Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Body-by-Guinness

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33
1
Some great points made here. The unwashed masses have no ability to look at this pic and understand what all is connoted to someone well versed in firearm use, but that doesn’t keep our media overlords from making political hay:

https://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2024/03/every-picture-tells-story.html

If the anti-gun argument is so strong, why does their every argument rely on deceptions if not outright falsehoods?

2
Women and children and poor families are hit the hardest. Who cares, certainly the Democrats.

But then the Dems get to offer subsidies to the downtrodden masses they created and pass themselves off as rescuers for inefficiently addressing the condition they worked overtime to create. Good work if you can get it.

3
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Going Scentless?
« on: March 27, 2024, 01:57:47 PM »
Don’t know if there are any hunters here and, if there are, if they’d drop $550 on this gizmo, but according to the tester it works:

https://gearjunkie.com/outdoor/hunt-fish/ozonics-hr500-review

Hmm, wonder if it works for gym bags? If so I got a couple nominees….

4
Politics & Religion / Privatizing the Dole
« on: March 27, 2024, 01:47:30 PM »
Thank goodness there is a plan B as I’ve little doubt it will prove more efficient and less destructive than the government run effort:

https://babylonbee.com/news/nyc-mayor-assures-migrants-that-if-they-run-out-of-prepaid-debit-cards-they-can-just-rob-americans-directly

Minds me of an Ambrose Bierce quote out of the Devil’s Dictionary:

“Piracy (N): Commerce without its follyswaddles, just as God intended it.”

5
Politics & Religion / Obamacare Red Pill
« on: March 27, 2024, 11:54:56 AM »
Another thing dragging Biden/Dems down at the poll:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/03/the_red_pill_of_obamacare.html

6
Politics & Religion / The Triumph of Trumpenfreude
« on: March 27, 2024, 09:20:16 AM »
Think of him as you care to, but Trump does have a habit of turning attacks on their ears and into gold:

The greatest Trumpenfreude of all
They kicked President Trump off Twitter. That's about to make him $3,600,000,000.
MAR 26, 2024

Oh how they danced on the night Trump was banned.

NBC reported, “Twitter permanently suspends President Donald Trump.”

Andrew Marantz at the New Yorker gave the mainstream media take:

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a private company from enforcing its own policies; if anything, the First Amendment protects a company’s right to do so. Now the harder questions. Does censoring a head of state set a dangerous precedent? Yes, it does, but so does allowing a head of state to use a platform’s enormous power, over the course of several years, to dehumanize women, inflame racist paranoia, flirt with nuclear war, and incite armed sedition, often in flagrant violation of the company’s rules. Is it worrisome that Jack Dorsey, a weirdly laconic billionaire with a castaway beard who has never been elected to any public office, is able to make unilateral, unaccountable decisions that may help determine whether our country survives or self-immolates? Yes, it is. But, given that Dorsey and a handful of other techno-oligarchs have this ability, they might as well be pressured (or shamed, or regulated) into using it wisely.

Of course, we found out in the Twitter files released after Elon Musk bought it that the government bribed Dorsey to censor conservatives.

Start your own Twitter, the media mocked him. He did. They hated it. NBC painted him as a hypocrite, reporting, “Former President Donald Trump pitched his new social media platform, Truth Social, as a haven for free speech and a counterweight to the big tech giants that have in recent years put a greater emphasis on moderating content users post to their sites.

“But as the platform’s terms of service agreement makes clear, not all speech will be permitted. Specifically, users are prohibited from speaking ill of the platform itself or its leadership.”

The media went out of its way to throw shade on his enterprise.

Axios reported, “Former President Trump is blowing the launch of his new social media company, via a series of unforced errors.”

The launch itself was buzzy, with Truth Social shooting to the top of Apple's App Store (there isn't yet an Android or web version).
But the vast majority of people downloading the app, me included, were given a waitlist number. Nine days later, most of us remain on that waitlist, with our number unchanged and without a word of communication from the company. A waitlist refresh icon doesn't work.
As of this writing, Truth Social has fallen to No. 57 in the App Store, just behind Tinder and Planet Fitness Workouts.”
So what? CNN’s ratings are below rerun channels. I would think starting off at No. 57 is great for a new social media outlet.

It looks like start-you-own-Twitter-ha-ha-ha was sound advice. Last week, Truth Social announced it was merging with one of Trump’s companies, which will sell shares in the merged company. Trump just doubled his pleasure, doubled his fun and doubled his wealth.

Bloomberg reported last night, “Trump’s Net Worth Hits $6.5 Billion, Making Him One of World’s 500 Richest People.”

So much for bankrupting the man.

Rolling Stone spun it, “The merger will be a lifeline to Truth Social, which incurred tens of millions in losses in 2023, and provide a massive windfall to its owner, former President Donald Trump. Given the current stock market value of Digital World Acquisition Corp., the combination of the two companies could net Trump a staggering $3.6 billion in shareholder value.

“As he’s currently drowning in a sea of legal bills, the merger may become a critical source of cash-on-hand for the former president, with one major caveat: He would only be able to cash out on his shares six months after the union officially goes public.”

Only in the insane world of journalism would cashing in for $3,600,000,000 be spun as a bad thing.

I didn’t invent the term Trumpenfreude. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman did. I just changed the definition — like Google later did to the words insurrection and bloodbath.

Krugman sneered in December 2015 at the Republican establishment as the odds of a Trump nomination grew.

A year later, Trump got the last laugh on the AOC-hole.

Trumpenfreude thus went from Krugman’s feeling of joy about Republicans being stuck with Trump but that feeling of joy Trump supporters enjoy when another Trump hater goes down like Joe Frazier. At my old blog, I even made a list and checked it twice. It was fun to do. Someone even saved the list.

Let’s see, I wrote: “This is the official Trumpenfreude List of people who made the mistake of starting a feud with President Donald John Trump. Each wound up worse for the ordeal. Check back from time to time. The list continues to grow, which proves many human beings are idiots.”

The good old days.

The last few years have not been as fun as that first term but Democrat overkill — the constant political prosecutions and loony lawsuits in kangaroo courts — have turned the man into the leader in the presidential polls, something he never was in the previous two presidential elections.

The political windfall is matched only by the financial windfall he is in for. During his presidency, he accepted no pay as he gave his salary back to the government. His personal wealth fell by a billion bucks and the opportunity cost — meaning the money he would have made had he stayed on his job instead of working as president — easily matched the billion he lost on value of his real estate holdings.

Democrats tried playing lawfare with him, a name for tying a man in court to bleed him through legal fees. Trump is immune to this stuff.

Trump’s legal fees and the confiscation of his property by the state of New York amount to maybe $600 million — leaving the poor man only $3 billion richer. Only Elon Musk has the right to consider that amount of money as petty cash.

The state of New York allows violent criminals to walk free without posting bond but requires Donald Trump — and Donald Trump alone — to post 100% of the two judgments against him before it will consider an appeal. This is a clear violation of our rights under the Eighth Amendment.

Oh wait. Yesterday a judge said he only had to put up a ridiculous and punitive $175 million instead of $454 million to exercise his right to appeal the one of the two unconstitutional fines levied by a maniacal judge.

But the people rise against the tyranny of injustice in the Empire State. We know that if they can do this to President Trump, we are next.

And the wheels of commerce grind in his favor and as Bloomberg reported, he’s once again bounced back twice as high than he was when they pushed him down.

Scott Adams hit the nail with the old hammer in a Tweet entitled, “Trump's Third Act has begun. It's a beauty.” Adams ran a long post, but I liked this best:

The Democrats planned to cripple Trump financially so he couldn’t spend as much on the campaign. Trump turned Leticia James into his best fundraiser.

Lots of interesting developments lately on the topic of the 2020 election. The Simulation wants at least one of those fresh allegations to be a Kraken.

Trump's legal maneuvering is likely to keep him eligible for the election.

You can fantasize about a heroic Democrat such as Newsom swooping in and replacing Biden, but it's looking less likely every day. If it had always been the plan, it would have happened by now. Looks like Biden has to stay on the job to keep the Biden Crime Family out of jail.

The predictable Democrat Summer Hoax will add some excitement, but it will be forgotten and debunked by November.

Adams overlooked that Democrats want to put Trump’s head and his fortune on a pike as a warning to other billionaires to stay in the safe political pasture Democrats created.

I get that Adams is goofing on Democrats when he said Trump should consider the fines and legal fees to be a tip for the windfall he enjoys, but why should Trump give the Soviet Socialist Republic of New York a dime? The only fraud in the state’s case was committed by the fat lady prosecutor and the leering pervy judge. Did you see him grinning for the camera when the trial went on TV?

Trump saved The City once but New York’s majority wants Gotham to be Gomorrah. It’s time to sing arrivederci Gomorrah.

Tip them? Absolutely not. He will fight tooth and tong to keep what is his and not the state’s. He built this, not the government. Trump must fight the Squatters. He must not let the cheaters win because if he won’t fight for himself, then how can we expect him to fight for us.

But as I said, Adams was mocking the loser Democrats. We need a laugh now and again. Like most of us, he understands what is happening to America is destruction from within. History is erased by the Biden Banana Republic. Trump is the refrigerator light to the cockroaches who run DC. He has them scurrying for cover.

The tweet by Adams said, “The gears of the machine have become visible. We can all see the FBI is rotten and the DOJ is weaponized. We know the border is open intentionally. We know the cartels are working with our government.

“We know our elections are DESIGNED to not be auditable and there's only one reason for it. We can see Biden is not in charge. We know the Ukraine war was always about its energy resources and who gets to own them.

“We know our rising debt is ruinous. We know our experts are liars. We know our pharma and food industries are poisoning us. We know our government is racist. We know the corporate media is essentially owned by Democrats who are controlled by intelligence entities and they are actively brainwashing the population.

“We know the 1st and 2nd amendments, and X, are under sustained government attack because they are the public's last defense against the government.

“But we are not quitters.

“And the odds do not apply to us.”

We shall see if that last line comes true.

Readers occasionally ask me what we should do and my honest answer is pray, vote and keep the faith. You cannot cheat an honest man, which is why the repeated attempts to cheat Trump out of his wealth fail.

And this week, they will fail spectacularly as his wealth on paper rises thanks to the years of persecution he has suffered at the hands of Obama and the deep state. They kicked him off Twitter and made him billions of bucks.

We are not out of the woods by any means. But we do see the clearing ahead.

And we are laughing ourselves into a coughing spell as we relish the greatest Trumpenfreude of them all.

https://donsurber.substack.com/p/the-greatest-trumpenfreude-of-all?r=1qo1e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true

7
Politics & Religion / Re: Bridges and Infrastructure
« on: March 27, 2024, 09:17:01 AM »
Doggie treats for BBG for finding this thread!!!    :-D :-D :-D

I do note the conceptual overlap with this thread:

https://firehydrantoffreedom.com/index.php?topic=2811.msg144445#msg144445

BBG has already complained of the plethora of threads.   Would it make sense to merge this thread into the Supply Chain thread?

What say we?

I don't care much, so long as it has some sort of hope of showing up when searching for a given topic. "Pan-Fa" is one I haven't wrapped my head around yet and is unlikely to have turned up in a search, with the "famine" side of "Pan Fa" seeming a tertiary impact of this bridge collapse.

8
Politics & Religion / Law & Order Issues & Their Impact on 2024
« on: March 27, 2024, 06:31:13 AM »
Another issue Dems will have to cheat their way around:

Law and Order Is a Killer Problem for Democrats
COMMENTARY
By Charles Lipson - RCP ContributorMarch 26, 2024

Polling data shows Democrats are in deep trouble on the issues of domestic safety and unbiased justice. Voters say they want law and order and aren’t getting it. They want enforcement of criminal statutes duly passed by their representatives. They abhor favoritism for some and targeting for others. They want personal safety and basic fairness. They deserve them. And they are angry.

They resent the wide-open border, street shootings, street-corner gangs dealing drugs, carjackings, and unchecked shoplifting. They are stunned that squatters can simply take over houses from their rightful owners. They are troubled by the aggressive prosecution of Donald Trump, while Joe Biden skips away from his family’s extensive grifting operation and a garage full of classified documents.

Although these issues are usually considered separately, they are also important together. The concerns overlap and reinforce each other, harming Biden and his political party. Democrats are seen as weak on crime and feckless on border security, but relentless in prosecuting their principal election opponent and trying to bankrupt him.

Any consideration of law and order as a political issue should begin with the basic obligation of governments at all levels. In liberal democracies, the state should provide that safety with due respect for each citizen’s constitutional rights, without undue force, and without favoritism or political bias. The goal is to let citizens pursue their own private goals in peace, feeling secure in their lives, property, and home life. In democracies like ours, that order must be secured by enforcing statutes and rulings by courts. When disputes arise, as they often do, they should be settled by neutral third parties, either courts or arbiters, using well-established laws and procedures. When state prosecutors are involved, their responsibility is to act without bias, partisanship, or favoritism. Remember, they are part of the executive branch. They are not legislative monarchs. They don’t get to make laws themselves or disregard those that have been passed.

When does government fail to meet those obligations? It fails when the executive branch:

Exceeds its discretionary authority to ignore the enforcement of some laws against some people but vigorously enforces them against others; and
Flouts the basic obligation to enforce laws fairly, without partisanship and within constitutional limits.
This failure is particularly noxious when the state targets political enemies or disfavored people, such as African Americans in the segregationist South – or conservative populists and their leaders today.

What Americans feel today is a mounting sense that these violations are piling up and that they harm safety, property, and civil rights of citizens in a democracy.

First, they see an erosion of social order. That’s not a problem caused entirely by government. Local communities are also responsible. Violent crime is concentrated among the poor, particularly in black communities because of a breakdown in family life, the disintegration of social norms, and the lack of decent schooling and job opportunities. They don’t trust the police because of hard experience: decades of brutal mistreatment.

These problems have been amplified because of atrocious public policies that go uncorrected after years of failure. Public schools are dreadful in almost every major U.S. city. They are really employment programs for teachers protected by powerful unions. They don’t prepare students for the modern workforce or instill the knowledge and values needed for citizenship. (That failure is why Republican-controlled states are now moving rapidly to give parents school choice, including the funds to educate their children in private schools.)

Progressive cities and states have been unwilling to enforce laws protecting people and property on the specious grounds that doing so would jail too many minorities and thus undermine “social justice.” But don’t people in impoverished communities have as much right to live in peace and safety as people in middle-class neighborhoods? Shouldn’t they have a chance to shop in local stores, rather than see them closed because of rampant organized shoplifting and strong-armed robberies which go unprosecuted and, hence, undeterred? Shouldn’t they be able to stop at the gas station and fill up their cars without fear of carjacking? Shouldn’t they be able to walk the streets or sit on their front porch, rather than huddle inside, afraid of street-corner drug gangs and random shootings? It’s a perversion of language to call these dysfunctional public policies “progressive.”

The breakdown of civic order was obvious in the rioting and arson that followed the death of George Floyd in 2020. Almost no one was punished. The Democratic National Convention, held that summer, spent far more time genuflecting to the rioters’ grievances than condemning the riots themselves. Many speakers focused their outrage on police forces across the country.

The most “progressive” politicians advocated the outright abolition of local police forces. The effects on public safety were utterly predictable. Surprisingly, it wasn’t butterflies, rainbows, and unicorns. If there was a pot of gold, it was looted.

Second, voters see a president and a party utterly unwilling to enforce border laws. Controlling entry into the country is a basic feature of every country’s sovereignty. Citizens know it. They also know Joe Biden inherited a border that was largely (but not completely) secure. In his first week as president, Biden systematically dismantled the policies that ensured border control.

We are living with the consequences of this president’s catastrophic decisions. Since he took office, between 7 and 10 million people have crossed the border illegally. With them have come vast quantities of illegal drugs, manufactured in Mexico from precursor chemicals sent from China. Those drugs kill some 100,000 Americans each year. No one has any idea how many spies and terrorists have also infiltrated. When the state of Texas, fed up with an open border, erected its own barbed wire barrier (it worked), the Biden administration’s Department of Justice sued to have it removed without offering any substitute.

The massive influx of illegal immigrants is crushing city and state budgets. Those jurisdictions simply don’t have the money to provide housing, schooling, food, or medical care for this huge population of indigents. They can’t cope with the violent criminal gangs that have immigrated (some from as far away as Chile), have enriched themselves with drug sales and human trafficking, and have become entrenched across the U.S.

Some financial effects of this influx are currently hidden but will be felt soon. I was privately informed that a major research hospital, far from the southern border, is now losing over $1 billion per year in uncompensated medical care for illegal aliens. Numbers like that will soon break the hospital and others like it across America. If Washington picks up the tab, it will be another massive hit to the deficit.

Democrats have become so entrapped by these problems that they can no longer speak straight. They cannot say the plain words, “illegal immigration.” They faint at the words “illegal alien,” a term used in statutes for decades. Today’s Democrats condemn that language and try to mask the harsh reality with gooey phrases like “asylum seekers” (very few qualify), “irregular immigration,” and even “newcomers.”

Evasive phrases like these may be popular in toney Greenwich, Connecticut, but not in Gary, Indiana. The growing anger in poor, minority communities about crime and illegal immigration is a serious problem for Democrats, who can’t win without overwhelming support and turnout from African Americans. They are none too happy about competing with illegal immigrants for lower-skilled jobs and public resources.

Democrats didn’t expect that problem with their core constituency. Nor did they expect it from Hispanics, who voted overwhelming for Biden in 2020 but are now slipping away. Whether that shift among Hispanics is temporary or permanent will affect elections for years to come. In either case, it will affect the outcome in 2024.

Third, while the federal government and blue states are steadfastly refusing to enforce basic laws on immigration, theft, squatting, and so on, they are simultaneously mounting zealous legal attacks on Biden’s general election opponent. Several states tried to keep him off the 2024 ballot until the Supreme Court stopped them. Prosecutors in New York and Georgia, plus Biden’s Department of Justice, are now trying to imprison Donald Trump, tie him down in court during the campaign season for alleged misdeeds that happened years ago, while also hoping to break him financially, a process led by local prosecutors who campaigned on the promise to “get Trump.” As Letitia James once told a supporter, “We’re definitely gonna sue him, we’re gonna be a real pain in the a--."

