish because of her.)  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Only a smidgeon of popular votes would flip the few states needed for Trump to net 270 electoral votes.

In 2020, had 23,000 votes, spread across Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia, flipped, the Electoral College would’ve been tied, at 269-269. And with Republicans holding a majority of the states’ congressional delegations, the U.S. House of Representatives would’ve chosen Donald Trump as president.

But after five months, Joe Biden’s agenda and actions on several critical issues are diminishing Democratic prospects for 2024, and even for 2022. If the GOP retakes the House next year, it will be disastrous for the Biden-Harris administration.

But even if that doesn’t happen, the border crisis that Biden singlehandedly created has already caused many of his voters to suffer a severe case of buyers’ remorse. Nixing the Keystone pipeline was stupid and killed tens of thousands of jobs and indicated to oil-producing nations that the United States is impeding domestic petroleum production — which, under Trump’s policies, made us net energy-independent.

Increasingly, many Americans now see that Trump was the kind of president that they always wanted — but they didn’t realize they had.

After all, most Americans appreciate straight talk from their elected officials and distrust career politicians, especially lawyers. Many voters prefer no-nonsense, business-style governance. Most Americans also favor “America First” policies and expect their president to prioritize their interests above those of foreign nationals — particularly lawbreakers. As well, most Americans despise clueless leftists who advocate defunding the police. Polls reveal that most likely voters want presidents to appoint judges who are pro-victim, not pro-perpetrator, and who favor taxpayers over indolent, able-bodied, welfare scammers.

Americans expect their leader to understand that China not only isn’t our friend, but represents a clear and present danger to us.

Trump, not Biden, was that president.

Most taxpayers also strongly oppose Biden’s unprecedented, irresponsible spending spree. Even some Democrats detest Biden’s planned tax hikes and his costly boondoggles, which includes fancy hotels for immigrants, bailouts that discourage employees from returning to work, and paying the disreputable World Health Organization $200 million to reinstate America’s membership. Biden’s absurd claim that Trump caused this border disaster only exacerbates the scorn which scores of millions of Americans have for this liar.

Biden even released Mexico from its agreement — negotiated by Trump — to post federales (troops) on Mexico’s side of the border, to block border-crashing immigrants. As the Washington Post reported on May 25: “Under new Biden administration rules curtailing immigration enforcement, ICE carried out 3,000 deportations last month, the lowest level on record. Biden has placed ICE deportation officers on a leash so tight that some say their work is being functionally abolished.”

As Biden and Kamala Harris foment this destructive insanity, many pro-USA citizens justifiably feel like horrified, handcuffed, blindfolded passengers in the back seat of a vehicle being driven by a drunkard at 100 mph. When Ronald Reagan visited Des Moines in the fall of 1980, he told me that his opponent, President Jimmy Carter, made it “easy” for him, “because of how badly he’s screwed things up.” Will Biden do the same?

Trump will be the same age (78) in 2024 that Biden is now. However, Trump moves, acts, and looks 15 years younger than Biden — who, in 2024, will be 82. By 2024, old Joe could easily look like Jimmy Carter. If so, his predecessor may well become his successor. Only a smidgeon of popular votes would flip the few states needed for Trump to net 270 electoral votes.

Biden is basically setting the stage for Trump’s comeback.

alg060121dapr20210601024505

 

Biden Climate Agenda Heads into Perfect Storm

perfectstorm1

Michael Shellenberger writes at Forbes Why Biden’s Climate Agenda Is Falling Apart.  He suggests that there are multiple forces opposing it,  not only political but also laws of physics. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The Gathering Storm

Since taking office in January, President Joe Biden and Democrats have projected confidence that they will be able to pass climate infrastructure and budget legislation to expand renewables.

But in recent weeks, that confidence has rapidly faded. “I don’t think the votes are there in a reconciliation bill for the climate infrastructure-type issues,” an insider told the Washington Post.

Senate Democrats are not likely going to be able to use this year’s budget resolution to put together what is known as a reconciliation package. “Senior Democrats privately don’t believe they can finish work on a second reconciliation package,” noted a political reporter, “using the 2021 budget resolution by the end of the fiscal year, which is Sept. 30.”

What that means is that “the debate over [climate] infrastructure could drag well into the fall, which will put it on a collision path with the government funding and debt-limit skirmishes.”

“Liberals and environmental groups are wary that a narrow infrastructure deal now may lead centrist lawmakers to lose interest in advancing other expensive legislation,” wrote the Post, “which could leave climate and other progressive priorities on the cutting-room floor.”

Biden and Democrats may win some federal money for transmission lines and electric car refueling stations, and declare victory, seeking to prosecute the rest of their 100% renewable energy vision at the state level. The White House and Governor Gavin Newsom announced earlier this week plans to build a massive industrial wind energy project along California’s coastline.

And there is strong renewables advocacy within large, multinational corporations. A Dutch court ordered Shell to cut its emissions by 45 percent by 2030. Chevron CVX -1.1% shareholders voted to cut customer emissions. And Exxon, worried about losing directors to a climate activist resolution, halted a shareholder meeting to count late votes.

But the court orders and shareholder activism are, like United Nations treaties, mostly noise. The U.S. reduced emissions more than any other nation in the world between 2000 and 2020, and more than President Obama had promised America would, because of the fracking revolution, not because of the Paris Climate Agreement, which Trump pulled out of.

