Sunday LIVE: Biden the Groomer, Recession, Single Issue Dems? etc (Superchat Q&A)

Styxhexenhammer666  Published originally on Rumble on July 3, 2022 

Sunday Talks, John Kirby Defends White House Energy and Economic Policy

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 4, 2022 | Sundance 

John Kirby is the former Pentagon spokesperson who is now the National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications.  The people in/around the White House have shifted Kirby, a very good spinner of parseltongue, into a place where he can give the media an impression of White House competency.

The LGBTQ, racially inclusive and woke checkbox hires are not up to the task of their positions.  Incompetence is running amok.  As a result, it is somewhat ironic and representative the Biden hypocrisy, that Kirby is needed to take the pressure away from administration checkbox hires.  In this interview Kirby defends the White House policy on the Russia-Ukraine war, interventionist and dependent foreign policy, and the energy policy that has resulted in high gas prices.

Video prompted to 04:05, where the topic of Biden’s upcoming visit to Saudi Arabia is discussed.  WATCH:

Biden Plan to Cap Russian Oil Prices Could Seriously Backfire, Which Means It’s Likely to Happen

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 3, 2022 | Sundance

The G7 plan to create another economic sanction against Russia by capping the price anyone could pay for Russian oil has a serious downside.  If Russia slows down the export of oil, global oil prices will jump dramatically.   That policy outcome would mean a massive increase in the price of gasoline for U.S. consumers.

Because the consequences are horrible, that’s precisely the reason Joe Biden might push to have the Russian price cap.  Every policy Joe Biden has historically supported, has been the exact opposite of what should have been done.  Biden has a profound and innate ability to screw up anything.

[Bloomberg] – Global oil prices could reach a “stratospheric” $380 a barrel if US and European penalties prompt Russia to inflict retaliatory crude-output cuts, JPMorgan Chase & Co. analysts warned.

The Group of Seven nations are hammering out a complicated mechanism to cap the price fetched by Russian oil in a bid to tighten the screws on Vladimir Putin’s war machine in Ukraine. But given Moscow’s robust fiscal position, the nation can afford to slash daily crude production by 5 million barrels without excessively damaging the economy, JPMorgan analysts including Natasha Kaneva wrote in a note to clients.

For much of the rest of the world, however, the results could be disastrous. A 3 million-barrel cut to daily supplies would push benchmark London crude prices to $190, while the worst-case scenario of 5 million could mean “stratospheric” $380 crude, the analysts wrote.

“The most obvious and likely risk with a price cap is that Russia might choose not to participate and instead retaliate by reducing exports,” the analysts wrote. “It is likely that the government could retaliate by cutting output as a way to inflict pain on the West. The tightness of the global oil market is on Russia’s side. (link)

[Poll Source]

Fed Chair Ignores Impact of Build Back Better Energy Policy on Supply Side of Inflation

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 3, 2022 | Sundance

Much has been made of comments by Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell in his brief explanation of what the Fed got wrong.  Last week Powell made comments during a European Central Bank forum on bank policy, implying the absence of unvaccinated workers returning to the labor force is part of the US inflation problem.

Powell’s comments seem to align with the government vaccine mandate position which ignored the rights of the worker. Considering the responsibility of the Fed to anticipate price and labor issues, Powell’s sense of credulity toward those workers who dropped out of the labor force rather than inject an untested vaccine into their body is quite remarkable.  Inartful and arrogant are soft terms for his commentary.

However, there’s a bigger “tell” in the segment of what the Fed got wrong, when you listen to Powell talk about the supply side issues and how the Fed Reserve had no model to predict the mandated lockdowns, economic activity stoppages and consequences.   Notice how Powell completely dismisses the structural energy policy, the Build Back Better agenda, that lies at the heart of the current supply side inflation issue.  Video Prompted to 01:03:34, WATCH:


Throughout the discussion the primary focus to control inflation is reliant on a demand side cause.   The goal to reduce demand is seen as a way to mitigate and reduce inflation.  Thus, this worldview, as mistaken as it was/is, explains the justification for why the Fed waited to increase interest rates.  They never saw the radical energy policy as a structural driver of supply side inflation.

According to Powell, they thought the supply side issues would moderate quickly, without giving any consideration at all to how a radically new energy policy would embed.  He just ignores the issue completely; again, pretending not to know.  But perhaps it’s actually worse.  Perhaps he really doesn’t see a radical new energy policy as a driving force behind current inflation.  If that’s true, and he genuinely does not see it, then Fed policy in the future is going to make the recession much worse.

If you ignore massive energy price impacts, the FED will keep interest rates high despite demand dropping, and then eventually get to a place where demand has dropped so low the recession is deep, while turning toward each other and asking why are prices still so high?

Keep that disconnect in mind.

Sunday Talks, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Discusses Ukraine, NATO, The Economy and His Conversations with Russian President Putin

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 3, 2022 | Sundance 

If you look beyond the condescending, sanctimonious and unintelligent questioning and pantomime from CBS News Margaret Brennan, there are some very interesting aspects outlined by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.  [Transcript Here] I was looking for how CBS would inject the pending global food shortage into the interview, and what narrative angle they would use.  The coordinated media political talking point, ‘Russia starving the world‘, comes up in the last third of the interview.

Germany is the largest and most heavily industrialized economy in the European Union (EU). As a result, Germany makes most of the decisions about how the EU operates. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel always played the role of supporting NATO; however, her approach to government was one of the most closed, controlling and nationalist hypocrisies within the European Union.  If it was in Germany’s interest it was done. If it was not directly beneficial to Germany, it was never done.

Merkel’s replacement, Olaf Scholz, is not that different from his predecessor in regard to the economics of nationalism, the predominant view for any German leader. However, Scholz is more of a collaborator, an outward looking Chancellor; seemingly more globally and communally minded than Merkel. Scholz is more accepting of Biden (USA) influence than Angela Merkel was.  Scholz is also spending more on German military than Merkel would ever consider.

In this interview, Scholz outlines the conflict in Ukraine while overlaying his perspective of Russian President Vladimir Putin as an outcome of their discussions.  WATCH:

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Chancellor, thank you so much for making time in your busy schedule for us.

OLAF SCHOLZ: Good morning.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So I read your biographer says you don’t often answer directly, but I’m going to try my best today. You speak with Vladimir Putin. Do you think that Russia is a terrorist state as president Zelenskyy says?

OLAF SCHOLZ: Russia started a very brutal aggression against Ukraine. A lot of people are dying in Ukraine, citizens, men, women, children, elderly people. And this is what we call a really brutal, unjustified war that has- that Russia started. And we have to do all to support Ukraine, and to give Ukraine the chance to defend its own integrity and serenity. And that is what we are doing when we support the country.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But calling it a terrorist state, in your view, doesn’t achieve anything?

OLAF SCHOLZ: It achieves something when we support Ukraine with all the financial means we give to the Ukraine, with all the humanitarian aid, with all the weapons we deliver. And we will continue doing this as long as it is necessary for supporting Ukraine, and for avoiding that the outcome of this war is what Putin is looking for: a dictated peace. And this is something that neither the Ukraine nor we will accept. So it is necessary that we continue with this very strong support. And it is necessary that we also continue with all the sanctions we imposed on Russia. And this is an important aspect from my- as I see it. We impose sanctions against one Russia after the election of Crimea, not too many, but we did–


OLAF SCHOLZ: And they are still in place. We imposed sanctions against Russia when they organize the uprisings in the east of Donbass in Ukraine, and they are still in place. And all the very heavy sanctions we impose on Russia now will be there, if there is not a real fair piece from the perspective of Ukraine, and this is the message I sent to Putin and many others do the same. And we make it very clear, you cannot look for a dictate piece against Ukraine.

MARGARET BRENNAN: When you speak to Putin, does he acknowledge the sanctions? Does he acknowledge how much his economy has been hurt? Or does he just not care?

OLAF SCHOLZ: I think he cares, But he will not really admit it. So you get some-

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because it hasn’t stopped him.

OLAF SCHOLZ: –idea – you get some idea that it really is hurting him and that he understands the deep impacts of our sanctions on his economy. And I’m always mentioning it because it’s necessary to say it. Just to give you a view on this question, if a very advanced country like the United States, or Germany, with a very progressive economy with high tech industries, would go out of the world and would just stick to itself, we would go down in economic growth very, very soon. But this is now happening to a country that is not that advanced, that is really – needing all the technologies from the rest of the world for having a similar standard of living, and for having the chance to be part of growth in the world economy. And this is now the real damage to the Russian economy that they have no chance to do this. And it’s also hurting them because many of the things, even the military weapons they produce themselves are in one or the other way- Just linked to the economic and technological progress of the world. And so they will go back very, very far.

MARGARET BRENNAN: When Will Russia know- when will Russia no longer have the ability to continue this fight? When will Putin run out of weapons, run out of funds? Or can this continue for years?

OLAF SCHOLZ: No one really knows he has. He has– he is perhaps the leader of a very great country with a lot of people living there, with a lot of means, and he is really doing this brutal war with– and he prepared for it (for) very long. I think the decision to- to do this war was taken one year before it started or possibly earlier, because he prepared for it. And so he will be able to continue with the war really a long time. But this is the message we say to him. We are able to support the Ukraine as long as necessary for defending its serenity, the democracy, the rule of law and all the things the people in Ukraine are looking for.

MARGARET BRENNAN: President Zelensky has said that he would like to see the war end by the end of the year. How does it end? And Is that realistic?

OLAF SCHOLZ: It is very difficult to judge whether this is realistic, because this is something that is decided on the ground. And even more, is this one of the reason why we are so active supporting the Ukraine with all the different means I already discussed on financial humanitarian support, sanctions and delivery of weapons.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been called a 9/11 moment for Europe, a big wake up call. Do you think that Europe, and do you think Germany, was just too complacent for too long?

OLAF SCHOLZ: I think too many in the world were hoping that we are living in a different world that is different to the experiences of the last century and the centuries before, where might and power, were deciding on the future of countries and not the rules and the agreements we have between states, and we have had an agreement that there should be no attempt to change territory to, to change borders, to invade the neighbor. And this agreement is now canceled by Putin. And this is what I called site and vendor in German, a watershed moment of international politics. Peace is a danger. And this is why it is absolutely necessary that we spend more for defense, and Germany is going in elite in this question in Europe

MARGARET BRENNAN: So it was too complacent?

OLAF SCHOLZ: I think we should have been prepared for that situation. And- but it is really a big, big disaster for the expectations of all of us looking at peace, the chances we have in the world are better if there’s no attempt to change borders with war and things like that. But now we are in that situation, and we have to be realistic. And this is why we have to do more.

MARGARET BRENNAN: What is the fundamental nature of this conflict? Because the head of the British army called it a 1937 moment? Is that how you see it? Is that the moment in history we are in right now?

OLAF SCHOLZ: I think this is a moment where we have to make absolutely clear that we are strong enough that no one should just think about attacking, for instance, NATO territory. And this is why I said to my parliament, that we are ready and willing to defend- any centimeter, every centimeter of NATO territory in- in Europe, and that we are together with our allies. And this is a very clear message to our eastern–

MARGARET BRENNAN: And that’s a clear message. That’s a clear line. But there are plenty of territories around Russia that aren’t members of NATO. Do you think Vladimir Putin has his goal set as going into Moldova or surrounding countries?

OLAF SCHOLZ : Let me just stick one second to what I already said. Because of this, I decided to- to establish an extra budget for spending for military- 100 billion euros, and that we will increase our spending up to approximately 2% all the years to come. And this will really create an army that has the strongest funding between the NATO allies and Europe, and this is what we are sticking to and we will continue to do this.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –which was a big change for Germany.

OLAF SCHOLZ: This is something where we are acting realistically in a different time now. And this is necessary to do it. What is Putin thinking of? He is thinking like the imperialists in the 17th, 18th, 19th century. He is thinking that all about the nation is power, and that if you are mighty enough, you can just take territory of your neighbors. And this is an activity and an idea we cannot accept and we will not accept and this is why we are so strong on this question. He was always very, very critical about NATO and the European Union. And when I talked to him, I said, you have to accept the European Union. And that a big alliance of democratic states is building a very strong federal group of states- the union, a union, outside of you. And he was very much thinking about NATO. And I told him NATO is not aggressive. It’s just about defense. But he thinks he has just to spend all the money he earns for the- for his military abilities and sometimes using it and this is what should fail now and this is why we are doing the right thing when we support the Ukraine–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you believe that Vladimir Putin will stop at Ukraine?

