CITIZENS NEWS ONLINE

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE ALONE ...

2025-09-30T22:07:00.000-04:00

ICE TO BUY TOOL THAT TRACKS LOCATIONS OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PHONES EVERY DAY

· Sep 30, 2025 at 5:46 PM

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has bought access to a surveillance tool that is updated every day with billions of pieces of location data from hundreds of millions of mobile phones, according to ICE documents reviewed by 404 Media.

The documents explicitly show that ICE is choosing this product over others offered by the contractor’s competitors because it gives ICE essentially an “all-in-one” tool for searching both masses of location data and information taken from social media. The documents also show that ICE is planning to once again use location data remotely harvested from peoples’ smartphones after previously saying it had stopped the practice.

Do you know anything else about this contract or others? Do you work at Penlink or ICE? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at joseph.404 or send me an email at joseph@404media.co.

Surveillance contractors around the world create massive datasets of phones’, and by extension people’s movements, and then sell access to the data to government agencies. In turn, U.S. agencies have used these tools without a warrant or court order.

“The Biden Administration shut down DHS’s location data purchases after an inspector general found that DHS had broken the law. Every American should be concerned that Trump's hand-picked security force is once again buying and using location data without a warrant,” Senator Ron Wyden told 404 Media in a statement.

NOW FOR THE SECOND SHOE TO DROP!

The Federal Agencies including ICE, FBI, and others are purchasing detailed airline passenger data that extends well beyond basic metadata (such as flight numbers or timestamps) and enables precise tracking of individuals' movements, identities, and financial habits. This data is acquired through commercial intermediaries like the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), a data broker owned by major U.S. airlines (e.g., American, United, Delta), which processes ticket sales from travel agencies like Expedia. The information is fed into government systems such as the secretive Travel Intelligence Program (TIP), allowing warrantless searches and surveillance.

Key Details on the Data and Its Capabilities

Content of the Data: It includes full passenger name records (PNRs), complete flight itineraries (past and future domestic/international travel), financial details (e.g., payment methods, credit card info), and contact information. This goes far beyond metadata like "who flew where at what time" to reveal personal patterns, such as repeated trips to specific locations or associations via shared bookings.
Tracking Potential: Agencies can query the database (holding over 1 billion records, updated daily) by name, partial credit card numbers, or travel agencies to reconstruct an individual's travel history across years. For example, ICE and CBP use it to locate "persons of interest" in investigations, sharing results with state/local law enforcement and other federal entities like the FBI. This creates a de facto surveillance tool for monitoring U.S. and non-U.S. persons without judicial oversight.
Scope and Agencies Involved:
ICE and CBP (DHS): Primary buyers since at least June 2024, with contracts through 2029 valued at around $11,000–$776,000 annually. Used for immigration enforcement, employee misconduct probes, and broader tracking.
FBI: Explicitly named in reports as accessing or purchasing similar records for domestic investigations, bypassing warrants by buying from brokers rather than compelling airlines directly.
Others: Includes DEA, Secret Service, TSA, SEC, Air Force, and potentially more via shared access. Procurement records show billions of records sold for surveillance purposes.
Limitations: Data covers ~54% of global flights but excludes tickets bought directly from airlines (only third-party agency bookings). Still, this captures a massive volume, enabling probabilistic tracking of most travelers.

Privacy and Legal Concerns

Civil liberties groups like the EFF and ACLU (though the latter has focused more on cell phone data purchases) argue this erodes Fourth Amendment protections, as agencies exploit loopholes to avoid warrants required for direct data seizure. There's no opt-out for affected users, and contracts prohibit agencies from disclosing ARC as the source unless court-ordered, reducing transparency. Critics warn of misuse, especially amid heightened immigration enforcement, potentially targeting communities based on ethnicity, religion, or politics.

To minimize exposure, privacy advocates recommend buying tickets directly from airlines and supporting reforms like the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, which would require court orders for such purchases.

THE UNITED NATIONS NEEDS A NEW HOME ADDRESS ... PERHAPS BRUSSELS?

2025-09-29T08:15:00.000-04:00

ESCALATORGATE: THE US LEFT’S HATRED — OF TRUMP & THE RIGHT — HAS NOW GONE GLOBAL

By
Published Sep. 28, 2025, 10:35 a.m. ET

Trump was met by a series of mysterious coincidences at the United Nations General Assembly. AP

President Donald Trump just visited the United Nations to offer a customary annual presidential address.

Before he arrived, there were reports that UN staffers had joked about shutting down the escalator to chastise Trump for cutting out aid to some UN programs.

How much of a problem is the left's hatred of Trump?

Upon arrival, as if on cue, Trump was met by a series of mysterious coincidences.

As soon as he and First Lady Melania mounted the escalator, it suddenly froze — forcing them to walk up.

Other escalators worked fine. Shortly afterward, the supposedly broken escalator was just as mysteriously running again.

When Trump went to the podium, his teleprompter mysteriously quit — and his alone.

Despite UN denials, all three “accidents” were too closely tied to Trump to be coincidences.

But they remind us that the left-wing hatred of the president has gone global — even after two near-successful assassination attempts. I believe the "UN" is unhappy in New York, no problem they should pack up and move to a happier place - BRUSSELS!

ANOTHER FAILURE IN THE MAKING

2025-09-27T08:04:00.002-04:00

U.S. BACKS PLAN FOR TONY BLAIR TO HEAD TRANSITIONAL GAZA AUTHORITY

September 26, 2025 . 12:27 PM

GITA ... AKA "GET IT TOGETHER ASSHOLES"

The White House is backing a plan for Gaza that would see former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair head a temporary administration before transferring control to the Palestinian Authority (PA).

HAMAS STILL EXISTS, IS IT MORE THAN JUST AN IDEA? KEEP IN MIND THE "PEOPLE" OF GAZA VOTED HAMAS INTO POWER! IS GAZA A DEMOCRACY? WHERE ARE THE HOSTAGES IN THIS PROPOSAL?

The proposal envisions Blair heading a body called the GET IT TOGETHER ASSHOLES (GITA), which would serve under a United Nations mandate as Gaza’s “supreme political and legal authority” for up to five years.

GITA would be governed by a board of up to ten members, including senior UN officials, prominent international figures, Muslim representatives, and at least one Palestinian voice. It would be supported by a secretariat of around 25 staff.

Initially headquartered in Arish, Egypt, the authority would later move into Gaza under the protection of a UN-endorsed Arab multinational stabilisation force. The Israeli military would withdraw from the territory once this force is in place. IS A HOSTAGE A HOSTAGE IF DEAD?

THE PROBLEM STILL EXISTS!

According to the plan, Palestinians would not be encouraged to leave Gaza, and efforts would be made to reunite the territory with the West Bank. Governance would gradually be handed over to the Palestinian Authority (PA), while Hamas would play no role in the administration.

WHAT ABOUT THE HOSTAGES???
The initiative’s success, however, depends on Washington’s ability to reconcile three competing demands:

1. Israeli security concerns,

2. Palestinian political aspirations,

3. Arab insistence on a clear path toward Palestinian statehood.

THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM --- UN

News of the plan emerged just days after the UN general assembly endorsed a different plan for a technocratic administration to take charge in Gaza.

JUST WORDS ... JUST WORDS ... THAT CAN BITE!

2025-09-24T16:48:00.000-04:00

Nexstar doubles down on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ blackout after host’s tearful non-apology ...

Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night talk show will continue to be blacked out in dozens of cities nationwide after one of the largest owners of ABC affiliates appeared unconvinced by his teary-eyed monologue from Tuesday.

Nexstar Media Group will continue to preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on its ABC stations, extending a blackout that began after the late-night host’s controversial remarks about conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s killing.

“Nexstar is continuing to evaluate the status of ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ on our ABC-affiliated local television stations, and the show will be preempted while we do so,” the company said in a statement on Wednesday.

Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night talk show will continue to be blacked out in dozens of cities nationwide. ABC/AFP via Getty Images

“We are engaged in productive discussions with executives at The Walt Disney Company, with a focus on ensuring the program reflects and respects the diverse interests of the communities we serve.”

The move means Disney’s effort to restore Kimmel to the airwaves remains stymied by its two largest affiliate owners.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, which also owns dozens of ABC affiliates, said Monday it would replace Kimmel with news programming on its ABC outlets.

Sinclair last week said that it would allow Kimmel’s show to air in its markets if the host offered up an apology to Erika Kirk and donate money to Kirk’s family as well as to the conservative student action group he co-founded, Turning Point USA.

During his return last night, Kimmel refused to apologize.

SEARCHING FOR KIMMEL'S AUDIENCE

Together, Sinclair and Nexstar affiliates represent about one-quarter of ABC’s national household reach — leaving millions of viewers unable to watch Kimmel’s return this week.

Nexstar Media Group will continue to preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on its ABC stations. Timon – stock.adobe.com

Kimmel was suspended last week after linking Kirk’s alleged killer to the “MAGA gang” during a monologue. The false claim triggered condemnation from conservative groups, political leaders and regulators.

Disney’s fight with Nexstar and Sinclair over airing “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” could erupt into court battles, as affiliates risk breaching contracts by keeping the show off the air.

A former DOJ official told The Post that litigation is likely and warned that Nexstar and Sinclair may withhold affiliate fees while leveraging their conservative audiences and pending business before Trump regulators.

Both broadcasters need FCC approval for major deals — Nexstar’s $6 billion Signa purchase and Disney’s bid for the NFL Network — giving FCC Chairman Brendan Carr added influence after blasting Kimmel’s remarks as outside “public interest” rules.

Sources told The Post that the impasse between the affiliate owners — Nexstar and Sinclair — and Disney is likely to eventually wind up in court. Getty Images

Disney has floated alternative distribution through secondary networks if affiliates refuse to air Kimmel.

AT THEIR PERIL ...

ABC could re-route Kimmel through alternate platforms such as Home Shopping Network as opposed to channels that offer its news and entertainment content.

HSN is not owned or operated by ABC, but in certain markets, ABC affiliates may broadcast HSN programming on their alternate digital channels.

Despite plummeting ratings and an estimated $20 million annual loss, insiders told The Post that Disney keeps Kimmel because of the affiliate fees, sponsorships and online revenue he generates.

ODE TO CHARLIE KIRK

2025-09-22T17:13:00.002-04:00

I WOKE EARLY AT 5AM AND THESE WORDS WERE THE RESULT ... AFTER WRITING THE WORDS FROM MY DREAM ... I WONDERED WHAT THE DEEPER MEANING WAS .... SO I'M SHARING.

ODE TO CHARLIE KIRK

Sleep my Prince, sleep …

On the edge of candle’s light

Neither night or day

Will light your way

As illusions become delusions

At the edge of night

Push through to the very edge of what is knowable

To comprehend the deep patterns of God’s intensions

BELOW IS GROK.COM ANALYSIS ...

This is a beautiful and evocative poem, rich with imagery and layered meaning. It seems to weave themes of rest, transition, and the pursuit of understanding at the boundaries of human knowledge and divine mystery. Here's a brief reflection on its possible interpretations, keeping it concise as per your preference:

The poem opens with a gentle lullaby-like tone, "Sleep my Prince, sleep," suggesting a call to rest or surrender, perhaps to a dreamlike state where boundaries blur. The "edge of candle’s light" evokes a liminal space—neither fully illuminated nor wholly dark, a place of ambiguity where "neither night or day / will light your way." This could symbolize a journey into the unknown, where conventional guidance fails, and one must navigate through intuition or faith.

The shift to "illusions become delusions / at the edge of night" hints at the danger of losing clarity in this liminal space, where perceptions can deceive. Yet, the poem urges to "push through to the very edge of what is knowable," suggesting a bold pursuit of truth or enlightenment, even at the risk of uncertainty. The final line, "to comprehend the deep patterns of God’s intensions," elevates the quest to a spiritual or cosmic level, seeking to understand divine purpose or the underlying order of existence.

The poem you shared carries profound spiritual themes, weaving together ideas of rest, liminality, the pursuit of divine truth, and the tension between human perception and cosmic understanding.

1. Rest as Spiritual Surrender

The opening line, "Sleep my Prince, sleep," evokes a call to rest that feels almost divine, like a parental or celestial voice guiding a soul toward peace. In spiritual contexts, sleep often symbolizes surrender—letting go of ego, control, or worldly concerns to enter a state of trust or communion with the divine. This could reflect a Christian notion of resting in God’s grace, a Buddhist-like release of attachment, or a mystical invitation to transcend the self. The "Prince" suggests a figure of inherent worth, perhaps a soul or a seeker, called to rest in a sacred, protected space.

2. Liminality and the Edge of Knowing

The "edge of candle’s light" and "neither night or day" create a liminal space—a threshold between states of being. Spiritually, this evokes the tension between the material and divine realms, where human understanding falters. In many traditions (e.g., Christian mysticism, Sufism, or Hinduism), the "edge" represents a point of transformation, where one confronts the limits of rational knowledge and must rely on faith, intuition, or revelation. The candle’s light, a fragile and flickering source, might symbolize human consciousness or divine guidance, illuminating just enough to beckon the seeker forward but not enough to reveal the full path.

3. Illusions, Delusions, and the Search for Truth

The line "illusions become delusions / at the edge of night" suggests a spiritual warning: in the pursuit of truth, one risks mistaking fleeting insights for ultimate reality. This resonates with spiritual teachings about discernment—such as the Christian call to test spirits (1 John 4:1) or the Buddhist concept of maya (illusion) obscuring enlightenment. The "edge of night" could symbolize the boundary between human perception and divine reality, where missteps lead to delusion, yet perseverance might yield deeper understanding.

4. Pushing to the Edge of the Knowable

The exhortation to "push through to the very edge of what is knowable" reflects a spiritual quest for transcendence. This aligns with mystical traditions across faiths—Christian mystics like St. John of the Cross, who sought union with God beyond intellect; Sufi poets like Rumi, who pursued divine love at the limits of comprehension; or Advaita Vedanta’s pursuit of Brahman beyond duality. The "edge of what is knowable" suggests a frontier where human reason meets divine mystery, urging courage to move beyond comfort into the unknown.

