Authored by Bobbie Anne Flower Cox via The Brownstone Institute,

Well folks, I really hate to say this, but it’s another win for the conspiracy theorists. They can take off their tinfoil hats and take a deep bow. Yet another one of their outrageous “predictions” is coming true. For anyone keeping score, sadly the score card is rather one-sided. I think the count is something like Conspiracy Theorists = 1,000,000 wins vs. Logic & Normalcy = 0 wins. Boy how I wish we could win some on the “Logic & Normalcy” scale!

So, I acknowledge that I do have a rather dry sense of humor. I throw sarcasm in there a bunch. A couple of my friends tell me they cannot always tell when I’m being serious or if I’m joking. This makes me think that quite a few of you will be wondering, “Is she serious or is she joking with the title to her article?” To that I answer, I will tell you what I know, and then you decide. (You know how I love to promote critical thinking)…

Last week, our unfortunate Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, issued a TRAVEL BAN for an entire county. You read that correctly. No, not a travel advisory, but a full on travel ban! Meaning, New Yorkers in Erie County were forbidden from going anywhere. What’s another name for that? Well, if you live in a rural or very suburban area (which most of New York State is), where driving on a road is the way you get from point A to point B, then I would say a synonym would be “lockdown.”

And what was Dictator Hochul’s, I mean Governor Hochul’s, reason for this lockdown of close to one million New Yorkers that live in Erie County? Wait for it. Ready? It was going to SNOW! For anyone who does not live in New York, or who has never been to Western New York in the winter, that area of our state gets a lot of snow. Often. And yet, the governor thinks (all of a sudden, out of nowhere) everyone living there is so ignorant, they must be confined to their homes until she says it’s safe for them to rejoin the world again. Either that, or she’s just testing you to see how far she can take her totalitarian desires. Or both.

For all the keyboard critics who love to jump in and twist my words, I’ll cut you off at the pass and say that I am not admonishing a governor’s desire to keep people safe in the wake of a storm. That’s not at all what I am saying. If a natural disaster is approaching, people should be warned, emergency services ready to roll, and help made readily available. Encourage people to stock up, stay home, and hunker down? For sure! Forbid people from leaving their homes? NO.

There is a big difference between caring about New Yorkers’ safety, and wanting to control people. Huge.

And in fact, Hochul was banning people from leaving their homes even if it was NOT snowing! Sound unbelievable? It sure does. But remember in my article last week, I cited an ancient Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, who fittingly said, “The truth often evades being recognized due to its utter incredibility.” 

Put another way, when something is so outrageous, it is often cast aside as untrue. Well, here’s what comrade Kathy posted on her Twitter:

She went on to post several other times about the snow and her travel ban. I was actually encouraged to read that most of the comments she received were negative, logical rebuttals to her power grab.

Here are a few…

Ok, so digging a bit into travel bans, you’ll recognize that there have been travel bans based on big storms in the past here in New York. However, those are issued by the local government (i.e. County Executive), after a state of emergency is declared. They are not issued by the Governor, nor are they issued without an emergency declaration.

Does anyone see the correlation here between government overreach, their quest for “centralized” power, and their fear-mongering? It’s the same thing the Governor and her DOH have been doing with their hideous “quarantine camp” regulation that I have been fighting in court for nearly two years now! The name of that case is Borrello v. Hochul, and you can read the details and case history here. Connecting the dots to the analysis at hand, you will note that the quarantine camp regulation tried to take the power from (elected) judges (in keeping with our law) who have the authority to temporarily quarantine sick, dangerous people, and shift that power to unelected, statewide, DOH employees and appointees who have zero accountability to We the People.

Under their quarantine camp reg, the Governor and her DOH would have centralized control over 19 million New Yorkers, to force you to lock down in your home, or they could force you (with the use of police) to go to a quarantine center/ facility/ camp (pick your noun), without any proof you are sick, indefinitely, with no procedure by which you can regain your freedom, and with no declared state of emergency! The fear factor used to try to justify the authoritarian power grab here is the threat of death…If we don’t lock people up who are possibly exposed to a disease, then you might die. Swap out “possibly exposed to a disease” and put in its stead “unclean.” What does that make you think of?

My next question: do you see any similarities here to Hochul’s probably illegal climate lockdown? 

I say “probably illegal” because I couldn’t find the supposed legal authority that she’s relying upon to prohibit people from driving. If you know what she is relying upon, feel free to post it in the Substack comment section below.

Before you draw your own final conclusion about all this, I will add one last thing for you to consider.

In December, a month before Hochul issued this Erie County travel ban, the (Democrat) County Executive, Mark Poloncarz, set up an online portal so residents could check and see if they would be deemed “essential workers” and thus exempt from any futuristic travel bans. Oh, and he coordinated with their “partners” in the federal government to come up with the list!

