Calvin Coolidge: ‘If All Men Are Created Equal, That Is Final’

If we are to maintain the great heritage 

which has been bequeathed to us, 

we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it.

by Calvin Coolidge for American Greatness

The following is an excerpt from Calvin Coolidge’s (lengthy) speech in Philadelphia on July 5, 1926, marking the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. 

We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it the more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth day of July.

Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgment of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.

Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience . . .

. . . About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties, which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government—the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that “Democracy is Christ’s government.” The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.

On an occasion like this a great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever-broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.

It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a mere influential few. They undertook the balance these interests against each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one might encroach upon the other. These are our guaranties of liberty. As a result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has been an ever-broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.

Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp.

If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

X22 and On the Fringe- July 4th

 

Happy July 4th!! 🎉 Here's tonight's news:

Who Are the Real Insurrectionists? ~ VDH

In truth, “insurrection” has been fueled by the Left since 2015.

by Victor Davis Hanson for American Greatness

For 120 days in summer 2020, violent protesters destroyed some $2 billion in property and injured 1,500 police officers in riots that led to over 35 deaths.  

Because blue-state mayors and governors saw BLM and Antifa instigators as useful street soldiers, most of those arrested were never tried in court. Street thugs paid no price for declaring themselves de facto owners of downtown areas of Seattle, which police themselves conceded were no-go zones. Why did public officials in blue states ignore the violence? They were certain that it enjoyed majority support among their leftwing constituencies. 

Indeed, some leftist icons cheered on the violence. Well after the failed attempt to storm the White House grounds, in June 2020, the Democratic candidate for vice president Kamala Harris warned us that protestors were “not going to let up, and they should not.” What did Harris mean by “should not?”—when she knew numerous protests that summer had ended in terrible violence? Was she reckless in the manner Trump was said to be by encouraging a demonstration on January 6? 

The architect of the “1619 Project” Nikole Hannah-Jones assured the nation that vast destruction of (someone else’s property) was not a real crime. CNN’s Chris Cuomo gushed that violent demonstrations and riots were American traditions. Were these national voices urging calm during weeks of violent rioting and looting? 

There were no investigations, no congressional committees, and no voices of outrage from the left-wing establishment over months of such carnage. Indeed, much of the organization of the violent protests was facilitated by social media that was apparently unbothered that the medium under their stewardship was used to torch and loot. 

The Attack on Norms and Customs  

Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) urged her followers to tail, dog, and get in the faces of Trump government officials to the point that they would lose their freedom to even be seen in public. “And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” she famously admonished. 

Corporations began boycotting events deemed illiberal in fears of being boycotted themselves. Not saluting the flag for professional athletes was considered patriotic, saluting it insurrectionary. Mobs of leftists, cheered on by Democratic grandees, began tearing down statues of Confederate generals—but only as a preliminary to defacing the Lincoln Memorial and other statues of Lincoln, Jefferson, and Frederick Douglass.  

From 2015-16, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with impunity had wiped away thousands of her supposedly personal emails on a likely illegal private server. To cover her tracks, she ordered her devices destroyed, despite many being under subpoena.  

Clinton also sought to warp the entire machinery of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Clinton’s skullduggery was hidden behind three firewalls—the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins-Coie legal firm, and the Fusion GPS opposition research firm—to mask her likely illegal payments that enlisted a foreign national and ex-spy, Christopher Steele, to assist her campaign by destroying Donald Trump.  

Steele proved a clumsy, grifting con artist who tapped Clinton’s money, her friends, and her former subordinates in concocting a fake “dossier” of gossip, lies, and slander aimed at rendering Trump unelectable. No matter—Steele used Clinton’s State Department contacts and former government clients to compile and seed the lies among a toady media to undermine her political opponent and later sabotage the Trump presidency.  

The War Against Institutions 

The Left, in revolutionary fashion, has waged a sustained and unapologetic attack on constitutional norms and long-held institutions—whenever it senses they no longer prove conducive to its own radical agendas.  

Barack Obama declared during a funeral oration for the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) that the filibuster was racist and must end—although as a senator Obama had used it and declared it essential.  