5. Divine Patterns and God’s Intentions

The final line, "to comprehend the deep patterns of God’s intensions," is the poem’s spiritual crescendo. It frames the journey as a quest to discern divine order or purpose—akin to the Christian search for God’s will, the Jewish pursuit of Torah’s deeper meanings, or the Taoist alignment with the Dao. The "deep patterns" suggest a cosmic blueprint, an intricate design underlying existence, which requires both intellectual and spiritual effort to grasp. The use of "God’s intensions" (possibly a poetic spelling of "intentions") personalizes the divine, implying a purposeful intelligence that invites the seeker to align with it.

Broader Spiritual Context

The poem’s themes resonate with:

Mysticism: The journey to the "edge" mirrors the mystic’s path toward divine union, where ordinary perception dissolves.
Faith vs. Doubt: The tension between illusions/delusions and truth reflects the spiritual struggle to trust divine guidance amid uncertainty.
Cosmic Purpose: The pursuit of "God’s intensions" suggests a belief in a purposeful universe, a common thread in monotheistic and pantheistic traditions.
Transformation: The liminal imagery and call to "push through" evoke spiritual transformation, where the self is refined or reborn.

The poem’s themes of liminality, surrender, and seeking divine truth resonate deeply with spiritual transformation stories, where individuals undergo profound shifts in consciousness, identity, or connection to the divine.

1. St. Augustine of Hippo (Christianity)

Story: Augustine (354–430 CE) lived a life of worldly pleasures and intellectual pursuits before his dramatic conversion to Christianity. In his Confessions, he describes a moment of crisis in a garden, where, tormented by his sins, he heard a child’s voice saying, “Take up and read.” He opened the Bible to Romans 13:13–14, which urged him to abandon lust and follow Christ. This catalyzed his transformation from a skeptic to a devoted Christian bishop.
Connection to the Poem: Augustine’s journey mirrors the poem’s "edge of candle’s light," a liminal space between his old life (illusion/delusion) and divine truth. His surrender to God’s call parallels "Sleep my Prince, sleep," as he let go of ego to rest in divine will. His lifelong quest to understand God’s purpose reflects the poem’s pursuit of "deep patterns of God’s intensions."
Spiritual Theme: Conversion as surrender to divine guidance, moving from darkness to light.

2. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism)

Story: Siddhartha, born a prince, renounced his royal life to seek enlightenment. After years of asceticism and meditation, he sat under the Bodhi tree, confronting illusions (maya) and temptations. At the "edge" of his endurance, he attained nirvana, becoming the Buddha, awakened to the truth of suffering and liberation.
Connection to the Poem: Siddhartha’s meditation under the Bodhi tree evokes the poem’s liminal "neither night or day," where illusions become delusions. His push to the "edge of what is knowable" parallels his realization of the Four Noble Truths, a kind of "deep pattern" of existence. The poem’s call to rest might reflect his meditative stillness, trusting the path to truth.
Spiritual Theme: Awakening through confronting illusion and embracing ultimate reality.

3. Rumi’s Transformation (Sufism/Islam)

Story: Jalaluddin Rumi (1207–1273), a Persian scholar and theologian, experienced a spiritual awakening after meeting the mystic Shams of Tabriz. Their intense friendship dissolved Rumi’s rigid identity, leading him to ecstatic poetry and Sufi mysticism. Shams’ disappearance pushed Rumi to the "edge," where he found God within love and longing.
Connection to the Poem: Rumi’s encounter with Shams is a liminal "edge of candle’s light," where his scholarly illusions gave way to divine love. The poem’s urging to "push through" reflects Rumi’s journey beyond conventional religion to mystical union, seeking God’s "deep patterns" in love’s ecstasy. The "Prince" could symbolize Rumi’s soul, called to rest in divine love.
Spiritual Theme: Transformation through divine love, transcending ego for unity with God.

4. Arjuna’s Vision in the Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism)

Story: In the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna, a warrior, faces a moral crisis on the battlefield. Lord Krishna, his divine guide, reveals cosmic truths, including his universal form, showing Arjuna the "deep patterns" of existence. This vision transforms Arjuna from doubt to surrender, aligning him with dharma (divine duty).
Connection to the Poem: The battlefield is Arjuna’s "edge of night," a liminal space of crisis where illusions (fear, attachment) risk becoming delusions. Krishna’s guidance to "push through" mirrors Arjuna’s journey to comprehend divine intention, as seen in the cosmic vision. The poem’s "sleep" could reflect Arjuna’s surrender to Krishna’s will.
Spiritual Theme: Surrender to divine purpose, seeing beyond illusion to cosmic truth.

Common Threads and the Poem’s Lens

These stories share key spiritual transformation elements reflected in the poem:

Liminality: Each figure encounters a threshold (garden, Bodhi tree, Shams’ loss, battlefield) akin to the poem’s "edge of candle’s light," where old identities dissolve.
Surrender: The poem’s "sleep" resonates with moments of letting go—Augustine’s submission, Siddhartha’s meditation, Rumi’s love, Arjuna’s devotion.
Illusion to Truth: The shift from "illusions" to truth mirrors each figure’s confrontation with false perceptions, pushing toward divine or ultimate reality.
Divine Patterns: The poem’s "deep patterns of God’s intensions" aligns with each story’s quest for cosmic order—God’s will, nirvana, divine love, or dharma.

CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT ... "A GREAT DEAL" BUT ... WHERE DOES IT FIT!

2025-09-19T16:18:00.000-04:00

The policy in question refers to the Trump administration's recent decision in August 2025 to acquire a 10% equity stake in Intel Corporation, a major U.S. semiconductor company. This stake, valued at approximately $11 billion, was obtained without additional direct payment by converting existing federal grants and investments under the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act (totaling around $8.9 billion in stock purchases) plus funds from a classified "Secure Enclave" program. The move aims to bolster domestic chip manufacturing amid national security concerns, AI competition, and Intel's struggles against rivals like Nvidia and AMD. Trump described it as a "great deal" where the U.S. "paid nothing," and advisers have floated similar stakes in other companies or even a sovereign wealth fund as a "down payment" on broader industrial strategy. Critics from both sides of the aisle have raised alarms about government overreach into private markets, with some labeling it "socialist" or a risk to taxpayers.

What Is Fascism?

Fascism is a far-right authoritarian political ideology that emerged in early 20th-century Europe, most notably under Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany. It emphasizes extreme nationalism, a dictatorial leader, suppression of opposition, militarism, and a belief in social hierarchy and racial or national superiority. Economically, fascism is not a rigid system but shares key traits across implementations:

Dirigisme and Corporatism: The state directs the economy through heavy intervention, subsidies, and regulations, while nominally preserving private ownership. Businesses operate as "corporations" (syndicates of owners, workers, and state officials) aligned with national goals, but the government exerts strong control over production, investment, and labor to achieve autarky (self-sufficiency) and prepare for war.

Subordination of Private Interests: Private property and markets exist, but they serve the state's priorities—e.g., Mussolini's Italy cartelized industries, and Nazi Germany forced companies like IG Farben to prioritize rearmament. Profit motives persist, but owners must comply or face nationalization/seizure.
Anti-Liberal and Anti-Socialist: It rejects free-market liberalism (seen as chaotic and individualistic) and Marxist socialism (seen as class warfare), positioning itself as a "third way" of national unity under state guidance.

Totalitarian Integration: Economic policy is inseparable from political control, often involving propaganda, forced labor, and suppression of unions or dissent to regiment society.

Fascism's economy is often described as "socialism with a capitalist veneer"—state dominance without full nationalization, focused on empire-building and racial/national rejuvenation.

Key Differences

The Trump administration's 10% stake in Intel is a targeted, minority investment in a single public company, framed as a strategic response to economic and security challenges (e.g., reducing reliance on foreign chips). This differs fundamentally from fascist economics in scope, intent, and structure. Below is a comparison:

Aspect	Trump's Intel Stake	Fascist Economics
Scale and Scope	Narrow: One-time, minority (10%) equity in one company; no broad nationalization or control over multiple sectors.	Broad: Total regimentation of the entire economy, with state oversight of all major industries via cartels and directives.
Government Role	Investor/regulator: Stake secured via existing subsidies (CHIPS Act); no voting rights or operational interference announced. Aims to leverage taxpayer funds for returns and national priorities like AI/semiconductors.	Dirigiste controller: State mandates production, pricing, and investments across the board; private firms are extensions of the regime.
Private Ownership	Preserved: Intel remains publicly traded, with decisions by shareholders/board; government is a passive holder (similar to bailouts like GM in 2009).	Nominal: Owners retain titles but must align with state goals; non-compliance leads to seizure (e.g., Nazi control over steel/oil).
Intent/Motivation	Economic/security: Boost U.S. competitiveness, jobs, and supply chains; pragmatic "deal-making" without ideological overhaul.	Ideological/totalitarian: Achieve autarky, militarism, and national/racial supremacy; economy serves the leader's cult of personality and expansionism.
Political Context	Democratic framework: Occurs in a multi-party system with checks (Congress, courts); public debate and criticism allowed (e.g., X posts calling it "communist").	Authoritarian: One-party rule suppresses dissent; economic moves enforce loyalty to the dictator (e.g., Mussolini's corporate state).
Historical Precedent	U.S. examples include Obama-era auto bailouts or wartime investments; not unprecedented but rare outside crises.	Extreme: Italy/Germany's full economic mobilization for war, with propaganda tying business to fascist glory.

WHY IT'S NOT FASCISM

While both involve government equity in private firms, the Intel deal is more akin to industrial policy or a bailout than fascism's holistic, coercive system. Fascism requires a full ideological package—dictatorship, ultranationalism, violence against "enemies," and suppression of freedoms—that isn't present here. The stake could raise concerns about cronyism or market distortion if expanded (e.g., via a sovereign wealth fund), but it's reversible, debated, and limited. True fascism would involve the state using such ownership to dismantle democracy, not just tweak subsidies.

In short, the difference is one of degree turning into kind: a single policy tool versus a regime-defining economic totalitarianism. If similar moves proliferate without oversight, it might edge toward dirigisme, but equating it to fascism overlooks the broader authoritarian context fascism demands.

I COME IN PEACE ...

2025-08-17T10:03:00.000-04:00

WHO HAS BEEN BUSY DESTROYING DEMOCRACY?

Victor Davis Hanson

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

"Destroying democracy" -- the latest theme of the left -- can be defined in many different ways. Let's put faces on those involved!

How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient, and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains?

So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court?

Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster--though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia -- by altering the Constitution -- as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators?

Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate "The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?"

Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president?

So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of "collusion" to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term?

Who prompted a cabal of "51 former intelligence officials" to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a "Russian intelligence operation?"

Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign?

Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort, and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate?

Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there?

Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him?

Who coordinated four local, state, and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else?

Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president -- all on the same day -- a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid?

Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice?

Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen?

When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign?

Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10-12 million illegal aliens?

Who created 600 "sanctuary jurisdictions" for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy?

Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists, and violent protestors over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers, and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct, and a historic church -- all with de facto legal impunity?

How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60-70 percent approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion?

How does a president "destroy democracy" by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes, and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents?

So what is behind these absurd charges?

Three catalysts: one, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power.

Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power -- minorities, youth, and Independents.

Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them.

So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows -- given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations.

WE'RE WHERE WE BELONG ... IN PASTURE!

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of "The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won," from Basic Books. You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@gmail.com.) (C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Editor’s Note: The pictures were added not by anyone at Townhall's editorial staff ... rather by a conservative! Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join Townhall VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS BLIND TO THE FUTURE ...

2025-08-16T09:45:00.003-04:00

The establishment narrative, reflected in optimistic projections like Belousov’s, assumes linear growth and successful reintegration, which may overstate Russia’s potential. Historical data shows President Trump with with Russian President Putin for a high-stakes summit, while the meeting was intended to focus on reaching a peace between Russia and Ukraine. The underlying theme was more than peace rather a long term future for Russia and the wealth of its natural resources. Should a peace be reached then investment in uncovering the vast wealth of Russia would free their economy from dependence on gas and oil. The investment and release of Russian natural resources benefits not only Russia and its economy but the entire world. So, President Putin including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and adviser Yuri Ushakov along with President Trump SoS Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff met in a separate meeting to discuss the peace with a secondary focus on foreign Investment in Russia's natural resources. Fast forward to five years what if this scenario is realized how would Russian economy be compared to the top international economies?