OLAF SCHOLZ: I think that all what we do will help to give him the view that this is not working and that he will not be successful.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So open question on that: When it comes to NATO territory, you now have these two new members, Finland and Sweden potentially joining the Alliance, it looks like they will. Will Vladimir Putin view that as provocative, as more of a threat?

OLAF SCHOLZ: All wondered how he would react to the application of Finland and Sweden for NATO. But in the end, he accepted it – this is how I see it, and he has to, because it is the decision of these countries that they want to join. And it is our decision that we take them because they are really much fitting to the concept of NATO democratic states that are very strong with their own activities in defense. And this will strengthen the alliance.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me ask you about Germany. Your country has earned this reputation of over promising and under delivering when it comes to Ukraine. You know that, you’ve heard that criticism. Ukraine received its very first delivery of German Howitzers artillery last week? Why did it take that long? we’re in the fifth- fifth month.

OLAF SCHOLZ: So we took a very, very hard decision to change political strategies we followed for many decades–


OLAF SCHOLZ: –never to deliver weapons into a country that is in a conflict. And when we decided, when I decided to change that practice of our country, a lot of other European countries followed, and this made it that the group, big group of countries, are now supporting the Ukraine with weapons and do the best. Germany sent all the weapons we had our our stocks in our military infrastructure. And we decided also to deliver new weapons from our industry, which takes a longer time because they have to be produced. But we did all these things. And we continue to do so. And when we decide, for instance, to send the most modern howitzer, which you can buy on the world market, which is in use in Germany, it was very difficult to organize that this could be used in the war, because you have to have some training. And we had Ukrainian soldiers in Germany. And when the training ended, in the end, they came with the weapon, with with the howitzers to Ukraine, and the

MARGARET BRENNAN: But United States is doing that. They’re providing weaponry within 48 hours sometimes of the President signing and carrying out training.


MARGARET BRENNAN: Why did it take this long for Germany?

OLAF SCHOLZ: I think you should understand that there is a difference if a country like the United States spends that much for defense, which is a very big (long pause) investment, and you have a lot of weapons at your stocks. the howitzers many other countries delivered to Ukraine were not the most modern one, but they were the stocks. So we had to do this. And this is how we are continuing, you should know we are doing right – this things which are necessary for helping now in this very situation in the east of Ukraine. And this is why we sent the weapons that were necessary, and that are necessary, there. Together with the United States, and the United Kingdom, we decided to deliver multi rocket launches to Ukraine now, which are

MB interjects: those haven’t been delivered yet.

OLAF SCHOLZ: We are sending them and we are doing it with the means and ways we have and with the training. And once again, there are a lot of very experienced people who yesterday looked at Google and today they know how to do things. But I will tell you there are weapons but you have to have your training. And you have to have- to have it- not in Ukraine, you have to have it here in our countries. And so the soldiers have to come to get the training and they are doing it. This is what we do with many other things. And if you look at this, what we are sending, from the perspective on- of two weeks, three weeks, four weeks from now, we will always see that Germany is one of the countries that is doing the most because what we are sending now is the most sophisticated technology you can use. There is also (long pause) anti ballistic- there are also weapons we give to the- to the Ukraine that they can defend the air.

MARGARET BRENNAN:The anti aircraft missiles you’ve promised, radar you’ve promised

OLAF SCHOLZ: That they can defend the city from- against the rockets and missiles that were sent there from Putin. And this is very expensive and very effective technology but they will get it.


OLAF SCHOLZ: And this will help a country like Odes- to support to to defend the country, a city like Odessa or Kyiv–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But I ask you when because you know that the delays have led to speculation that it’s not about getting the supplies, it’s about the will of the government to actually deliver them. And whether there’s fear of provoking Putin, or whether it’s years of budget cuts to your defense industry and to your defense budget that have made it just not possible for the German military to act quickly. How do you respond to that?

OLAF SCHOLZ: –those who are looking to the facts, see that we are doing what is feasible and that we are doing the same things as our allies are doing. And that we are using all the means we really have. And when you compare what we are delivered to the Ukraine, and compared with activities of others, you will find that we are very much aligned with all the others. But the most important thing is that we are not just now supporting Ukraine, we are changing the way how we spend money for defense. And this is the big increase, which will change the situation and will give us the chance to be more quick in reaction to a threat that is coming to NATO, the alliance or to our country. And this is why I decided to do this- to do this. And I will continue to follow this policy making Germany strong enough for being the partner all our alliance- allies in Europe are looking for and all our allies in the transatlantic partnership.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you’re moving as fast as you can?

OLAF SCHOLZ: We will move as fast as we can. And we are doing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about German finances. Do you know how much right now Germany is spending on Russian energy?

OLAF SCHOLZ: It’s decreasing, the money we are spending. And this is why we are- why we have decided to change all the imports we have from fossil resources. Different to the United States, we are not producing them ourselves, we have to import them. And we get them from many places of the world. But we change- we decided to go out of the import of fossil resources from Russia. And we did so with the import of coal, which is not that difficult, because we already imported most of it from other places. We decided so- to do so with the import of oil. And we will go out of this imports in the end of this year, which is also something which is now, we are preparing for and which is from some region, if we just- if we look at the whole country will be, will be relatively easy because oil is shipped and we are also working on some refineries in the east of Germany that are not getting the oil by ship. So we are making this feasible for them also. And then we are- we decided that we will build pipelines to the shores of the north of Germany for importing LNG. This is-

MARGARET BRENNAN: liquefied natural gas.

OLAF SCHOLZ: -liquefied natural natural gas. And this is something I was looking for, even when I was the mayor of Hamburg, because I thought it could be useful to have always the ability to change the the suppliers of your, of- of what you buy from- in case of gas- and this is why we are now doing it

MARGARET BRENNAN: When we looked at the numbers though– when we looked at the numbers, Germany is providing about 2 billion in aid to Ukraine. That’s roughly what you spend per month on gas from Russia, on coal, on energy supplies. So while you’re helping the Ukrainians financially, you’re also essentially giving Vladimir Putin a financial lifeline.

