Russia’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports gained over 4% in the first quarter of this year as it increased output to replace sanctioned pipeline gas exports to Europe, Russia’s Kommersant newspaper reported on Monday.
Citing a 4.3% (8.7 million metric ton) increase in unsanctioned LNG exports in Q1 2024 based on data from Kpler, Kommersant.ru said exports to the European Union were rising, while those to Asia were declining. Russia’s LNG exports to Asia for the first quarter of the year saw a 7% decline, which was made up for by a 4% increase in exports to Europe, which received some 5 million tons of Russian LNG during that time period. The bulk of LNG production in Russia comes from the Yamal LNG project, run by Novatak, and the Sakhalin Energy project, run by Gazprom.
In late March, Moscow moved to sell Shell’s minority stake in the Sakhalin LNG project to state-run Gazprom for $1 billion. Initially, Moscow was planning to give the stake to Novatek in the wake of Shell’s move to abandon the project after Western regimes sanctioned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. According to Russian newspaper Vedomosti, Novatek has deemed its participation in the Sakhalin project to have high legal risks.
The new data showing the rise in Russian LNG exports to the European Union indicates that Europe has replaced piped Russian gas from its eastern ports with Russian LNG at its western ports as the bloc becomes the biggest buyer of Russian LNG, clocking in half of all Russian LNG export volume this year so far, followed by China, which scooped up 21% as of February data.
Reuters data analysis in February also showed that the EU has replaced Russian piped gas flows with Russian LNG imported primarily to Spain, Belgium and France.
Germany Reportedly Goes On Military Spending Spree To Hit NATO Spending Minimums For First Time
In 2006, NATO defense ministers agreed that each member country would commit at least 2% of its GDP to defense spending. Nearly two decades later, some member countries have not met the target, only to be recently reminded by former President Trump to ramp up defense spending or face severe consequences.
Perhaps Germany’s ruling coalition heard Trump’s warning loud and clear. A new Bloomberg report, citing people familiar with the plans, reveals the German government is planning to purchase two additional F126 frigates via Damen Group/Blohm plus Voss/Lürssen/German Naval Yards for three billion euros and 900 Fuchs armored vehicles manufactured by Rheinmetall for four billion euros.
F126
Fuchs armored vehicles
Bloomberg confirmed the 7 billion euros in spending for the two ships and 900 armored vehicles will “enable it to meet NATO’s goal of spending at least 2% of gross domestic product annually on the military this year for the first time since it was agreed by the alliance’s defense ministers in 2006.”
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz reaffirmed Berlin’s commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defense in mid-February.
“We Europeans must take much more care of our own security, now and in the future,” Scholz said. It comes as NATO members across Europe were recently spooked when Trump suggested he would not defend “delinquent” NATO allies.
One has to wonder if Germany’s move to meet the 2% threshold is because Trump’s election odds in November look very promising over President Biden’s.
According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, European defense spending currently averages 1.6% of GDP. This means more military spending is inevitable for the bloc, which will only lead to a new decade of military spending as the defense bull market roars.
“Rheinmetall is screaming hot, but there are many other European arms manufacturers who stand to benefit. No doubt that for the NATO members dramatically increasing defense spending is their best defense against Putin’s threats of offense. Same with a potential Trump return as President and demands that they either dramatically pick up defense spending and burden sharing or be shunted aside at an incredibly dangerous time.”
A dangerous emerging multipolar world only bodes well for the bull market in the defense sector.
Entirely as predicted, Police Scotland has been deluged with vexatious and politically-driven ‘hate crime’ reports, with one top official complaining “we cannot cope.”
Didn’t see this one coming.
Under the new legislation, anyone deemed to have been verbally ‘abusive’, in person or online, to a transgender person, including “insulting” them could be hit with a prison sentence of up to seven years.
That instantly led to a flood of bad faith reports, including from conservatives making a mockery of the system and from deranged left-wing activists trying to punish their ideological adversaries.
David Threadgold, Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, said that the new legislation was being exploited to pursue personal and political vendettas.
“Police Scotland have gone public and said that on every occasion, reports of hate crime will be investigated,” Mr. Threadgold told the BBC. “That creates a situation where we simply cannot cope at the moment.”
“When you have vexatious complaints, people who look to weaponise this legislation or who make these complaints for personal gain or political point scoring, then that creates a problem for the police which can affect public satisfaction in my organisation,” he added.
As we previously highlighted, Police Scotland admitted that the new law could create “additional demand” and create a “resource implication” for police.
This followed a trial of a separate program set to be implemented across the country to stop investigating crimes like theft and criminal damage, which authorities acknowledge will help criminals.
As we reported yesterday, out of the more than 8000 reports police have received under the new ‘hate crime’ law, less than one per cent are leading to investigations.
Police Scotland are having to pay officers in their control room “hundreds of thousands” in overtime to deal with the onslaught of frivolous reports.
However, that’s still nearly 800 new investigations in a single week for a police force that already has stretched resources.
It’s been a complete disaster, but they can’t say nobody warned them.