In fulfilling that promise, James and fellow partisan prosecutors (and, alas, judges) have trampled on his basic constitutional protections and their own duties as officers of the court. Honest legal systems do not operate under the principle of “Show me the man, and I’ll find you the crime” a dictum popularized behind the Iron Curtain during the reign of terror by Stalin’s secret police. It should be anathema in a democracy, not the best explanation for actions by Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Atlanta prosecutor Fani Willis, or local New York judge Arthur Engoron. Nor should their actions be cheered by rabid partisans, much as they hate Trump. Yet that is exactly what they are saying on social media. They want vengeance.

Independent voters want something else. They want fairness. Many are not in love with Trump’s candidacy, but they still think he is being manhandled by prosecutors and judges. And they think that is fundamentally wrong. It will drive some of them to vote for him, or at least against his opponent.

Our Constitution is supposed to protect citizens against biased, politicized law enforcement. There are explicit constitutional protections against excessive fines, for instance. Those shouldn’t just be meaningless words on paper. Yet Judge Engoron, who oversaw the bench trial concerning Trump’s bank loans, ordered the former president to post a half-billion dollar bond simply to appeal the questionable legal decision. (On the final day to post it, a state appeals court cut the bond in half and eased a few restrictions the trial judge imposed on the Trump Organization’s business.)

Trump has said he will abide by the appellate decision. He has little choice. If he doesn’t post the bond, he loses even the right to appeal. Meanwhile, James blasts out another a taunting tweet each day, gleefully observing that Trump owes another $100,000 in interest. She loves it and says so brazenly.

James and Judge Engoron are attempting to break the former president financially before he can appeal a court decision. Whether Trump wins or loses on appeal, he should have the right to raise his legal arguments without overwhelming financial impediments. The judge could have easily accommodated that appeal, but he refused. He could have easily accepted a lower bond, such as the $100 million proffered by Trump, but he refused. Meanwhile, James was gleefully preparing to seize Trump’s properties and force a fire sale until the state appellate court lowered Trump’s bond and gave him 10 more days to comply.

These were shameful exercises of partisan power, done under the color of law. They may end up helping Trump politically, but that’s not the point here. The crucial point is that they undermine the unbiased, non-partisan rule of law, a foundational principle in any true democracy.

Voters can see the fundamental unfairness. So can investors, who are worried by what looks like the arbitrary loss of Trump’s property rights. When that happens in Manhattan, the capital of world finance, there will be consequences.

Each of these issues – massive illegal immigration, biased law enforcement, the erosion of property rights, and “Get Trump” lawfare – is important in its own right. Together, they are even more important. Taken together, they reinforce Americans’ sense of unease, social division, and betrayal by a justice system tilted against political enemies. They are frustrated by governments at all levels that seem arbitrary, inept, and unwilling to meet their most basic obligations.

If the polls are right, voters will make their frustration felt in November.

Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he founded the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security. He can be reached at charles.lipson@gmail.com.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/03/26/law_and_order_is_a_killer_problem_for_democrats_150702.html

9
This happened about 70 miles from me and is a BIG DEAL as it closes the port of Baltimore, interupts East Coast trucking, and generally shows how vulnerable our infrastructure is. Some are speculating that this was a result of a cyberattack on the ship, others are claiming special "green" fuels demanded in Baltimore Harbor caused engine failure:

https://amgreatness.com/2024/03/26/the-cargo-ship-dali-previously-smashed-into-a-dock-at-port-in-belgium/

ETA more info on economic impact of this collapse:

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2024/03/26/baltimore-port-inflation/

10
Politics & Religion / Trillions Lost: Green Boondoggles' True Cost
« on: March 27, 2024, 05:59:08 AM »
"Green" projects and other "climate" efforts are salted through every government budget at every level:

The most egregious theft of collective wealth and well-being -- and it is flat-out theft -- is the churn on “alternative” forms of energy production. Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama said last week in an interview with Steve Bannon that the U.S. has spent some $7 trillion over budget in the last three years, and 25 percent of that went to "climate change" projects. They are all like Solyndra, massively subsidized and within a decade, massive failures. "The investors take a tax loss," said Tuberville, "then move onto the next effort where they again loot the public." This is salted through all the investment banks, retirement accounts. It represents all putative growth.

In June of 2023, the Department of Energy admitted that it had allocated $1.3 trillion for "clean energy" investment support since 2020, and that spending rose 25 percent from 2021-23. This is a fraction of what was really spent. Further, this money is not only based in debt, thus raising inflation, but it is also raising energy prices. It is the principal reason that almost 25 percent of us, according to economist Peter St. Onge, have been forced to choose between heat and food this winter.

What a choice.

Seventy-five percent of $7 trillion is $1,750,000,000, in an annual gift to the rich. The World Economic Forum projects that climate spending in the U.S. will triple over the next ten years. Biden's "climate" budget is $5.7 trillion. Triple that to $20 trillion. No wonder the market is booming. The U.S. has pledged another half a trillion in “low carbon electricity” under this year’s Paris Climate Accord. And further:

Among all measures tracked since 2020, direct incentives for manufacturers aimed at bolstering domestic manufacturing of "clean" energy now total to around $90 billion.
Since the start of the global energy crisis, governments have also allocated $900 billion to short-term consumer affordability measures, additional to pre-existing support programs and subsidies. Around 30 percent of this "affordability" spending has been announced in the past six months, and despite calls to better target households and industries most in need, only 25 percent of affordability measures are targeted towards low-income households and most-impacted industries.

Much of this last $900 billion is direct subsidy to the wealthy in annual subsidies for clean energy. This is again, annual subsidy, so look at the last twenty years. President Obama started this program, therefore, we are looking at a $10 - $ 20 trillion gift to the rich since the Lightbringer took office. What is not counted in these budgets are the losses that accrue from the failure of "green energy" projects, which is the taxpayer's loss.

Last year, investors in Spain's green energy collapse took the government to court to claw back subsidies from a dead industry in a country with a debt 400 percent larger than GDP. No wonder millions on the street want to outlaw socialism. As is clear from Spain,  when the government runs out of money the first thing to go is the subsidy to green energy, after which the enterprise fails immediately.

In my neck of the Canadian woods, you can install a solar system for $20,000, and get a 25 percent subsidy, as does the installer whose business the government created via “free” “investment.” I live in a rain forest. Which means solar is not available during winter rains and not needed during the summers. Recently everyone with a few extra bucks has taken up the government offer to install heat pumps, also subsidized by between 50 percent and 75 percent. Rain forests mean hydro power, which is essentially, greenhouse-gas-free, and the most inexpensive "fuel," but an almost-free heat pump? Again win/win for the upper-middle-class because no one in Canada’s increasingly massive working class can afford it.

Solyndra? Never heard of it!

This model was invented by politicians in power. The first person to notice it was Peter Schweizer; in Throw Them All Out, he details the billionaire investors who funded Obama and who were cashed out via various solar and wind projects. Hundreds of billions of dollars went missing on Obama’s various "clean energy" projects.

This year, every government department is “investing” in clean energy, vis, a quick Google search, will show. Pages and pages of boastful press releases follow. Every agency is in on the boondoggle. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Patent and Trade Mark Office have signed a collaborative agreement to advance climate technology. Putting aside the fact that "climate change" is neither imminent nor dangerous, the government should not be creating patents. Innovation should be carried out by the private market, where there are controls.

As we discovered during Covid, government patents on both the virus and the vaccine were not subjected to court challenge, double blind testing, or feasibility. There is no number attached to NOAA's "initiative," but this is representative of ten thousand such projects salted through every government bureau. All that money is wasted. Wind and solar and the various battery projects have not managed to support the electrical grid in any substantial way, hovering, on average, around 4 percent. Despite this mind-boggling waste of money, in September last year former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged another $500 billion to shutter the equivalent of 40 percent total electricity use of nine states, including California, Florida, New York, Illinois and Texas.

What has been the result of trillions of public money shunted into “clean” “green” “energy” on the actual energy grid? Robert Bryce, an acknowledged expert, shows that it is failing. A speech he gave at the winter meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners showed astonishing, across-the-board failure in every metric you can imagine.

"Climate Policy" is considered the most significant risk. As Bryce describes, "green energy" has meant Europe is deindustrializing, Ford lost $64,731 for every EV it sold, and the IEA states that global coal use will hit another new record of 8.5 billion tons. Coal use increased 35 percent in last summer’s heat wave. Wind dropped by 21 percent.

Climate policy breaks everything. It breaks communities, it encourages widespread theft of public money, it starves productive work and manufacturing, it has punched down on the less advantaged, and it is destroying the fabric of our lives. And for what?

Elizabeth Nickson was trained as a reporter at the London bureau of Time Magazine. She became European Bureau Chief of LIFE magazine in its last years of monthly publication, and during that time, acquired the rights to Nelson Mandela’s memoir before he was released from Robben Island. She went on to write for Harper’s Magazine, the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent, the Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday Times Magazine, the Telegraph, the Globe and Mail and the National Post. Her first book The Monkey Puzzle Tree was an investigation of the CIA MKULTRA mind control program and was published by Bloomsbury and Knopf Canada. Her next book, Eco-Fascists, How Radical Environmentalists Are Destroying Our Natural Heritage, was a look at how environmentalism, badly practiced, is destroying the rural economy and rural culture in the U.S. and all over the world. It was published by Adam Bellow at Harper Collins US. You can subscribe to her Substack at elizabethnickson.substack.com/

https://the-pipeline.org/how-green-projects-are-looting-the-treasury/

12
… impacts Earth’s orbit, driving it closer to the sun while stirring up deep ocean currents. Posted as this is yet another potential confounding variable where “climate change” is concerned:

https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/rivers-oceans/every-24-million-years-mars-tugs-on-earth-so-hard-it-changes-the-ocean-floor

13
My old stompin’ grounds. The favored candidate was behind so, lo and behold, uncounted mail in ballots were found & the Machine’s candidate is now ahead as we learn, gasp, the other candidate was supported by WHITE MEN!!!

I’m so glad Illinois and I parted ways….

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/03/cook-county-il-states-attorney-democratic-primary-race-a-mess-after-10000-mistakenly-left-out/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=cook-county-il-states-attorney-democratic-primary-race-a-mess-after-10000-mistakenly-left-out

15
Politics & Religion / Obamacare Outcomes Ten Years After
« on: March 23, 2024, 06:07:46 PM »
Big surprise, it don’t work as advertised:

Obamacare Insurance—Ten Years On
March 20, 2024
By JOHN C. GOODMAN
Pete Souza / Wikimedia Commons
March 23, 2010
Also published in Forbes Tue. March 19, 2024
March 23rd will mark the 14th anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, and it is now ten years since the creation of the Obamacare exchanges.

There are three ways to look at Obamacare today: in terms of (1) what the Obama administration said it was about, (2) what policy wonks thought it was about, and (3) how it really works.

Initially, Obamacare was about insuring the uninsured. Yet the entire enterprise quickly ran into trouble, and Sen. Chuck Schumer publicly announced the reason why.

The uninsured don’t vote, Schumer told the nation and especially members of his own party. Roughly 95 percent of people who vote already have insurance. So, the congressional Democrats were on the verge of spending billions of dollars on people who were unlikely to ever vote for them.

How the Message Changed

It didn’t take long for the message to change. People who were currently insured at work were in danger of losing their coverage because of layoffs, retirement, etc. Without Obamacare, we were told, they would risk being denied coverage because of a preexisting condition.

In addition, President Obama assured everyone they would have access to better insurance than they would otherwise have. Just in case there was any doubt, he and his administration said many times, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

There was not the slightest hint at the time that the increase in the number insured would almost totally consist of an expansion of Medicaid, or that the private insurance sold to individuals would increasingly come to resemble Medicaid with a high deductible.

On the eve of Obamacare’s passage, virtually the entire argument for Obamacare—on TV, on radio, on social media, in the halls of Congress—was that people with pre-existing conditions should be able to buy insurance for the same premium healthy people pay. The bill had a solution to that problem that took effect almost immediately.

The Obamacare Risk Pools

In the first 3 ½ years of its existence, Obamacare made risk-pool coverage available to any uninsured person who had been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Called pre-existing condition insurance plans, the coverage resembled a garden-variety Blue Cross plan. The premium was the same premium a healthy person would pay for such insurance. By the time these plans ended, only 135,000 people had enrolled.

Problem solved? For patients, yes. But for at least half a century the intellectual left in the U.S. had been consumed by a desire to completely reform our health care system. For every problem in health care that was being solved by markets, the policy wonks had a nonmarket solution.

Obamacare Complexity

It was no easy task. The individual market was to be completely replaced by a managed competition model—in which there would be no relationship between the premium an enrollee paid and the risk an insurer incurred.

To keep people from gaming the system (by waiting to insure until after they got sick), there was an individual mandate to be insured, with tax penalties for noncompliance. To keep insurers from gaming the system (by avoiding the sick), a host of new regulations applied.

To keep employers from gaming the system (by sending their employees into the individual market), an employer mandate was imposed. Also, employers were threatened with stiff fines if they were caught giving their employees pre-tax dollars to buy insurance on their own.

To keep states from gaming the system (by unloading the low-income population into the Obamacare exchanges), states were required to expand Medicaid.

To control health care costs (which had been rising at twice the rate of growth of national income), a global budget—analogous to similar devices in Britain and Canada—would be imposed on Medicare. A federal panel would make decisions about what medical services were worthwhile, and which ones were not.

Federal funds would be deployed to find out how to practice low-cost, high-quality medicine, and doctors and hospital administrators everywhere would apply the findings.

To keep enrollees in the exchange plans from over-consuming, subsidies would be in the form of a fixed-sum tax credit, with no additional subsidy for those who chose higher-cost health plans. To limit the incentive to over-consume health care under employer plans, a cap was placed on the tax subsidies for employer coverage.

To thwart the incentives of traditional Medicare patients and their doctors to overspend with other people’s money, Medicare doctors were encouraged to form Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). These are poor cousins of Medicare Advantage plans (which presidential candidate Barack Obama had campaigned against), and their creation was literally a stealth privatization of Medicare. This development was so politically sensitive that doctors were forbidden to tell their patients they were in an ACO.

Even with all that, there were still opportunities for people to buy largely unregulated insurance. Short-term health insurance, for example, had traditionally been a way to provide coverage for people moving from home to school, school to work or job to job. It is not regulated by Obamacare, is lightly regulated by most state governments, and sells for about 60 percent of the cost of Obamacare exchange plans.

To discourage that development, Obama issued an executive order that restricted the duration of such plans to three months, with no renewals.

It is probably fair to say that almost no one in Congress fully understood the Affordable Care Act at the time they voted on it. It’s little wonder that Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

A great deal of what I described above has been dismantled by Congress, by the courts and by presidential executive order. Few mourned their passage.

Through time, the plans sold in the exchanges became less and less attractive, as competition in the face of perverse incentives created a “race to the bottom.” As we entered 2020, premiums had more than doubled and deductibles were up 60 percent—twice what you find in a typical employer plan. As a result, the unsubsidized part of the market was threatening to enter a “death spiral,” where the healthy leave and only the sick with high medical costs remain

To avoid that politically embarrassing outcome, congressional Democrats created a second tier of “enhanced subsidies”—designed to keep higher income people from leaving the exchanges.

How Obamacare Really Works

The pandemic and the accompanying changes in employment and Medicaid enrollment complicate our assessment. But leading up to the pandemic:

There was no increase in the use of health care services over the previous decade, despite spending as much as $100 billion a year in taxpayer money. The number of doctor visits per capital actually went down.
Virtually all of the increase in the number of people insured was in Medicaid.
A small increase in private insurance sold in the exchanges was offset by a small decrease in employer coverage.
Medicaid enrollment does not decrease the use of the emergency room—traffic to the ER increases by 40 percent.
Federal funding formulas have encouraged states to sacrifice care for disabled children for the benefit of able-bodied adults.
Enrollees value Medicaid as little as 20 cents on the dollar.
The insurance sold in the exchanges increasingly looks like Medicaid with a high deductible—and is not accepted by many top-rated doctors and centers of medical excellence.
Four in five people who buy insurance in the exchange pay $10 a month or less, and the insurance is basically free for average-income buyers.
While such insurance may be a welcome freebie for the healthy, the sick face out-of-pocket exposure of $9,100 for an individual or $18,200 for a family —and that is every year!
The Congressional Budget Office finds that billions of dollars spent on pilot programs have not saved any money.
So now we have come full circle. The only positive thing one can say about Obamacare is that it has increased the number of people with health insurance, and that is about the only aspect of Obamacare that the mainstream media focuses on. But for people with costly pre-existing conditions, the options are worse than ever.

 
JOHN C. GOODMAN is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and President of the Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14881

16
Politics & Religion / What’s Wrong w/ this Pic?
« on: March 23, 2024, 05:47:39 PM »
Folks seeking to immigrate legally via F1 (student) visas denied at record rate. So Hapless Joe in encouraging the low skilled destitute to hop the southern border illegally, while his admin denies students that, on average, pay $30,000/year to study here, often learning highly sought after skills that would benefit the US if these skills were used here are denied entry. Talk about government getting it 180 degrees backwards….

A Record Quarter of a Million International Students Denied Visas, 36 Percent of Applicants
Cato @ Liberty / by David J. Bier / Mar 19, 2024 at 2:25 PM
David J. Bier

This updates an earlier post.

Student visas are the primary jumping‐​off point for most high‐​skilled immigrants to the United States. Immigrants study at America’s elite universities and then find jobs here when they graduate—largely through the post‐​graduate employment authorization program called Optional Practical Training. Despite the importance of these visas, the State Department rejected an unprecedented 36 percent of student visa applicants in 2023, surpassing 2022’s record.

Student visas are known as F‑1 visas. Figure 1 shows the F‑1 student visa denial rate compared to the visa denial rate for all other nonimmigrant (i.e. temporary) visa applicants. As it shows, student visas usually had a similar rejection rate to other nonimmigrant visa applicants. But from 2021 and 2023, student visas were denied at nearly twice the rate of all other applicants. The student visa denial rate increased from a low of 15 percent in 2014 to 36 percent in 2023.

In 2023, consular officers denied a record 253,355 student visas. As Figure 2 shows, more visas were denied in 2023 than were issued in 2002 and 2005. The staggering number of denials occurred even as the number of issuances remained far below the peak year of 2015. Even 2015, with far more applicants, had far fewer denials than in 2023. It now appears that the higher denial rates, which shot up in 2016, may have dissuaded some applicants from applying, and the absolute number of total student visa applicants has declined, and student visa issuances have declined 31 percent from 2015 to 2023.

