Friday, August 25, 2023

Gretchen Whitmer's Experiment Threatens the Right to Drive

 Gretchen Whitmer's Experiment Threatens the Right to Drive (msn.com)



The lyrics of the 1981 song “Red Barchetta” by the Canadian rock band Rush describe the thrill of racing a vintage roadster in a future when driving is illegal. “I commit my weekly crime,” sings vocalist Geddy Lee, in an era governed by “the motor law” and policed by “a gleaming alloy air car.” That dystopian vision seems a faraway fantasy, but motorists in Michigan may think of it when they learn about a state plan to use Global Positioning System devices to track mileage and tax drivers based on road usage.

Michigan’s new state budget, which Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed on July 31, authorizes spending $5 million on a survey to gauge consumer attitudes about the concept. The answer officials receive probably will depend on the wording of the question. If they want to avoid a libertarian freak-out, they should try something other than “Do you want Big Brother in your passenger seat?” Debate over the proposal will test the public’s tolerance of surveillance technology—and foreshadow an even more contentious dispute over the freedom to drive.

Budget officials around the country have worried for years that the rise of electric vehicles will lead to fewer drivers paying traditional gasoline taxes, which are often devoted to road construction and repair. In Michigan, a report sponsored by county governments found that the state already has lost $50 million in taxes that electric-car owners didn’t pay at the pump between 2019 and 2021. That’s only a fraction of the roughly $1.5 billion that Michigan collects annually from fuel taxes, but the losses could climb to $470 million by 2030, when perhaps a quarter of all vehicles plug in for their power.

If electric vehicles render gasoline taxes obsolete, states will have to figure out new ways to fill potholes and resurface roads. Funds could come from general revenue, though people with short commutes will end up subsidizing the travel of those who spend long hours behind the wheel.

One solution is to create more toll roads, which many states already have done but Michigan has avoided. These can work well on highways and bridges, less so on city streets, though some governments use transponders and license-plate cameras to enforce congestion pricing. Another idea is to tax the purchase of electric cars, which Michigan does by charging a registration fee of $140—a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn’t even try to account for driving patterns. Old-fashioned fuel taxes suffer from their own inefficiencies, such as failing to distinguish between vehicle types. Drivers of gas guzzlers pay more taxes than drivers of fuel-efficient cars, even though some of them make less use of the roads.

To solve this problem, more than a dozen states are experimenting with how to introduce taxes based on VMTs, or vehicle-miles traveled. By harnessing GPS data, officials can count miles with the accuracy of odometers, and they can distinguish between travel on interstate highways, county roads, private land and across state lines. A tax on VMTs might feel a lot like a user fee.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michigan’s free-market think tank, set aside its reservations about government surveillance and last year endorsed the concept of VMT trackers as a fairer and more efficient way to pay for the roads. States could allay privacy concerns by mandating erasure of driving records after a period of time or demanding warrants for law-enforcement access.

Yet calls to exploit driver data will be hard to resist. Police will say they need the data to catch criminals. Insurance companies will seek the data to help set rates. Public-health officials will insist on access to enforce future lockdown orders. Ideologues will want to know who parked near the wrong political rallies. Each concession will deliver a ding to personal liberty.

Just as electric vehicles one day may replace gasoline-powered ones, autonomous vehicles may lead some to question the wisdom of letting free people operate their own cars. The technology is still young and controversial, but it will improve. Self-driving vehicles at some point will become safer than those driven by distracted, drowsy or drunk people. Can calls to outlaw human drivers entirely be far behind?

Freedom is always subject to wear and tear and sometimes liberty needs a tune-up. But driving the open road—with the windows down and your favorite song blaring from the radio—is almost an American birthright. Putting the pedal to the metal is not yet a crime, but the dystopia in your rear-view mirror may be closer than it appears.


Gretchen Whitmer's Experiment Threatens the Right to Drive

 Gretchen Whitmer's Experiment Threatens the Right to Drive (msn.com)



The lyrics of the 1981 song “Red Barchetta” by the Canadian rock band Rush describe the thrill of racing a vintage roadster in a future when driving is illegal. “I commit my weekly crime,” sings vocalist Geddy Lee, in an era governed by “the motor law” and policed by “a gleaming alloy air car.” That dystopian vision seems a faraway fantasy, but motorists in Michigan may think of it when they learn about a state plan to use Global Positioning System devices to track mileage and tax drivers based on road usage.


