King Joe’s EV Stamp Act: Where’s the Outrage?  Bob Maistros

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/05/12/king-joes-ev-stamp-act-wheres-the-outrage/

Where’s the outrage?” implored Bob Dole in 1996, regarding the lack of Clinton administration accountability on Chinese campaign cash, illegally obtained FBI personnel files, and rushing potentially criminal immigrants through naturalization.

Occasioning the reminiscence: the recent EPA mandate to electrify 67% of vehicles in just nine years.

Why so little fuss over King Joe’s Stamp Act: an outrageous, unjustified, immoral, and economy-wide act of taxation without representation, regulation without delegation, and downright despotism? 

After all, the 1765 enactment under George III helped ignite a revolution. Historians highlight the colonials’ belief that being compelled to employ London-produced, tax-stamped paper was not about its ostensible purpose: paying for the continent’s defense. Rather, it was to keep the Americans in their place by sustaining British patronage, privilege, and most of all, power.

Patronage via sops to surplus redcoat officers and mercenaries stationed here. Privilege in suppressing the rise of a professional class through disproportionate levies on lawyers’ and students’ supplies.

And power in undemocratically reinforcing the principle of unrepresentative royal and parliamentary supremacy over elected colonial assemblies. 

Plan an insinuation of British control throughout the economy and culture by taxing everything from legal documents to newspapers, pamphlets, almanacs, and even dice and playing cards – in all, more than 40 categories.

Fast forward to 2023 and the Biden regime’s corrupto-cratic diktat to consign internal combustion engines to history’s junkyard. Like the handiwork of King Joe’s across-the-seas predecessor and his Parliament, the new standards have nothing to do with “fuel economy” (their initial purpose in 1970s, oil embargo-scarred America), climate, or even cars.

Top U.S. “Non-Profit” Hospitals & CEOs Racked Up Huge Pandemic Profits The top 20 hospitals pocketed $23 billion in Covid-aid from taxpayers. They profited from the pandemic while ignoring price transparency rules. Patient costs soared while life expectancy plummeted. Adam Andrzejewski

https://openthebooks.substack.com/p/top-us-non-profit-hospitals-and-ceos

OpenTheBooks.com auditors investigated America’s healthcare system and found so-called “non-profit” hospitals and their CEOs are getting richer while the American people are getting sicker and poorer.

Topline

The 20 largest non-profit hospitals in the country continued making massive profits while their cumulative net assets soared to $324.3 billion in 2021 from $200.6 billion in 2018. The year 2021 is the latest year available for cross-comparison purposes.

Those hospital systems received congressional Covid bailouts of $23 billion and only two providers partially paid their Covid bailout back.

Meanwhile, hospital executives racked up Wall Street-sized compensation packages which frequently exceeded $10 million per year. For example, the CEO at Ascension Healthcare based in St. Louis, Missouri made $13 million in 2021 – with three-year pay exceeding $22 million.

Furthermore, American life expectancy during this period sharply declined by a staggering 2.5 years from 2019 through 2022. While “comparable country averages” rebounded from a Covid-related drop in 2021, the U.S. continued declining in life expectancy.

Yet, the cost of health care is still astronomically high, as the average family paid $22,463 in health insurance premiums in 2022. That does not include out-of-pocket costs like co-pays and deductibles, which can be thousands more.

This has led to medical debt for about 100 million Americans.

In 2020, the Trump administration issued, and the Biden administration finalized (January 2021) a healthcare transparency rule – to spur market competition and inform patients.

Yet, two years after the rule took effect, an independent audit found that nearly three-quarters of hospitals in the country were not complying— flouting the mandate that prices be posted clearly and comprehensively.

The EPA’s Latest Power Grab Undaunted by the Supreme Court, it issues another proposal that would make it hard to keep the lights on.By Justin Schwab

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-epas-latest-power-grab-power-plant-proposal-clean-air-act-climate-change-emissions-ff0f1890?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

The Biden administration’s new power-plant proposal, announced Thursday by the Environmental Protection Agency, would hobble the natural-gas industry. In the process it would make electricity more expensive, cause more blackouts and brownouts, and force Americans to pay more for less energy.

The proposed rule would require most existing gas- and coal-fired power plants to cut their carbon-dioxide emissions by 90% or more over the next 10 to 15 years—up to 96% for the largest and most heavily used plants. Newly constructed gas plants, as soon as they start up, would immediately have to meet standards based on the most efficient—and most expensive—generating equipment, reaching the same 90%-or-higher reduction over time. These massive cuts assume the use of carbon capture and other, even less proven measures.

