AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN

[thelivyjr]

THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"Democrats' isolation puts democracy in danger"

Samuel J. Abrams 

8 JULY 2021

A recent advice piece in the New York Times Magazine presented a situation in which a liberal, progressive individual was having trouble socializing with a conservative person whose “personal political views [he found] so abhorrent.”

In response to this liberal’s question, the New York Times discussed the ethics and practicality of spending time and developing friendships with those who hold divergent political and ideological views.

The piece rightly articulated the idea that civil society benefits when different ideas are shared among diverse groups, leading to debate and compromise.

But the New York Times, along with many other outlets, focuses heavily on stories of liberals rejecting conservative views — habitually failing to present a true picture of political conversation in America and presenting a strong liberal bias.

New information from the American Enterprise Institute's Survey Center on American Life in its recent study, The State of American Friendship, has already made it clear that Democrats are generally less likely than Republicans to maintain friendships with those who have alternative views, and more Democrats than Republicans have ended friendships over political differences.

We now also know that when it comes to talking politics, the rates of political discussion in the United States are in line with earlier research on the frequency of political conversation, and it is unquestionable that most people do not talk about politics constantly.

Furthermore, the data demonstrate that while the friendship networks of most people are not nearly as homogenous as they may appear online or in the press, Democrats’ networks are far less politically diverse than Republicans’ networks are — just as the New York Times piece illustrated.

Specifically, few people report regularly discussing politics or government with their friends.

Political chatter is not nearly as frequent as it may appear from Twitter, Fox, or MSNBC: About 1 in 5 (21%) respondents say they discuss political issues at least a few times a week, and about 1 in 4 (24%) say they do so a few times a month.

More than half (55%) of the public reports talking about politics with their friends less often.

Surprisingly, political discussion is not as high among partisans as one may initially suspect.

Almost a quarter of Democrats (24%) and a quarter of Republicans (25%), including both strong and weak identifiers, report discussing politics with their friends a few times a week or more often.

In contrast, and despite relatively small numbers of independents who lean to the Right, only 19% report discussing politics weekly or more often, and 15% of independents who lean to the Left say the same.

The majority of the U.S. polity, those in the middle and often politically disconnected and turned off by rancorous partisan politics, barely talk about politics as a general matter.

And while partisans do so at appreciably higher rates, only a quarter report discussing politics at least weekly — hardly anything close to the Athenian or any other model of an engaged democratic demos.

Partisan people are also far more likely than independents and leaners to have friends who belong to their preferred party.

But even partisans are not unified in the composition of their friendship networks.

About half of strong and weak Democratic identifiers (51%) and half of strong and weak Republican identifiers (51%) report that a lot of their friends are part of the same political party as them.

Democrats’ friend groups are notably more politically isolated than Republicans’ are.

While 43% of Republicans say some of their friends are Democrats, just 23% of Democrats say that some of their friends are Republicans — a 47% difference.

Independents are far more diverse in their friendships, with 43% having some Democratic friends and 45% having some Republican friends.

Additionally, just 12% of Republicans state that they have no Democratic friends.

In contrast, a third (33%) of Democrats say they have no Republican friends.

The fact that Democrats are almost three times as likely as Republicans to have no friends in the opposing political party is dangerous for democracy.

Avoiding the other side of the argument leads to the creation of echo chambers, weak thinking, and the feeling that there is something illegitimate about people with differing opinions.

When members of one major political party turn inward and reject discussing a diversity of ideas, radicalization happens, and the capacity to work with and create policy to benefit as many people as possible diminishes significantly.

Yet, Democrats are doing just that.

Having diverse networks is crucial for democracy, as is empathy and compassion for the views, stories, and lives of others.

These factors make civil society thrive, but Democrats are not making enough of an effort here.

Democrats, for all of their talk about inclusiveness, equity, and diversity, are unsurprisingly having trouble recruiting and retaining many groups in the nation.

This dilemma arose because Democrats are talking to themselves too often and are failing to listen and engage genuinely with those outside their immediate networks, which diminishes our nation and its progress.

Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... hp&pc=U531

[thelivyjr]

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 9, 2021 AT 6:50 PM

Paul Plante says:

Never in my experience of American presidents, which would go back to Democrat Harry S. Truman, who at p.91 of David Halberstam’s excellent history of the Korean Conflict, The Coldest Winter, confessed to liking Joe Stalin of the Soviet Union, as did Democrat Frank Roosevelt before him, have I ever seen a HUBRISTIC (excessively proud or self-confident, as in “a hubristic belief in his own self-proclaimed genius”) self-promoting president like Joe Biden who has been spending his first days in office touring the nation to tell people just how great he really is, and how bad Trump was before him, this as he tries to sell the nation on his plan to reward him with $SIX TRILLION for his plans for the economy he intends to impose on us, with the bill for that borrowed money going to us, as our reward, which takes us to a story in the New York Post entitled “Biden sidesteps Chicago shootings for ‘boring’ speech in swing suburb” by David Marcus on July 7, 2021, where we have reference to that $6 TRILLION, as follows:

Biden also outlined details of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal he struck with congressional Republicans last month, which is part of the total $6 trillion he wants to spend on reviving the economy as the nation rebounds from COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions.

end quotes

Talk about the hugest money grab and the most massive looting of OUR treasury ever by an American president, there we have it right before us, people!

While yesterday, 8 July 2021, we had this from the CNBC article CNBC “U.S. weekly jobless claims unexpectedly rise to 373,000, as job growth slows” by Thomas Franck on July 8, 2021, as follows:

Initial filings for unemployment insurance unexpectedly rose last week, a possible hint that the rapid job growth seen in the first half of 2021 could face hurdles in the months ahead, the Labor Department reported Thursday.

The previous week’s level was revised up by 7,000 from 364,000 to 371,000.

end quotes

That’s what we appear to be getting for all the $TRILLIONS Joe has spent (squandered?) “reviving the economy,” which takes us to a Reuters story entitled “Wall Street ends lower as recovery momentum concerns spark sell-off” by Stephen Culp on July 8, 2021, as follows:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Wall Street lost ground on Thursday, with the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq pulling back from record closing highs in a broad sell-off driven by uncertainties surrounding the pace of the U.S. economic recovery.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 259.86 points, or 0.75%, to 34,421.93, the S&P 500 lost 37.31 points, or 0.86%, to 4,320.82 and the Nasdaq Composite dropped 105.28 points, or 0.72%, to 14,559.79.

Sensing cracks in the U.S. economic recovery, traders covered short positions in the bond market.

end quotes

Which takes us to another Reuters story entitled “U.S. Treasury yields fall as economic worries percolate” by Chuck Mikolajczak on July 8, 2021, to wit:

NEW YORK, July 8 (Reuters) – U.S. government bonds yields continued their recent decline on Thursday, with 10-year Treasury yields touching their lowest levels in nearly five months as investors’ worries persist that the best part of the economic recovery may be over.

Recent data on the labor market and services sector has given investors pause that the economy may not be strengthening as initially anticipated and some underlying weakness may be emerging.

end quotes

Which takes us again to Reuters in the story “U.S. mortgage application volumes at lowest since early 2020 -MBA” by Evan Sully on July 7, 2021, where we have as follows:

(Reuters) – The number of applications for home mortgages decreased last week to the lowest level since early 2020, dampened by declines in refinancing activity and purchase applications.

The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) said on Wednesday its seasonally adjusted market index fell 1.8% in the week ending on July 2 from a week earlier, leaving it at to the lowest level since January 2020.

This reflected a 2.3% decrease in applications to refinance existing loans and a 1.1% drop in applications to purchase a home.

Rising home prices combined with insufficient supply has continued to weigh on the housing market.

end quotes

And to another Reuters story entitled “Treasury yields continue fall on economic jitters” by Chuck Mikolajczak on July 7, 2021, to wit:

NEW YORK, July 7 (Reuters) – U.S. Treasury yields continued on their downward trajectory on Wednesday, with 10-year yields on track for a seventh straight session of declines on worries the economic recovery may be softening while investors assessed the minutes from the Federal Reserve’s June meeting for clues to its policy path.

Recent data on the labor market and services sector has given investors pause that the economy may not be strengthening as initially anticipated and some underlying weakness may be emerging.

On Wednesday, the Labor Department said job openings edged up in May while hiring dipped, indicating the economy continues to struggle with labor shortages.

end quotes

And that takes us back to the New York Post, where we have as follows:

President Biden largely ignored the 100-plus people shot in Chicago this past weekend during a Tuesday speech outside the Windy City that he admitted was “boring” — before stumbling on the stairs while leaving the stage.

An unidentified man sprang into action and put his hand on Biden’s back to steady the 78-year-old commander in chief following his appearance at at McHenry County College in the battleground suburb of Crystal Lake, Ill.

Biden barely spoke above a whisper during a 30-minute address in which he promoted his costly “Build Back Better” plan and said that any infrastructure improvements needed to be paired with spending on education, child care and health care.

end quotes

Costly, indeed, and from the look of things, Joe’s “Build Back Better” plan, which is based on pure hooey, should be renamed “Build Backwards Better,” because that is the direction it appears to be going in.

In the meantime, as the New York Post reported, on July 7, Joe was at McHenry College in Crystal Lake, Illinois outlining details of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal he struck with congressional Republicans last month, which is part of the total $6 trillion he wants to spend on reviving the economy as the nation rebounds from COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions, where we had Joe telling the candid world, as follows:

Last week, I was up in Wisconsin to talk about a bipartisan agreement to modernize American infrastructure and in the process, create millions of good paying jobs.

That’s not my estimate, that’s Wall Street estimates, that’s everybody’s estimate.

Millions of good paying jobs.

Not $7, not $8, not $10, not even $15 an hour, good prevailing wage jobs.

end quotes

Except, where are they, Joe?

Still up your sleeve?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-380212

[thelivyjr]

Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy

JULY 09, 2021

PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote the interests of American workers, businesses, and consumers, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy.

