Monthly Archives: October 2023

Mandating Supply in the Absence of Demand

Posted on by
Reply

What could go wrong? Look at Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s mandate, through his Energy Department (run by the Secretary who thought it hilarious that we should—or could—produce more oil), that American automakers—Ford, GM, and Stellantis—make only battery cars by 2032. Along the way, look at his Energy Department’s proposed new rule:

The Energy Department in the spring proposed to eliminate the 6.67 multiplier….
Detroit auto makers would be slammed harder than foreign competitors by the regulatory changes because pick-ups and SUVs make up a larger share of their fleet sales. “The average projected compliance cost per vehicle for the D3 is $2,151, while non-D3 auto manufacturers only see an increase of $546 per vehicle,” the Big Three recently told the Energy Department.

That multiplier was an early regulation that made it possible to impute (however accurately or inaccurately) the miles per gallon achieved by internal combustion engines—itself subject to increasingly higher requirements under successive ED regulations—to the “mileage” achieved by battery cars. ED’s proposed rule change—under that D3 regime—essentially eliminates the mileage equivalent multiplier.

Combined with Biden’s requirement that our automakers make only battery cars by 10 (now 9) years from now, results in this outcome:

[U]nder the Energy Department’s proposal, it could make more sense to pay the government penalties than to increase production of EVs that don’t sell. This may be why GM is now throttling EV production, as Ford has also done.

It’s cheaper for the manufacturers to non-comply and pay the vig than it is for them to produce and pay the even bigger cost of not selling a government-required product the buyers—us ordinary Americans—don’t want and won’t buy.

And what does that preference for violating a law say about a culture of routine law-breaking?

Biden and his Progressive-Democratic Party syndicate can’t even get Rule by Law right, much less live within the dreary and inconvenient process of operating within the law—Rule of Law. And we Americans pay the price of that.

Risk Responsibility Transfer?

Posted on by
Reply

Some of the newer generations of Americans are relying increasingly on cell phone apps on their own cells phones that let their parents track their locations.

Gen Z respondents to a recent survey from Life360 said they share their location when they drive, when they go on dates, and when they attend concerts and other large gatherings. Many keep location sharing on at all times.

As Julie Jargon points out in her article, though,

[T]racking may be creating a false safety net for both parents and teens. Knowing where kids are doesn’t necessarily keep them safe when disaster strikes.

The problem is larger, yet. Michele Borba, an educational psychologist—and spokeswoman for Life360:

These kids have been helicoptered, snowplowed, and bubble-wrapped[.]

Indeed. And those kids have no clue how to take care of themselves. Their parents will come bail them out. The kids are transferring more than a small measure of responsibility for their own safety to their parents, and that transfer might—might—make them safer in the near-term, but it leaves them less safe in the mid- and longer-term, especially when they no longer have their parents to rely on because they’ve left their cozy nest.

The problem goes even beyond that once they’ve left their nest. The mindset they’re learning is that someone else always is looking out for them. That someone else, ultimately, is Government, and they no longer are independent actors; they’re wards of the State.

Ready to Get Involved?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim of Secretary of State Antony Blinken regarding the current Hamas assault on Israel and Hezbollah’s and the latter’s parent, Iran’s, threats to attack Israel should Israel press its response to Hamas’ barbarism, Hamas’ rape and butchery of Israeli women, Hamas’ butchery and beheading of Israeli babies.

This is not what we want, not what we’re looking for. We don’t want escalation. We don’t want to see our forces or our personnel come under fire. But if that happens, we’re ready for it.

And do what, exactly, with this “readiness?”

SecDef Lloyd Austin was a bit more loquacious, if no more specific.

What we’re seeing is a prospect of a significant escalation of attacks on our troops and our people throughout the region. We’re going to do what’s necessary to make sure that our troops are in that position and they were protected and that we have the ability to respond. We won’t hesitate to take the appropriate action.

What is that appropriate action, exactly? Regardless, what Blinken and Austin might do in the way of acting on their claimed readiness is governed by Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden. Actually, we know what Blinken would do regarding acting, were he left to his own devices. This is what he said on X in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’ 7 October butchery inside Israel:

Turkish Foreign Minister @HakanFidan and I spoke further on Hamas’ terrorist attacks on Israel. I encouraged Türkiye’s advocacy for a cease-fire and the release of all hostages held by Hamas immediately[.]

