Month: March 2024

Just when you thought the EV market couldn’t get more saturated or competitive in China, sales have once again slowed and the country’s market leader, BYD, is once again implementing price cuts.

Sales of BEVs were up 18.2% in January-February compared to 20.8% for 2023, according to China Passenger Car Association reported by Reuters.

When added to hybrids and new energy vehicles, sales were up 37.5% in the period, compared to 36.2% for all of 2023, proving that the EV market continues to gravitate toward the practicality and affordability of hybrids versus all battery electric vehicles. 

Reuters noted that overall passenger vehicles were up 16.3% for the year. 

The report said that in the initial months of the year, EVs comprised 33.5% of total car sales, up from 28.3% in the same period last year, outpacing sales of gasoline cars which increased by 7.8%.

According to Cui Dongshu of the China Passenger Car Association, some EVs are competitively priced with gasoline vehicles, impacting their sales.

Leading the price reductions, BYD decreased prices across many models by an average of 17%, affecting 93% of its sales in China for 2023. This included a nearly 12% cut for its top-selling Yuan Plus and a 5% cut for the Seagull, its most affordable EV.

Several automakers have joined this price competition, offering discounts between 9% to 17%. Despite these cuts, BYD’s market share dropped to 30.7% in February, the lowest since June 2022, even though it remains the largest EV seller globally, surpassing Tesla with most sales in China.

BYD exported 19% of its vehicles in February, marking its highest export ratio, contributing to China’s 18% increase in car exports, with EVs making up 26.4% of this total.

Exports are vital for manufacturers facing weak domestic demand, with significant sales in markets like Australia, where Chinese EVs benefit from subsidies and lack trade barriers. However, this export success has led to tensions, with Europe and the U.S. investigating Chinese EV subsidies and potential security risks.

Authored by Eduardo Vasco,

What if a conversation between Russian officials discussing the explosion of a bridge in Germany had been revealed? Would Western press coverage also treat the leak as something more serious than threats of military attack?

On March 1, the editor-in-chief of the Rossiya Segodnya group, journalist Margarita Simonyan, revealed, on her Telegram channel, a 38-minute audio in which officers from the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) discussed the possibility of sending missiles long-range Taurus to Ukraine and whether they would be able to reach the Crimean bridge in the Kerch Strait, which connects the peninsula to the mainland and is Russian territory.

The Russian press, naturally, made much of the revelation. This forced the mainstream Western media – especially German ones – to report the leak. But whoever thought that a miracle would happen, that is, that the Western press would finally raise the issue of NATO’s military threats against Russia… well, those people are simply very naive.

The Western mass media, as always, tried to manipulate the news and hide the main issue.

The New York Times, The Washington Post, BBC, The Guardian, Die Welt and Der Spiegel published 39 articles on the topic on their respective websites between the time the news was revealed and the evening of March 6th (when I write these lines).

The two North American newspapers did not want to highlight the matter. The Post published two reports and the Times only one. The three expressed concern about the fragility of German intelligence security systems in the face of Russian espionage.

The Europeans, as has been the case for some time, carried much more propaganda against Russia. The BBC published four articles, all referring to the failure to protect Luftwaffe communications. The Guardian published five articles. The majority warns of the Germans’ failure and treats the Russians as great, threatening villains. However, it is necessary to make an honorable mention of Simon Jenkins’ column, the only one who was allowed to say that the leaked conversations demonstrate that NATO is threatening Russia with an escalation in the conflict.

As we all know, this drop of water in the middle of the ocean has no chance of counterbalancing the flood of war propaganda and fake news from the British press against Russia. Newspaper owners only allow freedom of expression when it is harmless – and try to isolate minimally independent opinions.

Now let’s talk about German newspaper coverage. Die Welt published 18 pieces about the leak scandal, and treated it as such. Of course, the main reason for the scandal was – for German war propagandists – the interception and dissemination of the conversation, not its content.

The entire repercussion of Die Welt revolves around failures in the security system of the German armed forces and Russian espionage. The possibility of Olaf Scholz sending the Taurus to Zelensky is briefly discussed and it is even stated that Germany is putting its Western allies in danger by allowing the interception of conversations that may mention confidential and compromising information – such as the participation of British soldiers in Ukraine, as mentioned in the conversation in question.

A single Die Welt report presents a “dissident” opinion, which is not “Russian propaganda”: the brief speech of a member of the AfD – who, however, is branded a Russian agent by the German state and its agents, such as the press.

Article signed by Pavel Lokshin has the following title: “Kremlin is using Taurus leaks to threaten war against Germany”. Of course, it was the Russians who considered blowing up a bridge in German territory, right?

In turn, Der Spiegel, in its nine articles on the case, reproduces the same speech as Die Welt about the failures in German security and the danger of Russian espionage. It also disqualifies the Kremlin’s claims that the conversation is clear proof of NATO’s direct involvement in the war in Ukraine and how much this threatens Russian national security.

Christina Hebel’s analysis is the only piece in these two German outlets that takes the accusations of the Russian government and German involvement in the war more seriously, but it would be an exaggeration to say that this publication would be in the sphere of journalism.

In short, the coverage of these newspapers – and the coverage of other mass media outlets in the West is no different – is absolutely biased and manipulated. In fact, as always happens, they reverse roles: Germany, which threatened to blow up a bridge in Russia, is the victim, while Russia is the villain!

If at least one of these newspapers really were a journalistic tool, and not a propaganda tool, it should publish an article with a title like “German officers considered blowing up bridge in Russia” or “Audios reveal discussion of attack on Russia with German weapons”.

After all, which is more serious: the leak of the audio by Russian intelligence or the discussion among senior German officials about a military attack on Russia?

No honest person would choose the first option.

But we are not dealing with honest people when we talk about “journalism” in Europe and the United States.

I can’t help but wonder: what if it were the other way around? What if a conversation between Russian officials discussing the explosion of a bridge in Germany had been revealed? Would Western press coverage also treat the leak as something more serious than threats of military attack?

Of course not! If it were Russia considering attacking Germany, there would not be 39 articles in these vehicles, but rather 3,900. Russia would be portrayed as a threat to human civilization (more so than it is portrayed today), chaos would be wreaked in German and Western society, and the drums of war against Russia would be beaten at the top of their lungs. Meetings would be urgently called at the UN Security Council, unilateral sanctions would increase absurdly, all the lackey governments of the USA and the European Union would speak out publicly condemning Vladimir Putin’s madness.

