Month: August 2022

Brazilian President Jair Bonsonaro gave Leonardo DiCaprio a lecture in hypocrisy, telling the virtue-signaling actor that he should ‘give up his yacht before lecturing the world‘ about the environment.

Of note, in January DiCaprio was pictured vacationing with friends on the $150 miullion “Vava II,” the largest yacht manufactured in Britain, which is estimated to produce 238kg of carbon dioxide per mile – as much as the average British car emits in two months.

@LeoDiCaprio climate around your fakeness is changing rapidly..
😂😂 https://t.co/DZHKpXy86m

— Civilizedbeast (@Footyfied) January 10, 2022

Bolsonaro was responding to DiCaprio, who tweeted that the Amazon rainforest has “faced an onslaught of illegal deforestation at the hands of extractive industry over the last 3 years.”

“You again, Leo?” Tweeted Bolsonaro. “I could tell you, again, to give up your yacht before lecturing the world, but I know progressives: you want to change the entire world but never yourselves, so I will let you off the hook.“

“Between us, it’s weird to see a dude who pretends to love the Planet paying more attention to Brazil than to the fires harming Europe and his own country,” he continued.

– You again, Leo? This way, you will become my best electoral cable, as we say in Brazil! I could tell you, again, to give up your yacht before lecturing the world, but I know progressives: you want to change the entire world but never yourselves, so I will let you off the hook. https://t.co/FxCnqhFv6D

— Jair M. Bolsonaro (@jairbolsonaro) July 28, 2022

The trouncing continues (emphasis ours):

But don’t worry, Leo, unlike the places you are pretending not to see by brilliantly playing the role of a blind man, Brazil is and will carry on being the nation that most preserves. You can carry on playing with your Hollywood star toys as we do our job.

Actually, in my government average deforestation is way lower than it was in the past, when the crook turned candidate that your Brazilian buddy supports was in power.

It’s clear that everyone who attacks Brazil and its sovereignty for the sake of virtue signaling doesn’t have a clue about the matter. They don’t know, for instance, that we preserve more than 80% of our native vegetation or that we have the cleanest energy among G20 nations.

It’s also clear that you don’t know that my government announced a new commitment to eradicate illegal deforestation by 2028, and not by 2030 as most countries. Or maybe you do know that, but for some reason pretend to be ignorant. I hope you not getting too much for this role.

If its within your reach, we would love to see you stop spreading missinformation. In the recent past, you used a 2003 image to talk about the Amazon wildfires allegedly happening in 2019 and was exposed, but I have forgiven you. So please go and sin no more.

By the way, what do you think about the hitting coal market in Europe? And what about Greta Timberlake, do you know what she has been up to lately and what she has to say about it? If I was hosting a barbecue in my house, I’m sure she would be yelling “How dare you?”.

*  *  *

When being a hypocrite, remember – don’t look up!

By Jazz Shaw of Hotair.com

There are more protests taking place in Los Angeles this month, but for once they don’t have anything to do with racism, high gas prices, or any other common complaints coming from the public these days. The people doing the protesting are landlords who are facing bankruptcy and the loss of their properties because tenants are still not paying their rent. They’re getting away with this because the city of Los Angeles extended its eviction moratorium for another full year until August of 2023, despite the state’s moratorium having expired in June. And the landlords are placing the blame on the City Council and Mayor Garcetti rather than the delinquent renters. (CBS News)

At a news conference at City Hall, landlords say the moratorium could push some of them into bankruptcy and foreclosure because it doesn’t allow them to collect rent and some of their tenants are taking advantage of the situation.

“Our home has been stolen from us so that tenants, one of whom owns a DeLorean, can go to Burning Man and rent yachts for birthday parties and sail up in hot air balloons,” property owner Liz Reckart said. “Our home has been stolen from us, not by our tenants, but by the overly broad policies created under Mayor Eric Garcetti and upheld by the majority of our City Council.”