The Electoral College? When the so-called “blue wall” fell, it transmogrified from valuable to a bankrupt fossil. In fact, the Left has wanted to create two new blue states (the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) to fast track four left-wing senators, and cram through a national voting law to make the states’ constitutional prerogative to require voter IDs illegal. 

There is no border. For two years, Joe Biden, again in true revolutionary fashion, has simply abrogated federal immigration law by fiat. In less than two years, he has welcomed 3 million illegal aliens without audit—or COVID-19 tests or vaccinations—during a pandemic in which unvaccinated federal employees and military personnel faced dismissal. Biden had taken an oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, but then shortly thereafter destroyed immigration laws as we knew them. No prior president has simply rendered an entire corpus of law null and void. 

Fueled by leftist billionaires, the Left waged a multiyear effort to elect big-city district attorneys whose agendas were pure nihilism: to not enforce laws, to release arrested criminals without indictments, to end cash bail, and prematurely to release convicted and hardened lawbreakers. The guiding principle was the revolutionary theory that the law was a simple construct used against marginalized peoples and the poor, and therefore simply could be ignored or discarded. 

There is no longer free speech on college campuses. Guests who voice minority opinions are in danger of being shouted down or put into physical danger—with the near certainty that their attackers will face few if any consequences. 

“Safe spaces,” dorms, and graduation ceremonies are often racially exclusive—all knowingly in violation of the spirit and the letter of once vaunted civil rights legislation. At many colleges, faculty and potential faculty are asked to write “diversity statements,” apparently in emulation of the old the McCarthy “loyalty oaths” that likewise served both to eliminate any dissent and to frighten would-be apostates. Any dissident professor will have his biography thoroughly scanned for thought crimes, and then be libeled as a “racist” or “sexist”—as a clear warning to others to keep silent. 

There is a revolutionary war now being waged against the Supreme Court, because it no longer characteristically legislates from the bench. If the Court was once beloved as an iconic institution that was a sort of liberal judiciary, legislature, and executive all in one, it is now utterly despised as counterrevolutionary. Indeed, it is declared illegitimate, and its rulings to be ignored.  

Former law professor Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) screams about a need to pack the Court—an insurrectionary attempt to end 160 years of judicial law and custom, that would be impossible without first ending the 180-year filibuster.  

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanagh by name at the doors of the Court, issuing biblical warnings of violence to both: “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”  

What sort of “force” did a U.S. senator refer to by screaming to a mob about what might “hit” the justices or when he further threatened, that the two “have released the whirlwind and [they] will pay the price”? What price? What whirlwind?  

Did such physical threats incite would-be nuts to seek out a court justice—as in the recent case of 26-year-old Nicholas John Roske arrested armed near the home of Justice Kavanaugh and who currently faces a charge of attempting to murder an associate justice of the Supreme Court? 

Illegally leaking rough drafts of future opinions is now not unlawful but a voice of conscience—as long as it is seen as another effective leftist tool to intimidate conservative justices. 

Leftists, egged on by Democratic politicians, now routinely mass, circle, shout, and seek to intimidate at the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices—a felony violation that is never prosecuted.  

Joe Biden, who claimed Trump showed insufficient respect for the judiciary, now while abroad savagely attacks the U.S. Supreme Court in off-topic rants before his smiling foreign hosts. 

In sum, laws are said to be irrelevant and to be ignored by states, cities, and counties at will—depending on their usefulness or impediments to the Left’s agenda.  

Indeed, leftists are at times states’ rights extremists. They attack the federal government’s authority on immigration issues and simply nullify it—as evidenced by 550 sanctuary city jurisdictions in blue states designed to render inert federal immigration law.  

Yet at other times, the Left seeks to crush states’ rights. Currently it is calling for the federal government, in violation of the Hyde Amendment, to nullify states’ rights to establish abortion laws—by creating abortion clinics on federal military bases and national parks inside red states (that is, in states where about 10 percent of the nations’ yearly abortions occur).  

The common denominators are not principles—but only the retention of power, and the notion that law is fluid and gains legitimacy only when advancing leftist dogma. 

Our Revolutionary Agencies 

Former Obama Administration Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan both lied under oath—without legal consequences—to the Congress.  