They are real hypocrites. Against Russia, anything goes.

And, although the majority of these media outlets are private, they all act as government bodies, under the strict control of their respective States, as true spokespeople for those in power. But Russia is the one who controls the press, Russia is the one spreading propaganda and Russia is the one disinforming, right?

The leaked audio proves that the war in Ukraine is not a war between Russia and Ukraine, but rather a war between Russia and NATO. The Western press strengthens this claim by propagandizing war against Russia and encouraging attacks against Russia.

The press, according to Western discourse, would be a protector of the public interest against the discretion of those in power. That’s idle talk. The press, in fact, even private companies, are tools of these same rulers to control and oppress the governed.

A growing number of Germans oppose the shipment of weapons to Ukraine and Germany’s participation in a war against Russia, but they are systematically deceived and betrayed by their government and the mass media.

The Muslim fasting period of Ramadan has begun, and the feared large-scale Israeli ground offensive on Rafah has yet to begin, though many believe it is imminent after Israeli leaders previously signaled it’s expected to start by March 10.

President Biden on Saturday issued a ‘red line’ for the first time over Rafah, warning Israel against attacking the southern enclave which is now packed with over one million internally displaced refugees. Washington has repeatedly called on Israel to facilitate a mass exodus of civilians before any assault takes place, however, there’s clearly the practical issue (and perhaps impossibility) of where hundreds of thousands of refugees would go. They are blocked by the Sinai (Egyptian) border to the south.

“[We] cannot have another 30,000 more Palestinians dead,” Biden told MSNBC in a fresh interview. He was then asked whether Rafah is a red line for him and he responded: “It is a red line.”

Biden then explained that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “hurting Israel more than helping Israel” in the way the war against Hamas is being executed. The president that said Netanyahu “must pay more attention to the innocent lives being lost as a consequence of the actions taken.”

Biden said that the soaring death toll – which Gaza sources say has surpassed 30,000 – “is contrary to what Israel stands for. And I think it’s a big mistake.”

But Biden stopped short of saying he would cut off weapons and ammunition supplies to Israel, which remain vital in its war against Hamas. Some pundits have said the Israel Defense Forces could not possibly sustain the war for very long without American-supplied weapons. Still, Biden administration sources have lately spoken of rising anger and frustration at the White House with Israeli leadership.

Thus Biden drew his ‘red line’ and seems unprepared to do anything about it if that line is crossed. This also means Biden just set himself up for more political embarrassment on the Gaza issue, after he’s already facing growing criticisms from progressives and his own base for hypocrisy and double-speak in the face of horrific civilian atrocities. 

Politico noted that during the MSNBC interview, Biden still pledged unwavering support to America’s closest regional ally: 

Even as Biden warned Israel’s government against further targeting of the civilian population in Gaza, he reiterated his general support. “I’m never going to leave Israel,” said the U.S. president. “The defense of Israel is still critical.”

These latest words from Biden follow on the heels of his being caught on a hot mic just after Thursday’s evening’s State of the Union address wherein he said he’s going to have a “come to Jesus” conversation with Netanyahu.

According to a review of the significance of that moment and what it means for the November election…

Weeks before “uncommitted” voters sent a message to Joe Biden that he needs to bring an end to Israel’s war in Gaza or risk losing reelection, the president had evidently decided — to borrow another American neologism — to consciously uncouple from Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s recalcitrant prime minister.

In the past month, he has, through a series of relatively quiet but closely linked and deliberate moves, sought to marginalize Bibi, as Netanyahu is ubiquitously known, internationally and at home. The change spilled out publicly on Thursday night following the State of the Union address, when Biden announced he ordered the U.S. military to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza via a sea pier. After the speech, Biden was stopped by Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, who told him to “keep pushing” Israel’s leader. Smiling, Biden said, “I told him, ‘Bibi,’— don’t repeat this— ‘you & I are going to have a come to Jesus moment.” Hidden behind Secretary of State Antony Blinken, a presidential aide whispered, “Sir, you’re on a hot mic,” to which a buoyant Biden replied, “I’m on a hot mic here. Good. That’s good.”

And there was also this from Vice President Kamala Harris:

In the event the new American position over Netanyahu remained unclear, Vice President Kamala Harris left no doubts in a Friday interview with CBS News, which asked “are the Israelis at risk of losing U.S. aid if this continues?” Harris replied: “I think it’s important for us to distinguish or at least not conflate the Israeli government with the Israeli people.”

NYMag’s The Intelligencer, concluded of the meaning, “In other words: Israelis, we’re with you. Netanyahu, be gone.“

Below: Progressive & independent journalists were quick to point out contradictions inherent in Biden’s new red line…

Biden calls an Israeli invasion of Rafah a “red line,” but then immediately declares: “but I am never going to leave Israel,” whose “defense” aka mass murder is “critical.” So it’s not actually a red line.

He then claims to have another “red line”: “You cannot have 30,000 more… pic.twitter.com/f56EhyzXn8

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) March 10, 2024

However, Netanyahu has survived this long, and Washington increasingly has limited options for effecting change in Israel’s government, also at a sensitive moment Biden needs Tel Aviv’s cooperation in setting up the humanitarian aid port and Army-engineered pier on Gaza’s coast. The US is expecting Israeli forces to provide security for the risky initiative.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

There are indeed plans for a conventional Western intervention in Ukraine despite their leaders’ denials over the past two weeks, but they’ve yet to fully form and their execution can’t be taken for granted, but they also can’t be ruled out either.

The debate that French President Macron provoked over whether NATO should conventionally intervene in Ukraine exposed the existence of two distinct schools of thought on this issue inside of Europe. France, the Baltic States, and Poland appear to be in favor of “non-combat deployments” there for demining and training missions, which could be carried out through a “coalition of the willing”, while the rest of the bloc supports Germany’s stance that this shouldn’t happen under any circumstances.

“Scholz’s Slip Of The Tongue Spilled The Beans On Ukraine’s Worst-Kept Secret”, however, since he inadvertently revealed that there are already British and French troops there helping Ukraine with “target control”. The subsequently leaked Bundeswehr recording about bombing the Crimean Bridge confirmed that the Americans are there too. Nevertheless, what’s being proposed by Paris is a formalization of these deployments along with their gradual expansion in a “non-combat” capacity.