This is more than misguided policy. It’s legally dubious, and the agency knows it. But the Biden administration’s urgent goal is shifting how markets allocate capital among types of energy before a potential power shift in Washington next year, with little regard for the longer-term effect on American families and businesses.

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to consider cost when determining whether a “system of emission reduction” is “adequately demonstrated.” In other words, EPA regulations can’t be too expensive, and must be grounded in technical and market realities. But Thursday’s proposal is based mainly on assumptions that plants will employ carbon capture and hydrogen co-firing—replacing the natural gas the plant was designed to run on with hydrogen gas—which impose exorbitant costs on electricity producers and haven’t yet been used at scale. These technologies are, at best, many years away from viability even with large subsidies under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. In tacit admission of this reality, the Biden administration’s proposed rule would instead create an incentive for many existing power plants to shut down, allowing those that close by 2032 to avoid any new requirements in the interim.

Racial-Affinity Calculus Progressives return to the days of ‘separate but equal’ education.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/evanston-township-high-school-equity-calculus-brown-v-board-of-education-progressives-chicago-education-c0650a21?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

“If there’s any “systemic” racism in American education today, it is refusing to fix or close the failure factories that are too many K-12 schools. Who would have thought that, nearly 70 years after Brown v. Board, progressives would endorse “separate but equal” to cover for educational failure?”

Twenty years ago George W. Bush struck a political chord by arguing that settling for low achievement in schools was “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Today our educators are defining expectations down and lowering standards in the bargain.

School districts in California this year have cut honors classes because they didn’t enroll enough minority students. Colleges are dropping standardized tests for admissions. Now comes an Illinois high school that will offer Advanced Placement calculus classes specifically for black and “Latinx” students.

In its 2023-2024 course catalog, Evanston Township High School (ETHS) offered two AP calculus classes for racial affinity groups. The first was “restricted to students who identify as Latinx.” The second was open only to “students who identify as black.” When the race-exclusionary classes made headlines, the school tweaked the descriptions to say that “while open to all students, this optional section of the course is intended to support students who identify as Black.”

The tweaked language is intended to avoid a civil-rights lawsuit since the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 that a “separate but equal” education policy based on race is unconstitutional. We’ll see if that works as a legal dodge, but the clear and depressing message is that black and Hispanic students can’t achieve at the same level as white or Asian students. Will the standards for the calculus classes also be different based on race?

Speaker Kevin McCarthy Forbids Rashida Tlaib from Hosting Anti-Israel Event at the Capitol By Eric Lendrum

https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/10/speaker-kevin-mccarthy-forbids-rashia-tlaib-from-hosting-anti-israel-event-at-the-capitol/

On Tuesday, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) sabotaged efforts by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) to host an anti-Israel event at the U.S. Capitol, featuring anti-Semitic rhetoric by pro-Palestine groups.

According to the New York Post, Tlaib originally planned to host at least nine anti-Israel groups for an event titled “Nakba 75 and the Palestinian People,” which would be held at the Capitol Visitor Center. But McCarthy announced in a tweet that he was shutting down the event, simply saying “this event in the US Capitol is canceled.”

“Instead,” McCarthy continued, “I will host a bipartisan discussion to honor the 75th anniversary of the US-Israel relationship.”

“Nakba,” the word featured prominently in the title of Tlaib’s canceled event, is the Arabic word for “catastrophe,” which aligns with the planned speeches by Tlaib’s groups that would have described the founding of the state of Israel as a “catastrophe.”

“May 15th marks 75 years since the beginning of the Nakba, which means ‘catastrophe,’” the description for the now-cancelled event read. “Seventy-five years ago, Zionist militias and the new Israeli military violently expelled approximately three-quarters of all Palestinians from their homes and homeland in what became the state of Israel.”

At least one group that was supposed to attend, Jewish Voice for Peace, is documented as having openly praised terrorists, with the Anti-Defamation League describing it as a “radical anti-Israel activist group that advocates for a complete economic, cultural and academic boycott of the state of Israel,” and a group that “celebrates figures who have been convicted of engaging in terrorism.”

“It’s wrong for members of Congress to traffic in anti-Semitic tropes about Israel,” said McCarthy in a later statement to the press. “As long as I’m Speaker, we are going to support Israel’s right to self-determination and self-defense, unequivocally and in a bipartisan fashion.”

Israel first declared its independence on May 14th, 1948, and was ultimately admitted to the United Nations nearly one year later, on May 11th, 1949.

Weaponizing Death Death is traumatic enough, without searching for ways to gain political traction from it.  By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2023/05/10/weaponizing-death/

Recently there has been a spate of horrific murders.

The killers, whether committing mass shootings or single homicides, are hard to stereotype.

