Thursday, January 9, 2025

Lessons From Germany's Economic Contraction


Germany’s once-envied efficient economy is in freefall, and the climate change cult and European Green Deal are directly to blame. State policies subsidizing EVs and other products, shutting down coal and nuclear plants, and mandating forced conversion to untested, unimplemented “renewables” resources for energy have decimated industrial efficiency. Industries and blue-collar jobs are fleeing Germany for polluting, profitable operations in China, India, and elsewhere abroad. Will the United States follow suit?

As natural gases skyrocket during a European cold snap, and Russian gas pipelines through Ukraine are shut down for the first time since 1991, Germany has transitioned from Europe’s economic darling to its leading economic anchor. Followed closely by France and the UK, similarly weighted by economically destructive climate fantasies that are crashing to Earth like ideological meteors, the latest blow to gas supplies compounds the crisis occasioned by the mysterious sabotage of Nord Stream 1 and 2.

The results of this disastrous state-controlled economic carbon dioxide experiment continue to be as evident as explosives in a controlled demolition. Germany terminated massive EV subsidies at the end of 2023; EV sales promptly fell 69%. Despite gushing economic promises of “high-paying jobs” in the renewables industry, Germany announces more layoffs almost daily. Chinese companies, unhindered by escalating energy and regulatory costs, are leading in EV and other manufacturing technologies while spewing more chemicals into the ecosystem than German manufacturing industries.

The climate cult is pushing jobs and pollution out of Europe, amplifying bothfor nations like India. German icon Volkswagen has threatened to close factories for the first time in its history, and recent layoffs of 35,000 (and wage reductions for 120,000) employees are harbingers of more to follow. Consumers are burdened by high energy prices for heat and travel. Fund managers and NGOs may be profiting from renewables manufacturing policies, but workers, consumers, and the ecosystem are all being systematically eviscerated in the boondoggle pursuit.

Will the U.S. continue to follow Germany’s demonstrable folly? If the legendary German industrial model is being crippled by destructive climate change policies, the anemic American one (with unpredictable tariffs looming) is similarly threatened.

However, there is hope stateside -- the United States possesses precious natural gas supplies that Germany now lacks and has not shuttered its fossil fuel production. Renewables manufacturing, as well as the production of plastics, cement, steel, and fertilizers, all depend on high-temperature processes only available through fossil fuels or nuclear power. They cannot be replaced with solar, wind, or other energy sources, as Germany is proving despite big plans to convert its entire economy to renewables overnight. (Indeed, cutting traditional energy production in Germany fueled a vicious economic cycle by inflating natural gas prices.)

As one market observer summarized:

The effect of the green agenda can be summed up as a long path to the gradual degradation of Europe's energy security and a resulting path to deindustrialization. The Ukraine conflict only exacerbated it…

The EU economy is already stagnated, with companies signaling a continued drive toward deindustrialization of their domestic economy, while the New Year brings many new challenges that threaten to accelerate the process.

Germany’s precipitous economic decline has not deterred climate fantasists in the U.S. from continuing to push the same dangerous gambit here.  As displayed in a Harvard International Review article, climate cultists simplistically attribute the blatant economic failures in Germany to the Ukraine War and slow implementation of climate policies stymied by a “paper-based bureaucracy” and consumer NIMBYism.

Though Germany’s fragile balancing act worked well for the better part of two decades, its strategy fell apart when Russia invaded Ukraine and the West began to heavily sanction Russian gas. Energy prices quickly rose 35 percent compared to pre-war levels, leading to inflation and culminating in the serious economic woes Germany experiences today.

Blaming Russia for Germany’s failed renewables policies is a watch-the-birdie distraction from the truth about the Green New Deal in the U.S. and the EU’s Green Deal.  Additionally, Harvard International Review perpetuates easily disproven tropes that “renewables” are somehow “clean” technologies preferable to the nuclear power that supplied German industry:

One of the main justifications for Germany’s departure from nuclear power is the planned transition to renewable energy sources -- a key reason why the Green party has supported the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. While these sources are indeed more sustainable than nuclear energy, which is not renewable, German renewable energy infrastructure is nowhere near developed enough to provide stable supplies to its massive industrial base.

