Democratic members have continued their unrelenting attacks on the Supreme Court and its conservative majority. This week, Senate and House members have introduced a bill to impose term limits, regularized confirmation schedules, and other changes. In introducing the legislation, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), Rep. Hank Johnson (D., Ga.), and others have left no question that this is just the latest effort to change the balance of the Court in favor of a liberal majority. Such comments make the bill seem like little more than legislative graffiti.
The legislation, The Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act, would impose an 18-year maximum period for service on the Court. After that point, they would be forced to take “senior status.” It would authorize the president to nominate Supreme Court justices every two years — in the first and third years after a presidential election.
It is no accident that, under this system, the first to go would be Clarence Thomas (on his 30th year) followed by Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito when they reach the limit.
Even if the bill were able to secure a majority (which is highly doubtful), it would face immediate challenge since it adds new limits on the life tenure provision under Article III.
Any challenge would have a record full of self-defeating statements from the sponsors who leave no doubt that their true motivation is to get rid of the conservative majority in response to rulings that they oppose.
Many continue to assert that the adoption of a constitutional interpretation that they oppose is, as stated by Rep. Johnson, “a legitimacy crisis.” When the Court rules in a way that is approved by these members it is a constitutional triumph. When it fails to do so, it is a constitutional crisis.
Rep. Johnson went further to emphasize that the illegitimacy is also due to the fact that five justices were appointed by George W. Bush and Donald Trump: “Five of the six conservative justices on the bench were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and they are now racing to impose their out-of-touch agenda on the American people, who do not want it.”
So, they are demanding this radical measure “as a necessary step toward restoring balance to this radical, unrestrained majority on the court.”
House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) also supplied golden material for future challengers, saying that the changes are designed to combat “all the harmful and out-of-touch rulings from the Supreme Court this last year.” He added that without changing the Court “we will be left with backwards-looking majority for a generation or more.”
Other co-sponsors include Reps. David Cicilline (RI), Shelia Jackson Lee (TX), Steve Cohen (TN) Karen Bass (CA) and Ro Khanna (CA).
It also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Court commonly voiced by Democratic members. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, has declared the Supreme Court illegitimate and has called to pack the Court for rending opinions against “widely held public opinion.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., even questioned the institution’s value: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” She has now demanded the impeachment of Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch based on the entirely false claim that they lied under oath in their confirmation hearings. After the Dobbs decision, Ocasio-Cortez demanded “there must be consequences” for the Court.
The concern over this legislation is not whether the legislation will pass (it will not) but how it reflects a fundamental attack on both the Court and our constitutional system. There was a time, not long ago, that such raw partisan attacks would have been denounced by other members of both parties. It is now not only acceptable but popular to call for packing the Court with your political allies.
This crisis of faith is evident in other key constituencies in our system, including in our law schools. Law professors like Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinksy have called the justices “partisan hacks” while others have supported targeting the individual justices at their home. Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.” Most recently, the dean and chancellor of University of California Hastings College of the Law David Faigman questioned the legitimacy of the Court after the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
From Congress to the press to academia, the very foundation of the Court is being challenged. What is notable is that these are also the voices of some of the most powerful figures in our society. Rather than seek to moderate the mob, they are fueling the rage with such reckless rhetoric. 
There are good-faith objections to this decision but those objections challenge the legitimacy of the holding, not the institution itself. As Benjamin Franklin noted “The U. S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.”
“you’re flagrantly wrong and quite confused.”
On issue after issue that is discussed here – it actually matters what is right and what is not.
As I have noted repeatedly – the legitimacy of government depends on our trust of elections.
Given the absymal level of trust for the 2020 election – the response has been tame.
This country was born of violence as a result of the loss of trust of colonists from english rule.
Myriads of other nations were born of much worse violence for similar reasons.
It should be obvious to even those on the left that it is important to restore trust in elections.
J6 should have been a wake up sign.
The Fact that YOU and the left are happy with the outcome is NOT sufficient.
If significant portion of the electorate continues to beleive that not only 2020 but future elections are lawless and fraudulent.,
And that nothing is being done about it, and that those with power refuse to even look at it, especially where that power may have been gained fraudulently and lawlessly. then the odds of Real Consequential violence increase.
That may be 1000 voters with AR-15’s at the Capital. It may be some future Timothy McVeigh.
Nor is the lack of trust limited to elections.
Recent stories have named agents within the FBI illegally stiffling investigations into Hunter Biden during the 2020 election and now,
as well as possibly leaking the fraudulent Russian disinformation claim.
A significant portion of the country would disband the FBI.
We have the DOJ admitting that it is investigating parents for speaking out at Schoolboard meetings regarding the education of their children.
Over and over in area after area we have even less basis to trust those in govenrment.
That is a recipe for disaster – and possibly violence.
We watch as this J6 starchamber and possibly the DOJ investigate people for fighting back – legally and constitutionally against a lawless and likely fraudulent election. Yet, people who commit real crimes, or real allegations of actual criminality go uninvestigated.
We listened to those of you on the left rant that Trump and his family were profiting off Trump’s presidency, yet where it is clear that President Biden’s release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve are not just going to other countries – they are going to China, and those deals are being brokered by Hunter Biden for Personal profit.
You impeached and tried to Remove Trump for asking Zelensky to investigate the Biden’s conduct in Ukraine – conduct where there is a clear conflict of interests. Where there is and has always been evidence that the alleged purpose was concocted. And where AGAIN the vice presidents family profited. You made up this new rule that president can not seek to investigate political opponents.
It i no secret hat Biden has pressured DOJ to investigate Trump and all of those who challenged Biden’s election. There is lots of behind the scenes reporting, but worse still Biden has said so publicly.
So aparently your nonsense about it being a high crime or misdemeanor to investigate a political rival was just a ruse ?
Biden is not enforcing the laws of the land.
We KNOW that ICE and CBP are capable of far better – they did so under Trump. Now we have left wing nut “sanctuary cities complaining that they ca not handle the massive influx of illegal immigrants. States and towns along the border have endured much worse for decades.
Yet, NYC and DC and … can not deal with a few thousand illegal immigrants a month ?
Or the government could actually enforce the law.
If you want government to be trusted – you MUST enforce the laws that we have. If you do not like those laws, then change them through the normal process.
When you do not enforce the law – you destroy trust in government.
It does not matter whether the law not being enforced is a good law or a bad law.
Our government is NOT free to pick and choose what laws it will enforce.
Lawlessness undermines Trust.
WE are now officially in a recession – and it is likely to get much worse.
Yet, at each step you have been denying reality.
We can argue about who created the problem, there is no debate over WHAT created he problem – The federal reserve has monetized Federal spending. It has been doing that for a decade. