Tuesday, January 31, 2023
Central Bank Digital Currency The Risks and the Myths
The threat to freedom that a CBDC might pose is closely related to its threat to privacy.
JANUARY 10, 2023 • BRIEFING PAPER NO. 145
By Nicholas Anthony and Norbert Michel
Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) have the potential to radically transform the American financial system—ultimately usurping the private sector and endangering Americans’ core freedoms. Although CBDCs have gained the attention of politicians, central bankers, and the tech industry, this experiment should be left on the drawing board. This paper provides a summary of why Congress should explicitly prohibit the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury from issuing a CBDC.
What Is a CBDC?
A CBDC is a digital national currency.1 In the case of the United States, a CBDC would be a digital form of the U.S. dollar. Like paper dollars, a CBDC would be a liability of the Federal Reserve. But unlike paper dollars, a CBDC would offer neither the privacy protections nor the finality that cash provides. In fact, it’s precisely this digital liability—a sort of digital tether between citizens and the central bank‐that makes CBDCs distinctly different from the digital dollars that millions of Americans already use (e.g., credit cards, debit cards, prepaid cards, and payment applications).
Currently, when consumers deposit money into their bank accounts, the deposits are liabilities of the banks. In other words, a bank owes a customer the money deposited in that customer’s account and is responsible for transferring it. In the case of a CBDC, however, the money would be a liability of the central bank. That is, the government (in the case of the United States, the Federal Reserve2)would have the direct responsibility to hold, transfer, or otherwise remit those funds to the owner. This feature creates a direct link between citizens and the central bank—a radical departure from the existing American system in which private financial institutions provide banking services to retail consumers.3
Purported Benefits and Serious Risks
Proponents claim that a U.S. CBDC would promote financial inclusion, spur faster payments, protect the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, and make it easier to implement monetary and fiscal policy. Yet, even supporters acknowledge that a CBDC poses serious risks, such as threats to financial privacy and financial freedom, as well as to the banking system. In fact, public comment letters already demonstrate high levels of opposition to a U.S. CBDC primarily because of these risks.4 As this brief demonstrates, a CBDC would not provide any unique benefits to Americans compared to existing technologies, and its risks outweigh the purported benefits.
Financial Inclusion
Proponents claim that CBDCs would improve financial inclusion by providing a new source of financial services for Americans without banking services, but most Americans already have access to the financial system. For instance, the latest Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation data show that more than 95 percent of American households have either a checking or savings account. Moreover, CBDCs do nothing to address the privacy and trust concerns that Americans cite as reasons for not wanting a bank account.5 While some proponents argue that CBDCs would provide a payment option with zero credit and liquidity risk, those arguments miss that these zero risk features are not technology dependent. Rather, they are wholly due to government guarantees—guarantees that could be added to any payment option.
Faster Payments
Proponents claim that a CBDC could offer faster payments options. However, a CBDC provides no unique benefit compared to the existing developments in the private sector, including private fintech‐based solutions such as stablecoins and private innovations such as the Real‐Time Payments (RTP) Network. Incidentally, the RTP Network has yet to reach its full potential largely because the Federal Reserve (the Fed) decided to launch its own instant settlement network, FedNow. While proponents may claim otherwise, government officials in the United States and abroad have acknowledged that CBDCs offer no unique settlement advantages relative to existing alternatives, many of which already offer instant or nearly instant settlement speeds.6
World Reserve Currency
Proponents claim that a CBDC would preserve the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, but the dollar’s renowned status is owed to the strength of the American economy and its legal protections for private citizens relative to most other countries.7 The U.S. dollar is in no danger of losing its status simply because the Fed does not have a CBDC, especially if the countries launching CBDCs offer few of the economic and legal protections integral to the U.S. system. For example, China’s CBDC (the e‑CNY) is unlikely to attract global demand considering the Chinese government’s long history of violating property rights, financial privacy, and other human rights.8
Monetary and Fiscal Policy
Proponents argue that a CBDC would allow the government to fine‐tune the economy with monetary and fiscal policy. Supposedly, a CBDC would provide such an opportunity by allowing the federal government to transfer money into and out of individuals’ accounts. The Fed could, for instance, impose penalty fees when people do not spend enough of their existing balances or transfer more funds to people when it desires to boost spending. Regardless of whether such policy actions could succeed in meeting macroeconomic goals, using a CBDC in this manner would require a ban on all private monetary alternatives, including cash, such that Americans must directly depend on the federal government to receive (and maintain) their funds.
Financial Privacy
Americans have a right to privacy that is protected by the Constitution, but laws designed to counter terrorism, deter money laundering, and collect taxes provide the government with the ability to conduct large‐scale surveillance of citizens’ financial information without so much as a warrant.9 A CBDC could easily remove what little protections remain because it would give the federal government complete visibility into every financial transaction by establishing a direct link to each citizens’ financial transactions.10 If the federal government maintains the existing laws that require financial institutions to gather customers’ personal information and police private transactions, there is no reason to believe that a CBDC will operate without such controls, especially given that a CBDC directly connects people to the central bank.
Financial Freedom
The threat to freedom that a CBDC might pose is closely related to its threat to privacy. With so much data in hand and consumers directly connected to the central bank, a CBDC would provide countless opportunities for the government to control citizens’ financial transactions.11 Such control could come in the form of prohibiting and limiting purchases, spurring and curbing purchases, or freezing and seizing funds. The possibilities for the programmability of a CBDC are virtually limitless. In the case of government‐mandated lockdowns during a pandemic, for instance, a CBDC could be programmed to only exchange with “essential” businesses or alert the authorities when citizens incur travel expenses. The potential for abuse of power, such as freezing the financial accounts of peaceful political protesters, is also virtually limitless.12 For years, governments have used the financial system to control citizens.13 Introducing a CBDC would make that control both easier and faster to achieve.
Free Markets
There is also a risk that a CBDC could undermine the very foundation of financial markets. Federal Reserve vice chair Lael Brainard explained in a speech:
If a successful central bank digital currency were to become widely used, it could become a substitute for retail banking deposits. This could restrict banks’ ability to make loans for productive economic activities and have broader macroeconomic consequences. Moreover, the parallel coexistence of central bank digital currency with retail banking deposits could raise the risk of runs on the banking system in times of stress and so have adverse implications for financial stability.14
It is, therefore, hardly surprising that major banking and credit union associations are publicly opposed to CBDCs.15 There is also no doubt that CBDCs undermine the efficacy of private cryptocurrencies (including stablecoins), a new source of competition to the legacy payments system.16 Globally, nations’ actions have demonstrated that each wants a CBDC specifically to bolster its monopoly over its national currency. For instance, China banned cryptocurrencies just as its CBDC was launched; India announced its plans for a CBDC while simultaneously calling for a ban on cryptocurrency; and Nigeria prohibited banks from cryptocurrency transactions just as it launched its CBDC. It is already clear that CBDCs threaten these markets.
