Saturday, May 20, 2023

How the Left Will Make Adult Relationships With Children Their New Sacred Cow


The radical left has had its eyes on your children for some time and I don’t just mean in terms of how useful they can be for activism or votes come election season. I mean the same eyes a predatory man might give a drunk woman at a bar.

Increasingly, the radical left hasn’t been shy about their desire for pedophilia to be normal in Western society. While it’s coming on at a much faster rate than many would have anticipated, pedophilia was something that seems to be riding on the back of the gender fluidity concept. If people are willing to accept that someone can be any sex they identify as then it’s nothing to say that someone can be any age they want to be.

With influencers like Dylan Mulvaney celebrating their “girlhood” (not womanhood) and major corporations celebrating it alongside him then people will pick up the message that identity is whatever you want it to be. Get that into your brain and you’re not too far away from justifying the absolute worst of perversions in pedophilia.

And it is the bottom of the barrel in terms of perversions. Once you hit pedophilia, you can’t go any lower. It is the murdering of pure innocence without the murder.

Yet, here is the radical left, openly attempting to justify attraction to minors by calling it far less severe words like “minor-attracted persons” (MAPS) and making it seem as if this is just an everyday kind of attraction that there’s no harm in.

But if the plan was to normalize pedophilia by giving it a cutesy name that isn’t at all cutesy, then their little movement would hit a brick wall the moment it got off the ground. People are generally pretty protective of their little ones and someone coming up to a parent and saying “I’m a MAP and I just think your child is just the sexiest” will be picking up their teeth from the sidewalk if they can pick anything up after that at all.

The thing about the devil is that he’s too clever to try a full-frontal assault like that. His usual playstyle is to wear down the defenses in various other areas first before he allows his puppets to mosey in through the front door.

So what’s the plan? How will he make pedophiles the new sacred cow?

The answer popped up this morning on my Twitter feed and it hit me like a ton of bricks. The effort won’t be to normalize pedophiles. That’s the ultimate goal, but before you can normalize that you first have to embrace the normalization of identity being liquid for kids. While the “trans kid” trend is up and running in radical leftist circles, it’s still too extreme for adults to embrace. It’s very loud and gaudy, and like a colorful animal in nature, people stay away from it because it advertises its poisonous nature without shame.

No, the plan will be to shift the view of your child’s mental identity. What do I mean by that?

Watch this video from a radical leftist talking about a new concept called “childism.” According to this creature of the pronouns, the idea that children don’t know what they want or what’s best for them is offensive to the child. She calls it “childism” or the discrimination against a person because they’re a child.

This creature claims she’s a teacher, by the way.

So here you can probably see the door through which they will attempt to normalize pedophilia. It starts by declaring that your child’s wants and opinions are on par with that of adults. If a child says they’re a certain identity, then denying them isn’t just “transphobia” but you’re engaging in the social sin of discrimination by claiming they can’t know that because of their extreme youth.

Rest assured, the radical left will glom onto this concept and will push the idea that the mind of a child and the mind of an adult are interchangeable. They will push the idea that a child’s declarations are just as valid as an adult’s. Internet mobs will attack those who say otherwise. Don’t be surprised if you see picket signs with this kind of message in marches for trans kids, which are already a thing.

There are a myriad of ways this could pan out, but the attempt is going to happen and it could possibly get to a point where it becomes a very real problem.

Consider this: If there are parents out there willing to sacrifice their children for the cause of transgender kids by introducing them to the gender fluidity concept after they just learned to talk in complete sentences, and start introducing life-destroying hormone therapy as soon as possible, then you probably shouldn’t be surprised that there are parents out there who will give up their child for this cause too.

It has happened before, and very recently.

A willing parent could give up their child to this cause, and teach them that they’re in love with a cohort who has the same feelings for the child. They will engage in a romantic relationship in an area where radical leftist politicians will refuse to do anything about it. The media will then begin the process of wondering out loud if it truly is so wrong and perhaps we do need to be more respectful of children’s desire for love. From there, the stupid, gullible, and easily manipulated in our society will begin to latch onto the idea as well. Once enough of them exist, they’ll form rabid mobs online willing to attack anyone who says otherwise.

It will soon become a sacred cow in our mainstream. It’s unclear what kind of legislation will follow after that in places where radicals control everything.

I wish I was being hyperbolic here, but if you would have told me 20 years ago that there would have been a big mass of people defending the idea that a girl is a boy, then I’d have laughed at you.

