Authored by Anders Corr via The Epoch Times,

The United Auto Workers (UAW) went on strike on Sept. 15. The strike affected the “big three” in Detroit—General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis, maker of the Jeep. The union wants to increase average labor costs from $65 per hour, including benefits, which is already above market rates. Nonunionized Tesla, for example, pays “just” $45 per hour in labor, considering the cost of benefits.

The UAW’s demands would roughly double labor costs and, according to management, make the companies unviable. Where will the workers go when the automakers go bankrupt, further mechanize their assembly lines, or move yet more production to China?

Many workers in these companies who aren’t on strike are already getting fired. Striking unions attempt to inflict maximum pain on their own companies with as little effort and expenditure as possible. The companies are forced to let go of misguided workers, who they can’t keep busy because other misguided workers on whom they depend are striking. All the strikers and fired UAW workers are getting paid from union funds that came from dues imposed on workers, whether they like it or not. They’re getting paid by the union to halt production.

This ludicrous practice introduces massive inefficiencies into U.S. manufacturing, yet Americans over the decades have gotten used to the deadweight it attaches to the economy.

The supply chain chaos of the latest strike is purposefully engineered by the UAW, which keeps management guessing which factory will close next. Downstream and upstream workers, including from hundreds of other companies, depend on a reliable supply chain and are made redundant by the UAW’s actions as soon as the factory can’t produce vehicles and supply them to paying customers.

Shareholders in these companies have felt more pain than strikers in recent months, with shares of Stellantis falling by more than 7 percent and shares of Ford and GM falling by more than 20 percent. Compare that to rising inflation, which is less and hits the pocketbooks of both shareholders and workers.

Yet union bosses want to grab even more value from shareholders in a manner that’s ultimately a small win and big loss for not only the workers and companies, respectively, but also for the entire economy. What a tiny percentage of U.S. unionized auto workers hope to gain in increased wages, shareholders lose in multiples, and Americans as a whole lose in our market’s competitiveness.

Investors prefer to invest in countries where they aren’t compelled to share profits when times are good. That’s why investors risk their capital. With no significant upside, investors will keep their money in lower-profit but more reliable investments such as bonds, a preference that, if widespread, would impoverish not only the auto industry but all of the American industry. It’s an inefficient form of investing and removes the critical element to the economic growth of risk-takers as decision-makers with skin in the game.

Shareholders aren’t all billionaires. In fact, 158 million Americans own shares in companies—about three-quarters of all adults. As should be clear from those numbers, most shareholders are regular folks, and those regular folks are getting fleeced by the union (full disclosure: This author is a regular guy who holds GM shares).

The problem isn’t just with the unions. The problem is with our politicians, who can’t stand up to the unions, or they get voted out of office. That’s why both Republicans and Democrats avoid angering unions, and why they silently endure strikes that debilitate not only the affected companies but the entire economy.

A general view of GMC Hummer EVs is pictured at General Motors’ Factory ZERO electric vehicle assembly plant in Detroit on Nov. 17, 2021. (Nic Antaya/Getty Images)

The more liberal a country is toward strikers, the more illiberal its economy. Strikers have the power to shut down free markets of labor and capital, which is where they get their power to raise wages beyond what the market bears. That power of shutting down markets, like the power of monopolies, is inherently illiberal. It impinges on the freedom of labor and capital to operate in a manner that maximizes economic efficiency and growth.

True liberals should support free markets, including labor markets, as do true conservatives. Yet both liberal and conservative politicians in the United States avoid criticizing unions. That’s a historical weakness in the American economy that too few are working to fix. It’s the historical weakness that leads our corporations to deindustrialize the United States in favor of nonunionized China and mechanize assembly lines with robots that can increasingly be bought in China.

American unions are self-defeating because they lack principles beyond their driving cause, which is more money for themselves in the short term, without regard for long-term consequences and negative externalities. As one honest 20-year-old striker told The Washington Post, “I’m just here for the money.”

Fortunately, only about 10 percent of American workers are unionized, which is low for OECD countries. U.S. unionization rates have fallen almost every year since the 1950s, when it reached a peak of 35 percent.

Unfortunately, the concentration of wealth appears to be negatively correlated with unionization. Higher rates of unionization cause a more equal distribution of wealth in the United States, but at the cost of lower growth.

