Doomscroll News

Tag: Politics

  • America’s Solar Achilles’ Heel: BRICS’ Dominance and the Path to Energy Insecurity

    America’s Solar Achilles’ Heel: BRICS’ Dominance and the Path to Energy Insecurity

    Here are key problems with relying heavily on solar energy, particularly when facing a dominant manufacturing bloc like BRICS:

    1. The BRICS’ Leverage (Supply Chain Manipulation): With BRICS, and overwhelmingly China, controlling over 80% of all solar panel manufacturing stages (and nearing 95% for crucial upstream components like polysilicon and wafers), they hold immense leverage. They can strategically restrict the export of panels, components, or raw materials, effectively throttling another nation’s ability to build, maintain, or repair its solar infrastructure. This creates a powerful tool for geopolitical pressure.
    2. Cost Competitiveness (Exploitable Dependency): China is the most cost-competitive location for manufacturing all solar PV components due to massive state investment and economies of scale. This makes it difficult for other nations to establish their own fully competitive domestic supply chains. BRICS could exploit this by manipulating prices—either by gouging during periods of high demand or undercutting nascent industries in other countries to maintain their dominance, making a dependent nation’s solar ambitions economically unviable or perpetually reliant.
    3. Quality Control Weaponization (Undermining Reliability): Given their control over manufacturing, BRICS nations could, in a conflict scenario, subtly degrade the quality or introduce hidden flaws (hardware or software backdoors) into solar components destined for adversaries. This could lead to premature failures, reduced efficiency, increased maintenance burdens, and a general loss of faith in the reliability of solar infrastructure, all while being difficult to detect upfront.
    4. Trade Vulnerability (Economic Weak Point): Heavy reliance on imported solar panels and components makes a nation’s currency and economy susceptible. Any devaluation of the importing nation’s currency would drastically increase the cost of these essential goods. Furthermore, the dominant bloc could impose targeted tariffs or engage in other trade actions that specifically penalize the solar sector of a rival, exploiting this dependency. The US, for instance, imported eight times the solar modules it manufactured in 2023, showcasing this vulnerability.
    5. Investment Chill (Perceived Risk): The clear and present risk of supply chain disruption, price manipulation, or sabotage by a dominant, potentially adversarial, manufacturing bloc would create significant uncertainty. This “investment chill” would deter both domestic and foreign investment in the solar sector of the vulnerable nation. Investors would be wary of committing capital to projects that could be easily undermined by geopolitical factors beyond their control, thus slowing down the transition to solar energy and reinforcing reliance on the dominant bloc or other energy sources.
  • This “Beautiful Bill”? A Recipe for Disaster.

    This “Beautiful Bill”? A Recipe for Disaster.

    The recent unveiling of the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” demands a critical eye, not a rubber stamp, especially from those who champion fiscal responsibility and effective governance. While packaged with appealing promises, a closer look reveals a proposal that misses the mark on several fundamental issues and unwisely bundles disparate policies into a take-it-or-leave-it behemoth.

    Let’s start with the much-touted tax cuts. The claim of putting more money in Americans’ pockets rings hollow when we consider the crushing weight of our national debt. As Rep. Thomas Massie has rightly pointed out, the annual federal interest burden alone equates to losing a full IRA for every citizen. This doesn’t even factor in the hidden tax of inflation, exacerbated by out-of-control spending and unfunded liabilities in states like California, which silently devalues every dollar we earn. Barking up the “tax cut” tree while the fiscal house is on fire is a distraction. Frankly, many Americans would likely pay more in taxes if it meant a serious crackdown on rampant fraud. Where are the arrests? We see endless talk, perhaps even obscure “DOGE research” initiatives, yet tangible results in holding fraudsters accountable are conspicuously absent. This needs to change.

    (more…)
  • Seeking Visual Clarity on Voter Registration Data: A Suggestion for Judicial Watch

    Seeking Visual Clarity on Voter Registration Data: A Suggestion for Judicial Watch

    It is possible that a data visualization similar to the one proposed below, or one that addresses these specific points, has already been produced by Judicial Watch or other analysts. If so, my apologies for any redundancy. The intent of this article is to contribute constructively to the public understanding of voter registration data by suggesting a clear and informative method of visual presentation.

    Judicial Watch’s 2020 report identified 353 U.S. counties where their analysis indicated that total registered voters exceeded the estimated citizen voting-age population. To foster a more comprehensive understanding of these findings and the scale of the reported discrepancies, a detailed visual representation of this data would be highly beneficial for public discussion and analysis.

    (more…)

  • Before RussiaGate: Unanswered 9/11 Questions & the Figures Who Later Targeted Trump

    The official 9/11 story has always been shadowed by intense political maneuvering and questions about the integrity of the investigation. TDS figures involved Robert Mueller and Jeff Sessions then became central to later political firestorms, like the Trump-Russia probe, leading critics to question if patterns of bias or “sketchy” behavior were present from the start. Add the chaos of the post-9/11 Anthrax attacks targeting leaders like Sen. Tom Daschle, and you have an environment ripe for suspicion. Here are the really interesting, specific questions that remain, viewed through that critical lens:

    Questions About the Investigation’s Integrity & Key Players:

    1. The Mueller FBI’s Actions: Robert Mueller led the FBI during 9/11 and its immediate aftermath. Considering his later controversial role heading the Trump-Russia investigation (labeled the “Russia Hoax” by critics), specific questions about his FBI’s handling of 9/11 gain new scrutiny for some observers: Why did the Phoenix Memo warning die within his FBI? Why was the WTC steel evidence removed and disposed of so quickly under his FBI’s jurisdiction? What were the full findings and actions taken regarding the Saudi flights authorized post-9/11? How effectively was the Anthrax investigation (targeting Sen. Daschle) handled by his FBI, and were its ultimate conclusions fully verified?
    2. The Zelikow Conflict & Commission Bias: How could the 9/11 Commission claim independence when its director, Philip Zelikow, had such tight links to the Bush White House (Condoleezza Rice), as highlighted in 2004 reports (CNN)? Did this connection, slammed by critics at the time, effectively allow the White House to steer the investigation?
    3. Political Pressure & Information Control: Were findings, like the “28 pages” on potential Saudi links, kept secret for years due to political pressure (perhaps involving figures like Jeff Sessions in his Senate role then, whose later actions as AG raised questions for critics) rather than legitimate security concerns? Did the White House improperly limit the Commission’s access or scope, as alleged during the 2004 hearings (CNN)?
    (more…)

  • The MADC ‘Defense Pact’: A Playbook for Evading Accountability

    Universities, nudged by faculty groups and unions primarily within the Big Ten, are floating a plan for a “Mutual Academic Defense Compact” (MADC). The idea is to create an alliance where member schools pool resources to defend each other against what they term “political attacks.” While presented as a shield for academic freedom and institutional autonomy, the MADC looks more like a coordinated strategy to sidestep accountability to elected governments, taxpayers, and the public, particularly regarding controversial programs and policies.

    Breaking Down the Goals: A Pattern of Evasion

    Examining the stated aims reveals a consistent thread of trying to avoid oversight and consequences:

    1. “Collective Defense”: This isn’t about protection in the usual sense. It’s about creating a shared war chest—funded by tuition, endowments, or potentially taxpayer money—to fight back against governmental investigations, audits, or legislative actions. It’s a mechanism designed explicitly to resist accountability measures imposed by elected bodies.
    2. “Resisting Political Interference”: This frequently serves as code for resisting laws, regulations, and oversight that university administrations or faculty dislike. It suggests an attempt to operate outside the normal democratic process where institutions are subject to political (i.e., governmental) direction, especially public universities. Shielding specific research agendas or programs, like contested DEI initiatives, from scrutiny under the guise of fighting “interference” is a direct dodge of public and governmental accountability.
    3. “Protect Academic Freedom”: While crucial, this principle can be misused. In the context of the MADC, there’s a risk it becomes a justification for insulating specific, often left-leaning, ideological viewpoints or controversial scholarship from legitimate criticism and external review, thereby evading intellectual and public accountability.
    4. “Support Vulnerable Communities / Uphold DEI”: The push to use pact resources to defend DEI programs is particularly telling. These programs face significant legal challenges and public criticism as discriminatory, promoting division, and chilling speech. The MADC aims to provide a financial and legal shield to prevent these programs from facing accountability through courts or legislatures, essentially using collective power to protect contested initiatives from consequences.
    5. “Mitigate Financial Pressure”: This goal is perhaps the most blatant attempt to avoid accountability. If a university faces funding cuts due to legislative decisions, declining enrollment, or public disapproval of its policies, the MADC seeks to use funds from other (potentially out-of-state) universities to cushion the blow. This undermines the basic principle that institutions should be accountable for the consequences of their actions and policies, including financial ones.
    (more…)
  • The TikTok Paradox: National Security, Digital Sovereignty, and the Forging of U.S. Tech Policy

    The TikTok Paradox: National Security, Digital Sovereignty, and the Forging of U.S. Tech Policy

    David’s Note: This article was substantially revised on October 10, 2025 to incorporate new research and provide a more comprehensive analysis.

    On January 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a landmark law that forces the sale of TikTok, a platform used by over 170 million Americans, or face a nationwide ban.1 This decision highlighted a central paradox in modern American policy. TikTok is at once a legislative target, condemned as a grave national security threat, and an indispensable campaign tool, actively leveraged by the political actors who seek to regulate it.

    This paper argues that this apparent contradiction is not a sign of policy incoherence. Instead, it reveals an evolving and deliberate strategy to confront a novel threat to the nation’s digital sovereignty. Digital sovereignty is a nation’s ability to control its own digital destiny—the data, hardware, and software it relies upon.3 In this context, it means securing the digital infrastructure and information environment within its borders from the control of a strategic adversary.4

    The core of this argument is that the threat posed by TikTok is fundamentally structural. It is rooted in the legal and operational subordination of its parent company, ByteDance, to the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This structural risk is distinct from the commercial data practices of domestic social media companies. It has compelled the U.S. to forge a new national security doctrine for the digital age.

    To develop this thesis, this paper will proceed in four parts.

    • Section I will establish that TikTok represents a structural national security threat due to its data collection capabilities under PRC law and its potential for algorithmic manipulation.
    • Section II will trace the evolution of U.S. legal strategy, from the failure of broad executive orders to the crafting of a targeted, constitutionally-sound legislative solution.
    • Section III will systematically deconstruct the primary counterarguments against this policy, including those based on the First Amendment, economic disruption, and false equivalencies with U.S. tech firms.
    • Section IV will analyze the political realities that create the central paradox, examining how electoral pragmatism and divided public opinion coexist with the national security consensus.

    Ultimately, this analysis will demonstrate that the TikTok dilemma is a landmark case in how a liberal democracy is adapting its legal and political tools to defend its sovereignty in an era of weaponized information.

    (more…)