* * *
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
(Featuring: The Three Big Lies of “Climate Action”)
Everybody talks a good game when asked about environmental concerns. But they underestimate what real “climate action” will cost them, personally, and they’re prone to balking when they figure it out.
In 2018, The Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago conducted a survey of 1,202 people asking them if they thought climate change was an issue, and if so, how much were they willing to contribute, out of their own pockets, towards “fixing it”:
71% of the respondents said that climate change was a reality, and most of those thought human activity was largely responsible for it.
57% said they’d be willing to spend $1/month, or $12 annually.
23% were willing to go big: $40 a month, in order to “fix” climate change.
A more recent study of ten European countries in 2021 found that most people feel as though they are already doing their part to live a climate conscious lifestyle – and further – they are individually doing more than those in the media, or their governments (hold that thought).
In other words, while most respondents believed that there was an impending climate crisis, they also believe they had already made all the personal lifestyle adjustments they’ll need to make in order to address it.
These attitudes are pretty typical of a populace who has already undergone massive conditioning by the media and academia around climate alarmism, but who otherwise live largely insular, bubble-wrapped lifestyles and think food comes from Uber Eats.
They have no idea that that climate targets, like “netzero” or Agenda 2030 will cost more them more than a few hundred bucks a year, per person, to “fix”.
Even with carbon taxes becoming more prevalent – citizens think the extent of the impact on their lives are the economic pressures of them inexorably rising (here in Canada, the carbon tax went up 23% on April 1st, the same day all federal Members of Parliament got a pay raise).
That’s bad enough – but people are still completely unprepared for what has already been decided from on high for their personal destinies:
Climate Action requires a complete re-ordering of society and civilization itself.
“De-carbonization” requires “#degrowth”, a euphemistic hashtag that really means forced austerity on all of humanity – save for those apparatchiks imposing it on the rest of us.
The Big Lie of climate alarmism is threefold:
That the climate goals of netzero and decarbonization can boost the economy and increase prosperity for all
That achieving said goals will afford us control over the climate and alter the planetary physics of the earth itself
That this is all “settled science”
Let’s look at each of these in order:
Big Lie #1: Pursuing Netzero will boost prosperity
Many politicians like to gaslight us that there is a way achieve netzero targets in an economically beneficial manner. A good example, again here in Canada – is the carbon tax.
Everybody pays the carbon tax – on gas, on flights, on heating their homes, etc. Most households get a “carbon tax rebate” – which is invariably, for less money than they have paid in carbon taxes. This is borne out in countless analyses on this, including the government’s own Parliamentary Budget Office report, which found that:
“most households will experience a net loss of income from the federal carbon tax, even after rebates.
Specifically, in fiscal year 2024-25, 60 per cent of households in Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba will pay more in carbon taxes than what they receive in rebates, after accounting for both direct and indirect costs of the carbon tax. By 2030, 80 per cent of households in Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. will be worse off, as will 60 per cent of households in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Indeed, according to the PBO estimates, the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian household between $377 and $911 in 2024-25—even after rebates, with Albertans being the most affected. As the carbon tax escalates annually, the financial burden will intensify. By 2030, the carbon tax’s average net cost for Canadian households will rise to $1,490 in Manitoba, $1,723 in Saskatchewan, $1,820 in Ontario and $2,773 in Alberta.”
— Via Fraser Institute
Yet the Trudeau government frames the rebate as “free money” for Canadians, and demonizes anybody who wants to “Axe The Tax” as though they are trying to take money away from taxpayers.
The Libs are going keep doubling-down on the nonsensical claim that #AxeTheTax would actually take money away from Canadians.
— Mark Jeftovic, The ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) April 6, 2024
If decarbonization was economically viable, then it would be happening on its own, without governments and the corporate media relentlessly brainwashing us to do it.
For example, we would probably have mini-nuclear reactors all over the place by now if private industry was given some latitude to implement it.
Big Lie #2: Achieving Netzero will enable us to control the planet’s climate
There has perhaps never been a more grandiose and categorically impossible vision for humanity than the one where technocrats and experts can massage the trajectory of global climate through the judicious employment of carbon taxes, personal carbon footprint quotas and forced collectivism.
On the planetary level – it makes no difference if a country like Canada decarbonized 100% – compared to the emissions of China alone. Right now they’re lighting up two new coal fired plants every week. Wake me up when they decarbonize.
Not to mention numerous other countries who have no intention of foregoing their shot at economic prosperity at the behest of already an affluent (not to mention overly sanctimonious), West…
“Let me stop you right there…”
Caribbean nation Guyana is booming after discovering oil. BBC’s Stephen Sackur puts it to President @presidentaligy; lobbyists say oil is bad for the climate.
The discrepancies in values and aims between nation states already makes the 100% conformity that climate action requires a non-starter.
That doesn’t even account for things we absolutely can’t control like the solar system itself.
The best and brightest minds can’t even get interest rates right, nor “manage the economy” and that’s near 100% human driven. What are we supposed to do about the elephant in the room in terms of the single most relevant driver of climate cycles here on the planet: the sun?
