Zuckerbucks 2.0? States begin banning new private, foreign funding of elections

From Just the News.com (Mar. 16):

Two states are in the process of banning “Zuckerbucks 2.0” – the injection of private money into public election administration – with one focusing on an outright ban, while the other is looking to prohibit foreign funding of elections.

As Indiana has enacted a law to ban a new form of “Zuckerbucks” – also called “Zuckerbucks 2.0” – the Arizona Senate has passed a related prohibition on the foreign funding of elections. Meanwhile, four counties in two other states have left the “Zuckerbucks 2.0” group.

On Monday, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) signed House Bill 1264 into law, which includes multiple election security measures, such as banning “Zuckerbucks 2.0.”

The new law “[p]rovides that a political subdivision that conducts or administers an election may not join the membership of, or participate in a program offered by, a person who has directly financed certain elections activities,” according to the state legislature’s summary.

The ban on the new form of “Zuckerbucks” comes after four counties have left the latest project involving private funding of election administration.

Two Utah counties and two North Carolina counties have withdrawn from the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, a project of the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL). There are currently 11 cities and counties across eight states that remain in the alliance. One of those counties, Coconino County, is in Arizona.

The alliance is awarding funds to counties and municipalities under its Centers for Election Excellence program. According to CTCL in 2022, the alliance is providing $80 million over five years “to envision, support, and celebrate excellence in U.S. election administration.”

The alliance aids elections offices that are part of its program by “identifying the election office’s unique challenges and goals, then, where permitted, we provide them with customized resources, coaching, implementation support, and grant funding to advance their nonpartisan goals related to improving the voting experience.”

CTCL poured about $350 million into local elections offices managing the 2020 election, with most of the funds donated to the nonprofit by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The nonprofit has claimed its 2020 election grants — colloquially known as "Zuckerbucks" — were allocated, allegedly without partisan preference to make voting safer amid the pandemic.

However, a House Republican investigation found that less than 1% of the funds were spent on personal protective equipment. Most of the funds were focused on get-out-the-vote efforts and registrations.

Controversy ensued in part of the disproportionate private funding "Zuckerbucks" funneled to Democratic jurisdictions. Opponents claim the imbalance helped sway the 2020 election in Biden's favor, and asa result, 27 states have either restricted or banned the use of private money to fund elections, while 12 counties have also restricted or banned the funds, according to the Capital Research Center.

The Arizona Senate passed Senate Bill 1374 on Monday, then sent it over to the state House. The bill “[r]equires a person to provide certification that the person is not the knowing recipient of foreign donations before entering into any agreement with a government entity to provide goods or services relating to elections administration.”

This legislation is related to “Zuckerbucks 2.0” because CTCL received nearly $25 million in 2020 from New Venture Fund, according to the Capital Research Center. New Venture Fund, which is the largest nonprofit created by the Arabella Advisors network, received $57.8 million from nonprofits started by Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss, according to a report by Americans for Public Trust.

Jason Snead, Executive Director of Honest Elections Project Action, told Just the News on Wednesday that Indiana is “first in the nation” to ban “Zuckerbucks 2.0,” while the Arizona Senate is doing so by focusing on foreign funding.

Snead explained that the Arizona Senate bill is “basically making it impossible for a membership-type program” like the alliance “to recruit” an election office “if it can't certify” that the program is “free of foreign funding.”

He added that the Arizona bill appeared to pass along party lines, noting that “after years of railing against foreign interference in elections, you have liberal lawmakers voting to keep elections open to foreign influence,” probably because they’re “benefiting from foreign funding.”

CTCL didn't respond to a request for comment. [source]

Good. More states should do this.

How To Blow Up the Middle East War in Five Easy Steps

From Victor Hanson.com (Oct. 3):

When Joe Biden became president, the Middle East was calm. Now it is in the midst of a multifront war.

So quiet was the inheritance from the prior Trump administration that nearly three years later, on September 29, 2023—and just eight days before the October 7 Hamas massacre of Israelis—Biden’s national security advisor Jake Sullivan could still brag that “The Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.”

So, what exactly happened to the inherited calm that led to the current nonstop chaos of the present?

In a word, theocratic Iran—the nexus of almost all current Middle East terrorism and conflict—was unleashed by Team Biden after having been neutered by the Trump administration.

The Biden-Harris administration adopted a 5-step revisionist protocol that appeased and encouraged Iran and its terrorist surrogates Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

The result was a near guarantee that something akin to the October 7 massacres would inevitably follow—along with a subsequent year of violence that has now engulfed the Middle East.

First, on the 2020 campaign trail, Biden damned long-time American ally Saudi Arabia as a “pariah.”

He overturned the policies of both the previous Obama and Trump administrations by siding with the Iranian-supplied terrorist Houthis in their war on Saudi Arabia.

Biden accused the kingdom of war crimes, warning it would “be held accountable” for its actions in Yemen. Biden-Harris took the murderous Houthis off the U.S. terrorist list.

