Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Big banks such as PNC Bank and JPMorgan Chase have filed to close several branch offices in multiple states amid a troubling pattern of rising branch shutdowns in recent years.

Between Nov. 12 and 18, several banks filed to close branch locations, with PNC Bank with the most filings, according to data from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Pittsburgh-based PNC Bank filed for 19 branch closures—five in Pennsylvania, four in Illinois, three in Texas, two each in Alabama and New Jersey, and one each in Indiana, Ohio, and Florida.

JPMorgan Chase followed closely with 18 filings—three in Ohio, two each in Connecticut and South Carolina, and one each in 11 states, including New York, Illinois, Florida, and Massachusetts.

Citizens Bank came in third with eight branch closure filings—six in New York, and one each in Massachusetts and Delaware. Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank filed for seven closures—three in Tennessee and one each in Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Illinois.

Bank of America made five filings—two in New York and one each in Texas, Massachusetts, and California.

Citibank filed for two branch closures, and Sterling, Bremer, First National Bank of Hughes Springs, Windsor FS&LA, and Aroostook County FS&LA made one filing each.

Altogether, banks filed to shut down 64 branches.

The recent closures are part of a long-term branch shutdown trend that has been ongoing over the past several years. A report from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition shows that between 2017 and 2021, 9 percent of all bank branches shut down. The closure rate doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to data from S&P, there were 3,012 branch closures last year and 958 branch openings, leading to a net closure of 2,054 branches. This was the third consecutive year that net closings exceeded 2,000.

One major factor that led to a surge in branch closures is the rise of digital banking, a trend that accelerated during the pandemic when people were stuck at their homes.

A survey by the American Banking Association (ABA) conducted in September showed that 8 in 10 Americans used a mobile device to manage their bank accounts at least once in the previous month.

“Digital banking tools have made it more convenient and more secure than ever for consumers to manage their finances,” Brooke Ybarra, ABA’s senior vice president of innovation strategy, said, according to a Nov. 3 statement.

Cost Saving, Negative Effects

Going digital rather than expanding physical branch locations is also part of a cost-saving strategy for banking institutions. Opening a new site costs millions of dollars and several hundreds of thousands in annual recurring costs.

Most of the operations done via a physical bank can now be done online. Digital transactions are cheaper than the costs incurred in transacting via bank tellers.

On the flip side, the shutdown of bank branches can negatively affect customers, especially in small towns. Due to such closures, many towns have become “bank deserts,” where the nearest bank is more than 10 miles away.

“When bank branches close, there are several adverse effects on the surrounding community. Small business lending and activity in the area declines. More people use alternative financial services that open them to unregulated and predatory financial practices. An important commercial tenant and employer are lost,” the National Community Reinvestment Coalition report said.

“While consumers have embraced mobile and internet banking to one degree or another, they clarify that branches matter to them as well, and without branches nearby, they are more likely to be un- or under-banked.”

A recent survey by Daily Mail found that 51 percent of Americans were either “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about the closure of bank branches.

PNC Bank Closure

PNC Bank registered the largest number of closure filings amid its heightened focus on cost-saving measures. During its second-quarter earnings call, CEO William S. Demchak said the bank is “going to have to take a hard look” at where it can “generate savings … without cutting the potential for growth.”

At the time, Chief Financial Officer Robert Q. Reilly revealed that the institution was boosting the target of an expense reduction program by $50 million to $450 million. For next year, PNC Bank is targeting $725 million in expense cuts.

PNC is the sixth-largest U.S. bank. The 19 branches that will be shut down are:

• 202 N. Walnut St., Bath, Pennsylvania
• 301 W. Trenton Ave., Morrisville, Pennsylvania
• 14 N. Main St., Plains, Pennsylvania
• 1969 E. 3rd St., Williamsport, Pennsylvania
• 2 N. Mill St., New Castle, Pennsylvania
• 321 Bel Air Blvd., Mobile, Alabama
• 2811 Eastern Blvd., Montgomery, Alabama
• 5650 S. Brainard Avenue, Countryside, Illinois
• 2217 W. Market St., Bloomington, Illinois
• 1949 E. Sangamon Ave., Springfield, Illinois
• 505 West Liberty Street, Wauconda, Illinois
• 8733 U.S. Highway 31 South, Indianapolis, Indiana
• 528 Station Ave., Hadden Heights, New Jersey
• 410 Main St., Orange, New Jersey
• 115 E. Van Buren Ave., Harlingen, Texas
• 407 S. Commerce St., Harlingen, Texas
• 801 W. Kearney St., Mesquite, Texas
• 1040 Mt. Vernon Ave., Columbus, Ohio
• 1140 N. Main St., Gainesville, Florida

In June, PNC shut 47 branches, followed by 29 closures in August. A spokesperson told The U.S. Sun at the time that the bank intends to shut down 147 locations as it focuses more on online banking. The closures were expected to make 60 percent of PNC’s banking business exclusively online.

A spokesperson from the bank told the Philadelphia Business Journal that the 19 bank closures will take place on Feb. 16.

Last month, the bank reported a drop in third-quarter profits and declared cutting roughly 4 percent of its workforce. The layoffs, which began on Oct. 6, will be completed by the end of the fourth quarter. The job cuts are expected to bring down the bank’s yearly personnel expenses by roughly $325 million or 5 percent.

The bank also forecasts that its net interest income—the difference between the interest it receives on loans and the interest it pays on deposits—will shrink by 1 to 2 percent from current levels in quarter four. During the third quarter, net interest income had declined by 3 percent.

“They (PNC Bank) recognize that there is definitely a headwind to the growth and their net interest income, mainly due to the higher deposit rates and higher funding costs,” Timothy Coffey, an analyst at Janney Montgomery Scott, told Reuters.

“And so they’re trying to alleviate some of that headwind by doing what they can to cut their own non-interest expenses as a way to maintain their earnings.”

Authored by John Staddon via DailySceptic.org,

As the West fitfully weakens industrial civilisation by trying to eliminate oil, coal and natural gas as energy sources, the scientific basis for Net Zero is based more on ‘general agreement’ than hard data. Climate scientists nevertheless sound optimistic about the progress that’s being made in destroying society’s carbon energy base.  

There are of course criticisms of the idea of a carbon-dioxide-induced apocalypse, largely supported as it is by general circulation (i.e., whole-earth) planetary models. There are too many different GCMs all with too many free parameters (aka ‘fudge factors’), as well as wildly divergent readings of historical climate records: Are violent climate events really more frequent, and how does weather actually relate to climate? The popular press cries havoc, but the data are not so clear. The looming economic costs of a Net Zero target are leading to some political pushback. Nevertheless, the recent jury acquittal of nine Extinction Rebellion vandals shows that passionate belief in the imminent dangers of CO2 is not limited to activists.

