Authored by Kathleen Sheridan via The Brownstone Institute,

It seems that everyone is running from the lockdowns they once supported, and that includes former presidents and governors, and probably mayors too. Apologies would be better so we can at least have an honest accounting rather than an attempt to rewrite the history that everyone knows. 

Jack Phillips of Epoch Times alerts readers in his article of August 31, 2023, of Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds’ recent statement on the subject of lockdowns. The Iowa State Government’s website says the following:

“Since news broke of COVID-19 restrictions being reinstated at some colleges and businesses across the U.S., concerned Iowans have been calling my office asking whether the same could happen here. My answer—not on my watch. In Iowa, government respects the people it serves and fights to protect their rights. I rejected the mandates and lockdowns of 2020, and my position has not changed.” 

Governor Reynolds “rejected” the mandates and lockdowns of 2020?

She did?

Her position has remained the same? It has?

Could it be the Governor has forgotten her “orders?” On March 17, 2020, Governor Reynolds issued her first “Public Health Disaster Emergency.” Following her long list of “whereas’s,” she ordered the following:

• Restaurants and bars: Closed to the “general public”

• Fitness centers/health clubs, spas, aquatic centers: Closed

• Theaters/performance centers: Closed

• Casinos/gaming facilities: Closed

• Churches: Closed

• Social, community, spiritual, religious, recreational, leisure, and sporting gatherings and events of more than 10 people, including but not limited to parades, festivals, conventions, and fundraisers: Prohibited. 

• Senior citizen and adult daycare centers: Closed

• Salons/barber shops: Closed

A few weeks later on April 6, 2020, she doubled down. In this second proclamation, the Governor extended the timeline and expanded what she now says she “rejected.” To add insult, she also formally called on law enforcement to “assist in the enforcement of these ‘mitigation efforts’.”

To wit: 

“To encourage further social distancing and mitigation efforts, the proclamation orders additional closures effective at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 7th until Thursday, April 30th”: (Highlight and underline added)

• Malls 

• Tobacco or vaping stores

• Toy, gaming, music, instrument, movie, or adult entertainment stores

• Social and fraternal clubs, including those at golf courses

• Bingo halls, bowling alleys, pool halls, arcades, and amusement parks

• Museums, libraries, aquariums, and zoos

• Race tracks and speedway.

• Roller or ice skating rinks and skate parks

• Outdoor or indoor playgrounds or children’s play centers

• Campgrounds

Should we afford the Governor the benefit of the doubt? That she “rejected” “mandates and lockdowns” all the way through Mar 16, 2020? Then changed her mind? Hence, rejecting them before implementing them? 

Should we resist the impulse to accrue to the Governor a little bit of gaslighting in her August 30, 2023 statement? Will she insist that businesses she ordered closed and the behaviors she prohibited* – to be enforced by law enforcement – weren’t “mandated” “lockdowns?” That they were instead “mitigation efforts” as spelled out in her “orders?” That all this merely carried the weight of suggestion? This…so that she can now say that she “rejected” mandates and lockdowns? 

At best – at best – this PR stunt strains credulity. Especially when simple searches can recall those pesky things called facts. On the record.

At worst? At worst, why, some might suggest it describes a woman whose actual status rhymes with “fire.” 

Maybe the Governor needs a chance to explain herself, including her definition of “rejected.” I can just hear her now: “I did reject the lockdowns before I didn’t.” I daresay that would make for some really great reading. 

In the meantime, some of us who rejected all the unlawful nonsense, who were never fooled by any of these fools, who never cooperated and gave up all – remain unfooled – even when the likes of a Kim Reynolds attempts to rewrite history. 

I have attached both of Governor Reynolds’ “mitigation effort” orders.

Fast food chain Burger King finds itself in a flame-broiled fiasco.

A U.S. judge ruled this week that a lawsuit alleging the company cheated its customers by misrepresenting the size of its Whopper sandwiches, would not be dismissed, per the chain’s request. 

The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Roy Altman in Miami, Reuters reported this week. The lawsuit alleges that Whopper sandwiches on menu boards in stores mislead customers, creating a breach of contract. The suit is also pursuing negligence-based and unjust enrichment claims, Reuters reports. 

The class action lawsuit alleges that the burgers appear 35% larger on menu boards, with ingredients that “overflow over the bun”. The suit also alleges that the burgers on the menu boards have “more than double” the meat that the chain actually serves. 

In its response the fast food chain argued that it didn’t need to serve up food that looked “exactly like the picture”. Altman, however, ultimately decided that it would be up to a jury to “tell us what reasonable people think.”

In a statement, Burger King said: “The plaintiffs’ claims are false. The flame-grilled beef patties portrayed in our advertising are the same patties used in the millions of Whopper sandwiches we serve to guests nationwide.”

For those looking to follow along with the action at home, the docket is “Coleman et al v Burger King Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 22-20925”.

