Tag Archive for: JoeBiden

5 Things to Know About Special Counsel Investigating Classified Documents Held by Biden

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a veteran federal prosecutor to investigate whether any laws were broken when President Joe Biden held on to classified documents from his eight years as vice president.

Robert K. Hur, the new special counsel, isn’t as widely known as past special prosecutors appointed to investigate presidents, among them former FBI Director Robert Mueller or former Solicitor General Ken Starr, appointed to investigate allegations against Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, respectively.

“I will conduct the assigned investigation with fair, impartial, and dispassionate judgment ,” Hur said in a public statement. “I intend to follow the facts swiftly and thoroughly, without fear or favor, and will honor the trust placed in me to perform this service.”

Hur is likely to have a higher profile in the coming weeks and months. Here are five things to know about him.

1. Clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist
Hur began his legal career as a Supreme Court clerk for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who first was appointed to the high court by President Richard Nixon and named chief justice by President Ronald Reagan. Both presidents were Republicans.

Hur also clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Reagan appointed Kozinski to the 9th Circuit.

Hur is a graduate of Stanford Law School, where he was executive editor of the Stanford Law Review. Hur also received an undergraduate degree from Harvard in English and American literature.

2. Replaced Rod Rosenstein
On Nov. 2, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Hur to be U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland.

Interestingly, Trump named Hur to replace U.S. Attorney for Maryland Rod Rosenstein, whom the president had appointed as deputy attorney general. It was Rosenstein who later appointed Mueller as special counsel to investigate Trump over allegations of “collusion” with the Russian government.

The Senate unanimously confirmed Hur to the U.S. attorney post in March 2018 after Maryland’s two Democrat senators endorsed his nomination by Trump.

“Marylanders have been anxiously awaiting confirmation of our next U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland. I am pleased that the Senate has unanimously confirmed Robert Hur for this lynchpin law enforcement position, as we need our U.S. attorney on the job now, working as a strong partner with state and local officials to keep our communities safe and secure,” said Sen. Ben Cardin, Maryland’s senior U.S. senator. “I look forward to working with Mr. Hur and am confident that he will focus on protecting Marylanders across our state by reducing violent crime, breaking up gangs, fighting the drug epidemic, enforcing civil rights, and rooting out corruption.”

The state’s junior senator, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, concurred with Cardin.

“Robert Hur’s confirmation is critical to our state and I thank my colleagues for unanimously approving his nomination to be Maryland’s next U.S. attorney,” Van Hollen said. “Working together with local, state, and federal partners, I’m confident we can move forward on the pressing issues facing our state—from improving public safety, to fighting the opioid epidemic, to protecting the rights of all Marylanders. I look forward to working with him.”

In the position of U.S. attorney, Hur was Maryland’s chief federal prosecutor and supervised 88 assistant U.S. attorneys and 72 support personnel. Those prosecutors handle cases that include domestic and international terrorism, narcotics trafficking, organized crime, gang violence, public corruption, cybercrime, financial and health care fraud, and civil rights violations. He remained in the job until 2021, when Biden became president.

3. Prosecuted Public Corruption

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a veteran federal prosecutor to investigate whether any laws were broken when President Joe Biden held on to classified documents from his eight years as vice president.

Hur’s office prosecuted former Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh, a Democrat, who was convicted of wire fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and two counts of tax evasion.

“Baltimore City faces many pressing issues, and we need our leaders to place the interests of the citizens above their own,” Hur said at the time of Pugh’s conviction, adding:

Catherine Pugh betrayed the public trust for her personal gain and now faces three years in federal prison, where there is no parole—ever. Law enforcement will remain vigilant to ensure that our citizens receive the honesty and professionalism they deserve from government officials and will prosecute officials who betray the public’s trust.

Hur’s office also oversaw the bribery prosecution and conviction of Maryland state Del. Cheryl Glenn, a Democrat, related to medical marijuana, opioid therapy clinics, and liquor licenses. Glenn solicited and accepted $33,000 in bribes, the Justice Department said.

