Tag Archives: John Hinderaker

One Phone Company Pushed Back

Posted on by
Reply

There is a lot of information coming out lately about the government operation Arctic Frost. I am not sure any of the actions involved in this operation were in line with the U.S. Constitution, but there is one area that violated the Constitution that is very troubling.

On Wednesday, John Hinderaker posted the following at Power Line Blog:

Arctic Frost was the FBI investigation that tried to associate Donald Trump and many other Republicans with the January 6, 2021, Capitol protest. It was the basis for one of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictments of Trump. That indictment was dismissed. Senator Chuck Grassley has been on this case for a long time; whistleblowers approached him long ago to explain the corruption of the FBI and Joe Biden’s Department of Justice.

Arctic Frost can best be seen as a continuation of the Russia Collusion Hoax and the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which sought to prevent Trump from being elected, and then to cripple his administration after he won the 2016 election. Also the Dirty 51 scandal, which sought, successfully, to swing the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

Arctic Frost included service of 197 subpoenas in which Special Counsel Jack Smith sought incriminating information about hundreds of Republicans, including ten Republican senators and one House member. There was no basis for suspecting any of these individuals of criminal actions, and in fact, no criminality was found. Smith subpoenaed telephone records of those Republicans from various telecom vendors, and rogue Democrat Judge James Boasberg entered a gag order, directing the phone companies not to disclose the subpoenas to their customers–United States Senators–for one year. There is precedent for such orders in organized crime investigations.

The article quotes Fox News:

Verizon justified complying with the subpoenas, saying they were “facially valid” and contained only phone numbers, not names. Verizon said that with the “benefit of hindsight” and recent discussions with the Senate Sergeant at Arms, which handles congressional phone services, it has modified its policies so that it puts up more of a challenge to law enforcement requests pertaining to Congress members.

…AT&T, meanwhile, did not comply with the subpoenas.

“When AT&T raised questions with Special Counsel Smith’s office concerning the legal basis for seeking records of members of Congress, the Special Counsel did not pursue the subpoena further, and no records were produced,” David Chorzempa, general counsel for AT&T, wrote.

The article at Power Line Blog notes:

Taken together, these Democratic Party scandals, from the Russian Collusion Hoax to Crossfire Hurricane to the Dirty 51 to Arctic Frost–and likely others that have not yet come to light–represent by far the worst political corruption in American history. There has never been anything like it.

The Republican voters have been patient, but when will the Republicans hold someone accountable?

It’s Time For A Change

Posted on by

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s term expires in May 2026. It’s a shame that he will be in charge until then. He claims to be apolitical, but his actions tell another story. On Saturday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s term.

The article reports:

We hear constantly about the importance of the independence of the Federal Reserve. Fine: but what if the Fed isn’t independent of politics, it is just independent of, and hostile to, the administration that is in power?

Some think that is the situation now before us. Stephen Moore comments on Fed Chairman Jerome Powell’s most recent pronouncements:

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell was full of doom and gloom yesterday [Wednesday], forecasting 1.6% growth for this year and closer to 1.5% next year.

Was he talking about Afghanistan or the United States?

In the second quarter of this year, the U.S. economy grew by 3.3%, and with a few weeks to go in the third quarter, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is forecasting above 3% growth – twice Powell’s anemic rate.

…Powell never mentioned that real household incomes are up $1,100 for the first seven months of 2025.

He attacks Trump’s tariffs and more restrictive immigration policies as restricting growth – and he’s right on that. But he never mentions the Trump tax cut, the immediate expensing for capital purchases (which has spurred an investment boom), the deregulations that could save up to $1 trillion this year, or that Trump’s pro-energy policies have increased U.S. production of oil and gas to record highs, or that the area where job growth is way down is in government employment – which is GOOD for the economy.

So Powell is hostile to the administration’s economic agenda, and–perhaps–has positioned the Fed in opposition to it.

Stephen Moore notes:

There’s also something almost comical of a Fed chair who let inflation soar by 21% and promised it was all “transitory” now terrified of an inflation rate of less than 3% this year.

The article notes:

Then, of course, there is the Fed’s Taj Majal, construction of which I believe President Trump has stopped. But that is a minor point, compared to the possibility that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is actively trying to undermine America’s economic policies. That isn’t independence, it is partisanship.

If you are unfamiliar with the history of the Federal Reserve, please watch the video below about the history and purpose of the organization.

The Federal Reserve is not what we were told it is.

Who Is Actually In Charge?

Posted on by

On Monday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article asking the question, “Who Runs the Executive Branch?” During the past four years, that was a very appropriate question, but it is still an appropriate question.

The article reports:

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is the executive branch. But over the years, Congress has tried to limit the power of the President by establishing a number of “independent” agencies–the SEC, the FDIC, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and so on. In many cases, Congress has purported to limit the President’s ability to fire employees of those “independent” agencies, even though they are part of the executive branch and nominally under his control.

Democrats like this arrangement, since the agencies are staffed overwhelmingly by Democrats. They have served to undermine every Republican president of the last generation. Until now, Republican Presidents have generally put up with the fact that they do not effectively control the executive branch, but President Trump has moved to assert his proper constitutional authority in several ways.

Most notably, in February he issued an executive order which we wrote about here. It asserted, in several ways, his authority over the “independent” agencies. He has also fired a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve for cause, and, more importantly, he has fired other executive branch officials without cause, as should be his prerogative under Article II.

This has given rise to the vitally important case of Slaughter v. Trump. Rebecca Slaughter was a Federal Trade Commissioner. President Trump fired her without asserting any “cause,” even though the Federal Trade Commission Act says that a Commissioner can be removed by the President only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The administration takes the position–correctly, I think–that this limitation on the President’s control of the executive branch is unconstitutional.

