Brainwashed ideology runs headlong into common sense

 

I'm going to embed a video clip below.  It shows Gina Plata-Nino, the Director of SNAP Policy and Advocacy at the Food Research and Action Center, being questioned by Rep. Brandon Gill.  The topic of discussion is efforts to remove unhealthy food choices - in this particular case, sodas - from the list of items eligible to be bought using funds from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Ms. Plata-Nino is clearly left-wing and populist in her approach, defending peoples' right to use SNAP benefits in any way they please.  Notice how she avoids, evades and dodges any attempt to get her to admit that sugary sodas are in no way nutritional, and aren't really "food" as the SNAP program was originally intended to fund.  She literally can't be persuaded to acknowledge facts.  Instead, all she can do is repeat her pre-programmed talking points.

It's a bit like medical administrators and professionals who absolutely cannot admit that only biological women can become pregnant and give birth.  They daren't acknowledge that fact, because in doing so they would be forced to acknowledge that "trans" women are not, in fact, women at all - merely cosmetically adapted males.

Here's the video.  It's only about five minutes long, but I think it's worth watching.

That's what we're facing in every election in this country.  Districts dominated by people who use government benefits will listen to advocates and politicians like Ms. Plata-Nino, and vote in lockstep with those who promise them more benefits without cost to themselves.  Districts dominated by people whose taxes have to fund those benefits will be (legitimately) angry at how they're wasted, exploited and abused by the recipients.

Sadly, more and more districts are dominated by those who want something for nothing, and vote accordingly.  Many of those votes are, of course, illegitimate, as the widespread investigations into voter fraud and electoral register mismanagement are demonstrating.  Will that be enough to put things right?  Your guess is as good as mine . . .

Peter

A misuse of AI that I hadn't foreseen

 

We know artificial intelligence (AI) can be a very useful tool for good.  Sadly, it can be used for evil as well.

Police have launched a criminal investigation into an officer accused of using artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "create evidential material in a number of cases".

The Derbyshire Police officer has been removed from front-line duties, pending the outcome of the investigation, the force said.

The officer is alleged to have perverted the course of justice, but no arrests have been made, police added.

A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson said they were working with police, adding: "We are engaging with defence teams and the courts in appropriate cases."

There's more at the link.

I hadn't given this enough consideration, but thinking about it, it's potentially a very serious problem.  Perverting the course of justice is bad enough, but think about how a group with a particular ideology can fabricate "evidence" to persuade their government to act in a certain way towards another country?  The neocon outrage at President Trump's announcement of a deal with Iran is a good example.  What if the outspoken pro-war ideologues could concoct their own evidence to "show" that the deal is a lousy one, and should be abandoned?  What if they could "create" evidence to persuade Iran to start hostilities again, because it was convinced America was about to attack it again?

This adds a very worrying dimension to AI.  It will probably be almost impossible for a non-specialist to figure out whether or not the evidence presented is authentic or fabricated.  Indeed, it may contain just enough truth to be persuasive, and add enough falsehood to lead to a wrong conclusion.  How would one prove it false when it contains at least some truth?

This adds new complexity to the issue of censorship - of news, of social media, of whatever.  First Street Journal gives us examples.

It was just over four years ago that we wrote about The New York Times publishing an article by a member of their own Editorial Board, Greg Bensinger, telling readers of that august supporter of Freedom of the Press that it was bad, bad, bad that Elon Musk was trying to buy Twitter, and that his promise to make the social media service an “inclusive arena for free speech” and that “Twitter Under Elon Musk Will Be a Scary Place.”

. . .

We pointed out that The New York Times gave OpEd space to Chad Malloy[2] to claim that restrictions on speech actually promoted freedom of speech. They also published articles claiming that Free Speech is killing us. Noxious language online is causing real-world violence ... And today? There were riots in Belfast, Northern Ireland, following the attempted beheading of a Scotsman by a Sudanese asylum seeker, and the Usual Suspects complained not about the attack, but about Twitter not censoring people writing about it! There’s more of that here and here and here.

The United Kingdom’s Secretary for Northern Island Hilary Benn said, following the knife attack in Belfast:

Social media companies have a very heavy responsibility. It’s why we’re going to bring forward new powers next week to make it clear that social media companies need to take down illegal content, particularly when we are facing circumstances such as the ones we’ve seen in Northern Ireland over the last two days.

It’s simple: our good friends on the left are afraid, deathly afraid, that if the people in general have the information Our Betters would rather not see disseminated, people might, horrors! draw conclusions from that information of which the left would disapprove!

Again, more at the link.

Imagine that the sources quoted by First Street Journal had been "massaged" by AI to give a rather different emphasis to the news than the reality?  For that matter, what if the journal itself used AI to give a particular propaganda twist to its presentation of the news?  Merely by selecting words and phrases that "shaded" the presentation in one direction or another, its impression on readers could be significantly altered;  and AI systems, with their vast resources of language, facts, figures and news, would be in an ideal position to shape and form that impression.

Hmmmm . . .

Peter

Tab clearing

 

Over the past few days I've come across several very useful and informative articles.  I haven't got time to make each one into a detailed blog post, so I'll link to them here.  I'm sure some of them will interest you.

1.  What is the British military actually for?

This is about the British military, not the USA's, but nevertheless there are many common factors in the problems confronting each of them.  I daresay we on this side of the Atlantic should pay equal attention to the reasons for the existence of our armed forces, and whether (and how well) they are structured to implement those reasons.

2.  What happens if the State decides you're too expensive to keep alive?

A very thought-provoking academic study of Canada's Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) program, and the pro's and con's of expanding it to provide involuntary euthanasia - in other words, a doctor or medical panel will decide whether your life is worth saving.  If you're a net expense to the government or medical insurance, here comes the lethal injection.  The abstract opens with this chilling statement:

"This study explores the potential economic savings from expanding medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada, where it is currently a leading cause of death, to include vulnerable groups that cost the government more than they contribute in taxes. These groups include individuals with severe mental health issues, the homeless, drug users, retired elderly, and indigenous communities. Both voluntary and non-voluntary scenarios were analyzed, projecting total savings of up to CAD $1.273 trillion by 2047."

So, if the Canadian government thinks you're worth less to them alive than what it would cost them to treat your medical issue(s) . . . enjoy the euthanasia polka!

3.  The Declaration of Dependence

We are amid a significant shift in the cultural messaging around parenthood, and we can’t throw shame or money at the problem if we hope to solve it. A growing number of people in younger generations have decided that having children simply isn’t worth it. Why? ... The biggest shift ... is the acceptance of the idea that having children is merely one among many viable choices available if one is to live a flourishing adult life; indeed, it might lead to greater personal growth if one doesn’t have children at all. In very short order, the social pressure that used to insist that people who did not have children were selfish has shifted to its opposite—the idea that having children is selfish, given the world’s unsolvable problems and the need to pursue one’s own goals. From here, it is a short leap to viewing children as a burden, a cost to personal autonomy that is not worth paying. 

