What is even less well-known, though, is that the bomb that nearly murdered tens of thousands was builtwith the help of an FBI informant. Egyptian immigrant Emad Salem was a part of Ramzi Yousef’s cell during the plotting of the attack. Salem, posing as an ex-Green Beret, was encouraged by the FBI to join the nascent New York Islamic extremist movement. Once Salem had penetrated the cell, instead of using him to thwart an attack, the FBI deliberately let the attack go forward.
Last week, Revolver highlighted the disturbing number of key figures in the January 6 Capitol incident who have gone unnamed and unindicted even as the number of criminal cases federal officials have brought spirals into the hundreds. Read it here if you’ve been living under a rock.
By now, it is a distinct possibility that many participants in the January 6 “riot” were associated with the government in some manner, be it as informants or full-blown agents.
America’s regime media is deeply committed to the narrative of January 6 as a planned “insurrection,” so they have flailed desperately to debunk reporting by Revolver as well as Fox’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Twitter’s “neutral” “aggregators” made a cringeworthy clarification that only further bolstered Revolver’s claims.
Looks like Twitter and the FBI are big made at @DarrenJBeattie and Tucker Carlson. The amount of cope in this “clarification” is palpable. pic.twitter.com/vgEVaNB0fw
Revolver will continue to report out the story of the Capitol incident and the federal government’s potential role in instigating it. But there is another reason to suspect federal involvement in January 6: The federal government has a decades-long history of this exact behavior. Revolver has already reported extensively on the phony “plot” against Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, where five out of eighteen core plotters were actually connected to the federal government. But there are countless additional incidents, all over the country, stretching all the way back to the 1950s.
In a free society, no one has the right to any particular job offered by any entity, from a small business to a global corporation or anything in between, regardless of whether he is fully qualified for it.
Therefore,employer discrimination for or against potential employees on any basis and for any reason (race, religion, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, education, national origin, marital status, dress, physical appearance, disability, age, political affiliation) should be perfectly legal no matter how irrational, illogical, or idiotic it might seem to be. And naturally, in a free society, there would be no Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to handle workplace discrimination complaints.
Some actions are always bad, some actions are inherently good, and some others can be bad or good depending on who does them—like Affirmative Action.
Currently, the federal government practices Affirmative Action in hiring, and requires that federal contractors do likewise. Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) wants to put an end to both practices.
He has introduced the Making Excellence Replace Identity Traits (MERIT) Act, legislation that would prohibit the federal government from engaging in Affirmative Action in hiring. This is one of the shortest bills ever introduced in Congress. Perhaps members of Congress will actually read it. The bill reads:
The Federal Government may not establish, implement, or otherwise carry out any hiring practice or program that uses affirmative action based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, or disability as a basis for a personnel action with respect to Federal employees or members of the uniformed services, and no Federal funds may be provided to any entity (including Federal contractors (or subcontractors thereof)) that has in place any such practice or program.
Hiring decisions in the federal government should be based on the merit of the job applicant rather than quotas based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin or ethnicity. The people deserve competency and merit, not racial or other bigotry, when the government hires someone. It is long past time to end government sanctioned racial discrimination.
The MERIT Act ensures that no federal funds are provided to any entity that has established a hiring program that uses affirmative action employment preferences. Eradicating the scourge of racial hatred is a priority for the country. The fact that the federal courts allowed such racially discriminatory policies in the first place is a problem only Congress can fix. Under the Constitution, all citizens must be treated equally. Merit and competence are the only two employment factors that should be considered.
Affirmative action policies result in low competence employees and lead to discriminatory policies based on racial bigotry and animus, often disguised as remedial actions for ancient discrimination. Such racist laws compel employers to overlook the best qualified individual. The MERIT Act promotes equal opportunity for all applicants.
I rarely say that a member of Congress has introduced a good bill. The good bills are the ones that repeal or eliminate some existing federal regulation, program, or agency. This is a good bill, except for the last part of it, the problem with which I will explain below.
Unfortunately, with the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, there is zero chance that the MERIT Act will pass. It will probably never even be voted on. Of course, Republicans could have passed such a bill when they controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of Trump’s presidency. And of course, they could have also repealed Obamacare and rolled back the welfare state instead of going on a spending orgy. But that is a subject for another article.
Although Rep. Gosar is right, and the federal government should not engage in Affirmative Action, this does not mean that Affirmative Action itself is always wrong.
In a free society, no one has the right to any particular job offered by any entity, from a small business to a global corporation or anything in between, regardless of whether he is fully qualified for it.
