Laws are apolitical devices to protect the people of the country

March 26, 2024

A man bought a house several years ago for $150,000. Through the years, he had made $23,000 worth of improvements, and the market was good, so when he applied for a loan with the house as collateral, he valued it at $179,000.

The bank, however, valued it at just $171,500. So, he got his loan, and over the years paid it back on time with interest.

That’s the way it works. Lenders do their own evaluations of property offered as collateral. That’s the way it is for individuals, companies, and even billionaires like Donald Trump.

In Trump’s case, the document his business submitted for loans even has a disclaimer telling the lender to ignore his valuation and do their own, which, they would do anyway.

So, Trump got his loans with the lender’s valuation of his property, paid back the loans on time with interest, and even has the lenders saying they want him to continue as a customer.

Despite doing business this way for years, and that there was no victim that experienced losses from Trump, the New York Attorney General charged him under a statute that — believe it or not — does not require intent to commit fraud or anyone to be harmed by the fraud.

John Myers, the retired head of GE Asset Management, had this to say: “These high valuations may not be true but the banks and other sophisticated financial institutions do their own due diligence on valuations and basically could care less what Trump’s valuation was. Plus, the loans were all repaid, so who was the victim?” 

And when the case went to court, the judge did not use a jury, but decided the case by himself, and has fined Trump over $354 million in damages, and barred him “from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of three years.”

The Attorney General said that with pre-judgment interest, the judgment totals over $450 million, an amount “which will continue to increase every single day” until the judgment is paid.

Trump wants to appeal the ruling, so he must pay the judgement amount, plus interest, which totals more than $500 million. That deadline was yesterday.

A spokesperson for the Trump Organization called the ruling “a gross miscarriage of justice. The Trump Organization has never missed any loan payment or been in default on any loan.” This lawsuit is an election stunt to motivate base voters, the spokesperson said.

The Attorney General in this legal matter is Letitia James. She ran for office four years ago on a platform that included finding something, anything, to bring Trump down when he was the Republican president. 

Fox Business Network’s Charles Gasparino noted that what Trump did is commonplace, and it is so common that this case should be laughed out of court. 

“It won’t be, of course,” Gasparino wrote. “James may be the most partisan Democratic prosecutor in the country, but New York state courts are packed with like-minded judicial types who also think Trump needs to rot in jail. Even worse, objective evidence abounds of James pushing the boundaries in using her office to advance her political goals.”

The actions of Arthur Engoron, the judge in this case, are also under attack. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-NY, the House GOP conference chair, has filed a judicial ethics complaint against Engoron. Stefanik accuses the judge of weaponizing the legal system against Trump, and called on the judge to recuse himself.

As reported by NBC News, “Engoron has exhibited ‘clear judicial bias’ against Trump, including telling Trump’s attorney that the former president is ‘just a bad guy’ whom New York Attorney General Letitia James ‘should go after,’ Stefanik sent a letter to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. She said the judge has failed to honor Trump’s due process rights, concerns that she said are exacerbated by the former president’s position as the front-runner for the presidential nomination.”

She wrote that “Engoron had illegally gagged Trump’s protected political speech, violated political giving rules with financial contributions to Democrats as recently as 2018, and ignored a decision on the appropriate statute of limitations in the case. At the start of the trial, Engoron ‘infamously smiled and posed for the cameras,’ she noted,” according to the NBC report.

A term that has come to the fore recently is one that applies to this situation. “Lawfare” is warfare using laws as weapons, and the legal systems and institutions against an opponent, and/or to interfere with an individual's usage of their legal rights.

The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money, or winning a public relations victory.

Lawfare in this case was made easier by a stupid law that allows someone to be prosecuted for essentially doing nothing wrong, and harming no one, other than the other political party.

That’s not how things should work in the United States of America, and those that are behind this should be relieved of their positions and disbarred.

The fundamental transformation of the country just keeps coming

March 19, 2024

Being fed up with most everything that has made America the very special place that it is, those on the left want to change how our system of employment works. We have fairly recently seen efforts to replace people getting promotions and raises due to the level of their performance with a focus on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion). With DEI, getting a particular job or a raise is based upon who they are, their race, gender, etc., not their level of skills and knowledge.

One aspect of this desire for change was posted in a meme on Facebook that said: “Every single job should pay a living wage. If the work matters enough to hire someone to do it, that worker should be able to afford a safe, comfy home; fresh, nutritious food; and fun vacation sometimes, and enough left to save. Yes, every single job, including yours.” 

First, there is the question what a living wage is, and who gets to decide that? A living wage in some cities and areas of the country is very different from a living wage in towns and cities in other places.

This idea ignores the different levels and requirements of jobs.  Some have high demands and greater needs, and higher pay. Others have low requirements, with lower pay. Then there is the background and level of performance of the worker. Under this theory, a high school or college student working a very basic job should earn a wage high enough to satisfy the details of the Facebook meme. Or someone in an apprenticeship learning the basics of a new job should earn a living wage from day one.

The job/pay situation is complicated.