In Brooklyn, New York federal court, both McDonald’s and Wendy’s face similar suits, Reuters noted. 

In nearly every country in the world, youth unemployment is much higher than general unemployment.

Unfortunately, the pandemic only exacerbated matters. During a crucial stretch of their early careers, young adults were locked out of entry-level jobs, destroying their ability to pick up work experience and potentially impacting their long-term earnings.

Now, nearly three years after COVID-19 first hit, young adults from some countries, like China, are struggling to find jobs. Using data from the OECD and the National Bureau of Statistics of China, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao and Niccolo Conte chart out the youth unemployment rate for 37 countries.

Ranked: Countries With the Highest Youth Unemployment

At the top of the list, Spain has the highest youth unemployment in the OECD, with nearly one in three young adults unable to find a job.

ℹ️ Unemployed people are those who report that they are without work, are available for work, and have taken active steps to find work in the last four weeks. The youth unemployment rate is calculated as a percentage of the youth labor force.

A mismatch between educational qualifications and the labor market has been cited as a significant reason for Spain’s lack of employed adults between the ages of 15–24.

Meanwhile, the country’s reliance on temporary contracts and dependence on seasonal sectors—like tourism—to generate jobs are some of the many reasons for its persistently high reported unemployment across demographic groups.

Listed below is the youth unemployment rate for all the OECD countries, and China, as of the second quarter of 2023.

Announced in June, China’s youth unemployment rate has climbed to 21.3%, a meteoric rise since May 2018, when it was below 10%. The Chinese economy is in the midst of a slowdown and its steadily climbing youth unemployment prompted the government to suspend age-specific unemployment data for the near future.

On the other side of the spectrum, in Japan, only 4.2% of young adults are without a job. A key reason for this is Japan’s shrinking and aging population that’s made for a tight labor market.

Youth Unemployment: Men vs Women

In most OECD countries, it’s common to see young men experiencing a higher unemployment rate compared to young women.

This contrasts with the trend across all age groups in the OECD, where the unemployment rate is 6.3% for women and 6% for men.

We visualize the countries in the dataset with the biggest gaps in youth unemployment below.

There is no singular reason that explains this common gap.

Across the OECD, more young women opt for tertiary education than young men, which may lead to better employment prospects. At the same time women are overrepresented in the health and social welfare sectors—both growing rapidly thanks to an aging population—that may make it easier for them to find jobs.

Why Does Tracking Youth Unemployment Matter?

Aside from being an indicator of general opportunities within a country, youth unemployment is a key metric to track, because it can be a bellwether for future economic prospects.

High rates of youth unemployment also correlate to brain drain within a country, as young adults move elsewhere to find better jobs.

Finally, large increases in unemployed youth have historically led to the potential of civil unrest, which makes it a politically-charged metric to identify and monitor for governments.

Authored by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

• Analysis of 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy data shows constrained global supplies of fossil fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas, particularly in inter-regional trading.

• Constraints in supply are affecting energy prices, making them highly variable and less affordable for consumers, thereby affecting the global economy, including industries like manufacturing.

• The cost-intensive infrastructure needed for long-distance natural gas exports is becoming increasingly unsustainable, posing risks to both investors and consumers.

For many years, there has been a theory that imports of oil would become a problem before there was an overall shortage of fossil fuels. In fact, when I look at the data, it seems to be clear that oil imports are already constrained.

Figure 1. Interregional trade of fossil fuels based on data of the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy by the Energy Institute.

As I look at the data, it appears to me that coal and natural gas imports are becoming constrained, as well. There was evidence of this constrained supply in the spiking prices for these fuels in Europe in late 2021 and early 2022, starting well before the Ukraine conflict began.

Oil, coal, and natural gas are different enough from each other that we should expect somewhat different patterns. Oil is inexpensive to transport. It is especially important for the production of food and for transportation. Prices tend to be worldwide prices.

Coal and natural gas are both more expensive to transport than oil. They tend to be used in industry, in the heating and cooling of buildings, and in electricity production. Their prices tend to be local prices, rather than the worldwide price we expect for oil. Prices for importers of these fuels can jump very high if there are shortages.

In this post, I first look at the trends in the overall supply of these fuels, since a big part of the import problem is fossil fuel supply not growing quickly enough to keep pace with world population growth. I also give more background how the three fossil fuels differ.

After this introductory material, I provide charts and some analysis of fossil fuel imports and exports by region, based on data from the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy. Theoretically, the total of regional imports should be very close to the total of regional exports. This analysis gives a little more insight into what is going wrong and where.

[1] On a worldwide basis, total supplies of both oil and coal seem to be constrained.

Figure 2. World consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas based on data of the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy by the Energy Institute.

Figure 2 shows that world supplies of all three fossil fuels follow the same general pattern: They tend to rise in close to parallel lines, with oil supply on top, coal next, and natural gas providing the least supply.

