This time, it’s a New York Post Late City Final image that exposes the idiots.
This is the basis of the Biden administration’s and Rochelle “Sobbing Doomsayer” Walensky-managed CDC’s manufactured panic and raison d’être for their attempt to reassert their personal control over average Americans‘ lives.
…not only regarding the vast damage that will be done to our economy by President Joe Biden (D) and his deliberately anti-bipartisan Progressive-Democrat cronies with their soon to be unilaterally inflicted spend- and tax-o-rama bills.
Biden’s Progressive-Democrat Treasury Secretary is about to surrender American national sovereignty to an international consortium in the form of putting our Congress’ Constitutionally mandated taxing authority under the control of an international taxing agreement.
The Wall Street Journal worries about Congress’ careful silence on the matter and the paper’s editors are right.
The only saving grace, such as it is, to Yellen’s behavior and Congress’ complicit silence is that Yellen and her cronies will be able to enter into such disastrous tax agreement only via a Biden-executed Executive Agreement, and that sort of thing can be undone with a pen by the next President. The Yellen Tax Abrogation will not become a treaty so long as there are 34 Senators who care about American national sovereignty.
The destruction wreaked in the interim, though, will be broad and deep.
Washington passed a law—SB6219—that mandates all health coverage policies issued in that State provide (and charge for) coverage for abortions, with no exceptions whatsoever, including no exceptions for religious belief regarding life and conception. Under SB6219, no insurer can offer a policy that does not include abortion coverage.
Leave aside the cynical claim by Washington’s lawyers that
its no-exception abortion coverage mandate in health plans does not necessarily require health plans to include abortion coverage.
Leave aside that the Supreme Court has already ruled—repeatedly—that religious exceptions and conscience exceptions must be included in any such law.
The Cedar Park Church, in Bothell near Seattle, is challenging that law in Cedar Park Assembly of Kirkland v Kreidler (Kreidler is Myron Kreidler, Washington’s Insurance Commissioner; Jay Inslee, Washington’s Governor, also is a defendant. Both are defendants in their official capacities); the case currently is before the 9th Circuit.
What really jumps out at me, though, is this assertion by the State [emphasis added]:
The state lawyer emphasized what the church didn’t allege: “no carrier” would offer a plan consistent with its beliefs, it sought such a plan from other carriers, or that the state rejected a submitted plan.
On what basis does the State (or any State, or the United States) claim a preemptive, a priori, authority over a private enterprise’s business decision?
More importantly, on what basis does the State (or any State, or the United States) claim a preemptive, a priori, authority over a private citizen’s medical decision that should only involve that citizen and his doctor and secondarily (with no tertiary) his health coverage provider?
Most importantly, on what basis does the State (or any State, or the United States) claim a preemptive, a priori, authority to allow a baby to be killed before it’s born?
The answer to each of those questions is that there is no legitimate basis for such claims.
At least temporarily. Recall the American Rescue Plan Act which the Progressive-Democratic Party rammed through on strict party lines via reconciliation and that President Joe Biden (D) happily signed into law. That law
allows for automatic loan forgiveness up to 120% of the federal loan for farmers or ranchers who are “socially disadvantaged,” which is defined as “Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic, or Asian, or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.”
It’s hard to get any more blatantly racist than that: it explicitly discriminates on the basis of race, barring Americans of the wrong race from participating at all in the program.
Union City, TN, farmer Robert Holman had sued the USDA, as administrator of the loan forgiveness program, on the basis of that blatant, intrinsic program racism. Last week, US District Judge S Thomas Anderson, Chief Judge of the Western District of Tennessee, issued an injunction against the USDA blocking it from issuing any forgivenesses until the case has made its way all the way through the courts and likely appeals.
Southeastern Legal Foundation General Counsel Kimberly Hermann, whose firm was one of two representing farmer Holman, has most of the right of it:
The Biden administration uses equity as a license to punish Americans—here farmers—because of their skin color. The Court’s order sends a clear message to President Biden that racially exclusive programs, whether on a farm or in a school, are unconstitutional.
Biden didn’t act alone on this, though. As noted above, the Progressive-Democratic Party—acting alone in Congress—passed the bill that Biden signed. His appointees in the Ag Department enthusiastically tried to act on that racism.
Heads up, though, and here’s the rest of the right of it: an injunction is only temporary and will be superseded by the district court’s final ruling. That ruling then will stand or fall on appeal, and the Biden administration’s and Progressive-Democrat-run Congress’ bigotry ultimately will be blocked or restored by the final appellate ruling.
The People’s Republic of China’s Cyberspace Administration of China is investigating the alleged wrong-doing of Didi Global’s ride-hailing arm, Didi Chuxing Technology Co; both entities are domiciled in the PRC.
By itself, that’s no big deal; governments are allowed to investigate businesses that regulators suspect of wrong-doing.
Here’s the problem:
No new user registration is allowed during the review….
That’s ostensibly to keep risks from any alleged misbehaviors from growing further.
However. Never mind that Didi Chuxing hasn’t been shown to have misbehaved in any way; it must be restricted.
Suppose that in the end, the regulator indeed finds no actual wrongs done. How would a Didi Chuxing be made whole after the investigation’s closure? How would such a company (re)gain all those missed new customers (for instance)?
Worse,
[t]he regulator didn’t say how long the review would last….
That damage is made worse the longer the investigation is allowed to go on.
Now, there’s this: how many governments would consider using a regulatory agency or a regulator’s enduring investigation to punish a disfavored business or person solely on political grounds?
I can think of at least three….
And now, just two days after that move, the PRC has ordered app-store operators to remove the app altogether–even though the “investigation” is only just begun.
Hmm….