OLAF SCHOLZ: He cannot buy anything from the money he’s getting from us because he will- he has all these sanctions on imports for modern technologies and things he is looking for. So this is what is making very angry. But to be very clear, when we decided on sanctions, together, and with all our allies, we said always, we will do it in a way that we harm Putin more than us. And many countries in Europe are depending, for historical reasons and because they are near to the place, and it is the nearest place to get the gas on the inputs of gas, and when now, whole Europe is deciding to go out of this dependence, this will change the scenario, even on the world market.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But Vladimir Putin can use that money elsewhere. Just not in the West.

OLAF SCHOLZ: But he cannot buy-

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, is it still 2 billion a month that Germany is sending to Russia?

OLAF SCHOLZ: It is always decreasing, and I once again say that we decided that we do the sanc- that we draft the sanctions in the way that they hurt Putin and this is what we do. And once again, we are now doing real investments into technology, in pipelines, imports, and I know that there people that sometimes think that when you are having taken a decision one afternoon, the next morning you have a port and a 40 kilometers pipeline.

MARGARET BRENNAN: No, it takes time–

OLAF SCHOLZ: But in the real life, this is not happening. But what we did is deciding on legislation, we already did, which makes it easy to build these pipelines with the own- without any legal restrictions in the shortest time to come. And we really hope that the first of them will be able to work in the beginning of the next year. And if you see that things like this usually take 2, 3, 4, 5 years, and we do it in possibly six months or a bit more, in the first part- in the first pipelines that are going to work, you see that we are very, very strong and doing the necessary things for making us independent. And this also is- and but let me add this, when Europe is deciding to go out of the import of- of gas from Russia, this will have consequences.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It’ll have huge – I mean, this is the equivalent of them declaring-




MARGARET BRENNAN: –by cutting gas supplies to Germany, this isn’t just your choice. They’re using that as a weapon against you.

OLAF SCHOLZ: This is obviously the case. And this is why I was starting to discuss the question what to do if the gas delivery will be reduced. Right when I entered office, it was my political decision to say that I want to know exactly what we have to do for in case of that, and this is why we are not prepared for years, but prepared since I am the chancellor of this country. And this is why I was able, after the war started, to go to the parliament and say we will build this pipelines, we will build this new ports for liquid- liquefied natural gas. And just to repeat this, when whole Europe in some years will be not dependent on the gas from Russia, it will get gas from other places. But this is all together more than 150, nearly 160 billion cubic meters of gas that is now as a new request coming to the world market. And this is one of the reasons why we should be very much prepared that we will have high energy prices all over the world in all countries because of the fact that the gas that Russia is now supplying will, to a certain extent, which we will understand in some years, will not be able to be sold. And so we have to get it from other resources. But this is a very tough time for global economy when we did this change.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It is. It is and you run the largest economy in Europe. What happens in Germany matters to the rest of the world. So if you are looking at gas supplies, potential shortages, you could have freezing homes, you could have shuttered factories, have you decided when and which industries you prioritize? Which factories get shuttered first?

OLAF SCHOLZ: We prepare for the situation of having the difficulties may come up because of the energy supply. And this is why we decided to make new legislation on storage capacities for gas, legislation that is forcing the participants of the market that there should be 90% in the storages- storage capacities of Germany, in the- at the beginning of winter. And this is now already taking place and the storages are becoming- are now filled more than they were one year ago at that time. We also decided to change legislation that we make it possible to say we will not use that many gas at- in the summer, for instance, and we will use coal plants for producing electricity. And so a lot of decisions are already taking and we are preparing our selves for a very difficult situation as many other European countries do. And obviously, countries all over the globe are doing thinking about what might come up.

MARGARET BRENNAN: When will you have to start rationing natural gas and will you have to shut down factories in the months ahead?

OLAF SCHOLZ: I think we will see how things are now moving, how things are- how the development will be in the future. What we can do at this time is preparing ourselves for being ready to take the necessary decisions. And this is what we do. And we are all the time preparing with the necessary legislation that we are able to do what is necessary and not just looking for what we could do if we would have the right legal framework. We will have it when it’s necessary.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So Germany’s Heavy Industry Association, BDI, warned a halt in Russian gas deliveries would make recession inevitable. The World Bank economists say it’s going to be very hard to avoid a recession. Is it inevitable?

OLAF SCHOLZ: It is not- it will be very tough if we will have a shortage of energy supplies. Obviously, all our countries, all our- all our life is depending on the supply of energy. And obviously, a lot of countries, the most countries of the world, are depending on the supply from abroad. And so we have to prepare for a difficult situation. And as I explained to you very detailed, we are preparing and we are prepared.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you are still preparing for energy prices to stay high for years? How long?

OLAF SCHOLZ: I’m sure that this will be a time where the energy prices will be high, all over the globe, because of the request. And this is one reason why we accelerate our way out of the use of fossil resources. You should know that Germany decided that we will be a co2 neutral country in 2045, which is less than 25 years. And this means that we are now expanding the production of electricity and of en- with offshore wind, with onshore wind, with solar energy, that we are expanding the investment into our grid, so that we are able to have a completely different industry doing steel, doing chemistry, doing- producing cement with the use of electricity and hydrogen in the end. And so we are just going faster into the better world we are already looking for.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. But inflation is crushing standards of living around the world. Vladimir Putin is weaponizing inflation, he’s weaponizing food. Is he right to bet that he can fracture the Western alliance by making it harder for Europeans and Americans and everyone else to afford food in these months ahead?

OLAF SCHOLZ: You’re very right. The shortages of food many people in the world are seeing now as a threat to them, are the direct consequence of what Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the war, he is imposing on the country. You’re right that all the rising energy prices are also a direct consequence of his doing. And he is- he is the one that is doing the wrong things. And we are always discussing this with our partners on the globe. We are starting an initiative to support countries that have not enough food with food. We’re supporting the general secretary in finding a way how to get out all the wheat out of Ukraine


OLAF SCHOLZ: through the World War- he is discussing intensely on ways how this could happen, not just with trains, what we are organizing together with the Ukrainians, but also with shipping. Because this is something where we will find in the next one or two weeks, if an agreement between Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, the United Nations will be feasible, MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you really think-

OLAF SCHOLZ: but coming back to-

MARGARET BRENNAN: -that Vladimir Putin is going to allow grain to be shipped out of Ukraine? He’s shut down the black sea ports. This is a really powerful weapon against the West. Why would he give that up? Why would he agree to let the grain out?