The total supply of fossil fuels needs to be shared by the world’s population. It therefore makes sense to look at supply on a per capita basis.

Figure 3. World per capita consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas, based on data of the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy by the Energy Institute.

On Figure 3, the top line, oil supply per capita, is almost perfectly level, suggesting that having a greater supply of oil enables having a larger world population. This relationship makes sense because oil is used to a significant extent in growing today’s food, and shipping it to market. Oil products also make herbicides, insecticides, and drugs for animals that enable the growing supply of food needed to feed today’s population. Oil products are also helpful in road making, and in providing lubrication for machinery of all kinds.

We might conclude that oil supply is essential to the growth of human population. It is only by way of a huge change in the economy, such as the one that took place in 2020, that there is a big dip in oil usage. Even now, some of the changes are “sticking.” Some people are continuing to work from home. Business travel is still low. People are still not buying fancy clothing as much as before 2020. All these things help reduce fossil fuel usage, particularly oil usage.

Figure 3 also shows that on a per capita basis, coal supply has fallen by 9% since its peak in 2011. This fact, plus the fact that coal prices have been spiking around the world in recent years, leads me to believe that coal supply is already constrained, even apart from the export issue.

[2] The share of oil traded interregionally is more than double the share of coal or natural gas traded interregionally.

The reason why oil is disproportionately high in Figure 1 compared to Figure 2 is because a little over 40% of oil is shipped between regions. In comparison, only about 18% of coal production is traded with other regions, and about 17% of natural gas production is shipped interregionally. Oil is much easier (and cheaper) to transport between regions than either coal or natural gas. Shipping costs tend to escalate rapidly, the farther either natural gas or coal is shipped.

Natural gas has a second problem over and above the high cost of shipping: It requires storage (which may be high cost) if it is not used immediately. Storage is needed for both natural gas and coal because both fuels are often used for heat in winter, either by direct burning or by creating electricity that can be used to heat buildings. Storage for coal is close to free because it can be stored in piles outside.

Besides heat in winter, coal is also used to provide electricity for air conditioning in summer, so its demand curve has peaks in both summer and winter. Natural gas is much more of a winter-heat fuel in the US, so it has a large peak corresponding to winter usage (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Coal and natural gas consumption by month based on data of the US Energy Information Administration.

Storage for natural gas needs to be available in every area where users expect to use it for winter heat. The cost of this storage will be low if there are depleted natural gas caverns that can be used for storage. It is likely to be high if above ground storage is required. Natural gas importing areas often do not have suitable caverns for storage. The easy approach is to try to get by with a bare minimum of storage, and hope that imports can somehow make up the difference.

The big question for any fuel is, “Can consumers afford to pay a high enough price to cover all the costs involved in getting the fuel from endpoint to endpoint, at the time it is needed?“

Citizens become very unhappy if the cost of winter heat becomes extremely expensive. They demand subsidies and rebates from the government, in order to keep costs down. This is a sign that prices are too high for the consumer.

Both coal and natural gas are also heavily used in manufacturing. Their prices vary greatly from location to location and from time to time. If coal or natural gas prices rise in a particular location, the cost of manufactured goods from that location will also tend to rise. These higher prices will particularly hurt a manufacturing country, such as Germany, because its manufactured goods will become less competitive in the world marketplace. GDP growth will be reduced, and the profitably of manufacturers will tend to fall.

Because of these issues, long-distance trade in both coal and natural gas tend to hit barriers that may be difficult to see simply by looking at the trend in world production.

[3] Natural gas exports may already be becoming constrained, even though the total amount extracted still seems to be rising.

A huge amount of investment is needed to make long-distance sale of natural gas possible. Such investment includes:

• The cost of developing a natural gas field for export use, usually over many years.

• Pipelines covering every inch traveled by the natural gas, other than any portion of the trip for which transfer as liquefied natural gas (LNG) is planned.

• Special ships to transport the LNG.

• Facilities to chill natural gas, so it can be shipped overseas as LNG.

• Regasification plants, to make the natural gas ready to ship by pipeline after it has been transferred as LNG.

• Storage facilities, so that sufficient natural gas is available for winter.

Not all of these investments are made by the same organizations. They all need to provide an adequate return. Even if “only” very long-distance pipelines are used, the cost can be high.

Pipelines work best when there is no conflict among countries. They can be blown up by another country that seeks to raise natural gas prices, or that wants to retaliate for some perceived misdeed. For this reason, most growth in natural gas exports/imports in recent years has been as LNG.

Organizations investing in high-cost infrastructure for extracting and shipping natural gas would like long-term contracts at high prices in order to cover their costs. Without a stable long-term supply contract, natural gas purchase prices can be extremely variable. Japan has tended to buy LNG under such long-term contracts, but many other countries have taken a wait-and-see attitude toward prices, hoping that “spot” prices will be lower. They don’t want to lock themselves into a long-term high-priced contract.