Nations (and states like California) that cannot for economic reasons meet their climate commitments simply change the target to farther off in time, while adding targets that sound more aggressive to journalists with little awareness of history. Corporations will do the same.

green-jobs

If Shell, Exxon, and Chevron do anything that harms their bottom lines, then they will be punished by shareholders, and other companies will emerge to take over their markets. The vast majority of human beings want high rather than low economic growth, and so politicians ultimately choose policies that make energy cheap, not expensive.

And the limitations of weather-dependent renewables are more visible than ever. If California’s large wind energy project is built, it will provide less than half of the energy of California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant Newsom is planning to close in 2025, and it will be unreliable. During the heatwave-driven blackouts last summer, there was little wind in California or other Western states, meaning we can’t count on wind energy when we need it most.

In other words, the Democrats’ climate change and renewable energy agenda is rapidly falling apart, and the reasons have far more to do with physics than with politics.

The Democrats Plan to Increase Energy Dependence

The Biden Administration announced earlier this week that there would not be a significant expansion of lithium, rare earth, and other mining in the U.S. for electric car batteries and renewables, dashing the hopes of labor unions.

Already unions were upset since they stand to lose tens of thousands of members if Congress follows through on Democrats’ plans to switch the country from natural gas and petroleum-powered vehicles, homes, and power plants to ones powered by solar panels made in China and minerals imported from abroad.

gv012621dapr20210126094504

The trouble for Democrats in the U.S. and greens in Europe is that they are not only attempting to make energy significantly more expensive and less reliable, as California and Germany did, they are also proposing to make their economies more dependent on foreign nations. That position was problematic before 2021. Now, it is unethical.

It’s now obvious that China made solar panels cheap not through innovation but rather through heavy subsidies, dirty coal, and enslaved ethnic Muslims, the Uyghur (pronounced ‘we gur’), against whom China’s totalitarian government is committing genocide, according the U.S. State Department and Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag.

Republicans will have little trouble attacking the Democrats’ climate infrastructure agenda on 30-second TV and radio ads, perhaps even paid for by labor unions, in America’s heartland, during the 2022 midterm elections. Moderate Democrats like Pennsylvania’s Conor Lamb knows this, as does Nancy Pelosi.

lb1080703cd_lr

Democratic frustration spilled out into the open on Monday. “You cannot negotiate a climate bill with climate deniers,” tweeted U.S. Senator Edward Markey (D-MA). Markey’s tweet inspired an angry response from Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw. “You aren’t, you liar. We aren’t denying climate change, we are just pointing out that your ‘solutions’ will hurt people, and do nothing to prevent climate change.

I testified six times before Congress over the last year and not once did a Republican in one of the climate change, science, or agricultural committees deny the reality of climate change or humankind’s contribution to it. When I pointed this out on Twitter, people responded by posting articles claiming to offer evidence of widespread climate denial among Republicans in Congress. But what they call “climate denial” was often Republican denial that weather-dependent renewables can power America.

Without a doubt there are still some Republican climate skeptics in Congress. “Maybe perhaps we live on a ball that rotates around the sun, that flies through the universe, and maybe our climate just changes,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. But the vast majority of other Republicans, including all of the ones I interacted with through my testimony, accept the reality that humans are warming the planet.

More problematic for Democrats is that Greene’s energy message is far more popular than the Green New Deal with many Democratic voters. “Our ability to export oil and gas,” she tweeted, “gives the US great negotiating power in the world,” a statement that has the added benefit of being true.

gang-green
The Real Reason They Oppose Nuclear

Meanwhile, efforts by Democrats from Alexandira Ocasio-Cortez to Senator Ed Markey to California Governor Gavin Newsom to shut down nuclear power plants are increasing carbon emissions, which undermines their assertion that climate change is the most important problem in the world.

And conflicts of interest are becoming more visible. “BlackRock recently replaced one departing White House insider with another,” noted Bloomberg. “Paul Bodnar, an Obama-era climate-policy aide, is now the firm’s sustainable investing head, taking over from Brian Deese, who returned to politics as President Joe Biden’s National Economic Council chair. The firm has hired more than a dozen alumni from the Obama administration over the years.”

It is hard not to get the impression that the real reason Democrats, Blackrock BLK 0.0%, and Chinese solar makers don’t like nuclear power is because it means we don’t need renewables to address climate change. While Democrats could get away with using renewables to greenwash their anti-nuclear agenda in the past, those days are coming to an end.

kn121419dapc20191213114523

In November, the European Union’s watchdog ruled that the European Commission had failed to fully consider why BlackRock’s investments in Chinese solar, wind, and electric cars created a financial conflict of interest in its ability to create supposedly objective environmental, social, and governance criteria for so-called “ESG” investing.

It turns out that BlackRock manipulated ESG criteria to favor solar over nuclear, even though solar requires 300 – 400 times more land than nuclear, demands 18 times more steel, and produces 300 times more hazardous waste.

The dark truth about China’s solar panel production should have been enough to force Democrats to seriously reconsider their 100% renewables agenda, but it may require another highly visible defeat in Congress to make them appreciate why increasing America’s reliance on inefficient, weather-dependent, and made-in-China energy sources is bad politics, in addition to being bad physics.

zero-cents