Nobody should be fooled into thinking that France and the other four that appear to be in favor of this scenario are solely interested in demining and training missions. Rather, their intent seems to be to prepare these on-the-ground forces for surging eastward in the event that the worst-case scenario from Kiev’s perspective materializes whereby the frontline collapses and Russia starts steamrolling westward. These NATO members would then try to draw a red line in the sand as far as possible to save Ukraine.

Germany’s approach is altogether different in that it prefers to formally stay out of the fray in order to focus on building “Fortress Europe”. This refers to Berlin’s policy of resuming its long-lost superpower trajectory through “defensive” military means with US support in order to lead Russia’s containment in Europe at Washington’s behest while America “Pivots (back) to Asia” to contain China. A major component of this plan is the “military Schengen” between Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland.

The Baltic States and Poland are unlikely to participate in a conventional intervention in Ukraine without the official participation of a nuclear power because they fear being hung out to dry in the scenario that they clash with Russia inside of that crumbling former Soviet Republic. Therein lies the strategic importance of France’s involvement since it could assuage their concerns due to the possibility of Paris resorting to nuclear brinksmanship with Moscow if its own troops take part in the aforesaid clashes.

The UK wouldn’t sit on the sidelines in that event since it’s already playing a leading role in NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine and previously signed a trilateral security pact with Kiev and Warsaw in the week before the latest phase of this decade-long conflict started in mid-February 2022. Like France, the UK also doesn’t want to see Germany resuming its superpower trajectory, and both might wager that they can either get the US’ approval for their intervention or do it unilaterally to make it a fait accompli.

France isn’t yet part of the “military Schengen”, which could impede its ability to move large amounts of troops and equipment into Ukraine, so it can either soon join this pact or negotiate its own version with Poland and/or Greece-Bulgaria-Romania to complement its new deal with Moldova. Romania’s “Moldovan Highway” that’s being built in “emergency” mode is creating a new military corridor in the Balkans from which France can counter Germany’s growing military influence across the continent.  

This emerging Greek-Ukrainian corridor is already one of the West’s most important logistical routes for perpetuating the proxy war after the traditional Polish one became unreliable following the farmers’ protests. It therefore makes perfect sense not only to invest in it for that sake alone, but also for countries like France and the UK to entrench their influence along the route in order to create their own “sphere of influence” there for decelerating Germany’s superpower trajectory.

That’s precisely what France is doing via its new security deal with Moldova, which will lead to closer security ties of the “military Schengen” sort with Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece in order to facilitate the dispatch of “trainers” to that landlocked country. The UK can either follow suit in some way or redouble its influence in the Baltic States and especially Poland, possibly culminating in its troops conventionally intervening in Ukraine through the last-mentioned while France’s enter from Romania-Moldova.

The possibility of France and the UK either receiving the US’ approval for this intervention or doing it unilaterally as a “coalition of the willing” in order to make it a fait accompli could pressure Germany to participate in order to not be left out and made to “look weak”. Its Air Force officers already claimed in the earlier cited leaked recording that the missiles that those two sent to Ukraine pressures them to do the same with the Taurus so the precedent is established for why they might think the same in that case.

While it initially seems counterintuitive that France and the UK might want Germany to participate in this intervention when one of the reasons why they’re arguably plotting it is to decelerate its newly resumed superpower trajectory, there’s actually a clear logic to these calculations. Deeper German involvement in this conflict could further reduce the already dismal chances of it entering into a rapprochement with Russia after everything ends like many hawks still fear is possible and desperately want to prevent.

It could also become overextended in some sense and thus lose the military-strategic grip that it’s recently obtained, thus creating openings for France and the UK to chip away at Germany’s influence in the Balkans and Baltics respectively in order to keep their historical rival’s rise somewhat in check. Berlin might not bite the bait though since Scholz has yet to even approve sending Taurus missiles there with the clandestine troop deployment that they require so there’s a chance that he’ll stick to his guns.

If Germany formally stays out of the fray while France and the UK embroil themselves in it with disastrous or at least unimpressive results, including those that see their Baltic and Polish “junior partners” exploited as cannon fodder, then Germany might actually benefit a lot. Those two’s approach would be discredited, the possibility of which might be why the US thus far appears reluctant to approve their “coalition of the willing”, and by contrast lend credence to Germany’s approach.

“Fortress Europe” might then be built at an even faster pace in the aftermath of this conflict as the only two possibly countervailing forces to keep its influence in check would have discredited themselves. On the other hand, a partially “successful” conventional Franco-British intervention in Ukraine could discredit Germany if it literally ends up saving Ukraine from collapse and stopping the Russian steamroller. In that event, “Fortress Europe” might be built a lot differently than Germany planned.

Instead of the EU as a whole functioning as a pro-US German-led proxy bloc in the New Cold War, Berlin would have to accept London’s “sphere of influence” in the Baltics and a condominium with it in Poland while Paris would have its own “sphere” in the Balkans. Rather than relying on one country to rule the EU by proxy, the US would depend on three, with the advantage being that there’d be less of a chance that Germany would ever “go rogue” but at the detriment of this being more complex to manage.

It remains to be seen whether France and the UK will go through with this Ukrainian power play right under Germany’s nose, but there’s little doubt that this is what they’re planning. The US could possibly disapprove, however, and they might then lack the confidence to conventionally intervene through their own “coalition of the willing”. There’s also the chance that the US takes the lead in this respect if Russia achieves a breakthrough before NATO’s largest drills in three decades end in June.

It would be easier for the US to do this on its own with everyone else following it than to depend on others, but this could risk World War III by miscalculation much more than if France and the UK conventionally intervene while the US “Leads From Behind”, hence the latter scenario’s appeal. In any case, the top takeaway from this analysis is that there are indeed plans for a conventional Western intervention in Ukraine, but they’ve yet to fully form and their execution can’t be taken for granted.

Authored by Todd Hayen via Off-Guardian.org,

Any group of human beings who are supposedly in a free society and who have a leader (or a council of people who lead), assigned by that group to make decisions for the common interests of the group, must rely on their own “self-regulation,” above and beyond the leaders’ government, in order to survive.

This is imperative as a “check and balance” criterion for a healthy society.