A more equitable distribution of wealth leads to positives from an American values perspective, such as homeownership, a more vibrant small business sector, broader ownership of stocks and bonds, and more political stability. But there are better ways to achieve this than through damaging strikes, for example, through a combination of right-to-work laws and progressive taxation. The United States already has such taxation, so there’s no need for the supply chain dislocations that result from overly aggressive union leaders.

As the winds whip through the canyons of Chicago’s skyscrapers, a storm is brewing between the city’s derivatives powerhouses like DRW, IMC, CME, and Cboe, and a new mayoral administration desperate to fill its half-a-billion-dollar budget chasm, Bloomberg reports.

The city’s financial giants, traditionally known as the fulcrum of the global derivatives market, have been greasing the gears of global trade for decades in what’s now a $75 billion industry. Now, they find themselves in the crosshairs of an $800 million tax proposal from Mayor Brandon Johnson. The plan? levy every financial transaction. The response? Chicago’s financial elite are rattled – particularly as crime rates surge.

Now, a quiet mobilization is underway. These giants of trade, who typically spend their days outfoxing each other in the markets, are now colluding to push back against what they see as punitive policies. This new front sees them sharing data to amplify their value proposition, making it crystal clear to policymakers the vast economic benefits they bring to Chicago.

“We don’t want to leave… But we cannot be disadvantaged in the world’s most competitive markets,” said Ed Tilly, the CEO of Cboe Global Markets.

Chicago’s political elite, meanwhile, are totally screwed. With projections showing a budget deficit of $538 million for next year and increasing costs driven by a cocktail of inflation and rising numbers of destitute asylum seekers, the city’s officials are scouring for revenue sources. And what better place to look than the gilded halls of the derivatives industry? Which can just… move.

The finance industry has also been a boon for commercial real estste.

While corporate downsizing since the pandemic has left parts of downtown hollowed out, 60% of the trading companies that have signed leases since 2020 have expanded their footprint in the city, according to Jones Lang LaSalle Inc.

The Chicago firms that are sharing information in an informal group include Cboe, market makers Optiver Holding and IMC Trading, as well as DRW Holdings, best known for high-frequency trading. They want Johnson to know that the economic benefits could be at risk if rampant crime makes it too hard to recruit talent or a transaction levy puts the industry at a disadvantage to peers including Intercontinental Exchange Inc. in Atlanta and Nasdaq in New York.  -Bloomberg

That said, Mayor Johnson has been hesitant to commit to the transaction tax, signaling an openness to discussions. Such a levy would have to get the nod from Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who seems wary of the mass exodus it could precipitate. Chicago’s recent history is a testament to this, as finance titan Ken Griffin relocated his Citadel business to Miami last year, pointing at the city’s crime and fiscal woes.

Johnson also has to try and live up to his campaign promises, such as not raising property taxes. These have left him with few tools in his fiscal toolbox. While talk of taxing the financial behemoths has gained traction among the public, the potential 800% spike in trading costs associated with the transaction tax has spooked the derivatives industry.

According to Ralph M. Martire of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, “Chicago can’t continue with its current revenue stream.“

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We previously discussed the defunct Disinformation Governance Board and its controversial head Nina Jankowicz. After the outcry over the program, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas finally relented and disbanded the board while insisting that it was never about censoring opposing views.

Jankowicz has sued over the portrayal of her views.

Now, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) has exposed just how broad the scope of the censorship efforts were under the board in combatting “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (MDM).”

This range of authority in what the agency called the “MDM space,” included targeting views on racial justice and the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

New documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) argued that the agency could regulate speech related to “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine” as well as “irregular immigration.”

Those subjects stretch across much of the “space” used for political speech in the last few years.

Notably, within DHS, Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” The resulting censorship efforts included combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” I testified earlier on this effort.

So DHS asserted the authority to target viewpoints on racial justice, Ukraine, and other political subjects, including views based on fact but viewed as misleading in context.

What is also troubling is the continued effort to conceal these censorship activities. Homeland redacted much of this information on a now defunct board under FOIA Exemption 7(E), which protects “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations.” That claim is itself chilling.

After the demise of the board, National Public Radio ran an interview entitled “How DHS’s disinformation board fell victim to misinformation.”

