Streetwise Professor

The immigration issue is the subject of the most intense coverage right now, just as it was arguably the most important issue in the campaign. The issue has numerous facets. Here are a few observations on several of them.

Birthright citizenship. Trump eliminated it by Executive Order (“EO”). He did so on day one no doubt knowing that the issue will be litigated to the Supreme Court and he wants it decided ASAP.

This immediately elicited shrieks of “it’s unconsitutional!!!!!” Not so fast.

These statements are based on an 1898 Supreme Court decision, which established birthright citizenship on a given set of facts. Moreover, the decision was based on an application of common law, rather than the Constitution. The justices at the time basically used common law to fill a purported gap in the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. This reliance on the common law was challenged (in a dissent) at the time, and the dispute over this continues.

The issue then, and the one on which any future decision will turn, is the language of the clause in the 14th Amendment italicized here: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” By ordinary principles of statutory and Constitutional interpretation, the clause must mean something. Moreover, it clearly qualifies the previous clause: if the amendment was intended to establish unqualified birthright citizenship, the clause would not be necessary, and indeed would be superfluous.

So what does it mean? It has to mean something more than “born in the US because the US has jurisdiction over the US,” which is what the ardent defenders of birthright citizenship claim.

An interpretation that squares with the debates over the Amendment, and the previous statute that it was intended to protect from challenge or repeal, is that it means “subject to the jurisdiction of no foreign power.” That is, subject to the sole jurisdiction of the US. An immigrant that comes here is potentially subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country. By this reading, the children of parents subject to such jurisdiction would not automatically be citizens.

My GGGF’s citizenship paper says something like “I, Georg Pirrong, having foresworn my allegiance to the King of Germany” (quoting from memory). Which implies that previous to his naturalization he was presumed to have such an allegiance, and was therefore potentially subject to German jurisdiction.

It should also be noted that the Amendment was established when all immigration was legal, so the status of the children of illegal immigrants was not explicitly considered by Congress when the Amendment was enacted. Furthermore, this issue was clearly not what the 14th was about: it was obviously about putting the citizenship of black Americans on a firm Constitutional footing. The facts in the 1898 case also do not match up with the issue of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens: the plaintiff in that case was born in the US prior to the restriction on Chinese immigration, and was denied admission to the US when returning from China after the anti-Chinese immigration law had been passed. So, he was not born to illegal immigrants.

The mismatch of facts between 1868 and 1898 and 2025 means this is not an open and shut issue. It will come down, of course, to squishes like Barrett and Roberts, and it is likely that they will go against the EO.

Who Will Pick Our Vegetables???? And build our houses? And buthcher our meat? This is a standard trope from the left and Democrats, wryly answered by the Babylon Bee:

Democrats Once Again Concerned About Who Will Pick Their Crops https://t.co/gkWTemIree pic.twitter.com/PbksCkaIUo

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 27, 2025

To which it must be added that it is an utterly ridiculous argument. There are (on the upside) 3 million farm workers in the US, half of whom are illegal. That figure comes from an advocacy organization. Government data is weirdly out of date: as of 2000 there were about 1.13 million hired farmworkers in the US. (That is from a 2025 USDA document–I haven’t found one with later data–please send if you can find it). Survey data published by the USDA suggest about only 500,000 are employed in crops. Interestingly, that data shows that the average age of hired farmworkers has risen steadily–meaning that recent immigrants (who tend to be very young) are not going into farm work.

There are about 6 million (non-supervisory) construction employees in the US: estimates are that 20-30 percent of these are illegal.

So we are talking at most 3 million illegals in these two sectors, many (if not most) of whom were here before 2021. (Employment in meat packing is less than 100K total, representing perhaps a mere 50K illegals). Yet approximately 10 million flooded in under Biden, not to mention the flow in earlier years, plus the offspring of those who came in during, say, the Obama years. So it’s obviously not the case that the new illegals are vital to sustaining the ag and construction sectors.

The whole issue is absurd on its face. Just what crops are the immigrants in the Roosevelt Hotel in NY picking? The residents of Little Village in Chicago? In any sanctuary city? I could go on.

Enforcing the border with the military. Another freakout is over Trump’s deployment of the military to the border, allegedly in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. There is a parallel freakout over declaring the cartels terrorist organizations. I don’t think the freakers out see the connection between these two issues.