It is important to understand that before a student can even apply for an F‑1 visa they must already be accepted into a government‐​approved university. This means that the US Department of State turned down 253,355 students who would have likely paid roughly $30,000 per year or $7.6 billion per year in tuition and living expenses. Over four years that number rises to $30.4 billion in lost economic benefits to the United States.

The State Department does not separately delineate the reasons for student visa denials but nearly all nonimmigrant visa denials are for failing to prove “nonimmigrant intent” (that is, the desire not to move to the United States permanently). Applicants need to show sufficient ties to their home country that would impel them to return to their home country when their reasons for visiting have ended.

The nonimmigrant intent subjective standard can be enforced in a variety of ways. Consular officers are supposed to only consider someone’s “present intent” not considering how their intention might change if opportunities arise in the United States to stay legally. In practice, there is very little consistency in application.

The unprecedented denials occurred even though the State Department officials in Washington, DC attempted to return to a lower standard of evidence for students that existed before Trump. The Foreign Affairs Manual now states that students “should be looked at differently” because “typically, students lack the strong economic and social ties of more established visa applicants, and they plan longer stays in the United States.” It concludes that “the natural circumstances of being a student do not disqualify the applicant.” This change occurred in September 2021 before the start of fiscal year 2022.

The State Department hasn’t disclosed the denial rate by nationality in 2022 or 2023, but the rise and fall of Chinese students is the most important trend in student visa policy in recent years (Figure 3). Another ground for denial—which is far less frequent but affects mainly students from China—is Presidential Proclamation 10043, a Trump proclamation that bars visas for people who studied at any university that now works with the Chinese military in any capacity.

This order—which is retroactively applied to students who studied at such universities before the order was issued—was the basis for about 2,000 visa denials in 2021 and probably about 1,600 in 2022, though the exact figure is not published. The number for 2023 is not available yet, but while that is a lot of denials in absolute terms, and it certainly deters many more applicants, it would only explain 1 percent of total student visa denials in 2023.

What may explain the sudden increase in denials is the sudden increase in issuances for Indian students. After major delays during the pandemic, Indian consulates issued an unprecedented 130,839 student visas, by far the highest total for India ever. But according to data obtained by researchers via Freedom of Information Act requests, before the pandemic, US consulates in India were far more likely to deny students than US consulates in China. Indians accounted for a record 29 percent of all visa issuances in 2023, so their higher rate of denial could have affected the worldwide average more.

This theory is plausible, but the only country‐​by‐​country visa denial data that the State Department is releasing are for B visas for tourist and business travelers. For tourist visas, the two countries switched places with Chinese applicants now much more likely to be denied than Indian applicants (Figure 5). Whether this also happened with student visas isn’t known, and the fact that student refusal visa rates stopped closely tracking other nonimmigrant refusal rates complicates the issue. But it could imply that the problem isn’t specific to India and perhaps the increase in denials is coming more from China or elsewhere.

The bigger issue here is how Consular Affairs handles visa interviews. The head of the Consular Affairs division in India is Don Heflin. Heflin explained how student visa interviews work in April 2022:

Bring [bank statements] just in case the vice consul asks, but we are looking at this less than we used to. We know Indian families usually find a way [to pay].… Mostly it’s about explaining why this school and this curriculum makes sense to you. It’s what in American English we call the Elevator Pitch. You’ll have a minute and a half to tell us why this [school] makes sense to you. Don’t walk up and recite something from memory about the campus, the student body, and how old the school is.… Listen, I have a lot of Indian friends. I know that your father may have told you where you were going to go to school and what you were going to study. That’s fine. Tell us what he told you. Show us that it makes sense for you.

None of this information has anything to do with the legal requirements for a student visa. This absurd method of adjudicating student visas explains why India has a much higher than average student visa refusal rate even though Indian students are extremely successful in the United States. The United States should not pass on tens of billions of dollars in economic activity from these students just because they memorized their “elevator pitch” on why they want to study computer science in Kansas. It’s totally irrelevant. The administration needs to increase transparency about student visa denials and adopt a fair and uniform policy for reviews.

https://www.cato.org/blog/record-quarter-million-international-students-denied-visas-36-applicants

17
Politics & Religion / $73.2 Trillion of Unfunded Obligation
« on: March 23, 2024, 05:37:07 PM »
Unfunded obligations will equal %500 of GDP by 2098:

Medicare and Social Security Are Responsible for 100 Percent of US Unfunded Obligations
Cato @ Liberty / by Romina Boccia / Mar 20, 2024 at 8:34 AM
Romina Boccia

A grayscale picture of a cracking dam.
The Financial Report of the United States Government (also known as the Financial Report) raises significant concerns about the country’s long‐​term financial health. Unsustainable deficits contribute to rising debt levels as spending growth outpaces revenue growth at an accelerating pace. Over the next 75 years, US taxpayers face over $73 trillion in long‐​term unfunded obligations. What’s more, this unfunded obligation is entirely driven by only two federal government programs: Medicare and Social Security.

Here are key takeaways from the Financial Report (all figures are in net present value terms over the 75‐​year horizon) with additional details below:

Total unfunded obligation: $73.2 trillion.
Medicare and Social Security are responsible for 100 percent of the unfunded obligation.
Current policy is unsustainable as debt would exceed 500 percent of GDP by 2098.
Closing the fiscal gap will require annual deficit reduction of 4.5 percent of GDP, assuming Congress acts immediately.
The US government’s unfunded obligation totals $73.2 trillion. The unfunded obligation is the difference between the present value of projected non‐​interest spending of $433.1 trillion (see Figure 1) and the present value of total receipts of $360.0 trillion over a 75‐​year period. Present value means that future cash flows have been discounted to adjust for projected interest rates. The discount rate reflects the expected rate of return taxpayers could have received over the next 75 years if they invested the 2023 value in US Treasury bonds.

Medicare and Social Security funding shortfalls comprise 100 percent of the total unfunded obligation. As shown in Figure 2 below, over the next 75 years, Medicare and Social Security’s funding shortfalls will amount to $78.3 trillion, which is $5.1 trillion more than the total unfunded obligation. This indicates a $5.1 trillion surplus in other parts of the budget, over the same projection period. In other words, under current policy, the entire US unfunded obligation is due to Medicare and Social Security spending. Certainly, if Congress chooses to increase spending, whether on defense, other health care programs, or to subsidize particular industries, as the Biden administration has been fond of doing, Congress could increase unfunded obligations from the other parts of the budget over that time horizon. Regardless, given the sheer size of the Medicare and Social Security unfunded obligation, it’s clear that legislators will make little progress on averting a fiscal crisis until they grapple with excess spending growth in old‐​age benefit programs.

Debt will exceed 200 percent of GDP by 2047 and reach 531 percent of GDP by 2098. The report’s authors state the obvious, albeit in muted terms: “While this estimate of the ’75‐​year fiscal gap’ is highly uncertain, it is nevertheless nearly certain that current fiscal policies cannot be sustained indefinitely.” While economists cannot predict country thresholds for when a debt‐​to‐​GDP ratio will trigger a fiscal crisis, Congress shouldn’t try to find out what that threshold is for the US by blasting past it. The prudent path is for Congress to correct unsustainable fiscal policies before a severe crisis forces their hands.

Closing the fiscal gap requires primary (non‐​interest) deficit reduction of 4.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next 75 years. The fiscal gap is an estimate of what it would take, over the next 75 years, to stabilize fiscal policy. A sustainable fiscal policy means the ratio of debt, which the US government is borrowing in credit markets, is stable or declining over the long term. The Financial Report indicates that closing the fiscal gap would require non‐​interest spending reductions and or revenue increases of 4.5 percent of GDP annually, over the next 75 years. Any delays in adopting this deficit reduction would substantially increase required future deficit reductions.

If legislators delay reforms for 10 years, to begin in 2034, closing the fiscal gap will require 5.3 percent of GDP annually. Delaying reforms by 20 years increases the required deficit reduction to 6.5 percent of GDP. The fiscal gap is an effective way to measure the burden that current US government budget policy will impose on younger and future generations and what it would take to stabilize fiscal policy.

Financial Report Assumptions Are Overly Optimistic

Mark J. Warshawsky from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) suggests that the Financial Report’s projections are based on overly optimistic assumptions, such as steady increases in income tax revenues, unchanged Medicaid spending despite an aging population, and unchanged defense spending despite growing geopolitical threats. Warshawsky and his colleagues developed a model to project the fiscal gap under alternative assumptions. It offers a much graver outlook, projecting that the debt‐​to‐​GDP ratio will increase “to 132 percent in 2032, 268 percent in 2053, and 785 percent in 2095 under current policy.”

The Financial Report Deserves More Attention

The Financial Report of the United States Government received a silent reception in Washington and across the country when it was published on February 15. Readers of this blog will be hard‐​pressed to find mention of it among any of the major news outlets. The Financial Report deserves more attention. The report’s findings are especially relevant in today’s political climate where politicians from both parties feel pressure to distance themselves from benefit cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

The report makes it painfully obvious that Medicare and Social Security spending are the primary drivers of government debt. Adopting sensible reforms to old age entitlement programs is both necessary and urgent.

Thanks to Ivane Nachkebia for his support in updating graphics and data for this post.
For more on the costs of high and rising debt and the implications of a severe fiscal crisis, see “Bankruptcy—Gradually, Then Suddenly?” For last year’s coverage of the Financial Report see here.

https://www.cato.org/blog/medicare-social-security-are-responsible-100-percent-us-unfunded-obligations

18
Science, Culture, & Humanities / $3/Mile
« on: March 23, 2024, 03:55:00 PM »
Need, ah, some slow cash? Apply to walk this new 1,600 mile trail from Carson City NV to Canada, with two awardees provide $5K if they complete the hike:

Nevada’s Capital Will Pay You $5,000 to Hike the Pacific Crest Trail
Backpacker Magazine - backpacker.com / by Adam Roy / Mar 19, 2024 at 6:29 PM
Nevada’s Capital Will Pay You $5,000 to Hike the Pacific Crest Trail
When Jeff Potter arrived in Carson City, Nevada near the end of the ’90s, he noted an absence: His new home was ringed by low-slung mountains at the eastern edge of the towering Sierra Nevada and its sweeping Lake Tahoe, but there was no real way to get to them without a car.

A California native drawn toward Tahoe for its labyrinth of mountain-bike trails, Potter and his pals grew tired of mounting their rides to roof and hitch racks just to go somewhere else. So Potter, who would eventually earn the name “The Trail Steward of Carson City,” started scheming with Muscle Powered, an organization that had long been promoting non-vehicular infrastructure there: How might he build trails that connected this place where he loved to live to the mighty mountains and endless routes he loved to ride?

A quarter-century and 9.8 miles of single-track later, Potter’s dream is now a navigable trail. Finished last fall just before snow swept into the region, the Capital to Tahoe Trail makes it possible to hike, pedal, or horseback ride nearly from Nevada’s sandstone capitol building to the Tahoe Rim Trail (TRT) and its country-spanning connector, the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). In fact, Carson City is looking to pay two hikers $5,000 each to do exactly that come the Summer of 2025: walk from the capitol to Canada and tell the tale. (The application window closes May 31, 2024.) At just over 1,600 miles, that’s a little more than $3 per mile.

“Our downtown sits in the middle of all of our trails,” says Lydia Beck, the Visit Carson City marketing manager who hatched the plan to sponsor thru-hikes late in 2022. “And people have no idea that Carson City has a beautiful stretch of the east side of Lake Tahoe. We’re trying to bring awareness to our proximity.”

Carson City will likely never become a “trail town” for long-distance hikes of the PCT or TRT, since the resources and revelry of South Lake Tahoe are much closer to those trails. (And the PCT, for its part, trends westward from Lake Tahoe.) But the small city’s geography and position along the base of the beautiful Carson Range, with other peaks to every side, make it a prime hub for exploration in all directions. Peter Doenges—the 77-year-old retired computer graphics pathfinder who stepped into Potter’s former role at Muscle Powered as Trails Coordinator in 2019—sees “Cap to Tahoe,” as he calls it, as a crucial part of that plan.

“We’re constantly stirring the pot based on prior public processes that approved all these trail routes—and then going about building them,” says Doenges. “There are so many people in this town who believed in this trail, of getting us integrated into this larger system.”

Indeed, the Capital to Tahoe Trail is simply the latest phase of a larger plan that Potter helped to initiate when he first partnered with Muscle Powered. They built Ash to Kings Trail, linking two roads that cut through canyons, from 2012 until 2015, even earning an award from American Trails. Back then, Potter was already fantasizing about how the next trail would reach Lake Tahoe. “That’s another 10 miles of trail we hope to build,” he told Adventure Sports Journal in 2016. “This isn’t just about recreation. It’s about providing connectivity to our community.”

That community responded in kind. Construction began in 2020, and Muscle Powered recruited a professional, mechanized trail builder at one point, as the path rose nearly 2,000 feet and cut through thick brush. Doenges remains verklempt by dozens of volunteers who arrived to work on hand crews as well as the surgeon who gifted the trail a permanent easement so that nearly a mile of it would not be so dastardly steep. Potter, who no longer lives in Carson City, even did the “final flagging”—a last survey to make sure the trail is properly aligned. The very day after the final two remote miles were finished, Doenges saw tire tracks and boot prints cutting across the path.

But as far as anyone knows, no one has yet to take the Capital to Tahoe Trail west, hit the PCT, and head north to Canada. That is where the contest comes in. Rather than hold a lottery of submissions, Visit Carson City intends to vet each application and choose two people they think can go the distance—and, of course, share the story along the way. As of mid-March, they’ve only received a dozen applications.

If it goes well this time, however, they may even continue the program for hikers in years to come. “We’re not ruling that out,” says Beck. “We’re very excited.”

The post Nevada’s Capital Will Pay You $5,000 to Hike the Pacific Crest Trail appeared first on Backpacker.

https://www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/news/carson-city-nevada-pay-hikers-5000-pacific-crest-trail/


19
Politics & Religion / West Point’s Unforced Error
« on: March 23, 2024, 03:49:45 PM »
My suspicion is that creeping PC/DEI foolishness was behind this change, not that anyone involved would cop to it:

Tue, 03/19/2024 - 9:32am
 

Tone Deaf at West Point

Once again, the Army fails to “read the room.”'

By Martin Stanton

 

I wasn’t commissioned out of the United States Military Academy / USMA (given my habitual truancy and dismal academic record in high school, I wouldn’t have been accepted even if I’d applied) but I have a lot of respect for West Point as an institution.  Sadly, it’s gotten to the point that whenever I see that the USMA is in the news, I inwardly cringe before I even read the story.  Watching West Point step on rake after rake these past few years has been painful.  Nobody likes to see an old friend fallen on hard times.

The latest public relations debacle is taking “Duty, Honor, Country” out of the school’s mission statement.

Granted, “Duty, Honor, Country” is still the motto of West Point and it’s carved into all sorts of edifices up there and on uniform patches and for all I know it’s embroidered on each cadet’s underwear.  “Duty, Honor, Country” isn’t going away.

            So why take it out of the school’s mission statement and replace it with “Army Values”?  Sure, mission statements get re-written from time to time, but why drop the school’s motto from the mission statement?  It’s three words and two comma’s – they couldn’t have been that hard up for space on the document.  Here’s the change:

“To build, educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets to be commissioned leaders of character committed to the Army Values and ready for a lifetime of service to the Army and Nation”.

             Could the authors of the updated mission statement not have embraced the healing power of “and”?  for example:

“To build, educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets to be commissioned leaders of character committed to Duty, Honor, Country and the Army Values, ready for a lifetime of service to the Army and Nation”.

            More importantly, why change the mission statement now at all?  Why was it necessary?  Day to day nobody looks at the mission statement.  I doubt anyone is doing a thing different at West Point because of this change to mission statement.  Why did they pick this moment to change it?  Did somebody need the OER bullet that bad?

            It’s hard to imagine the leadership at West Point (or on the Army staff) is so out of touch as to not be aware of the mood of the nation.  West Point is a touchstone to the American people.  An increasingly large segment of the population is becoming convinced that the government and its institutions no longer share their values.  A story about “Duty, Honor, Country” being removed from the school’s mission statement at this particular moment just adds to this sense.  The fact that the Superintendent felt it necessary to send out a letter explaining the change to the community of West Point graduates (but not the public at large) only adds to the impression of haughty, elite, insularity.

            In baseball terms – It was an unforced error.  It was a 1962 NY Mets kind of move.

            You have to feel sorry for General Randy George.  He’s a good man playing the bad hand that’s been dealt to him.  His people failed him on this one.   With collapsing recruiting, overextended forces, multiple potential conflicts, diminishing resources and obtuse civilian leadership the Army needs all the friends it can get.  In this election year where the entire country is dialed up to 11 on the rage meter, removing the words “Duty, Honor, Country” from any policy document at West Point was bound to be incendiary.  Holding off on changing the mission statement until next year would not have impacted any aspect of USMA operations.  Now he has this needless distraction to deal with.

            He’s probably looking at West Point and channeling Casey Stengall right about now…

            You look up and down the bench and you have to say to yourself, "Can't anybody here play this game?"

 

(Editor's Note: Also consider the Superintendent's letter at this link: https://sallyport.westpointaog.org/news/1923295)

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/tone-deaf-west-point-once-again-army-fails-read-room


20
Politics & Religion / Avidiivaka Battle Analysis
« on: March 23, 2024, 03:39:47 PM »
Deep look with lots of links in the piece of a recent Ukraine/Russia major battle:

Battle of Avdiivka: A Preliminary Analysis

BY JOHN HARDIE | March 22, 2024 | @JohnH105
This article offers a preliminary analysis of the Battle of Avdiivka, particularly its final weeks. While more information will no doubt come to light as time passes, some initial conclusions stand out. Overall, the battle was favorable for Ukraine in that it sapped a large amount of Russian combat power. But once the city’s fall became inevitable, Ukraine’s withdrawal commenced too late. Ukraine also failed to adequately prepare a secondary line of defense behind Avdiivka. Still, Russia will likely be unable to make major additional gains in the area, at least in the near term.

Background: Russia’s Monthslong Offensive at Avdiivka

A small city located near Donetsk, Avdiivka had been on the front line for nearly a decade. By fall 2023, it was already semi-encircled. Moscow launched its most recent offensive in October, aiming to envelop Avdiivka from the north and southwest.

Russia devoted a sizable force to the operation. It consisted mainly of units from the 1st Army Corps and from Central Military District (CMD) brigades that had recently redeployed to the Avdiivka area. The initial attack comprised mechanized infantry and armor units totaling perhaps a regiment in strength — far larger than the company- or platoon-sized assaults on which both sides have come to rely. In the subsequent days, Russia continued to feed additional units into the offensive. Artillery and aviation provided support, although Russia probably struggled to synchronize between combat arms.