Almost immediately followed continuous Houthi attacks on international shipping, Israel, and U.S. warships—rendering the Red Sea, the entryway to the Suez Canal, de facto closed to international maritime transit.

Worse still, by the time of the 2022 midterms, when spiraling gas prices threatened Democratic congressional majorities, Biden opportunistically flipped and implored Saudi Arabia to pump more oil to lower world prices before the November election. Appearing obnoxious and then obsequious to an old Middle East ally is a prescription for regional chaos.

Second, Biden-Harris nihilistically killed off the Trump administration’s “Abraham Accords.” That diplomatic breakthrough had proven a successful blueprint for moderate Arab nations to seek détente with Israel, ending decades of hostilities to unite against the common Middle East threat of Iran.

Third, Biden begged Iran to reenter the appeasing, so-called Iran Deal that virtually had ensured that Iran would eventually get the bomb.

Worse yet, it dropped oil sanctions against the theocracy, allowing a near-destitute Iran to recoup $100 billion in profits. And it greenlighted $6 billion in hostage ransoms to Tehran.

An enriched Tehran immediately sent billions of dollars in support and weapons to the anti-Western terrorists of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis to attack Israel, Americans, and international shipping. Iran soon began partnering with China and Russia to form a new anti-American axis.

Biden-Harris also fled abruptly from Afghanistan, abandoning billions in weapons and American contractors. The humiliation thus virtually destroyed American deterrence in the Middle East, inciting enemies and endangering friends.

Fourth, Biden-Harris restored hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the West Bank and Gaza, but without any guarantees that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas would desist from their past serial terrorist acts.

In the case of Hamas, U.S. and Western “humanitarian aid” simply freed up more fungible dollars in Gaza to arm Hamas and to expand its subterranean tunnel complex essential to its October 7 massacres and hostage-taking.

Fifth, from the outset of the ensuing increased tensions, Biden-Harris began pressuring the Israelis to act “proportionally” in responding to the massacre of some 1,200 Israelis and nearly 20,000 missiles, rockets, and drones launched at their homeland from Iran, the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Such straitjacketing of our closest Middle East friend further signaled the Iranian-backed terrorists that there was now “daylight” between the U.S. and its closest regional ally. That opportunity provided still further incentives for Iran to test just how far it could safely go in attacking Israel.

But why did Biden-Harris so foolishly ignite the Middle East?

In part, the administration naively tried to resurrect the old, discredited Obama administration notion of ‘creative tension’—of empowering a rogue Iran and its terrorists to play off Israel and the moderate Arab regimes, as a new sort of balance of power in the region.

In part, Biden-Harris was caving to increased anti-Semitism at home and the rise of powerful, pro-Palestinian groups on U.S. campuses and in critical swing Electoral College states.

In part, Biden-Harris was naïve and gullible. The two bought into the anti-Americanism and anti-Israel boilerplate of our enemies. So, they thought to make amends by seeing Iran and its terrorists as the moral equivalent of democratic, pro-American Israel.

Their malignant legacy is the current Middle East disaster. [source]

So, true. All this mess because the Briben-Harris regime wanted to undo President Trump’s legacy of peace.

Jack Smith’s J6 Report Is A Deep State Vehicle For Impeaching Trump A Third Time

From The Federalist.com (Oct. 3):

Former President Donald Trump can expect to fight impeachment efforts again pending a second term this November.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 165-page report unsealed Wednesday is the Steele Dossier 2.0, an anonymously sourced manifesto compiled to warrant deep state investigations into former President Donald Trump with the ultimate aim of tossing him out of the White House.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan allowed the report to be filed last week after Smith submitted an updated indictment in response to new case law regarding presidential immunity. The Supreme Court ruled this summer that presidents have immunity from prosecution for official acts in office, forcing the Department of Justice to recalibrate its case against the Republican presidential nominee. Earlier this month, however, Judge Chutkan acknowledged the case would likely go to trial well after the election, and possibly after the start of the new administration.

The summary of the evidence of the former president’s alleged crimes related to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, represents Smith’s final Hail Mary to convince Americans of Trump’s guilt — even as voters are already turning in ballots. The report, filed and made public within 60 days of an election, serves no legitimate legal purpose, as the special counsel desperately attempts to thwart Trump’s return to the Oval Office.

“Smith was clearly eager to get this out before the public despite Justice Department policies that encourage prosecutors to avoid acts that would be viewed as trying to influence an election,” wrote George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley on X.

“In some ways …” wrote former prosecutor and National Review Editor Andrew McCarthy, “Smith’s public submission is better than a trial.”

Trials are messy and unpredictable; prosecutors’ written descriptions of what they hope to prove are often compelling and damning. That is why, at a trial, the judge routinely instructs the jury that an indictment and proffers by a prosecutor are only allegations; they are not evidence, they are not subject to cross-examination, and they prove nothing. Here, by contrast, there will be no cautionary instructions.

As Election Day draws near, “Smith’s allegations will be used by Democrats and repeated by the media as if they are established fact, the conclusions of a searching, exacting probe by a Justice Department special counsel.”