Our sun outputs an estimated 6 billion times more energy per second than all of humanity generates and consumes in an entire year. It is the likeliest candidate for what drives long term heating and cooling cycles, not only here on earth – but throughout the entire solar system.
Granted – that energy radiates in all directions – if you only count all the energy that actually hits earth, that number drops: to 100 million times annual energy usage, per second.
No amount of carbon taxes or collectivism is going to overpower that.
Big Lie #3: The Science Is Settled™
Decades of propaganda and operant conditioning has browbeat the public into believing, or at least not arguing, that “the science is settled” when it comes to climate. One of the most well worn tropes around this is “97% of climate scientists agree” that “humans are causing global warming”.
In 2013, Australian researcher John Cook analyzed 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on climate change, from which the famous, mystical 97% figure emerged. It later came out (via UN lead author Richard Tol), that of those papers, 66.4% expressed “no opinion at all” on human-caused global warming. Those were eliminated.
The minority of papers that were left, and did express an opinion, were mostly on the same page, and Cook took his 97% from that.
What is actually true, however, from the study’s own numbers, is this:
11,944 papers were analyzed
7,930 of them expressed no opinion on AGW (66.4%)
97% of the remaining 4,013 papers did
So it turns out that 97% of climate scientists do not agree that humans are causing global warming. It was more like 32.5% (97% of 33.6% of 11,944).
Doesn’t have the same punch, does it?
Of course, since then, 97% became Holy Canon. So much so that any climate scientists who knew what side of the bread the butter was on, got the message loud and clear: your academic career depends on aligning with the consensus.
So called “climate deniers” are continually deplatformed and countervailing data suppressed. This may be changing, again owing to widespread disenfranchisement with how the “experts” managed the pandemic, the public seems to be more questioning.
The recent Climate The Movie: The Cold Truth has gone viral – and in it we see how the machinations of Big Climate may be driven more by junk science and hidden agendas than an altruistic desire to protect the environment.
So it’s no surprise then, that the climate alarmists are turning out in full force to have it suppressed:
I’m thinking we can get 10,000 people to report “Climate: the Movie” on YouTube as having harmful and misleading content.
After the botched policy responses to Covid, when it comes to climate, the public increasingly isn’t buying it. We’ll see this in action when the Canada’s Liberals, who have clearly gone “all in” on climate, lose the next election. I’ve been predicting a 1993-style blowout (when Bryan Mulroney’s deeply loathed Conservatives lost all but three seats, including their party status).
However, the public seemingly possesses but a single lever to resist all this: the ability to vote out politicians hellbent on impoverishing them.
But if the rabble continues in its propensity to vote the “wrong way”, how much longer will they be permitted to do so?
As we’ll see below – this lever will have to be rescinded, because otherwise the world will end.
Which is why the only forward course of action is political, economic and cultural tyranny.
If the plebs won’t voluntarily accept climate action – it will have to be forced on them.
The unpleasant truth is – if policy makers are serious about achieving netzero, it will require a massive policy of degrowth that will impoverish the masses and demolish the economy – none of which is conducive to being re-elected.
Which means: if world governments are serious about climate action, they will have to impose a totalitarian dictatorship to achieve it.
This has already been understood and internalized by the mainstream corporate media – after experiencing the destruction of their monopoly on “news” at the hands of the internet – have aggressively pivoted into a new business model: that of being propagandists for eco-Marxism.
Academia is right there alongside, putting out research papers to enshrine climate collectivism into the public discourse, and freeze out any dissenters.
In “Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change”, Ross Mittiga, a professor of Political Theory at the Catholic University of Chile (and Democratic Socialist) argues that political aspirants should not even be permitted to seek office unless they pass a “climate litmus test”;
“Governments might also justifiably limit certain democratic institutions and processes to the extent these bear on the promulgation or implementation of environmental policy. This could involve imposing a climate litmus-test on those who seek public office, disqualifying anyone who has significant (relational or financial) ties to climate-harming industries or a history of climate denialism.”
“More strongly, governments may establish institutions capable of overturning previous democratic decisions (expressed, for example, in popu- lar referenda or plebiscites) against the implementation of carbon taxes or other necessary climate policies.”
”what do truly low-carbon lifestyles look like – and can they really be achieved by personal choice alone?“
Future Labs – also out of the UK – put out a paper on the future of travel last year, that predicted mandatory “carbon passports” that would limit one’s travel based on their C02 footprint:
A personal carbon emissions limit will become the new normal…
These allowances will manifest as passports that force people to ration their carbon in line with the global carbon budget…
By 2040, we can expect to see limitations imposed on the amount of travel that is permitted each year.
Experts suggest that individuals should currently limit their carbon emissions to 2.3 tonnes each year
This last line is important – because it puts a number to how far down the rabble is expected to ratchet down their living standards: it’s about onequarter of what the typical G20 citizen emits today – by 2040, and “experts suggest” that gets cut again by half by 2050.