Michigan’s new state budget, which Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed on July 31, authorizes spending $5 million on a survey to gauge consumer attitudes about the concept. The answer officials receive probably will depend on the wording of the question. If they want to avoid a libertarian freak-out, they should try something other than “Do you want Big Brother in your passenger seat?” Debate over the proposal will test the public’s tolerance of surveillance technology—and foreshadow an even more contentious dispute over the freedom to drive.

Budget officials around the country have worried for years that the rise of electric vehicles will lead to fewer drivers paying traditional gasoline taxes, which are often devoted to road construction and repair. In Michigan, a report sponsored by county governments found that the state already has lost $50 million in taxes that electric-car owners didn’t pay at the pump between 2019 and 2021. That’s only a fraction of the roughly $1.5 billion that Michigan collects annually from fuel taxes, but the losses could climb to $470 million by 2030, when perhaps a quarter of all vehicles plug in for their power.

If electric vehicles render gasoline taxes obsolete, states will have to figure out new ways to fill potholes and resurface roads. Funds could come from general revenue, though people with short commutes will end up subsidizing the travel of those who spend long hours behind the wheel.

One solution is to create more toll roads, which many states already have done but Michigan has avoided. These can work well on highways and bridges, less so on city streets, though some governments use transponders and license-plate cameras to enforce congestion pricing. Another idea is to tax the purchase of electric cars, which Michigan does by charging a registration fee of $140—a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn’t even try to account for driving patterns. Old-fashioned fuel taxes suffer from their own inefficiencies, such as failing to distinguish between vehicle types. Drivers of gas guzzlers pay more taxes than drivers of fuel-efficient cars, even though some of them make less use of the roads.

To solve this problem, more than a dozen states are experimenting with how to introduce taxes based on VMTs, or vehicle-miles traveled. By harnessing GPS data, officials can count miles with the accuracy of odometers, and they can distinguish between travel on interstate highways, county roads, private land and across state lines. A tax on VMTs might feel a lot like a user fee.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michigan’s free-market think tank, set aside its reservations about government surveillance and last year endorsed the concept of VMT trackers as a fairer and more efficient way to pay for the roads. States could allay privacy concerns by mandating erasure of driving records after a period of time or demanding warrants for law-enforcement access.

Yet calls to exploit driver data will be hard to resist. Police will say they need the data to catch criminals. Insurance companies will seek the data to help set rates. Public-health officials will insist on access to enforce future lockdown orders. Ideologues will want to know who parked near the wrong political rallies. Each concession will deliver a ding to personal liberty.

Just as electric vehicles one day may replace gasoline-powered ones, autonomous vehicles may lead some to question the wisdom of letting free people operate their own cars. The technology is still young and controversial, but it will improve. Self-driving vehicles at some point will become safer than those driven by distracted, drowsy or drunk people. Can calls to outlaw human drivers entirely be far behind?

Freedom is always subject to wear and tear and sometimes liberty needs a tune-up. But driving the open road—with the windows down and your favorite song blaring from the radio—is almost an American birthright. Putting the pedal to the metal is not yet a crime, but the dystopia in your rear-view mirror may be closer than it appears.

Mr. Miller is director of the Dow Journalism Program at Hillsdale College.

The State of America - Are We Too Late?



As many did, last night, I watched the first GOP primary debate. These things start early for us here in the Great Land, being as we are an hour behind West Coast time, so at about 4:30 in the sunny, beautiful Susitna Valley summer afternoon, I walked back over to the office and logged in, along with my fellow RedStaters, to a debate night live blog. It was a great time; there were many great observations by both RedState contributors and our readers, and I look forward to the next such event with enthusiasm.

You can see that live blog, preserved for posterity, here. My colleagues have already summed up the debate, as well as the Tucker Carlson/Donald Trump interview, in their usual excellent manner. See the links here:

Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Cover a Lot of Ground During Wide-Ranging Interview

GOP Debate and Abortion: Despite Mixed Responses, a Culture of Life Should Be the Goal

Vivek Gets Rocked - and Clocked - at First GOP Presidential Debate

The Reason Everyone Is Piling on Vivek Ramaswamy

Trump Claims Debate Victory, and He Has Some Incredible Numbers to Support the Claim

Let's Talk About the GOP Debate and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum

There will doubtlessly be more through the day as the analyses of the debate and reactions to it continue. But a comment made by one of the candidates last night concerned me, and through much of a restless night, it began to bother me more and more, mostly because I couldn't convince myself he was wrong.