Climate science is complicated, but the key question is simple. The climate does seem to be getting warmer, but are we responsible? Does the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a major effect on the temperature of the earth? The standard answer is “yes, of course”. But in fact there are good reasons for doubt. 

Popular accounts of the ‘climate emergency’ rarely show quantitative data. Yet there are widely available graphs that anyone can understand. Here are three graphs which suggest that the answer to the question is probably “no”. It is likely that beyond a certain point, carbon dioxide has a relatively minor effect on planetary temperature. 

The very long-term historical record

This graph is controversial, simply because estimates of CO2 concentration and temperature before thermometers were widely available – i.e., through 99.99% of the Earth’s history – must be estimated indirectly, by proxies such as ice cores, tree rings and isotope measurements.

If this graph of global temperature and CO2 concentration over the past 600 million years is approximately valid, it shows two things:

1. According to one expert, and as the far right point on the graph shows, “the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere today is the lowest in Earth history except for a period just following the end-Permian extinction event and very early in the Phanerozoic (that is, around 550 million years ago). [emphasis added]” 

2. There is no correlation between the CO2 level and global temperature: when CO2 is high, temperature may be low, and vice versa. 

The second conclusion is less certain than the first. But, certainly vertebrate life has flourished on earth at CO2 concentrations much higher than today’s. 

The long-term historical record

The CO2-temperature correlation is much clearer over a shorter time scale, 800,000 years, as in the next graph (which is not at all controversial). The graph shows temperature (red line) and four estimates of atmospheric CO2 from the EPICA Antarctic ice dome studies across an 800,000-year time period.  

The two main conclusions to be drawn from this graph are:

1. At this time scale CO2 concentration and temperature are strongly correlated: CO2 and temperature go up and down together.

2. But CO2 increases reliably lag behind temperature increases, showing that the CO2 changes are caused by the temperature increases, rather than the reverse. Reason: As oceans heat up, gases, including CO2, are expelled, when they cool atmospheric CO2 is absorbed; warm water can hold less dissolved gas than cool (most planetary CO2 stored in the oceans).

There are arguments, based on positive feedback, that even though ocean heating precedes rather than follows CO2 increase, the effective causation is opposite: CO2 causes heating, not the reverse. But the simplest conclusion is that major changes in atmospheric CO2 are caused by changes in planetary temperature, not the other way round.

Physics

The final graph is from a recent long paper by two physicists, William Wijngaarden (York University, Toronto) and William Happer (Princeton). The article just considers the basic physics of the greenhouse effect, given the physical properties of air and the handful of low-concentration greenhouse gases (CO2, nitrous oxide and methane) that it contains. 

The blue bell-shaped curve shows the amount of solar energy flux (at different wavelengths, x-axis) radiated to space from an earth with no atmosphere. (Most is in the infrared region 400-1000 or so.) The green line is the flux with an atmosphere with no CO2 but with all other greenhouse gases at their standard concentrations. The black line is for all greenhouse gases, CO2 included, at their standard concentrations. The red line is for twice the standard concentration of CO2 (400 to 800 ppm) but with all the other greenhouse gases unchanged.  

At 400 ppm CO2 does have a greenhouse effect: Radiated energy is reduced in the 500-700 frequency range. But an increase to 800 ppm has almost no additional effect – the black and red lines are almost the same. Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm has almost no additional greenhouse effect. 

Conclusion

Taken together, these three bits of data should make anyone doubt that further increases in CO2 pose any kind of environmental threat. The earth may be warming, but it is unlikely that CO2 is responsible. There is almost no chance that these changes are life threatening or even – granted that human activity is probably not responsible – that warming will continue indefinitely. It’s time to cease panicking. Let’s zero Net Zero.

Britain’s King Charles has been siphoning tens of millions of dollars intended for charity, thanks to a medieval law called “bona vacantia,” (vacant goods) which transfers the assets of those who died in a particular region without a will or known next of kin to the duchy. With said funds, Charles has been upgrading a commercial property empire managed by his hereditary estate.

Over the past 10 years, over $75 million in funds have reportedly been collected, despite pledges that the proceeds from such transfers would be donated to charity (of which only 15% has been directed), The Guardian reports.

Financial assets known as bona vacantia, owned by people who died without a will or known next of kin, are collected by the duchy. Over the last 10 years, it has collected more than £60m in the funds. It has long claimed that, after deducting costs, bona vacantia revenues are donated to charities.

However, only a small percentage of these revenues is being given to charity. Internal duchy documents seen by the Guardian reveal how funds are secretly being used to finance the renovation of properties that are owned by the king and rented out for profit.

The rule kicks in if someone whose last known address was in a territory known in the middle ages as Lancashire county palatine, and ruled by a duke. Today, this includes Lancashire and parts of Mereyside, Greater Manchest, Cheshire and Cumbria, per the report.

A leaked internal duchy policy from 2020 was used by officials to invoke bona vacantia in order to apply funds to the king’s profit-generating portfolio. The policy, codenamed “SA9,” acknowledges that there may be an ‘incidential’ benefit to the privy purse – aka the king’s personal income.

Properties identified in other leaked documents as eligible for use of the funds include town houses, holiday lets, rural cottages, agricultural buildings, a former petrol station and barns, including one used to facilitate pheasant and partridge shoots in Yorkshire.

Upgrades include new roofs, double-glazing windows, boiler installations and replacements of doors and lintels. One document references the renovation of an old farmhouse in Yorkshire, helping transform it into a high-end residential let. Another upgrade is helping turn a farm building into commercial offices. -The Guardian

As The Guardian further notes, the refurbishments have made rental properties more profitable, which indirectly benefits the king who receives tens of millions in annual duchy profits – income which Buckingham Palace says is “private.”

The Duchy of Cornwall – which has been passed on to Prince William, operates under the same system – neither of which pays corporation tax or capital gains tax despite generating over $1.6 billion over the last 6 decades.

According to the report, dozens of people saw money transferred to the king’s hereditary estate after they died in the north-west, in places including Preston, Manchester, Burnley, Blackburn, Liverpool, Ulverston and Oldham. Several of the deceased had been living in rundown properties or social housing, which several of their surviving friends called “disgusting” , “shocking” , and “not ethical.”