It’s pretty clear that the radical left is steering their ship toward normalizing pedophilia. Once they do, the fight for our children will have reached critical mass. I can’t see how violence doesn’t follow from there. 



X22, And we Know, and more- May 20

 



1 last night to wait.



The People of Corn

Corn is now central to the way America functions as a nation, socially, economically and politically. And that means big power—not just at home but also abroad. 


Probably the best unintentional compliment a hostile reviewer has paid my new book, The Eggs Benedict Option, was to describe it as “if Tucker Carlson tried to write the Omnivore’s Dilemma.” The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan’s book about the food Americans eat and why they eat it, is justly revered by everyone from “crunchy moms” and champions of organic farming to right-wing bodybuilders like myself. As much as critics might want to believe that right-wing politics and care for the food supply make strange bedfellows, they really don’t—or shouldn’t.

Pollan begins from a simple premise—the eponymous dilemma—that omnivorous creatures, whether rats or humans, can exercise choice in what they eat, unlike, say, koalas, which are herbivores and eat eucalyptus leaves for the most part. He goes on to show how Americans have chosen to become virtual “monovores,” consuming one food in particular above all others. That food is corn, in the myriad forms it now takes, from maltodextrin and high-fructose corn syrup to Mazola (corn oil) and the feed that gets stuffed into most of the cows, pigs, and chickens Americans eat, by way of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. 

Over the course of the 20th century, with the so-called “Green Revolution,” new farming techniques and chemical products were developed that increased corn yields nearly sixfold, from 25 bushels an acre to 140. The United States now produces more than 10 billion bushels a year.

So much corn passes down the average American’s throat that special isotope tests can be performed to quantify exactly how much of the carbon in their body comes from corn in one form or another. “When you look at the isotope ratios,” said one scientist Pollan interviewed for the book, “we North Americans look like corn chips with legs.” The Mexicans, and their ancestors, the Mayans and the Aztecs, have historically been called “the People of Corn,” but it’s modern-day Americans who truly deserve that moniker.

America has a long history of overproducing corn, stretching back to the early days of independence. In the late 18th century, massive corn surpluses were turned into cheap grain alcohol, especially whisky, which led to a nationwide bender lasting decades. America was a teenage tearaway drunk on corn—an “Alcoholic Republic,” as the title of a famous history book has it. 

The nation’s present addiction to corn dates more specifically to the aftermath of World War I, when the bottom dropped out of the overseas market for American corn, as European domestic production resumed, and the government stepped in with subsidies to protect American farmers. 

Over time, due to stresses like the Great Depression and policies like Nixon agriculture secretary Earl Butz’s “get big or get out,” the subsidy system morphed into something it was never intended to be: a system in which the government makes up shortfalls in market prices. Corn production has been massively consolidated in the hands of corporate players, who have an incentive to overproduce, driving market prices down. They are then given what are effectively kickbacks—enormous kickbacks—for doing so. All at taxpayer expense. 

If this sounds stupid, that’s because it is. 

All that corn has to go somewhere. And it does. Whereas 200 years ago it became grain alcohol and everybody got smashed, now as much corn as possible goes into food and drink—and what happens? Everybody gets fatter and sicker. 

Much of the corn flows into processed food, a new class of food product that humans had never eaten before the middle of the 20th century but that now makes up the majority of calories for an ever-growing number of Americans. Children under five years-old in the United States now consume 58 percent of their daily calories from processed food. Processed-food consumption has been linked to everything from obesity and diabetes to cancer and even autism.

Novel ingredients made from corn have also been created to get even more corn into food, as if there weren’t already enough. In the 1980s, Americans were told that high-fructose corn syrup would be a substitute for traditional sugars in food products. In fact, it became a supplement to them. Americans now guzzle 60 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup every year in addition to the more than 150 pounds of refined sugars they would have been consuming anyway. Go into the supermarket and pick up virtually any packaged product from the shelf. Condiments, breads and cereals, pizzas, even meat products—chances are, you’ll find high-fructose corn syrup listed among the ingredients. Why is there high-fructose corn syrup in this ham!? You tell me.

And don’t forget the livestock, either. 

Once upon a time, not all that long ago, the idea of taking livestock off the land, where they can move around and eat the foods they’re supposed to eat and spread free fertilizer while they’re doing it, and instead crowding them in warehouses so they can be pumped full of corn and other subsidised crops like soybeans, would rightly have been considered insane, a twisted deviation from the natural order of things. Yet that’s precisely what American farmers have done in droves since the middle of the last century. 