4.  The Loophole That Put Drunk Truckers Back On The Road

"A federal database built to flag and remove drunk and drugged truckers from U.S. highways used the equivalent of an "honor system" as its last line of defense between a family in a minivan and a substance addict steering an 80,000-pound mass of steel ... But what if a current alcoholic or drug addict could immediately get back behind the wheel by paying a third party to simply check off a box inside the database, rather than complete and pass follow-up drug or alcohol testing?"  Looks like thousands of truckers have been doing precisely that - posing a grave danger to other American drivers.

5.  Stop Nick Shirley!

Instrumental in exposing sufficient fraud so it could no longer be ignored by local or state officials is independent journalist Nick Shirley, who exposed the infamous “Quality Learing Center” day care fraud in Minneapolis, as well as many less well-known fraudulent day cares. So effective was Shirley, and so quickly did his work anger local fraudsters and state officials, Shirley received so many death threats he apparently decided to give California a try ... In Minnesota and California, honest public employees tried for years to expose fraud, but their superiors and the state Attorney General’s Office ignored them. But with Shirley’s discovery of incredible levels of fraud, the California Legislature was prodded into action: they’re criminalizing exposing fraud ... why would legislators, people sworn to protect the public, presumably at least in part by catching criminals defrauding taxpayers of billions, want to protect those criminals? It’s a puzzler, unless, perhaps, those NGOs and nonprofits are primary funding sources of the Democrat Party and Democrat politicians?

6.  Things don’t happen to me.  They happen for me

Rita is a personal friend of long standing, and shares a Substack with Lawdog, whom most of us know.  I was touched by her recent essay, and thought it worth sharing.

I want to share something that has been much on my mind of late, but I want to preface this with the caveat that there’s a sea of pretty ideas out there that appeal instantly but that don’t stand up to intensive scrutiny ... The story I share with you below is about making a choice to perceive things from a more objective standpoint, rather than seeing every curveball as the ultimate disruptor that could have occurred, and making life a misery ... I’ve always tried to embrace the joy of living, but I’ve not always understood how to go about it. I think now I understand that this joy is not having the right things or the stylish possessions that the world dictates are the measure of a life well-lived. I think one can have a joyous life in the most humble of circumstances, if one chooses.

There you go, friends.  I hope you found at least one or two of those articles worth your time.

Peter

Why we're getting poorer, and they're getting richer, all the time

 

That's the essence of a lengthy and very informative essay by Quoth The Raven.  Here are some extended excerpts.  They may look dauntingly long, but they're right on the money (you should pardon the expression) and are well worth reading.  If you're finding it hard to make ends meet, this is why.

The widening wealth inequality gap is the political third rail nobody in power truly ever wants to touch.

Politicians will scream at each other all day over taxes, healthcare, immigration, tariffs, student loans, climate policy, or whatever outrage is currently driving engagement on cable news and social media. But the second the conversation turns toward monetary policy, toward the machinery of money creation itself, the room suddenly gets very quiet.

That’s because monetary policy has quietly become the single most powerful force reshaping wealth distribution in modern America. And unlike the endless partisan theater surrounding fiscal policy, monetary intervention oddly enjoys remarkable bipartisan support.

Republicans and Democrats may pretend to be existential enemies on television, but when it comes to flooding the financial system with dollars, both parties reliably fall into line. And that support is precisely why this topic is politically radioactive: once people understand how the system works, the illusion of two competing economic ideologies starts to collapse. Republicans want less spending, Democrats want higher taxes…but both parties want the Fed to keep printing dollars.

. . .

Now we operate inside a permanently distorted financial system where trillions of dollars can be electronically created and injected into markets whenever instability appears. The market is no longer primarily driven by productivity or efficient allocation of capital. It is driven by liquidity. Price discovery has been replaced by intervention dependency and risk has been socialized while gains remain privatized.

And every time markets threaten to correct naturally, policymakers intervene to ensure asset prices do not fall far enough to inflict meaningful pain on the people who own the overwhelming majority of financial assets. And the consequences of this have been staggering.

While both parties bitch and moan about affordability, protecting the middle and lower class, and “equity”, one of the clearest signs of this Fed-created distortion is the explosive growth of the ultrawealthy class. According to The Wall Street Journal, there are now roughly 430,000 American households worth more than $30 million, including approximately 74,000 households worth over $100 million. The growth of these groups has dramatically outpaced overall population growth over the past several decades.

In other words, Fed policy, blessed by both political parties, is widening the wealth inequality gap both political parties claim to fighting against ... When it comes to purchasing power, we are literally taking from the poor, and giving to the rich.

. . .

Beneath the culture war circus exists a deeper bipartisan consensus: financial markets must remain inflated at all costs.

And the lower and middle class gets absolutely brutalized in this arrangement.

Historically, middle-class wealth accumulation depended on disciplined saving, stable employment, affordable housing, and gradual investment appreciation over time. But inflationary monetary regimes destroy the reliability of all of those pathways. Savings become punishment, cash becomes a melting ice cube, young people are forced into speculative assets (or outright becoming gambling addicts) simply to attempt to preserve purchasing power. Conservative investing gets punished while reckless leverage gets rewarded.

Entire generations now feel compelled to try and make quick money in markets not because they are greedy, but because monetary debasement has made traditional financial prudence nonviable. This creates an economy built less on productivity and innovation and more on asset inflation, debt expansion and outright speculation.

. . .

A market that cannot survive without permanent monetary life support is no longer a healthy market, it is a managed dependency system. A patient on hospice care. And every bailout pushes the reckoning further into the future while making the eventual consequences even worse.

There's more at the link.  It's a long article, but well worth reading in full.

My take-away from this article is that if every American took the time to read and understand it, we'd have a Second American Revolution almost overnight.  It's precisely because most Americans don't understand what is being done in their name by their political leaders (who are enriching themselves in the process, at our expense) that our current miserable monetary situation has been allowed to develop.  I fear that unless and until we kick out those responsible, it'll just go on until it collapses . . . but such a collapse would take us with it, and punish everybody, not just the guilty.

What can we do about it?  Elect a better class of politician, on both sides of the political divide.  Will we do that?  I fear too few of us care enough to make the attempt . . . and that's what our current politicians rely on to keep their place in the sun.

Peter

The state and "Cheddarisation"

 

The word "Cheddarisation" threw me when I saw it in the title of an article at Off-Guardian, but having read it, it makes sense.

Once, Britain was a landscape of cheese. There were hundreds of distinct regional varieties, each rooted in a particular place and shaped by local conditions and practices.

These cheeses were not interchangeable. They reflected differences in soil, pasture, climate and animal breeds. Their characteristics shifted with the seasons. They were products of specific environments and the knowledge of those who worked within them. But that diversity has largely disappeared.

Today, most cheese available through mainstream supply chains is standardised. It is consistent in taste, texture and appearance, regardless of where it is produced. Variation has been minimised with predictability the defining feature.

The turning point came during the Second World War. Faced with the challenge of feeding a population under rationing, the British government intervened in food production through the Ministry of Food. One of its key decisions was to consolidate cheese-making into a single, standardised form: Cheddar.

The rationale was practical. Cheddar was durable, transportable and relatively straightforward to produce at scale. In wartime conditions, these qualities made it suitable for centralised distribution. Efficiency took precedence over diversity.

