Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Jordan Peterson: ‘I would vote for Trump’ as part of ‘revolutionary’ coalition with Elon Musk, RFK Jr.

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Patrick Delaney

In an interview with Piers Morgan, the Canadian psychologist contrasted the former president’s past performance, achieving a ‘decent’ economy and ‘no war,’ against the Biden-Harris record of a ‘complete, bloody world-ending disaster’ in foreign policy.

If he was an American citizen, Dr. Jordan Peterson said he would vote for President Donald Trump in November due to his past performance in office, the “hyper-powerful people” he has gathered around him, and the “grace under pressure” he has exhibited even within the context of two assassination attempts.

The best-selling Canadian author and clinical psychologist was speaking to British TV host Piers Morgan in a wide-ranging interview last Thursday.

“If I could vote in the American election, I would vote for Trump,” he said. “I don’t trust (VP Kamala) Harris.”

“The best predictor of someone’s future behavior is their past behavior,” Peterson explained. “If you’re trying to hire someone and you have documented history of their efforts in precisely the domain that you’re attempting to hire for, and the evidence is clear and valid, you use that in favor of all other predictive markers.”

And with Trump, “we have a documented track record” that includes “decent economic performance” for the nation during his previous term and a “markedly stable international situation” that included “no wars.”

In contrast, the public philosopher observed that under the Biden-Harris administration “we have this terrible, brutal, and I think unnecessary war going on between Russia and Ukraine, which could spiral out of control at any moment, and is highly likely to.”

Since at least May 2023, Trump has promised to end the war in Ukraine within “24 hours” of his potential second inauguration in January. And despite his apparent full embrace of the Zionist agenda, the former president has provided several indications that if elected in November he may bring an end to the genocidal onslaught Israel is currently inflicting upon the Palestinian people.

In late April, the presumed Republican nominee also would not rule out withholding U.S. military aid from Israel in an interview with Time Magazine. After criticizing their “public relations,” particularly the Israeli Army “sending out pictures every night of buildings falling down and being bombed with possibly people (inside),” he was asked whether he would rule out withholding aid, to which he said, “No.”

Additionally, in early June, President Trump appeared to inadvertently make a significant campaign commitment in telling former UFC lightweight champion Khabib Nurmagomedov he would end the war in Palestine.

While attending an Ultimate Fighting Championship event in Newark, New Jersey, Nurmagomedov was heard privately saying to Trump, “I know you will stop the war in Palestine,” to which the 45th president responded, “We will stop it. I will stop the war,” with a video clip of the encounter going viral on Twitter/X.

Secondly, Peterson highlighted what he saw as a very positive development with the former president pulling in “a lot of hyper-powerful people” such as business mogul Elon Musk, former Democrat congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi GabbardVivek Ramaswamy, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “most of whom would have been Democrats in anything approximating a sane and normal world.”

For the psychologist, this indicates that the otherwise “flamboyant and dominating” Trump does not “tilt too far in the narcissistic direction” otherwise he would not be making these alliances and sharing “the spotlight with the rest of this crew.”

Furthermore, “I would vote for Trump if for no other reason than Musk himself has already agreed to head something like a Department of Governmental Efficiency in the U.S.,” Peterson continued. “Then Kennedy is bringing the public health crisis into the political realm, and both of those two things are revolutionary.”

The former professor also doesn’t believe Trump is pursuing a second term out of ambition since he is “an old man,” has already been president and “he’s as famous as you can get.” His motives are therefore focused on the betterment of the United States, “and that’s part of why he’s building this coalition.”

Morgan went on to comment on Trump’s “genuine personal courage” that he has exhibited within the context of the two recent assassination attempts. Trump’s insistence on getting back up after being injured by the first attempt, “to punch the air defiantly was a remarkable thing to do.” And “more remarkable” was his “being back on stage” just one week later “at another rally with an even bigger crowd, like nothing had happened.”

With regard to the second incident, Morgan marveled that Trump was cracking jokes after this attempt on his life, quipping, “I wish I could have finished my birdie putt.”

