Saturday, February 15, 2025

The resistance to DOGE, aka the sheer entertainment of clownworld's clueless clowns' beclownments

Q: What is best in life? 
A: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you,
and to hear the lamentations of their women.

It turns out that our ol' friend, Damian Bennett, has a few choice comments about the reaction, and about the resistance, to the DOGE bulldozer, to the DOGE onslaught, and to the DOGE blitzkrieg:

Let's start here:

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer: “[Defendants Trump, POTUS, and Bessent, Treasury Secretary] are restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services.”

I'm no lawyer, but it seems obvious that the first-order 'civil servants' with a need to know would be POTUS and the Treasury Secretary, who are charged with both oversight and management of said department. Next order would be any 'civil servant' they duly designate. Regarding Trump’s Chess Game Is Improving, here is the original complete Tom Renz TRO analysis (somewhat fractured because original is an X thread):


The analysis details there's so much wrong here. The judge will certainly be subject to a mandamus writ OR...


...and the TRO will certainly be dissolved or thrown out. But this will be the left's template for the next four years: kitchen sink litigation, shop a judge, lose on merits or law, appeal, appeal, appeal, till SCOTUS spanks them, litigate something else, repeat. Of course this is a retooling of Biden lawfare -- but without the luxury of the immense resources of the DOJ at its disposal. The dispirited left is having a big sad... 

Mental health experts are seeing an increase in patients, largely Democrats, citing burnout and despair [due] in part to the energy required to keep up with Trump's rapid-fire policies.

...and has neither the money nor personnel -- nor time before mid-terms -- to endlessly litigate a Trump administration that is impressively capable and prepared to take on all comers. THE LEFT ALSO DOESN'T HAVE THE SMARTS. Chuck 'Grillmaster' Schumer, Nancy 'Amateur Theologian' Pelosi, Jamie 'Pardon Me' Raskin, Maxine 'Let Me In' Waters, Adam 'Pardon Me' Schiff, Ilhan 'Brother Love' Omar, the whole of the DNC, the whole of the Soros universe, are simply overmatched by the one Pam Bondi. 

Further the left is playing defense. It is behind the news, not in front. The cats -- stampeding -- are out of the bag. DNC media in order to explain all the Democrat agita has been compelled to report the specifics of the DOGE findings. OH NOOoooes! The public has been informed! Senator John Kennedy (LA-R) has suggested a read out of each USAID grant on the Senate floor followed by the opportunity for anyone to stand and support it.  

The left no longer has the force of argument. So like all good Nazis do, they have donned their rumpled wash-n-wear brown shirts, black ties, and Mützen and are openly calling for violence. The only thing holding them back is that the left are inherently cowards. Don't expect Antifa to man the barricades and risk being J6'd by the Trump DOJ. They are psychopathic brown shirts kitted out in ninja black tact, which is to say, cosplay thugs, which is to say, bullies, which is to say, cowards.

I am enjoying all this immensely. [Louder.] EEE-MENCE-LEEEEEE. Alas, it has me back chasing headlines -- not as previously for daily fear of new Constitutional abuses and threats, but for the sheer entertainment of clownworld's clueless clowns' beclownments.

Clowny #1
Glaude: “[W]hat’s interesting about the current moment, we have a second gilded age. We have a reassertion of U.S. imperial power, and we have the latest articulation of white supremacy at the same time.”

Oh, Eddie, PAH-PUH-leeeze. They don't make lachrymatories big enough for your ocean of tears.

Clowny #2
Sen. Chris Murphy (CT-D): Trump Has US ‘Staring Death Of Democracy In The Eyes’ February 11, 2025
Nutmeg Murphy: “Listen, I mean, this isn’t hyperbole to say that we are staring the death of democracy in the eyes, right now. The centerpiece of our democracy is that we observe court rulings. Criminal court rulings, civil court rulings and constitutional court rulings. No one is above the law. ... This is a really dire moment. And no, so far, they’ve been talking tough, but I think largely have complied with these court orders.”
CNN: “But you’re saying we’re not there yet, basically?”
Nutmeg Murphy: “Well, listen, on this specific question of whether or not [Trump administration] are prepared to openly violate a court order? We are not there.”