While Buckingham Palace has declined to comment to the Guardian, a spokesperson of unknown gender for the Duchy of Lancaster indicated that following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, Charles endorsed the continuation of a policy of using bona vacantia money on “the restoration and repair of qualifying buildings in order to protect and preserve them for future generations.”

Throughout England and Wales, those who die without making a will and have no identifiable relatives have their assets transferred to the Treasury, which typically spends the funds on public services. Under a custom which began in the medieval period, however, two hereditary estates, or duchies, belonging to the royal family, are permitted to collect bona vacantia funds from people who die in the aforementioned regions. They also collect leftover corporate assets when businesses are dissolved.

One is the Duchy of Cornwall, which generates profits for whoever is the heir to the throne. Charles used to closely manage the duchy, but last year it passed to his son, Prince William. It collects bona vacantia funds from deceased Cornish residents.

The other is the Duchy of Lancaster, inherited by Charles from his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, when she died last year. Both duchies are professionally run real estate empires that manage swaths of farmland, hotels, castles, offices, warehouses, shops and urban property, including some of London’s prime luxury real estate.

Neither duchy pays corporation tax or capital gains tax, giving them a significant commercial advantage. They have become huge cash cows for the royals, generating the equivalent of more than £1.2bn in profits over the last 60 years. -The Guardian

Both duchies have claimed over the years that they distribute funds ‘net of costs’ to charities, however just 15% of the £61m collected in the last decade have made it to help those in need – and in fact, a large and growing portion of bona vacantia funds for the last several years have been dedicated towards the renovation of properties rented out on a commercial basis – a practice which accelerated starting in May 2020, when SA9 was introduced to bless the process.

According to the actual policy of bona vacantia, such funds are allowed to be used for the “public good” in order to repair, restore, preserve and protect duchy properties when they’re designated a “heritage asset.” 

Using a much broader definition, duchy-owned properties qualify for the funds if they fit within a further seven categories, including buildings located in a conservation area, a site of special scientific interest or area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), which cover large swaths of rural England.

Duchy properties are also eligible for the funding if they are deemed by officials to be of “local historical importance”. A Guardian analysis suggests the 2020 policy gave the duchy licence to spend bona vacantia on roughly half of its property portfolio. -The Guardian

“The primary intention of the expenditure must be the preservation and protection of the fabric of the property and any benefit to the privy purse [the king’s private income] is incidental to that purpose,” reads SA9, which also indicates that “The authority for the use of special costs in this connection is found in a royal sign manual dated February 1987 as supplemented by a further [royal sign manual] dated October 2019.”

Such ‘royal sign manuals’ are reportedly references to the personal signature of the monarch – which at the time was Queen Elizabeth II. Acording to the Duchy of Lancaster spokesperson, Charles rubber-stamped the queen’s prior approval.

“The king reaffirmed that money from bona vacantia should not benefit the privy purse, but should be used primarily to support local communities, protect the sustainability and biodiversity of the land and preserve public and historic properties across the Duchy of Lancaster estates,” they said, genderlessly. “This includes the restoration and repair of qualifying buildings in order to protect and preserve them for future generations.”

Meanwhile, try not paying for your TV license in the UK…

The whole country lives between wallet inspections pic.twitter.com/xzgESKXwn8

— falconryfinance@bsky.social (@FalconryFinance) November 24, 2023

Authored by Marina Zhang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Females and young adults are at an increased risk of suffering from side effects after COVID-19 vaccinations. People who take three doses as compared to two may present different side effects, a Japanese study finds.

The study published on Scientific Reports in November studied 272 hospital employees who received the Pfizer vaccine as a second dose between January to June 2022.

None of the participants had a prior history of COVID-19 infection, and all of their symptoms were examined and diagnosed by doctors at the hospital.

Axillary pain occurs much more frequently in people who have taken three doses as opposed to two. Headaches and joint pain is a side effect that tends to be prolonged following the third dose compared to the second or the first dose.

At the second dose common symptoms include asthma symptoms, ear fullness, numbness in the upper arm, and injection at the injecting site.

Additional vaccines also create a cumulative effect such that people who have taken more shots tend to be at a greater risk of worse symptoms, internist Dr. Keith Berkowitz, who has treated over 200 long COVID and post-vaccine patients, told The Epoch Times.

A Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that the majority of people who report anaphylaxis are female.

Additionally, a JAMA Network Open study similarly showed that females tended to report adverse effects from Moderna and Pfizer vaccinations. The authors of the study reasoned that females tended to produce a greater number of antibodies after vaccination, and that the higher levels of estrogen and progesterone in females may also result in different symptom manifestations.

Younger people also tend to have a stronger immune system, and the side effects experienced by the patient may be a result of the immune response, the authors reasoned.

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines induce the body to produce spike proteins. These spike proteins can damage the blood vessels and cause clotting, inflammation, and even autoimmunity. Greater symptom severity is suggestive of having more reactive symptoms due to the body’s attempts to fight off the spike proteins.

While this may help in clearing spike proteins, it may also prevent recovery as the body directs its resources toward fighting an infection rather than resting and recovering. “If the immune system is functioning better … the body functions better as a whole and the body can use its needed sources elsewhere,” Dr. Berkowitz said.

“I have a lot more male patients these days and … we’re getting more patients who have had multiple vaccinations and boosters,” Mr. Marsland said. Many of the patients now come from recommendations from friends and family who think that they may be suffering from vaccine side effects. Since these people have not been following the research on COVID-19 vaccine injuries, they tend to be a lot more skeptical and distrusting, he added.

Dr. Berkowitz similarly added that as the pandemic progressed, he started to get different patients with the majority being patients who have had several COVID-19 infections and also taken several doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Keith said that since each infection and injection will increase the load of spike protein, “I’ll list how many times have they had the vaccine and how many times have they been infected [to assess treatment].”

For many years the BBC has denied that they are a government funded or subsidized organization. 

They base this claim on a dishonest technicality – The platform argues that it is purely supported by public dollars, as if it is the same as PBS in America.  What it doesn’t mention is that the government helps to strong-arm the public into paying that money to the BBC through enforced TV licensing. 

And, if citizens are caught using a TV for the consumption of a list of taxable content sources without paying the fees, they can be fined or even jailed if they refuse to pay those fines.

The cost of a TV license in the UK is £159 per year.  BBC outsources their sales process to a third-party company called Capita, who operate under the TV Licensing brand name. Capita’s salesmen rebrand themselves as “Enforcement Officers” or “TV License Inspectors”. This creates a false impression of legal authority, used to coerce victims into cooperating.  BBC send salesmen to visit unlicensed addresses from their database. These salesmen receive a commission not only for every TV license they sell, but also every successful prosecution they obtain. They therefore attempt to collect evidence of unlicensed TV viewing during their visits.  UK police are brought in to oversee the inspections carried out by Capita if there is resistance.    