If Trump were to win, Smith is certain to continue the deep state lawfare campaign even after the election, likely challenging any effort for the president to pardon himself. In other words, Smith’s persistent prosecution laid out in the 165-page filing is the Democrats’ “insurance policy” against another Trump presidency.

The Democrats hatched plans to impeach Trump on day one of his presidency, and formally conducted a second impeachment trial by the time he was out of office. There is no evidence to suggest the next four years will be any different. Only this time, Trump’s opponents are starting with three criminal trials already underway, in D.C., Georgia, and New York (where a Manhattan jury already voted this year to convict the former president). Democrats are only planning to escalate their legal crusade against Trump after the election, as is made clear by Smith’s political 165-page report. [source]

There's no need to do this. Pretty dirty. Definitely an attempt at election interference.

Another article on the report: Jack Smith's new filing on Donald Trump.

5 takeaways from the Vance-Walz VP debate

From The Hill.com (Oct. 2):

Ohio Sen. JD Vance (R) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) met face-to-face in New York City on Tuesday in the first and likely only vice presidential debate of the election cycle, a high-stakes moment that comes a little more than a month before Election Day.

The two candidates clashed on a range of issues, from abortion to immigration to foreign policy. But the forum was notably more civil and policy-focused than the debate between Vice President Harris and former President Trump that took place last month.

It’s unclear how much the event will move the needle, but it could be the last time voters will see a debate involving the top of the ticket before November. Harris has pressed her rival for another showdown, but so far Trump has insisted he won’t do another.

Here are five takeaways from Tuesday’s vice presidential debate. 

Vance shows his debate skills

Vance went into the debate with arguably higher stakes than Walz. The Ohio senator has stoked controversy and ridicule for promoting unfounded conspiracies about Haitian migrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, and for past remarks about “childless cat ladies.”

But Tuesday night, Vance put to rest — at least temporarily — any doubts as to why Trump picked him to be his running mate.

A Yale-trained lawyer, Vance was clearly in his element Tuesday night, easily batting away potentially tricky questions and at one point challenging the moderators over their fact-checking of his Springfield remarks.

His polished delivery drew a stark contrast with Walz’s sometimes rocky performance, while his emphasis on his humble upbringing in Ohio was a clear effort to appeal to the sort of voters who might have been turned off by the controversy surrounding him.

It was just the sort of shot in the arm Vance needed, having entered the debate with lower favorability numbers than his Democratic counterpart. 

Walz stumbles with answer on China story 

The Minnesota governor had a more uneven night Tuesday, something that was underscored by his awkward answer regarding claims that he had been in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.

News outlets including APM Reports and Minnesota Public Radio recently reported that evidence suggested Walz was actually in China later that year, in August, contradicting his claims.

Asked to address the discrepancy between his remarks and recent reporting, Walz struggled to offer a succinct answer, noting that he could sometimes be a “knucklehead.”

“Look, my community knows who I am,” Walz said. “They saw where I was at. They — look, I will be the first to tell you I have poured my heart into my community. I’ve tried to do the best I can, but I’ve not been perfect, and I’m a knucklehead at times, but it’s always been about that.”

Pressed again, Walz said, “All I said on this was, is I got there that summer and misspoke on this, so I will just — that’s what I’ve said.”

“So I was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protest, went in, and from that, I learned a lot of what needed to be in governance,” he added.

Republicans have ramped up scrutiny on details of Walz’s life since he joined the Democratic ticket, including his military service and his family’s fertility journey.

Walz also failed to land any knockout blows on Vance, whose performance many commentators praised after the debate. [read more]

Vance won the debate. He did real well. Although, he should've not accepted the Left's "gun violence" premise that it's the gun's fault not the person holding the gun. People have been killing each other way before the invention of gun powder.

As for not remembering that Walz didn’t go to China during the Tiananmen Square protests, that’s a lie not a misstatement.  A misstatement is saying he’s “friends with school shooters.” What a knucklehead!

Other articles about the VP debate:

• Five takeaways from the Vance-Walz VP debate: Deportation, China and making nice
• Ridiculous ‘fact check’ of a true statement during CBS debate
• Beyond ‘Defining’ To Shining: 5 Ways JD Vance Flipped The Script
• Senator Vance’s Triumph: President Trump’s Vindication
• O'Reilly Reacts to the Vice Presidential Debate [video]

Democracy Isn’t a Worldview: Politics Can’t Answer Our Deepest Questions

From Breakpoint.org (Nov. 10, 2022):

Though election day is behind us and the direction of the country set, politics will most likely continue to overstep into most of our lives and our culture. After all, the presidential campaign season has already begun.

Without abandoning the political sphere altogether or downplaying its importance, Christians must push back against the all-consuming nature of politics. For many of us, that will mean less time on social media, fewer podcasts, less talk radio and cable news, and more time cultivating our knowledge of Scripture and theology. In this loaded cultural moment, anyone not intentional about what is shaping and forming his or her view of the world is at risk of the political illusion.