The cartels are inextricably linked with human smuggling/trafficking. Waves of immigrants also contain numerous narcotics mules. If cartels are terrorists, using the military to combat their activities-including human and drug trafficking-is not purely a law enforcement activity, or even primarily a law enforcement activity. It is something clearly under the purview of the military.

But this country was built by immigrants!!!!! Over the weekend, media midwit Margaret Brennan challenged J.D. Vance on immigration. In her (limited) mind, her killer point was going to be: how can you oppose immigration, because this country was built by immigrants?!?!?

This is another idiotic trope that we hear over and over, along with its frequent fellow traveler, the Emma Lazarus poem about give us your poor yadda yadda. I find it particularly ironic that progressives trot out this line.

For one thing, those who solemnly declare native land acknowledgements think such “settler colonialism” is evil and a historical stain on America-so why do they want to elevate it to a principle that must never be challenged or changed? Aren’t immigrants invading tribal lands?

For another, why are they hardcore conservatives–in the strict sense of the word, meaning “devoted to conserving the past”-on this issue, and not on others? Relatedly, why are those who insist on a “living Constitution” that must change with the times because it was written at a time with markedly different circumstances arguing that immigration laws should not be “living” too? Why do they insist on having the dead hand of the past rule the living?

Because it’s a rhetorical trick that they think will appeal to ordinary Americans who descended from immigrants, that’s why. It’s an emotional ploy.

The circumstances of the United States in the mass immigration era were markedly different than is the case now. Moreover, the immigrants were very different than those coming here now, particularly in terms of cultural similarity to the native population. Crucially, the earlier immigrants arrived when assimilation was strongly encouraged–and often embraced–by the immigrants, whereas now that is considered a racist idea: the cultural differences also make assimilation far more difficult, and many of the new immigrants are militantly opposed to assimilation.

And even more crucially, that immigration occurred in the pre-welfare era. The incompatibility of welfare and open immigration has long been emphasized by libertarians who are pre-disposed to favor immigration, such as Milton Friedman and Richard Epstein. An immigration system that works without welfare is a disaster with welfare. So choose, progressives: unbridled immigration, or welfare.

Along these lines, and related to the earlier discussion of immigrant labor. There are still acute labor shortages in, say, the Central Valley of California, despite large inflows of immigrants to that region (and California generally). Why?: because of the benefits showered on immigrants by the Federal government, and by the state of California. (The rising age over farm workers mentioned above is indirect evidence of this).

Margaret Brennan thought she had cornered Vance with this (tired) question. Vance was having none of it, and trenchantly answered that what we did 240 years ago is no reason to have the world’s dumbest immigration laws today. (If I would quibble with Vance, it is that various European countries, notably Germany, have pretty stupid laws too–it’s a close call as to which is dumber).

It never ceases to amaze that midwits like Brennan think they can play gotcha with Vance after he has run rings around them time and time and time again.

The immigration debate will continue to rage. But I predict the battle lines will not change, and that all of the above will be focus of contention for the next four years. At least.

The New York Times and Bloomberg are freaking out at one of Trump’s opening salvos–his designation of Mexican cartels as terrorists. The gravamen of their arguments is that the cartels are so embedded in “legitimate” Mexican businesses that US businesses that deal with such companies could be subject to sanctions. And fearing that, Americans won’t do business with Mexicans:

Even more complicated, these criminal networks have extended their operations far beyond drug trafficking and human smuggling. They are now embedded in a wide swath of the legal economy, from avocado farming to the country’s billion-dollar tourism industry, making it hard to be absolutely sure that American companies are isolated from cartel activities.

Although though I doubt Bloomberg and the NYT would wise up even if beaten mercilessly with the clue bat, let me try to explain.

In brief: Uhm, what they whine about is exactly the point. The sprawling nature of the cartels is precisely why they pose such a serious threat.

The whole purpose of Trump’s action is to isolate American businesses from cartel-related activities. This serves several purposes.

First, and perhaps most important, to hold Mexico’s feet to the fire to get them to take more forceful action against the cartels. Even the Bloomberg oped acknowledges that Mexico’s actions against the cartels have been halting at best. Mexico obviously needs an incentive to get its mind right. We’ve tried the easy way for years, to little effect. So the hard way it is.

Second, to hurt the cartels financially to limit their capacity and incentive to harm the United States.

