The post DIY Bucket Mouse Trap: A Homemade Solution That Works appeared first on Prepper Website.

The post Deadly Mistakes You Make When Using a Generator appeared first on Prepper Website.

The post 20 Ways to Manage Pain Naturally Without Seeing a Doctor appeared first on Prepper Website.

The post What Do You Call It When The Number Of Layoffs In The U.S. Goes Up By 136 Percent In Just One Month? appeared first on Prepper Website.

The post Secure Foot Travel: Getting from A to B After the World Goes Sideways appeared first on Prepper Website.

#Bidenomics Update: Gloomiest Jobs Data For January in Decades

The Things Allowed to Happen in Baltimore Schools Are Hard to Believe

We've already seen MSNBC legal blogger Jordan Rubin going full angst over the immunity appeal delay that threatens to push back the start date of the J6 trial which was originally scheduled to commence on March 4. On Wednesday‚ Politico reporters Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein joined Rubin in the Worry Room as they expressed their frustration over the slow pace of the appeal delay which threatens to push that critical trial past election day. Their utter frustration was on full display on Wednesday in "As judges mull presidential immunity‚ Trump reaps the benefits of delay." Whether Donald Trump faces a potential prison sentence in 2024 is at the mercy of a federal appeals court that’s operating on its own schedule — at a time when every day matters. More than 50 days have elapsed since Trump’s criminal proceedings in a Washington‚ D.C.‚ trial court — on charges for attempting to subvert the 2020 election — were paused indefinitely. They won’t resume until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and‚ most likely‚ the Supreme Court resolve the question hanging over the entire case: whether Trump‚ as a former president‚ is immune from criminal prosecution. HURRY! HURRY! We must have a Trump conviction before November in order to "fortify" the election! Even if those courts ultimately reject Trump’s immunity arguments — an outcome that most legal experts expect — the protracted delays help the former president‚ whose strategy across his various trials has been to drag them out for as long as possible. Lengthy delays in his federal criminal cases create the possibility that‚ if he wins the presidency this November‚ Trump could avoid the charges altogether by having the Justice Department end the prosecutions or perhaps even by pardoning himself. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan‚ who is overseeing Trump’s federal election case‚ has tried to keep it on an expeditious track‚ and the trial is officially slated to begin on March 4. Chutkan‚ though‚ has strongly suggested she’ll push back that start date to account for each day of delay caused by Trump’s immunity appeal. Who wants to be the one to plunge Cheney and Gerstein into an even deeper depression by telling them that‚ according to CBS News Congressional correspondent Scott MacFarlane‚ it now appears that the March 4 trial date is no more? Amid the wait for an appeals court ruling on Trump's claim of "Presidential immunity" and other potential delays.... the Washington D.C. federal court no longer lists USA v. Donald Trump criminal trial on its calendar for March 4‚ 2024 pic.twitter.com/u9VTotS2f1 — Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) January 31‚ 2024 More sad sads from the depressed duo: Even if the appeal were resolved this week against Trump‚ that calculation would put his earliest trial date in late April. But if the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court take additional weeks or months to deliver a final ruling‚ the opening days of Trump’s trial could be pushed to the summer or fall. The sheer desperation to conclude the trial before the election is so strong that astrology is even invoked: Many legal experts had expected the D.C. Circuit panel to rule quickly after the arguments‚ perhaps within a few days. But for more than three weeks‚ the court has been silent. There’s no required deadline for a ruling. “The timing of a decision by the panel will indeed be a critical determinant of whether the case can go forward expeditiously‚” said Daniel Richman‚ a Columbia University law professor. Richman said Trump’s arguments for immunity were so “outlandish” that the appeals court should have little trouble rejecting them. But he said the court must take its time to issue a careful ruling because of the certainty Trump will keep pressing his immunity claim. “Quite a few stars would have to align before the trial can proceed‚” Richman said. The future is uncertain but what seems most likely is Cheney and Gerstein swallowing many antacid pills in the months ahead to deal with those infuriating appeal delays that are already eating away at them.