There are two different things that tend to go wrong:

• Spot prices bounce up above even what the long-term contract price would have been, creating a huge high-price problem for consumers.

• Spot prices, on average, turn out to be too low for natural gas exporters. As a result, they cut back on investment, so that the amount of future exports can be expected to fall.

I believe that there is a significant chance that natural gas exports are now reaching a situation where prices cannot please all users simultaneously. Not all investors can get an adequate return on the huge investments that they have made in advance. Some investments that should have been made will be omitted. For example, there might be enough natural gas storage for a warm winter, but not for a very cold winter in Europe.

A prime characteristic of a fossil fuel (or any resource) that is not economic to extract is that the industry has difficulty paying its workers an adequate wage. Recently, there has been news about a union strike against Chevron at an Australian natural gas extraction site used to provide gas for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export. This suggests that natural gas may already be hitting long-distance export limits. Prices can’t stay high enough for producers to pay their workers an adequate wage.

[4] Oil imports by area suggest that the rapidly growing manufacturing parts of the world are squeezing out the imports desired by high-wage, service-oriented countries.

Because oil is so important in international trade, I looked at the amounts two ways. The first is based on trade flows, as reported by the Energy Institute:

Figure 5. Oil imports by area based on the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy by the Energy Institute.

The second is based upon a comparison of reported production and consumption for the same year, using the assumption that if consumption is higher than production, the difference must be attributable to imported oil. The problem with this later approach is that it can easily be distorted by changes in inventory levels. There may also be difficulties with my approach of netting out flows in two different directions, especially if the flows are partly of crude oil and partly of “oil products” of various types.

Figure 6. Oil imports based on production and consumption data of the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy by the Energy Institute. Amounts adjusted to include “Refinery Gain,” as reported by the US Energy Information Administration.

In both charts, imports for China, India, and Other Asia Pacific are clearly much higher in recent years, while imports for the US, Japan, and Europe are down. The peak year for imports (in total) was about 2016 or 2017. Imports were about 3.5 million barrels a day lower in 2022, compared to peak, with both approaches.

[5] Oil imports by area indicate that nearly all oil exporters around the globe are having difficulty maintaining export levels.

Here, again I show two indications, using the same methods as for oil imports. Since trade is two sided, I would expect total import indications to more or less equal the total of all amounts exported.

Figure 7. Oil exports by area using trade flows based on data of the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy by the Energy Institute.

On Figure 7, peak oil exports (in total) occur in 2016, with the runner up year being 2017. US oil exports are shown to be nearly zero, even in recent years, because US imports and US oil exports more or less cancel out.

Figure 8. Oil exports based on production and consumption data of the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy by the Energy Institute. Amounts adjusted to include “Refinery Gain,” as reported by the US Energy Information Administration.

The indications of Figure 8 show that apart from Canada, the amount of oil exported for all the other export groupings shown is lower in recent years than it was a few years ago. This is also evident in Figure 7, but not as clearly.

To some extent, the lower production in recent years is related to the cutbacks announced by OPEC+ (including what I call Russia+). While these cutbacks are “voluntary,” they reflect the fact that based on current oil prices, and based on investments made in recent years, these countries have made the decision to cut back production. No oil exporter would dare mention that it is running short of oil that can be extracted without considerably more investment.

On Figures 7 and 8, “Mexico+South” refers to all the oil being produced from Mexico southward. Besides Mexico, this includes Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Columbia, Ecuador, and a number of other small producers. Most of them are experiencing falling production. Brazil is doing a bit better, but it does not seem to be experiencing much growth in exports.

Africa’s peak year for oil exports seems to have been in 2007 (both approaches), with recent exports at a much lower level.

With respect to Russia+, its exports seem to be down from their peak in 2017 or 2018, but not any more than for oil producers from the Middle East. The European Union oil embargo doesn’t seem to have had much of an impact.

The star performer seems to be Canada, with its rising production and exports from the Canadian Oil Sands.

In this analysis, I have “netted out” imports and exports. On this basis, the US hasn’t moved into significant oil exporter status yet. I am sure that there are some people hoping that the oil production of the US will continue to increase, but whether this will happen is unclear. The growth of US oil production in recent years has helped offset (and thus hide from view) the falling exports of many countries around the world.

[6] Coal exports appear to have peaked about 2016. Europe has reduced its imports of coal, leaving more for other importers.

Figure 9. Coal imports by area using trade flows based on data of the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy by the Energy Institute.

The peak in coal imports seems to have occurred about 2016. In particular, Europe’s imports of coal have fallen significantly since 2006. At the same time, coal imports have risen for many Asian countries, including China, India, South Korea, and Other Asia Pacific. Even Japan seems to have been able to obtain a fairly consistent level of coal imports for the 22-year period shown on Figure 9.

Figure 10. Coal exports by area based on trade flow data from the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy by the Energy Institute.