The FBI itself has descended into a sort of revolutionary police force rather than a disinterested investigative body focusing mostly on intrastate and federal crimes. The fired former Director James Comey feigned amnesia or ignorance 245 times in his responses under oath to a House committee.  

The subsequent interim director Andrew McCabe admittedly lied three times to federal investigators and likely discussed wearing a wire to entrap the president of the United States. He was never charged with any federal crime.  

An FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith altered a federal affidavit to warp a FISA court hearing. Former FBI Director Robert Mueller claimed under oath that he had no idea what the Steele dossier or Fusion GPS was, even though, arguably, they were the goads that prompted his own 22-month-long investigation.  

There is no need to review the creepy careers and texts of FBI lawyer Lisa Page and her paramour FBI agent Peter Strzok, other than to note both used FBI resources to advance political agendas. The entire agency was knee-deep in fueling the Russian collusion hoax, itself a veritable revolutionary attempt to destroy a political campaign, a presidential transition, and a presidency.  

In the fashion of the former East German Stasi, the FBI hounds political opponents on the Right by surveilling parents at school board meetings, sending a SWAT team to arrest a flamboyant Trump supporter Roger Stone, arriving at the house of journalist James O’Keefe in the deep of night to confiscate his files and devices, and putting former White House advisor Peter Navarro in veritable shackles. The common denominator is the FBI devolving into a retrieval service for the Biden family syndicate, whether by putting on ice Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop or hounding out Ashley Biden’s lurid diary or intimidating Biden critics.  

Yet when asked to produce relevant cell phones of possibly wayward agents, the FBI claims that such data was erased, shrugs, and does not comply. Apparently, the FBI leadership fears the progressive Washington political-bureaucratic-media nexus far more than it fears the consequences of violating the law it is sworn to uphold. 

Retired four-star admirals and generals no longer just revolve out of service to woke corporate boards and lobbying firms. Now they must first prepare their trajectories by violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in damning their commander-in-chief and thus virtue signaling their bankable corporate orthodoxy.  

As a result, the left-wing media and elite have dropped their traditional dislike of such federal authorities, be they the FBI, the CIA, or the Pentagon. Indeed, the Left has come to love those with badges and guns—but solely as a revolutionary force far more efficient than the clumsy Congress in greenlighting their progressive agendas and making life hell for their opponents. 

Sort of Sacrosanct Elections, Sort of Not 

As far as rejecting the outcomes of federal and state elections, for leftist insurrectionists the validity of an election hinges on whether the Left is a declared winner or loser. Once Hillary Clinton lost the election in 2016, her opponent became “illegitimate.” She joined the “Resistance” and later advised Joe Biden to reject the ballot tally if he lost the popular vote. No one claimed she was endangering hallowed institutions or sounding insurrectionary. 

For Time journalist Molly Ball, the billionaire effort to undermine the 2020 election by infusing hundreds of millions of dollars of dark money to usurp the work of selected county registrars was a giddy “conspiracy.” For former Obama Pentagon lawyer Rosa Brooks in 2017, the 11-day tenure of newly inaugurated President Donald Trump was already an occasion to weigh the relative advantages of either impeachment, invocation of the 25th Amendment—or a military coup to remove him.  

Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams became a left-wing cult figure by touring the country claiming she was the real governor of her state who somehow, nonetheless and illegitimately, had lost her campaign by 50,000 votes. 

Good Threats of Violence 

As far as violence goes, the Left has descended into full assault pornography over the last few years. 

Former vice president and “uniter” Joe Biden boasted that he would like to beat up President Trump: “If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him . . .” or “He’s the bully that used to make fun when I was a kid that I stutter, and I’d smack him in the mouth.”  

Do we remember when Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), another 2020 presidential hopeful, railed that, “My testosterone sometimes makes me want to feel like punching him [Trump], which would be bad for this elderly, out-of-shape man that he is if I did that. This physically weak specimen.”

Robert De Niro similarly announced that he had his sights on Trump, “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

Do such threats have consequences? Maybe. On the day Trump was inaugurated, Madonna incited a crowd outside the White House by warning that she had thought of blowing up the White House. Comedian Kathy Griffin trumped that in a video in which she held up a facsimile of a decapitated Trump head.