A fair, open, and competitive marketplace has long been a cornerstone of the American economy, while excessive market concentration threatens basic economic liberties, democratic accountability, and the welfare of workers, farmers, small businesses, startups, and consumers.

The American promise of a broad and sustained prosperity depends on an open and competitive economy.

For workers, a competitive marketplace creates more high-quality jobs and the economic freedom to switch jobs or negotiate a higher wage.

For small businesses and farmers, it creates more choices among suppliers and major buyers, leading to more take-home income, which they can reinvest in their enterprises.

For entrepreneurs, it provides space to experiment, innovate, and pursue the new ideas that have for centuries powered the American economy and improved our quality of life.

And for consumers, it means more choices, better service, and lower prices.

Robust competition is critical to preserving America’s role as the world’s leading economy.

Yet over the last several decades, as industries have consolidated, competition has weakened in too many markets, denying Americans the benefits of an open economy and widening racial, income, and wealth inequality.

Federal Government inaction has contributed to these problems, with workers, farmers, small businesses, and consumers paying the price.

Consolidation has increased the power of corporate employers, making it harder for workers to bargain for higher wages and better work conditions.

Powerful companies require workers to sign non-compete agreements that restrict their ability to change jobs.

And, while many occupational licenses are critical to increasing wages for workers and especially workers of color, some overly restrictive occupational licensing requirements can impede workers’ ability to find jobs and to move between States.

Consolidation in the agricultural industry is making it too hard for small family farms to survive.

Farmers are squeezed between concentrated market power in the agricultural input industries — seed, fertilizer, feed, and equipment suppliers — and concentrated market power in the channels for selling agricultural products.

As a result, farmers’ share of the value of their agricultural products has decreased, and poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle ranchers, and other agricultural workers struggle to retain autonomy and to make sustainable returns.

The American information technology sector has long been an engine of innovation and growth, but today a small number of dominant Internet platforms use their power to exclude market entrants, to extract monopoly profits, and to gather intimate personal information that they can exploit for their own advantage.

Too many small businesses across the economy depend on those platforms and a few online marketplaces for their survival.

And too many local newspapers have shuttered or downsized, in part due to the Internet platforms’ dominance in advertising markets.

Americans are paying too much for prescription drugs and healthcare services — far more than the prices paid in other countries.

Hospital consolidation has left many areas, particularly rural communities, with inadequate or more expensive healthcare options.

And too often, patent and other laws have been misused to inhibit or delay — for years and even decades — competition from generic drugs and biosimilars, denying Americans access to lower-cost drugs.

In the telecommunications sector, Americans likewise pay too much for broadband, cable television, and other communications services, in part because of a lack of adequate competition.

In the financial-services sector, consumers pay steep and often hidden fees because of industry consolidation.

Similarly, the global container shipping industry has consolidated into a small number of dominant foreign-owned lines and alliances, which can disadvantage American exporters.

The problem of economic consolidation now spans these sectors and many others, endangering our ability to rebuild and emerge from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with a vibrant, innovative, and growing economy.

Meanwhile, the United States faces new challenges to its economic standing in the world, including unfair competitive pressures from foreign monopolies and firms that are state-owned or state-sponsored, or whose market power is directly supported by foreign governments.

We must act now to reverse these dangerous trends, which constrain the growth and dynamism of our economy, impair the creation of high-quality jobs, and threaten America’s economic standing in the world.

This order affirms that it is the policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony — especially as these issues arise in labor markets, agricultural markets, Internet platform industries, healthcare markets (including insurance, hospital, and prescription drug markets), repair markets, and United States markets directly affected by foreign cartel activity.

It is also the policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to meet the challenges posed by new industries and technologies, including the rise of the dominant Internet platforms, especially as they stem from serial mergers, the acquisition of nascent competitors, the aggregation of data, unfair competition in attention markets, the surveillance of users, and the presence of network effects.

Whereas decades of industry consolidation have often led to excessive market concentration, this order reaffirms that the United States retains the authority to challenge transactions whose previous consummation was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) (Sherman Act), the Clayton Antitrust Act (Public Law 63-212, 38 Stat. 730, 15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) (Clayton Act), or other laws. See 15 U.S.C. 18; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911).

This order reasserts as United States policy that the answer to the rising power of foreign monopolies and cartels is not the tolerance of domestic monopolization, but rather the promotion of competition and innovation by firms small and large, at home and worldwide.

It is also the policy of my Administration to support aggressive legislative reforms that would lower prescription drug prices, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by imposing inflation caps, and through other related reforms.

It is further the policy of my Administration to support the enactment of a public health insurance option.

My Administration further reaffirms the policy stated in Executive Order 13725 of April 15, 2016 (Steps to Increase Competition and Better Inform Consumers and Workers to Support Continued Growth of the American Economy), and the Federal Government’s commitment to the principles that led to the passage of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (Public Law 67-51, 42 Stat. 159, 7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) (Packers and Stockyards Act), the Celler-Kefauver Antimerger Act (Public Law 81-899, 64 Stat. 1125), the Bank Merger Act (Public Law 86-463, 74 Stat. 129, 12 U.S.C. 1828), and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56), among others.

Sec. 2. The Statutory Basis of a Whole-of-Government Competition Policy.

(a) The antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act (Public Law 63-203, 38 Stat. 717, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), are a first line of defense against the monopolization of the American economy.

(b) The antitrust laws reflect an underlying policy favoring competition that transcends those particular enactments.

As the Supreme Court has stated, for instance, the Sherman Act “rests on the premise that the unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation of our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality and the greatest material progress, while at the same time providing an environment conducive to the preservation of our democratic political and social institutions.” Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 4 (1958).

(c) Consistent with these broader policies, and in addition to the traditional antitrust laws, the Congress has also enacted industry-specific fair competition and anti-monopolization laws that often provide additional protections.

Such enactments include the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (Public Law 74-401, 49 Stat. 977, 27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), the Bank Merger Act, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417, 98 Stat. 1585), the Shipping Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-237, 98 Stat. 67, 46 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.) (Shipping Act), the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803), the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act (Public Law 108-164, 117 Stat. 2024, 15 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376) (Dodd-Frank Act).

(d) These statutes independently charge a number of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to protect conditions of fair competition in one or more ways, including by:

(i) policing unfair, deceptive, and abusive business practices;

(ii) resisting consolidation and promoting competition within industries through the independent oversight of mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures;

(iii) promulgating rules that promote competition, including the market entry of new competitors; and

(iv) promoting market transparency through compelled disclosure of information.

(e) The agencies that administer such or similar authorities include the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Surface Transportation Board.

(f) Agencies can influence the conditions of competition through their exercise of regulatory authority or through the procurement process. See 41 U.S.C. 1705.

(g) This order recognizes that a whole-of-government approach is necessary to address overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy.

Such an approach is supported by existing statutory mandates.

Agencies can and should further the polices set forth in section 1 of this order by, among other things, adopting pro‑competitive regulations and approaches to procurement and spending, and by rescinding regulations that create unnecessary barriers to entry that stifle competition.

Sec. 3. Agency Cooperation in Oversight, Investigation, and Remedies.

(a) The Congress frequently has created overlapping agency jurisdiction in the policing of anticompetitive conduct and the oversight of mergers.

It is the policy of my Administration that, when agencies have overlapping jurisdiction, they should endeavor to cooperate fully in the exercise of their oversight authority, to benefit from the respective expertise of the agencies and to improve Government efficiency.

(b) Where there is overlapping jurisdiction over particular cases, conduct, transactions, or industries, agencies are encouraged to coordinate their efforts, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, with respect to:

(i) the investigation of conduct potentially harmful to competition;

(ii) the oversight of proposed mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures; and

(iii) the design, execution, and oversight of remedies.

(c) The means of cooperation in cases of overlapping jurisdiction should include, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:

(i) sharing relevant information and industry data;

(ii) in the case of major transactions, soliciting and giving significant consideration to the views of the Attorney General or the Chair of the FTC, as applicable; and

(iii) cooperating with any concurrent Department of Justice or FTC oversight activities under the Sherman Act or Clayton Act.

(d) Nothing in subsections (a) through (c) of this section shall be construed to suggest that the statutory standard applied by an agency, or its independent assessment under that standard, should be displaced or substituted by the judgment of the Attorney General or the Chair of the FTC.

When their views are solicited, the Attorney General and the Chair of the FTC are encouraged to provide a response to the agency in time for the agency to consider it in advance of any statutory deadline for agency action.

Sec. 4. The White House Competition Council.

(a) There is established a White House Competition Council (Council) within the Executive Office of the President.

(b) The Council shall coordinate, promote, and advance Federal Government efforts to address overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in or directly affecting the American economy, including efforts to:

(i) implement the administrative actions identified in this order;

(ii) develop procedures and best practices for agency cooperation and coordination on matters of overlapping jurisdiction, as described in section 3 of this order;

(iii) identify and advance any additional administrative actions necessary to further the policies set forth in section 1 of this order; and

(iv) identify any potential legislative changes necessary to further the policies set forth in section 1 of this order.

(c) The Council shall work across agencies to provide a coordinated response to overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in or directly affecting the American economy.

The Council shall also work with each agency to ensure that agency operations are conducted in a manner that promotes fair competition, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(d) The Council shall not discuss any current or anticipated enforcement actions.

(e) The Council shall be led by the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council, who shall serve as Chair of the Council.

(f) In addition to the Chair, the Council shall consist of the following members:

(i) the Secretary of the Treasury;

(ii) the Secretary of Defense;

(iii) the Attorney General;

(iv) the Secretary of Agriculture;

(v) the Secretary of Commerce;

(vi) the Secretary of Labor;

(vii) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(viii) the Secretary of Transportation;

(ix) the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; and

(x) the heads of such other agencies and offices as the Chair may from time to time invite to participate.

(g) The Chair shall invite the participation of the Chair of the FTC, the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission, the Chair of the Federal Maritime Commission, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Chair of the Surface Transportation Board, to the extent consistent with their respective statutory authorities and obligations.

(h) Members of the Council shall designate, not later than 30 days after the date of this order, a senior official within their respective agency or office who shall coordinate with the Council and who shall be responsible for overseeing the agency’s or office’s efforts to address overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition.

