Gavin Newsom’s high-speed rail humiliation deepens — as aide admits blunder and $126B line dubbed ‘Stonehenge’
Gavin Newsom’s transport secretary has admitted criticism of California’s high-speed rail is justified – as estimates of the project show it will be a struggle to be completed.
Officials now say it will cost an eye-watering $126 billion to finish the line from Los Angeles to San Francisco – which is more money than Amtrak has ever received from the federal government since it was established in 1971, a damning 60 Minutes report revealed.
That’s and a huge uptick when compared to the $33 billion voters were told the rail would cost when it was announced way back in 2008.
Nearly two decades later, the idea of a sleek, sub-three-hour ride has instead morphed into a delayed, downsized, and wildly expensive project that’s earliest projected opening is 2033.
There are still no tracks laid, and the only segment that’s seen much progress runs between Bakersfield and Merced.
In nearby Fresno, the only place where the project is visible, locals mock the project as “Stonehenge”.
By 2019, even Gov. Gavin Newsom threw cold water on the original vision, saying, “Right now, there simply isn’t a path… from San Francisco to LA.”
His administration scaled the project back to the Central Valley — a stretch few demanded and fewer are expected to ride.
Meanwhile, the price tag for the full system has exploded to roughly $126 billion, leaving a staggering funding gap of about $90 billion. Officials insist they’ll find the money. “The entire amount… not there today. But do we believe we can get those funds to get the– the project done?? Absolutely,” Omishakin said.
Federal funding has also been yanked, with critics blasting the project as one that has “wasted billions in taxpayer dollars yet delivered nothing.”
For now, California’s high-speed rail remains stuck between ambition and reality — a half-built symbol of big dreams and the nagging question: can the state actually pull it off?
Iran hangs college student, another man in latest anti-regime protest executions
Iran on Sunday hanged a 19-year-old college student and another man accused of taking part in anti-regime protests, with the prisoners not even allowed to see kin before being killed, human-rights groups said.
Mohammad-Amin Biglari, 19, and Shahin Vahedparast Kalour, 30, were executed by the Islamic state at a prison in Karaj — among the latest protesters charged with waging war against God, a capital offense in Iran, according to the Norwegian-based Hengaw Organization for Human Rights.
The men were accused of burning a Tehran base that belonged to Iran’s Basij volunteer force and attempting to raid the facility’s armory during a December protest.
Biglari and Kalour were also charged with “corruption on Earth,” arson of public facilities, and collusion to commit crimes against national security, according to Hengaw.
Lawyers for Biglari, a college computer-science major, said they were denied the ability to defend their client or even access the case file, the human-rights group said.
The 19-year-old had allegedly “confessed” to the crime, but the details of his supposed confession remain unclear, and Iran has been repeatedly accused of torturing prisoners to force an admission of guilt.
Californians are discovering that fraud is not a bug, but a feature
Californians are becoming aware of just how rampant fraud is in the state.
After federal authorities arrested multiple people in Southern California this week for health care fraud, the top federal prosecutor in LA quipped that there might never be enough prosecutors to handle every case.
The public’s eyes have been opened.
Just as I uncovered widespread, massive fraud in Minnesota, so too are we finding out the extent to which alleged fraudsters have been systematically fleecing the Golden State.
The rot in California is so deep, one could spend a lifetime investigatin
I was able to find what I believe is $170 million worth of fraud in just a few days while I investigated what was happening in LA.
The California Post Editorial Board called it “California schemin’” — and rightfully so.
These alleged fraudsters have figured out that a medical beneficiary number in California is more valuable than, say, stealing someone’s credit card.
The United States executed what officials described as “one of the most challenging and complex” rescue missions in the history of U.S. special operations to recover a downed Air Force officer deep inside Iran after he survived more than 24 hours behind enemy lines — injured during a violent ejection, hunted across mountainous terrain by Iranian forces and civilians, and ultimately located through a high-stakes intelligence effort that initially raised fears of a trap before culminating in a dramatic extraction that forced U.S. forces to destroy their own aircraft.