Not there yet, ah, just dire-moment-death-of-democracy staring for now. Ever vigilant because the courts are sacrosanct, because 'no one is above the law™'. [Needle scratch.] Wait.
Biden repeated his vow not to pardon his son...[and] also said he was satisfied his son got a fair trial and reiterated his support for him.]
The Democrats have not an inkling of self-awareness how their end-of-times woke democracy spew doesn't play in Trump's best-of-times democracy. The DNC and the left instead blaze a path forward to oblivion with ankle biting, 'big mad' threats, fantasy revolution, 'big sad' therapy, bench lawfare, and losing forever and ever till kingdom come.

Clowny #3
Franny: “I have followed closely the major crisis that is taking place in the United States with the initiation of a program of mass deportations. The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.”
[Ahem. 'Illegal status' is prima facie 'criminality'. Oh. Ahem again.]
    • Vatican Promises Stiff Penalties For Illegal Aliens Crossing Its Border January 16, 2025
      [Oh. Ahem. Hat trick.]
    • Jesse Kelly On X February 10, 2025: I just visited the Vatican for the first time last month. It was freezing. While in line outside, there was a homeless man with no shoes or socks on begging right outside the Vatican gates.
      Then I walked through Vatican security.
      No more homeless people to be seen.
This Pope, such a baseline intelligence embarrassment. Hypocritical. And heretical.

Of course, chasing headlines also provides the daily entertainments of winning.
And that, dear reader, that is only February. February so far.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 13, 2025

What Should the Reaction Be to Leftists Calling for "Street Fights" with "Actual Weapons"? How About… Gratitude?!


During a Baltimore rally on Monday, Maryland Democratic Rep. Kweisi Mfume pushed the idea of a "street fight" against DOGE.

"This will be a congressional fight, a constitutional fight, a legal fight, and on days like this a street fight, yes we will stand," Mfume said.

In January, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., also called for Democrats to fight Trump’s agenda "in the streets."

And in the latest development in increasingly violent rhetoric, as reported by Lindsay Kornick of Fox News, 

California Rep. Robert Garcia said the Democratic Party now needs to "bring actual weapons" in the "fight for democracy."

So here is the million-dollar question: What should the reaction of conservatives (and, indeed, of all Americans) be when Democrats increase their violent rhetoric; or, for that matter, when luminaries such as Jane Fonda calls for "murder" on The View or Bruce Springsteens' guitarist demands that Republican "cockroaches" be "exterminate[d]"?

Do not be outraged.

Do not get offended.

Do not demand apologies.

Thank them.

Sincerely.

And… thank them profusely.

Indeed, they are giving you the best ammunition possible (so to speak) for the Second Amendment and for retaining gun rights.


After one of the E Street Band's musicians tweeted “Exterminate the [Republican] cockroaches”, Robert Spencer wrote: Steven Van Zandt Is Bruce Springsteen’s Guitarist. He Hates You. He Wants You Dead. Part of the reason for the musician's rant is that among all the alleged sins — duly listed — of the "MAGOTT cockroaches", the latter are intent on heading out of their homes for the sole purpose to go "shoot some kids." 

But Hakeem Jeffries, Kweisi Mfume, Robert Garcia, Steven Van Zandt, and Jane Fonda ought to be thanked. Because they have, consciously or otherwise, given the best reason possible for Americans (not to mention other nationalities) to keep their guns in addition to retaining their Second Amendment rights. 