During the debate, at 20:36, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said:

Our country is in decline. This decline is not inevitable, it’s a choice. We need to send Joe Biden back to his basement and reverse American decline. And it starts with understanding we must reverse Bidenomics so that middle class families have a chance to succeed again. We cannot succeed as a country if you are working hard and you can’t afford groceries, a car or a new home while Hunter Biden can make hundreds of thousands of dollars on lousy paintings. That is wrong.

This was a theme the Governor hit repeatedly throughout the debate. He has been making this point for a while now.

The more I thought about this statement, and the current state of affairs in the United States, the more it bothered me, to the point where it cost me much of a night's sleep. Why? Because of an 18th-century Scotsman named Alexander Fraser Tytler, who came up with something now known as the Tytler Cycle, which described the rise and fall of societies. That cycle takes this form:

One could, and evidently, Governor DeSantis does, argue that we are somewhere in the Apathy and Dependence phases of this cycle. It's not hard to arrive at this conclusion: Our major cities are melting downcorruption in elected officials is rampant, and equal treatment under the law is a dead letter.

Governor DeSantis hit this message several times in the debate, but was a little vague on precisely how to address this decline while returning the United States to a bastion of liberty and free enterprise. And the truth is, if one looks at history, one finds few, if any, examples of where a major power was able to reverse itself out of this cycle; the normal progression past the Dependence phase is a collapse, followed by... something else. There is an apocryphal statement often attributed to Tytler or alternatively to Alexis de Tocqueville, which doesn't make it any less accurate:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

Look at history. The Roman Republic was co-opted by a man, Julius Caesar, who took power legally and never gave it up, resulting in the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire. The Six Dynasties of China were eventually overthrown by the Sui Dynasty. History is replete with such examples.

What will happen to the United States? Will our nation go out with a bang or a whimper? I'm inclined to believe the latter. Look at the Tytler Cycle; Apathy is followed by Dependence, and in much of the nation today, those two aspects are already obtained. Apathy and Dependence aren't conducive to a society ready to rise up and demand the return to the founding principles of individual liberty and property. 

A civil war is even less likely to force a return to America's liberty. This event would be disastrous, nothing like the first civil war, with organized armies doing battle; it would be fought among us, likely by militias and citizens and tattered remnants of organized forces. The likely result of this would be deaths in the hundreds of thousands at a minimum, more likely in the millions. It would mean trillions in economic losses because of the infrastructure loss and the collapse of the big cities.  It would engender hatred and ill will that would last for generations and would damage the Republic beyond repair. America as we know it would almost certainly be no more.

There are exceptions to the decline to which Governor DeSantis refers. Many of the rural and small-town areas, including ours here in the Susitna Valley, still hold these values, which we find self-evident. But too many of our citizens live in the urban areas, too many of them are already caught up in the collapse of our cities, and it's not at all clear that this collapse can be reversed. Whether the country collapses in apathy and dissolution or civil war, what happens next? What will follow? A dictatorship? If so, what kind? Will the military take over? Will a politician with totalitarian intentions (and not suffering from dementia) seize the reins of power and refuse to give them up? Or will the nation just collapse into chaos, with our cities self-destructing and the outlying areas breaking off to go their own ways?

In either of those instances, the United States as we know it is over.

It bothers me a great deal that I have no idea what the answer to these questions might be, but history doesn't lend me much optimism.

Maybe Governor DeSantis is right. Maybe a new President, a new Administration, can reverse everything that has happened in the last few decades and bring us once more to a new Morning in America. It would, however, take a leader beyond compare, our own Cincinnatus, and honestly, it's hard to see a leader of that caliber among us at the moment. It's hard to see what steps one would have to take to restore our Republic to what it was, say, in the post-WW2 years.

That's what kept me awake last night. That's what is weighing on my mind this morning. Are we too late?

Last night, when the debate ended, I said goodnight to my RedState colleagues and to the many great readers who kept the comments hopping. I closed up the office and walked back to the house. While the debate had been going on, the sky had grown cloudy, the day had grown chilly, and a steady, cold rain was falling. Our brief, mild Alaska summer is drawing to a close. Now, with autumn coming fast, we are entering into a cold, dark time here in the Great Land.

If I believed in omens, I wouldn't much care for this one.



