Fire Hydrant of Freedom

Wisconsin Bans Zuckerbucks
More voters reject the use of private funds to administer elections.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
April 3, 2024 5:45 pm ET

Restoring trust in elections should be a bipartisan cause, and Wisconsin voters taught the professionals a lesson on Tuesday by approving two state constitutional amendments that increase safeguards for election integrity.

More than 54% approved a referendum banning the use of private grants in election administration. And more than 58% backed a second measure requiring that only public officials “designated by law” can handle election administration.

This is a welcome response to the infusion of so-called Zuckerbucks in the 2020 election. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan handed out cash grants through the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life to state and local officials who run elections and count ballots.

A 2021 report by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) found that more than 86% of the $10 million from the Center for Tech and Civic Life went to the cities of Madison, Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha and Green Bay. “The private money served to increase voter turnout for Joe Biden, but not Donald Trump,” WILL found.

Green Bay received more than $1.2 million and had access to consultants from outside groups. Republicans objected in particular to a consultant from the National Vote at Home Institute who they said was given access to areas containing ballots, a privilege that should have been reserved for government workers.

Green Bay city attorney Vanessa Chavez said the allegations of meddling were “unfounded,” but the mess became fodder for Donald Trump supporters who claimed it was part of a conspiracy to rig the election. That was overblown: Mr. Trump lost Wisconsin by more than 20,000 votes mainly because he received 63,000 fewer votes than Republicans running for Congress. But the appearance of outside meddling was damaging enough to persuade Wisconsin voters to endorse the ban.

Twenty-seven other states have restricted private funding, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Tuesday’s amendments are useful correctives, and they’ll remove one argument from those who want to cast doubt on election results.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/04/04/u-s-states-forbidding-chinese-entities-from-owning-land/

(5) NAVY SAYS ALL MAJOR SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS DELAYED FOR YEARS:

According to a new report from the U.S. Navy, multiple capital ship programs are now facing 12- to 36-month delays after Secretary of the Navy Carlos del Toro ordered a 45-day comprehensive shipbuilding review in January.

“The supply chain is different now,” and workforce attrition in the defense industrial base and supply chain has doubled since the COVID pandemic in some areas, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) commander Vice Adm. James Downey said.

Why It Matters: This is another sign that the U.S. defense industrial base is depleted, and it will likely be difficult for the U.S. to turn economic power into military power ahead of a conflict with China as soon as 2027. – R.C.

(2) OFFICIALS PLAN TO BLOCK TRUMP FROM STOPPING UKRAINE AID: According to U.S. and European officials, the U.S. and NATO allies are considering a plan to transfer control of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group from the U.S. to NATO to ensure arms transfers continue ahead of a potential Trump presidency.

Former Pentagon and NATO official Jim Townsend said some NATO officials think it is better to institutionalize the arms transfer process, and this plan isolates Ukraine arms transfers from a Trump reelection or the U.S. getting distracted by a conflict with China (!!!).

Why It Matters: This is another instance of the Biden administration attempting to “future-proof” policies against a future Trump administration. The Biden administration’s goal is very likely to prevent a repeat of 2017 when Trump and House Republicans used the Congressional Review Act to repeal last-minute Obama administration rules on energy emissions. – R.C.

Not sure if I like that reasoning.  Doesn't it mean we think Thomas should be recusing himself?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-rCvj_2ST8&t=22s

YES.

Let's keep close eye on this.  The totalitarian implications are frightening.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/04/02/wisconsin-voters-approve-gop-led-election-integrity-ballot-measures-ahead-of-november-1449692/?utm_campaign=bizpac&utm_content=Newsletter&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Get%20Response&utm_term=EMAIL

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-s-quiet-push-into-russia-s-far-east-puts-putin-in-a-pickle/ar-BB1kXvG2?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=3c9ec92753d24cbfa9c70db58ba94d48&ei=9

Gold at all-time high, oil around $85, silver t $25, VIX hitting 15 (still low in the big picture), BTC retreating.