OLAF SCHOLZ: There is one question the general secretary is asking to all, and also to Putin: will you be responsible? And the one that is responsible, that there is the wheat that is necessary in Africa and Asia and other places, is not going there. And so this is why he is working so hard to find a solution and we are supporting him.


OLAF SCHOLZ: Once again, I think we will face a situation of high prices. And we will face a very difficult situation. But this we knew right from the beginning when we decided to support Ukraine. And now it is necessary that we stand united and the outcome of this NATO meeting here in Madrid, the outcome of the g7 meeting we had in Germany in (Weimar?) and the outcome of all the meetings we had in the European Union is we stand united, we are united and he will not be able to fracture us.

MARGARET BRENNAN: If you can’t reopen the black sea ports, if Putin doesn’t agree to let the food out of Ukraine, how do you lower global food prices?

OLAF SCHOLZ: We are now collecting money for supporting the poorest countries that they will be able to deliver food to the people. And this is our international initiative, we- we organized together with others for food security, and we will continue to do that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But it risks global instability.

OLAF SCHOLZ: It is a real problem, and it is a real consequence of Putin’s war, and this is why it is even more necessary that we support the people.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So it also puts pressure to end this conflict sooner. What is your timeline for when this can end?

OLAF SCHOLZ: The conflict will end when Putin understands that he will not be successful with idea to conquer part of the territory of his neighbor.

MARGARET BRENNAN: He controls 20% of Ukraine right now, according to U.S. intelligence.

OLAF SCHOLZ: This is why we are supporting Ukraine with financial means, with humanitarian aid, but also with arms deliveries and why we are doing our sanctions regime together on Putin.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So it has been a hard lesson to learn. But as you’ve laid out here, you know, members of the German government have admitted it was a mistake to be so dependent on Russia for so long. I wonder, do you look at that and wonder about China and see the same type of risk that the West is so financially intertwined with Beijing that it poses a threat, a direct threat?

OLAF SCHOLZ: Coming back to the first aspect of your question, I think it was not right that we were not prepared to have at any time the chance to change the one that is delivering gas, oil and coal to us. So we should have invested all over Europe in infrastructure that gives us the ability to change the supply, from one day to the other. And I think this is the lesson that has been learned in Europe and in many other places that you have to be prepared- be prepared for a situation like this. And this is also the answer to all the other questions coming up. If, for instance, if you look to China, it is more the answer- just understand that you should have supply change imports not just from one or two countries, but from many. And that even your business is looking for many other countries. So the answer to what we are discussing with China is not to go away from China. The answer is to go to the other Asian countries. And there are very, very big nations, which I think we have to look at. And it was very good when we at G7 came together with the leaders of Indonesia and India, for instance, and they are representing two very strong nations, nations with a good and important future in the world to come. And if we look around them, we find many others. And so the answer we all together should give is, just do your business with many countries so that you can live with a situation when trouble comes up with one.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And trouble may come up with China. I mean, the United States sees it as a threat. Does Germany see China as a threat?

OLAF SCHOLZ: I think- I think the world we are going to live in 2050 will be multipolar. Many countries will be important. The United States, (long pause) Russia, China, the European Union and the countries in this Union, but also Indonesia and India, or South Africa, countries from the south of America. And the big task of all of us is to make this work, not just multipolar, with many influential countries looking to- to have to- looking for their own interests and what- what is useful for them, but making it the world that is working together. So multipolar is not enough. Multilateral, working together for a better future, this is what we are should- what we should aim for. And it is now the time to work for that


OLAF SCHOLZ: -better future. When we are looking at the midst of this century we are in.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you are being diplomatic there. NATO, in this latest statement, identified china as a- as a threat, the secretary general said it poses challenges to our values, to our interest and to our security. Does that mean the West is on a path for a clash with Beijing?

OLAF SCHOLZ: No. And exactly. If you look at the decisions we took here and we are working on it, is that we are just aware of problems that might come up and we are aware of these problems because we are democracies and we are not an aggression to our neighbors, to- to the rest of the world. And we are not aggressive against them.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And China might be towards Taiwan–

OLAF SCHOLZ : –and this is why we say that we are working for a world where aggression is not working. And this is why we are making our alliance strong. But this is also why we say developing a strategy, this gives us the chance to be not dependent. And I come back to what I said, part of this answer is to look at many other countries in the world that will be strong in the future and make them their partner- our partners, especially when they are democracies. And this is, I think, the strategy we should follow.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m told we are running out of time. Before I let you go, President Biden also talks about this potential conflict between democracies and autocracies. Is that the biggest threat on the horizon? What keeps you up at night?

OLAF SCHOLZ: First, I- I think the democracies are very strong and they- because they have the support of their people, they are really having also the future on their side. We should be- We should look at these things from this perspective. But we should be clear about these threats that are coming to our future. And this is coming from autocracies, Yes, because they tend to be aggressive. And this is an aspect we should be very much aware of. And I am. And this is why I organized our meeting we had in Germany with the G7 group of democratic- economically successful democratic states that we invite partners from all over the globe that are also democracies for making it happen, that the democracies are strong.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And by strong it also comes with 100,000 U.S. troops in Europe and 300,000 NATO response forces in Europe. This isn’t just diplomacy. This is muscle.

OLAF SCHOLZ: This is. And it’s necessary.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Chancellor, thank you for your time this morning.

OLAF SCHOLZ: Thank you.

Someone Controlling the Twitter Account of Joe Biden is Demanding Gas Stations Lower Prices, Because He Said So

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 3, 2022 | sundance 

This administration is a lesson in abject silliness.  Everyone knows that Joe Biden has no clue who or what is being done in the energy policy of his administration; heck, he could not even name his Interior Secretary.   That said, whoever controls his Twitter account is now just making him look even more stupid as Biden blames the gas stations.

