Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog
A WordPress Blog-THE CHURCH MILITANT Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse. ALL CONTENT FROM HTTPS://RATHEREXPOSETHEM.BLOGSPOT.COM MOVED TO THIS NEW BLOG, MAY 2020
South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman joins 'Fox & Friends First' to explain why he and other Republicans may vote against the debt bill.
Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., on his thoughts on the debt ceiling deal between Biden and McCarthy, and shares his Memorial Day message
NYC Mayor Eric Adams, in a surprising move, has called for every US city to share the load in accommodating migrants. Facing an increasingly overwhelming influx of newcomers, Adams has proposed this radical plan as New York grapples with thousands of new arrivals each day. Ironically, his 'share the love' approach emerges while his city, a proclaimed sanctuary, struggles to maintain its pledge amidst the sheer pressure of numbers and logistical challenges. Adams' suggestions are a stark contrast to his earlier rhetoric, revealing an interesting twist in his narrative. On the surface, this request to distribute migrants across all US cities might seem like a reasonable proposition. However, it unravels a deeper issue - the unrelenting tide of people crossing the southern border. The mayor's solution implies that New York, despite its sanctuary status, is feeling the strain from this surge, echoing the concerns of border states that have been grappling with this reality for years. Amidst his concerns about housing and resource allocation, the essence of the sanctuary city appears to be wavering, replaced by pleas for nationwide assistance. Adding another layer of complexity to this issue is the reopening of many of the city's shuttered hotels to serve as migrant shelters. As NYC houses more and more asylum seekers, questions of sustainability and long-term implications rise. The mayor’s move serves as a poignant reminder that the immigration issue continues to strain the resources and capacities of not just border towns, but also major cities across the country.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) questioned witnesses during a House Budget Committee hearing about the "Woke, Wasteful, And Bloated Bureaucracy"
Rep. Carol Miller, R-W.Va., says 'it's very important' that the House gets itself in fiscal order as a debt default date looms
Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., argues the U.S. needs to 'decouple' from China as soon as they can and discusses the NAACP's travel advisory for Florida.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has voiced stern criticism of President Biden's handling of the nation's looming debt ceiling crisis. In a harsh indictment, McCarthy asserts that Biden is prioritizing left-wing spending programs over the nation's fiscal health, a move that could potentially lead to a disastrous US default. The Republican leader's comments emphasize the widening chasm between Democrats and Republicans as they scramble to negotiate a resolution to this critical financial concern. The president's reluctance to engage in meaningful bipartisan dialogue further exacerbates anxieties around a potential economic disaster.
ABC News' Elizabeth Schulze reports on the latest developments in the negotiations over raising the nation's debt ceiling, as the nation inches closer to a possible default.
Negotiations over the debt ceiling have reached a standstill as the default deadline approaches. Republican Congressman Garret Graves says the decision was made to pause discussions earlier today. It's not clear when talks will resume. CBS News congressional correspondent Nikole Killion has more.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, discusses whether Speaker McCarthy can reach a debt ceiling deal with Biden by the end of the week
BY BRUCE THORNTON
SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/a-game-of-debt-ceiling-chicken/;
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
A feature of a divided government, especially when the House of Representatives is not controlled by the president’s party, is “debt-ceiling chicken.” The president’s party tries to bluff, with threats of a default, the House, which is responsible for initiating money bills, into giving the president whatever he wants, usually more money for redistribution, and no cuts to entitlement spending. The House does the same thing, usually pressuring the other party to accept spending cuts.
The cliff they’re both speeding towards is an unprecedented default on the government’s debt, which currently stands at $31 trillion. Each side calculates that voters will blame the other party, which will slam the brakes first as the cliff approaches. This year Joe Biden, or whatever Edgar Bergan or Edith Wilson is actually calling the shots until a week ago took a hard stand against any negotiations on raising the debt ceiling with a “clean bill” as the early June deadline looms.
The spectators of this show usually decry the “partisanship” and lack of “bipartisan” cooperation the two parties are exhibiting. Yet disputes over the budget illustrate what the Founders had in mind when they crafted a divided and balanced government––to exploit this factional competition, which reflects a flawed human nature and its passions and interests, in order to protect freedom by setting ambition against ambition. Also, this process can force a more careful consideration of a proposed policy, sifting out the dangerous features and bringing to light better ones.
Money is integral to this process. The desire for gain accompanies ambition and the lust for power. The ensuing disparities in property, as Madison pointed out, are the cause of rival political factions. Control of the public fisc allows factions to pursue their ideological aims at the expense of others.
During the writing of the Constitution, Gouverneur Morris similarly identified the major factions as comprising the poor and the rich, those with “great personal property” and the “aristocratical spirit.” The “Rich will strive to establish dominion & enslave the rest. They always did. They always will.” To check the ambition of the “rich,” “the popular [non-elite] interest will be combined [against] it. There will be mutual check and mutual security.”
Benjamin Franklin, in the convention’s discussion about compensation for the president, made a similar point in terms of government offices: “There are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money,” which when united in one man “have the most violent effects. . . . The struggle for them [in England] are the true sources of factions which are perpetually dividing the Nation, distracting its councils, hurrying sometimes into fruitless & mischievous wars.” A power like that of the proposed president will attract “the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits.”