(2) TEXAS REPORTS FIRST BIRD FLU JUMP FROM CATTLE TO HUMAN: The Texas Department of State Health Services reported the first human infection of avian influenza (H5N1), which authorities believe was transmitted from cattle infected with H5N1.
“Every single time is a little bit of Russian roulette,” and eventually H5N1 will adapt to spread among humans, former Biden official Ashish Jha said.
Brown University Pandemic Center director Jennifer Nuzzo said authorities have been concerned about H5N1 for more than twenty years, and it is “remarkable” how far across the globe H5N1 has spread over the last year.
Why It Matters: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) say the human infection risk is still low, but their assessment could change if more cases of cattle-to-human transmission are discovered. If H5N1 does mutate to allow cattle-to-human and human-to-human transmission, the case fatality rate is the most significant concern. The World Health Organization is tracking global H5N1 human infections, and they say the case fatality rate is above 50%. The situation is still developing but could become a food security threat due to the vulnerability of U.S. food supply chains to biosecurity threats. – R.C.

Here ya go:

The RNC Is Right: Anyone Who Can’t Recognize Flaws In 2020 Is Unfit To Help Republicans Win
BY: BRIANNA LYMAN
MARCH 28, 2024

Winning requires first acknowledging past and existing problems.


The Republican National Committee (RNC) is reportedly asking prospective employees what they think about the 2020 election — as they should.

Citing unnamed sources, The Washington Post reported that job applicants at the RNC have been asked about whether they believe the 2020 election was “stolen,” although the Post acknowledged the questions were “open-ended.”

The Post tried to spin the story as the RNC “demanding fealty” to former President Donald Trump, using the words of President Joe Biden’s rapid response director. But beating Democrats — who showed in 2020 that they are willing to ignore the rule of law in order to change how elections are fundamentally run, to their advantage — starts by acknowledging what happened in 2020.

“Potential staffers who worked on the front line in battleground states or are currently in states where fraud allegations have been prevalent were asked about their work experience,” RNC and Trump spokeswoman Danielle Alvarez said in a statement to The Federalist. “We want experienced staff with meaningful views on how elections are won and lost and real experience-based opinions about what happens in the trenches.”

[READ NEXT: Leftists Bragged About ‘Fortifying’ The 2020 Election. Now They’re Flaunting Plans To Do It Again In 2024]

So what did happen in the “trenches”?

For one, unelected officials usurped the authority of the legislature to unilaterally change election laws and fundamentally alter the electoral process.

Then-Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar serves as a prime example, having bucked not only the legislature but guidance from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court declined to expedite Pennsylvania Republicans’ challenge to a state supreme court order that permitted ballots that were postmarked by Election Day but received during the three days following Election Day — and also ballots lacking a postmark but received during the same period — to be counted, based on the understanding that Boockvar would segregate ballots received during the three day extension.

Republicans argued the state supreme court’s decision violated state law that stipulates ballots must arrive by Election Day. Any move to extend the deadline for accepting ballots, they contended, should belong to lawmakers.

Boockvar initially issued guidance on Oct. 28 ordering all ballots received after Election Day be kept separate in the event the high court ruled the ballot extension unconstitutional. Justice Samuel Alito noted that guidance the same day, in a statement on the court’s decision not to take the case. But just days before the election, Boockvar issued updated guidance ordering the segregated late ballots be counted “as soon as possible upon receipt of the ballots.”

Boockvar was later rebuked by a state court for additional guidance she put out that allowed voters missing proof of identification to “cure” their mail-in ballots until Nov. 12, nine days after the election. Trump’s campaign and the RNC argued Boockvar lacked the authority to change the law and only the legislature had power to legislate election changes.

“[T]he Court concludes that Respondent Kathy Boockvar, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, lacked statutory authority to issue the November 1, 2020, guidance to Respondents County Boards of Elections insofar as that guidance purported to change the deadline … for certain electors to verify proof of identification,” Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt wrote.

[READ NEXT: 3 Fishy Things In Pennsylvania Voter Data The State Has Yet To Explain]

Other battleground states had issues that undoubtedly affected the election, such as Georgia, which saw Democrats sneak in a major change to mail-in voting months before Election Day. As part of an agreement with the Georgia Democratic Party, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, state election officials agreed to permit “ballot curing.”

Ballot curing allows voters whose ballots were rejected a chance to “cure” or correct the issue on their absentee ballot so that it can be counted. But as The Federalist’s John Davidson pointed out, there was a less-publicized provision of the agreement that had consequences for the election. Prior to the agreement, the signature on an absentee ballot had to match the signature in Georgia’s voter registration database. Ballots were rejected if the signatures did not match.

But the new agreement made sure that an absentee ballot signature simply had to match the signature on the absentee ballot application. This means if someone filled out an application fraudulently, that same person could then sign the ballot itself and both signatures would match.