This is how you might respond:

I am touched by your words, Mr Congressman/Ms Fonda/Mr Van Zandt/whomever, and I wish to thank you very much for calling me a MAGGAT or a cockroach who needs to be exterminated in addition to shouting for me to be murdered (if not gagged for my opinions or imprisoned for dubious reasons), since it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, Ma'am/Sir, that generally, my positions (not yours) are correct, and certainly the argument in which I say that the Second Amendment is necessary for the protection of myself, my family, and my neighbors.

Related: Do You Know What Abraham Lincoln Called the Democrats, President Trump? The Locofocos. Oh. And also the fire-eaters.

Guess what! When people rail against “Republican White Supremicist scumbag cowards and pussies that need guns to feel like real men” and when they call you "Foxsucking scumbag Russian bots and MAGOTT cockroaches", guess what: when and if people of a like mind gets into a high political office, the Hollywood actors and the rock'n'roll musicians and other, more common people of their ilk are hardly likely to come to your defense — in any shape or form.

They may not be actively participating in hunting you down, but they will not go out of their way either to help you or to offer you any form of protection.

Don't count on it, when they take "Springsteen’s fanatical and unreflective Leftism and mob thuggishness deeply to heart" and when their voices are "full to a sickening degree of angry, expletive-filled invective against patriots."

No point in looking anywhere — anywhere — for Voltaire's "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight (to the death) for your right to say it."

In fact, continues Robert Spencer, Van Zandt’s hair-raising tweets, "his double standard and [his] eye-popping hate"

are an intriguing glimpse into the mind of an unthinking Leftist who is utterly lacking in any ability to evaluate his own words and deeds with any degree of honesty, and who is quick to accuse others of what he himself is guilty of doing.
In any case, the message is clear. You are on your own.

Which, indeed, come to think of it, is… the entire message of the gun rights crowd. Isn't it?

At Powerline, John Hinderaker adds that

liberals’ tolerance of this kind of talk has had real consequences. Most notable, of course, is James Hodgkinson’s devastating attack on the Republican Congressional baseball team. And when Nicholas Roske set out to murder Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it is likely that he had extremist pro-abortion rhetoric in mind.

Back to Robert Spencer:

Steven Van Zandt, who is secure in the conviction that he is on the other side of the National Socialists (although he is wrong about that), would be horrified and no doubt driven to new heights of rage and invective to see himself compared to Heinrich Himmler. But it’s not an idle comparison. Himmler’s reduction of those he hated to the status of vermin — or “cockroaches,” as Van Zandt put it — was the indispensable prerequisite for his genocide. Steven Van Zandt, without realizing it, is helping pave the way for Leftists who are more ruthless and consistent than he is, but who share his core assumptions about the world.

As for James Carville, back in 2010, he referred to Republicans as "reptiles". And that is nothing new. Far from it. Back in the 1850s and 1860s, when an Illinois Republican felt the necessity to address himself to Southerners and Democrats (during his Cooper Union speech in 1860), guess which term Abe Lincoln reached for:

…when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles [!], or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to [Republicans]. In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of [Republicanism] as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite — license, so to speak — among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.
"Reptiles, outlaws, pirates, murderers, cockroaches, MAGATS"… How often have Republicans been called terrorists in the past decade?  (And in the years, in the decades, before that?)

As for Honest Abe himself, this member of the GOP (which the Republican Party of course wasn't called back then) was so hated by locofoco members of the Democrat party that when this "barbarian" won the 1860 election, they would rather tear the nation apart over the next four years than accept him in the Oval Office. See: What Caused Secession and Ergo the Civil War? Was It Slavery and/or States' Rights? Or Wasn't It Rather Something Else — the Election of a Ghastly Republican to the White House?