Sound familiar, folks?!

Remember Governor Cuomo’s C19 lockdown (“Just 2 weeks to flatten the curve”), which lasted for months, and all the “essential workers” that he exempted? Here’s an article about Erie’s coincidentally-just-in-time-for-a-travel-ban portal, “Erie County’s new online portal will identify essential workers exempt from travel bans.”

So… after taking in all that, is it 1,000,000 to 1… or is it 1,000,001 to 0?

*  *  *

Republished from the author’s Substack

Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake called on the state’s GOP chair Jeff DeWit to resign after a recording emerged of him trying to bribe Lake to stay out of politics for two years.

In the recording, first reported by the Daily Mail, DeWit, 51, can be heard asking lake to name her price not to run.

“There are very powerful people who want to keep you out,” he can be heard telling her in a conversation recorded last March.

He then, after asking her not to mention the conversation to anyone, makes his first offer:

“So the ask I got today from back east was: “Is there any companies out there or something that could just put her on the payroll to keep her out?“

Lake is taken aback.

“This is about defeating Trump and I think that’s a bad, bad thing for our country,” she replied.

DeWit later framed it in a different way.

“Just say, is there a number at which –

“I can be bought?” Lake interjected. “That’s what it’s about?”

“You can take a pause for a couple of years. You can go right back to what you’re doing,” DeWit replied.

Lake repeatedly shuts him down, and says she wouldn’t pull out for a billion dollars.

“This is not about money, it’s about our country,” she says (one her own recording, we’re guessing).

Listen (via Collin Rugg):

BREAKING: Arizona Republican Party chair Jeff DeWit caught on secret recording trying to bribe Kari Lake not to run for the Senate.

Holy s***!

“There are very powerful people who want to keep you out,” he said.

At one point during the secret recording, Lake was asked to name… pic.twitter.com/9r1DoDzITD

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 23, 2024

 Following the report, Lake called on DeWit to resign.

“He’s gotta resign. We can’t have somebody who is corrupt and compromised running the Republican Party,” she told an NBC reporter during Trump’s New Hampshire primary victory party.

Kari Lake calls for @AZGOP Chair Jeff DeWit to resign after release of audio in which he can be heard bribing Lake to not run for the U.S. Senate in exchange for a potential job (and its salary): https://t.co/8tF4sodXf3 pic.twitter.com/4XBSzoVyYL

— Vaughn Hillyard (@VaughnHillyard) January 24, 2024

Just one question…

Hey @JeffDeWitAZ before you resign, would you mind sharing the names of the “very powerful people” who buy US politicians? https://t.co/MZpE1K9i8z

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 24, 2024

What say you now Eric Garcia, senior Washington Correspondent of The Independent?

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

It appears that Anthony Comstock is having something of a revival in Oklahoma. The founder of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice fought to criminalize the mailing of any obscene work, a broadly define category that included protected political speech. Now, a  bill not only contains an expansive definition of lewd material but would criminalize even the viewing “obscene materials” by unmarried individuals.

Oklahoma Senate Bill 1976 would also make posing or exhibiting such images illegal. The law would define unlawful depictions as including “lewd exhibition of the uncovered genitals, buttocks, or, if such person is female, the breast, for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer”; any depiction of “physical restraint such as binding or fettering in the context of sexual conduct”; and the undefined category “sadomasochistic abuse.”

The range of that definition would cover not just porn but personal images sent between consenting adults. However, it is expressly not meant to “prevent spouses from sending images of a sexual nature to each other.” So what about consenting unmarried adults? They have a right to intimacy, privacy, and expression.

Moreover,  it would be a crime to “buy, procure, view, or possess” any “obscene materials.” Thus, you could receive a lewd image from your lover and be criminally charged for viewing it?

In a 2002 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a provision of federal law that banned computer simulations and virtual pornography under the first amendment. In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, Justice Kennedy in a 6-3 decision found that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was “overbroad” and swept within its prohibitions many valuable and artistic works.

“Pictures of what appear to be a 17-year-old engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards . . . The (Act) also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea — that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity — that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries.”

The bill is presumptively unconstitutional in my view, but the Court made an unholy mess of this area in its rulings on obscenity. That lunacy was summed up in the ridiculous statement of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964): “I shall not today attempt further to define [it] … But I know it when I see it.”

As written, this bill is too vague and too broad to pass constitutional muster under existing precedent.

Fears over the continued lawlessness in Democrat-run cities, President Biden’s southern border invasion, Democrats’ crusade in attempting to ban firearms, criminal gangs targeting neighborhoods nationwide, and, of course, mounting geopolitical risks with threats of major conflict, could be some of the reasons why Americans continue buying guns. 