Therefore, employer discrimination for or against potential employees on any basis and for any reason (race, religion, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, education, national origin, marital status, dress, physical appearance, disability, age, political affiliation) should be perfectly legal no matter how irrational, illogical, or idiotic it might seem to be. And naturally, in a free society, there would be no Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to handle workplace discrimination complaints.
So, if this is the case, then there is nothing wrong with a private employer taking affirmative action to hire men over women, blacks over whites, heterosexuals over homosexuals, Jews over Catholics, the young over the old, Democrats over Republicans, or members of any racial, ethnic, religious, or ideological group that he chooses, even if they are viewed as under-qualified or inexperienced.
And herein lies what is wrong with Rep. Gosar’s bill: federal contractors and subcontractors should be able to practice or not practice Affirmative Action as they see fit.
Now, what’s missing in the debate about this bill is that the federal workforce is too large and that there are too many federal contractors. According to the Congressional Research Service, over 2.1 million federal civilian employees work at federal agencies, not counting the Post Office, which employs about 580,000 people, not counting the legislative and judicial branches, which employ another 64,000 people, and not counting the 1.4 million active duty uniformed military personnel, but this is also a subject for another article.
Affirmative Action, when practiced by private concerns, is neither good nor bad. It is simply exercising freedom of choice and freedom of association, which are essential parts of a free society.
“Diversity” refers to the distribution of racial/ethnic/sexual characteristics. It does not refer to what you might think the word means, such as having a diverse range of opinions or thoughts. In fact, it’s really the opposite. The most “diverse” group of people according to DEI orthodoxy will be 100% Leftist in their politics, and will think in lockstep about such things as DEI itself. The normal sense of the word is also distorted.
One of the interesting things about hitting the treadmill in the gym is the bank of televisions with closed captioning. Since I don’t watch the boob tube, I’m not only exercising the body, but getting a glimpse into the alien world of the popular culture. Sometimes the juxtapositions are telling.
The token black lady on the panel was yammering on and on about the buzzwords “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” For the reader of the future – perhaps landing here by means of a Google search – this is a fad of our present day based on the concept known as Critical Theory – which is basically the denigration of one intersection of demographic traits for the supposed benefit of others. The au courant acceptable hatred in this, the Year of our Lord 2021, pertains to racially being white, sexually being heterosexual and not inventing a pretend sexual identity for oneself (in other words, just being a normal man, woman, boy, or girl), politically conservative, and religiously Christian. One is also considered to be akin to the lepers in biblical times if one is not handicapped physically or mentally.
If one has all of these markers, it is socially and legally acceptable to treat such persons as the Untouchables in the caste system in India. And the fewer of these characteristics one has, the greater the worth of that individual. If you read about “apartheid” in 20th century South Africa, it’s a similar concept, only with the “bottom rail on top” as the old saying goes.
DEI is a godsend for people who cannot compete in a meritocracy, and who have bleak job prospects. For getting a cushy job in a big corporation is a piece of cake if one were to be, say, a lesbian black woman in a wheelchair who identifies as two-spirit non-binary Islamo-Buddhist, whose coffee is soy latte, skim milk, light foam, extra shot, and a dusting of cinnamon, and whose pronouns are zig and zag. It doesn’t matter is zig never showed up for class or passed a test, whether zig can read or add two plus two, or has a work ethic. In fact, it’s to one’s advantage in many cases not to.
Yes, this insanity was a part of our times, and it may well explain the collapse of our great civilization and why you are today speaking Mandarin and translating this from ancient English.The juxtaposition with this DEI to sports was interesting.
Let’s take them in order.
Diversity
Celebrating diversity: the first all-black NBA team in 1979
“Diversity” refers to the distribution of racial/ethnic/sexual characteristics. It does not refer to what you might think the word means, such as having a diverse range of opinions or thoughts. In fact, it’s really the opposite. The most “diverse” group of people according to DEI orthodoxy will be 100% Leftist in their politics, and will think in lockstep about such things as DEI itself. The normal sense of the word is also distorted. For in a population sample where 13% of the people are, say, black – only 13% representation in a smaller sample is not considered diversity. In other words, if 80% of a sports team were to be black, this would not be considered a distortion, nor would the lack of, say, white players be considered a lack of diversity. To the contrary, this is actual “diversity” according to the new definition of the word.
The Finnish football team on the tellie had very few – if any – “diversities” playing in this game. And that is understandable. Finland is a Nordic country that is overwhelmingly white. Finland (unlike their opponents: Belgium) had no colonies, no presence in Africa, and not a great deal of immigration until recently. One could imagine the diversity on the field had the Finns been playing, say, Ethiopia.