“Yes, grace under pressure” is a virtue Trump possesses, agreed Peterson, who went on to assess the quality of the former president’s humor.

“You know, Hitler wasn’t well known for his sense of humor,” he continued. And “you can’t deny this, Trump is a funny bastard. He’s funny.” This includes on social media where he is “impulsive, entertaining, unbelievably cutting and funny.”

“You know, that just doesn’t go well with the tyrannical personality,” the psychologist assessed, “because tyrants aren’t well known for being able to tolerate the court jester.”

“And so, Trump is tough and funny,” he summarized.

Addressing Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, Peterson applied the same principle, “that previous performance is the best indicator of future performance.”

“We’ve already seen what a Biden administration looks like,” and the “foreign policy has been a complete bloody world-ending disaster under the Democrats,” he said in relation to conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

“The easiest thing to predict is another four years of the same thing,” he concluded.

Business

Trump’s Initial DOGE Executive Order Doesn’t Quite ‘Dismantle Government Bureaucracy’

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Thomas English

President Donald Trump’s Monday executive order establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) presents a more modest scope for the initiative, focusing primarily on “modernizing federal technology and software.”

The executive order refashions the Obama-era United States Digital Service (USDS) into the United States DOGE Service. Then-President Barack Obama created USDS in 2014 to enhance the reliability and usability of online federal services after the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov, an insurance exchange website created through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Trump’s USDS will now prioritize “modernizing federal technology and software to maximize efficiency and productivity” under the order, which makes no mention of slashing the federal budget, workforce or regulations — DOGE’s originally advertised purpose.

“I am pleased to announce that the Great Elon Musk, working in conjunction with American Patriot Vivek Ramaswamy, will lead the Department of Government Efficiency (‘DOGE’),” Trump said in his official announcement of the initiative in November. “Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess government regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.”

The order’s focus on streamlining federal technology and software stands in contrast to some of DOGE’s previously more expansive aims, including Elon Musk’s claim that “we can [cut the federal budget] by at least $2 trillion” at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in November. Musk now leads DOGE alone after Vivek Ramaswamy stepped down from the initiative Monday, apparently eying a 2026 gubernatorial run in Ohio.

The order says it serves to “advance the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda,” but omits many of the budget-cutting and workforce-slashing proposals during Trump’s campaign. Rather, the order positions DOGE as a technology modernization entity rather than an organization with direct authority to enact sweeping fiscal reforms. There is no mention, for instance, of trillions in budget cuts or a significant reduction in the federal workforce, though the president did separately enact a hiring freeze throughout the executive branch Monday.

“I can’t help but think that there’s more coming, that maybe more responsibilities will be added to it,” Susan Dudley, a public policy professor at George Washington University, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Dudley, who was also the top regulatory official in former President George W. Bush’s administration, said the structure of the new USDS could impact the recent lawsuits against the DOGE effort.

“I think it maybe moots the lawsuit that’s been brought for it not being FACA,” Dudley said. “So if this is how it’s organized — that it’s people in the government who bring in these special government employees on a temporary basis, that might mean that the lawsuit doesn’t really have any ground.”

Three organizations — the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), National Security Counselors (NSC) and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) — separately filed lawsuits against DOGE within minutes of Trump signing the executive order. The suits primarily challenge DOGE’s compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), alleging the department operates without the required transparency, balanced representation and public accountability.

The order also emphasizes not “be construed to impair or otherwise affect … the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.”

“And the only mention of OMB [Office of Management and Budget] is some kind of boilerplate at the end — that it doesn’t affect that. But that’s kind of general stuff you often see in executive orders,” Dudley continued, adding she doesn’t “have an inside track” on whether further DOGE-related executive orders will follow.

“It’s certainly, certainly more modest than I think Musk was anticipating,” Dudley said.

Trump’s order also establishes “DOGE Teams” consisting of at least four employees: a team lead, a human resources specialist, an engineer and an attorney. Each team will be assigned an executive agency with which it will implement the president’s “DOGE agenda.”