In most democratic societies this is done through the elective process. People are put into power, and taken out of power if need be, through elections, i.e., the popular vote. The people have to keep a keen eye on what is happening in their communities, at the local level, and in their nations, at a national level. And of course, they must exercise due diligence concerning global happenings as well. Only then will they know who to vote for that best serves their community.

This is how we have control, albeit sometimes not enough, of our government. We have little control over non-government organizations (NGOs) through the elective process. But we do have control, again to some degree, on social norms, moralities, values, and other things that may grate against our own “community standards” as a mass, through protest and other demands for accountability. In this regard, our society is somewhat kept in check through a nation’s constitutional requirements, as well as our personal assertion as to what is “right” and what is “wrong.”

Human beings have traditionally been on the same page with some of these very basic tenets. For example, there are very few cultures, if any, that advocate, as a foundational tenet, murder. Very few, if any, that advocate child sexual abuse, or physical abuse (of course, what determines either one of these things can be rather subjective.)

Regardless of the outliers always present when making sweeping statements (which certainly there are, and a discussion of these outliers would take enormous time and attention), human beings share many fundamental tenets of “good humanness.”

Unless, of course, they are pushed away from these fundamental tenets by some external force—corrupt government, con men, evil…Satan. Some will say we have a natural tendency to turn to amoral ways (think Moses stepping out for a moment to collect the Ten Commandments and what then ensued).

That being said, what happens when a culture at large experiences, within that culture, something that deviates sharply from these tenets? The occurrence of such a deviation could come directly from the government, or come from the collective (or, in our current situation, appear to come from the collective, but in fact is an intentional deviation created by the agenda.)

The answer to the first question, in ideal times, is this: The culture doesn’t stand for it. They make their dissatisfaction clear, and they revolt, or at the very least, do not comply with the agenda. They say, “I’m mad as hell, and I am not going to take this anymore!”

Unfortunately, that time when our society would demonstrate such self-regulation is long past. We saw the last remnants of it during the Vietnam era in the United States—and only from a certain demographic of society—and certainly not that successfully.

Since then, the government, or whoever it is behind this march to oblivion, has made certain that such a “dissatisfaction with the policies” of the ruling faction was not questioned, and if it is, the person or group questioning is severely punished. One very smart move toward this gripping mind control was getting everyone glued to a cell phone screen. How “they” did that, and it not being just a natural evolution of technology, would take a book to address.

Despite the underlying reasons why we do not regulate as a society, the simple fact is we no longer do. There was a time, in a galaxy far, far, away, when the culture set these boundaries (if it were free to do so), and although the ruling class would attempt to cross them, they often failed. Today it is far more likely that boundaries can be crossed without even a glance from the masses. Today, they’ve got us eating out of their hands.

I will cite a few examples:

• Where is the societal outrage when people are forced to inject into their bodies a relatively unknown substance? Although the agenda gave “good reason” for such a thing, where was the evidence behind that reason? If any evidence came up contrary to the notion of a deadly virus killing the world and a vaccine being developed in eight months being “safe and effective,” it was quickly quelled by the powers that be and ruled to be “misinformation” and “dangerous.”

• Where is the societal outrage when thousands of young people are suddenly seeking surgery and drugs to support the myth they have “misidentified” themselves based on what they are told is a lie about their biological identity? Where is the “I’m mad as hell” when “authority” determines that they are the final arbiters of truth over children, and their parents can just go to hell?

• Where is the societal outrage when we are suddenly told that we will no longer be allowed to use cash, or that we have to carry a digital ID which will fundamentally wipe out any claim to personal autonomy, not to mention a complete destruction of personal privacy?

• Where is the societal outrage when a government spends billions of dollars to support the killing of human beings in a “war” halfway across the world for no reason other than to fuel whatever nefarious, and unilateral, goals that government has?

• Where is the societal outrage when large factions of unelected “people” decide to take over the governance of the world from lofty, and well-financed, institutions such as the UN, WHO, WEF, NATO, and locally, the FDA, and CDC?

• Where is the societal outrage when a country’s government allows the illegal immigration of hundreds of thousands of people without any vetting whatsoever?

This is to name only a few examples. This article would be a hundred pages long if I named even half of these “outrages.”

What is the reason there is no shouting from the windows, “We are mad as hell!!”? There are many reasons, one comes from the concerted effort of those who have the power to implement such an effort. It is to brainwash the society into compliance.

Read this article to gain a little bit of insight into this effort, or at least one possibility, Ghost Words from the Past. It is like we are all hypnotized, and whenever the agenda activates a part of its plan, the silver pendulum comes out and is swung in front of our eyes, accompanied by a soothing voice that says, “All is well, this is good for you.”

Needless to say, that voice could also be murmuring, “The unvaccinated are evil, hate anyone who spreads misinformation, Putin is the devil incarnate, hate him with all of your heart.”

Due to this sort of conditioning, among many other techniques, we as a society have lost nearly all critical thinking—and as a result, can no longer self-regulate as a culture.

No matter how illogical an action is, if we are told it is fine, or if it is framed in some particular way (such as framing a 10-year-old’s desire to change his or her biological sex as an inalienable “right”), we jump right to the agenda’s plan—typically without a second thought. “2+2=5, 2+2=5,” again and again this is drummed into us, and eventually we believe it, and then it only needs to be said once.

Soon it will be, “2+2=6,” and again, most of us will comply, and never give it another thought.

A new survey reveals that only 20% of Americans view covid-19 as “a major threat” to the health of the US population – a sharp decline from a high of 67% in July 2020.

What’s more, the Pew Research Center survey conducted from Feb. 7 to Feb. 11 showed that just 10% of Americans are concerned that they will  catch the disease and require hospitalization.

“This data represents a low ebb of public concern about the virus that reached its height in the summer and fall of 2020, when as many as two-thirds of Americans viewed COVID-19 as a major threat to public health,” reads the report, which was published March 7.

According to the survey, half of the participants understand the significance of researchers and healthcare providers in understanding and treating long COVID – however 27% of participants consider this issue less important, while 22% of Americans are unaware of long COVID.

What’s more, while Democrats were far more worried than Republicans in the past, that gap has narrowed significantly.

“In the pandemic’s first year, Democrats were routinely about 40 points more likely than Republicans to view the coronavirus as a major threat to the health of the U.S. population. This gap has waned as overall levels of concern have fallen,” reads the report.