According to data from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), unadjusted criminal background checks rose 2.9% to 2.73 million in December, the highest in about eight months. However, compared with a year ago, gun buying has slumped 10% from 3.04 million. 

Seasonal NICS data shows gun-buying remains well above a two-decade average; an indication gun buying remains elevated in a dangerous world where threats of war linger abroad and domestic policies, such as social justice, have backfired in recent years, igniting a crime wave across liberal cities. 

Recall that NICS data is a proxy for gun sales because there is no national database tracking firearm purchases. Also, a background check doesn’t necessarily mean a gun sale occurred. 

Authored by ‘Shinobi’ via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The fourth Bitcoin halving is almost upon us, and this one has the potential for some very interesting surprises. This halving marks the reduction of the Bitcoin supply subsidy from 6.25 BTC every block to 3.125 BTC per block. These supply reductions occur every 210,000 blocks, or roughly every four years, as part of Bitcoin’s gradual, disinflationary approach to its final capped supply in circulation.

The finite supply of 21 million coins is a, if not the, foundational characteristic of Bitcoin. This predictability of supply and inflation rate has been at the heart of what has driven demand and belief in bitcoin as a superior form of money. The regular supply halving is the mechanism by which that finite supply is ultimately enacted.

The halvings over time are the driver behind one of the most fundamental shifts of Bitcoin incentives in the long term: the move from miners being funded by newly issued coins from the coinbase subsidy — the block reward — to being funded dominantly by the transaction fee revenue from users moving bitcoin on-chain.

As Satoshi said in Section 6 (Incentives) of the whitepaper:

“The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.”

Historically the halving has correlated with a massive appreciation in the price of bitcoin, offsetting the impact of the miners’ subsidy being cut in half. Miners’ bills are paid in fiat, meaning that if the price of bitcoin appreciates, resulting in a larger income in dollar terms for the lower amount of bitcoin earned per block, the negative impact on mining operation is cushioned.

In light of the last market cycle, with not even a 4x appreciation from the prior all time high, the degree to which price appreciation will cushion miners from the effects of the halving is an assumption that might not consistently hold true. This coming halving, the inflation rate of bitcoin will drop for the first time below 1%. If the next market cycle plays out similarly to the previous one, with much lower upwards movement than seen historically, this halving could have a materially negative impact on existing miners.

This makes the fee revenue miners can collect from transactions more important than ever, and it will continue to become more central to their sustainability from a business perspective as block height increases and successive halvings occur. Either fee revenue has to increase, or the price needs to appreciate at a minimum by 2x each halving in order to make up for the decrease in subsidy revenue. As bullish as most Bitcoiners can be, the notion that a doubling in price is guaranteed to happen every four years, in perpetuity, is a dubious assumption at best.

Love them or hate them, BRC-20 tokens and Inscriptions have shifted the entire dynamic of the mempool, pushing fees from somewhere in the ballpark of 0.1-0.2 BTC per block prior to their existence, to the somewhat volatile average of 1-2 BTC as of late — regularly spiking far in excess of that.

THE NEW FACTOR THIS TIME

Ordinals present a very new incentive dynamic to the halving this go around that was not present at any prior halving in Bitcoin’s history. Rare sats. At the heart of Ordinals Theory is that satoshis from specific blocks can be tracked and “owned” based on its arbitrary interpretation of the transaction history of the blockchain, based on assuming specific amounts sent to specific outputs “send that sat” there. The other aspect of the theory is assigning rarity values to specific sats. Each block has a coinbase, thus producing an ordinal. But each block is different in importance to the scheme. Each normal block produces an “uncommon” sat, the first block of each difficulty adjustment produces a “rare” sat, and the first block of each halving cycle produces an “epic” sat.

This halving will be the first one since the widespread adoption of Ordinal Theory by a subset of Bitcoin users. There has never been the production of an “epic” sat while there was material market demand for it from a large and developed ecosystem. The market demand for that specific sat could wind up being valued at absurd multiples of what the coinbase reward itself is valued at in terms of just fungible satoshis.

The fact that a large market segment in the Bitcoin space would value that single coinbase drastically higher than any other creates an incentive for miners to fight over it by reorganizing the blockchain immediately after the halving. The only time such a thing has happened in history was during the very first halving, when the block reward decreased from 50 BTC to 25 BTC. Some miners continued trying to mine blocks rewarding 50 BTC in the coinbase after the supply cut, and gave up shortly after when the rest of the network ignored their efforts. This time around, the incentive to reorg isn’t based around ignoring the consensus rules and hoping people come along to your side, it’s fighting over who is allowed to mine a completely valid block because of the value collectors will ascribe to that single coinbase.

There are no guarantees that such a reorg will actually occur, but there is a very large financial incentive for miners to do so. If it does occur, the length for which it will go on ultimately depends on how much that “epic” sat could be worth on the market to pay for the lost revenue from fighting over a single block rather than progressing the chain.