These arguments based on a passionate and corruptible human nature explain why the Founders gave the “power of the purse” to the House of Representatives in Article 1.7.1.: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
The fuel of ambition is money, as we have seen over the last two years as the Biden administration has borrowed trillions of dollars in order to subsidize the Dems' political clients like public school teachers and corporate “green energy” grifters. Slowing down the growth in the yearly deficits that feed our monstrous debt lessens the Dems’ power to finance bad policies.
But why the House? Remember, originally the Senate was appointed by state legislatures, and so only indirectly accountable to the people. Given that money is the fuel of ambition, the Founders argued that money bills should originate in a branch whose members were directly elected every two years, to counter the more powerful Senators who have six-year terms.
As future vice president Elbridge Gerry said, the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse strings.” The House of Representatives, James Madison added later, “were chosen by the people, and supposed to be best acquainted with their interests, and ability.” The “power of the purse,” in addition to acting as a check on the whole government, protected federalism by giving the sovereign states leverage over the greater powers of the Senate to check the president.
That’s why George Mason argued against giving the Senate the “power of the purse”: “Should the [Senate] have the power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the Source from whence they received it. We might soon have an aristocracy.” Benjamin Franklin agreed: “It was always of importance that the people should know who had disposed of their money, and how it was disposed of.” Again highlighting the foundational belief in a flawed human nature and its lust for power, Mason continued, “An aristocratic body, like the screw in mechanics, working its way by slow degrees, and holding fast whatever it gains, should ever be suspected of an encroaching tendency. ––The purse strings should never be put into its hands.”
Finally, James Madison argued for the House controlling money bills as necessary checking the less democratic branches of the government: “The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. They in a word hold the purse, that powerful instrument . . . This power over the purse, may in fact be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”
This last argument explodes the claim today, usually from the technocratic progressives, that the House carrying out its Constitutional duty to check an overweening federal government is “obstructionism.” The only thing they are obstructing is the progressive ambitions for power and dominance at the expense of the Constitution and our unalienable rights.
And make no mistake: Our government’s relentlessly growing debt fueled by deficit spending paid for by borrowing; and its swelling entitlements long headed for bankruptcy, are now approaching disaster in a decade. Medicare and Social Security––which, along with other health care programs, consume nearly half the annual budget–– especially are at risk. Medicare Part A, covering hospital care, has enough money to pay benefits until 2028. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund which funds retirement and survivors benefits, will run out of money in 2034.
Meanwhile, the Dems keep squandering money on “green energy” subsidies and other pork while they fret over “transgender” pronouns, parents protesting over inappropriate public-school curricula, and phantom “white supremacists.” Worse, military preparedness and national security spending is stinted even in the face of China’s naked ambitions.
As Jeffrey H. Anderson writes, “While real per capita defense spending has dropped, Great Society spending has skyrocketed. To quote [The American Main Street Initiative’s] Quick Hits, ‘In real per capita spending, we spent more than five times as much on defense in 1975 as on Medicare and Medicaid combined. By 2019, we spent 56% more on Medicare and Medicaid than on defense.’ What’s more, ‘In 1975, the costs of Medicare and Medicaid consumed 7% of all federal tax revenue. In 2019, they cleared 30%.’”
Every nation, as Adam Smith famously said, has a lot of ruin in it. But our ruin will come sooner than we think if Republicans fail to do their Constitutional duty as the Founders intended, and at least slow down our feckless spending of money we don’t have. And we the people need to cheer them on and ignore the propaganda from the Dems and their media jackals. Winning the game of debt-ceiling chicken is a good place to start getting our country back on course.
Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., discusses the debt negotiations between House Speaker McCarthy and President Biden, and Federal Reserve Vice Chair Michael Barr's testimony before Congress.
BY JOSEPH KLEIN
SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/bidens-intransigence-pushes-america-closer-to-default/;
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
The day of reckoning, when the United States runs out of money to pay its bills, is approaching fast, as early as the beginning of June. Yet the Biden administration continues to play politics, blaming the Republicans for bringing the country to the brink of default. Do your constitutional duty, administration officials admonish the Republicans and raise or suspend the debt ceiling without any conditions.
After months of refusing to negotiate, President Biden finally hosted a meeting at the White House on May 9th with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Following the meeting, President Biden spoke to the press with no progress to report. He reiterated his refusal to negotiate a deal that would couple a debt ceiling increase or suspension with agreed-upon spending cuts at the same time. “I told congressional leaders that I’m prepared to begin a separate discussion about my budget and spending priorities, but not under the threat of default,” the president said. “We need to take the threat of default off the table.”
In separate remarks to reporters summing up his impression of the meeting, Speaker McCarthy said that he “didn’t see any new movement.”
The Democrat-controlled Senate meanwhile has done nothing to advance its own debt ceiling bill.
President Biden and the congressional leaders agreed to meet again on May 12th. Their staff will meet as well. Expect continued intransigence from President Biden and his Democrat allies in Congress.
Indeed, the White House continues to demagogue the debt ceiling issue. As evidence of the Biden White House’s bad faith, it has grossly distorted the contents of the House bill, which its disinformation agents pejoratively call The Default on America Act.