The claim that “renewables” manufacturing -- dependent on fossil fuels and generating a myriad of unregulated ecotoxins in production, distribution, and end-of-life disposal -- is cleaner than modern nuclear reactors is patently untrue.  Leveraging this trope, once-prestigious Harvard’s naked-Emperor solution to Germany’s economic decline is to double down on renewables manufacturing:

Given restricted and uncertain natural gas supplies and a serious energy shortage exacerbated by phasing out nuclear power, it appears most advantageous for Germany to leverage all policy tools to transition to renewables as soon as possible. However, the country's transition to renewables has been notably lethargic, plagued by a bureaucratic quagmire that threatens its energy security, environmental commitments, and economy.

The opposite is the economic case: Germany’s “transition to renewables” has caused its economic decline, not the other way around. Europe’s Green Deal is flushing renewables industry (and academic) “stakeholders” with mountains of fiat currency while flushing factory jobs and German standards of living down the economic toilet. China, India, and other developing economies are reaping an economic boom at the expense of western economic health but also global environmental health -- their industries produce renewables and other goods unhampered by Western environmental regulations (for Western-subsidized sale to Western consumers).

Sadly, Europe’s economic implosion is likely to accelerate sharply in the coming months. The United States is well advised to reconsider its rush to follow Germany’s once-lively economic canary into the climate cult’s poisonous ideological coal mine.



at

X22, On the Fringe, and more- Jan 9

 



at

Paradise Lost. LA Fires

 

The first job of the government is to keep people safe. 

Failing that, its job is to show that someone is in charge when crisis erupts. On 9/11, there was nothing then–Mayor Rudy Giuliani could do to keep the World Trade Center from falling. Yet he became, in that long-ago era, the most popular person in America by staying on the scene and leading at his city’s moment of greatest danger.

That brings us to the fires in Los Angeles—the most devastating in the history of the city, with a reported 27,000 acres burned and the fires mostly uncontained. There, authorities have failed not only at protecting its residents but at inspiring confidence that they had the situation in hand.

We start with Mayor Karen Bass. As the Palisades fire began to consume wide swaths of America’s second-largest city, she was in Ghana to watch the inauguration of that country’s new president.

Bass left Los Angeles on Saturday—two days after the National Weather Service warned that strong winds and “extreme fire weather conditions” would soon threaten the city. On Sunday, the NWS announced a fire weather watch. By Monday, the warnings had become much more urgent, with the NWS tweeting in all-caps that “A LIFE-THREATENING, DESTRUCTIVE, Widespread Windstorm” would hit L.A. imminently.

Yet Bass remained halfway around the world, effectively leaving the crisis to her deputies. They, in turn, insisted Bass could run the city from anywhere via phone and tablet.

The fires raged. They spread, eventually engulfing the upscale Pacific Palisades. Bass left the glittering entertainment capital of the world—a paradise that, for all its many faults, is arguably one of the nicest places to live on the planet. When she finally returned on Wednesday, much of that paradise had been reduced to rubble.

Since Bass began her long trip back, her responses to reporters’ questions have oscillated between stone-faced silence and stammering, borderline-incoherent answers. Bass couldn’t even tell residents the name of the website where emergency resources could be found—sticking to a script provided by aides, she said it could be found at “URL.” Since her reemergence, she has done nothing to restore public trust.

But this isn’t just about Bass. A great city can survive a bad mayor, or even a series of bad mayors. This is a story about the failure of California to prevent, or capably mitigate, a long-predicted catastrophe, and how a state that was once a model of good governance came to prioritize the boutique concerns of ambitious politicians over the basics of what government must do.

There are always excuses in moments like these, some more valid than others. California is, in a sense, built to burn: Its warm climate and vast woodlands can, and often are, a deadly combination. Any city, regardless of who’s running it, would struggle with winds reaching 100 miles per hour, especially one sitting on a tinderbox of dry vegetation. Climate change exacerbates the issue.