The article concludes:

What is being teed up here is, ultimately, an epic battle between Congress and the President. Democrats are on the side of Congress, mostly because Congress has, in turn, ceded power to the Administrative State, which is overwhelmingly Democratic but which, as Professor Philip Hamburger among others has persuasively argued, is essentially unconstitutional. Republicans are now mostly on the President’s side, because the current President is a Republican, and because they have seen how the Administrative State has become a permanent and unaccountable fourth branch of government.

Of all the battles to which the Trump administration has given rise, this one may, in the end, be the most important.

The decision on this matter will determine whether or not we go back to the Republic our Founding Fathers created–do the checks and balances put in place in our Constitution still apply?

What’s In A Name?

Posted on by

The word of the day is “gerrymandering.” It is a technique long used by the Democrat party to ensure that Republicans don’t get elected to Congress. Lately, the Republicans have figured out that they can play that game too.

On Thursday, the Tilting At Windmills website on Substack reported:

The term “gerrymandering” has become a big part of the recent news cycle. Mostly, it’s been a yawn for me. Both sides do some degree of gerrymandering, but it’s only a problem when the other side does it.

Texas, however, was engaging in a little bit of it that would oust Rep. Jasmine Crockett and help Republicans snag a few more seats in the midterms, where the president’s party typically loses a bit of ground.

And people lost their minds over it, acting like this has never happened anywhere else, and that it’s somehow the most horrible thing in the world despite the pile of examples of Democrats doing it.

Politico, however, went a slightly different direction in their headline for a story about the situation that reads, “Democrats try to separate their tactical use of redistricting from that of Republicans.”

That’s right, it’s not gerrymandering that Democrats do. It’s “tactical use of redistricting.”

And understand, the word “tactical” isn’t anywhere else in the piece, so that’s Politico’s choice of words there, not a quote from someone like JB Pritzker or some other Democrat trying to deflect.

No, that’s their covering fire.

On August 6th, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted a chart showing the impact of gerrymandering:

The chart shows why gerrymandering is important and how it impacts Congress. Let’s end tactical use of redistricting!

Stating The Obvious

Posted on by

War is a horrible thing, but sometimes it is necessary. The Bible notes that there is, “A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” I am not sure that this is the time for peace in the Middle East, and evidently I am not the only person feeling that way.

On June 16th, John Hinderaker posted the following at Power Line Blog:

With respect to Israel and Iran, talk of peace is in the air. We are beset with calls from various quarters to “de-escalate” the situation there, lest wider war break out. President Trump, who partnered with Israel in deceiving Iran prior to Israel’s preemptive strike, is now talking about making another deal with Iran.

I hope he doesn’t mean it. The last thing Israel, or anyone else, should be thinking about is another agreement with the mullahs. Israel now controls the skies, has largely degraded Iran’s missile capability, and can do pretty much anything it wants, militarily. It was delightful to see that Israel wiped out the regime’s state broadcaster.

So this is a golden opportunity, almost certainly the best one Israel ever has had, or ever will have, to bring about regime change in Iran. The mullahocracy needs to go. Neither Israel nor the rest of the world will ever be safe, as long as Islamic extremists control Iran. Israel has already demolished Iran’s proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, and, to a lesser extent, the Houthis. But if Iran’s regime is allowed to stay in place, it will readily rebuild its terrorist infrastructure, just as it will eventually rebuild its nuclear capability.

I agree with the idea of removing the Iranian theocracy, but I am concerned about what will replace it. First of all, America, covertly or openly, should not be involved in any regime change in Iran. Our track record there is not good–we installed the Shah, and that did not turn out well. I am not sure that we ever fomented a color revolution anywhere that actually turned out well. The Iranians need to be free to choose their own future without outside interference.

The Impending End Of A Really Bad Idea

Posted on by

On Sunday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about wind energy. The Trump administration is taking a good, hard look at the practicality and efficiency of wind energy.

The article reports:

One of the most felicitous aspects of the new Trump administration is its determination to drive a stake through the heart of the zombie wind industry. Because it is an absurdly inefficient and unreliable way to generate electricity, wind power was doomed from the start. But the Trump administration is seeing it off.

Robert Bryce, one of our top energy experts, has a long Substack post that is full of good news. You will have to follow the link to get it all, but here are some highlights:

A few days ago, Jason Grumet, the head of the American Clean Power Association (annual revenue: $62.3 million), told Heatmap News that “probably more than half” of all new wind projects under development in the US could be killed due to President Trump’s executive order requiring a “comprehensive assessment” of federal permitting. Heatmap explained that Trump’s policies pose “a potential existential threat to the industry’s future. Just don’t expect everyone to say it out loud.”

…[T]he offshore and onshore wind sectors are in full-blown panic mode. Trump’s executive orders, particularly the one requiring the federal government to assess the wind industry’s impact on wildlife — have had an immediate and chilling effect on wind projects onshore and offshore.

The article concludes:

I am not sure why solar energy is doing better than wind. It has the same defects that wind does: solar is ridiculously expensive, inherently unreliable since it can’t produce electricity at night, when it is cloudy, or when solar panels are covered with snow, and it is massively destructive of the environment.

So let’s drive the solar scam out of existence next. Or, rather, make it stand on its own two feet: no subsidies and no mandates. Let solar compete on even terms with nuclear, natural gas, coal and hydro power, and see who wins. Solar will die out, and the environment will only be better for it.

We have better, more efficient, and cheaper ways to produce energy. Let’s further develop them.