Or take a state like Wisconsin, where two years after Trump lost by roughly 20,000 votes, the state Supreme Court ruled unelected officials did not have authority to usurp the legislature the way it did when it issued guidance permitting the use of ballot drop boxes in direct contradiction of state law. Milwaukee, like other left-leaning cities in the state, had more than a dozen of these illegal drop boxes. President Joe Biden beat Trump by more than 100,000 votes in the city.

Unlawful changes to election laws were only one of the ways the 2020 election was rigged — or “fortified,” as leftists would say. From Big Tech censorship of conservative speech and bombshell news (like the Hunter Biden laptop story), to media interference, to the infiltration of election offices by private donors via “Zuckbucks,” the 2020 election was rife with alarming issues that Republicans would be foolish not to learn from.

“Allowing just one of these attacks to infect our electoral system would be a crisis,” Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway told the House Administration Committee last month. “Allowing all of them at the same time is an existential threat to our system of self-government.”

April 2, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

Geopolitics and the Moon
By: George Friedman
The moon will soon totally eclipse the sun – an event rare enough to be measured in centuries. This is a suitable occasion, then, to think about the moon, Earth and humanity. But I also have a more prosaic reason to do so: I am in the process of writing a book on the geopolitics of the moon, so the eclipse has given me an excuse to flesh out some early thoughts. (I assure you that, psychologically, writing for immediate public consumption is dramatically different from endlessly sawing away for the future.)

The primary issue at stake is the relationship of the moon to Earth. Indeed, the moon is intimately connected to Earth. Long ago, a planet roughly the size of Mars brushed by Earth, tore a large chunk of our planet away and placed it in orbit around Earth – or so the dominant theory goes. Though this seems cosmically unlikely, people who know about such things insist that it is true and that it undoubtedly affected the shape of Earth, its climate and perhaps even global agriculture.

The most striking theory is that the moon is filled with valuable minerals on which much of Earth’s economy is built. If it indeed struck Earth many years ago, it must be assumed that a substantial amount of Earth’s mineral structure was torn away with it. If this is true, the moon must be a mineral-rich planet and thus a foundation of wealth. It is known that the moon has substantial amounts of water, for the most part frozen, as well as the ability to capture enormous amounts of energy, radiated by the sun, that could drive industry on the moon and a great deal of Earth’s energy, assuming it is retransmitted to Earth.

The moon is also an excellent place from which to influence or even dominate Earth. It could become a military base from which a hostile enemy could bombard Earth with solar power or boulders procured from the surface of the moon. Equally important, it is an excellent defensive point with offensive weapons hidden beneath its crust, able to withstand attacks – even nuclear attacks – by digging into its surface. Rather than a vast wasteland, a well-defended lunar base would be able to intersect attacks in the Earth-moon area of space and protect mining and industrial installations.

This is a primitive sketch of the significance of the moon. Much must still be learned. But the interest, especially the interest of the United States, is there. In fact, Washington will launch a series of manned missions ultimately designed to establish a base that might stand for a substantial amount of time.

“He who controls Eastern Europe controls the world” has long been a common refrain in the history of geopolitics. I am not sure how true this is, but it sounds definitive. I take much more seriously the principle that, “He who controls the moon controls Earth.” If, as it is assumed, the moon has the resources needed to sustain a long-term presence, energy to control near space and weapons with which to defend it, the proposition makes some sense. After all, the moon is the ultimate high ground, providing clear vision to detect attacks and material that might attract Earth-based powers to seek an alliance with the moon – assuming the proposition that humans might live on the moon merely to become wealthy. There are obvious and not-so-obvious reasons why this might not work, but it should be remembered that Europeans went to South America seeking gold, silver and all the rest. Given current technologies, the relative distance between Portugal and Brazil and between the moon and Portugal is not wildly different. The voyage to the moon may even seem less daunting.

Humans pursue wealth and will use military power to attain it. The history of the world is the history of movement and the struggle for wealth. It seems to me that, if the value many assume the moon possesses comes to fruition, geopolitics might continue to govern in a new game.