Facing a prepared Ukrainian defense, Russia’s initial attacks yielded little more than heavy losses. Ukrainian drone reconnaissance could quickly spot Russian columns as they advanced through fields. Ukrainian mines, first-person view (FPV) attack drones, anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), and artillery fire chewed up the attacking forces. Russian observers complained of insufficient counter-battery fire and poor coordination between units, manned largely by hastily trained personnel.

To shore up Avdiivka’s defense, Ukraine transferred additional forces to the area. They included the 47th Mechanized Brigade, equipped with Western-supplied Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and Leopard tanks. The 47th Brigade redeployed from Zaporizhzhia Oblast to Avdiivka’s northern flank in October despite having had little time to recover from significant losses suffered during Ukraine’s unsuccessful 2023 counteroffensive.

After its initial attacks failed, Russia reverted to inching forward using small assault groups. (This shift echoed a similar Ukrainian adaptation during Kyiv’s recent counteroffensive.) The Russians took a large slag heap near Avdiivka later in October, gaining important high ground at the city’s northern edge.

Russian forces eventually began attempting to penetrate the city itself. They achieved minor gains in southern Avdiivka in November, December, and January. In the latter case, 150 troops from Russia’s 60th “Veterans” Sabotage-Assault Brigade reportedly used an underground pipe to infiltrate to the rear of Ukrainian forces at the “Tsars’ka Okhota” fortified restaurant complex, although Ukraine ultimately contained the breakthrough. Meanwhile, in January, Russia also crept forward on Avdiivka’s northern outskirts.

Russia’s modest gains came at the cost of enormous losses, including hundreds of vehicles and many thousands of troops. Its equipment losses would eventually force Russia to transfer in some vehicles from its 25th Combined Arms Army, fighting in the area near Lyman to the northeast.

At the same time, Ukraine also ran increasingly low on men and ammunition. Kyiv’s troops grew exhausted due to lack of rotation, while Russia threw in more and more reserves. (According to Ukrainian military officials, Russia had around 40,000 to 50,000 troops in the Avdiivka area.) Russia enjoyed a considerable quantitative advantage in artillery, while shell hunger hamstrung Ukraine’s counter-battery fire and defense against assaults. Heavy Russian artillery fire and bombing gradually reduced Ukrainian defensive positions.

Russian Breakthrough

Russian bombing reportedly intensified in January. Moscow’s “UMPK,” an add-on kit that turns dumb bombs into guided glide bombs that can be launched from standoff range, enabled the Russian Air Force to play a greater role than it could earlier in the war. While often inaccurate, the UMPK allowed Russia to pound static targets. Russia reportedly dropped dozens of bombs on Avdiivka per day. Ukrainian troops later described Russian bombing as a key factor behind the city’s fall. The continual bombardment took a toll on morale, with most troops in Avdiivka suffering concussions, Ukrainian soldiers recounted.

In early February, Russian forces broke into Avdiivka from the north, through the “Ivushka” garden community. They thus bypassed the Avdiivka Coke and Chemical Plant, the key defensive stronghold at the city’s northwestern end. Ukrainian reports said the Russians exploited fog, which impedes unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations.

The Russians pushed toward the 00542 road and Industrial Avenue. The 00542 was Ukraine’s main supply route — and only paved road — into Avdiivka. It feeds into Industrial Avenue, which connects the coke plant to the “9th Quarter” high-rise microdistrict in southwestern Avdiivka. The 9th Quarter’s tall buildings provide a dominant height for conducting surveillance and drone and ATGM strikes. The 9th Quarter also sits next to the Avdiivka-Sjeverne road, Ukraine’s secondary ground line of communication to the city.

The breakthrough and the pace of Russia’s subsequent advance appeared to catch Ukraine off-guard. By February 5, Russian forces had reportedly pressed to within roughly a kilometer from the mouth of the 00542 road.

Reports vary as to which Russian units led the attack. According to some Russian and Ukrainian sources, elements of the 114th Motor Rifle Brigade (1st Army Corps), reinforced by units from the 80th Tank Regiment (90th Tank Division, CMD) and 30th Motor Rifle Brigade (2nd Combined Arms Army, CMD), executed the main effort.

However, other Russian and Ukrainian reports give different accounts. According to prominent Russian blogger Boris Rozhin, elements of the 74th Motor Rifle Brigade (41st CAA, CMD), supported by 114th Brigade units, were the first to enter Avdiivka. He said these forces were tasked with severing the 00542 road and allowing troops from the 35th, 55th, 15th, and 30th motor rifle brigades (41st and 2nd CAAs, CMD) to enter battle, which they allegedly did by the end of February 9. (A Ukrainian unit fighting in Avdiivka later said Russia had indeed deployed forces from those six brigades plus the 2nd CAA’s 21st Motor Rifle Brigade.) Meanwhile, Rozhin said, Russian assault groups also attacked Avdiivka from the northeast and south.


Estimation of Russian advances in Avdiivka as of February 8, 2024, based on Ukrainian reports and other open-source information.
Ukraine Deploys Reinforcements

Kyiv scrambled to deploy reinforcements, most notably the elite 3rd Assault Brigade, led by the former commander of the Azov Regiment. One 3rd Brigade officer later asserted that the reinforcements were tasked with containing Russia’s advance to enable the withdrawal of other Ukrainian units. However, another Ukrainian military source told the Long War Journal that he believed the Ukrainian command initially aimed to reverse Russia’s gains and hold Avdiivka. Ukrainian journalist Yuriy Butusov reported the same. Regardless, by this point, Avdiivka’s fall was likely inevitable, as the 3rd Brigade officer noted.

When it deployed to Avdiivka, the 3rd Assault Brigade had been in the middle of replenishing its ranks and equipment after tough fighting in the Bakhmut area. Many of the 3rd Brigade troops who fought in Avdiivka had not seen combat before. Two officers from the brigade lamented that its already difficult task was made harder by a lack of well-prepared defensive positions within the city. Ukrainian troops recounted having to defend positions that were already lost or destroyed. Ukrainian soldiers also say they were heavily outnumbered. Still, Kyiv’s forces likely continued to inflict significant losses.

Video footage confirms that elements of the 3rd Assault Brigade had entered battle by February 13. However, its deputy commander later indicated that 3rd Brigade troops had arrived as early as February 4. Butusov similarly reported that the 3rd Brigade deployed to the Avdiivka area on February 3 and entered battle on February 6. The commander of the brigade’s 2nd Assault Battalion indicated his troops fought in the city for “nine days,” meaning they arrived on February 8 or 9. The commander of that battalion’s “NC 13” platoon said his men stayed in Avdiivka for “seven days.” A 3rd Brigade medic similarly said her unit (the 3rd Assault Company) arrived in Avdiivka on February 10.

Meanwhile, Ukraine withdrew some exhausted units from the 110th Mechanized Brigade, a press officer said on February 13. Since the 110th’s formation nearly two years prior, it had served as the backbone of Avdiivka’s defense, reportedly without rotation. A Ukrainian soldier later said the resultant exhaustion had led 110th Brigade troops to abandon their positions “without prior coordination.”

Russia Pushes Deeper Into Avdiivka

Russian forces continued to push past the railway that runs through Avdiivka. By February 13, they had reportedly severed Industrial Avenue after capturing the “Avtobaza” facility near that road. The Russians were soon threatening Lastochkyne, a small village just west of the city. Assault units from Russia’s 30th Brigade were the first to reach Industrial Avenue, soldiers from the brigade later claimed. By the afternoon of February 15, Russian forces, reportedly from the 30th and 114th brigades, had reached the intersection between the 00542 road and Industrial Avenue and taken the nearby “Brevno” restaurant complex.

Ukrainian accounts and video footage indicate BMPs (infantry fighting vehicles) and tanks supported Russian assault infantry inside Avdiivka. Russian spetsnaz (elite infantry) and SSO (special operations forces), equipped with night-vision devices, reportedly conducted nighttime assaults and sabotage operations and directed artillery fire and airstrikes. UAV crews from various units also directed artillery fire and bomb strikes and targeted Ukrainian forces using FPV drones.

Meanwhile, Russia was also advancing around “Zenit,” an old air defense base that served as a key defensive stronghold south of Avdiivka. On or around February 11, Russian forces reportedly began advancing near Opytne, a village southwest of Avdiivka. They were threatening to encircle Zenit by linking up with the Russian troops consolidated at Avdiivka’s southwestern edge. From there, they likely aimed to reach the 9th Quarter and cut the Avdiivka-Sjeverne road.

Late Withdrawal

Withdraw operations are highly challenging. If not carefully orchestrated, they can result in heavy casualties. Ukraine’s withdrawal from Avdiivka took too long to commence and at times seems to have been poorly coordinated. As some Ukrainian soldiers pointed out, the delay echoed Kyiv’s previous decisions to cling to nearly encircled cities — most notably Bakhmut — well after doing so became unwise.

Despite the growing risk of encirclement, Ukraine apparently held onto its easternmost position within the Avdiivka pocket, the Donetsk Filtration Station, for a remarkably long time. Information from Russian and Ukrainian sources indicates Ukrainian troops likely began withdrawing from the station on February 15. Russian forces, reportedly from the “Pyatnashka” and “Viking” units (1st Army Corps), took the station by the morning of February 16.

The delay’s consequences were perhaps most acute at Zenit. According to a soldier from a 110th Brigade company that defended Zenit, by January Ukrainian troops had to ration small-arms ammunition, food, and water. At around 9 PM on February 13, the soldiers were reportedly told to retreat “on their own.” Ukraine’s 53rd Mechanized Brigade was responsible for covering the withdrawal from Zenit, the brigade later said.

Small groups of 110th Brigade troops began leaving for Avdiivka on foot, but many were killed or wounded on the way there, according to soldiers from the brigade. The 110th said the withdrawal occurred amid “continuous bombardment by enemy aircraft and artillery, constant attacks by FPV drones, attacks on evacuation vehicles, and shelling of evacuation routes.”

Some of the troops at Zenit stayed behind to hold off the Russians and enable the evacuation of six wounded comrades. But on the morning of February 15, they were told evacuation vehicles could not reach their position. The troops were forced to abandon the wounded, narrowly escaping Zenit through a corridor that was reportedly just 120 meters wide. They then had to flee westward on foot to the villages of Sjeverne and Tonen’ke. By that point, Russia had rendered the 00542 road unusable, attacking anything that passed with artillery and tank fire, a 110th Brigade spokesman confirmed. (Troops from Russia’s 114th Brigade raised a flag on the famous sign on the 00542 by February 16.)

Infantrymen from Russia’s 1st “Slavic” Motor Rifle Brigade (1st Army Corps) took Zenit by the afternoon of February 15. Some of the wounded Ukrainian soldiers left behind at Zenit were later seen dead in Russian-released footage. The Ukrainians allege they were shot.

That same day, 1st Brigade forces also took the “Cheburashka” and “Vinogradniki-2” areas on Avdiivka’s southwestern outskirts. According to Russian sources, Russian troops reached Vinogradniki-2 using the same pipe previously used to infiltrate to the Tsars’ka Okhota area. Troops from the “Veterans” Brigade participated in the assault on southwestern Avdiivka. Elements of that brigade, along with forces from the 1487th Motor Rifle Regiment, 87th Rifle Regiment, and 10th Tank Regiment, reportedly continued to attack in southern and southeastern Avdiivka.

Withdrawing in Small Groups

Accounts from Ukrainian soldiers, along with video footage that began emerging on social media by February 16, indicate Ukrainian troops withdrew from Avdiivka itself in small groups over multiple days, often on foot. Because Russia had fire control over the 00542 road, the Ukrainians relied mainly on dirt roads. Retreating Ukrainian troops had to brave Russian artillery, bombs, and one-way attack drones. A unit from Ukraine’s 3rd Assault Brigade later said a “large number” of vehicles were “lost and damaged” during the withdrawal.

As Ukrainian troops withdrew, Russian forces pushed deeper into the city. Troops from Russia’s 55th Brigade reached the park in central Avdiivka by February 16. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, they pushed toward the city’s center via Soborna Street. Meanwhile, troops from Russia’s 74th Brigade progressed through the residential and industrial areas near the quarry on Avdiivka’s northeastern outskirts.

At this point, Ukrainian forces still held the coke plant, which reportedly housed around 1,000 troops. Ukraine reportedly also retained control of the area between the rail station and Turhenjeva Street in southwestern Avdiivka, providing a corridor through which to withdraw toward Sjeverne. Elements of Russia’s 30th Brigade were allegedly attacking southward to try to block the Avdiivka-Sjeverne road.

Colonel-General Oleksandr Syrskyi, Ukraine’s newly installed commander-in-chief, officially announced the withdrawal shortly before 1 AM on February 17. Syrskyi said he had ordered Ukrainian units to leave the city “in order to avoid encirclement.” A Ukrainian military spokesman later said the withdrawal was completed on February 17.

Ukraine’s 47th Mechanized Brigade said troops from its 25th Assault Battalion were the last to leave the coke plant. Soldiers from the 3rd Assault Brigade’s 2nd Assault Battalion, responsible for holding Ukraine’s left flank, withdrew “next to last,” its commander said. The 3rd Brigade reportedly received its withdrawal order on February 16 and had largely evacuated the coke plant by 5 AM the next day. Ukrainian troops claimed no one was left behind at the plant and the withdrawal from the facility proceeded in a hasty but orderly manner. 3rd Brigade officers said some of the brigade’s units were at times encircled but managed to break out.

According to Ukraine’s military intelligence directorate (HUR), troops from the 3rd and 110th brigades, HUR and SSO units, the State Border Guard Service’s “Dozor” unit, and the 225th Separate Assault Battalion held the evacuation corridor while the main force withdrew. Ukraine’s 53rd Brigade said it held the 9th Quarter. 53rd Brigade troops withdrew shortly after dawn on February 17, just before Russia took control of the Avdiivka-Sjeverne road. Some Ukrainian servicemen claimed Ukrainian artillery provided good cover for the withdrawal.

In many cases, Ukrainian troops appear to have hurriedly abandoned their positions, leaving behind things such as anti-tank weapons, ammunition, grenades, and Starlink terminals.­ In some (perhaps most) cases, higher echelons did coordinate the retreats using radio communications and drones. But some soldiers reportedly did not receive formal withdrawal orders and simply retreated on their own accord to avoid destruction or capture.

According to The New York Times, Ukrainian soldiers said some units retreated before others were aware the withdrawal had begun, putting them at risk of encirclement. The soldiers reportedly said communication issues, stemming from incompatible radio equipment operated by different Ukrainian units, led troops to be captured, wounded, or killed. Russian electronic warfare may have also played a role. According to a 3rd Brigade officer, Russian jamming made it difficult for Ukrainian units to communicate with higher echelons during the last several days of Avdiivka’s defense.

Russia Completes Capture of Avdiivka

Later on February 17, troops from Russia’s 114th Brigade raised a flag at the Avdiivka coke plant, while 35th Brigade soldiers occupied the Avdiivka rail station. Troops from Russia’s 239th Tank Regiment (90th Tank Division, CMD), 24th Spetsnaz Brigade, and 35th Brigade reached the Avdiivka city administration building, near the 9th Quarter. Russian soldiers raised a flag at the 9th Quarter’s southern end that same day.

74th Brigade troops operated in northeastern Avdiivka (reportedly along Pervomaiska Street) and raised a flag as far south as Mira Street. Gunfire could be heard in footage shared by 74th Brigade soldiers on February 17, indicating some Ukrainian troops may have still been in the city at that time. Similarly, Pyatnashka soldiers claimed (without providing evidence) that they encountered Ukrainian troops in Avdiivka on February 17.

The withdrawal was a perilous moment for Ukraine. If the bulk of Kyiv’s forces in Avdiivka were encircled and destroyed or captured, it would sap morale and facilitate further Russian gains west of the city.

On February 18, the commander of Ukraine’s “Tavria” Operational-Strategic Grouping of Troops, whose aera of responsibility includes Avdiivka, admitted that “a certain number of Ukrainian soldiers were captured” during the withdrawal’s “final stage.” A platoon commander from the 53rd Brigade said that while everyone from his battalion managed to escape, some Ukrainian troops “did get stuck.” He said his platoon had planned to return but was later ordered not to do so. The withdrawal “was planned very badly” if it was planned at all, he opined.

Exactly how many Ukrainians were captured remains unclear, however. Estimates vary. At the high end, a February 20 New York Times report cited two Ukrainian soldiers who estimated that 850 to 1,000 troops were captured or missing. This would have constituted a very large portion (perhaps even a majority) of Ukraine’s force inside Avdiivka during the city’s final defense. But while unnamed Western officials said that range seemed correct, available evidence suggests the true figure was much lower.

The estimate provided to The Times exceeds even the (likely inflated) figures touted by Colonel-General Andrei Mordvichev, the Russian commander responsible for Avdiivka. On February 24, he claimed that roughly 200 Ukrainian troops had surrendered during the clearing of Avdiivka and another 100 were expected in the coming days. U.S. officials told The Washington Post that Ukrainian officials had privately estimated that around 100 soldiers were captured. This estimate tracks with the number of purported Ukrainian prisoners seen in Russian-released videos reviewed by the Long War Journal.

On balance, it appears the bulk of the Ukrainian force in Avdiivka escaped the pocket, even if the withdrawal was less than orderly at times.

Aftermath of Avdiivka’s Fall

During the monthslong battle for Avdiivka, Ukraine failed to construct a solid second line of defense behind the city. This left Ukrainian troops in a tough spot once Avdiivka fell, forcing them to dig in and lay mines amid active fighting.

Russia has since managed to capture a handful of low-lying villages west of Avdiivka through attritional attacks by small assault groups. Moscow likely hopes its forces can reach the city of Pokrovsk, an important logistical hub in Donetsk Oblast. Pokrovsk is around 40 kilometers from Avdiivka as the crow flies.

Meanwhile, to the southwest, Russian forces are attacking near the towns of Marinka and Krasnohorivka, forcing Ukraine’s 3rd Assault Brigade to quickly redeploy two companies to the latter. Russia reportedly also transferred its 10th Tank Regiment to Novomykhailivka to try to help the 155th Naval Infantry Brigade finish taking that village.