Looking Through The Lens Of History

Posted on by

On Thursday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about the Senate confirmation hearings. He notes that at the three hearings this week  the Democrats were hoping to stop the nominees, things did not necessarily move in that direction.

The article notes:

But now several of Trump’s most controversial nominees–controversial meaning that the New York Times and The Washington Post really, really hate them–have taken their turn. Today, Robert Kennedy, Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard all testified in confirmation hearings. These are the nominees (along with Hegseth) that the Democrats are seriously determined to block, and you could see it in their hysterical, if sometimes hilarious, questioning.

I was able to watch only brief portions of today’s hearings and don’t have an opinion on how, in general, they went, other than the fact that the Democrats were in full howl-at-the-moon mode.

I hope all three nominees are confirmed, although I could go either way on Kennedy. Even here, though, Kennedy came across as I expected. He is walking away from some of his more out-there positions of years ago, and is focused on “making America healthy again.” I think there is room for him to do considerable good as an advocate for more healthy lifestyles.

But I really hope that Tulsi Gabbard is confirmed. From my own (admittedly minimal) experience with her, I have a great deal of respect for Gabbard’s patriotism, her intelligence–she is very, very smart–and her military bearing. And, to be honest, in my dealings with Gabbard I just liked her.

America’s “intelligence community” is sick and throughly politicized. Tulsi is, I think, a great choice to set it straight. I don’t agree with all of her opinions–my view of the Iraq war is more positive than hers, for instance–but I trust her to oversee an objective, competent and non-politicized intelligence operation. Which is what Trump wants, and a huge improvement.

The article notes a bit of history often overlooked:

The Democrats can’t block any of the President’s nominees, so their grandstanding is directed mostly at their own base. I suppose they also hope to persuade four Republicans to vote against Gabbard and the others. That shouldn’t happen. Of this group, the only one who isn’t plainly an excellent choice is the eccentric Robert Kennedy. But Kennedy, too, is President Trump’s choice, and there is a clear rationale for why he might be a very good Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Beginning with the Clinton administration and until this year, I believe there were only two occasions on which any senator of a president’s party voted against any of his Cabinet nominees. That number grew from two to three when three Republicans voted against Pete Hegseth’s confirmation as Secretary of Defense. Let’s hope that Senate Republicans don’t continue to break with tradition.

If the Republicans are not willing to support their own President’s choices, why should they be considered Republicans? I am willing to support any primary opponent who runs against a Republican who opposes President Trump’s choices.

About The Confirmation Hearings

Posted on by

We have had a few days of confirmation hearings, enough to get a feel for what will be asked and how people will conduct themselves. So far, many of the questions asked have very little to do with the future and much to do with accusations or possible past mistakes. It is entertaining to watch some of the Democrats making accusations being reminded of their own actions.

On Wednesday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the hearings.

The article lists his three main observations about the hearings:

First, Trump’s nominees have uniformly done well. Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, Marco Rubio and Chris Wright have all come across as competent and likable, in contrast to most of their Democratic interlocutors, who have been shrill at best, and often dim-witted.

…Second, the main themes behind Trump’s nominations have come through. Trump nominated Pete Hegseth because he wants a soldier running the Pentagon–an idea to which I have enthusiastically come around. Pam Bondi will run a non-politicized Department of Justice. Marco Rubio will implement an America First foreign policy. And Chris Wright wants reliable, affordable energy. All of these themes are popular with the general public.

Third, the Democrats have played only to their hard-core base. Their questions often have focused on hobby horses that the general public has long lost interest in: Will you concede that Trump lost the 2020 election? Should the January 6 protesters be pardoned? And so on.

Somehow I don’t think this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote ‘advise and consent.’

The article concludes:

Finally, all of Trump’s key nominees are going to be confirmed. Republicans control the Senate, and there is no sign that any Republican senators are wavering. Some nominees will sail through, like Marco Rubio, who not only benefits from a traditional senatorial privilege, but is genuinely popular with senators on both sides of the aisle. Others, like Pete Hegseth, will be the focus of Democratic opposition. But it won’t matter: Republicans have the votes, and Republicans are united behind the Trump administration. Democrats can howl at the moon, but they have no power to stop the administration from taking office and moving forward.

A Picture Of A Shift

Posted on by

On Friday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about the Senate elections in 2020 and 2024.

The article includes two illustrations:

The article concludes:

So the Great Sort continues apace. The GOP has a slight built-in advantage in the Senate, but that edge could be neutralized by the Democrats’ vast financial resources and their control over most of the means of communication and the federal bureaucracy.

The more fundamental question, which I won’t address for now, is whether the Great Sort renders futile the entire notion of a United States that includes both its red zones–pro-America, pro-Constitutional government, pro-free enterprise, indifferent to race–and its blue zones–anti-American, anti-Constitution, socialist and racist. On what basis, exactly, can we form a common polity?

That question may become acute much sooner than most observers realize.

I believe that most voters rejected some of the strange ideas the political left has espoused in recent years such as ‘affirmative gender care’ for children and drag queen story hour. Those things may be okay in liberal cities, but they are not acceptable with mainstream Americans trying to raise children. Until some of the more extreme ideas of the political left are jettisoned, there will be little common ground. The extreme right also has its problems. We can’t legislate morality, but we can encourage it. Sometimes the right forgets the old expression that says you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. The political right needs to stand for the values that made this country great, but they need to do it with compassion.

You Can Tell When Israel Is Winning–The United Nations Asks For A Cease Fire

Posted on by

On Monday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the continuing war between Israel and the terrorists that surround it. It is unfortunate that the rest of the world does not understand that in defending Israel they are fighting worldwide terrorism.