The House bill, entitled the Limit, Save, Grow, Act of 2023, is the only bill approved by a chamber of Congress that would avoid default. It allows an increase in the debt ceiling of as much as $1.5 trillion to avoid imminent default along with cuts in spending and green energy tax breaks. These cuts are intended to limit the future growth of the national debt. Speaker McCarthy has been consistent in opening the door to good faith negotiations so long as the debt ceiling and budget cuts are considered together.
But President Biden is not interested in negotiating. Instead, the White House is trying to scare the American people with lies about what programs the House bill would cut as the condition for agreeing to raise or suspend the debt ceiling. The White House is lying, for example, when it claims that the House debt ceiling bill contains cuts to veterans’ benefits. It does not. The White House also raises the specter that the House bill would strip nutrition assistance from women and children and would jeopardize food assistance for older adults. That charge too is misleading.
The White House did tell the truth that the House debt ceiling bill reverses President Biden’s executive order providing debt relief to higher education students, saving $400 billion. Republicans do not believe that it is fair to shift the cost of such debt that benefits a privileged group of Americans to all American taxpayers.
The White House cites studies estimating that a brief default could lead to a loss of nearly 2 million jobs and that a protracted default could lead to a loss of almost 8 million jobs. But the impasse that could lead to default is the fault of President Biden and of his congressional Democrat allies. It is up to President Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to move the ball forward to prevent default and the resulting loss of jobs that the White House claims it is so worried about.
Instead, the Biden administration is considering an end run around the debt ceiling that would call for declaring Congress’s debt ceiling to be legally invalid, ignoring the ceiling altogether, and continuing to borrow whether Congress acts or not. Several progressive law professors including Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, whom President Biden said has advised him “for a long time,” have recommended this course of action. If President Biden follows this recommendation, he would trigger a constitutional crisis by trashing the separation of powers. Even he admitted that the issue would have to be “litigated.”
By unilaterally declaring the congressionally mandated debt limit itself to be legally invalid, the executive branch would be usurping the judicial power of the nation’s courts to interpret the law, including the Constitution. By continuing to borrow above the debt ceiling without congressional approval, the executive branch would be usurping the explicit legislative power of Congress to “borrow money on the credit of the United States.”
Congress has used this legislative authority to cap the size of the federal debt and to raise the cap numerous times for more than a century. Congress has not delegated to the president his own authority to raise or suspend the congressionally mandated debt ceiling under any circumstances.
Not to be thwarted by the bedrock constitutional principle of separation of powers, however, Professor Tribe wrote a recent New York Times op-ed article outlining his ideas to get around this obstacle. He argued that the president’s duty to faithfully execute the laws includes the power to disregard one law – in this case, the debt ceiling – to supposedly save “all the spending laws Congress has enacted.” (Emphasis in the original) In other words, the law professor upon whom President Biden relies for advice believes that the president is entitled to choose the laws that he decides are valid and to violate or ignore those he decides are invalid. The progressive Left’s dream of dismantling America’s constitutional republic on the way to the one-man rule would be that much closer to fulfillment.
President Biden told the press that he was considering the option of invoking the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as a basis for acting unilaterally, which would rely on the 14th Amendment’s Public Debt Clause. The pertinent sentence in Section 4 states: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
Invoking this clause of the 14th Amendment to justify continued unilateral borrowing by the Biden administration past the current debt ceiling is complete “malarkey,” to use one of President Biden’s favorite words.
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment was drafted in the context of validating or voiding debts incurred during the Civil War. The focus was on validating debts incurred in putting down the rebellion while declaring that debts incurred in supporting the rebellion and claims for the loss or emancipation of any slave were null and void.
The author of an article examining the original meaning of the phrase “[t]he validity of the public debt . . . shall not be questioned” in the Public Debt Clause wrote that it should be interpreted narrowly. It “was understood at the time of ratification to be technical language prohibiting direct governmental debt repudiation only,” the author concluded from his exhaustive historical research.
The bill passed by the House of Representatives that raised the debt ceiling in conjunction with required cuts in spending and tax breaks does not repudiate or question any portion of the existing government debt. By no stretch of the imagination does the 14th Amendment give the president the power to ignore the existing debt ceiling and order his Treasury Department to continue borrowing without congressional authorization.
A recent poll asked Americans whether they prefer the Republican House’s approach of linking a debt ceiling increase with spending cuts or the Biden administration’s “clean” approach that would raise the debt ceiling without any required spending cuts. The result was that “50% select the House’s bill requiring spending cuts, while 25% would prefer a debt ceiling bill without requirements for spending cuts included.”
In the past, Mr. Biden has negotiated debt ceiling increases in combination with spending cuts in his capacity both as a senator and vice president. By refusing to do so now, the White House is manufacturing a crisis and engaging in demagoguery to try and score political points at the expense of the American people. But many Americans are catching on as President Biden’s approval ratings plummet.
BY ROBERT SPENCER
SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/biden-regime-still-shoveling-taxpayer-money-into-afghanistan/;
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
A new inspector general’s report released Tuesday gives us the latest evidence of the perfidy and anti-Americanism of the Biden regime: even after the Taliban took over in that country in the wake of the regime’s catastrophically botched withdrawal of American troops, the American taxpayer remains the world’s largest donor to Afghanistan. This is beyond absurd, as the Taliban, which is inveterately hostile to the U.S., is inevitably going to obtain some or all of that money, and could conceivably use it to finance attacks on Americans and U.S. interests. Is that what the traitor class that is running the Biden regime wants?