Take a recent statement by President Joe Biden, tweeted just before the midterm elections: “Democracy is more than a form of government,” he (or whoever runs his Twitter page) wrote. “It’s a way of being. A way of seeing the world. A way that defines who we are, what we believe, and why we do what we do. Democracy is simply that fundamental.”

In other words, to lightly paraphrase the president, democracy is a worldview. But is that true?

On one hand, the quasi-religious tone used to describe a system of government is a bit like The Washington Post’s melodramatic slogan: “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Popular sovereignty is not a “way of seeing the world” that “defines who we are, what we believe, and why we do what we do” any more than the market economy or trial by jury are worldviews. Instead, each is a reflection of prior values, which are shaped by deeply held beliefs about reality. We do things (like voting) that are important to us, and they’re important to us because of how we see the world.

In other words, the president had it exactly backwards. He’s assuming that democracy determines how we view the world. In reality, democracy (or any form of government) emerges from a certain set of assumptions about the world: assumptions about the dignity and importance of individuals, created equalities, and the lack of a divine right to rule as a monarch. Each of these assumptions are, by the way, historically rare.

Even more importantly, the American variety of democracy assumes that there are inalienable rights that cannot be infringed on by popular vote. That assumption is behind the Bill of Rights, as well as Supreme Court decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation. If we don’t assume and commit to certain truths about the world prior to democracy, it will devolve into mob rule, something both unsustainable and unjust. If you don’t believe that, the French have a guillotine or two to sell you.

Because America’s founders did understand this, they didn’t give us a pure democracy, on either federal or state levels. Instead, they gave us a democratic republic (“if you can keep it”). In fact, their writings reveal how much they feared pure democracy and considered it a terrible form of government (“two proverbial wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”).

Democracy isn’t a worldview: It’s worldview dependent. The laws a democratic society produces depend on the worldviews of the people who vote and legislate. To treat democracy like a fundamental source of values and a way of seeing reality is to misunderstand democracy, government, and the human condition. Also, it is asking a political system to answer questions it cannot. It’s simply not big enough.

My kids used to play a game called “Topple,” in which a plastic plate-like thing is balanced precariously on a stick. Players then take turns adding little disks to slots on the plate until it can no longer hold all of them and it topples. Today, we are playing a cultural game of “Topple Politics,” loading it with all kinds of expectations and problems it cannot handle.

In a sense, we’ve loaded politics with all the expectations of a worldview. But politics cannot bring salvation, determine morality, provide ultimate meaning, or secure our relationships. Politics should reflect what is good and true, but it cannot define or sustain what is good and true. If we continue to load it up with so much of our lives, it will topple, and the result will be a mess.

This government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” has brought the world a lot of good. It’s a privilege to vote, and we should take it seriously as a way of loving God and our neighbors and upholding our God-given rights. These ideas, however, only come from a Christian worldview, which actually is big enough to answer life’s most fundamental questions. [source]

Good article. To sum up, a gov’t type flows from the powers-that-be’s understanding of human nature.

8 Democrats vote to ax Biden’s EV rule

From The Hill.com (Sept. 20):

Eight Democrats voted with House Republicans in favor of overturning a Biden administration rule that’s expected to force automakers to make a significant portion of their fleet electric.

The Democrats who voted in favor of overturning the rule were Reps. Yadira Caraveo (Colo.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (N.C.), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), and Mary Sattler Peltola (Alaska).

All eight Democrats represent districts that are highly competitive in this fall’s election.

One Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), voted with the rest of the Democrats against axing the rule. Fitzpatrick also represents a competitive district, though it is rated as likely Republican by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

The effort is not expected to actually result in the rule being eliminated; if the resolution that passed the House 215-191 makes it past the Senate, President Biden would veto it.

The vote will help Republicans emphasize their opposition to Biden’s effort and draw a contrast between the parties ahead of the election.

The rule in question does not expressly mandate electric vehicles (EVs), but it does force companies that manufacture cars and small trucks to meet certain fleet-wide emissions standards.

These standards would be impossible to meet without a shift away from gas-powered cars and toward other types like electric vehicles and hybrids.

One projection from the Biden administration said the rule could mean that 56 percent of new vehicle sales are electric in 2032 while just 29 percent are gas-powered — but the actual outcome depends on how automakers choose to go about meeting the emissions standards.

In a statement on the vote, resolution sponsor John James (R-Mich.) described the Biden rule as an “out-of-touch regulation that will crater the Michigan auto industry and decimate our middle-class, and most vulnerable.”

In a statement outlining its opposition to Friday’s resolution, the White House said the rule would mitigate climate change, benefit public health by reducing pollution, and allow the U.S. to take the lead in EV manufacturing.

“The rule is supported by U.S. automakers and autoworkers and disapproval of the rule would jeopardize development in a critical technology sector, ceding the electric vehicle and battery future to global competitors like China,” the statement said.

Electric vehicles have been a major issue on the presidential campaign trail, as both sides seek to make their case to workers in swing states like Michigan that their policies will improve the economy. [source]

Good!  Let the market decide. More Dems should have voted in overturning the stupid rule even though the bill may not get passed the Senate and Biden (and probably Comrade Kamala if she was president) would veto it.