President Donald Trump confirmed the rescue at 12:09 a.m. Sunday on Truth Social, declaring, “WE GOT HIM!” and describing the operation as “one of the most daring Search and Rescue Operations in U.S. History,” adding the wounded officer is now “safe and sound.”
Is it really right and proper to leave our children with hired strangers for most of the day?
You see it constantly, some version of this claim: “The cost of child care is the single biggest obstacle to working women and families.”
From there come the familiar conclusions: “The state needs to subsidize child care.” “We need affordable day care for working moms.”
No, we don’t.
While claiming to elevate women, feminism has steadily lowered the status of motherhood and homemaking.
What we need is to recognize that it’s not normal — nor healthy — for children to be farmed out to strangers during their earliest years so that Mom can be “more than just a mom” with her career.
While censorship is often the main focus of discussions about free speech, there’s a related phenomenon that can do just as much damage to a free society. Not by preventing people from saying things they believe in, but by forcing them to say things they do not.
Compelled speech requires people to use certain words or phrases, or to partake in upholding certain ideological beliefs. It is just as dangerous to free expression as overt censorship.
The constant recitation of indigenous “land acknowledgements” illustrates Canada’s shift towards enforced mass-compliance on complicated social issues. These statements have become ubiquitous in Canadian public life: at schools, workplaces, government functions, ceremonies, and sporting events. Institutions display them on websites, documents, email signatures, and social media. A busy person in Canada may come across dozens of land acknowledgements per day in various contexts.
Although framed as optional gestures of respect, many organizations now have policies mandating land acknowledgements; in other circumstances, social pressure can make them seem obligatory even if they’re not.
Land acknowledgements have morphed well beyond a simple sharing of history into something much more problematic: they have become a sort of sacred ritual with near-spiritual implications, tying certain ethnic groups to ownership over nature itself. When unpacked, there is a lot being said between the lines.
Stepping out of line on land acknowledgements can set off a variety of hostile reactions, ranging from social condemnation to significant legal consequences. Geoffrey Horsman is a biochemistry professor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont. As a parent of three children in the local school system and a member of his local school’s parent council, he noted the growing politicization of the regional school system. Of particular concern was the practice of opening every meeting with a land acknowledgement, which took up valuable time and reinforced what he considers a divisive premise.
“I don’t think there is anything good that can come out of the idea that a certain ethnic group are the true inheritors of this land,” Horsman said in an interview. But when he raised his objections about the practice, he encountered immediate resistance. In a series of meetings with Waterloo Region District School Board staff, he was told that even discussing the issue was off the table. He has since brought a legal case against the board.
Catherine Kronas, the mother of a student attending Ancaster High Secondary School in Hamilton, Ont., actually lost her position as an elected member of her school council last year after she politely disagreed with land statements being read out loud before meetings. “School councils should decide what gets said in their meetings, and we shouldn’t have to recite something mandated by the government,” she told me. Kronas was reinstated only after threatening legal action.
Horsman’s and Kronas’s cases are both about indigenous land acknowledgements, but the issues they raise run deeper. They could have been challenging any form of imposed ideological speech. In fact, many Canadian governments and institutions are developing a worrying track record of legally enforcing ideological language on a number of topics.
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, for example, recently levied an astonishing $750,000 fine against Barry Neufeld, a former school board trustee, after he was critical of the integration and facilitation of transgenderism within public education. Neufeld says he will appeal the fine, which clearly aims to punish him financially for expressing his lack of belief in what the tribunal seems to think is an unquestionable truth.
Compelled speech, or compelled support for any position, quells discourse and creates a type of moral injury. Whether you support the notion of land acknowledgements or not, there is a contradiction at the core of the concept: how can words be respectful if they are coerced?
Most Canadians consider themselves polite, kind, and caring, a usually laudable set of characteristics that has lately been weaponized. How might we begin to move on from the current cultural climate of tension and towards a freer and more relaxed Canada?
Retired Manitoba judge Brian Giesbrecht has some suggestions. In an interview, Giesbrecht agrees that today’s land acknowledgements “create a divisive form of belief in which some people only have rights as ‘settlers.’” To shift this situation, he offers a list of possible ways Canadians can object to compelled speech. His list includes making a written complaint, standing up and objecting in public, walking out of a meeting, and using legal channels to challenge attempted ideological coercion.