The Washington Times reported Wednesday that “some $2.1 billion has flowed to Afghanistan since August of 2021.” Biden regime officials, of course, insist that this is humanitarian aid that is “going to assist Afghans and not feed into the Taliban’s treasury.” The obvious problem with this, however, is that “the special inspector general for Afghan reconstruction said officials can’t say for sure that the Taliban isn’t siphoning some of the money away from the groups the U.S. is funding.” Of course. Why wouldn’t they? And what could conceivably stop them? In light of that, and the nefarious uses to which the Taliban could put the money, we shouldn’t be sending a penny to Afghanistan. But clearly, Biden’s handlers have different priorities from those involving the safety and well-being of the American people.
Inspector General John F. Sopko stated: “Since the Taliban takeover, the U.S. government has sought to continue supporting the Afghan people without providing benefits for the Taliban regime. However, it is clear from our work that the Taliban is using various methods to divert U.S. aid dollars.” He “pointed to reports that the Taliban levies fee charges on nongovernmental organizations still operating in the country. And in some areas, Taliban officials have ordered NGOs to provide assistance to Taliban personnel before others.” And of course, the Biden regime’s State Department “doesn’t know how much assistance has been siphoned off in that manner.” Why would they? They’re too busy implementing Critical Race Theory and putting on drag shows.
Meanwhile, the Christian news organization Mission Network News reported on April 3 that “the Taliban are offering money for Afghans to turn in any Christians they know. And Afghans are desperate, further heightening the security risk [to] Christians.” This might lead some to think that the U.S. should continue the humanitarian aid, so as to relieve the Afghans’ plight and ease the pressure on the country’s tiny and embattled Christian minority. But U.S. taxpayer money appears to be going straight to the Taliban.
Evidence for this was provided late last year. Da Afghanistan Bank, Afghanistan’s Taliban-controlled central bank, tweeted the images on Nov. 29, Dec. 5, Dec. 6, and Dec. 14, 2022: massive stacks of American hundred-dollar bills, wrapped in plastic, bar-coded, and placed in boxes or blue plastic bags on the tarmac at the Kabul airport. The bank said this was $40 million in “humanitarian aid,” but said nothing about who had sent it, and one observer said that judging from the photos, there looked to be much more than $40 million flowing into the Taliban’s coffers. So who was funding the Taliban with tens of millions in untraceable cash?
The prime suspect, of course, was Old Joe Biden and his handlers.
On Aug. 31, 2021, Old Joe declared, “We will continue to support the Afghan people through diplomacy, international influence, and humanitarian aid.” Then in January 2022, National Security Council spokes wonk Emily Horne said proudly: “The United States is announcing a new contribution of more than $308 million in humanitarian assistance for the people of Afghanistan. This brings total US humanitarian aid in Afghanistan and for Afghan refugees in the region to nearly $782 million since October 2021, and we remain the single largest donor of humanitarian aid in Afghanistan.”
Dr. Niamatullah Ibrahimi, whom the Australian Broadcasting Corporation identifies as “an international relations lecturer and Afghanistan expert from La Trobe University,” said that it would not be difficult at all for the Taliban to hijack this aid money: “The distribution and dispersal of the money are not very transparent. There is very little that we know about how this money is used in Afghanistan and the mechanisms of control over aid delivery.”
Indeed. But no one seems to mind, and the money just keeps flowing in. What could possibly go wrong? Ask Afghanistan’s Christians.
BY CATHERINE SALGADO
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
Sanctuary cities are money pits for taxpayers — who knew? Care of illegal aliens is costing cities — and thus local taxpayers—across the country billions of dollars.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) recently whined about having to care for too many illegals being bused from Texas, and New York City is also struggling. New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) angrily noted in April that the illegal migrant crisis has “destroyed” NYC. Ironically, both New York City and Chicago are or were sanctuary cities, run by radical Democrats. It turns out woke emotionalism gets very expensive to maintain. And who has to pay the most for it? Taxpaying citizens, of course. That’s the Biden border crisis.
Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) explained last week how illegal migrants are costing municipalities up to $451 billion yearly. That’s obscene. You can read his detailed computations, but I want to highlight a few key points. Remember too that there are tens of thousands of criminals and potential terrorists crossing illegally into the U.S. But, criminal or not, why should Americans who are already struggling in a bad economy pay billions of dollars a year for these non-citizens who are only here because they violated our laws?
Arthur made several estimates, one based on the NYC comptroller’s March report for money estimates and official statistics of illegal migrants for the number of individuals being paid for. If “got-aways,” or illegals who evade Border Patrol, and releases are included, municipal costs for single adults alone are $521,397,090 daily, “or a yearly total of $190,309,937,850,” Arthur estimated. That doesn’t include migrant families, which cost an estimated $89,378,706 per day, Arthur said.
Arthur then made a very conservative estimate of annual costs if not all migrants need the funding for an entire year:
If you assume that 30 percent of family migrants and 75 percent of the single adults don’t require care and housing, that brings the daily cost for families down to $89,378,706 ($32,623,227,690 per annum) and the adult costs down to $44,839,466 ($16,366,405,090 per annum), for a total per annum cost of $48,989,632,780. If they go to some place where the cost of living is 30 percent cheaper than New York, that cost drops to $34,292,742,946.
