Source: "Herding Humanity" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1ChmezyfKs UTL COMMENT:- They're all Satanic pawns.......

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — For the latest example of why “local control” is no kind of governing principle, I present readers with the example of Proposition 33 — a rent-control measure that Californians will consider on the November ballot. Its supporters — a who’s who of left-wing activist groups and mainstream progressive organizations such as the California Democratic Party — claim that the measure merely allows local governments to impose rent controls tailored to local conditions. Indeed, the so-called Justice for Renters Act features this simple text: “The state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control.” If voters approve the initiative, it would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Control Act. That 1995 law responded to concerns by landlords at the growing movement by local governments to impose some of the strictest rent-setting laws in the nation. Costa-Hawkins exempted newer construction (post–1995) and single-family homes from rent controls and also forbade vacancy controls — laws that control what a landlord can charge for a unit even after a tenant leaves the property. The state currently enforces a statewide rent-control cap (5 percent a year plus inflation with a total cap of 10 percent) and a number of cities have stricter laws. But property owners are free to raise rents to market rates upon vacancy. Supporters of Prop. 33 are correct the measure doesn’t mandate any form of rent control, but would allow local governments to impose additional controls. However, they know that many liberal cities will immediately jump at the chance to control rental prices to just short of an outright taking. The good news: Voters overwhelmingly rejected two similar measures by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in 2018 and 2020, so we can hope they do so again. It’s hard to overstate the degree to which this poses an existential threat to property owners. As the Southern California News Group noted in its recent editorial opposing Proposition 33, some supporters of ending Costa-Hawkins also have expressed support for overturning the Ellis Act — a state law that allows rental owners to go out of business. (Imagine needing a law allowing you to exit a business.) As the Southern California News Group explained recently in an editorial opposing the initiative, “repeal [of the Ellis Act] along with passage of Prop. 33 would mean landlords could be forced to remain in a money losing business against their will. With Prop. 33, cities would be free to regulate your single-family house — making it virtually impossible to evict a tenant so you can move back in.” So the state could forbid a landlord from raising rents in order to turn a profit — and also forbid that landlord from exiting the rental business. Indentured servitude might soon make a comeback in California under the guise of protecting tenants from market-based rent increases. But, hey, it’s the local elected officials who are doing so, so how dare we complain? For instance, Huntington Beach’s then-Mayor (and current state Senate candidate) Tony Strickland said the following at a council meeting: “Statewide rent control is a ludicrous idea, but the measure’s language goes further. It gives local governments ironclad protections from the state’s housing policy and therefore overreaching enforcement.” Some publications viewed that as support for Prop. 33, which would be odd for a “conservative” Republican. Strickland has been so intent on invoking local control to oppose state policies that reduce regulations for building multi-family housing that he seemed to be arguing that the measure might help his city and other localities evade state housing laws. Strickland thankfully clarified and assured voters that he opposes statewide rent control, but it was a reminder of the odd places politicians will go when they take local control — rather than more personal liberty — as a foundational principle. In California, local governments are more apt than the state or feds to a) raise taxes; b) impose price controls; c) regulate guns, etc. Conservatives and progressives often use that mantra on a situational basis. A few things are obvious. Rent control destroys housing markets, just as all price controls destroy whatever markets they seek to regulate. They keep prices “low” but then shortages emerge. It reminds me of the old Soviet joke, where price controls were rampant: “A man walks into a shop and asks if they have any meat. The clerk says, ‘No, here we don’t have any fish. The shop that doesn’t have any meat is across the street.’” Supporters of rent control try to create the impression that there’s disagreement among economists about the impact of rent control. There is no such disagreement among serious scholars. Even the socialist Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck famously said, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.” When your preferred policy is as useful as bombing, you might have a problem. Recent