Losing Even If They Win?

Since Russia invaded Ukraine almost one year ago a major question has been how much military and monetary support should the United States and European countries be providing to support Ukraine?

The Kiel Institute has been tracking the military and financial aid that other countries have been providing Ukraine since the beginning of 2022.

The United States has been contributing the bulk of the military assistance.

Credit: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

However, this chart does not begin to show the full level of commitments the United States has made to Ukraine.

The chart above only reflects what was actually spent in Ukraine by November, 2022.

The fact is that Congress approved $113 billion of aid to Ukraine in 2022 that included almost $50 billion in the year-end Omnibus appropriations package in December.

Source: https://www.crfb.org/blogs/congress-approved-113-billion-aid-ukraine-2022

Since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine less than one year ago, Congress has approved more than $113 billion of aid and military assistance to support the Ukrainian government and allied nations. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 omnibus appropriations package included an additional $47.3 billion of emergency funding to provide humanitarian, military, and economic assistance to Ukraine on top of the $65.8 billion of funding already approved in three other emergency funding packages enacted by Congress.

This is the detail of all of the authorized amounts.

The bottom line is that about twice as much has already been authorized for Ukraine over and above what has already been spent.

This would suggest that the war in Ukraine is not going to end soon because of a lack of war funding. The United States is making sure of that.

The question remains as to whether Ukraine will run out of personnel to fight the war before it runs out of money.

Ukraine only has a population of about 44 million. Russia has 144 million.

Russia has over four times the male fighting-age population of Ukraine.

Source:https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-war-ukraine-vs-russia

Even before the war started, both Russia and Ukraine had bleak demographic futures due to low fertility rates.

It takes a fertility rate of 2.1 to maintain a stable population.

Source: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-war-ukraine-vs-russia

Based on these rates, the projection was that Ukraine's population would shrink by over half over the next generation or two and Russia would lose 25% of its population even before their young men began dying in this war.

The human toll that the war is having on Russia and Ukraine is only going to make matters worse for the future of these two countries.

Reliable assessments of casualties for both Ukraine and Russia in the war are difficult to come by. Almost everything out there is a raw estimate or guess.

The New York Times reported recently that senior American officials believe that Russia has suffered close to 200,000 dead and wounded in the conflict. Those same officials place Ukraine casualties at over 100,000 and another 30,000 dead civilians.

However, a Turkish paper citing Israeli intelligence sources, puts Ukraine's losses as much greater.

It puts Ukraine war deaths at 157,000 with another 234,000 injured.

That report estimates only 18,480 Russians have been killed in action.

Credit: https://twitter.com/MarkACollett/status/1622231862335897602

I would view that report skeptically as I would the other estimates.

Neither Russia or Ukraine is willing to share any accurate information.

However, it is clear that both Russia and Ukraine forces have undoubtedly seen a lot of blood shed over the last year in this conflict.

It is also clear that this war only continues because the United States wants it to continue.

Yes, the United States wants to assist Ukraine in defending itself. However, the United States is most interested in using this war to weaken Russia militarily and financially.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett revealed last week that he attempted to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine early in the war but the United States stopped the efforts.

He subsequently walked back his comments after they got a great deal of attention by stating that he was not sure any deal could have been made anyway.

Add to this the reporting of Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh who published a bombshell report this week that the Nord Stream pipeline explosions of last September were part of a CIA operation under the direction of Joe Biden.

Why would Biden do this?

Hersh explained it this way, " As long as Europe remained dependent on the pipelines for cheap natural gas, Washington was afraid that countries like Germany would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with the money and weapons it needed to defeat Russia."

The White House has responded to the reporting of Hersh by calling it "utterly false and complete fiction".

Has Hersh slandered Biden with false allegations or is Biden one step removed from being impeached for provoking a war with Russia?

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) suggests Biden may have huge problems ahead.

It is almost laughable to think that the Democrats impeached Donald Trump over a phone call with the Ukrainian President in which he released the entire transcript and then compare that to these allegations.