. . .

What occurred in the British dairy sector can be understood as an early example of a wider process: the replacement of complex, localised systems with simplified, standardised ones. For the purposes of clarity, this process might be described as cheddarisation.

Cheddarisation is not confined to cheese. It refers to a more general pattern in which diversity is reduced in favour of uniformity, and local variation is treated as an obstacle to efficiency. Systems are reorganised so that outputs can be standardised, scaled and controlled ... Once a system is simplified enough to be managed from a central desk, the people within that system lose their ability to act outside of it.

There's more at the link.

Off-Guardian offers a number of articles about what it calls "the anti-human agenda", of which the above article is one example.  Categories include:

War on Food

War on Money

Climate Change

Health Tyranny

There are many interesting discussions under each heading.  Recommended reading.

Peter

Gold, lies and more lies?

 

France recently decided to repatriate the last of its gold reserves that had been stored in the USA for the past several decades.  The "official" story goes like this.

The Banque de France (BdF) announced last week that it generated a capital gain of €12.8 billion after upgrading 129 tonnes of gold – about 5 percent of France's total reserves – between July 2025 and January 2026.

The gold was the last of the French reserves held in New York. It was replaced with the equivalent amount bought in Europe and held in Paris. 

The BdF has been gradually replacing older, non‑standard gold with bars that meet ​modern international standards since 2005. It moved the majority of its gold reserves out of the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England between 1963 and 1966.

Rather than refining and transporting the gold that remained in the US, the bank opted to sell it and purchase new, compliant bullion on the European market.

. . .

France’s total gold reserves of about 2,437 tonnes – the fourth-largest in the world – are now all in Paris. This includes 134 tonnes of older bars and coins, which the bank intends to bring up to standard by 2028.

There's more at the link.

Understand that the gold bars France sold in the USA were almost certainly standard-weight bars of "three nines fine" metal (i.e. refined to at least 99.9% purity).  All gold bars traded internationally, and held in national gold reserves, are supposed to be so-called "good delivery" bars as specified by the London Bullion Market Association.  The bars stored in the USA would presumably have met that standard, or they could not have been traded as "good delivery" gold - only sold for re-refining and re-casting into standard bars.  Gold thus traded is less expensive than "good delivery" gold.  If the gold had been in non-standard format, it's unlikely that the USA would have paid France the price for "good delivery" gold bars.

However, this raises even more questions.  A market observer sends the following.

My two cents on the repatriation of French gold bars:
- France asked to return their 12.5 kg gold bars
- US had already sold them
- US offered to wire the money
- France accepted and bought new 12.5 kg gold bars in London
- Both countries agreed on the following spin to sell the story: 
- new bars bought to ‘meet current standards’ 
- Spin is 100% bullshit
- 12.5 kg 999.9 pure gold bars have always been 999.9 pure gold bars of 12,5 kg
- previous gold repatriations always happened without the ‘need for current standards’ 
- MSM doesn’t ask questions and prints spin
- Another PR disaster avoided for the US/FED 
- The rigging of the dollar system can go on 
- The can can be kicked a bit further down the road

I find it very hard to disagree with him.  I think he's right.  I think the US Federal Reserve had already sold off the gold that France had on deposit in the USA, so it could not return it when France asked for it.  Instead, the USA offered an equivalent value in dollars, which France was quick to accept.  It bought gold in Europe using that money (and now proudly claims it made a profit on the gold, having bought it before the recent price ramp-up).

Back in January, I asked:

What happened to the audit of US gold reserves in Fort Knox that we were promised?  Where is it?  Where are the results?  The subject has literally vanished from view.  My conclusion is that it's being deliberately suppressed;  and if that's the case, then I can only assume that our gold reserves simply aren't there any more.

Again, more at the link.

Is that what happened to France's US gold holdings as well?  In the light of this news, I hope more people will ask the same questions about both US and French gold reserves, loudly and repeatedly, until we get answers.  Will they be truthful answers?  Your guess is as good as mine . . .

Peter

The danger of unrealized tax gain

 

Fellow blogger Mr. Garabaldi, writing at My Daily Kona, warns of the real dangers of so-called "unrealized tax gains".  We're seeing this pop up in almost every progressive, left-wing-oriented government and political party.  They want to tax you on any gain in value of any property you own, whether or not you've cashed in that value by selling it.

You buy a Pokémon card for $50.

Someone offers you $500 for it. You say no. You love that card. You're keeping it.

The government says: "Cool, but that card is worth $500 now. You owe us $100 in taxes."

You: "…I didn't sell it."

Government: "Don't care. Pay up."

You don't have $100 lying around. So you're forced to sell the card you love just to pay a tax on money you never received.

Next month? That card drops back to $50.

Your card is gone. Your money is gone. And the government shrugs.

That's a wealth tax on unrealized gains. They don't pay you back the tax...

There's more at the link, including more examples.  Recommended reading.

What this is, of course, is an all-out drive to reduce or even eliminate private property, by forcing us to rent what we use, or rely on government to provide it, because it's no longer affordable to buy it.  It's a growing movement, particularly in Europe, but also in progressive-left states in the USA like California.  Essentially, it embodies the World Economic Forum's oft-repeated mantra that "You'll own nothing and be happy".  Personally, I can't think of many things that would make me more unhappy than that!

Peter

"Pay up, peasant! Your betters need your taxes!"

 

Has any city made you feel really unwelcome?  I submit this booking from a New York City hotel certainly does that for me.

What's next - a charge for breathing city air?  Another tax for using water to flush the toilet?  One gets the feeling one is being financially raped to benefit the city.  In that case, why go there at all?

Ye Gods and little fishes . . .

Peter

Taxes in California

 

Yesterday reader Paul M. made this comment on Larry Lambert's blog.  He's referring to California taxes.

‘Tax us to death’…saw this:

Payroll taxes, Building Permit Tax
, CDL license Tax
, Cigarette Tax
, Corporate Income Tax
, Dog License Tax, 
Federal Income Tax
, Federal Unemployment Tax, Fishing License Tax
, Food License Tax
, Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
, Gross Receipts Tax
, Hunting License Tax, 
Inheritance Tax
, Liquor Tax
, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax
, Medicare Tax
, Personal Property Tax
, Property Tax, 
Real Estate Tax
, Road Usage Tax
, Recreational Vehicle Tax
, Sales Tax
, School Tax, Social Security Tax
, State Income Tax
, State Unemployment Tax, Telephone Federal Excise Tax
, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes, 
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, 
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
, Telephone State and Local Tax
, Telephone Usage Charge Tax
, Utility Taxes
, Vehicle License Registration Tax
, Vehicle Sales Tax
, Watercraft Registration Tax
, Well Permit Tax
, Workers Compensation Tax.

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

When you lay it all out like that, it's a breathtaking tax burden, isn't it?  That list isn't even comprehensive:  it doesn't include firearms taxes, ammunition taxes, and regulatory fees for this, that and everything else.  Now they want to add a wealth tax on top of it all!  They say it'll be a one-time tax, but if you believe that . . .

