California introduces tax-by-the-mile plan as state revenue from fuel tax drops due to electric vehicle usage

Buyers of electric cars in California may not have been aware of the new tax-by-the-mile plan before they decided to purchase their vehicles.Had they known about the potential added cost, they may have made a different decision.But regardless of personal choice, California law mandates that all new car sales be electric by 2035.

“This pay-to-drive scheme essentially turns your car into a rental,” Patrick Wood said.  After quoting from a course on technocracy in 1934, he added, “Don’t tell me that Technocracy is not in play here.”

We would add, do you remember the World Economic Forum’s threat “you will own nothing”?

California has the highest income tax rate in the USA (top tier of 14.4 per cent), the highest statewide sales tax rate (7.25 per cent, plus local sales taxes), and the highest fuel tax rate ($0.78 per gallon).   The old joke is that California would tax the air we breathe if it could. Well, California’s latest tax proposal comes close. The state is recruiting drivers for a pilot program to track and tax the miles they drive.

The plan is borne from the fact that Californians have switched to electric and hybrid vehicles at a faster rate than other US states because of the state’s green initiative which has convinced Californians to switch to hybrid or electric vehicles from combustion engine vehicles.

While electric vehicles are more expensive, Californians were enticed to buy them because of the subsidies and savings they would enjoy by no longer having to buy gas. But like most government programmes, this was not well thought out. California has lost millions in tax revenue because of this scheme and now needs to make up for that. From the many options available to it, it has chosen a plan to begin tracking drivers with GPS monitors.

Under the new plan, according to Caltrans, mileage could be tracked by plugging an electronic device into a vehicle or using the vehicle’s tracking system.

There’s no telling what the government may use this new information for. The main page of the Caltrans website for the program, entitled “California Road Charge,” presents the tagline “Funding transportation in an equitable way.” There’s that word again. Government-imposed “equity” can take any number of forms. On the next page, it states that the charge is “Fair. Transparent. Sustainable.”

By charging an exorbitant fee per mile, it could effectively reduce the number of cars on the road to reduce climate change. It could also easily charge varying fees based on driver income to impose “equity.”

It could also charge varying fees based on miles driven, penalising those who the government determines drive too much.

Keep reading

Australian Premier Creates Ministry In Charge Of ‘Changing Men’s Behavior’

The development of totalitarian governments always coincides with sweeping efforts to socially engineer the population to adhere to less rebellious behaviors.  Specific groups that present a threat to the regime are usually identified and targeted with propaganda or indoctrination.  In tandem, the rest of the population is also conditioned to fear those groups and treat them with suspicion.  In this way the establishment elites mold the more submissive public into a shield that protects them from the revolutionaries that might dethrone them.

But what happens when the social engineers want to create tyranny on a global scale?  The list of possible rebels grows exponentially larger and efforts to control them all or demonize them all become far more complex.  How can the elites simplify their agenda and suppress the public with more efficiency?  

The only answer is to attack and cripple the largest subset of the population that is most likely to give them problems in the future.  Which monolithic group is more likely to fight back against the system?  Obviously, the answer is masculine men.  Therefore, this new global regime seeks to undermine and sabotage men, labeling masculinity an existential danger to society, like nuclear weapons or global warming.

In recent years Australia has been at the forefront of many authoritarian experiments.  Their egregious violations of citizen liberties during the covid hysteria were astonishing.  Perhaps even worse has been the complete takeover of DEI within the Australian government along with the infestation of radical feminism.  Australia, it would seem, is all but lost to the nightmare of the woke religion.  

That’s why it’s not at all surprising that the the Premier of the Australian state of Victoria has created a new ministry tasked with the purpose of changing and perhaps even controlling men.

Jacinta Allan announced this month that state MP Tim Richardson would serve as the inaugural Parliamentary Secretary for Men’s Behavior Change – the first position of its kind in the country.  The appointment was in response to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese calling gender-based violence a “national crisis” and promising greater government action.  First, Australia blamed guns for violent crime; now they are blaming men in general.

Keep reading

The Censorship-Industrial Complex and How It has the Internet in its Grip

Since the 1960s, the military-industrial complex has influenced and driven American policy to profit cynically from conflict and war.  But in this decade, a new complex has arrived, one that is far more dangerous to American values.  It is the censorship-industrial complex (CIC), which has gained tremendous control over the internet.

When the internet-backed World Wide Web was created in 1989, it democratized information and connectedness.  Through rapid commercialization, it unleashed unlimited possibilities and economic growth.  Equally, it became a haven of free expression, debate, and creativity.  These ideals crystallized into the five principles of the 2012 Declaration of Internet Freedom: non-censorship; universal access; freedom to connect and create; the right to privacy and control of personal information; and protection for technology and innovation.