The enormous suffering of livestock in CAFOs would simply never have been possible without all that corn to keep them fed and fat. As if all that suffering weren’t bad enough, it also translates to worse end-products, with an inferior nutritional profile when compared to meat, milk, and eggs from pastured animals. 

From a food system serving the needs of individuals and their communities, we have arrived at a food system that instead serves the reproductive needs of just a single grain crop and the profit margins of an ever-diminishing number of corporate agribusiness megaplayers. The rise of corporations and their dominance of American private and public life is surely the defining feature of the last century and a half, and one of the central insights of Pollan’s book is how “smoothly” corn production “meshes” with the broader corporate-industrial system. This is no accident. 

“George Naylor [a small corn-farmer Pollan interviewed] is not far off when he says the real beneficiary of his crop is not America’s eaters but its military-industrial complex. In an industrial economy, the growing of grain supports the larger economy: the chemical and biotech industries, the oil industry [oil is used to make chemical fertilizers], Detroit, pharmaceuticals (without which they couldn’t keep animals healthy in CAFOs), agribusiness, and the balance of trade. Growing corn helps drive the very industrial complex that drives it. No wonder the government subsidizes it so lavishly.”

Seen in this broader perspective, it’s clear that corn is central to the way America functions as a nation, socially, economically and politically. And that means big power not just at home but also abroad. American corn’s role in international politics has been on prominent display in the last few weeks, with news that the U.S. government is attempting to steamroll the Mexican government into continuing to accept imports of genetically modified corn, against its stated wishes to ban them and move to a more ecologically sound model of food production and consumption. 

Almost 90 percent of American corn production is now genetically modified, a development that further benefits big, woke corporations, which produce the patented seeds and the trademark herbicides and pesticides that are used to treat them. In recent years, Bayer, the owner of Monsanto, is known to have worked closely with U.S. government officials to pressure the Mexican government not to ban glyphosate, a pesticide that’s used closely with genetically modified crops and has been tied to a laundry list of environmental, animal, and human harms, from loss of biodiversity, including vital pollinators like bees and soil microorganisms, to cancer and reproductive issues in humans. 

“The US’s shameful efforts to strong-arm Mexico into accepting GE [genetically engineered] corn it has rejected is nothing short of 21st-century imperialism,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the U.S.-based Center for Biological Diversity, of the latest attempt at intervention. “Our government is working tirelessly to pad the multibillion-dollar profits of domestic agribusiness corporations by pushing GE corn, even though our glyphosate-drenched GE cornfields are playing an outsized role in driving catastrophic declines in vital pollinator populations.” 

Sorry, bees. The woke, pronouns-in-their-bios execs at Monsanto want you gone.

Mexican environmentalists and lawmakers are right that the use of genetically modified corn is incompatible with ecologically sound farming. It also appears to be incompatible with a healthy populace. 

As I’ve already noted, chemicals that are used to treat genetically modified corn are known to have serious negative health effects in humans, but these are also used on crops that aren’t genetically modified. As far as genetically modified corn goes, consumption appears to be linked directly to weight gain and the worsening obesity epidemic in the United States. It’s been noted by researchers that not only is there an almost 1 to 1 correlation between corn consumption and obesity in America, but that the increase in obesity is almost exactly the same as the increase in the percentage of corn grown in the United States that is genetically modified. These relationships are much closer than those between simple calorie intake and obesity (although obesity keeps increasing, calorie intake does not).

The researchers believe the particular genetic changes that have been made to the corn are to blame. Genetically modified corn has had special genes inserted that make the corn produce its own insecticide. Many insecticides and herbicides, such as chlorpyrifos, are known to have obesogenic effects, i.e. to cause weight gain

Obesogens come in different varieties. Some, like BPA, can make you overeat by stimulating the body’s endocannabinoid system, which is intimately involved in the regulation of appetite and reward. At background levels now common in U.S. waterways, BPA is known to make small fish gorge and become fat. 

Other chemicals, like chlorpyrifos and PFAS, silently reduce the body’s metabolic demands, meaning that fewer calories are burned at rest. Over a time period of months or years, even small reductions in caloric expenditure can lead to significant weight gain if there isn’t a corresponding reduction in caloric intake. You can actually get fat just by eating exactly the same amount of food as before. A new study has shown that the resting energy expenditure of American adults has been reduced significantly since the 1990s, with women experiencing a 5.4 percent and men a 7.7 percent drop. 