Hersh says Biden was concerned that if Nord Stream continued to supply Europe with cheap natural gas that they would not be willing to supply the money and weapons to defeat Russia?

The fact is that the United States has been supplying more of each to Ukraine than Europe has in any event.

A big problem for Europe is that it has little in the way of military weaponry to provide to Ukraine.

Let's look at the issue of tanks which is the latest hot button issue regarding military hardware to Ukraine.

Most European countries have been dragging their feet on providing tanks to Ukraine.

If you look at the data it is understandable.

Most European countries have spent very little on military hardware which is a point that Donald Trump made over and over to other NATO countries when he was President.

They neglected spending money on their own defense instead relying on the United States to be their defender of last resort.

Consider this graphic of "Combat Tank Fleet Strength by Country-2023".

How did countries like Germany and France think they were going to defend themselves against a Russian invasion with fewer than 500 tanks between them?

I guess they were counting on Poland's 569 tanks to put up resistance until the United States could get its tanks and troops in place.

The tragedy in all of this is that when all is said and done in this war it is hard to believe that Russia will not end up retaining Crimea and be in control of some of the Donbas region of Ukraine that borders Russia. This region was generally controlled by Russian separatists groups even before the Russian invasion. The people in this region also principally speak Russian.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60938544

Putin's pretext for the invasion was that Russia needed to protect these people from Ukrainian persecution. Before the war, a good number of the people in this region were considered pro-Russian. However, a Ukrainian opinion poll (take it for what it is) stated that 82% of those in the territories seized by the Russians early in the war now had a negative attitude toward Moscow.

The tanks that the United States, Germany and other European countries are going to supply to Ukraine is another escalation in the war.

It is certain that more death and destruction will follow as fighting intensifies with the coming of Spring in Ukraine.

Biden seems intent to keep upping the ante in Ukraine.

Perhaps we can expel the Russians from every part of Ukraine and depose Putin as a result.

That seems like a bad bet as I assess the odds.

However, even if Biden wins that bet, what will be left of Ukraine in the end?

All signs point to Ukraine losing even if they win.

How do they recover? How do they rebuild? How do they repopulate?

A mere pawn in a much bigger game of chess.

This Is Progress?

The Ford Model T was the first vehicle that was mass produced for a wide audience.

A Model T cost $280 in 1924.

1924 Model T Touring Car
Source: https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-collections/artifact/159025/

The average assembly line worker in that era could purchase a Model T with four month's pay.

The Ford Motor Company reported its 2022 financial results last week.

I was interested to see in that report that its average vehicle sales price in the fourth quarter was $56,143!

We are not talking about Mercedes Benz, Lexus or Tesla here.

We are talking about Ford.

Customers paid an average of $56,143 for company vehicles in the fourth quarter, about 10% more than the previous year, according to Edmunds.com. Many of those sales were high-end trucks and SUVs.

In 2017, Ford's average sales price was $40,000. 

Ford's biggest money maker is the Ford F-150 pickup truck.

2023 Ford F-150 Platinum
Credit: https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/models/f150-platinum/

The average sales price for the F-150 in the fourth quarter was $65,858.

That was just short of the average transaction price for Ford's Lincoln nameplate at $66,124.

The truck pictured above has a MSRP base price of $64,695.

The median American worker made $54,132 annually in 2022.

That means that in 2022 it took a full year's income for over half of all workers to pay for the average Ford vehicle while 100 years ago an assembly line worker could buy a Model T with four month's of pay.

Of course, that overall median pay does not begin to take account of varying incomes by age, occupation and educational attainment.

$56,000 for an average Ford?

At current interest rates, even with a 60-month loan term, that is a monthly payment in excess of $1,100/month.

Source: Calculator.net

Add to this the news last week that the US personal savings rate is close to 70 year lows after being at record highs two years ago.

Credit card debt in the fourth quarter, 2022 also increased 18.5% over the last year to a new record high $930.6 billion.

The average credit card balance that card holders are carrying over is now $5,805.

At nearly 20% (the current average credit care interest rate), if you made minimum payments toward this average credit card balance, it would take you more than 17 years to pay off the debt and cost you more than $8,213 in interest, Bankrate calculated.