But governments and the elites that control them were quick to move in, sensing the threat to their authoritarian instinct.  At work since 2016, the pernicious CIC gained strength during the Covid-19 pandemic, amplifying government-approved narratives that favored the agenda of the elites.  Furthering the advance to the Great Reset, it now works to color content and discourse in the leftist hues that disguise the intent and operations of the global elites.

Mike Benz, a former State Department official who now heads the Foundation for Freedom Online and is a staunch campaigner against the CIC, reveals that the complex is controlled by the State Department, the Defense Department, the CIA, MI6, and Brussels.  The turning points, according to him, were the Brexit referendum, the election of Donald Trump, and elections in the Philippines, in all of which the internet played an important role.  Therefore, it was decided to end free speech on the internet and control the flow of information.  Since the American government was hamstrung by the First Amendment, NGOs and fronts were enlisted for “doing the dirty work.”

The Biden administration continues on that path.  In 2022, days after Elon Musk committed to a pro-free speech vision on acquiring Twitter, the White House issued the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, in direct contradiction with the 2012 Declaration of Internet Freedom.  The language, of course, answers to all the shibboleths of freedom.  But while criticizing the policies of “authoritarian” governments, the declaration calls for curbing “disinformation” and “harassment” in the pursuit of “reclaiming the promise of the internet.”  It expresses concern about online platforms that spread “illegal or harmful content,” threaten safety and foment violence, and undermine “respect for and protection of human rights and democratic institutions.”

The question, obviously, is who decides what amounts to disinformation, harassment, and illegal or harmful content. 

Keep reading

Schumer Seeks Bill to Ban Bump Stocks After Supreme Court Ruling

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on June 14 called for legislation to outlaw bump stocks after the Supreme Court struck down a President Donald Trump-era ban on the gun accessory.

A 6–3 opinion by the high court found that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority when it interpreted a federal firearms statute to outlaw the use of bump stocks. Bump stocks are attached to the butt end of a rifle, causing them to fire again by bumping against the finger on recoil.

“As I warned the Trump administration at the time, the only way to permanently close this loophole is through legislation. Senate Democrats are ready to pass legislation to ban bump stocks but we will need votes from Senate Republicans,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement.

The ATF in 2018, with the support of President Trump, reversed its earlier position and declared bump stocks illegal in response to the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, in which a gunman used firearms equipped with bump stocks to fire multiple guns more rapidly, killing 60 and leaving hundreds wounded.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurrence on June 14 that emphasized Congress’s role. “There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns,” he said. “Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee,called the Supreme Court decision “deeply disappointing.” 

Keep reading

‘Really Scary’: FBI Asked Employee About Views on COVID Vaccine Mandates During Security Clearance Review

FBI officials asked a longtime employee if he opposed COVID-19 vaccination, supported former President Donald Trump or had ever attended a pro-Second Amendment rally, according to memos obtained by Just the News and published Monday.

Describing the incident as “The New McCarthyism” and a “shocking litmus test,” Just the News reported the memos “prompted a complaint to the Justice Department’s [DOJ] internal watchdog alleging political bias inside the bureau.”

The questions were asked during a spring 2022 security clearance — several months after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for private employers and another federal court issued an injunction on the government’s vaccine mandate for federal employees.

The employee’s security clearance was subsequently revoked, Just the News reported, noting that the interviews “confirmed his support for Trump and gun rights and his concerns about the COVID vaccine.”

“I think it’s becoming more and more apparent that we have entered the new American McCarthyism era,” said journalist Kim Iversen on Wednesday’s edition of “The Kim Iversen Show.” Iversen said people are routinely and openly punished for their views and opinions.

She added:

“If you were any of those things that might red-flag you according to the FBI’s security clearance … if you were skeptical of Big Pharma vaccines and if you actually are pro-Second Amendment, a right that’s enshrined in our Constitution, then you potentially are un-American and you potentially need to be red-flagged … or you might just have the propensity to become a terrorist.”

Keep reading

Fast-Tracked EU Vote Threatens Online Privacy with New “Chat Control” Law

Bad rules are only made better if they are also opt-in (that is, a user is not automatically included, but has to explicitly consent to them).

But the European Union (EU) looks like it’s “reinventing” the meaning and purpose of an opt-in: when it comes to its child sexual abuse regulation, CSAR, a vote is coming up that would block users who refuse to opt-in from sending photos, videos, and links.

According to a leak of minutes just published by the German site Netzpolitik, the vote on what opponents call “chat control” – and lambast as really a set of mass surveillance rules masquerading as a way to improve children’s safety online – is set to take place as soon as June 19.

That is apparently much sooner than those keeping a close eye on the process of adoption of the regulation would have expected.

Due to its nature, the EU is habitually a slow-moving, gargantuan bureaucracy, but it seems that when it comes to pushing censorship and mass surveillance, the bloc finds a way to expedite things.