This does not include costs for education, hospitalization, or unaccompanied alien children (UACs). Meanwhile, the federal government is making what Arthur calls a “paltry contribution,” offsetting a mere “2.3 percent of… municipal costs,” at a hopeful estimate.
Using another estimate from RealClearInvestigations as the basis, Arthur noted municipal costs could be $451 billion annually.
Whether the total costs to cities and towns for caring for migrants is $451 billion or my most conservative estimate of more than $34 billion, it’s a lot of money for municipalities that are already trying to figure out how to pay for ordinary, day-to-day services and infrastructure for the non-“newly arrived”.
”A lot” is a major understatement. How is this sustainable? Illegal migration is set to spike with the end of Title 42, not improve, which will only mean billions more dollars extorted from American taxpayers to fund the Biden border crisis.
BY ROBERT SPENCER
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
Back in March 2021, Old Joe Biden named alleged Vice President Kamala Harris his “Border Czar,” while she herself told us what a tough but crucial job it was: “Needless to say,” Madame Heartbeat Away intoned, “the work will not be easy. But it is important work.” She then proceeded not to do it. Fox News noted in Jan. 2023 that “Harris has visited the southwest border only once since President Biden tasked her in March 2021 with addressing the root causes of the ongoing immigration surge.” And now the whole charade is beginning all over again, as Old Joe has given The Cackler yet another job she can ignore: Kamala Harris is the nation’s new AI (artificial intelligence) czar.
The White House announced Thursday that the Biden regime is taking “new actions that will further promote responsible American innovation in artificial intelligence (AI) and protect people’s rights and safety.” Principal among these actions was a meeting that Harris had that same day “with CEOs of four American companies at the forefront of AI innovation — Alphabet, Anthropic, Microsoft, and OpenAI — to underscore this responsibility and emphasize the importance of driving responsible, trustworthy, and ethical innovation with safeguards that mitigate risks and potential harms to individuals and our society.” Who could object to this? Who could be against underscoring responsibility and emphasizing being responsible? Anyone who was paying attention to what was really being said.
The White House press release also stated: “President Biden has been clear that when it comes to AI, we must place people and communities at the center by supporting responsible innovation that serves the public good while protecting our society, security, and economy. Importantly, this means that companies have a fundamental responsibility to make sure their products are safe before they are deployed or made public.” So that’s four repetitions of “responsible” and “responsibility” within the space of two paragraphs. “AI is one of the most powerful technologies of our time,” the White House also said, “but in order to seize the opportunities it presents, we must first mitigate its risks.” Thus along with all the emphasis on being responsible, we are told there are “potential harms” and “risks” involved with AI.
There certainly are risks involved with AI. Kids are getting it to write their school papers. In fact, it’s writing this column while I’m sipping a martini by the pool. (Okay, not really.) But it strains credulity to think that just when Old Joe and his henchmen are trying to improve Kamala’s tattered image, they would give her the job of making sure schoolchildren were doing their own work. No, she will likely do the job about as well as she has done the border job, but it’s clear that the regime is putting Harris on the AI beat because the irresponsibility and riskiness they’re so concerned about is the possibility that AI might tell people things that deviate from the Leftist establishment line.
It is, after all, abundantly clear at this point that the Biden regime is no friend of the freedom of speech. It tried to establish a Disinformation Governance Board; it worked with Twitter and the other social media giants to silence dissenting voices; and it is in general the least transparent administration in recent memory. And Harris has been at the forefront of efforts to stamp out dissent. Back in June 2022, the New York Post reported that she focused on “developing programs and policies” and that she was heading up a new internet policy task force that was working to protect “political figures” from “disinformation,” “abuse” and “harassment.”
Related: Chinese Communist Party Mandates AI Chatbots ‘Reflect Core Values of Socialism’
This was treading dangerous ground in terms of the First Amendment, as “abuse” and “harassment,” to say nothing of “disinformation,” are subjective terms. What was to prevent the person who is charged with judging what constituted them — Kamala Harris, evidently — from considering sharp criticism, or even any criticism at all, no matter how accurate or justified, to be abuse or harassment?
And now she is the AI Czar. There can be little doubt that she will be working to ensure that whatever forms AI takes and whatever it communicates to the American people, it will not give Americans any unwelcome ideas, or lead them to think any thoughts that might take them off the Leftist reservation. Those who understand the importance of the freedom of speech as the foundation of any free society can only hope that Harris’ performance will be as perfunctory and indifferent as her performance at the border.
BY RICK MORAN
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
Last January, when Consumer Product Safety Commission member Richard Trumka Jr. suggested that the entire U.S. could follow the lead of Berkeley, Calif., and ban the use of gas stoves, conservatives lit into the CPSC and Trumka for even suggesting such a thing.
New York Senator Chuck Schumer called suggestions that the government wanted to end the use of gas stoves in residences a “MAGA conspiracy theory.” “Nobody is taking away your gas stove,” he said.
That may be true. But if you like cooking with gas or heating your house with gas, don’t try to relocate. The chances are good that if you want to move to a blue state in the next couple of years, you’re going to be forced to cook with electricity. That’s because it will soon be all the rage in blue states to ban the installation of gas stoves in all new construction.