X22, And we Know, and more- August 25

 




W³P Open Thread: President Trump is Back on Twitter Edition








Not much to add to this one. President Trump is back on twitter. Let the great melting of the snowflakes begin. Be sure to tag our resident Leftists so that we can get maximum snowflake meltage. Also post music and memes and stuff. Have some fun, and celebrate the return of the Twitter MAGA King.




Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


The Biden Clan’s Con Is Coming to an End ~ VDH


Hunter is still out of control, and could take the family down with him


Despite years of Biden family and media disinformation, we are finally learning that Joe Biden really did fire Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin for looking into state corruption involving the oil company Burisma and Hunter Biden—and ultimately Joe Biden himself.

As Vice President, Biden, in his own words, bragged that he had threatened to cancel the deliverance of American foreign aid to Ukraine unless Shokin was dismissed.

So what is the Congress to do now—un-impeach and exonerate an innocent impeached Donald Trump, and instead impeach a guilty Biden for essentially the same allegations?

After all, the Left redefined the impeachment bar in 2019 as leveraging foreign aid to Ukraine to benefit one’s political career.

And that is exactly what Joe Biden did to ensure his son could continue to raise millions for the Biden family with foreign governments, while being shielded from political consequences.

An impeached Trump also was accused of using the power of government to go after his likely 2020 presidential rival by suggesting that Joe Biden and his family were corrupt, and should be investigated by Ukrainian officials for fraud and bribery.

Despite Joe Biden’s denials, Trump was right: there was plenty of evidence to link Ukrainian unwarranted payoffs going into Biden family coffers.

So Trump in 2019 had good reasons to ensure that none of the Bidens were still burrowed deeply into the Ukrainian payoff machine.

In contrast, Joe Biden had far less grounds to unleash the full powers of government against his probable 2024 rival ex-president Trump.

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith is not charging Trump with bribery of the Biden sort. He does not allege that Trump gave special foreign policy preferences for those foreigners who paid his family for such services.

Instead, Smith argues that Trump unlawfully took out classified presidential papers—although Joe Biden did nearly the same.

Biden kept quiet about his vast removal of classified documents for over a decade. Not until Trump was being investigated did Biden suddenly notify the government of his illegal removals.

In contrast, a combative and boisterous Trump fought openly and constantly with federal archivists over which of his papers at his Mar-a-Lago estate were truly classified.

Prosecutorial leaks floated all sorts of unproven nefarious agendas that had prompted Trump’s disputes over his presidential papers.

But no one to this day has seriously asked why senator and then Vice President Biden secretly and weirdly removed and kept such sensitive material for years.

Recent reports allege that Hunter Biden may have been treated with kid gloves by prosecutors, partly because Hunter’s lawyers had threatened otherwise to call Joe Biden to the stand as a favorable witness.

Government prosecutors under pressure from the White House apparently balked at  the nightmare of a befuddled president of the United States testifying under oath about the supposed innocence of the very guilty Hunter Biden.

In truth, the former drug addict Hunter has played lots of such strange games with his own family.

In his laptop communications, Hunter whined that no one in the family appreciated his hard work at family grifting.

He sounded petulant that his father forced him to fork over half his income to the Joe and Jill Biden household.

At time of universal scrutiny of Hunter, the last thing any sane first son might do would be to hawk his own childish paintings at exorbitant prices to those wishing to buy influence with his father the president.

In effect, Hunter was almost daring the White House to stop his blatant grifting artistry.

Instead, the Bidens moved Hunter into the White House, apparently to keep him under closer watch.

Hunter is still out of control. He could take the family down with him unless President Biden continues to shield him from prosecution.

Ironically, the double standard used by Biden and the media to hound Trump has only raised new questions of fairness.

Why had the Biden family—with its far greater legal exposure—never faced such serial indictments?

A Republican House of Representatives had ended prior Democratic protection given the Bidens.

And the Ukraine war has again turned attention to the Biden-Burisma connection and Hunter’s shaking down of Ukrainian officials.

Finally, Joe Biden can no longer work a full day. He mutters. He stumbles. He serially lies.

He hijacks solemn occasions commemorating national tragedies by trying to one up the grieving with his own self-absorbed stories—most of them irrelevant and narcissistic half-truths.

If a cognitively and criminally challenged Biden cannot finish his term, we will finally learn the full story of 15 years of Biden family corruption.