I should also note that the Executive Order designating the cartels as terrorist organizations will not just impact American businesses’ dealings with Mexican companies: it will impact American businesses’ dealings with American companies, and American companies directly. The cartels’ penetration of businesses is not limited to Mexico by any means: their tentacles spread wide in the United States.

And not just businesses. Law enforcement throughout the United States is also compromised.

The drug cartels have penetrated American commerce and law enforcement even more than the Mafia in its golden age. Do the NYT and Bloomberg regret the government’s war on the Mafia (waged with particular ferocity in the 1960s and 1970s) because of how it affected the GDP print?

Thus, contrary to the NYT and Bloomberg articles, this action does not discriminate unfairly against Mexico. It will likely have effects similar to RICO did at its introduction.

Even evaluated on narrowly economic terms, do the NYT and Bloomberg really believe that massive criminal organizations that supply massive quantities of fentanyl and other drugs resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and addictions per year are somehow additive to GDP? That the vicious violence that they commit is a price worth paying because of the economic benefits of cartel activity? Is human trafficking just a broken egg necessary to make a delicious economic omelet? Or maybe the NYT and Bloomberg believe it’s a positive benefit?

But OMG taking action against the cartels could reduce remittances to Mexico!

If money transfer companies like Western Union also stop transactions to Mexico over worries about properly vetting Mexican clients, it could affect the remittances the country relies on. That would be devastating for the Mexican economy, which received $63.3 billion in remittances in 2023, nearly 5 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Well, deporting millions of illegals will too! And again, this would serve to incentivize Mexico to get serious about getting the problem under control.

Both articles fret about the effects of direct military action by say Delta or the SEALs against the cartels in Mexico. I consider this problematic as well, but not for the reasons that media savants. They are fussed about a “massive violation of [Mexican] sovereignty.” Uhm–the cartels operating largely with impunity in Mexico are a massive violation of American sovereignty. Qualms about offending Mexico’s sensibilities about its sovereignty should not prevent us from defending ours.

I consider it beyond ironic that publications that are big boosters of aggressive sanctions against Russia and Russian businesses suddenly clutch their pearls about imposing sanctions on cartels (and hence indirectly-or maybe not so indirectly-the Mexican government). The logic of both is the same: both are methods short of war intended to compel countries operating against the interests of the United States to curb their depredations.

The NYT’s and Bloomberg’s special pleading on behalf of Mexico and its cartels raises questions. Like: Are they under cartel influence?

I say that only half in jest.

Yesterday was Trump’s inauguration. It was also likely his apotheosis–the apex of Trumpness, the culmination of years of struggle. It’s hard to believe it could get any more glorious for him than this.

Watching him speak and then sign one executive order after another made me think “Prometheus unbound.” Trump was certainly a political Prometheus, defying the gods of the establishment, and condemned to years of torment for his impertinence and lese majeste (or lese deus). But through the exercise of will perhaps (but only perhaps) matched only by one man in American history (Andrew Jackson) he broke his shackles and triumphed, to relish a Conan-like best-of-life moment: “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.” (Yes, I’m looking at you, Liz Warren!)

The progressive left is staggering about (to quote Lincoln’s description of General William Rosecrans) “like a duck struck on the head,” not knowing quite what hit them. They have no one to blame but themselves. They failed to grasp that Trump is the living embodiment of Nietzsche’s aphorism: “What does not kill me makes me stronger.” If they had just let him alone four years and a day ago, he would have probably raged against the coming darkness, but soon faded from view. But they hated and feared him so much that they embarked on an all out campaign to destroy him personally and financially. But he fought back and they failed. All the while he absorbed all of their negative energy and turned it back upon them.

Further, whereas the Trump of 2017 was surprised, shocked, giddy, and naive, making him totally unprepared for the deep state’s and establishment’s unrelenting attacks, the Trump of 2021 is fully aware of what lurks in the recesses of DC and has launched a preemptive attack, the political equivalent of Operation Bagration, an all out attack on all fronts.

The opening barrage of executive orders hit every position the left has established in recent years. Immigration. Gender. Energy. “Climate change.” The public health apparatus (specifically by leaving WHO). Perhaps most provocatively, pardoning the J6 defendants en masse. His inauguration address hit all these positions and a few more to boot.