The Chair may coordinate subgroups consisting exclusively of Council members or their designees, as appropriate.

(i) The Council shall meet on a semi-annual basis unless the Chair determines that a meeting is unnecessary.

(j) Each agency shall bear its own expenses for participating in the Council.

Sec. 5. Further Agency Responsibilities.

(a) The heads of all agencies shall consider using their authorities to further the policies set forth in section 1 of this order, with particular attention to:

(i) the influence of any of their respective regulations, particularly any licensing regulations, on concentration and competition in the industries under their jurisdiction; and

(ii) the potential for their procurement or other spending to improve the competitiveness of small businesses and businesses with fair labor practices.

(b) The Attorney General, the Chair of the FTC, and the heads of other agencies with authority to enforce the Clayton Act are encouraged to enforce the antitrust laws fairly and vigorously.

(c) To address the consolidation of industry in many markets across the economy, as described in section 1 of this order, the Attorney General and the Chair of the FTC are encouraged to review the horizontal and vertical merger guidelines and consider whether to revise those guidelines.

(d) To avoid the potential for anticompetitive extension of market power beyond the scope of granted patents, and to protect standard-setting processes from abuse, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce are encouraged to consider whether to revise their position on the intersection of the intellectual property and antitrust laws, including by considering whether to revise the Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments issued jointly by the Department of Justice, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology on December 19, 2019.

(e) To ensure Americans have choices among financial institutions and to guard against excessive market power, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Comptroller of the Currency, is encouraged to review current practices and adopt a plan, not later than 180 days after the date of this order, for the revitalization of merger oversight under the Bank Merger Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (Public Law 84-511, 70 Stat. 133, 12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) that is in accordance with the factors enumerated in 12 U.S.C. 1828(c) and 1842(c).

(f) To better protect workers from wage collusion, the Attorney General and the Chair of the FTC are encouraged to consider whether to revise the Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals of October 2016.

(g) To address agreements that may unduly limit workers’ ability to change jobs, the Chair of the FTC is encouraged to consider working with the rest of the Commission to exercise the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act to curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.

(h) To address persistent and recurrent practices that inhibit competition, the Chair of the FTC, in the Chair’s discretion, is also encouraged to consider working with the rest of the Commission to exercise the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, in areas such as:

(i) unfair data collection and surveillance practices that may damage competition, consumer autonomy, and consumer privacy;

(ii) unfair anticompetitive restrictions on third-party repair or self-repair of items, such as the restrictions imposed by powerful manufacturers that prevent farmers from repairing their own equipment;

(iii) unfair anticompetitive conduct or agreements in the prescription drug industries, such as agreements to delay the market entry of generic drugs or biosimilars;

(iv) unfair competition in major Internet marketplaces;

(v) unfair occupational licensing restrictions;

(vi) unfair tying practices or exclusionary practices in the brokerage or listing of real estate; and

(vii) any other unfair industry-specific practices that substantially inhibit competition.

(i) The Secretary of Agriculture shall:

(i) to address the unfair treatment of farmers and improve conditions of competition in the markets for their products, consider initiating a rulemaking or rulemakings under the Packers and Stockyards Act to strengthen the Department of Agriculture’s regulations concerning unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices and undue or unreasonable preferences, advantages, prejudices, or disadvantages, with the purpose of furthering the vigorous implementation of the law established by the Congress in 1921 and fortified by amendments.

In such rulemaking or rulemakings, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider, among other things:

(A) providing clear rules that identify recurrent practices in the livestock, meat, and poultry industries that are unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive and therefore violate the Packers and Stockyards Act;

(B) reinforcing the long-standing Department of Agriculture interpretation that it is unnecessary under the Packers and Stockyards Act to demonstrate industry-wide harm to establish a violation of the Act and that the “unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive” treatment of one farmer, the giving to one farmer of an “undue or unreasonable preference or advantage,” or the subjection of one farmer to an “undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect” violates the Act;

(C) prohibiting unfair practices related to grower ranking systems — systems in which the poultry companies, contractors, or dealers exercise extraordinary control over numerous inputs that determine the amount farmers are paid and require farmers to assume the risk of factors outside their control, leaving them more economically vulnerable;

(D) updating the appropriate definitions or set of criteria, or application thereof, for undue or unreasonable preferences, advantages, prejudices, or disadvantages under the Packers and Stockyards Act; and

(E) adopting, to the greatest extent possible and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, appropriate anti-retaliation protections, so that farmers may assert their rights without fear of retribution;

(ii) to ensure consumers have accurate, transparent labels that enable them to choose products made in the United States, consider initiating a rulemaking to define the conditions under which the labeling of meat products can bear voluntary statements indicating that the product is of United States origin, such as “Product of USA”;

(iii) to ensure that farmers have greater opportunities to access markets and receive a fair return for their products, not later than 180 days after the date of this order, submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, with a plan to promote competition in the agricultural industries and to support value-added agriculture and alternative food distribution systems through such means as:

(A) the creation or expansion of useful information for farmers, such as model contracts, to lower transaction costs and help farmers negotiate fair deals;

(B) measures to encourage improvements in transparency and standards so that consumers may choose to purchase products that support fair treatment of farmers and agricultural workers and sustainable agricultural practices;

(C) measures to enhance price discovery, increase transparency, and improve the functioning of the cattle and other livestock markets;

(D) enhanced tools, including any new legislative authorities needed, to protect whistleblowers, monitor agricultural markets, and enforce relevant laws;

(E) any investments or other support that could bolster competition within highly concentrated agricultural markets; and

(F) any other means that the Secretary of Agriculture deems appropriate;

(iv) to improve farmers’ and smaller food processors’ access to retail markets, not later than 300 days after the date of this order, in consultation with the Chair of the FTC, submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, on the effect of retail concentration and retailers’ practices on the conditions of competition in the food industries, including any practices that may violate the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Robinson-Patman Act (Public Law 74-692, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U.S.C. 13 et seq.), or other relevant laws, and on grants, loans, and other support that may enhance access to retail markets by local and regional food enterprises; and

(v) to help ensure that the intellectual property system, while incentivizing innovation, does not also unnecessarily reduce competition in seed and other input markets beyond that reasonably contemplated by the Patent Act (see 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq. and 7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), in consultation with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, enumerating and describing any relevant concerns of the Department of Agriculture and strategies for addressing those concerns across intellectual property, antitrust, and other relevant laws.

(j) To protect the vibrancy of the American markets for beer, wine, and spirits, and to improve market access for smaller, independent, and new operations, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Chair of the FTC, not later than 120 days after the date of this order, shall submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, assessing the current market structure and conditions of competition, including an assessment of any threats to competition and barriers to new entrants, including:

(i) any unlawful trade practices in the beer, wine, and spirits markets, such as certain exclusionary, discriminatory, or anticompetitive distribution practices, that hinder smaller and independent businesses or new entrants from distributing their products;

(ii) patterns of consolidation in production, distribution, or retail beer, wine, and spirits markets; and

(iii) any unnecessary trade practice regulations of matters such as bottle sizes, permitting, or labeling that may unnecessarily inhibit competition by increasing costs without serving any public health, informational, or tax purpose.

(k) To follow up on the foregoing assessment, the Secretary of the Treasury, through the Administrator of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, shall, not later than 240 days after the date of this order, consider:

(i) initiating a rulemaking to update the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau’s trade practice regulations;

(ii) rescinding or revising any regulations of the beer, wine, and spirits industries that may unnecessarily inhibit competition; and

(iii) reducing any barriers that impede market access for smaller and independent brewers, winemakers, and distilleries.

(l) To promote competition, lower prices, and a vibrant and innovative telecommunications ecosystem, the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission is encouraged to work with the rest of the Commission, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to consider:

(i) adopting through appropriate rulemaking “Net Neutrality” rules similar to those previously adopted under title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (Public Law 73-416, 48 Stat. 1064, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet,” 80 Fed. Reg. 19738 (Apr. 13, 2015);

(ii) conducting future spectrum auctions under rules that are designed to help avoid excessive concentration of spectrum license holdings in the United States, so as to prevent spectrum stockpiling, warehousing of spectrum by licensees, or the creation of barriers to entry, and to improve the conditions of competition in industries that depend upon radio spectrum, including mobile communications and radio-based broadband services;

(iii) providing support for the continued development and adoption of 5G Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN) protocols and software, continuing to attend meetings of voluntary and consensus-based standards development organizations, so as to promote or encourage a fair and representative standard-setting process, and undertaking any other measures that might promote increased openness, innovation, and competition in the markets for 5G equipment;

(iv) prohibiting unjust or unreasonable early termination fees for end-user communications contracts, enabling consumers to more easily switch providers;

(v) initiating a rulemaking that requires broadband service providers to display a broadband consumer label, such as that as described in the Public Notice of the Commission issued on April 4, 2016 (DA 16–357), so as to give consumers clear, concise, and accurate information regarding provider prices and fees, performance, and network practices;

(vi) initiating a rulemaking to require broadband service providers to regularly report broadband price and subscription rates to the Federal Communications Commission for the purpose of disseminating that information to the public in a useful manner, to improve price transparency and market functioning; and

(vii) initiating a rulemaking to prevent landlords and cable and Internet service providers from inhibiting tenants’ choices among providers.