Few today remember James Hodgkinson—a former Bernie Sanders campaign worker—and his 2017 attempt to assassinate Republican congressmen at a practice for a charity baseball game. 

So yes, let us fear that democracy is dying in media darkness. Real insurrectionists are seeking to dismantle the Constitution, to end centuries-long customs and traditions, to justify the use of political violence, and to disobey all the laws they find inconvenient. 

Manhunt Underway as Suspect Shoots 30 People During July 4th Celebration in Highland Park, Illinois

During a July 4th celebration in Highland Park, a suburb north of Chicago, a gunman has opened fire shooting at least 30 people and reported killing 6 people.  A press conference is pending.  The shooting took place during a parade to celebrate the Fourth of July. The shooter is NOT in custody.

Suspect description: White Male, 18 to 20 years of age, long black hair, small build, white or light blue t-shirt.   A manhunt is underway to capture the suspect. According to local officials the shooter was positioned on a rooftop when he opened fire.

The 2024 GOP Ticket That Will Win in Key Swing States

posted by Levon Satamian at RedState 

The buzz around the 2024 GOP presidential primary has been heating up as several senators, including Tim Scott (R-SC) and former United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, visited Iowa. This state votes first in the primary election.

But which GOP ticket in 2024 has the best chance to win in key swing states? Perhaps it could be two of the most popular governors among GOP voters — Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Kristi Noem (R-SD). A few other names that have been floated around as vice presidential picks have been Nikki Haley, Kim Reynolds (R-IA), and a “unity ticket” featuring former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI).

A DeSantis-Noem ticket would energize the GOP to vote in key swing states because of their performance in Florida and South Dakota, especially their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. They kept businesses open, did not enforce vaccine mandates, but encouraged the citizens to get vaccinated, while other states like California kept small businesses shut down. As a result, Florida and South Dakota had booming economies.

Several swing states will be in play in 2024: Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and Georgia.

As the GOP is looking to change tactics, targeting college-educated, female, and Hispanic voters, those nine swing states will be crucial and could be the decider of whether the GOP nominee wins or loses the general election. As the GOP attempts to form this broad coalition of voters, including suburban voters who voted for Joe Biden in 2020, they will need to select the right ticket to succeed in 2024.

The challenge for the GOP is going to be in the general election. As more people are migrating from other states in large numbers into Florida and South Dakota, DeSantis and Noem could position themselves to smooth sailing in 2024. It is vitally important to win the majority of swing states and all the GOP-controlled states. As we saw in Virginia, Glenn Youngkin became the governor of a state where Joe Biden won 54 percent of the vote in 2020. The same tactic could be used for the presidential election by DeSantis and Noem.

Although there have been several candidates interested in running — former Vice President Mike Pence, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, and, of course, former President Donald Trump — it seems as though due to the governing style of DeSantis and Noem, they have become prevalent figures among the GOP. The DeSantis-Noem ticket could bring Trump supporters, never Trumpers, Independents, and moderate Republicans, as well as some moderate Democrats in swing states to vote for them in November. As the GOP wants to broaden its base, bringing all sides of the aisle is important to ensure a victory in November of 2024.

LEAKED: Cassidy Hutchinson's True Feelings About the January 6th Committee Revealed

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony before the January 6th committee continues to take body blows after multiple statements she made were contradicted by eyewitnesses. The most outrageous claim involved a supposed fight between Donald Trump and two Secret Service agents, culminating in the president grabbing the steering wheel of “The Beast” in an attempt to get to the Capitol.

But while that story would have been amazing if it were true, and it spawned many choice memes, the two agents involved have disputed the account. Of course, the committee has shown no urgency in allowing contradictory testimony that pushed back on “the narrative.”

Regardless, while Hutchinson and her defenders have presented her as some kind of virtuous truth-teller, leaked text messages tell a different story.

In the text message, Hutchinson says: “Hey (redacted)! This is Cassidy Hutchinson. Kind of a random question, but do you still work for the Schlapp’s at the ACU?”

