Pete Hendrickson (@LostHorizons)

A Couple Of Quick Comments On Current Topics Of Interest ...specifically, the anti-American character of EVs, and the illegality of punishing refusal to use "preferred pronouns". LAST EDITION, I OPENED THE NEWSLETTER with a few words about the renewable nature of so-called "fossil fuels". This was prompted as a rebuttal for some of the misconceptions by which the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) is being encouraged (along with even more insidious techniques such as artificially raising the price of gasoline by restricting the supply through executive actions such as shutting down pipelines and withholding drilling permits). There's another point to make about the EV push: This technology involves a centralization-dynamic antithetical to liberty and the principles around which our American Constitutional and social structures are designed, and by which Americans became the most prosperous and most free people in world history (prior to the abandonment of the gold standard in monetary policy and the growth of the welfare/warfare state in the mid-20th Century). ... HERE'S A CHALLENGE FOR EVERYONE: Explain to me the legal or moral difference between compelling a pretense of belief, or restraint from expressing disbelief, in a "transgender identity"-- such as by the use of "preferred pronouns", for instance-- and compelling a pretense of belief, or restraint from expressing disbelief, in "transubstantiation" (or any other religious or ideological dogma). I can't see any difference, and I think by virtue of that fact any discrimination or other adverse consequence imposed on anyone for refusal to make such expressions or exercise such restraint in regard to the "transgendered" and the like in any workplace which is subject to state or federal civil rights laws is actionable. Continued at https://losthorizons.com/N/200.htm#2