Cybersecurity
Another concern with a CBDC is the central storage of financial information. Federal Reserve vice chair Lael Brainard, for example, has warned that “putting a central bank currency in digital form could make it a very attractive target for cyberattacks by giving threat actors a prominent platform on which to focus their efforts.“17 As recent history has shown, the federal government is not immune from hacks or data breaches: the Fed had more than 50 cyber breaches between 2011 and 2015.18 The Fed even fell victim to a successful hack when $101 million was stolen in a cyberattack via the Bank of Bangladesh.19 While the private sector is not immune from cyberattacks, a breach at a private financial institution would only affect a fraction of citizens whereas a breach of a single federal database could jeopardize all citizens’ private information.20
Recommendations for Congress
To prevent the risks to financial privacy, financial freedom, free markets, and cybersecurity that a CBDC would pose, Congress should explicitly prohibit the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department from issuing a CBDC in any form. To do so, Congress should amend Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act and U.S.C. § 3105, Title 31.21 Likewise, Congress should more explicitly limit the capabilities and payments through the Treasury’s Direct Express cards with respect to CBDCs.22
To prevent the Fed from further encroaching on the private sector, Congress should also amend the 1980 Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act to strengthen the existing requirement for the Fed to recover its costs when exploring new initiatives. To do so, Congress could strike U.S.C. § 248a(c)(3) and replace it by adding an explicit cost recovery period, such as five years. Finally, Congress should also require that the Fed’s compliance with the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act’s cost recovery provisions are subject to regular audits by third parties.23
Conclusion
A CBDC poses substantial risks to financial privacy, financial freedom, free markets, and cybersecurity. Yet the purported benefits fail to stand up to scrutiny. There is no reason for the U.S. government to issue a CBDC when the costs are so high and the benefits so low.
By Nicholas Anthony and Norbert Michel
Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) have the potential to radically transform the American financial system—ultimately usurping the private sector and endangering Americans’ core freedoms. Although CBDCs have gained the attention of politicians, central bankers, and the tech industry, this experiment should be left on the drawing board. This paper provides a summary of why Congress should explicitly prohibit the Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury from issuing a CBDC.
What Is a CBDC?
A CBDC is a digital national currency.1 In the case of the United States, a CBDC would be a digital form of the U.S. dollar. Like paper dollars, a CBDC would be a liability of the Federal Reserve. But unlike paper dollars, a CBDC would offer neither the privacy protections nor the finality that cash provides. In fact, it’s precisely this digital liability—a sort of digital tether between citizens and the central bank‐that makes CBDCs distinctly different from the digital dollars that millions of Americans already use (e.g., credit cards, debit cards, prepaid cards, and payment applications).
Currently, when consumers deposit money into their bank accounts, the deposits are liabilities of the banks. In other words, a bank owes a customer the money deposited in that customer’s account and is responsible for transferring it. In the case of a CBDC, however, the money would be a liability of the central bank. That is, the government (in the case of the United States, the Federal Reserve2)would have the direct responsibility to hold, transfer, or otherwise remit those funds to the owner. This feature creates a direct link between citizens and the central bank—a radical departure from the existing American system in which private financial institutions provide banking services to retail consumers.3
Purported Benefits and Serious Risks
Proponents claim that a U.S. CBDC would promote financial inclusion, spur faster payments, protect the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, and make it easier to implement monetary and fiscal policy. Yet, even supporters acknowledge that a CBDC poses serious risks, such as threats to financial privacy and financial freedom, as well as to the banking system. In fact, public comment letters already demonstrate high levels of opposition to a U.S. CBDC primarily because of these risks.4 As this brief demonstrates, a CBDC would not provide any unique benefits to Americans compared to existing technologies, and its risks outweigh the purported benefits.
Financial Inclusion
Proponents claim that CBDCs would improve financial inclusion by providing a new source of financial services for Americans without banking services, but most Americans already have access to the financial system. For instance, the latest Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation data show that more than 95 percent of American households have either a checking or savings account. Moreover, CBDCs do nothing to address the privacy and trust concerns that Americans cite as reasons for not wanting a bank account.5 While some proponents argue that CBDCs would provide a payment option with zero credit and liquidity risk, those arguments miss that these zero risk features are not technology dependent. Rather, they are wholly due to government guarantees—guarantees that could be added to any payment option.
Faster Payments
Proponents claim that a CBDC could offer faster payments options. However, a CBDC provides no unique benefit compared to the existing developments in the private sector, including private fintech‐based solutions such as stablecoins and private innovations such as the Real‐Time Payments (RTP) Network. Incidentally, the RTP Network has yet to reach its full potential largely because the Federal Reserve (the Fed) decided to launch its own instant settlement network, FedNow. While proponents may claim otherwise, government officials in the United States and abroad have acknowledged that CBDCs offer no unique settlement advantages relative to existing alternatives, many of which already offer instant or nearly instant settlement speeds.6
World Reserve Currency
Proponents claim that a CBDC would preserve the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, but the dollar’s renowned status is owed to the strength of the American economy and its legal protections for private citizens relative to most other countries.7 The U.S. dollar is in no danger of losing its status simply because the Fed does not have a CBDC, especially if the countries launching CBDCs offer few of the economic and legal protections integral to the U.S. system. For example, China’s CBDC (the e‑CNY) is unlikely to attract global demand considering the Chinese government’s long history of violating property rights, financial privacy, and other human rights.8
Monetary and Fiscal Policy
Proponents argue that a CBDC would allow the government to fine‐tune the economy with monetary and fiscal policy. Supposedly, a CBDC would provide such an opportunity by allowing the federal government to transfer money into and out of individuals’ accounts. The Fed could, for instance, impose penalty fees when people do not spend enough of their existing balances or transfer more funds to people when it desires to boost spending. Regardless of whether such policy actions could succeed in meeting macroeconomic goals, using a CBDC in this manner would require a ban on all private monetary alternatives, including cash, such that Americans must directly depend on the federal government to receive (and maintain) their funds.
Financial Privacy
Americans have a right to privacy that is protected by the Constitution, but laws designed to counter terrorism, deter money laundering, and collect taxes provide the government with the ability to conduct large‐scale surveillance of citizens’ financial information without so much as a warrant.9 A CBDC could easily remove what little protections remain because it would give the federal government complete visibility into every financial transaction by establishing a direct link to each citizens’ financial transactions.10 If the federal government maintains the existing laws that require financial institutions to gather customers’ personal information and police private transactions, there is no reason to believe that a CBDC will operate without such controls, especially given that a CBDC directly connects people to the central bank.
Financial Freedom
The threat to freedom that a CBDC might pose is closely related to its threat to privacy. With so much data in hand and consumers directly connected to the central bank, a CBDC would provide countless opportunities for the government to control citizens’ financial transactions.11 Such control could come in the form of prohibiting and limiting purchases, spurring and curbing purchases, or freezing and seizing funds. The possibilities for the programmability of a CBDC are virtually limitless. In the case of government‐mandated lockdowns during a pandemic, for instance, a CBDC could be programmed to only exchange with “essential” businesses or alert the authorities when citizens incur travel expenses. The potential for abuse of power, such as freezing the financial accounts of peaceful political protesters, is also virtually limitless.12 For years, governments have used the financial system to control citizens.13 Introducing a CBDC would make that control both easier and faster to achieve.
