Contempt for our Constitution

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) has canceled thousands of dollars of student loan debt with a few swipes of his Executive Order pen. Lay aside the amorality of that, and lay aside, too, the enormous cost of his move.

It’s blatantly illegal.

January 2021…the Department of Education issued a legal memo saying the education secretary “does not have the statutory authority to cancel, compromise, discharge, or forgive, on a blanket or mass basis, principal balances of student loans, and/or to materially modify the repayment amounts or terms thereof.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) Biden didn’t have the power to cancel student debt.

That has to be an act of Congress…the president can’t do it. That’s not even a discussion.

Only the Congress can specify the spending—or lack of spending—that the Federal government engages in. No President can do that unilaterally.

It’s also a cancelation of existing contracts, both without consultation with and acceptance by the contracts’ counterparties, it’s done without compensation to those counterparties. These are Federal loans to the students, though, doesn’t that make the Federal government the counterparty? No. It’s We the People, the taxpayers, who floated these loans and who will lose from their unilateral modification. The Federal government only acted in our name.

It’s what we have an elected legislature for, and a legislature that is the sole source of legislation, and the House of Representatives in particular that is the origin of spending bills.

I’m reminded of the remark made by a future philosopher: I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further.

This is Biden’s Woodrow Wilson-esque contempt for and disregard of our Constitution. That document and statutes that implement it are to be themselves laid aside whenever they’re inconvenient.

States Aim to be Zero-Emissions in their Cars by 2035

Posted on by
Reply

California has decided to ban all ICE car sales in the State by 2035—in the name of only zero-emission cars being allowed to be sold.

Never mind that it’s an impossible task, or that California, Washington, and Massachusetts are deceiving all of us and themselves with their claim of and demand for zero-emissions in cars sold in those States. This is, to use the technical term, a crock. Zero-emission cars are an impossibility, and it will be an impossibility for the foreseeable future of human history.

Mining for the raw materials for the batteries for these cars, and mining for the metals and other minerals that go into making any car, is not zero-emission: it takes energy to do all of that, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Shipping those raw materials to processing plants takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Processing that raw material into the components—batteries, car parts, wiring for the cars—takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Shipping those finished components to the final assembly plants takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Delivering those finished cars to their dealers for sale takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

The energy for charging and recharging the batteries in those “zero-emission” cars takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Expanding the electric grid and building out a national network—or even just a city-wide network—of charging stations takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

And getting the raw materials, components, assembly, shipping along the way to get the components for the grid build-out and to get those recharging stations—see above.

And that’s just a high-level view of the energy requirements for producing electric cars. Electric cars are not at all zero-emission vehicles.

Contempt for us Americans

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D), leader of the Progressive-Democratic Party is building on the contempt Herb Croly, one of the founders of the modern Progressive movement, held for us average Americans, and he’s following in the footsteps of those modern Progressive-Democrats, ex-President Barack Obama, of Bible- and gun-clinging bitterness of flyover country Americans infamy, and Hillary Clinton, of 10s of millions of us being irredeemably deplorable odium.

At a Bethesda, MD, fundraiser for his Progressive-Democratic Party last week, Biden had this to say about half of all of us Americans:

What we’re seeing now is the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy. It’s not just Trump, it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the—I’m going to say something, it’s like semi-fascism.

This is a part of what makes this fall, and the fall of 2024, so important.

I Have Questions

Posted on by
Reply

It seems the US and the People’s Republic of China have reached a secret agreement regarding US audits of PRC companies as a prerequisite for those companies being listed on US stock exchanges. This putative agreement allows the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board inspectors to travel to Hong Kong or mainland China for inspections, and it’s officially signed by the PCAOB, the PRC’s Securities Regulatory Commission, and the PRC’s Ministry of Finance.

I also have an observation: inspecting audit papers is not the same as auditing the company.

My questions:

  • In what way will the inspectors know that the audit papers are accurate reflections of the audit that was done?
  • How much advance notice will be required before access to the audit papers is allowed?
  • Will the inspectors be allowed to make notes/copies of the papers and take the notes/copies with them on departure?
  • In what way will the inspectors know that all of the audit papers have been made available?
  • To which audit papers will access be allowed?
  • Via what mechanism will the inspectors know which audit papers to inspect?
  • In what way will the inspectors know that all of the subset of audit papers allowed actually have been made available?

There are more, but these will do for a start.

Secret agreement because:

Officials from the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the US Securities and Exchange Commission said they agreed with their Chinese counterparts to not make the language of the deal public.

No coverup there. Not a bit of one.

He Didn’t Have to Kowtow

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO and controlling shareholder of Facebook Meta, said on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast that he was bullied (he said pressured) by the FBI to censor Facebook commentary regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop and the information on it. He also claimed to feel

some regret that the company limited the story’s distribution after it was ultimately verified.

Sure. On the other hand, his behavior empirically demonstrates that he agreed with the idea of Facebook (and his Big Tech competitors/confreres) “filtering” information and deciding for himself what information he deemed fit for consumption by us unwashed average Americans.

After all, he wasn’t actually forced to accede to the FBI’s…pressure. He chose to do that. And he still does it. No, the more likely explanation is that it was straight up collusion, and now Zuckerberg is scrambling to cover his behind in the face of likely Section 230 backlash.