If you asked me to name a policy change that would transform the United States overnight, I’d be hard pressed to find a better answer than this: end the system of corn subsidies. Indeed, if I were RFK Jr., who has pledged to make the health of the nation his top priority, the corn subsidies would be my main target, above even the vaccine manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. 

However great the crimes of Pfizer or Moderna or the Sackler family may be, it’s the corporate food producers who have led Americans furthest down the primrose path, away from health, happiness, and self-reliance towards sickness, depression, and dependence. So many other evils including the unprecedented medicalization—the pain pills, the anti-depressants, the insulin and the Ozempic—are largely epiphenomenal on the fact that for well over 50 years Americans have been stuffing themselves with foods that serve the interests of corporate power rather than their own. 

All that taxpayer money could be put to much better use, for instance subsidising real farming of the kind the Mexicans want to pursue but can’t, because the greed and insane priorities of the American corn racket—the American system, full stop—won’t let them. If we could begin to heal the American people, we could begin to heal American politics and commerce—and that would have far-reaching consequences for the rest of the world, too.



“And To The Republic, For Which It Stands”…


This is not a photoshop.   This is the United States Senate in 2023, as they intentionally present themselves publicly to the American people.

 


Could Ron DeSantis Defeat Joe Biden in 2024?


Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is reportedly poised to formally throw his hat into the ring for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024. His candidacy has been highly anticipated by folks on the right and the left, and the announcement will surely make waves.

Much speculation has been made as to whether he can topple former President Donald Trump off of his perch as the clear frontrunner in the race. While most Republican voters still prefer Trump to DeSantis, it is not a foregone conclusion that the former president will remain the standard bearer of the party. But some have also contemplated whether DeSantis would have what it takes to defeat President Joe Biden if he does secure the nomination.

The New York Times reported on Friday:

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida all but declared his presidential candidacy on Thursday afternoon, telling donors and supporters on a call that only three “credible” candidates were in the race and that only he would be able to win both the Republican primary and the general election.

“You have basically three people at this point that are credible in this whole thing,” Mr. DeSantis told donors on the call, organized by the super PAC supporting him, Never Back Down. “Biden, Trump and me. And I think of those three, two have a chance to get elected president — Biden and me, based on all the data in the swing states, which is not great for the former president and probably insurmountable because people aren’t going to change their view of him.”

The article notes that the governor “is expected to file paperwork declaring his candidacy with the Federal Election Commission ahead of a major fund-raising meeting with donors in Miami on May 25 that is meant to act as a show of his financial force.”

DeSantis is expected to release a video declaring his intention to seek the presidency when he officially enters the race.

As the 2024 presidential race looms, speculation has grown around the potential match-up between Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and President Joe Biden. While DeSantis possesses certain advantages that could position him as a formidable opponent, he also faces challenges that he will have to overcome to secure victory.

DeSantis represents a younger generation of leadership, and with America’s weariness of older candidates, his relative youth could work in his favor. A change from the status quo might resonate with voters looking for new perspectives and energy in the White House.

Indeed, significant percentages of the population do not want to see another matchup between Trump and Biden. Many have grown weary of having old folks in charge (no offense to old folks) and would like to see some new blood at the helm. This would definitely work in the governor’s favor.

Although former President Donald Trump remains popular among Republican voters, DeSantis has successfully cultivated his own dedicated base. Moreover, most of Trump’s base would gladly pull the lever for the governor. If he secures the Republican nomination, these loyal supporters are likely to rally behind him, providing a solid foundation for his campaign.

DeSantis’ performance as governor, particularly his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, could boost his appeal and help him energize Republican, and maybe Independent, voters. By implementing policies that appealed to conservatives, such as maintaining open businesses and resisting strict lockdown measures, he has garnered praise from his base. Highlighting these accomplishments could resonate with voters who value effective governance during times of crisis.

However, a potential DeSantis campaign will have plenty of challenges to face in the quest to oust Biden from the White House.

One potential disadvantage for DeSantis is the fact that he has built his brand almost entirely on being “anti-woke.” While this stance resonates with the conservative base, it may not fare as well on the national stage. Critics argue that his opposition to critical race theory, and his clash with Disney over the Parental Rights in Education Act, have created a perception that he is racially insensitive.

To broaden his appeal, DeSantis must address these concerns head on. While much of the criticism the left has levied against him has been based on falsehoods, there are also valid criticisms with some of the moves he has made ostensibly to combat wokeness.