(m) The Secretary of Transportation shall:

(i) to better protect consumers and improve competition, and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:

(A) not later than 30 days after the date of this order, appoint or reappoint members of the Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection to ensure fair representation of consumers, State and local interests, airlines, and airports with respect to the evaluation of aviation consumer protection programs and convene a meeting of the Committee as soon as practicable;

(B) promote enhanced transparency and consumer safeguards, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, including through potential rulemaking, enforcement actions, or guidance documents, with the aims of:

(1) enhancing consumer access to airline flight information so that consumers can more easily find a broader set of available flights, including by new or lesser known airlines; and

(2) ensuring that consumers are not exposed or subject to advertising, marketing, pricing, and charging of ancillary fees that may constitute an unfair or deceptive practice or an unfair method of competition;

(C) not later than 45 days after the date of this order, submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, on the progress of the Department of Transportation’s investigatory and enforcement activities to address the failure of airlines to provide timely refunds for flights cancelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;

(D) not later than 45 days after the date of this order, publish for notice and comment a proposed rule requiring airlines to refund baggage fees when a passenger’s luggage is substantially delayed and other ancillary fees when passengers pay for a service that is not provided;

(E) not later than 60 days after the date of this order, start development of proposed amendments to the Department of Transportation’s definitions of “unfair” and “deceptive” in 49 U.S.C. 41712; and

(F) not later than 90 days after the date of this order, consider initiating a rulemaking to ensure that consumers have ancillary fee information, including “baggage fees,” “change fees,” and “cancellation fees,” at the time of ticket purchase;

(ii) to provide consumers with more flight options at better prices and with improved service, and to extend opportunities for competition and market entry as the industry evolves:

(A) not later than 30 days after the date of this order, convene a working group within the Department of Transportation to evaluate the effectiveness of existing commercial aviation programs, consumer protections, and rules of the Federal Aviation Administration;

(B) consult with the Attorney General regarding means of enhancing effective coordination between the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation to ensure competition in air transportation and the ability of new entrants to gain access; and

(C) consider measures to support airport development and increased capacity and improve airport congestion management, gate access, implementation of airport competition plans pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 47106(f), and “slot” administration;

(iii) given the emergence of new aerospace-based transportation technologies, such as low-altitude unmanned aircraft system deliveries, advanced air mobility, and high-altitude long endurance operations, that have great potential for American travelers and consumers, yet also the danger of early monopolization or new air traffic control problems, ensure that the Department of Transportation takes action with respect to these technologies to:

(A) facilitate innovation that fosters United States market leadership and market entry to promote competition and economic opportunity and to resist monopolization, while also ensuring safety, providing security and privacy, protecting the environment, and promoting equity; and

(B) provide vigilant oversight over market participants.

(n) To further competition in the rail industry and to provide accessible remedies for shippers, the Chair of the Surface Transportation Board (Chair) is encouraged to work with the rest of the Board to:

(i) consider commencing or continuing a rulemaking to strengthen regulations pertaining to reciprocal switching agreements pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11102(c), if the Chair determines such rulemaking to be in the public interest or necessary to provide competitive rail service;

(ii) consider rulemakings pertaining to any other relevant matter of competitive access, including bottleneck rates, interchange commitments, or other matters, consistent with the policies set forth in section 1 of this order;

(iii) to ensure that passenger rail service is not subject to unwarranted delays and interruptions in service due to host railroads’ failure to comply with the required preference for passenger rail, vigorously enforce new on-time performance requirements adopted pursuant to the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-423, 122 Stat. 4907) that will take effect on July 1, 2021, and further the work of the passenger rail working group formed to ensure that the Surface Transportation Board will fully meet its obligations; and

(iv) in the process of determining whether a merger, acquisition, or other transaction involving rail carriers is consistent with the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 11323-25, consider a carrier’s fulfillment of its responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 24308 (relating to Amtrak’s statutory rights).

(o) The Chair of the Federal Maritime Commission is encouraged to work with the rest of the Commission to:

(i) vigorously enforce the prohibition of unjust and unreasonable practices in the context of detention and demurrage pursuant to the Shipping Act, as clarified in “Interpretive Rule on Demurrage and Detention Under the Shipping Act,” 85 Fed. Reg. 29638 (May 18, 2020);

(ii) request from the National Shipper Advisory Committee recommendations for improving detention and demurrage practices and enforcement of related Shipping Act prohibitions; and

(iii) consider further rulemaking to improve detention and demurrage practices and enforcement of related Shipping Act prohibitions.

(p) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall:

(i) to promote the wide availability of low-cost hearing aids, not later than 120 days after the date of this order, publish for notice and comment a proposed rule on over-the-counter hearing-aids, as called for by section 709 of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (Public Law 115-52, 131 Stat. 1005);

(ii) support existing price transparency initiatives for hospitals, other providers, and insurers along with any new price transparency initiatives or changes made necessary by the No Surprises Act (Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 2758) or any other statutes;

(iii) to ensure that Americans can choose health insurance plans that meet their needs and compare plan offerings, implement standardized options in the national Health Insurance Marketplace and any other appropriate mechanisms to improve competition and consumer choice;

(iv) not later than 45 days after the date of this order, submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Director of the Domestic Policy Council and to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, with a plan to continue the effort to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the Federal Government for such drugs, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging;

(v) to lower the prices of and improve access to prescription drugs and biologics, continue to promote generic drug and biosimilar competition, as contemplated by the Drug Competition Action Plan of 2017 and Biosimilar Action Plan of 2018 of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including by:

(A) continuing to clarify and improve the approval framework for generic drugs and biosimilars to make generic drug and biosimilar approval more transparent, efficient, and predictable, including improving and clarifying the standards for interchangeability of biological products;

(B) as authorized by the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-8, 135 Stat. 254, 42 U.S.C. 263-1), supporting biosimilar product adoption by providing effective educational materials and communications to improve understanding of biosimilar and interchangeable products among healthcare providers, patients, and caregivers;

(C) to facilitate the development and approval of biosimilar and interchangeable products, continuing to update the FDA’s biologics regulations to clarify existing requirements and procedures related to the review and submission of Biologics License Applications by advancing the “Biologics Regulation Modernization” rulemaking (RIN 0910-AI14); and

(D) with the Chair of the FTC, identifying and addressing any efforts to impede generic drug and biosimilar competition, including but not limited to false, misleading, or otherwise deceptive statements about generic drug and biosimilar products and their safety or effectiveness;

(vi) to help ensure that the patent system, while incentivizing innovation, does not also unjustifiably delay generic drug and biosimilar competition beyond that reasonably contemplated by applicable law, not later than 45 days after the date of this order, through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, write a letter to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office enumerating and describing any relevant concerns of the FDA;

(vii) to support the market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars, continue the implementation of the law widely known as the CREATES Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-94, 133 Stat. 3130), by:

(A) promptly issuing Covered Product Authorizations (CPAs) to assist product developers with obtaining brand-drug samples; and

(B) issuing guidance to provide additional information for industry about CPAs; and

(viii) through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, prepare for Medicare and Medicaid coverage of interchangeable biological products, and for payment models to support increased utilization of generic drugs and biosimilars.

(q) To reduce the cost of covered products to the American consumer without imposing additional risk to public health and safety, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall work with States and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066), and the FDA’s implementing regulations.

(r) The Secretary of Commerce shall:

(i) acting through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), consider initiating a rulemaking to require agencies to report to NIST, on an annual basis, their contractors’ utilization activities, as reported to the agencies under 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(5);

(ii) acting through the Director of NIST, consistent with the policies set forth in section 1 of this order, consider not finalizing any provisions on march-in rights and product pricing in the proposed rule “Rights to Federally Funded Inventions and Licensing of Government Owned Inventions,” 86 Fed. Reg. 35 (Jan. 4, 2021); and

(iii) not later than 1 year after the date of this order, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, conduct a study, including by conducting an open and transparent stakeholder consultation process, of the mobile application ecosystem, and submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, regarding findings and recommendations for improving competition, reducing barriers to entry, and maximizing user benefit with respect to the ecosystem.

(s) The Secretary of Defense shall:

(i) ensure that the Department of Defense’s assessment of the economic forces and structures shaping the capacity of the national security innovation base pursuant to section 889(a) and (b) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283, 134 Stat. 3388) is consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order;

(ii) not later than 180 days after the date of this order, submit to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, a review of the state of competition within the defense industrial base, including areas where a lack of competition may be of concern and any recommendations for improving the solicitation process, consistent with the goal of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-369, 98 Stat. 1175); and

(iii) not later than 180 days after the date of this order, submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, on a plan for avoiding contract terms in procurement agreements that make it challenging or impossible for the Department of Defense or service members to repair their own equipment, particularly in the field.

(t) The Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, consistent with the pro-competition objectives stated in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, is encouraged to consider:

(i) commencing or continuing a rulemaking under section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act to facilitate the portability of consumer financial transaction data so consumers can more easily switch financial institutions and use new, innovative financial products; and

(ii) enforcing the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in consumer financial products or services pursuant to section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act so as to ensure that actors engaged in unlawful activities do not distort the proper functioning of the competitive process or obtain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow the law.

(u) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, through the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, shall incorporate into its recommendations for modernizing and improving regulatory review required by my Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), the policies set forth in section 1 of this order, including consideration of whether the effects on competition and the potential for creation of barriers to entry should be included in regulatory impact analyses.

(v) The Secretary of the Treasury shall:

(i) direct the Office of Economic Policy, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Chair of the FTC, to submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, not later than 180 days after the date of this order, on the effects of lack of competition on labor markets; and

(ii) submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, not later than 270 days after the date of this order, assessing the effects on competition of large technology firms’ and other non‑bank companies’ entry into consumer finance markets.

Sec. 6. General Provisions.

(a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Where not already specified, independent agencies are encouraged to comply with the requirements of this order.

(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 9, 2021.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... n-economy/

[thelivyjr]

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 11, 2021 AT 11:39 AM

Paul Plante says:

And while we were all going about our lives on Friday, 9 July 2021, in an action straight out of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, Joe Biden effectively “nationalized” the U.S. economy and brought it under “state control” with central planning by his administration, which includes the incompetent Gina Raimondo as his commerce secretary, with an Executive Order signed by Joe on that same date.

I first heard about it at 5:00 PM on Friday, when I heard the unmistakable sounds of Joe on the radio news puffing and blowing about how there is not enough competition in the United States, which then brought me to this article from Reuters entitled “Biden signs order to tackle corporate abuses across U.S. economy” by Nandita Bose, Jarrett Renshaw, and Diane Bartz on July 9, 2021, where we have the following background to consider, to wit:

WASHINGTON, July 9 (Reuters) – President Joe Biden signed a sweeping executive order on Friday to promote more competition in the U.S. economy, urging agencies to crack down on anti-competitive practices in sectors from agriculture to drugs and labor.

end quotes

And “sweeping” is really a mild term for what Joe is doing – an all-inclusive assault would be as proper a term, and this so much reminds me of the “ANTI-DOG EAT DOG RULE” from “Atlas Shrugged” it isn’t funny.