Each halving in Bitcoin’s history has been a pivotal event people watch, but this go around it has the potential to be much more interesting than past halvings.

HOW AN EPIC SAT BATTLE COULD PLAY OUT

There are a few ways this could play out in my opinion.

• The first and most obvious way is that nothing happens. For whatever reason, miners do not judge that the potential market value of the first “epic” sat mined since Ordinals adoption took off is worth the opportunity cost of wasting energy reorging the blockchain and foregoing the money they could make by simply mining the next block. If miners do not think the extra premium the ordinal can fetch is worth the cost of giving up moving on to the next block, they simply won’t do it.

• The next possibility is a result of nuanced scales of economy. Imagine a larger scale mining operation can afford to risk more “lost blocks” engaging in a reorg fight over the “epic” sat. That larger miner with more capital to put on the table can afford to take a larger risk. In this scenario, we might see a few odd reorg attempts by larger miners with smaller operations not even trying, and essentially minimal disruption. This would play out if miners think there is some premium they can acquire for the ordinal, but not a massive premium worth serious disruption to the network.

• The last scenario would be if a market develops bidding for the “epic” sat ahead of time, and miners can have a clear picture that the ordinal is valued massively above the market value of the fungible sat itself. In this case, miners may fight over that block for an extended period of time. The logic behind not reorging the blockchain is that you are losing money, you are not only forgoing the reward of just mining the next block, but you are also continuing to incur the cost of running your mining operations. In a situation where the market is publicly signaling how much the “epic” sat is worth, miners have a very clear idea of how long they can forgo moving onto the next block and still wind up with a net profit by attaining the post-halving coinbase reward with the ordinal. In this scenario the network could see substantial disruption until miners begin approaching the point of incurring a guaranteed loss even if they do successfully wind up mining this block without it being reorged.

Regardless of which way things actually play out, this is going to be a factor to consider each halving going forward unless the demand and marketplace for ordinals dies off. 

The Biden administration has whined for months about the public’s negative views on the economy, arguing that people are operating on “false perceptions influenced by right-wing media.”

Most Americans have figured out that government officials and the corporate media have a habit of misrepresenting economic data to convince the public that the economy has never been better. 

Last June, the White House unleashed a media campaign with corporate media to blast out the message that “Bidenomics” worked and the economy has never been better. But polling data from Real Clear Politics shows that despite the PR blitz, the president’s polling data went down. 

People know when their wallets are hurting, and gaslighting them has not been effective. 

Yet another data point released Tuesday supports the public’s position that the nation is less prosperous than the government would like us to believe.

Bloomberg cites a new report from the National Energy Assistance Directors Association that reveals US household utility debt hit a record as an alarming number of Americans can no longer afford heating and cooling their homes. 

NEADA said one out of every six ratepayers is behind on energy bills, adding residential utility debt hit a new record last year of $20.3 billion. 

The group, representing state-level directors of low-income utility assistance programs, pointed out household heating costs have soared 20% since the start of Covid. 

Folks in New York and Michigan have been impacted the most by soaring energy bills, the report said. As of Sept. 30, there were more than 7 million households on utility bill assistance. 

Looking at the US CPI Northeast Urban Household Energy index, a basket of household fuels, such as propane, kerosene, and firewood, as well as electricity prices, remains near record highs. 

Meanwhile, more than 60% of Americans reported that their wages were lagging well behind inflation.

People are voting with their empty wallets – and are not thrilled with lies coming from the White House.

By Adam Andrzejewski of OpenTheBooks substack

The U.S. border patrol made 2.5 million migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal year 2023, an all-time high.

There seems to be no end in sight, or meaningful plan from the Biden administration to stop or slow the number of people coming over the border. Meanwhile, federal funds flowing to migrants are growing at an exponential rate.

Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com looked at just one federal office to get an idea of how much spending is going towards accommodating, transporting, and providing migrants with various other services.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a part of Health and Human Services, is a major vehicle for migrant-related spending. Congress appropriated $20 billion in just two years on “refugee and entrant assistance.”

Background

Last year, we published an oversight report on the unaccompanied children program run by the agency: up to 85,000 minors were lost after “sponsorship” with a “vetted” guardian. The New York Times found credible allegations of child labor law violations and congressional whistleblowers detailed large-scale child trafficking.

Now, our investigation into the agency reveals new oversight: 1. billion-dollar spending spikes in the adult refugee programs; and 2. potential conflicts-of-interest between agency leadership and its largest grant recipients. In fact, for decades, agency director Robin Dunn Marcos was employed in executive positions by two non-profit organizations that are among the agency’s largest grantees.