The Bidens will lose the only impediment—Joe Biden’s political machinations—left in the way of an honest, full-blown felony investigation into what is likely the most corrupt presidential family in American history.



Why Taiwan Getting Caught in a Proxy War Would Be An Epic U.S. Failure

Ample evidence suggests Taiwan is being pushed toward a proxy war, with the U.S. and China vying for influence in the region.



Many signs have recently emerged in China — including a housing bubble, mounting debts, deflation, shrinking exports, foreign investment fleeing, demographic issues, and youth unemployment soaring — that clearly indicate that leader Xi Jinping’s regime is facing unprecedented challenges that are undeniable but difficult to tackle. Will China stop or postpone the process of reunification of Taiwan under these circumstances?

Ample evidence, including China’s military preparation, reorganization of the military system, and newly promulgated domestic law and policy, suggest Taiwan is being pushed to the brink of a proxy war, with the U.S. vying for influence in the Indo-Pacific region to maintain its global dominance, while China is determined to establish its dominance in the same region. From the Chinese perspective in the current global context, the sooner China unifies with Taiwan the better. It is urgent for the United States to avert the nightmarish scenario of Taiwan becoming entangled in a proxy war. Failing to achieve this objective would undoubtedly mark a colossal U.S. failure and produce a consequence much worse than 50 years ago, when other China challenges arose.

Half a century ago, the Nixon administration began to utilize the “China card” to counter the former Soviet Union and made a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy toward China, reflected in the three communiqués. Although these documents aimed to address various Taiwan issues while improving U.S.-China relations, the two governments had divergent interpretations and implementations of the three communiqués. These unresolved disputes persist to this day and could ultimately lead to the gravest of consequences for Taiwan in the future.

Taiwan has emerged as a critical focal point in the ongoing great power competition between the United States and China, drawing unprecedented international attention, especially following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Theoretically, the United States has the moral responsibility to help Taiwan secure its prosperous future due to its strategic location, important partnership with the United States, and Taiwanese democratic identity. However, the future of Taiwan remains uncertain largely because of the dynamic of triangular relations. Taiwan is caught in the great power competition between China and the United States.

Four Scenarios

The future of Taiwan encompasses roughly four potential scenarios: Taiwan and China maintaining the status quo within the framework of China’s one-China principle and the U.S. one-China policy; a peaceful reunification achieved through arduous negotiations between Taiwan and China; direct U.S. military involvement in a war against China’s military efforts to reunify Taiwan; and a Chinese military attack on Taiwan, leading to a proxy war without direct U.S. military intervention.

Among these four possibilities, the first scenario is the best for the United States, as it would allow the United States to maintain its influence in the region without having to commit to a military conflict with China. The second scenario is ideal for China, as it would achieve its goal of reunification without having to use force. The third scenario is the most dangerous for the two nuclear powers, as it could lead to a wider war over the Taiwan Strait, potentially triggering World War III. The fourth scenario presents the gravest consequences for Taiwan and would constitute the United States’ biggest failure in its history.  

Proxy Wars

Proxy wars are not a new phenomenon in international relations and have increasingly become a common practice employed by major powers as a strategic tactic in competition between great powers. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union supported different states and non-state actors in regions such as Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola, and Nicaragua, but the United States ultimately triumphed through various strategies, including the utilization of proxy wars. Between 1946 and 2017, there were 115 proxy wars, involving 25 different sponsors and 143 different proxies, according to a RAND report. The United States was the most frequent sponsor, with 33 proxy wars, followed by the Soviet Union/Russia with 29, and China with 14.

Great power competition creates proxy wars because it allows the competing powers to pursue their strategic goals by maximizing national interests while minimizing costs and risks associated with a direct confrontation against opposing major powers. Specifically, proxy wars can exploit existing conflicts in regions that are of strategic importance to the competing powers, serve as a form of deterrence or coercion against the rival power, and pave the way for gaining leverage power in negotiations with the rival power. Taiwan’s situation meets all the prerequisites for a proxy war. If China attacked Taiwan, the U.S. would not necessarily directly participate in the war against China given the legal consideration, potentially grave consequences of direct war with China, and the actual capability of mobilizing a war. This partially explains why the U.S. strategic ambiguity remains unchanged.