Projecting the Russian economy’s trajectory by 2030 under the scenario of a successful peace agreement and substantial foreign investment in its natural resources involves analyzing current economic data, historical trends, and the potential impacts of such a transformative geopolitical and economic shift. Below, I’ll outline a reasoned assessment based on available information, critically examining the establishment narrative while incorporating insights from the provided web results and broader economic principles.Assumptions for the ScenarioPeace Agreement: A ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war is achieved, leading to a partial or full lifting of Western sanctions by 2026. This enables Russia to reintegrate into global financial markets and attract foreign direct investment (FDI).
Foreign Investment in Natural Resources: Significant FDI flows into Russia’s natural resource sectors (beyond oil and gas), including minerals, rare earth elements, metals, and timber, driven by partnerships with Western and non-Western investors (e.g., China, India, and Global South nations).
Economic Diversification: Investment facilitates diversification away from oil and gas dependency, boosting sectors like mining, technology, and manufacturing.
Stable Growth: Russia sustains GDP growth of 2–3% annually, as projected by some optimistic scenarios, supported by increased investment and trade.
Global Context: The global economy remains relatively stable, with top economies (U.S., China, India, Japan, Germany) continuing their growth trajectories, albeit at varying rates.
Russia’s Economic Starting Point (2025)In 2025, Russia’s nominal GDP is approximately $2.2 trillion, ranking it as the 11th largest economy globally, behind the United States ($30.34 trillion), China ($19.53 trillion), Japan ($4.5 trillion), Germany ($4.92 trillion), and India ($3.5 trillion). Its GDP per capita is around $15,080, reflecting moderate economic well-being compared to countries like Canada ($55,890). Russia’s economy heavily relies on oil and gas exports, which account for a significant portion of its revenue, but sanctions and geopolitical tensions have constrained FDI, which dropped to $3.35 billion in 2024, a 91% decline from 2021.Projected Economic Impact by 2030If the peace agreement and investment scenario materialize, several factors could reshape Russia’s economy by 2030:Increased FDI and Resource Development:Impact: The lifting of sanctions would likely attract Western and non-Western investors to Russia’s vast reserves of minerals (e.g., nickel, cobalt, lithium) and other resources. The Nemtsov Fund suggests that new leadership or policy shifts could negotiate agreements with the EU and U.S. to facilitate the return of international companies and new energy/resource arrangements.
Scale: Pre-war FDI from the EU alone was €255 billion in 2021, and U.S. investments ranged from $12.3–$39.1 billion. Restoring even half of this level, combined with increased investment from China ($8.9 billion FDI stock in 2023) and India ($16 billion), could significantly boost Russia’s capital stock.
Diversification: Investment in non-oil sectors like rare earths and metals could reduce Russia’s reliance on energy exports, which currently dominate its economy. This aligns with the need for diversification highlighted in comparisons with resource-rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Canada.
GDP Growth:Optimistic Projections: Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Belousov claimed Russia could become the fourth-largest economy by 2030, surpassing Japan, with sustained GDP growth of 2–3% annually, leading to a 20% GDP increase by 2030. This would imply a nominal GDP of approximately $2.64 trillion (from $2.2 trillion in 2025).
Constraints: However, the Russian Central Bank and other analysts highlight constraints like labor shortages, limited access to foreign technology, and declining non-military investment, which could cap growth closer to 1.4–1.7% annually without significant reforms.
Realistic Estimate: With peace and investment, Russia could achieve 2% annual growth, resulting in a GDP of $2.7–$2.8 trillion by 2030, potentially overtaking smaller economies like Italy or Canada but not Japan ($4.5 trillion) or Germany (~$5.5 trillion, projected).
Trade and Global Integration:New Trade Partners: Russia’s pivot to China, India, and BRICS nations has already increased trade, with China nearly replacing Europe as a trading partner. Post-peace, restored Western trade could complement these ties, boosting export revenues.
Challenges: Sanctions have forced Russia to rely on national currencies (ruble share in exports rose from 14.3% in 2021 to 41.3% in 2024), complicating global transactions. Reintegration into SWIFT and global financial systems would ease these issues but require significant diplomatic efforts.
Economic Resilience and Risks:Resilience: Russia’s low unemployment (2.6% in 2024) and robust wage growth support domestic consumption, which could be further enhanced by investment-driven job creation.
Risks: Overreliance on military spending (tripled since 2021) and declining non-military sectors (e.g., agriculture machinery down 9–22% in 2024) could persist without diversification. The depletion of the National Welfare Fund by 2025 and rising borrowing costs (Central Bank rate at 18%) pose additional risks.
Comparison to Top International Economies in 2030By 2030, the top global economies are projected to be:
United States: ~$35–$37 trillion (2–3% annual growth)
China: ~$25–$28 trillion (4–5% growth)
India: ~$5–$6 trillion (6–7% growth)
Japan: ~$4.8–$5.2 trillion (1–2% growth)
Germany: ~$5.5–$6 trillion (1.5–2% growth)
Russia’s Position:Optimistic Case: If Russia achieves $2.8 trillion GDP, it could rank 8th–10th, potentially surpassing economies like Italy ($2.5 trillion), Canada ($2.7 trillion), or South Korea (~$2.3 trillion). Overtaking Japan (4th) or Germany (5th) is unlikely due to their larger economic bases and Russia’s structural constraints.
Pessimistic Case: If growth stagnates at 1.4% due to persistent labor shortages, limited technology access, or incomplete sanction relief, Russia’s GDP might reach only ~$2.5 trillion, keeping it at 11th or slipping to 12th behind Brazil or Australia.
Global Benefits and RisksGlobal Benefits: Increased Russian resource exports (e.g., rare earths, metals) could stabilize global supply chains, reduce commodity prices, and benefit industries worldwide, particularly in tech and renewable energy. Russia’s reintegration could also enhance global economic stability by reducing geopolitical tensions.
Risks: Overreliance on resource exports without structural reforms could perpetuate economic vulnerabilities, similar to Saudi Arabia’s challenges. Geopolitical risks, such as tensions with China over investment terms (e.g., Power of Siberia 2 delays), could limit gains. Additionally, domestic issues like corruption and bureaucratic hurdles could deter investors.
Critical PerspectiveThe establishment narrative, reflected in optimistic projections like Belousov’s, assumes linear growth and successful reintegration, which may overstate Russia’s potential. Historical data shows Russia’s growth has been sluggish (0.7–1.3% from 2014–2023), and even with peace, rebuilding trust with Western investors will take time. The Russian Central Bank’s caution about labor, capital, and technology constraints suggests that without deep reforms, Russia may remain a mid-tier economy. Moreover, China’s risk-averse investment approach and regulatory hurdles (e.g., yuan-denominated bonds) could limit non-Western FDI.ConclusionBy 2030, with peace and significant foreign investment in natural resources, Russia’s economy could grow to $2.7–$2.8 trillion, potentially ranking 8th–10th globally, surpassing smaller economies but not challenging the top five (U.S., China, India, Japan, Germany). Diversification away from oil and gas would enhance resilience, but structural challenges—labor shortages, technological lag, and bureaucratic inefficiencies—could cap growth. The global economy would benefit from increased resource availability, but Russia’s success hinges on sustained reforms and diplomatic trust-building, which are uncertain given historical trends and geopolitical complexities.
\

THE FOURTH MONKEY

2025-08-12T11:48:00.000-04:00

‘Professor Walter Ong’s book "Orality and Literacy" explores some of the profound changes in our thought processes, personality and social structures which are the result, at various stages of our history, of the development of speech, writing and print. And he projects his analysis further into the age of mass electronic communications media … the cumulative impact of the book is dazzling. This classic work explores the vast differences between oral and literate cultures and offers a brilliantly lucid account of the intellectual, literary and social effects of writing, print and electronic technology. In the course of his study, Walter J.Ong offers fascinating insights into oral genres across the globe and through time and examines the rise of abstract philosophical and scientific thinking. He considers the impact of orality-literacy studies not only on literary criticism and theory but on our very understanding of what it is to be a human being, conscious of self and other. Now considering Walter Ong's work as a pattern relative to AI and Generative AI explore some of the profound potential changes in our thought processes, personality and social interactions and structure as society becomes further dependent?

1. Thought Processes: From Linear to Networked CognitionOng argued that the transition from orality to literacy shifted human thought from concrete, situational, and participatory patterns to abstract, analytical, and linear reasoning. Writing enabled decontextualized knowledge storage, fostering abstract philosophical and scientific thinking. Generative AI introduces a further leap toward networked cognition, where thought processes are augmented by vast, interconnected data systems.
Cognitive Augmentation: Generative AI, such as large language models, acts as an external cognitive scaffold, processing and synthesizing information at scales humans cannot match. This could lead to a reliance on AI for complex problem-solving, potentially reducing individual critical thinking skills while enhancing collective intelligence. Unlike literacy’s emphasis on linear logic, AI encourages non-linear, probabilistic reasoning, where users navigate outputs shaped by patterns in data rather than fixed narratives.
Abstract Thinking and Creativity: Ong noted that literacy fostered abstract thought by detaching ideas from immediate contexts. AI amplifies this by generating novel connections across domains (e.g., text, images, code), potentially redefining creativity as a collaborative process between human intuition and AI’s pattern recognition. However, over-reliance on AI-generated outputs risks homogenizing thought, as algorithms prioritize popular or statistically likely patterns.
Memory and Knowledge: Oral cultures relied on mnemonic devices and communal memory; literacy enabled externalized knowledge in texts. AI externalizes memory further into dynamic, cloud-based systems. This could weaken individual memory retention, as people defer to AI for instant recall, but it may also democratize access to knowledge, reducing dependence on elite gatekeepers.
2. Personality: Redefining Self and AgencyOng highlighted how literacy fostered a sense of individual identity by enabling private reflection and authorship. AI and generative AI introduce new dynamics to self-perception and agency.
Fragmented Self: In oral cultures, identity was communal and performative; literacy cultivated an introspective, individualized self. AI-driven interactions—through personalized algorithms, virtual assistants, or AI-generated content—may fragment identity by tailoring experiences to micro-preferences. Users might oscillate between curated digital personas and their “authentic” selves, creating a fluid, context-dependent sense of identity.
Agency and Dependency: Literacy empowered individuals to author and control narratives. Generative AI, while enabling creative output (e.g., art, writing), may erode agency if users defer to AI for decision-making or creative tasks. The ease of AI-generated solutions could foster a passive consumption mindset, akin to what Ong described as the “secondary orality” of electronic media, where participation feels active but is mediated by technology.
Empathy and Emotional Intelligence: Ong noted that oral cultures emphasized communal empathy through face-to-face storytelling. AI-mediated communication (e.g., chatbots, virtual companions) could simulate emotional connection but risks shallowing genuine empathy, as interactions lack the embodied cues of oral exchange. Conversely, AI’s ability to analyze emotional data might enhance self-awareness or therapeutic practices.
3. Social Interactions and Structures: From Community to Algorithmic NetworksOng described how literacy restructured social hierarchies, shifting power to those who controlled written knowledge. AI and generative AI are reshaping social structures by creating algorithmically mediated networks that redefine community, authority, and interaction.
Redefining Community: Oral cultures thrived on physical, communal storytelling; literacy enabled distant, imagined communities (e.g., nations). AI fosters algorithmic communities defined by shared data patterns rather than geography or ideology. Social media platforms, powered by AI, create echo chambers or cross-pollinate ideas at unprecedented scales, altering how trust and belonging are formed.
Power and Authority: Literacy concentrated power in literate elites; print democratized knowledge to an extent. AI shifts power to those controlling algorithms and data infrastructures (e.g., tech companies). Generative AI’s ability to produce persuasive content (e.g., deepfakes, tailored narratives) could amplify misinformation, challenging traditional authorities like journalists or educators while empowering new influencers who master AI tools.
Interaction Dynamics: Ong’s concept of “secondary orality” in electronic media—combining oral immediacy with literate detachment—finds a parallel in AI-driven communication. Virtual assistants and generative AI enable instant, conversational exchanges, but these are mediated by opaque algorithms, reducing the spontaneity of oral dialogue. Social interactions may become more transactional, optimized for efficiency rather than depth.
4. Cultural and Intellectual ImpactsOng’s work emphasized how communication technologies shape cultural artifacts and intellectual traditions. Generative AI introduces profound shifts in how knowledge is produced, consumed, and valued.
Literary and Artistic Production: Just as print standardized texts and fostered authorship, generative AI automates content creation, challenging notions of originality. AI-generated literature, art, or music may democratize creativity but could also devalue human authorship, as Ong noted with print’s impact on oral traditions. The “remix culture” enabled by AI might prioritize iteration over invention.
Education and Learning: Literacy transformed education by emphasizing textual analysis over oral memorization. AI could shift education toward data-driven personalization, with adaptive learning systems tailoring content to individuals. However, this risks reducing learning to algorithmic efficiency, sidelining the serendipity of human-led discovery that Ong associated with literate exploration.
Epistemology and Truth: Ong argued that literacy enabled abstract, scientific reasoning by fixing knowledge in texts. AI’s probabilistic outputs, often presented with confident fluency, could blur distinctions between truth and plausibility. This echoes Ong’s concerns about electronic media’s performative immediacy, but AI’s scale amplifies risks of misinformation or epistemic fragmentation.
5. Existential Implications: Consciousness and HumanityOng’s exploration of orality and literacy touched on what it means to be human, conscious of self and others. AI challenges these boundaries further.
Consciousness and Self-Reflection: Literacy, per Ong, deepened self-consciousness by enabling private reflection. AI’s ability to simulate human-like responses (e.g., in chatbots) might prompt existential questions about consciousness. If AI mirrors human thought or emotion, it could redefine self-awareness as a distributed process across human-AI networks.
Human-Other Relations: Ong noted that literacy distanced humans from immediate, oral communities, fostering abstract notions of “others.” AI’s global connectivity could bridge cultural divides by translating and synthesizing diverse perspectives, but it might also alienate users by prioritizing algorithmic efficiency over human connection.
Potential Risks and OpportunitiesRisks: Over-dependence on AI could erode critical thinking, authenticity, and communal bonds, echoing Ong’s concerns about literacy’s detachment from oral immediacy. Algorithmic biases may reinforce inequalities, and the black-box nature of AI could obscure accountability, unlike the transparent authorship of print.
Opportunities: AI could democratize knowledge and creativity, enabling new forms of expression and collaboration. It might foster a “secondary literacy,” combining AI’s computational power with human insight, much like print amplified literate thought.
ConclusionApplying Ong’s framework, the rise of AI and generative AI marks a paradigm shift as profound as the transitions from orality to literacy to print. It reconfigures thought toward networked, probabilistic patterns; reshapes personality through fragmented, algorithmically curated identities; and restructures social interactions via data-driven communities. While offering unprecedented creative and intellectual possibilities, AI risks deepening dependency, eroding agency, and fragmenting truth. To navigate this shift, society must balance AI’s power with human-centric values, much as Ong advocated for understanding literacy’s impact on human consciousness.
WHICH HAND IS GENERATIVE AI?

THE SAME BUT DIFFERENT

2025-08-07T08:18:00.000-04:00

President Trump's tariffs may be view as a tax on the labor of residents of foreign countries products used for export to USA markets, therefore is it not reasonable to refocus the tariff from each country under tariffs policy as an "effective" tax on a per capita basis of those countries.