As the title suggests, NPR just repeated the view of Jankowicz despite the objections of many of us in the free speech community. Jankowicz insisted “we weren’t going to be doing anything related to policing speech. It was an internal coordinating mechanism to make sure that we were doing that work efficiently.” Yet, what were the criminal investigations, prosecutions, and enforcement efforts now being claimed as connected to this work?

Recently, a court found that the Biden Administration’s censorship efforts constituted “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” Those words by Chief U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty are part of a 155-page opinion granting a temporary injunction, requested by Louisiana and Missouri, to prevent White House officials from meeting with tech companies about social media censorship.

Yet, Democrats have gone all in on censorship, blacklisting, and even red-baiting efforts.  The July 4 decision came six months after I testified before Congress that the Biden administration used social media companies for “censorship by surrogate.” Despite furious attacks by congressional Democrats in that and later hearings, a court found that the evidence overwhelmingly shows systematic violation of the First Amendment by the Biden administration.

Now we have a glimpse into the chilling scope of the Homeland Security’s efforts to target opposing viewpoints.  From racial justice to Covid to Ukraine, these subjects involve core political speech. Yet, the Biden Administration felt that it had the right to monitor and combat opposing views in these areas.

In the first censorship hearing, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) criticized me for offering “legal opinions” without working at Twitter. I later noted that it was like saying a witness should not discuss the contents of the “Pentagon Papers” unless he or she worked at the Pentagon. Wasserman Schultz tried to portray the Twitter Files allegations as mere opinions; she cut me off when I tried to explain that the Twitter Files contents — like those of the Pentagon Papers — are “facts,” while the implication of those facts are opinions.

Now there are additional facts showing the massive scope and effort targeting opposing viewpoints. Yet, Democratic members continue to oppose further investigation into these efforts. More importantly, the Biden Administration appears to be using every means to conceal the scope of its efforts. Why? The public should know the range of subjects and claimed authority of these government programs.

This controversy goes to the very core of our constitutional values in protecting free speech. The effort to conceal these efforts and claims reflects the unease of the Biden Administration is telling the public what it has been doing secretly in its name.

After the better half of the last decade polarized the country to the extreme, politically oriented dating apps are on the rise.

On the left, those with a penchant for turtleneck sweaters, hatred of orange presidents and a lottery of genders can check out Colorado-based TruuBlue, which matches social justice progressives.

On the right, those who love long shoots at the range, not murdering unborn children, and woke-free zones can check out The Right Stuff.

TruuBlue, launched by Boulder based tech entrepreneur Dennis Hefter, launched a preliminary enrollment period earlier this month with a $500,000 injection from private investors.

“I don’t think you need to be a Democrat to be on TruuBlue, but you need to be a progressive,” the 61-year-old Hefter told the Washington Times, who added “We support all genders, sexualities and gender pronouns.”

“I think we’re going to get a ton of progressive college kids,” Hefter continued. “They’ll come here because they’re fervent about their beliefs and don’t want to waste time dating people who don’t share their values.”

Once TruuBlue hits 5,000 downloads, it will start matching users next month based on their political values and ranked preferences on six social justice causes: “climate change, gun control, abortion, LGBTQ rights, immigration laws and universal health care.”

The Right Stuff – which landed a $1.5 million investment from Billionaire Peter Thiel, has marketed itself over the past year to God-fearing conservatives who value heterosexual marriage, family, and children.

Launched in September 2022, The Right Stuff has had more than 150,000 downloads and is averaging 43,000 monthly active users, said John McEntee, the app’s co-founder and a former presidential aide to Donald Trump. He said 51% of active users are women. -Washington Times

“Conservative daters are looking to date with intention,” said McEntee. “We have six couples [that we know of] getting married from the app, with the first wedding being this month.”

The wait is finally over! pic.twitter.com/8POlHDRyYS

— The Right Stuff (@daterightstuff) September 30, 2022

On launch day in 2022, The Right Stuff had 7,000 app downloads, 6,000 the second day, and 33,000 in the first month.

Though ideologically opposed, both Hefter and McEntee harbor a mutual sentiment. They believe the increasing political polarization in America can be a catalyst for niche dating apps’ success.