“Cheryl Glenn solicited and accepted more than $33,000 in bribes in exchange for official actions instead of doing her duty and putting the interests of the public above her own,” Hur said after the July 2020 conviction. The U.S. attorney added:

We expect our elected officials to serve the public, not to use their positions of authority to line their own pockets. As this case demonstrates, we will work with our law enforcement partners to hold accountable those who betray the public trust. Cheryl Glenn will now pay the price for her greed by serving time in federal prison.

Hur’s office secured a conviction of former Maryland state Del. Tawanna Gaines, a Democrat, in October 2019 on charges that she illegally used campaign funds for personal profit.

Hur oversaw a case leading to the July 2018 conviction of former Maryland state Sen. Nathaniel Oaks, a Democrat, on wire fraud charges.

“Our democratic system relies on the integrity of our elected officials,” Hur said at the time. “Today’s sentence and our prosecution of former Maryland Sen. Nathaniel Oaks demonstrate that we will hold accountable those elected officials who use their offices to enrich themselves, rather than serve the interests of their constituents.”

Hur also oversaw cases against members of the Baltimore City Police Department in connection with a Gun Trace Task Force investigation and against corrections officers at numerous state prisons, including Eastern Correctional Institution, Jessup Correctional Institution, and Chesapeake Detention Facility.

4. Early Justice Department Career
During President George W. Bush’s administration, Hur went to work in a career position at the Justice Department as special assistant and later counsel to Christopher Wray, then the assistant attorney general in charge of the Criminal Division and now director of the FBI. There, Hur handled counterterrorism, corporate fraud, and appellate matters.

In 2007, Hur became an assistant U.S. attorney in Maryland, a position he held until 2014, over four years into the Obama administration.

As a career federal prosecutor in Maryland, Hur prosecuted gang violence, firearms offenses, and narcotics trafficking as well as white-collar offenses such as financial institutions fraud, public corruption, mortgage fraud, tax offenses, computer network intrusions, and intellectual property theft, according to the Justice Department.

5. After the Justice Department
After leaving the Justice Department in early 2021, Hur became a member of the University System of Maryland’s Board of Regents.

Hur went to work full time as a partner in the Washington office of the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which has offices across the United States. He is co-chairman of the firm’s crisis management practice group.

At the law firm, Hur has been involved in white-collar criminal matters, regulatory proceedings and enforcement actions, internal investigations, and related civil litigation. He is a member of the firm’s white-collar defense and investigations practice group and its national security practice group.

This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

Interrogated by Cruz, Diplomat Gives False Testimony About Biden’s Billion Dollar Bribe

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

During a November 30th hearing of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a senior State Department official gave false testimony about a billion dollar bribery scandal involving Joe Biden. The official, George Kent, is President Biden’s appointee to be the next U.S. ambassador to Estonia.

At Kent’s nomination hearing, Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX) questioned him about Biden’s actions in Ukraine while Kent was overseeing anti-corruption efforts in Europe and working in Ukraine. At the time, Biden was the vice president and serving as President Obama’s point man for Ukraine.

This affair began in March 2014 when Biden gave a speech before the Ukrainian parliament in which he promised that the U.S. would help Ukraine increase its gas production. That same month, a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch placed Biden’s son Hunter on the board of his gas company and began paying Hunter $83,333 per month.

Cruz directly asked Kent, “Did Joe Biden do anything that benefited the corrupt oligarch who was paying his son a million dollars a year?” Kent attempted to dodge the question, but Cruz pressed him, and Kent replied, “He did not.”

Challenging Kent’s answer, Cruz pointed out that Joe Biden publicly bragged about getting the chief prosecutor of Ukraine fired while the prosecutor was actively investigating the oligarch. Quoting Biden’s own words captured on video, Cruz noted that Biden threatened Ukraine’s president and prime minister with withholding a “billion-dollar loan guarantee” from Ukraine “if the prosecutor is not fired.”

Cruz then asked Kent, “Do you think Joe Biden holding a billion dollars hostage to force the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor that is investigating the corrupt oligarch who’s paying his son a million dollars a year—did getting that prosecutor fired benefit that oligarch?