Take a moment. Take a moment and think of the Democrats' revulsion over, as well as the mainstream media's depiction of, such leaders as Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, George W Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc, etc, etc…

Think about how every four years — and every month in-between, really — all Republicans (Republican voters, Republican "haters", Republican candidates — successful or otherwise — etc) are depicted as Hitler (in other words, as someone akin to Lucifer), fascists, Nazis, monstrous, racist (or, more generally, satanic), reptiles, [cockroaches, MAGAts,] engaging in hate speech, etc, etc, etc…

(Is it any wonder that I conclude that we are living in the era of the drama queens? But the era of the drama queens seems in fact to be the norm in the history of humanity…)  


Related: How to Respond If Someone Calls You a Racist or Says "You Are Full of Shit"

How do you respond to someone who tells you "You are full of s--t" or to someone who calls you a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a hater, a fascist, a Nazi, a troll, a reactionary, a crank, or a clown?

Simple.

You thank them.

Profusely.

Very profusely.

Tell them:

I am touched by your words and I wish to thank you very much for calling me a racist/a hater/a sexist (and/or for saying that I am full of shit), in view of the fact that that shows that you have run out of arguments and that you now have no choice but to resort to ad hominems and insults.
If you wish to elaborate:
Of course, being liberals, people like you have no rational arguments to begin with, that is, none beyond your self-serving (and never-ceasing) statements of self-praise, such as that you are the most intelligent people that ever lived, that you are the most compassionate people who ever lived, that you are the most loving people who ever lived, that you are the most generous, most humanitarian, most peaceful, most tolerant people who ever lived, and that nobody before you has been as open as you are to debate and to discussion.
More related: Americans Anonymous

Posted by at 6 comments:

Wednesday, February 12, 2025

"If your policies are adopted, people will die" is worse than hyperbole; it is a kind of intellectual blackmail — anyone who resorts to such language isn't trying to engage in debate; they are trying to shut off debate


In his Arguable column, Jeff Jacobytakes on The intellectual blackmail of 'people will die':

PAUL KRUGMAN … recently commented on President Trump's hostility toward the so-called "deep state" and the new administration's restrictions on federal employees. "Donald Trump Wants You to Die," his Jan. 24 essay was headlined. He predicted that under Trump, the National Institutes of Health and other agencies will be "emasculated and politicized" and "banned from making policy recommendations that are inconvenient for Trump. ... And many Americans will die as a result."

Around the same time as Krugman's piece was published on Substack, an article in The Appeal, a left-of-center news site that covers the criminal justice system, appeared under an equally dire headline: "'People Will Die' from Trump's Trans Prisoner Crackdown, Experts Warn." Over at Indivisible, another progressive website, Trump's short-lived order to freeze spending on federal loans and grants was described not only as a "dictatorial power grab" but as "chaos that will kill" and "a death sentence for millions of Americans."

I have long been struck by the popularity of such arguments on the left.

 … Once I started looking, I kept spotting examples of liberals playing the death card. There was the prominent Massachusetts welfare lobbyist, for example, who warned that if a 4 percent trim in the state budget were approved, "people will be dying in hidden corners all over the state. ... They may die slowly, but they will die."

 … At times it seemed as if liberals thought pretty much everything proposed by Trump or Republicans would leave the streets strewn with corpses.

Tax relief, for instance.

 … To be fair, conservatives have been known to do the same thing.

I have always been an admirer of Jeff Jacoby; but regularly, the Boston Globe columnist attempts to lump left and right together under his benevolent stare rising above all of them. "Well, the GOP is just, or almost just, as bad…" Or: a curse on both their houses. Thus, when Jeff Jacobyclaims that "The spreading willingness on the right to engage in over-the-top 'people will die' talk is one of the most disheartening ways in which the MAGA movement has perverted conservative discourse ", he ignores the fact that there is reason and there are facts behind, say, Trump's election contention that Joe Biden's "White House had admitted more than 13,000 convicted murderers, who were roaming the country." Or behind Sarah Palin's claim that "Democrats were pushing legislation under which the sick and the elderly would have to stand before a government 'death panel' and have bureaucrats decide if they live or die." Jeff Jacoby does go on to admit that Leftists — being Drama Queens, after all — are the worse perpetrators.