But as online dating experiences an upsurge, thanks in part to pandemic lockdowns, some industry experts have questioned these new entrants. Amber Brooks of DatingNews.com, warns that while the notion of ideologically-aligned dating apps might be tempting, their practical utility often falls short, especially outside metropolitan areas. She highlights past ventures like BernieSingles and TrumpSingles, which dwindled over time.

Brooks also noted that many apps, such as Tinder, Bumble and Match.com allow users to filter by politics and religion.

That said, a February survey from American Perspectives found that political affiliation is the fourth-highest dating priority after children, smoking and religion.

That finding builds on several earlier surveys:

⦁ The American Family Survey from BYU/Deseret News found that just 21% of marriages were politically mixed in 2020. Only 3.6% were between Democrats and Republicans, Wendy Wang reported in an analysis for the Institute of Family Studies.

⦁ The Pew Research Center reported in 2020 that 71% of single Democrats said they probably or definitely would not be in a serious relationship with a Trump voter.

⦁ Pew reported that the perceived importance of political affiliations in dating profiles rose from 40% of current or recent online daters in 2019 to 53% in 2022, led by a surge of 16 percentage points among Democrats.

Which begs the question – when’s that national divorce?

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

If we compare health and endurance, well-being, security, general attitudes, family and community ties and values, we would conclude that it is we who are impoverished.

We’re taking care of my 92-year old mother-in-law here at home. She has the usual aches and pains and infirmities of advanced age but her mind and memory are still sharp. Her memories of her childhood are like a time capsule from the 1930s.

My mom-in-law has always lived in the same general community here in Hawaii. She’s never lived more than about 10 miles from the house where she was born (long since torn down) in 1931. Listening to her memories (and asking for more details) is to be transported back to the 1930s, an era of widespread poverty unrelated to the Great Depression. Many people were poor before the Depression. They were working hard but their incomes were low.

Prior to the tourist boom initiated by statehood and affordable airfare, Hawaii’s economy was classically colonial: large plantations owned by a handful of wealthy families and/or corporations (known as The Big Five) employed thousands of laborers to raise and harvest sugar cane and pineapple. Pearl Harbor, Hickam air base and Schofield Barracks were large military bases on Oahu. Travel between islands was expensive (ferries) and each island was largely self-sufficient.

Even taking a bus for the 12-mile ride to the island’s sole city was a rare luxury, an excursion that occurred a few times a year.

Plantation workers were not yet unionized in the 1930s, and wages were around $20 a month for backbreaking field labor–work performed by both men and women. Typical of first and second-generation immigrant communities of the time, families were generally large. Six or seven children was common and nine or ten children per family was not uncommon. Many families lived in modest plantation-provided camps of two bedroom houses.

Gardens were not a hobby, they were an essential source of food to feed a table of hungry kids and adults. Candy, snacks, sodas, etc. were treats rserved for special occasions and holidays. Kids usually went barefoot because shoes were outside the household’s limited budget.

Staples were bought at the company store (or one of the few privately owned groceries) on credit and paid off when the plantation paid wages.

Credit issued by banks was unknown. Neighborhoods (kumiai) might pool a few dollars from each family every year and offer the sum to the highest secret bidder or by lottery. Those households that scraped up enough to open a small business often worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week (or equivalent: 14 hours 6 days a week).

Neighbors helped with births and deaths.

Since no one could even dream of owning a car, transport was limited. Children and adults walked or biked miles to school or work. Many sole proprietors made a living delivering vegetables, meat and fish around the neighborhoods. (This distribution system is still present in rural France where my brother and sister-in-law lived for many years). Each vendor would arrive on a set day / time and housewives could gather to buy from the proprietor’s jitney or truck. Children could eye the few candies longingly, and if they were lucky, a few pennies would be given to them to buy a candy.

Locally baked bread was delivered by boys. Milk was delivered by small local dairies.

Nostalgia is a powerful force, but I don’t think we can dismiss the general happiness of my Mom-in-law’s childhood as airbrushed impoverishment. The poverty seems obvious to us now, but at the time it was normal life. Everyone was in the same general socio-economic class. The plantation manager lived in a mansion with servants, but those with wealth were few and far between. In other words, wealth and income inequality was extreme but the class structure was flat: the 99% had very similar incomes and opportunities–both were limited.