This broad front strategy is canny. By attacking everywhere at once Trump forces the left/Democrats either to dissipate their efforts by trying to defend everywhere at once, or to concentrate on a few sectors thereby leaving Trump to rampage through the undefended areas. And the stunned ducks haven’t been able to decide which. Army Group Left has been smashed.

The left will eventually gather itself, somewhat anyway. There will be legal counterattacks. Virtually the second Trump took the oath four lawsuits challenging DOGE were filed. His order to stop spending remaining moneys authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act [sic] will spur legal challenges over the constitutionality of impoundment. So there will not be surrender, let alone unconditional surrender, but the correlation of forces overwhelmingly favors Trump at this time.

Like Bagration, Operation Trump will eventually outrun its logistics and slow down, likely even bogging down for a time. But the momentum is his and the political battlefield favors his ultimate operational success.

Yesterday reminded me of a couple of previous political watersheds.

For one, this is Reagan’s “it’s morning again in America” on steroids. Trump is the embodiment of animal spirits, and MAGA is essentially a promise to free American animal spirits from the suffocating embrace of the nanny state–and the deep state. To harness a Jacksonian bumptiousness that has not been completely banished from the land, despite the establishment’s concerted effort.

The second harkens back to the early days of this blog, in which in what was one of my first political posts, I launched a rant (first of many!) against Obama’s election: it was apparently amusing enough to attract the attention of the WSJ’s John Fund Political Diary, which published an excerpt. Yesterday (and 11/5/24) represent the bell tolling for Obamaism. All political eras are eventually eclipsed. Obama’s just has been. Jackson’s was. Trump’s will be. But I sense that in the latter case, that eclipse will be some time in coming.

Cocoa has been on a wild ride for the past year.

So wild that Bloomberg has a separate category for “The Cocoa Crisis.” Contributing to the recent hysteria is news that Hershey has requested “special permission to buy over 90,000 tons of cocoa.” Evidently the chocolate manufacturer has requested a position limit exemption from the CFTC. (Links to the “Cocoa Crisis” coverage are in the article).

Note that exemptions, specifically for hedging, are explicitly recognized in the relevant regulations, and are granted routinely, so this is not really exceptional. Not knowing the exemptions granted to Hershey in the past it is difficult to know whether the magnitude of the exemption is extraordinary.

The article is confusingly written. In commodities subject to limits, there are different kinds of limits. These include single month and all month limits outside the “spot month” and “spot month” limits. Spot month limits kick in sometime prior to expiration. In cocoa, it is my understanding that the spot month limit kicks in on First Notice Day, which for the next ICE Cocoa contract (“CC”), March 2025 (“CCH5”) is 24 February, 2025.

The article implies that the exemption requested is for the spot month:

The maker of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups wants to take a position that will allow it to purchase more than 90,000 metric tons of cocoa on ICE Futures US, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. The request to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission equates to about 5,000 20-foot containers and is more than nine times the amount the exchange currently allows.

The spot month limit is 1,000 lots, so 9,000 contracts would be 9x the spot limit. The single month/all month limit is 4,900 contracts, so the requested exemption would be less than 2x the single/all month limit.

I am somewhat skeptical that the exemption request is related to the spot month given that spot exemption requests can occur closer to FND, and the magnitude is so large relative to ICE cocoa certified stocks (currently only 1,604 lots) that granting such an exemption would be problematic. Particularly problematic would be “purchas[ing] more than 90,000 metric tons of cocoa on ICE Futures US” if that means acquiring that much physical cocoa via the delivery process.

But Hershey did that in 2020, and exchange cocoa is supposedly at a discount to the cash market. The cash market discount begs the question: why? Are apples being compared to apples in terms of quality, location, etc.?

Acquiring 90,000 tons–or 25 percent of that amount– would require bringing in large amounts of cocoa to exchange warehouses. That in turn would require acquiring cocoa on the cash market (at a supposed premium), getting it to ICE warehouses, grading it, etc. So it’s hard to believe that cert cocoa is an economical source of supply for Hershey in the quantities mentioned in the Bloomberg article.

The price movement in 2020 sure as hell looks like a squeeze, but neither ICE nor the CFTC took action, so maybe Hershey figures it can do it again.