In the carbon passports article I laid out a table showing by how much individuals in each country would have to ratchet down their output to meet the personal carbon allowances, set by unelected and unaccountable experts:
Both politicians and their appointed apparatchiks are being more open about their ideologies and decidedly collectivist aims:
In 2023 a federal report published by Health Canada openly advocated for the dismantling of capitalism itself, equating it with white supremacy and colonialism – attributing them all as core drivers of the climate crisis. Another term for “capitalism” is “free markets”.
The report also advocated for collectivism and decried individualism as “one of the core values of society that has to change”:
“The hopes expressed by participants encompassed such a vision of collectivism”
“there are 3 core values in western society, and for that matter, in global society, that have to change. One core value is about growth and materialism. The second core value is liberty and individualism, which has to be rethought because the kind of individualism that is preached by neoliberals is part of the problem. It advances the individual over the collective… it leads to a huge number of problems, and it undermines the collective process”
“If we don’t address capitalism, if we don’t address colonialism, racism, the patriarchy, et cetera, we’re going to tread water for a long time until we eventually drown …”
As I remarked at the time: this was not a think piece or a screed from Vox or Jacobin Magazine – it was an official Canadian government report issued in the name of “His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Health, 2023”.
Canadian politicians across all parties have been coalescing around climate authoritarianism for decades. In 2007, Canada’s Laurentian Elite met in Merrickville, Ontario to discuss how best to advance the climate agenda – and was later analyzed via a series of interviews with the participants who comprised a who’s who of Canadian dynastic wealth, corporate power, politics – and media.
They transcended party boundaries: Former Prime Minister Joe Clark, Justin Trudeau bagman Stephen Bronfman, Patrick Daniel (Enbridge), Stéphane Dion, former Quebec premiere Pierre Marc Johnson, WE Charity co-founder Mark Kielburger, the list goes on.
From the “strictly confidential” briefings which are openly linked from this UCLA professor’s web page we learn how Canada’s elite ruminated about the lack of action on climate change, and how untenable the required societal mobilization would be in a democracy:
“It is impossible to have real conservation in a democracy! What is needed is a benevolent dictator—globally, and in Canada.”
During the proceedings…
“…many speakers express a longing for an authoritative decision process that somehow takes the issue out of the political arena. Some express this as the need for a “benign dictator;”
This move toward climate authoritarianism is spreading throughout the neoLiberal world order – most recently in Germany a “Climate Justice” report by the German Ethics Council concluded that “restricting freedoms may be necessary to fight climate change”.
“Responsibility presupposes freedom, and freedom includes responsibility. This principle also applies for climate change; it is crucial for our free and democratic society and safeguarded and guaranteed by law. Social coexistence requires mutual restrictions of freedom, in order to provide equitable freedom for all.“
“The inner and rationally guided realisation of the necessity for action leads to self-commitment as an expression of one’s individual freedom. This may imply that people question their former lifestyle or adapt their behaviour, for example by voluntarily abandoning certain vacation, consumption or mobility practices.”
And the Orwell Award goes to:
“On grounds of justice, it can be morally required to contribute to measures to tackle climate change. If one’s own exercise of freedom interferes in an unjust manner with the freedom and welfare of others or of future generations, for example through consumption that is harmful to the climate, the authorities may intervene with restrictions of freedom.
As long as there is no regulatory obligation, it is left up to the individual to accept a moral obligation to co-operate.”
We could probably even riff out one of those Martin Niemöller “First They Came For…” poetic reboots:
“First they came for the Bitcoin miners (but I didn’t care because I was a no-coiner)…” (or one of those PoS retards).
“Then they came for…” yada yada yada – guess how it ends?
“Then they came for me, because of my heated bathroom floors”
There’s only one other problem with all this…
#Degrowth For Thee, But Not For Me
It’s not bad enough that your consumption choices are being decided for you by unelected technocrats informed by garbage computer models predicting an unfalsifiable eco-Eschaton.
What’s worse is that while you’re personal standard of living is going to be attenuated, metered, capped and regulated (this is what the coming CBDCs are all about) – the apparatchiks, functionaries and career politicians who force this on you will not ratchet back their own consumption patterns, not at all.
When I reported on COP26’s takeaways (basically, they’re coming after your meat consumption), what stood out the most was the hypocrisy of a strategic objective emerging from an elite conclave that was arrived at almost exclusively by private jet, and whose culinary menu contained some of the most carbon heavy delicacies available. High grade Scottish haggis and venison were served, soy protein and bugs were not.
This is the rule, not the exception. Canada’s environment minister, who doesn’t mince words that “fighting climate change is about limiting your energy usage”:
Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault rather blithely answering a reporter who asked “will the government limit natural gas usage in the winter?”
— Mark Jeftovic, The ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) November 25, 2023
But has no qualms around spending millions of dollars flying his entourage out to COP28 and staying in a $2,000/night luxury hotel suite.