But none of that explains how one of America’s great cities—the biggest in the fifth-largest economy in the world—is burning to the ground. The failure here, at heart, is an entirely human one.

California loves to spend, increasingly moving toward a model of governance where good money constantly chases after bad. Newsom has spent some $22 billion to combat homelessness since he took office and yet, there has been a 3 percent increase in homelessness in the last year. Newsom also made California the first state to have its Medicaid program cover illegal immigrants. This blatant sop to progressive activists is now expected to cost Californians $6.5 billion a year.

Los Angeles has the same problem with nonessential spending, albeit at a smaller scale. The city allocated $1.3 billion to combat homelessness last year, although the city comptroller found that half of that money has gone unspent. The Los Angeles Fire Department got a good deal less than that—$837 million—a budget that has since been cut by $17 million.

Would that $17 million have made a difference? Who knows. Answers are increasingly hard to come by in California. When asked by Anderson Cooper why the fire hydrants in the Pacific Palisades had run dry, Newsom responded that “the local folks are trying to figure that out.” The buck always stops somewhere else in the Golden State.

There have been many proposals in recent years to make fighting—and preventing—massive fires easier and more effective in California. Yet for some reason they never go anywhere. California seemingly always has money for expensive Band-Aids and pricey, ineffective NGO grants. But they’ve neglected the basics: crime (the murder rate is up more than 15 percent since Newsom took office); public education (per-pupil spending has gone up under Newsom even as test scores have plummeted); and now firefighting. The Pacific Palisades fire alone has consumed some 17,000 acres as of this writing. The whole island of Manhattan is 14,000 acres.

In 1969, New York mayor John Lindsay—like Newsom, a young and attractive liberal who dreamed of the presidency—saw his political career effectively end when a blizzard dropped 15 inches of snow on the city. Streets went unplowed for days, leaving the city paralyzed. Lindsay’s White House dreams ended then and there, amid heckles from his constituents. He’d lost his focus on the basics.

None of Lindsay’s successors ever let such a weather disaster occur again. Big Apple politicians had learned a lesson. Now it’s the California political class’s turn.

https://www.thefp.com/p/paradise-lost-karen-bass-los-angeles-fires?utm_campaign=email-post&r=rd3ao&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

at

American Public Has High Hopes for NewTrump Administration

 American Public Has High Hopes for New Trump Administration

The incoming administration has an opportunity—if it can meet expectations.

President-elect Donald Trump emerges from behind a blue curtain to greet supporters. | Matias J. Ocner/TNS/Newscom

(Matias J. Ocner/TNS/Newscom)

Having soured on lame-duck President Joe Biden, Americans are anticipating the inauguration of his successor—and predecessor—Donald Trump. Whether they're looking forward to the new administration eagerly or with dread depends, but Trump won the election with a higher vote tally than his opponent, so we can assume that more people than not are pulling for him. That doesn't mean the public thinks his path will be easy. Voters foresee success in some areas, with rockier prospects in others.

Many Expect Things They Care About To Improve

"Expectations are highest that Trump will control illegal immigration, which 68% of U.S. adults predict he'll do," Gallup pollsters reported last week. "Smaller majorities believe he will reduce unemployment, keep the country safe from terrorism, improve the economy, keep the country out of war, cut people's taxes or reduce the crime rate."

Specifically, 60 percent think the return of Trump heralds reduced unemployment and improved safety from terrorism, 58 percent expect the economy to improve, 55 percent see the new president keeping the U.S. out of war, 54 percent foresee taxes reduced, and 51 percent anticipate lowered crime rates.

Fortunately for the incoming administration, the areas where Americans expect success correspond pretty closely with the public's priorities. The things people most care about feature highly in the list of those they expect to improve over the next four years.

"Both Democrats and Republicans cite immigration, the economy, inflation, and foreign policy as top issues," AP-NORC pollsters revealed in a poll published this week. Rising in importance by 12 points from a year ago, immigration was ranked as the most important issue by 47 percent of voters (69 percent of Republicans and 32 percent of Democrats). Foreign policy, which certainly involves the possibility of war, was down by three points from a year ago but still named as a top concern by 35 percent of respondents (40 percent of Republicans and 30 percent of Democrats). The economy, up by six points from a year ago, was cited as a top issue by 30 percent (35 percent of Republicans and 25 percent of Democrats).