Getting back to Reuters, we have:

If fully implemented, the effort will help lower Americans’ internet costs, allow for airline baggage fee refunds for delayed luggage, among other steps.

end quotes

Now, here, let me say that after hearing Joe on the radio news, and after reading this article, I went and found the actual language of the EO from Joe’s white house site, and I read it word for word for word, and there are a lot of them in the EO, which covers everything under the sun, and that sentence should really read as follows:

If fully implemented, IN THE UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION OF JOE BIDEN, the effort will help lower Americans’ internet costs, allow for airline baggage fee refunds for delayed luggage, among other steps.

end quotes

Getting back to the Reuters article, we have:

The order instructs antitrust agencies to focus on labor, healthcare, technology and agriculture as they address a laundry list of issues that have irritated consumers, and in the case of drug prices, has bankrupted some.

end quotes

Now, maybe they were rushed when they wrote this story, or maybe they were pulling their punches so as to not get hollered at by Joe’s press diva, Jen Psaki with her sharp tongue, but that is not what the order really instructs, unless you want to consider the Commerce Department and the Transportation Department and the Department of Defense as “antitrust agencies,” a unique designation, for the EO states thusly:

Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy

JULY 09, 2021

PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote the interests of American workers, businesses, and consumers, it is hereby ordered as follows:

The problem of economic consolidation now spans these sectors and many others, endangering our ability to rebuild and emerge from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with a vibrant, innovative, and growing economy.

Meanwhile, the United States faces new challenges to its economic standing in the world, including unfair competitive pressures from foreign monopolies and firms that are state-owned or state-sponsored, or whose market power is directly supported by foreign governments.

We must act now to reverse these dangerous trends, which constrain the growth and dynamism of our economy, impair the creation of high-quality jobs, and threaten America’s economic standing in the world.

This order affirms that it is the policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony — especially as these issues arise in labor markets, agricultural markets, Internet platform industries, healthcare markets (including insurance, hospital, and prescription drug markets), repair markets, and United States markets directly affected by foreign cartel activity.

Sec. 2. The Statutory Basis of a Whole-of-Government Competition Policy.

(d) These statutes independently charge a number of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to protect conditions of fair competition in one or more ways, including by:

(i) policing unfair, deceptive, and abusive business practices;

(ii) resisting consolidation and promoting competition within industries through the independent oversight of mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures;

(iii) promulgating rules that promote competition, including the market entry of new competitors; and

(iv) promoting market transparency through compelled disclosure of information.

(e) The agencies that administer such or similar authorities include the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Surface Transportation Board.

(f) Agencies can influence the conditions of competition through their exercise of regulatory authority or through the procurement process. See 41 U.S.C. 1705.

(g) This order recognizes that a whole-of-government approach is necessary to address overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy.

Such an approach is supported by existing statutory mandates.

Agencies can and should further the polices set forth in section 1 of this order by, among other things, adopting pro‑competitive regulations and approaches to procurement and spending, and by rescinding regulations that create unnecessary barriers to entry that stifle competition.

end quotes

Getting back to the Reuters article, we have Joe himself ranting on Friday, 9 July 2021, as follows:

“No more tolerance of abusive actions by monopolies.”

“No more bad mergers that lead to massive layoffs, higher prices and fewer options for workers and consumers alike,” Biden said at a White House signing ceremony.

The president noted areas where advocates feel that prices are too high, wages are tamped down or new businesses excluded from competition.

“Let me be very clear, capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism, it’s exploitation,” he said.

end quotes

And if we go and look up the meaning of “capitalism,” this is what we find: an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

So what Joe is doing by bringing the entire economy under “state control” is very much against the notion of “capitalism,” which we have not had in this country for some time now, but goofy old Joe, who has never worked in the real world, having spent his life as a hack politician feeding off those who do work in the real world, would be the last to know that.

Getting back to Reuters, we have more as follows:

The White House says the rate of new business formation has fallen by almost 50% since the 1970s as large businesses make it harder for Americans with good ideas to break into markets.

end quotes

And that is pure bull****, if we really go back and study the history of innovation in this country from the 1970’s onward, and how many people start small businesses in the hopes of being bought out and made rich by a large corporation with the cash on hand to buy them out and make them rich, which has been part of the “American Way” now going back before John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil.

Getting back to Reuters:

Biden’s action goes after corporate monopolies across a broad swath of industries, and includes 72 initiatives he wants more than a dozen federal agencies to act on.

Lower wages caused by lack of competition are estimated to cost the median American household $5,000 per year, according to a White House fact sheet that cites research from the American Economic Liberties Project – an influential Washington-based anti-monopoly group.

The initiatives will no doubt kick off a series of fights with the affected industries.

The powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a statement saying the move “smacks of a ‘government knows best’ approach to managing the economy” and pledged to “vigorously oppose calls for government-set prices, onerous and legally questionable rulemakings, efforts to treat innovative industries as public utilities, and the politicization of antitrust enforcement.”

end quotes

And since they said it as good as I could, if not better, there I will for the moment rest.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-381011

[thelivyjr]

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 11, 2021 AT 5:52 PM

Paul Plante says:

And here, we really need to go back in time to the Steel Strike of 1952, when another Democrat, Harry S. Truman, nationalized the steel industry in the United States, ordering his Secretary of Commerce, in EXECUTIVE ORDER 10340, DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO TAKE POSSESSION OF AND OPERATE THE PLANTS AND FACILITIES OF CERTAIN STEEL COMPANIES, as follows:

WHEREAS in order to assure the continued availability of steel and steel products during the existing emergency, it is necessary that the United States take possession of and operate the plants, facilities, and other property of the said companies as hereinafter provided:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1. The Secretary of Commerce is hereby authorized and directed to take possession of all or such of the plants, facilities, and other property of the companies named in the list attached hereto, or any part thereof, as he may deem necessary in the interests of national defense; and to operate or to arrange for the operation thereof and to do all things necessary for, or incidental to, such operation.

2. In carrying out this order the Secretary of Commerce may act through or with the aid of such public or private instrumentalities or persons as he may designate; and all Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary of Commerce to the fullest extent possible in carrying out the purposes of this order.

3. The Secretary of Commerce shall determine and prescribe terms and conditions of employment under which the plants, facilities, and other properties possession of which is taken pursuant to this order shall be operated.

The Secretary of Commerce shall recognize the rights of workers to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, adjustment of grievances, or other mutual aid or protection, provided that such activities do not interfere with the operation of such plants, facilities, and other properties.

4. Except so far as the Secretary of Commerce shall otherwise provide from time to time, the managements of the plants, facilities, and other properties possession of which is taken pursuant to this order shall continue their functions, including the collection and disbursement of funds in the usual and ordinary course of business in the names of their respective companies and by means of any instrumentalities used by such companies.

5. Except so far as the Secretary of Commerce may otherwise direct, existing rights and obligations of such companies shall remain in full force and effect, and there may be made, in due course, payments of dividends on stock, and of principal, interest, sinking funds, and all other distributions upon bonds, debentures, and other obligations, and expenditures may be made for other ordinary corporate or business purposes.

6. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of Commerce further possession and operation by him of any plant, facility, or other property is no longer necessary or expedient in the interest of national defense, and the Secretary has reason to believe that effective future operation is assured, he shall return the possession and operation of such plant, facility or other property to the company in possession and control thereof at the time possession was taken under this order.

7. The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to prescribe and issue such regulations and orders not inconsistent herewith as he may deem necessary or desirable for carrying out the purposes of this order; and he may delegate and authorize subdelegation of such of his functions under this order as he may deem desirable.

end quotes

And that action by Harry S. ended up in the United States Supreme Court in the famous YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER (1952), No. 744, Argued: Decided: June 2, 1952, where we have as follows from the Supreme Court decision in that case, to wit:

To avert a nation-wide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills.

The Order was not based upon any specific statutory authority but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

The Secretary issued an order seizing the steel mills and directing their presidents to operate them as operating managers for the United States in accordance with his regulations and directions.

The president promptly reported these events to Congress; but Congress took no action.

It had provided other methods of dealing with such situations and had refused to authorize governmental seizures of property to settle labor disputes.

The steel companies sued the Secretary in Federal District Court, praying for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.

The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, which the Court of Appeals stayed.

Held:

1. Although this case has proceeded no further than the preliminary injunction stage, it is ripe for determination of the constitutional validity of the Executive Order on the record presented. Pp. 584-585.

(a) Under prior decisions of this Court, there is doubt as to the right to recover in the Court of Claims on account of properties unlawfully taken by government officials for public use. P. 585.

(b) Seizure and governmental operation of these going businesses were bound to result in many present and future damages of such nature as to be difficult, if not incapable, of measurement. P. 585. [343 U.S. 579, 580]

2. The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and it cannot stand. Pp. 585-589.

(a) There is no statute which expressly or impliedly authorizes the President to take possession of this property as he did here. Pp. 585-586.

(b) In its consideration of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, Congress refused to authorize governmental seizures of property as a method of preventing work stoppages and settling labor disputes. P. 586.

(c) Authority of the President to issue such an order in the circumstances of this case cannot be implied from the aggregate of his powers under Article II of the Constitution. Pp. 587-589.

(d) The Order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President’s military power as commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. P. 587.

(e) Nor can the Order be sustained because of the several provisions of Article II which grant executive power to the President. Pp. 587-589.

(f) The power here sought to be exercised is the lawmaking power, which the Constitution vests in the Congress alone, in both good and bad times. Pp. 587-589.