Free Markets
There is also a risk that a CBDC could undermine the very foundation of financial markets. Federal Reserve vice chair Lael Brainard explained in a speech:
If a successful central bank digital currency were to become widely used, it could become a substitute for retail banking deposits. This could restrict banks’ ability to make loans for productive economic activities and have broader macroeconomic consequences. Moreover, the parallel coexistence of central bank digital currency with retail banking deposits could raise the risk of runs on the banking system in times of stress and so have adverse implications for financial stability.14
It is, therefore, hardly surprising that major banking and credit union associations are publicly opposed to CBDCs.15 There is also no doubt that CBDCs undermine the efficacy of private cryptocurrencies (including stablecoins), a new source of competition to the legacy payments system.16 Globally, nations’ actions have demonstrated that each wants a CBDC specifically to bolster its monopoly over its national currency. For instance, China banned cryptocurrencies just as its CBDC was launched; India announced its plans for a CBDC while simultaneously calling for a ban on cryptocurrency; and Nigeria prohibited banks from cryptocurrency transactions just as it launched its CBDC. It is already clear that CBDCs threaten these markets.
Cybersecurity
Another concern with a CBDC is the central storage of financial information. Federal Reserve vice chair Lael Brainard, for example, has warned that “putting a central bank currency in digital form could make it a very attractive target for cyberattacks by giving threat actors a prominent platform on which to focus their efforts.“17 As recent history has shown, the federal government is not immune from hacks or data breaches: the Fed had more than 50 cyber breaches between 2011 and 2015.18 The Fed even fell victim to a successful hack when $101 million was stolen in a cyberattack via the Bank of Bangladesh.19 While the private sector is not immune from cyberattacks, a breach at a private financial institution would only affect a fraction of citizens whereas a breach of a single federal database could jeopardize all citizens’ private information.20
Recommendations for Congress
To prevent the risks to financial privacy, financial freedom, free markets, and cybersecurity that a CBDC would pose, Congress should explicitly prohibit the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department from issuing a CBDC in any form. To do so, Congress should amend Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act and U.S.C. § 3105, Title 31.21 Likewise, Congress should more explicitly limit the capabilities and payments through the Treasury’s Direct Express cards with respect to CBDCs.22
To prevent the Fed from further encroaching on the private sector, Congress should also amend the 1980 Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act to strengthen the existing requirement for the Fed to recover its costs when exploring new initiatives. To do so, Congress could strike U.S.C. § 248a(c)(3) and replace it by adding an explicit cost recovery period, such as five years. Finally, Congress should also require that the Fed’s compliance with the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act’s cost recovery provisions are subject to regular audits by third parties.23
Conclusion
A CBDC poses substantial risks to financial privacy, financial freedom, free markets, and cybersecurity. Yet the purported benefits fail to stand up to scrutiny. There is no reason for the U.S. government to issue a CBDC when the costs are so high and the benefits so low.
Sunday, January 29, 2023
Saturday, January 28, 2023
Friday, January 27, 2023
Thursday, January 26, 2023
Wednesday, January 25, 2023
Symposium explores how religious communities can be agents of change in securing wellbeing and sustainability
NEWS
Symposium explores how religious communities can be agents of change in securing wellbeing and sustainability
More than 600 people attended the Ninth Annual Symposium on the Role of Religion and Faith-based Organizations in International Affairs, held online on 24 January. Exploring the theme “Securing People’s Wellbeing and Planetary Sustainability,” the symposium was organized by the World Council of Churches (WCC) and a coalition of faith-based and UN partners. The event featured UN officials, representatives of international faith-based organizations, and other experts on climate change, disarmament, and other relevant topics.
Rev. Dr. Liberato C. Bautista (third from left), Assistant General Secretary for United Nations and International Affairs, General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist Church, served as chair of the 2023 Symposium Planning Team. In this photo taken during the concluding session of the symposium, he is accompanied by Ms. Nika Saeedi (fourth from left), global focal point on Religion, Mental Health and Psychosocial Support, and Hate Speech for UNDP, Mr. Jonathan Granoff (first from left), Senior Advisor and Representative to the United Nations of the Permanent Secretariat of the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates, and Dr. Ganoune Diop, Director, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, Seventh-day Adventist Church. Photo:
WCC
25 January 2023
WCC central committee moderator Bishop Dr Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, who spoke at the symposium, noted that religion reaches not only people’s heads but also their hearts. “That is why religious communities are so important in issues like human wellbeing and planetary sustainability that are highly linked to our attitudes and lifestyles and can only be successfully pushed if political change is connected with a change of heart,” he said. “All together we want to secure people’s wellbeing and planetary sustainability as religious communities.”
On a personal note, Bedford-Strohm said this task comes closer to him when he thinks of his 3-year-old grandson. “I love him deeply,” he said. “He will be as old as I am now, in the year 2081. As every grandfather, I want him to have at least as good a life as I have now.”
Bedford-Strohm said he is convinced that churches and religious communities in general are the ideal agents of global civil society. “They are deeply rooted in local congregations and at the same time live in a global horizon by affirming their belief in a God who has created heaven and earth,” he said.
Many UN officials and civil society leaders reflected on why faith actors are critical players.
Ulrika Modéer, UN assistant secretary-general and director of the Bureau of External Relations and Advocacy for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), spoke on how gender inequality intersects with human insecurity.
“The rise of hate speech, radicalization, inequality, and political extremism are undoubtedly among the most pressing threats to human security, pushing back development gains by decades with a significant implication on women and girls,” she said. “Not to forget that at the current rate of progress, it may take close to 300 years to achieve full gender equality.”
Faith actors are a critical player, she said. “Historically, many faith actors have extended vital social services to local communities, especially humanitarian relief, health, and education,” Modéer said. “In fact, in many countries, they are the dominant civil society actors.”
Some moderators and speakers took part of the symposium from a studio hub set especially for the event at the Church Center for the United Nations in New York City. Photo:
WCC
Discussions laid bare a variety of existential threats to human and planetary security, among them the threat of nuclear weapons.
Ambassador Sergio Duarte, a retired Brazilian ambassador and former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, spoke on disarmament. “It has become commonplace to identify climate change and the existence of nuclear weapons as the two greatest existential threats to human life and civilization upon our planet,” he said. “We know that we cannot completely control the cosmic forces that shape our climate, but by working together we may avert disaster. Disarmament, on the other hand, depends entirely on our ability to muster the necessary political will.”
Speakers and participants also highlighted key learnings that relate to work for human security and the roles different actors can play. The symposium addressed, in concrete ways, the development of unity, solidarity, international cooperation, and global coordinated action necessary to make human security real.