Separately, the Tax Foundation found that "more than 80 percent of respondents think the US federal tax code needs reform." More than half say taxes are too high, while two-thirds call the tax code unfair.

Some Are Bound To Be Disappointed

That said, agreement goes only so far. According to AP-NORC, Republicans emphasize concern for government spending and debt while Democrats focus on climate and the environment. Both groups are likely to be disappointed on those points—at least, most people expect that to be the case.

"Majorities of Americans do not think Trump will heal political divisions in the country, improve the quality of the environment, improve the healthcare system, improve race relations, improve education, substantially reduce the federal budget deficit, improve conditions for minorities and the poor, or reduce the prices of groceries and other items," adds Gallup.

That's probably a realistic assessment. There's certainly no real national consensus over environmental issues at a time when President Biden is spending some of his last moments in the White House issuing executive orders that prevent future oil and gas exploration along much of the U.S. coastline in an obvious effort to thwart President-elect Trump's plans to "drill, baby, drill." During the presidential campaign, voters generally trusted Trump over Biden/Harris on energy issues and, despite the incumbent's last-gasp efforts, climate will be deemphasized under the new administration.

Similarly, while concern over federal deficits and the growing national debt are well-founded, there's not a lot of room for optimism. Trump showed little inclination towards restraint on spending during his first term, and Biden took that as a hold-my-beer challenge when he succeeded Trump. The federal government has been spending beyond its means for decades. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, deficits have grown, topping $1.8 trillion in 2024. Federal debt and, importantly, debt held by the public rather than owed by the government to itself, have correspondingly soared as a percentage of GDP. This is a recipe for disaster, but unlikely to be resolved soon.

As for other issues for which Americans surveyed by Gallup predict little chance of success, some, such as political divisions and race relations, are cultural matters that evolve over time. Politicians might make them worse, but social tensions that developed over decades aren't going to be healed by soothing words from an elected official.

It also took the government decades to break education and healthcare with meddling, centralization, and generally bad policy. Americans are addressing education concerns themselves by embracing alternatives to public schools. As for healthcare, well, few politicians are eager to tell the public that it can't have the cost-free medical utopia that it desires. Tweaks around the edges for appearances' sake will likely make things worse.

And while many people's budgets were ravaged by inflation, it's a lot easier to increase the money supply and devalue the dollar than it is to return prices to their earlier levels. Trump himself admitted last month of grocery prices that "it's hard to bring things down once they're up."

But soon-to-be President Donald Trump is fortunate that majorities of Americans generally expect him to be successful on the matters about which they care the most. That's why more people voted for him than for Kamala Harris, after all. The public expects him to make the world safer, saner, and more affordable in ways that matter to them.

Americans Expect Too Much of the Presidency

Of course, having expectations of a politician doesn't mean those expectations are reasonable or achievable. Biden is a one-term president because he disappointed the public. The arrogance of his administration played an enormous role in its downfall, including its insistence on imposing big costs and changes that were resented by millions of Americans, and on muzzling dissent. But also playing a role is the excessive weight people place on the presidency; the belief that an elected official should wield vast power, heal all ills, create prosperity, and protect the weak—but somehow without subverting freedom.

What Americans want from the president is impossible to achieve—even before we get to the damage most chief executives inflict on the country and themselves.

In his second term, President-elect Donald Trump has an opportunity to fulfill the optimistic hopes of the Americans who put him back in office. We'll see if he's up to the job.


at

BREAKING: BC Conservative Party alleges election fraud

 The Conservative Party of BC leader, John Rustad, announced a ground-breaking finding in Surrey-Guildford, alleging election irregularities that altered a critical result in 2024.


Rustad and former candidate Honveer Singh Randhawa unveiled evidence they claim highlights systemic issues with mail-in voting and voter integrity.

The allegations focus on Argyll Lodge, a licensed addiction recovery facility in Surrey. According to Rustad, 21 mail-in ballots were cast by residents of the facility, which has a capacity of 25 beds.