I wondered for a brief moment why any sane California taxpayer would vote for a government that robs them blind like that, but then I realized that most sane California taxpayers probably don't vote for those measures.  Taxpayers who've drunk the liberal/progressive Kool-Aid do;  but they're not the biggest margin of support.  The people who don't have to pay those taxes, but who benefit from the money they bring in, are mostly the ones who vote for them (and the politicians who impose them).

Peter

That's a very good point

 

In an interview a few days ago, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections in Minnesota raised what I think is a very worthwhile question.

On Friday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Minnesota Department of Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell discussed cooperation between local sheriffs and immigration officials and said that “having judicial orders or detainers or holds that are signed by a judge would address this issue. But, to date, we have not seen a willingness on the part of DHS to pursue those.”

. . .

"... sheriffs are in a very difficult position, because they face legal liability if they hold people beyond their appointed time. And having judicial orders or detainers or holds that are signed by a judge would address this issue."

There's more at the link.

That may be a smokescreen, of course, glossing over the real issue that Minnesota's policy is not to cooperate with Federal authorities over immigration issues, including arrests.  However, the question of administrative versus judicial orders or detainers is, I submit, more important than it may seem at first glance.

In criminal law, a warrant is typically required to arrest someone or search their property. These types of warrants must be issued by a judge; thus, they are also known as “judicial warrants.”

A judicial warrant is a document issued by a judge (or magistrate judge) that authorizes law enforcement officers to perform certain actions (like conducting a search, making an arrest, or seizing property). Judicial warrants are typically issued based on probable cause, which means there must be reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the action authorized by the warrant will yield evidence related to that crime. These warrants serve as a safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring that law enforcement actions are conducted within the bounds of the law and respect individuals' constitutional rights.

. . .

An administrative warrant doesn’t need to involve a judge or court at all (though an administrative law judge may review some). Instead, it’s issued by an administrative agency or official, as the name implies.

. . .

Administrative warrants are used for regulatory or administrative purposes, not criminal prosecution. Another difference is that administrative warrants generally have a lower standard than "probable cause,” which is required for judicial warrants. Finally, administrative warrants are based on statutory authority rather than Fourth Amendment requirements (like judicial warrants).

Judicial warrants typically deal with criminal law, whereas administrative warrants typically deal with civil law. That’s part of why the standard for a judicial warrant is higher: life and liberty are on the line. That’s also why judicial warrants will be in the form of either arrest warrants (to apprehend a suspect), search warrants (to search a specific location for evidence of a crime), or seizure warrants (to seize specific property or evidence related to a crime). Judicial warrants are considered more protective of individual rights, as they require a neutral judge's independent review of the evidence and a finding of probable cause.

Again, more at the link.

I can see both sides of this issue.  ICE and other federal agencies often try to arrest hundreds, even thousands of people in a given area (a city, a suburb, at an employer's premises, etc.).  To get individual judicial warrants against every potential suspect in that area might be so great a burden on their administration that it's effectively impossible.  However, that also runs a greater risk that some, at least, of those they arrest might have their civil rights ignored in the process.  We've already seen reports of that;  for example, US citizens arrested and detained for extended periods (sometimes days or even weeks) until they could prove they were legally resident in this country.  ICE and its defenders will protest that they could have produced such proof at any time, but if they were denied access to telephones and other means of communication (a routine occurrence, or so I understand), how were they to ask a family member or other person to deliver such proof?  If they lived alone, how could they get such proof from their place(s) of residence when they were detained, preventing them from traveling to their homes?

A judicial warrant demands a higher standard of proof from law enforcement authorities before they can make an arrest.  If a suspect's rights are to be restricted or infringed by arresting him/her, a judge or magistrate must confirm that there is enough evidence to justify that interference.  The warrant can also be challenged in court, as can the process leading to its being issued.  If an officer mistakenly asks for a judicial arrest warrant because he/she had unreliable or insufficient information, that can be held against the officer if it comes out in court.  An administrative warrant lacks all such protection - it was (normally) never reviewed by a judge or magistrate before being issued.  In so many words, it's nothing more than a bureaucratic rubber stamp.

I'm firmly of the opinion that illegal aliens should be deported, except for genuine, repeat, genuine, verifiable cases where refugee status might be awarded.  However, regardless of one's perspective on immigration, I think the use of only administrative warrants for mass arrests is legally questionable, and might become a tool of actual oppression if the "wrong people" issue such warrants without judicial scrutiny.  I think ICE may have to reconsider this issue.  Certainly, I'll be more comfortable from legal, moral and ethical perspectives if they do.

At the same time, those opposed to enforcing immigration laws will have to accept that it's a federal government issue, not a state or local issue.  If they want to protest it, there are legal avenues for them to do so.  To physically assault federal officers in the performance of their duties is not one of them;  nor is using state and local laws and regulations to obstruct and interfere with their operations.  Administrative warrants are too often used as an excuse to disrupt such legitimate law enforcement activities, without examining the rights and wrongs involved.

Peter

Are they trying to deter buyers of silver???

 

As we all know, precious metal prices have been going through the roof for something like a year now, and show no signs of slowing down.  This has led to well-informed speculation that the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and similar bodies in other countries may not hold enough physical silver to meet the futures contracts they have permitted to be traded against their holdings.

... according to the CME’s registry there are 440 million ounces of silver located in its depositories. However, the current silver futures contract  which settles in late March 2026  has an open interest of 150,200 contracts. At 5,000 ounces of silver per contract, this comes to 751 MILLION ounces of silver contracts trading… or 1.7 TIMES the amount of actual silver the CME has stored in various depositories.

Put another way, the CME is permitting silver contracts to trade that are backed by NOTHING.

The CME, rather than addressing this issue, has chosen to introduce a new silver futures contract, the mini silver contract, that represents the right to buy or sell 100 oz of silver (as opposed to the usual 5,000 oz).

The catch?

This new contract is settled “financially” meaning there is ZERO silver backstopping it.

Put another way, rather than doing something to address the fact that much of the current silver trading is backstopped by nothing, the CME is doubling down by introducing NEW derivatives that are EXPLICITLY financial in nature… with ZERO actual exposure to silver itself.

There's more at the link.

The current 3-month futures contracts terminate on March 27th, if I've got it right.  What happens if a holder or holders of those contracts demands physical delivery, rather than rolling over the contract into a new one?  Will the CME have enough silver metal in its vaults to make good on those deliveries?  Informed opinion is that it doesn't.  As the article above goes on to ask:

What happens to the financial system when traders begin to realize that the CME is allowing derivatives to trade that are backstopped by NOTHING?!?!

That's a very good question.  It also provides a very rational explanation for the new silver "futures" or derivatives that the CME is offering, because they are not redeemable for silver - only dollars.  Investors who buy them are, in a sense, pretending they hold silver futures, but they don't - only a piece of paper that ties the redemption value of those futures to the silver price, not the metal itself.

Does that seem like a worthwhile investment to you?  Do you trust the CME and its ilk to pay out on time, in full, whether in precious metals and/or at rightful value?  One wonders . . .