Dr Ganoune Diop, director of public affairs for the World Headquarters of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and secretary general of the International Religious Liberty Association, reflected on envisioning and building a better future. “Nearly every area of human experience is connected to the undergirding issue of human security,” noted Diop. "From threats to personal security, to collective predicaments, to regional, national rifts in human solidarity, to needed global security, human security is in fact a lens through which to look at various aspects of human experience.”
WCC Director for International Affairs Peter Prove who attended the event in person remarked that “after 9 years, the Annual Symposium has become a fixture in the agenda of faith-based and UN partners in New York, and a key forum for the expression and development of shared priorities in the international agenda.”
The WCC’s participation in the promotion of all editions of the symposium has been facilitated by the Ecumenical Office to the United Nations, the WCC and ACT Alliance’s focal point for advocacy initiatives at the United Nations headquarters in New York City.
Learn more about the 9th Annual Symposium on the Role of Religion and Faith-Based Organizations in International Affairs
Watch the recording of the event
Ecumenical Office to the United Nations
Source
Tuesday, January 24, 2023
GETTING AWAY FROM THE CONTROL GRID - D4CE 5TH SYMPOSIUM: SESSION III
First published at 01:46 UTC on January 24th, 2023.#COVID
#CBDC
D4CE
Doctors4CovidEthics
Session III of our fifth symposium, In the Midst of Darkness Light Prevails, focused on how the entities and actors responsible for the abuses of COVID-19 have circumvented due process, regulatory safeguards, and the law.
#CBDC
D4CE
Doctors4CovidEthics
Session III of our fifth symposium, In the Midst of Darkness Light Prevails, focused on how the entities and actors responsible for the abuses of COVID-19 have circumvented due process, regulatory safeguards, and the law.
Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari Inc. opened Session III by inviting viewers to consider speakers’ presentations with the following principle in mind: If we can understand the nuts and bolts of how the incoming control grid is invading our lives and communities and societies, we can stop helping, and we can refuse to comply.
Part 1: CBDC Suicide Pill for Sovereignty
Attorney John Titus discussed how and why the Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) currently being proposed and trialed in several countries spell an end to individual and national sovereignty.
Part 2 – Overriding Sovereignty with International Treaties and Organizations
Investigative journalist Corey Lynn of Corey’s Digs described some mechanisms by which many of the world’s most globally influential organizations operate above the law “but completely outside it.”
Panel Discussion: Catherine Austin Fitts and Carolyn Betts
Part 3- Overriding Sovereignty with Military Law and Emergency Powers Pharmaceutical entrepreneur Alexandra Latypova followed by providing bombshell revelations concerning several pieces of legislative architecture dating back decades that combined in 2020 to hand US military-intelligence agencies control over COVID-19 vaccines and interventions.
Catherine Austin Fitts, Dr. Meryl Nass, and Sahsa Latypova closed Session III by reflecting on the implications and broader context of the issues raised.
For more information:
https://doctors4covidethics.org/gold-standard-covid-science-in-practice-an-interdisciplinary-symposium-v-in-the-midst-of-darkness-light-prevails/
Monday, January 23, 2023
Saturday, January 21, 2023
Friday, January 20, 2023
Thursday, January 19, 2023
Wednesday, January 18, 2023
Tuesday, January 17, 2023
Monday, January 16, 2023
Sunday, January 15, 2023
Friday, January 13, 2023
Thursday, January 12, 2023
Up to 5,000 Soldiers to be Deployed To Secure Upcoming WEF Meeting in Davos
Multiple protests against the WEF summit have been planned.
Robert Semonsen
— January 11, 2023
With one week to go until the who’s who of the most radical globalists descend upon the picturesque ski resort town of Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting, up to 5,000 soldiers from the Swiss army will be deployed to offer military support to the civil authorities of the canton of Graubünden, who are responsible for securing the summit’s premises and its participants.
In a statement released Friday, January 6th, the Swiss Defense Department (VBS) said that the Federal Assembly, the country’s parliament, had approved the deployment of the Swiss army contingent to ensure the security of thousands of participants, the Swiss German-language newspaper Blick reports. This year’s deployment is part of a three-year commitment, from 2022 to 2024, by Parliament to support these high profile civic activities.
As per usual, the annual summit will be presided over by Klaus Schwab, the chairman of the WEF, who has repeatedly boasted about his organization having “penetrated” government cabinets across the world.
The gathering, comprised of the ‘elites’ from the political, financial, scientific, cultural, and mainstream press sectors, will take place from January 16th to the 20th. Some 3,000 participants are expected to attend. The official guest list, however, is still unknown to the public.
Some days ago, in preparation for the five-day summit, the Swiss army began construction work in and around the venue to bolster the premises’ security.
The theme of this year’s WEF summit is “Cooperation in a Fragmented World.”
As has been the case in past years, anti-WEF protests are expected to take place next week. Two requests for permission to demonstrate against the summit have been submitted to the town of Davos, one of the town’s administrative officials told the Swiss press.
Both requests to demonstrate against the summit have been submitted by left-wing and anti-capitalist organizations. One comes from the Socialist Youth of Graubünden, which asked to hold a protest on January 15th in the town’s main square. The second is from a group called the ‘Strike WEF,’ which is planning a march protesting capitalism, global inequality, and for more active intervention on what they perceive as a climate crisis.
“As in 2022 and 2020, we will all hike to Davos together again in January. We are walking against capitalism, against the climate crisis, and against the increasing injustice in the world,” the collective wrote in a statement.
P.S.
American bureaucrats attending:
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
Tuesday, January 10, 2023
How to avoid another world war
Magazine: 17 December 2022
From magazine issue:17 December 2022
A Ukrainian soldier inspects the shell of a tank in the north-eastern city of Trostyanets [Fadel Senna, AFP via Getty Images]
The first world war was a kind of cultural suicide that destroyed Europe’s eminence. Europe’s leaders sleepwalked – in the phrase of historian Christopher Clark – into a conflict which none of them would have entered had they foreseen the world at war’s end in 1918. In the previous decades, they had expressed their rivalries by creating two sets of alliances whose strategies had become linked by their respective schedules for mobilisation. As a result, in 1914, the murder of the Austrian Crown Prince in Sarajevo, Bosnia by a Serb nationalist was allowed to escalate into a general war that began when Germany executed its all-purpose plan to defeat France by attacking neutral Belgium at the other end of Europe.
The nations of Europe, insufficiently familiar with how technology had enhanced their respective military forces, proceeded to inflict unprecedented devastation on one another. In August 1916, after two years of war and millions in casualties, the principal combatants in the West (Britain, France and Germany) began to explore prospects for ending the carnage. In the East, rivals Austria and Russia had extended comparable feelers. Because no conceivable compromise could justify the sacrifices already incurred and because no one wanted to convey an impression of weakness, the various leaders hesitated to initiate a formal peace process. Hence they sought American mediation. Explorations by Colonel Edward House, President Woodrow Wilson’s personal emissary, revealed that a peace based on the modified status quo ante was within reach. However, Wilson, while willing and eventually eager to undertake mediation, delayed until after the presidential election in November. By then the British Somme offensive and the German Verdun offensive had added another two million casualties.