This week‚ three American soldiers died at the hands of an Iranian proxy group that used a drone to strike an American base in Jordan. The Biden administration immediately leapt into action by issuing a strongly worded statement‚ while simultaneously proclaiming that they wanted to avoid escalation. Which‚ of course‚ is precisely the wrong thing to do when faced with aggression from a smaller‚ hostile adversary. The right thing to do? Punch them in the mouth hard enough to deter further aggression. That is something President Donald Trump knew innately. On Dec. 31‚ 2019‚ Iranian-backed proxy groups stormed the U.S. embassy compound in Iraq‚ killing a U.S. contractor. “Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq‚” Trump tweeted. “They will be held fully responsible.” On Jan. 2‚ 2020‚ the Defense Secretary said there were “indications” that Iran was planning “additional attacks” on American targets. On Jan. 3‚ 2020‚ the U.S. military killed Iran’s top terrorist commander‚ Qassem Soleimani. This led to teeth-gnashing from the American left‚ which declared such an activity a major escalation. Iran blustered that the assassination was “tantamount to opening a war against Iran.” Trump then threatened‚ “Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans‚ or American assets‚ we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago)‚ some at a very high level &; important to Iran &; the Iranian culture‚ and those targets‚ and Iran itself‚ WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.” Iran fired some missiles at some empty sites. That was the end of that particular exchange. It turns out that if there is one party in the Middle East that wants a U.S.-Iran war less than the United States‚ it is Iran. Which is how deterrence works. That’s what makes it so absurd that the Biden White House’s first Middle Eastern goal upon taking office was to destroy deterrence against Iran. The White House first declared itself in opposition to the Saudi regime‚ chiding Mohammed Bin Salman over human rights violations; the White House removed the Iranian-backed Houthis from the terror list; the White House tried to reopen Iranian nuclear talks. Despite the White House’s idiocy‚ Sunni-Israeli peace seemed to be in the offing. In fact‚ as a result of the White House’s idiocy‚ Saudi Arabia had drawn closer to Israel than ever before as a defensive measure against a resurgent Iran. So Iran acted. Iran acted knowing that the Biden administration is cowardly in its approach to foreign affairs -- that they’re willing to slow-walk aid to American allies under pressure but unwilling to countenance the credible threats of military force by which deterrence is established. And now the Biden administration continues to vacillate. After spending the months since Oct. 7 repeating ad nauseam an admonition to Iran not to escalate its violence -- “Don’t!” every Biden official‚ including Biden himself‚ has repeated -- Iran has indeed escalated its violence. It turns out that saying “Don’t” to aggressive foreign powers isn’t nearly as effective as saying “Don’t‚ or you may not be breathing tomorrow.” Napoleon Bonaparte once supposedly stated that his military policy was an “iron hand in a velvet glove.” When the iron hand disappears‚ replaced with fluff‚ there isn’t much for Iran to fear. And in an election year in which the president deeply fears a further conflict with Iran‚ Iran isn’t the party being deterred. America is‚ at the cost of American lives.

The quest for Big Government and even bigger Big Tech entities to erode what little privacy we have continues unabated. Yesterday‚ some of the most powerful Silicon Valley CEOs convened before Congress to explain why Americans must show ID to surf the web. Per usual‚ these schemes to rob our online sovereignty are cowardly and pushed in a vague call to protect children. U.S. lawmakers' motivation for online ID and age verification and tech CEOs' support for these measures signals a significant shift in the approach to online privacy and anonymity. The proposal for far-reaching online age verification standards‚ particularly the suggestion by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to impose age verification at the app store level‚ has profound implications. Enforcing such measures could dramatically alter the landscape of online interaction‚ making it difficult to engage in online activities without linking them to one's official identity. While intended to safeguard minors‚ these measures also pose risks of even more totalitarian surveillance and potential censorship and could hinder whistleblowing efforts by attaching a real-world identity to every online action.These nanny-state policies will infringe upon constitutional rights related to free speech and privacy. The First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously‚ which has been a cornerstone of democratic discourse since the founding of the Republic. Remember how many Founding Fathers wrote essays attacking their British overlords under pen names? Moreover‚ there are concerns about the technical and practical challenges of implementing secure age verification processes that do not compromise user privacy or expose sensitive personal information to potential misuse. Spoiler alert: this is impossible.The support expressed by X CEO Linda Yaccarino and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel for legislation aimed at increasing online safety for children‚ including the Kids Online Safety Act and the Cooper Davis Act‚ underscores the tech industry's cynical push for regulatory efforts to protect minors online. However‚ these legislative proposals also signal a potential sea change in how privacy‚ encryption‚ and anonymity are treated online.The Kids Online Safety Act seeks to expand online age verification requirements‚ which could significantly affect how children interact with online content. While the idea of protecting kids from porn or ISIS videos is not a terrible impulse‚ destroying the rights of adults to post their thoughts anonymously is a horrible idea.The Cooper Davis Act‚ which targets private messaging apps and could ban end-to-end encryption‚ represents a direct challenge to secure and private communication. End-to-end encryption is a cornerstone of digital privacy‚ ensuring that messages can only be read by the sender and recipient‚ with no possibility of interception by third parties‚ including the service providers. Undermining this technology will expose users to increased surveillance‚ data breaches‚ and malicious actors while hindering journalists‚ activists‚ and whistleblowers who rely on encrypted communication to protect their sources and themselves.This is the backdoor to Chinese-esque surveillanceAnyone closely following the tech world will instantly recognize the Chinese-style security barrier this will create. In China‚ you must have a digital ID to access its censored web. It makes identifying dissidents and stifling enemies of the regime rather easy. Just to reiterate‚ these are a few of the intensely negative ramifications of asking for your (digital) papers: Online age verification raises significant privacy issues. Robust personal data‚ such as date of birth or residential details‚ is typically required to validate age. This would drive exponential data collection with limited oversight.The program will discourage anonymous online activity. From political dissenters to domestic abuse survivors‚ anonymity offers security for many internet users. An age verification mandate could chill this crucial internet freedom.The measure could constrict open-access information resources. Sites on peer-reviewed research articles‚ health advice‚ and education materials require unhindered‚ equitable access — a factor that age verification could undermine.An economic burden on website operators is apparent. The obligation to install and operate age-verification systems might restrict smaller platforms lacking the requisite resources.This directive could inadvertently support a precedent for content censorship‚ threatening freedom of speech.The Kids Online Safety Act has nothing to do with children or safety; it’s about curtailing our collective ability to criticize the powerful. Some of the regime's most articulate and intelligent critics have had to resort to tweeting and writing under pseudonyms. This is because we live in a proto-techno-Soviet environment where objecting to the "current thing" results in job loss‚ doxing‚ and being excluded from polite society. Protecting the rights of online s**t-posters is an imperative we can’t sacrifice to appease the pearl-clutching "won’t you think of the children?" morons.