Witnesses report that some residents denied requesting mail-in ballots or even being aware of the election. It is further alleged that staff at the facility coerced residents into marking ballots according to their preferences, violating their voting rights.

Additional irregularities include one voter casting two ballots under different names and 22 individuals voting in the riding despite not residing there. The Conservative candidate for Surrey-Guildford, Honveer Singh Randhawa, lost the election by just 22 votes after a judicial recount.

Rustad pointed to amendments made by Premier David Eby to the Elections Act in 2019 and 2021, which he argues enabled these issues. He criticized Eby for failing to address concerns about election integrity, despite proposing a committee to review electoral processes.

Rustad and Randhawa have demanded a judicial inquiry under the Public Inquiry Act to compel testimony and access records. Randhawa also announced plans to petition the Supreme Court of British Columbia to invalidate the Surrey-Guildford election results.

The Conservatives have pledged to introduce legislation in the upcoming legislative session to tighten election rules, including proof of citizenship requirements for voters.

“Our only priority is getting the truth and safeguarding our democracy,” Rustad said. Elections BC has yet to respond to the allegations. Meanwhile, Rustad urged individuals with knowledge of election irregularities to come forward under a proposed 90-day amnesty from prosecution.

This story underscores growing concerns over election security in British Columbia, as the province grapples with allegations that could shake public trust in its democratic institutions. 


https://thecountersignal.com/breaking-bc-conservative-party-alleges-election-fraud/?utm_source=The+Counter+Signal&utm_campaign=92d16d485b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_01_09_06_32&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-92d16d485b-563028235

at

You Think We Republicans Have Problems? Just Look at the Democrats


We Republicans have plenty of internal issues. It’s not all hugging n’ sunshine on the right side of the aisle. We're building an unprecedented coalition that includes new members who don't agree with a lot of things us old-school Republicans agree with, and we still have some residual dinosaurs from the Paleolithic Era who don't know what time it is and don't know who our enemies are. We've got a tough road ahead, but we are stumbling down it. We're working out compromises among our multiple factions, and we've been remarkably successful in overcoming the obstacles in our path – witness the House getting past the continuing resolution and speaker issues. We have a pretty good idea of what we want to do and a general idea of how to do it. We know who we are. Sure, the GOP sucks, but there's a light at the head of the tunnel, and it might turn out not to be an oncoming locomotive.

But the Democrats are completely screwed.

Compare what they believe in with what they say they believe in. The cunning and reptilian James Carville correctly identified that the key issue is the economy. If the Republicans master this economy and make it great again, we will do fine for the next few election cycles. If we blow it – and don't underestimate the ability of Republicans to blow stuff – we're going to get crushed in the next few election cycles. Carville, who's criticized the Democrats because he's not stupid, says the best strategy is to go even more populist than ever. In fact, his idea is to go so populist that the Republicans can't compete. And that's an interesting idea, one that matches up with the Democrats' preferred self-image as the champions of the little guy, but it also runs head-on into the Democrats' reality. It is not the party of working people anymore. In fact, the Democrat Party hates working people. Working people like God, families, guns, and America, which makes them racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and probably fatist. What do Democrats offer the working class? More lectures? More limits? More hardships? You can't have cars, you can't have steaks, and you certainly can't have a rifle. You can have subways full of homicidal hobos, cash giveaways to Ukrainians and Third World peasant invaders, and government employees trying to talk your son into becoming your daughter. Enjoy!

What's the economic gift that the Democrats are going to bestow upon the working class? Socialized healthcare? Well, they already gave us Obamacare, and that was supposed to fix the system, yet the system is terrible, according to Democrats. Apparently, the answer is to do more of what they already failed to do.