The first world war was a kind of cultural suicide that destroyed Europe’s eminence. Europe’s leaders sleepwalked – in the phrase of historian Christopher Clark – into a conflict which none of them would have entered had they foreseen the world at war’s end in 1918. In the previous decades, they had expressed their rivalries by creating two sets of alliances whose strategies had become linked by their respective schedules for mobilisation. As a result, in 1914, the murder of the Austrian Crown Prince in Sarajevo, Bosnia by a Serb nationalist was allowed to escalate into a general war that began when Germany executed its all-purpose plan to defeat France by attacking neutral Belgium at the other end of Europe.
The nations of Europe, insufficiently familiar with how technology had enhanced their respective military forces, proceeded to inflict unprecedented devastation on one another. In August 1916, after two years of war and millions in casualties, the principal combatants in the West (Britain, France and Germany) began to explore prospects for ending the carnage. In the East, rivals Austria and Russia had extended comparable feelers. Because no conceivable compromise could justify the sacrifices already incurred and because no one wanted to convey an impression of weakness, the various leaders hesitated to initiate a formal peace process. Hence they sought American mediation. Explorations by Colonel Edward House, President Woodrow Wilson’s personal emissary, revealed that a peace based on the modified status quo ante was within reach. However, Wilson, while willing and eventually eager to undertake mediation, delayed until after the presidential election in November. By then the British Somme offensive and the German Verdun offensive had added another two million casualties.
Child refugees prepare to leave embattled Lviv by train [Getty Images]
Monday, January 09, 2023
Sunday, January 08, 2023
Saturday, January 07, 2023
Friday, January 06, 2023
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: The Coup We Never Knew
OPINION
Scott Olson/Getty Images/TNS
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
CONTRIBUTORJanuary 05, 2023
9:15 :
Did someone or something seize control of the United States?
What happened to the U.S. border? Where did it go? Who erased it? Why and how did 5 million people enter our country illegally? Did Congress secretly repeal our immigration laws? Did President Joe Biden issue an executive order allowing foreign nationals to walk across the border and reside in the United States as they pleased?
Since when did money not have to be paid back? Who insisted that the more dollars the federal government printed, the more prosperity would follow? When did America embrace zero interest? Why do we believe $30 trillion in debt is no big deal?
When did clean-burning, cheap, and abundant natural gas become the equivalent to dirty coal? How did prized natural gas that had granted America’s wishes of energy self-sufficiency, reduced pollution, and inexpensive electricity become almost overnight a pariah fuel whose extraction was a war against nature? Which lawmakers, which laws, which votes of the people declared natural gas development and pipelines near-criminal?
Was it not against federal law to swarm the homes of Supreme Court justices, to picket and to intimidate their households in efforts to affect their rulings? How then with impunity did bullies surround the homes of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas – furious over a court decision on abortion? How could these mobs so easily throng our justices’ homes, with placards declaring “Off with their d—s”?
Since when did Americans create a government Ministry of Truth? And on whose orders did the FBI contract private news organizations to censor stories it did not like and writers whom it feared?
How did we wake up one morning to new customs of impeaching a president over a phone call? Of the speaker of the House tearing up the State of the Union address on national television? Of barring congressional members from serving on their assigned congressional committees?
When did we assume the FBI had the right to subvert the campaign of a candidate it disliked? Was it legal suddenly for one presidential candidate to hire a foreign ex-spy to subvert the campaign of her rival?
Was some state or federal law passed that allowed biological males to compete in female sports? Did Congress enact such a law? Did the Supreme Court guarantee that biological male students could shower in gym locker rooms with biological women? Were women ever asked to redefine the very sports they had championed?
When did the government pass a law depriving Americans of their freedom during a pandemic? In America can health officials simply cancel rental contracts or declare loan payments in suspension? How could it become illegal for mom-and-pop stores to sell flowers or shoes during a quarantine but not so for Walmart or Target?
Since when did the people decide that 70 percent of voters would not cast their ballots on Election Day? Was this revolutionary change the subject of a national debate, a heated congressional session, or the votes of dozens of state legislatures?
What happened to Election Night returns? Did the fact that Americans created more electronic ballots and computerized tallies make it take so much longer to tabulate the votes?
When did the nation abruptly decide that theft is not a crime, assault not a felony? How can thieves walk out with bags of stolen goods, without the wrath of angry shoppers, much less fear of the law?
Was there ever a national debate about the terrified flight from Afghanistan? Who planned it and why?
What happened to the once-trusted FBI? Why almost overnight did its directors decide to mislead Congress, to deceive judges with concocted tales from fake dossiers and with doctored writs? Did Congress pass a law that our federal leaders in the FBI or CIA could lie with impunity under oath?
Who redefined our military and with whose consent? Who proclaimed that our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could call his Chinese Communist counterpart to warn him that America’s president was supposedly unstable? Was it always true that retired generals routinely libeled their commander-in-chief as a near Nazi, a Mussolini, an adherent of the tools of Auschwitz?
Were Americans ever asked whether their universities could discriminate against their sons and daughters based on their race? How did it become physically dangerous to speak the truth on a campus? Whose idea was it to reboot racial segregation and bias as “theme houses,” “safe spaces,” and “diversity”? How did that happen in America?
How did a virus cancel the Constitution? Did the lockdowns rob us of our sanity? Or was it the woke hysteria that ignited our collective madness?
We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare to a country we no longer recognize, and from a coup we never knew.
Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won,” from Basic Books. You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@gmail.com.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.
Did someone or something seize control of the United States?
What happened to the U.S. border? Where did it go? Who erased it? Why and how did 5 million people enter our country illegally? Did Congress secretly repeal our immigration laws? Did President Joe Biden issue an executive order allowing foreign nationals to walk across the border and reside in the United States as they pleased?
Since when did money not have to be paid back? Who insisted that the more dollars the federal government printed, the more prosperity would follow? When did America embrace zero interest? Why do we believe $30 trillion in debt is no big deal?
When did clean-burning, cheap, and abundant natural gas become the equivalent to dirty coal? How did prized natural gas that had granted America’s wishes of energy self-sufficiency, reduced pollution, and inexpensive electricity become almost overnight a pariah fuel whose extraction was a war against nature? Which lawmakers, which laws, which votes of the people declared natural gas development and pipelines near-criminal?
Was it not against federal law to swarm the homes of Supreme Court justices, to picket and to intimidate their households in efforts to affect their rulings? How then with impunity did bullies surround the homes of Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas – furious over a court decision on abortion? How could these mobs so easily throng our justices’ homes, with placards declaring “Off with their d—s”?
Since when did Americans create a government Ministry of Truth? And on whose orders did the FBI contract private news organizations to censor stories it did not like and writers whom it feared?
How did we wake up one morning to new customs of impeaching a president over a phone call? Of the speaker of the House tearing up the State of the Union address on national television? Of barring congressional members from serving on their assigned congressional committees?