Lessons Trump has learned

Washington will change radically come 2025

By Chris Stewart and Christian Whiton

It appears increasingly likely that Washington is about to face a reality check it hasn’t seen since 2017. The changes will come quickly and cut deeply. The consequence will be that Washington will be guided by drastically different personnel and policies. Though a Republican capture of the White House is not a foregone conclusion, the reality is that with seven months to go until the election, President Biden finds himself in a lamentable situation. This reality is best synopsized by the fact that former President Donald Trump now leads in averages of polls in all seven swing states that will determine who will be the next president. And Mr. Trump doesn’t need to win them all to win the presidency.

Of course, much can change between now and the election. But will it? At this point, public perceptions of the candidates seem to be as solid as concrete, with voters deeply familiar with the policies and styles of both men. To the extent that voters change their perceptions over the next seven months, the most likely catalyst will be Mr. Biden’s declining cognitive state.

Americans are livid that nearly onethird of their buying power and savings have been wiped out by inflation, which Mr. Biden’s taxborrow- and-spend budget proposals promise to continue. American prestige and power have been diminished around the world. Our southern border is a disaster. Mr. Biden seems to care more about illegal immigrants than the rights and prosperity of Americans. On cultural issues, can anyone doubt that Mr. Biden and his “woke” staff side with the transgender activists who shouted “We’re coming for your children” last summer in New York?

The Democrats’ chances of holding or improving their position in Congress are equally dubious. They hold their majority in the Senate by a single seat. And they must defend 23 Senate seats, with Republicans having to defend only 10, none of which is seriously vulnerable. And the closely divided House is likely to follow the result of the presidential race.

Taking all this into account, it’s within reason to expect Republicans to capture both the White House and Congress.

The next Trump presidency, however, will be radically different from his first administration. Mr. Trump has learned a lot of lessons. And they will be applied.

For starters, Mr. Trump will hit the ground running. He would be the first president since Grover Cleveland, who served two nonconsecutive terms, not to face a steep learning curve to perform the duties of chief executive. Mr. Trump’s Cabinet and senior advisers will consist of some familiar faces among the successes of his first term.

Still, he will be free of those who secretly opposed his agenda or dishonestly dragged their feet through the slog as they embedded in the deep state. The same will also be true among the 4,000 political appointments that a president’s personnel operation manages. No more swamp critters waiting around for the next big sinecure — just those who want to help Mr. Trump fulfill the mission of draining the swamp. There will also be a greater sense of urgency. Mr. Trump will know that time is of the essence, with the midterms and lame-duck status just a few years away. Expect the president to move decisively and determinedly to implement his agenda.

A Republican-led Congress, too, will be different. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has announced he will not seek reelection to his leadership post. In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson’s quiet and composed effectiveness under the most trying circumstances is promising. Working through legislative vehicles that do not require 60 votes in the Senate, a Republican Congress could decisively help Mr. Trump get his team in place and enact lasting policies that will radically correct our nation’s course at home and abroad.

Mr. Trump will owe little to the establishment powers on either the right or left. The traditional policy ecosystem in Washington, which includes the media, think tanks, lobbying firms and the deep state itself, will have significantly diminished power. A new generation of leaders will fill key roles and make key decisions.

Change is coming, and it’s going to be radical. The challenges that lie before us demand nothing less

https://washingtontimes-dc.newsmemory.com/?token=98e91b52b183630bc253e84fb345f1c7_660c0207_6d25b5f&selDate=20240402

April 1, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

Is Vietnam Facilitating US-North Korea Talks?
Pyongyang’s traditional benefactors are not as reliable as they once were.
By: Allison Fedirka

North Korea lies athwart the interests of the world’s most important geopolitical actors – namely, the United States, China and Russia. The government in Pyongyang plays its bilateral relationships with these countries off one another as part of its broader strategy to ensure the survival of the Kim regime and to forestall complete economic collapse. But against the backdrop of current global conflicts that are creating hardships for China and Russia, this strategy is proving less effective than it once was. This explains why Pyongyang may be trying to hold back-channel talks with the U.S. through Vietnam.

The U.S. and North Korea have been at odds since the end of the Korean War. Their animosity only intensified as North Korea developed its ballistic missile systems and threatened U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, long supported North Korea during its war efforts, and Russia has picked up where its predecessor left off. But for much of the 21st century, North Korea’s most valued relationship was with China, whose economic rise gave it plenty of money to support North Korea and whose geopolitical clout has created problems for the United States.