More via the Epoch Times;

The survey found that three in ten Democrats under 50 have received an updated COVID-19 vaccine, compared with 66 percent of Democrats ages 65 and older.

Moreover, 66 percent of Democrats ages 65 and older have received the updated COVID-19 vaccine, while only 24 percent of Republicans ages 65 and older have done so.

The updated guidance recommends that people who contracted a respiratory virus stay home, and they can resume normal activities when their symptoms improve overall and their fever subsides for 24 hours without medication.

“We still must use the commonsense solutions we know work to protect ourselves and others from serious illness from respiratory viruses, this includes vaccination, treatment, and staying home when we get sick,” CDC director Dr. Mandy Cohen said in a statement.

The CDC said that while the virus remains a threat, it is now less likely to cause severe illness because of widespread immunity and improved tools to prevent and treat the disease.

“Importantly, states and countries that have already adjusted recommended isolation times have not seen increased hospitalizations or deaths related to COVID-19,” it stated.

The federal government suspended its free at-home COVID-19 test program on March 8, according to a website set up by the government, following a decrease in COVID-19-related hospitalizations.

According to the CDC, hospitalization rates for COVID-19 and influenza diseases remain “elevated” but are decreasing in some parts of the United States.

By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

“The last time the debt as a share of GDP was this large was in 1945-1946, at the end of World War II,” wrote Daniel Wilson and Brigid Meisenbacherat from the Economic Research Department at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. I was grinding through my stack, piled high with white papers.  “Over the following three decades, the debt-to-GDP ratio steadily fell, reaching roughly 25% by 1975,” continued the San Fran Fed report [see here].

I have growing conviction that in the coming 2-5 years we’re going to face a US debt sustainability crisis, sparking a major global market event. I’ve observed that when people from within our institutions raise an alarm, knowing it would be far easier for them to remain quiet, we’re getting closer.

“That 30-year decline contrasts sharply with the projected 30-year increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio, reaching 172%, over 2024 to 2054, according to the latest current Congressional Budget Office projections.” Wilson and Meisenbacherat point out that the Fed projects a longer-term real Fed Funds rate of 0.50%.

And their median projection for long-run real GDP growth is 1.8%. They highlight that the CBO, however, forecasts a lower 1.5% real GDP growth rate, and a longer-term real interest rate on US debt of 2.0%.

“In this case, slow economic growth relative to interest rates would exert modest upward pressure on the debt ratio, primarily from higher interest payments,” they wrote.

“The main source of the long-run upward pressure on the primary deficit is spending on mandatory programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Current legislated formulas used to determine spending per recipient for Social Security benefits and government health-care programs, especially Medicare, combined with the projected aging of the population, point to large increases in spending for these programs as a share of GDP. This pressure was absent after WWII because the overall US population was younger and because Medicare was not enacted until 1965.”

And with no political party willing adjust these programs, it is increasingly likely the market will force change.

Authored by Tony Hall via The Epoch Times,

Anybody who has ever observed and studied the homeless situation in California will readily see how the nonprofit homeless service providers that have been enabled by our political leaders have not only helped create the crisis, but have institutionalized homelessness as a way of life.

Now, a new conduit for corruption in the state of California is rearing its ugly head, and a word to the wise is to recognize this demon for what it really is. In brief, it is the role that nonprofits are playing in the California State Housing Mandate that the governor’s office and our legislature are promoting.

I am not talking here about the role that traditional nonprofits are providing in our state’s economy, like those that provide services and benefits in the private sector in a variety of charitable and educational endeavors, and for the most part are self-funded and operate within the confines and purposes as dictated by IRS codes.

No, I am talking about those nonprofit organizations that have been specifically set up and certified by elected politicians to receive awards and spend your hard-earned tax dollars and public funds to engage in the development, construction, ownership, master leasing, and/or management of housing that the state defines as necessary, whether needed or not.

Bear with me while I set the scenario that is unfolding under our very eyes.

An Ambitious Power Grab

It is indeed one of the most draconian and deceptive ploys that I have witnessed in my lifetime that legally allows the state to take over ownership of private property. If it goes unchecked and unchallenged, you, the voter, will have been fooled again, and all because of your good nature that would like to see roofs over the heads of those who might be disadvantaged or fiscally challenged. No one wants to see anybody suffer because of lack of funds to adequately purchase shelter. But there is a right way and a wrong way to solve the problem.

If we are to believe the narrative being spun by our “ever so concerned” leaders, the private sector can no longer be counted on to deliver the number of housing units that the state tells us we must build within the next eight years. The number of units that they say we need is highly speculative and biased toward a very low income demographic. They subscribe to the “build it and they will come” theory. If they cannot get enough low-income tenants, they always have the homeless to fill the gaps.

Tilting the Playing Field

According to the state housing gurus, private for-profit developers are only concerned with building luxury units in the million-dollar range. This simply isn’t true. Any private for-profit developer will tell you they could build for much less per unit if they were not subject to the onerous red tape, regulations, and planning approval delays that the nonprofits are not subject to. This systematic rigging of the playing field against the private sector developers is exactly what has contributed to the affordable housing deficit.

State Monopoly of Housing Development

The for-profit housing developers are being shut out of the housing market because “profit,” “free enterprise,” and “private property” are considered bad words among the politically correct today. The real greed mongers are the politicians who are capitalizing on these sentiments. They much prefer the power, control, and influence that the utilization of nonprofits provides.

Profit has always been a strong motivator for progress, especially because it can produce the most material gain for the masses when properly utilized. However, the lure that power and control provides through specially created nonprofits is much stronger, especially in the public arena. Anyone who questions the basic tenets of profit, free enterprise, and private property in an economic system should study Economics 101 and comparative economics theories.

Because most of today’s “housing gurus” and our governor push the theory that one of the basic functions of government is to provide housing for all who need it, the state has issued a Housing Element that mandates the participation of all counties and municipalities. This mandate is no longer voluntary, and financial incentives are severely withheld from those counties and communities that do not go along with the program.

The governor and his misguided housing gurus have called for 2.5 million new units of housing to be built by 2030, of which about 50 percent shall be defined as “affordable.”

