Iran's Economy Hits a New Crippling Low - Regime Faces New Problems With People Rising Up

Iran is experiencing a severe economic crisis, marked by a significant decline in the value of its currency and fuel shortages affecting many sectors.

The Iranian rial has dropped to a record low, reaching about 2.3 million per U.S. dollar due to military actions and blockades hindering trade.

Fuel shortages and rising prices impact commercial drivers, particularly affecting taxi, delivery, and truck drivers.

Gas prices in Tehran have doubled for those using over 110 liters per month, following subsidy cuts.

Many taxi drivers in Kerman report they cannot work roughly one-third of the month due to fuel limitations, leading to strikes among drivers for the ride-sharing service Snapp in various cities.

Truckers near the Iraqi border and in Bandar Abbas have also staged strikes, citing unbearable pressures.

The strikes demonstrate growing desperation among drivers, reminiscent of the protests that occurred in January, leading to increased concerns for the regime about potential unrest.

The intensified strikes among transport workers indicate a critical situation in Iran, suggesting that public anger may lead to further action against the government.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2026/09/12/iran-economic-fall-n2206851 

America is slamming the brakes on the camera network tracking your every move

There is a growing movement among state and federal officials across political parties to limit or eliminate the use of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), which are cameras that scan the license plates of cars. This backlash is prompted by concerns about privacy and civil liberties.

1. Political Cooperation Against ALPRs:

State and federal officials from both parties are voicing concerns about ALPRs, particularly the Flock Safety cameras. They argue that these cameras contribute to mass surveillance without warrants.

Law enforcement agencies are worried that limiting these cameras will hinder crime-solving efforts.

2. State-Level Actions:

In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott has restricted state agencies from spending on ALPR technology.

Florida's Department of Transportation has revoked permits for ALPRs on state highways, mandating their removal.

Nationally, 201 local governments have either canceled or failed to renew their contracts for ALPRs.

3. Public Concerns:

Critics, including activists and city council members, emphasize that excessive camera networks can infringe on people's privacy rights.

Knox County, Tennessee, voted unanimously to remove Flock cameras, reflecting rising local opposition to surveillance technology.

4. Legislation in Pennsylvania:

Lawmakers in Pennsylvania have introduced multiple bills to control the use of ALPRs, emphasizing the need to balance public safety with privacy rights.

These bills aim to impose restrictions and oversight on ALPR usage to protect citizens' data.

5. California's Legislative Challenges:

In California, attempts to establish regulations on ALPRs have repeatedly failed. A recent bill was removed from consideration without a vote, although proponents intend to revive these efforts in the future.

6. Law Enforcement Support for ALPRs:

Some law enforcement officials claim that ALPRs are essential tools for tackling crime.

They argue that concerns about privacy are exaggerated and emphasize the need for legal repercussions for any misuse of the technology.

7. Federal Initiatives:

Federal lawmakers have proposed the Flock-Off Act to prevent federal funding for ALPR systems, reflecting significant public dissatisfaction with surveillance practices.

8. Industry Response:

Flock, a major ALPR provider, defends its technology by stating it aids in public safety, but acknowledges the need for responsible use and regulation.

The call to restrict ALPRs reflects a significant public concern regarding privacy rights and government surveillance. While law enforcement emphasizes their usefulness in crime prevention, there is a strong push from various stakeholders to implement regulations that protect citizens' freedoms without compromising public safety. The debate continues as legislators explore ways to find a suitable balance. 

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2026/09/12/america-is-slamming-the-brakes-on-the-camera-network-tracking-your-every-move-1658720/

Americans Were Hungry. FDR’s Government Was Killing Pigs to Raise Prices.

During the Great Depression in the early 1930s, the United States faced severe economic hardship, with approximately 25% of the workforce unemployed and widespread hunger. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration implemented controversial measures aimed at stabilizing the economy, including the destruction of food supplies to raise prices.

1. Economic Context:

The Great Depression led to rampant unemployment and hunger in America, provoking public discontent.

Many blamed Wall Street, bankers, and former President Hoover for the crisis.

2. Bonus Army March:

In 1932, around 20,000 World War I veterans marched on Washington, D.C., demanding early payment of bonuses.

The march was forcefully dispersed by U.S. troops, illustrating the desperation of many Americans during this time.

3. Agricultural Adjustment Act:

Roosevelt's government launched the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) to address low farm prices by reducing crop production.

The belief was that lowering supply would lead to higher prices, which in turn would aid struggling farmers.

4. Emergency Hog Program:

As part of the AAA, the summer of 1933 saw the federal government buy and destroy about 6.2 million pigs to prevent them from entering the market.

Although some pork was allocated to relief programs, the event was expected to evoke public outrage as it occurred in the context of widespread hunger.