Over 1,000 Hezbollah members injured by exploding pagers in Lebanon — hack or sabotage suspected

From The Blaze.com (Sept. 17):

At least 1,000 Hezbollah members across Lebanon were injured in what appeared to be a simultaneous attack that caused pagers to explode, several reports have indicated.

After videos and imagery of exploded devices and injured Hezbollah members circulated online, Hezbollah put out several statements condemning the apparent attack.

The group said that the detonations killed two of its fighters and a girl and are carrying out an investigation.

Lebanon's Ministry of Health also urged citizens to discard pagers if they owned them and put hospitals on "high alert," per CNN.

Iran's ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amani, was reportedly injured from an explosion as well. According to Al Jazeera, Hezbollah is claiming the explosions were part of a coordinated hack-and-detonate operation using the pagers.

However, the Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that the pagers were from a new shipment that Hezbollah received in recent days.

The Independent said that the pagers were the latest model brought in by Hezbollah as well but within recent months. The outlet cited three security sources.

No matter the timeframe, these claims point to an interception of the pagers that allowed them to be tampered with before they made it to the Hezbollah forces.

Tech and cyber-security expert Josh Centers said that it was more likely that the assailants "intercepted the shipment and installed remote detonated explosive devices in the pagers."

"No matter who the culprit, this is a known tactic and the U.S. government has been shown to do something similar with networking equipment," he added.

Centers pointed to a 2014 report by Glenn Greenwald that explained how the NSA implanted devices in internet routers.

The outlet Clash Report claimed the pagers that exploded were manufactured by Motorola, citing a document from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Motorola Solutions is a supplier of communications products to the Israeli military and is listed on several anti-Israel websites as a company that should be boycotted.

"Motorola provides the Israeli military with a 4G cellular network and has developed encrypted communication systems for military personnel," the report said.

One video posted to X showed an explosion in a market allegedly in Lebanon from either a man's laptop bag or from a device on his hip. He appeared to be the only person injured from the detonation.

Another image showed an injured man on a moped with a wound on his side, allegedly from another exploded pager.

Security forces have said more than 1,000 were wounded, with 50 ambulances and 300 emergency medical workers tending to the injured.

The most targeted areas were the towns of Ali Al-Nahri and Riyaq, according to Lebanese state media, which are Hezbollah strongholds.

The apparent attack comes after Israel claimed it had killed Fuad Shukr, a Hezbollah commander, in a recent airstrike in Beirut. [source]

Nice. Sucks to be them. That's what they get for being so evil.

More articles on the exploding pagers:

• This Is the Most Deliciously Devious Part About Israel's Exploding Pager Attacks
• The pager attack in Lebanon.

Comrade Kamala? Assessing Three of Harris’s New Economic Proposals

From FEE.org (Aug. 31):

The Kamala Harris campaign is still relatively young. The current Vice President and previous US Senator from California has barely been in the race for a month. Her first concrete economic plans are being announced and, for the most part, panned by economists. Let’s examine some of these proposals, their effects, and why economists oppose them.

1. Price Caps on Groceries

Let’s begin with the most shocking Harris proposal—a federal ban on “price gouging” for groceries. Let’s start with the rhetoric and then get down to brass tacks. What is price gouging? It’s a term without any clear tie to economic facts.

Historically, “price gouging” referred to price increases caused by disasters (e.g., bottled water being more expensive during hurricanes). But of course, when demand increases or supply decreases, prices do naturally rise to prevent shortages. Labeling this as “gouging” in certain circumstances is arbitrary at best.

Furthermore, what sort of crisis are we appealing to in order to say there is price gouging? Covid still? Since the Covid pandemic ended over two years ago (even according to Fauci), that really doesn’t make sense. Is the crisis that inflation is making things unaffordable? Well, if the disaster behind this gouging is price increases, then all price increases are defined as gouging. That doesn’t make any sense either.

To be blunt, gouging is just a word used for emotional effect. We can always pick some arbitrary benchmark of “fair” or “unfair” price increases, but that benchmark will remain arbitrary.

Now let’s move to the brass tacks. What would this mean? The way the language is couched, this policy would amount to nothing more than a form of price control. Regardless of the particular form this ban takes, any law which penalizes a store for having prices above some point is a price control. Insofar as this policy affects prices at all, it is a price control. Insofar as it doesn’t affect prices, the policy is spurious.

What’s the problem here? Well, when either demand increases or supply decreases (or both), the competition to buy a good increases relative to the available supply. This means that more people will be bidding for the same number of products. If prices do not rise, the products will run out, and some people who are willing to pay the current price cannot purchase the good in question because it has run out. Economists call this a shortage.

If, instead, prices are allowed to rise, two things happen. First, higher prices cause buyers to decrease their consumption relative to lower prices. Second, higher prices incentivize producers to supply more of a product, since a higher price commands a higher revenue. These two forces work together to make sure that all potential buyers can purchase the number of goods they are willing to pay for.