As insane as this probably sounds to most people in other countries, it gets even worse.  If authorities believe you are watching BBC related content without a license, they can visit your home to collect on fines, and with a warrant, this includes breaking and entering to search your property.  

The whole country lives between wallet inspections pic.twitter.com/xzgESKXwn8

— falconryfinance@bsky.social (@FalconryFinance) November 24, 2023

The rules surrounding TV license collection are rather gray, and it’s hard to say if this particular officer (who claims to be a High Court officer) was committing a violation.  This is why Americans refuse to give up their guns; once a population is disarmed there’s no telling what kind of insults a bureaucracy will visit upon them.  Their property is no longer theirs.  Though some UK citizens are fighting back against inspections and the courts, if enforcement can simply enter their homes while they are gone, there’s not much they can do.

The BBC TV licensing grift is, if anything, a perfect example of the insidious nature of big government bureaucracy joining with corporate influence.  It’s not always about mass censorship or mass surveillance; sometimes it’s about nickel-and-diming the public to death.  Sometimes it’s about turning small things that should be basic rights into controlled privileges.  Sometimes it’s about piling up requirements and restrictions to keep the populace constantly anxious and always desperate to appease authorities.  When you are perpetually afraid of drawing the attention of the all-seeing-eye, you’re less likely to rebel against the system as a whole.    

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

This is also Poland’s last realistic chance to defend its territorial integrity in the face of the coming years’ threats.

Poland is poised to become Germany’s largest-ever vassal state upon former Prime Minister and European Commission President Donald Tusk’s likely return to the premiership following the liberal-globalist opposition coalition’s victory in last month’s elections. Those who are interested in learning more about how this is expected to unfold should review this analysis here, which focuses on how the interplay between EU, German, and NATO policies will likely lead to this geopolitical outcome.

Since that fateful vote took place, Polish truckers now even farmers have imposed a de facto blockade against Ukraine that the outgoing government hasn’t broken, which can be regarded as that party’s last power play aimed at giving their country a fighting chance at preserving some of its sovereignty. Here’s a collection of news items about this development from the beginning of the month in order to bring readers up to speed since the Western media hasn’t given it the attention that it deserves:

* “EU state blocking Ukrainian vehicles – Spiegel”

* “Ukrainian envoy condemns Polish trucker blockade”

* “Protesters in EU state blocking aid to Kiev – Ukrainian official”

* “Polish farmers to join Ukraine blockade – Bloomberg”

* “Ukrainians warned of food shortages”

* “Ukraine counting costs of Polish border blockade”

* “Polish truckers blocking Ukraine military cargos – media”

This scenario was actually forecast in early October in the author’s piece about how “Morawiecki Suspects That Zelensky Struck A Deal With Germany Behind Poland’s Back”. It was predicted that Poland could impose a de facto blockade against Ukraine if the ruling party won in order to coerce that country into distancing itself from Germany to a degree, which sought to replace Poland’s desired sphere of influence there as part of its regional power play against it. Here’s the pertinent excerpt from that piece:

“Poland could threaten to stop the transit of third countries’ (especially Germany’s) military and economic aid to Ukraine until Kiev pays restitution for [the Przewodow incident] in the form of institutionalizing its envisaged sphere of influence there. What’s being proposed is a remix of the 1938 ultimatum that Poland gave to Lithuania, albeit this time without the implied threat of armed force if Ukraine doesn’t agree. Nevertheless, the threat of cutting off that country’s military and economic lifeline would likely be sufficient for coercing Kiev into complying with Warsaw’s demands.”

As it turned out, Poland did indeed impose a de facto blockade against Ukraine, though the ruling party and its potential allies failed to win the majority of parliamentary seats during last month’s elections. Nevertheless, their refusal to break up the trucker-farmer blockade of that former Soviet Republic strongly implies tacit approval for it, and nobody should be surprised if it’s later revealed that that they played a role in organizing this behind the scenes to some extent.

From the outgoing government’s perspective, the restoration of Poland’s sphere of influence over Ukraine in the face of aggressive German attempts to replace it is required for their country to have a fighting chance at preserving its sovereignty vis-à-vis Germany during Tusk’s next premiership. Even though he’s expected to subordinate Poland to German hegemony as the hyperlinked analysis at the beginning of this piece explained, this desired geopolitical reversal could impede that.

To elaborate, the worst-case scenario for Poland is that it becomes Germany’s largest-ever vassal state and then plays second fiddle to Ukraine in Berlin’s envisaged “Mitteleuropa”, which would run the risk of Berlin rewarding Kiev for forthcoming preferential reconstruction contracts with influence over Warsaw. This could in practice take the form of forcing Poland to accept even more Ukrainian migrants than it already has, all with the intent of them then becoming citizens and forming their own voting bloc.

If these “Weapons of Mass Migration” concentrate along the border region that the briefly lived post-WWI Ukrainian state at one time claimed as its own, then these newfound demographic realities and the creation of a powerful German-backed voting bloc could one day threaten Poland’s territorial integrity. It’s therefore imperative to avert this worst-case scenario through all realistic means possible, ergo why the outgoing government strongly appears to tacitly approve of the ongoing de facto blockade.

If it succeeds in coercing Ukraine into restoring Poland’s sphere of influence over the country that Germany just recently replaced over the summer, ideally by institutionalizing it in some legal form prior to the incumbents leaving office, then Poland’s territorial integrity can more confidently be defended. As regards Tusk’s plans to subordinate Poland to German hegemony, he’ll struggle to do so completely since that would necessitate a full-fledged purge of his country’s permanent bureaucracy.

In particular, he’d have to remove all conservative-nationalists from the military, intelligence, and diplomatic branches thereof (collectively referred as the “deep state”), which is a herculean task that he might possibly attempt but won’t be able to completely implement. Any serious moves in this direction could also provoke large-scale protests or similar such socio-economic disruptions that could be orchestrated by those same forces exactly as they’re suspected of partially orchestrating the blockade.

Just like the liberal-globalist “deep state” worked against Trump’s agenda in the US, so too could Poland’s conservative-nationalist counterparts work against Tusk’s in order to sabotage his goal of subordinating Poland to German hegemony. To be clear, they won’t be able to stop it entirely even in the best-case scenario just like Trump’s “deep state” opponents couldn’t entirely stop his agenda, but they could still largely derail it and buy time till the next elections, which is good enough given the circumstances.  