5. Public Perception:

Roosevelt and his officials viewed the destruction of crops and livestock as a grim necessity to correct the economic imbalance.

Farmers faced dire conditions, but the government policies led to criticism for sacrificing food resources to stabilize prices.

6. Cotton Reduction Efforts:

Similar to the hog program, efforts were made to reduce cotton production by eliminating 10 million acres of farmland.

Farmers were encouraged by Roosevelt to participate, with the assertion that a reduction would benefit everyone in the long run.

7. Impact on Different Stakeholders:

The policies disproportionately benefited large landowners while harming tenant farmers, small farmers, and agricultural laborers who relied on the land being paid to be taken out of production.

Critics pointed out the ethical concerns of destroying food when many people were still in need.

8. Legacy and Criticism:

FDR defended his policies as necessary responses to economic desperation, even ridiculing critics of his decisions.

The original Agricultural Adjustment Act was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court in 1936 but led to new agricultural programs.

Roosevelt's approach to handling the Great Depression involved complicated trade-offs, aiming to curb oversupply and stabilize farm income.

While intended to restore prosperity, the policies raised questions about the morality of destroying resources during widespread suffering.

The New Deal is often viewed positively; however, it is essential to examine the implications and consequences of its implementation on vulnerable populations.

The policies enacted during this time highlight the complex nature of economic recovery efforts and the difficult decisions faced by government leaders during crises. 

https://pjmedia.com/david-manney/2026/09/12/americans-were-hungry-fdrs-government-was-killing-pigs-to-raise-prices-n4957180

Why Trump Should Declare An Election Emergency

The urgent need for President Trump to declare a national emergency regarding election integrity. It argues that Democrats are obstructing efforts to secure elections, leaving the electoral system vulnerable to fraud without a viable solution.

1. Failure of Legislative Measures: The SAVE America Act, which aimed to clean up voter rolls and secure elections, was passed by the House but stalled in the Senate. Meanwhile, attempts by Trump to implement election security measures via executive orders were blocked by federal judges.

2. Concerns Over Election Security: Election officials in areas perceived as prone to fraud refuse to disclose voter rolls and ballots, citing privacy concerns. The article suggests this refusal is to conceal misconduct rather than protect privacy.

3. Risk of Fraud: The upcoming midterm elections are threatened by outdated voting machines, questionable voter rolls, and practices like mass mail-in voting that could invite fraud. The author, with experience in law enforcement and election monitoring, asserts that systemic election fraud exists, contradicting claims that dismiss such concerns as conspiracy theories.

4. Timing and Impediments: With the midterm elections approaching and the Senate unlikely to pass election integrity legislation, the article posits that a declaration of a national emergency by the President could allow for necessary changes to election processes without legislative approval.

5. Criminal Investigations: The author notes ongoing criminal investigations into election fraud, specifically mentioning efforts in Riverside County, California. However, he questions whether these investigations can produce timely results before the elections.

6. National Emergency Authority: The article emphasizes that a declaration of national emergency would enable the President to address election integrity issues independently of Congressional action. This could include imposing stricter voter eligibility requirements, ensuring secure voting methods, and maintaining transparency in the counting process.

7. Public Policy and Voter Protection: The author calls for essential reforms to be implemented before the elections, focusing on proof of citizenship, limiting voter registration to eligible citizens, and ensuring reliable and verifiable voting methods such as hand-marked paper ballots.

8. Concerns About Political Manipulation: The potential for legal challenges against any emergency measures taken by the President is acknowledged, but the necessity of immediate action to protect the electoral process is stressed as paramount.

The article argues for the declaration of a national emergency to ensure election integrity, emphasizing that time is running out to implement necessary reforms to guard against fraud in the upcoming midterms. The need for urgent, decisive action is framed as a matter of national security, with recommendations for specific reforms that could restore confidence in the electoral system. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/09/why-trump-should-declare-an-election-emergency/

Is It Time To Repeal The 19th Amendment?

The semi-satirical argument about repealing the 19th Amendment, which grants women the right to vote. Instead of just focusing on this amendment, the author suggests a broader discussion about who should be allowed to vote in America.

1. Broadening the Voting Conversation: The author argues that the focus should not solely be on the 19th Amendment but on the qualifications for voting in general. Throughout history, voting has often been limited by various criteria, such as age, gender, property ownership, and social status.

2. Historical Context: The article states that historically, qualifications to vote were based on factors that reflected societal norms. There's a call for re-evaluating these criteria to ensure a more responsible electorate.

3. Voting Age Discussion: The author suggests that the voting age could be raised back to 21 or even 25, proposing that individuals should gain life experience before voting.

4. Commitment Indicators: Instead of property ownership, the author suggests that potential voters should demonstrate commitment to society through national service or community involvement, as a means of ensuring they have "skin in the game."