Here is a picture of the current Ethiopian national football team:
Diversity rating: A+
It’s not much of a surprise. According to the classical understanding of diversity, this is not a very diverse team. And for all of the repetitions of the mantra “diversity is our strength,” the lack of whites, Asians, Latinos, American Indians, Aleutian Islanders, or Esperanto speakers from Nepal seems not to impede their ability to be successful on the soccer field.
And of course, this is why Ethiopia must be praised for its “diversity” in the Newspeak sense of the word, while Finland must assuredly be “problematic.”
Diversity rating: D- (passing grade thanks to virtue-signaling)
So when it comes to sports, Olympics, international, or even in the NFL and NBA, the idea of diversity is a joke – as it should be. I live in New Orleans, and plenty of black guys wear Drew Brees jerseys. Maybe some radicals would call them Avuncular Thomases for doing so, but the average sports fan isn’t interested in quotas and affirmative action on the field. Rather, they want to win games and championships. In other words, sports fans of all ethnic and sexual configurations really overwhelmingly desire meritocracy over and against racial, ethnic, or sexual considerations.
On a side note, international football is perhaps the last bastion of nationalism. One can only surmise that there are plans afoot to rearrange the teams into non-national teams to get rid of the flag-waving and patriotism – one of the last impediments to our lords’ and masters’ dream of a Great Reset. The future reader will know whether this happened or not. I don’t see how it can be avoided. But then again, perhaps by that time, the evil and disturbing Klaus Schwab’s brain in a vat will be the human owner of a professional team of robots – and maybe that will be the sports of the future.
Equity
The concept of equity sounds nice. It sounds like “equality.” But it means something different. Equality means everyone has the same opportunity. No-one is penalized for his race, station in life, or any other immutable characteristic. Equality is a meritocracy. There are no second-class citizens, and no caste system.
Equity is the opposite.
Equity penalizes some people and redistributes advantages, real or perceived, (and perhaps even directly as money) to others based on the above-mentioned hierarchy of values.
This redistribution can be based on historical reality. For example, a person from Tunisia may well point to his ancestors in Carthage who were defeated by Roman imperial legions in the Punic Wars in 146 BC, and so the descendants of the conquering Romans are on the hook. Thus the 21st century Italian government should indeed tax its citizens and wire the proceeds to Tunisia, where hopefully one will see modern-day Carthaginians driving Lexuses, and modern-day Italians posing for pictures with signs of apology and saying “no” to racism.
Or it may be based on fads. In other words, if a famous Hollywood actor reveals that he identifies as a hen and has a sexual fetish regarding eating corn kernels off the floor, this new lifestyle may be named (Poultryamory?) and picked up by young people, incorporating a new color on the LGBT flag, securing a place in the Pride parade, and receiving a new sense of entitlement. Perhaps the national soccer team should have a minimum of two players who pretend to lay eggs whenever their team scores a goal. Universities should provide special “coops” for such people. This would be an example of equity.
It may also be based on fantasy. Perhaps a young woman became enamored with a comic book about a race of aliens on another planet. These creatures have three heads and are asexual. And so this is how our sci-fi fan identifies. And in the story, earthlings came to her planet and wiped it out. Therefore, equity demands redistributive justice for our asexual three-headed identifyee. Maybe she should get a check every week for life to help overcome her oppression. This would be an example of equity.
As far as sports goes, as it stands now, there is no equity. What we see instead is meritocracy. Usain Bolt is not required to start the race a half-mile behind everyone else. LeBron James doesn’t have to wear a ball-and-chain on the basketball field. The NFL Super Bowl Champions are not required to spot opposing teams a touchdown or play with two less players during the next season. World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen isn’t required to give up a pawn to his opponents in competitions. Things don’t currently work like that, though perhaps they will by 2081. In fact, nobody would want to see it. Sports fans love that Usain Bolt and LeBron James and Magnus Carlsen can do things that nobody else can.
There is a meritocracy and a hierarchy in sports – both of which are anathema to the idea of equity (which seeks not equality at the starting line, but rather at the finish line). Fans want to see their hero on the highest platform brandishing a gold medal. Equity would rather that all players receive a participation trophy and there should be no champions. Or at very least, if there are champions, they should get there by means of various handicaps and imposed advantages, changes to the rules, and other manipulations. But again, fans would probably not want to watch such a thing.