Credit: https://twitter.com/KapustaGroup/status/1621611766454140928/photo/1

How is any of this sustainable?

This is progress?

It Is Never Enough

Now that the House of Representatives have a majority of Republicans the issue of extending the current debt ceiling of $31.4 trillion has taken center stage.

House Republicans have indicated they are not willing to increase the debt ceiling unless Biden and the Democrats will commit to some cuts in federal spending.

Biden has stated he expects the Republicans to raise the debt limit without any conditions and is unwilling to negotiate on the issue. 

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/us/politics/biden-mccarthy-debt-limit.html

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

You can see how how the the federal debt and the debt ceiling have increased over the years in this graphic.

Total federal debt has increased by $7 trillion in the last three years.

$10 trillion in the last five years.

Over $25 trillion in the last 20 years.

This chart puts all of it in a little better context.

Credit: https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1620286659765088256/photo/1

It is popular for Democrats to blame every fiscal problem of the federal government on "tax cuts".

All would be just fine if we all paid ( especially "the rich" and "those large corporations") more in taxes.

For example, here is Senator Elizabeth Warren stating that the "Trump tax cuts" are the reason that the debt ceiling needs to be increased.

Listening to Warren you would think that tax receipts are down.

The fact is that those tax law changes facilitated one of the largest increases in federal tax revenues in history. 

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1Q027SBEA

Were it not for the pandemic the effects of the increased revenues would have undoubtedly been felt earlier and in larger measure.

Do not be misled that this increase in tax receipts is somehow related to the tax increases that Biden and the Democrats passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act last year.

Almost all of Biden's proposals to repeal the Trump tax cuts on corporations and those making more than $400,000 did not make it into the final legislation that was passed.

Any tax increases that survived were generally not effective until January 1, 20223 or were tied to the increased IRS enforcement measures in the bill (87,000 new IRS employees) to have effect in later years.

This chart also only shows revenues through July, 2022.

On the other hand, here is a chart showing current government expenditures.

You can see the massive Covid spending spikes.

However, notice that even though most of that spending has now ended the level of spending has resumed at a much higher level than it was before.

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGEXPND

Since the Trump tax cuts took effect in the first quarter of 2018, current federal tax receipts have increased by $1.2 trillion (+ 60% increase).

However, federal current expenditures have increased by $1.8 trillion over the same period.

When it comes to our federal deficit and the need to borrow more and more money to fund the debt, do we have a bigger spending problem or revenue problem?

The annual federal deficit has increased by over $600 billion per year because spending increases are outpacing the significant increases in tax receipts.

Many liberal Democrats argue that the debt level does not matter.

Some have embraced Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) that contends that the government can spend as much as it wants on various projects because it can always print more money to pay for its agenda.

That was the basis upon which much of the spending during the Covid pandemic was based. 

However, MMT ran up against the basic laws of economics involving supply and demand. When there is a lot of something, it is less valuable. Massively increasing the supply of money in the economy  decreases the value of said money.

Inflation is the inevitable result and predictably this is where we have ended up.

The Federal Reserve is now engaged in a battle to tame inflation by increasing interest rates.

However, with every tick up in interest rates, the cost to carry that $31.4 trillion of debt gets more expensive.

For most of the last decade, although the federal debt level was increasing, the interest expense on carrying the debt was relatively stable as interest rates were declining. 

In December, 2022, the average interest rate paid on that debt was 2.36%.

In 2021, it was only 1.57%.

In this FRED chart you can already seen the significant increase in interest outlays in the federal budget due to the interest rate increases in 2022.

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOINT

As more short-term, low interest rate debt rolls off and is replaced with higher interest rates, the cost of carrying the federal debt will get more expensive.

For example, about $7 trillion of debt held by the public must be refinanced during fiscal 2023 at higher interest rates.

With $30 trillion of federal debt consider what the additional costs to the federal budget are on each additional increase of 1% in the average interest rate.

