A Thought on Joe Biden

Posted on by
Reply

Check out these two videos of a recent interaction between Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden and a constituent in Michigan a couple days ago.

The behaviors in those examples and longer, more contextual versions of it, sadly, aren’t entirely Biden’s fault.

For one thing, much is being made (not necessarily in those two threads) of Biden sticking his finger in the questioner’s face. I disagree: he was pointing, as many of us do, for emphasis and pointing in the direction of the man’s chest without pointing anywhere, or at anything, in particular. It wasn’t until the end that, in his zeal, Biden’s finger came up toward the man’s face.

More importantly, though, as is also being pointed out, that behavior and others like it in the last few weeks, strike me as consistent with, although not by themselves diagnostic of, early stage dementia.

This may be why Biden is being limited (I don’t see him limiting himself) to seven minute speeches (we’ve already seen him tire and visibly fade during 90+ minute debates), few interviews, few interactions of this type, few public appearances at all.

The foolishness and humiliation, though, are the fault of his handlers for continually exposing him and on the part of the Progressive-Democratic Party for letting this charade go on; although at this stage, Party really is limited on what they can do about it.

The best thing that could happen to him now—and best for Party—would be to encourage Sanders to destroy him at the next debate.  Party can’t stop the fight on a TKO, but Sanders can go ahead and knock him out. Of course, a lot of that will be up to the debate moderators and how much they try to protect him.  Biden is wholly incapable of defending himself at this point.

On the other hand, I’m not sure Sanders has it in him to deliver a coup de grâce.

A Speculation on Oil

Posted on by
Reply

I have one of my own, against the backdrop of the oil production and price war just begun between Saudi Arabia and Russia.

The Saudis, dismayed over Russia’s refusal to go along with a proposal to further reduce oil production in the face of declining economic demand that’s potentiated by the coronavirus affair, have announced an increase in oil production.  Russia has responded with a “we can do that, too” threat.

The increase by the one (to begin 1 April) and the threat to match by the other have sent oil prices into the low $30s per barrel with projections into the mid-$20s.  Both nations claim they can afford these prices for the next few years before they exhaust their financial reserves.

Those reserves would be tapped heavily because the Saudis need $80 per barrel to balance its budget, although its debt-to-GDP ratio is in the neighborhood of 25%, so they can borrow for some time on reasonable terms.  Russia needs $50 per barrel to balance its budget, and its debt-to-GDP ratio is in the neighborhood of 15%.

On the other hand, Russia’s currency has fallen about 10% since the oil crisis began, while the Saudi riyal is pegged to the dollar.  Those combine to reduce the strain on Saudi Arabia’s overall economic moves relative to Russia’s.  Russia also faces reduced economic flexibility relative to the Saudis due to the broad reach of sanctions applied to it over its military and cyber adventurism.

The snapshot and short-term future would seem to favor Russia in this pricing and production contest, but the longer term not so much as currency fluctuations and sanctions will continue to accumulate in their relative effects.

If this contest gets to the longer-term, one other factor could come into play that would support Russia against Saudi Arabia: the People’s Republic of China greatly increasing its purchases of Russian oil.  This would favor the PRC, too, as it would give it a nearby source of cheap oil along with a distribution network that would be less vulnerable to international disruption.

It would also deepen Russia’s dependence on the PRC—possibly good for the PRC, but definitely dangerous for Russia.

Note, though, that I’m ignoring the impact of this contest on our own oil (and gas) industry; the contest will not do us any good at all.

The Threat to our Court System

Posted on by
Reply

…was made plain last week with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D, NY) naked threat against two of our Supreme Court Justices if they don’t start ruling the way Progressive-Democrats dictate.

Schumer’s threat follows threats by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI) and his cronies in the Senate to stack the Supreme Court if that body didn’t start ruling the way Progressive-Democrats dictate.

These follow long-standing “liberal” judges’ and Justices’ utter disregard for our Constitution. Such disregard includes district judges presuming to issue nation-wide injunctions—arrogantly reaching into the jurisdictions of other judges’ districts, other appellate court districts.

It includes Justices like Thurgood Marshall whose mantra was an even more arrogant attitude of ruling wholly independently of the law and then demanding the law catch up

It includes the attitude of current liberal Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who considers our Constitution to be a document that lives through and is alterable by rulings from her judicial bench. She contemptuously ignores the fact that our Constitution actually lives through its Article V and is alterable solely by our Constitution’s owners, We the People.

Keep the power balance of the Senate—which must confirm or reject all judges and Justices—and the party residing in the White House—which originates all judicial nominations—in mind this fall.

Believability

Posted on by
Reply

Some Progressive-Democrats really, strongly dislike Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden, and they said so in very explicit terms.

Senator Cory Booker (D, NJ):

Mr Vice President has said that since the 1970s, every crime bill, major and minor, has had his name on it. And, sir, those are your words, not mine, and this is one of those instances where the house was set on fire and you claimed responsibility for those laws. And you can’t just now come out with a plan to put out that fire.

Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA)

trained her attention on the former vice president—calling his comment about working with segregationists “very hurtful”—and went on to slam Biden for opposing school busing in the 1970s.
“There was a little girl in California who was a part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day,” she said. “And that little girl was me.”

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D, MN) on Biden’s brag of being the most Progressive of them all:

He has been running things for a long time as a senator and as vice president, I’m sure he’ll be able to point to some major accomplishments that are progressive. And then he’ll have to explain things that weren’t as progressive.

Ex-Mayor Pete Buttigieg:

I hear Vice President Biden say that this is no time to take a risk on someone new. But history has shown us that the biggest risk we could take with a very important election coming up is to look to the same Washington playbook and recycle the same arguments.

Now all of them—every single one—think Biden is the cat’s meow; they’ve endorsed him and his campaign for President. This is the believability of Progressive-Democrat words.

Arms Rights

Posted on by
Reply

What’s the value of a law authorizing acknowledging our right to keep and bear when the Liberals in government routinely violate it?

Roosevelt Twyne, a 25-year-old African-American security guard, was arrested by Roselle Park Police in February after a traffic stop stemming from tinted windows on his car. Evan Nappen, Twyne’s attorney, told the Washington Free Beacon that his client was then erroneously charged for illegally carrying a firearm and being in possession of so-called hollow point ammunition.
“He was arrested for the hollow point ammunition,” Nappen told the Free Beacon. “Then they claimed he was transporting his handgun illegally. He had a permit to carry a handgun.”

And he wasn’t carrying hollow point ammunition, either. He was carrying Hornady “Critical Duty” ammunition, issued to him by his employer and explicitly identified as legal by the New Jersey State Police.

This is all clear-cut and should be open and shut—Twyne has his weapon and ammunition promptly returned to him with apologies for the mistake.

No.

The Union County [Roselle Park’s county] Prosecutor’s Office did not respond to questions about the charges against Twyne but did say his case will be heard next month in New Jersey Superior Court.

Next month.  In a few weeks.  The prosecutor will get around to Twyne’s case when the prosecutor damn well feels like it. Quit bothering him. In the meantime, Twyne remains with his lawfully possessed and carried weapon and his lawfully possessed ammunition in Government’s custody. And unable to work.

This is an example of why gun control laws must be doomed to fail. They’re just a step on the road to confiscation.