Redefining Affordable

The definition of affordable has been continually evolving, but at the moment it means units that would not cost more than 30 percent of annual gross household income to rent, or units that are subsidized by local, state, or federal funds. The whole “affordable” concept will soon be abandoned in favor of whatever the state decides it to be.

Just today, March 4, 2024, one of our California legislators proposed free loans to non-documented immigrants help them in their “affordability crisis.” Of course, all such loans would have to be administered via one of the chosen nonprofits!

The Housing Mandate

To accomplish this, all communities must comply with the state mandate and build new housing whether it is needed or not, regardless of infrastructure needs or what it might do to the character of a neighborhood, town, village, county, etc.

To sweeten the pot, at least $30 billion in taxpayer money has been invested in housing-related funding since our present governor took office. In San Francisco alone, approximately $1.2 billion has been put forth as housing-related bonds since 2015. These funds, along with multiple new bond monies, eliminate the need for private developers and their private sources of funding, as all the costs of financing and building are covered by the state. The state is acting as “the bank” in its use of nonprofits to do the building.

Also, to add a little insurance that their chosen nonprofits will always be in the mix, communities like San Francisco have passed laws that give nonprofits the first right of refusal and first right of acceptance on the sale of all properties with three units or more. With their one-size-fits-all approach, these planning amateurs are not the least bit concerned with what true housing needs may or may not be, but only with how they can best control people in a fashion that furthers their political agenda, as you will soon see.

Approximately two decades ago, there was concern that there was a growing shortage of “affordable” housing stock available or being built by private developers to accommodate those of lower income levels. If one was spending more than a third of his or her income on housing, such housing was not considered acceptable or affordable. Thus, legislation was eventually passed that required private for-profit developers to set aside 20 percent of whatever number of units they build as “affordable.”

Perpetuating Political Control

Instead of incentivizing the private for-profit builders with a multitude of intelligent approaches that would produce more than enough low-income housing, the politicians and planners decided to go against competitive market forces and penalize those in the construction business by limiting their ability to compete.

In the years since, the “20 percent” formula has only served to restrict more development. But now that the state has realized how much money, power, and control is attainable through the use of nonprofits to supply the housing, there is a whole different demographic that we must cater to, and a different litmus test must apply to those who are classified in the “affordable” category, which will even include some homeless people if necessary.

If you are foolish enough to buy into this scheme and want a little bit of the action, don’t worry about qualifying, because if you wait long enough, eventually everybody will be able to afford a house. This is thanks to the state’s desire to use public funds to have chosen nonprofits build units that the state owns and controls, and fund those who will occupy, but not own, the units! Mind you, this is a gigantic shift away from the whole principle, purpose, and concept of private property, home ownership, and how these relate to freedom in our American way of life.

The Money-Go-Round

The use of nonprofits in housing development is a big, big money game that makes the use of nonprofits in the homeless game look petty.

For example, it is estimated that in San Francisco alone, one third of the rental housing stock, or approximately 100,000 units, are controlled, managed, or owned by nonprofits that have been publicly funded and are off the property tax rolls. With an average rent in the city of approximately $3,000 per month, that amounts to $300 million per month or $3.6 billion per year in income.

Another way to look at it is this: 100,000 units at a value of just $250,000 per unit would be worth around $25 billion. If this were subject to the ongoing property tax rate of 1.25 percent, the city government would be gaining over $300 million per year in taxes alone if these were privately held properties and not owned by the city or nonprofits (which, for the most part, are exempt from paying taxes).

Now, let’s throw into the discussion how and why these specialty nonprofits are so desirable by our elected leaders. Could it possibly be that it is because these nonprofits are so thankful to their benefactors that they are more than willing to help out during election time with copious donations and street campaigners from their members to ensure their survival?

Knowing the political game as I do, I can unequivocally state that this is precisely one method that has been used very effectively by politicians to perpetuate themselves in office.

In closing, and FYI, check out on the internet just how many nonprofits operate in state business in California, and you will understand why we are controlled by one political party. So much for diversity, equality, and inclusion for all, except when it comes to control and power over taxpayer money!

Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul on Friday hinted that he may jump into the race to become the next Senate GOP leader, and Elon Musk was quick to support the idea. Republicans must find a successor for periodically malfunctioning Mitch McConnell, who recently announced he’ll step down in November, though intending to keep his Senate seat until his term ends in January 2027, when he’d be within weeks of turning 86. 

So far, the announced field consists of two quintessential establishment types: John Cornyn of Texas and John Thune of South Dakota. While John Barrasso’s name had been thrown around as one of “The Three Johns” considered top contenders, the Wyoming senator on Tuesday said he’ll instead seek the number two slot as party whip. 

Paul used X to tease his potential bid for the position which — if the GOP takes back the upper chamber in November — could graduate from Minority Leader to Majority Leader. He started by telling his 5.1 million followers he’d had lots of people asking him about his interest in running…

Thousands of people have been asking if I’d run for Senate leadership…

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 8, 2024

…then followed up with a poll in which he predictably annihilated Cornyn and Thune, taking a 96% share as of Friday night, with the other two below 2% each. 

🚨🗳️VOTE NOW 🗳️ 🚨 Who would you like to be the next Senate leader?

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) March 8, 2024

Elon Musk was quick to back the idea of Paul as GOP leader, while daring Cornyn and Thune to follow Paul’s lead by throwing their names out for consideration by the Twitter-verse X-verse. 

I would support Rand Paul and suspect that other candidates will not actually run polls out of concern for the results, but let’s see if they will!

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 8, 2024

Paul has been a stalwart opponent of security-state mass surveillance, foreign interventionism — to include shoveling billions of dollars into the proxy war in Ukraine — and out-of-control spending in general. He demonstrated the latter passion on the Senate floor this week as he ridiculed the latest kick-the-can spending package:   

This bill is an insult to the American people. The earmarks are all the wasteful spending that you could ever hope to see, and it should be defeated. Read more: https://t.co/Jt8K5iucA4 pic.twitter.com/I5okd4QgDg

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) March 8, 2024

In February, Paul used Senate rules to force his colleagues into a grueling Super Bowl weekend of votes, as he worked to derail a $95 billion foreign aid bill. “I think we should stay here as long as it takes,” said Paul. “If it takes a week or a month, I’ll force them to stay here to discuss why they think the border of Ukraine is more important than the US border.”