[Tweet Source]

I would draw attention to the most overlooked quote from Joe Biden as it pertains to gas prices.  This statement was made May 23, 2022, and it proves he knows the gas price is directly related to his choice to implement the Green New Deal by executive policy:

…”Here’s the situation.  And when it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over.”…  [source]

Neil Oliver Will Not Eat the Bugs

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 2, 2022 | sundance

This week Neil Oliver talks about the new Utopia we are being instructed to accept.  A world in which there are no rights, only permissions.

Everything including the modification of diets and the eating of bugs and fake meat; to the type of carbon footprint home we are permitted, to the energy we may use or the acceptable car we must drive; permissions, assuming of course, our social media profile and accompanying score is in line with regulatory inspection.

Nope.  Not happening.  There are more of us than them.  We will not eat the bugs.  WATCH: 

[Transcript] – What’s being done to us, or tried on us at least, isn’t working … and it isn’t working and won’t work because what we’re being pushed to accept as the new world makes no sense. The supposed utopia we’re being promised – or, rather, having rammed down our throats – is one in which there is no universal truth, no absolute and trusted truth, but only personal truth that trumps all else.

There are to be no facts like those observed by biologists, just as a for instance, and only feelings based on personal preferences that change from day to day. It will be a world in which we might have no inalienable rights, rights we are born with – just permissions granted one by one by the state … and then only if we do as we are told and do without cars and warm homes and eat our bugs and fake meat and take our medicine on demand. It is a world in which 2+2 might equal 5 if some faceless, unelected bureaucrat says it does – and if any of us says no, 2+2 always and only equals 4, then our bank accounts won’t give us any money until we accept our arithmetical and moral error.

It is a world that makes no sense and that will not work, not for the likes of you and me. It will benefit the few, but it won’t work for the billions.

In the world of before some of us had tried to learn to treat our fellow citizens as equals, and to judge them only by the content of their characters. In the new world we are to be born stamped and cursed with the sins of our ancestors or burdened with the yoke of oppression that was borne on the shoulders of those that went before. And above all else, we are absolutely to judge, and be judged, by the colour of our skins.

This judging of a person by the colour of his or her skin is a glaring example of an idea that makes no sense and does not work.

The trail to the new world is being blazed by those who call themselves progressive. Among much else, progressives say they hate racism and that it is the duty of all of us to be actively anti-racist. Progressives say we must teach our youngest about white privilege, introduce critical race theory to the classroom.

But as soon as the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and put the individual states of America in control of laws on abortion, the progressive racist knives on the Left were out for a black judge named Clarence Thomas, one of the majority that struck down the 1973 ruling.

Thomas – only the second African American person to sit on the Supreme Court, and having occupied a place there since 1991 is, in the eyes of many who count themselves progressive, evidently the wrong sort of black man.

As a black African American, he ought, the progressives thought, to have belonged to them, and so done their bidding promptly and without hesitation. Justice Clarence Thomas however, had his own mind and made his own decision – which was not the one they wanted him to make.

All at once the N-word was back and being thrown in his face. On social media he was described, among other things, as just another dumb, field … I leave you to fill in the blank, starting with the letter N. He was called a … slave – again with the N-word as a prefix – an N-word slave to his white wife, who was called a nutcase, just for good measure. We might just cut to the chase and say Justice Clarence Thomas was called everything under the sun by the progressive, pro-choice/pro-abortion side of the debate.

Racism is one of the oldest sins of humankind. The N-word might be the ugliest name a human can call another human. In 20th century America the Ku Klux Klan hid their faces within white pointed hoods. In 21st century America it turns out progressive politics provide the necessary cover for naked racism.

Aside from feelings and opinions about abortion, deeply and passionately held – aside from the unforgivable return of one of the most offensive words in any language, and a slew of other racist insults too many to list – this behaviour by self-proclaimed progressives makes no sense – not least because it is simply inconsistent. It is also hypocrisy of the most obvious sort.

Let’s remember these are people who say they hate racism and racists. And yet the moment a man – a black African American man – did something they didn’t like – which is to say step out of line – the vilest manifestation of racist thinking was an instant, easy, comfortable fit in some of their mouths.

When President Joe Biden felt he had to respond to news of black people thinking about voting for Donald Trump at the last election he said of them:

“You ain’t black!”

It seems that in the minds of so-called progressives, from the White House on down, black Americans are to be seen and treated as a monolithic bloc that could and should be counted on to vote as one … specifically the Democrat, leftist, woke … “right” way. In those progressive minds, any black people who do otherwise, who break step with the herd, must have something wrong with them. If thinking that all members of a racial group can be counted on to think and act as one isn’t racist to the core … then I don’t know what is to be described as racist.

Many of those same racists who pilloried a black man for thinking and acting as he saw fit were also among those demanding bodily autonomy for women in the context of abortion. Where were they when women, and men, were losing their jobs for refusing the Covid-19 injections? Where were they when world leaders like Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Jacinda Ardern and many others went out of their way to make life unbearable, unliveable for those millions who already understood bodily autonomy and had the courage to make it real by standing up straight and saying no to an unwanted medical procedure and damn the consequences? Where were those bodily-autonomy-demanding progressives then?

It doesn’t make sense, this proposed new world … this new world of say one thing and do another, where racists are evil incarnate until a black man thinks for himself and then quick as a flash the progressives sound like they’re looking for the bed sheets and the burning crosses.

Racism from the progressives might be the most egregious example of the new world making no sense, but it’s hardly alone.

World leaders in the west, for what they’re worth – which is absolutely nothing – are reciting from a hymn sheet, singing in perfect harmony about a world made green by ending fossil fuels.

Footage emerged this week of Canada’s PM, Blackface Trudeau, and our own Boris Johnson, laughing together at the G7 about who had arrived on the smallest jet plane.

They were laughing about their uninterrupted use of jet planes because to them the very subject is a joke. It’s a joke because for them nothing will change, while for us, the peasants, everything must change. Leaders like Trudeau and Johnson find the advent of this new reality very funny indeed, because it’s another opportunity to laugh at us – us every day folk, fearful about feeding our families, heating our homes, ever-rising inflation, that sort of thing.

The nonsense – or rather, the absolute absence of sense – trickles down from on high and puddles around the feet of the gullible and the hypocrites.

The Glastonbury music festival was the return of the annual pilgrimage of the woke and worthy – fittingly enough, at Worthy Farm of all places. It is the gathering, all in one place, of the hundreds of thousands who think they know best and are ready and able to part with hundreds of pounds just to get beyond the high fences and onto the holy ground. Talk about no borders.