One thing that is striking about coal exports is that they are disproportionately from countries in the Far East. Even the coal exports of the US and Canada are from North America’s West Coast, across the Pacific. Russia’s coal exports tend to be from Siberia.

The coal exports of South Africa have declined significantly since 2018, and other African countries are eager for their imports. Today’s largest source of coal exports is Indonesia. Coal exports from Russia+, at least until 2021, have been been a source of coal export growth.

A major share of the delivered price of coal is transportation cost, which tends to be fueled by oil, particularly diesel. Overland transit is particularly expensive. The real reason for Europe’s decline in coal imports since 2006 (shown in Figure 9) may be that there are practically no affordable coal exports available to it because it is too geographically remote from major exporters. Of course, this is not a story politicians care to tell voters. They prefer to spin the story as Europe’s choice, to prevent climate change.

[7] Natural gas imports and exports have only recently started to become constrained.

Figure 11. Natural gas exports by area based primarily upon production and consumption data from the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy by the Energy Institute.

Figure 11 shows that natural gas exports from Russia+ (really Russia, with a little extra production from other countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States) have stayed fairly level, except for a big drop-off in 2009 (probably recession related) and in 2022.

The overall level of natural gas exports has been rising because of contributions from several parts of the world. Africa was an early producer of natural gas exports, but its exports have been dropping off somewhat recently as local gas consumption rises.

More importantly, exports have increased in recent years from the Middle East, Australia, and North America. With this growing supply of exports, it has been possible for importers to increase their imports.

Figure 12. Natural gas imports by area based upon production and consumption data from the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy by the Energy Institute.

Europe was able to maintain a fairly stable level of natural gas imports between 1990 and 2018, and even to increase them by 2021. China was able to ramp up its natural gas imports. Even Japan was able to ramp up its natural gas imports until about 2014. It has tapered them back since then. India and Other Asia Pacific both have been able to add a small layer of imports, too.

[8] What lies ahead?

The countries that have the greatest advantage in using fossil fuel imports are the countries that don’t heat or cool their homes, and that don’t have large numbers of private citizens with private passenger automobiles. Because of their sparing use of fossil fuel imports, their economies can afford to pay higher prices to import these fossil fuel imports than other countries. Thus, they are likely to be winners in the competition for fossil fuel imports.

Europe stands out to be an early loser of imports. It is already losing oil and coal imports, and it also seems to be an early loser of natural gas imports. However, for all its talk about preventing climate change, the reduction in European imports of fossil fuels hasn’t made much of a dent in global carbon dioxide emissions (Figure 13).

Figure 13. CO2 emissions for Europe and the Rest of the World, based on data of the 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy by the Energy Institute.

I am afraid that no country will really come out ahead. In some sense, the United States is better off than many countries because it is producing slightly more fossil fuels than it consumes. But it still depends on China and other countries for many imported goods, including computers. Given this situation, the United States likely cannot continue business as usual for very long, either.

Automakers are looking to finish the week with strength after it was announced on Thursday that the Biden administration would be making “up to $12 billion” available to retrofit facilities to make both EVs and hybrids.

The money will include $10 billion from a US Energy Department loan program for clean vehicles and an additional $3.5 billion in financing to expand domestic battery manufacturing, according to Bloomberg. 

The United Auto Workers, currently in negotiations with Detroit, has argued that a shift to EVs will cost the industry union jobs. US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said on Thursday that the funding would help Detroit retain workers.

However, we’ve seen this “bailout” business model to save jobs before – at banks and during Covid, to name two examples – and it always winds up turning into a company cash grab before ultimately firing workers regardless. The UAW will try to prevent such a situation from taking place as it negotiates.

UAW President Shawn Fain “cautiously” welcomed the news after warning earlier this month that the White House should not push an EV agenda if it means the loss of jobs in Detroit. 

Almost like the government should stay out of the auto industry as a whole, right? But that would make too much sense. 

“The EV transition must be a just transition that ensures auto workers have a place in the new economy,” Fain said this week. Meanwhile, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a Washington lobby group that represents most Detroit automakers, said this week the funding “will further advance the domestic automotive supply chain and globally competitive battery manufacturing platform that automakers have already made sizable investments.”

Instead, Bloomberg calls the move the Biden administration “doubling down on efforts to support carmakers’ transition to EVs”. In a statement this week, President Biden said: “This funding will help existing workers keep their jobs and have the first shot to fill new good jobs as the car industry transforms for future generations.”

The Biden administration continues to aim for half of all vehicles on the road being EVs by 2030. 

Authored by Allen Mashburn via American Greatness,

It’s never been about Trump… it’s about forcing Americans into submission…

In the tumultuous landscape of American politics, one name has become emblematic of the Left’s unyielding battle: Donald Trump. His presidency ignited a firestorm of opposition, revealing not just a political clash, but a broader war against those who hold opposing beliefs. As the dust settled on his term, it became evident that the Left’s war on Trump is just one facet of a broader campaign that aims to silence any dissenting voices. To preserve our freedoms, there must be an issued call to arms for patriotism, courage, and bravery from all citizens—willing to rise to protect the futures of their children and grandchildren.