Here is a five minute interview describing the big issues in our reporting:

$20 Billion For Refugee Care (2022-2023)

Refugee and entrant assistance totaled a stunning $20 billion over the last two fiscal years. The costs rose from $8.925 billion (FY2022) to $10.928 billion (FY 2023).

Across all programs, the Administration of Children and Families (ORR’s parent agency) received funding of $2.94 billion in Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriation and additional supplementals just in fiscal year FY2022 (P.L. 117-43 and P.L. 117-70). Ukrainian refugees cost taxpayers $900 million in FY2022 and $1.775 billion in FY2023 (P.L. 117-128 and P.L. 117-180).

In its latest Congressional Budget Justification, the agency suggested expanding its mandate still further by providing more services to a broader range of applicants, advocating that:

• “Special Immigrant Juvenile Minors” within the “Unaccompanied Refugee Minor” program access the same benefits as refugees, which include access to Medicaid and the same foster care services as American children.
• Legal assistance to Ukrainian and Afghan children and other URM-designated youth to legal assistance ensuring permanent residency.
• Cash assistance to full-time college or technical school students for refugees.
• Removing the need for refugees to obtain economic self-sufficiency “as quickly as possible.”

All aspects of programmatic activities—from who is eligible to how much is spent—is authorized by Congress.

An Explosion In Funding For Refugee And Entrant Assistance Discretionary Grants

The Refugee and Entrant Assistance Grants are just one of many refugee-focused programs offered by the Administration for Children and Families.

These grants are intended to serve those with the following legal status: asylees, refugees, survivors of torture, victims of trafficking, special immigrant visa holders (such as those from the Afghanistan Operation Allies Welcome) and entrants from Cuba and Haiti.

The grants cover a wide variety of programs, such as the Individual Development Accounts program, which helps eligible people save for asset purchases like a car or a house, and the Refugee Microenterprise Development program, which helps qualified people build credit through business and personal loans.

From 2013-2023, ORR doled out over $1.5 billion in grants under the Discretionary Grants category. But much of this spending occurred in 2022 and 2023.

Between 2021 and 2022 grant spending went from $33 million to over $400 million. In 2023 this spending was $615,601,449.

The “Preferred Communities Program” within the Refugee and Entrant Assistance category accounted for over half of all spending for this category in 2022: $275,949,105. In 2023 that spending was up to $436,247,481.

These funds were split between just seven organizations.

A summary of the benefits of ORR’s Preferred Communities Program reads: “offers intensive case management to overcome barriers” to “extremely vulnerable individuals.”

One grantee lists the program’s benefits:

• Emergency housing support (if necessary)
• Work authorization application
• Public benefits application 
• Medical screening 
• School enrollment 
• Referrals to employment programs
• Cultural orientation 
• Mental health referrals 
• Legal assistance referrals

New Director From Big Grantee Organization

Robin Dunn Marcos joined the agency as director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement in September 2022 with a base salary of $180,000.

Dunn Marcos came to ORR after eight years with the International Rescue Committee (IRC) rising to their Senior Director for Resettlement, Asylum, and Integration.

Previously, Dunn Marcos served as executive director of the International Rescue Committee Phoenix branch for fifteen years, for a total of 23 years with the nonprofit. She spent four years at Church World Service between her IRC stints.

Both IRC and Church World Service have been some of biggest recipients of Refugee and Entrant Assistance Discretionary Grants over the years.

From FY 2013-2023 IRC received over $180 million in these grants from ORR, and Church World Service received nearly $125 million.

IRC is a huge international nonprofit, collecting over $924 million in contributions and grants in 2020, according to tax documents.

That same year IRC executive director David Miliband earned a salary of over $1 million. (Interns, however, are never paid.)

IRC provides several services related to ORR’s mission. In 2020 the organization claimed to have served 45,000 individuals in the United States with food, shelter, English classes, and legal advice.

In 2023, IRC received funding for the first time from ORR’s Unaccompanied Children program: $13,005,424 for “home studies and post-release services”

But even before then, the nonprofit worked in some capacity with unaccompanied children.

According to one article “IRC Los Angeles…[provides] assistance with school enrollment, acquiring state medical insurance, and obtaining pro bono legal services from local partner organizations.”

As spending at ORR swelled to new heights, IRC benefitted handsomely. The organization received over $235 million in spending in FY 2023 compared to $22 million in FY 2021.

When reached for comment, a spokesperson for ORR said:

“Consistent with the Ethics Pledge, Robin Dunn Marcos is recused from participating in particular matters involving specific parties in which IRC is or represents a party. That recusal obligation lasts for two years from her date of appointment, which was September 11, 2022.”

Our auditors filed a Freedom of Information Act request for emails between Dunn Marcos and IRC officials in May 2023. We have not yet received a response.

In April 2023 Dunn Marcos came under fire during a Congressional hearing regarding the 85,000 children the agency placed that are now unreachable, as reported in the New York Times.