The movement to rid the planet of gas stoves got a big boost on Wednesday when the New York legislature passed a bill that would ban gas stoves in new residences starting in 2026.
Why? Gas stoves are powered by natural gas — a fossil fuel. There have also been a couple of studies showing that cooking with gas can give your child asthma. Or something.
Steve Everley, writing in National Review in January, covered several flaws in the most recent studies finding serious health impacts from gas stoves. Experimental studies that found links between gas stoves and child asthma used airtight rooms without ventilation. The author of another much-touted meta-analysis finding a link between gas stoves and child asthma said their study “does not assume or estimate a causal relationship.” Masses of earlier studies, Everley notes, have found no health impacts from gas stoves.
In the short-term, mandated electrification of appliances is probably worse for the climate. On-site use of gas stoves and furnaces uses almost all the energy in the gas. Generating electricity from gas and then using that electricity to power appliances is much less efficient. Of New York’s 10 largest power plants, for instance, five are powered by natural gas.
Cherry-picking scientific studies to “prove” something is dangerous is dishonest and anti-science. But eco-fads like banning gas stoves wouldn’t be possible without climate hysterics driving the conversation and the media lapping it up like good little puppies.
Does it matter that people actually like their gas stoves?
“Most home chefs—and pretty much all professional chefs—will tell you that electric stoves take a long time to heat up and are far less responsive when changing heat levels. Induction stoves, which are actually quite fast to heat up, require different types of cookware and kitchen thermometers, in addition to being a lot more expensive than electric stoves,” wrote Reason‘s Liz Wolfe earlier this year.
This is a consequence of demonizing fossil fuels. The “devil’s breath” is not a hazard, nor does it contribute measurably to net carbon emissions. In fact, it wasn’t so long ago that greens were demanding the coal-fired plants be repurposed to burn natural gas.
As soon as I buy my “Mr. Fusion,” I’ll give up my gas stove.
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
NGO Monitor has released its 2022 report: USAID 2022 West Bank and Gaza Grantees: Vetting Gaps Remain. The report highlights the U.S. government’s failure to properly vet Palestinian beneficiaries of aid. But maybe it isn’t really isn’t about vetting at all. Enough is known about the Palestinian Authority and its support for jihad terror groups, which is precisely what prompted Donald Trump to withhold American funding. The record of the Biden administration and its palpable sympathy for the Palestinians raises justifiable doubts about its reasons for lax vetting.
In 2018, the Trump administration withheld an additional $45 million from the jihad terror-linked United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). That’s what due diligence looks like. And while complaining that Palestinians would “starve” because of Trump’s cuts, the Palestinian Authority (PA) purchased a $50,000,000 private jet for Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. The “State of Palestine” also built 100 embassies globally and funded jihad terror prisoners, even while constantly begging the world for cash.
In 2018, Trump signed the Taylor Force Act to end American aid to the PA until the PA stopped paying money through the Palestinian Authority Martyr’s Fund to the families of Palestinian jihadist prisoners and suicide bombers. Nonetheless, the Biden administration resumed shoveling aid to the PA, ignoring the Taylor Force Act. The implications of the payment of American dollars to the PA are obvious. In 2021, the Muslim Brotherhood praised the Democrats for siding with jihad terrorists against “Zionist attacks.”
Less than two months ago, Tom Nides, Biden’s ambassador to Israel, stated: “I spend 60% of my time trying to help the Palestinian people.” He boasted: “I was the first person out there when Ben Gvir went up to the Temple Mount to stir up trouble.”
NGO Monitor’s communications director, Itai Reuveni, stated: “USAID grantees should align with US goals and values.” But that would depend on whose values one is talking about. For the first time, Gallup has found that “Democrats’ sympathies in Middle East shift to Palestinians.”
“Biden Admin Continues To Fund Palestinian Groups Supporting Terrorists, Watchdog Says,” by Kate Anderson, Daily Caller, May 1, 2023:
The Biden administration is funding several Palestinian organizations despite their leaders’ support for and glorification of terrorism, according to a report released Monday by NGO Monitor, an Israeli research and watchdog group.
NGO Monitor released its 2022 report Monday calling out the U.S. government for failing to thoroughly vet Palestinian applicants to its foreign aid programs. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a U.S. federal agency that administers civilian foreign aid and development assistance, approved thousands of dollars in 2022 to fund several Palestinian organizations which have members or leaders with concerning views on terrorism, according to the report.
“NGO Monitor’s findings demonstrate that there remain blindspots in USAID vetting, allowing NGOs led by individuals who glorify violence to receive US taxpayer funds,” NGO Monitor’s communications director Itai Reuveni told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “USAID grantees should align with US goals and values.”
The Palestinian Charity for Youth Economic Empowerment (CYEE) was given $76,000 in 2022 by USAID for “60 emerging female leaders,” according to NGO Monitor’s report. For instance, CYEE Project Coordinator Haneen Al-Qawasm celebrated Ghassan Kanafani, a spokesperson for the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a U.S. designated terrorist group since 1997, as a “revolutionary” and martyr in a Facebook post, according to the report.
CYEE Executive Director Sahar Othman has also cheered for Palestinian terrorists on her social media after several were killed in fights with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), according to the report.