The Left’s relentless pursuit of Donald Trump transcends mere political opposition. Every step he takes is scrutinized, every word analyzed, and every policy decision met with fervent resistance. Trump, in his own way, emerged as a representative man of the common people – an unconventional politician who resonated with those who felt unheard by the political establishment—and he is a master at rallying his troops. This made him a lightning rod for the Left’s ire, a symbol of everything they sought to dismantle. Yet, beneath the surface, this battle is not solely against a single individual; it is a struggle against any opposition to their ideological agenda. The political spectrum forever changed in America with the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States. The Left’s hand has been shown by his antics of unfiltered communication with America—which got him de-platformed from social media. His call for American independence from foreign entities goes totally against the sellout agenda of the Left that pushes America towards globalism, risking our national sovereignty. He has become a rock in the proverbial shoe of the establishment elites and leftists. He challenges their motives, logic, and their allegiance to Country—for that they hate him vehemently.

The war against Donald Trump is but one example of the broader campaign the Left wages against anyone with opposing beliefs. Their goal is not only to marginalize Trump and his supporters but to ensure that anyone who dares dissent is castigated and suppressed. This phenomenon is not confined to the political realm; it permeates everyday conversations, social media, and public discourse. As we witnessed during Trump’s presidency, the Left’s intolerance of opposing viewpoints extends far beyond the political elite and directly affects ordinary citizens who dare to voice their opinions.

This intolerance for differing beliefs is a dangerous precedent for the future of our Republic. A healthy society thrives on a diversity of opinions, encouraging open debates that lead to thoughtful and balanced decision-making. However, when one side seeks to silence the other, it not only weakens the deliberative process but threatens the very foundations upon which the nation was built.

The call for patriotism, courage, and bravery is not an abstract notion; it is a rallying cry for ordinary citizens to stand up for their country and its principles. As the Left’s war against opposing beliefs rages on, it is not just politicians and activists who must defend these ideals, but every American who values the preservation of freedom. Just as soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy with unwavering tenacity, citizens must stand firm against attempts to suppress their voices. Multitudes have had to die to provide us with this freedom. If it is to be passed to future generations, then it must be conserved through the strength and perseverance of the citizenry.

The erosion of the First Amendment stands at the heart of this struggle. The right to freedom of speech, expression, and assembly is the bedrock of America, enabling citizens to voice their concerns, challenge the status quo, and hold those in power accountable. However, over the last decade, we have witnessed a steady encroachment on these rights. Online censorship, the suppression of dissenting viewpoints, and the vilification of opposing voices have all contributed to a chilling effect on free speech.

The dismantling of our First Amendment rights is not a distant possibility; it is a present reality. Just as the Left relentlessly pursues Donald Trump, they also are chipping away at the very liberties that ensure a robust nation. This trend affects all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, and it poses a grave threat to the multiplicity of thought that is essential for a healthy society.

To combat this erosion of rights and preserve our freedoms, every American must be willing to put everything on the line. The fight for freedom is not for the faint-hearted; it requires courage, determination, and an unyielding commitment to the principles that define our nation. Just as soldiers displayed incredible bravery while fighting in the communist jungles of Vietnam, citizens must exhibit the same courage to defend their rights against ideological tyranny.

Ordinary citizens, irrespective of their backgrounds or beliefs, must recognize the urgency of this fight. As we seek to secure the futures of our children and grandchildren, we must stand united against any attempts to silence, suppress, or marginalize the voices of conservatism and common sense.

The Left’s relentless war against Donald Trump is emblematic of a broader campaign aimed at stifling dissenting voices and eroding the founding principles of our nation. This battle is going to require resolve, and love for our families and country. We have no choice. We are at war. It has never been about Donald Trump—it’s about forcing Americans into submission. The sooner we realize it, the sooner you will begin to fight, and win.

New York health authorities are asking residents to mask up during Labor Day weekend amid the latest wave of Covid-19 cases, and a broader resurgence of hysteria over the disease which generally laughs at face masks & kills less than 0.01% of those who contract it – with newer strains generally weaker than their predecessors, as tends to happen.

And according to the CDC, the latest variant of the virus – BA.2.86, “may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” but notes “At this point, there is no evidence that this variant is causing more severe illness.”

NYC Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan and NY Gov. Kathy Hochul have teamed up to urge extra precautions this weekend, including “proven prevention tools” such as masks.

According to the latest data from the New York City Health Department, there have been 825 daily cases of COVID-19 on average over the past week. While this is several times higher than the seven-day average of 230 cases reported on July 4, it is far lower than the 2,000-plus cases around this time in 2022.

