Month: April 2021

As the production cuts agreed to by OPEC+ drive oil prices higher amid a broad-based commodity boom, China’s sovereign wealth fund China Investment Corp is eying a major investment in Aramco, the world’s most valuable company, as Aramco again looks to sell off a piece of its business after scrapping an international IPO a few years back.

Aramco abandoned plans for a public listing amid fears that US law might make Aramco assets vulnerable to seizure as families of victims who died in 9/11 seek compensation from the Saudi government. Instead, the company sold some debt on the international markets and offered shares that are traded domestically on Saudi Arabia’s bourse, but now it appears the oil giant, currently controlled by the Saudi royal family, is once again planning to sell off a stake in its business.

But instead of turning to the public markets, Aramco is seeking out sovereign wealth funds to invest directly, according to Reuters.

“There are talks now for the acquisition of a 1% stake by a leading global energy company in an important deal that would boost Aramco’s sales in … a major country,” Prince Mohammed said, without elaborating.

“There are talks with other companies for different stakes, and part of Aramco’s shares could be transferred to the (Saudi) Public Investment Fund and a part listed … on the Saudi bourse,” he said in an interview aired by Saudi TV marking the fifth anniversary of Vision 2030.

A 1% stake would equate to around $19 billion based on Aramco’s current market capitalization.

Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman has also spoke highly of the blossoming bilateral relationship between Riyadh and Beijing.

Prince Mohammed said in the interview that Riyadh was strengthening its relationships with China, India and Russia, though the United States remained a strategic partner despite some differences with the Biden administration, which has taken a tougher stance on Saudi Arabia.

“China has said Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner, India has said Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner and Russia has also said Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner,” the prince said.

According to Reuters, Aramco has been in talks with CIC, as well as Chinese national oil companies. Aramco has been “in touch” with these investors for a few years now.

“The kingdom does have close relations with China,” said a third source, who is close to Aramco. “The major shareholder will decide what to do with their shares.”

A tie-up between Saudi and China might make Washington uneasy. But the deal makes sense from a financial standpoint. Saudi Arabia is already China’s biggest crude oil supplier, a position it maintained for a seventh consecutive month in March.

After President Biden has finished lecturing successful Americans that they “didn’t build it”, Republican Senator Tim Scott will argue that the Democratic agenda amounts to “Washington schemes” and “socialist dreams.”

As the sole Black Republican in the Senate, Scott has promised to deliver an “honest conversation” and an “optimistic and hopeful message” in his own nationally televised remarks.

“Our best future won’t come from Washington schemes or socialist dreams. It will come from you — the American people,” Scott said in experts of his speech released ahead of delivery.

Scott, of South Carolina, will also laud Republican economic policy for benefits to minorities, women and low-income Americans.

“Just before COVID, we had the most inclusive economy in my lifetime. The lowest unemployment ever recorded for African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans. The lowest for women in nearly 70 years. Wages were growing faster for the bottom 25% than the top 25%,” he said in his prepared remarks.

“That happened because Republicans focused on expanding opportunity for all Americans.”

Finally, we note that in a floor speech last year, the 55-year-old South Carolinan exclaimed:

“The stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic and poisoned to the outcomes of the most vulnerable communities in this nation.”

More Excerpts here…

Excerpts of ⁦@SenatorTimScott⁩’s response tonight. pic.twitter.com/L2dEGpun1p

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) April 28, 2021

Watch Live:

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com, 

A senior Australian official warned that the “drums of war” are “beating” in comments to his staff over the weekend as relations between Beijing and Canberra continue to strain.

“In a world of perpetual tension and dread, the drums of war beat — sometimes faintly and distantly, and at other times more loudly and ever closer,” said Australia’s Department of Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo in comments that were made public on Tuesday.

“Today, as free nations again hear the beating drums and watch worryingly the militarization of issues that we had, until recent years, thought unlikely to be catalysts for war, let us continue to search unceasingly for the chance for peace while bracing again, yet again, for the curse of war,” he said.

While Pezzullo didn’t mention China in the remarks that were published, it’s clear he was referencing tensions with Beijing in the Indo-Pacific. Australia has followed the US in its military provocations against China and is a member of the Quad, a group that is seen as a possible foundation for an anti-China NATO-style alliance in Asia.