Employment was stable, community ties and values were strong without anyone even noticing, and everyone had enough to eat (though not as much as they might have wanted, of course).

This secure plantation structure of work and community was still firmly in place in 1969-1970 when I lived on the pineapple plantation of Lanai (and picked pineapple with my high school classmates in the summer), and so I was fortunate to experience it first-hand. My Lanai classmates speak fondly and with a sense of loss when they recall their youth. Life was secure and protected, and with unionization of the workforce, the wages sufficient enough for frugal households to save enough to send their children to college off-island.

I can personally attest that fond memories of 1970s plantation life are not distorted by nostalgia. These memories are accurate recollections of a far more secure, safe and nourishing place and time.

Compared to today, the typical 1930s diet was locally grown / raised and therefore rich in micro-nutrients. Grains such as rice and flour came from afar, but other than canned fish and similar goods, food was local and fresh. Little if any was wasted.

People typically worked physically demanding jobs that burned a lot of calories.

There are many people 90+ years of age in our neighborhood. My Mom-in-law’s brother–like many of the men in this age bracket, he was a World War II veteran of the famed 442nd unit–died last year at 96, despite smoking a half-pack of cigarettes daily until the end. A neighbor/friend just passed away at 99 (he was also a 442nd veteran). Our neighbor (cared for by her daughter and son-in-law, just like us) just turned 100. These people are generally healthy and active until the end of their lives.

If we look for causal factors in their advanced age and generally good health, we cannot ignore the high-quality, near-zero-processed foods diets of their youth and their strong foundations in community ties and values.

If we compare the financial and material wealth most enjoy today with the limited income and assets of the pre-war era, we would conclude they lived in extreme poverty and their lives must have been wretched as a consequence.

But if we compare health and endurance, well-being, security, general attitudes, family and community ties and values, we would conclude that it is we who are impoverished and it was their lives that were rich in these essentials of human life.

The world has changed since the 1930s, of course. Materially, our wealth and options of what to do with our lives are off the charts compared to the 1930s. But if we look at health, security, well-being, community ties, social cohesion and civic virtue, our era seems insecure, disordered and deranging.

The irony is that those who have grown weary of our divisive, rage-inducing socio-economic system yearn for all that’s been lost in the rise to material wealth and opportunities to spend that wealth. Those who grasp the emptiness of spectacle and material wealth and who have the means to do so are seeking the few enclaves that still have a few shreds of community and social cohesion left.

These enclaves then get listed on “best small towns in America” or “best places in the world to retire” and the resulting influx of wealthy outsiders destroys the last remaining shreds of what everyone came for.

I recently harvested some of our homegrown green tomatoes, and my Mom-in-law gave me a handwritten recipe for Fried Green Tomatoes from her collection. The first ingredient was “two tablespoons of bacon drippings.” Um, okay, if we were all working 10-hour days hauling 80-pound loads of sugar cane on our backs, no problem, but we’re a household of three seniors, 69, 70 and 92. I think we’ll substitute two teaspoons of olive oil for the bacon drippings…

*  *  *

My new book is now available at a 10% discount ($8.95 ebook, $18 print): Self-Reliance in the 21st Century. Read the first chapter for free (PDF)

Become a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Well if you consider the “American dream” nowadays to be spending money you don’t have while racking up debt, the American Dream megamall outside of New York City (in NJ) might be aptly named after all. 

The massive shopping destination inside of the Meadowlands saw its losses quadruple last year, according to the New York Post, sending the facility a stunning $245 million into the red.

The facility is having trouble attracting tenants and is watching customer foot traffic slow, according to the report. Its expenses and debt, as we have documented here on Zero Hedge over the last 2 years, have been burdensome. 

The megamall had probably the worst “grand opening” timeline in history, welcoming customers for the first time just five months before the Covid pandemic locked down consumers and ensured the failure of many businesses who couldn’t adapt.

Beyond pandemic-induced closures and building setbacks, the shopping complex has been hit by a series of unexpected incidents, like the collapse of a decorative helicopter model into a pool full of kids last February. Then, in December, an Air National Guard member tragically died in a snowboarding mishap at Big Snow American Dream.

A preliminary financial report indicates that the mall’s operating costs soared to a staggering $428 million in 2022, nearly double the previous year’s $232 million, the Post noted in its writeup. 

