Emboldened by the U.S. ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration is searching for Cuban government insiders who can help cut a deal to push out the Communist regime by the end of the year, people familiar with the matter said. The Trump administration has assessed Cuba's economy as being close to collapse and that the government has never been this fragile after losing a vital benefactor in Maduro, these people said. Officials don't have a concrete plan to end the Communist government that has held power on the Caribbean island for almost seven decades, but they see Maduro's capture and subsequent concessions from his allies left behind as a blueprint and a warning for Cuba, senior U.S. officials said. "I strongly suggest they make a deal. BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE," President Trump stated in a Jan. 11 social-media post in which he said "NO MORE OIL OR MONEY" would be going to Cuba.

In a long, rambling address that was by turns bombastic, aggrieved and self-congratulatory, President Trump pronounced last rites on American leadership of the liberal democratic order forged by the United States and its allies after World War II. Mr. Trump used a keynote speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Wednesday — a pilgrimage site for adherents of globalization — to assert that the United States was done offering its markets and its military protection to European allies he derided as freeloaders. And he vowed to advance his trade war. He characterized tariffs as the price of admission to a land of 300 million consumers. "The United States is keeping the whole world afloat," Mr. Trump said. "Everybody took advantage of the United States."

A 66-year-old hiker who vanished deep inside Kahurangi National Park has been found alive after nearly three weeks missing — in an outcome authorities are calling nothing short of remarkable. Source: ‘He’s Extremely Lucky To Be Alive’: Hiker Found Alive After 3 Weeks Missing Wow.

Almost messing with history. The post The song Phil Collins almost deleted from history: “Should I rewrite?” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — National news stories have recently discussed Crazy California’s effort to impose an “emergency” wealth tax of 5 percent on the net worth of billionaires. It’s an asinine idea that could signal the end of the state’s leadership role in wealth-generating tech industries. The emergency is the state’s ongoing fiscal problems, but those aren’t caused by a lack of taxation, as California has among the highest tax burdens in the nation. It’s the result of the state government’s continuing failure to operate efficiently. California has 199 billionaires, which is far more than any other state. Proponents of the tax — namely a labor union (Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West) with a lousy track record at the ballot box — argue that the tax would raise $20 billion a year over five years. They plan to spend the money mostly on healthcare and some other social services. Only a small number of billionaires have fled the state before the January deadline, but if it passes, its opponents would have a number of legitimate legal angles for challenging its legitimacy — including this retroactive aspect of it. It would be a one-time tax, but it would of course send a signal to billionaires and aspiring ones that California is no place for them to do business. As the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office explained, the level of new revenue is difficult to predict because “it is hard to know what actions billionaires would take to reduce the amount of tax they pay. Also, much of the wealth is based on stock prices, which are always changing.” The LAO notes that billionaires’ responses could significantly decrease the state’s income taxes, thus mitigating a large portion of the new proceeds. Economist Henry Hazlitt was known for discussing the seen and unseen consequences of economic decisions. For instance, we will all see the new revenues that would flow into the state from the Billionaire Tax Act, but we wouldn’t see the investments and new businesses that never came about because of the tax. The Los Angeles Times reported on a California crypto startup that moved to South Dakota in December to avoid the possible tax. Other startups will take note and bypass the Golden State despite our lovely weather and beaches. A couple of caveats: First, some commentators blame the state’s usually misbegotten Democratic leadership, but Gov. Gavin Newsom is strongly opposed to it. “It’s a badly drafted effort and it’s already had an outsized impact on this state,” he said recently. State leaders note that California’s steeply progressive income tax system depends heavily on the highest 1 percent of owners, so even if a few of them leave, it could increase the state’s efforts to balance its budget, as KCRA notes. Second, some observers are assuming that the tax is a fait accompli given our wonky politics here, but in reality it’s rather iffy that it will pass. Given the huge stakes involved, I don’t blame the state’s wealthiest residents for doing whatever it takes to mitigate the risk, but the measure is out for signature gathering. It hasn’t qualified for the ballot yet. Initial polling shows support levels below 50 percent, which is typically the kiss of death at the initial ballot stage. Furthermore, California voters generally vote in a far more conservative manner on ballot measures than on their choices for elected officials. They repeatedly reject major tax hikes and rent control, for instance. Still, it’s problematic that powerful groups such as labor unions consistently push proposals that pose an existential threat to successful businesses and taxpayers. It’s infuriating that they rarely grapple with the unintended — but easily predictable — results of such proposals. And they do sometimes pass. Another good example of these “eat the rich” measures is Los Angeles’ Measure ULA from 2022. It imposes a transfer tax of 4 percent to 5.5 percent on the sale of “mansions” in the city. Instead of providing a windfall to fund homeless programs, the tax has squelched the sale of properties that cost more than $5 million. The tax doesn’t only apply to single-family mansions, but also applies to hotels, commercial buildings, shopping centers, and apartments. It’s paid by sellers based on the sales price rather than the profits. Recent news stories highlight the $258,000 ULA tax that Los Angeles Dodgers star Freddie Freeman paid on a house he sold for a major loss. That’s because Freeman did what few others are doing: he sold it. A recent commentary by Jason Ward of RAND, housing expert Shane Philips, and UCLA professor Michael Manville explained, “The easiest way to avoid the tax is to not sell, and our research shows that over the first two years since ULA was implemented, high-value property sales in the city fell by about 50% — a far steeper decline than elsewhere in the county during the same period.” Collections have averaged “less than half the lowest projections.” The tax also “has slowed the production of market-rate apartments” at a time when Los Angeles desperately needs new housing, they wrote. “Even though demand for housing in the region is red hot, many people who build apartments for a living have paused putting shovels in the ground [in Los Angeles] because, they say, it’s just too hard to turn a profit,” per an October news story in the Los Angeles Times. The tax is a key reason. The above-mentioned research also found that, per an analysis by California YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard), “The resulting drop in property tax revenue — fewer transactions means fewer properties getting reassessed under Prop. 13 — has cost schools, the city and county about $25 million yearly.” So these soak the rich policies end up soaking everyone else. Fortunately, there’s an effort to place on the November ballot a measure to cap these transfer fees, roll back LA’s mansion tax, and make it harder for voters to approve them in the future. Instead of punishing success, California needs to encourage it. Yes, our state remains economically vibrant but it’s despite the state’s policies, not because of them. Until something changes, billionaires and those who hope to be one someday will keep looking for greener pastures. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. READ MORE by Steven Greenhut: Housing: Trump and Newsom Are Odd Bedfellows California’s Latest Consumer Harassment Scheme Coming Initiatives Inspire Fear in Sacramento