(g) Even if it be true that other Presidents have taken possession of private business enterprises without congressional authority in order to settle labor disputes, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make the laws necessary and proper to carry out all powers vested by the Constitution “in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof.” Pp. 588-589.

end quotes

Which takes us back to Joe’s EO where we have as follows as Joe’s excuse for grabbing power out of nowhere to effectively “nationalize” our economy across the board and bring it under “state control,” as Harry Truman tried to do with the steel industry, before getting slapped down by the Supreme Court for over-reaching his authority, to wit:

Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy

JULY 09, 2021

PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote the interests of American workers, businesses, and consumers, it is hereby ordered as follows:

The problem of economic consolidation now spans these sectors and many others, endangering our ability to rebuild and emerge from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with a vibrant, innovative, and growing economy.

end quotes

And stop right there, because it would seem to me from that above that Joe is treating COVID as if it had been a “war” that he alone now has to rebuild America from, which is where he would have us believe gives him presidential authority to order this sweeping action, which puts our entire economy under the control of the executive office, through “rulemaking” by Joe’s various cabinet members, including the incompetent Gina Raimondo, which takes us back to the EO, as follows:

Meanwhile, the United States faces new challenges to its economic standing in the world, including unfair competitive pressures from foreign monopolies and firms that are state-owned or state-sponsored, or whose market power is directly supported by foreign governments.

We must act now to reverse these dangerous trends, which constrain the growth and dynamism of our economy, impair the creation of high-quality jobs, and threaten America’s economic standing in the world.

end quotes

So when Joe says, “(W)e must act now to reverse these dangerous trends,” who is the “we” that he is talking about?

Stay tuned!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-381164

[thelivyjr]

CNN

"Opinion: The worst speech of Biden's presidency"

Opinion by Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

10 JULY 2021

On Thursday President Joe Biden spoke in defense of his ill-considered, hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan, in remarks peopled with straw men and littered with false assertions.

First, Biden contended that he was bound by a 2020 Trump administration agreement with the Taliban to withdraw all US troops by May 2021.

But that was an agreement conducted by a previous administration -- so it's not binding -- and it was predicated on the Taliban breaking with al-Qaeda.

They didn't, according to the UN in a report released just last month.

It was also predicated on the Taliban engaging with the Afghan government in real peace negotiations.

They haven't, according to Abdullah Abdullah, an Afghan official who leads the High Council for National Reconciliation.

He told CNN a week ago that there has been "very little progress" in those negotiations.

A comparison with the Iranian nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is instructive.

It was negotiated by the Obama administration with a sovereign government and was a deal that, after it was consummated in 2015, was being observed by the Iranians: they were not enriching nuclear fuel, according to both international inspectors and the US intelligence community.

That deal was also brokered, together, with three of the US's closest allies, Britain, France and Germany.

Yet, the Trump administration pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, while Biden is now honoring an agreement with an insurgent/terrorist group that is not abiding by the terms of the deal that was negotiated last year by the Trump team.

Second, Biden claimed in his speech that the US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, would "work vigorously" for a negotiated solution between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

This is a fanciful notion, as this is the same Zalmay Khalilzad who, while working under the Trump administration, ceded much of Afghanistan to the Taliban with the "peace" negotiations he spearheaded -- based on the farcical premise the Taliban would renounce al Qaeda and also engage with real peace talks with the Afghan government.

In any event, Afghanistan leaders accused Khalilzad of cutting them out of his negotiations with the Taliban.

Trump administration officials denied the allegations.

The Khalilzad-led peace process hasn't worked for the past three years.

Why would it suddenly work now?

Third, Biden said that the US can't be in Afghanistan "indefinitely," yet there are some 28,000 US troops in South Korea three-quarters of a century after the end of the Korean War, because the US has a strategic interest in defending the country against the nuclear armed North Korean despot, Kim Jong Un.

So too, the US could have left its 2,500 troops in place in Afghanistan, a force that is less than 10% of the American service personnel in South Korea, to enable the Afghan government to fight the Taliban and its jihadist allies, such as al Qaeda.

Fourth, Biden speciously implied that if the US has troops in Afghanistan then somehow it won't be strong enough to "meet the strategic competition with China and other nations."

The US military consists of 1.3 million active-duty personnel and yet it can't leave 2,500 troops in Afghanistan?

To use a trademark Biden expression: C'mon man!

After his speech, Biden told reporters that it's "highly unlikely" that the Taliban will take over Afghanistan, which is not what his own intelligence community is warning.

Biden also claimed that Afghanistan has never been unified, an odd assertion when a united Afghanistan has existed since 1747, making it older than the United States.

In response to a question about whether he saw any parallels between this withdrawal and the US exit from Vietnam in 1975, the President asserted "none whatsoever."

He went on to say that "There's going to be no circumstance for you to see people being lifted off the roof of an embassy of the United States from Afghanistan," yet an urgent evacuation is exactly one of the contingencies US military planners are preparing for, a senior defense official with knowledge of the planning process told CNN.

To use another trademark Biden expression, his Afghanistan speech was a bunch of malarkey.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/op ... hp&pc=U531

[thelivyjr]

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 11, 2021 AT 9:44 PM

Paul Plante says:

And staying with these ignorant, hate-filled and false July 4, 2021 TWEETS on TWITTER cited above here by Missouri Rep. Cori Bush and Maxine Moore Waters, the Democrat serving as the U.S. Representative for California’s 43rd congressional district, which poisonous and toxic TWEETS call into question TWITTER’s enforcement of its own rules, given their policy towards Trump, there was a time in America, long since gone now, when very likely, neither of these ignorant, hate-filled fools would have been seated in the House of Representatives of the United States of America.

In our history, both houses of the United States Congress have refused to seat new members based on Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution which states that:

“Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.”

That section of our Constitution used to be interpreted that members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate could refuse to recognize the election or appointment of a new representative or senator for any reason, often political heterodoxy or criminal record, where “political heterodoxy” is a deviation from accepted or orthodox standards or beliefs.

However, in 1969, in the famous Supreme Court case Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), the United States Supreme Court held that the Qualifications of Members Clause of Article I of the US Constitution is an exclusive list of qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, which may exclude a duly-elected member for only those reasons enumerated in that clause, and in a sense, as we see from the above, where we have these two Democrat Representatives spewing the most incredible hate-filled racist nonsense, the world turned upside down here in the U.S.

For those unfamiliar with the case, or too young to remember it, Adam Clayton Powell Jr. November 29, 1908 – April 4, 1972), a DEMOCRAT, was an American Baptist pastor and politician who represented the Harlem neighborhood of New York City in the United States House of Representatives from 1945 until 1971.

He was the first African-American to be elected to Congress from New York, as well as the first from any state in the Northeast.

Re-elected for nearly three decades, Powell became a powerful national politician of the Democratic Party, and served as a national spokesman on civil rights and social issues.

At the time in question, he was embroiled in scandal, specifically around allegations that he had refused to pay a judgment ordered by a New York court, misappropriated congressional travel funds, and paid his wife a congressional staff salary for work she had not done.

In the 1966 election, Powell was re-elected, and in January 1967, the 90th Congress convened and Speaker of the House John William McCormack asked Representative Powell to abstain from taking the oath of office.

The House adopted H.Res. 1, which stripped Powell of his House Committee chairmanship, excluded him from taking his seat, and created a select committee to investigate Powell’s misdeeds.

After the select committee conducted its investigation and hearings, in March 1967, the House adopted H.Res. 278 by a vote of 307 to 116, which excluded Powell from Congress and also censured him, fined him $25,000, took away his seniority, and declared his seat vacant.

Powell, along with 13 of his constituents, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, naming McCormack and five other representatives as defendants.

He also named the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Doorkeeper.

Most of these parties were named in an effort to get injunctions barring the enforcement of H. Res. 278:

* To prevent the Speaker from refusing to administer the oath of office

* To prevent the Clerk from “refusing to perform the duties due a Representative”

* To prevent the Sergeant at Arms from withholding Powell’s salary

*To prevent the Doorkeeper from barring Powell from Congressional chambers

The suit claimed that excluding Powell amounted to an expulsion, but an expulsion would not have garnered the necessary two-thirds vote.

The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

However, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the district court, and in an opinion by Warren E. Burger, soon to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the court held that the federal courts did have subject-matter jurisdiction, but dismissed the case on two grounds: that Powell lacked standing to sue, and that the case represented a non-justiciable political question.

Thereafter, while the suit was making its way through the court system, Powell was re-elected in the 1968 election and was ultimately re-seated in the 91st Congress.

The House adopted H.Res. 2, fining him $25,000.

Because he was seated when his appeal came to the Supreme Court, the defendants argued that the case was moot.

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court was authored by Chief Justice Warren, and signed by Black, Brennan, Douglas, Harlan, Marshall, and White, and the opinion stated that the case was justiciable, and it did not constitute a political question that pitted one branch of government against another.

To the contrary, all it required was “no more than an interpretation of the Constitution.”

The opinion stated also that Congress being the sole judge of its members’ qualifications (Art. I, § 5, cl. 1) and the Speech or Debate Clause (Art. I, § 6) do not preclude judicial review of Constitutional issues raised in the case (but not necessarily in all cases touching upon the subject of speech and debate or Congress’s judging the qualifications of its members) because “no branch is supreme,” and it is the duty of the court to ensure that all branches conform to the Constitution.

The majority opinion held that Congress does not have the power to develop qualifications other than those specified in Art. I, § 2, cl. 1-2.

Article I, section 5, of the U.S. Constitution states that “Each house shall be the judge of the… qualifications of its own members,” but then immediately states that each House has the authority to expel a member “with the Concurrence of two thirds.”

The Court found that it had a “textually demonstrable commitment” to interpret the clause, which, in this case, the Court did.

The Court’s interpretation was that the subject clause meant that the process that led to the expulsion of a member, duly sworn and enrolled upon the body’s rolls, was the only method for a House to give effect to its power to determine the qualifications of its members.

The Court reasoned that the authority of Congress in this matter was post facto: That is, it attached only after a member-elect had been elected under the laws of the state in which the congressional district was located, and after said member-elect took the oath of office.