However, Russia likely will not manage to make large-scale gains, at least in the near term. Russian momentum has slowed, and the bodies of water west of Avdiivka can serve as natural barriers. In addition, a new Czech-led initiative to secure 800,000 artillery shells for Kyiv should help alleviate Ukraine’s shell hunger. So will the eventual passage of the U.S. supplemental assistance bill, expected in April.

Furthermore, Russia has so far proven unable to rebuild force quality. As such, the Russians will likely continue to struggle to scale offensive operations. Moscow’s initial attacks at Avdiivka provide a good example. Russia will thus have to continue attempting to inch forward through small-scale assaults, suffering heavy losses in the process.

This will give Ukraine more time to build fortifications near Avdiivka and elsewhere, which the Ukrainians have finally begun doing in earnest. And over the long run, Russia cannot sustain such a high rate of losses.

John Hardie is the deputy director of FDD’s Russia Program and a contributor to FDD's Long War Journal.

https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2024/03/battle-of-avdiivka-a-preliminary-analysis.php?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=battle-of-avdiivka-a-preliminary-analysis

21
Politics & Religion / TX Border Post Overrun
« on: March 23, 2024, 03:21:38 PM »
TX National Guard overrun by illegals. If this is a trend, it won’t end well. Worse yet, that’s fine by those favoring an open southern border who will use violence occurring in the wake of a human wave to argue TX needs to stand down:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/03/biden-border-crisis-illegal-immigrants-overrun-texas-national-guard/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=biden-border-crisis-illegal-immigrants-overrun-texas-national-guard

22
A compendium of polysyllables a jurist is fond of using:

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/almID/1201169140964/

23
Piece looks at social media platforms designed to “addict” users, particularly young ones, in the context of public health laws meant to address negative outcomes and its impact on free speech:

Journal of Free Speech Law: "Public Health Law's Digital Frontier: Addictive Design, Section 230, and the Freedom of Speech," by Prof. Matthew Lawrence
The Volokh Conspiracy / by Eugene Volokh / Mar 22, 2024 at 8:40 PM
The article is here; the Abstract:

A new generation of claims argues that addictive design by social media companies has caused a national mental health crisis, and so seeks to join nascent state legislative efforts in making addictive design by technology companies public health law's next frontier. But the threshold, global objections of leading social media platforms (including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Tik Tok, and YouTube) to pioneering addictive design tort lawsuits—In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction Litigation in federal court and the Social Media Cases in California—suggest that state authority to regulate addictive design (through litigation or otherwise) will depend on the resolution of a conflict between two regulatory paradigms: the public health regulatory paradigm and the internet regulatory paradigm. The public health paradigm prizes federalism, with states historically playing a lead role in safeguarding the public's health through law—including against unwitting exposure to addictive products. Under this paradigm states would be permitted to develop and implement legal responses to an emerging public health threat through their courts and legislatures, as they have done with alcohol, gambling, opioids, and tobacco. The internet paradigm, on the other hand, usually insists on a "hands off" approach to regulation online, with broad federal preemption under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and often-prohibitive constraints under the First Amendment.

In the pioneering cases, the platforms argue that the internet paradigm makes pending lawsuits asserting addictive design claims non-starters, regardless of their merits. On the section 230 and First Amendment legal theories they advance, states could not regulate content-related addictive design by providers of interactive computer services (including social media platforms and some online video game manufacturers), no matter the evidence and no matter how intentional, effective, or harmful to kids or adults. Not surprisingly, the plaintiffs offer alternative views that would permit broad state regulation of addictive design.

This Article argues that, even if courts are unpersuaded by the broadest arguments in favor of a public health approach to regulation of addictive design, they should nonetheless reject the platforms' efforts to make addictive design a public-health-law-free zone. The public health and internet paradigms can be reconciled as a policy matter because addictive design threatens both public health and innovation online. The public health and internet paradigms can also be reconciled as a legal matter because even strong theories of section 230 and the First Amendment, properly understood, leave states a safe harbor in which to regulate much addictive design. Addictive design claims allege platforms engage in what psychologists call "operant conditioning" by using content-neutral intermittent reinforcement and variable reward techniques associated with slot machines to foster compulsion in users. These techniques need not entail content moderation or "editorial expression"; indeed, such techniques are ordinarily hidden from users, who may never realize they have been conditioned by a provider. State regulation of such content-neutral platform activity is not insulated from state public health regulation even under broad theories of the reach of section 230 and the First Amendment. To make maximal use of this safe harbor, public health researchers studying the harms of addictive design, legislators devising tailored regulatory responses, and courts adjudicating novel addictive design claims should remain mindful of the value of separating content-based addictive design claims from conditioning-based claims made in advancing public health law's digital frontier.

The post Journal of Free Speech Law: "Public Health Law's Digital Frontier: Addictive Design, Section 230, and the Freedom of Speech," by Prof. Matthew Lawrence appeared first on Reason.com.

https://www.journaloffreespeechlaw.org/lawrence.pdf


25
Politics & Religion / Another One for the Memory Hole
« on: March 23, 2024, 10:25:48 AM »
One of the more galling elements of life in the US these days are the number of folks that embraced some Deep State party line—often at the top of their lungs and dripping with disdain for all that failed to march in lockstep w/ the dictate du jour—who then not only stand mute when their certainty proves to be anything but, who then also fail to allow their dubious track record to inform the vigor with which they jump on the next bandwagon the feds, media, whomever on the left then next rolls out.

Here the FDA is removing ivermectin warnings from the website despite past certain proclamations it was “horse medicine.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fda-settles-ivermectin-case-agrees-remove-controversial-stop-it-post?fbclid=IwAR2Aqc9o9HB9gF9oI97uVEpwQCw4ZHnj53jwXMCGmdpvU_sx7VBir36uzSU

27
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Lab Origin for Covid Proven?
« on: March 21, 2024, 04:54:01 PM »

29
Politics & Religion / The Queering of Public Schools
« on: March 21, 2024, 04:24:54 PM »
New book explores the Marxist/LGBQTLMNOP nexus and how it’s employed in public schools to mint zealots, activists, and queer theorists that bulwark “Progressive” ends:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/03/book-review-the-queering-of-the-american-child-by-logan-lancing-with-james-lindsay/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=book-review-the-queering-of-the-american-child-by-logan-lancing-with-james-lindsay

Note: I don’t give a rats ass what consenting adults do in private, and am willing to accept that a percentage of humans are gay with nature and nurture both playing parts. However, I doubt the 10%+ figure bandied first I believe by Masters and Johnson and embraced by others, often of an activist bent.

30
… who was then subjected to university discipline for these unsubstantiated claims made two years after the fact can sue plaintiff and college. This strikes me as an important case in that it may subject colleges to penalties for jumping uncritically upon #MeToo bandwagons:

[Eugene Volokh] #TheyLied Libel Lawsuit Over Ex-Student's Allegations of Rape Can Go Forward,
The Volokh Conspiracy / by Eugene Volokh / Mar 21, 2024 at 10:36 AM
[and so can the professor's Title VII and Title IX discrimination claims against the university.]

From Erikson v. Xavier Univ., decided Monday by Judge Matthew McFarland (S.D. Ohio):

Erikson was a tenured Associate Professor of Art for Defendant Xavier University for nearly a decade until his termination in October 2022. This case primarily revolves around the events leading up to Plaintiff's termination; a former student's [Witt's] allegation that Plaintiff had raped her and the investigative and administrative actions that Xavier took in response to her formal complaint.

Plaintiff began speaking with … Witt[] during the latter half of 2019. Although Witt had graduated from Xavier in 2013, she was not a Xavier employee and had no other relationship with Xavier. After communicating over several months and meeting on multiple social occasions, Witt suggested that she spend the night at Plaintiff's house on December 31, 2019. That night, Witt visited Plaintiff at his house and the two had sex. Plaintiff alleges that the sex was consensual.

A little over two years later, on February 5, 2022, Witt contacted Defendant Kelly Phelps—a professor at Xavier who chaired the Department of Art from 2012 through 2019. Witt told Phelps that she believed Plaintiff had raped her. Phelps "urged Witt to report the allegation but warned her that [Plaintiff] is 'white, and male, [and] got privilege on his side."

On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff was notified that Witt had filed a formal complaint with Xavier alleging that Plaintiff had violated Xavier's policy by raping her on December 31, 2019. Plaintiff "vehemently denied" the accusation. Additionally, Plaintiff informed Xavier that any investigation into Witt's formal complaint would breach the terms of Xavier's Harassment Code and Accountability Procedures ("HCAP") for several reasons: "(1) at the time of the incident, Witt was not a student or an employee, nor did she have any other relationship with Xavier; (2) the alleged incident did not occur on Xavier property or during an event associated with the University; (3) Witt was not a 'visitor' to Xavier at the time of the alleged incident; and (4) in any event, the alleged incident occurred outside the HCAP's two-year statute of limitations for filing complaints."

Xavier held an HCAP hearing regarding the rape allegations on July 22, 2022 and July 25, 2022. During the hearing, "the panel embarked on a moral tirade against [Plaintiff] for, as a male, having sexual intercourse without using a condom." The panel allowed witnesses to make vague references to allegations of Plaintiff's conduct beyond the scope of Witt's complaint and permitted hearsay testimony by witnesses without personal knowledge. Moreover, the panel ignored testimony that Witt had consented to the sexual activity. The panel ultimately found Plaintiff responsible for raping Witt and recommended terminating him from Xavier. The panel attributed the rape to an "imbalance of power" between Plaintiff and Witt, which stemmed from the fact that Plaintiff is a male whose position in life and at the University seemingly granted him status and power. This power allowed Plaintiff to overwhelm Witt's ability to resist his actions. Xavier terminated Plaintiff in October 2022.

Plaintiff sued Witt for defamation and Xavier for sex discrimination under Title VII and Title IX, claiming that "Xavier's actions and/or omissions surrounding the investigation and hearing of Witt's false allegations of rape, including numerous procedural irregularities, were attributed to gender bias"; the court concluded that, if plaintiff's allegations were factually correct, they could indeed lead to legal liability for defendants. (As is usual with decisions on a motion to dismiss, the court did not decide whether the allegations were actually correct.) A few excerpts:

Plaintiff alleges that, during his hearing, the panel "embarked on a moral tirade against [Plaintiff] for, as a male, having sexual intercourse without using a condom." Xavier argues that this is insufficient to demonstrate gender bias because "[t]he failure to use a condom is not an inherently gender-based issue." But, Plaintiff has alleged that this "moral tirade" was made against him "as a male." This specific allegation, which must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, adds to the plausibility of Plaintiff's discrimination claim….

Plaintiff [also] alleges that the hearing panel attributed "the rape to an 'imbalance of power' between Witt and [Plaintiff] stemming from the fact that [Plaintiff] is a male whose position in life and at the University seemingly granted him status and power which allowed him to overwhelm Witt's ability to resist his actions." Xavier contends that such an imbalance of power is "not inherently gender-related" but was relevant to the panel's decision making. But, again, the Court must view this allegation in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. The Court accordingly finds that this specific allegation adds to the plausibility of Plaintiff's discrimination claim….

Plaintiff's allegations of clear procedural irregularities by Xavier further support a plausible inference of sex discrimination. Plaintiff alleges that Xavier's investigation breached the terms of the HCAP policy because "(1) at the time of the alleged incident, Witt was not a student or an employee, nor did she have any other relationship with Xavier; (2) the alleged incident did not occur on Xavier property or during an event associated with the University; (3) Witt was not a 'visitor' to Xavier at the time of the alleged incident; and (4) in any event, the alleged incident occurred outside the HCAP's two-year statute of limitation for filing complaints." Simply put, Plaintiff alleges that the investigation itself was outside the scope of HCAP and thus constituted a procedural irregularity….

The HCAP contains a two-year limitation for filing complaints but provides that "[t]he Affirmative Action Officer may grant a reasonable extension of any time period established in these guidelines, except where otherwise noted." The alleged rape occurred on December 31, 2019, and Plaintiff received notification of Witt's complaint on February 24, 2022. So, Xavier's extension beyond the statute of limitations was approximately two months. While the HCAP recognizes that complaints over the two-year mark may cause difficulty in investigating and adjudicating the claim, "reasonable extensions" are permitted under the procedures. This delay does not, by itself, constitute a clear procedural irregularity but remains relevant.

Turning to the HCAP's scope, the "HCAP applies when an employee … is accused of violating Xavier's harassment policies by a student, employee, contracted employee, or third party (i.e., visitor to campus)." Because the "visitor to campus" phrase is preceded by "i.e.," this suggests that the scope of third parties in this clause is limited to visitors to campus. See i.e., Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/i.e. (defining "i.e." as "that is"); cf. e.g., Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/e.g. (defining "e.g." as "for example"). Courts may look to a phrase following "i.e." as limiting the scope of the preceding term. Witt was not a current student or employee of Xavier, and the alleged rape did not occur on campus or at a university-sponsored event. The HCAP language accordingly supports Plaintiff's allegation—at least at this point of litigation—that the investigation into Witt's complaint was a clear procedural irregularity….

And, as to the defamation claim:

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation…. Witt argues that Plaintiff's defamation claim should be dismissed because Xavier's hearing panel found that Plaintiff was responsible for raping her. But, Witt does not cite any case law for the proposition that a university panel's finding is decisive in this context. Plaintiff alleges that he and Witt "engaged in consensual sex" and disputes Xavier's finding that he raped Witt. At this stage of the litigation, the Court must take the well-pleaded facts in Plaintiff's Complaint as true [and thus may not grant the motion to dismiss on the grounds that Witt's statements were true -EV]….

Witt next argues that Plaintiff's defamation claim should be dismissed because Witt's statements are covered by qualified privilege…. Qualified privilege applies when the publication is "fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs, in matters where his interest is concerned." In order for a publication to enjoy such qualified privilege, five elements must be satisfied: (1) the statement was made in good faith, (2) there was an interest to be upheld, (3) the statement was limited in its scope to this purpose, (4) a proper occasion, and (5) publication made in a proper manner to proper parties only. A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified privilege must set forth facts to plausibly support that the statement was made with actual malice[,] … defined as "acting with knowledge that the statements are false or acting with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity." …

Witt stated that she believed Plaintiff had raped her, and Plaintiff denies this by alleging that they had engaged in consensual sex. Witt would have had direct personal knowledge regarding whether her statement was true or not. So, accepting the allegations in the Complaint as true, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that Witt made the statement with actual malice. Therefore, the Court cannot dismiss Plaintiff's defamation claim against Witt.

Marc D. Mezibov and Susan Lawrence Butler (Mezibov Butler) represent plaintiff.

The post #TheyLied Libel Lawsuit Over Ex-Student's Allegations of Rape Can Go Forward, appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/21/theylied-libel-lawsuit-over-ex-students-allegations-of-rape-can-go-forward/

31
Politics & Religion / NRA v. Vullo
« on: March 21, 2024, 03:35:58 PM »
NY fiscal regulator tried to stop financial companies based in NY (meaning most of ‘em nationwide) from doing business w/ the NRA. ACLU joins (!?!) the NRA in this first amendment filing expected to be decided by June:

NRA Defends Freedom in Supreme Court Argument

TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2024 NRA Defends Freedom in Supreme Court Argument

The NRA’s commitment to freedom was on full display again this week.

On Monday, March 18, the Court heard oral arguments in the NRA v. Maria T. Vullo case – one of the nation’s most important First Amendment matters. Vullo is the former financial regulator in New York who tried to “financially blacklist” the NRA in 2018.

The NRA argues that Vullo, at the behest of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, took aim at the NRA and used the regulatory power of the Department of Financial Services (DFS) to financially blacklist the NRA – coercing banks and insurers to avoid ties with the Association in order to suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech.

The NRA argues that Vullo’s actions were meant to silence the NRA – using “guidance letters,” backroom threats, and other measures to cause financial institutions to “drop” the Association.

In response, on May 11, 2018, the NRA filed suit to enjoin the campaign and for money damages. After winning in the trial court, the NRA's case was dismissed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Thereafter, the Association took its case to the highest court in the land. The NRA is joined by the ACLU, legal experts, constitutional scholars, and 25 states in opposing Vullo’s actions.

ACLU National Legal Director and NRA counsel David Cole argued on Monday that Vullo and other New York officials abused their authority in violation of the First Amendment, telling the justices: “There's no question on this record that they encouraged people to punish the NRA." Cole said, “It was a campaign by the state’s highest political officials to use their power to coerce a boycott of a political advocacy organization because they disagreed with its advocacy.”

The U.S. Department of Justice also sided with the NRA, as Assistant to the Solicitor General Ephraim McDowell argued that the court should find that New York officials violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights.

Twenty-two amicus briefs representing more than 190 individuals and organizations were filed in support of the NRA’s position, including a filing by several of the nation’s foremost First Amendment scholars. The amicus briefs also include a joint filing by dozens of congressional Republicans and filings by 25 state attorneys general. The support came from across the political spectrum.

“This is the moment of truth for the NRA and its millions of members," says NRA interim EVP & CEO Andrew Arulanandam. "We were honored to be before the Supreme Court – protecting our First Amendment rights to defend Second Amendment freedom. We will never shrink from the fight to defend the values and freedoms of America."

NRA counsel William A. Brewer III said, “This case is important to the NRA and all advocacy organizations who rely upon the protections of the First Amendment. Every advocacy group will benefit if the Court reminds government officials that they cannot use intimidation tactics, backdoor censorship, or regulatory blacklisting to silence those with whom they disagree.”

George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley has said NRA v. Vullo “could prove to be one of the most important free speech cases of the decade.”

A ruling is expected this June.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240319/nra-defends-freedom-in-supreme-court-argument

32
Politics & Religion / Mutant Capitalism
« on: March 21, 2024, 01:45:31 PM »
How did American capitalism mutate into American corporatism?

Samizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts) · Slogans & Quotations

In free enterprise, the old rule is that the customer is always right. That’s a wonderful system sometimes called consumer sovereignty. Its advent in history, dating perhaps from the 16th century, represented a tremendous advance over the old guild system of feudalism and certainly a major step over ancient despotisms. It’s been the rallying cry of market-based economics ever since.

What happens, however, when government itself becomes a main and even dominant customer? The ethos of private enterprise is thereby changed. No longer primarily interested in serving the general public, enterprise turns its attention to serving its powerful masters in the halls of the state, gradually weaving close relationships and forming a ruling class that becomes a conspiracy against the public.