The article quotes The Wall Street Journal:

Israeli special forces have been carrying out small, targeted raids into southern Lebanon, gathering intelligence and probing ahead of an expected broader ground incursion, people familiar with the matter said.
***
The Biden administration expects an imminent Israeli invasion of Lebanon, U.S. officials said.
***
An Israeli official said that, if there were to be a broader ground operation, it would feature “localized, limited raids against Hezbollah targets along the border with the objective of destroying the capabilities of the Radwan Forces,” the militant group’s special-operations unit. Israeli forces assess that the group is making preparations for an attack, as Hamas did before Oct. 7, including positioning clothes, weapons and other materials along the border.

The difference is that October 7th was unprovoked and aimed at civilians. Israel’s attack has been provoked by the constant rocket fire on civilians in Northern Israel, and Israel’s attack is aimed at Hezbollah–a terrorist group.

The article at Power Line Blog concludes:

So, what is the Biden administration’s role in these events? Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have remained true to their policy of being utterly irrelevant, when they are not actually destructive, on all foreign policy issues. Biden’s greatest fear, apparently, is that Israel might actually achieve victory in its battle to the death with Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies:

President Biden starkly instructed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday to abandon reported plans for an imminent invasion of southern Lebanon to clear out Hezbollah-held areas days after the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah.

“Israel may now be launching a limited operation into Lebanon. Are you aware of that? Are you comfortable with their plan?” a journalist asked Biden at the White House.

“I’m more aware than you might know, and I’m comfortable with them stopping,” the president replied.

“We should have a cease-fire now,” he added.

There is a pattern here: whenever the Jews are winning, liberal Democrats want a cease fire to give the terrorists time to regroup and live to fight again another day. Happily, no one cares what they think.

If Mexico were firing rockets into Texas every day, would America want a cease-fire?

Caught!

Posted on by

On September 18th, Hot Air posted an article about the Hezbollah pagers that exploded yesterday. There were some very interesting people who had those pagers.

The article quotes The New York Times:

Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amini, lost one eye and severely injured his other eye when a pager he was carrying exploded in a simultaneous wave of blasts targeting wireless electronic devices, according to two members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps briefed on the attack.

The Guards members, who had knowledge of the attacks and spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said Mr. Amini’s injuries were more serious than Iran initially reported and that he would be medevacked to Tehran for treatment.

Hossein Soleimani, the editor in chief of Mashregh, the main Revolutionary Guards news website, confirmed the extent of Mr. Amini’s injuries in a post on X. “Unfortunately the injuries sustained by Iran’s ambassador were extremely severe and in his eyes,” Mr. Soleimani wrote.

Why was Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon carrying a Hezbollah pager?

John Hinderaker at Power Line reported on the news that on Thursday handheld radios were exploding.

The article at Power Line notes:

Apparently fires have broken out in seemingly random buildings, and loudspeakers are telling people to take the batteries out of their phones. I haven’t seen any reports, however, of exploding cell phones.

The usual suspects are up in arms over yesterday’s pager attack:

The United Nations Security Council will convene an emergency meeting on Friday afternoon to discuss Israel’s wave of attacks in Lebanon, according to Slovenia, which holds the Council’s rotating presidency this month.

How many emergency meetings have they held over Hezbollah’s rocket bombardment of Israel, which has gone on for months?

The United Nations’ human rights chief, Volker Türk, has criticized the pager attack as a violation of international law and called for those behind it to be held to account.

So, does sending thousands of rockets into Israel violate international law? What does the U.N. propose to do about it?

Nothing, of course. Hence the need for Israel to defend itself.

That is the current state of the United Nations.

 

The Impact Of American Elections

Posted on by

On Sunday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the recent prisoners swap with Russia. The article made a few observations on why the swap took place now instead of after November.

The article quotes a Wall Street Journal article:

[Deputy chief of the foreign secret service BND Philipp] Wolff’s team saw an opening when their Russian counterparts said they wanted to wrap up the deal before the U.S. election in November. Some officials deduced that the Russians were either concerned about an unpredictable Donald Trump coming again to the presidency, or they feared that [German Chancellor Olaf] Scholz would no longer be willing to help a president who rarely misses an opportunity to criticize Germany.

“We then decided to push it to the limit,” a senior official involved in the talks said.

The article speculates that the real reason for the rush to complete the deal before November is based on the fact that if President Trump is elected, his administration will be much better negotiators than the Biden administration. The article reminds us that the Iranian hostages of the 1970’s were released as soon as Ronald Reagan became President.

Some Americans may get caught up in the ‘never Trump’ movement, but have they thought about the consequences. The Biden administration has given us a small taste of what a Harris administration would be like–higher taxes, weak economy, more unemployment, shrinking middle class, etc. Don’t get caught up in the media spin that says President Trump is a threat to democracy (we are not a democracy) when the Democrat party candidate for President has been put in place without a single vote in the primary election. All of the Americans who voted in the Democrat primary have had no say in who the candidate is–their votes didn’t count. So who is the threat to ‘democracy?’

 

The Consequences Of Liberal State Government

Posted on by

On Saturday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the movement of the American population from Blue States to Red States.

The article reports:

One of the most important phenomena in contemporary America is the Great Sort–we are increasingly dividing into red and blue states, in part because of domestic migration. But that migration is basically a one-way street: people are fleeing blue states and moving to red states. Many, but not all, of these migrants are conservatives seeking a more congenial home. And of course there are liberals living in red states, but very few of them are picking up stakes and volunteering for higher taxes and more sluggish economies.

This is not a new phenomenon. The billboard below is from 1971:

So what impact does this movement of people have on red and blue states? The article includes the following charts:

If the state governments are the laboratories of democracy, it is becoming very obvious which states are doing better economically and in other areas.