Community Development and Continuing Education Institute (CDCE-I) received $78,000 from USAID for a project that “encourages youth participation and accountability in local governance.” The organization’s board members, however, have expressed sympathy and even glorified Palestinian terrorism against Israel on multiple occasions, according to the report……
BY ROBERT SPENCER
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
If you had any doubt that Bernie Sanders (I-USSR) was an actual Communist, doubt no longer. The guy who stands ready in case Old Joe retires and the Democrats opt to pick another octogenarian Leftist sat down Friday for a chat with Chris Wallace on HBO Max, and declared that if someone earns more than $999 million in a given year, the U.S. government should seize all of it. That’s right: all of it. Not 90 percent. Every last penny. And he showed no indication of having any idea why this policy if it were ever enacted, would kill the economy and leave non-billionaires worse off than they were before. Or maybe, given the unanimous record of socialist states, that’s the idea.
The UK’s far-Left Guardian reported Tuesday that the trouble started when the failed CNN host Wallace asked the twice-failed presidential candidate Sanders about a statement in the old Commie’s book It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism. Sanders, by the way, receives royalties for that book, and there is no cap on the income he can earn; if it becomes a bestseller, he will get more money. At no point will anyone step in and tell Bernie, who owns three houses, that he is making too much money, and has to turn over the rest to the wise Leftist bureaucrats who will duly redistribute it to those in need.
Wallace asked Sanders about his declaration in that book that “billionaires should not exist.” He asked the old leech: “Are you basically saying that once you get to $999m that the government should confiscate all the rest?” Sanders unabashedly owned up to backing systematic and organized grand theft, replying: “Yeah. You may disagree with me but, fine, I think people can make it on $999m. I think that they can survive just fine.” This is precisely the kind of deceptive argument that Leftists love to use in order to justify their evil and inhumane policies.
In reality, there is no doubt that Bernie Sanders is right: people with 999 million dollars will do just fine. But that is not the only aspect of this scenario that needs to be considered. Bernie started to rail against Walmart, claiming, according to the Guardian, that it “in many cases pays starvation wages to its 1.2 million employees.” Sanders asserted that “many of their workers are on Medicaid or food stamps. In other words, taxpayers are subsidizing the wealthiest family in the country. Do I think that’s right? No, I don’t.”
This betrayed Bernie’s failure to understand basic economics. He deplores the idea that Walmart workers are collecting government benefits; apparently, he believes that the Walton family, which owns the retail giant, should pay better wages so that the government doesn’t have to offer welfare benefits to Walmart employees. All right. But he was saying all this in the context of explaining why he thinks that wages after a certain point should be confiscated entirely by the government. If that plan were implemented, the Waltons would have less money. It would be more difficult for them to pay the wages Sanders is demanding, and the government would have to take up the slack with the money it confiscated. So Sanders’ proposal would end up reinforcing the system he hates.
Impervious to logic and common sense, Sanders insisted: “You can have a vibrant economy without [a few] people owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society.” He said that if he ever becomes Dear Leader, er, that is, president, “if you make a whole lot of money, you’re going to pay a whole lot of money.”
Related: California Goes Full Communist: Utilities to Base What They Charge on How Much You Make
On the surface, it sounds just, and that’s why it takes in superficial thinkers such as Sanders’ friend and acolyte Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But Sanders shows no appreciation of the fact that the billionaires he wants to rob are the people who provide jobs for those who aren’t billionaires. If the rich can only earn a certain amount by law, they’ll go to other countries where they can keep more of what they earn, or they simply will not produce as much. Why should they, if the government is going to take it all?
The ones who suffer from all this socialism, in the end, will be the poor about whom Sanders claims to care. The places where they might have worked will have gone to other countries that offer a more favorable tax structure. The people who might have started a company that would have employed them will have no incentive to do so. That’s why socialist countries are always economic basket cases and always will be.
Sanders has every reason to know this. He loves Communism so much that back in 1988, he and his new bride honeymooned in the Soviet Union, apparently delighted to visit a totalitarian state that imprisoned and enslaved its own people. Brute force is the only way you can force people to work if they have no economic incentive to work hard. That’s the paradise this old Commie envisions for the country that used to be known as the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., discusses how the EPA might require gas-fired power plants to install technology to capture carbon emissions on ‘The Bottom Line.’
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., explains how her 'no' vote on Republicans' debt ceiling bill eventually turned into a 'yes' one.
Green Charter Township, Marshall Township, and Novi Township are about to be completely changed by these new multibillion-dollar electric vehicle battery factories in Michigan - but only if we give 583 million taxpayer dollars. Gotion High Tech (Chinese) - Ford - and Our Next Energy Inc. Now is your chance to use your voice. Wednesday, March 22 2023 the Democratic-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee will be voting on approval of the corporate welfare.
Chen Li is the President of Gotion High Tech, & the direct boss of VP Chuck Thelen. Who is his boss? Why does it matter? Deep Dive into leadership style, Chinese influence, and Globalist Utopians - oh my!
BY RICK MORAN
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was pleased with herself last October when she announced that Gotion High-Tech, a Chinese EV battery company, was building a plant in Mecosta County. In making the announcement, she said the plant would “strengthen Michigan as the “global hub of mobility and electrification.”
That may be true. But it didn’t impress residents who appear to be almost universally opposed to the idea. It seems that Gotion’s company by-laws contain a curious stricture: Gotion must carry out “Party activities in accordance with the Constitution of the Communist Party of China.”