Immediate cease-fire. Hesitate. Don’t respond. True enough, Blinken deleted that post quickly, but only under the pressure of the opprobrium he was getting from…mainstream America. And the deletion itself is a demonstration of Blinken’s level of integrity, as by his deletion, he rewrote that history and is trying to pretend it never happened.

However, trumping Blinken and Austin, the Hesitator-in-Chief, Joe Biden himself, has long demonstrated what he’ll “do” in these sorts of situations. Just a few years ago, the then-Vice Hesitator to an only slightly less timid President advised that President not to go after bin Laden when we had that terrorist in our sights in Pakistan. Then, as Hesitator-in-Chief, he cut and run from Afghanistan, abandoning Americans and American allies to the Taliban terrorists, along with tens of billions of dollars worth of modern weapons—many of which, oddly enough, are finding themselves in the hands of Hamas terrorists and Russian barbarians.

And just a few days ago, our forces or our personnel [have] come under fire. We’ve had a significant escalation of attacks on our troops and our people. And our Hesitator-in-Chief not only has hesitate[d] to take the appropriate action, he’s carefully decided to do nothing at all.

Biden’s empty chit-chat, whether directly from him or through his Secretaries, is the antithesis of deterrence.

Some Border Crossing Data

Posted on by
Reply

Illegal aliens are streaming across our southern border in increasing numbers under Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s Open Border Policy.

  • 269,735 illegal alien encounters in September
    • of which 218,763 were encountered entering illegally by Border Patrol agents
    • 18 encounters of people between ports of entry at the southern border were on the terror watch list
  • of those who entered, only 43,000 were processed through ports of entry via the CBP’s Biden’s/Mayorkas’ One app
  • yearly total for illegal aliens at the southern border for FY23: 2.48 million
  • 2.38 million in FY22
  • 1.73 million in FY21
  • 736 terrorist suspects stopped at the border in fiscal year to date
    • 564 of those encounters occurred at land border ports of entry
    • 172 encounters occurred between ports of entry.

That’s almost 25% of the terrorist suspect “encounters” occurring during attempts to enter illegally. How many more were gotaways? How many yet more were between ports of entry and undetected?

And this datum, via the second link above:

  • 2.06 million illegal aliens entering between ports of entry—not including “gotaways.”

These illegal alien encounter data represent the aggregation of those caught and those processed via that Biden/Mayorkas app. What percentage of total border crossings do illegal aliens who enter undetected represent?

The key measure there is “undetected,” and that’s the problem: we not only don’t know how many are flowing in so freely and apparently invisibly, we don’t know who they are, either. Likely the vast majority are just like those encountered—primarily those wanting a better life, with drug mules and human traffickers in the mix, and those on the terrorist and criminal watch lists. The terrorist numbers are quite small compared to the total, but they’re far greater than the number of terrorists who inflicted the murders and destruction of 9/11.

The undetected likely includes more of these types, to our great peril. But they likely also include some—many—explicitly trained to penetrate our border undetected: PLA special forces personnel, Russian special forces personnel, Iranian specially trained terrorists. Each of these types will be fully capable of setting up their separate cells for action at the times the PRC, Russia, and Iran choose, for espionage and/or sabotage.

This is the outcome of Biden’s Open Border Policy. This is what a closed border looks like in DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ fevered imagination. This is the closed border that the press misleads us about.

Update: Corrected some copy/paste errors in the presented data. Bad mouse. Bad mouse….

Progressive-Democratic Party Runs the House

Posted on by
Reply

In the latest round of House voting for Speaker, the Republicans failed again. And once again, the Progressive-Democratic Party Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries got more votes than did the Republican candidate. What’s despicable, though, is Jeffries’ comment about the latest Republican candidate Congressman Jim Jordan (R, OH). He is, according to Jeffries, a

clear and present danger to the American people[.]

Jeffries’ smear and deliberate divisiveness alone should have made Jordan the unanimous choice of the Republican Party.

Unfortunately, the once again failed vote is the Hurt Feelings Caucus, who are so thin-skinned, and the Chaos Caucus, who only know “No,” surrendering the House to the Progressive-Democratic Party.

Separately, as cited by Just the News, [Jeffries] later added that the GOP needs to stop embracing extremism. And

I’ve said repeatedly that there are many Republicans on the other side of the aisle who we believe are good Americans, good patriots and good men and women[.]

Sure. Good little Republicans. Credits to their party. They’ll politely speak and then be quiet and quit arguing.

This is how far to the radical, extreme Left—and bigoted—the Progressive-Democratic Party has gone, that Jeffries can insist that center right and right are somehow extremist.