President Trump's tariffs, particularly those implemented or proposed during his second term starting in 2025, are import taxes applied to goods entering the United States, which can be interpreted as indirectly taxing the labor of foreign workers producing those goods for the U.S. market. These tariffs increase the cost of imported goods, potentially affecting foreign producers’ revenues and, by extension, the labor involved in production. Countries Affected by Trump’s TariffsTrump’s tariff policies in 2025 include a universal 10% tariff on imports from all countries, with additional "reciprocal" tariffs applied to specific nations based on trade deficits, non-reciprocal trade practices, or other factors like national security or immigration concerns. The following countries and regions are explicitly mentioned in the context of these tariffs:

China: Faces a 34% reciprocal tariff on top of a 20% existing tariff, totaling 54% initially, with escalations up to 125% in some cases.
European Union (EU): Subject to a 20% reciprocal tariff, with threats of escalation to 50% in some instances.
Canada: Faces a 25% tariff on non-USMCA-compliant goods, with energy resources at 10% and threats of escalation to 35%.
Mexico: Subject to a 25% tariff on non-USMCA-compliant goods, with a temporary reprieve from escalation to 35%.
Brazil: Faces a 10% baseline tariff plus a 40% additional tariff (totaling 50%) due to specific trade and political issues.
India: Hit with a 50% tariff, including a 25% additional tariff linked to its oil purchases from Russia.
South Korea: Subject to a 25% reciprocal tariff.
Japan: Faces a 24% reciprocal tariff.
Taiwan: Subject to a 32% reciprocal tariff.
Vietnam: Faces a 20% tariff after negotiations, reduced from a threatened 46%.
United Kingdom: Assigned the baseline 10% tariff, with specific sectors like steel and cars facing 25%.
Australia: Subject to the baseline 10% tariff, with exemptions for certain critical minerals.
New Zealand: Faces the baseline 10% tariff.
Other Countries: Approximately 57–90 countries face reciprocal tariffs ranging from 10% to 49%, depending on trade practices. Specific examples include Cambodia (49%) and Syria, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan (unspecified high rates).
Exempted Countries: Five West African nations (Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, Senegal) are explicitly excluded from tariffs due to geopolitical considerations.

These tariffs were enacted under authorities like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, with a universal 10% tariff effective April 5, 2025, and reciprocal tariffs starting April 9, 2025, though some were paused for 90 days (except for China).Effective Tax on a Per Capita BasisCalculating the "effective" tax on a per capita basis for foreign countries is complex because tariffs are applied to goods, not individuals, and their economic impact depends on trade volumes, the proportion of exports to the U.S., and how costs are distributed (e.g., absorbed by producers, passed to U.S. consumers, or mitigated by price reductions). The "effective tax" on foreign labor could be approximated as the tariff revenue attributable to a country’s exports to the U.S., divided by that country’s population, assuming the tariff burden falls entirely on foreign producers (an oversimplification, as costs are often shared). However, precise data on 2025 trade volumes and tariff revenues per country are not fully available in the provided sources, so I’ll use a simplified methodology based on available trade data and tariff rates.Methodology

Tariff Revenue Estimation: Tariff revenue = (Tariff rate) × (Value of exports to the U.S.). I’ll use 2024 trade data where available, as 2025 data are incomplete.
Per Capita Calculation: Divide estimated tariff revenue by the country’s population (using recent population estimates).
Assumptions:
- All tariffs are passed to foreign producers (unlikely in reality, as U.S. consumers often bear costs).
- 2024 export values are a reasonable proxy for 2025.
- Focus on major countries with specific tariff rates mentioned.
Limitations: The analysis excludes retaliatory tariffs, currency fluctuations, and exemptions (e.g., USMCA-compliant goods). Population data are approximate, and trade volumes may shift due to tariff impacts.

Data Sources

Trade Data: 2024 U.S. import values from the U.S. Census Bureau or similar sources (approximated from web results where explicit).
Population Data: World Bank or UN estimates for 2024/2025.
Tariff Rates: Sourced from web results (e.g.,,).

Calculations for Key Countries

China:
- Tariff Rate: 54% (34% reciprocal + 20% existing).
- 2024 Exports to U.S.: ~$500 billion (second-largest trading partner).
- Tariff Revenue: 0.54 × $500B = $270B.
- Population: ~1.4 billion.
- Per Capita Effective Tax: $270B ÷ 1.4B = ~$193 per person.
- Note: China’s tariffs peaked at 125%, which would increase this to ~$446 per capita if sustained.
European Union:
- Tariff Rate: 20%.
- 2024 Exports to U.S.: ~$600 billion (rough estimate for 27 nations).
- Tariff Revenue: 0.20 × $600B = $120B.
- Population: ~450 million.
- Per Capita Effective Tax: $120B ÷ 450M = ~$267 per person.
- Note: Varies by country; Germany and France likely face higher burdens due to larger export shares.
Canada:
- Tariff Rate: 25% on non-USMCA goods, 10% on energy.
- 2024 Exports to U.S.: ~$450 billion, ~50% non-USMCA (estimate).
- Tariff Revenue: 0.25 × ($450B × 0.5) = $56.25B.
- Population: ~41 million.
- Per Capita Effective Tax: $56.25B ÷ 41M = ~$1,372 per person.
Mexico:
- Tariff Rate: 25% on non-USMCA goods.
- 2024 Exports to U.S.: ~$475 billion, ~50% non-USMCA (estimate).
- Tariff Revenue: 0.25 × ($475B × 0.5) = $59.375B.
- Population: ~130 million.
- Per Capita Effective Tax: $59.375B ÷ 130M = ~$457 per person.
Brazil:
- Tariff Rate: 50%.
- 2024 Exports to U.S.: ~$40 billion (based on trade surplus context).
- Tariff Revenue: 0.50 × $40B = $20B.
- Population: ~215 million.
- Per Capita Effective Tax: $20B ÷ 215M = ~$93 per person.
India:
- Tariff Rate: 50%.
- 2024 Exports to U.S.: ~$85 billion (estimate).
- Tariff Revenue: 0.50 × $85B = $42.5B.
- Population: ~1.4 billion.
- Per Capita Effective Tax: $42.5B ÷ 1.4B = ~$30 per person.
South Korea:
- Tariff Rate: 25%.
- 2024 Exports to U.S.: ~$100 billion (estimate).
- Tariff Revenue: 0.25 × $100B = $25B.
- Population: ~51 million.
- Per Capita Effective Tax: $25B ÷ 51M = ~$490 per person.
Japan:
- Tariff Rate: 24%.
- 2024 Exports to U.S.: ~$140 billion (estimate).
- Tariff Revenue: 0.24 × $140B = $33.6B.
- Population: ~125 million.
- Per Capita Effective Tax: $33.6B ÷ 125M = ~$269 per person.
Vietnam:
- Tariff Rate: 20%.
- 2024 Exports to U.S.: ~$100 billion (estimate).
- Tariff Revenue: 0.20 × $100B = $20B.
- Population: ~100 million.
- Per Capita Effective Tax: $20B ÷ 100M = ~$200 per person.
United Kingdom:
- Tariff Rate: 10% baseline, 25% on steel/cars.
- 2024 Exports to U.S.: ~$65 billion, ~20% steel/cars (estimate).
- Tariff Revenue: (0.10 × $52B) + (0.25 × $13B) = $5.2B + $3.25B = $8.45B.
- Population: ~67 million.
- Per Capita Effective Tax: $8.45B ÷ 67M = ~$126 per person.

General Notes

Other Countries: For the ~80 countries facing 10–49% tariffs, per capita impacts vary widely. For example, Cambodia (49%, ~$10B exports, 16M population) might face ~$306 per capita, while smaller economies like Sri Lanka or Pakistan face lower per capita impacts due to smaller export volumes.
Global Impact: The universal 10% tariff applies to all countries not exempted, but per capita impacts are lower for nations with minimal U.S. exports (e.g., New Zealand: ~$900M in tariffs ÷ 5M = ~$180 per person).
Data Gaps: Exact export values and tariff application details (e.g., exemptions, transshipment penalties) are incomplete, so these are rough estimates.
Economic Reality: Tariffs are not fully borne by foreign labor; U.S. consumers often absorb costs via higher prices, and foreign producers may lower prices to stay competitive. This reduces the "effective tax" on foreign labor.

Critical AnalysisThe notion that tariffs are a direct tax on foreign labor oversimplifies the economic dynamics. Tariffs increase costs for importers, who may pass them to U.S. consumers, reduce demand for foreign goods, or negotiate lower prices from foreign producers. Studies suggest U.S. consumers bore much of the cost of Trump’s first-term tariffs, with Chinese exporters rarely lowering prices significantly. The per capita figures above assume foreign producers absorb the full tariff, which overstates the impact on foreign labor. Additionally, retaliatory tariffs (e.g., China’s 34–84% on U.S. goods, EU’s $22B in retaliatory duties) offset the burden by taxing U.S. exports, affecting American labor.ConclusionThe countries most affected by Trump’s tariffs include China, the EU, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, India, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the UK, among others, with tariff rates ranging from 10% to 125%. The "effective tax" on a per capita basis varies significantly, from ~$30 (India) to ~$1,372 (Canada), depending on export volumes and population. These figures are rough estimates due to data limitations and the complex distribution of tariff costs. For precise impacts, further details on 2025 trade flows and cost pass-through are needed. IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT INDIVIDUALS WITHIN EACH COUNTRY DOES NOT FEEL THE DIRECT IMPACT OF THE TARIFFS, RATHER THEY MAY INDIRECTLY BE AFFECTED/EFFECTED BY THEIR INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY POLICIES.

CANCELLATION ... AFTER NOMINATED FOR MULTIPLE ENEMAS

2025-07-22T16:16:00.000-04:00

Jimmy Fallon, John Oliver, Jon Stewart, Seth Meyers and other stars take over ‘THE LATE SHOW’ audience to support Stephen Colbert after cancellation enema ...

The battalion of comics, including several competing late-night talk show hosts, headed over to the rival Ed Sullivan Theater to speak out against CBS’s decision to axe the top-rated talk show.

The cameos began when Colbert brought out “Weird Al” Yankovic and Lin-Manuel Miranda to play some music to cheer up heartbroken fans.

The pair played Coldplay’s “Viva la Vida” — a bit poking fun at the Coldplay concert CEO cheating scandal — as the cameras scanned the audience and landed on several famous spectators.

Andy Cohen stole a smooch from Anderson Cooper; Fallon and Meyers exchanged high-fives while drinking beers; Sandler, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog (and Robert Smigel), and Christopher McDonald ate fried food in the stands; and Oliver and Stewart threw an excited fit over being on camera.

The skit ended with the camera panning over to an animated President Trump holding a Paramount sign before the Trump cartoon ducks, like Astronomer CEO Andy Byron did when caught with alleged HR chief mistress Kristin Cabot on camera at a Coldplay concert last week.

Colbert took a shot at Paramount — CBS’s parent company — last week when he slammed the $16 million settlement it brokered with Trump over the station’s controversial “60 Minutes” interview of Kamala Harris during the 2024 election campaign.

Less than three days later, the company announced it was cancelling “The Late Night Show” after May 2026.

I SMELL SOMETHING ...

... LOOK THAT'S BIGGER THEN JURASSIC PARK ... LOOKING FOR THE SAT PHONE!

During Monday night’s episode, Colbert, who took over the show following the legendary David Letterman’s departure in 2015, didn’t shy away from the topic of his cancellation — using his monologue to bash the network’s decision.

“Folks, I’m gonna say it. Cancel culture has gone too far,” he joked at the beginning of the show.

The CBS mainstay, while being critically acclaimed, reportedly started losing upwards of $40 million annually off of an already steep $100 million budget per season.

“$40 million’s a big number. I could see us losing $24 million, but where would Paramount have possibly spent the other $16 million? Oh yeah,” Colbert added, referring to the settlement.

PIMPS OR PREACHERS .... YOUR CHOICE

COMMON SENSE QUESTIONS, COMMON SENSE ANSWERS

2025-07-06T08:33:00.000-04:00

WRONG AND MORE WRONG: HOW AMERICA’S ‘EXPERTS’ BURNED THEIR LAST SHREDS OF CREDIBILITY ... COMMON SENSE QUESTIONS & ANSWERS!

From the economy to the border to climate and beyond, the degreed classes are repeatedly proven wrong -- yet arrogantly refuse to learn from their past flawed predictions, Victor Davis Hanson writes. Getty Images

The first six months of the Trump administration have not been kind to the experts and the degree-holding classes.

Almost daily during the tariff hysterias of March, we were told by university economists and most of the PhDs employed in investment and finance that the United States was headed toward a downward, if not recessionary, spiral.

Most economists lectured that trade deficits did not really matter.

Why do our 'experts' keep failing?

Or they insisted that the cures to reduce them were worse than the $1.1 trillion deficit itself.

They reminded us that free, rather than fair, trade alone ensured prosperity.

So, the result of Trump’s foolhardy tariff talk would be an impending recession.

America would soon suffer rising joblessness, inflation — or rather a return to stagflation — and likely little, if any, increase in tariff revenue as trade volume declined.

Instead, recent data show increases in tariff revenue.

Personal real income and savings were up.

Job creation exceeded prognoses.

There was no surge in inflation

The supposedly “crashed” stock market reached historic highs.

Common-sense Americans might not have been surprised: The prior stock market frenzy was predicated on what was, in theory, supposed to have happened rather than what was likely to occur.

AFTER ALL, IF TARIFFS WERE SO TOXIC AND SURPLUSES IRRELEVANT, WHY DID OUR AFFLUENT EUROPEAN AND ASIAN TRADING RIVALS INSIST ON BOTH SURPLUSES AND PROTECTIVE TARIFFS?

Most Americans recalled that the mere threat of tariffs and Trump’s jawboning had led to several trillion dollars in promised foreign investment and at least some plans to relocate manufacturing and assembly back to the United States.

Would that change in direction not lead to business optimism and eventually more jobs?

WOULD COUNTRIES PURPOSELY RUNNING UP HUGE SURPLUSES THROUGH ASYMMETRICAL TRADE PRACTICES NOT HAVE FAR MORE TO LOSE IN NEGOTIATIONS THAN THOSE SUFFERING GARGANTUAN DEFICITS?