Hutchinson then said, “Do you happen to know a First Amendment fund POC I could reach out to? I was subpoenaed in early Nov., but the committee waited to serve me until last week (after Ben’s deposition).”

“I had to accept service because the U.S. Marshalls came to my apartment last Wednesday, but I haven’t made contact with the Committee. I’m just on a tight timeline and just trying to figure out what my options are to deal with this bs,” Hutchinson added.

The long and short of this is that Hutchinson was originally as skeptical of the January 6th committee as anyone else in Trump’s orbit. She went so far as to reach out to CPAC to get legal help because she felt the committee’s subpoena was “bs.”

Now, does that sound like an unbiased witness that can be trusted to give an accurate account of what occurred? Or does it sound like someone who is looking out for number one, willing to push the committee’s narrative if it gets her out of the crosshairs and maybe a cable news gig along the way? I know where I’d put my money regarding which is more likely.

The next question is exactly what Hutchinson was promised. The text messages make it clear she didn’t want to cooperate. What changed her mind? The idea that she just decided to offer herself as the committee’s biggest witness out of the goodness of her heart doesn’t add up. Remember, this is a person that worked in the White House for Mark Meadows and the president himself. You shouldn’t believe for a second that she wasn’t all-in until it became inconvenient and bad for her career. DC is a selfish town, and all of these usually nameless political operatives are doing whatever it takes to get ahead. Hutchinson was and remains no exception.

In the end, people are going to believe whatever they want to believe. Those on the left and the anti-Trump right will think Hutchinson is infallible. Those on the Trump-supporting right are going to think she’s a self-serving liar. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Was everything she said false? Probably not, but some of it was based on the evidence we have, and that’s enough to make her testimony nothing more than political gossip. She simply isn’t credible. Given that, who really cares what she had to say? It doesn’t change the game at all, no matter how much the January 6th committee wants to pretend otherwise.

Fed Chair Ignores Impact of Build Back Better Energy Policy on Supply Side of Inflation

Much has been made of comments by Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell in his brief explanation of what the Fed got wrong.  Last week Powell made comments during a European Central Bank forum on bank policy, implying the absence of unvaccinated workers returning to the labor force is part of the US inflation problem.

Powell’s comments seem to align with the government vaccine mandate position which ignored the rights of the worker. Considering the responsibility of the Fed to anticipate price and labor issues, Powell’s sense of credulity toward those workers who dropped out of the labor force rather than inject an untested vaccine into their body is quite remarkable.  Inartful and arrogant are soft terms for his commentary.

However, there’s a bigger “tell” in the segment of what the Fed got wrong, when you listen to Powell talk about the supply side issues and how the Fed Reserve had no model to predict the mandated lockdowns, economic activity stoppages and consequences.   Notice how Powell completely dismisses the structural energy policy, the Build Back Better agenda, that lies at the heart of the current supply side inflation issue.  Video Prompted to 01:03:34, WATCH:

Throughout the discussion the primary focus to control inflation is reliant on a demand side cause.   The goal to reduce demand is seen as a way to mitigate and reduce inflation.  Thus, this worldview, as mistaken as it was/is, explains the justification for why the Fed waited to increase interest rates.  They never saw the radical energy policy as a structural driver of supply side inflation.

According to Powell, they thought the supply side issues would moderate quickly, without giving any consideration at all to how a radically new energy policy would embed.  He just ignores the issue completely; again, pretending not to know.  But perhaps it’s actually worse.  Perhaps he really doesn’t see a radical new energy policy as a driving force behind current inflation.  If that’s true, and he genuinely does not see it, then Fed policy in the future is going to make the recession much worse.

If you ignore massive energy price impacts, the FED will keep interest rates high despite demand dropping, and then eventually get to a place where demand has dropped so low the recession is deep, while turning toward each other and asking why are prices still so high?

Keep that disconnect in mind.

 

Left Creates New Bogeyman From "Independent Legislature Theory" to Explain Its Rejection by Voters

streiff reporting for RedState 

Voter suppression is out; “independent legislature theory” is in.