The evolution of U.S.-China relations and the outbreak of war in Ukraine forced the Kim regime to review its foreign ties. Since its missile scare in 2017, things have been going downhill. Reports of food shortages are common, embassies are closing, and uncertainty looms around Kim Jong Un’s health and potential successor. During this time, a trade war, draconian pandemic restrictions and natural limits to boom cycles caused China’s economy to slow dramatically. China’s economic downturn – and need to remain on Washington’s good side to reverse it – makes it a less reliable partner for North Korea. China can’t afford to alienate the U.S. right now, and supporting the North Korean regime is a high-risk, low-reward job.

Global Diplomatic Relations with North Korea

(click to enlarge)

Pyongyang thus began to turn more toward Russia for outside support. Initially, its support seemed to be enough. North Korean workers acquired jobs in nearby Russian territory, and Moscow delivered food shipments. This is on top of all the oil Russia has smuggled into North Korea to keep its economy afloat. More recently, North Korea has reportedly offered weapons and munitions to aid Russia's war effort in Ukraine. (Russia has denied as much.) However, the war has taken a toll on the Russian economy, which has been under a heavy sanctions regime for two years. The war has been costly and requires enormous funding at a time when Russians in non-metropolitan areas are experiencing a decline in purchasing power and living standards. Moscow’s ability to be a robust and dependable partner for North Korea is now in question.

A series of diplomatic visits involving Vietnam suggests that North Korea and the U.S. may be exploring back-channel talks to improve ties. On March 25, Vietnamese Foreign Minister Bui Thanh Son met in Washington with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan. The same day, the head of the international department of North Korea's Workers' Party, Kim Song Nam, held talks with the head of the Vietnamese Communist Party's Commission for External Relations, Le Hoai Trung, in Hanoi, during which he called for boosting bilateral ties between the two countries. Also that day, South Korea’s defense, foreign and unification ministers met in Seoul with a U.S. congressional study group to discuss South Korea's relations with the North. At the meeting, the unification minister asked the U.S. to support South Korea's efforts to seek peaceful unification with North Korea.

Individually, each visit could be considered routine. But their timing and the succession of related diplomatic activity raises the possibility of back-channel talks. Russia's foreign intelligence chief, Sergei Naryshkin, visited North Korea on March 25-27 to exchange views on Russia and the Korean Peninsula. On March 26, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with the general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee, Nguyen Phu Trong. The call ended with Putin accepting an invitation to visit Vietnam at a “suitable” time. North Korea also sent a delegation led by its minister of foreign economic affairs to Moscow to discuss the implementation of various agreements. Finally, on March 28, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida reiterated Tokyo’s interest in holding a summit with North Korea. (Kishida is scheduled to meet U.S. President Joe Biden in May.)

The involvement of Vietnam, which is uniquely positioned to facilitate these exchanges, gives credence to the possibility of back-channel talks. Hanoi is on relatively good terms with China, the U.S. and Russia. This is partly due to the fact that it’s a socialist republic that shares some ideological commonalities with China and Russia. Its shared Cold War experience with Russia also means that Moscow still enjoys good security ties with Vietnam, including somewhat privileged access for its navy to Cam Ranh Bay. Yet the government has liberalized its economy, making it more palatable to the West. In recent years, then, Vietnam’s geopolitical role has been marked by its balancing act between the U.S. and China, both of which are vying for influence in East Asia, and both of which have an interest in Vietnam for security and economic cooperation. Vietnam also stands to benefit from hosting U.S.-North Korea talks; given China’s comparative weakness in the region, doing a favor for Washington would encourage greater U.S. economic commitment to Vietnam. Last, it would not be the first time Vietnam assumed a significant role in U.S.-North Korea talks. Recall that Hanoi hosted the second summit between North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un and then-President Donald Trump in February 2019.

Timeline of North Korea Nuclear Negotiations

(click to enlarge)

The U.S. has its own interests in going along with talks. There are two main problems the U.S. would like to resolve with regard to North Korea. The first is denuclearization. Pyongyang’s potential nuclear and missile threat has been a thorn in Washington's side for decades. As North Korea advances its nuclear and missile programs, the threat grows ever greater. North Korea is currently working on an intercontinental missile with a nuclear warhead that is capable of hitting the U.S. The country has yet to turn this threat into a reality, but Washington considers that development a red line and will do everything in its power to prevent North Korea from acquiring such capabilities.