Inclusion
Inclusion is the opposite of exclusion. And this is clearly at odds with sports. The motto of the Olympics is Citius, Altius, Fortius (Faster, Higher, Stronger). This is by definition exclusive, not inclusive. It is elitist. The whole world will not watch breathlessly as a bunch of guys my age chuck javelins. They want to see competitors in the prime of life, the elite of the elite, strive to set a new world record. And yes, there are the Senior Olympics, Special Olympics, and the Paralympics as specialty niches for fans who enjoy such competition. And yet, even there, participants strive to win medals and to perform to the best of their abilities. There is still competition – even if the competition is against oneself.
Different divisions for weight and sex and level of competition in sports are by definition exclusive. A heavyweight may not compete in the lightweight division. He is excluded for the sake of fair competition – regardless of how he “identifies.” Because a freshman football team lacks the physical size and experience of the varsity team, unless a freshman player is able to compete at the higher level, he will hone his skills with other freshman – excluding upperclassmen from the team. And until recently, women have enjoyed competition against other women, as their lack of testosterone, their disadvantage in upper body strength vs. men, and even their skeletal structure puts them at a dramatic disadvantage were they forced to compete with biological males. Real life isn’t like comic books or Marvel movies. No amount of Girl Power posters in grade school can prevent the vaunted American women’s national soccer team from being soundly defeated by a team comprised of fourteen-year old boys who towered over them, or the Australian women’s team being shut-out 7-0 by a team of fifteen-year old boys who weren’t even of championship caliber, or a world class champion female fighter having her skull broken by a crushing blow from a man in the ring in a “fight” lasting two minutes.
And this last plank of DEI is the camel’s nose in the tent of the sports meritocracy. It is at the present time a raging controversy, as high school girls are presently being denied scholarships and opportunity in the name of “inclusion” as boys are being permitted to compete against them in high school sports events. In professional and Olympic competition, there is the potential of seeing women virtually eliminated from competition – and to many advocates of DEI, this is an acceptable price to pay for their vision of a more “just and sustainable world.”
A Brave New World
So female competitors will just have to sacrifice their own opportunities and abilities to compete, and fans of women’s sports are just going to have to get used to seeing muscular men dominate these events in the name of inclusion. In time, we can expect champions to be handicapped and the lower-performing to receive affirmative action to boost their representation in the world of sports in the name of equity. We will also see new variations on the “paper-bag test” to assure even fewer white athletes than there are already in high level sports – and probably a busting up of international leagues to prevent even a small minority of nations being represented that are insufficiently melanized (not to mention to get rid of that nasty “nationalism’) – all in the name of diversity.
Sports fans are just going to have to accept the changes, give up on their meritocracy, and perhaps even some day be content to watch professionals and Olympians play “just for fun” without keeping score, as fans all wave the same flag in inclusivity and social justice instead of the diversity of banners of their own nations in pursuit of being the best.
Again, time will tell how far the insanity will go, and when – if ever – the pendulum works its way back to normalcy and the true meaning of sports, without regard to racial quotas, unconcerned with the guaranteed equality of results, and once more admiring the best of the best in fair and free meritocracy of competition.
Rev. Larry Beane [send him mail] serves as pastor at Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church in Gretna, LA and teaches high school Apologetics, Economics, and Government at Wittenberg Academy (online). Visit his blog.
The One World UN government that many desire is trying to dictate life for one of it’s subjects and that subject doesn’t like it.
Oh the irony of it all. The country that continues to enforce the hardest of hard virus lockdowns on it’s own citizens balks at a possible tourism lockdown by the UN.
Is this the first symptom of an emerging climate lockdown? Whatever this is, I am sure there will be more to come.
Rod McGuirk ASSOCIATED PRESS CANBERRA, Australia – Australia said Tuesday it will fight against plans to downgrade the Great Barrier Reef’s World Heritage status due to climate change, while environmentalists have applauded the U.N. World Heritage Committee’s proposal.
The committee said in a draft report on Monday that ‘there is no possible doubt’ that the network of colorful corals off Australia’s northeast coast was ‘facing ascertained danger.’
The report recommends that the world’s most extensive coral reef ecosystem be added to UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger, which includes 53 sites, when the World Heritage Committee considers the question in China in July.
The listing could shake Australians’ confidence in their government’s ability to care for the natural wonder and create a role for UNESCO headquarters in devising so-called ‘corrective measures,’ which would likely include tougher action to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Any downgrade of the reef’s World Heritage status could reduce tourism revenue that the natural wonder generates for Australia because fewer tourists would be attracted to a degraded environment and dead coral.
Reef cruise operators said the report was wrong and that tourists continued to be awed by dazzling coral and multicolored fish. But some tourists said the reef had seemed more colorful during visits decades ago.
Environment Minister Sussan Ley said she and Foreign Minister Marise Payne had called UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay to express the government’s ‘strong disappointment’ and ‘bewilderment’ at the proposal.