Everybody else needs to ditch their cars, eat bugs and decolonialize extractive capitalism so that “proud socialists” like this fuck here can fly out to COP28 on a private jet and live large… https://t.co/a7fYsH52sy
— Mark Jeftovic, The ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) March 20, 2024
Never forget this: whenever you hear politicians, “experts”, policy wonks and especially celebrities talking about the need to dial back consumption, energy usage, travel, meat consumption and even owning petsin order to “Save The World” they aren’t talking about their own lifestyles. They’re talking about yours.
The Public Has Had Enough
Earlier I mentioned how there’s basically one lever the public can use to skate eco-authoritarianism into the boards, and that’s the electoral process – which is why we wonder out loud how long those will be allowed to continue.
Here’s Klaus Schwab navel gazing with Sergei Brin about how Big Tech and algorithms will make elections unnecessary, “because the algos will already know who is going to win” (he poses this hypothetical about a minute after he says “in ten years we’ll all be sitting here with our brain implants”)
Back here in reality: Canada’s left-wing coalition will be ejected from power in the next election, that’s pretty well a forgone conclusion.
The US would be headed in that direction, provided the election in November actually takes place and isn’t rigged. The stakes are so high there, it’s hard to know what will happen. I once said that Donald Trump would be the penultimate President of the United States as we know them. Meaning, whoever came after him, would be the last President of a United States. We’ll see.
The public sentiment is overwhelmingly done with climate alarmism, wokeness, and cultural Marxism in general. The question now is, will this backlash and turning point be allowed to express itself peacefully and democratically? Or will it end up unleashing a more forceful backlash?
This is all part of the war between centralization and decentralization, which I’ve always said is, and will be, the defining tension of our era. This will transcend left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal.
The battle now is between people who want to decide things for everybody else, vs. people who want control over their own lives.
The Most Important Thing You Can Do
First – you have to help dismantle the norm that it is somehow unacceptable or immoral to reject the prevailing climate alarmism.
When Karen the co-worker goes off on a sermon in the lunchroom that “Pierre Poilievre has no climate action plan”, instead of internally smirking and looking forward to the next election, you have to speak up, right there and then, “Yes, that’s why everybody is going to vote for him, including me”.
This is important because, as we saw under COVID, the tyrannical regimens continued as long as normal people were afraid to speak their minds.
Nobody liked being arbitrarily divided into “essential” and “non-essential” workers and businesses.
Nobody liked wearing masks, sticking PCR tests up their noses or standing on the fucking dots. But everybody did it, because the first two doctors who spoke up about how stupid it all was, had their careers destroyed – and that set the trend for the next two years.
It was the forced vaccinations that finally put the public over the edge, and it took a near uprising by the #FreedomConvoy to finally turn the tide and put an end to it.
The coming Climate Authoritarianism will make COVID tyranny seem like a libertarian paradise.
In today’s landscape of internet connected everything, big data, and now AI, and soon, monetary Apartheid viaCBDCs, all the ingredients will be there for a technocratic authoritarianism that netzero and degrowth requires.
Your job isn’t to tell the government you aren’t on board with this: your job is to demonstrate to those around you that it’s ok not to be on board with it.
That also means you will have to be able the weather the consequences of not being on board with it.
My advice continues to be: strive for financial independence – if you have a job, start your own business on the side. If you already own a business, start, buy or invest in another one. Get yourself to the point where you can be fired, canceled, ridiculed and shunned and it not being the end of you.
Of course, that also means, if you haven’t already, start stacking Bitcoin. It’s the one monetary asset no government, no bureaucrat and no supranational entity can ever take away from you, that gains purchasing power over time and is in general, The Big Short on clown world we’re heading into.
* * *
My next e-book The CBDC Survival Guide: Navigating Monetary Apartheid will be out soon (honest), sign up for The Bombthrower mailing list and I’ll let you know when it drops – and get a copy of the The Crypto Capitalist Manifesto in the meantime.
Insurers Spy On Houses Via Aerial Imagery, Seeking Reasons To Cancel Coverage
Insurance companies across the country are using satellites, drones, manned airplanes and even high-altitude balloons to spy on properties they cover with homeowners policies — and using the findings to drop customers,often without giving any opportunity to address alleged shortcomings.
“We’ve seen a dramatic increase across the country in reports from consumers who’ve been dropped by their insurers on the basis of an aerial image,” United Policyholders executive director Amy Bach tell the Wall Street Journal. Reasons can range from shoddy roofing to yard clutter and undeclared trampolines.
Much of this surveillance is done via the Geospatial Insurance Consortium, which boasts of its coverage of 99% of the US population.
In pitching its ability to provide high-resolution “imagery and insights” for property reviews, GIC says insurers can use the service to “review risk and exposure on a building such as proximity of vegetation to the structure, whether a roof needs updating, and verify the exact location for a policy.”
“If your roof is 20 years old and one hailstorm is going to take it off, you should pay more than somebody with a brand new roof,” Allstate CEO Tom Willson told the Journal, unapologetically and ominously adding that, where the company’s use of digital imagery is concerned, “there’s even more to come.”