studies show San Francisco’s rent-control policies reduced rental-home supply by 15 percent. I’ve reported on the thousands of vacant units in that city — mainly the result of property owners who rather forego $3,000 or more a month in rent that rent their apartment to a stranger who might be impossible to evict because of the city’s tenant laws. Imagine how much supplies might fall if voters give that city the greenlight to impose even more extreme rent controls? And it’s clear that many California cities are chomping at the bit to pass these laws, even though rent prices appear to be moderating. Soaring rent and home prices are the direct result of California’s long-standing environmental and slow-growth regulations that have resulted in too little housing construction to meet demand. Instead of obliterating property rights in the name of local control, Californians need to further reduce building rules and let its residents control their own lives. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. READ MORE: Government Won’t Save Local Newsrooms Chevron Joins the California Exodus Little Hope for More Housing The post Watch Out for Rent-Control Madness appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It looks like Kamala Harris and Tim Walz want God on their side this election. Does that surprise? After all, this is the party that made its bones as an anti-God party and even booed God at one national convention. Americans who even loosely think the nation’s founders believed God had a role to play in its formation are condemned by these people with scary monikers like “white Christian nationalists.” Nearly all of the Democrats’ social policies push hard against traditional Christian doctrine — they do so on abortion, same-sex marriage, gender identity, and end-of-life issues. Is Flip-Flopper Inc. reversing its stance on the Almighty as well? If it means picking up a few extra votes in November, you bet they are. The Harris–Walz campaign has brought onboard a leftist cleric to coordinate faith outreach for the fall campaign. The Rev. Jennifer Butler, a Presbyterian, is a well-known religious activist who will carry the official job title of “national faith engagement director.” She sees her role, according to the Religious News Service, as follows: I … recognize that we’re at a pivotal moment in American democracy where faith voices for justice are needed now more than ever. The Harris-Walz campaign is a really unique opportunity to shift the debate, to engage all of those who are concerned about what a Trump presidency would mean, the work of this campaign and what it can do to transform America. She won’t be trying to enlist players from the other team, it seems. That is, unless evangelicals are persuadable by a woman who in 2022 wrote, “We cannot allow our faith to continue to be hijacked by white supremacists covered in religious language.” She calls former President Donald Trump an “autocratic strongman that’s going to control everything” and accuses him and Republicans of “advocating for conservative Christian control and the tamping down of human freedom for Christian nationalism.” She checks all the requisite leftist boxes — including on immigration rights, voting rights, health-care reform, LGBTQ+ rights, a two-state solution, and outrage over Jan. 6. The Great Persuader, she is not. She is a get-out-the-vote tool, brought on to preach to the already converted, spurring any dormant voters sitting in mainline pews to darken the Harris–Walz circle on their November ballots. If there is outreach, it is to those already amenable to vote Left in November. Specifically, Butler talks of reaching out to Catholics in the formerly reliable Rust Belt havens of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, and to Mormons in Arizona, an erstwhile solid-red bloc showing troubling tints of purple lately. The Latter-day Saints number about 440,000 members in the Grand Canyon State. John Giles, the mayor of Phoenix’s largest suburb, Mesa, which was once called the most conservative large city in America, is a Republican, but he is energetically backing Harris. A large contingent of Arizona Mormons fall into the “double-hate” category — they don’t like Trump, true, but they also didn’t like Biden. The Harris campaign hopes they can be inveigled to vote blue this cycle. While Arizona’s Latter-day Saints’ support for Trump hardly varied from 2016 to 2020 (75 percent in the former, 76 percent in the latter), the Mormon vote for the Democrat jumped from 9 percent in 2016 to 18 percent in 2020. Those 18,000 votes figured largely in Biden’s 10,000-vote victory in Arizona. If Harris can keep that number, or gain on it, she stands a good chance to pick up the swing state’s 11 electoral votes. Kamala Harris herself is a picture of religious diversity. Raised Hindu, and taken to a Church of God congregation in Oakland by her sister in her youth, she is now a Baptist, an “old-timer” at Third Baptist Church of San Francisco, according to her pastor, Amos Brown. And she lives her ecumenicity. She lights Hanukkah candles at her house — her husband is Jewish — and celebrates Diwali, a