The article concludes:

Where does it all end? I don’t know, but one possibility is that the current balance in our national politics, where far-left and center-right forces are almost equal, may before long become obsolete. America may become definitively a center-right country, simply because that is where most people and most resources are located.

Moving illegal immigrants to red states might help restore the balance of power. Just sayin’.

 

Moving Quickly In The Wrong Direction

Posted on by

On Sunday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the impact of the climate-change regulations the Biden administration is placing on Americans.

The article reports:

Liberals denounce Donald Trump as a would-be tyrant, but the fact is that he ruled less by executive order than any other recent president. It is Joe Biden who has discarded the Constitution and imposed a blizzard of illegal or probably-illegal regulations on the rest of us.

Lately, they have been coming so furiously that it is hard to keep up with them. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board caught up with just one set, relating to power plants. The intent of the regulations is to set our economy and our material well-being back by as much as a century:

On Thursday the Environmental Protection Agency proposed its latest doozy—rules that will effectively force coal plants to shut down while banning new natural-gas plants.
***
Barack Obama’s regulation spurred a wave of coal plant closures. Now President Biden is trying to finish the job by tightening mercury, wastewater and ash disposal standards. EPA is also replacing the Obama Clean Power Plan that the Supreme Court struck down with a rule requiring that coal plants and new gas-fired plants adopt costly and unproven carbon-capture technology by 2032.

It is interesting that the Biden administration is planning to severely limit the production of electricity while at the same time encouraging Americans to buy electric cars. If the grid will not be able to keep up with normal expected growth, how will it be able to keep up with the additional demand placed on it by electric cars?

The article concludes:

Biden’s purpose is not to benefit the climate, it is to benefit the vast “green” grift that is one of the Democratic Party’s main constituencies. The greens, but also Communist China. China controls the market for solar panels and wind turbines, and it also controls the raw materials that are necessary to produce solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles and the hypothetical batteries that are the magical solution to the fact that weather-dependent sources of energy can never fuel an economy–a primitive economy, let alone a modern one.

Why is Biden destroying our electrical grid and dragging the United States back into the 19th century, to the immense benefit of the Chinese Communist Party? Occam’s Razor suggests that he is doing it on purpose. Even Joe Biden isn’t dumb enough to fail to understand where these policies are leading. I don’t know whether it is sheer, malicious anti-Americanism, or whether the millions of dollars that Biden and his family have gotten from China have made him the Manchurian Candidate. But, one way or another, the disastrous consequences of the Biden administration’s energy policies are obvious to anyone who pays attention.

Including, even, Slow Joe.

Why Almost All Of The News Sounds The Same

Posted on by

On Friday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the current state of journalism in America.

The article reports:

Commentary in the liberal press is so uniform that you wonder whether reporters and commentators have coordinated their coverage, down to the word and the phrase. Well, they have, of course. You remember JournoList, where, years ago, reporters would gather to coordinate their pro-Democrat, anti-Republican stories. JournoList supposedly disbanded after it came to light, but I assume it more likely just went underground.

Here we have another instance, JournoList 2. Politico reports: “Inside the Off-the-Record Calls Held by Anti-Trump Legal Pundits.”

As the Jan. 6 committee was working on its bombshell investigation into the Capitol riot and President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the last election, committee staffers took some time out of their seemingly 24-hour jobs one day in 2022 to brief a group of lawyers and legal pundits on a Zoom call.

The people on the call weren’t affiliated with the investigation or the government. But they would have been familiar to anyone who watches cable news. They were some of the country’s most well-known legal and political commentators, and they were there to get insights into the committee’s work and learn about what to look for at the hearings.

To “learn what to look for.” That is, to coordinate their news coverage. But that zoom wasn’t a one-off:

The group’s gathering was not a one-time event, but in fact an installment in an exclusive weekly digital salon, whose existence has not been previously reported, for prominent legal analysts and progressive and conservative anti-Trump lawyers and pundits. Every Friday, they meet on Zoom to hash out the latest twists and turns in the Trump legal saga — and intellectually stress-test the arguments facing Trump on his journey through the American legal system.

The article concludes:

The Politico reporter, while sharing the group’s anti-Trump bias, understood that not everyone would see it that way:

[A]s I was reporting this story, I learned that some members of the group were understandably anxious about its publication. Trump has claimed that there is a legal conspiracy against him, and there is a risk that news of a group such as this could give Trump and his allies an attractive target.

Trump’s claims of an organized conspiracy might be bunk, but there are other potential problems with the Friday Zooms: There is a risk, for instance, that the calls could breed groupthink or perhaps help dubious information spread, where it might then reach people watching the news.

Trump’s claim obviously is not bunk, as the Politico article itself reveals. And the idea that the weekly calls could “breed groupthink” or “help dubious information spread” to “people watching the news”? That is the whole point, obviously.

This is just one more reminder that the legacy press is hopelessly corrupt and wholly unreliable. Happily, hardly anyone pays any attention to these people.

If we are going to save America, we have to learn to listen carefully to both the mainstream media and the alternative media. When almost all of the media uses the same words to describe the same news, something is not right.

 

Why Should They Listen To The Voters?

Posted on by

On Saturday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about one possible outcome of the 2024 election. It is becoming very obvious that as the powers that be work harder and harder to make sure that President Trump does not get a second term, more and more voters are deciding to support him–just to have their voices heard. This is going to make for a very interesting year.

The article reports:

In 2001, 2005 and 2017, some Democrat House members objected to the certification of electoral votes for the winning Republican presidential candidate. Those objections, while “denialist,” were only symbolic. But Democrat leaders in the House are now suggesting that if they control that body following November’s election–as they well might–they may refuse to allow a victorious Donald Trump to take office.