Unlike 2020, this time the spread didn’t take off:

The March-May 2025 spread did spike in mid-December, but only narrowed slightly after the publication of the Bloomberg article on 8 January. (Perhaps somewhat confusingly, an increase in the spread is referred to as “narrowing”. “Wider” means a bigger carry: “narrower” means less carry or more backwardation).

Here’s 2020 for comparison:

I certainly believe that big commercials can sometimes bamboozle ICE and the CFTC, especially when it comes to telling just so stories about how its economical to take delivery. So it’s not inconceivable that Hershey is trying to do that here, and that they will succeed.

The are other curious things in the article. For example: “A spokesperson for the Pennsylvania-based company said Hershey has a ‘rigorous’ procurement process and that it is ‘well covered’ on its cocoa needs for 2025.” If “well covered” means that Hershey has supply contracts sufficient to meet its anticipated physical needs, why would it need to take delivery? If “well covered” means that they supply contracts are fixed price, Hershey wouldn’t need to hedge using futures. So the company’s statement obfuscates rather than informs if it is intended to ease fears that the company could be hammered by a high and rising cocoa price in 2025.

As I noted before, the epic price rally has put cocoa in the news frequently. Another example is this Reuters article from last month. In brief, the high and volatile cocoa prices have driven speculators from the market, leading to thinner, less liquid markets.

A couple of comments.

First, the exit of hedgies has not caused prices to decline, which implies that they were not the ones that caused the high prices in the first place as has been frequently claimed (as is usually the case when prices move a lot–“round up the usual suspects”).

Second, the reduction in speculative capital makes the price more sensitive to bigfooting by commercials. Like Hershey. Just sayin’.

Third, this demonstrates clearly the effects of clearing and margining. Volatility and high flat prices increase margins and thereby the cash needed to maintain positions. Since cash liquidity can be costly, this raises the cost of providing both long term and short term market liquidity, which leads to the exit of speculative capital that has occurred in cocoa. This in turn increases volatility all things equal. That is, the margining mechanism creates a positive feedback loop that can be detrimental to market performance.

Not to say that the credit risk mitigation benefits of margining don’t outweigh these market liquidity costs. Just pointing out that mitigating credit risk is not cost free.

Given the decline of liquidity and the possibility that a large commercial may lean on the delivery process, the cocoa market is worth keeping an eye on.

As an aside, some years back there were squeezes in cocoa in March. I used to teach my commodity trading course in Geneva in March, and I joked to my students that I should buy CC calendar spreads before heading to Geneva. (I now teach there in April). This March might be particularly interesting.

And of course there was the big Armajaro corner in cocoa in July 2011.

All in all, cocoa can be a source of material for those interested in how er “technical factors” affect pricing. Including me. So I guess you could say I’m coo coo for cocoa:

(A flashback to my youth).

Trump’s Greenland obsession has attracted considerable ridicule (go figure) but increasingly some who cannot be considered reflexive Trumpists are stating that greater US control over the world’s largest island makes good geostrategic sense. In a nutshell, increasing American control over Greenland would enhance America’s strategic position in the Arctic, which is an increasingly important theater of jockeying between world powers. Russia has always been a rival in that region, but now the non-Arctic state of China is making moves there as well. (Come to think of it, Trump’s statements about making Canada the 51st state may reflect the same calculation, especially in light of the collapse of Canada’s military and the globalist, leftist tilt of its government in recent decades).

Note that I wrote “control” above. Ownership is sufficient to obtain control, but it is not always necessary to do so. Control rights can also be obtained by contract, which in an international context would be in the form of a treaty or similar inter-state agreement.

Thus, the real issue is what is the best way for the US to achieve its strategic objectives, via purchase or treaty/contract. That is, this is analogous to a firm deciding whether to vertically integrate to acquire inputs, or instead enter into a contract with a separate firm to do so. (In the IO literature, this is sometimes referred to as the “make or buy” decision).

The major advantage of purchase is that ownership confers exclusivity, and the right to exclude. This is of particular importance in the case of Greenland, where excluding a Chinese presence is essential to achieve US interests. This includes a presence in both facilities/bases and natural resource development.

Now it may be possible to formulate treaty language that would grant exclusivity to the US. However, (a) nations can renege on treaties, and (b) as the case in any contract, there can be ambiguity in treaty language that allows ex post opportunism. Thus, enforcing such exclusivity terms is likely to be costly and the risk of breach is non trivial.