U.S. in Quagmire, China Rising

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine and its people have greatly suffered from Russia’s atrocities. Although Ukraine hopes to hold a peace summit this autumn, the war will not be over sometime soon due to various reasons. The war involves a wide range of actors, such as Ukraine, Russia, Ukraine, NATO, the EU, the U.S., and the UN. The war is not only a military confrontation, but also a political, economic, social, and environmental challenge. As a great military power, Russia has not exhausted its national resources for running the war. The war could last much longer than expected. Under these circumstances, if China decided to unify Taiwan, it would be very difficult for the U.S. to directly join the war while it is entangled in the quagmire of the Ukraine war.

Prior to 2010, China was relatively economically and militarily weak, not yet fully prepared to directly challenge U.S. hegemony. However, the global power dynamics have shifted in China’s favor since it became the world’s second-largest economy in 2010, ushering in a new era of great power competition. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin acknowledges that China is now the sole competitor with both the intention and capability to reshape the U.S.-led international order. Consequently, the reunification of Taiwan has become a pressing objective for China as part of the China Dream, guided by Xi’s ambitious and assertive foreign policy.

U.S.-China relations are further deteriorating. On Aug. 9, President Joe Biden signed an executive order restricting U.S. investment in some high-tech industries in China, focusing on advanced semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence. This could make China’s economy worse because it will reduce the inflow of foreign investment into the Chinese technology sector and have a knock-on effect on the growth and profitability of some Chinese companies, as their ability to access global markets is reduced. Unsurprisingly, China perceives this executive order as a hostile maneuver that directly undermines its perceived rightful interests. China is likely to devise countermeasures designed to offset the perceived damage, thereby exacerbating the already strained tensions between these two global powers.

Xi’s third term as China’s president has given him a greater mandate to unify Taiwan. He sees the reunification of Taiwan as essential to his legitimacy and to the future of China. On Aug. 15,  in response to Biden’s remarks that China is a ticking time bomb, the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece Qiushi Magazine published Xi’s speech to deliver his strongest criticism of Western countries since taking office, stating that “the modernization of Western countries is full of bloody evils such as war, slavery, colonization, and plundering, which have brought profound suffering to the vast number of developing countries.” This not only shows Xi’s strong rhetoric but also signifies that he is prepared for a showdown with the United States.

Confronted with domestic economic dilemmas and a surge in nationalism, if there is no way forward or no way to retreat, the possibility of Xi’s China turning its domestic crisis into an external conflict will greatly increase.



Here's What Might Happen if the Left Reignites COVID Hysteria


I didn't want to believe it, but it seems that it is true. The authoritarian left is trying to kick off a new COVID pandemic, complete with mask mandates and possibly other restrictions. As fall approaches, the nation finds itself at an all-too-familiar crossroads: Do we choose liberty or the illusion of safety?

Less than a few weeks ago, reports surfaced suggesting that mask mandates were on their way back as several entities have decided to reinstate them. It has not yet gotten to the level of what the nation experienced starting in 2020, but it is entirely possible that lockdown-loving Democrats and squishy Republicans might just push for the sequel to this awful COVID flick.

There are two important possible scenarios that could materialize in response to another push for mandates. First, the American public can decide that it has learned its lesson and refuse to go along with more restrictions. Or, people could once again comply with mask mandates and other measures because they are still afraid of the coronavirus and retaliation from the government and society.

The emergence of a new variant called BA.2.86 or "Eris" has prompted media to publish reports warning of potential upticks in COVID cases and deaths. This is already leading to national debate on restrictions.

It won't be long before the seasons change and Fall is ushered in. That usually means cooler weather, football, and the leaves changing color. This is 2023, though, so it also means it's time for yet another round of COVID-19 panic, and sure enough, the latest iteration of a "Winter of severe illness and death" is being prepped. 

To illustrate that, a deluge of mainstream press stories has dropped recently promoting a new variant that goes by the official moniker BA.2.86. It has been nicknamed Eris, named after the Greek goddess of strife and discord. You know, just to give it that little bit of extra sizzle.

Several institutions have already jumped on the hysteria. Lionsgate Studio in Hollywood recently announced that it was reinstating its mask mandate for employees. Upstate University Hospital in Syracuse, New York, resurrected its mask mandate on August 17. Morris Brown College in Atlanta did the same

When the pandemic was still a thing, the mask became an iconic symbol indicating where people stood on the matter. It was a political litmus test of sorts, especially in the few areas where people were not required to wear them. If someone still wore a mask in these areas, it wasn't difficult to ascertain what side of the political divide they were on. Some chose liberty, and others chose "safety."