I’m sure that not all of the delinquent tenants fall into the same category as Liz Reckart’s renter who drives a DeLorean to Burning Man so they can go on hot air balloon rides. But the majority of them really should have started paying their rent again long before now.

I’ve been writing about the coming eviction crisis since 2020 because everyone who studies these situations knew this was on the horizon. Now it’s here. The economic restrictions associated with the pandemic are almost entirely over in Los Angeles, just as they are in the rest of the nation. Businesses have reopened, the schools are open, and people are out and about largely as they were before the virus arrived in America. Los Angeles even backed down on imposing a renewed mask mandate recently.

The federal aid for housing during the pandemic is largely gone. And that aid was supposed to benefit landlords as well as tenants so they wouldn’t lose their property. In other words, all of those tenants should, by now, have been able to start making regular rent payments and begin paying back what they owe in back rent. But it’s an unfortunate reality that there will always be a certain percentage of people who will take advantage of a situation if they can. With the city extending the moratorium for another year, some people are clearly just viewing this as another year of “free rent” before they wind up having to move out and look for a new apartment.

This is likely just another example of the typical thinking of liberal politicians. They love giving away “free money” and “free stuff.” They believe it makes voters more eager to reelect them, and in some cases, they are probably right. But now they are crushing the ability of landlords, many of whom are of the “mom and pop” type with only one or two properties, to continue to do business. It was the government that shut the state and the country down and it was the government that had to be responsible for cleaning up the mess that was caused. But Los Angeles isn’t supposed to be shut down now. It’s supposed to be back to business. And business includes having people pay their rent or risk being removed from their rental property.

Would China really commit to an impromptu war with Taiwan over Nancy Pelosi, a person who amounts to nothing more than a political smudge in the history books?  No, they wouldn’t, but they would be happy to use her diplomatic visit to Taiwan as a pretense for invasion.  

The timing for Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan has not been released and will likely remain classified until the event.  China has announced live fire drills this week in the Taiwan Strait as a show of force and a state run newspaper has even suggested that the CCP has the right to shoot Pelosi’s plane down (If the CCP is hoping this will scare the American public, they might want to consider again that it’s Pelosi on the plane; i.e. no one cares).  China has also insinuated that direct invasion will take place if the visit occurs.  

A US carrier strike group is moving near Taiwan after being deployed from Singapore and tensions are high.  Ironically, Democrats chastised Donald Trump for “upsetting” Chinese/US relations over Taiwan only a couple years ago, and now they are one-upping him.    

According to an alleged Russian intel leak in 2021, the CCP was already planning a forced annex of the island nation (that the Chinese claim is not a nation) for the fall.  The leak from Russia’s FSB has not been verified, but it does parallel the increase in Chinese naval activity in the region, along with even more aggressive rhetoric than usual against Taiwan.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine perhaps triggered a pause in China’s plans, but not a complete reversal.  The increase in joint Russian and Chinese naval drills around Japan and Taiwan suggest that a Taiwan event will not be limited.  It could spread north to the Sea of Japan, where China and Russia would seek to nullify a response from US bases. 

Yes, this would be quite an escalation and it’s far more likely that China would play the long game by waiting for US and European economic turmoil to degrade their ability to respond to a regional conflict.  Of course, there is something to be said for the element of surprise.  

Timing is also a major consideration for China.  Weather cycles in the Taiwan Strait make a naval invasion difficult to maintain as dangerous storms rip through the area for a large part of the year.  September and October are the key months when the weather is most advantageous for Chinese naval operations.  Extreme weather fronts can disrupt radar, communications, thermal vision, night vision, drones, air support and obviously normal visibility, making intricate offensive actions very risky.  

It’s interesting that Pelosi appears to be scheduling her visit sometime in the next month, so close to when weather conditions are the most ripe for a Chinese attack.  Typhoons are expected to strike Taiwan through August and then dissipate in September/October when invasion is preferable.