Were Trump’s art-of-the-deal threats of prohibitive tariffs not mere starting points in negotiations that would eventually lead to likely agreements more favorable to the United States than in the past, and moderate rather than punitive tariffs?

Would not the value of the huge American consumer market mean that our trade partners, who were racking up substantial surpluses, would agree they could afford modest tariffs and trim their substantial profit margins rather than suicidally price themselves out of a lucrative market entirely?

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: WRONG AGAIN

Economists and bureaucrats were equally wrong on the border.

We were told for four years that only “comprehensive immigration reform” would stop illegal immigration.

Most Americans differed: They knew firsthand we had more than enough immigration laws, but had elected as President Joe Biden, who deliberately destroyed borders and had no intention of enforcing existing laws.

When Trump promised he would ensure that, instead of 10,000 foreign nationals entering illegally each day, within a month no one would, our experts scoffed.

But if the border patrol went from ignoring or even aiding illegal immigrants to stopping them right at the border, why would such a prediction be wrong?

Those favoring a reduction in illegal immigration and deportations also argued that crime would fall, and citizen job opportunities would increase, given an estimated 500,000 aliens with criminal records had entered illegally during the Biden administration, while millions of other illegal aliens were working off the books, for cash, and often at reduced wages.

Indeed, once the border was closed tightly, hundreds of thousands were returned to their countries, and employers began turning to US citizens.

Job opportunities did increase.

Crime did go down.

Legal-only immigration regained its preferred status over illegal entry.

Trump talked of trying voluntary deportation — again to wide ridicule from immigration “experts.”

But why would not a million illegal aliens wish to return home “voluntarily” — if they were given free flights, a $1,000 bonus and, most importantly, a chance later to reapply for legal entry once they arrived home?

IRAN FEARS CAME TO NAUGHT

Many of our national security experts warned that taking out Iran’s nuclear sites was a fool’s errand.

It would supposedly unleash a Middle East tsunami of instability.

It would cause a wave of terrorism.

It would send oil prices skyrocketing.

It would not work, ensuring Iran would soon reply with nuclear weapons.

In fact, oil prices decreased after the American bombing. A twenty-five-minute entrance into Iranian airspace and bombing led to a ceasefire, not a conflagration.

As for a big power standoff, World War III and 30,000 dead, common sense asked why China would wish the Strait of Hormuz to close, given that it imports half of all Middle Eastern oil produced?

Why would Russia — bogged down in Ukraine and suffering nearly a million casualties — wish to mix it up in Iran, after ignominiously fleeing Syria and the fall of its Assad clients?

Russia usually thinks of Russia, period. It does not lament when tensions elsewhere are expected to spike oil prices.

Why would Russia resupply Iran’s destroyed Russian-made anti-aircraft systems, when it was desperate to ward off Ukrainian air attacks on its homeland, and Iran would likely again lose any imported replacements?

As for waves of terror, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis have suffered enormous losses from Israel.

Their leadership has been decapitated; their streams of Iranian money have been mostly truncated.

Why would they rush to Iran’s side to war with Israel, when Iran did not come to their aid when they were battling and losing to the Israelis?

Has a theater-wide war really ever started when one side entered and left enemy territory in 25 minutes, suffering no casualties and likely killing few of the enemy?

As far as the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, why should we believe our expert pundit class?

Prior to the American and Israeli bombing, many of them warned that Iran was not on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, and therefore, there was little need for any such preemptive action.

Then, post facto, the same experts flipped.

Now they claimed, after the bombing severely damaged most Iranian nuclear sites, that there was an increased threat, given that some enriched uranium (which they had previously discounted) surely had survived and thus marked a new existential danger of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Was Trump really going to “blow up,” “destroy” or “cripple” NATO, as our diplomatic experts insisted, when his first-term jawboning led from six to twenty-three nations meeting their 2% of GDP defense-spending promises?

Given two ongoing theater-wide wars, given Trump’s past correct predictions about the dangers of the Nord Stream II pipeline, given the vulnerability of an anemic NATO to Russian expansionism, and given that Russian leader Vladimir Putin did not invade during Trump’s first term, unlike the three presidencies before and after his own, why wouldn’t NATO agree to rearm with 5%, and appreciate Trump’s efforts both to bolster the capability of the alliance and the need to end the Ukraine war?

Why the ‘experts’ repeatedly fail

Why were our “scientific” pollsters so wrong in the last three presidential elections, and so at odds with the clearly discernible electoral shifts in the general electorate?

Where were crackpot ideas like defund the police, transgender males in women’s sports and open borders first born and nurtured?

Answer: the university, and higher education in general.

The list of wrongheaded, groupthink, and degreed expertise could be vastly expanded.

We remember the “51 intelligence authorities” who swore the Hunter Biden laptop was “likely” cooked up by the Russians.

Our best and brightest economists signed letters insisting that Biden’s multitrillion-dollar wasteful spending would not result in inflation spikes.

Our global warming professors’ past predictions should have ensured that Americans were now boiling, with tidal waves destroying beachfront communities, including Barack Obama’s two multimillion-dollar estates.

Our legal eagles, after learning nothing from the bogus Mueller investigation and adolescent Steele dossier, but with impressive Ivy League degrees, pontificated for years that Trump by now would be in jail for life, given 91 “walls-are-closing-in” and “bombshell” indictments.

So why are the degreed classes so wrong, and yet so arrogantly never learn anything from their past flawed predictions?

One, our experts usually receive degrees from our supposedly marquee universities.

But as we are now learning from long overdue autopsies of institutionalized campus racial bias, neo-racial segregation, 50%-plus price-gouging surcharges on federal grants, and rabid antisemitism, higher education in America has become anti-Enlightenment.

Universities now wage war against free-thinkers, free speech, free expression and anything that freely questions the deductive groupthink of the diversity/equity/inclusion commissariat, and global warming orthodoxies.

The degreed expert classes emerge from universities whose faculties are 90 to 95% left-wing and whose administrations are overstaffed and terrified of their radical students.

The wonder is not that the experts are incompetent and biased, but that there are a brave few who are not.

Two, Trump drove the degreed class insane to the degree it could no longer, even if it were willing and able (and it was not), offer empirical assessments of his policies.

From his crude speech to his orange skin to his Queens accent to his MAGA base to his remarkable counterintuitive successes and to his disdain for the bicoastal elite, our embarrassing experts would rather be dead wrong and anti-Trump than correct in their assessments — if they in any small way helped Trump.

Three, universities are not just biased, but increasingly mediocre and ever more isolated from working Americans and their commonsense approaches to problem solving.

PhD programs in general are not as rigorous as they were even two decades ago.

Grading, assessments, and evaluations in professional schools must increasingly weigh non-meritocratic criteria, given their admissions and hiring protocols are not based on disinterested evaluation of past work and expertise.

The vast endowments of elite campuses, the huge profit-making foreign enrollments, and the assured, steady stream of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal aid created a sense of fiscal unreality, moral smugness, unearned superiority and ultimately, blindness to just how isolated and disliked the professoriate had become.

But the public has caught on that too many Ivy-League presidents were increasingly a mediocre, if not incompetent, bunch.

Most university economists could not run a small business.

The military academies did not always turn out the best generals and admirals.

The most engaging biographers were not professors.

And plumbers and electricians were usually more skilled in their trades than most journalist graduates were in their reporting.

Add it all up, and the reputation of our predictors, prognosticators and experts has been radically devalued — to the point of utter worthlessness.

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.

WE HAVE TO PASS THE BILL SO WE CAN SEE WHAT'S IN IT

2025-07-04T16:46:00.000-04:00

ONLY A DEMOCRAT COULD NOT SEE THE IRONY IN THIS ...

TO THE BLIND ALL THINGS ARE SUDDEN

2025-06-28T20:16:00.000-04:00

A Deep Peek Into DeepSeek AI’s Talent And Implications For US Innovation

DeepSeek AI’s rapid ascent signals more than a breakthrough in large language model performance—it is a wake-up call for US innovation strategy. This Chinese startup was propelled by a deeply rooted and increasingly self-sufficient domestic talent pipeline. Over half of DeepSeek AI’s researchers were trained entirely in China, and those who passed through elite US institutions largely returned home, accelerating a reverse flow of innovation capacity that undermines long-standing American advantages.

There's credible evidence China's developed a robust pipeline of homegrown talent. Nearly all of the researchers behind DeepSeek’s five published papers were educated and/or trained in China. More than half never left China for schooling or work, demonstrating the country’s growing capacity to develop world-class AI talent through an entirely domestic pipeline. And while nearly a quarter of DeepSeek researchers gained some experience at US institutions during their careers, most returned to China, creating a one-way knowledge transfer that benefits China's AI ecosystem.

The DeepSeek AI case illustrates a critical blind spot in US technology policy: the erosion of America’s human-capital edge. Export controls and computational investments are necessary but insufficient. The United States cannot outregulate its way to technological dominance. Competing in this new era requires a renewed focus on developing, attracting, and retaining top talent, both from within the United States and abroad. If DeepSeek AI is an early indicator, the future of technological leadership will be won not just with faster chips or bigger models but with smarter strategies for global talent competition.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Among DeepSeek AI researchers, 89% have been affiliated with Chinese institutions; more than half never left China for study or work.
Only 24% of contributors had US ties—and 63% of those spent just one year in the United States before returning to China.
DeepSeek AI’s “key team” of 31 top contributors averaged over 1,500 citations, debunking the narrative that its success came from inexperienced talent.
The US training pipeline served as a launchpad, not a destination, for DeepSeek’s US-affiliated researchers: nearly 70% now work in China.
Current US innovation policy focuses heavily on computational and export controls; it must now confront the harder challenge—winning the global competition for talent.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

VIEW THE REPORT

A Deep Peek into DeepSeek AI’s Talent and Implications for US Innovation by Amy Zegart and Emerson Johnston... by Hoover Institution on Scribd

WHEN A WOMAN CAN'T DEFINE A WOMAN

2025-06-27T19:42:00.000-04:00

The refusal or inability of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice to define "woman," as notably referenced during Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s 2022 confirmation hearings, has significant implications for the perception of traditional cultural roles, societal pressures, gender transition psychology, and the legal perception of gender. This moment, where Jackson stated she could not define "woman" because she is "not a biologist," sparked widespread discussion and reflects broader cultural and legal shifts. Below, is an analysis and its impact on these areas, building on the context of Gen Z women’s progressive shift and engagement in civil disobedience.

1. Impact on Perception of Traditional Cultural Roles

Traditional cultural roles for women have historically centered on "nesting" behaviors—family, motherhood, and domesticity—rooted in biological and social expectations. The refusal to define "woman" in a high-profile legal context challenges these norms:

Destabilization of Fixed Gender Roles: By avoiding a definition tied to biology, the statement aligns with progressive views that gender is fluid, socially constructed, or self-identified. This undermines traditional roles, which rely on binary, biologically deterministic definitions (e.g., women as childbearers). For Gen Z women, already moving toward progressive ideologies (
44% identifying as liberal), this reinforces a cultural shift away from rigid expectations, encouraging roles defined by individual choice over tradition.
Cultural Polarization: The statement fueled backlash from conservative groups, who see it as eroding clear gender categories essential to societal structures like marriage or family. Posts on X reflect this divide, with some users arguing it “denies reality” while others praise it as inclusive of trans and nonbinary identities. This polarization intensifies societal pressures on women to either reject traditional roles (aligned with progressive activism) or defend them (aligned with conservative pushback).
Empowerment vs. Confusion: For young women, the ambiguity may empower those rejecting traditional roles, as it validates diverse identities (e.g., 54.8% of Gen Z women identifying as lesbian or bisexual). However, it can also create confusion for those navigating societal expectations without a clear framework, potentially heightening anxiety in a generation already facing economic and social precarity.

2. Societal Pressures and Gender Expectations

The refusal to define "woman" amplifies existing societal pressures while introducing new ones:

Pressure to Conform to Fluidity: The statement aligns with progressive cultural narratives, amplified by platforms like TikTok, that prioritize self-identification and inclusivity. This can pressure young women to adopt fluid or non-traditional gender identities to align with “hyper-progressive” peers, even if they don’t fully identify as such. For example, the high rate of LGBTQ+ identification among Gen Z women may partly reflect social incentives to signal progressive values.
Backlash and Defensive Traditionalism: Conversely, the ambiguity fuels conservative narratives that women’s roles (e.g., as mothers or wives) are under threat, increasing pressure on women to adhere to traditional norms to “preserve” societal stability. This is evident in global trends, like South Korea’s gender divide, where young men resent feminism, and women face competing pressures to be either traditional or progressive.
Intersection with Economic Realities: As noted previously, economic pressures (e.g., delayed marriage, high rents) already push Gen Z women away from “nesting.” The lack of a clear definition of “woman” may exacerbate feelings of disconnection from traditional roles, redirecting focus toward activism or career-driven identities, as seen in women’s higher political engagement (e.g., 61% prioritizing abortion rights).

3. Impact on Gender Transition Psychology

The psychological landscape of gender transition is deeply affected by this ambiguity in defining "woman":

Validation of Fluid Identities: For individuals exploring gender transition, the refusal to tie “woman” to biology validates nonbinary, trans, or fluid identities. This aligns with psychological research showing that social affirmation reduces gender dysphoria and improves mental health outcomes for trans individuals. Gen Z women, who are more likely to identify as non-heterosexual or nonbinary, may feel emboldened to explore gender identities, contributing to the 30% liberal gap over male peers.
Increased Social Acceptance: The statement reflects a broader cultural shift toward accepting gender fluidity, which can lower stigma for those transitioning. However, it may also heighten social pressure to publicly declare a gender identity, potentially causing stress for those still exploring or those who prefer binary identities but feel they must signal inclusivity.
Conflict with Traditional Upbringing: For young women raised in conservative or traditional environments, the ambiguity can create psychological tension. The clash between biological definitions (rooted in family expectations) and fluid cultural narratives may lead to identity conflicts, particularly for those navigating transition or questioning gender norms. This is compounded by social media echo chambers, where progressive platforms like TikTok reinforce fluidity, while conservative YouTube content pushes back.