Notice that the objects to the electoral votes were not allowed in 2020–they were pre-empted by the events outside the Capitol and a parliamentary procedure was used to block them when the House reconvened.

The article concludes:

The Democrats have become so insane on the subject of Donald Trump that it is hard to know which of their mutterings to take seriously. But if Trump wins the election and a Democrat-controlled House refuses to certify his election on the ground that he is an “insurrectionist” under the 14th Amendment, we will be past the point of a constitutional crisis. If that happens, the only realistic path forward will be disunion, possibly accompanied by civil war, but preferably not.

This is one reason why the Supreme Court should put the 14th Amendment theory out of its misery, once and for all. It is obvious that the drafters of that amendment meant the just-concluded Civil War, in which 600,000 Americans lost their lives, when they referred to “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. In contrast, the January 6 protest was not one of the 50 most destructive riots of the last few years, and the only person killed was Ashli Babbitt. Not a single participant in the protest was arrested in possession of a firearm. Some insurrection!

In the interest of preserving the Republic, the Supreme Court should rule definitively that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Donald Trump.

Stay tuned.

In America It Can Be Dangerous To Be A Conservative

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Daily Caller reported that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is investigating an arson attack on a building in Minnesota that houses a number of politically conservative groups.

One of the offices in that building was the office of John Hinderaker who writes Power Line Blog. In an article posted Thursday, John Hinderaker talks about the fire bombing.

The article at Power Line Blog reports:

I wasn’t entirely forthcoming in this post about why I haven’t written much the last few days. It is true that I have been in Washington, mostly to attend the Michael Mann v. Mark Steyn trial. I will write up my thoughts on the trial (or at least, those portions I have seen) when I have time.

But something else has been distracting me: leftists firebombed my office last Saturday night. At around 2 am, they broke into the building that houses Center of the American Experiment and two other conservative organizations with which we often collaborate, along with many other businesses. The arsonists set two fires: one was in the first floor corridor between American Experiment’s office and the space we sublease to Take Charge, Kendall and Sheila Qualls’ organization. A second fire was set on the third floor, immediately outside or perhaps actually inside the office of the Upper Midwest Law Center, on whose board I serve. This photo shows what the corridor outside my office looks like:

The article concludes:

I am working with the FBI to try to identify the perpetrators. As I told them, the list of potential suspects is long, as my organization is active, and unusually effective, across a broad range of issues. I will have more to say about this before long.

To all my conservative friends–Be careful out there.

Creating An Unnecessary Constitutional Crisis

Posted on by

On Thursday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the crisis at the southern border. There has been a crisis at our southern border since day one of the Biden administration when President Biden undid some of the procedures President Trump had put in place to deal with illegal immigrants. I am not sure why this is finally being addressed after three years, but I am glad that someone is taking action. It is very possible that it is finally being addressed because of the impact moving the illegal aliens around the country has had on Democrat-controlled cities. I am always suspicious of the timing of crises–in recent years they have become political tools.

John Hinderaker reports:

The Biden Administration has dealt a devastating blow to America by opening up the southern border to all comers. The influx of illegals threatens our national security and our economy, and it has placed an intolerable burden on the border states. How intolerable, is demonstrated by the panic that seizes blue cities when they are faced with a tiny fraction of the burden suffered by communities near the open border.

Joe Biden’s border policy is unconstitutional. Under Article II, his most fundamental duty as president is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Biden has not faithfully executed our immigration laws; rather, he has deliberately sabotaged and negated them. This is an impeachable offense, but what to do in the meantime?

In Texas, a constitutional crisis may be brewing. Governor Greg Abbott, having had enough of the scofflaw Biden Administration, had fencing erected along the border to discourage illegal migration. Biden, determined to illegally undermine our country, directed that the fencing be torn down so that more illegals can pour in. The case reached the Supreme Court, which voted 5-4 to overturn a Court of Appeals decision that enjoined federal border agents from cutting the wire. So for now, the Court has the feds back in control.

The article includes a memo written by Texas Governor Greg Abbott stating that it is the responsibility of the federal government to enforce the border. It also includes screenshots of tweets by other governors supporting Governor Abbott.

The article concludes>

Sarah Hoyt says that Oklahoma, Montana, Virginia, Arkansas, West Virginia, Louisiana and Idaho have also lined up behind Texas. And, she reports, the entire Republican Governors Association has signed a letter supporting Abbott. So far, no Democrats. Fine: let’s let sovereignty be the issue on which the 2024 election turns.

I haven’t studied the constitutional issues raised by this crisis in any detail. For the moment, I would simply say, with Justice Robert Jackson, that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. No sane interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions could conclude that a scofflaw president, by violating federal law and betraying his oath of office, can disable the states, who came together to form the federal government in the first place, from defending themselves against foreign invasion.

A nation without borders is no longer a nation. The battle has been joined. Let’s fight it out.

This Green Energy Thing Just Isn’t Working

Posted on by

On Friday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about the current state of green energy.

The article reports:

Wind and solar are both terrible methods of generating electricity, both expensive and unreliable. The one thing that can make the situation worse is the drive to electrify everything, including motor vehicles. The impracticality of this “green” vision has become blindingly obvious, and the “green” movement has begun to fall apart.

The article cites a few recent articles on the subject.

From the Telegraph: “Electricity prices ‘must rise by 70pc to pay for more wind farms.’”

No new wind farms will be built off Britain’s shores unless the Government lets operators earn more money from the electricity they produce, the chief of the nation’s biggest generator has said.

Tom Glover, country chair of RWE’s UK arm, said the price offered by the Government to wind farm operators must rise by as much as 70pc to entice companies to build.
***
His warning follows the disastrous result of the last offshore wind allocation round in September, which ended in a humiliation for ministers with not one company offering to build new offshore wind farms.