On Sunday, Australia’s defense minister said the possibility of a war erupting over Taiwan should not be “discounted” and warned of regional tensions. “People need to be realistic about the activity,” Defense Minister Peter Dutton said. “There is militarization of bases across the region. Obviously, there is a significant amount of activity and there is an animosity between Taiwan and China.”

Beijing responded to Dutton’s comments on Monday. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said China hoped Australia would “fully recognize the high sensitivity of the Taiwan issue” and refrain from “sending any false signals to the separatist forces of ‘Taiwan independence.'”

Australia-China relations have followed the trajectory of US-China relations and are rapidly deteriorating. Further straining ties, last week, Canberra canceled two deals between Beijing and the Australian state of Victoria that would have been part of China’s infrastructure global project, known as the Belt and Road Initiative.

Beijing rebuked Australia’s decision to cancel the projects and urged Canberra to abandon its “Cold War mentality and ideological bias.”

3D-printed gun blueprints can be posted online without U.S. State Department approval, a divided Ninth Circuit panel ruled on Tuesday. 

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reinstated a Trump administration order that authorized removing ghost guns from the State Department’s Munitions List.

The appeals court ruling will make it easier to share untraceable 3D-printed gun blueprints online, but President Joe Biden in early April announced new measures to tackle gun violence, including a crackdown on ghost guns. 

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision Tuesday overturned an injunction issued by a federal judge in Seattle in March 2020. U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik had blocked two rules that transferred regulatory control of 3D-printed gun files from the State Department to the Commerce Department. The rules also removed ghost gun blueprints from a State Department list of munitions that require a license to export. Twenty-two states led by Washington state sued to prevent the rule changes from taking effect,” Courthouse News Service said.

Here’s more from Courthouse News Service on the divided panel of judges. 

In a 25-page opinion, U.S. Circuit Judges Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, and Ryan Nelson, a Donald Trump appointee, concluded that courts lack authority to review the challenged rule changes.

They found a 1976 law, the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, and its subsequent amendments forbid judicial review of State Department decisions on what is considered a “defense article” subject to regulation.

“Because Congress expressly precluded review of the relevant agency actions here, we vacate the injunction and remand with instructions to dismiss,” Nelson wrote for the majority.

In a dissenting opinion, U.S. District Judge Robert Whaley, a Bill Clinton appointee sitting on the panel by designation from the Eastern District of Washington, argued that his colleagues misinterpreted what Congress intended when it gave the president power “to designate” what items are considered “defense articles and defense services” under the law.

Whaley wrote that a 1981 amendment to the law “clarified that the president’s removal power was separate from its designation power and was subject to congressional oversight.” He said the majority disregarded a legal principle which presumes any words omitted from a statute should be deemed intentionally excluded from the law.

“I disagree with the majority’s holding which allows this new regulatory system to escape appropriate oversight,” Whaley wrote.

Bybee and Nelson rejected that criticism, arguing that prior to the 1981 amendment, the phrase at issue clearly encompassed the president’s power to add to and remove items from the list of regulated munitions.

Changes to how 3D-printed gun specs are regulated were first proposed in May 2018 about two months after the Trump administration agreed to settle a lawsuit with a private company that distributes blueprints for so-called ghost guns. Under the terms of that deal, the Trump administration agreed to remove 3D-printed gun specs from the State Department’s list of regulated munitions.

In his dissenting opinion, Whaley questioned why the government “suddenly and secretly changed course” by agreeing to that settlement after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor the State Department and denied Defense Distributed’s request for an injunction to have its blueprints removed from the list. 

Prior to the settlement, the State Department had argued that Defense Distributed’s files could be used to create “virtually undetectable” firearms that presented a “serious risk of acts of violence” overseas, including the use of untraceable guns in assassinations and the manufacturing of gun parts for embargoed nations and terrorist groups.

“[Department of State] has never explained why, after securing several victories in the litigation with Defense Distributed, it decided to settle and agreed to permit the export of 3D gun files, even though DOS had argued that the export of these files would irreparably harm the United States’ national security interests,” Whaley wrote.

Whaley also questioned the government’s decision to keep that settlement secret until after a public comment period for the proposed rule changes ended on July 9, 2018. He noted that only a small fraction of submitted comments pertained to ghost guns, but after the settlement was made public, the government was flooded with “over 106,000 emails from concerned members of the public regarding the deregulation of 3D gun files.”