This used to go by the name “crony capitalism” which perhaps describes some of the problems on a small scale. This is another level of reality that needs an entirely different name. That name is corporatism, a coinage from the 1930s and a synonym for fascism back before that became a curse word due to wartime alliances. Corporatism is a specific thing, not capitalism and not socialism but a system of private property ownership with cartelized industry that primarily serves the state.

The old binaries of the public and private sector – widely assumed by every main ideological system –have become so blurred that they no longer make much sense. And yet we are ideologically and philosophically unprepared to deal with this new world with anything like intellectual insight. Not only that, it can be extremely difficult even to tell the good guys from the bad guys in the news stream. We hardly know anymore for whom to cheer or boo in the great struggles of our time.

– Jeffrey Tucker

33
Politics & Religion / Trends to Watch in ‘24
« on: March 21, 2024, 01:32:00 PM »
Cogent analysis of some things to watch for 2024. I know Marc is no fan of Hogan, but he is the only flavor of Republican likely to be elected in MD and it would be fun to flip the senate if just to reduce the size of Chuck’s pulpit:

Chuck Schumer’s New Elections

By James Freeman

Follow the WSJ in Apple News

Last week this column noted the effort by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) to bully a friendly democracy into replacing its duly elected leadership. Mr. Schumer’s call for new elections in Israel to pick a government more to his liking is an outrage that should not be repeated. And perhaps it won’t be. As luck would have it, upcoming elections could result in new majority leadership in another government—the one employing Mr. Schumer.

Nearly eight months from Election Day the picture is admittedly murky. But a challenging map for Democrats now looks even more challenging. Erin Cox, Scott Clement, Lateshia Beachum and Emily Guskin report for the Washington Post:

With control of the U.S. Senate in play, voters in deep-blue Maryland favor Republican Larry Hogan by double digits over potential Democratic rivals, according to a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll.

The former governor left office with high job-approval ratings and is better known than those competitors, but he faces a crosscurrent Democrats hope to exploit: The poll found Maryland voters said by a 20-point margin that they prefer Democratic control of the U.S. Senate.

Hogan’s surprise entrance into the race last month upended what had been largely seen as a contest between Rep. David Trone (D-Md.) and Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks (D). The Post-UMD poll finds that if the general election were held today, voters say they would support Hogan over Trone, 49 percent to 37 percent; and Hogan over Alsobrooks, 50 percent to 36 percent.

So Maryland voters are sending mixed signals—they prefer Mr. Hogan but also prefer that his party not run the U.S. Senate. What signals deep trouble for Mr. Schumer is that mixed signals from voters about a formerly safe seat for Democrats mean a lot of money and time will now have to be spent there—resources that he would surely rather spend in places like Ohio, Arizona and Montana.

Also, the contest for the suddenly competitive Maryland seat is not wholly unrelated to Mr. Schumer’s trashing of democratic and diplomatic norms. Earlier this week the former governor and now Senate candidate Mr. Hogan opined in the Journal:

The Democratic Party is splintering over Israel. Although it isn’t clear what America’s future partnership with our closest ally will look like, the outcome of the race to succeed Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.) could signal the direction. Mr. Cardin has been one of Israel’s most important supporters. When he retires next January, the world will be watching to see who picks up his mantle. One reason I am running for this seat is because we need pro-Israel champions in the Senate who will stand up to the loudest, angriest voices.

And if You Really Had to Pick a Government in the Middle East to Change...
Agence France Presse reports:

Germany on Wednesday said it had summoned the Iranian ambassador over an attempted arson attack on a synagogue in 2022 that Berlin believes was planned with the help of Tehran.

A German-Iranian national was in December sentenced to two years and nine months in prison over the plot to attack a synagogue in the western German city of Bochum...

In handing down the verdict, the Duesseldorf court said the attack had been planned with the help of “Iranian state agencies”.

Second City Second Thoughts

Last year’s Chicago mayoral election brought the disappointing news that the Windy City was not among those jurisdictions seeking to check their leftist excesses. But now Midway voters may finally have decided that enough is enough. Alice Yin and Jake Sheridan report for the Chicago Tribune:

Mayor Brandon Johnson’s Bring Chicago Home referendum was in peril Tuesday in the primary election, in what would be a stinging defeat for his grassroots base that sought to persuade voters to grant the city’s new progressives in charge a tax increase to address the homelessness crisis.

According to unofficial results from the Chicago Board of Elections, with 96% of precincts reporting, 53.9% of votes were against the referendum, to 46.1% in favor...

The referendum was set up to become Johnson’s first levy hike as mayor, after campaigning on a “tax-the-rich” agenda that caught fire last year amid a tumultuous election where he adopted Bring Chicago Home as a key pledge. A defeat would signal trouble for Johnson’s leftist coalition that took over City Hall for the first time in decades but has since faced nonstop resistance from politically moderate foes and business interests, on top of sky-high costs from the migrant crisis.

Could there be a more delightful and salutary phenomenon than moderates making trouble for leftist coalitions?

The ‘Hellhole’ of Boundless Opportunity

Journal columnist Jason Riley writes about liberal political analyst Ruy Teixeira:
Mr. Teixeira believes that Democratic activists have made a mistake in encouraging Latinos to see themselves as “brown people who are oppressed in the United States, who live in this dystopian hellhole” and suffer nonstop discrimination. “That’s not the way Hispanics—working-class people particularly—think about the world. They think about, ‘I’m here to get ahead in life. I’m here to make a good life for my family. I want communities with safe streets and plenty of opportunity. I’m an American.’ ”

Amen.

Beltway Bracketology
It’s hard to top this month’s NCAA basketball tournament for pure entertainment value. But the libertarians at the Cato Institute are pitching a March tournament of their own:

Thirty-two unaffordable federal spending programs are going head-to-head in a classic, single-elimination tournament format. And you get to decide the worst of the bunch... vote for the worse program in each of the current round’s matchups. Then return here for successive rounds through April 11th, when we ultimately crown the 2024 Spending Madness Champion!

There are bound to be critics who question how fans can possibly get excited about a tournament field comprised entirely of losers. But imagine the taxpayer excitement if every single one of them could face elimination. It’s fan-tastic!

James Freeman is the co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival” and also the co-author of “Borrowed Time: Two Centuries of Booms, Busts and Bailouts at Citi.”

https://apple.news/Ae_QjtOrgS4yImn92wgQD1g

34
Politics & Religion / Dem Deceit Losing its Grip?
« on: March 21, 2024, 12:00:05 PM »
Trump's poll numbers are a result of all the Dem lies:

The Left's Lies Are Powering Trump's Lead

Voters do not buy the Left's and media's lies about Trump anymore.

TIPPINSIGHTS EDITORIAL BOARD
March 20, 2024 . 6:49 AM  5 min read


RealClearPolitics Dashboard - Screenshot taken on Mar 20, 2024 at 5:30 a.m.

The RealClearPolitics polling averages, the gold standard to understand the nation's current mood, have the Democrats truly worried.

Nationwide, former President Trump has a +1.7% lead over President Biden. In Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada, Trump leads Biden by over five points, significantly greater than Biden's 2020 victory margins of 0.4%, 0.3%, 3.2%, and 3.4%, respectively. Trump is leading in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, although by not such commanding leads.
If Trump's leads hold, he will indeed be reelected in November. We can confidently say so because 2024 is a rematch, the first of its kind in over a century. Even if third-party candidates enter, they will likely be more noise than signal.

The 2020 election was extremely close. Liberal NPR analyzed the results and showed what a nail-biter match it was: "Just 44,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin separated Biden and Trump from a tie in the Electoral College." We calculate the 44,000 votes to be about a margin of 0.6% in each of these states.

Trump is no ordinary candidate. He faces 91 criminal charges in four separate cases, including two in federal court under an aggressive prosecutor. He was impeached twice by the House and was the target of the J6 Committee, a Congressional creation designed to use taxpayer dollars to malign him for nearly 18 months. Media coverage during his presidency was so negative that it often swung to a 90-10 imbalance. At 77 years, Trump is only about three years younger than Biden, even as most Americans cite Biden's advanced age as a reason for his unpopularity.
So, what is powering Trump's performance?

Of course, Biden's failure as president, indicated by his 55.5% disapproval rating and the country's 65% wrong-track number, are factors. Public memory is short, and Americans tend to view their presidents more fondly in hindsight. Voters tell reporters they are nostalgic for Trump's years (low inflation, no new wars, a controlled border, a strong economy, and low unemployment).
But there is something more to it. Voters do not buy the Left's and media's lies about Trump anymore. On Saturday, campaigning in Michigan, Trump said that there would be a "bloodbath" if he loses the election. CBS News, Rolling Stone, and NBC News all carried headlines about the bloodbath comment. The Biden team criticized the former president's "threats of political violence." The problem? Trump was talking about auto manufacturing.

Americans see that the Left has tried every trick in the book - from ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ to the latest Fani Willis RICO case - to bring Trump down. In each instance, the Left lied about what Trump supposedly did, sometimes using laws and lawfare to frame him.

In the Jean E. Carroll case, New York State pushed a law - valid only for one year - that allowed her to bring a rape case against Trump. The case was so fragile because Carroll could not even remember the year (in the mid-1990s) that the assault happened. There was no evidence presented (video footing, DNA evidence, witnesses) at all other than two friendly witnesses who testified that Carroll told them about the assault.
New York Attorney General Letitia James's civil suit against Trump relied on an obscure, rarely-used New York law that penalizes businesses that falsify records. James, who campaigned that she would "get Trump," filed a complaint in the court of Judge Engoran, who was so biased that he disallowed every motion that Trump made. Trump's arguments that he paid back all of his bank loans with interest, so there was no victim, fell on Engoran's deaf years. Even the banks filed a statement that they profited from dealing with Trump. Yet, Trump was charged a $450 million fine and forbidden to do business in a city where his name is synonymous with the city's landscape.

In many cases, the Left itself did what it accused Trump of doing. Biden held on to more classified documents than Trump ever did, in more locations than Trump. Biden was not even authorized to take them because he was a senator or Vice President. Yet, the Special Counsel decided that Biden would not be charged because he was too mentally frail to face a criminal trial. Meanwhile, Jack Smith's case against Trump is proceeding aggressively.

The Left has created such a bad situation for itself that it reminds us of the classic Cry Wolf bedtime story. Even if Trump were legitimately to be held guilty by a court of law, millions of Americans would never accept the verdict.

And then, there's the wokeness. The Left, chasing ideological purity, is thoroughly disconnected from how average Americans feel. The Left's mantra, which states that no human is illegal, might appeal in Hollywood. But America is also a nation of laws, and when someone crosses the border without proper documentation, they violate America's laws - and are deemed illegal.

The Left's argument that migrants are entitled to apply for asylum - and until their cases are adjudicated against them, they are legal - does not move voters. What Americans see is that 8 million people, none of them vetted, have crossed the border illegally - and not all of them are fleeing persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or their inclusion in a particular social group. In fact, the majority of the border crossers are young men looking for better employment opportunities. Asylum provisions do not include economic hardships.

Laken Riley, a 21-year woman, was brutally raped and murdered on the University of Georgia campus by an illegal alien who was already wanted for crimes in New York. Biden, in his State of the Union, mispronounced the victim's name, but acknowledged correctly that the accused was an illegal immigrant. Almost in the same breath, Biden said that several murders are committed by legal residents - a bizarre justification for the Riley murder. Worse, the next day, on MSNBC, Biden apologized for calling the murderer an illegal.

Despite the corporate media's portrayal of the November election as a battle between democracy and dictatorship, Trump, who switched parties seven times in 13 years, epitomizes a political movement that resonates with the common man on Main Street and is reshaping the political realignment of key voting blocs. Trump transcends parties and has an uncanny ability to connect with ordinary Americans, underscoring a shift in the political dynamics, challenging traditional narratives, and highlighting the complexities of contemporary politics. Simply put, MAGA is not a derogatory term, except in the eyes of the leftist media and ultra-liberals, who often adopt a condescending attitude akin to their dismissal of the Tea Party. Most Americans recognize this reality.

Elections are nearly always a referendum on the incumbent. In a rematch, such a referendum becomes much easier. All voters have to answer is a simple question that Ronald Reagan posed 40 years ago: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

By orders of magnitude in the swing states, Americans are saying they are decidedly not better off, and it is time for Biden to be sent packing.

https://tippinsights.com/the-lefts-lies-are-powering-trumps-lead/?ref=tippinsights-newsletter#google_vignette

35
Politics & Religion / New Dominion in AZ Voter Fraud Evidence?
« on: March 21, 2024, 11:39:36 AM »
Kari Lake is petitioning the SCOTUS to review new voter fraud evidence:

Patrick Byrne
@PatrickByrne
UPPERCUT DELIVERED AT SCOTUS!!

(Please retweet)

Kari Lake‘s case against machines in 2024 was dismissed by a federal court in Arizona on the grounds that it was “too speculative“. Ninth circuit upheld that absurd decision on appeal.

Last week Kari Lake/Kurt Olsen filed at SCOTUS an appeal.

Last NIGHT they filed the appendix with stunning new evidence. (found in the links below).

Here are some key points:

1. Maricopa County’s election software used in the 2020 and 2022 elections has been altered with respect to the machine behavior settings that govern how ballots are read and tabulated.

2.  The EAC never approved this altered software, and Maricopa’s many previous representations that this election software is EAC certified, including to the AZ Senate, are false.

3. Knowingly modifying election software without approval or certification pursuant to 16-442 is a felony under AZ law. See 16–1004(B).

4.  Dominion’s operative contract with Maricopa states “Data generated by the Democracy Suite Platform, including results reporting, is protected by the deployment of FIPS approved symmetric AES encryption.”

5. But, Dominion placed the master cryptographic keys in plain text and unprotected on the election database except for Windows-login, which are easily bypassed. Leaving these highly sensitive cryptographic keys in this state violates all cyber security protocols and allows a malicious actor to take control of the machine and change results without detection.

6.  As Mr. Cotton stated in his declaration “It is like a bank having the most secure vault in the world, touting how secure it is to the public and then taping the combination in large font type on the wall next to the vault door.”

7.  Given all of these findings, none of these machines can be trusted to give reliable results in 2024.

https://x.com/PatrickByrne/status/1770690645826376029?s=20

This appendix is supposed to contain the new evidence. I haven't been able to view yet as it requries Telegram to be installed and I already have a bunch of apps in queue to DL:

https://t.me/PatrickMByrne/7529

36
Curiously BBC Jewish employees report antisemetic workplace bias, yet the BBC nonetheless claims there's nothing to see here, move along and read the latest Hamas press release we've gussied up and treated like responsible journalism:

The Hamas Broadcasting Corporation
The BBC has become the most powerful disseminator of murderous disinformation in the world

MELANIE PHILLIPS
MAR 21, 2024

BBC Broadcasting House, London
The BBC Director-General, Tim Davie, appears to be well satisfied with the broadcasting organisation he runs. He told the Commons culture, media and sport committee this week that the BBC’s news coverage of the war in Gaza was “balanced and fair”.

This is what might be called a state of terminal pathological denial.

Far from being balanced and fair, the BBC’s coverage of the war in Gaza constitutes an institutional emergency. This national and international broadcasting icon, bound by its Charter obligations to uphold the highest standards of balance and objectivity, has behaved as the broadcasting arm of Hamas.

Day after day, its news coverage and analysis of the war in Gaza has been characterised by an eye-watering degree of selective reporting, distortion and malice. It has uncritically parroted demonstrably nonsensical Hamas claims, such as “30,000+ Palestinian civilians killed” of whom “70 per cent are women and children” — with not one of those killed, apparently, being a Hamas combatant despite Israel’s estimate that it has killed 13,000 Hamas combatants so far.

Day after day, it has broadcast harrowing pictures of Gazan civilian casualties without telling its audience that, even according to Hamas’s exaggerated figures, Israel’s ratio of under 1.5 civilians killed for every combatant is a vastly lower rate of civilian casualties in war than has ever been achieved by any other country’s armed forces, including Britain and America.

It has repeatedly reported alleged atrocities, inspiring public fury and outrage, only to find days later that these were false claims. On October 17, the BBC reported that an Israeli rocket hit al-Ahli hospital in Gaza, killing hundreds of Palestinian patients and staff. As Tom Gross has noted in Sapir journal:

A further BBC news report was headlined “Indescribable Scenes at Hospital.” Perhaps the scenes at the hospital were “indescribable” because the hospital hadn’t been hit at all. It was the hospital parking lot that had been hit, producing far fewer casualties. And it had not been hit by an Israeli bomb but by a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket, evidently fired from a nearby cemetery. Israel doesn’t bomb hospitals.

In November, the BBC reported that Israeli troops had targeted medical staff during a raid on the al Shifa medical complex in Gaza City. In fact, what the IDF spokesperson had said was:

Our medical teams and Arabic speakers are on the ground to ensure that these supplies reach those in need.

In December, the BBC accused Israeli troops of “carrying out summary executions in the Gaza Strip” of 137 Palestinian civilians and burying them in unmarked graves. Two weeks later, after pressure from Conservative MPs, it ran an apology for reporting this Hamas fabrication. But by the time it issued its grudging apologies for all these errors, the blood libels it had broadcast had incited further hatred of Israel in Britain and beyond.

The indefatigable researcher David Collier has painstakingly unearthed multiple examples of wholly compromised sources that the BBC uses for its pernicious coverage. Time after time, it relies on people who are Hamas supporters, terrorism sympathisers or Jew-haters. Collier has caught the BBC red-handed — and yet it still won’t acknowledge its gross and serial derelictions of duty.

Collier’s recent discoveries involved the BBC’s Orwellian “fact-checking” Verify team. On March 1, BBC Verify published a story about the 100-plus deaths that occurred during the chaos surrounding an aid convoy in Gaza. The story was built around the eyewitness testimony of a Palestinian journalist named Mahmoud Awadeyah, who claimed to the BBC that the Israelis had fired “purposefully” at the Gazan men approaching the aid trucks.

Collier discovered that this “journalist” worked for outlets connected to Hamas and the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Collier also found him celebrating deadly terrorist attacks, along with images of him dining with a leading Islamic Jihad terrorist. In response, the BBC merely doubled down and said:

The fact that someone has expressed an opinion on social media doesn’t automatically disqualify them from giving eye-witness testimony.

So to the BBC, celebrating terrorism is “expressing an opinion”.

On March 12, Collier wrote, BBC News / BBC Verify published an exclusive story that accused Israel of abusing Gazan medical staff. Britain’s Israel-bashing Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, was quick to tell the world that this report was “very disturbing”. It was indeed;  but not for the reasons he assumed.