+1% in average interest rate=$300 billion in additional interest expense on federal debt

+2% in average interest rate=$600 billion

+3% in average interest rate=$900 billion

An increase of 3% points from 2021 levels still only gets us to an average interest rate on the debt of 4.6%.

That is still less than the average interest rate being paid on federal debt in early 2008.

In 2000 and 2001 the U.S. was paying an average interest rate of about 6.6% on its debt. That is 500 basis points (5% points) higher than we paid last year.

What would have to be done in the federal budget to pay for another $300, $600 or $900 billion in interest costs?

The entire Defense Department budget is around $700 billion.

Simply stated, it would not take much for increased interest costs to wipe out the entire Defense Department budget.

Medicare is budgeted at $766 billion in 2022.

Social Security is at $1.2 trillion.

Higher interest rates on the federal debt threatens to crowd out much of other budget items unless spending is brought under control.

If you don't want to consider spending cuts to get the federal budget under control what is left?

I think we all know.

It does not matter how much tax revenues go up. It is never enough. It will never be enough.

Hold on to your wallet.

The Natural Order Has Become Unordered

In my last blog post I wrote about the fact that almost 50% of the American adult population is now single.

This is undoubtedly the highest percentage in history.

37% of men and 31% of women have never been married. 

Single people are alone a lot more than couples.

Human beings were designed to be social.

Societies from the beginning of time have been built upon families, tribes, groups and human relationships.

For most of history these relationships were a critical element in survival. Those that did congregate and collaborate were at much greater risk.

Large families were a necessary component in all of this to provide for a division of labor so that the family unit could survive and prosper.

This folk art painting depicting a wheat harvest in the 1800's shows the close collaboration necessary to put food on the table in years past.

Credit: https://www.etsy.com/listing/263146467/folk-art-print-primitive-wheat-field

However, as economies and technology advanced, families and relationships have suffered.

Collaboration is still critical for survival. In fact, people in modern society are more dependent on it than ever. They are reliant on a vast infrastructure to provide for their daily needs--food, water, energy, clothing etc. However, it is provided, by and large, anonymously without requiring human interaction or relations to the end consumer.

You now put food on the kitchen table by picking what you want off the shelf in grocery stores selected among aisles and aisles of foodstuffs.

There is no need to even interact with a cashier when you checkout.

Credit: https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2021/02/kroger-tests-all-self-checkout-store.html

Of course, we have now reached the point where you don't even have to enter the store. Fill out your grocery order online and an anonymous person selects your produce and someone else puts it into your car or delivers it to your door.

A lot of human interaction and relationships have been lost.

Why is this important?

Studies have shown that rates of anxiety and depression have increased by 70% over the last 25 years.

The rates have increased most among the young.

For example, this chart is from a study on how rates of anxiety by age groups changed between 2008 and 2018.

Rates of anxiety almost doubled in the 18-25 age group in the decade studied. Rates in the age 26-34 age cohort were up more than 50% while older age groups were relatively stable.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395620309250

Here is chart from another study that shows the prevalence of depression by age group cohort.

Our young are most particularly at risk in the impersonal world driven by technology. 

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Prevalence-of-Depression-by-Age-Cohort-and-Gender-At-Most-Recent-Survey_fig1_264623036

Notice as well that levels of depression are generally higher in younger females than any other age group.

What do you think the odds are that the significant decline in the number of close friends that people report having has been a major contributing factor in increased levels of anxiety and depression?

Source: https://twitter.com/ReubenR80027912/status/1597303723054665728

Of course, the negative trends on human relationships and socialization were exacerbated further during the pandemic due to the lockdowns, school closures and mandates.

Look at what happened to the hours of who Americans reported they spent time with between 2013 and 2021. 

Time alone was the big winner by far.

Credit: https://twitter.com/DKThomp/status/1597299988626780162/photo/1

Time spent with others plummets followed by a surge of anxiety and depression?

Do you think this is a coincidence?

In this blog over the last few year I have observed several times about the curious fact that there is such a heavy representation of young, single, college-educated white women in the Black Lives Matter, Antifa and other far left movements.

It defies logic.

How is defunding the police or emptying prisons going to make single women feel more secure?