Netzpolitik’s reporting suggests that the EU’s centralized Brussels institutions are succeeding in getting all their ducks in a row, i.e., breaking not only encryption (via “chat control”) – but also resistance from some member countries, like France.

The minutes from the meeting dedicated to the current version of the draft state that France is now “significantly more positive” where “chat-control is concerned.”

Others, like Poland, would still like to see the final regulation “limited to suspicious users only, and expressed concerns about the consent model,” says Netzpolitik.

But it seems the vote on a Belgian proposal, presented as a “compromise,” is now expected to happen much sooner than previously thought.

Keep reading

The bureaucratic infrastructure that enables the implementation of the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) and the “de facto” ceding of national sovereignty

First a little context:

Adherence to the existing IHR’s with enforcement at the country, state, city and local level, resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people around the world directly, and untold millions indirectly, via the second order effects of starvation and business failures. This genocide was paid for with trillions of dollars of debt that has been completely wasted on consuming scarce resources for all the paraphernalia and toxic injections used.

The changes to the WHO IHR now include the term “gene therapy” for treatment of pandemics.

Take a look at how the EU operates a similar system.

The European Union Commission uses “Directives” to implement the policy choices of the EU Council of Leaders which are then ratified by the EU Parliament.

The U has THREE presidents!

From here:

What are EU directives? – UK in a changing Europe (ukandeu.ac.uk)

“Directives are the most common form of EU legal act. In contrast to a regulation, a directive does not apply directly at the national level. Instead, an EU directive sets out an objective to be achieved, and it is then left to the individual countries to achieve this objective however they see fit.

This takes place through a process called ‘transposition’, which essentially translates an EU directive into national legislation.”

Pay particular attention to that last sentence.

You can compare and contrast that with mechanisms in other democracies and the second round impacts on “third” countries of compliance with the EU when engaging in trade and tourism.

Keep reading

How the US government uses NGOs to corrupt ‘civil society’ around the world

In the West, and beyond, pressure groups operating under the banner of “human rights non-governmental organizations” (NGOs) have become key actors in disseminating war propaganda, intimidating academics, and corrupting civil society. These outfits act as gatekeepers determining which voices should be elevated and which should be censored and canceled.

Civil society is imperative to balance the power of the state, but governments are increasingly seeking to hijack it through NGOs they fund. They can enable a loud minority to override a silent majority.

In the 1980s, the Reagan doctrine exacerbated the problem as these “human rights NGOs” were financed by the government and staffed by people with ties to intelligence agencies, to ensure civil society won’t deviate significantly from government policies.

The ability of academics to speak openly and honestly is restricted by these gatekeepers. In a case in pointtoday, NGOs limit dissent in academic debates about the great power rivalry in Ukraine. Well-documented and proven facts that are imperative to understanding the conflict are simply not reported in the media, and any efforts to address these facts are confronted with vague accusations of being “controversial” or “pro-Russian,” a transgression that must be punished with intimidation, censorship, and cancellation.

I will outline here first my personal experiences with one of these NGOs, and how they are hijacking civil society.

Keep reading

War On Nation’s Food Supply?: Idaho Restricts Water To 500,000 Acres Of Farmland 

In late May, Idaho Department of Water Resources Director Mathew Weaver issued a curtailment order requiring 6,400 junior groundwater rights holders who pump off the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer to shut off their spigots.

Idaho Gov. Brad Little issued a statement following the order on May 30, “Water curtailment is never desired, but the director must follow Idaho law and the Constitution in issuing this order.” 

Brian Murdock, an East Idaho farmer, said the water curtailment affects 500,000 acres, which equates to roughly 781 square miles of farmland. 

“Well, as you said, the state of Idaho and the Idaho Department of Water Resources has issued this curtailment of 500,000 acres. And to help put that in perspective, that’s basically 781 square miles of farm ground that is being taken out of production,” Murdock told the hosts of Fox News. 

The grain and potato farmer continued, “And, of course, the worst problem is this is happening during a very plentiful water year. We have the reservoirs [that] are completely full, and when I mean full, they’re dang near breaking. The rivers are running as high as they possibly can. Just trying to keep those dams from breaking.” 

In eastern Idaho, groundwater users with junior water rights breached the 2016 agreement in 2021 and 2022. Currently, Gov. Little, the lieutenant governor, the Director of Water Resources, and representatives from groundwater and surface water user groups are discussing a new deal. The plan is to strike a new agreement before the curtailment dries up the farmland. 

Murdock told co-hosts Dagen McDowell and Sean Duffy that his family’s century-old farm faces a $3 million loss due to the state-issued order. 

“This is the largest curtailment in the history of the United States as far as farm ground,” Murdock said in a video posted on X. 

Keep reading