For Collier discovered that the piece relied entirely on three Arabic speaking journalists and three “witnesses” from the hospital. He then discovered that the three journalists, two of whom worked for the BBC, had between them celebrated the October 7 pogrom, supported the Israel boycott and written hatefully about Jews. Of the three “witnesses”, the first was a doctor who in 2021 had celebrated rocket attacks against innocent Israeli civilians; the second had posted an encomium to a Palestinian terrorist; the third was an activist for Fatah who in the past had also glorified terrorism.

The BBC presumably decides that there is no need to “verify” such sources.

There’s much, much more about the BBC’s malevolent coverage of Israel on Collier’s website as well as on Honest Reporting and CAMERA UK. The endemic nature of the BBC’s animus against Israel has prompted repeated horrified protests by Danny Cohen, a former BBC director of television. He wrote this week:

The BBC has been on notice for many months that it has a serious problem with anti-Israel bias in its newsroom. This means that it has also had months to address it. And yet nothing seems to have changed. How can this happen and keep happening? The answer can only be one of two things: either senior BBC managers don’t care about this ongoing bias and are happy to let it continue, or they can’t control it. Either is a gross dereliction of their duty.

It is also a terrible failure of responsibility by the BBC in an environment in which antisemitism is exponentially on the rise and Britain’s Jewish community feels under a level of threat that many have not experienced in their lifetimes. The BBC is contributing to this poisonous atmosphere with reporting that is biased and highly emotive.

A former attorney-general, Sir Michael Ellis, told MPs last month that “the relentless bias of BBC News coverage has contributed to the record levels of intimidation and attacks on British Jews”.‌  He said:

Dozens of current Jewish employees at the BBC are understood to have filed formal complaints about their concerns over antisemitism, describing it as a grim and frightening time to be Jewish at the corporation. ‌The BBC’s senior management has fundamentally failed to deal with this problem and uphold its own guidelines, and the organisation now appears complicit in peddling misinformation and allowing antisemitism to fester. And in those circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the BBC is institutionally antisemitic.

The BBC director-general wrote to staff last month to warn them about rising antisemitism. The Times (£) reported:

Tim Davie called on the organisation’s 21,000 staff to treat each other with “consideration and respect” as he indicated his discomfort with a number of antisemitic incidents that have beset the BBC. “As many of you may have seen, sadly in recent weeks we have been alerted to some antisemitic behaviour by people who worked with us,” he wrote. “I want to be clear that there can be no place at the BBC for racist abuse of any kind, whether towards our Jewish colleagues or indeed colleagues from any background or belief. Any form of antisemitism, Islamophobia or racist abuse is abhorrent, and we will always act whenever it occurs. We must play our role to build understanding and tolerance.”

Given the way these incidents have all been batted aside by senior BBC executives, and the degree to which the BBC’s shocking coverage of Israel has fanned the flames of anti-Jewish incitement, this feeble flapping of the wrist was, to put it mildly, utterly inadequate.

The influence and reach of the BBC place it in a different league from other broadcasting organisations. For decades, it was regarded as the kitemark of truthfulness and fairness, balance and objectivity. It has now become the  most powerful disseminator of murderous disinformation in the world. 

37
This piece makes the point the Biden admin's gaffes in Niger are more of a gift to Putin than anything Trump ever did:

Bidenomics, meet Biden diplomacy
He sent white women to talk down to black men in Africa. They kicked us out
MAR 21, 2024

Biden just got America kicked out of Niger, a nation of 25 million people north of Nigeria, a nation of 215 million people. That may sound unimportant except Niger has uranium and having two U.S. military bases there helps in the battle against Muslim terrorists. Of course, having those bases along our border would stop more Muslim terrorists from entering America but that might interfere with pouring millions of Future Democrat Voters into the USA.

The Wall Street Journal said, “Niger’s decision to end its counterterrorism alliance with Washington came after senior U.S. officials accused the country’s ruling junta of secretly exploring a deal to allow Iran access to its uranium reserves, Nigerien and U.S. officials say.

“The decision to end military cooperation with the U.S. was announced Saturday night by a spokesman for the Nigerien junta. It deals a serious blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to contain a sprawling Islamist insurgency in the Sahel, the semiarid region south of the Sahara. It could affect a $110 million base that was built by the U.S. and is used to fly surveillance drones over West Africa. It could also possibly force the withdrawal of more than 600 American troops still stationed in Niger.”

We know how concerned Biden and Obama are about Iran getting nukes. The Damaging Duo believes Iran is behind schedule.

in Niger, a military junta took over in July.

The Hill reported, “The future of a U.S. military presence in Niger has been in question since a military junta in late July put the country’s president on house arrest and took control of the government.”

What kind of country replaces and prosecutes presidents? Imagine having to live under such conditions.

You’re soaking in it.

President Trump installed two bases in Niger. At the time, the border with Mexico was the most secure it had been in decades. As with the border, Biden is undoing everything Trump accomplished.

Rather than work with the new leaders, Biden decided to work against them. For three months, Biden refused to accept the change in governments.

The New York Times reported, “American officials say they have tried for months to prevent a formal break in relations with Niger’s junta.

“The new U.S. ambassador to Niger, Kathleen FitzGibbon, one of Washington’s top Africa specialists, has held regular discussions with the junta since taking office at the beginning of the year.

“In a trip to Niger in December, Molly Phee, an assistant secretary of state for African Affairs, said the United States intended to resume security and development cooperation with Niger, even as she called for a swift transition to civilian rule and the release of [President] Bazoum.”

I am no expert on diplomacy but telling a nation’s ruler — or in this case, rulers — that you want them to turn their government over to someone else does not show a willingness to work with their regime. I am not giving the Niger junta a pass. I am just saying that the reality is you work with others as they are. We used Stalin to defeat Hitler for crying out loud.

NYT quoted J. Peter Pham, a former special U.S. envoy to the Sahel, who said, “The potential fallout goes beyond the not insignificant damage to counterterrorism and intelligence efforts that loss of access to the bases in Niger entail, but to the broader damage to America’s standing on the continent.”

As readers may have suspected, Putin is moving in. For all the cries of Trump being Putin’s puppet, Putin sure has done well with Biden running our federal government. It is as if Biden were falsely accusing Trump of the things that he actually did, you know, like keeping classified documents in his garage.

Little did I know the profundity of “the smeller is the feller” when I first heard it 60 years ago.

In Niger, things finally came to a head. The Guardian reported, “The junta’s announcement follows a visit by U.S. officials this week which was led by assistant secretary of state for African affairs Molly Phee and included General Michael Langley, commander of the U.S. Africa command.” Langley is the first four-star in the Marines. Phee is just another career diplomat.

The Guardian said, “Colonel Amadou Abdramane said on Niger television on Saturday that the US delegation did not follow diplomatic protocol, and that Niger was not informed about the composition of the delegation, the date of its arrival or the agenda.”

Nothing quite shows disrespect by arriving at the spur of the moment. Thus, Niger is kicking us out.

The colonel said, “Niger regrets the intention of the American delegation to deny the sovereign Nigerien people the right to choose their partners and types of partnerships capable of truly helping them fight against terrorism.

“Also, the government of Niger forcefully denounces the condescending attitude accompanied by the threat of retaliation from the head of the American delegation towards the Nigerien government and people.”

The reaction was as one would expect. Given the willful ignorance of this administration, perhaps Phee and the rest are surprised. This reminds me of how Biden handled his first meeting with Saudi leaders. You may recall that the Saudis greeted Trump in 2017 like a conquering UFC champion with the nation’s media hailing and embracing his wife, his Jewish daughter and his Jewish son-on-law. Trump later became the first to fly directly from Saudi to Israel without a lame stopover in Cyprus to acknowledge that the Saudis officially do not accept the existence of Israel.

Biden went to Saudi and insulted its crown prince.

Reuters reported, “U.S. President Joe Biden said on Friday he told Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman he held him responsible for the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, shortly after exchanging a fist bump with the kingdom's de facto ruler.

“On a trip to reset relations with a country he had called a pariah after Khashoggi's killing in 2018, Biden said the crown prince, known as MbS, denied involvement in the murder and said he had held those responsible to account.”

Surely Biden cannot be that stupid. He looks like he is deliberately kneecapping our nation on the world stage. His plan may be to use his four years to ruin our reputation and our economy for the next hundred years.

His blunder in Africa seems planned as well.

NYT cited Abdoulaye Sissoko, a Nigerien columnist, who wrote, “The goal of American policy is not to help fight armed groups, but to maintain control and counter the growing influence in the region of countries such as Russia, China and Turkey. There is no public evidence that American bases in Niger have proven useful.”

That’s the thing about the Art of the Deal. The other guy must get something out of the deal — besides lectures on how to live his life from a regime that wants to jail and bankrupt the opposition.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe our forces are spread too thin across the world and Biden has depleted our military arsenal by financing a corrupt elf in Ukraine and leaving as tribute billions in weapons to the terrorist Taliban group in Afghanistan.

I will point out, though, that he just handed two new military bases to Putin. But Donald is the puppet, right?

https://donsurber.substack.com/p/bidens-latest-fafo?r=2k0c5&triedRedirect=true

38
Want to be anxious and depressed! Finnish study suggests you go "woke" as it's a sure route to antidepressant land:

https://nypost.com/2024/03/17/lifestyle/woke-people-more-likely-to-be-unahppy-anxious-and-depressed-new-study-suggests/

41
Politics & Religion / Cuba on the Brink of Collapse?
« on: March 20, 2024, 05:01:29 PM »
Odd that an Asian paper is reporting on what’s going on in our backyard regarding an issue American MSM has not noted, perhaps due to the failure of communism on full display here:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2024/03/20/world/communist-cuba-collapse/?fbclid=iwar1wq4jxcvvkoaozed2fppv4bh1mutwppjgi7dfqvaig2vdr4__70trnngg

43
... that showed Dominion was engaged in illegal and deeply troubling electoral practices:

https://thepoliticsbrief.com/election-integrity-attorney-arrested-for-revealing-sensitive-emails-from-dominion-voting-systems/

45
An elegant formulation of what is at stake where Missouri v. Biden in concerned:

Liberals Fret They Have Lost The Disinformation Wars

We don’t need no thought control.

TIPPINSIGHTS EDITORIAL BOARD
March 19, 2024 . 7:30 AM  4 min read

On Sunday, the New York Times published an agonizingly long 4,200-word article on how former President Trump's allies are winning the war over disinformation.
"Waged in the courts, in Congress and in the seething precincts of the internet," the counteroffensive over censorship waged by Trump and his allies "has eviscerated attempts to shield elections from disinformation in the social media era."

The piece was a list of familiar liberal grievances around a central question: "In a world of unlimited online communications, in which anyone can reach huge numbers of people with unverified and false information, where is the line between protecting democracy and trampling on the right to free speech?"

The article's timing was to help influence the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on Monday in a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana about how federal officials force social media platforms to limit speech critical of the government.

As ardent believers of free speech, we have repeatedly stressed in these pages that there should be no line as long as the speech is legal. Social media platforms have already established terms of use prohibiting any expression of criminal speech -one can't plan a drug deal or architect a crime.

The majority of speech on the Internet is civil, meaning it is not criminal. People may not be civil to each other, but this often happens during a vigorous debate. There are no legal contracts between people on a social media platform, so they are free to dispute facts and opinions all they want. The benefits of vibrant interactions in the public sphere thwart any harm resulting from disinformation.

Indeed, some people may express opinions that most others may find distasteful. In the 1988 Supreme Court case, People vs. Larry Flynt, attorney Alan Isaacman argued that Hustler magazine's parody depiction of the Rev. Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother, distasteful as it may have been, was permitted under the constitution: "This country is founded, at least in part, on the firm belief that unpopular speech is vital to the health of our nation." In an 8–0 decision, the Court agreed and held that the ad's infliction of emotional distress on Falwell was insufficient to deny the First Amendment protection of Hustler magazine to criticize public officials and figures.

Unfortunately, the modern establishments’ battle to constantly control the narrative has taken us far from the righteous path that the Supreme Court laid out for us in Flynt. Until Elon Musk took over Twitter and brought free speech back to one of the largest social media platforms, anything that did not meet the establishments’ speech code was immediately deemed as disinformation and harmful. The code was always under extraordinarily broad and laudable yet ambiguous terms, such as trust, safety, and concern for the public.

On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published a damaging story about then-candidate Biden asserting that Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop carried proof he sold influence while his father served as vice president and the elder Biden knew it. The story sought to sow doubts about Biden's prior statements that he never discussed Ukraine with his son. The Biden campaign immediately squashed the story, saying that it was a product of Russian disinformation.

Within hours of the Post's article appearing on Facebook, the platform had limited the story's distribution. The old Twitter went even further and blocked the article altogether. The reason? The report was based on "unverified material from Trump allies."

On October 19, Politico reported that more than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter supporting the Biden campaign. In the letter, the signatories said, "If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we strongly believe that Americans need to be aware of this." The letter gave additional justification for Facebook and Twitter to keep the story off their platforms.
Two weeks later, America voted. Four days after the general election, the AP called the race for Biden.

Almost 11 months later, Politico found evidence that some of the purported Hunter Biden laptop material was genuine after all, including "two emails at the center of last October's controversy." On May 16, 2023, the Times conceded in a shocker: "Three years later, no concrete evidence has emerged to confirm the assertion that the laptop contained Russian disinformation and portions of its contents have been verified as authentic." This meant that the letter signed by 50 apolitical intelligence officials - a fact that Biden touted at a presidential debate to ridicule Trump - was nonsense.

The Hunter Biden story exemplifies what happens when central teams at the social media platforms block a story's distribution to prevent "disinformation."

Thanks to Elon Musk, Americans now know what a vibrant social media platform can do to citizen debate. All views are now permitted on X, formally Twitter, without prejudice or bias. Musk's definition of free speech is to allow someone we don't like to say something we don't like, as long as what is said is legal.

Suppose Facebook and Twitter had allowed the New York Post story to spread three weeks before the election? Numerous media outlets would have investigated the story to discover if the "October surprise" was genuine. Even if the facts were not dispositive, sufficient numbers of voters may have developed doubts not to cast a vote for Biden. "Just 44,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin separated Biden and Trump from a tie in the Electoral College," NPR reported. We calculated the 44,000 votes to be about a margin of 0.6% in each of these states - a small enough sample that could have swung the election. 

It is not a stretch to say that Facebook and Twitter placed a thumb on the scale and probably tilted the 2020 election to Biden. Their disinformation effort, meant to protect democracy, had the opposite effect—wilfully withholding relevant information from voters that may have influenced their choice.

The remedy for wrong speech is not censorship or controlling disinformation but more right speech - a concept Musk has implemented through "Community Notes," when the original post stays and experts who disagree with the author provide information that users can see for themselves.

We fail to understand why the Left does not embrace this simple and elegant solution.

https://tippinsights.com/liberals-fret-they-have-lost-the-disinformation-wars/

46
Well argued piece stating it's time for Fani to be indicted for perjury:


It’s Time For Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp And His AG To Indict Fani Willis For Perjury

BY: WILL CHAMBERLAIN
MARCH 19, 2024


How can Fani Willis credibly prosecute Trump when there are reasonable questions about whether she lied in a Georgia court three weeks ago?
Author Will Chamberlain profile

Last week, Judge Scott McAfee issued his opinion on the potential disqualification of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her subordinate-slash-romantic partner Nathan Wade from Fulton County’s prosecution of Donald Trump and some 18 other Republicans relating to the 2020 election. McAfee found that there was no actual conflict of interest but did find that there was an appearance of impropriety, and held that Wade, but not Willis, had to resign from the prosecution.

The opinion was wrong on the facts and the law. But Trump and his co-defendants have strong grounds for appeal, and Fani Willis isn’t out of the woods yet. Moreover, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Attorney General Chris Carr need to do their job, get over whatever animus they have toward Trump, and indict Willis and Wade on perjury charges.

Factual Errors

There were two core factual issues Judge McAfee was charged with resolving. The first was whether Willis and Wade’s romantic relationship began before November 2021, when Willis hired Wade as a special prosecutor. The second was whether Willis had a conflict of interest resulting from Wade paying for vacations for the two of them while he was contracting with Willis’ office.

The first question should have been straightforwardly resolved against Willis and Wade. Willis’ former best friend and landlord, Robin Yeartie, reluctantly testified that the relationship did in fact begin back in 2019.

Judge McAfee dismissed Yeartie’s testimony as “lack[ing] context and detail.” Perhaps Judge McAfee didn’t bother to reread the transcript of the proceedings that happened in his own courtroom. Yeartie didn’t merely testify to the fact that Willis and Wade’s relationship began in 2019; she testified that she had multiple conversations with Willis about the relationship prior to 2022, and that she observed Willis and Wade hugging and kissing prior to 2022. It’s hard to understand what further detail McAfee expected Yeartie to provide.

Judge McAfee also completely brushed aside cell phone data showing that Wade often spent the night at Willis’ residence prior to November 2021, and that they exchanged thousands of phone calls and more than 10,000 text messages prior to when they claim their relationship began. It’s clear he had no desire to affirmatively find that Willis perjured herself.

Legal Errors

Judge McAfee’s factual findings, though bizarre and untethered to the evidence, are unlikely to be disturbed on appeal, as appellate courts must give a lot of deference to the factfinder. But there were also several suspect legal holdings in Judge McAfee’s opinion that are ripe for appeal.

Judge McAfee said that “the evidence did not establish the District Attorney’s receipt of a material financial benefit as a result of her decision to hire and engage in a romantic relationship with Wade” and that “the Defendants [did] not present[] sufficient evidence indicating that the expenses were not ‘roughly divided evenly.”

As Professor Alan Dershowitz pointed out, McAfee misapplied the law on this question. Defendants presented straightforward evidence that Willis benefited from hiring Wade: Wade’s credit card receipts showing that he paid for their joint vacations. Given the existence of these receipts, the burden should have been on Willis and Wade to prove that these expenses were reimbursed.

They could not do this, of course. Willis and Wade testified that the expenses were reimbursed in cash and provided no ATM receipts or bank deposit receipts to corroborate their clearly improvised story.

McAfee held that the burden was on the defense to prove that the expenses were not reimbursed. That’s improper as a matter of law, and as Dershowitz explained, it’s also grounds for reversal on appeal.