That leads me to another interesting point.  As I write these words, the spot price of silver is quoted at US $94.89.  Many dealers are quoting 1oz. silver coins at a premium of up to 20% above spot:  for example, APMEX is quoting a 2023 1oz. American Silver Eagle coin at $112.32.  However, if you go to the website of the US Mint, a 2023 1oz. Silver Eagle is listed at - wait for it - $169.00!  That's fully 78% higher than spot - a ridiculous premium... or is it?

What if the US Mint did not have enough silver in stock to satisfy demand, or was uncertain whether it will be able to get enough stock to satisfy future demand?  Is it possible that, rather than admit to that, they're pricing their coins so high as to deter most buyers?  If they "lose a sale" on a coin they don't have enough of, because the buyer thinks their price is too high, they've actually lost nothing at all - and if the buyer decides to buy it anyway, they've made an extraordinarily high profit on the stocks they actually have in their possession.  I'm sure they'll lose some cash flow that way, but with their stock of precious metals for security, short-term financing won't be a problem.  There's really no downside for them, is there?  However, I'm willing to bet that their bulk sales of silver and gold coins to other dealers and brokers is priced much more reasonably than their retail-sale coins - otherwise, they'd be shut out of the wider market.

There may be a different, perfectly logical and rational reason why the US Mint is pricing its wares so highly, but if there is, I can't think of it.  Of course, I'm neither a futures trader nor a precious metals expert.  Can any of you come up with another reason, readers?

Peter

"Fifty people control the culture"

 

So says Ted Gioia, whom we've met in these pages before.  Here are a couple of excerpts from his long and interesting article.

After three decades of total connectivity, here’s where we stand:

• Four movie studios still control Hollywood.
• Four subscription platforms account for two-thirds of home movie streaming.
• Three major record labels own most of the hit songs.
• Five publishers account for 80% of the US book market.
• Just one company controls 60% plus of the US audiobook business.
• Etc. etc.

During this same period, print media collapsed—thousands of newspapers and magazines simply disappeared. Online media survived, but just two companies (Alphabet and Meta) now swallow up most of the ad revenues.

And here’s where it gets even worse. If an indie media outlet wants to attract some of this ad money, it needs to reach readers—but it relies on those same two companies for access. To compete with Google you need help from Google.

It’s a mystery to me why this is legal. But it is.

Google is already squeezing digital publishers like they’re mangoes at a Jamba Juice. Publishers have already lost 25% of their traffic from Google, and fear that number might soon reach 60%.

The concentration of power at Google is mind-blowing. It controls around 90% of search traffic. All that total connectivity we envisioned in the early days of the web is mostly reliant on this one company.

You can try to bypass it with apps. But guess what? Two companies control most of the app store business—and one of them is (again) Google.

Can you see what’s happened? Power in the digital world is even more concentrated than in the real world.

Just one company controls around 40% of online shopping. Two companies control two-thirds of US music streaming. The same is true elsewhere online. Because of network effects, no new entrant can compete effectively against the dominant incumbents.

If you take the CEOs of all these businesses—in movies, books, media, etc.—you could fit them in [a] single school bus, with seats left over.

There's more at the link, including more details on the "favored fifty" and how much they control.

That's a truly scary thought.  I knew that five companies controlled almost all TV networks, and a few giant publishers controlled "traditional" book publishing - but I hadn't realized how far that level of concentration had spread.

What it means, of course, is that if anyone wants to do anything that the "favored fifty" (or enough of them, at any rate) would rather not see succeed, they can throttle it to the point of strangulation without even raising a sweat.  If they don't publish it, nobody will be able to access it.  If they don't publicize it, nobody will know about it.  If it becomes any sort of a threat, they can buy it with their pocket change and simply shut it down.  The developer or author or owner won't be able to refuse their offer, because he/she/they will go broke if they don't.

A prime example may be seen in Minneapolis and Minnesota right now.  All the focus of the news media is on ICE's law enforcement activity there - ignoring the truly massive fraud investigations going on into multiple aspects of the state's government, which look likely to dwarf anything that's happened elsewhere.  (California, where investigations are just beginning, might take the crown there, but it's too early to tell yet.)  Most of the powers that be in the news and social media circles are shutting down anything that goes against the "party line".  (That's also why they're so eager to silence Elon Musk and X [formerly Twitter] - because he allows people to speak freely.  They daren't allow that on their platforms, and they're going to do their best to silence any that do.)

Can anything be done about this concentration of power and influence . . . or is it too late?  I fear the latter may be true, because the "favored fifty" can buy any unprincipled Congressional representative or Senator (which means a goodly proportion of them) and prevent restrictive laws from being passed.

Any solutions come to mind, dear readers?  If so, please share them with us in Comments.  (Please do not suggest actions that are criminal.  I won't allow this blog to turn into a bloodbath, theoretical or otherwise.)

Peter

Blowing the lid off yet another corrupted government program

 

I was very pleased to read that the Small Business Administration is taking steps to put its house - and its finances - in order.  It appears to have been one of the main avenues for taxpayer money to be funneled to corrupt firms and individuals.  With luck, that may end very soon now.

The Small Business Administration on Friday ordered all companies that get preference for government contracts due to their status as “socially disadvantaged” minorities to provide detailed financial information to show they are not defrauding the program, The Daily Wire has learned.

The change represents a move to reevaluate a decades-old program that Washington insiders have long recognized as openly corrupt. The 8(a) program is one of the largest and oldest DEI initiatives in the country, affecting contracts at almost all federal agencies.

SBA administrator Kelly Loeffler said there is mounting evidence that minority contracts had become “a pass-through vehicle for rampant abuse and fraud,” especially after the Biden administration raised the target for contracts that are “set aside” for minorities from 5% to 15% of all contracting dollars.

“We’re committed to thoroughly reviewing every federal contract, contracting officer, and contractor — while working alongside federal law enforcement,” she said.

The records will shed light on the extent to which companies are subcontracting out the work to non-“disadvantaged” firms, while keeping a cut for serving as a middleman or “front” company. That would defeat the purpose of the program and result in higher prices for government services across the board.

Undercover journalist James O’Keefe caught employees from one such firm boasting that they did exactly that. O’Keefe Media Group published a video exposing ATI Government Solutions, an 8(a) firm based on Native American ownership that is run by whites. Anish Abraham, senior director at ATI Government Solutions, acknowledged that his company was a “pass-through” that got a $100 million contract, kept $65 million, and paid another firm $35 million to do the work.

Such reports “have raised questions about widespread misconduct within the 8(a) Business Development Program, adding to years of credible concerns that the program designed to serve ‘socially and economically disadvantaged’ businesses has become a vehicle for institutionalized abuse at taxpayer expense,” the SBA wrote to each of the 4,300 “disadvantaged” contractors.

There's more at the link.

If those contractors don't provide all the required information by January 5, 2026, they "risk losing their eligibility for contracts".  That in itself doesn't sound like much of a threat;  but we're talking 4,300-odd contractors and several billions of dollars a year.  That's an awful lot of pork being threatened, and an awful lot of grifters suddenly staring at the horrifying possibility that they might actually have to work for a living, instead of stealing from the rest of us.