DeSantis is wildly popular in Florida. Even many Democrats have praised his leadership. However, this does not guarantee nationwide support. To win over independent and moderate voters, he must develop a comprehensive strategy for national policy issues that resonates beyond his state. Articulating a clear vision and demonstrating an ability to bridge divides will be crucial in winning over a broader electorate.

President Biden, for all his flaws, is a known quantity to the United States. Those who voted for him did so because he was not Donald Trump. Additionally, he is an experienced politician, whereas DeSantis is not as tested on the national stage. This could become a challenge on the campaign trail. However, this could also work to the governor’s benefit if he plays his cards right.

While Biden possesses the advantage of experience as president, his performance has been subject to criticism. DeSantis must effectively highlight Biden’s flaws, weaknesses, and policy failures to sway undecided voters. Critiques regarding issues such as border security, rising inflation, and an uneven COVID-19 response could be focal points for DeSantis.

Of course, this speculation could be irrelevant. As stated previously, Trump is way ahead in the polls and will likely win the nomination. However, I’ve watched politics long enough to know never to say never. DeSantis will undoubtedly get a significant bump in the polls when he finally does announce. But even then, he will have his work cut out for him.



New BLM Rules On ‘Conservation Leases’ Will Fundamentally Transform Public Land Management

The new BLM rule introducing so-called conservation leasing will likely become the administration’s vehicle for locking up federal property.



The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing to fundamentally reshape how public lands are managed without congressional approval.

In March, the agency unveiled a sweeping proposal to establish a framework for “conservation leases” that places a newfound priority on preservation. The new Public Lands Rule presents a radical departure from the “multiple use mandate” Congress outlined for the agency in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

New Rules Are a ‘Game Changer’

FLPMA requires federal lands to be used in ways that “best meet the present and future needs of the people.” The proposed rules from the federal bureau, which has 245 million acres under its jurisdiction, jeopardize access to public lands for grazing and development. Under the new framework for conservation leasing, parcels of federal property could be leased out by third-party NGOs that cut off any other uses for decades.

David McDonald, an attorney with the Mountain States Legal Foundation, called BLM’s new rules a “game changer” for how public lands are managed.

“Under this regulation, ‘conservation’ would be a ‘use’ just like mining or timber,” McDonald told The Federalist, adding that “the devil is in the details.”

While the BLM summary of the proposed rules repeatedly claims that conservation is merely being elevated to be “on par” with and not above activities such as grazing, mining, and logging, the text includes definitions that reveal ulterior motives. The rules outline new protections with vague terms such as “landscapes” and require officials to “prioritize protection of such landscapes” in leasing decisions. The text in the federal register also makes repeated references to analyzing “cumulative impacts” in decision-making, a phrase often embedded in climate regulation only to be weaponized by radical green NGOs to shut down projects the environmental lobby opposes.

“This is an attempt by the Biden administration to end multiple use on public lands,” William Perry Pendley, who led the BLM during the Trump administration, told The Federalist. “It’s all part of their 30 for 30 program.”

In 2021, President Joe Biden announced efforts to lock up 30 percent of American lands and waterways by 2030. The new BLM rule to introduce conservation leasing will likely become the administration’s primary vehicle for the initiative.

Other problematic areas of the proposal include vague references to prioritizing “ecosystem resilience” and the implementation of “indigenous knowledge” into analyses that can’t be tested.

“Consistent with applicable law and the management of the area, authorized officers would also be required to avoid authorizing any use of the public lands that permanently impairs ecosystem resilience,” the agency rules state. “Permanent impairment of ecosystem resilience would be difficult or impossible to avoid, for example, on lands on which the BLM has authorized intensive uses, including infrastructure and energy projects or mining, or where BLM has limited discretion to condition or deny the use.”

“This wording to me seems like it could be used to essentially ban any mining or ‘intensive use’ on any BLM land,” McDonald said. “There are a lot of different areas where they could be chipping away at people’s rights.”

“Whether or not it ends up being as bad as it looks could be a very open question,” McDonald added, depending “on how these provisions are integrated as a final rule.”

The Mountain States Legal Foundation, which has been at the forefront of western property issues since the 1970s, has just hired a new head of environmental resources who is looking into the BLM proposal.

Asked whether western ranchers should be concerned, McDonald said he “would be pretty worried.” More than 90 percent of the land owned by the federal government is out West. Although proposed guidelines offer protections for those with valid existing rights, ranchers might lose their chance to renew their claims thanks to competition from deep-pocketed environmental groups that can now claim priority.

“Ranchers should definitely be concerned enough to be paying attention,” McDonald said, adding the proposal has created “storm clouds on the horizon.”