Support for reducing the standard 40-hour, five-day workweek to a 32-hour, four-day workweek has recently gained momentum. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, has introduced a bill to do just that. Under his bill, people will work a four-day week, but be paid for what they would earn working a five-day week.

The 40-hour workweek has been the standard for some 80 years, being brought into effect by the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1940. It has worked very well, for the most part. But, Sanders says that due to advances in automation and other aspects of production, companies can afford to give employees more time off, but keep their pay and benefits the same.

He told a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that the economic gains that have resulted from automation and other factors have benefitted CEOs, while workers have still made the same amount of money.

“The question that we are asking today is a pretty simple question,” Sanders said. “Do we continue the trend that technology only benefits the people on top, or do we demand that these transformational changes benefit working people? And, one of these benefits must be a lower workweek, 32-hour workweek. This is not a radical idea.”

However, if labor and machine operation are reduced by 20 hours a week, productivity will drop by 20 percent. Employers will have the same labor costs, but will have fewer goods and services to sell. Businesses will lose income and profit.

The employer will then have to raise prices to compensate for the lost productivity, or hire more workers to take up the slack. More workers may make up the loss of productivity, but that will cause an increase in labor costs. 

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy argued that the proposal is essentially a pay increase forced upon businesses. And, he predicted that the 32-hour workweek would "destroy some employers" who would be unable to adjust to the new system.

Both of these concepts — first, that every worker should get a living wage, regardless of job demands, ability and experience; and, second, pay workers the same for working 32 hours per week as they got for 40 hours per week — are typical of liberal/socialist “reasoning.” They represent what the great economist and author Thomas Sowell so rightly termed “stage-one thinking.” 

Stage-one thinking is when an idea pops up that delights many, and they react with “Wow! What a great idea. Let’s do it!” They fail to look beyond the attractiveness of that “great idea” to see what might happen down the road. After it has been in effect for a while, the results are most often much worse than expected.

So often, liberal/socialist ideas target and negatively affect businesses, because the proponents of these ideas think businesses are just selfish entities that take advantage of their workers. But businesses provide jobs and make things we want and need. And, being able to work and earn money to live on is a good thing. Without businesses that can operate relatively freely, where would we get the things we need and want?

It is also a good thing that in America anyone can pursue any work area they choose, and so long as they can learn the trade or profession and perform it at a suitable level, they will be happy and can live a decent life.

Recklessly altering this proven system is a dangerous move that will likely produce negative effects on the country, its people and its businesses.

The left does not understand the purpose of our Supreme Court

March 12, 2024

In reviewing the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot for the 2024 election, the U.S. Supreme Court did precisely what it is supposed to do: review the case and determine if the court’s ruling will stand or not, based upon the Constitution and the laws.

The majority Democrat-appointed Colorado justices — four of the seven —ruled that Trump was an insurrectionist, and therefore should be disqualified from running for President. However, three of the Democrat-appointed justices disagreed with the four. Of course, Trump has not been convicted in court of insurrection, or even formally charged with the crime.

The Colorado court has no authority to decide whether or not Trump is an insurrectionist. And neither do officials of the states, media persons or Democrat/leftist opponents of Trump. That is a legal process that has not even begun, let alone been concluded.

Democrats and other leftists claimed to be protecting our “democracy” by preventing Trump from running. Curiously, in attempting to unilaterally block him, they were trying to save our “democracy” by anti-democratic methods. 

The citizens of the United States who are eligible to vote are who make the decision on who becomes president, not some individual or group with a political objection to someone.

Properly, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the Colorado court, with the three liberal judges joining the conservative majority in the decision. How much stronger a decision can be made?

Legal scholar and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley assesses this decision: “The fact is that the Supreme Court justices have proved, again, that they are precisely the ‘real Supreme Court justices’ that the Founding Fathers envisioned. The court was created to be able to transcend our divisions and politics. On Monday, a court sharply divided along ideological grounds showed the nation that it could speak with one voice. In doing so, it spoke to the things that bind us to each other, including an article of faith in our Constitution that defines us all.”

Leftists in Congress, the news media, and elsewhere were stunned and infuriated by this decision. They apparently believe that the Supreme Court’s duty is to rule on issues in a manner that suits their narrow and highly political idealistic dreams.

But the U.S. Supreme Court and the nation’s court system is designed to apply the Constitution and the laws in an unbiased and politically neutral manner.

And just imagine what might have transpired had the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as the left believes it should have. Trump would have been blocked from several state ballots, and they would have been rapturous, euphoric, and thrilled. But then, other states would also be able to block candidates. Maybe President Joe Biden would be blocked. Or other Democrats. Or even all Democrats. Another sound reason in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Do those on the left not understand the structure of the United States of America? The tripartite government with executive, legislative and judicial branches that are independent of each other. And a system of checks and balances that prevents authoritarians from taking control is superior to other governmental systems. Without this system we would be as wonderful as China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and others.

Or, do those on the left actually understand our system, and completely despise it and want to replace it — by hook or by crook — with a system they can control forever?

Had the U.S. Supreme Court sustained the Colorado decision, the left would be somewhat closer to “fundamentally transforming” our constitutional republic into a one-party, leftist-controlled authoritarian democracy.