The bottom line is that China WILL invade Taiwan in the near future.  Once communists decide that a group or nation stands as a symbol of opposition to their power, they will stop at nothing to erase that symbol.  Whether or not western interests are taking advantage of the situation is something to consider as well.  

A regional war involving Taiwan as a proxy for conflict between the US and China would probably progress much like the war in Ukraine – Lots of big talk and propaganda in the media about how China is being crushed economically and militarily.  But, in the end China sits right across the water from Taiwan, just as Russia sits right across the border from the Donbass.  Logistically, they have the advantage and they have the time.  Wearing the west down financially and through attrition would be their strategy and it would likely succeed given the mental weakness within the White House and among the current military brass.  

This is not to say China is justified.  Not in the slightest.  China is one of the most Orwellian nightmare states on the planet and their obsession with Taiwan is a product of communist zealotry rather than any sort of logic or reason.  This doesn’t change the fact that they have the strategic advantage if they manage to lure the US into a quagmire across the pacific, and Japan’s ability to help defend Taiwan is questionable.      

In terms of the bigger picture, certain interests (globalists) within organizations like the WEF might welcome such chaos and conflict.  It could be used as cover for the ongoing global economic decline that they helped create, and give them yet another shot at reducing our freedoms in the name of “security.”  One really needs to ask, why would Pelosi go to Taiwan right now?  And, who has asked her to go?  Is this Biden’s idea, or are other beneficiaries involved?       

Authored by P. Michael Phillips via The Brownstone Institute,

Replenishing the military ranks with qualified personnel is a perennial challenge. It’s no secret, though, that this year our armed forces are fighting uphill to recruit and retain talent. 

Most of the services are well behind their quotas.

But the Army, our largest service, is having the hardest time enticing young Americans. That service will fall short, nearly 20,000 troops from its original target end strength of 485,000 for FY ’22, and next year could be worse.

To manage, Army officials have slashed end strength and enlistment goals, while recruiters are offering fat stacks of cash and generous service terms as inducements. 

So far, nothing is working.

The Army’s Chief of Staff, General James McConville, blames the shortfall on competition with the private sector. Others blame upwardly mobile families who would rather their children attend college than wear a uniform. 

Both are old saws. And this year, they ring hollow. 

Some civilian jobs do pay more. But for an 18-year-old with only a high school diploma, military compensation is nothing to sneeze at. Indeed, recruits most often cite generous pay and benefits as the reason for signing papers. 

Meanwhile, undergraduate enrollments are down over 600,000 from last year. So, it appears our missing recruits aren’t trading rifles for books, either.

Instead of blaming their competition, the Pentagon brass might dwell on their tarnished image as the reason fewer young Americans want to join up. 

Public trust in the military institution has plunged steeply since 2018, according to one poll. Respondents cite politicized leaders, scandals, and the bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan for their loss in confidence. 

We might add to that list suicides, sexual assaults, social justice indoctrination, and Covid vaccination policies as dulling the shine of military service.

Of the lot, the Pentagon’s vaccine mandate may prove its deepest self-inflicted wound. 

While the service chiefs are begging Congress to fund more generous recruiting incentives, they have forcibly discharged thousands of vaccine dissenters – including most of those objecting on religious grounds. A similar fate awaits tens of thousands more of the unjabbed in the National Guard and Reserve. Never mind that our military increasingly relies on these part-time troops for routine mission support. 

And the Pentagon has doubled down. Submission to the vaccine is now a condition of enlistment, despite evidence the therapy is at best ineffective, and at worst dangerous for younger, healthier people. 

It’s a policy gravely alienating to the families of Middle America whose children disproportionately serve in our all-volunteer force.

Before going further, consider that fewer than one quarter of Americans in the prime recruitment age of 17-24 years can meet our military’s physical, moral, or educational entry requirements, and that figure continues to decline. 