Even though overall COVID-19 indicators are much lower than a year ago, some institutions have started to adopt mask mandates, sparking pushback in some circles and a “we will not comply” trend on social media. –Epoch Times

Former President Donald Trump has openly called fear-monger over new COVID-19 variants nothing more than a ploy to force vote-by-mail in order to rig another election.

“We will not shut down our schools. We will not accept your lockdowns. We will not abide by your mask mandates, and we will not tolerate your vaccine mandates,” Trump said in a video posted on Truth Social.

Read the NYC advisory below (via The Conservative Treehouse),

Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary (subscribe here),

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has gone from criminalizing court filings to committing crimes with respect to her own court filings.

Georgia law makes it unlawful to knowingly file a court document “knowing or having reason to know that such document is false or contains a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.” Ga. Code Ann. § 16-10-20.1(b)(1).

DA Willis is well-aware of this law; she charged a number of Defendants – including Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman – with a violation of that law for filing in a document that contained a “materially false statement in federal court.” And she just violated it this week.

For background, Georgia law allows for a speedy trial demand in accordance with the Sixth Amendment, which provides that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” Two Defendants, Kenneth John Chesebro and Sidney Powell, have made that request pursuant to Georgia law.

DA Willis responded to these speedy trial demands with an utterly false Motion to Advise to inform the Court and the Defendants of the “consequences” of their requests for a speedy trial. This Motion was a violation of § 16-10-20.1(b)(1). By no means are we making a stretch – the statutory violations are clear and obvious. DA Willis and her team invented legal theories and misled the Court about relevant caselaw that allegedly supported her position. Let us explain.

DA Willis made four main assertions in her Motion (quoted in full below):

All of these statements are demonstrably false.

First, DA Willis alleges that because of Defendants’ speedy trial demand, they “cannot now argue that they are entitled to the State’s discovery responses ten (10) days in advance of trial. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. App. 88, 90 (2002); Ruff v. State, 266 Ga. App. 694, 695 (2004)”.

This is not true. Georgia law requires DA Willis to produce a broad spectrum of evidence “no later than ten days prior to trial.” Ga. Code Ann. § 17-16-4. A Defendant’s request for speedy trial does not waive this obligation.

Furthermore, the Defendants are not precluded from arguing they are entitled to evidence under Georgia law by the mere fact they requested a speedy trial. Those cases DA Willis cites in support of her position? They do not apply, they do not stand for the claim DA Willis says they do. The Smith case involved a criminal defendant that requested a continuance. The Ruff case had to do with a defendant rejecting a continuance offer from a trial court where the State did not disclose witnesses in a timely manner. Neither case precludes the ability of a defendant to object to late disclosure of evidence.

Second, and DA Willis states “The Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to notice of the State’s similar transaction evidence ten (10) days in advance of trial. Brown v. State, 275 Ga. App. 281, 287 (2005)”.

Again, this is false. Rule 31.1 requires DA Willis to provide notice of intent to present similar transactions to be “given and filed at least 10 days before trial unless the time is shortened or lengthened by the judge.”

The Defendants did not waive that obligation to benefit DA Willis. It still exists, and it still binds DA Willis. The case DA Willis cites – Brown v. State – does not stand for the proposition that this requirement is waived by a request for a speedy trial. In fact, both the Brown case and Rule 31.1. contemplate the necessity of briefing and arguments where the 10 day notice is violated.

Third, DA Willis alleges the request for a speedy trial precludes the Defendants “from calling any witnesses whose statements were not provided to the State at least ten (10) days in advance of trial. Clark v. State, 271 Ga. App. 534, 536 (2005).”

Another falsehood. Georgia law allows for this 10 day witness statement requirement to be shortened or lengthened “as the court permits.” Ga. Code Ann. § 17-16-7. Whether witnesses are excluded for a violation of the notice rule is up to the Judge; there is no outright preclusion, as alleged by DA Willis.

And again, the case DA Willis cites just doesn’t stand for what she says it does. Clark v. State involved a criminal defendant who violated that 10 day witness statement requirement. The trial judge in Clark gave the defendant the option of not calling the witness or the ability to continue his case to a later date so that the witness could testify. There is no outright prohibition from calling a witness where the statement was produced with less than 10 days for trial, as maintained by DA Willis.

Fourth, Willis claims “The Defendants cannot now complain that they received less than seven (7) days notice of the trial date in this case. Linkous v. State, 254 Ga. App. 43, 47 (2002).”

False. Rule 32.1 requires notice of a trial date “not less than 7 days before the trial date or dates.” This notice requirement, which falls on the Court, exists to protect the due process rights of a criminal defendant. (The surprise of a trial date means an attorney cannot effectively represent their client.) It does not go away where speedy trial demand.

And as you might have guessed, the case cited by DA Willis does not stand for the proposition that a speedy trial demand means a criminal defendant waives the 7 day trial notice. The case cited by DA Willis is Linkous v. State, which concerns the remedies where there is a violation of Rule 32.1. It doesn’t excuse non-compliance with Rule 32.1.