Bybee and Nelson acknowledged some “additional reasons” Whaley cited as to why Congress intended to let courts review decisions to deregulate munitions, but they concluded that Congress never wrote those into the law.

“Congress may decide to codify these policy considerations in the future. But [the law] as currently written does not reflect them,” Nelson wrote for the majority.

Guns printed at home are often referred to as ghost guns because they lack serial numbers, making them untraceable. 

In the last several years, a decentralized network of 3D-printed gun advocates has mobilized online and revolutionized gun designs, sharing blueprints, advice and building a community. 

As we’ve noted, one online ghost gun community has developed the FGC-9, which stands for “f**k gun control 9 mm.” As we’ve mentioned, the FGC-9 can be printed entirely at home for the cost of $350, including the printer’s cost. 

YouTuber Sean with “The 3D Print General” recently attended “Bear Arms N’ Bitcoin” on April 10-11 in Texas. He showed how 3D-printed guns have advanced over the years and can survive thousands of rounds of ammo.

So, for the time being, ghost gun blueprints can be shared online, but it’s only a matter of time before the Biden administration swoops in like a hawk and unleashes executive orders against these untraceable firearms. 

Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,

Sadly, in America’s two-party political system Libertarians are left Homeless. The libertarian philosophy or ideology has many facets. Running through all of them is the idea that less government is generally a good thing. This reminds me of what President Ronald Reagan, famously said: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” Such words resonate with most libertarians.

While the government may claim it has good intentions history shows it often finds a way to muck things up. This is due to the fact that “government” is comprised of both corrupt and fallible human beings. This is a toxic combination that tends to create policies that screw things up. This takes a variety of shapes, including costly or unintended consequences.

While some people write a blog for financial gain, others of us do so seeking as wide a base of readership as possible in order to have our opinions heard and share ideas. It is fair to say that on occasion some readers, with opposing opinions refuse to agree to disagree. Below is a comment from one of those fellas taking issue with my claim libertarian views do not align with those of the right, part of what he is saying reflects the confusion surrounding libertarian philosophy.       

Libertarian, or far-right, what’s the difference? So many times in the past, I’ve read blogs and websites from the far-right, in which they love to cloak themselves in the term of “libertarian,” but the rest of the Rational world understands your dog-whistle politics and misanthropic social ideals. Do your criticisms flow both ways? Where’s your hard-and-fast criticism of the political ideologues on the far right?

In truth, the views of those claiming to be libertarians often conflict with those of other libertarians and even the Libertarian Party. We tend to be an odd lot and that is why the Libertarian Party may be doomed to failure. It seems the elephant in the room is the question of exactly where one person’s rights start and where another begins. 

A libertarian is committed to the principle that freedom and liberty are the most important political values. This means we should be able to make our own choices about our own life, what we do with our body and our property. In short, other people should not forcibly interfere with our liberty, and we should not forcibly interfere with theirs. 

Over the years, you would think the failure of big government to address our problems and woes would have convinced more voters expanding the role of government is not the answer. The cost of big government and the reality Washington seldom accomplishes its goals is beginning to nibble at the theory more government is good for society. While Government may be better at giving people access to services and good at passing popular laws, the private sector is by far more efficient and better at controlling costs.

Over the last two centuries the United States government has been steadily moving away from Adam Smith’s idea of limited government and towards the view of Abraham Lincoln that government should do for the people, whatever needed to be done. The Democratic Party has long been thought of as the party of “big government.” Filled with believers that more government can make things right they claim they care about the “little guy,” women, workers, minorities. They are big supporters of unions, more rules, and more regulations.  

We, libertarians,  looking for a port in any storm often find ourselves in the Republican camp but it is a poor fit. In politics many of the positions people take reek of conflict. The pursuit of an agenda or political advantage often results in people working together who would not otherwise normally socialize with one another, politics makes strange bedfellows. An example of this is how President Obama had the support of business-minded Republicans when pursuing trade deals while his party fought the idea. 

Another example of this is how the mainstay Republican party stabbed Trump in the back on several occasions. Clearly, it was Libertarians and Populists that allowed Trump to get elected. In a piece authored by Tho Bishop via The Mises Institute, he writes, “Since 2016, the role of libertarians in political discourse has tended to devolve away from a relevant political demographic into a weird scapegoat for the Left and Right.” Bishop goes on to point out what I contend is a major problem, and that is, while the libertarian electorate may not be valued, it is a very important demographic. This is because during Presidential elections those voting for a Libertarian Presidential candidate can flip enough delegates to give one party an undeserved victory in the electoral college.