From Robert Bryce: “Ford Lost $62,016 For Every EV It Sold In 3Q.”

The bloodbath in Ford Motor Company’s EV division continues. On Thursday, Ford reported an operating loss of $1.3 billion in its EV division during the third quarter. That translates into a loss of $62,016 for each of the 20,962 EVs it sold during the period.

That’s a smaller loss than the company recorded in the second quarter, when it lost $72,762 for each EV and the $66,446 it lost per EV during the first quarter.
***
In its October 26 press release, Ford provided an additional comment on the EV losses, saying, “According to the company, many North America customers interested in buying EVs are unwilling to pay premiums for them over gas or hybrid vehicles, sharply compressing EV prices and profitability.” …

That’s a truth bomb of the first order, one to which veteran observers of the EV hype should rightly reply, “ya think?” Consumers, that is, consumers who aren’t part of the Benz and Beemer crowd, have been unwilling to pay premiums for EVs throughout the century-long history of the EV business. The question that Ford shareholders should be asking the company’s management, and CEO Jim Farley in particular, is obvious: “What the hell took you so long to recognize that customers aren’t willing to pay high prices for EVs?”

I don’t know if I can ever forgive Ford for what it did to the Mustang!

This is what happens when the government interferes in the free market.

Cultural Changes In Political Parties

Posted on by

On Monday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about some of the cultural changes in America and how they are reflected in the two major political parties.

The article includes the following chart from Gallup via Breitbart:

The article reports:

Note that in 1999, there was no significant difference between the parties. Here, as in so many other respects, Republicans have stayed pretty much the same, while Democrats have engaged in a mad dash to the left.

It would be interesting to know exactly what caused that shift–our education system, media, social media, etc., are probably all involved. Facebook was launched in 2005. Instagram was launched in 2010. Facebook is now grandmothers posting kid and grandkid pictures. Instagram and TikTok are more likely to be used by younger people. The largest group of Twitter users are between the ages of 25 and 34. MTV went on the air in 1981. All of these media sources have had an impact on our culture. It should be noted that TikTok is Chinese-Communist controlled and American children who watch TikTok see very different things than Chinese children who watch TikTok. American children see sexual content, transgender things, and things you would find on America’s Funniest Home Videos; Chinese children see science experiments, museum trips, and educational videos.

The Trip To Ireland

Posted on by

The coronation of King Charles III will be held at Westminster Abbey on May 6. President Biden will not be in attendance. American Presidents generally send a delegation to the coronation rather than personally attending, so there is nothing unusual here. The First Lady will likely lead the delegation.

However, some of the press doesn’t see it that way.

On Wednesday, The U.K. Telegraph posted the headline, “Joe Biden has gravely insulted Britain.” The subtitle read, “The US President thinks nothing of lecturing the government on Northern Ireland policy, and has shown contempt for the Special Relationship.”

On Thursday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog quoted the Telegraph article:

President Biden’s insulting decision to prioritise Ireland over the UK on his visit to mark the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement should have come as no surprise. It is just as unsurprising as his decision to skip the coronation of King Charles III. Biden, like Barack Obama before him, has shown nothing but contempt for Great Britain and the Special Relationship.

Biden began his presidency in 2021 by removing a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. …

Biden’s insult towards Churchill and his memory set the tone for his presidency. His approach towards Britain, traditionally America’s closest friend and ally, has been sneering, arrogant and disrespectful. With deep roots in Ireland, Biden’s track record as a US Senator and Washington politician for half a century has been one of unyielding support for the Irish Republican cause. As recently as 2017 he was photographed with Gerry Adams and erstwhile IRA fugitive Rita O’Hare.

Biden’s missteps are not a surprise. Robert Gates, the former defense secretary, once remarked that President Biden has been “wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

It wasn’t necessary for President Biden to attend the coronation, but visiting Ireland just weeks before and skipping the coronation is tone-deaf.

Heading To The Supreme Court

Posted on by

On Sunday, John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the Biden administration’s plan to forgive $400 billion in outstanding student debt. The plan is being challenged and will make its way to the Supreme Court at the end of February.

The article notes:

On Friday, a group of amici filed a brief urging the Court to invalidate Biden’s order. It is probably the most impressive group of amici I have ever seen, including top constitutional scholars like Michael McConnell and political figures including William Barr, Mitch Daniels, Mick Mulvaney, and others. These amici are represented by Sidley and Austin, a major law firm.

The brief is included in the article.

The article concludes:

In recent years, as the brief documents, presidents of both parties have used strained interpretations of broadly-worded statutes to justify unconstitutional usurpations of power, sometimes spending money that Congress had specifically refused to appropriate. Biden’s debt forgiveness continues this trend under particularly absurd pretenses, and on an unprecedented scale. As the brief argues, if the Biden administration can get away with this, there is really no check on executive power, going forward.

As a condition precedent to the merits, the case also raises a standing issue. I have not studied that issue, and have no idea whether it has merit under current law. I would only say that if a president acts unconstitutionally to deprive the taxpayers of $400 billion in revenue, there had better be someone who has standing to challenge his illegal action.

Let’s pray that the Supreme Court understands the checks and balances our Founding Fathers put in place.

Green Energy Is A Problem In Really Cold Weather

Posted on by

On Saturday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the Christmas season energy brownouts in North and South Carolina.

The article reports:

Duke Energy customers in North and South Carolina experienced rolling blackouts over Christmas. Duke is appropriately contrite, but its explanation of its own failure is revealing:

Duke Energy executives repeatedly apologized and owned up to the situation that caused thousands in North and South Carolina to be without power during a bitter cold snap leading up to the Christmas holiday weekend. The admissions came during a hearing Tuesday before the North Carolina Utilities Commission.