Before Kent could reply, committee chair Jeanne Shaheen (D–NH) declared, “I’m not going to allow him to answer that question” and criticized Cruz for putting Kent in an “uncomfortable” position. Cruz repeatedly called out Shaheen for protecting Biden until she allowed Kent to give a “yes or no” answer. Kent then responded:

The prosecutor who was fired by the Ukrainian Parliament did nothing to investigate Zlochevsky [the oligarch], and everything that Vice President Biden, the State Department, and the U.S. embassy did acted in good faith to reduce corruption and help the Ukrainian people.

Kent’s reply is demonstrably false. In particular, his claim that the prosecutor was not investigating the oligarch is belied by the following facts:

  • The prosecutor general, whose name was Viktor Shokin, signed a sworn affidavit stating:
    • “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors.”
    • The president of Ukraine “was emphatic that I should cease my investigations regarding Burisma. When I did not, he said that the US (via Biden) were refusing to release the USD $1 billion promised to Ukraine. He said that he had no choice, therefore, but to ask me to resign.”
  • Just two weeks before he was forced out of office, the prosecutor general obtained a court order to seize some of Zlochevsky’s properties, including his land, houses, and a Rolls-Royce Phantom.
  • Hunter Biden’s laptop contains a November 2, 2015 email from a Burisma executive that instructed Hunter and his business partners to enlist “top US officials” to “visit” Ukraine and pressure Ukrainian officials to “close down” all “cases/pursuits against Nikolay in Ukraine.”

“Nikolay” is the informal first name of the oligarch, as proven by another email on Hunter’s laptop which states, “Nikolay is indeed sole shareholder but not of Burisma, but of Brocity company that ultimately holds 100% of Burisma.”

Replying to the email from the Burisma executive, Hunter and his partners explicitly agreed to do what Burisma asked of them and explained that they were “deliberately” concealing the names of the U.S. officials who will carry out this plan to “be on the safe and cautious side.”

One month later, Joe Biden did exactly what these emails specified. Furthermore, he did this by pressuring two of the three “key targets” that Burisma identified in its email to Hunter: the “President of Ukraine” and the “Prosecutor General.” In December 2015, Biden visited Ukraine and told Ukraine’s president and prime minister that he would withhold a billion dollar loan guarantee from Ukraine unless they fired the chief prosecutor. Biden later boasted, “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.”

The prosecutor who replaced Shokin dropped all criminal charges against the oligarch, and years later, Biden praised this prosecutor as “solid.”

Biden’s illicit actions, which are substantiated by a wealth of other incriminating facts, accord with textbook definitions of briberyextortion, and obstruction of justice. Yet, high-ranking government officials, journalists, big tech executives, and so-called fact checkers have systematically misled the public about what took place. Kent’s false testimony is the latest example.

This article was published by Just the Facts and is reproduced with permission.

The New Threat to Democracy: The Shadow Candidate

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The recent debate performance of Senatorial candidate John Fetterman in Pennsylvania was revelatory. The man clearly has serious cognitive issues that would make him unable to serve. Yet President Biden said Fetterman’s wife would make a great Senator.

This remark seemed to imply that party officials understand Fetterman is not able to effectively serve but they are running him anyway, knowing that the wife “would be a great lady in the Senate.”

If that is true, who are the voters really voting for? A figurehead candidate likely controlled by faceless Democrat officials and consultants.

As usual, the brilliant Babylon Bee got the sense of this suggesting that a dark horse candidate would appear and someone would put up a cabbage to run for office.

But Fetterman is not alone and that is what makes this a sinister and dangerous trend. A number of Democrat candidates are running campaigns that mimic Biden’s basement Presidential run. The idea is to avoid public scrutiny and let their allies in the press and social media spin an image.

There is perhaps a no better example than Biden himself. Democrat insiders and Jill Biden have been hiding his cognitive decline for some time, keeping him in very controlled circumstances. But even when they do let him out, he tends to garble things badly, which then needs the “White House” to walk back his statements. You see that statement in the press constantly.  The “White House” has to clarify something the President has said.