Harris’s team claims that the pandemic was used by businesses as a pretext to trick people, to increase prices more than rising costs called for, and that this is a corrective measure. So are grocery stores pulling one over on people? Not so.

Grocery stores have tiny margins compared to other industries. Look at the data.

If you’re unfamiliar with the term, a 1.2 percent profit margin means that for every 1 dollar of sales a grocery store makes, it keeps 1.2 cents in profit. The rest goes to pay costs. If costs were just a couple of cents per dollar higher in the grocery industry, grocery stores would take losses and start to go out of business.

The Harris team may try to walk this back and propose a policy to help grocery stores with their costs so that they can “pass on” the savings (though that’s not exactly how it works), but as of now the wording threatens at least de facto punishment for increasing prices. Low grocery prices sound nice, but food shortages don’t.

The bottom line is that grocery stores aren’t responsible for increasing the money supply by 40 percent over two years during the Covid policy era, which is the real driver of the price inflation we’ve experienced. [read more]

All three proposals are bad for America.

Bombshell transcripts: Trump urged use of troops to protect Capitol on Jan. 6 , but was rebuffed

From Just the News.com (Sept. 23):

Then-President Donald Trump gave clear instructions to Pentagon brass days before the Jan. 6 riots to “do whatever it takes” to keep the U.S. Capitol safe, including deploying National Guard or active-duty troops, but top officials did not comply because of political concerns, according to transcripts of bombshell interviews conducted by the Defense Department's chief watchdog that shine new light on government disfunction ahead of the historic tragedy.

Gen. Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, confirmed to the Pentagon inspector general three years ago that during a Jan. 3, 2021, Oval Office meeting Trump pre-approved the use of National Guard or active duty troops to keep peace in the nation’s capital on the day Congress was to certify the results of the 2020 election.

Milley's interviews were among several key to transcripts obtained by House Administration Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., and shared with Just the News.

“The President just says, ‘Hey look at this. It’s going to be a large amount of protesters come in here on the 6th, and make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event,’” Milley told the inspector general in one of two interviews he did in spring 2021 during a probe of the Pentagon’s response to Jan. 6.

Milley said then-Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, himself a former general, assured Trump there was an adequate safety plan for Pentagon assistance to Washington, D.C. “Miller responds by saying, ‘Hey, we’ve got a plan, and we’ve got it covered.’ And that’s about it,” Milley recalled.

"Just make sure it’s safe"

Milley confirmed a second time during the interviews that Trump was clear in his wishes. “It was just what I just described, which was, ‘Hey, I don’t care if you use Guard, or soldiers, active-duty soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe,” the general told the IG.

File

26 - Milley - 4.8.21.pdf

The transcripts of Milley’s April 8, 2021, and April 16, 2021, interviews confirm reporting by Just the News two years ago that Trump wanted troops to keep the capital city safe.

But other transcripts gathered by Loudermilk during his subcommittee’s ongoing probe of Jan. 6 security failures show civilian leadership at the Pentagon admittedly openly they would not comply with Trump’s wishes, with some saying they did not like the optics of armed soldiers or Guardsmen roaming the Capitol with weapons during what was supposed to be a peaceful transition of power.

“There was absolutely -- there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period,” Miller told the inspector general during his March 2021 interview.

Miller said officials instead used an interagency process to devise an alternative plan that would put some DC National Guard troops on the ground in the nation’s capitol to direct traffic but not to guard the Capitol, a plan that District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser suggested.

“The operational plan was this, let’s take the D.C. National Guard, keep them away from the Capitol. Let’s put -- the request, it wasn’t my request, Bowser and her Metropolitan Police Department were like ‘Let’s put D.C. National Guard on traffic control points and at the Metro stations to free up credentialed law-enforcement officers that can go out and arrest people,’” Miller explained. [read more]

Optics over safety. Yea, that makes sense.  Or maybe not sending troops was part of the plan along. Inquiring minds want to know.

Civil Rights in American History lecture notes part 2

Social rights are primarily concerned with access to places of public accommodation.

First and foremost, Dred Scott v. Sandford denied to blacks, whether slave or free, citizenship.

Article IV of the Constitution states that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was primarily the work of moderate Republicans in Congress.

The three central pillars of section one of the Fourteenth Amendment are privileges and
immunities, due process, and equal protection.

According to Dr. Moreno, the Fourteenth Amendment was an attempt to make permanent the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

White Southerners who joined the Republican Party during Reconstruction were derisively
referred to as scalawags.

President Grant took the extreme measure of suspending the writ of habeas corpus in South Carolina in order to combat efforts to deprive black people of the right to vote.

The Republican Party lost control of Congress in the election of 1874 due to corruption in the Grant administration and an economic recession.

After winning a disputed election in 1876, President Rutherford B. Hayes removed the last federal troops from Southern states.

Booker T. Washington believed that progress required deliberate efforts to “cement the friendship” between the races.