According to testimony before the NCUC, high winds had already left 300,000 without power during the day of Dec. 23 before a severe cold snap later that night and into Dec. 24.

The linked story does not explain why high winds left 300,000 people without power. This may be a failure of wind turbines, as they must be shut down if the wind blows too hard.

“I want to express how sorry we are for what our customers experienced,” said Julie Janson, executive vice president, and CEO, of Duke Energy Carolinas. “Winter storm Elliott was an extremely powerful event with a unique confluence of high winds, extreme temperature drops, and other conditions that forced us to curtail power as a last resort.

“Curtailing power” means imposing rolling blackouts on Duke’s customers. A rolling blackout is when a utility intentionally cuts power to a particular area in order to prevent the entire grid from collapsing.

The article concludes:

Duke Energy’s “nuclear fleet” was reliable, but solar generation was unable to meet peak demand because it occurred before sunrise.

Imagine that! It’s always coldest before the dawn, or something like that. The uselessness of solar energy is blindingly obvious, but utilities are happy to invest billions in solar panels and reap guaranteed profits at the expense of their customers.

Rolling blackouts are starting to become common, and they will only increase as long as our country continues its insane commitment to unreliable “green” energy.

The constant emphasis on green energy by the Biden administration is going to turn America into a third-world country. We have the capability to keep everyone warm in winter if we are willing to use our God-given natural resources to do it.

Lied To Again

Posted on by

In an article posted Tuesday at Power Line Blog, John Hinderaker noted:

Joe Biden’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that over a million jobs were created in the second quarter, a heartening statistic that no doubt helped the Democrats in November. But now, the Philadelphia Federal Reserve says that those million jobs were almost entirely fictitious:

The article at Power Line Blog quotes a Washington Times article from December 16th:

The Biden administration vastly overstated its estimate that employers created more than 1 million jobs in the second quarter of this year, claiming historic job growth when in fact hiring had stalled, according to a new estimate.

Job growth was “essentially flat” in the second quarter with only 10,500 jobs added, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia said.

The Washington Times also noted:

The BLS, a division of the Department of Labor, estimated net job growth of 1,047,000 jobs in the second quarter. The Philadelphia Fed now says its data shows that 10,500 net jobs were created in that period.

Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida called the development “outrageous.”

“Wrong by a million jobs,” Mr. Scott tweeted Friday. “@JoeBiden’s admin has been lying to the American people about our economy to prop up his failed agenda & I won’t stand for it. I’m requesting an immediate meeting with the head of @BLS_gov. WE NEED ANSWERS NOW!”

President Biden had boasted about the second-quarter job numbers in the heat of the midterm election campaign, using the BLS report as proof that the nation wasn’t headed for a recession.

“In the second quarter of this year, we created more jobs than in any quarter under any of my predecessors in the nearly 40 years before the pandemic,” Mr. Biden said on July 8.

The White House repeated the theme a few weeks later.

The article at Power Line Blog concludes:

One of the problems with perverting the federal bureaucracy, as the Democrats have done, is that pretty much everyone loses faith in the integrity of government. At this point, there is no reason to assume that government numbers are accurate and unfudged. We have been lied to, too many times.

It is sad, but that is where we find ourselves. Trust has been destroyed.

It should also be noted that the Workforce Participation Rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been slowly dropping since August. It will be interesting to see what December’s numbers are.

 

Have We Reached Banana Republic Yet?

Posted on by

On Thursday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about recent legal activities that appear to be political.

The article reports:

A hallmark of banana republics is that those who lose power are apt to wind up in prison, or on the wrong end of a firing squad. Even more advanced countries, like Israel, sometimes have a regrettable tendency to prosecute former political leaders.

It is hard to think of anything more destructive to a democracy, and yet the Democrats are going down that path. It seems clear that they intend to bring criminal charges against President Trump over his keeping some White House documents at Mar-a-Lago–a trivial offense, as far as anyone knows.

And that’s not all. The Department of Justice has issued subpoenas to a large number of people who were associated in some way with the Trump campaign or administration. They generally seek information about efforts to challenge the reported election results in several states. A copy of one of the subpoenas, with the name of the person who was served redacted, is linked below. Take a look at the scope of the documents the subject of the subpoena is required to produce:

594129794-Redacted-Subpoena

In case you are wondering about John Hinderaker’s background in making the above statements, John Hinderaker practiced law for 41 years, enjoying a nationwide litigation practice. He retired from the practice of law at the end of 2015, and is now President of Center of the American Experiment, a think tank headquartered in Minnesota. He and two other lawyers founded Power Line Blog in 2002.

The article concludes:

So far, of course, no criminal investigations have been launched into Joe Biden’s shipping of illegal aliens to many points across the country, often in the dead of night, for the last year and a half.

More examples could be multiplied. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon likely will go to jail for contempt of Congress, the same offense that former Attorney General Eric Holder was held to have committed by a bipartisan 255–67 vote of the House of Representatives. But unlike Bannon, Holder was not prosecuted. He now makes millions as a partner in a prominent Washington, D.C. law firm.

Given the thorough corruption of the Department of Justice under Merrick Garland, there is a reasonable possibility that the Democrats will move to imprison both Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans. I suppose they think they are secure, because Republicans would never follow such a third-world precedent when they regain power. I don’t know about that. In any event, there is a more fundamental question: are the Democrats trying to trigger a civil war, as they did in 1861? Judging from their actions, I think the question must be taken seriously.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is frightening to see how corrupt the Justice Department has become.