 … Much more often than not, however, it is pundits and politicos on the left who are quickest to play the death card. That reflects the attitude, long prevalent among progressives, that anyone who disagrees with their prescriptions is not just wrong but evil — someone to recoil from, not to reason with; not to debate but to damn.

"If your policies are adopted, people will die" is worse than hyperbole. It is a kind of intellectual blackmail. If you abolish rent control, people will die. If you cut taxes, people will die. If you confirm a conservative justice, people will die. If you modify Obamacare, people will die. If you don't seal the border, people will die. With rare exceptions, anyone who resorts to such language isn't trying to engage in debate; they are trying to shut off debate by invoking the ultimate moral trump card.

In a democracy, persuasion ought to matter more than panic. When politicians — or Nobel laureates, for that matter — think the way to win a policy debate is to claim their opponents are murderers, it's a good indication their position isn't as strong as they think.

Posted by at 1 comment:

“Miss Nancy” and “Aunt Fancy”: If Lincoln was gay, why would any of his opponents have passed up hurling cheap shots at him?


In 1837 Lincoln moved to Springfield to practise law and met Joshua Speed. They shared a bed for four years. “No two men were ever more intimate,” is how Speed summarised their relationship.

Just how intimate is a touchy subject among scholars. “Such sleeping arrangements were not uncommon on the Illinois frontier,” asserts Michael Burlingame, a historian at the University of Illinois, who does not see any “proof of a homosexual relationship” in Lincoln’s bedsharing. Mattresses, after all, were expensive at the time.  

 … “Lover of Men” is unlikely to precipitate a wholesale re-evaluation of Lincoln’s legacy. Some Americans will continue to see the great patriot in much the same light as before; others will lambast the documentary’s findings as woke nonsense. In the 21st century, America remains a house divided. ■

Michael Burlingame at Chicago's
Abraham Lincoln Book Shop in March 2009
In response to an Economist article about the alleged homosexuality of Abraham Lincoln, John Dury sets the matter straight. (As usual, a media outler's readers display more common sense than the "expert" journalists supposed to inform said readership…)

Was James Buchanan gay?

“Was Abraham Lincoln gay?” (October 5th), asks the latest documentary on the subject. Americans in the 19th century understood perfectly well that men could have sexual relationships with each other and had no hesitation in saying so.

James Buchanan, the 15th president of the United States, was widely believed to have had a sexual relationship with William Rufus King, who briefly served as vice-president under Franklin Pierce. The two lived together in a boarding house in Washington and attended social functions together. Andrew Jackson referred to them as “Miss Nancy” and “Aunt Fancy”. Others described King as Buchanan’s “better half” and his “wife”.

Such claims were never made against Lincoln by his contemporaries, despite being a frequent target of vicious political attacks. Our ancestors were no less observant than we are. Why would any of Lincoln’s opponents have passed up such a cheap shot?

John Dury
Port Townsend, Washington

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, February 10, 2025

LCI: Trump and Musk, "the New Revolutionaries" Who Have the Gall to Criticize Europe as the "Cathedral to Bureaucracy"



Russia and the future of the Ukraine war were the initial subjects of Darius Rochebin's Sunday 6 pm show on LCI with part of the focus on Donald Trump's telephone call to Vladimir Putin. And as the subject changed (at about 29:30) to President Trump's domestic fight against the swamp — and to cries of outrage about Elon Musk calling Europe a "cathedral to bureaucracy" — Vanessa Biard-Schaeffer, a member of Republicans Overseas France (ROF), was brought into the debate (from about 30:50 to 50:50, video at the link), where she proceeded to be… regularly interrupted, although she persisted and held her own.

18H Darius Rochebin du dimanche 9 février 2025

Publié hier à 19h54

Au sommaire : Toretsk tombée aux mains de l'armée russe ? Trump/Poutine : un nouveau coup de fil ? Trump/Musk : les nouveaux révolutionnaires ? Musk s'en prend à l'administration européenne.