Further, Judge McAfee found that “neither side was able to conclusively establish by a preponderance of the evidence when the [Willis/Wade] relationship evolved into a romantic one.” This sentence is legally incoherent. If a prosecutor — or the defense — can “conclusively” prove a fact, that is equivalent to saying that they have proved that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The point of a “preponderance of the evidence” standard is that the fact does not have to be “conclusively” proved by the evidence; rather, there just needs to be more evidence supporting one side than the other.

If Judge McAfee had applied the preponderance of the evidence standard properly, there is no way he could have found it for Willis. On the side of finding that the relationship began in 2019, we have the disinterested testimony of Robin Yeartie, the text messages of Terrence Bradley, and the cell phone tower evidence showing that Wade was regularly in the vicinity of Willis’ residence in the early morning hours. On the other side of the ledger, he has the self-serving testimony of Willis and Wade denying the existence of the relationship. This shouldn’t have been a close question, but by subtly shifting the burden of proof and requiring the defendants to “conclusively” prove the existence of the relationship, McAfee avoided disqualifying Willis.

McAfee also held that an appearance of impropriety can warrant disqualification of individual prosecutors but not the whole prosecutor’s office, and further held that removing Wade would “cure” the appearance of impropriety.

This last legal holding is unlikely to survive appellate scrutiny. The appearance of impropriety implicates both Willis and Wade. As Jonathan Turley put it, it’s as though the police discovered two thieves in a bank vault and arrested only one. There are reasonable questions about whether Willis testified truthfully and about whether she financially gained from the prosecution. Those questions don’t just go away because Wade withdrew.

Willis Isn’t Out of the Woods

Even though Judge McAfee bent over backward to avoid disqualifying Willis and her office, the opinion created a ton of problems for Willis going forward. Judge McAfee described how an “odor of mendacity” permeates the case and acknowledged that “reasonable questions about whether [Willis and Wade] testified untruthfully … further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety.”

These factual findings provide fertile ground for a successful appeal by the defendants. Ashleigh Merchant, Steve Sadow, and the rest of the lawyers working for the defense are certainly going to ask Judge McAfee for a certificate of immediate appeal, so they can go straight to the court of appeals without waiting for the trial to conclude. That said, no one can force Judge McAfee to certify the issue for appeal, or the court of appeals to subsequently take the case. One hopes that both will exercise their discretion to remedy this injustice.

Moreover, Judge McAfee also found that Willis’ speech to a local Atlanta church, where she accused defendant Mike Roman and his lawyer Ashleigh Merchant of “playing the race card,” was, in McAfee’s words, “legally improper.” He’s right about that.

Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(g) mandates that prosecutors “refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.” McAfee declined to dismiss the indictment because of these comments, but Willis is still going to have issues with the Georgia Bar over what is a very straightforward violation of ethics rules.

Remember: Fani Willis is trying to put Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and others in jail for allegedly attempting to deceive Georgia courts three years ago. She can’t credibly continue to prosecute this case when there are “reasonable questions” about whether she attempted to deceive a Georgia court three weeks ago.

The “reasonable questions” about DA Willis’ truthfulness are already the subject of complaints to the Georgia Bar about Willis and Wade’s conduct. They should also serve as the predicate for an investigation by Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr into potential perjury charges against Willis and Wade. Carr, and his boss Brian Kemp, need to get off the sidelines. A partisan Democrat prosecutor has just lied under oath so that she can continue prosecuting Republicans for objecting to election results.

That cannot stand.

Will Chamberlain is currently Senior Counsel at the Article III Project and the Internet Accountability Project. Follow him on X at @willchamberlain.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/19/fani-willis-is-still-on-the-trump-case-but-not-free-of-her-legal-troubles/

47
Politics & Religion / Promoting Coconspiracy
« on: March 18, 2024, 08:07:37 PM »
Break a bunch of laws and get away with it, what do you do? Promote the staff that assisted in the effort. Imagine if word got out Trump did the same….

https://nypost.com/2024/03/16/us-news/president-biden-promotes-top-staffers-involved-in-mishandling-classified-documents/

48
Politics & Religion / The DEI Crowd Loses One
« on: March 18, 2024, 04:34:13 PM »
Novant Health takes a big hit for firing a high performing white guy and replacing him with a new hire black woman:

Employers May Not "Take Adverse Employment Actions … Based on [Employees'] Race or Gender to Implement" "Diversity and Inclusion" Programs

The Volokh Conspiracy / by Eugene Volokh / Mar 18, 2024 at 9:13 AM

From Tuesday's Fourth Circuit decision in Duvall v. Novant Health, Inc., written by Judge Agee and joined by Judges Quattlebaum and Floyd (upholding a damages award of "about $4 million"):

After a week-long trial, a North Carolina jury found that Novant Health, Inc. terminated David Duvall because of his race, sex, or both, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to the finding of liability, the jury awarded Duvall $10 million in punitive damages [reduced to the statutory maximum of $300,000].

The court summarized the facts, as usual in this situation, in light most favorable to the verdict:

Duvall, a white man, began working for Novant Health in 2013, when Executive Vice President and Chief Consumer Officer Jesse Cureton, a black man, hired him as Senior Vice President of Marketing and Communications. Based in North Carolina, Duvall reported directly to Cureton and held the same position throughout his employment with Novant Health. Evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Duvall performed exceptionally in his role, receiving strong performance reviews and gaining national recognition for himself and the marketing program he developed for Novant Health.

Despite all that, Cureton fired Duvall in July 2018, a decision that came as a shock to both Duvall and his colleagues. Moreover, Novant Health—a multibillion-dollar company with tens of thousands of employees and an extensive human resources department—had no record of any documented criticism of Duvall's performance or reasons for his termination.

Immediately after firing Duvall, Novant Health elevated two of Duvall's deputies, a white woman and a black woman, to take over his duties. It then later hired another black woman to permanently replace Duvall.

Believing Novant Health fired him merely to achieve racial and gender diversity—or more specifically, to hit certain diversity "targets"—within its leadership, Duvall sued his former employer under Title VII and North Carolina state law in federal district court….

The court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict:

To begin, Duvall presented evidence about the context surrounding his termination. The jury heard that Duvall was fired in the middle of a widescale D&I initiative at Novant Health, which sought to "embed diversity and inclusion throughout" the company, and to ensure that its overall workforce, including its leadership, "reflect[ed] the communities [it] serve[d]." There was evidence presented that Novant Health endeavored to accomplish this goal by, among other things, benchmarking its then-current D&I levels and developing and employing D&I metrics; committing to "adding additional dimensions of diversity to the executive and senior leadership teams" and incorporating "a system wide decision making process that includes a diversity and inclusion lens"; and evaluating the success of its efforts and identifying and closing any remaining diversity gaps.

The jury also heard about the demographic data from 2015 and 2017 that Novant Health collected. From a factual standpoint, the data revealed a decline in female leaders and an overrepresentation of male and white leadership in comparison to the total workforce. It also showed an increase in white male representation "with each level of management," compared to a decrease in "African-American representation … at each level [of management] with the exception of the executive team." By 2019, however, Novant Health saw a dramatic increase in female leaders just from the year prior (the period in which Duvall was fired). It also reflected a decrease of white workers and leaders and an increase in black workers and leaders over the life of the D&I Plan. Additionally, after remaining gaps in the Hispanic and Asian workforce were identified, Novant Health adopted a long-term financial incentive plan that tied executive bonuses to closing those gaps by achieving a specific percentage of each group.

Against that backdrop, we consider the evidence specific to Duvall and his termination.

As noted above, there was substantial evidence at trial that Duvall performed superbly in his role at Novant Health…. But despite this evidence of his exceptional performance, the jury heard that Duvall was abruptly fired, having been told only that Novant Health was "going in a different direction." … Finally, the jury heard Cureton offer shifting, conflicting, and unsubstantiated explanations for Duvall's termination. [Details omitted, but can be seen in the full opinion. -EV] …

{To be clear, employers may, if they so choose, utilize D&I-type programs. What they cannot do is take adverse employment actions against employees based on their race or gender to implement such a program. And as recounted above, the evidence presented at trial in this case was more than sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that is precisely what Novant Health did to Duvall.}

But the court set aside the award of punitive damages, because such damages were available "only in limited circumstances:"

Title VII authorizes punitive damages only when a plaintiff makes two showings. First, the plaintiff must show that the employer engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact). Second, the plaintiff must show that the employer engaged in the discriminatory practice with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual. That is, an employer must at least discriminate in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law.

And, the court held, plaintiff introduced no "affirmative evidence" that the employer actually "perceived [the] risk" that its actions were illegal: Duvall "offered no evidence as to the training or qualification that Novant Health offered to or required of Cureton, or a comparable executive, to establish the requisite knowledge of federal anti-discrimination law. Duvall even cross-examined Cureton yet never elicited from him testimony establishing his personal knowledge of federal anti-discrimination law, let alone that he perceived a risk that his decision to fire Duvall would violate it." And the "inference that Cureton had the requisite knowledge given his career as a corporate executive" was insufficient.

The post Employers May Not "Take Adverse Employment Actions … Based on [Employees'] Race or Gender to Implement" "Diversity and Inclusion" Programs appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/18/employers-may-not-take-adverse-employment-actions-based-on-employees-race-or-gender-to-implement-diversity-and-inclusion-programs/

49
Politics & Religion / Amicus Brief Filed in MD’s AR Ban Court Case
« on: March 18, 2024, 04:15:28 PM »
Scary black AR rifles get treatment similar to bump stocks, yet have far more utility. This piece speaks to an Amicus brief filed on behalf of plaintiffs taking issue w/ MD’s AR ban:

Law Enforcement Trainers File Scotus Amicus Brief against Maryland Rifle Ban

The Volokh Conspiracy / by David Kopel / Mar 18, 2024 at 5:38 PM

[Citizens should be able to choose the same high-quality defensive arms that peace officers choose]

Last week the International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers Association filed an amicus brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case challenging Maryland's ban on many common semiautomatic rifles. The case is Bianchi v. Brown, and it has an unusual procedural posture; it is a petition for certiorari before judgement. Yet the case is one on which the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled.

This post will first summarize the amicus brief, and then provide the procedural background, which is detailed in the Bianchi plaintiffs' cert. petition.

The facts about the banned rifles

As detailed in the amicus brief, the semiautomatic rifles banned by the Maryland General Assembly fire only one shot each time the trigger is pressed. This is the same rate of fire as the most common semiautomatic handguns, such as those made by Glock, Smith & Wesson, or Ruger.

The claim by gun prohibition advocates that such guns fire 300 to 500 times per minute has no basis in fact, and is contrary to common sense. It would take a superhuman trigger finger pull a trigger at the rate of 5 to 8 times per second, let alone do so for a full minute.

Nor are the banned rifles, including those based on the AR-15 platform, more powerful than nonbanned rifles. To the contrary, their standard ammunition is .223 inch or 5.56mm bullets that are small compared to most other rifle ammunition. Accordingly, their kinetic energy is lower.

Because the banned rifles are more powerful than handguns, but less powerful than most other rifles, the relatively low wounding power of this ammunition has been confirmed by decades of study by the US Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory.

Moreover, as documented in police training manuals, the banned rifles are the safest for defensive use within buildings, because their ammunition is especially unlikely to penetrate a wall.

The deadliest firearms in mass shootings are handguns. Researchers led by Dr. Babak Sarani, founder and chief of the Center for Trauma and Critical Care at George Washington University Hospital, examined the relationship between the type of firearm used, wounding characteristics, and probability of death in mass shootings. Babak Sarani, et al., Wounding Patterns Based on Firearm Type in Civilian Public Mass Shootings in the United States, 228 J. Amer. College Surgeons 228 (Mar. 2019). They studied firearm types and autopsy reports for 232 victims from 23 mass shootings, including high-casualty shootings with "assault weapons" at Orlando and Las Vegas.

Surprisingly, the researchers found that mass shootings with handguns are more lethal than those with rifles because handguns result in more wounds per victim and more injuries to vital organs. Id. at 228-29, 232-33. "All of us were shocked," Dr. Sarani said. "We came to the table with our bias that an assault weapon would be worse." Carolyn Crist, Handguns More Lethal Than Rifles in Mass Shootings, Reuters (Dec. 31, 2018).

Law enforcement perspectives

Because the banned rifles are relatively low-powered, their recoil is lower, and hence they are more accurate. Additionally, the rifles are replete with features (outlawed by Maryland) that enhance accuracy.

For example, a telescoping stock can adjust for a precise fit to the user's size. The customizable forward grip provides stability. Surrounding the barrel are rails (sometimes called the handguard or forend) that make it easy to add optics, such as scopes, red dots, and/or flashlights – all for greater accuracy.

So it is no wonder that these semiautomatic rifles are very commonly chosen by law enforcement officers to carry in their patrol cars. Law enforcement officers choose their patrol rifles for only one purpose: lawful defense of self and others. It is preposterous for a legislature to claim (falsely) that these rifles are "weapons of war," are useless for self-defense, and are made only for mass killing. This is a libel against law-abiding law enforcement officers.

Prudently, American citizens have always looked to law enforcement for guidance in choosing defensive firearms, because law enforcement firearms are selected with care. Officers choose their duty arms for one purpose: lawful defense of self and others.

The most important reason why citizens often do and should copy law enforcement officers' firearms selections is to ensure that citizens will have reliable firearms for defense. Officers' arms are well-suited for defense against violent criminals; and they are appropriate for use in civil society.

Law enforcement officers are not soldiers wielding weapons of war, and their interactions with citizens are not governed by rules of engagement for the battlefield. The challenged statute implicitly denigrates peace officers by treating them like an occupying army. Such negative attitudes make the public less willing to cooperate with law enforcement and damage community relations.

Procedural background

In 2013, the Maryland General Assembly enacted a sweeping ban on many semiautomatic rifles, particularly targeting those that are most useful for lawful defense of self and others. The ban was promptly challenged in Kolbe v. Hogan, a case which went through the complete discovery process.

At the time, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, like most but not all other Circuits, evaluated Second Amendment cases under a "Two-Part Test," which was similar to the three tiers of scrutiny that had been used for free speech and equal protection cases. The district court applied a weak form of intermediate scrutiny and upheld the ban. Kolbe v. O'Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014). Then, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit held that—because the statute banned many common arms—strict scrutiny was the proper standard. Kolbe v. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016)

Before the remanded case could be decided the the District Court, the Fourth Circuit took the case en banc, and the majority ruled hat the banned arms are not even covered by the Second Amendment. By the en banc majority's theory, lightly premised on a tendentious reading of the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller, arms that are mainly suitable for military use are not part of the Second Amendment. Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017).

The majority rationale was out of touch with current facts, since no military in the world uses semiautomatic-only rifles. The U.S. military and others choose service rifles that are capable of automatic fire. More fundamentally, the Kolbe majority rationale would deny Second Amendment protection to the very arms with which Americans won their War of Independence—namely the personally-owned muskets and rifles that American Patriots brought to service, because those were the arms that the States and the colonies had specified by statute were the best arms for the militia.

When plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari, Randy Barnett, Ilya Shapiro, Joseph Greenlee, and I wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the National Sheriffs' Association and other organizations. Certiorari was denied in 2017. At the time, the Supreme Court was refusing to take almost any case involving the Second Amendment. (The only notable exception was Caetono v. Massachusetts, a 2016 challenge to the now-defunct Massachusetts ban on electric stun guns.)

A new case, challenging only the gun ban (and not other 2013 items, such as a magazine ban) was filed in 2020. The District Court quickly dismissed the case based on Kolbe, and a Fourth Circuit panel tersely affirmed. Plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari.

A few days after the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court granted, vacated, and remanded three cases for reconsideration in light of Bruen. One of them was the Maryland firearms ban case, now known as Bianchi v. Frosh. 142 S. Ct. 2898, 2899 (Mem.) (2022). (The other two cases were magazine bans from the Third and Ninth Circuits.)

The June 2022 remand led to oral argument before a three-judge Fourth Circuit panel in December 2022. The panel took over a year to write an opinion. Then, while the draft opinion was presumably being circulated among the Circuit's other judges, the Fourth Circuit sua sponte took the case away from the panel, and in January 2024 took the case en banc. The iron rule of Fourth Circuit jurisprudence has always been that no decision in support of a Second Amendment plaintiff can survive the process of appellate review. See Kopel, Data Indicate Second Amendment Underenforcement, 68 Duke Law Journal Online 79 (2018) (also noting same problem in Second and Ninth Circuits).

The Bianchi plaintiffs, represented by David Thompson of the D.C. constitutional litigation boutique Cooper & Kirk, petitioned for certiorari before judgement. They argued that the Fourth Circuit's dilatory procedures are an obvious attempt to evade Supreme Court precedent, which clearly dictates a ruling against the Maryland ban.

Perhaps as result of the cert. petition, the Fourth Circuit has scheduled a prompt en banc oral argument, on March 20.

Shortly after the Bianchi petition for certiorari before final judgement was filed, similar petitions were filed for several cases involving an especially draconian gun ban enacted in Illinois in 2023. The results in the district courts on preliminary injunction motions had been mixed, and the Seventh Circuit considered them all together. In Bevis v. City of Naperville, 85 F.4th 1175 (7th Cir. 2023), a three-judge panel led by Judge Easterbrook relied on Kolbe, and held that the banning of a vast number of common firearms had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. In his view, the Second Amendment does not apply to arms "reserved to the military."

Judge Easterbrook's opinion would have been doctrinally solid if he had been interpreting the Mexican Constitution's right to arms, which states:

Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have a right to arms in their homes, for security and legitimate defense, with the exception of arms prohibited by federal law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and National Guard. Federal law will determine the cases, conditions, requirements, and places in which the carrying of arms will be authorized to the inhabitants.

See Kopel, Mexico's Gun Control Laws: A Model for the United States? 18 Texas Review of Law & Politics 27 (2013). But even if the U.S. constitutional right to arms had copied Mexico's, Judge Easterbrook still would have been wrong on the facts, because the arms banned in Illinois are not used by the U.S. military. And despite what Judge Easterbrook claimed, the banned firearms do not function like machine guns.

The post Law Enforcement Trainers File Scotus Amicus Brief against Maryland Rifle Ban appeared first on Reason.com.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/03/18/law-enforcement-trainers-file-scotus-amicus-brief-against-maryland-rifle-ban/

50
Politics & Religion / Judges and Selective Prosecution
« on: March 18, 2024, 09:50:41 AM »
Good overview with several links therein castigating selective prosecution and the judicial behavior that undergirds it:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/03/mendacity_and_corruption_in_the_judiciary.html

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33