Australia, one of 21 countries on the committee, will oppose the listing, Ley said.
‘This decision was flawed. Clearly there were politics behind it,’ Ley told reporters. ‘Clearly those politics have subverted a proper process, and for the World Heritage Committee to not even foreshadow this listing is, I think, appalling.’
The network of 2,500 reefs covering 134,000 square miles has been World Heritage-listed since 1981.
But its health is under increasing threat from climate change and rising ocean temperatures.
The report found the site had suffered significantly from coral bleaching events caused by unusually warm ocean temperatures in 2016, 2017 and last year.
Australian Marine Conservation Society environmental consultant Imogen Zethoven welcomed the committee’s recognition that ‘Australia hasn’t done enough on climate change to protect the future of the reef.’
The reef would become the first site to be added to the List of World Heritage in Danger primarily for climate change reasons, Zethoven said.
‘It would be a very significant step for the World Heritage Committee to make this decision and one that we really hope that it does make because it will open up a lot of potential change,’ she said.
Richard Leck, a spokesman for the environmental group WWF, said listing the reef as in danger would be ‘a real shock’ to many Australians.
In 2014, Australia was warned that an ‘in danger’ listing was being considered rather than being proposed for immediate action.
Australia had time to respond by developing a long-term plan to improve the reef’s health called the Reef 2050 Plan.
The committee said this week that plan ‘requires stronger and clearer commitments, in particular towards urgently countering the effects of climate change.’
Ley said climate change policy debate should be restricted to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
‘I know … that climate change is the biggest threat to the reef, and in no way am I stepping away from that recognition, and countries including European countries have got strong views about what policies different countries should have on climate change, and I understand that as well, but this is not the convention in which to have those conversations,’ Ley said, referring to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
Observers say the swearing in on Tuesday of new Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, who opposes action on climate change that increases prices, signals Australia is likely to set less ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Terry Hughes, director of the Australian Research Council’s Center for Excellence in Coral Reef Studies, said Australia’s refusal to commit to a net zero carbon emissions target by 2050 made the country a ‘complete outlier.’
‘This draft decision from UNESCO is pointing the finger at Australia and saying: ‘If you’re serious about saving the Great Barrier Reef, you need to do something about your climate policies,’’ Hughes told Australian Broadcasting Corp.
The U.N. World Heritage Committee says Australia’s Great Barrier Reef faces ‘ascertained danger’ and proposes lowering its status.Kyodo News via AP
Australian Environment Minister Sussan Ley said the U.N.’s proposal to list the Great Barrier Reef as ‘in danger’ is flawed and politically driven.Lukas Coch/AAP via AP
The deduction was introduced to avoid federal encroachment on state and local tax prerogatives and, equally important, to avoid double taxation. The question that still needs to be answered is whether it is morally okay to tax income that isn’t really income at all, but funds that must be paid toward state and local taxes. Sure, progressives, socialists, and communists would like to take away as much money as possible from the rich, but it is problematic, to say the least, to tax income that is not even in the hand of a taxpayer anymore. That is, taxing funds already taken by state and local authorities is essentially taxing hypothetical income and earnings. This would be similar to taxing the paper value of an investment portfolio value instead of the realized gain from the sale of an investment.
When the Trump administration pushed capping the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), the plan was billed as a way to punish Democrats in high-tax states. But the move also increased federal revenues by as much as $100 billion. Now the Biden administration is showing little enthusiasm for undoing Trump’s cap. The cap means more federal revenues to help pay for Biden’s infrastructure plan.
Nonetheless, Democrats in high-tax states like California, New Jersey, and New York are now threatening to hold up President Joe Biden’s plan in the hope of eliminating the cap on the SALT deduction. The SALT deduction divides the Democratic Party between socialist activists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who oppose the repealing of the SALT deduction as a “gift to billionaires,” and other representatives of New York and New Jersey, who want an elimination of the cap. However, in the debate on whether SALT is a tax break for the rich or a lifeline for middle-class families in high-tax states, most politicians forget that a tax takes away money from an individual regardless of income. The cap on the SALT deduction also essentially paves the way for the federal government to tax income twice.
The SALT tax deduction allows state and local taxes—like property taxes—to be deducted from federal taxes. State and local taxes and other taxes have been deductible since the inception of the federal income tax in 1913 to avoid federal encroachment on state tax prerogatives and to allow the federal government to tax income that has already been confiscated via taxation by more local levels of government. Changes in 1964, 1978, 1986, and 2004 have mostly taken away the ability to deduct certain state and local taxes, with the exception of the 2004 change, which reinstated the original ability to deduct sales taxes. However, the biggest change came in 2017, when the SALT deduction was capped at $10,000 under President Trump’s tax reform bill. However, that provision in the law is scheduled to expire after 2025.