Trump’s rhetoric in another controversial acquisition (re-acquisition, actually) proposal illustrates the issues with enforcing the right to exclude certain uses of an asset. Specifically, the Panama Canal Treaty–actually titled The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal–required the canal to remain out of the control of any power and granted the US the right to defend the canal against threats to neutral operation and access. This has not prevented the development of massive Chinese port facilities at each end of the canal, facilities that have potential military uses that threaten the US’s access to the canal especially but not only in the event of a Sino-American war.

That is, a case can be made that the US has a right to intervene to eject China from the Canal Zone, or at least would have the right to do so under certain contingencies. The practical enforceability of that right is clearly problematic. It would not be so if the US still controlled the CZ.

Another example of the risks associated with obtaining rights to strategic territory via contract is also in the news, namely the UK’s apparently imminent transfer of control of Diego Garcia to Mauritius–a deal that Starmer is apparently panting to complete before Trump takes office.

Trump’s real estate experience no doubt makes him acutely aware of the trade-offs between leasing a property and owning it. These trade-offs are particularly important when development options are considered, and Greenland would be all about development options–transportation infrastructure, military facilities, and mines (for rare earths, specifically). Writing an even passably complete contract describing and allocating such development rights would be challenging in the extreme, and Trump no doubt understands this clearly.

Ironically, the biggest obstacle to development of a US-owned Greenland would be . . . US law. The entire panoply of environmental law that has throttled development in the US would presumably be applicable to Greenland. Certainly environmental groups (plausibly acting as cat’s paws for China and Russia) would engage in lawfare to restrict development. And a future president could do as Biden just did with respect to offshore energy development, and Biden other presidents have done by proscribing development on some federal land.

In sum, (a) some degree of US control of Greenland would advance American national interests, and national security interests specifically, and (b) obtaining that control via contract (treaty) would likely entail substantial transactions costs in specifying and enforcing those rights. In contrast, ownership would confer control and avoid these transaction costs. Thus, buying Greenland makes economic sense, not in the sense of American investments in Greenland are positive NPV projects, but in the sense that ownership is the most economical way to incentivize and secure those investments. Put differently, transactions cost economics strongly favor achievement of American objectives in Greenland via purchase. It is therefore not surprising that a ruthlessly transactional man who has decades of experience in dealing with the trade-offs involved with purchase and contract is pursuing that course.

It is remarkable to watch the incineration of the left around the world. From California to Canada to Europe you can hear their shrieks emanating from the flaming pyre.

This is almost literally true in California, where the horrific fires in Los Angeles are a veritable bonfire of leftist vanities. For years the self-satisfied, sanctimonious, supposedly superior leftist “elite” has pursued a governing agenda that focused on everything but performing the basic functions of good government. Among these environmental wackiness and DEI have been most prominent.

The environmental wackiness includes privileging some marginal meaningless species of smelt rather than responsibly using and conserving precious water supplies or the construction of reservoirs necessary to supply water for, you know, fighting fires and other irrelevant stuff. (In an ironic twist, it didn’t save the smelt–you can’t make this shit up if you try).

It also includes grotesque forest management practices that create tinderboxes ready to explode due to acts of God, or more likely man (through arson or accident), all in the name of preserving other wildlife (which ends up being incinerated when the tinderboxes erupt), or even more absurdly, of reducing CO2 emissions. (Note to the stupid: letting dead timber rot instead of burn only affects the timing of CO2 release).

The left blames California’s chronic fire problems on climate change. Even granting that dubious premise, a perceived threat of the dire effects of climate change should have led California to redouble efforts at mitigating them, through better water and forest management. If it is as existential threat, as the California left insists, act like it! But they have not. To the contrary.

So what is it? Do they not really believe in climate change? Do they use it as an excuse to divert resources to their real priorities? To camouflage their totalitarian agenda? Or are they just dumb as dirt?

These are observationally equivalent. I’ll leave it up to you to make your own choice.

The DEI dumbness is epitomized by a LA Fire Department that gloats how its lesbian-dominated “leadership” has broken glass ceilings. In case you haven’t noticed, the signs on fire alarms and equipment don’t say “In Case of Fire, Break Glass Ceiling.” And when the alarms have been pulled, the response has been catastrophically incompetent.