Don’t expect a Majority Leader Paul to ditch the filibuster — he’s been a hardy user of the legislative delay tactic. In 2013, he spoke for 13 hours to fight the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director. In 2015, he orated for 10-and-a-half-hours to oppose extension of the Patriot Act. 

Among the general public, Paul is probably best known as Capitol Hill’s chief tormentor of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease during the Covid-19 pandemic. Paul says the evidence indicates the virus emerged from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. He’s accused Fauci and other members of the US government public health apparatus of evading questions about their funding of the Chinese lab’s “gain of function” research, which takes natural viruses and morphs them into something more dangerous. Paul has pointedly said that Fauci committed perjury in congressional hearings and that he belongs in jail “without question.”   

Musk is neither the only nor the first noteworthy figure to back Paul for party leader. Just hours after McConnell announced his upcoming step-down from leadership, independent 2024 presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr voiced his support: 

Mitch McConnell, who has served in the Senate for almost 40 years, announced he’ll step down this November.

Part of public service is about knowing when to usher in a new generation. It’s time to promote leaders in Washington, DC who won’t kowtow to the military contractors or…

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) February 28, 2024

In a testament to the extent to which the establishment recoils at the libertarian-minded Paul, mainstream media outlets — which have been quick to report on other developments in the majority leader race — pretended not to notice that Paul had signaled his interest in the job. More than 24 hours after Paul’s test-the-waters tweet-fest began, not a single major outlet had brought it to the attention of their audience. 

That may be his strongest endorsement yet. 

Authored by Justin Smith via The Burning Platform blog,

Americans had better act soon, with or without Congress and with or without the Border Patrol to stop the current flood of illegal invaders across our Southern Border, because the Biden regime has no intention of ever stopping the invasion. To wait and ponder the crisis in the hopes that Donald Trump can stop it, if he wins the presidency, only ensures that millions more will cross, in addition to the twenty-seven million that have already entered the country, during Biden’s presidency — those which were detained at the border and the got-aways; and, intentionally or not, it makes America unsafe and sets in motion the Great Replacement, the replacement of white people and the virtues and principles of freedom and liberty with people of color who are already prone and predisposed to accepting big government controls, e.g. Marxism and Maoism, and the idea that all things come from government rather than individual initiative and independence. To do nothing and remain apathetic or complacent ensures the destruction of traditional America.

One should recall that a 2018 study by both Yale and MIT suggested 22 million to possibly 40 million illegal aliens were already residing in America. It’s to Trump’s discredit that he didn’t pursue the border security issue forcefully in 2017, when the Republicans held a majority in both houses of Congress, rather than listen to the turncoat RINO Speaker Paul Ryan.

In his last year in office, Trump had brought illegal alien entries down to approximately 1100 a day, or less.

Under Joe Biden, the U.S. borders simply no longer exist. His regime’s minions have been ordered to process and parole illegal aliens into America as fast as possibly, virtually waving them on across with little to no scrutiny. And, as a result, we know for a fact that 330 illegals who are on terrorist watch lists have been released into the country, along with the unknown number of potential or actual terrorists within the ranks of the gotaways.

Going all the way back to 1996, Augustin Cebada, radical spokesman for the Brown Berets, militant para-military foot-soldiers of Aztlan [Reconquista] shouted the following declaration, at Americans at an Independence Day rally outside the Federal Building in Westwood, California:

“If anyone’s going to be deported, it’s going to be you! … Get out! We are the future. You’re old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you — leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. Right now, we’re already controlling those elections, whether it’s by violence or nonviolence. Through love of having children, we’re going to take over.”

Some may actually be coming here to become American citizens and try to live the American Dream, a dream that is crumbling and rapidly disappearing for natural born Americans, thanks to a multitude of bad Biden policies; but the cast majority are not. They simply want to abscond with as much American wealth as they can possibly accumulate while also riding the massive government expenditures of recent programs created to address their invading numbers.

These illegals don’t want to be citizens; they don’t assimilate any more, as they did in days past; they set up shop just as they did in the Old Country and bring the same flawed mindsets that destroyed the nations they have fled.

Through Joe Biden’s Open Borders Policy that don’t have to wait to for the illegal invaders to have children. They are simply flying them over, entire families and all, at the taxpayers’ expense.

That’s part of what makes this all so maddening. Joe knows without a doubt, or at least his handlers know, that he absolutely is charged by the U.S. Constitution and given the authority as President and Commander-in-Chief to protect and defend our borders and sovereign domain. And yet, on March 7th 2024, Biden had the temerity to suggest in his State of the Union Address, that he needed a new immigration bill and more money, before he could do his job, none of which is true.

Along with this, please note that Congress could pass ten great immigration / border security laws, or even 100, and it wouldn’t make a damned bit of difference. Joe Biden and the Democratic Party violate the Constitution and U.S. law — yes, even our existing laws on immigration and border security — with impunity, no qualms or pangs of conscience whatsoever. Biden absolutely would violate any new law, if it served his agenda and that of the radical Marxists and Maoists within the Democratic Party.

Even this last so-called “bipartisan bill” had a loophole in it, actually allowing for 1.8 million illegals to be allowed to cross every year, before it’s safeguards were employed.

That is unless Biden decided to suspend its mechanisms for a “national emergency” as the bill provided. The bill was a farce, a massive joke, and that’s why it was rejected.

That’s the reason so many truly conservative Americans were so angered to hear Biden mock Republicans after some jeered his remarks on his “comprehensive bill to fix our immigration system” — understanding his underlying lie , as he said:

“Oh, you don’t like that bill — huh? — that conservatives got together and said was a good bill? I’ll be darned. That’s amazing.” [transcript at Associated Press]

President Woodrow Wilson sent Brigadier General John “Black Jack” Pershing out of Fort Bliss, Texas on March 15th 1916 to patrol the border between the U.S. and Mexico, in order to stop Pancho Villa’s cross-border raids and capture or kill him. Pershing went a few steps further and pursued Villa into 350 miles into Mexico proper, leading 10,000 soldiers behind him. All of this was done under the premise set forth in the Article IV Section 4 of our Constitution which states the federal government “shall protect each of [the states] against invasion” and Article I Section 10 which expressly guarantees states the sovereign power to repel an invasion and defend U.S. citizens from overwhelming and “imminent danger”. And there isn’t one damned thing preventing Joe Biden from exercising this same exact authority now other than the Democratic Party Communists’ intent to grant millions of illegal foreign invaders amnesty and the right to vote, in order to grow their base and hold power and control over all America for the rest of the century.