During questioning Dunn Marcos said she did not believe the sponsor vetting system was inadequate and would not state whether the 85,000 number is accurate. She also did not know what the rejection rate of sponsorship applications is.

In June 2023 the HHS released an audit of ORR to investigate these and other allegations. The HHS found ORR went “above and beyond” its statutory requirements, although stated ORR would launch several initiatives to “enhance ORR services and supports,” such as a new “Program Accountability Team.”

By The Numbers

As reported by the Administration for Children and Families in their Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Justification, the number of people entering the U.S. under the ORR’s purview has increased tremendously in 2022, particularly under the category “Cuban and Haitian entrants” and “Unaccompanied Children.”

“Afghan Humanitarian Parolees” is a new category created after the U.S. ceded Afghanistan to the Taliban in 2021. 

Haitian and Cuban migrants receive an array of nationality-specific ORR benefits, including cash assistance and health insurance similar to Medicaid.

Critical Quote

Roger Severino, former HHS director of the Office of Civil Rights, wrote in a recent report:

“HHS and ORR have forgotten their original refugee-resettlement mission and instead have provided a panoply of free programs that incentivize people to come to the U.S. illegally.”

Conclusion

The Office of Refugee Resettlement is just one office in one agency, and this report focused primarily on just a few major grant programs within the office. The universe of taxpayer spending is so much larger, especially when including state and local funds as well.

As funding, mandates, and the overall number of entrants—legal and illegal—increases dramatically, American citizens and lawmakers would be wise to examine the web of incentives between the agency, nonprofit contractors, and the individuals eligible for these programs.

Authored by Ethan Brown via RealClear Energy,

For Jazz Montgomery, it was a new career path. After opening Heavenly’s Lawn Care in 2020, he built a four-person crew, offering residential lawn care, pruning, and yard maintenance to customers in Costa Mesa, California.

“But ever since that stupid rule change…”

Montgomery wasted no time in our phone conversation addressing the elephant in the room. On January 1, 2024, California Assembly Bill 1346 took effect, banning the sale of gas-powered leaf blowers, lawn mowers and other small off-road engines across the Golden State. These engines do present real concerns for air pollution, noise pollution, and climate change. But for a small growing business like Heavenly’s Lawn Care, the regulation has proved crushing.

“I actually scaled down my crew,” Montgomery told me. “It used to be four of us. And then I scaled it down to two because I had to try to make up the cost to be able to get the equipment.”

Heavenly’s Lawn Care isn’t alone. Per the California Air Resources Board’s own estimates, the cost of transition for professional users is expected to reach $1.29 billion. The state government only set aside $30 million to help cover transition costs. With nearly two million pieces of professional gas-powered equipment in use across the state, these funds amount to a mere $15 per piece of equipment.

“What if one of us doesn’t get qualified for one of those programs?” said Montgomery. “That’s over $30,000, $40,000 [for an electric riding mower]. That’s coming out of our pockets. And there’s no work around.” 

Moreover, according to the California Landscape Contractors Association (CLCA) website, zero emission technology is improving, but not yet able to handle the workload of a full workday. CLCA members report issues with short battery life, availability of extra batteries, and lack of sufficient resources to repair zero emission equipment. In Montgomery’s experience, using battery-powered equipment can sometimes take twice as long.

But many environmental and public health advocates support regulations like California’s.

“The push mowers and the handheld equipment are so egregiously polluting,” said Kirsten Schatz, Clean Air Advocate for CoPIRG Foundation. “Ultimately, we should just not have those on store shelves.”

Working on air quality in Colorado last year, Schatz was surprised to learn that gas-powered lawn and garden equipment is a top contributor to the state’s major ozone problem, second only to the oil and gas industry. After diving into the issue, Schatz co-authored a report published in October which found operating a commercial lawn mower for just one hour produces as much ozone-forming pollution as driving 300 miles in a car. Worse yet, a commercial leaf blower emits as much ozone-forming pollution in an hour as driving 1,100 miles in a car — about the length of a trip from Los Angeles to Denver. Ground-level ozone is the main ingredient in smog, and has been shown to reduce lung function, worsen asthma, and even lead to premature death.

In 2020, lawn and garden equipment in the U.S. also emitted more than 21,800 tons of fine particulates — equivalent to the pollution from 234 million typical cars. Short-term exposure to fine particulates can trigger cardiovascular events, hospitalization episodes, and mortality, while long-term chronic exposure can increase risk of strokes, coronary heart disease, and premature death.

According to a 2016 American Thoracic Society (ATS) report, California and Los Angeles are the worst state and city in the nation for ozone and fine particulate health impacts, with 3,632 excess mortalities, 7,686 excess morbidities, and 6,741,955 adverse impact days across the Golden State annually due to these pollutants. If Los Angeles attained ATS recommendations for ozone and fine particulate concentrations, the city would avoid 1,341 deaths, 3,255 morbidities, and 2,892,029 impacted days each year.