In his famous speech at the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta, Booker T.
Washington describes the needs of black people in the South through the image of a ship lost at sea.

Dr. Morel explains that Booker T. Washington’s statement, “We are hungry,” meant a desire for knowledge and material necessities.

W.E.B. Du Bois pointed to race as the prime mover of history.

Du Bois believed that the elevation and progress of black people in America would be best
secured by a black elite.

Source: “Civil Rights in American History” course from Hillsdale.edu.

Increases in Cannabis Poisoning Coincide With Drug Legalization: New Study Shows

From The Epoch Times.com (July 29, 2023):

Cases of cannabis poisoning increased after legalization and decriminalization of the drug, according to a new meta-analysis published in the journal, Addiction.

The combined results of thirty studies—which focused on legalization and decriminalization in the United States and Canada—estimate a more than three-fold increased risk of poisoning after it was legalized. Studies specific to children revealed an even higher number with episodes increasing almost four and half times the rate prior to the drug being legal.

“The likely explanation is that legislation has increased the use of cannabis, which has also increased poisoning.” senior author, Dr. Rose Cairns from the University of Sydney, said in a statement.

There’s also the possibility that changing the laws added an element of confusion to the public, Cairns continued. Consumers might assume that if marijuana is legal, it must mean the drug is safe, she said. However, that is far from true.

“Increased availability and use of edibles (gummies and chocolates, for example) appears to be an important driver of the increase in poisonings, particularly among children,” said Cairns. “Edible cannabis has a higher risk of poisoning because people tend to consume larger quantities, and the effects of cannabis take longer to show up when ingested than they do when smoked. This is concerning because edibles are especially attractive to children.”

Cannabis poisoning sets in when smokers inhale too much of the drug too quickly. It also occurs when consumers feast on drug-infused edibles with high concentrations of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warns symptoms like trouble walking, sitting up or even breathing can come on quickly or slowly depending on the source, and may take hours to subside. In some instances, emergency hospitalization is required.

The CDC also points out that the majority of poisonings are attributed to edibles. For this reason, study authors say children in particular are at greater risk.

The newly released collective evidence adds to an already existing burdensome and dangerous public health issue. Previous estimates from the National Institutes of Health show six out of every 100,000 people in the United States could be hospitalized for cannabis poisoning. [source]

Another article on the danger of cannabis: Cannabis Can Alter DNA: Study

Five Rules for Fiscally Responsible, Pro-Growth Tax Reform

From Heritage.org (May 7):

Fiscal conservatives generally support reducing the size and scope of the federal government, but few would have any qualms with acknowledging that certain federal spending is beneficial and warranted. Conservatives should also recognize that the details matter when it comes to tax cuts. Tax cuts can be highly beneficial, but certain tax cuts in certain situations can be counterproductive. With the United States facing a $2 trillion annual deficit (and growing) and already having accumulated $34.6 trillion of debt, a poorly designed tax cut could do more harm than good. A deficit-financed tax cut that fails to spur economic growth would exacerbate America’s fiscal situation and ultimately lead to future tax increases, higher inflation, or both.

On the other hand, a well-designed tax reform could dramatically improve the economy and the federal budget, especially over the long run. By spurring investment, innovation, higher employment, and increased productivity, strongly pro-growth tax reform can reduce the nation’s debt burden as a share of the economy. Advocates of higher taxes often ridicule the notion of tax cuts paying for themselves, but all that they can refute is the generalized statement that tax cuts always, unequivocally do pay for themselves. However, the idea that tax cuts never pay for themselves is equally absurd. Clearly, when tax rates are sufficiently high, they discourage productive activity so much as to become utterly counterproductive to the goal of deficit reduction.

No serious policymaker would advocate a 99 percent income tax bracket. People would not continue working and taking entrepreneurial risks if the government confiscated 99 cents for every additional dollar they earned. Such a tax would cost taxpayers dearly and destroy the federal budget in the process. However, a tax need not have a 99 percent rate to worsen the budget situation. Look no further than the spate of wealth taxes that European countries have tried and abandoned, and it becomes clear that poorly conceived taxes can be economic and budgetary disasters even with low statutory tax rates of 1 or 2 percent of wealth.

For tax reform to be economically beneficial and fiscally responsible, policymakers should mitigate the parts of the tax code that are especially anti-growth. Fiscally responsible, pro-growth tax reform improves incentives to work, save, invest, and innovate and removes unnecessary distortions and complications. It also makes the tax system simpler and fairer by repealing unjustifiable tax carveouts such as tax credits for politically favored businesses or activities.

This report briefly describes how the looming expiration of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will bring tax reform discussions to the forefront in 2025. It then explains why fiscally responsible tax reform should be strongly pro-growth, providing five basic rules for evaluating whether a tax-reform package would mostly spur a larger economy or just a larger deficit. It includes some recommendations and specific examples of tax changes that would satisfy these rules. However, the purpose of this report is not to provide a specific blueprint for the ideal tax reform but rather to describe general principles that should underlie effective reform.