It seems the nation might be on the verge of seeing a repeat of this. But there is a chance that the outcome of this conflict might turn out differently this time.

There is a high possibility that the American public will channel Hall & Oates in the face of potential mask mandates and say, "I Can't Go For That." If a wide swath of people choose not to comply, then it will show that they have realized that these measures are not only unnecessary but a violation of their liberty.

In response, the government could relent, realizing that the people are not going to allow them to force face diapers and other restrictions on them for a virus that isn't nearly as deadly as the Faucis of the world claimed. This would be the desirable outcome. However, it is not out of the question to speculate that the state might just react to noncompliance with harsher measures enforced by law enforcement. If the government decides to play hardball, it could result in people being thrown in cages for refusing to wear a mask. This could eventually lead to protests -- some of which could become violent.

On the other hand, the notion that people would simply throw up their hands and go along with the mandates is also plausible. If the elites, through government action and media fearmongering, manage to persuade most Americans that they are all going to die if they don't put that piece of cloth on their faces, we might just see a repeat of what occurred over the past few years.

This would be a more dangerous scenario from a liberty perspective. Acquiescing to the government again, even after all the information that has come out about the ineffectiveness of masking, would send a message to the ruling class: We will do whatever you say. This would only embolden the authoritarian element in our upper echelons of society to go even further in other disasters.

While some institutions are reinstating mask mandates, it does not necessarily mean that the left will attempt to drag the nation through another full-on panic. Perhaps this will be as bad as it gets. But we cannot ignore the possibility that another hysteria is in the works. Hopefully, Americans will choose liberty this time around.



Historic Jump in 'Bidenomics' Food Stamps Caused 15% Increase in Grocery Prices


Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

Bidenomics. Think about it. 

The mere mention of Bidenomics instantly reminds tens of millions of Americans of out-of-control gas prices and the ever-increasing cost of a trip to the grocery store — and is the principal reason that more than seven out of 10 Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.

Yet, before we continue, take a gander at this recent "X" post from Joe Biden's handlers:

We're growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up, lowering costs for hardworking families, and making investments in America: that's Bidenomics.

Utter nonsense. And by "investments," Joe means wealth redistribution. 

Got it? Good — now let's move on to reality. 

The Biden administration's push to increase food stamp benefits by more than $1 trillion is likely behind a 15 percent increase in grocery prices, according to the government watchdog group, Foundation for Government Accountability

The Department of Agriculture rolled out revised nutritional standards for food stamps — the Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP) — in 2021, which expanded the program by a whopping 27 percent (on average) from pre-COVID pandemic levels. 

It gets worse.

Overall spending on the program more than doubled between 2019 and 2022, increasing from $4.5 billion in 2019 to $11 billion in 2022, according to the watchdog group, and is expected to rise by an additional 5.8 percent in 2023.

Jonathan Ingram, vice president of Policy and Research at the Foundation for Government Accountability went bottom-line, accusing the USDA of cooking the books.

USDA cooked their books to hike food stamp benefits by 27 percent — the largest permanent increase in program history. And they bypassed Congress to do it. Data show the Biden administration's overreach led to massive spikes in grocery prices. They're feeding inflation, not stopping hunger.

I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, but it doesn't take Alex Jones to consider the possibility that the Biden administration is continuing the Democrat quest of developing a permanent underclass majority in America, beholden, of course, to the largess of federal government coffers (U.S. taxpayer money). If so, the whole thing falls nicely into place, doesn't it? In the Democrats' eyes, that is.

Then again, it all makes sense. Irish playwright and socialist George Bernard Shaw summed it up, nicely: 

A government that robs Peter to pay call can always depend on the support of Paul.

Did I mention that the Foundation for Government Accountability estimates Congress could reclaim more than $193 billion in taxpayer funds if lawmakers had the cojones to repeal Biden’s massive food stamp expansion program.

To be fair, congressional Republicans have proposed legislation to create tougher work requirements for SNAP participants — food stamp recipients — designed to ensure that long-term recipients work at least part-time, while also ending the practice of several states waiving work requirements altogether. 

This should be a no-brainer issue for the Republican Party, but as history has shown us, time and time again, as soon as Democrats start lying to the public about GOP plans to "cut benefits" from Social Security and other government (taxpayer) benefit programs, a majority of Republicans reflexively fold up like cheap suits. 

Meanwhile, Bidenonomics: The socialist program that Democrats continue to lie about.