For over three years, Joe Biden and Homeland Security [what an oxymoron] Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have assured all America that the border is secure and the illegal alien invasion is being handled properly, when in fact, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol are being used to speed up the process of receiving illegal aliens into the country, rather than immediately detaining and returning them back across the border, should be the case. And all the while, through his lies, Mayorkas smugly and arrogantly smiles like a fat-headed Cheshire Cat, in his belief that he is untouchable, which has been the case so far.

Biden’s Open Border Policy has been a massive success towards ultimately achieving the Democratic Party’s goals of changing the face of America and fundamentally transforming Her away from Her founding, and it has been an abject and complete catastrophe for Fly Over Country and the everyday average American who loves his country, God and family better than himself. The rising of this anti-American regime has been a sad and disgusting time to be marked as such in the annals of history, should honest historians ever reappear.

And his policies have been a boon to the numerous drug cartels which have expanded their operations by tenfold in every major city in the U.S. and even the smaller cities and towns that once barely had a hint of drug and crime problems,

At some point, anyone having a hand in the most massive betrayal of America in U.S. history must be made to face a day of reckoning, regardless of what form it may take.

In the meantime, our daughters are continuously being assaulted, brutalized, kidnapped, raped and murdered in the most heinous of manners, unimaginable to most good and decent people, by these foreign, illegal alien invaders. Decent Americans of all walks of life, men, women and children, are being murdered by these monsters, the MS-13 drug cartel members and prisoners released from Venezuela’s prisons, much like young Kate Steinle in 2015, a 32 year old sales rep, and now Laken Riley, a 22 year old nursing student, who was bludgeoned to death and disfigured by an illegal alien monster, who entered the country in 2022.

Adding insult to injury, Traitor Joe just apologized for calling Laken Riley’s murderer an “illegal”, during his State of the Union address. The apology came today, March 9th 2024, during an interview with MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart. But that’s exactly what he is — a goddamned foreign, illegal, criminal piece of murderous shit from Venezuela who was also charged and released in New York City after endangering a five year old child [per Olivia Land/New York Post]

On July 13th 2023, the Judiciary Committe’s Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security and Enforcement [The Consequences of Criminal Aliens on U.S. Communities] reported that 33,000 Americans had been killed by murder and manslaughter at the hands of illegal aliens between 2010 and 2015, which begs the question, just how many are now dying at the hands of millions of the anonymous, unvetted illegal aliens Biden has welcomed, even ferried, into America. As reported by this committee, just two weeks prior to its meeting, an illegal alien was sentenced to life in prison for raping and impregnating a nine year old Ohio girl, who later went to Indiana to get an abortion.

I have two adult daughters, and if any illegal alien were to do them harm in any way, they had better hope law enforcement officers get to them before I do, especially now that we are actually seeing stone-cold murderers released without bail by anti-American, anti-law enforcement District Attorneys, bought and paid for by George Soros.

From the Judiciary Committee’s report:

“According to a report covering thirteen years of data from the Executive Office of Immigration Review, over forty-seven percent [of illegals] never even pursue an asylum claim once released into the country. More than eighty-five percent will be denied asylum and receive a deportation order, yet less than five percent ever leave the country. Anyone requesting asylum must be detained or made to remain in Mexico until their hearing is adjudicated. These numbers prove they can’t be trusted to be released.”

These illegal aliens are also overwhelming the capabilities of America’s schools, hospitals, law enforcement and other general services provided at various levels of government. I see that as an extremely serious matter that is certainly facilitating the destruction of our economy, since the taxpayer dollars supporting this invasion means Americans everywhere are being deprived of the benefit of their own labor to support the dregs of the world; but it is much less important to me than knowing that foreign illegal aliens are snuffing out our countrymen’s lives, like they are nothing.

These are real people with real lives and families, not just a data base of statistics, and for every victim of a criminal illegal alien, there is a devastated family. And still, Biden and Company drive on towards the abyss creating a dystopian nightmare along the way for law abiding citizens, watching the end of their country racing toward them like an out-of-control freight train and no Casey Jones at the controls.

Former President Donald Trump has promised to start the largest mass deportation of illegal aliens in U.S. history, if he wins the upcoming election, and he plans to use the military to implement it, rightfully so. As reported in the Washington Post [February 21st 2024], Karoline Leavitt, spokeswoman for the Trump campaign, stated:

“Americans can expect that immediately upon President Trump’s return to the Oval Office, he will restore all his prior policies, implement brand new crackdowns that will send shock waves to all the world’s criminal smugglers, and marshal every federal and state power necessary to institute the largest deportation operation in American history” as she also added that illegal aliens “should not get comfortable because very soon they will be going home.”

We have the absolute right and a duty as sovereign citizens, living in sovereign states, to defend ourselves and our families, in the wake of a lawless federal government, this lawless Biden regime. The authority rests within the Constitution which has always allowed for the use of the States’ militias or the military to be mobilized for just such circumstances, and although we can be certain that Biden and some state governors will keep refusing to utilize the mechanisms at their disposal to fast-track the removal of these invaders, we have the right to gather ourselves armed with pistols and rifles — those of us able with the time and backbone to do so — to go to the border and tell the Border Patrol to do join us and do their Constitutional duty to stop the millions more who will try to cross between now and January 2025.

I oft suggested in years past, half-jokingly, not so much anymore, that we should put them on a plane, parachutes optional, and shove them out over Mexico. This comment has become so much more full of meaning, now that we know the Biden regime has actively been seeking out these illegal caravans and flying their members into America.

No matter how they arrive, by a fast jet, a slow boat or a reliable bus or train, we must send them back on a super-charged bus or jet just as quickly. Set about to deport every last one of them, and then effectively and totally seal the border and place a ten year moratorium on all immigration, legal and illegal, or until we have our nation and our population straightened out in a fashion that puts us back on a path to the same level of exceptionalism that used to be the rule in America and removes or eradicates, with extreme prejudice, those radicals who seek to fundamentally transform America and end our republic.

Don’t let the enemies-from-within end America in so despicable a manner. Don’t let this be how America ends. Fight back like hell, and when the time is right, make the bastards who have committed this treason against America pay with their own lives.