Unfortunately, many conservatives argue in favor of the cap and claim that the SALT deduction benefits higher-tax states like New York, New Jersey, and California at the cost of those living in lower-tax states like Texas, New Hampshire, and South Dakota. The Tax Policy Center provides a good overview of who claims the SALT deduction and its effects. Similarly, the Tax Foundation provides an overview of benefactors of a SALT deduction and its consequences. Politicians use this discrepancy in impact to justify the elimination of the deduction on the grounds that it is an unfair subsidy to high-tax states.
However, most analysts seem to look at the consequences of the SALT deduction without looking at the reason for the SALT deduction: state and local taxes. Whatever one might think about the original federal income tax, at the least the original federal income tax statutes in 1913 answered two questions about the deductibility of state and local taxes quite clearly. The deduction was introduced to avoid federal encroachment on state and local tax prerogatives and, equally important, to avoid double taxation. The question that still needs to be answered is whether it is morally okay to tax income that isn’t really income at all, but funds that must be paid toward state and local taxes. Sure, progressives, socialists, and communists would like to take away as much money as possible from the rich, but it is problematic, to say the least, to tax income that is not even in the hand of a taxpayer anymore. That is, taxing funds already taken by state and local authorities is essentially taxing hypothetical income and earnings. This would be similar to taxing the paper value of an investment portfolio value instead of the realized gain from the sale of an investment.
The second argument for eliminating the cap on the SALT is that the cap grows the role of the federal government at the expense of more local levels of government. In other words, the SALT deduction lowers the amount of income to be taxed by the federal government, while imposing a limit on the SALT deduction is to increase federal revenue.
This is especially problematic, since federal taxes are already a major part of households’ overall tax burden. Moreover, federal taxation is less likely to go to services that taxpayers might actually use, such as highways. Federal spending mostly goes to welfare programs. Keeping the cap on the SALT deduction actually increases federal tax revenue and decreases decentralization. More importantly, any increase in federal taxes reduces the ability for taxpayers to “vote with their feet,” leaving high-tax states and localities for lower taxes in another state or locality. (See this article by Ryan McMaken.)
Some advocates for keeping the deduction cap—but who also claim to be for low taxation—argue that by exposing taxpayers in high-tax states to higher levels of taxation, taxpayers would finally come to their senses and revolt against state taxation. This is essentially a “do evil that good may come of it” argument. This is an odd position to take for anyone claiming to oppose government power and taxation.
The debate on the SALT deduction needs to be rephrased as a debate on the morality of taxing unrealized income. In addition, it is important to consider the repercussions of handing over more taxing authority to the federal government. While the uncapped SALT deduction reduced tax revenue by about $100 billion a year, President Biden has kept the limit on the SALT deduction because it will increase federal tax revenue to pay for his ambitious spending agenda. His keeping the SALT deduction exposes President Biden’s real agenda and ethics. President Biden does not care about the morality of taxing income twice, he likes the idea of more tax revenue at the cost of ethics and transferring more power and more money to the federal government. Author:
Last week the US House voted to repeal the 2002 authorization to attack Iraq. After nineteen years and perhaps a million dead Iraqis, nothing was achieved by the war but death and destruction. Has Washington learned its lesson? Also today, WHO says no jab for kids! And Fauci’s corrupt partner is shown the door.
In America, national, state, and local governments are pulling out all the stops to advance giving experimental coronavirus shots to children down to the age of 12. Up next, babies and children up to age 11. The shots are “safe and effective,” the propagandists proclaim.
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) has a different approach. The WHO says do not vaccinate children, at least not yet.
There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults. However, children should continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.
Have a smart thermostat at home? Better keep an eye on it – especially if you live in Texas.
That’s because some residents of the Lone Star state have been claiming that someone has been turning up the temperatures at their homes, remotely, at the same time the state is undergoing an energy shortage.
And while the Electric Reliability Council of Texas has asked Texans to turn up the temperatures at their homes to help deal with the shortage, some residents are claiming it’s being done for them.
Deer Park resident Brandon English told KHOU: “(My wife) had it cranked it down at 2:30. It takes a long time for this house to get cool when it gets that hot. They’d been asleep long enough that the house had already gotten to 78 degrees. So they woke up sweating.”
His wife received an alert on her phone shortly thereafter saying their thermostat had been changed remotely due to an “energy saving event”.