This is the end that the left and the Democrat party have in mind and are working tirelessly to achieve.

Even as the left progresses toward a socialist/communist nightmare, it also imposes politically correct rules on what can be said.

The man charged with killing 22-year-old college student Laken Riley was referred to, by “progressive” President Joe Biden, as an “illegal” in his State of the Union rant. The left went crazy, criticizing Biden for that comment, even as they celebrate his dangerous and illegal policy on the open border. Biden quickly apologized for his faux pas.

But the accused, Venezuelan Jose Ibarra, did not enter the country properly, and is therefore an actual “illegal.”

In their hyper-sensitive bubble, they refer to these illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants,” or “migrants.”

What exactly is the definition of an immigrant? It is “a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.” And what is a migrant? “A person who moves regularly in order to find work especially in harvesting crops.”

Both are very general terms. To immigrate to the U.S., or to be an immigrant, there is a process. And if you don’t follow the process, if you enter by crossing the Rio Grande and not coming through a port of entry, you are not an immigrant or a migrant; you are an illegal alien. 

That is the correct legal term. It may not make some people feel good, but that is reality. And dealing in reality is far more important than how that may make some people feel.

The United States’ war on CO2 is having no actual effect

March 4, 2024

The idea that our atmosphere is heating up to dangerous levels continues. We are told that the cure to this temperature increase is the reduction or elimination of carbon emissions (CO2).

Looking at how carbon emissions changed from 2000 to 2018, we find that the United States and Europe had reduced their emissions, with the U.S. reducing by 10 percent, and Europe reducing by 16 percent, according to data from the Global Carbon Budget 2018.

As meager as that might seem to climate activists, it is enormously better than what some other nations were doing. India, for example, had increased its emissions by 155 percent, and China had trounced India, defeating it with a 208 percent increase.

Why is CO2 a crisis in the U.S. and Europe if two nations — India and China — are producing almost 15 times the carbon emissions that the U.S. and Europe are eliminating? And, China has been building one new coal-fired power plant per week. 

And more to the point, why should we in the U.S. have to purchase items that produce less CO2 and are less efficient, less desirable and more expensive? Or, why are we are unable to buy or use anymore items that we prefer because of their carbon emissions when all of that makes absolutely no difference in the effort to reduce emissions due to the monumental lack of concern of India and China?

However, in light of all of this we should consider whether CO2 is actually a real problem.

The National Geographic Society and National Geographic magazine published an article which said that “Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, and 0.1 percent other gases. Trace amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and neon are some of the other gases that make up the remaining 0.1 percent.” 

So, CO2 and other gases combine for a grand total of just 1/10th of one percent of the atmosphere. But, let’s look deeper.

Yochanan Kushnir is a research professor at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, in the Division of Oceans and Climate Physics of Columbia University. He explains that of those other gases, carbon dioxide is only 0.04 percent — 4/100ths of a percent — of the entire atmospheric mixture. 

That figure is confirmed by other scientists, who also tell us that 95 percent of that 0.04 percent comes from natural sources, not human activity. Still others say that plant life will do better if the CO2 level was doubled.

While the effort to reduce or eliminate CO2 has affected household and other items, it also had a big effect on a large economic element in our region.

A policy of the Barack Obama administration limited power plant emissions and reduced domestic coal production. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards policy left power plants with the option of purchasing costly upgrades if they were to stay in business. This forced many plants across the country to close up shop, according to John Deskins, director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research in West Virginia University’s John Chambers College of Business and Economics.

West Virginia Coal Association President Chris Hamilton noted that these regulations forced six West Virginia plants to close, and hundreds across the country due to the financial burdens the policy caused.

He also said that West Virginia lost nearly half of its coal production, dropping from 165 million tons to less than 90 million tons.

Damian Phillips of WVNews wrote last week that coal production improved somewhat after Donald Trump became President. And Hamilton noted that During Trump’s first year in office, coal production rose in West Virginia alone.

“The state’s coal production stayed about the same in Trump’s second year,” Hamilton said, “but by the time the pandemic was in full swing, production around the country shut down, and it took more than a year for it to recover.”

Those of us living in southern West Virginia, southwest Virginia and other coal-producing areas have seen first-hand the harmful economic effects of the Obama policy. It is a policy that, according to the data presented earlier, must have been based on political ideals rather than scientific evidence.

And Phillips quoted Hamilton as saying that “Energy producers have warned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Biden administration that continuing with these policies may upset the national power grid, increasing the likelihood for outages.”

Previous dire warnings about climate catastrophe include that space satellites showed a new ice age coming fast; that there was no end in sight to 30-year cooling trend in northern hemisphere; that within five years the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely free of ice; and French foreign minister Laurent Fabius’ 2014 warning that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos." None of these and other predictions of catastrophe actually came to be.

Given the long list of doomsday prognostications that didn’t occur, their breathtaking contrariness to climate reality, and the minuscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should neither worry about, nor continue to combat CO2, and stop punishing the American people by mandating inferior products and unnecessary costs.