Separate from operating costs, the mall also incurred $350.3 million in non-operational expenditures, such as debt interest and restructuring fees, according to documents submitted to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s EMMA database. Financial liabilities, including debt repayments, reached $189 million in 2022.

We have previously written about the American Dream mall, writing back in February 2022 that the megamall had just $820 in its reserve account after making a massive $9.3 million interest payment.

That should have been the first sign things weren’t going as planned…

We noted in summer of 2021 that the mall was drowning in debt. We wrote that the mall saw its opening delayed more than once and suffered from the extremely unfortunate timing of the pandemic. 

Owners the Ghermezian family were having trouble preventing the mall from “hemorrhaging cash”, according to Bloomberg at the time, who also noted that the family had already hired advisors to help restructure the project’s $3 billion in debt.

Lenders for the project, including J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Soros Fund Management, stood to face losses on about $1.7 billion in construction loans, we noted last summer. The project was carrying about $1.1 billion in municipal debt at the time.

Neil Shapiro, a New York real estate attorney, said of the project last year: “It’s been like watching a train wreck that goes on forever. There aren’t a lot of projects that lose at least $3 billion that we’re still talking about as projects.”

The financial difficulties plaguing the mall serve as a cautionary tale about the dangers of over-leveraging that we believe we are going to see over and over again as the Fed maintains its tight grip on the gears of the economy, via its “higher for longer” stance. 

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The four-star general in charge of the US Air Force’s Air Mobility Command has defended a memo he sent to his officers earlier this year where he predicted the US would be at war with China in 2025.

“My assessment is that war is not inevitable, but the readiness I’m driving with that timeline is absolutely essential to deterrence and absolutely essential to the decisive victory,” Gen. Mike Minihan said last week when asked about his prediction, according to Defense One.

“There needs to be tension on readiness, more than just ‘be ready tonight.’ You need to have readiness that drives urgency. The urgency and the action are paramount,” he added.

Minihan noted that the memo, dated February 1, included the words: “I hope I am wrong.” But the memo to his officers ordered them to be prepared for a fight with China, and while the Pentagon distanced itself from Minihan’s timeline, the US is openly preparing for a direct war with China by building up its forces in the Asia Pacific and increasing military support for Taiwan.

Minihan’s prediction is that the war would be sparked over a Chinese move on Taiwan:

“My gut tells me we will fight in 2025. [Chinese President Xi Jinping] secured his third term and set his war council in October 2022. Taiwan’s presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a reason. United States’ presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a distracted America. Xi’s team, reason, and opportunity are all aligned for 2025,” the memo reads.

The memo included several orders for Air Mobility Command personnel, including getting their personal affairs in order.

“All AMC personnel will consider their personal affairs and whether a visit should be scheduled with their servicing base legal office to ensure they are legally ready and prepared,” Minihan wrote.

On Friday, New York City Mayor Eric Adams unveiled a Knightscope K5 Security Robot that will be deployed in the crime-ridden Times Square Subway Station.

“$9 an hour… $9 an hour. I know you wanted to write how we’re wasting money, but I’m sorry I’m taking your thunder away. We’re leasing at $9 an hour,” Adams said at the robot’s big reveal press conference. 

Somehow, the mayor and fellow Democrats believe this robot will deter criminals who have only been emboldened by failed social justice policies over the years. 

From afar, the fully autonomous security robot looks like a giant trash can on wheels. It’s armed with cameras and will record video but not audio.

The robot comes as the mayor has slashed budgets citywide by 5% amid worsening financial conditions in the metro area, fueled by outflows of residents and businesses and a migrant crisis sparked by the Biden administration’s disastrous open southern border policies. 

“This is below minimum wage,” Adams said, adding, “No bathroom breaks, no meal breaks.”

However, not everyone was thrilled about the robot, and there seems to be some in-fighting among Democrats in the metro area. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) posted on X, “NYC schools got defunded to pay for these privacy disasters on wheels.” 

NYC schools got defunded to pay for these privacy disasters on wheels https://t.co/jioP61xBbU

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 22, 2023

If the answer by Democrats is to deploy robots to fight crime after they pushed failed social justice reform, then this party is in real trouble.