Of those, only about 9% of young Americans have any desire to serve. Perhaps only 1% ever do.

High standards have produced something of an embarrassment of riches. Our service members are amongst the healthiest, most disciplined, and best educated of their cohort nationally. But to maintain this quality, recruiters have come to count on solidly middle-class families inhabiting our Mid-American towns, suburbs, and rural counties to fill their quotas. 

Recruiters bank on small-town America because for a variety of reasons our populous cities produce few qualified volunteers. Even the New Yorkers and Californians in the ranks are more likely to hail from upstate or inland counties. In fact, a once-reliable third of all new recruits enter from just five southern states: Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. 

The prepossessed term for these rich recruiting grounds is ‘flyover country.’ 

Instead, we might think of them as communities celebrating life on a smaller and more intimate scale, and where patriotism, faith, family, and public service remain in fashion.

And yet their young people are not signing up like they used to.

The belief by some that vaccine mandates are meant to purge conservative Christians from the armed forces may be one reason recruiting offices are empty. After all, young people living in these prime recruitment areas are somewhat more religious and tend to be more conservative in outlook than many Americans. 

They also are less likely to be vaccinated against Covid.

A more charitable account, though, is that the brass authored their own Catch-22 in the rush to prove their obedience to President Biden. As such, they have taken a position purported to improve readiness that has done quite the opposite. And now that they’ve become so thoroughly entrenched, they cannot easily retreat. 

No matter. It should trouble the Pentagon more that their reluctant recruits are most likely military legacies.

Like many professions, the military is a family business. Roughly 80% of recruits either grew up in a military family or have a close relative who served. General McConville’s own clan is actually something of a poster family in career following, with three children and a son-in-law in uniform. Even the general’s wife once served.

Career following in military families is nothing new. It’s been going on since our country’s founding. The children of veterans, like those of bankers or physicians, often emulate their parents’ professional ethos early on. For soldiers, this includes a respect for duty and honorable, selfless service. The generational transmission of such virtues has played a critical role not only in reproducing our service cultures, but by extension our national values.

But it’s also a fragile chain. 

While research indicates that military children are 5 times more likely to follow a parent into the service, only 1 in 4 do. And their desire to serve drops sharply every year over the age of 18. 

In short, the Pentagon’s stubborn adherence to its Covid protocol is breaking faith with its once loyal base. And the longer they dig in, the smaller that base will become.

It’s a high price our nation may pay for unimaginative leadership.

The chief executive of the world’s largest industrial landlord was robbed outside his San Francisco mansion last month and called on the mayor to address the “absolutely unacceptable” rise in violent crime in the city. 

Hamid Moghadam, CEO of San Francisco-based Prologis, told the San Francisco Business Times that several men robbed him at gunpoint outside his home on June 26, taking his Patek Philippe watch. The robbery happened in the Pacific Heights neighborhood where tech investor Peter Thiel, Oracle’s Larry Ellison, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have homes. 

“I recognize we live in an urban environment, but the level of crime, including violent behavior, has become absolutely unacceptable,” Moghadam wrote in a letter to San Francisco Mayor London Breed, the city’s Board of Supervisors, and Governor Gavin Newsom, demanding them to concentrate efforts on improving public safety. 

“We pay some of the highest taxes, local and state, in the nation, yet we have no sense of security. Protecting public safety should be the government’s top priority — that is the foundation to a successful city,” he said. 

Moghadam warned: “I am deeply concerned that our city may be so far down the path toward decline that we may never recover — or at least not for a long, long time.”

He also called Mayor Breed to say if the Bay Area continues stumbling down a path of violent crime, it wouldn’t take much for Prologis or other San Francisco-based companies to leave town. 

“I told the mayor very, very directly, ‘Look, I’m sure in the early ’60s, Cleveland and Detroit were wonderful communities with the auto and steel industries going strong, and they were the center of the universe. Obviously, something happened.'” he said.