If they don’t restore Poland’s recently lost sphere of influence over Ukraine before handing over control of the government to Tusk, however, then impending threats to Poland’s territorial integrity could become a fait accompli by the time the next polls are held in the worst-case scenario. That’s why the de facto blockade of Ukraine can be regarded not just as the outgoing government’s last power play, but as Poland’s last realistic chance to defend its territorial integrity in the face of the coming years’ threats.

In a move that could prove costly, the Israeli government has erupted in anger after the prime ministers of Spain and Belgium criticized Israel for its attacks on Gaza in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on southern Israel — even going so far as to accuse the two countries of “support [of] terrorism.”

The diplomatic crisis started with remarks by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and Belgian PM Alexander De Croo on their two-day swing through Israel, Palestinian territory and Egypt.  

The pair held a joint press conference at the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing into Gaza.  First acknowledging that “Israel has the right to defend its citizens,” De Croo said “too many civilians have been killed” in Gaza. “We cannot accept a society [being] destroyed the way the society of Gaza is being destroyed…The military operation that Israel is conducting to stop the terrorist attacks must respect international humanitarian law.”

Very strong statement by the Belgian and Spanish Prime Ministers, saving Europe from a complete moral and strategic collapse (this statement was given AFTER they met with Netanyahu):

– International law MUST be respected
– Killing of civilians MUST stop
– The destruction of Gaza… pic.twitter.com/NdDas6zJFr

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) November 24, 2023

De Croo also demanded a stop to violence being perpetrated against Palestinians by Jewish settlers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Even before the Oct 7 Hamas attack on southern Israel, 2023 was already considered the worst year for settler violence in more than a decade. Since, settlers have ramped up their killing of Palestinians, leaving threatening leaflets ordering them to leave their homes, blocking roads with boulders, cutting electricity lines to Palestinians’ homes, shutting down water wells and destroying olive trees. 

Sánchez was more pointed: “The indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians, including thousands of boys and girls, [is] completely unacceptable.” In addition to his remarks at Rafah, Sánchez also voiced his concern about the Israeli Defense Forces conduct while speaking next to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

According to estimates of Gaza officials, more than 14,000 have died in Israel’s bombardment and ensuing invasion — including 10,000 women and children. Fleeing the destruction, nearly 1.7 million have been displaced from their homes, according to the UN, and upwards of half of all buildings have been damaged. 

About the death and destruction in Gaza:

“The worst ever. And I don’t say that lightly. 68% of the people killed in Gaza are women and children. No, I don’t think I have seen anything like this before. It’s complete and utter carnage.”

—UN Relief Chief pic.twitter.com/BwYFB0nCTk

— sarah (@sahouraxo) November 24, 2023

Perhaps even more alarming to Israel, Sanchez also called for the entire international community to recognize a Palestinian state. He said he hoped the EU would do so in concert, “but if this is not the case … Spain will take their own decisions.” 138 of the world’s states have already recognized Palestine — broadly speaking, pretty much the entire world apart from North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia. 

Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen accused the two prime ministers of making “false statements…in support of terrorism,” saying that Israel is “fighting a murderous terrorist organization worse than ISIS” and insisted its military is complying with international law. “Their ambassadors will be invited to a harsh rebuke conversation,” Cohen said via Twitter. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu added his own condemnation of the Spanish and Belgian prime ministers: 

Prime Minister Netanyahu strongly condemns the comments by the prime ministers of Belgium and Spain, who did not place total responsibility on Hamas for the crimes against humanity it perpetrated: massacring Israeli citizens and using Palestinians as human shields.

— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) November 24, 2023

Spain was startled by Israel’s strident response, an official told the Financial Times. Madrid promptly fired back at Tel Aviv, with Spanish foreign minister José Manuel Albares denouncing the Israel’s “false, misplaced and unacceptable accusations.” 

DeCroo indicated he would himself summon the Israeli ambassador, but put it in much more polite terms than Cohen did, telling Belgian newspaper Le Soir, “We’re going to invite the Israeli ambassador to Brussels for a coffee and we’ll repeat our position.”

Israel’s lashing out in the face of reasonable criticism carries extra diplomatic risk, as Spain and Belgium currently hold positions of heightened international influence: Spain holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, and Belgium takes over on Jan. 1. 

Once rare, criticism of Israel by Western states seems to be a growing trend. On Friday, UK foreign minister David Cameron said he cautioned Israeli officials that “they must abide by international humanitarian law, that the number of casualties are too high.”

Authored by Conor Gallagher via NakedCapitalism.com,

The TurkStream pipeline, which brings natural gas from Russia to Türkiye across the Black Sea and then into southeastern Europe,  was controversial in certain quarters of the West ever since it was conceived.

Now the flow of natural gas to Europe from Russia via Türkiye is reaching all-time highs. TurkStream has a capacity of 31.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year, roughly half of which stays in Türkiye, and the rest continues on to the Balkans and Central Europe. Serbia and Hungary are the primary European consumers. According to S&P Global, supplies via TurkStream into Southeast Europe rose strongly in July, reaching a record monthly high.

As the gas flowing through the pipeline increases so do the attempted attacks. The Russian Defense Ministry said that three unmanned Ukrainian speedboats carried out an unsuccessful attack against the Russian warship guarding a portion of the pipeline in May. When that failed, Ukraine apparently doubled down and tried again with six high-speed drone boats in June. That attack was also thwarted by Russian forces.

Ukraine Energy Minister German Galushchenko declared in a recent interview with POLITICO that Ukraine fully aims to attack Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure. The statements, while trying to show confidence, instead showed the increasing desperation of Ukraine and its Western backers in the face of the Russian victory on the battlefield, as well as on the economic front.

Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure are nothing new. After all, if some Western media reports are to be believed, it was a small Ukrainian operation that took out the Nord Stream pipelines. But Galushchenko’s comments are a pretty clear indicator that these types of attacks will be among Ukraine’s last gasp tactics. From the POLITICO piece:

When asked if Zelenskyy’s “response” could include Ukraine targeting Russia’s vast oil and gas operations — by far the biggest driver of its economy — Galushchenko replied, “It would only be fair.”

“When answering [Russia’s attack], we would answer by taking the same approach, attacking their energy infrastructure,” Galushchenko said.

Galushchenko stressed he was not a member of the Ukraine military and did not discuss the possible targeting of Russian energy operations with U.S. government officials. He is a member of the Ukraine national security and defense council.