How is allowing a biological male to use a women's restroom going to make her feel safer?

How does allowing biological males to compete with females in athletics advance the opportunities for women?

Is there any group today that feels more lonely, is more misunderstood and wants to belong than young, single, college-educated white women? 

Many have no man in their life. There are no children or likely prospects that marriage or children will occur soon due to the imbalance between male and female college graduates. They live in rental apartments in large cities leading hectic, anonymous lives with little sense of community and huge sums of student loan debt.

The picture below is one that I referenced in these pages in 2021 when I was discussing this issue.

How many young, white women do you see in this picture supporting BLM's calls to defund the police?

How many Blacks do you see in the picture?

How do you make sense of it?

You can't. It is not logical.

The best answer I have seen is from  relationship counselor Suzanne Venker that all of this can be traced to a need to belong in these young women.

These women have a void in their life and are looking to fill it with something that they believe has meaning even if it is antithetical to their own interests, security and future.

The need to belong is more important than facts or logic to these young women.

The need to belong is just that fierce and strong, particularly for vulnerable folks who feel lonely or misunderstood.

It's happening right now with the Black Lives Matter movement. It's not about the fact that black lives matter, with which no sane person would disagree. A simple search of their own website will tell you its goals: to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" and to "foster a queer‐affirming network."

But doing research or thinking critically about any idea or movement is threatening to what so many people want. These folks aren't interested in the truth. They don't want the facts. What they want is to belong.

Is it also a coincidence that so many young, white liberal females have been given a diagnosis by a healthcare provider that they have a mental condition?

56.3% of 18-29 white liberal females are in that category.

Source: https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/over-50-percent-white-liberal-women-under-30-mental-health-condition

The single, young white females typically vote Democrat at least 2/3 of the time according to most exit polls.

Unmarried women of all ages and races voted 68%-31% for the Democrat in House races in 2022.

Married women overall voted 56%-42% for Republicans.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-polls/national-results/house

One final factoid that gets us back to where we started.

Women who are married are much, much happier than women who are single.

Women who have had children are also happier than those who are childless. 

Source: https://ifstudies.org/blog/shrinking-american-motherhood-1-in-6-women-in-their-40s-have-never-given-birth-

Contrast the percentage of women who say they are "very happy" at all ages between those married with children and those unmarried and childless.

Why is it a problem that there are so many single people in the United States today?

Why is it a problem that the birth rates have been dropping for years?

These are both having the effect of further destabilizing our society by interfering with the necessary social and relationship infrastructure.

Human beings are social animals.

They need meaningful human connections and relationships in their lives to thrive.

In families, In friendships. In day to day life.

God established a natural order in his design for humans to live happy and fulfilled lives

Men and Women each bringing their unique gifts to society.

Marriage and commitment between men and women.

Children born of those unions.

Families supporting each other.

Supportive friends and communities built on a bedrock of values, beliefs and faith.

Do you want to know why everything seems off these days?

The natural order has become unordered.

Don't take my word for it.

What do the facts and data say about it?

Finding THE ONE

Almost 50% of the American adult population is single.

That is undoubtedly the highest percentage in history.

Over 37% of men have never been married. That number is only 31% for women.

On the other hand, women are over three times more likely to have been widowed.

Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/unmarried-single-americans-week.html

Source: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/unmarried-single-americans-week.html

Only 34% of Blacks are married.

61% of Asians, 46% of Hispanics and 53% of Whites are married.

It is probably not surprising that out of wedlock births generally track the marital status by race.

70% of African American babies are born to unmarried women. Less than 12% of Asian babies are.

 

The median age of first marriages has increased pretty dramatically since the 1950's and 1960's.

Source: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ms-2.pdf

Women married on average around age 20 in that era.

The median age for women marrying today is eight years later.  

For men, the median age for a first marriage is now over age 30.

I have a lot of friends with daughters in their 30's who are not yet married. These are for the most part attractive, college-educated women. They have good jobs and are interested in finding the right guy. The common complaint is there are not enough quality young men 

It is not an imaginary concern.

I have written before about the worrying imbalance between men and women who are college-educated.