Wilson framed aerial spying as a pricing issue, but many consumers are finding that companies are using it to suddenly drop their coverage altogether.
The Journal describes the experience of northern California resident Cindy Picos, who was dropped by CSAA Insurance last month, with the company saying aerial imagery revealed that her roof had aged beyond its life expectancy. She paid for an inspection of her own, which found the roof was good for another decade. CSAA wasn’t impressed, and said its decision was final. The firm also refused to share its photos, though it now says it’s changed that policy and will let customers see them — if they ask.
Another Californian, CJ Sveen, was dropped by AAA Homeowners Insurance after their reconnaissance discovered “clutter” in his yard. An indignant Sveen told ABC7 that he uses his yard as a workshop “Apparently they have some pictures and they noticed clutter. I find that offensive. How dare you judge me because of my stuff!”
In AAA’s defense, clutter isn’t just about aesthetics. It could present a fire hazard, attract rodents that harm the structure, present a physical danger to visitors, and obstruct firefighters’ ability to quickly contain a fire at the premises.
Another California couple had their policy torn up by AAA after overhead photography found their swimming pool had been drained. The aging pair said they emptied it because their grandchildren had grown up and they no longer used it. Empty pools are prone to cracking for lack of counter-pressure from water; they can also “float” up from the earth, creating hazardous conditions.
Former Michigan Farmers Insurance agent Nichole Brink told the Journal she quit the company last year over her concern that it was aggressively using aerial imagery to chase off customers, and even using shots that were two or three years old. “It’s like they’re using anything as an excuse to get people off their books,” she said. Farmers says it gives policyholders at least 60 days to challenge the company’s findings or remedy shortcomings.
It’s probably no coincidence that Californians are frequently targeted for non-renewal via overhead spy technology. Insurers are aggressively paring back their business in the state, as the state’s thicket of regulations has blocked insurers’ ability to adequately charge for coverage in a state cursed by wildfires and earthquakes.
Republican National Committee (RNC) co-chair Lara Trump said Sunday that election integrity is a top priority in the upcoming November election and the committee is focused on it “like a laser.”
During an interview with Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” on April 7, Ms. Trump said that the committee will dedicate all of its resources to its Election Integrity Division “as needed.”
“When you talk about election integrity, it is vital. It is the number one thing that we are focused on, aside from getting out the vote, which, of course, Donald Trump himself will do for us,” Ms. Trump said.
“We are making sure that we leave nothing to chance because we have to understand the importance of this election,” she added.
Former President Donald Trump raked in a massive $50.5 million in funds for his reelection bid on Saturday. With this funding, Ms. Trump, the daughter-in-law of President Trump, said the RNC can now afford to ensure that poll workers are trained and lawyers are present in every voting precinct.
“Prior to last night, the largest single event fundraiser in politics ever was the one that Joe Biden had. And he needed three presidents to haul in $26 million,” she said, referring to President Biden’s fundraiser in March, which included former presidents Barrack Obama and Bill Clinton.
“We needed one man, Donald J. Trump, one president, to double that,” Ms. Trump added.
Ms. Trump said that the outcome of this fundraiser event reflects a shift where “people are not sitting on the sidelines anymore.”
“They understand what’s at stake. It’s a must-win election. And from the election integrity perspective, we’re focused on it like a laser at the RNC,” she added.
RNC Co-chair Lara Trump told Maria Bartiromo this morning that President Trump will be holding another big-haul fundraiser next week, this time in Georgia.
— Paul Villarreal (AKA Vince Manfeld) (@AureliusStoic1) April 7, 2024
Under a joint-fundraising agreement, funds from the fundraiser event will go to the Trump campaign, the former president’s Save America PAC, the RNC, and state GOP parties.
RNC chair Michael Whatley, who was also present for the interview, said the committee will spend “every dollar” raised on two “critical core” missions: increasing voter turnout and protecting the ballot.
Mr. Whatley said that the RNC is working with state legislatures, boards of elections, and secretaries of state to ensure the implementation of the rules of the road.
The committee will file lawsuits if the rules are not adhered to, he said, adding that the RNC had filed over 80 lawsuits in 24 states “to make sure that we have the ground ready to go for safe elections.”
The committee has also been recruiting and training thousands of observers and attorneys “to make sure that we are in the room” when a vote is cast and counted, Mr. Whatley said.
“What we want are fair, accurate, secure, and transparent elections. And when we have it, then we’re going to protect the sanctity of that ballot. We’re going to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat,” he added.
President Trump’s campaign’s fundraiser, dubbed the “Inaugural Leadership Dinner,” was held in hedge fund billionaire John Paulson’s $110 million home in Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday.
Thie event is a much-needed boost for President Trump, who has been routinely outraised by President Biden amid a financial squeeze due to ballooning lawyer fees and legal payouts from his criminal and civil court cases.
Mr. Paulson told The Epoch Times on Saturday that the event has now claimed the position of being the most successful political fundraiser in U.S. history.