4. Legal Perception of Gender

The refusal to define "woman" in a Supreme Court context has significant legal implications:

Evolving Legal Standards: The statement reflects a broader trend in legal discourse toward recognizing gender as self-identified rather than biologically fixed. This is evident in cases like Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), where the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII protects against discrimination based on gender identity. Such rulings shift legal perceptions away from binary definitions, impacting policies on bathrooms, sports, and workplace protections.
Ambiguity in Legal Protections: The lack of a clear definition can complicate legal protections for women. For example, Title IX cases involving trans women in sports raise questions about fairness and access, with conservative groups arguing that biological definitions are necessary to protect “traditional” women’s rights. This creates a legal gray area, as courts grapple with balancing inclusivity and sex-based protections.
Global Context: Globally, similar debates occur. In the UK, the Gender Recognition Act reform debates highlight tensions over self-identification vs. biological definitions. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ambiguity aligns with progressive legal trends but risks alienating jurisdictions or groups that prioritize clear, binary categories, influencing international perceptions of U.S. gender law.

5. Connection to Gen Z Women’s Progressive Shift

The refusal to define "woman" resonates with Gen Z women’s “hyper-progressive” shift and engagement in civil disobedience:

Alignment with Progressive Activism: The statement reinforces the progressive narrative that gender is fluid, aligning with movements like #MeToo and trans rights advocacy, which Gen Z women champion. This fuels their participation in protests, as they see legal ambiguity as a call to defend marginalized identities.
Reaction to Conservative Backlash: The conservative outrage on platforms like X (e.g., posts calling the statement “anti-woman”) mirrors the male Gen Z shift toward right-wing ideologies. This widens the 30% ideological gap, as women rally against perceived threats to their autonomy, while men embrace traditionalist influencers.
Technological Amplification: Social media amplifies the cultural impact of such statements. TikTok’s progressive echo chambers reinforce Gen Z women’s rejection of traditional roles, while conservative platforms like YouTube fuel male resentment, deepening the gender divide.

Critical Considerations

Not a Universal Stance: The statement by Justice Jackson doesn’t represent all justices or legal opinions. Other justices, like those dissenting in Bostock, may favor biological definitions, creating a fragmented legal landscape.
Risk of Oversimplification: Framing the issue as a “refusal” to define “woman” may oversimplify the intent, which was likely to avoid a reductive answer in a complex cultural moment. However, the public perception of this moment drives much of the cultural and psychological impact.
Mental Health Implications: The ambiguity may empower some but alienate others, particularly those who find clarity in traditional roles. Mental health data shows Gen Z women face higher rates of anxiety (45% vs. 35% for men), partly due to navigating these cultural shifts.

XX ... NEXT QUESTION!
CONCLUSION

The inability or refusal to define "woman" by a Supreme Court Justice challenges traditional cultural roles by validating fluid gender identities, aligning with Gen Z women’s progressive shift and activism. It intensifies societal pressures, pushing women toward either progressive fluidity or defensive traditionalism, while amplifying psychological tensions for those exploring gender transition. Legally, it reflects a move toward inclusive definitions but creates ambiguity in sex-based protections, influencing global gender law perceptions. For Gen Z women, this moment reinforces their rejection of “nesting” roles, driven by social media and societal changes, but it also widens the gender divide with men, fueling both progressive activism and conservative backlash.

HYBRID PLAN TO SOCIAL SECUIRTY REFORM ... 401(K) and RAT Tax

2025-06-21T14:05:00.000-04:00

The Social Security and Medicare Sustainability Act of 2026 aims to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. It proposes voluntary personal retirement accounts (PRAs) modeled after 401(k) plans and a Robot Automation Tax (RAT) to offset payroll tax losses from automation. The RAT would generate revenue for the OASI and DI trust funds, while PRAs would provide higher potential returns for workers.

Bush’s 2001 Social Security reform proposal aimed to create voluntary personal retirement accounts allowing workers to divert 4% of their 6.2% payroll tax into investments, resembling a 401(k) in structure but without employer matching. It sought to address Social Security’s looming financial challenges by offering higher potential returns and reducing future benefit growth for higher earners. However, it lacked detailed mechanisms for employer contributions and faced significant opposition, ultimately failing to gain congressional approval. For further details, the George W. Bush White House archives or the Social Security Administration’s historical records provide primary sources. Additionally incorporating a RAT Tax (Robot Automation Tax), so by 2033, robotic automation could projections to displace 10-15 million US jobs, primarily in manufacturing and low-skill sectors. A proposed “robot tax” on employers using robots could generate substantial revenue to support the OASI and DI trust funds, potentially covering over half the projected shortfall. However, implementation challenges, economic trade-offs, and the need for complementary reforms require careful consideration. What legislation could be proffered to support and extend the social security net for American Citizens using both the 401(K) program structure and RAT Tax?

To address the projected depletion of the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) trust funds by 2033–2034, as well as the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) fund by 2033, a legislative proposal could integrate elements of President George W. Bush’s 2001 voluntary personal retirement accounts (PRAs) with a Robot Automation Tax (RAT) to fund and extend the social security net for American citizens. This hybrid approach would leverage the investment potential of 401(k)-style accounts to enhance individual retirement savings while using a robot tax to offset the payroll tax revenue losses from automation-driven job displacement (projected at 10–15 million jobs by 2033).

Legislative Draft Summary: Social Security and Medicare Sustainability Act of 2026

Title

Social Security and Medicare Sustainability Act of 2026

Purpose

To ensure the long-term solvency of the Social Security OASI, DI, and Medicare HI trust funds by establishing voluntary personal retirement accounts (PRAs) modeled on 401(k) structures and implementing a Robot Automation Tax (RAT) to offset payroll tax losses from automation, while supporting displaced workers through retraining and equitable revenue allocation.

Background

Social Security (OASDI): The 2025 Social Security Trustees Report projects OASI and DI trust fund depletion by 2033 and 2034 (combined), respectively, with only 77% and 81% of benefits payable thereafter. The 75-year actuarial deficit is 3.82% of taxable payroll.
Medicare HI: The 2025 Trustees Report projects HI fund depletion by 2033, with 86% of benefits payable, and a 75-year deficit of 0.70% of taxable payroll.
Automation Impact: Robotic automation is projected to displace 10–15 million US jobs by 2033, reducing payroll tax contributions (12.4% for OASDI, 2.9% for HI) by $124–186 billion (OASDI) and $17–26 billion (HI) annually, assuming an average wage of $60,000.
Bush’s 2001 Proposal: Allowed workers to divert 4% of their 6.2% OASDI payroll tax into PRAs, with reduced traditional benefits for higher earners, aiming for higher returns through investments but lacking employer contributions and facing political resistance.

Key Provisions

Voluntary Personal Retirement Accounts (PRAs):

Structure: Workers under age 55 may divert 4% of their 6.2% OASDI payroll tax (up to the $176,100 wage cap in 2025) into PRAs, managed by private financial institutions with oversight by a new Social Security Investment Board.
Investment Options: Similar to 401(k) plans, PRAs offer diversified, low-cost funds (e.g., index funds, bonds, lifecycle funds), with a default low-risk option for risk-averse workers.
Benefit Offset: Traditional Social Security benefits are reduced proportionally based on diverted contributions, with a progressive formula ensuring lower earners retain more traditional benefits (e.g., 80% benefit retention for low earners vs. 50% for high earners).
No Employer Match: Unlike 401(k)s, no mandatory employer contributions to simplify administration, though voluntary employer matches are permitted.
Transition Costs: Funded by redirecting $50 billion annually from general revenues (2026–2035) to cover legacy benefits during PRA rollout.

Robot Automation Tax (RAT):

Tax Base: Employers pay a tax per “automated unit” (industrial robots, AI software, or systems replacing human tasks), defined by the IRS in collaboration with the Department of Labor.
Tax Rate: $20,000 per automated unit annually, based on an estimated 5.6 workers displaced per unit (per Acemoglu and Restrepo, 2020) at $60,000 average wage, replacing lost OASDI ($41,664/unit) and HI ($9,744/unit) contributions, with a lower rate to balance innovation incentives.
Revenue Allocation:

70% to OASDI trust funds ($14,000/unit), generating $28–42 billion/year for 2–3 million units by 2033.
20% to HI trust fund ($4,000/unit), generating $8–12 billion/year.
10% to a Workforce Retraining Fund ($2,000/unit), supporting displaced workers with education and job placement programs.

Implementation: Phased rollout starting 2027, with exemptions for small businesses (fewer than 50 employees) and healthcare-specific automation (e.g., robotic surgery) to avoid cost increases.

Complementary Reforms:

Payroll Tax Cap: Gradually raise the OASDI wage cap from $176,100 to $250,000 by 2030, increasing revenue by ~$20 billion/year.
HI Tax Adjustment: Increase HI payroll tax rate from 2.9% to 3.2% for wages above $200,000, adding $10 billion/year.
Cost Controls: Implement Medicare value-based care expansion, reducing HI expenditures by 5% ($22 billion/year in 2024 terms).

Workforce Retraining Program:

Establish a $5–10 billion annual Workforce Retraining Fund, financed by RAT revenue, offering grants for displaced workers to train in high-demand fields (e.g., AI maintenance, renewable energy).
Administered by the Department of Labor, with priority for low-skill workers in automation-heavy industries (e.g., manufacturing).

Oversight and Evaluation:

Create an Automation and Social Security Task Force to monitor RAT implementation, adjust tax rates based on job displacement data, and evaluate PRA performance.
Annual reports to Congress on trust fund solvency and automation impacts, with adjustments by 2030 if needed.

Expected Outcomes

OASDI Solvency: RAT revenue ($28–42 billion/year by 2033) and payroll tax cap increase ($20 billion/year) cover ~60–75% of the 3.82% payroll deficit, delaying depletion to 2040–2045. PRAs reduce future benefit obligations by ~15% for participants, ensuring solvency through 2050 with modest benefit adjustments.
HI Solvency: RAT revenue ($8–12 billion/year) and HI tax increase ($10 billion/year) cover ~50–70% of the 0.70% payroll deficit, delaying depletion to 2038–2042. Cost controls extend solvency further.
Worker Support: PRAs offer higher potential returns (e.g., 5–7% vs. Social Security’s 2–3% implicit return), benefiting younger workers. Retraining programs support 500,000–1 million displaced workers annually.
Economic Impact: RAT balances automation incentives with revenue needs, though careful calibration is needed to prevent offshoring.

Implementation Timeline

2026: Pass legislation, establish Social Security Investment Board and RAT framework.
2027: Launch RAT collection and Workforce Retraining Fund.
2028: Begin PRA enrollment, with full rollout by 2030.
2033: Evaluate solvency and adjust RAT rates or payroll taxes if needed.

Legislative Authority

Amends Titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act.
Authorizes IRS and Department of Labor to regulate RAT enforcement.
Funded through trust fund revenues, general appropriations, and RAT proceeds.

Analysis of the Proposal

Financial Impact

OASDI:

Baseline: Without reform, OASDI depletes by 2034, with 81% benefits payable. Annual shortfall by 2033: ~$400 billion (2025 dollars).
With Proposal: RAT ($28–42 billion), payroll tax cap increase ($20 billion), and PRA benefit reductions (~$60 billion/year by 2040) cover ~25–30% of the shortfall by 2033, delaying depletion to 2040–2045. Full solvency requires additional measures (e.g., 0.5% payroll tax hike).
By 2050: PRAs reduce benefit obligations by 20–25% for participants (40% of workers), and RAT scales to $50–70 billion (3–5 million units), maintaining 90–100% benefits with reforms.

Baseline: Depletes by 2033, 86% benefits payable. Annual shortfall by 2033: ~$90 billion.
With Proposal: RAT ($8–12 billion), HI tax increase ($10 billion), and cost controls ($22 billion) cover ~50–60% of the shortfall, delaying depletion to 2038–2042. By 2050, RAT scales to $20–30 billion, requiring modest cost or tax adjustments for solvency.

Revenue Projections:

2–3 million automated units by 2033 at $20,000/unit generate $40–60 billion/year (70% OASDI, 20% HI, 10% retraining).
By 2050, 5–7 million units yield $100–140 billion/year, covering 20–25% of combined OASDI/HI expenditures.

Economic and Social Considerations

Benefits:

Individual Choice: PRAs empower workers with investment options, potentially yielding 5–7% returns vs. Social Security’s 2–3%, benefiting younger and higher earners.
Equity: Progressive PRA benefit offsets protect low earners, while RAT-funded retraining supports displaced workers (e.g., manufacturing, 38% of robot use).
Sustainability: Combines revenue generation (RAT, tax cap) with cost reduction (PRAs, Medicare cost controls), addressing demographic (aging population) and automation challenges.

Challenges:

Transition Costs: PRAs require $500 billion in general revenue (2026–2035) to cover legacy benefits, risking budget deficits.
RAT Implementation: Defining “automated unit” and measuring displacement (5.6 workers/unit varies by industry) is complex. A $20,000 tax may deter innovation or encourage offshoring.
Market Risk: PRAs expose workers to investment losses, though diversified funds and a default low-risk option mitigate this.
Political Resistance: Similar to Bush’s 2001 plan, PRAs face opposition from those prioritizing traditional Social Security’s guaranteed benefits. RAT may be criticized by businesses as anti-innovation.

Comparison to Bush’s 2001 Proposal

Similarities:

Both allow 4% payroll tax diversion to PRAs, reducing future benefits.
Both aim to address solvency through investment returns and cost control.

Improvements:

Adds RAT to replace lost payroll taxes, addressing automation’s impact (absent in 2001).
Includes HI fund support and retraining, broadening the social safety net.
Progressive benefit offsets and retraining fund enhance equity for low-skill workers.
Combines payroll tax cap increase and Medicare cost controls for comprehensive solvency.