Why is that a problem?

Women have historically tended to date and marry men of at least equal educational attainment. However, that is becoming an increasingly difficult goal today. Almost 60% of college graduates are now women. Only 40% are men. This is true for almost all college degree programs. Doctorate degrees are a little more balanced but women still earn more than half of those degrees.

This translates into the fact that many women below the age of 40 are earning more than their male counterparts because of the educational imbalance. 

You would think that it shouldn't matter but it seems that it is pretty important.

CNBC.com wrote about the problem in a story titled "Millennial women are 'worried', 'ashamed' of out-earning boyfriends and husbands" about five years ago.

There is also data that supports the fact that when the woman earns more than the man in the marriage, the odds of the marriage ending in divorce increases.

The problem is that even though the world has changed our basic biology and the way the male and female brains are wired has not changed with it. There are primal emotions deep within us that dictate a lot about what we are looking for in a mate.

Many marriage experts will tell you that the most important factor that a woman is looking for in a husband is security. Women want to feel secure that they will be protected and cared for. Men, on the other hand, are looking most for respect. They want to have the respect of their wife.

Do you see a potential problem when the wife is out-earning the husband in the house considering these underlying factors in marriage involving men and women? How does the wife feel secure? How does the husband feel respected?

Where does that leave a young woman in her 30's looking for a tall, dark, handsome and financially stable potential mate in the dating scene today?

I recently came across a website that calculates the odds that a woman can find the man of their dreams based on various parameters (age, race, height and income) in the U.S. Census Bureau data.

For example, let's take a 30's something young woman who is looking for an unmarried male (any race) between the ages of 30-45, at least 6 feet tall and making at least $80k.

The probability that a guy between the ages of 30-45 meets those standards is 1.3%.

Source: https://igotstandardsbro.com/

If you limit the search to just white men in that age range the probability drops to 1.0%.

If you are willing to accept someone making $40k the odds increase to 2.7%.

If you are willing to accept someone who is at least 5'7" tall and making $40k that is going to describe 10.3% of the men in that age range.

Saying that it is hard for a woman in her 30's to find the man of her dreams is not in her imagination.

There is also a calculator that men can use called the Male Reality Calculator.

A 40 year male is not immune from the laws of probability when it comes to finding a woman of his dreams if their standards are too high.

A 40-year old male who is looking for a single woman without children between the ages of 25-40, between 4' 11" and 5'8'', not overweight, and making at least $80k per year (so there is a chance they have been paying their student debt off) has worse odds than the 30's age woman.

.601%. That is well less than 1 in 100 odds.

Source: https://realitycalc.com/

To put those odds in perspective, compare that probability to a 65-year old widow who is looking for a 60-80 year old male that has income of at least $100,000.

This traditionally is thought to be a very tough spot for a woman to be in looking for a mate. There are many more women in this age demographic compared to men based on longevity tables.

However, the 65-year widow's probability to find the ideal man is over three times better than the 40-year guy above with the standards he has on his list.

Source: https://igotstandardsbro.com/

If the 40-year is willing to consider a female who is overweight (but not obese) and makes at least $60k per year he can increase his odds to those of the 65 year old widow above.

Source: https://realitycalc.com/

To those of you blessed to have your soul mate with you, give them an extra big hug today. 

You won a major life lottery.

For others, reality bites at times. The playing field is not level. It never was. It never will be.

However, the beauty of probabilities is that it only takes ONE to be the ONE.

Never lose hope.

At the same time, understand your reality and make decisions that are not based on delusions.

When thinking about reality it also makes sense for a lot more young people to be looking to be getting married in their 20's than in their 30's.

It has become popular for many to say they want to focus on their career or play the field before thinking about settling down.

However, the reality is that the person you marry, or who becomes the mother or father of your child, is the most important decision you will make in your life. It is more important than your career or any wild oats you sowed along the way.

The probabilities are much greater that you will find THE ONE the earlier you are open to the possibility. 

Make the numbers work in your favor.

A Random Walk Down Peachtree Street

Antifa is at it again.