The future of a prosperous, functional, united Canada depends on being able to say what you believe and having the freedom to remain silent when you do not. This Canada can and must be restored. Next time you encounter a belief you do not feel eager to participate in, consider abstaining or politely pushing back. If we all resist these pressures, it will no longer be an act of bravery to conduct oneself genuinely and truthfully.
George Ramsay is a recent kinesiology graduate from Victoria, British Columbia. This is an edited version of his grand-prize-winning entry in the 3rd Annual Patricia Trottier and Gwyn Morgan Student Essay Contest first published by C2C Journal.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
On Tuesday, Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of North Korea’s Workers’ Party, reported that the second day of the First Session of the 15th Supreme People’s Assembly was held on Monday and covered the content of General Secretary Kim Jong Un’s policy address / Rodong Sinmun
North Korea has drawn attention by announcing plans to remove the term socialism from its constitution through the Supreme People's Assembly, its equivalent of a legislature, and to introduce a new police system. Analysts suggest that this move, reported on Tuesday, indicates an effort to shed its identity as a socialist state and present itself as a normal country.
The ruling Workers' Party's official newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, reported on the first session of the 15th Supreme People's Assembly held on Monday. According to the report, North Korea changed the existing title of its constitution from Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Socialism to Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. This deliberate removal of the word socialism is interpreted as an attempt to emphasize North Korea's existence as a state rather than its identity as a socialist regime.
Notably, renaming the socialist constitution, which first appeared during Kim Il Sung's presidency in 1972, signifies a departure from the institutional legacy of previous leaders and underscores the dawn of a new era under Kim Jong Un.
Hong Min, a senior researcher at the Korea Institute for National Unification, noted that North Korea was the only country in the world with a constitution that included the term socialism. He analyzed that by adopting a title similar to those of typical sovereign nations, North Korea may be signaling its intent to expand diplomatic relations with more countries without restrictions.
Kim Jong Un, General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, visiting the Ministry of State Security on November 28 last year to mark the 80th anniversary of the founding of the State Security Agency / Rodong Sinmun
On the previous day, General Secretary Kim revealed during a speech at the Supreme People's Assembly that he plans to introduce a new police system soon. This move also appears aimed at aligning with the image of a normal state.
Kim emphasized the necessity of introducing the police system to ensure internal state security and social stability. He stated that it is essential to complete legal regulations and further solidify the country's legal and social systems. Kim indicated that the relevant matters would be formally reviewed at a future Supreme People's Assembly session.
He also remarked that the term police itself is not a bad thing. Establishing a specialized police system to conduct public order maintenance at a higher level is both natural and beneficial. This statement seems aimed at allaying any psychological resistance or apprehension from residents, as the term police has traditionally been associated with Western countries. Analysts interpret this as evidence that the introduction of a police system is a significant and unconventional step for North Korea.
Kim further suggested that introducing the police system would clarify the operational boundaries among domestic law enforcement agencies, ensuring smooth cooperation and facilitating collaboration with police organizations in other countries.
Historically, North Korea's Ministry of State Security, Ministry of Social Security, and Social Security Forces have assumed police roles. The Ministry of State Security serves as a secret police agency focused on internal and external intelligence, political surveillance, counterintelligence, and the protection of the supreme leader, while the Ministry of Social Security centers on maintaining social order and monitoring residents. The emergence of a police organization is expected to bring changes to the roles and structures of these agencies.
Additionally, North Korea took this opportunity to rename the Ministry of State Security to the Ministry of State Information. This change seems aimed at projecting a more professional and modern intelligence agency image in the international community, similar to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or South Korea's National Intelligence Service (NIS).
Senior researcher Hong noted that previously, North Korea tended to view the police system as a construct of the capitalist world. Despite this negative perception, Kim's direct mention of the system's introduction during his speech indicates an intention to apply the conventional image of a police force as part of normalizing the state.
Keep these in mind as you contemplate the direction of the American government over the past 50 years and especially since the Obama election.
The Goals of Communism
(as read into the congressional record January 10, 1963, from "The Naked Communist" by Cleon Skousen)
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament of the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand.
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
Posts