Tony Dutzik, Associate Director and Senior Policy Analyst at Frontier Group and a co-author on Schatz’s report, explained why lawn equipment spews such high quantities of these pollutants.

“With two-stroke engines, in particular, incomplete combustion is a big issue. They are just not burning the fuel as efficiently or completely.”

Two-stroke engines, favored in handheld equipment due to their light weight, are the worst polluters, especially as it pertains to fine particulates. Increasingly, lawn equipment manufacturers have opted for more efficient four-stroke engines, but these engines still lack the advanced emissions controls that reduce pollution from automobiles.

“The emissions control technology that we enjoy on our vehicles and has helped reduce some emissions in the cars and trucks we drive is just too expensive and doesn’t make sense to put on handheld lawn tools,” said Schatz.

These inefficiencies illuminate the large climate impact of gas-powered lawn equipment as well. In the United States, lawn and garden equipment powered by fossil fuels released more than 30 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2020 — more than the annual greenhouse gas emissions from the city of Los Angeles. Carbon dioxide is the primary driver of human-caused global warming.

Critics of gas-powered lawn equipment have also voiced frustration with noise pollution. Dr. Erica Walker, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology at Brown University, performed an experiment in Lincoln, Massachusetts, measuring noise from two backpack leaf blowers and one hose vacuum at 0, 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800 feet away. The study, published by Environmental Toxicology in 2017, found that even at 800 feet away (nearly three football fields), sound from this equipment exceeded the World Health Organization’s outdoor daytime standard of 55 decibels.

“The sounds did decrease the further we moved away from the leaf blower activity, but not by much,” recounted Walker. “It gave me profound appreciation for what people go through when that leaf blower activity is happening because it’s annoying.”

Walker clarified that nuisance is not just an inconvenience, but a serious health concern.

“That feeling of annoyance sets off a stress response in your body that’s very similar to the stress response you would have if you were walking down a dark alleyway, and out jumps a ferocious pitbull. It’s your body telling itself to either prepare to fight that threat or flee that threat. […] Consistent stimulation of that stress response can lead to increased risk for some pretty serious cardiovascular related illnesses like hypertension or cardiovascular related mortality.”

In a community setting, Walker added that noise pollution contributes to disrupted sleep, mental health issues, and decreased quality of life. And for workers who use this equipment, Walker contended that hearing protections have been insufficient remedies.

“The hearing protection doesn’t mitigate that vibrational component, which is a significant part of leaf blower activity.”

The problems with gas-powered lawn equipment are grounded in science. But the path forward — particularly the viability of electric alternatives — remains up for debate.

According to George Kinkead, President of Turfco Manufacturing — a small landscape equipment manufacturing company in Minnesota — the electric technology isn’t proven out for commercial use yet.

“We’ve spent six figures developing an applicator that was run electrically, and it simply wouldn’t be up to our standards of what we’d sell to any customer. It doesn’t last long enough. There’s questions on reliability.”

Kinkead also draws a distinction between smaller handheld equipment such as leaf blowers, and larger riding equipment that requires more power.

“I think the technology on smaller stuff is more credible… but the stuff where you’re riding on it, and it’s doing applications, I don’t think they’re there yet,” said Kinkead. “Unfortunately, we all got kind of grouped in as a bunch of leaf blowers.”

Kinkead shared that California’s new ban will prevent Turfco from selling equipment in the state at this time. However, he did express optimism that viable electric equipment is not far away.

“I think we’re five years out before they have some credible solutions for people,” said Kinkead. “I’d feel a lot better if it was phased in, kind of like, percentages of your fleet, allow us to put prototypes out there. And then they run and then we find out what’s wrong. And then we bring in another batch.”

Kinkead maintained that a more gradual phase-in would also help businesses set up infrastructure to charge their equipment, allow opportunity to purchase higher quality equipment that comes out a few years down the line, and alleviate unforeseen strains on California’s electric grid.

Yet not everyone shares that perspective.

“We can’t afford to wait,” said Dutzik. “Sitting around and waiting for the perfect technological gizmo to come out of the lab is not really how any of this tends to work. It works by getting good, beneficial equipment out there into the world as quickly as we can and learning from that experience.”

Schatz agreed with that viewpoint. She discussed a variety of policy options beyond California’s ban that could accelerate a transition, including seasonal or geographical use restrictions, financial incentives to discount cleaner and quieter equipment, or vouchers for individuals or businesses who make the switch.