Pendley was more fatalistic. “It’ll drive them out of business,” the former BLM director said. “We have ranches in the West that exist because they have a grazing allotment.”

“Livestock people settled the West, so when you take away the ability of a ranch to graze on an allotment associated with the ranch, then that’s the end of the ranch,” Pendley added. “They’re able to graze their livestock on BLM or Forest Service lands and it makes that ranch economical.”

The new rules appear to come straight from BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning’s 1992 graduate thesis. While her 2021 nomination was controversial primarily over her history as an ecoterrorist, Biden’s BLM chief also condemned public grazing and promoted a Chinese-style child cap. Stone-Manning now oversees 155 million acres of grazing land, about the size of Arizona and New Mexico.

Grazing Is Good for Our Diet

BLM’s new rules thus threaten to take out ranchers, the original conservationists. A major blow to regenerative ranching, which incorporates animals as critical to the natural biological cycle, could actually be detrimental to the nation’s health.

In his book, “Food Fix: How to Save Our Health, Our Economy, Our Communities, and Our Planet — One Bite at a Time,” Dr. Mark Hyman writes about the important benefits of regenerative farm practices on both our health and our planet.

“Regenerative grass-fed meat can restore ecosystems, improving soils while sucking carbon from the atmosphere and increasing water storage in soils,” Hyman wrote, urging readers to “choose regeneratively raised animal products whenever possible.”

“They are better for you and better for the animals and help draw down carbon and reverse climate change,” Hyman added.

Even The New York Times has admitted grazing is an important tool to manage land. “A Different Kind of Land Management: Let the Cows Stomp,” said a headline from the paper two years ago.

Grass-fed cattle that graze on public land boost the supply of a healthier alternative, with two to six times more omega-3 fatty acids than factory-farmed meat, which is laced with antibiotics and pesticides. Omega-3 fatty acids enhance immune systems and prevent chronic disease.

BLM Ignores Red-State Needs

The BLM announced a tour of western states earlier this month to present its new rules on “Conservation and Landscape Health.” Of the five two-hour meetings revealed on the agency calendar, two are virtual, and three are held in urban centers: Denver, Reno, and Albuquerque. Not one is held in a state with a Republican senator or majority-GOP House delegation.

[READ: In Tour Promoting New Rule, Bureau Of Land Management Ignores GOP Mountain States It Would Hurt Most]

The four Republican members of the Idaho congressional delegation promptly sent a letter to the agency demanding senior leaders reassess their public hearing schedule.

“We were disappointed to see not only was Idaho not included, but the in-person locations are geographically concentrated away from many of BLM’s constituents,” lawmakers wrote.

The letter was followed by similar letters to BLM and the Department of the Interior by a coalition of 16 GOP senators representing western states, the Wyoming congressional delegation, and Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee.

“The administration’s proposal will have considerable implications, fundamentally changing the way the BLM carries out its multiple use and sustained yield mandate under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,” House lawmakers wrote Wednesday. Republicans demanded the BLM double its public comment period, which is scheduled to end in June. The letter included signatures from 14 lawmakers, including Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, whose district is home to the BLM’s headquarters on the western slope.

“Their objective is to end all economic use of public lands,” Pendley told The Federalist of the Biden BLM proposal. “Does that mean recreation? I don’t know. It depends on what kind of recreation. I don’t think they like ski resorts.”



Joe Biden and Merrick Garland Throw US Military Contractors to the Wolves

Joe Biden and Merrick Garland Throw US Military Contractors to the Wolves

streiff reporting for RedState 

The Biden White House and Merrick Garland’s Justice Department are attempting to throw a US military contractor under the bus, and no one is exactly sure why. The issue arises out of the crash of Transafrik Flight 662 on short final into Kabul Afghanistan International Airport (KAIA) on October 12, 2010.

Transafrik is an airline based out of Uganda. Flight 662 has a Filipino crew. The aircraft had some, what we would call in the infantry, “major f***ing issues.”

However, the plane had problems with some of its avionics equipment, according to an email that another Transafrik pilot, Michael Terrell, had sent three days earlier to others at Transafrik, including Captain Bulos. Terrell described the terrain avoidance warning system as inoperable. Normally, the terrain avoidance warning system would display a topographic map and indicate the plane’s position relative to the surrounding terrain, with the map showing red when the plane was at a dangerous relative elevation. This plane’s terrain avoidance warning system did not present such a display. The plane also lacked or had an inoperable ground proximity warning system, which, when working, sounds an alarm to alert the cockpit that the plane is in dangerous proximity to an obstacle. Terrell’s email also reported that the traffic collision avoidance system, designed to help the plane avoid collisions with other aircraft, worked only sporadically. There is no evidence that Transafrik resolved any of these issues in the days following Terrell’s email; it appears to have been the airline’s practice to keep a plane in operation until new parts could be installed. There is also no evidence that Midwest personnel, including those working in the control tower on the evening in question, were aware of any of these issues with the plane’s avionics.