And what's the other populist thing they could try? Increase taxes on the rich? Who do you think the rich are? There's still some sort of image in these people's collective head that the Republican Party is the party of the Monopoly Man twirling his cane and peering through his monocle while wearing a top hat. But today's megarich people aren't Republicans, except for Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and a few of their friends. The billionaires almost all donate to the Democrats. Do you think the Democrats are going to raise their taxes? Well, the Democrats are never going to raise the billionaires' taxes because the billionaires will find ways not to pay taxes. The people whose taxes they will have to raise, because they are where the money is, are the mostly college-educated professional swells who make in the low six-figures and will suddenly find themselves paying 40% federal, 15% state, and all sorts of other tax assessments. Those people happen to be a large part of the new Democrat base. Uh oh.

So, understand the Democrats' conundrum. To be the populists they want to be, they have to shaft some of their key voters. They have to turn against the scheming lawyers, the woke HR managers, and the fat bureaucrats who make much more than people who actually produce things in order to fund the massive spending that they want to use to buy back the working class voters who fled to Donald Trump. Their problem is that you can't be an effective socialist party when all the money that you need to spend to be socialist comes from the people who are your voting base. Socialism is about stealing the other team’s voters’ money, and the Democrats' problem is there are no other people with money to steal from. 

The Democrats certainly can't tax the welfare cheats who make up much of their base, the working class folks have no money to loot and, as we saw above, the Dems cannot tax the zillionaires effectively. That means all those Chardonnay-swelling wine mommies who helicopter parent over their non-binary children Kayden and Ashleigh are the ones who are going to get hit with the bill for any new populism. And they're not going to like it. We're already seeing some of that. The Democrats are pressing hard to reinstate the unlimited SALT deduction. SALT means the "state and local tax” deduction, which allows people to deduct what they pay to their state and local governments from their federal income taxes. Thanks to the Trump tax reforms, that deduction has been limited. Many people pay a lot more than that limit to their state and local governments, and they used to be able to deduct every penny. Poor people don't benefit from a SALT deduction because they're not paying taxes anyway. The effect of the SALT deduction is to subsidize high-tax states, and high-tax states tend to be blue states, so reinstating the SALT deduction is a tax cut for affluent Democrat voters who don't sweat when they work. That's not very populist.

Who are today’s Democrats if not populist? Woke scolds. What are they really about besides encouraging bizarre social pathologies? And who really cares about those things? Yeah, the frigid wine women care about them, and the faculty lounge types, too, but the normal people don't. Normal Democrats don't have any use for this stuff. It's just that when they complained about wokeness, they got trashed by their own side so they shut up. And then what happened? Well, a lot of them left and came over to join our new coalition. They voted for Trump because they're sick of having some dude dressed as a chick leering at their daughters in the locker room because the dude now says his name is Anastasia, and the Democrats running things demand that we all pretend that he's a girl.

Today’s Democrats are not party of a populist party. They are a party of bespoke and perverted ideas generated by pseudo-intellectuals for the benefit of weirdos to the detriment of normals. It's not just the trans nonsense. It's the embrace of criminals. It's the fetishizing of racial grievances. It's the demand that we genuflect at the altar of the climate hoax and give up the pleasures that make life worth living, like steak, trucks, and central heating. And it's the utter hatred of America itself. There was a time when Democrats liked the United States of America and, ironically, the nephew of the last Democrat president who truly loved America is now in line to join the incoming Republican administration.

There have been some Democrats who have pointed out the obvious and suggested that this might not be an optimal electoral strategy, that maybe they should focus on things that normal voters want rather than the demands of social media-savvy mutants. The challenge for Democrats is that this woke garbage has become their religion, and its believers can't tolerate heretics. The party is powerless to change until it has a brutal internal fight and the forces of creepiness lose.

The Republicans had their civil war starting in 2015, and it finally ended when neocon Nikki Haley lost her primary in 2024. We are now relatively united, though we still need to sand off some of our coalition's sharp edges. The Republican Party has a path forward, because it knows who it is, but the Democrats don't. They're stuck where they are because they haven't confronted the problems and internal contradictions inherent in their ideology, nor have they confronted the fact that they've driven away a substantial number of the voters that used to be able to count on. They attributed that migration to the inherent badness of the people who deserted them, living out the Seymour Skinner "No, it's the children who are wrong" meme. Until the Democrats have it out and resolve the irreconcilable differences inside their party, they're going to continue to deteriorate. And that's great. I’d say, “Let them fight,” but they refuse to. And until they do, they will lose.



at

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


at

Neil Oliver ASKS THE RIGHT QUESTION


Oh boy, if you have an in tune spidey sense you will likely see the necessarily angled presentation by GBNews Pundit Neil Oliver, as he discusses the ‘rape gangs’ which have been operating in the U.K for decades.