But wait, aren’t the White House and the President supposed to be the same thing?  When did they get separated?  The President is supposed to be in charge of the White House. If he is not in charge and needs constantly corrected, who then really is in charge?

Did we vote for a President or for the White House staff?

This setup of a “shadow candidate”, someone we are supposed to vote for, but who will not really be in charge, seems to be growing in acceptance.

In short, voters don’t vote really for a person, they vote for an image, a political hologram, that is then tweaked by technical people behind the scenes.

In Arizona, Katie Hobbs refuses to debate publicly, which basically hides from the public her ability to think on her feet and deal with complex issues. This is vital information voters really need to make an informed choice.

Does it even matter? The press and her own party have given her a pass through this entire election cycle.

A number of other Democratic candidates are using similar tactics. They don’t want to confront the reality of inflation, crime, war, and the assault sexual extremists have launched against our schools and America’s children.  Either they run a hologram candidate, conduct a basement campaign, or refuse to debate. It is all part of the same trend. And that trend is to hide from the public the true nature and ability of the candidate.

Wait for just a second! Is that not a threat to democracy? A stealth candidate, or a candidate with serious cognitive problems who are hidden materially and substantively misleads the public. We may well be voting for someone who is not the real candidate. We sort of get to choose the created image, but we know little or nothing about the forces behind him or her.

It is bait-and-switch political fraud at the highest level.

One of the appealing things about Donald Trump,  Kari Lake, and Blake Masters, is that they come from outside the normal political channels, and for good or ill, you sense they are in charge of what they are saying. Do you sense that Donald Trump or Kari Lake could be controlled by consultants?

We know that Trump pretty well called the shots, and many people thought it was bad for him to do so. Really? He told us what he believed, made some political promises, and then remarkably delivered most of them. That is not bad, it is refreshing. What you saw is what you got, for good or ill, depending on your perspective.

If we are to operate in a representative democracy, a true republic, it would seem that when we vote for a candidate, we should be voting with some knowledge of that person. We should know their viewpoints, their level of experience, what they have done outside of politics, and their physical and mental health.

To be sure, most candidates will try to hide from voters things that are negative, and it is part of the political process for opposition research to reveal more about a given candidate’s background.

And for most of our history the function of the press was to investigate and help the public vet candidates. But the press has fallen down badly, abandoning any pretense of objectivity.

But it is hard to recall seeing outright political fraud being committed by candidates that purposely dodge debates, that campaign only through approved channels, and deliberately hide their serious health issues.

Hopefully, this is a trend that won’t go very far.

The best thing could be for hologram candidates to go down in flames. We don’t want to reward this tactic and encourage more candidacies like John Fetterman and Joe Biden.

The last thing our nation’s critical problems and its messy politics need are for voters to be systematically misled as to who they are really voting for.

Could Chile Turn Its Back on Freedom?

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Editors’ Note: Chile is a beautiful country, as is the United States of America. This article is clearly about America as much as it is about the potential loss of liberty and a far leftist takeover in Chile. The parallels are stunning with actors like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and the radical progressives (Obama inspired) driving the out-of-control Biden presidential bus. It is an important read and an important message for freedom loving, hard working, and law abiding American citizens who believe in the foundational principles of individual sovereignty and the rule of constitutional law that has guided the greatest experiment in governing by consent of ‘We the People’.


Most people outside of South America do not follow trends there very closely. You may not be aware that democracy and freedom are being threatened in the most successful country in Latin America: Chile. That development threatens us here as well.

A quick history lesson. In 1970, Chile became the first country to freely elect what became a Communist government under Salvador Allende. The Chilenos did not want Communism. Allende was elected with only a little more than a third of the total votes when the other two candidates split the Conservative vote. Allende quickly became a puppet of the extreme left, and the country spiraled into chaos, pushed along by Henry Kissinger and the CIA. Things got so bad in terms of inflation, unemployment, etc. that on August 22, 1973, Congress by a large majority asked the armed forces to put an end to multiple violations of the Constitution.  General Augusto Pinochet staged a coup d’etat on September 11, 1973, ousting Allende who shot himself in the Presidential palace.