“This sold-out event has raised the most in a single political fundraiser in history. This overwhelming support demonstrates the enthusiasm for President Trump and his policies,” he remarked.
Melanie Sun, Janice Hisle, and Reuter contributed to this report.
China Paid $250,000 To “Threat Actors” In Canada In 2018 And 2019
A new document given to Canada’s Foreign Interference Commission suggests that Chinese officials may have offered $250,000 to “threat actors” in 2018 and 2019, according to a new report from The Globe and Mail.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service document on election interference said that prior to and during the 2019 election “a group of known and suspected People’s Republic of China related threat actors in Canada, including PRC officials, worked in loose coordination with one another to covertly advance PRC interests though Canadian democratic institutions.”
“Some of these threat actors received financial support from the PRC,”and says “reporting indicated that 11 political candidates and 13 political staff members were assessed to be either implicated in or impacted by this group of threat actors,” the document says.
The report suggests the $250,000 from Chinese officials in Canada was likely for foreign interference rather than political donations.
It describes the complex routing of these funds through various individuals to mask their origin, eventually reaching a staff member of a 2019 federal election candidate and an Ontario MPP, via an influential community leader, the Mail wrote.
According to the document, the implicated candidates include seven Liberals and four Conservatives, with some knowingly participating in foreign interference activities, while others were oblivious due to the secretive nature of the operations.
The federal government initiated the Foreign Interference Commission inquiry in September, led by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, in response to reports by The Globe and Mail on Chinese interference in Canadian democracy.
The inquiry, which took place on Thursday, featured testimonies from senior officials of CSIS, the RCMP, the Department of Global Affairs, and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), Canada’s electronic intelligence agency.
Dan Rogers, a former CSE official and now the deputy national security adviser, revealed the CSE had intelligence post-2021 election about alleged fund distributions, which was shared with the RCMP and CSIS, though specifics weren’t disclosed. RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme stated that no criminal investigations into foreign interference were opened for the 2019 or 2021 elections, as no intelligence received warranted such actions.
However, an investigation into foreign interference was launched following the last general election when Conservative MP Michael Chong reported being targeted by China.
Too bad the Biden family doesn’t do business in Canada – the PRC probably could have gotten influence a lot easier that way, though it may have cost a bit more due to the need to support Hunter’s “lifestyle” and “social agenda”.
Social media posts urging people not to take ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 have been taken down by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The FDA removed posts from X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn that stated: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously y’all. Stop it.”
The posts had remained up even after the regulatory agency agreed to take them down as part of a settlement in a legal case brought by doctors who said the posts wrongly interfered with their practice of medicine.
The March 21 settlement said the FDA would take down specific posts within 21 days. The posts were made in August 2021.
The FDA has also deleted the following posts:
An Aug. 21, 2021, Instagram post that said: “You are not a horse. Stop it with the #ivermectin. It’s not authorized for treating #COVID.”
An April 26, 2022, Twitter post that said: “Hold your horses ya’ll. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.”
The posts directed people to an FDA webpage titled, “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.” The page itself acknowledged that the FDA has approved ivermectin for some uses but said “taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous” and “currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19.”
The agency pointed to a database of clinical trials testing ivermectin against COVID-19; some of the trials showed the drug works against the illness.
Doctors commonly prescribe FDA-approved drugs for a range of purposes, including some outside the scope of approval. The practice is known as off-label prescription.
The FDA’s ivermectin posts gained tremendous traction across social media and news outlets, prompting internal excitement, emails obtained by The Epoch Times showed. Millions of people saw the posts. “That was great! Even I saw it!” Dr. Janet Woodcock, the agency’s acting commissioner at the time, said in one missive.
The FDA has not alerted its followers on social media that it removed the posts.
2022, celebrated the development.
The case “sets an important legal precedent which should deter them from attempting this stunt again anytime soon,” she wrote on X. In another post, she said that “the terms we were asking for were met when we agreed to settle” and “we were not optimistic about what we would get in discovery.”
But while the posts and page have been removed, the FDA has created a new page about ivermectin and COVID-19.
Published on April 5, it states: “One of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s jobs is to carefully evaluate the scientific data on a drug to be sure that it is both safe and effective for a particular use. There continues to be interest in a drug called ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans. The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals.”
The page repeats the statement that “the FDA has determined that currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID 19 in humans,” but lacks the link to the database showing mixed results from trials.
The page also says that “health care professionals may choose to prescribe or use an approved human drug for an unapproved use when they judge that the unapproved use is medically appropriate for an individual patient.”
An FDA spokesperson previously told The Epoch Times that the settlement was not an admission of a violation of law or any other wrongdoing.
“FDA has not changed its position that currently available clinical trial data do not demonstrate that ivermectin is effective against COVID-19,“ the spokesperson said. ”The agency has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19.”
In November 2022, Los Angeles voters approved a so-called ‘mansion tax,’ which slaps a 4% sales tax on properties sold for over $5 million, and 5.5% for those over $10 million.