It was unclear whether a vote of two thirds would have been reached if the House resolution had specified expulsion (Art. I, § 2, cl. 5; Art. I, § 5, cl. 2) rather than exclusion.

Thus, the Court found that Powell was wrongfully excluded from his seat.

The Court found that Congress is the whole body of initially candidate members who have been elected by the laws of the several states (in and for each state’s apportioned congressional districts), who assemble at the seat of the federal government on the 3rd day of January after the preceding November’s congressional elections.

On that date, they are sworn in by their individual oaths of office and thereby collectively become the Nth Congress (89th, 95th, 105th, …).

The Court did not reach, because it determined it did not need to in this case, the question of which Congress the Constitution was referring to that had the power to expel one of its members.

The Court determined in this case that no Congress could exclude a future member, a candidate member, from being sworn in and taking a seat in the House.

The Court found that if the Congress went beyond a determination that a candidate member had satisfied the Constitution’s qualifications for membership and had been duly chosen by and through the laws of their state, it could not, under the Constitution, go further in examining and possibly reject a candidate member before administering the oath of office and seating him.

The Court did not explicitly decide whether a particular Congress (105th, 106th, etc.) had the power to expel an individual from a future Congress without that future Congress from being required, after the re-election, the re-swearing in, and the re-seating of a formerly expelled member, to expel the member all over again.

The Court, in effect, decided that states were not prohibited from putting on their congressional district ballots and the voters were not prohibited from electing an individual who had been expelled from a previous or current Congress.

Once the Congress had satisfied itself that a candidate member had been presented to it, from a congressional district, in accordance with the congressional district’s state constitution and laws but was not in conflict with the congressional qualifications set down in the US Constitution, the US Congress had an affirmative constitutional duty to administer the oath to, to swear in, and to enroll the candidate member as a member of Congress.

The challenge to the Court in its analysis and decision was devising a proper course of action that was both coordinate and consonant between the sovereign authorities (the Congress over itself and its members, the people and the states over the Congress) each in their own sphere, over the choosing of members to the Congress.

The Court looked at the historical precedent of the House, the history of its candidate members, and the role of the states and their voters in choosing their representatives.

The Court concluded that the US Constitution (the word and will of the people), the weight of history (the record of how the people have used their constitution), and the federal structure of the government (the role of the states in organizing and managing elections within their borders) required the Court to decide that the sovereign will of the people, as expressed in the democratic process, and the coordinate role of their states must be made consonant and held supreme, in the responsibility to create candidate members for the Congress.

The people, by their Constitution, affirmatively posited, defined, and delimited all qualifications for standing in elections for membership in the Congress.

The states, under the 9th and 10th amendments explicitly retain unto themselves the power to make the laws for the government and regulation of elections for federal offices that are apportioned to them (the states) by the US Constitution.

Therefore, the people and the states together have the sole authority for the creation, production, and generation of candidate members of the US Congress through the operation of the laws of the several states and the articles and clauses of the US Constitution.

Thus, the Congress itself is become a creation of and subordinate to this process.

Congress’s processes and procedures for the management, administration, and discipline of members (once they have taken the oath, been sworn, and entered upon the rolls) are constitutionally subordinate to the sovereignty of the people and the states respectively over the creation of the membership of Congress.

So that today, as is obvious in the case of these ignorant, poisonous, toxic and decidedly racist TWEETS of Cori Bush and Maxine Moore Waters on the Fourth of July, if the people of a congressional district want an ignorant hater to represent them in the House of Representatives, so be it, their will be done.

In the case of Cori Bush, who self-describes herself on TWITTER as “Congresswoman, MO-01. Nurse, activist, organizer, single mom, & pastor. Leading with radical love, fighting for regular people,” and who continues to make ignorant, racist TWEETS on TWITTER, where she has 832.2K followers and acolytes, on a daily basis, such as one on 1 July 2021 that said “(I)t can’t be made any clearer: Black, brown, and Indigenous people are going to lose their ability to vote for the change that we need to literally save our lives if the Senate doesn’t abolish the filibuster and pass our agenda. We’re tired of waiting. Our lives are on the line.”, and another on 5 July 2021, that said “(I)t’s not a coincidence that the people who are saying Black people have full freedom in our country are the same ones trying to prevent teaching the truth about white supremacy in our classrooms,” to which Michael A @michael092218, self-described on TWITTER, a platform for idiots, mental midgets and those incapable of thinking, as “Progressive but pragmatic. Democrat, gay, theatre actor,” replied at 3:24 PM · Jul 5, 2021, “(T)ell it like it is, Congresswoman!,” and Joanna Fernandez @Joannafersulli, from Oakland, replied “TRUTH,” at 3:26 PM · Jul 5, 2021, which is how this ignorant bull**** gets disseminated on TWITTER, Missouri’s first congressional district that she supposedly represents, or is representative of in terms of her beliefs, is in the eastern portion of the state and includes all of St. Louis City and much of northern St. Louis County, including the cities of Maryland Heights, University City, Ferguson and Florissant, and the district is easily the most Democratic in Missouri, which is why they want a real good racist hater representing them in the House of Representatives, and it has a population in 2019 of 727,772.

Cori Bush won the election with 249,087 votes, in a district that is 49.3% Black, 40.9% White, 3.4% Hispanic, 3.1% Asian, 3.0% other, and 0.3% Native American, so that all of those people now have a representative in Congress, who from her toxic TWEETS on TWITTER, is a flaming racist with a serious hatred of America and the white people in America.

And people wonder why it is we are such a hate-filled, divided nation!

Go figure!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-381243

[thelivyjr]

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 4, 2021 AT 7:58 PM

Paul Plante says:

And HAPPY JOE BIDEN DAY, everyone, as we celebrate just how very lucky and blessed we are to have Joe Biden as our president as opposed to anybody else, which has me being very politically correct in here so that nobody can mistake me for a racist, white supremacist, white nationalist, Jim Crow-loving piece of pond scum, or a dreg of society who belongs in a basket of deplorables because of implicit bias in my DNA going back most likely millennia, if not longer, at least according to Hillary Clinton, who knows these kinds of things, because she is Hillary Clinton and we aren’t, which makes all the difference in the world.

As to what we are really celebrating today, let us first go to a CNBC article entitlled “Biden on June jobs report: ‘Our economy is on the move, and we have Covid-19 on the run’” by Christina Wilkie on July 2, 2021 where we have as follows:

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden responded to the June jobs numbers on Friday, saying the strong growth in employment reflects the success of his American Rescue Plan relief bill this spring and his administration’s nationwide vaccination campaigns.

“We’re proving to the naysayers and the doubters that they were wrong,” Biden said Friday morning at the White House.

“Today’s job news brought us something else to celebrate” over the Independence Day holiday, Biden said.

The president will spend Saturday in Michigan, celebrating the success of the vaccination campaign and pitching his bipartisan infrastructure bill.

end quotes

So thanks to the absolute greatness of Joe Biden, we really do have something to celebrate today, which is Joe Biden, the greatest American president there ever was, or will be, as we see by going back to the Full transcript from President Joe Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress on 28 April 2021, where we have just how very great as an American president Joe Biden really is, to wit:

But tonight, I can say because of you — the American people – our progress these past 100 days against one of the worst pandemics in history is one of the greatest logistical achievements our country has ever seen.

In the process, the economy created more than 1.3 million new jobs in 100 days.

More new jobs in the first 100 days than any president on record.

end quotes

See there what I am talking about, people, why it is that today, we are celebrating JOE BIDEN DAY, and since he is the president, and everybody knows American presidents never lie to us, we have to believe that that is true, that our own Joe Biden, as American an institution is is apple pie, has created more new jobs in the first 100 days he was in office than any president on record, and if that doesn’t make you feel good about yourself and all warm and squishy inside, you must be a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN or something who hates America.

And if that is not enough, let us go to an article in THE HILL entitled “Biden hails jobs numbers, gets testy with questions” by Morgan Chalfant on 2 July 2021, to wit:

President Biden on Friday hailed a new report showing the U.S. added 850,000 jobs in June, describing it as “historic progress” that he attributed to his $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package signed into law in March.

end quotes

See that, people – “historic progress,” and if that isn’t a real good reason to celebrate JOE BIDEN DAY today, nothing is, which takes us back to that story, for more, to wit:

He also grew impatient while fielding several questions about the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, defending it as a “rational” plan in an exchange with reporters.

“I’m not going to answer any more questions on Afghanistan.”

“Look, it’s Fourth of July,” Bided said.

“I’m concerned that you guys are asking me questions that I’ll answer next week.”

“But this is a holiday weekend.”

“I’m going to celebrate it.”

“There’s great things happening.”

end quotes

See again, people – there’s GREAT things happening, and that is because Joe Biden is president, and if Joe Biden is going to celebrate himself as a result, we, the American people have a duty to Joe Biden to celebrate him, as well, because of those GREAT THINGS only Joe Biden was able to make happen, because he is Joe Biden and nobody else is, and Joe is just the greatest thing ever, which is why it is imperative for us commoners in this country to celebrate just how lucky we are to have Joe Biden in the white house, which again takes us back to that story, to wit:

Biden opened his remarks by talking up the jobs report.

“This is historic progress, pulling our economy out of the worst crisis in 100 years, driven in part by our dramatic progress in vaccinating our nation and beating back the pandemic, as well as other elements of the American Rescue Plan,” Biden said in remarks from the White House hours after the jobs report was released.

“Put simply, our economy is on the move and we have COVID-19 on the run,” he said.

He also used the venue as an opportunity to push for the passage of his long-term economic agenda, the bipartisan infrastructure deal he agreed to last week and his American Families Plan.

Biden said his proposals would both create good-paying middle-class jobs and help America become more competitive against other countries in the 21st century.

The White House says that the figures give the administration new momentum as Biden tries to pass the rest of his economic agenda, something that will be difficult given the slim Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

“The president’s economic plan is working.”

“It is clear that it is working,” White House senior adviser Anita Dunn said in an interview with Politico on Friday morning.

“We feel that this gives us added momentum as we go into this next phase.”

end quotes

An c’mon everyone – how can you not celebrate that?