This is part of the ongoing fruit of D.O.G.E., of course.  I've heard many people complain that D.O.G.E. "went away" without achieving anything like as much as they initially claimed they would.  They fail to realize that D.O.G.E. cracked open the vault of secrets, corruption, nepotism and all the other evils that have long pervaded the federal bureaucracy.  It got the information that pointed to areas needing attention, whether immediate, or in due course.  The Trump administration couldn't possibly tackle all of them at once, but it's knocking them out one by one.  This week, it's the SBA's turn.  Next week, there'll be another.  D.O.G.E. may well end up saving America every cent it had promised, and perhaps even more - but it won't happen overnight.

At any rate, the cockles of my heart are warmed by the thought of panic-stricken managers and leaders of corrupt organizations who've just realized that their comfortable cloak of anonymity is about to be stripped away.  That glint of light they see in the distance?  It's reflections from the handcuffs waiting to be used on them.

Excellent!  More, please!

(I wonder whether James O'Keefe and his organization get a finder's fee for each corrupt organization and individual they expose?  They deserve it - and I can't think of a better way to use taxpayer money!)

Peter

The eternal conundrum: individual rights versus community needs

 

In a recent column, Janet Daley tried to put the great clash of modern politics into perspective.  She addresses it in the context of American versus European politics, but points out - correctly - that the socialized European model is preached in America too by the Democratic Party, particularly its left-wing progressive movement.  This "muddies the waters".

American voters ... are unabashed in their belief that the American way of life is based on an abiding principle: that individuals have an inalienable right to improve their circumstances in life by their own efforts. If they find that their aspiration and determination are frustrated by things that are beyond their control like inflation or competition for jobs from illegal migrants, they expect the government to act effectively on those problems. Traditionally in the United States, it has been believed that this was what government was for: to remove obstacles to individual achievement and progress.

Much more recently the European model of state intervention and the creation of a welfare state which is designed to protect the disadvantaged and to care for those who, it is believed, cannot succeed on their own, has been brought into the US electoral arena. It is espoused by Left liberals like Bernie Sanders and the new mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, who have gained a hearing but whose ideas are still considered exotic and profoundly at odds with mainstream discourse. It is important to appreciate this because, paradoxically, it could help to illuminate the identity crisis that European democracies are undergoing.

Americans who demand that the obstacles to individual success and personal advancement be removed – that it is, in fact, the most important function of government to remove them – do not see themselves as selfish or callous. On the contrary, they believe quite sincerely that they are upholding an important moral standard: individuals must fulfil their potential and make the effort to succeed as best they can in order to take responsibility for their own lives. Most importantly, to as great an extent as possible, they must see to it that their children will have greater opportunities for self-advancement than they did. That was, and still is, the great American promise.

. . .

This perfectly plausible moral view has been almost drowned out in European politics by generations of  class-based ideology. The very idea of a public morality based on individualism – generally termed “selfish individualism” – was attacked. Then there was the inviolable credo that those who appeared to fail, even if they refused to try, were not to blame. Their bad choices were determined by the misfortune of their circumstances which were out of their control.

In some cases, of course, this would be true – but as a general principle applied to the whole of a population it became an insidious vindictive force: all those who succeeded were guilty of stealing wealth and advantage from all those who failed. Allowing people to prosper and achieve the rewards of their own ingenuity or hard work could not be acceptable because their success created inequality and was, in effect, a form of theft from those who lacked those fortunate traits. The only decent political solution was to take some of that advantage away and hand it out to those who, through no fault of their own, had achieved less. Wealth redistribution or, as it came to be known, “social fairness”, relied on the idea that even your apparent virtues – self-reliance, responsible behaviour, determination – were actually unfair privileges.

If your actions are constructive and conducive to success, that is just the good luck with which you happened to be gifted at birth. The problem for contemporary democracy is that a great many people believe this too. In fact, it is probably the case that a majority of the populations of Western countries believe both of these arguments – that people should be rewarded for succeeding by their own efforts, and that they should be penalised by having to support those who have not made an effort. It has simply become impossible for societies to sustain this contradiction any longer.

There's more at the link.  I highly recommend following the link at the end of the excerpt to read more about how socialized policies are "destroying" the self-sufficient.

We're seeing this conflict of perspectives in America right now between "purists" who want to demolish the "nanny state", dismantle the "deep state", and restore the rights and freedoms of the individual over those of state overreach.  On the other hand, there are those who complain that they're economically less well off than they were, and want the government - any government - to "make them whole", support them financially and in other ways so that they're not as exposed to the vicissitudes of the free market.  I suspect that's at the root of why President Trump's popularity has decreased in recent months.  He's doing a pretty good job of tearing down State overreach, but in doing so he's exposing those who were sheltered by that overreach to greater economic uncertainty, even pain - and they don't like it.

It's a tough discussion, particularly in a world where there are too many people competing for too few resources.  It's all very well for free marketeers to proclaim that if only everyone were given unlimited opportunity, they'd all do better - because there are many who will not do better, either through laziness, or through corruption, or through too much competition for resources.  The free market doesn't have all the answers, but neither does socialism or any of its offshoots.

I find this conundrum personally taxing, if I could put it like that.  As a result of serving in a US government law enforcement function, I became permanently partially disabled, and have relied to some extent on the income that resulted from that disability.  To that extent, I'm dependent on the government.  Yet, I also see the point of those that say we as a society are too dependent on government, and should minimize that dependency wherever possible.  For able-bodied people, I certainly support that approach, and did my best to live that way during the years prior to my injury.  I'd find it very hard to do that today, but there are doubtless those who'd prefer me to "suck it up" and "tough it out".  Needless to say, I don't find that encouraging!

We'll never find an answer that satisfies everyone, I guess.

Peter

He's not wrong

 

Fellow blogger Divemedic brings a timely warning.

Alarm bells should be ringing with the news that the government sold $694 billion in Treasury securities spread over 9 auctions in only three days. Yeah, our national debt now stands at $38.2 trillion. The most alarming thing about this news is that T-bill yields are rising. The 10-year Treasury yield is now at 4.15%. At that rate, the interest on our debt will be more than $1.5 trillion per year. Since Americans only pay about $2.4 trillion in Federal taxes each year, we are edging closer to the point where our debt will begin to grow like a snowball rolling down a mountain.

The only way to keep the government solvent at that point would be to inflate the currency in order to pay it with lower valued money. At that point, inflation will be higher than interest rates, and it will no longer be financially possible to invest in government bonds. This will in turn cause higher rates, which will also create a need for higher inflation. In other words, hyperinflation is the only way out, but that will cause a complete collapse of the US dollar.

There's more at the link.

I can't disagree with anything he says.  We've spoken often about debt in these pages, whether government, business, or individual.  The inevitable result of too much debt is bankruptcy, in one form or another.  A government can't really go bankrupt in the classical sense of the term, because it has laws (and can pass more) to protect it:  but it will still not be able to afford the routine expenditure we expect from government.  (Even if it tried, savvy businesses would refuse to accept government checks or money orders if they weren't sure they'd be able to cash them.)  If you are reliant on government money to feed, house and clothe your family from month to month, you'd better be making plans for when that money is no longer available, and/or has been so (deliberately) inflated that it will no longer buy you all you need.