Related: Biden Administration Moved a Lot Faster Against Proud Boys Than Chinese Communists in New York
That didn’t sit well with many local residents, who asked the Michigan Senate Appropriations Committee to vote down the $175 million plan.
“I am gravely disappointed that our representatives are serving the demands of our governor over the request of our citizens. I can attest, however, that our community is now united in ways they would have never been before. They do not want this,” Hannah Saez, the clerk of Big Rapids Township, stated. “Thousands of Michiganders will be watching today. I know you all receive daily emails and phone calls. I know you’re under pressure. I know you’ve probably been coerced. I beg of you to do what is right here even if corruption is knocking at your door.”
During the Michigan state Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, lawmakers led by Democratic state Sen. Sarah Anthony, the panel’s chair, gave final approval of $175 million in taxpayer funding for Gotion — a subsidiary of the Hefei, China-based Gotion High-Tech — to build an electric vehicle (EV) battery plant in Big Rapids. The measure passed in a tight 10-9 vote with every committee Republican and three Democrats voting against it.
The funding was approved after a period in which members of the public were invited to deliver feedback about the project at the hearing. Nearly all the residents who spoke slammed the proposal and expressed concern about a company based in China developing a factory in their state.
“I think that any Chinese communist plant buying up 700 acres of Michigan land is a concern to all citizens throughout the state,” Cheryl Vitito declared. “This CCP-controlled company represents communism and is a threat to our way of life and our God-given and constitutional freedoms. We don’t want the CCP here by way of the Gotion plant as they have no regard for the value and dignity of human life.”
In fact, there appeared to be undue haste in ramming this measure through the committee before opposition forces had time to organize.
Kyle Luce, the supervisor of Barton Township, said 85% of his constituents opposed the plant. “Our citizens are concerned with the timeframe that’s going on here,” said Luce. “The timing seems to be sped up exponentially to, in our opinion, try to seal the deal and get this done before people have a chance to speak out, residents have a chance to speak out. And individuals, the fine senators, are digging up information daily about the CCP involvement.”
“I’m angry,” local resident Marjorie Steele snapped. “I’m angry that this vote was slipped into the agenda today with as little information as possible so that people like me wouldn’t know it was happening. I’m angry that you, our elected officials, have ignored my community’s pleas to table this vote until some small semblance of due diligence can be performed. I can promise you that we will not stop at the local level.”
The Appropriations Committee voted in favor of the proposal 10-9. It now moves on to the full Senate for approval.
_________________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://batteriesnews.com/volkswagen-gotion-high-tech-battery-cell-production-germany/
Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., says House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is acting like the ‘adult in the room’ trying to strike a debt ceiling deal.
BY RICK MORAN
Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.
Calvary Chapel in San Jose, Calif., is a large evangelical church that defied state and local orders to mask up during services and maintain “social distancing.” Of course, we now know that mask-wearing was about as effective against spreading COVID-19 as wearing a necklace of newt entrails and “social distancing” was a bad joke.
But it’s not the science. It’s that the church defied authorities. So now Calvary must pay the state of California $1.2 million in fines because they got bureaucrats mad at them.
So there.
Is there anyone who doesn’t think $1.2 million for not wearing masks is fair? Is it even reasonable? Vindictiveness should not be a part of the American judicial system ever, and no rational, sane person can say that a $1.2 million fine for disobeying COVID-19 mitigation efforts that have now been found to be wildly ineffective is anything but judicial vengeance.
Calvary Chapel sued the county, arguing the health orders violated its religious freedom. Various courts have ruled either in favor the church or the county.
The church and its pastors were previously held in contempt of court and fined for violating limits on indoor public gatherings. But a state appellate court reversed those decisions last year, saying that the restrictions on indoor worship services were stricter than for secular activities such as going to grocery stores.
The county continued to seek fines for violations of mask-wearing regulations.
The judge wrote an opinion that was so 2020.
“It should appear clear to all — regardless of religious affiliation — that wearing a mask while worshiping one’s god and communing with other congregants is a simple, unobtrusive, giving way to protect others while still exercising your right to religious freedom,” Superior Court Judge Evette D. Pennypacker wrote in the April 7 ruling imposing the fines.
The judge was doin’ the time warp with County Counsel James Williams.
“The county’s response to the pandemic, including the health officer’s public health orders and enforcement against entities that refused to follow the law, saved thousands of lives and resulted in one of the lowest death rates of any community in the United States,” Williams said.
That there’s no evidence for that is immaterial. It sounds wonderful.
But this is all about obedience and Calvary refused to obey and encouraged others to disobey. The church, Judge Pennypacker wrote, flouted public health orders “and urged others to do so ‘who cares what the cost,’ including death.”
Take that, you devout Christians, you.
That bit about “who cares what the cost including death” is not applying any law — it’s a rhetorical flourish in a legal opinion that doesn’t belong. Pennypacker is way off the reservation by claiming that the Calvary church leaders didn’t care if people died. That’s a ludicrous statement and reveals the judge’s anger that her previous orders were not obeyed.
Anger has no place in a legal opinion.
This one will make its way through the courts and may even wind up at the Supreme Court. What’s certain is that these fines are meant to retaliate against a group of people who defied public health orders.