The second problem is tensions in the U.S.-Japan-South Korea security alliance. South Korea naturally has a lower tolerance for the North’s provocations, and there have been times in the past when Tokyo and Seoul disagreed on what response should be given to the North. The removal of the overlapping North Korean threat between South Korea and Japan would make it easier for the U.S. to execute this strategy.

There’s a chance this is all a product of routine diplomatic behavior, of course. North Korea continues to receive critical oil shipments from Russia, and the current development of the missile program fosters closer relations with Russia. Pyongyang has refused to communicate with Japan since the latest bilateral rift focused on Japanese abductees and the North's nuclear program. Satellite imagery indicates nuclear facility expansion, and in late March, North Korea claimed to have staged a ground engine test for a new intermediate-range hypersonic missile. This suggests North Korean efforts to inflate the threat it truly poses. In response, the top brass from the U.S., South Korean and Japanese military and security establishments met to discuss trilateral security efforts to deal with the threat. The U.S. and South Korea also launched a new task force whose sole purpose is to block North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.

Yet there are reasons to believe back-channel talks are more likely. First, the continuation of perceived hostile actions would be expected so that each side could improve its positioning going into talks. Second, it’s reasonable to assume that each side would keep security measures on track at these early stages in order to not be caught off guard in the event back-channel talks stall. Last, the operating principles of geopolitics dictate that shifts in relations among major world actors and their relative power will have knock-on effects and force secondary actors to redefine their positions to adapt to the changing geopolitical system.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/01/israeli-airstrike-on-iranian-consulate-in-damascus-kills-irgc-commander

Second of the day:

Biden’s Order: Let There Be Electric Trucks
EPA’s latest EV mandate is the most costly and fanciful to date.
By The Editorial Board
Updated March 31, 2024 5:43 pm ET


The Environmental Protection Agency chose Good Friday to roll out its burdensome electric truck mandate, no doubt so fewer people notice. Biden officials well know the damage they are doing, but the damage in the name of climate change is the point.

EPA’s new emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks will effectively require that electric semi-trucks make up an increasing share of manufacturer sales from 2027 through 2032, similar to its recent rule for passenger cars. The difference is that the truck mandate is even more costly and fanciful.

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
Undated Mail Ballots Are No Longer Valid in Pennsylvania


SUBSCRIBE
Explore Audio Center
EVs make up less than 1% of U.S. heavy-duty truck sales, and nearly all are in California, which heavily subsidizes and mandates their purchase. EPA’s rule will require electric models to account for 60% of new urban delivery trucks and 25% of long-haul tractor sales by 2032. The harm is predictable in return for no climate benefit.

***
Start with the fact that no electric long-haul tractors are currently in mass production. Most electric trucks can’t go more than 170 miles on a charge. Electric semis require bigger and heavier batteries, which means they must carry lighter loads to avoid damaging roads. Fleet operators will have to use more trucks to transport the same amount of goods.

This will increase vehicle congestion, especially around ports and distribution centers. EPA says its rule will reduce pollution in “environmental justice” communities near major truck freight routes. But more traffic will result in more pollution. Electric trucks also generate more soot from their wear and tear on roads and vehicle braking.

Power generation and transmission will have to massively expand to support millions of new “zero-emission” trucks. An electric semi consumes about seven times as much electricity on a single charge as a typical home does in a day. Truck charging depots can draw as much power from the grid as small cities.

By 2030 electric trucks are projected to consume about 11% of California’s electricity. The additional power to fuel electric trucks won’t come from renewables, which can’t be built fast enough to meet demand. Most trucks will recharge at night when solar isn’t available since drivers don’t want to waste prime daylight driving hours.

Some 1.4 million chargers will have to be installed by 2032 to achieve the EPA’s mandate, about 15,000 a month. This will require major grid upgrades when there are shortages of critical components such as transformers. It could take three to eight years to develop transmission and substations in many places to support truck chargers.

Truckers estimate the EPA rule will cost utilities $370 billion to upgrade their networks. On top of that, truckers will have to invest $620 billion in their own charging infrastructure. This doesn’t include the cost of electric trucks, which are typically two to three times more expensive than diesel cabs.

Replacing diesel trucks with electric will cost the industry tens of billion dollars each year. Truckers will pass on these costs to customers—meaning U.S. manufacturers and retailers—which will ultimately pass them on to Americans in higher prices. This is President Biden’s trickle-down economics.