After putting the context in its correct, horrific and evil place, Mr. Oliver asks the right question, repeatedly, “why now?” Why is this conversation taking place at this specific moment?

Neil knows that when attention is being focused on such a capacity that it makes those who do not want to pay attention, pay attention; it is at that moment when we need to stand back and look around.  Whose interests are being served within the “now” question.

Elon Musk could have focused attention on the 500,000 missing, presumed exploited, children in the USA; or he could have drawn attention to the scale and scope of North American human trafficking that dwarfs, only in scale – not depravity, the British rape gangs. However, those American domestic horrors are not the attention-grabbing focus of Musk, why not?  Why the ‘look over here’ aspect to the attention.  WATCH:



Personally, I always find Oliver’s big picture questions and discussions to be very pertinent.  In the subtext to his narration, Oliver alludes to something even more problematic from the world of politics.  Something so much more consequential inside the question.

The “why now” is almost certainly because those who want the distraction, needs a story of such consequence (‘child rape gang’) in order to provide cover for the issue advancing, but not being discussed.  (1) The total takeover of liberty by an elite group under the guise of digital identity; (2) Artificial Intelligence driven control and surveillance facilitated by the tech industrialists; and (3) the need for war against Iran.

Who stands behind all three points noted?  [SEE HERE]



at

The Case for Cracking Down on Looters


Everyone who has been watching the news out of California is saddened. This is one of these cases where human sympathy should overlook politics; people, many of whom aren't overtly political in any case, are losing their homes, and have been in danger of losing their lives. Emergency personnel are in the field, doing their dangerous work. Many of us - me included - have friends and family in California, making this a crisis that affects the whole country.

Yes, if California's public lands and forests had been managed properly, this wouldn't necessarily be happening. That is a vital discussion to have, and there has to be some accountability for the people who let this happen, either through inaction or willing malfeasance to appease environmentalists.

But there's another problem to deal with: Looting. Some looters have already been arrested.

During a press conference Wednesday, Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna said two looters were arrested Wednesday morning in evacuation zones and issued a stark warning to anyone thinking of committing any further crimes.

"If you are thinking of coming into any of these areas to steal from our residents, you're going to get caught, you're going to be arrested, and you're going to be prosecuted," Luna said. "Don't do that! Stay out of these areas. It's only for emergency workers and people who live there."

Los Angeles County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone also stated that there have, so far, been two deaths and many injuries in the fires, along with millions in property losses. So looting is something that must not be tolerated or excused.

In addition to two deaths, Los Angeles County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone said many others were hurt in the fires, which threatened at least 28,000 structures.

At least 70,000 residents were ordered to evacuate, officials said. The flames marched toward highly populated and affluent neighborhoods home to California’s rich and famous. Hollywood stars, including Mark Hamill, Mandy Moore and James Woods, were among those forced to flee.

This is a deadly serious matter - which is why looting must be dealt with harshly, as a severe crime with life-threatening consequences.

There are three reasons for this.

First: The looters here, or indeed in any natural disaster, are not just stealing; that's bad enough. They are taking advantage of a major crisis in which people are forced to flee their homes, sometimes with nothing but what they can carry. Looters in these circumstances are taking callous and hateful advantage of a dreadful situation. Furthermore, they are entering into a dangerous region, an area that is literally on fire, which takes callous disregard to a new level and endangers lives. Looting during civil unrest carries the same risks and must also be considered as life-threatening.

Second: Looters distract law enforcement from other vital duties, like helping to direct evacuations. Police must stop with their emergency duties to pursue, apprehend, and transport these criminals, and every moment they spend doing that rather than assisting with evacuation is endangering lives. During these fires, every possible warm body must be directed towards the work of securing evacuation routes, assisting citizens, and dealing with the blaze.