When did we assume the FBI had the right to subvert the campaign of a candidate it disliked? Was it legal suddenly for one presidential candidate to hire a foreign ex-spy to subvert the campaign of her rival?
Was some state or federal law passed that allowed biological males to compete in female sports? Did Congress enact such a law? Did the Supreme Court guarantee that biological male students could shower in gym locker rooms with biological women? Were women ever asked to redefine the very sports they had championed?
When did the government pass a law depriving Americans of their freedom during a pandemic? In America can health officials simply cancel rental contracts or declare loan payments in suspension? How could it become illegal for mom-and-pop stores to sell flowers or shoes during a quarantine but not so for Walmart or Target?
Since when did the people decide that 70 percent of voters would not cast their ballots on Election Day? Was this revolutionary change the subject of a national debate, a heated congressional session, or the votes of dozens of state legislatures?
What happened to Election Night returns? Did the fact that Americans created more electronic ballots and computerized tallies make it take so much longer to tabulate the votes?
When did the nation abruptly decide that theft is not a crime, assault not a felony? How can thieves walk out with bags of stolen goods, without the wrath of angry shoppers, much less fear of the law?
Was there ever a national debate about the terrified flight from Afghanistan? Who planned it and why?
What happened to the once-trusted FBI? Why almost overnight did its directors decide to mislead Congress, to deceive judges with concocted tales from fake dossiers and with doctored writs? Did Congress pass a law that our federal leaders in the FBI or CIA could lie with impunity under oath?
Who redefined our military and with whose consent? Who proclaimed that our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could call his Chinese Communist counterpart to warn him that America’s president was supposedly unstable? Was it always true that retired generals routinely libeled their commander-in-chief as a near Nazi, a Mussolini, an adherent of the tools of Auschwitz?
Were Americans ever asked whether their universities could discriminate against their sons and daughters based on their race? How did it become physically dangerous to speak the truth on a campus? Whose idea was it to reboot racial segregation and bias as “theme houses,” “safe spaces,” and “diversity”? How did that happen in America?
How did a virus cancel the Constitution? Did the lockdowns rob us of our sanity? Or was it the woke hysteria that ignited our collective madness?
We are beginning to wake up from a nightmare to a country we no longer recognize, and from a coup we never knew.
Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and the author of “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won,” from Basic Books. You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@gmail.com.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.
Biden Admin Finally Admits Canceling Keystone Killed Tens of Thousands of Jobs, Billions In Revenue
BRITTANY M. HUGHES | JANUARY 5, 2023
The Biden administration is finally fessing up to slaughtering tens of thousands of jobs and costing the economy billions in a quietly-released December report that no one noticed amid Congress passing trillion-dollar-plus spending bills that lavished millions on things like wax museums and hiking trails.
While Americans were wrapping up their Christmas shopping and taking out loans to buy eggs and butter for their holiday cookies, Biden’s Department of Energy released, without any fanfare at all, a report that acknowledged the Keystone XL Pipeline, a Trump-greenlit project canceled by President Joe Biden on his first day in office, would have created nearly 60,000 jobs and added almost $10 billion to the economy.
And that’s to say nothing about the individual impact on average Americans’ wallets thanks to what would have been increased energy independence.
Related: Killing Keystone: How Biden & The Left Destroyed American Energy Independence
According to the report, which was finally pointed out by Montana Sen. Steve Daines, the Canada-to-U.S. pipeline funneling crude oil would have created up to 59,000 jobs and added $9.6 billion to the economy. As it was, about 11,000 current and planned jobs were lost when Biden caved to green-agenda hemp chewers and nixed the project in January of 2021. Had it not been canceled, the pipeline would have been completed by the beginning of this year and would have funneled about 830,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil to refineries in the U.S.
In the meantime, gas hit between $5 and $7 a gallon - and even higher in some states - last year before finally falling to more manageable prices, though the cost of goods and services remains high and inflation hovers about 7%.
The Biden administration is finally fessing up to slaughtering tens of thousands of jobs and costing the economy billions in a quietly-released December report that no one noticed amid Congress passing trillion-dollar-plus spending bills that lavished millions on things like wax museums and hiking trails.
While Americans were wrapping up their Christmas shopping and taking out loans to buy eggs and butter for their holiday cookies, Biden’s Department of Energy released, without any fanfare at all, a report that acknowledged the Keystone XL Pipeline, a Trump-greenlit project canceled by President Joe Biden on his first day in office, would have created nearly 60,000 jobs and added almost $10 billion to the economy.
And that’s to say nothing about the individual impact on average Americans’ wallets thanks to what would have been increased energy independence.
Related: Killing Keystone: How Biden & The Left Destroyed American Energy Independence
According to the report, which was finally pointed out by Montana Sen. Steve Daines, the Canada-to-U.S. pipeline funneling crude oil would have created up to 59,000 jobs and added $9.6 billion to the economy. As it was, about 11,000 current and planned jobs were lost when Biden caved to green-agenda hemp chewers and nixed the project in January of 2021. Had it not been canceled, the pipeline would have been completed by the beginning of this year and would have funneled about 830,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil to refineries in the U.S.
In the meantime, gas hit between $5 and $7 a gallon - and even higher in some states - last year before finally falling to more manageable prices, though the cost of goods and services remains high and inflation hovers about 7%.
Survey: Religiously, Congress doesn’t reflect America
By PETER SMITH
January 4, 2023
Religiously speaking, the incoming 118th Congress looks like America — that is, the America of decades past, rather than today.
Congress is far more Christian, and religious overall, than today’s general population.
Even though nearly three in 10 Americans claim no religious affiliation — a rate that has steadily risen in recent years — only two of the 534 incoming members of Congress publicly identify as such.
Those are among the conclusions of an analysis by Pew Research Center of the 118th Congress, which was expected to start this week pending a House leadership vote.
The Congress “remains largely untouched by two trends that have long marked religious life in the United States: a decades-long decline in the share of Americans who identify as Christian, and a corresponding increase in the percentage who say they have no religious affiliation,” said the Pew report, released Tuesday. It was based on a CQ Roll Call survey of members of Congress.
Nearly 88% of members of Congress identify as Christian, compared with only 63% of U.S. adults overall. That includes 57% of congresspersons who identify as Protestant and 28% as Catholic, both higher than national rates. Also, 6% of members of Congress identify as Jewish, compared with 2% of the overall population.
While 29% Americans claim no religious affiliation, they’d have to squint to see themselves reflected in Congress. The only overtly non-religious members are U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., who identifies as humanist, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, independent of Arizona, who says she’s religiously unaffiliated.
Pew listed 20 other members of Congress as having unknown religious affiliations, either because they declined to answer CQ Roll Call’s query or because the answers are otherwise muddled (such as in the case of New York Republican George Santos, along with much else in his background).
Historically, lacking a religious identity was seen as a political liability.
Only 60% of Americans told a Gallup survey in 2019 that they’d be willing to vote for an atheist — fewer than would vote for gays or lesbians or various religious or ethnic groups.