They have no credible solutions to reverse the tidal wave of crime they help spark, and voters will soon catch on to this at the ballot box. 
 

Authored by John Seiler via The Epoch Times,

This is so funny. California Democrats are hatching a plot to keep former President Donald Trump off the state’s ballot next year.

But it could backfire and guarantee he wins.

Politico headlined, “California Dems consider unique approach to getting Trump off ballot: California lawmakers are urging AG Bonta to expedite court action against former president.”

The story:

“Nine California lawmakers wrote a letter to Attorney General Rob Bonta over the weekend, arguing that Trump isn’t eligible to be on the ballot for inciting an insurrection when a mob of his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“The move, which comes amid several lawsuits to keep Trump off state ballots across the country, is unique because Bonta could use his standing as California’s top law enforcement officer to expedite a state court ruling on the matter. Should the effort succeed, California could be the first state to bump Trump off its ballot, even if the ruling is ultimately overturned.”

This is being debated around the country based on the 14th Amendment’s Section 3, which reads (please excuse a couple of medium-length quotes for context):

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021 supposedly made him the leader of an “insurrection.”

The best argument against that was advanced by former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey in the Wall Street Journal:

“The use of the term ‘officer of the United States’ in other constitutional provisions shows that it refers only to appointed officials, not to elected ones. In U.S. v. Mouat (1888), the Supreme Court ruled that ‘unless a person in the service of the government … holds his place by virtue of an appointment … he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.’ Chief Justice John Roberts reiterated the point in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010): ‘The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.”’”

The California State Capitol building in Sacramento, Calif., on April 18, 2022. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

What if They Can Disqualify Trump?

Now, here’s where it gets interesting.

Hypothetically, what if Mr. Mukasey’s argument doesn’t hold up in the courts?

Then California and other states’ attorneys general and governors, or lawsuits by political groups, could throw Mr. Trump off the ballot.

Especially critical would be the swing states with Democratic governors: Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper. Or Fulton County (Atlanta) District Attorney Fani Willis, already prosecuting Trump for allegedly interfering in the 2020 election, could do it.

But then, Republicans could do it in their swing states, throwing President Joe Biden off the ballot.

They could say his alleged bribes from Communist China disqualify him under the 14th amendment’s Section 3 wording for having “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Republicans governors invoking that clause could include Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, Joe Lombardo of Nevada, and Chris Sununu of New Hampshire.

It would be what in military parlance is called Mutual Assured Destruction.

If that happened, neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Biden would reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency in the Electoral College.

Then what?

This combination of pictures created on October 22, 2020 shows President Donald Trump, left, and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden during the final presidential debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn., on Oct. 22, 2020. (Brendan Smialowski and Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

Contingent Elections

Then we would have the fourth of what’s called a Contingent Election, although the phrase itself isn’t in the Constitution.

It means the matter is decided by the House of Representatives (or the Senate for vice presidents).

There have been three so far:

1. Thomas Jefferson beat Aaron Burr in 1800;

2. John Quincy Adams beat Andrew Jackson in 1825.

3. And in 1837 the vice presidential election was given to Richard Mentor Johnson over Francis Granger.

Under a Contingent Election in the House, all 435 members don’t get to vote. Rather, each state delegation gets one vote—50 votes total.

On Sept. 18 Canadian political writer Stephen Marche wrote an article for the left-wing Guardian titled, “Here’s the scary way Trump could win without the electoral or popular vote: In a ‘contingent election,’ he could lose the popular vote, electoral college and all his legal cases and still end up the legal US president.”

He calculated:

“State delegations in the House would favor Republicans as a matter of course. In the struggle for congressional delegates, Republicans would have 19 safe House delegations and the Democrats would have 14, as it stands, with more states leaning Republican than Democrat.”

Ha ha.

So California, by knocking Mr. Trump off the ballot, could guarantee he becomes president.

Again, none of this is likely to happen.

If any state tries to keep him off the ballot, the courts almost certainly would put him back on, possibly reasoning along the lines Mr. Mukasey detailed.

There’s one thing this whole escapade teaches us: A large number of California’s politicians hold in contempt the Constitution, democracy, and the people of the state they claim to represent.

In this train-wreck of a state, with housing, homelessness, drug addiction, schooling, budget, and countless other problems festering—don’t they have anything better to do?