When it was all over, they left in their woke wake uncountable tons of rubbish – single use plastic among it – scattered across the fields so that the farmland looked like a pop up landfill site. Best of all, the organisers had provided chargers for electric cars. The initial price to top up a virtue vehicle was 80 pounds … dropped to a bargain low of 50 pounds after complaints. But wait … the chargers were powered by … diesel generators. There, at the heart of the high church of woke, was the very life blood of Satan himself – filthy old diesel. A statement on behalf of the festival even said that using the farm’s own diesel power had been deemed less harmful – less harmful – to the environment than installing a Tesla supercharger.

On and on it goes, the litany of the nonsensical.

We’re told to fear overpopulation – when reproduction rates throughout the West are way below the level needed even to sustain present numbers. All across the globe – from the US to Spain to here in the UK to Singapore and to Japan – population numbers are set to fall off a cliff. Who will work to earn the taxes? Who will take care of the elderly? Countless questions and not enough people demanding answers. It makes no sense.

At a time in history when we have the technology and the ability to feed all 7 billion people on the planet and more besides, we have global food shortages, the promise of famines in the Third World. We have a fuel crisis while coal, gas and oil lie untapped under the lands of the west, and while nuclear power remains pariah in the minds of those who would rather the poor got poorer, the hungry got hungrier and the cold got colder. Boris Johnson and Joe Biden find yet more billions of pounds to send to Ukraine and won’t lift a finger to do anything meaningful to help their own people face the advent of crisis and hardship.

It makes no sense. It makes no sense because, and here’s the hardest pill to swallow, it’s not supposed to make sense. This is planned. This is on purpose. It’s supposed to make us do what we’re told. It’s supposed to make us stop asking impertinent questions and just submit to The Man. It’s supposed to divide us, one from another until everyone feels alone. It’s supposed to make us scared, angry, cold, hungry and sick to death. And when enough us are scared enough, angry enough, cold enough, hungry enough and sick enough or dead … we’re expected to welcome the new world with open, spindly, incessantly jabbed arms.

But here’s the thing, my prediction is that it won’t work, this new world. It won’t work because it takes no account of the human spirit – the human spirit that learned more than two thousand years ago why totalitarianism was the enemy of freedom and life itself. That human spirit is still alive and kicking, by the millions.

I’ll tell you this much right now – I want nothing of their new world and so I’m having none of it. I know right and wrong when I see them.

I will not eat the bugs.

I’ll see you on the other side.

EU Caves Putin Wins, Transportation of Russian Goods to Kaliningrad Through Lithuania Will Resume

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 2, 2022 | sundance 

Two weeks ago, a NATO blockade of Kaliningrad, an outpost of Russia, was triggered when Lithuania blocked the transport of goods through Suwalki corridor.  According to the Lithuanian justification they were following through on NATO sanctions against Russian goods.  However, the escalation was very provocative toward Russia and discussions between Russia and NATO countries were tense.

Apparently, Germany was increasingly concerned the blockade was creating a scenario where Russian military were going to escort the transport of railroad goods to Kaliningrad, and that would lead to escalated military conflict with Russia. “German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is eager to avoid unnecessary provocations of Russia. He has repeatedly emphasized that he would do everything in his power to ensure that NATO does not become a party to the war between Russia and Ukraine. German soldiers are stationed in Lithuania and could become involved in a possible conflict.” {link}

The EU has now dropped the blockade and the transport of goods between Kaliningrad and Russia will resume.  The EU decision was made before the NATO meeting in Madrid concluded; however, it looks like NATO postponed the announcement until after Biden left in order to save face on the reversal of position.

GERMANY – The European Commission plans to issue a clarification that will allow Russia to resume sending supplies to the exclave of Kaliningrad via Lithuania. Berlin supports the idea, but some in Vilnius are not pleased.

[…] The move will put an end to a disagreement that had not only been a significant source of tension between Russia and Brussels – but also exposed deep rifts within the EU regarding the correct approach to Moscow.

[…] The European Commission clarification expressly applies to all EU member states, but it mostly only affects the situation in Kaliningrad. According to the document, Russia will be allowed to transport sanctioned goods to Kaliningrad, but only in amounts comparable to pre-invasion deliveries.

The policy that has been adopted by the Commission largely reflects the position of the German government. Berlin had been critical of the approach taken by Lithuania.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is eager to avoid unnecessary provocations of Russia. He has repeatedly emphasized that he would do everything in his power to ensure that NATO does not become a party to the war between Russia and Ukraine. German soldiers are stationed in Lithuania and could become involved in a possible conflict.

The rules for the transit of goods, Scholz said at the conclusion of recent NATO summit in Madrid, “must of course be established in light of the fact that this is about shipments between two parts of Russia.” The comment made it clear that Berlin has a different interpretation of the legal situation than the government in Lithuania. (read more)

Massive Implications, Saudi Arabia in Discussion to Join BRICS Coalition – The Outcome Would be Global Energy and Economic Cleaving

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 2, 2022 | sundance

It is very curious timing in this article from Newsweek, containing massive geopolitical implications, using identified Saudi Arabia sources, would come in advance of Joe Biden’s visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Is this strategic geopolitical pressure from Saudi leader Mohamed Bin Salman (MbS) ahead of the meeting with Biden; or is this a genuine possibility that looms as likely?  If the former, then Joe Biden is being geopolitically slow roasted by Saudi Arabia for his previous disparagements and ideological hypocrisy in his visit.  If it is the latter, well, then the tectonic plates of international trade, banking and economics are about to shift directly under our American feet.

We have been closely monitoring the signs of a global cleaving around the energy sector taking place.  Essentially, western governments’ following the “Build Back Better” climate change agenda which stops using coal, oil and gas to power their economic engine, while the rest of the growing economic world continues using the more efficient and traditional forms of energy to power their economies.

This article from Newsweek is exactly about this dynamic with Saudi Arabia now potentially joining the BRICS team.

NEWSWEEK – Finland and Sweden’s green light to join NATO is set to bring about the U.S.-led Western military alliance’s largest expansion in decades. Meanwhile, the G7, consisting of NATO states and fellow U.S. ally Japan, has adopted a tougher line against Russia and China.