It remains unclear whether Monday’s executive order comprehensively defines DOGE, or if additional orders will be forthcoming to broaden its mandate.

Continue Reading

International

California’s soaring electricity rates strain consumers, impact climate goals

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

While the greenhouse gas reduction programs that raise electricity rates are part of California’s climate goals, the increased prices actually discourage individuals from switching away from using fossil fuels impacting California’s ambitious climate goals.

California has completed yet another year with some of the highest electricity rates in the country – almost double the national average. The state’s electricity rates have been increasing rapidly, outpacing inflation in recent years by approximately 47% from 2019 to 2023. This is due largely to the high rates charged by the state’s three large investor-owned utilities (IOUs).

According to a report published by the California Legislative Analyst Office, the factors driving rate increases are wildfire-related costs, greenhouse gas reduction mandates, and policies and differences in utility operational structures and services territories. Ratepayers bear the brunt of these costs with those who earn lower incomes and live in hotter areas of the state the most severely affected.

The report points out that while the greenhouse gas reduction programs that raise electricity rates are part of California’s climate goals, the increased prices actually discourage individuals from switching away from using fossil fuels impacting California’s ambitious climate goals.

These programs include the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires utilities to provide a percentage of retail electricity sales from renewable sources, raising costs for ratepayers. Additionally, SB 350 directs the CPUC to authorize ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs to meet California’s goal of doubling energy efficiency savings by 2030.

“While many other states operate ratepayer-supported energy efficiency programs, on average, we estimate that Californians contribute a notably greater share of their rates to such programs than is typical across the country,” the report notes.

Electricity rates pay for numerous costs related to the construction, maintenance and operation of electricity systems including the generation, transmission and distribution components. However, these rates also pay for costs unrelated to servicing electricity.

“Most notably, the state and IOUs use revenue generated from electricity rates to support various state-mandated public purpose programs,” the report says. “These programs have goals such as increasing energy efficiency, expediting adoption of renewable energy sources, supporting the transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), and providing lower-income customers with financial assistance.”

The largest public purpose program is the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE), which provides discounts for lower-income customers. However, the report notes that while CARE benefits certain customers, it shifts the costs onto other slightly higher-income customers and that the majority of Californians spend a larger portion of their income on electricity compared to other states.

 “According to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, California households in the lowest quintile of the income distribution typically spend about 6 percent of their before-tax incomes on electricity, compared to less than 1 percent for the highest-income quintile of households,” reads the report. “Notably, high electricity rates also can impose burdens on moderate-income earners, since they also pay a larger share of their household incomes toward electricity than their higher-income counterparts but typically are not able to qualify for bill assistance programs.”

Electricity bills also reflect other state and local tax charges including utility taxes that are used to support programs such as fire response and parks in addition to the state-assessed charge on electricity use that is put into the Energy Resources Programs Account (ERPA). This account is used to pay for energy programs and planning activities.

While many of the funds recovered through electricity rates are fixed costs for programs, these costs increased in 2022 following the repeal of a state law that limited fixed charges at $10, requiring the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to authorize fixed charges that vary by income. These come out to be around $24 per month for non-CARE customers and $6 per month for CARE customers.

Wildfire related costs have also been increasing. Before 2019, wildfire costs included in electricity rates charged by IOUs were negligible, but now it has grown between 7% and 13% of typical non-CARE customers. Reasons for this increase include California’s high wildfire risk and the state’s liability standard holding IOUs responsible for all costs associated with utility-caused wildfires.

“The magnitude of the damages and risks from utility-sparked wildfires have increased substantially in recent years,” reads the report. “Correspondingly, IOUs have spent unprecedented amounts in recent years on wildfire mitigation-related activities to try to reduce the likelihood of future utility-caused wildfires, with the associated costs often passed along to ratepayers. Furthermore, California IOUs and their ratepayers pay for insurance against future wildfires, including contributing to the California Wildfire Fund.”

According to the report, electricity use and rates for Claifornians are only expected to increase and the legislature will have to determine how to tackle the statewide climate goals while reducing the burden on ratepayers.

Continue Reading

Trending

X