In another example of its bad effect do goodism, insurance companies attempted to raise rates to reflect the greater risks and costs of fire (a rational response). To protect its citizens from such unconscionable price gouging, California said no. To which many insurers said, OK, we just won’t sell your citizens insurance, thereby making the cost of private insurance infinite. Thanks, California! (Which is what the insurers who left are now saying, because the fire-related claims ain’t their problem).

I could go on. And on. And on (repeat ad infinitum). Yet the California left presumes to assert its superiority of the rest of us in flyover country, and incessantly attempts to impose its regulatory and legal insanity on the rest of the nation.

The other major leftist vanity bonfire is in Europe and the UK. There the fire starter has been Elon Musk, with an assist from Mark Zuckerberg.

Musk has been holding Labour’s feet to the fire over the appalling Muslim child rape gangs, and especially the official coverup thereof. A coverup that has run for over a decade and has involved virtually the entirety of British officialdom from local Plods to the Prime Minister (in his current incarnation, and his previous one as Crown Prosecutor).

Musk’s X posts have indeed been incendiary, and Labour and its media lackeys have burst into incandescent rage.

BREAKING:

The Mirror reports that the UK government’s counter-extremism unit has launched a probe in Elon Musk’s posts about the coverup of the migrant rape gang scandal in the country.

?The Home Office has stepped up extra monitoring to assess content and the reach of what is… pic.twitter.com/lfSD7e1Pct

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) January 9, 2025

Yes, terrorism. That’s it.

Musk’s real crime is lese majeste. How dare he scorn such eminentos as Starmer and Phillips!?!?! How dare he broadcast our failures?!?!?!

But as is his wont when challenged, Starmer is unleashing the entire state apparatus to go after his critic.

Methinks that he will find the world’s richest man who is tight with the soon-to-be-President of the US a little more of a challenge than a few Southport yobs.

Maybe Starmer should challenge Musk to a fight.

On second thought.

This panties-in-a wad bunch is threatening to end the US-UK “special relationship” over Musk’s insolence (and Trump’s dogpiling).

Oh, would that mean that the CIA couldn’t use MI5 and MI6 to spy on Americans? Your terms are acceptable!

And since the UK military is imploding, just who will defend them, especially against the Russians that the UK claims will rampage to the North Sea if not stopped in Ukraine?

The EU is also going up in flames over Musk. Germany, for example, is on fire because Musk had the audacity to interview the head of the AfD.

ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!!! OUR PRECIOUS DEMOCRACY IS UNDER THREAT BECAUSE PEOPLE MIGHT FIND OUT THAT THE AFD LEADER IN FACT SOUNDS MORE REASONABLE THAN EVERY MAINSTREAM GERMAN POLITICIAN!!!!

Speaking of precious democracy, the EU admittedly engineered the cancelation of Romania’s presidential election because there was a risk that benighted Romanians might elect a promulgator of Wrongthink.

Former EU Commissioner admits that the EU was responsible for the cancellation of the elections in Romania

"We did it in Romania, and we will do it in Germany if necessary."

– Thierry Breton pic.twitter.com/RsiVG8sOy3

— Daily Romania (@daily_romania) January 10, 2025

The world left is also in hysterics over Zuckerberg’s termination of “fact checking” (or, as I call it, “fact” fuckery). Again, the benighted cannot be exposed to possible Wrongthink! They must have their information curated and spoonfed to them by known liars and partisan hacks, as long as these are made men and women in the establishment. Otherwise, who knows what ideas will get through the hoi polloi’s thick skulls!

(NB: Zuckerberg’s statement is an implicit admission that the allegations of US government censorship of social media are 10000 percent true).

The threat emanating from evil American social media giants may result in the erection of the Great Firewall of Europe.

French former EU bureaucrat Thierry Breton says that “X could be banned in Europe.” https://t.co/exBRAc5886

— Uzay Bulut (@bulutuzay_) January 10, 2025

Good luck with that.

By the way, why are there no European social media giants? Or tech giants generally?

Just curious.

Here’s Europe’s real problem (and the left’s generally):

The truth that the leftist project is going down in flames because it is an abject failure, always and everywhere. All the censorship in the world can’t conceal that fact. There are too many fires of dissent for them to put out.

Unlike LA, we don’t need no water. Let the motherfucker burn. To the ground. Because if it isn’t destroyed, it will destroy us.