They can be clearly either mentally ill or simply innately evil. They can kill for revenge, for ideological purposes, out of hatred, for notoriety—or for no known reason at all.

They are probably left-wing and right-wing, white, black, and brown, young, and old. While their weapons of choice are semiautomatic rifles, there are plenty of killers who favor handguns and even knives.

Unfortunately, these tragedies increasingly have become politicized.

Yet our media and politicians do not apply a common standard of reporting about either the victims, the killers, or the apparent motives and circumstances of the violence.

Instead, each horror is quickly analyzed for its political usefulness. Then its details are electively downplayed or emphasized, depending upon the political agenda at work.

A sad example was the terrible murder spree at the private Christian Covenant School in Nashville. A transgender male lethally shot six people, including three 9-year-old children.

Almost immediately, three media narratives emerged.

One, semiautomatic weapons, not the killer Audrey Hale, were mostly responsible for the massacre.

Two, the shooter’s transgender identity profile played no role in the killing whatsoever.

Three, the public had no need to know of the contents of the shooter’s “manifesto.”

Why?

The media and authorities apparently assumed Hale’s written rantings tried to justify the murders because of Christianity’s supposed disapproval of transgenderism.

That censored reaction to the Tennessee shooting was quite different from another mass murder committed nearly six weeks later in Allen, Texas by a former security guard Mauricio Garcia.

Within minutes of the identification of the shooter, the media blared that Garcia wore pro-Nazi insignia and was thus a “white supremacist.”

Apparently that narrative was deemed useful to promote the idea of white supremacist terrorists using their semiautomatic “assault” weapons to kill for right-wing agendas.

Biden Applies Soros’ Open-Border Policy By Rachel Ehrenfeld

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/05/biden_applies_soros_openborder_policy.html

If you wonder what’s behind the Biden administration’s enablement of millions of so-called “asylum seekers” from some 160 countries to flow through what used to be the U.S.-Mexico border and hundreds of thousands more through the northern border, thus diminishing the nation’s sovereignty, start with George Soros, who dedicated the last three decades and tens of billions of dollars to reshaping America to his vision, craftily termed “Open Society.”

Soros began challenging the United States’ national sovereignty in 1996. As Soros tells it, he became enraged by new federal laws signed by President Bill Clinton.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act “required state professional and occupational licenses to be withheld from undocumented immigrants,” thus, restricting food stamps and Supplemental Security Income Benefits to non-citizens. Soros declared this was “a clear-cut case of injustice.”

This was followed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which aimed to reduce the surge of illegal immigration to the US. The IIRIRA “increased penalties on immigrants who had violated U.S. law in some way (whether they were unauthorized immigrants who’d violated immigration law or legal immigrants who’d committed other crimes)” and required their detention and fast-tracking deportation. The Lazarus Fund, created through Soros’s Open Society Institute, believed that this kind of “open hostility” (against lawbreakers, mind you) was “antithetical to the values of an open society.”

The first U.S. naturalizing law of 1790 required that the applicant be a “free white person” with a “good moral character” who resided in the country for two years. In 1870, the law was amended to include applicants of African origin. According to the PEW Research Center, “Starting in 1875, a series of restrictions on immigration were enacted. They included bans on criminals, people with contagious diseases, polygamists, anarchists, beggars, and importers of prostitutes.” In 1965, “the landmark Immigration and Nationality Act created a new system favoring family reunification and skilled immigrants.”

The Green New Deal and ‘Chinafication’ of the United States Bringing economic ruin to America – while benefiting China and its ruling class. by Scott S. Powell

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-green-new-deal-and-chinafication-of-the-united-states/

We are living through extraordinary times, not too different from what was portrayed in The Matrix—a 1999 science fiction film that depicted humanity being unknowingly trapped in a false reality. In truth, we are being deceived on a range of important and vital matters by a deep state ruling class residing in U.S. Government, universities, media, and business corporations.

Members of this ruling class work behind the scenes to create narratives to redirect resources and power to their benefit. Programs with greatest mass appeal are often those wrapped in some moral or social justice cause, crafted with compelling catchphrases. The most captivating causes are often those that include a global vision—such as saving the earth. This explains the appeal of the Green New Deal, although common sense, history, science, and economics reveal that it is more hoax than real.

It is important to understand that many elites who push these narratives have little affection for the U.S. and identify with China and the World Economic Forum on many matters. What is different now for us—the American people—than previous times is the large number of U.S. government agencies that have fallen under the sway of narratives and collude with the technology information sector.  As a result, First Amendment laws are being violated with social media companies effectively acting as subsidiaries of government agencies carrying out those agencies’ unconstitutional directives to block or cancel those with contrary views, effectively denying them access to mainstream and social media. Thus, narratives and propaganda, however distorted or false, often advance because well-reasoned dissent from prominent experts is censored.