Pinochet became dictator until 1989 when he freely relinquished office after honest elections. He gets a bad press in the U.S. because of the brutal methods he used to suppress the Communists, who were not about to give up power easily. It was during the Pinochet era that I was traveling regularly to Chile. The reality on the ground was quite different from what we NorteAmericanos were told by our media.

Anyone could walk around the cities and talk freely about politics and the government, as long as you did not promote insurrection. If you did, you might find that the Police would come down on you with una mano dura (an iron fist). But for the most part, there was no censorship. Restaurants were full. Most people led normal lives and were comfortable speaking their minds.

Most people liked Pinochet. He quickly restored order from chaos. I asked friends how they felt about the allegations of brutality, which were true. None approved of it, but generally, I was told, “You weren’t here. Anything is better than how it was under Allende.” What was so bad about him? It was largely the fact that he promised everything to everyone for free, all at Government expense. Naturally, this was popular with the poor and the uneducated, but it was totally unsustainable. The economy collapsed.

Pinochet hired a group of economists from the University of Chicago, disciples of Milton Friedman, to come down and tell him how to straighten things out. Among other things, they revamped their Social Security System which was bankrupt. Taxes were still collected, but instead of turning the money over to the politicians to spend, a group of companies was allowed to compete to be managers of the pension funds that were seen to belong to the individual citizens. This was how I became involved, as my company became one of those investment managers.

The program was wildly successful. Chile became one of the few countries anywhere that had a public pension system that was not built on smoke and mirrors. Among other things we established a system where individuals could go to a public kiosk, punch in their Social Security ID, and learn exactly how much they had accumulated on their behalf.

Not everyone was happy, however. The Pinochet reforms primarily benefited those who worked. Chilenos are serious people. If you work, you benefit. If you don’t, you can’t look to the Government to take care of you. This is anathema to people who see society as a global village where everyone is responsible for everyone. Politics is usually about the division of the spoils, and inevitably the pendulum of power swings back and forth between those who are content with the way things are and those who would like things to be more favorable to their interests.

After Pinochet, Chile tried Governments of the Left and of the Right over the next 30 years, but generally, they did not stray too far from the precepts of Milton Friedman. People always speak of Chile as a model for South American governments, which historically have tended to be either corrupt or inept.

In the last few years, however, the gap between the Haves and the Have-nots has widened dangerously. This is a global phenomenon that threatens to topple Governments. With the Internet, social media, and cell phones ubiquitous, public opinion and public action can be mobilized rapidly.

In Chile, the Have-nots are rising. Not surprisingly, they resent the fact that those who have been contributing and saving for retirement are in better financial condition than they are. Chile’s social safety net is not satisfactory. With rising power, those on the political Left have forced a Constitutional rewriting. Recently, a 600-page draft was released which, if adopted, would put the country back on the path they abandoned when Allende fell.

Among other things, the draft calls for a more socially just allocation of retirement assets. Put bluntly, that would mean giving the Government the power to seize all the accumulated retirement assets of individuals and spread the money around to the less fortunate. Another name for confiscation is “theft”, but to the apostles of social justice, this is dismissed as just an excuse for keeping poor people down.

In today’s world, to be poor is seen as being a victim of elites in an unjust society, which is translated into having rights denied. As more and more people come to see themselves as victims, they are increasingly using the political system for a redress of grievances over rights denied.

“Rights” are things to which one has a proper claim. Some, like freedom of religion, if enshrined in law, are ours to enjoy without regard to anyone else. But many rights also place obligations on others to facilitate or pay for those benefits or alter their behavior. The so-called right to health care, or the right to security in old age, involve costs that have to be paid for somehow by someone. In other words, many rights are affected by the political process that determines obligations associated with those rights.