Libertarians are often misunderstood, they believe people are basically good and are endowed by their Creator with natural rights, including the rights of life, liberty, and property. 

In the United States, libertarians often embrace a political philosophy that advocates small government and is culturally liberal and fiscally conservative. This is far different from what is offered up in America’s two-dimensional political spectrum mainly made up of conservatives with rigid right-wing social values and liberals that embrace big government and the spending that supports it.

The Trend From 20% To 35% Is Clear And Continues

Big government is not just an American problem and tends to be even worse in countries established long ago. It seems corruption and government both tend to grow in unison over time. The reality of ever-larger government has manifest itself in more scandals as departments overreach their missions. This can be seen in the military, the IRS, NSA, and huge incomprehensible bills being passed by Congress while our government often fails to accomplish the tasks it is given.

Like the Populist, until the system changes, libertarians should expect to remain a small swing group looking for a home. As for the idea of reforming or improving our election system, that is very unlikely to happen as neither major party wants to introduce a change that might benefit the other. The entrenched interest of the elites within the system block change. The small hope for change can be found in shifting demographics that are rapidly shrinking the Republican Party. If they do not adopt a more populist message and a big tent policy they will continue to lose power. This could have a very negative impact on America going forward. 

The polarization we see today may be mild compared to what we see in ten years if a large segment of the population feels its voice is silenced. If the checks and balances in our system fail, expect anger to grow as more Americans begin to feel even more left out in the cold. The saying “be careful what you wish for” may again be proven true as those wanting more government intervention experience the limits of government and bureaucracy while burdened by the financial cost it imposes. We must remember that government is often not constrained by the power of the purse to strive for efficiency, where a business fails when it does not meet its goals of providing a good service or product at a reasonable cost government muddles on.

The open-ended theme of larger Government is generally a mechanism to in some way transfer wealth. Mandates often unfunded are fostered upon business organizations and private citizens.  A new proactive movement of “cuteness” cloaked in a veil of flexibility and diversity has allowed politicians and bureaucrats to use terms like “Private Public Partnership” and “quasi-government entities” that mask just how deep its roots have grown. These terms open a pathway for politicians to tinker without the personal financial risk that a businessman must take. Those within government love being creative especially when they do so on our dime. The use of sun-set legislation is underused when it comes to extending and renewing government bodies. We tend to forget that the best time to kill a monster is while it’s small.

It is the nature of bureaucracy to expand. It often takes courage to make difficult and unpopular political and economic decisions that will cause pain but benefit society in the long run. A political system that encourages sidestepping these issues to pander to the masses in exchange for remaining in power pays a tremendous price that can stay hidden for only so long. This is a trap America has slipped into, getting out of this will prove quite difficult. I seriously question whether we have the fortitude to take the necessary steps required.

*  *  *

Footnote; This post dovetails with many of my writings. Some of my solutions may come across as provocative but are food for thought. For more on government’s role in our lives, related articles may be found in my blog archive, thanks for reading.

Yesterday we explained why with prices already soaring, global inflation was about to go into overdrive as the leading food price indicator that is the Bloomberg Agri spot index hit the highest level in six years.

In a nutshell, this is a problem since food is a large component of CPI baskets in Asia, and “this large inflationary impulse in the region that houses more than half the world’s population should result in higher wage costs in the factory base of the world. As CPI and PPI rise in Asia, it will feed through globally in the months ahead.”

Today, DB’s Jim Reid picked that chart as his “Chart of the day”, repeating what readers already know, namely that Bloomberg’s agriculture spot index has risen by c.76% year-on-year, noting that “that’s the biggest annual rise in nearly a decade, and there are only a couple of other comparable episodes since the index begins back in 1991.”

Like us, Reid then patiently tries to explain to all the idiots – like those employed in the Marriner Eccles building – that the importance of this record surge “extends far beyond your weekly shop, as there’s an extensive literature connecting higher food prices to periods of social unrest.” Indeed, you’ll notice from the chart that the last big surge from the middle of 2010 to early 2011 coincided with the start of the Arab Spring, for which food inflation is regarded as a contributing factor.