What of those US government officials? What do they think of this strategy? Do they condone the hitting of not just Russian infrastructure but also that of NATO member Türkiye in the case of TurkStream?

Moscow claimed that at the time of the unsuccessful Ukrainian attack in June, a US RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft was in that area of the Black Sea. Putin said at the October Valdai International Discussion Club meeting:

We continue to supply gas to Europe through the TurkStream pipelines, and judging by everything, Ukrainian terrorist groups are plotting to do damage there as well. Our ships are guarding the pipelines that run along the bottom of the Black Sea, but they are constantly being attacked by unmanned vehicles, with English-speaking specialists and advisers clearly involved, among others, in planning those attacks. We have intercepted them on the radio: we always hear English speech wherever those unmanned semi-submersible boats are being prepared. This is an obvious fact for us – but draw your own conclusions.

Russia also claimed in September and October of 2022 that it foiled attacks on Turkstream, but such these are routinely dismissed in the West. The Moscow Times, a western news outlet based in Amsterdam, believes Moscow is making such claims in order to lay the groundwork to blame Ukraine after Russia destroys its own pipelines – again.

Let’s not forget that after the destruction of the Nord Streams, former CIA director and perjurer extraordinaire was predicting that Russia would soon start destroying more of its other pipelines:

“Russia will attack other Russian pipelines soon” says John Brennan.

Translation: The US will blow up Turkstream. https://t.co/riSbbyhtg9

— Rosie’s Indestructible Passport (@DarnelSugarfoo) October 3, 2022

The Center for European Policy Analysis believes Russia saying it thwarts attacks on TurkStream is really a subtle threat, writing, “This is most likely a stratagem to manipulate Europe on the eve of winter by underlining that it can cut supplies at any moment.”

An analysis more tethered to reality is from Fatih Yurtsever, a former naval officer in the Turkish Armed Forces, who believes that Russia is highlighting the foiled attacks in an attempt to bring Türkiye closer to its side:

Russia is trying to get Türkiye’s support against Ukraine by claiming that its ships are in Türkiye’s EEZ to protect the TurkStream pipeline. In fact, Russia’s real intention is to create tension between Türkiye and Ukraine. To this end, it is trying to convince Türkiye that Ukraine will sabotage the TurkStream pipeline in the Turkish EEZ. Ukraine is not currently capable of sabotaging TurkStream, nor does it make sense for Ukraine to engage in such an act that would directly confront Türkiye.

Russia is attempting to capitalize on recent events, such as the intelligence ship attack, in order to drive a wedge between Türkiye and Ukraine while also seeking to align Türkiye more closely with its own interests.

NATO in the Black Sea?

Since the onset of the Ukraine war, Ankara has faced constant pressure to open the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits to NATO warships. On Nov. 17, the commander of the Turkish navy reiterated in a speech that Türkiye does not want NATO in the Black Sea:

As you know, NATO is trying to take some measures in the Black Sea. However, we declare that we will take these measures in the Black Sea ourselves and that we do not want NATO or America in the Black Sea. …

Our goal is for Montreux to be respected. We have provided security for everyone in the Black Sea. As Türkiye, we provide security in the Black Sea. They [the US] should not turn the Black Sea into a Middle East. That is why we do not want any country or NATO to enter the Black Sea.

Erdogan has so far resisted western pressure on the issue, but NATO might be gaining a toehold according to a Nov. 20 report in Bloomberg.

Citing anonymous officials, Bloomberg reports that NATO members Bulgaria, Türkiye, and Romania are closing in on an agreement to create a joint mine-clearing force in the Black Sea. Bloomberg goes to pains to describe the potential effort as peaceful and non-NATO:

The proposed plan would be peaceful in nature and focused on reducing the danger that errant mines pose to shipping routes through the Black Sea. It would not be considered a NATO effort. It would, however, be the first joint action of Black Sea allies since the beginning of the full-scale invasion.

Sounds innocent enough. But western neocons are clearly thinking of using Romania and any mine-sweeping as a NATO Trojan Horse in the Black Sea.

The mine-sweeping plan sounds very familiar to a recent piece at War on the Rocks by Aaron Stein, a Black Sea Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and former senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. The report is titled “Side-Stepping Türkiye: Using Minesweepers to Increase Allied Presence in the Black Sea” and here’s the central push:

Minesweeping ships are purely defensive and therefore would not be as risky as providing Black Sea powers with warships for the armed escort civilian ships in the area. This should assuage Ankara and be a point of potential cooperation, rather than yet another point of friction between Türkiye and its NATO allies. Once transferred and in Romania, these ships (and potentially clearance divers) could be used for a series of bilateral exercises between U.S. and European forces deployed in country, in neighboring countries, or flying over the Black Sea.

These bilateral exercises can augment NATO’s minesweeping capabilities and are a way to conduct exercises with NATO members without needing Türkiye’s official sanction.  The obvious benefits of bilateral exercises have tangential benefits for NATO more broadly and could help augment NATO’s regional capabilities in the longer term. The data from these ships’ sensors should be fused with the aerial surveillance intelligence NATO and its member states collect during daily flights over the Black Sea. This data could be used to enhance situational awareness about threats to international shipping and be an important mechanism for the allies to share information about Russian Black Sea military operations currently and long into the future.

Romania has also discovered significant offshore gas reserves in the Black Sea, which it has begun to tap into. Neocons are stressing the fact that the Black Sea will have to be further militarized in order to protect these energy assets. From the Atlantic Council back in July:

In its summit communiqué this month, NATO acknowledged the Black Sea’s strategic value as well as Russia’s potential use of hybrid tactics to undermine regional allies and partners. NATO, with US leadership, must maintain a credible deterrent to Moscow’s actions in the Black Sea. At a minimum, the West must continue to support regional allies and partners by demonstrating solidarity against Russian aggression and promoting regional energy security through source diversification. This can only be accomplished through domestic energy production of both fossil fuels and renewables. More specifically, these actions need to be coupled with developing greater military operational capability through a combination of modern weapons acquisition and joint exercises. Romania has the potential to propel these efforts further with its Neptun Deep project; other NATO allies must follow suit by increasing their contributions to a credible deterrent.

Türkiye as Energy Hub

Türkiye has profited handsomely by refusing to go along with the West’s self-defeating sanctions on Russia and continues to operate as a primary hub for sanctions evasion. This is making Türkiye into a major regional fossil fuel hub as a crucial transfer point for energy to Europe. This arrangement allows Russia to continue (much reduced) exports to Europe and provides Türkiye with transfer fees and cheap oil and gas for domestic use.  Putin and Erdogan have often discussed expanding Türkiye’s role as an energy hub, and while reports show disagreements remain, that also means Ankara and Moscow are continuing to iron out the details while working towards an agreement.