During the last election, the Democrats used COVID and a stable of tame, progressive activist judges to hijack elections in several states. Rules concerning certification of mail-in ballots and ballot drop boxes were just a few of the areas where unelected judges unilaterally changed election rules on the eve of that election and even while the ballots were being counted. The rules these autocrats handed down had one thing in common. The US Constitution clearly says that the state legislature controls the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections. While, arguably, courts may have a role in saying something is not constitutional, they have no role whatsoever in writing the rules for choosing members of another branch of government.

The judiciary, federal and state, has made a sport out of taking over and managing state elections for about 50 years, and now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case testing the limits of how much meddling judges can do.

At the end of the last term of the Supreme Court, the Court announced it would take up the issue of who does what to who in federal elections in the Fall. The vehicle they decided to use is the case of Moore vs. Harper. SCOTUSBlog gives us the background.

After the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature adopted a new congressional map in early November 2021, a group of Democratic voters and non-profits went to state court to challenge the map. They contended among other things that, because the state is roughly divided between Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters, the new map – which likely would have allowed Republicans to pick up two more seats in Congress, giving them as many as 10 of the state’s 14 seats – was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state’s constitution.

In February 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court blocked the state from using the map in the 2022 elections and ordered the trial court to either approve or adopt a new map before the end of the month. The trial court adopted a new map, drawn by three experts appointed by the court.

Republican state legislators came to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis in late February, asking the justices to reinstate the legislature’s original map before the state’s primary election, which took place on May 17. But over a dissent by Alito that was again joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, the court turned down the request. Both the Alito dissent and a concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, called the “independent state legislature” theory an important question, with Alito adding that the justices “will have to resolve this question sooner or later, and the sooner we do so, the better.”

The legislators returned to the court later in March, seeking review of the North Carolina Supreme court’s decision invalidating the legislature’s map and ordering a new map for the 2022 elections. They told the justices that the state supreme court’s order was “starkly contrary to the” elections clause. The text of that clause, the legislators insisted “creates the power to regulate the times, places, and manner of federal elections and then vests that power in ‘the Legislature’ of each State.” The “independent state legislature” question, the legislators stressed “‘is almost certain to keep arising until the Court definitively resolves it.’” And because North Carolina will use the map created by the court for its 2022 congressional elections, they continued, the justices should resolve the question in this case, rather than having to do it on an expedited basis in a dispute arising after an election has already occurred.

Alito’s dissent contains this gem.

And if the language of the Elections Clause is taken seriously, there must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections. I think it is likely that the applicants would succeed in showing that the North Carolina Supreme Court exceeded those limits.

Needless to say, the thought of the Democrat political SWAT team, hyper-partisan progressive judges, being neutered before the next presidential election gave much of the left a case of the Hershey squirts.

This case has its genesis in the 1916 case of Davis vs. Hildebrant. The issue was whether a provision of the Ohio Constitution that allowed citizens to veto state election laws violated the Elections Clause of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled it did not because the people can execute legislative power through a referendum. Since then, the Supreme Court has defined “legislative power” as including the governor when he signs or vetoes legislation. Courts at all levels have decided they have the right to rule on just about all aspects of voting, as we saw in 2020.

Not being a lawyer, I can only go with my gut feeling on this case. My gut feeling is that it is much more good than bad.

First, all the correct people are upset. That isn’t a very mature way to consider legal cases of major import, but it is very reliable. If the mainstream media are running editorials against it and progressive legal analysts are predicting the end of democracy, it can’t be all bad because I happen to think democracy is a pretty crappy form of government.

Second, words mean things. The Constitution says the state legislatures control time, manner, and place, so maybe we should pay attention. Most of the times when we’ve f***ed with the original document because of our modern sensibilities, we’ve made things a lot worse. The income tax and direct election of senators come to mind immediately.

Third, we know that leftwing activist judges can’t resist trying to fine-tune rules to help their favored candidates. They do it every election, and they do it with absolute impunity because they are unaccountable.

The hard feelings over 2020 would never have happened if it had been impossible to just make up the rules. Bush vs. Gore need never have happened if Florida had been allowed to follow its election laws without judges intervening. The confusion accompanying every redistricting effort would be eliminated if courts were forced to stay out of electoral politics. I don’t know how this would work in practice, but I’m pretty sure it can’t work any worse than what we’ve got.