At a minimum, the motion from DA Willis was deserving of sanctions. The trial judge, however, denied the motion without full briefing from the Defendants. He wasn’t concerned with accountability.

Finally, you might be curious about the purpose of the filing from DA Willis. Here’s our guess: DA Willis plans to violate her discovery obligations. She doesn’t want to take these cases to trial within the timeline the speedy trial demands afford. (Chesebro is set for trial on October 23, 2023.) Thus, she will violate her discovery and notice requirements, putting the Defendants in the tenuous position of either (1) proceeding to trial without adequate notice; or (2) having to continue the case to another date so that they may adequately prepare for trial.

This is nothing more than dishonest gamesmanship, a violation of Georgia law and an affront to prosecutorial ethics. If DA Willis wants to punish false statements to a court, she should turn herself in.

Read more from Techno Fog at The Reactionary

Authored by Matthew Lysiak via The Epoch Times,

Growing safety concerns over the city’s bussing of illegal immigrants into the outer boroughs have intensified efforts from Staten Island to break away from the Big Apple.

“The values of New York City are not in line with those of Staten Island and they haven’t been for a long time and that divide is only growing larger,” Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella told the Epoch Times.

“There is this very real sense that the city won’t listen to our concerns and that we have reached a boiling point.”

“The people feel like we are on a tugboat attached to the Titanic,” Fossella said.

“The people can see that the city is sinking, and unless we are okay with sinking too, there is a need to separate.”

Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella (at right, wearing black shirt and white pants) at a protest outside a Catholic school that was converted into a shelter for illegal immigrants on Aug. 29, 2023. (Courtesy of the Office of the Staten Island Borough President)

Staten Island, long known as the forgotten borough, has often flirted with the idea of breaking off from the rest of the city. It has always been an outlier within the five boroughs, with a majority conservative Republican population that is often at odds with the rest of the city. Despite New York City’s status as a blue stronghold, the borough mostly voted for former President Donald Trump in 2020. However, in recent years, many residents have reached a breaking point over increases in crime and, more recently, the bussing of illegal immigrants into residential neighborhoods, according to Mr. Fossella.

“They dump these individuals into our neighborhoods and to my knowledge none of them have been vetted,” said Mr. Fossella.

“One of these migrant shelters is located directly across the street from two elementary schools and they just expect the people to take it. Why would we want to take that risk?

“The concern is legitimate. We are not as safe as we should be and the people are fed up.”

Staten Island is facing the consequences of a growing surge of illegal immigrants into New York City, the only locality in the state considered to be a “Sanctuary City.” Where to put the influx of new illegal immigrants has become an issue of controversy and inter-party tensions.

The city has long claimed a legal obligation to provide housing for every resident under the so-called “right to shelter” law, which was first established in 1981. The rule came into existence after advocates for the homeless claimed the right to shelter in a lawsuit. The city agreed with the homeless advocates, signing a “consent decree,” which pledged to provide shelter to anyone suffering “physical, mental, or social dysfunction.”

City officials claim an estimated influx of 100,000 illegal immigrants has strained the city’s resources and services. Mayor Adams has insisted that New York City can’t sustain the numbers of new illegal immigrants, even by utilizing the outer boroughs, and has called on the rest of the state to help ease the burden.

“Governor Hochul has been a partner on subway safety, on crime, on a host of things, but I think on this issue the governor is wrong,” Adams told students during an Aug. 22 appearance at New York Law School.

“She’s the governor of the state of New York. New York City is in that state. Every county in this state should be part of this.”

Governor Kathy Hochul has pushed back on sharing the burden, declaring during a speech last week that “we cannot and will not force other parts of our state to shelter migrants, nor are we going to be asking these migrants to move to other parts of the state against their will.”

In preemptive motions, upstate county leaders have issued their own emergency orders to block Adams’s attempts to ship illegal immigrants into their communities. The Adams administration is challenging the legality of the emergency orders in court.

Staten Island officials understand that as long they remain part of the city, the busloads of illegal immigrants entering the borough will continue unimpeded.

“Almost no one here wants this, but there is nothing we can do,” said Mr. Fossella. “No one will listen.”

The Staten Island battle for independence faces an uphill climb. Any chance of secession depends on the approval of both the New York City Council and the state Legislature. However, despite the long odds, a growing chorus of local officials are determined to keep fighting for the borough’s right to self-determination.

At an Aug. 29 protest outside the former Catholic school where the city has set up a migrant shelter, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) called for Mr. Adams to allow the island to secede.

“What we’re simply asking is, for common sense. We want the mayor to end this. Stop doing what you’re doing and listen. Secure the damn border. We do not have a border. We do not have a nation,” Ms. Malliotakis said during the protest, according to her office.

“If you’re not going to do your job, mayor, then let Staten Island secede.”