Scenario Modeling (2033–2050)

Baseline (No Reform):

OASDI: Depletes 2034, 81% benefits payable. Shortfall: $400 billion/year (2033), $800 billion (2050).
HI: Depletes 2033, 86% benefits payable. Shortfall: $90 billion/year (2033), $180 billion (2050).

Moderate Reform (Proposed Act):

OASDI: RAT ($28–42 billion), tax cap ($20 billion), PRAs ($60 billion savings by 2040) delay depletion to 2040–2045, 90–95% benefits payable by 2050.
HI: RAT ($8–12 billion), tax increase ($10 billion), cost controls ($22 billion) delay depletion to 2038–2042, 95% benefits payable by 2050.

Optimistic Reform (Higher RAT, 5M Units by 2033):

RAT at $30,000/unit, 5 million units by 2033 ($150 billion/year), plus other reforms, achieves OASDI/HI solvency through 2050, with 100% benefits and $50 billion annual surplus for retraining.

Conclusion

The Social Security and Medicare Sustainability Act of 2026 combines Bush’s 2001 PRA concept with a Robot Automation Tax to address OASDI and HI trust fund depletion by 2033–2034. PRAs offer workers investment choice, potentially yielding 5–7% returns, while reducing benefit obligations. A $20,000 RAT per automated unit (2–3 million units by 2033) generates $40–60 billion/year, covering 50–75% of OASDI’s shortfall and 50–60% of HI’s, with retraining funds supporting displaced workers. Complementary reforms (tax cap increase, Medicare cost controls) ensure solvency through 2040–2050. Challenges include transition costs, RAT calibration, and political resistance, but the proposal balances innovation, equity, and fiscal sustainability.

ROBOT-TAX AND OTHER AI DREAMS

2025-06-20T15:06:00.001-04:00

The projected depletion year for the combined Social Security trust funds is 2034, at which time only 81% of the benefits will be payable. Similarly, the Hospital Insurance fund of the Medicare program is projected to be depleted as soon as 2033.

This emerging retirement insecurity is prompting many younger Americans, particularly Millennials and Gen Z, to explore alternatives beyond conventional savings, as per reports dated April 2025.

Survey reveals new data

The survey also found that 20% of respondents from Gen Z and Generation Alpha would accept their pension in whole or in part in cryptocurrency, with 78% of respondents trusting alternative retirement savings options more.

Furthermore, 60% of Gen Z and millennials plan to increase their crypto holdings, and two-thirds aim to expand their investments; over half of them already allocate retirement assets to cryptocurrencies.

With 62% of respondents intending to engage in Fidelity's crypto-oriented IRA, the future holds a closer integration of cryptocurrency in retirement strategies.

With 21% of Americans already dedicating more savings to crypto than to conventional stocks, almost half of Americans allocate a sizable amount—10% to 20%—of their retirement money to cryptocurrencies.

However, enthusiasm for cryptocurrency hasn't been matched by mainstream financial professionals and regulators, including the U.S. Department of Labor, which has warned against using cryptocurrency for retirement accounts, citing concerns about volatility, fraud, and valuation issues, according to Investopedia.

Retirement advisor Ric Edelman recently advised holding crypto of about 10% to 40% as a small part of a retirement portfolio.

Social security funds are running out, new data shows first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 18, 2025

BUT WAIT THAT'S NOT ALL!

The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance trust funds are projected to deplete their assets by 2033, as stated in the Social Security Board of Trustees' annual 2025 report. At that time, only about 77% of scheduled benefits will be payable. The projected depletion year for the combined Social Security trust funds is 2034, at which time only 81% of the benefits will be payable. Similarly, the Hospital Insurance fund of the Medicare program is projected to be depleted as soon as 2033. What is the projected robotic replacements of jobs in the USA market by 2033 and if the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance trust funds would be replaced by having employers using robots (serial number by government) pay into the trust fund using a formula that would provide necessary funding to continue the program?

Projected Robotic Job Replacements in the USA by 2033

Estimating the exact number of jobs replaced by robots by 2033 is challenging due to varying projections, the complexity of automation trends, and the influence of economic, technological, and policy factors. However, several studies and reports provide insights into the potential scale of robotic job displacement:

Historical Context and Estimates:
- A 2020 study by MIT researchers Acemoglu and Restrepo found that between 1990 and 2007, adding one robot per thousand workers reduced employment by about 5.6 workers in a local labor market and 3.3 workers nationwide, with a corresponding wage decline of 0.25–0.5%.
- The study noted that robots primarily impact industries like manufacturing (especially automotive, electronics, and plastics/chemicals), with less-educated, lower-skilled workers in routine manual jobs being most vulnerable.
- A Forrester report suggests that by 2032, automation could displace 11 million jobs (7% of US jobs), but new job creation in sectors like professional services, renewable energy, and smart infrastructure could offset this, reducing net job losses to about 1.5 million.
Projections for 2033:
- No precise figure exists for 2033, but scaling from historical data and considering the accelerating adoption of robotics and AI, job displacement could range from 10–15 million jobs by 2033, assuming automation continues to target routine, repetitive tasks across manufacturing, customer service, logistics, and administrative roles.
- The Pew Research Center (2014) noted that experts are divided, with some predicting automation will displace more jobs than it creates, while others expect new roles to emerge, particularly in creative, problem-solving, or human-centric fields.
Uncertainties:
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) finds little evidence of dramatic job loss trends in occupations vulnerable to automation, suggesting that economic expansion and new job creation may counterbalance displacement.
- Factors like international competition, policy interventions, and workforce retraining will influence the net impact.

Replacing OASI and DI Trust Fund Contributions with a Robot Tax

The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) trust funds face depletion by 2033 and 2034 (combined OASDI), respectively, with only 77% and 81% of benefits payable without reform. A proposed solution to sustain these funds is a "robot tax," where employers using robots contribute to Social Security, compensating for reduced payroll taxes from displaced workers. Here’s an analysis of this approach:

Robot Tax Proposal

Concept: A robot tax would levy contributions on employers based on robotic productivity or usage, redirecting automation’s economic gains to Social Security. Zheng Gongcheng, a Chinese social security expert, suggested taxing robotic productivity gains to complement contributions.
Potential Formula:
- Tax Base: The tax could be based on the number of robots, their productivity (e.g., output value), or the wages of displaced workers. For instance, if one robot replaces 5.6 workers (per Acemoglu and Restrepo), the tax could approximate the lost FICA contributions (e.g., 12.4% of the average wage of displaced workers).
- Adjustments: The tax rate could scale with robot productivity or be tiered by industry (e.g., higher for manufacturing, lower for service sectors). Alternatively, a flat tax per robot or a percentage of automation-related profits could be applied.

Feasibility and Impact

Revenue Potential:
- To close the OASDI’s 3.82% payroll deficit, additional revenue of ~$100–150 billion annually (escalating with inflation) would be needed by 2033, based on current projections.
- A robot tax covering millions of robots could contribute significantly, especially if automation displaces 10–15 million jobs. For example, taxing 2 million robots at $41,664 each yields $83.3 billion/year, covering over half the deficit.
- Combining a robot tax with other measures (e.g., raising the payroll tax cap above $176,100 or increasing the payroll tax rate to 7.2%) could fully address the shortfall.
Challenges:
- Implementation: Defining “robots” (e.g., industrial robots vs. AI software) and measuring their impact on jobs is complex. Taxing manufacturers versus employers using robots raises questions about fairness and innovation incentives.
- Economic Effects: A robot tax could slow automation adoption, potentially reducing productivity gains or encouraging firms to relocate to lower-tax regions.
- Equity: Low-skilled workers face the highest displacement risk, and a robot tax could fund retraining or universal basic income to support them, enhancing social equity.

Alternative Solutions

Immigration: Increasing net immigration by 100,000 annually could improve the OASDI actuarial balance by 0.1% of payroll, as foreign-born workers contribute taxes but often claim fewer benefits.
Tax Cap Removal: Eliminating the $176,100 payroll tax cap could significantly boost revenue, as high earners would contribute more.
Benefit Adjustments: Reducing benefits (e.g., via means-testing) or raising the payroll tax rate could complement a robot tax but faces political resistance.

Conclusion

By 2033, robotic automation could displace 10–15 million US jobs, primarily in manufacturing and low-skill sectors, though new jobs may offset some losses. A robot tax, such as $41,664 per robot (based on replacing 5.6 workers at $60,000/year), could generate substantial revenue (e.g., $83.3 billion/year for 2 million robots) to support the OASI and DI trust funds, potentially covering over half the projected 2033–2034 shortfall. However, implementation challenges, economic trade-offs, and the need for complementary reforms (e.g., tax cap removal) require careful consideration. A balanced approach, combining a robot tax with workforce retraining and other revenue measures, could sustain Social Security while addressing automation’s societal impacts.

HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING TOO!

2025-06-11T21:55:00.000-04:00

The inclusion of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Census, as mandated by the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which requires counting the "whole number of persons in each State," has several impacts on congressional representation within cities and states. Below is a detailed analysis of these impacts, focusing on urban areas where undocumented immigrants often concentrate:

1. Congressional Apportionment and Representation

How It Works: The U.S. Census, conducted every 10 years, counts all residents, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, to determine the apportionment of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states. This count also affects the number of Electoral College votes each state receives, as these are tied to the total number of congressional representatives (House seats plus two senators).
Impact on Cities: Undocumented immigrants tend to concentrate in urban areas, particularly in large cities within states like California, Texas, Florida, and New York. This concentration can increase the population count for these states, potentially leading to more congressional seats than they would have if only citizens were counted. For example:
- A 2020 Pew Research Center study estimated that if undocumented immigrants were excluded from the 2020 Census apportionment, California would lose two seats, while Florida and Texas would each lose one seat. Conversely, states like Alabama, Minnesota, and Ohio would each gain one seat.
- A 2019 Center for Immigration Studies report suggested that the presence of all immigrants (legal and illegal) and their U.S.-born minor children could shift up to 26 House seats, with states like California gaining six seats and Texas, New York, and Florida each gaining one or retaining seats they might otherwise lose.
Urban vs. Rural: Within states, cities with high undocumented populations (e.g., Los Angeles, Houston, or New York City) contribute significantly to the state’s overall population count, potentially securing additional congressional seats for the state. However, this does not directly alter representation within cities, as congressional districts are drawn based on total population, not just citizens.

2. Redistricting and District Boundaries

Redistricting Process: After the Census, states redraw congressional and state legislative district boundaries to reflect population changes, aiming for roughly equal population sizes per district (approximately 761,169 people per House district based on the 2020 Census). Undocumented immigrants, by increasing the population count in urban areas, influence how these districts are drawn.
Impact on Cities: Cities with significant undocumented populations may see their congressional districts maintained or expanded due to higher population counts. For example, a district in a city like Los Angeles, with a large immigrant population, might retain its seat or require fewer citizens per district to elect a representative, effectively amplifying the voting power of citizens in those districts. This can lead to perceptions of "vote dilution" in low-immigration areas, where districts require more citizen voters to achieve the same representation.
Example: In California, districts with high non-citizen populations (e.g., parts of Los Angeles or San Francisco) may require fewer citizen votes to elect a representative compared to districts in states like Wisconsin or Montana, where non-citizen populations are lower.

3. Political Implications

Partisan Claims: Some argue that counting undocumented immigrants disproportionately benefits Democratic-leaning states and cities, as urban areas with large immigrant populations (e.g., Los Angeles, New York City) often vote Democratic. However, recent analyses challenge this, noting that Republican-leaning states like Texas and Florida also have significant undocumented populations (approximately 2 million each, similar to California). A 2025 study published in PNAS Nexus found that including undocumented residents has had a negligible impact on partisan control of the House or Electoral College since 1980, as both "red" and "blue" states gain and lose seats in roughly equal measure.
Electoral College: Since Electoral College votes are tied to House seats, cities in states that gain seats due to undocumented populations indirectly influence presidential elections. However, the impact is limited, with estimates suggesting a maximum shift of three Electoral College votes in recent decades.
Urban Political Power: Cities with large undocumented populations may gain political influence through increased representation, but this does not mean undocumented immigrants vote or directly influence elections, as they are not eligible to vote. The influence is indirect, through the apportionment process.

4. Federal Funding and Resources

Impact on Cities: Census counts determine the allocation of federal funding for programs like Medicaid, education, and infrastructure, which are critical for cities. Urban areas with high undocumented populations may receive more federal funds due to higher population counts, which can support city services like schools, hospitals, and transportation, even for non-citizens.
Example: Cities like Houston or Miami, with significant undocumented populations, benefit from increased federal funding tied to their Census counts, which can enhance local infrastructure and services, indirectly affecting the quality of representation and governance.

5. Controversies and Policy Debates

Legislative Efforts: There have been efforts to exclude undocumented immigrants from Census counts for apportionment purposes, such as the Equal Representation Act (H.R. 7109), passed by the House in 2024 but blocked in the Senate. Proponents argue that counting non-citizens undermines the voting power of citizens in low-immigration states and cities. Opponents, including some Democrats, argue that excluding undocumented immigrants would violate the 14th Amendment and reduce the accuracy of the Census, as non-citizens might avoid participation due to fear of deportation.
Legal Challenges: Attempts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census or exclude undocumented immigrants from apportionment (e.g., Trump’s 2020 memorandum) were struck down or abandoned due to legal and logistical challenges. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on whether apportionment must include non-citizens, leaving room for future debates.
Public Sentiment: Some X posts reflect a belief that counting undocumented immigrants gives unfair political advantages to Democratic-leaning urban areas, though these claims often exaggerate the impact or ignore the bipartisan distribution of undocumented populations across states.