While this is hardly new – we discussed it in “Why Albert Edwards Is Starting To Panic About Soaring Food Prices” and in “We Are Edging Closer To A Biblical Commodity Price Increase Scenario” – Reid also reminds us that emerging markets are more vulnerable to this trend, since their consumers spend a far greater share of their income on food than those in the developed world.

The DB strategist then goes all-in and says what everyone is thinking, namely that “this trend of higher food prices leading to social unrest extends far back into history and surrounds many key turning points. The French Revolution of 1789, which overthrew the Ancien Régime, came after a succession of poor harvests that led to major rises in food prices. It was a similar story at the time of Europe’s 1848 revolutions too, which followed the failure of potato crops in the 1840s and the associated severe famine in much of Europe. And the 1917 overthrow of the Tsarist regime in Russia took place in the context of food shortages as well.”

So while it remains to be seen what the consequences of today’s surge in food prices could be, Reid cautions that “given the hardship that’s already occurred thanks to the pandemic, a fresh wave of unrest would be no surprise on a historical basis.”

At 0900ET, President Biden will deliver his first address to a joint session of Congress, where he will unveil the “American Families Plan,” the third part – included with the stimulus and the American Jobs Plan – of his sweeping vision to redistribute wealth and reorganize the American economy.

Readers can find an outline of the plan here, and can watch live below:

A brief excerpt from his speech was leaked to Punchbowl News, and the theme, unsurprisingly, is attack on wealthy Americans, who will be called upon to finance Biden’s plan via massive tax hikes – the biggest in decades.

Now—after just 100 days—I can report to the nation: America is on the move again. Turning peril into possibility. Crisis into opportunity. Setback into strength.

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) April 28, 2021

And with the Biden presidency looking increasingly like President Obama’s third term, it’s worth noting that the similarity between the theme from tonight’s remarks and an infamous jab from a speech President Obama delivered in 2012 where he popularized the phrase “you didn’t build that” in a jab against wealthy Americans and captains of industry that was remembered as one of his more tone-deaf moments.

Once again, an American President has decided that wealth redistribution is the best path to prosperity.

Sen. Tim Scott will deliver the GOP’s rebuttal to Biden’s speech. Here are some excerpts from that below.

Excerpts of ⁦@SenatorTimScott⁩’s response tonight. pic.twitter.com/L2dEGpun1p

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) April 28, 2021

Authored by Ivan Pentchoukov via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump and conservative pundits warned for months during the 2020 campaign that behind then-candidate Joe Biden’s centrist, bipartisan façade lay a radical liberal agenda to transform the United States. Biden has proven them right in less than 100 days, earning praise from liberal observers who are drawing historical comparisons to the tenure of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The $1.9 trillion pandemic relief bill, written along the outline of Biden’s proposal, dwarfs FDR’s New Deal in terms of total cost to the American taxpayer. Democrats rammed the measure through Congress without any Republican support, proving Biden was the partisan that critics had warned about.

The Democratic president’s proposed infrastructure measures—the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan—would bring the total price tag to an estimated $5.4 trillion, while ushering in a wave of welfare programs unseen since the introduction of Medicare and food stamps. The cost splits up to more than $43,000 per household and more than the combined wealth of all the billionaires in America. Democrats could enact both plans without any Republican support, by using, for the first time ever, the reconciliation process more than once in a budget year.

The fiscal scale and radical nature of the agenda, coupled with the razor-thin House and Senate majorities the Democrats are using to implement it, are exerting pressure on an American system of governance that has historically demanded a measure of bipartisanship in order to enact transformative change.

“A Senate evenly split between both parties and a bare Democratic House majority are hardly a mandate to ‘go it alone,’” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a Trump critic and one of the few Republicans seeking a bipartisan solution on infrastructure, wrote on Twitter.

Democrats argue that pushing the pandemic stimulus through without Republican support was necessary to help Americans struggling with the economic impacts of the pandemic. They say that some provisions of the bill, including the expansion of Obamacare, were long overdue. Democrats predict that the child tax credit, which will amount to a monthly cash payment for most families beginning in July, could cut child poverty in half.

“The story of the first 100 days is about shots going into arms, checks going into pockets, and seeing hope on the horizon,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote on Twitter on April 27.