5. Revisiting Voting Qualifications: The article argues for the need to assess who is eligible to vote based on informed decision-making rather than gender. It highlights that both men and women can make irrational choices and that the focus should be on the ability to think rationally about national interests.

6. Rational Decision-Making: The author stresses that voting should be reserved for those who can engage thoughtfully and contribute positively to society, implying potential testing or evaluations could improve voter quality.

The author concludes that a serious discussion about voting qualifications is necessary for a healthy democracy. It suggests moving beyond gender and age to ensure that only responsible and informed individuals participate in the electoral process. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/09/is-it-time-to-repeal-the-19th-amendment/

What Critics Keep Getting Wrong About Capitalism

 The recent entry on capitalism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy written by Chiara Cordelli. The author, Vincent Geloso, argues that this entry misrepresents key ideas of influential economists and reiterates long-criticized points without correctly understanding opposing views.

1. Flawed Criticism of Capitalism:

The entry is perceived as an unoriginal "takedown" of capitalism, echoing outdated criticisms and lacking depth.

Critiques of capitalism are legitimate, but they often fail the ideological Turing test, meaning they don't accurately represent the arguments of capitalism's defenders.

2. Mischaracterization of Key Economists:

Cordelli claims that economists like Hayek and Friedman advocated for completely unregulated markets, which is incorrect.

Both economists supported certain regulations and social welfare measures, contradicting the entry’s depiction.

3. Insufficient Critique of Marxism:

The entry presents Karl Marx's theories as coherent, ignoring significant contradictions, such as the transformation problem in Marx's labor theory of value.

The predictions made by Marx about the effects of capitalism have often failed to materialize, particularly as data shows rising living standards for low-skilled workers rather than the pauperization Marx predicted.

4. Evidence Against Marxist Predictions:

Historical data indicates that wages and working hours for low-skilled workers have improved, contradicting Marx’s arguments about capitalism's detrimental effects on labor.

The critiques of capitalism often resonate due to their repetition rather than empirical evidence.

Geloso concludes that critiques like those in Cordelli's piece misinform about capitalism and overlook substantial evidence supporting its positive impact on living standards and labor markets.

Repeated unfounded claims within scholarly discussions create misleading narratives surrounding capitalism, ignoring robust evidence that counters those claims.

This overview highlights the article's argument regarding the flawed representation of capitalism in recent philosophical discourse and the broader implications for economic understanding.

https://fee.org/articles/what-critics-keep-getting-wrong-about-capitalism/

On 25th anniversary of worst terror attacks in US, most shocking display is growth of denialism

 As the United States marks the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, discussions are emerging about how the events of that day are taught to new generations. Some school districts and organizations are choosing to minimize or alter the narrative around 9/11, which raises concerns about the understanding of these historical events.

1. Inadequate Education on 9/11:

A study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison noted that few states have laws mandating education on the 9/11 attacks.

Only Arizona and Florida have specific laws for teaching about 9/11, while five other states require observance of the day and almost two dozen offer varying degrees of related instruction.

2. Controversies in Curriculum:

Some school districts, like Fairfax County in Virginia, are criticized for avoiding mentions of Islam or Muslims in relation to the 9/11 attacks. The instructional guide emphasizes protecting Muslim students from bias, referencing them 30 times, while barely mentioning military families and first responders.

Critics, including a House intelligence chairman and former national security officials, argue that this approach distorts historical facts and dishonors the memory of nearly 3,000 victims.

3. Diverse Political Responses:

There are wide-ranging political reactions. Some argue that acknowledging radical Islam as the source of the attacks is essential for national security.

Furthermore, some current political figures, like Rep. Ilhan Omar, have made statements that downplay the significance of the attacks, leading to further controversy.

4. International and Domestic Reactions:

Policies of organizations outside the U.S. are also scrutinized. For example, the CBC in Canada initially instructed staff not to refer to the attacks as “terrorism,” a guideline later reversed after public backlash.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) pointed out persistent anti-Semitic conspiracy theories claiming Israel’s involvement in the attacks, which hurts the Jewish community and ignores established facts.

5. Immigration and Security Links:

Discussions around immigration are highlighted, particularly noting that all 9/11 hijackers had overstayed their visas. Some politicians suggest that improving immigration enforcement is a crucial aspect of national security.

There is concern that the way the 9/11 attacks are being taught today may lead to a distorted understanding of the events and the motivations behind them. With varying state regulations and political narratives shaping the educational discourse, there is an urgent call for accurate historical representation to ensure future generations recognize the significance of these attacks in relation to global terrorism. 

https://justthenews.com/nation/extremism/25th-anniversary-worst-terror-attacks-america-most-shocking-display-growth