And if that is not enough, then how about the Washington Post article “As Biden prepares to host 1,000 for Independence Day, desire to declare victory collides with need for caution” by Annie Linskey and Dan Diamond on July 3, 2021, to wit:

In a televised address in March, President Biden offered a hopeful but tempered vision of where the country would be on the Fourth of July, saying there was a “a good chance” that “small groups will be able to get together” — and quickly adding, “That doesn’t mean large events with lots of people.”

But on Sunday, a sea of 1,000 largely maskless people will flow onto the South Lawn of the White House for an Independence Day party that marks the first large-scale event hosted by Biden as president, a barbecue that will serve as a marker of sorts for an America returning to normal.

end quotes

HOORAY!

America is returning to normal, people, and we have the brilliance of Joe Biden to thank for that, because truthfully, I doubt very seriously if there is anyone else on the face of the planet who could have returned America to normal, which is why I am saying to everyone in America, HAPPY JOE BIDEN DAY, which is the right thing to do in these happy circumstances we now find ourselves in today, but if we go back to that article, we find that in America today, there will always be doubters and naysayers, to wit:

That backdrop for Sunday’s celebration suggests the tensions that Biden’s administration will face in coming months.

The White House wants to take credit for ramping up vaccinations and overseeing a huge reduction in infections and deaths.

But if handled poorly, that message could suggest the pandemic is over — a notion that is inaccurate, politically risky and potentially deadly.

Some Biden allies warned that the country, and the president, must take care to avoid declaring victory too soon.

“I do think that we’re jumping the gun,” said Ezekiel J. Emanuel, a professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I think being cautious on that is really important, and focusing on what more we have to do is really important.”

Emanuel, who was on Biden’s transition team, added, “We’re not at victory.”

“We can’t say ‘Mission Accomplished’ yet.”

“We want to just forget everything and go back to pre-2019, and I think it’s going to be a mistake, and there are people who are going to pay with their lives for it.”

end quotes

My goodness, but that dude sounds like a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN who loves Trump and hates Joe Biden with that burst of negativity that serves to cast doubt on the absolute greatness of Joe Biden as president, and I’m not going to let that kind of talk spoil my celebration of Joe Biden today, which takes us back to the WaPo, as follows:

The anxiety, however, is not always reflected in the administration’s public tone.

“There’s a disconnect between the cautious message of the White House covid response team — that vaccinated people are safe but we need to still take precautions — and then a very public display of large crowds,” said Kavita Patel, a physician and nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution who served in the Obama administration.

Defeating the pandemic is central to Biden’s vision of his presidency, and any sign of delay or uneven success could be politically damaging.

Beyond tangibly improving Americans’ lives, Biden is seeking to prove that the federal government can still achieve great things.

White House officials say that’s exactly what’s has happened so far.

“Americans should feel great about what we have accomplished together as a nation over the last six months,” Anita Dunn, a top adviser to the president, said in an interview.

“This huge step back to normal is something that everybody should be able to celebrate in a united way.”

end quotes

And “everybody” means all of us, so there is no excuse for anybody in America today to not be celebrating Joe Biden for that huge step back to normal that only he was able to make happen, which again takes us back to the WaPo, as follows, for why we all should be celebrating this holiday as JOE BIDEN DAY, to wit:

Starting immediately after the Fourth of July weekend, the White House will get outside help amplifying Biden’s message.

Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC, will launch the first installment of a $2 million ad campaign including spots that tout Biden’s response to the pandemic.

“They’re delivering for us,” a narrator says.

“Hundreds of millions of vaccines so that we can finally be together again.”

The online campaign will be aimed at voters in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, said Guy Cecil, the group’s chairman, and will seek to reach first-time voters who backed Biden, as well as some who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 but turned to Trump in 2020.

Cecil lauded the Independence Day event at the White House, saying it was appropriate for the president to lead Americans in celebrating how far they had come.

“It’s fair to say the country has been through a lot over the last year and a half,” he said.

“Everyone needs a moment to take a breath and celebrate the progress that we’ve made.”

end quotes

And there we have it, people, because if it is in the Washington Post, it has to be the gospel truth, and that’s a fact!

HAPPY JOE BIDEN DAY, everyone!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/p ... ent-381243

[thelivyjr]

NEWSWEEK

"U.S. Navy Dismisses Claim China Drove Away Warship From Disputed Paracel Islands"

Anders Anglesey

12 JULY 2021

U.S. Navy officials dismissed claims China drove away one of its warships that passed through the disputed Paracel Islands on Monday, saying Beijing's statement is "false."

The USS Benfold carried out a maneuver near the small archipelago earlier today, located east of Vietnam and south of China, which the U.S. Navy said was "consistent with international law."

Chinese authorities fired back at the move and claimed they were able to drive away the warship from the disputed islands.

According to Reuters, China's military said on Monday it "drove away" the USS Benfold, which Beijing claimed had illegally entered its waters.

But, the U.S. Navy hit back with a fiery statement of its own and branded Beijing's version of events as being "false."

A statement issued by the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs on Monday read: "The PRC's (People's Republic of China's) statement about this mission is false."

"USS Benfold conducted this FONOP (freedom of navigation operation) in accordance with international law and then continued on to conduct normal operations in international waters."

"The operation reflects our commitment to uphold freedom of navigation and lawful uses of the sea as a principle.

"The United States will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international waters allows, as USS Benfold did here."

"Nothing PRC says otherwise will deter us."

Its statement continued: "The PLA(N)'s [People's Liberation Army Navy] statement is the latest in a long string of PRC actions to misrepresent lawful U.S. maritime operations and assert its excessive and illegitimate maritime claims at the expense of its Southeast Asian neighbors in the South China Sea.

"The PRC's behavior stands in contrast to the United States' adherence to international law and our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific region."

"All nations, large and small, should be secure in their sovereignty, free from coercion, and able to pursue economic growth consistent with accepted international rules and norms."

While the Paracel Islands are under the de facto administration of China, they do face sovereignty claims from both Taiwan and Vietnam.

The Paracel Islands are located in the hotly-contended South China Sea, much of which China has made ambitious moves to claim.

But, in 2016 the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague ruled that China had no historic title over the South China Sea, a ruling that Beijing has said it would not view as legitimate.

Controversial Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, who has been courting Beijing officials, said last month the court ruling against China was "just a piece of paper."

Beijing has laid claim to hundreds of islands in the resource-rich South China Sea that officials say fall within its so-called nine-dash line, taken from pre-war Chinese maps of the region and said to show Beijing's sea claims.

The South China Sea reportedly holds an estimated 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 11 billion barrels of oil in proved and probable reserves, with more to be potentially discovered, according to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative.

This dispute has led the U.S. Navy to send several warships to the area in a bid to support allies in the region and curb Chinese ambitions.

In May, the USS Curtis Wilbur also conducted a freedom of navigation operation near the Paracel Islands, in a move Beijing called "illegal entry" of its waters.

Newsweek has contacted the U.S. Navy for comment.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/u- ... d=msedgntp

[thelivyjr]

REUTERS

"Aging population to hit U.S. economy like a 'ton of bricks' - U.S. commerce secretary"

By Andrea Shalal

JULY 12, 2021

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Joe Biden does not yet have enough support from fellow Democrats to secure $400 billion in spending for at-home care for the elderly and disabled that the economy desperately needs, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told Reuters on Monday.

Raimondo, who is paying for round-the-clock care for her own 90-year-old mother, said America’s aging demographics were going to hit the country “like a ton of bricks” without increased federal aid, and warned the current situation was “untenable.”

Failure to act, she said in an interview, would harm the U.S. economy by making it difficult for women - who fell out of the workforce by the millions during the COVID-19 pandemic - often to look after out-of-school children or parents - to return to work or remain in the workforce.

As post-World War Two baby boomers become senior citizens, there is a dangerous deficit of caregivers looming, Biden officials and many experts on aging say.

Currently, 16.5% of the U.S. population of 328 million people, or 54 million, are over the age of 65, the latest census shows.

By 2030, that number will rise to 74 million.

The number of people over the age of 85, who generally need the most care, is growing even faster.

Biden in March proposed boosting Medicaid, the federal medical program for lower-income Americans, by $400 billion over a decade to fund at-home care for elderly and disabled people, and increasing wages for caregivers.

He remains committed to that $400 billion figure, Raimondo said.

She said details of the pending reconciliation bill - a Democrats-only budget measure that will include parts of Biden’s spending plans not included in a pared-down bipartisan infrastructure bill - were still being worked out.

But not all Democrats are on board for the increased care spending, she said.

“It will be a battle to get enough of it funded in the reconciliation package."

"We still have to make the case for it ... and that’s part of the reason why I’m pounding the drum.”

Democrats hold a slim majority in the House of Representatives, while the Senate is split 50-50.

That means all Senate Democrats must be on board to pass a budget measure with the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris.

Raimondo said she is continuing to meet with skeptics, including moderate Democratic Senator Joe Manchin.

“It’s not so much that people are opposed, but $400 billion is a lot of money, and they have questions that deserve good answers.”

‘IT IS A CRISIS’

She said the pandemic had raised awareness about the lack of affordable care for children, the elderly and disabled, and even some Republicans - who opposed adding such spending to the infrastructure package - saw the need for change.

Raimondo said 1.5 million women still had not returned to the workforce after exiting during the pandemic to care for children whose schools had closed, and elderly and disabled relatives.

“We can’t afford for half of our workforce - women - to be held back and held out of the workforce because they can’t get excellent and adequate childcare or eldercare,” she said.

The current system - relying on women taking care of relatives for free, or paying mostly women of color to provide care at poverty wages - was not sustainable, she said.

“Just giving those women a raise would be a huge boost to our economy ... and a huge drag on the economy if we don’t get it done,” Raimondo said.

“It is a crisis,” she said.

“The president’s behind it and most Democrats are behind it."

"We’re going to work to get the rest of them behind it."

"But if we don’t, we’re going stay at it, because ... it’s an untenable situation.”

Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Peter Cooney

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN2EI29F