But Huffman said he experienced no political blowback.
“If anything, there’s a political upside,” he said. “People appreciate the fact that I’m just being honest.”
He said many colleagues in Congress find religion to be politically useful, “particularly across the aisle, how so many of them exploit and weaponize religion but seem to be totally divorced from any authentic connection to the religion they’re weaponizing.”
The ranks of Christians in Congress has dipped only slightly over the decades, though it’s a different story with the general population. Since 2007, Christians have gone from 78% to 63% of the population, while the non-affiliated rose from 16% to 29%, according to Pew. The trend line is even more dramatic when looking back to 1990, when nearly nine in 10 Americans identified as Christian, while less than one in 10 identified as non-religious, according to researchers at Trinity College in Connecticut.
In some ways, the two political parties conform to perception.
The Republican congressional delegation is a staggering 99% Christian, with the rest Jewish or unknown. Republicans — who have long embraced Christian expressions in their political functions and where an aggressive form of Christian nationalism has become more mainstream — include 69% Protestants, 25% Catholics and 5% other Christians (such as Mormon and Orthodox).
Democrats have more religious diversity, at about 76% Christian (including 44% Protestant, 31% Catholic and 1.5% Orthodox) and 12% Jewish. They have about 1% each of Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and Unitarian Universalist representation.
But Democrats’ paucity of openly non-affiliated members contrasts starkly with a constituency to which it owes much.
Religiously unaffiliated voters opted overwhelmingly for Democrats candidates in the 2022 midterms. They voted for Democrats over Republicans by more than a 2 to 1 margin in House races, according to AP VoteCast, an expansive survey of more than 94,000 voters nationwide. And in some bellwether races, the unaffiliated went as high as 4 to 1 for Democrats.
“The fact that the (Democratic) leadership doesn’t reflect an open, secular identity is paradoxical, but I think it’s the nature of realpolitik,” said Phil Zuckerman, professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California. He said Democrats know that non-religious voters align with them on the issues, but party leaders also don’t want to alienate other, more religious parts of the party’s base, particularly Black Protestants.
Party leaders “speak to the politics of secular people but don’t want to take on the identity,” he said.
Zuckerman added that conservative Christians face the “branding problem” similar to what atheists once faced. Many voters, he said, have reacted against Christian nationalism, and young voters in particular are alienated by conservative Christian stances against LGBTQ people, while many voters of all ages have reacted against Christian nationalism.
He cited a prominent incident in 2020 when authorities forcibly cleared Black Lives Matter protesters in Lafayette Park in Washington, after which President Donald Trump walked to a nearby church and held up a Bible.
“When Trump held up that Bible in front of that church in D.C., he did more damage to the Christian brand than Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris combined,” Zuckerman said, referring to popular atheist authors.
In 2018, Huffman helped found the Congressional Freethought Caucus. It had a roster of about 15 members in the previous Congress.
“It’s people of different religious perspectives, but what brings us together is a common belief that there should be a bright line of separation between church and state and that we should make public policy based on facts and reason and science, and not religion,” he said.
He predicted that in time, more members of Congress would identify with secular values.
“It’s going to be a trailing reflection of this change that has been happening for a couple of decades now,” he said. ”It takes a while for politicians to figure out that it’s OK to do things like this.”
The Pew report analyzed one short of Congress’ capacity of 535 because one member, Rep. A. Donald McEachin, D-Va., died in November after being re-elected.
___
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
Religiously speaking, the incoming 118th Congress looks like America — that is, the America of decades past, rather than today.
Congress is far more Christian, and religious overall, than today’s general population.
Even though nearly three in 10 Americans claim no religious affiliation — a rate that has steadily risen in recent years — only two of the 534 incoming members of Congress publicly identify as such.
Those are among the conclusions of an analysis by Pew Research Center of the 118th Congress, which was expected to start this week pending a House leadership vote.
The Congress “remains largely untouched by two trends that have long marked religious life in the United States: a decades-long decline in the share of Americans who identify as Christian, and a corresponding increase in the percentage who say they have no religious affiliation,” said the Pew report, released Tuesday. It was based on a CQ Roll Call survey of members of Congress.
Nearly 88% of members of Congress identify as Christian, compared with only 63% of U.S. adults overall. That includes 57% of congresspersons who identify as Protestant and 28% as Catholic, both higher than national rates. Also, 6% of members of Congress identify as Jewish, compared with 2% of the overall population.
While 29% Americans claim no religious affiliation, they’d have to squint to see themselves reflected in Congress. The only overtly non-religious members are U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., who identifies as humanist, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, independent of Arizona, who says she’s religiously unaffiliated.
Pew listed 20 other members of Congress as having unknown religious affiliations, either because they declined to answer CQ Roll Call’s query or because the answers are otherwise muddled (such as in the case of New York Republican George Santos, along with much else in his background).
Historically, lacking a religious identity was seen as a political liability.
Only 60% of Americans told a Gallup survey in 2019 that they’d be willing to vote for an atheist — fewer than would vote for gays or lesbians or various religious or ethnic groups.
But Huffman said he experienced no political blowback.
“If anything, there’s a political upside,” he said. “People appreciate the fact that I’m just being honest.”
He said many colleagues in Congress find religion to be politically useful, “particularly across the aisle, how so many of them exploit and weaponize religion but seem to be totally divorced from any authentic connection to the religion they’re weaponizing.”
The ranks of Christians in Congress has dipped only slightly over the decades, though it’s a different story with the general population. Since 2007, Christians have gone from 78% to 63% of the population, while the non-affiliated rose from 16% to 29%, according to Pew. The trend line is even more dramatic when looking back to 1990, when nearly nine in 10 Americans identified as Christian, while less than one in 10 identified as non-religious, according to researchers at Trinity College in Connecticut.
In some ways, the two political parties conform to perception.
The Republican congressional delegation is a staggering 99% Christian, with the rest Jewish or unknown. Republicans — who have long embraced Christian expressions in their political functions and where an aggressive form of Christian nationalism has become more mainstream — include 69% Protestants, 25% Catholics and 5% other Christians (such as Mormon and Orthodox).
Democrats have more religious diversity, at about 76% Christian (including 44% Protestant, 31% Catholic and 1.5% Orthodox) and 12% Jewish. They have about 1% each of Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and Unitarian Universalist representation.
But Democrats’ paucity of openly non-affiliated members contrasts starkly with a constituency to which it owes much.
Religiously unaffiliated voters opted overwhelmingly for Democrats candidates in the 2022 midterms. They voted for Democrats over Republicans by more than a 2 to 1 margin in House races, according to AP VoteCast, an expansive survey of more than 94,000 voters nationwide. And in some bellwether races, the unaffiliated went as high as 4 to 1 for Democrats.
“The fact that the (Democratic) leadership doesn’t reflect an open, secular identity is paradoxical, but I think it’s the nature of realpolitik,” said Phil Zuckerman, professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California. He said Democrats know that non-religious voters align with them on the issues, but party leaders also don’t want to alienate other, more religious parts of the party’s base, particularly Black Protestants.