Source : 18h Darius Rochebin

The pundits on LCI thunder against Trump and Musk (who the hell does Musk think he is?!) before one of them puffs his chest with pride, stating that he is proud of being European — presumably in no need whatsoever of administrative simplification. It might do them good to read Nicolas Conquer's Figaro article ("While America seeks to restore its ability to be one step ahead, Europe persists in a systematic distrust of risk, success, and initiative"). A word, writes The Smallest Minority, that  we should all know (Americans, French, other foreigners, and not least pundits on… French TV shows) is Statolatry (thanks to Instapundit's Sarah).

Economist Ludwig Von Mises coined the word to describe the literal worship of government. He said: “People frequently call socialism a religion, It is indeed the religion of self-deification.”

Statolatry is about worship for the state to replace a God they have rejected, a relationship with some entity more powerful than themselves to which they swear their love and fealty, the goal of which is to receive blessings (which are drawn the public till).

The people on the statolatrist left have landed on a toxic mixture of statism, politics, mysticism, and atheism rolled up into a loose ball called “progressivism” as a substitute for Judeo-Christian theology. Progressivism is as much a religion as Catholicism, it just replaces a Pope with government, counting on the senior leadership of [leftist parties] to be their High Priests.



LCI :

Présenté par Darius Rochebin tous les dimanches. Chaque dimanche, à 18h, Darius Rochebin reçoit une personnalité française ou internationale marquant l’actualité. Les interviews sont menées dans un esprit d’ouverture à tous les domaines et de diversité des opinions. De Marine Le Pen à Jean-Luc Mélenchon, en passant par François Hollande ou Edouard Philippe, les acteurs politiques de tous bords et leurs interventions exclusives ont jalonné l’émission durant l’année écoulée. Il s’ensuit le duel des idées, qui oppose Luc Ferry à Daniel Cohn-Bendit.

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, February 09, 2025

Statolatry: the literal worship of government; “People frequently call socialism a religion; it is indeed the religion of self-deification”

Over at The Smallest Minority, Kevin treats us to the definition of Statolatry (thanks to Instapundit's Sarah), replete with examples.

If you are shocked by the [Democrats'] panicked response to the probing of President Trump’s Emissary of Justice, Elon Musk, there is a way to frame it that makes it understandable.

First, we need to come to terms with the fact that contemporary Democrats, no matter what they choose to call themselves, are socialists at best and full-blown Marxists at worst.

In the same way a drug addict denies their addiction until they come to terms with what they are, Democrats have progressively increased their intake of various degrees of collectivist dogma until they are fully addicted. The gateway to collectivism is the idea of the “greater good,” from that they move on to socialism, then to Marxism, then finally in the end stages, communism – just as Marx prescribed and predicted.

Not only does this addiction have physical ramifications, but it also changes their mental state.

There is a word we all should know. That word is statolatry.

Economist Ludwig Von Mises coined the word to describe the literal worship of government. He said: “People frequently call socialism a religion, It is indeed the religion of self-deification.”

Statolatry is about worship for the state to replace a God they have rejected, a relationship with some entity more powerful than themselves to which they swear their love and fealty, the goal of which is to receive blessings (which are drawn the public till).

The people on the statolatrist left have landed on a toxic mixture of statism, politics, mysticism, and atheism rolled up into a loose ball called “progressivism” as a substitute for Judeo-Christian theology. Progressivism is as much a religion as Catholicism, it just replaces a Pope with government, counting on the senior leadership of the Democrat party to be their High Priests.

And in the process, this new religion became a very curious mix of the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!) and the Flagellants, the 13th century group of Roman Catholics who practiced mortification of the flesh by various means. Statolatrists find pleasure in their self-inflicted pain but really enjoy dosing it out to non-believers as well. It is also the harshest of mistresses – if a believer questions any tenet, there is no force on the planet that can protect them from the fury of the scorned. If they show less than total subservience and compliance, they are declared apostates and excommunicated immediately.