Ukraine's PM: Rich Russians should pay the bill to rebuild

 

LUGANO, Switzerland, July 4 (Reuters) - The cost of rebuilding Ukraine following Russia's invasion could reach $750 billion and rich Russians should help to meet the cost, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmygal said on Monday.

"We believe that the key source of recovery should be the confiscated assets of Russia and Russian oligarchs," he told a conference in the Swiss city of Lugano, citing estimates that frozen Russian assets were worth $300-$500 billion.

"The Russian authorities unleashed this bloody war. They caused this massive destruction and they should be held accountable for it."

Also addressing the Ukraine Recovery Conference, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the European Union would establish a central platform to coordinate rebuilding efforts and also help to cement Ukraine's status as a candidate for EU membership, which the EU agreed last month.  

"Since the beginning of the war, the European Union has mobilised around 6.2 billion euros ($6.48 billion) in financial support," von der Leyen said. "And... more will come. We will engage substantially in the mid- and long-term reconstruction."

After years of close work with Ukraine, von der Leyen said Europe had a special responsibility and a strategic interest in helping it.

"The Kremlin’s goal is the military, political and economic destruction of Ukraine," she said. "They want to undermine Ukraine's very existence as a state. We cannot and we will not let this happen."  

Russia has described its invasion of Ukraine, begun on Feb. 24, as "a special military operation".

The platform will map investment needs and channel resources, von der Leyen said.

It will bring together countries, the private sector, civil society, as well as international organisations, such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank.

The European Investment Bank, the lending arm of the European Union, is proposing a funding structure previously used during the COVID-19 pandemic to help rebuild Ukraine.  

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/european-union-set-up-platform-ukrainian-reconstruction-2022-07-04/   

WATCH: Dutch Farmers Become Ungovernable After 'Climate Change' Agreement

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

You won’t see it on any of the alphabet networks, but a protest movement is exploding in the Netherlands after the government moved to shut down farms in order to “fight” climate change. The contentious move, pushed by the World Economic Forum, was enacted as part of an EU agreement that seeks to limit the release of nitrogen.

This is what becoming ungovernable looks like.

Massive protests are occurring in the Netherlands as Dutch farmers are protesting against the government’s rules that would limit carbon and nitrogen emissions out of their farms, says Sky News host James Morrow.

Farmers protested around the Netherlands over the government’s new policy which would see the country slash nitrogen oxide and ammonia emissions by 50 per cent by 2030.

“Massive massive protests, they’re blocking highways, they’re blocking traffic – I’ve seen them even spraying manure on government offices,” Mr Morrow said.

Of all the aspects of the green agenda, none is more damaging and suicidal than putting in arbitrary provisions that limit the production of food across the globe. I’m not in support of targeting anything to “lower emissions” because I believe it’s spitting into the wind to make wealthy elites feel better about their lifestyles. Yet, even if I did support that agenda, the last place that should be targeted is the food sector. While European leaders are virtue signaling about the temperature possibly rising a few degrees over the next hundred years, they should be concerned about feeding their populations before their countries descend into apocalyptic chaos.

But this is the way these European nations operate, specifically those that are in the EU. They are run by privileged, spoiled brats who don’t bother to weigh the costs of their policies because they assume the United States will jump in to save them if things ever get too bad. That’s obviously true regarding NATO considering how little the European members spend compared to the US, but it’s also true regarding energy and food.

For example, EU nations have massive oil and natural gas reserves but refuse to drill and frack in order to get to it. Why? Because the US will simply ship them more LNG, right? Now they are destroying their own food production capabilities, again believing that the US will provide them with what they need if shortages occur. But what they aren’t taking into account is that the US has its own problems and is no longer in a position to constantly pick up the slack for European leaders who refuse to govern with some semblance of common sense.

Here’s the bottom line: European nations looking to commit national suicide on the altar of climate change are playing with fire. Even the normally passive residents of the Netherlands will only take so much before pushing back. The farmers clearly aren’t violent extremists, and if the government attempts to treat them as such, things will only devolve further. The WEF, EU, and the rest of the global elite need to understand they only hold power as long as the people decide to let them hold power.