I also repeat our earlier warnings to get out of debt if at all possible.  Sometimes this can't be done, due to factors beyond our control:  but certainly don't take on any more debt, unless it's a matter of life or death (e.g. an emergency medical procedure), and don't neglect paying down (and hopefully paying off) debt you already owe.  Don't carry balances on your credit cards - pay them off in full every month.  Don't run accounts at stores - buy for cash, or do without.  Forget "payday loans" or other ultra-short-term loan options (including buy-now-pay-later schemes).  They're only designed to enrich the person or institution making the loan, not the one repaying it.

In particular, prepare now for what might hit us if the dollar does lose much of its remaining value.  Try to have one to three months' worth of food stockpiled and ready for the day you can't afford to buy more.  Try to have an emergency fund of at least one months' expenditure on normal bills, and three to six months if possible - and make sure that includes rent, electricity and other utilities.  There's no point in having food available if you have no electricity to keep it frozen or to cook it!

All these are basic measures, to be taken during good (or at least better) times in order to make it through the bad times.  Take as many of these step as you can afford, and plan ahead (and around) to deal with those you can't afford.

Peter

Electoral fraud that preceded the election: hijacking the 2020 census

 

It seems that the 2020 census deliberately mis-apportioned state populations, which in turn led to mis-allocation of electoral seats per state.  Nice when you can fix the results before the election even begins!

Redistricting is a sum of blocks. Distort the blocks, and you distort the districts, the legislatures, and the House. This practice is not merely bad policy; it is plainly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Department of Commerce v. House of Representatives (1999) made clear that statistical sampling for apportionment is illegal on statutory grounds. Abowd’s algorithmic manipulation is statistical sampling by another name, an unlawful substitution of estimated data for an actual enumeration required by the Constitution.

The proof arrived in March and May of 2022 when the Bureau’s own quality checks exposed a lopsided pattern. Fourteen states had statistically significant coverage errors, eight with overcounts and six with undercounts. The tilt was unmistakable. Democratic-leaning states were widely overcounted. Republican-leaning states were widely undercounted. Florida’s undercount was roughly three quarters of a million people. Texas’s undercount was on the order of a half million. Minnesota and Rhode Island kept seats they would have lost under an accurate count. Colorado gained a seat it did not deserve. Florida and Texas each missed multiple seats they should have gained. Analysts estimate the net effect was a shift of nine House seats away from Republican-leaning states and toward Democratic-leaning states. The Electoral College moved with them. More than $86 billion in federal formula funds followed.

. . .

The stakes are immense. The Census Bureau’s operations across a decade cost taxpayers on the order of $25 billion. Citizens paid for accurate data and received a noisy approximation that tilted representation and shifted money. Republican states are projected to lose almost $90 billion in federal funds across the decade as a result of the miscounts. Democratic states are projected to gain $57 billion. This is not a rounding error. It is a reweighting of national political power and public finance by mathematical fiat.

There's much more at the link.  It provides graphic evidence of what I can only presume is Deep State manipulation of our electoral machinery, to give their approved candidates and causes a built-in advantage even before a single vote is cast.  That situation still exists, and will govern national elections for the next half-decade or more until a new census can re-calculate our population and fairly apportion its distribution.  It means President Trump is fighting a built-in, institutionalized disadvantage in every election he and his party fight.

Food for thought.  Remember to get out and vote today!

Peter

Yet more evidence of how US taxpayers have been robbed blind by left-wing progressive policies

 

Two reports caught my eye over the weekend.  Just remind yourself as you read them that they are the fruit of four years of the Biden administration - and if President Trump is forced to back down on his policies (e.g. through losses in the mid-term elections, or court rulings) we'll be back in the same situation in no time.

First:  "SNAP’s Hidden Reality: 83 Million Citizens and Illegal Aliens Are Dependent on Food Aid Each Year".

The most frequently cited statistic about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is that about 43 million Americans rely on it each month to feed themselves and their families. That number is often used to justify the program’s scale and reach. But this monthly average hides a far more disturbing truth. Because of high turnover, the real number of Americans who receive SNAP benefits at some point during a given year is much higher. Federal data show that 52% of new enrollees leave within one year, and 67% within two years. That means that across twelve months, between 63 and 83 million unique individuals participate in the program. In other words, about 22% of the entire US population uses SNAP to buy food during any calendar year. This is not a small anti-poverty program. It is a vast, parallel food economy. The only way such numbers make sense is if many more illegal immigrants are benefiting from the system than politicians admit.

. . .

SNAP benefits are set to be suspended on November 1 if the shutdown persists, and states like California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington have each announced that their food programs for illegal immigrants will be suspended at the same time. These programs were supposedly distinct from SNAP, yet their funding halts when SNAP halts. That coincidence exposes the truth: the money, the systems, and the administrative pipelines are connected. States have long played a shell game, quietly routing federal funds into state-level programs for illegal immigrants. The shutdown has revealed the link.

The implications are enormous. If SNAP were truly separate from these state programs, the shutdown would inconvenience them, not paralyze them. Their paralysis proves a shared infrastructure, shared databases, shared eligibility systems, and, most troublingly, shared funding streams. This confirms what conservatives have long argued: state officials are using federal welfare mechanisms to subsidize benefits for illegal immigrants. It is not a clean firewall between programs. It is a revolving door.

There's more at the link.

Next:  "Nearly $200M in Direct Federal Grants Has Been Aimed at Expanding Programs to Serve Illegal Immigrants".

Illegal immigrants have benefitted from at least $197 million in direct federal healthcare-related grants since fiscal year 2021, according to new research from Open the Books. This figure does not include indirect spending on illegal immigrants via Medicaid, which was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be around $27 billion from FY 2017-2023, nor does it account for education spending that benefits illegal immigrants and their children, which amounts to an estimated $70 billion annually.

. . .

Health-related spending is principally directed towards programs serving the neediest members of society, such as the homeless, drug-addicted, or otherwise medically fragile. The expansion of programs to include illegal immigrants both encourages illegal migration into the United States and directs spending away from high-poverty Americans.

. . .

According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, illegal immigration costs taxpayers $150.7 billion per year [at] the federal state and local level. Meanwhile, this year’s budget reconciliation bill directs $45 billion to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s detention budget and nearly $30 billion to ICE’s enforcement and deportation operations over the next four years. The bill directs an additional $46.5 billion to border security infrastructure.

Again, more at the link.

So much for our taxpayer dollars.  So much for constitutional and legal provisions forbidding the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on those not entitled to such support.  The previous administration appears to have disregarded those provisions wholesale.  If these numbers don't demonstrate the absolute contempt that the progressive left wing of US politics has for taxpayers and regular citizens, then I don't know what will.

Even with all that President Trump has accomplished so far, we remain balanced on a knife-edge as far as our future fiscal policies are concerned.  If the progressive left gains control of the House and Senate during the 2026 mid-term elections, and/or if left-wing judges use the judicial system to block much of the President's program, then we're neck-deep in the financial dwang once again . . . and given how deep that noxious substance already is in our body politic, I don't know whether we'll be able to dig our way out again.  That's particularly troubling in the light of opinion polls suggesting that a majority of the electorate is not happy with the President's policies for one reason or another.  (Whether or not those polls are accurate is another question:  without knowing the exact statistics of who and how many were sampled, when and where, it's one I can't answer.)