Great harm against the United States has been incurred recently by this information-blocking duopoly.

We Are Living in a World Made for Satire The degradation has reached levels of absurdity not found in even the best satires. by Bruce Thornton

https://www.frontpagemag.com/we-are-living-in-a-world-made-for-satire/

The great Roman satirist Juvenal once said that the “monstrous city” of Rome makes it “hard not to write satire” and “fill a whole notebook” with scenes of corruption, vice, and sheer stupidity. I think of Juvenal more and more these days, as our own moral, political, social, and intellectual degradation reaches levels of absurdity not found in even the best satires.

Indeed, our culture and politics are so bizarre and surreal that the scenes we witness every day make satire redundant.

One example that would shock even a satirist like Juvenal or Jonathon Swift is the “transgender” phenomenon. Swift, in his early 18th century brilliant satire Gulliver’s Travels, describes the Academy of Projectors who carry out various preposterous experiments such as extracting sunlight from cucumbers, turning excrement back into food, and building houses from the roof down.

But our attempts to change biological males into females or biological females into males no doubt would have struck Swift as beyond satiric. Perhaps more incredible would be the credentialed  medical doctors who ignore their oath to “first do no harm,” and participate in the poisoning and irreversible mutilation of healthy, if troubled, young people and even pre-teens, including toddlers as young as two.

But that’s just the start of the absurdities. Who at the beginning of the 21st century could have imagined the military services––organizations whose members provide the serious and important service of fighting, killing, and dying for their county––wasting time and money subjecting their members to training in the protocols of made-up pronouns? Or, as Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville wrote in the Wall Street Journal, selecting a  “non-binary” lieutenant to read a poem to the whole crew of an aircraft carrier during an “LGBTQ spoken-word night”?

And despite the warning provided by the massive drop in sales of Bud Light, after making a poncy transexual in campy drag its unofficial spokesman, the Navy “tapped another self-described nonbinary sailor to become the Navy’s first ‘Digital Ambassador,’” Tuberville writes. He adds, the “concern is that our new national obsession with sexuality, race and gender is focused on self rather than on purpose, ability or service”–– especially at a time when the Navy, like the other services, is facing record shortfalls in recruitment.

The Cost of Obama’s Foreign Policy By Mike Watson

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2023/05/15/the-cost-of-obamas-foreign-policy/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

His worldview conduced to American decline

As the GOP primary season gets under way, the foreign-policy conversation in Washington has dwelt on how long Republicans will support Ukraine’s attempts to defend itself against Russian aggression. But there are too many hot spots for Ukraine to continue to dominate the news — and lawmakers’ attention — for long: China’s ongoing military buildup threatens to upset the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. It is also making inroads in the Middle East, where Iran has nearly attained weapons-grade uranium and its terrorist allies are stepping up their rocket attacks on Israel. The United States faces the prospect of simultaneous major conflicts in several strategically important theaters.

The brewing crisis for the American-led international order is readily apparent, but its roots are more obscure. Fifteen years ago, the prospects of a major war in Europe and of the U.S. military’s losing control of the Western Pacific were remote; today, one has materialized, and the other may be close at hand. How did a country as dominant as the United States let events slip out of its control so quickly?

Much of the blame must lie with the Obama administration for initiating a series of disastrous policies and the Biden administration for continuing them. Toward the end of his presidency, Barack Obama articulated many of his foreign-policy views to Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic. Reexamining them now, one is struck by the many ways in which he was wrong, with great consequence.

As Obama saw it, the United States had been obsessed with the wrong issues. Unlike ISIS, which was “not an existential threat to the United States” but had nonetheless fixed the country’s attention, “climate change is a potential existential threat to the entire world if we don’t do something about it.” And Obama feared that by focusing on terrorism instead of on the plights and aspirations of young people in the developing world, the United States was “missing the boat.” At a time when rival powers were on the prowl, the White House focused on nebulous issues such as the climate and global development.

Obama partly acknowledged great-power challenges, of course. He thought “the relationship between the United States and China” was “going to be the most critical” in the ensuing years. Former defense secretary Ash Carter said Obama believed that Asia was “the part of the world of greatest consequence to the American future,” and that “no president can take his eye off of this.” Hence the signature foreign-policy slogan of Obama’s first term, the “pivot to Asia.”

This did not make him a hawk by any means. Rather, he said we had “more to fear from a weakened, threatened China than a successful, rising China.” China, Obama repeated, was “on a peaceful rise.” In Beijing, Washington could find “a partner that is growing in capability and sharing with us the burdens and responsibilities of maintaining an international order.”