While testing the system’s limits, Biden has thrown the weight of the presidency behind the radical transformation of the system itself. He backed the long-shot bid for D.C. statehood, which would hand the Democrats two seats in the Senate in the foreseeable future, expressed support for weakening or undoing the legislative filibuster, ordered a commission to study reforms to the Supreme Court around the time fellow Democrats introduced legislation to pack the bench, and said he would sign H.R. 1, a vast election reform bill that would, among other provisions, make mail voting universal in perpetuity.

“Mr. Biden knows his agenda is so radical, so extreme, that he cannot hope to pass it and keep it intact without first fundamentally changing the rules of the political game,” Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder and national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots, wrote in a recent op-ed.

“Consequently, he’s moving on all fronts to do just that.”

To the Democrats, the wave of change is just what the doctor ordered. Former President Bill Clinton called Biden’s performance so far “almost pitch-perfect” in word and deed.

“If we can produce positive results that cross those divides by lifting everybody, giving everybody a chance, then we have a chance to psychologically change,” Clinton told Deadline.

‘I Want to Change the Paradigm’

While ushering along a wave of social change via legislation, Biden has churned out a steady stream of paradigm-shifting executive orders and actions on matters ranging from critical race theory training for federal employees to rejoining the World Health Organization.

Some of the common themes among the five dozen executive actions during the president’s first 100 days in office were the reversals and revocations of Trump-era orders and the introduction of the quasi-Marxist “equity” ideology into virtually every aspect of government operations.

“Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” the title of Biden’s very first order, set the tone for the many that followed.

“I want to change the paradigm. We start to reward work, not just wealth. I want to change the paradigm,” Biden said during his first press conference.

What a president says is sometimes as consequential as what a president does. During Biden’s symbolic 100 days, this was exemplified by his comments on the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former police officer who was convicted of the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Biden spoke in favor of convicting Chauvin before the jury rendered its verdict and—after the jury decision was announced—indicted America itself as guilty of “systemic racism.”

Highs and Lows

Though his cabinet wouldn’t admit it, Biden inherited a successful vaccine development and distribution program from Trump. This meant that Biden’s campaign promise of injecting 100 million Americans with the vaccine against the CCP virus in his first 100 days was on track to being fulfilled even before he took office on Jan. 20. After eluding questions about raising the target to a more ambitious figure, Biden doubled the goal to 200 million. The administration is now on pace to triple the initial goal by April 29, his 100th day in office.

That tangible highlight is offset by the crisis on the southern border, which some experts say was triggered by Biden’s revocation of Trump-era immigration policies. Illegal aliens are crossing the border in numbers unseen in decades, forcing immigration authorities to overload shelters for housing detained minors. After weeks of avoidance, Biden finally called the situation a crisis earlier this month.

The White House has signaled that it intends to solve the crisis by investing in the countries the illegal aliens are fleeing from. Over the past two decades, the United States has spent billions in foreign aid to the nations in question.

Biden’s approval ratings have fluctuated between the high-40s and mid-50s during his first three months in office, according to Rasmussen, the only pollster conducting daily presidential approval surveys. The media may be contributing to that outcome.

A recent Media Research Center study showed that evening news coverage of Biden was 59 percent positive during his first three months in office, compared to just 11 percent positive coverage during the same period in Trump’s presidency.

As millennials wind down for the evening in a post-pandemic world, online food ordering and food delivery platform, Doordash, is suffering widespread outages across the country, according to Downdetector. 

Reports of outages first began around 1900 ET. 

The outage map shows widespread disruption across the US. 

Millennials are venting on Twitter that DoorDash has randomly canceled their orders or some are having payment issues. 

One millennial was pissed: “DoorDash canceled my order after I waited a hour I’m not being a good person no more.” 

Another said, “you guys keep blocking my payments saying it’s fraud… ive called over 10 times and nothing is done about it.. like I can’t order food now!! It even deactivated my sister’s account, and now I know you guys are saying my card is fraud. when its my card.” 

“My card was charged twice but it shows no active orders?! What’s going on?” one Twitter user said. 

Google trends show over the last hour, “doordash canceled my order,” “doordash order cancelled,” and “why did doordash cancel my order,” soared as hangry millennials searched for reasons why the app was malfunctioning. 

Maybe try Grubhub or Uber Eats…