Increasingly, politicians and judges have invented rights like the right to privacy, the right to an abortion, etc. It is not so much a matter of appropriateness as it is a matter of funding. This largely depends on political power. This is what is playing out in Chile. The proposed new Constitution is full of rights, but vague on how they will be financed. Chilenos will vote in September. Most likely, few will have actually read the entire document, relying instead on political slogans.

What has this to do with the United States? Politicians like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are at the forefront of politicians proclaiming the existence of many rights on the grounds of morality. Their answer to the question of who pays is the greedy rich and greedy corporations. Chilean politicians make similar arguments. Isn’t it immoral for some to have so much more than they could ever need when so many are currently in desperate need? The BLM movement argues that many of the great corporations and great fortunes were built on the backs of slaves, and therefore reparations are in order to right old wrongs. Proposed “wealth taxes” are merely confiscation by another name.

These are powerful arguments that swing voters, ignorant of the fatal flaws inherent in what is essentially a Communist core belief. (“To each according to his needs from each according to his ability.”)

There are no easy answers. However, I was disturbed by a recent article in the Wall Street Journal that highlights the potential fragility of Capitalism in our time. Jamie Dimon, the popular CEO of JPMorgan-Chase Bank was awarded a $52.6 million dollar “special” bonus on top of his regular compensation of $32 million. That doubled his pay from the previous year. Now Dimon had not invented a cure for cancer or “saved” JPM in a time of great financial peril. He had simply done a good job, as he usually does.

Shareholders overwhelmingly refused to approve the special bonus. However, the Journal calmly reported that it is doubtful he will give it back. Jamie is not like a baseball pitcher who argues he should get a bonus because when he pitches the attendance always goes up. Dimon manages a large bank and does it well. It is unquestionably a challenging task. But $80+ million dollars?

I don’t believe that Chilean corporations pay their CEOs as lavishly. But the Dimon incident gives ammunition to those who find the “wealth gap” intolerable. As political power shifts back and forth, those of us who believe in Capitalism would be well advised to minimize examples of excesses that fan the flames of resentment. The mob always has the power of numbers.

Watch the Chilean referendum on the new Constitution carefully. The vote will be on September 4. The betting is that it will not be approved because it goes too far to the Left. But you never know. The winds of change will still be blowing even if it is defeated.


Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Suppose you own a substantial number of shares – say, $500,000 worth – in Acme Corp., a manufacturer of home furnishings. And being a shareholder, you decide to attend the corporation’s annual meeting. You arrive early for a good seat, eager to hear what Acme’s president and CEO, Mr. Jones, has to say.

Taking the podium after a warm introduction by the chairman of Acme’s board, Jones looks out earnestly at the shareholders assembled before him. He begins by assuring everyone that, while Acme is confronting many real challenges, he and his executive team have matters firmly in hand.

Jones then goes into some detail. He mentions the unexpectedly high and rising costs of Acme’s factory operations. “This problem is real, but we’ve diagnosed it. The problem in part is caused by our suppliers’ greed. Over the past year or so, I’ve noticed that the greed of these scoundrels has intensified. My team and I will lecture these anti-Acme people in hopes of diminishing their greed. As I’m sure everyone in this room knows, a major source of high and rising costs is greed. We will combat it!”

But we won’t stop there! In addition, we’ll dramatically reduce the amount of supplies that we purchase from other firms. I mean, why buy stuff from others when we can make these things in-house, right?! Although Acme is a furniture maker, we’ll stop buying our tools, delivery vehicles, electricity, and insurance from other companies. We’ll produce, in addition to furniture, these goods and services in-house. We’ll make our own lathes and other tools, manufacture our own delivery vehicles, build and operate an electricity-generating facility to generate our own electricity, and we’ll self-insure. In fact, I’m happy to announce that just yesterday we completed the purchase of a humongous ranch so that we can raise our own cattle to make the leather that we use to upholster many of our sofas and chairs. We’ll save beaucoup bucks and better secure our supply lines by doing these things in-house!