“I would say, right this second, San Francisco is probably the most dysfunctional city in America,” he added. “And we have offices in places like Mexico City and Sao Paulo that are dangerous places.”

It’s unfortunate that Moghadam was a victim of an armed robbery to realize the Bay Area has transformed into a wasteland of surging violent crime thanks to failed progressive leadership. The town may never recover as companies are already exiting. We noted a few months ago: 

The streets are dirty. Homeless encampments, trash, and excrement can be found all over. Car break-ins are so frequent that it has basically become a non-government-imposed tax for people who come here. Of course, some areas are much worse than others, but almost all areas of the city suffer from this decay, and it is appalling.

In June, we wrote how the city’s Tenderloin district had become a criminal playground. 

Companies like Walgreens have had enough of crime and closed dozens of stores around the metro area. Salesforce is one of the largest companies to reduce exposure to the city by subleasing 40% of the building at 50 Fremont St.

There is some good news: Chesa Boudin, former San Francisco’s chief prosecutor, backed by leftwing billionaire George Soros, has been booted from office in a recall vote following his leadership that helped turn the metro area into a dangerous place. 

But the damage has been done, and it wouldn’t shock us if Moghadam pulls a Ken Griffin-style exit (read here) for another state that is business-friendly and has law and order. 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

According to The Crimson, Harvard has completed what it calls the most comprehensive study of the motivations of those involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.

Many will not be surprised to learn that most participated out of loyalty to former President Donald Trump.

However, the study also found that only eight percent harbored “a desire to start a civil war.”

That is inconsistent with the virtual mantra out of the J6 Committee and many in Congress that this was an insurrection rather than a riot.

Some of us (including many in the public) have previously questioned that characterization. Yet, it reflects the relatively small number of seditious conspiracy charges brought by the Justice Department.

The study found that a plurality of the 417 federally charged defendants were motivated by the “lies about election fraud and enthusiasm for his re-election.” It concluded that “[t]he documents show that Trump and his allies convinced an unquantifiable number of Americans that representative democracy in the United States was not only in decline, but in imminent, existential danger.”

The study also found that belief in QAnon “was one of the [defendants’] lesser motives.”

The study was hardly pro-Trump and one author even expressed surprise with the results since conspiracy theories “were so prominently displayed in much of the [riot’s] visual imagery.”

Once again, none of this exonerates or excuses those who rioted on January 6th or those who fueled the riot. However, the use of “insurrection” by the politicians, pundits, and the press is not an accurate characterization of the motivation of most of the people who went to the Capitol on that day. It was clear that this was a protest that became a riot.

There is no question that there were people who came prepared for such a riot, including some who are extremists who likely would have welcomed a civil war.

Yet, the vast majority of people on that day were clearly present to protest the certification and wanted Republicans to join those planning to challenge the election.

One of the key reasons for the resulting damage was the collapse of security at the Hill. The J6 Committee steadfastly refused to address the myriad of questions of why the Congress was not better prepared despite the obvious dangers of a riot (including warnings before January 6th).

The scenes of that day are seared in the memory of many of us. I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was being given and I called for a bipartisan vote of censure over his responsibility in the riots.

However, there has been an unrelenting effort to make “insurrection” a litmus test for anyone speaking about January 6th. If one does not use that term (and, worse yet, expresses doubts about its accuracy), you run the risk of immediate condemnation as someone excusing or supporting insurrection. This framing also reduces the need to address the question of how this riot was allowed to spiral out of control.

It is possible to express revulsion about what happened on Jan. 6th without claiming that this was an insurrection and attempt to overthrow the nation.

This was a collective tragedy for the entire nation, a desecration of our constitutional process.

The effort to mandate “insurrection” as the only acceptable description prevents the country from speaking with a unified voice. It clearly serves political purposes but only makes a national resolution more difficult as we approach a new presidential election.