Hindu festival of lights. “She represents a lot of Americans’ religious story, because here’s the thing: Nobody grows up in a straight line with religion in America anymore,” Anthea Butler, a professor of religion at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Religion News Service. Tim Walz was raised Catholic but married into Lutheranism, and he has been Lutheran ever since, attending now at St. Paul Pilgrim Lutheran Church of the liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Pilgrim was initially Missouri–Synod, but it bolted for more liberal theological climes in that denomination’s troubles in the 1970s. (See “How a Church Fought Back Against a Liberal Takeover – And Won.”) Although it has largely hidden its website from nonmembers in the wake of Walz’s nomination — because of all that unwelcome press attention, no doubt — the congregation appears to be fully onboard with the leftist agenda. According to an essay by Robert Benne in First Things, the church is all-in on LGBTQ+ rights. On its website, it lists its staff members’ pronouns and says that it “uses a version of the Lord’s Prayer that avoids patriarchal language: ‘Our guardian, our mother, our father in heaven, hallowed be thy name.’”   An answer to whether Democrats’ enlisting God on their side will pay dividends in votes will have to wait until November. READ MORE: Spiritual Reality Check: St. Teresa of Avila Found To Be Still Incorrupt The Attack on Catholic America The post Harris–Walz Campaign Hires Activist to Woo Religious Voters appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — A reporter asked President Joe Biden if he thought Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “doing enough” as the president returned to the White House on Monday. Biden answered, “No.” Biden added that he was pushing as “hard as we can for a deal” for a ceasefire in Gaza that would bring home hostages. The bodies of six of those hostages were found murdered in a tunnel in Gaza over the weekend, including Israeli-American citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin, 23. Once again, the pressure is on Bibi, and hence on Biden to lean on Bibi — and not Hamas, the terrorist group that killed 1,200 on Oct. 7 and abducted some 251 hostages. Methinks the very focus of the White House press corps about what Biden will do to force a ceasefire deal lets Hamas off the hook. Ditto the massive protests in Tel Aviv against Netanyahu. American billionaire Bill Ackman, whose criticism of university diversity, equity, and inclusion policies helped spur the resignation of academic biggies, including Harvard President Claudine Gay, had strong words of advice for activists who took to Israeli streets to protest Netanyahu. “By protesting Israel’s leadership one day after Hamas executed an American and five Israelis in cold blood, the protesters are rewarding Hamas for their barbaric acts and blaming their leadership for the loss. This is a very bad message to send to terrorists,” Ackman posted on X. Ackman cautioned, “I fear it will only embolden the enemy to execute more heinous acts.” During a press event, Netanyahu warned of the consequences of protests and calls for further concessions after the brutal execution of the six hostages. “What message does this send Hamas?” the prime minister asked. “It says kill more hostages — murder more hostages, you’ll get more concessions.” Netanyahu was especially critical of the consequences of giving Hamas a win for an international and domestic pressure campaign. The PM spoke with authority when he said that some critics wrongheadedly claim the Jewish state can leave the Philadelphi Corridor and then return later. “It is not easy to do such a thing,” Netanyahu offered. “It’s not a question of military tactics as it is a question of the great diplomatic pressure that the entire world will use on us. If we leave — we will not go back.” At Tuesday’s White House press briefing, Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre why Biden is “harder on Benjamin Netanyahu than he is on the terrorist leader of Hamas.” The president, KJP countered, has been “very clear about Hamas leaders and what they have done.” But when she referred to the killings as “a heinous murder,” it was as if she had been searching for the right sound bite. No fire. Netanyahu used his press event to apologize to the families of the six victims. “I am asking for your forgiveness that we did not manage to bring them back still alive. We were close, but we did not achieve it.” On Monday, Rachel Goldberg-Polin and her husband, Jon, buried their son, Hersh. “Finally, my sweet boy, finally finally finally finally you’re free,” the grieving mother declared at her son’s funeral. She wore a ripped shirt with the number 332 for the number of days since the Oct. 7 hostages were taken. She had already told her son, “Now I no longer have to worry about you. I know you are no longer in danger.” Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM READ MORE: The Face of Evil Is Masquerading as ‘Joy’ Biden’s Phantom Truce The post Six Hostages Murdered. Put Heat on Hamas, Not Netanyahu. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