“Was my daughter at the point of overheating? She’s 3 months old. They dehydrate very quickly,” English said. And according to KHOU, the English’s house isn’t the only place where such “adjustments” can take place:
The family’s smart thermostat was installed a few years ago as part of a new home security package. Many smart thermostats can be enrolled in a program called “Smart Savers Texas.” It’s operated by a company called EnergyHub.
The agreement states that in exchange for an entry into sweepstakes, electric customers allow them to control their thermostats during periods of high energy demand. EnergyHub’s list of its clients include TXU Energy, CenterPoint and ERCOT.
“I wouldn’t want anybody else controlling my things for me,” English said. He said he unenrolled the home’s thermostat as soon as he found out. “If somebody else can manipulate this, I’m not for it,” he said.
Similar complaints on a Houston Reddit board showed that English wasn’t the only person who had the issue. “Several others” said their thermostats were also accessed and turned up.
There were FBI secrets about these convictions for 30+ years. These secrets went all the way up to FBI Director Hoover, and were uncovered in late 2000 by then-Assistant US Attorney John Durham: that the FBI had framed four innocent men for murder. This set-up was “known to, supported by, encouraged, and facilitated by the FBI hierarchy all the way up to the FBI Director.”3
To understand the FBI conspiracy, we have to go back to the 1960s and FBI Director Hoover’s efforts to take down La Cosa Nostra- the Italian Mob – by any means necessary.
This is the story of how the FBI framed four innocent men for murder, destroyed families, and tried to cover it up. It’s also the story of the convergence of John Durham and Robert Mueller: how Durham uncovered the FBI’s crimes and how Robert Mueller’s FBI disputed the innocence of the men the FBI framed.
The FBI knocked and Mike Albano opened the door. It was 1983. As a member of the Massachusetts State Parole Board, Albano thought he had been doing his job when he looked into voting to commute the sentence of Peter Limone, who along with Joseph Salvati, Henry Tameleo, and Louis Greco, had been convicted for the murder of Teddy Deegan in 1965.
Those convictions never sat right with Albano – he was savvy to Massachusetts and the convergence of the Mob and law enforcement. His suspicions of the convictions, and sympathy to the four men, only grew when he met with Greco, who proclaimed his innocence and said “he wanted to live one day as a free man, just one day.”1
FBI special agents John Morris and John Connolly weren’t there just say hello or to discuss the details of the case (a state case, not a federal case). There was a darker purpose: straight-up intimidation. Threats that it wouldn’t be good for Albano’s career if he voted for commutation.
To Albano’s credit, he voted to commute the sentence of Limone. This particular petition for commutation (Limone filed six in total that were all rejected) was denied by Governor Michael Dukakis after the FBI and then-U.S. Attorney Bill Weld put on the pressure, alleging that Limone was guilty of the Deegan murder, had been involved in commissioning the murder of Joseph “The Animal” Barboza, and would return with seniority to Boston’s organized crime structure if he was freed.
The Parole Board also voted in favor of two commutation petitions by Greco. The first was denied by Governor Michael Dukakis, the second denied by Governor Bill Weld. There was no ruling on the third commutation petition filed by Greco in 1995. He died soon after it was filed. Greco’s plea to Albano, that he live “just one day” as a free man, was never granted.
To understand this case and the FBI’s efforts to intimidate Albano, you have to go back to the 1960s. J. Edgar Hoover was the FBI Director and made it a focus of his to take down La Cosa Nostra – the Italian Mob – by any means necessary. To achieve this goal the FBI used criminal informants.
The Teddy Deegan Murder
Teddy Deegan was murdered on the night of March 12, 1965 in Chelsea, Massachusetts, just north of Boston. His body was found in an alley behind the Lincoln National Bank. He had on gloves and a screwdriver was found near his left hand. A tool of his trade. The lieutenant who arrived at the scene described a fresh pool of blood near his left knee and blood “still oozing from the rear of his head.” In all, Deegan was shot 6 times with three different guns.
The officers who recognized Deegan there lying in the alley wouldn’t have been surprised. Deegan didn’t hang around the best people and didn’t exactly behave himself. They didn’t expect Deegan’s murder, but they wouldn’t have been surprised.
Arrests are made.
Four men – Limone, Greco, Salvati, and Tameleo – were accused of Deegan’s murder.
Peter Limone was arrested on October 27, 1967. It was his tenth wedding anniversary and it was spent in jail away from his wife, Olympia, with whom he had four young children. He was supposed to meet Olymia that evening for a meeting at their sons’ school. He never showed up.