It's up to all of us, individually and collectively, to keep up the pressure, encourage all those we know to think rationally and count their pennies (particularly those given to the taxman), and stop that from happening.

Peter

The wheels on the trucks... are falling off?

 

The CEO of Freightwaves warns that the "Largest capacity purge in history" is coming to the US commercial trucking market.

The freight industry is experiencing what experts describe as one of the most interesting times ever in freight—though unfortunately, not in a positive way for most participants. Motor carriers and freight brokers across the spectrum are feeling significant pain from weak freight volumes and a rapidly changing operating climate. What we’re witnessing appears to be the calm before a significant storm, with indicators pointing toward what could become the largest capacity washout in trucking history.

With the risk of the market eliminating 600,000 active drivers, the largest capacity purge in history may be coming, bringing COVID-like spot rates. The difference this time is that there won’t be a flood of immigrants created by Biden’s open borders, which offered an endless supply of truck drivers. The capacity relief valve for shippers and brokers is forever shut, meaning carriers will have to pay up in terms of higher pay and bonuses for truck drivers. Capacity will also be much harder to find.

The Great Capacity Purge is coming and there will be no relief valve for shippers or brokers.

. . .

When accounting for the overlap between drivers affected by non-domiciled CDL [Commercial Driver License] restrictions and ELP enforcement, plus undocumented drivers and restrictions on new hires, the total at-risk population could exceed 600,000 drivers—representing about 17% of active drivers, according to transport economist Noël Perry.

Carriers that rely upon immigrant labor or carriers that don’t qualify under the new rules will likely go out of business.

The combination of regulatory changes and prolonged freight recession conditions is creating an environment ripe for significant market disruption. Industry experts anticipate numerous bankruptcies among both carriers and brokers in the coming months as financial pressures mount.

There's more at the link.

In one sense, this is going to produce difficulties in distributing goods from manufacturer or importer, to wholesaler, to retailer.  Shipments will be more expensive due to less trucks (and commercial drivers) on the roads.  It may cause serious economic repercussions for many businesses.

On the other hand, US truck drivers who've long complained about illegal aliens and foreign drivers taking over the trucking business are already seeing improvements in their prospects.  I've seen several drivers post on social media that they're getting rates 20-30% higher than before from spot brokers, and they look forward to this trend continuing.  If, as the article states, up to half a million or more foreign and non-domiciled CDL holders are eliminated from the trucking market, it can only be good news for American workers wanting their jobs back - assuming they do want them back, and haven't moved on to work in other industries.

On the other hand, the decrease in such drivers might have repercussions for the US truck fleet as a whole.

The proliferation of non-domiciled CDLs has coincided with a dramatic increase in trucking capacity across the United States. Since the FMCSA permitted foreigners to obtain non-domiciled CDLs in March 2019, the industry has added more than 310,000 trucks to American roads.

It is not a stretch to believe that at least half of the new capacity has come from non-domiciled CDL holders. We know that 200,000 CDLs were issued, but it is unclear how many of these are still active and currently driving over the road.

Regardless, the industry has suffered greatly from the surge of new truck drivers and the sudden influx of capacity. These new participants have contributed significantly to market oversupply conditions, resulting in the longest freight recession in history ... As the DOT and FMCSA work to implement stricter controls on these licenses, capacity will certainly tighten. The question on the mind of every freight market executive: When will we feel it?

Again, more at the link.

It might soon be a good time to buy that used 18-wheeler you always wanted to convert into a gigantic travel trailer setup . . .

Peter

Good question!

 

Found in several places on social media:

Perhaps, if enough SNAP/EBT recipients lose their heads and riot over the suspension of those benefits, the taxpayers who fund them will also rise up in revolt and demand that their taxes be used for the good of the country, rather than the feeding of the feckless.

Peter

Is the US intelligence apparatus deliberately playing us false?

 

From Larry Lambert over at Virtual Mirage:

(h/t Sam Fadis) Steve Witkoff called out CIA for providing him and Jared Kushner with completely faulty intelligence regarding Hamas and the negotiations to end the fighting in Gaza. And he did it on air on 60 Minutes.

The President himself is directly involved. Witkoff and Kushner are the President’s personal envoys. For CIA to get the intel picture completely wrong is a monumental failure and leads immediately to the next, and most important question: Why? Why was CIA so wide of the mark with its analysis? Two possibilities present themselves immediately. Either CIA’s intelligence was just that bad, or people in CIA and likely the broader Intelligence Community (IC) were deliberately feeding the President’s top men bad intel.

Today’s CIA quite frankly has little or no insight into the inner workings of groups like Hamas. That would require risk. That would require moxie. That would require leaving Northern Virginia and talking to foreigners. If you don’t want to risk it, you can take whatever intel the Israelis pass you on the subject and base your analysis on that. If the Israelis are telling the truth and have solid sources, you may be OK temporarily. If the Israelis, the guys who did not see a Hamas offensive building on the other side of a wall a couple of years ago, have bad intel, then we do too. Most alarming of all, of course, if the Israelis decide to lie to us for political reasons, we will not know it. We will be led around by the nose and steered in the wrong direction.

The Intelligence Community (in all its manifestations) has only one job. One. Provide truth to power. Clandestine activity (Covert Action) must stem from that, as does everything else. If you can’t provide the truth to power, you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.

People within the IC are deliberately feeding the President and his key people bad intelligence. And, just as bad, they are refusing to pass on certain information to the policy makers in this administration. There remain people within the IC who oppose this President and his appointees and are using intelligence as a weapon to frustrate President Trump’s political objectives. They want him to fail. They don’t care about the consequences for American national security. They want to inflict political damage because they are laser-focused on putting a Democrat in the White House in 2028 who will guarantee the continued existence of the Deep State and prevent the American people from regaining control over the vast federal bureaucracy.

Since Trump sat down in the White House for the second time, there has been no real reorganization. No meaningful change of any kind has actually occurred. Director Ratcliffe sits atop an organization that remains structured essentially as John Brennan wanted and run by people who made rank and climbed the ladder under either Brennan or his surrogate, Gina Haspel. All of the people who thought it was appropriate to designate “crying spaces” where employees could retreat to compose themselves when Trump won in 2016 are still there. All the folks who looked the other way when the attack on the CIA base in Benghazi was blamed on a peaceful demonstration that got out of hand are still there. All the individuals who sat and watched while a slow-motion coup against Donald Trump went on year after year are still there, just in much more senior positions now.

I can only hope that President Trump and his leadership team are fully aware of all this (which I assume they are), and are doing something about it (of which I'm not so sure).  One can't bring in complete outsiders to assume all intelligence agency leading positions without discarding literally generations worth of experience and insight.  Outsiders simply can't have that depth of insight.  However, if the existing leadership isn't using or providing that depth of insight, can we afford to keep them in place?

One has questions . . .

Peter