With the Democratic National Convention in the rearview mirror, we can turn our attention to the future. Do you want to know what a Harris administration will look like? Just take a look at California. Americans should prepare for the possibility of living in the United States of California — with all the costs, inconveniences, and restrictions of California policy without any of California’s nice weather or beachfront property. It’s no coincidence that Harris hails from California and came up through its progressive political machine. We can expect a Harris administration to double and triple down on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as well as renewable energy subsidies and requirements. And now we know that higher taxes and restrictions on market prices are also part of her plans. In short, a Harris administration would attempt to mold the United States into the image of California. Federal regulators have pushed ESG everywhere they can since President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” and Executive Order 14305 on “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce” in 2021. These executive orders mobilized federal agencies and federal contractors to prioritize DEI in personnel policies.  Harris was also part of Biden’s administration when he signed Executive Order 14030 on “Climate-Related Financial Risk.” The Biden–Harris administration further expanded the role of government agencies in promoting ESG priorities through the Inflation Reduction Act, killing the Keystone Pipeline project, and instituting a moratorium on the development of new liquefied natural gas export facilities in Texas. But worst of all, Harris has said she wants to implement a wealth tax and impose price controls on groceries and other products. Few proposals could be more disruptive to the economy and harmful to the well-being of ordinary Americans. Besides expanding the reach of government even more to find and assess people’s wealth, this new tax will distort financial markets and stop innovation in its tracks. The price controls, if implemented, will lead to shortages and empty shelves in grocery stores across America. Many people know that gas and electricity prices are high in California, but most don’t know just how high. Saying the cost is double the national average doesn’t do it justice. In some places, Californians pay over $1,000 for electricity for a modest home in a single month! A grocery store owner in Borrego Springs pays almost as much for electricity (about $8,000 a month) as he does for rent. Consider that Americans in states with “normal” electricity costs may only pay $1,200–$1,500 per year. A doubling of electricity costs would mean many Americans would pay $2,400–$3,000 per year for electricity. To make things worse, unemployment is higher in California than it is just about everywhere else in the country. California also has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the country — more than three times the rate of states like Florida. In addition, California has the highest marginal state income tax in the nation. Meanwhile, crime has become a significant problem across California — especially in its big cities. Not surprisingly, most people don’t want to live in the United States of California. Consider how California’s population declined three of the last four years. The imbalance of people moving to and from California is so great that it can be half the normal price or less if you rent a moving truck going to California. Continuing the environmental and DEI policies of the Biden administration and adding a wealth tax and price controls on top of them are a surefire way to get economic stagnation, high costs, lower employment, and greater lawlessness. Additionally, the Harris campaign has promised hundreds of billions of dollars to first-time homebuyers, new small-business owners, and people with student debt. California’s fiscal situation and unfunded liabilities are bad, but in this area, the United States is worse. Harris has offered no plans to address runaway spending and debt. Unless she is prepared to renounce the policies of her home state and of the Biden administration, as well as her recent economic policy proposals of price controls and a wealth tax, Americans should expect everywhere to look more like California under a Harris administration.  