Now that the Democrats have gotten Joe Manchin (D-WV) to bend the knee on a reconciliation package called the “Inflation Reduction Act” – which doesn’t actually reduce inflation to any meaningful degree, all eyes are on Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), whose vote will be crucial to passing the bill in the Senate.

Thus far, she’s been silent regarding her position on the bill after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) kept her in the dark as he worked out a secret deal with Manchin in isolation, which according to Mish Talk, “was a purposeful gamble and perhaps a bad one.”

On Sunday, Machin made the rounds on the political talk circuit where he defended the reconciliation package – claiming it would halt price increases, which Bloomberg notes, comes “despite a study by the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School showing it would have little impact or could increase inflation slightly in the near term.”

Democrats are seeking to pass the bill this week in the Senate and in the House next week. Doing so would require all 50 members of the Senate Democratic caucus to vote yes on the bill and defeat a slew of Republican attempts to amend it. It would also require all 50 to remain Covid-free and able to endure a long vote series. 

Sinema’s office has said the Arizona Democrat won’t make her position known until later in the week at the earliest, after the top Senate rules official has scrubbed the bill of any non-budgetary items. -Bloomberg

“I respectfully disagree with the people from Penn Wharton,” Manchin said on CNN, claiming that the study doesn’t properly credit the effects of $300 billion in lower budget deficits in the bill, the report continues.

Meanwhile, the West Virginia Senator said Sinema has nothing to complain about.

“She has so much in this legislation,” Manchin told CNN regarding Sinema, adding that the tax changes in the bill don’t amount to tax rate increases, which Sinema staunchly opposed during previous negotiations, citing the economy.

The bill would slap large corporations with a 15% minimum tax, as well as make changes to how carried interest is taxed – which will hit hedge fund managers at their individual rates. The bill will also beef up IRS tax audits by increasing the agency’s head count.

“I agree with her 100% in that we are not going to raise taxes and we won’t,” said Manchin.

All of that said, Sinema may want to change the Schumer-Manchin deal, according to Axios.

Sinema has leverage and she knows it. Any potential modification to the Democrat’s climate and deficit reduction package — like knocking out the $14 billion provision on carried interest — could cause the fragile deal to collapse.

• Her posture is causing something between angst and fear in the Democratic caucus as senators wait for her to render a verdict on the secret deal announced by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Joe Manchin last Thursday.

Sinema has given no assurances to colleagues that she’ll vote along party lines in the so-called “vote-a-rama” for the $740 billion bill next week, according to people familiar with the matter.

• The vote-a-rama process allows lawmakers to offer an unlimited number of amendments, as long as they are ruled germane by the Senate parliamentarian. Senators — and reporters — expect a late night.

The big picture: Schumer made a calculated decision to negotiate a package with Manchin in secrecy. He assumed that all of his other members, including Sinema, would fall into line and support the deal.

According to Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari, the bill “may have some effect” in the long run.

“My guess is over the next couple of years, it’s not going to have much of an impact on inflation,” he told CBS‘s “Face the Nation,” adding that there’s “an acute mismatch between demand and supply” that the Federal Reserve can resolve by reducing demand.

As Mish Talk notes further, there are four ways the bill could die.

• The Senate parliamentarian can rule against permit reform. That would likely kill everything right there. 
• The Republican poison pill kill method could work, but I suspect there are ways for that to backfire as well.
• Sinema can easily kill this bill herself, but I suspect she would rather have Manchin on board or hopes Manchin kills it himself after an adverse parliamentarian ruling.
• Poison pills aside, many specifics are still missing. How is this Medicare cost reduction idea going to work? Bickering over missing details could kill this.

Saga Continues

If the bill dies, the most likely way is via the Senate parliamentarian. Joe Manchin can then say he tried, and Sinema might escape without having to take an actual position. 

The saga continues. 

I will not be surprised by any outcome including an even bigger boondoggle that is currently on the table.