In the East, however, security and economy-focused blocs led by Beijing and Moscow are looking to take on new members of their own, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, two influential Middle Eastern rivals whose interest in shoring up cooperation on this new front could have a significant impact on global geopolitical balance.

The two bodies in question are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS. The former was established in 2001 as a six-member political, economic and military coalition including China, Russia and the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan before recruiting South Asian nemeses India and Pakistan in 2017, while the latter is a grouping of emerging economic powers originally consisting of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) upon its inception 2006, and including South Africa in 2010.

Here is the money quote:

[…] “China’s invitation to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to join the ‘BRICS’ confirms that the Kingdom has a major role in building the new world and became an important and essential player in global trade and economics,” Mohammed al-Hamed, president of the Saudi Elite group in Riyadh, told Newsweek. “Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 is moving forward at a confident and global pace in all fields and sectors.”

[…] “This accession, if Saudi joins it, will balance the world economic system, especially since the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of oil in the world, and it’s in the G20,” Hamed said. “If it happens, this will support any economic movement and development in the world trade and economy, and record remarkable progress in social and economic aspects as Saudi Arabia should have partnerships with every country in the world.” (read more)

That would essentially be the end of the petrodollar, and -in even more consequential terms- the end of the United States ability to use the weight of the international trade currency to manipulate foreign government.  The global economic system would have an alternative.  The fracturing of the world, created as an outcome of energy development, would be guaranteed.

Keep in mind, in early June Federal reserve Chairman Jerome Powell stated, “rapid changes are taking place in the global monetary system that may affect the international role of the dollar.”  {LINK}

The western alliance (yellow) would be chasing climate change energy policy to power their economies.  The rest of the world (grey) would be using traditional and more efficient energy development.  The global cleaving around energy use would be complete.

This is not some grand conspiracy, ‘out there‘ deep geopolitical possibility, or foreboding likelihood as an outcome of short-sighted western emotion.  No, this is just a predictable outcome from western created events that pushed specific countries to a natural conclusion based on their best interests.

You can debate the motives of the western leaders who structured the sanctions against Russia, and whether they knew the outcome would happen as a consequence of their effort, but the outcome was never really in doubt.  Personally, I believe this outcome is what the west intended. The people inside the World Economic Forum are not stupid – ideological, yes, but not stupid. They knew this global cleaving would happen.

For a deep dive on BRICS, as predicted by CTH, {SEE HERE}.  The bottom line is – the 2022 punitive economic and financial sanctions by the western nations’ alliance against Russia was exactly the reason why BRICS assembled in the first place.

Multinational corporations in control of government are what the BRICS assembly foresaw when they first assembled during the Obama administration.  When multinational corporations run the policy of western government, there is going to be a problem.

In the bigger picture, the BRICS assembly are essentially leaders who do not want corporations and multinational banks running their government. BRICS leaders want their government running their government; and yes, that means whatever form of government that exists in their nation, even if it is communist.

BRICS leaders are aligned as anti-corporatist.  That doesn’t necessarily make those government leaders better stewards, it simply means they want to make the decisions, and they do not want corporations to become more powerful than they are.  As a result, if you really boil it down to the common denominator, what you find is the BRICS group are the opposing element to the World Economic Forum assembly.

The BRICS team intend to create an alternative option for all the other nations. An alternative to the current western trade and financial platforms operated on the use of the dollar as a currency.  Perhaps many nations will use both financial mechanisms depending on their need.

The objective of the BRICS group is simply to present an alternative trade mechanism that permits them to conduct business regardless of the opinion of the multinational corporations in the ‘western alliance.’

The BRICS team, especially if Saudi Arabia, Iran and Argentina are added creating BRICS+, would indeed be a counterbalance to the control of western trade and finance.  This global cleaving is moving from a possibility to a likelihood.  If Saudi Arabia joins BRICS the fracture becomes almost certain.

New York State New Gun Laws Include, People applying for a gun license will have to turn over a list of their social media accounts for officials to verify their “character & conduct”

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on July 2, 2022 | Sundance

New York Governor Kathy Hochul called a special session of the state legislature after the Supreme Court knocked down their firearm restrictions.  The new law, which passed both chambers of democrat-controlled government, takes effect Sept 1st and is unlikely to hold up once challenged in court.  The new law is stunningly over the top.

Keep in mind, when writing the majority decision Justice Clarence Thomas concluded there was no historical requirement that law-abiding citizens show the kind of special need for self-defense required by the New York law to carry a gun in public. Indeed, as Thomas wrote, there is “no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”

The latest effort from the New York assembly is outlined in an Associated Press report which includes:

(Via AP) […] Among other things, the state’s new rules will require people applying for a handgun license to turn over a list of their social media accounts so officials could verify their “character and conduct.”

Applicants will have to show they have “the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself and others.”  As part of that assessment, applicants have to turn over a list of social media accounts they’ve maintained in the past three years.

[…]  The bill approved by lawmakers doesn’t specify whether applicants will be required to provide licensing officers with access to private social media accounts not visible to the general public.

People applying for a license to carry a handgun will also have to provide four character references, take 16 hours of firearms safety training plus two hours of practice at a range, undergo periodic background checks and turn over contact information for their spouse, domestic partner or any other adults living in their household.

[…]  Under the new system, the state won’t authorize permits for people with criminal convictions within the past five years for driving while intoxicated, menacing or third-degree assault.  People also won’t be allowed to carry firearms at a long list of “sensitive places,” including New York City’s tourist-packed Times Square.

That list also includes schools, universities, government buildings, places where people have gathered for public protests, health care facilities, places of worship, libraries, public playgrounds and parks, day care centers, summer camps, addiction and mental health centers, shelters, public transit, bars, theaters, stadiums, museums, polling places and casinos.

New York will also bar people from bringing guns into any business or workplace unless the owners put up signs saying guns are welcome. People who bring guns into places without such signs could be prosecuted on felony charges.

[…]  Gun advocates said the law infringes on rights upheld by the Supreme Court.  “Now we’re going to let the pizzeria owner decide whether or not I can express my constitutional right,” said Sen. Andrew Lanza, a Staten Island Republican. “This is a disgrace. See you in the courts.”  (read more)

New York state government is nuts.