READ MORE: Questions for Kamala Harris Kamala Harris Is No Joe Biden. Or Is She? The post A Harris Administration Will Create the United States of California appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In a recent 9–7 ruling in Consumers Research v. FCC, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that allowing a private company to manage the funding for a $9 billion government program violates Article I of the Constitution. This case highlights a concerning phenomenon — federal agencies turning to funding structures outside the appropriations process to expand their regulatory size and scope, often freeing themselves from democratic oversight. Permitting federal agencies to get creative with revenue generation doesn’t just overstep constitutional limits, it also makes reining in federal spending nearly impossible. Now that one federal court has brought this unconstitutional joy ride to an end, the Supreme Court should follow suit next term. At issue in Consumers Research is the Universal Service Fund, which was created by the 1996 Telecommunications Act to subsidize telecommunications carriers so that rural regions of the United States could receive the same access to services as other, more profitable areas. The funding for this program comes from a universal service fee that is added to each American’s cell phone bill. In its ruling, the Fifth Circuit held that this fee is really a tax in disguise. The constitutional defect lies in who is collecting and distributing that tax. The FCC — the federal agency that administers the program — does not run the program itself. Instead, the FCC has empowered a private company, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), to determine how much private consumers must pay and how to distribute those funds to participating private telecom carriers. USAC determines the funding amount based upon demand projections from the same telecommunication companies receiving the subsidy. More troublesome is that many of USAC’s directors also hold positions at the telecommunications companies that stand to benefit. In other words, Congress gave the FCC a vague directive to establish “specific, predictable, and sufficient … mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service.” The agency interpreted this as a green light to essentially self-fund the program by asking the regulated companies how much money they need and then charging Americans that amount — all outside of the normal appropriations process. This is precisely the sort of financial creativity and delegation of authority that the Supreme Court needs to closely examine. Hopefully they do so next term, if not for our liberty, at least for our balance sheet. The review is overdue. Since 1928, the Supreme Court has maintained that broad, permissive delegation to administrative agencies is consistent with the Constitution — so long as the agency is given a guiding principle. This has led to the ballooning of the federal government, unparalleled spending, and a regulatory cobweb that is unproductive at best and illiberal at worst. This shift away from congressional control over the federal purse strings has contributed to the exploding of the national debt, as agencies pursue their agendas with little regard for fiscal restraint. When agencies are empowered to determine their own budgets, or when that authority is handed off to private entities, the incentive is clear: Collect more funds from Americans than would be approved through the normal legislative channels. And the trend is growing. In 2019, over $300 billion in federal agency spending occurred outside of the regular appropriations process. Over 200 federal programs currently have the authority to collect fees, fines, and other self-generated revenue. Financial delegation to both agencies and private entities leads to wasteful spending that is difficult to curtail, in no small part because the funds are not centrally held by the Treasury Department and controlled by the appropriations process. Revenue generated by federal taxes is collected in the Treasury and then disbursed by congressional appropriation, where it can be accounted for. When agencies generate their own revenue, it’s difficult to maintain the same level of financial transparency and accountability. The results speak for themselves: The Universal Service Fund made nearly $1 billion in improper or incorrect payments in a single year out of the $9 billion program total. Despite the gross mismanagement of taxpayer funds, the FCC has never invalidated a funding decision made by USAC. Taming the deficit will require not just major spending cuts, but a fundamental reexamination of how federal agencies finance their operations and the degree to which they can self-fund initiatives outside of the normal budgetary process. Jill Jacobson is a 2024–2025 federal law clerk, a visiting fellow at Independent Women’s Law Center (iwlc.org), and a contributor at Young Voices.   READ MORE: Politics Infiltrates Wisconsin’s Supreme Court in Recent Ballot Box Decision How Conservatives Can Finally Get Judicial Nominations Right The post Delegation Dooms the Deficit appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Cristina Laila, The Gateway Pundit: The talking potato is back! Brian Stelter on Tuesday announced he is returning to CNN after he got canned from the network in 2022. “I’m returning to CNN in a brand new role as Chief Media Analyst. I’ll be appearing on TV, developing digital content, and once again helming the Reliable […]

by Ronan Manly, BullionStar: There is an ominous development gaining momentum across the world’s financial systems which has the potential to undermine monetary and personal freedom, yet which remains largely under the radar for most of the world’s population. This development is the globally coordinated plan to roll out retail central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). […]