EPA says its big-rig quotas are feasible because the Inflation Reduction Act and 2021 infrastructure law include hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for EVs. This includes a 30% tax credit for charging stations, $40,000 tax credit for commercial EVs, and a tax credit for battery manufacturing that can offset more than a third of the cost.

IRA tax credits for electric trucks aren’t conditioned on the source of battery material, so expect most to come from China. By the way, China’s BYD was California’s top-selling electric truck maker in 2022. Biden officials say Chinese green-technology manufacturers are flooding the U.S. market, but their mandates and subsidies are the reason.

Cue U.S. truck manufacturers, which are pleading for more handouts. “The EPA’s new heavy-duty emissions rule is challenging,” Ford said on Friday, noting they will require more “incentives and public investment.” So the Administration uses subsidies to justify a burdensome mandate, which then causes companies to lobby for more subsidies. What a racket.

Here’s another one: EPA projects its rule will “avoid” one billion metric tons in CO2 emissions from 2027 through 2055—about as much as emissions from China and India rose last year alone. The truck mandate will do nothing to reduce global temperatures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p05ORMpczr4&t=4s

https://www.frontpagemag.com/google-warns-freedom-center-to-censor-mentions-of-islamic-terror/

https://petapixel.com/2023/03/01/hacker-hoodie-blinds-surveillance-cameras-with-infrared-light/

https://www.macpierce.com/the-camera-shy-hoodie


https://www.macpierce.com/blog/2019/11/4/the-opt-out-cap-assembly
Modify message


https://www.businessinsider.com/facial-recognition-cameras-sweater-protect-privacy-data-trick-fool-clothes-2023-2?op=1#the-team-at-cap-able-said-it-tested-its-designs-using-yolo-an-algorithm-for-real-time-object-detection-16

https://www.newsweek.com/chinese-migrant-suddenly-found-california-military-base-1885133

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/elon-musk-on-war-footing-with-spy-satellite-army-that-targets-any-enemy/ar-BB1kKDaG?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=315d3d9635aa4b729984df65cf211075&ei=51

The U.S. Needs a Nuclear Energy Makeover
Bipartisan legislation in Congress could make it easier to deploy reactors and reduce waste.
By David T. Stevenson and Robert M. Bauman
March 29, 2024 4:36 pm ET



Bipartisan legislation moving through Congress could solve America’s nuclear-waste problem and make it easier to deploy nuclear reactors, propelling the U.S. toward a clean-energy future.

Nuclear fuel rods, which power reactors, have life spans of only 18 to 24 months. Yet once they’re removed from their reactors and placed into on-site cooling ponds, they still retain more than 90% of their potential energy. The U.S. every year generates some 2,000 metric tons of this spent nuclear fuel and has accumulated more than 80,000 metric tons in the past 50 years.

France derives about 17% of its electricity from recycled nuclear fuel. The U.S. has mistakenly passed on making use of its own. Our current pile of spent fuel rods contains enough energy to power the nation’s electric grid for about 100 years, according to a projection from nuclear researcher Jess Gehin at Idaho National Laboratory, as reported by CNBC.

Enter new small modular nuclear-reactor technology, which could be a game-changer in repurposing nuclear waste. This technology burns spent fuel in fast, high-temperature reactors, while requiring refueling only every nine years or so, lowering power-plant downtime. This approach would substantially reduce the volume of stored waste and the time that waste would have to sit in storage.

Congress is getting wise to the issue. The House on Feb. 28 passed the Atomic Energy Advancement Act, co-sponsored by Reps. Jeff Duncan (R., S.C.) and Diana DeGette (D., Colo.). The bill would expedite the approval process for the next generation of nuclear power plants and change how the U.S. processes nuclear waste. It would also offer a financial incentive for the first licensed project using recycled fuel. The Senate has put forward a similar bill: the Advance Act of 2023, co-sponsored by Sens. Tom Carper (D., Del.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.).

These bills reflect an important reality: Nuclear waste is waste only if we don’t reuse it; otherwise, it’s unspent nuclear fuel with great potential.

According to the Energy Department, the U.S. derives 19% of its base-load electricity from an aging fleet of 92 nuclear reactors, whose service life may extend only another 20 years. In the past 30 years, only two new reactors have come online. Intermittent wind and solar power can’t scale and won’t be able to fill the void when the reactors are spent. Other than expanding fossil-fuel power plants, the only viable alternative is the rapid development of new small modular nuclear reactors.