Credit: Reuters via https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11662679/Chaos-Atlanta-Antifa-rioters-torch-cars-set-fireworks-outside-Police-Foundation-building.html

So is the mainstream media in downplaying the activities of these domestic terrorists.

Nothing says peaceful like a police car on fire, rocks thrown though windows and painted obscenities on buildings on Peachtree Street in Atlanta.

Of course, we have seen this before.

Remember the coverage in Kenosha, WI by CNN in 2020?

Fires raging all around in the "mostly peaceful protest" as reported by CNN.

Of course, who can forget the months of protests and violence in Portland in 2020 with calls to defund the police and remove all federal law enforcement from the city.

By now I would think that Antifa and "peaceful protest" would have to be considered mutually exclusive terms,

At the time we were told that Antifa was motivated to action because of the fascist and racist President of the United States at the time.

We were told that all would be fine if Donald Trump was just removed from office.

So much for that excuse.

You might also recall that FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before a House committee in 2020 that Antifa was simply an ideology, not an organization or group.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-elections-james-comey-politics-bdd3b6078e9efadcfcd0be4b65f2362e

“It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology.”

A bunch of people show up in Portland, Kenosha or Atlanta wearing all black, wielding weapons and carrying incendiary materials and they are just random ideologues out for an evening stroll?

This is the conclusion of our Federal Bureau of Investigation?

I am curious how is it that if Antifa is just an ideology why so many ideologues happen to show up randomly at appointed times and places if there is no group and no organization?

Let's take a look at the six people arrested in Atlanta Saturday night.

None of the six arrested were from Atlanta. Five were from out of state.

How did they decide to come to Atlanta? 

Where did they get the money to travel to Atlanta?

How are they supporting themselves?

Here are the six who were arrested in Atlanta on Saturday night.

  

Evatt is from Decatur, Georgia. The only one of those arrested from in-state.

Geier is from Nashville, TN.

Feola is from Spokane, WA.

Ferguson is from Nevada.

Murphy is from Grosse Ile, MI.

Carrol is from Kennebunkport, ME where his father is reportedly a prominent surgeon. When arrested on Saturday night Carrol was already out on bail for a previous arrest for domestic terrorism.

Yes, just a few random folks with shared ideologies out for a Saturday evening walk.

Another seven individuals (note they were all young, white (single?) females ) were arrested earlier in the week (when most that age are working for a living) after throwing rocks at police and possessing what appeared to be Molotov cocktails.

Several times in these pages (here, here and here) I have written about the curious fact that so many of those in the BLM, Antifa and other far left protests are young, white women.

Why?

Those young women who were arrested were from places like Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Virginia, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Tennessee.

What group?

What organization?

Nothing to see here.

Let me remind you that all of this stems from the plans of the Atlanta Police Department to simply build a police training center in suburban Cobb County. Both environmental extremists and Antifa have found it objectionable. Tensions escalated at the site when one of the protestors was killed by police after allegedly shooting a Georgia Highway Patrol officer. This led to the "peaceful protest" by random ideologues in downtown Atlanta on Saturday night. 

You may recall that Donald Trump was roundly criticized by the media and others when he referred to Antifa as domestic terrorists and that the organization should be labeled a domestic terrorist organization.

Source: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/06/02/designating-antifa-domestic-terrorist-organization-dangerous-threatens-civil-liberties

It was after these statements by Trump that FBI Director Wray pushed back and said there was no Antifa group or organization that could be called domestic terrorists.

Source: https://globalnews.ca/news/7342966/chris-wray-fbi-antifa/

However, Wray had no problem using the term "domestic terrorism" when it came to January 6th.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-fbi-chief-chris-wray-to-face-questions-about-extremism-capitol-riot

We also never heard the term "mostly peaceful" from the media on January 6th either.

There are a lot of problems in this country right now.

However, right at the top of the list are the double standards we see applied by the media in news coverage and in the administration of justice from the highest levels of our federal government.

Why is it also true that the truth is right in front of our eyes with so many things but there are so few willing to admit seeing it?