Louis Greco surrendered to the FBI in Miami, having been in Florida at the time of the murder, and was extradited to Massachusetts in 1968. He too was married and had a couple young children. He was a war hero, having served in the South Pacific in the Army during World War II. For his service he had been awarded a Purple Heart and two Bronze Stars. He returned from the war “disabled for life with a shattered ankle.”
Joseph Salvati was 34 when he was arrested. Like Limone, he also had four young children. Henry Tameleo was the oldest of the four men. He was born in 1901 and had been married to his wife since 1919.
The Trial and Convictions
The state murder trial started on May 27, 1968. Joseph Barboza, an FBI informant, testified that Limone and Tameleo approved the “hit” on Deegan, that Salvati was there with them, and that Greco helped plan the killing.
Not that Barboza was innocent – he was indicted for a misdemeanor relating to the murder and was serving time for possessing an illegal firearm. This was supposedly part of a deal the FBI gave Barboza: testify for the Massachusetts government in the murder trial and they’d let the judge know the extent and materiality of his assistance.
Anthony Stathopoulos, Jr. had also been at the scene and testified Greco – or a man who looked like Greco – wanted to get him as well. Other witnesses testified to guilt-indicating conduct by the defendants. For example, it was alleged that Tameleo and Greco tried to bribe Barboza and Stathopoulos to change their testimony.
The defense had an uphill battle. Their lawyers suspected that the FBI might have information or documents relating to the witnesses or Deegan’s murder. But the FBI produced nothing.
The jury reached its verdict on July 31, 1968. The four men were found guilty: Greco for murder in the first degree, Limone and Tameleo for accessories before the fact, Salvati for being an accessory after the fact, and all them for conspiracy to murder Deegan and Stathopoulos.
Limone, Tameleo, and Greco received the death penalty. Salvati was sentenced to life.2 The convictions were brought to the attention of Director Hoover, with the Boston office sending memos citing the Suffolk County District Attorney’s comments that the prosecution was a “direct result of FBI investigation” and witness development.
The FBI agents involved in the case (and who testified in support of their witness) were recommended awards and letters of commendation. They later received large bonuses and were praised by Director Hoover.
California’s bill to regulate the gig economy of freelance contractors… regulate out of existence. Unless, your freelance job is protected by a powerful, well-funded Union, like the truckers union, who have received exemptions. A judge has ruled that truck drivers in California are not subject to Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), a new gig economy law that seeks to reclassify many contractors as employees.
Just when you thought our wise overlords in government couldn’t make our economic situation any worse, Joe Biden dares to dream the impossible dream, and endorses legislation to stick it to freelance contractors called: The PRO Act. This is nearly identical to the legislation California’s democratic super-majority pushed through on a State level.
I covered that bill’s causes and effects in both an article and podcast episode called “California Reaming.”
That may be helpful to watch or re-watch, to compare California’s Assembly Bill 5 (or AB5) with Biden’s current PRO act legislation.
As we all know, there’s nothing Democrats care more about than looking out for “the little guy.” It’s precisely that selfless compassion that makes them a better person than the rest of us. But their genuine belief that the important thing is to do something to feel like you are helping, instead of judging their success by a real-world assessment of this kind of legislation’s effects has already proved ruinous to California businesses. There is no reason to expect any difference on a national level, should the PRO Act pass.
In this article, I want to discuss what is known as the ABC test that has been used to apply to judicial scrutiny in places like CA where this law is in effect and is a central feature of the PRO Act as well. This will be followed by a deep dive into the Constitution’s “Contracts Clause” to discuss what this clause means and the myriad ways it relates to modern legislation like AB5 or Pro Act.
California’s bill to regulate the gig economy of freelance contractors… regulate out of existence. Unless, your freelance job is protected by a powerful, well-funded Union, like the truckers union, who have received exemptions. A judge has ruled that truck drivers in California are not subject to Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), a new gig economy law that seeks to reclassify many contractors as employees.
The regulations, which went into effect January 1 of 2020, were drafted in response to the case of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles. Filed by Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, the landmark court case established a three-pronged “ABC test” to determine if an individual is properly labeled as an employee versus a contractor.
What Is ABC Test
The PRO Act uses an identical ABC test to delineate employers and contractors and is crucial to understand. So precisely what does it entail and how does it function
A contractor must control their workload,
Not perform work within the business’s primary scope of operations,
And be “customarily engaged” in the occupation.
This test constitutes the level of judicial scrutiny applied when a law is challenged. In this case it is done so as a matter of rational basis review. Rational basis review seeks to determine whether a law is “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest, whether real or hypothetical.
by Tyler Durden