Tax Reform and the Looming Tax Cliff

The next Congress will have to grapple with whether to extend some or all the provisions of the 2017 TCJA. Most of the TCJA will expire after December 31, 2025. Some of the provisions have already begun phasing out. If Congress fails to act, the expiration of the tax cuts would result in a large tax increase for most Americans. Alternatively, Congress may plot a different course for federal taxes by passing an altogether new reform.

How Congress decides to act will have important implications for the American people, the economy, and the federal budget. The TCJA included some very strong, pro-growth elements. It reduced excessively high taxes on businesses and corporations, which faced among the highest tax rates in the developed world. The improvements to the business tax code spurred job growth and higher wages.

The tax cuts also simplified and reduced the cost of capital investments by businesses through the allowance of full and immediate expensing of equipment and machinery. With expensing, businesses can simply deduct valid business expenses instead of using complicated, drawn-out depreciation schedules that diminish the value of tax deductions before they are claimed.

The TCJA was strong overall, but it was not perfect. Important pro-growth provisions, including expensing, were made temporary instead of permanent. The reforms added to the complexity of the international tax code and small business taxation. They increased the tax code’s use of refundable tax credits—payments to individuals with no net income tax liability. They left many problems in the tax system unaddressed, including many unjustifiable tax breaks. All this leaves an opportunity for further improvements in 2025. [read more]

Rules that Comrade Kamala (or as Tampon Tim called Harris a "prostitutor") will ignore. I do like the rule about keeping the tax cuts permanent.

Everything we know about Trump's second assassination attempt so far

From Glenn Beck.com (Sept. 16):

The assassination attempt on Trump's life in July sent shock waves around the world, confirming what many, like Glenn, had feared: that the Biden administration and media's hostile rhetoric towards Trump would incite violence. Yet one assassination attempt wasn't enough for the political elites to change their tune. Over the weekend on Sunday, September 16th, just two months after Trump's initial failed assassination, there was another attempt on Trump's life.

This is a developing story, but some initial facts have surfaced. Here's everything we know about Trump's second assassination attempt so far:

The attempt went down at Trump's golf course in West Palm Beach.

Trump was playing golf on Sunday at his course in West Palm Beach, Florida when a Secret Service agent noticed a man with a rifle push the firearm’s muzzle through the perimeter of the course between 300 and 500 yards away. It was later discovered that the firearm was an AK-47-style rifle. A Secret Service agent fired at the man, who dropped the rifle and fled in a car.

A witness captured a photograph of the suspect's vehicle, which enabled authorities to apprehend the suspect on I-95 heading out of Palm Beach County into Martin County.

The suspect was prepared for a shootout.

While investigating the bushes at the golf course where the suspect had been spotted, Secret Service discovered the AK-47-style rifle along with a scope, two backpacks filled with ceramic tiles, and a GoPro camera. The ceramic tiles were likely intended to be used in a bullet-proof vest, indicating the suspect was prepared for a shootout with Secret Service. The Go-Pro camera was likely intended to capture the would-be assassination on camera.

The suspect identified, Ryan Wesley Routh,  was convicted of possessing a "weapon of mass destruction" in 2002.

The apprehended suspect is 58-year-old Ryan Routh, a North Carolina native who has spent a significant amount of time in Hawaii. Routh, a former roofing contractor from Greensboro, N.C., has a lengthy criminal record in the state, including a three-hour standoff with police in 2002 in which he was convicted of carrying a “weapon of mass destruction." The reporting outlet at the time revealed that the weapon was a fully-automatic machine gun. [read more]

Another assassination attempt? This is getting ridiculous! ☹️ It's a good thing that a secret service agent happened to spot the assassin's gun barrel, but what if he hadn't? The unthinkable might have happened. I'm very glad Trump is okay. If President Trump can't get enough secret service agents to cover the perimeter, maybe he should seriously consider getting an infrared drone up in the air.

Kudos on the lady taking a picture of the creep's license plate. Great job to her! 

And the FBI is charging the creep with basically gun charges? Not attempted murder?  What do they think he was doing in the bushes, shooting squirrels or something? Geez. Those charges could still be added to the attempted murder charge.

Other articles on the assassination attempt:

• ‘They Wouldn’t Let Me Finish’: JD Vance Reveals Trump’s First Reaction To Gunman
• Alleged assassin’s criminal record, foreign travel raise questions U.S. intel may be able to answer
• Secret Service says it can’t keep Trump safe on golf courses — even as Biden lounges on beaches
• Who is Ryan Wesley Routh, Trump's second would-be Assassin?
• Who IS this guy?! 5 INSANE facts about Trump's 2nd would-be assassin
  
• First photos show view Ryan Wesley Routh had from sniper’s nest at Trump Palm Beach golf course
• Democrats set stage for 2 Trump assassination attempts with these 5 statements
• Congressman says Homeland whistleblower claims five assassin teams hunting Trump
• DeSantis: Feds Not Cooperating With Florida’s Probe Into Assassination Attempt
• 3 World Leaders Support Trump After 2nd Assassination Attempt. The Rest Are Silent.