Third: Looters are sometimes not just one or two individuals but many; in the summer of 2020 we saw mobs of looters causing millions, if not billions, of dollars in theft and property loss. Even when informally organized, mobs of looters - and thankfully we haven't seen any mob looting in the LA area - can represent a serious threat to law enforcement and emergency services like fire and ambulances, thereby endangering lives.

Clearly, this can't be allowed to go on.

Looting during a natural disaster or a riot is not a crime like shoplifting or even smash-and-grab robbery. It is a much more serious offense and must be dealt with harshly. The operating assumption for law enforcement or even National Guard troops must be that these are criminals engaged in offenses on the level of attempted homicide, as their actions could very easily result in severe injuries or deaths. 

Sheriff Luna's statement struck the right tone but must be followed up with action. Two perps have already been arrested. Let us hope that this will serve as discouragement for other would-be looters. But if any more arrive on the scene, they should be immediately stopped, by whatever means are required, tried, and if convicted - yes, they have constitutional rights like anyone else - harshly punished. 

This is a crime that we simply cannot and should not tolerate.


at

Watch Biden's Grossly Inappropriate Response to the LA County Wildfires

Matt Vespa reporting for Townhall 

Joe Biden is mentally cooked and almost out the door, but he had to do what presidents do during these natural disasters. The wildfires engulfing Los Angeles County is the second inferno Biden has dealt with. He led Maui burn to the ground and took his sweet time visiting the island, whose residents endured the worst wildfire seen in almost a century. The president was briefed on the raging wildfires that have so far killed at least two people, destroyed over 1,000 buildings, forced 70,000 from their homes, and charred close to 30,000 acres. None of the fires have been contained (via CBS News): 

During his visit to Los Angeles, President Joe Biden was briefed Wednesday morning by local law enforcement and fire officials on three wildfires which have killed two people and injured several others as powerful winds carried them across over 20,000 acres.

More than 80,000 people have been forced to flee from their homes as the three fires led to mandatory evacuations, before burning more than 1,100 structures completely to the ground including several homes. But authorities have warned the battle for firefighters is far from over — forecasts of more powerful winds could further complicate their efforts and spread the flames even further. 

"What we saw here in the last 24 hours is unprecedented," Los Angeles Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell told President Biden during a briefing a Santa Monica fire station Wednesday, where local fire officials met with Biden and Gov. Gavin Newsom. 

"I've never seen anything like this — fires driven by the type of winds that we saw, up to 100 miles per hour," McDonnell said. 

It’s likely Joe didn’t understand much because he decided to share the news that he’s a great-grandfather. People’s lives have been destroyed, Biden. No one cares that you’re a great-grandpa, man: 

Also, what’s this: LAFD shipped firefighting gear to Ukraine. It fits the theme—Joe Biden announced another $500 million goodie bag today, too (via The Federalist): 

The Los Angeles County Fire Department shipped equipment to Ukraine in 2022, and now the Biden administration is working overtime to send the country millions more in handouts as wildfires devastate California. 

Perhaps ABC 7 put it best in 2022 when it declared that “all over southern California people are finding ways to keep Ukraine front and center and it’s no different for the Los Angeles County Fire Department.” 

The fire department donated its own “surplus” supplies to help a foreign regime and is now caught flat-footed without the capacity to respond to the Pacific Palisades wildfire, which continues to cause deaths and untold damage to thousands of acres of land, including countless homes. 

Far-left Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who is missing in action because she is busy attending an event in yet another foreign country, Ghana, also slashed the Los Angeles Fire Department’s budget by $17.6 million for the 2024-2025 fiscal year. Her initial proposal was $23 million. 

The city has faced firefighter shortages for several years, and the number of federal firefighters from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has also atrophied considerably since 2020. USFS also ended certain forest management projects, like prescribed burns in California, after President Joe Biden opposed a bill to help contain fires, claiming it would have undermined wildlife and environmental protections.

We are awash with incompetence. In some areas of LA County, there was no water in the hydrants. Biden is gone in 12 days. 

***

Santa Monica is now under expanded evacuation orders.


at