Jones continues: “Oh, here’s the best part. Our electricity-generating facility will generate electricity exclusively from beetle dung. You heard me right: beetle dung! The planet has lots of beetles! Of course, we haven’t yet figured out how to cost-effectively generate electricity with beetle dung, but so what, right? I just feel that it’s better to use beetle dung, what with the earth having so many beetles. We’ll make it happen! So count on us to reliably power our factories with electricity generated from beetle dung!

Jones is getting excited. “Now as for the supplies that we’ll continue to buy from outside companies, we’ll demand – as a condition of doing business with us – that these companies break themselves up into smaller operations in order to eliminate their monopoly power. Their monopoly power is one reason why our costs are skyrocketing; it’s what keeps our suppliers from reducing the prices they charge us.

“But – and this point is important, people! – we’ll also demand that our suppliers not reduce by too much the prices they charge us. We want to ensure that other suppliers have a fair chance of competing against our current suppliers. We’ll not purchase supplies from any supplier whose prices are too low to allow less-efficient rivals to compete successfully against them.

“Finally,” CEO Jones concludes, “from now on our official policy for hiring employees – especially to fill senior-level positions – will be to look first and foremost at applicants’ skin color and genitalia. Only job candidates who have what I decree to be the most pleasing skin color and genitalia will be hired by Acme Corp.! All other qualifications will be secondary.”

You sit there, stunned.

Any questions?” asks CEO Jones.

You raise your hand. He calls on you. You ask Jones why he authorized the borrowing of an unprecedentedly large amount of money last year to be spent mostly in ways that have nothing to do with improving Acme’s ability to produce and sell furniture.

“C’mon man,” Jones snaps, “that’s not true! We spent every penny of those funds to improve Acme’s infrastructure.

You press on by listing some of the projects that consumed millions of dollars of these borrowed funds: yoga studios, wine-tasting bars, a luxury hotel in the Alps, and a petting zoo filled with exotic animals.

Jones stares at you for a brief moment in faux puzzlement, before answering: “You got a problem with those projects? Let me tell you something, man, those projects are essential – essential! – for increasing Acme’s long-term productivity. Our employees need to exercise at the yoga studios, unwind at the bar, decompress in the Alps, and calm their frazzled nerves at the petting zoo. Those projects will repay themselves twenty – hell, twenty-two-hundred – times over!”

You dash out of the meeting to tell your broker to sell all of your Acme shares immediately.

In reality, of course, no private corporation would ever be run as irresponsibly as Jones runs Acme Inc. Indeed, even to contemplate such a degree of cluelessness, incompetence, and fraudulence in a corporate CEO is nearly impossible.

Yet after beholding now for more than a year the presidency of Joe Biden, I think it fair to say that he, the real-world president of the United States of America, is as clueless, as incompetent, and as fraudulent as is Jones, the imaginary CEO of Acme Inc. If you disbelieve me, read Biden’s 2022 State of the Union address. It proves my case.

Of course, Biden isn’t unique. American presidents – and state governors, and big-city mayors – have long peddled nonsense to their constituents. These politicians continue to get away with their destructive fraudulence for three main reasons. First, unlike shareholders in a private corporation, it’s extremely difficult for a citizen of a political jurisdiction (especially at the national level) to escape. Second, unlike executives of a private corporation, government officials can implement their policies, and cover up much of the evidence of their failure, by using coercion.

The third reason is that – unlike shareholders, customers, and suppliers of private corporations – many citizens of political jurisdictions believe that duly appointed government leaders have powers to work miracles. The belief is distressingly widespread that coercion deployed by government officials can work such wonders as making low-skilled workers worth more than they are really worth by enacting minimum-wage statutes, miraculously multiply domestic resources by borrowing and spending money, and increase citizens’ access to goods and services by denying citizens access to goods and services offered for sale by non-citizens.

With such bizarre beliefs being so widespread, it’s no wonder that millions of Americans can listen to the likes of Joe Biden and think “Yeah! Our national government is in the hands of a competent CEO!”


This article was published by AIER, The American Institute for Economic Research, and is reproduced with permission.