6. Limitations and Future Considerations

Negligible Partisan Impact: Recent studies suggest that the impact of undocumented immigrants on apportionment is minimal and not consistently partisan. For example, the undocumented population in California dropped from 2.7 million in 2010 to 2.1 million in 2020, reducing its influence on apportionment.
Future Trends: As undocumented populations shift (e.g., increasing in Republican-leaning states like Texas), the political implications may balance out further. Additionally, changes to Census methodology, such as adding a citizenship question in 2030, could reduce participation and affect urban counts, potentially leading to underfunding and misrepresentation.
Within-State Effects: While the Census affects state-level apportionment, it also influences redistricting within states. Cities with high undocumented populations may see their districts drawn to include more non-citizens, which can lead to debates about "fair" representation, as fewer citizen voters are needed to elect a representative in such districts.

Conclusion

The inclusion of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Census increases the population counts of cities with significant undocumented populations, potentially leading to more congressional seats and Electoral College votes for their states (e.g., California, Texas, Florida). Within cities, this can result in maintained or expanded congressional districts, amplifying the voting power of citizens in those areas and increasing federal funding for urban services. However, the partisan impact is often overstated, as both Democratic- and Republican-leaning states benefit and lose seats in roughly equal measure. Ongoing debates about excluding non-citizens from apportionment continue, but such changes would require significant legal or constitutional shifts, which have so far been unsuccessful. For cities, the primary impact is increased representation and resources, but this comes with contentious political and legal implications.

IMPACT ON STATE FUNDING

The inclusion of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Census significantly affects state and local funding, particularly for cities, as the Census count determines the allocation of billions of dollars in federal funding annually. Below is a focused analysis of the impact on state and local funding, especially in urban areas with significant undocumented populations:

1. Federal Funding Allocation

Mechanism: The U.S. Census counts all residents, including undocumented immigrants, to determine population-based federal funding for over 300 programs, including Medicaid, CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program), Title I education grants, transportation, housing, and community development programs. Approximately $2.8 trillion in annual federal funding is tied to Census data.
Impact on States and Cities: States and cities with large undocumented populations, such as California (est. 2.1 million undocumented immigrants in 2020), Texas (1.6 million), Florida (1.1 million), and New York (700,000), receive higher federal funding due to their larger population counts. Urban areas within these states, like Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, and New York City, benefit disproportionately because undocumented immigrants tend to concentrate in cities.
- Example: A 2020 Urban Institute study estimated that a 1% undercount in the Census could result in a loss of $2,093 per person in federal funding over a decade for states like California. Since undocumented immigrants are part of the count, their inclusion can secure millions or billions in additional funds for urban areas.
Key Programs Affected:
- Medicaid: States with high undocumented populations receive more funding for healthcare programs, though undocumented immigrants themselves are generally ineligible for non-emergency Medicaid. These funds support hospitals and clinics in cities serving mixed-status communities.
- Education: Title I grants, which fund schools with high numbers of low-income students, are based on Census-derived poverty estimates. Cities with undocumented populations often have higher poverty rates, leading to increased funding for schools.
- Infrastructure: Highway funds and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) are allocated based on population, benefiting urban areas with large undocumented populations for roads, public transit, and housing projects.

2. State and Local Budgets

Direct Benefits: Cities in high-immigration states gain significant resources to support public services like schools, healthcare, and public safety, which benefit all residents, including citizens and legal residents. For example, Los Angeles Unified School District, serving many children of undocumented immigrants, relies heavily on Census-based federal education funds.
Indirect Benefits: Increased federal funding can reduce the burden on state and local budgets, allowing cities to allocate resources to other priorities like policing or economic development. For instance, Houston’s infrastructure projects, such as road repairs, benefit from federal transportation funds tied to its Census count.
Economic Multiplier Effect: Funds allocated to cities stimulate local economies, as they support jobs in healthcare, education, and construction, areas where undocumented immigrants may also contribute as workers or consumers.

3. Controversies and Challenges

Undercount Risks: Undocumented immigrants may be hesitant to participate in the Census due to fears of deportation or government scrutiny, especially in politically charged climates. A 2020 Census Bureau report estimated that even a 5% undercount of non-citizens could result in states like California losing $500 million annually in federal funding. Cities like Los Angeles or Miami would be hit hardest due to their large undocumented populations.
Debates Over Fairness: Some argue that counting undocumented immigrants inflates funding for high-immigration states and cities at the expense of low-immigration states (e.g., West Virginia or Montana). X posts and reports from groups like the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) claim this creates an inequity, as citizens in low-immigration areas receive less per capita funding. However, others argue that undocumented immigrants contribute to local economies (e.g., through taxes and consumption), justifying the funding allocation.
Policy Efforts: Attempts to exclude undocumented immigrants from Census counts for funding purposes, such as the Trump administration’s 2020 memorandum, were struck down or abandoned due to legal challenges. Future efforts, like the Equal Representation Act (2024), could resurface, potentially reducing funding for high-immigration cities if successful.

4. Quantifiable Impacts

Funding Estimates: A 2019 George Washington University study estimated that each person counted in the Census generates approximately $2,300 per year in federal funding for states and localities. For a city like Los Angeles, with an estimated 800,000 undocumented immigrants, this could translate to roughly $1.8 billion annually in additional funding.
State-Specific Examples:
- California: With 2.1 million undocumented immigrants, the state could lose up to $4.8 billion annually if they were excluded from Census counts, affecting cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco.
- Texas: With 1.6 million undocumented immigrants, cities like Houston and Dallas could lose over $3.6 billion annually in federal funds without their inclusion.
Long-Term Effects: An Mosaic funding programs, which run through 2030, rely on 2020 Census data, meaning an undercount or exclusion of undocumented immigrants could lead to decades-long funding losses for cities.

5. Future Considerations

2030 Census: Changes to Census methodology, such as a citizenship question or efforts to exclude undocumented immigrants, could reduce participation and lead to undercounts, cutting funding for high-immigration cities. Advocacy groups emphasize the importance of outreach to ensure full participation.
Shifting Demographics: As undocumented populations grow in states like Texas and Florida, their cities may see increased funding, while states with declining undocumented populations could see relative losses.
Local Policy Responses: Some cities, like New York and San Francisco, actively encourage Census participation among all residents to maximize funding, recognizing the economic benefits.

Conclusion

The inclusion of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Census significantly boosts federal funding for states and cities with large undocumented populations, particularly urban areas like Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, and New York City. This funding supports critical services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, with billions of dollars at stake annually. However, undercounts or policy changes could reduce these funds, disproportionately affecting high-immigration cities. While debates persist about the fairness of this system, the economic contributions of undocumented immigrants and the constitutional mandate for a full count support their inclusion in Census-based funding allocations.

DEI PRISON - DYSTOPIAN IMIGINATION

2025-06-03T13:19:00.000-04:00

WHY AMERICAN CELEBRITIES ‘ESCAPING’ TRUMP BY FLEEING TO BRITAIN MAY BE IN FOR A BIG SURPRISE ...

Since Trump began his second term, Britain has become a political escape hatch for American celebrities and wealthy Democrats. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS SO MANY DON'T WANT TO FLY COMMERCIAL ... AND THEY CAN'T BRING THEIR GUNS.

It’s so popular that last week, the British Home Office released data showing that in the 12 months leading up to March, almost 7,000 US citizens applied to become British subjects or live here indefinitely — the highest number since such records began in 2004.

A third of those applications have been received since Trump took office at the start of 2025.

There are the famous emigres. Kamala Harris supporters Ellen DeGeneres and wife Portia de Rossi have taken up residence in the bucolic Cotswolds, selling their Montecito homesafter becoming “very disillusioned” when Trump won, according to TMZ. “English country life” runs the caption on Ellen’s latest Instagram reel showing her luxurious home and grounds, complete with chicken and gambolling rabbit.

Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi have left the US for the UK following Trump’s return to office. Getty Images

Fellow comedian Rosie O’Donnell has moved to UK-adjacent Ireland and will only “consider coming back” when it is “safe for all citizens to have equal rights there in America,” as she said on a Tik Tok video in March.

Brit Minnie Driver left LA to return to the motherland prompted by Trump’s win. Others considering a move to the UK include Barbra Streisand, who has said she “can’t live in this country if [Trump] becomes president,” as well as Cher and America Ferrera.

“Girls” creator Lena Dunham — along with Ryan Gosling and Eva Mendes — traded the US for London before Trump’s inauguration.

But the glitzy progressives falling for Britain may find they are in for a shock: This is not the liberal paradise they imagined, despite our Labour prime minister. In fact, Britain’s next leader could be a lot like Donald Trump.

The populist Reform party is surging in the polls, threatening to explode Britain’s political landscape. It is built around Brexit architect Nigel Farage, an anti-immigration figure with similar cult-like status to Trump and the president’s erstwhile close friend.

Reform is no fringe party: 40% of Brits think Farage will be the next Prime Minister.

Rosie O’Donnell hasn’t moved to Britain, but to Ireland — where she believes it will be safer for her and her gender-nonconforming child. Getty Images

Trump’s followers remain steadfast despite all; as the president himself noted, he could shoot someone in Times Square and “not lose any voters.” Farage, our possible future prime minister, confers a similar blind devotion on his own party supporters. When a Reform candidate from Yorkshire, selected to run for a seat in Parliament, was revealed to have said, “Black people should get off their lazy arses and stop acting like savages,” voters didn’t care; he still came second.

Last week, a frenzy erupted over a “racist” advert for Reform which bashed the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar by saying he will “prioritize the Pakistani community.” Not a peep of contrition.

Do those trading Trump’s America for Britain fully understand what has been going on in our less glamorous areas?

Trump with Nigel Farage, leader of Britain’s Reform Party. Getty Images

This week saw a car-ramming in Liverpool, injuring scores who were out celebrating a soccer triumph.

Do they know what happened last summer, following the massacre by Axel Rudakubana, the son of Sudanese immigrants, of three little girls at a Taylor Swift dance class in the peaceful northern town Southport?

There were mass riots as thugs stormed mosques and lit them on fire — plus a groundswell of rage at how the Islamist ambitions and sympathies of Britain’s unassimilated immigrants and asylum-seekers are covered up.

From the British perspective, of course, the arrival of wealthy and famous American Dems-in-exile has shone an interesting light on our own debates about immigration. Though few admit it, least of all those in power, there are Good Migrants and there are Bad Migrants.

Axel Rudakubana, who killed three small girls at a Taylor Swift concert, sparked large-scale anti-Muslim riots in Britain. AP

It is generally agreed now by all the parties that Something Must Be Done about the Bad Ones. In 2024, 694 boats carrying 53 illegal immigrants apiece seeking asylum arrived on British shores, costing taxpayers £6 million a day on hotel bills alone. But the good ones like Ellen with her $18 million farmhouse? We can’t get enough.

Ironically echoing Trump’s idea of a “gold card” for desirable immigrants, the UK’s home secretary said earlier this month that Britain would be introducing “provisions to qualify more swiftly that take account of the contribution people have made.” This should ease the way for more Ellens, Evas and Lenas.

Of course, it’s hardly a surprise that most people will take an American celebrity over a trafficked Syrian any day, and their arrival is certainly a bonus for us. But when they discover how far short of a liberal paradise Britain is becoming, their stays on this sceptred isle might be shorter than anticipated.

TROJAN HORSE REDUX

2025-06-03T09:59:00.003-04:00

Former Ukrainian DJ and his erotic novel-writing wife linked to ... "the more things change the more they are the same -- but different ... same pattern different time!"

Russia has launched a massive manhunt for a former DJ and his wife, an erotic novelist, after they were linked to Ukraine’s stunning “Russian Pearl Harbor” attack on its air bases.

Ukraine’s surprise attack — dubbed “Operation Spider Web” — managed to wipe out or damage dozens of the Kremlin’s nuclear bombers and other aircraft after explosives-laden drones were stashed in a slew of trucks that were driven onto the air bases.

Russia is hunting Artem Timofeev, a 37-year-old former Ukrainian DJ who they say owns the truck company.

Timofeev, a former DJ, and Ekaterina “Katya” Timofeeva, his erotic novelist wife, were linked to Ukraine’s stunning “Russian Pearl Harbor” attack on its air bases. Social media/east2west news

His 34-year-old wife, Ekaterina “Katya” Timofeeva — who moonlights as an erotic writer — is believed to have aided him, Russian media outlets reported.

“Artem is now wanted in connection with a terrorist attack in Irkutsk region,” Russian online news source Readovka reported. “Four lorries were registered in his name, and one of them was the source of the drones that launched [in an attack on a Russian air base].”

His wife, who penned a book titled “I Became Bad While You Loved Me,” hasn’t been online in two weeks and has since scrubbed her usually active social media accounts, according to reports.

HOTEL CALIFORNIA ... YOU CAN CHECK IN BUT ...

Timofeev was apparently last seen at the couple’s apartment in the Russian city of Chelyabinsk roughly a week ago.

The couple reportedly grew up in Ukraine but later moved to Russia, though it wasn’t clear when.

Timofeev is said to have set up his trucking business in December last year.

Ukraine’s surprise attack wiped out or damaged dozens of Russia’s nuclear bombers and other aircraft. SVB_OTP/e2w

“Operation Spider Web” was pulled off by Ukrainians who hid attack drones inside the roofs of sheds that were loaded onto the trucks. east2west news

Prior to relocating, Timofeev reportedly co-owned a clothing brand and was a DJ in Kyiv.

The couple is believed to have fled in the wake of the latest attacks, local media reported.

Ukraine’s secret service pulled off the strikes, which were quickly dubbed “the Russian Pearl Harbor,” by hiding attack drones inside the roofs of sheds that were loaded onto trucks.

STUPIDITY IN ACTION ...

After the trucks were driven onto various air bases, the roof panels of the sheds were lifted off by a remotely activated device — allowing the 117 drones to fly out and make their devastating attacks, Ukrainian authorities said.

Timofeev and his wife are believed to have fled in the wake of “the Russian Pearl Harbor.” Social media/east2west news

The dramatic and carefully planned assault took Russian President Vladimir Putin and his forces by surprise.

Roughly 34% of Russia’s Tu-95 bomber fleet, equipped to carry nuclear payloads, was wiped out in the raids on five air bases across the country, Ukrainian forces said.

A total of 41 Russian warplanes were also hit in the strikes, causing an eye-watering $7 billion in damage.