Party leaders “speak to the politics of secular people but don’t want to take on the identity,” he said.
Zuckerman added that conservative Christians face the “branding problem” similar to what atheists once faced. Many voters, he said, have reacted against Christian nationalism, and young voters in particular are alienated by conservative Christian stances against LGBTQ people, while many voters of all ages have reacted against Christian nationalism.
He cited a prominent incident in 2020 when authorities forcibly cleared Black Lives Matter protesters in Lafayette Park in Washington, after which President Donald Trump walked to a nearby church and held up a Bible.
“When Trump held up that Bible in front of that church in D.C., he did more damage to the Christian brand than Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris combined,” Zuckerman said, referring to popular atheist authors.
In 2018, Huffman helped found the Congressional Freethought Caucus. It had a roster of about 15 members in the previous Congress.
“It’s people of different religious perspectives, but what brings us together is a common belief that there should be a bright line of separation between church and state and that we should make public policy based on facts and reason and science, and not religion,” he said.
He predicted that in time, more members of Congress would identify with secular values.
“It’s going to be a trailing reflection of this change that has been happening for a couple of decades now,” he said. ”It takes a while for politicians to figure out that it’s OK to do things like this.”
The Pew report analyzed one short of Congress’ capacity of 535 because one member, Rep. A. Donald McEachin, D-Va., died in November after being re-elected.
___
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
Thursday, January 05, 2023
Wednesday, January 04, 2023
Enduring Unto The End
Volume 42 Issue One January 2023
Last Trumpet Ministries · PO Box 806 · Beaver Dam, WI 53916
Phone: 920-887-2626 Internet: http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org
“For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” I Cor. 14:8
Enduring Unto The End
“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”
Matthew 24:13
“Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.”
James 5:11
As we enter a new year, we do so with the understanding that humanity is facing many challenges in these perilous times. The year 2022 was certainly eventful and in many ways disastrous. Running the gamut from powerful storms, drought, heatwaves, wildfires, famine, and flooding, the world saw ten disasters in 2022 that each caused more than three billion dollars in damages. (1) The costliest disaster by far was Hurricane Ian, which struck Cuba and the United States in September 2022 and inflicted more than one hundred billion dollars in damages. Between June and September of last year, devastating floods soaked Pakistan, resulting in 1,739 deaths and the displacement of more than seven million people. Destructive flooding also hit eastern Australia in February, South Africa in April, and much of China between the months of June and September. (2)
On the opposite end of the spectrum, unprecedented heatwaves brought misery, devastation, and drought to the European continent in the summer of 2022. These bleak conditions lowered water levels considerably, reduced crop yields, and caused the price of meat and milk to rise by 12 percent. It was the hottest summer ever recorded in Europe, and the sweltering heat is believed to have caused more than 20,000 excess deaths. (3) The drought of 2022 was part of a widening trend in Europe. “We have now had consecutive droughts for the last five years, and this year is the worst Europe-wide drought in hundreds of years,” said Dr. Fred Hattermann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. (4)
Drought continues to ravage the Horn of Africa, too. As we enter this new year, the prolonged dry spell is affecting 24.1 million people in Ethiopia, 7.8 million people in Somalia, and 4.5 million people in Kenya. (5) As many as 26 million people in this region could face severe food insecurity by February 2023. (6) According to the international aid organization known as Oxfam, it is estimated that one person will die from hunger every thirty-six seconds in this area of the world throughout the coming months. (7) “After four seasons of failed rains, people are losing their struggle to survive – their livestock has died, crops have failed, and food prices have been pushed higher by the war in Ukraine. The alarm has been sounding for months, but donors are yet to wake up to the terrible reality. With another failed rainy [season] expected, failure to act will turn a crisis into a full-scale catastrophe,” warned Oxfam’s Parvin Ngala. (8) According to the NASA Earth Observatory, “The Horn of Africa is experiencing the longest and most severe drought on record.” (9)
Here in the United States, the drought of 2022 was quite extensive. On November 1, 2022, eighty-five percent of the contiguous United States was either abnormally dry or experiencing drought. Remarkably, the entire states of California, Nevada, Utah, and New Mexico, along with much of the Southwest and Northwest, experienced at least forty consecutive weeks of moderate or worse drought last year. (10) As of December 20, 2022, drought conditions have improved significantly in the United States, but it should be noted that 49.31 percent of the lower forty-eight states is still experiencing drought at this time. This drought affects portions of forty-one states. (11)
Although drought conditions have improved in some areas of the country, the American Southwest is still in the throes of the worst megadrought in 1,200 years. The drought has persisted since the year 2000, (12) and scientists do not expect it to end any time soon. According to a report from National Geographic, the drought is expected to last at least until the year 2030. “Not only is this drought continuing to chug along, it’s proceeding at as full-steam pace as it ever has been,” said Park Williams, a climate scientist at the University of California-Los Angeles. (13)
The seemingly endless megadrought has caused water levels to drop dramatically at two of the most important reservoirs in the American West. Lake Powell, which is located in Arizona and Utah, and Lake Mead, which is located in Arizona and Nevada, held 47.6 million acre-feet of water in 1999. Today these reservoirs only hold about 13.1 million acre-feet of water. This is only 26 percent of their capacity. (14) Both reservoirs are fed by the mighty Colorado River and provide water to millions of people in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, California, Arizona, and Nevada. Without drastic action, these states could soon be cut off from this vital water source. “Without immediate and decisive actions, elevations at Lake Powell and Mead could force the system to stop functioning. That’s an intolerable condition that we won’t allow to happen,” declared Tommy Beaudreau, the Deputy Secretary at the United States Department of the Interior. As it stands, the Glen Canyon Dam at Lake Powell and the Hoover Dam at Lake Mead could stop functioning in two years if current trends continue. “We may not be able to get water past either of the two dams in the major reservoirs for certain parts of the year. This is on our doorstep,” warned Ted Cooke, general manager of the Central Arizona Project. (15)
Twenty years ago, it would have seemed unlikely that the Hoover Dam would ever stop flowing. Now we are told that it could happen within a couple of years, and if this happens, there will be far-reaching consequences. According to an article by Newsweek, the Hoover Dam provides hydroelectricity for 1.3 million households in Nevada, Arizona, and California. (16) A shutdown at Lake Mead would put increased pressure on a power grid that is already often stressed. More concerning, twenty-five million people rely on the Hoover Dam as a water source. A shutdown at the Hoover Dam would prove catastrophic for the agricultural sector in the western United States, too. It is estimated that government officials could soon force farmers to fallow between 500,000 and a million acres of farmland. Regarding this scenario, Professor Jay Lund of the University of California-Davis was quoted as saying, “We’ll get there. There’s no way around it.” (17) This staggering amount of idle farmland would be in addition to the fields already left unplanted. According to an article published by Bloomberg in July 2022, an estimated 800,000 acres were fallowed in California last year. (18) This trend has increased pressure on the American food supply and worsened inflation.