Some of this may not have mattered on a pleasant June day under ideal conditions, but when attempting to land at night on an airfield in a mountainous region, suboptimal outcomes are not unexpected.

Captain Bulos chose to operate Flight 662 according to VFR. Although the flight left Bagram around 7:20 p.m. local time—after sunset—Captain Bulos was permitted to use VFR. Flight 662 had to arrive in Kabul at night because Boeing 747s, which were used to transport Afghans to Saudi Arabia for the Hajj, had been parked on Transafrik’s ramp at the airport earlier that evening. A former Transafrik pilot explained that “the airport authority would not let us land until all the Hajj birds were gone and we had space.”

During the landing, the pilot flew into a mountain and killed everyone on board. The estates of the deceased sued Midwest Air Traffic Control Service (MATCS), a Department of Defense contractor hired to manage operations at KAIA.

The case started in a district court in the Western District of New York. The judge granted summary judgment for MATCS because it was a federal contractor operating under DOD control in a war zone. The plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit, which ruled that MATCS could be sued because the air traffic controller literally “failed to provide necessary instruction to keep a safe and proper separation between . . . Flight 662 and the surrounding terrain.” It also ruled that because no military officer was in the tower and no specific instructions had been issued to the controller on how to handle the final approach of Flight 662, the military did not have anything to do with the accident. And even though the airbase had been under Taliban attack in the past, it was not under attack at the time of the landing, so f*** that combat zone stuff.

A federal appeals court taking a hard left turn toward stupid is hardly unusual. Truth be told, I’d be willing to bet there was some bias against military contractors being used in a war zone at work as well. MATCS appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court. In May 2022, the Supreme Court asked the Justice Department for the government’s position on the case. The solicitor general didn’t get around to responding until April 2023. When it did, the response was a shocker.

After the petition by the controllers reached the Supreme Court, the Justices last May asked the Solicitor General to weigh in on the government’s behalf. That brief finally arrived this April, and the delay of almost a year is curious. What’s even more notable is that the Biden Administration is deserting the controllers, in a break with the Obama Administration’s view. The Solicitor General says federal immunity isn’t implicated, since managing air traffic over Kabul wasn’t “closely combat-related,” as opposed to handling the trash on “forward operating bases.”

In response, MATCS observes that the Second Circuit decision places it at odds with three other federal circuits and flies in the face of logic considering that KBR was granted immunity from burn pit injuries and other decisions involving Abu Ghraib, the “Nassour Square Massacre,” and other major cases involving alleged misconduct on the part of DOD contractors.

There are two possible explanations for this.

The first possibility is that it is personal score-settling. In the case where some alleged Iraqi terrorists were roughed up in Abu Ghraib prison, the DC Court of Appeals ruled DOD contractors could not be sued by people who had been trying to kill US troops…okay, I made that part up; they said “foreign nationals.” Justice Kavanaugh, then on the DC Circuit, was part of the majority decision. Merrick Garland was the lone dissent. The year-long delay in responding to a lawsuit with immense implications for US military operations overseas, and then the “let it rip” attitude when a response was made, seems like Garland was trying to vindicate his position and possibly stick his thumb in Kavanaugh’s eye—if the Solicitor General’s view on the case led to the Supreme Court upholding the Second Circuit.

On the other hand, Biden and his clique of anti-American advisors know how dependent the US military is on civilian contractors to pursue military operations of all types. A decision by the Supreme Court that hung MATCS out to dry would be a warning to all DOD contractors that working for DOD overseas placed their very existence in jeopardy. This would force a lot of contractors to turn down DOD contracts for the sake of survival. Of course, Joe could always find Chinese companies to do the job if it came to that, so long as 10 percent was held back for “the big guy.”

There is an old saying you should “never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” Ever since Joe Biden was selected to be president, that adage has been stood on its head. You can depend upon virtually any decision emanating from any part of the hot mess Joe Biden allegedly oversees to be calculated maliciousness, no matter how stupid it is.