Schatz and Dutzik’s report did acknowledge commercial users have different needs than homeowners, pointing out that homeowners may even save money in the long-run due to the change. However, even on the commercial side, they argued electric equipment was up to the task. As one example, Schatz pointed to Clean Air Lawn Care, a company with franchises nationwide offering lawn mowing and landscaping services with electric and biodiesel powered equipment.

“The gap with gas has really closed within the last five years,” said Kelly Giard, CEO of Clean Air Lawn Care. “In terms of the operation, we use a solar system on our truck. […] We have two batteries per piece of equipment. One battery is used and the other one is getting charged on the solar as we move around during the day.”

Giard acknowledged some downsides to the approach — some equipment such as gas-powered aerators can’t be replaced yet, and the battery-powered leaf blowers make fall cleanups take significantly longer. But he also recounted a variety of benefits, including no fuel expenses, healthier environments for employees, and fulfilling customers’ desire for cleaner, quieter lawn care.

“You go down a street on a Tuesday afternoon in a residential neighborhood and you’re going to see all kinds of work trucks, and the neighbors pay attention to what’s going on. When they see somebody’s doing it quieter, cleaner, I think that’ll pique their interest, and the business doing it that way would benefit from the word of mouth.”

Of course, most small businesses don’t have the capacity to immediately replicate Clean Air Lawn Care’s solar-powered generator setup. That’s why Giard says time and sensitivity are key in creating legislation.

“We’re working with different people like Kirsten on legislation, and I think that these are small business owners and it needs to be sensitive to their [needs], giving them time to transition if they’re going to be asked to do that. I think time is the most critical thing.”

Despite backlash from many landscaping professionals, California’s ban on the sale of gas-powered lawn equipment took effect on January 1, 2024. The ban only applies to new purchases; homeowners and businesses can continue using their gas-powered equipment until the end of its life.

Kinkead told me that he’s all for change, but he worries about how aggressive policies like California’s could hamper aspiring entrepreneurs looking to enter the industry.

“Landscaping could be a gateway for someone without a college education. [With] one truck, the guy could have a business. He could grow that business to five, ten trucks. It’s kind of a gateway to American prosperity. Whereas some of these technological changes all of a sudden cut that off. Now, only big companies can afford to do this. And it’s kind of unfortunate because in our industry, we see a lot of first generation immigrants. You know, they’ve gotten into this business, they’ve built a successful business, but they didn’t need a lot of capital to do that.”

As for Heavenly’s Lawn Care, Montgomery anticipates that the coming months will be tough. But letting out an exasperated chuckle, he assured me that he’ll find a way forward.

“One thing about being a lawn care tech is that you gotta adapt to every scenario, and we’ll adapt to it. It’s a pain in the butt, but we’ll adapt to it.”

Ethan Brown is a Social Mobility Fellow for Young Voices with a B.A. in Environmental Analysis & Policy from Boston University. He is the creator and host of The Sweaty Penguin, an award-winning comedy climate program. Follow him on Twitter @ethanbrown5151

White House officials were cited in a New York Times piece describing that it’s “only a matter of time” before American troops are killed in Iraq or Syria as Iran-linked militant groups continue launching rockets and drones on US bases and positions. The report begins with this: “Another day, another barrage of rockets and another spark that American officials fear could set off a wildfire of violence across the Middle East”—and then transitions to the following astounding and frank admission:

The report goes on the suggest that Iran could be hit hard in a direct US response in the scenario of American troops being killed. This would of course raise the likelihood of broader regional war, and an expanse of US intervention in the Middle East.

Speaking of the internal Biden administration debate, the Times report says, “They (admin officials) do not want to let such attacks go without a response, but on the other hand do not want to go so far that the conflict would escalate into a full-fledged war, particularly by striking Iran directly.” However, “They privately say they may have no choice, however, if American troops are killed.”

And then this surprise emphasis: “That is a red line that has not been crossed, but if the Iranian-backed militias ever have a day of better aim or better luck, it easily could be.”

As of last weekend, international reports tallied that already at least 140 attacks have been launched on US troops in Iraq and Syria since the start of Israel’s Gaza offensive. Further this has included “nearly 70 U.S. personnel wounded, some of them suffering traumatic brain injuries”—but the majority of cases are considered minor.

On the question of whether the White House might give the order to attack Iran directly, this is anything but clear give it would be unprecedented. So far both sides have been fighting via proxy, for example in the context of the Syria war.

The US might instead choose to continue conducting airstrikes or major missile attacks on either locations in Iraq or Syria, targeting ‘pro-Iranian groups’, such as the Iraqi popular mobilization units.

Regardless, as the developing crisis in the Red Sea demonstrates, at this point a mere tit-for-tat slow escalation scenario is unlikely to deter the ongoing attacks on US positions in Syria and Iraq. However, a tiny minority of Congressmen have pointed out that the problem won’t exist at all in Iraq and Syria if Washington brings the troops home.