The House and Senate bills offer special incentives for project developers to install new small modular nuclear-reactor technologies at existing or retired nuclear sites—which have trained personnel and distribution infrastructure for connection to the electric grid—and on brownfield land. We suggest installing these technologies at military bases, which also need microgrids to enhance resiliency and readiness.

The U.S. lags far behind its global competitors in nuclear energy. Along with our aging fleet, we have an aging workforce that will retire soon. We predict that the potential for new reactors will draw a new generation of skilled workers into the industry. The Atomic Energy Advancement Act and the Advance Act are positive but insufficient steps forward. To accelerate development in the next decade, we will need more funding along with a multiyear, multiagency commitment—akin to what it took to put men on the moon.

We suggest that Congress also pass legislation enabling dollars from the existing Nuclear Waste Fund to be repurposed for recycling. The U.S. government ought to prioritize nuclear power using spent fuel, which will prove essential to preserving our way of life, building a clean-energy future and ensuring our future prosperity.

Mr. Stevenson is director of the Caesar Rodney Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment. Mr. Bauman is the president and CEO of Trusted Systems Inc.

Is This the End for Pennsylvania’s Undated Ballots?
A Third Circuit ruling could stabilize 2024 voting, right on time.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
March 29, 2024 5:47 pm ET




Resize
21

Gift unlocked article

Listen

(4 min)


image
A Delaware County secured drop box for the return of vote-by-mail ballots is pictured, May 2, 2022, in Newtown Square, Pa. PHOTO: MATT ROURKE/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Judges in Pennsylvania have been arguing for four years about whether election officials must count undated mail ballots, since some voters always fail to fill in the required date field. The latest answer, issued by a federal appeals court on Wednesday, is no. The good news is that this could help stabilize a wild 2024 election that is now only months away.

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH
WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
Undated Mail Ballots Are No Longer Valid in Pennsylvania


SUBSCRIBE
Add to Queue
Explore Audio Center
Pennsylvania’s election law, upheld by the state Supreme Court, clearly tells mail voters to “fill out, date and sign the declaration.” Last year, though, a federal judge ruled that the date field was effectively optional, citing the Civil Rights Act. That law prohibits states from denying a person the right to vote based on a nonmaterial “error or omission” on paperwork that is “related to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting.”

But if that interpretation is correct, where does it stop? States have all kinds of neutral, de minimis rules for voting. Pennsylvania also rejects unsigned mail votes, as well as “naked ballots” that are returned without their mandatory “secrecy” envelopes. Other states require absentee ballots to have witness signatures and addresses. What else might judges deem to be immaterial, if Donald Trump leads President Biden by 1,000 votes in one state, or vice versa? That’s the national nightmare.

A panel of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 this week that the lower judge’s view is wrong. Her position, the majority says, “cannot be reconciled with the text and historic backdrop of the statute, nor cabined to the date requirement while leaving intact other vote-casting rules that serve valid state interests.” All three of the judges on this panel are Democratic appointees.

The majority argues that the Civil Rights Act provisions in question were aimed at ending literacy tests and other Jim Crow efforts to keep black citizens off the voting rolls in the South. “No longer could States block ballot box access to an applicant who misspelled a State’s name or failed to calculate correctly his birthday to the day,” the ruling says. This obviously isn’t what Pennsylvania is doing.

“Once inside the voting place (where, in the 1960s, nearly all voting took place), all voters must follow the same rules for casting a valid ballot,” the majority opinion adds. A mail ballot in Pennsylvania might be void if it’s filled out half in pencil and half in pen. But a state that sets aside defective ballots isn’t denying the right to vote. “We find it implausible,” the majority says, “that federal law bars a State from enforcing vote-casting rules that it has deemed necessary to administer its elections.”

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by two conservative colleagues, said much the same in 2022, when a separate dispute over Pennsylvania’s undated ballots reached the Supreme Court on the emergency docket. In that case, a different Third Circuit panel went the opposite direction, saying such votes must be tallied. But its ruling was eventually vacated as moot, setting up this week’s heartening correction.

The dissenting judge says that two years ago “10,000 timely-received ballots” were rejected under Pennsylvania’s date rule. Such errors are regrettable, and the possibility of making one is a reason to prefer voting in person. But the way to build trust in the fairness of elections is to run them by the book.

After Election Day, losing candidates will always plead to count a few more invalid votes. Judges shouldn’t be standing by to rewrite state law to do it.