It also enrages the neocons. I think that Washington’s position can accurately be summed up by the following pieces. One is from the Atlantic Council: “Türkiye can become an energy hub—but not by going all-in on Russian gas.” The thinly-veiled threat concludes with the following:

Exploring phantom opportunities of energy cooperation with Russia at the expense of real risks of getting exposed to US and EU sanctions will not transform Türkiye into an energy hub. Quite the opposite, it would spell the end of this dream.

The other is Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute who writes that “Biden should kill TurkStream to promote transatlantic energy security.” And the transatlantic part of that energy security is of course the ultimate goal for Washington.

It’s worth remembering that TurkStream came about after the US and EU effectively killed the Russia-Bulgaria South Stream pipeline back in 2014. The project would have transported Russian gas under the Black Sea, making landfall in Bulgaria and then passing through Serbia and Hungary into Austria.

Instead Russia pivoted to Türkiye and opened TurkStream at the beginning of 2020 despite US sanctions on companies involved in the construction of the pipeline.

Additionally the US helped kill the EastMed Pipeline which would have brought natural gas from deposits off Israel and Egypt to Greece and elsewhere in Europe via Cyprus. US Undersecretary of State Victoria “F*** the EU” Nuland said at the time that it would take too long and the solution instead was increased LNG shipments to Europe.

Greece and countries in the Balkans that currently receive gas through TurkStream are increasingly building up their LNG import capacity. For example, Greece’s biggest gas utility recently completed a deal with Total Energies for LNG deliveries in the event gas flows from TurkStream are curbed or halted. And Greece received record LNG imports in 2022 allowing it to export more gas north to southeastern Europe.

Bulgaria Clogs the TurkStream Pipe

While the attempted attacks on the pipeline continue, the West’s preferred method to thwart gas deliveries through TurkStream appears to be using Bulgaria. The political drama swirling around TurkStream in Sofia and the potential loss of Russian oil and what that would mean for the Bulgarian economy has the government on the verge of collapse.

In October, Bulgaria added an extra tax of 10.20 euros per megawatt hour on Russian natural gas transferred through the Turkstream pipeline. This move angered Serbia and Hungary – probably the only two European countries that remain on friendly terms with Moscow. Hungary Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto described the move as another attempt to make Hungarian-Russian energy cooperation impossible.

“This is unacceptable. For one EU member state to jeopardize the gas supply of another EU member state is quite simply against European solidarity, against European rules,” he said.

At the end of October, the EU Commission announced that Bulgaria has every right to introduce the tax on Russian gas. Hungary has since asked the European Commission to open a legal procedure against Bulgaria over the tax, but the response has been crickets.

Sofia is moving forward with the tax plan despite knowing that Russia will not pay it. From Euractiv:

The authorities in Sofia have guaranteed that the money will be sought by Gazprom and not by the Russian gas monopoly’s European customers.

Bulgaria expected revenue from the new fee to be paid by mid-November, but the country has not yet been able to collect money from a Russian company…So far, there has been no reaction from Gazprom regarding the introduced energy contribution, and it is not clear whether the Russian concern intends to pay it.

It’s not hard to see how the situation could escalate from here. More:

Bulgarian Finance Minister Asen Vassilev has already said that if the Russian gas monopolist refuses to pay, the seizure of its financial collateral under contracts in Bulgaria or assets in the country will occur.

The move to jack up the price for Serbia and Hungary came after the Sofia City Prosecution launched investigations at the end of August into alleged corruption in the building of the Bulgarian portion of theTurkStream pipeline.

The probe is based on information revealed by the Anti-Corruption Fund NGO that allegedly shows that a secret meeting was held in Türkiye between Bulgarian, sanctioned Russians and UAE representatives to discuss specific actions and a timeframe for speeding up the construction of the gas pipeline.

The Anti-Corruption Fund NGO is funded by an US-outfit called the America for Bulgaria Foundation. Its board of directors has the usual experience – from Silicon Valley and global finance backgrounds, to US neocon think tanks and long careers at the US Department of State.

On the Russian oil front, Bulgaria now plans to scrap its exemption to EU sanctions against Russia six months earlier than planned. Despite that decision to move up the date to March 1, 2024, two of the three parties of the ruling coalition are still arguing it’s not enough. They want Russian oil stopped immediately, and they are accusing the pro-Western government of Prime Minister Nikolai Denkov of being pro-Russia (Denkov’s government maintains that cutting Russian oil right now could lead to Bulgaria not having enough fuel for the winter).

On top of the gas tax and scramble to halt Russian oil imports, the government is also planning to ban the export of petroleum products produced from Russian oil at a major Lukoil refinery in the country. The refinery’s management is threatening to shut down all operations if supplies from Russia are cut off too quickly, which would cost the jobs of thousands of people in the Black Sea region of Burgas.

While the energy politics have the government teetering on the brink of collapse, relations with Russia, Serbia and Hungary continue to sour.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán recently reminded Tucker Carlson of his country’s position on TurkStream. From B92:

“Budapest has made it clear right away that there is another pipeline – not Nord Stream, but South Stream, through which gas is supplied from Russia along the southern corridor to Türkiye, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Hungary. Together with the Prime Minister of Serbia, we emphasized that if anyone wants to do the same thing with the southern corridor as was done with the northern one, we will consider it a reason for war, a terrorist attack, and we will respond immediately,” said the Hungarian Prime Minister.

Orban called for abandoning such plans, without revealing exactly to whom his warning was directed, specifying that it is not about the Russian Federation.

“Maybe you can do that with the Germans, but you can’t do that with this region,” he firmly stated.

It looks increasingly likely that Orbán’s words will be put to the test.

Authored by Robert Bridge,

Last week, more than 40,000 hours of Jan. 6 Capitol Police security footage was released in the public domain that once and for all blew a hole in the pro-Trump ‘violent insurrection’ narrative so dear to the Democrats.

The one question on countless Americans’ minds following the release of the damning videos was: will all those men and women recently locked away as political prisoners for dozens of decades get another day in court?

Indeed, January 6 may have been a lot of things to many people, but another Boston Tea Party it most definitely was not.

Social media was alight over the weekend showing one benign scene after another of the ‘insurrectionists’ casually strolling through the Capitol Building premises, exchanging pleasantries with the on-duty police officers, even giving each other fist-bumps.