New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science (NZDSOS) highlights lawfare cases against healthcare professionals and whistleblowers worldwide, including detective Helen Grus in Canada, lawyer Arno van Kessel in Holland, lawyer Reiner Fuellmich […] The post A worldwide epidemic of using the law to silence dissent about covid first appeared on The Expose.

Historians are still learning new information about George Washington's life, but one shred of lore endures: He had a thing for cherry pie. Is it really true?

Leaves Eyes plan to release the EP, “Song Of Darkness,” this year. In the interim, the band has unveiled the title track. “Our ‘Song Of Darkness’ transports you to a world of dark dreams and inner turmoil, where mystical spirits from ancient times guide your destiny,” says vocalist/keyboardist Alexander Krull. “‘Song Of Darkness’ is like a play with contrasts…it combines the mysterious and dark with light and angelic,” adds singer Elina Siirala. “In the midst of a dark story, there’s a feeling of hopefulness! The opposing elements create once again a perfect canvas and drama for a Leaves’ Eyes song!” Song Of Darkness “Song Of Darkness” EP Tracks: 01. Song Of Darkness02. Hall Of The Brave03. Until The Last Day04. Roots Eternal Founded in 2003 by Krull and fronted by Siirala since ’16, Leaves’ Eyes also features guitarists Florian Ewert and Luc Gebhardt, bassist Dominik Prykiel and drummer Simon Skrlec. The band has released nine full-length albums, seven EPs and one live set. Song Of Darkness ### The post Leaves’ Eyes “Song Of Darkness” EP Coming appeared first on RockinTown.

The globalists are on the run!

The US has had a military presence on Greenland since the second world war.