The Solicitor General’s brief on this critical case has the potential to hamstring the ability of the US military to engage in combat or humanitarian operations overseas. Given his actions so far, this could be a feature, not a bug, of such a decision.


Yawn of the Day: Chris Christie to Announce His 2024 Presidential Candidacy 'in Coming Days'

Yawn of the Day: Chris Christie to Announce His 2024 Presidential Candidacy 'in Coming Days'

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

One of the great misfortunes of my otherwise awesome life has been a keen interest in politics. While I’ve admired many politicians and abhorred many others, there have been some along the way who’ve caused me to simply shake my head, and wonder: “Huh?” Chris Christie remains one of those puzzlements.

The former New Jersey governor, 2016 presidential candidate, adversary-turned-lackey of Donald Trump — and back to adversary — is reportedly set to announce his 2024 presidential candidacy “in coming days,” according to several sources with direct knowledge of the Republican’s intentions.

First question? WHY? We’ll get to the answer in a bit, but damn.

CNN reported in April that Christie went through the usual drill — met with potential donors, talked with staffers and others to gauge interest in a potential presidential campaign, yada, yada, yada.

The outlet — The Most Trusted Name in News™ [rolling-eyes emoji] — said at the time:

The New Jersey Republican sees himself as the only serious GOP candidate willing to take on former President Donald. He also sees himself as a candidate who could appeal to enough independents to beat President Joe Biden in the general election, should Biden announce a reelection bid.

Would it be less than tactful to suggest CNN’s Jake Tapper and Kit Maher were smoking some serious weed when they wrote the article, perhaps along with Christie, himself? “Serious” candidate? Christie was repeatedly humiliated by Trump during the 2016 GOP primaries, yet embarrassingly crawled back to Trump when he won the nomination, and promptly prostrated himself at Trump’s feet.

Look, if nothing else, Christie’s got cojones. During a Washington, DC, event last month, he called a presidential run a “huge risk,” but said he would be prepared to debate Trump again. (If Einstein’s definition of insanity is running through your head, right now, you’re not alone.)

If it turns out that I’m on a debate stage in August of this year and Donald Trump decides to be on it, you can be sure that we’ll have some exchanges that I hope will be illuminating to the public about both him and me.

Christie believes “a line was crossed” when Trump refused to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, specifically, the way he did (and continues to do) so.

There’s a difference between spinning politically to try to put yourself in a better position before the vote happens and after the vote happens to say it was ‘rigged.’ No one in this country asked him to be their retribution. I think a president should be our inspiration, not our retribution.

Agreed. Still, Chris Christie has zero chance in hell of winning the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

In a late-April interview with Politico, Christie really took it to Trump, while suggesting that “No one else has the balls to” take on the former president.

[Trump] can’t be a credible figure on the world stage; he can’t be a credible figure interacting with Congress; he will get nothing done.

Christie told Politico that Trump’s vulnerability “needs to be called out and it needs to be called out by somebody who knows him,” adding: “Nobody knows Donald Trump better than I do.”

Still, Christie says he’s not a political assassin:

I’m not a paid assassin. When you’re waking up for your 45th morning at the Hilton Garden Inn in Manchester, you better think you can win, because that walk from the bed to the shower, if you don’t think you can win, it’s hard.

Finally, via Politico:

Christie said Trump offers a “bountiful buffet” of vulnerabilities that candidates can and should exploit. Republicans, for example, should be reminding voters of Trump’s “disqualifying” call in December for the “termination” of the Constitution over his false claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

They should also be skewering Trump’s character, he said, particularly over the allegations at the center of his recent criminal indictment in Manhattan: A scheme to buy the silence of a porn star who claimed to have had an affair with Trump.

Asked about Trump taunting him over his low poll numbers at an RNC donor retreat in Nashville this weekend, he chuckled: “Being taunted by Donald Trump, it bothers some people. To me, it’s a compliment.”

So here’s the thing: While I don’t disagree with much of what Chris Christie says with respect to Donald Trump, the former New Jersey governor himself is nowhere near my radar screen as a viable challenger to the former president, and I’m sure I speak for tens of millions of likeminded GOP voters in that respect.

The Bottom Line

As part of my political “problem,” to which I alluded at the top, I’ve often amused myself through the years with the non-serious notion of setting up shop as a consultant to politicians considering a run for the White House — in either party.

My, oh my, how much money, time, effort, and heartbreak I could save a helluva lot of people if they’d just listen to me before taking the plunge. [sarc — barely.]

Are you paying attention, Chris?