San Francisco Insanity

Every time I think I will not see something crazier come out of California I am proven wrong.

That goes double for when it comes to San Francisco. Insanity seems to rule there.

The latest example is a recommendation by a panel established by San Francisco's Board of Supervisors to pay $5 million in reparations to each of the city's Black residents "for the decades of harm they have experienced".

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-frans-reparations-committee-proposes-5-million-each-longtime-black-resident-total-debt-forgiveness

It does not seem to matter that California was admitted to the United States in 1850 with the express proviso that it be a "free state" and the California Constitution expressly prohibited slavery from the  beginning of existence as a state.

"...Neither Slavery nor involuntary Servitude, unless for the punishment of crimes, shall ever be tolerated in this State."

The panel on reparations is also proposing that all African Americans receive supplemental income to bring them up to the median income for the area (currently $97,000) for at least 250 years.

I am not sure where the 250 years comes from? That is longer than the United States has even been in existence.

Should you have a hard time in believing any of this, I have included a direct excerpt from the report. 

Source: https://sf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/HRC%20Reparations%202022%20Report%20Final_0.pdf

The panel on reparations also proposed wiping out all debts associated with educational, personal, credit card and payday loans for African American households.

To be potentially eligible for the $5 million payment applicants must be at least 18 years of age and have identified as Black or African American in public documents for at least 10 years.

In addition, to receive the reparations the applicant must meet at least two out of eight other criteria.

These criteria include:

Being born in San Francisco between 1940 and 1996 and with proof of residency in San Francisco for at least 13 years,", being a descendant of someone enslaved before 1865 or "personally, or the direct descendant of someone, incarcerated by the failed War on Drugs."

Left unsaid in the panel's report is how much all of this will cost and how the city of San Francisco will pay for it.

I saw one report that indicated reparations would cost $50 billion. San Francisco's entire city budget for this year is about $14 billion.

However, money is quickly becoming a scarce commodity in San Francisco.

The Hoover Institution recently published a report on the financial challenges that San Francisco faces.

Since 2019, San Francisco lost 6.3% of its population. No major U.S. city has ever seen as large a population loss in such a short period of time.

The big problem is that those who are leaving San Francisco are the ones who have been paying the bills.

The city lost $7 billion of household income in two years even after taking account of those who moved into the city in that period.

The office vacancy rate is 27%. It was 4% in 2019. Empty office buildings could mean the loss of over $200 million in property taxes alone.

San Francisco has publicly stated that it is expecting a $728 million budget deficit over the next two fiscal years.

Source: https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/12/19/sf-faces-728m-budget-deficit-over-next-two-fiscal-years/

All of this is BEFORE any consideration of billions of dollars in reparations.

A rapidly declining tax base.

A proposal to spend billions of dollars on reparations.

What could go wrong?

Nancy Pelosi's daughter recently stated that her mother had summoned priests to her house to rid her San Francisco home of evil spirits in an an exorcism after a man allegedly attacked her husband there last year.

Has anyone considered the possibility that these priests might be needed for something a little larger in scope?

Why are people leaving San Francisco in droves?

Yes, the housing is expensive and taxes are high. However, that has been the case for a long time.

The Hoover report explains the deeper problems behind the exodus from the city.

Rampant drug use. Drug gangs. Homeless camps. Lawlessness. Calls to defund the police and abolish prisons. 

Detroit’s fall was primarily driven by the relocation of the US auto industry to southern, right-to-work states, where auto producers, including foreign firms who build autos here, have avoided the union conflict that was endemic in Detroit. San Francisco’s decline is driven by absurdly bad local economic policies. How bad? As some city blocks have been taken over by drug gangs selling fentanyl in open-air superstores (think of an opioid version of Costco, without the membership card), city supervisors have spent their time talking about defunding police, abolishing rent, abolishing prisons, and demanding that if Whole Foods is to be allowed to develop a grocery store in a vacant building in the city, it must include affordable housing.  

San Francisco's problem might not be due to evil spirts.

However, the policies that San Francisco have been pursuing, along with its talk of paying reparations, are not those that are consistent with a sane and stable society.