The problem is that no one really knows the rules of this new religion – they change to meet the needs of the moment. Often You can be right and wrong at the same time. What you can say or think and who you can say or think certain things about changes every minute – what was acceptable yesterday is not acceptable today and that random asymmetry makes it very difficult to fight on an individual level, so one must attack where the asymmetry is less and where their power resides, where it is concentrated.

With that framing, it becomes clear why Democrats have lost their minds about Elon and the DOGE Boys.

It is not just that their religion is being attacked, their god is under assault, and it is being attacked inside one of its temples no less – the House of USAID.

These temples are the repository of Democrat power, money and influence.

They also know this is only the first wave. President Trump intends to send his Muskian warriors raging and rampaging through the rest of the temples – Department of Education, the DOJ, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and others – stripping them naked and laying them bare in public for all to see. Once and for all, the intent is to raze the temples to the ground and scatter the priests, acolytes, and minions to the four winds thereby ending this religion forever.

They also know the boldness, aggression, and Blitzkrieg-like fury of President Trump’s offensive has drawn even former enemies to his cause, he has massed a cadre of leaders from across the spectrum, some former priests themselves, all with a shared goal – to do what is right for the people, not the priests.

This is an existential event for statolatry, and perhaps even the Democrat Party.

And it is beautiful.

Posted by at No comments:

RFK Jr: an MSM outlet "perpetuated common myths while neglecting the real story"


For the record — as Robert F Kennedy Jr prepares for his confirmation vote in the Senate — here is an RFK text that I gather few people have seen. In response to an Economist article (Why Texas Republicans are souring on crypto) from September concerning a subject about which I know little (so I am bringing it to you without any caveats or remarks), Robert F Kennedy Jr writes that the British MSM outlet "perpetuated common myths … while neglecting the real story":

Bitcoin mining and energy

You perpetuated common myths about bitcoin mining while neglecting the real story: bitcoin mining is a powerful new tool for supporting renewable-intensive grids (“Power hungry”, August 31st). It is true that electricity grids are under increasing strain from manufacturing plants, electric vehicles and data centres, and it would be easy to think of bitcoin mining as just one more source of electrical demand.

But whereas data centres and the like will buy electricity regardless of the price, bitcoin mining is different. It operates only when power is cheap and abundant. Whenever power is scarce, and therefore expensive, it curtails its electricity usage in a matter of seconds.

In practice, this means that during severe weather events in Texas say, such as a heatwave, electricity prices spike, and bitcoin miners naturally turn their machines off. But when power is cheap, their machines remain on, providing a steady stream of revenue to energy producers. Having a reliable buyer of energy that does not add to peak demand is ideal for incentivising the building of renewable generation while still reliably delivering power to homeowners and hospitals.

Bitcoin miners also participate in demand-response programmes, allowing grid operators to control their power consumption to stabilise the grid. You characterised demand response as some kind of public gift to the bitcoin-mining industry. In fact, these programmes have been praised as a crucial part of managing a highly renewable system. The International Energy Agency, for example, says we must increase demand-response tenfold, or by 500 gigawatts, within this decade if we are to meet net-zero targets. Far from a giveaway, bitcoin miners participate in these demand-response programmes like any other company, bidding in an open market and driving prices down for consumers.

Moreover, the grid-stabilising behaviour of bitcoin miners puts them in direct competition with natural-gas “peaker” plants, which run only during peak demand. Both technologies help grid operators match fluctuating supply and demand in real-time.

The difference is that a system with more renewable generation and bitcoin miners is far less carbon-intensive than a system with less renewable generation and peaker plants. It is no surprise, then, that the industry lobbying Texas for more peaker-plant construction has also lobbied against its grid-balancing competition.

robert f. kennedy junior
Washington, dc

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)