Here’s a January 6 video they’ve never shown the public.

A protester is uncuffed by Capitol police and then fist bumps another officer down a hallway away from everyone. pic.twitter.com/ft1yTOITLr

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) November 17, 2023

The revelations of the true nature of the event came to light as newly appointed House Speaker Mike Johnson released the security footage, which came as a political manna from heaven for former president Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party.

“Truth and transparency are critical,” Johnson said in a prepared statement.

“This decision will provide millions of Americans, criminal defendants, public interest organizations, and the media an ability to see for themselves what happened that day, rather than having to rely upon the interpretation of a small group of government officials.”

Democrats, however, who have milked the ‘insurrectionist’ narrative for everything it is worth, predictably chafed at the release, calling it a ‘risk to national security.’

“It is unconscionable that one of Speaker Johnson’s first official acts as steward of the institution is to endanger his colleagues, staff, visitors, and our country by allowing virtually unfettered access to sensitive Capitol security footage,” said New York Democrat Rep. Joseph Morelle, who sits on the Committee on House Administration.

“That he is doing so over the strenuous objections of the security professionals within the Capitol Police is outrageous. This is not transparency; this is dangerous and irresponsible.”

And just like that the J6 Committee’s violent insurrection narrative has crumbled

The Capitol Police facilitated the protesters passage through the building

The vast majority of J6ers should be immediately released.pic.twitter.com/Lb1dEGT1yI

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) November 17, 2023

For almost two years, Democrats, who managed to cherry-pick the most suggestive scenes of the footage, portrayed January 6th as everything from another September 11 to a second Pear Harbor.

Last year, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), the photogenic member of the Democrat’s radical progressive wing, was shown visibly upset after having to “relive” the events of the Capitol riot.

“I am so angry. Having to relive that footage,” she sobbed, rubbing her forehead. “I know it’s not just me. This is everyone.”

“These attacks killed people, traumatized people and for any of you right-winger Trump loyalists, he sent his own people to jail, and promised his own people that he would pardon them.”

The inconvenient truth, however, is that only one person was killed on the day of the Capitol riot – unarmed Air Force veteran and avid Trump supporter, Ashli Babbitt, who was shot by a police officer.

Now, Republicans are demanding justice be served and that the incarcerated protesters be immediately set free.

“And just like that the J6 Committee’s violent insurrection narrative has crumbled,” said conservative commentator Charlie Kirk over X (formerly Twitter).

“The Capitol Police facilitated the protesters passage through the building…the vast majority of J6ers should be immediately released.”

However, with the Democrats still in control of Washington, D.C., together with the FBI, the Justice Department and other administrative offices, the Republicans will have to wait until November 4th – and possibly longer if they lose their White House bid – before any real justice is meted out.

Meanwhile, federal officials have said there is no evidence that law enforcement officials helped coordinate the attacks.

“If you are asking whether the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or agents the answer is emphatically no,” FBI Director Christopher Wray told Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) during a House Committee hearing.

Higgins was questioning Wray about two Greyhound buses he said dropped off FBI agents dressed as Trump supporters at the Capitol on January 6, referring to the vehicles as “ghost buses.”

Whatever the case may be, the fresh revelations were a silver lining in a shitstorm that has been following Donald Trump, who hopes to win back the White House next November despite multiple legal woes.

“Congratulations to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson for having the Courage and Fortitude to release all of the J6 Tapes, which will explicitly reveal what really happened on January 6th!” Trump wrote on Truth Social Friday.

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Blue state residents, whose governments have adopted aggressive climate policies, are paying much more for electricity and fuel than their counterparts who live in red states that lack such policies, according to a new report from America’s largest membership organization of state legislators.

The report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), provides a breakdown of energy prices throughout the United States while demonstrating the relationship between big government policies and high energy costs.

“While some states rely on free market principles and innovation to limit manmade emissions into the atmosphere, others use a more heavy-handed approach by implementing of standards, enacting mandates and pricing schemes that benefit specific types of technologies,” the report reads.

“Whether it is mandates, subsidies, or some combination of both, when the government inserts itself into the energy markets, taxpayers wind up footing the bill.”

The trend of government mandates being linked to higher electricity prices is evident throughout the report.

Red states Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah had the lowest electricity prices. None of them have a government-mandated RPS or participate in cap-and-trade schemes, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is a CO2 cap-and-trade program among 10 states in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of the country.

Utah has a voluntary renewable energy goal of 20 percent by 2025, but it’s not a mandate. Idaho and Wyoming don’t have state-mandated net metering, which is the utility billing practice of recording the excess energy generated by a solar installation and applying it to a customer’s bill as credit toward grid-drawn energy.

While the report notes that the impact of state-mandated net metering is “still not clear cut,” some utility companies have said that it represents a cost shift from people who can afford to install solar panels, leaving people without solar to pay a greater share of the fixed costs of maintaining the electrical grid.

Outside of red Alaska and blue Hawaii (which are geographic outliers and so understandably have the highest electricity costs), the five states with the highest electricity prices are all blue: California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire.

All five states have cap-and-trade schemes and government-mandated RPSs in place. Each of these states has also imposed a state-mandated net metering policy on its utilities.

Overall, the difference in electricity costs between the cheapest red states and the most expensive blue states is substantial. The costs of a kilowatt hour in California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut are more than double what they are in red states Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.

“There is a strong correlation between big government policies and higher electricity costs,” the report states.

“When crafting energy and environmental policies, lawmakers should avoid imposing more government controls and instead allow markets to adapt, innovate, and improve.“

Besides electricity, the ALEC study also looked at gasoline costs across states and similarly found that, in general, there was a correlation between government mandates and prices.

Households using electricity to heat homes are projected to pay $1,063 on average between November and March, according to a Nov. 7 winter fuels outlook report by EIA. By contrast, households using natural gas are only expected to fork over $601.

The stark findings come as the Biden administration ramps up its war on gas appliances, including furnaces, while touting electrically-powered alternatives (such as heat pumps), all in the name of fighting climate change.

Recently, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced that President Joe Biden will use emergency wartime powers to boost U.S. production of electric heat pumps as his administration continues its push to replace furnaces that run on fossil fuels.

Earlier, the DOE proposed new energy efficiency standards for residential water heaters that would require electric water heaters of the most common size to use heat pump technology and gas-fired instantaneous water heaters to use condensing technology to achieve energy efficiency.

At the time, Republicans on the House Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs argued that the DOE’s proposed appliance efficiency standards would be burdensome and costly for Americans, hitting lower-income families the hardest.