The scheme (Measure ULA), put forward by Democrats, was projected to raise roughly $672 million in its first year, to be used for affordable housing.
Not only did the plan fall short by hundreds of millions of dollars (raising just $215 million), the measure caused residential building construction to plummet, raising housing prices even further, the Washington Examinerwrites, noting that the tax doesn’t just apply to large homes in Bel Air, “but also gas stations, commercial real estate, condominiums, and apartment complexes.”
Los Angeles real estate brokers say the $5 million threshold means the new ULA tax will hit just about any apartment complex with over 15 housing units. This has discouraged lenders from offering mortgages on, and developers from building, the very multifamily projects the city needs more of to reduce housing costs. Since nearly two-thirds of homes in Los Angeles have asking prices of at least $1 million, working-class families must often rent multifamily homes to live in. CoStar analyst Ryan Patap noted that developers are further discouraged by the city’s “broader political shift in the city that’s more supportive of restrictions on landlords and more supportive of protections for tenants.”
Around the state as a whole, multifamily housing has trended above the national average. Whereas new multifamily housing permit authorization fell nationally by nearly 19% from 2022 to 2023, California’s only decreased by 5%. But in Los Angeles County, authorizations dropped by 19%, and in LA city, they slumped by a staggering 24%. The mansion tax appears to be to blame. -Washington Examiner
City officials are still slapping themselves on the back, bragging that $150 million from Measure ULA revenues have helped fund programs for short-term emergency rental assistance (for whom?), as well as tenant outreach and education, tenant protections, defense against evictions (squatter defense?), direct cash assistance for low-income seniors and people with disabilities.
“The pace at which ULA is generating revenue, especially over the last quarter, is impressive,” reads a statement from Joan Ling, a real estate adviser and policy analyst in urban planning who is also the lead author of a report from UCLA, USC, and Occidental College recapping ULA’s first year.
“ULA is enabling Los Angeles to finally meet the big structural challenges driving our housing crisis—like the skyrocketing costs of land and construction—so that we can build more homes more quickly.”
That said, as the Examiner concludes:
Supporters have bragged that the legislation has already funded $23 million on eviction protection and tenant outreach and $28 million on aid to distressed tenants and landlords, but neither of these programs do anything actually to lower rents for working families.
The real protection Angeleno tenants need is from a Democratic Party that is constantly passing new regulations and higher taxes that make new home and apartment construction more expensive. Until Los Angeles voters start electing leaders whose motto is “Build baby build,” they can only expect their existing housing crisis to get worse.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) has blasted the idea of “squatter’s rights,” questioning the laws that allow interlopers on a property to claim ownership over its rightful owner, calling it a case of “just breaking the law.”
Squatter rights laws allow anyone illegally occupying another person’s property to claim ownership if they are not evicted after a certain amount of time. Also known as adverse possession laws, these laws are in effect in all 50 U.S. states but enforcement differs significantly.
In an April 6 interview with The New York Post, Mr. Fetterman said he had extensive experience with these laws while he was mayor of Braddock in Pennsylvania. In some cases, they can come into effect after only 30 days of illegally occupying a building.
“It’s wild that if you go away on a long trip, for 30 days, and someone breaks into your home and suddenly, they have rights,” he said.
“This is crazy. Like if somebody stole your car, and then they held it for 30 days, then somehow you now have some rights?” he added.
According to law experts who have spoken with The Epoch Times, police can’t help because it’s a civil matter. Under these laws, the only way to remove a squatter claiming ownership is through an eviction lawsuit, which can drag on for months or years because housing courts are severely backlogged at the moment.
Squatter’s rights as they exist today can be traced back to the Homestead Act of 1862, which allowed settlers to claim land in the western United States under the agreement they would improve it and live on it for at least five years. Over time, the concept of squatter’s rights have expanded well beyond land claims.
According to Mr. Fetterman, “Squatters have no rights,” and during his time as Mayor, he always tried to “push back against that.”
Another expert speaking to The Epoch Times claimed illegal immigrants could further exacerbate the squatter rights issue, although he noted he had yet to see this transpire.
Border Patrol has encountered more than 7.6 million illegal immigrants trying to cross the border since President Joe Biden took office in January 2021. Many have come seeking asylum and various jurisdictions around the country are struggling to keep up with the influx of people, stretching resources to their limits in some cases, such as in Texas, Arizona, and New York.
Fetterman Says US Needs to Be Smart and Aggressive on Crime
Soft crime policies are being blamed for the fatal shooting of NYPD Detective Jonathan Diller during a traffic stop in Queens last month. According to authorities, Guy Rivera, who was accused of the crime, has at least 21 prior arrests for drug and assault related offenses.
Mr. Fetterman says he has no issue giving second chances to offenders who have made a mistake. But 20 chances is pushing it too far.
“If you have those kinds of established records, it doesn’t serve any greater goal to allow people that are offending, offending, offending and allow them to not be held accountable,” he said.
“If this individual is convicted, then he should spend the rest of his life in prison and never have an opportunity to get out,” he added.
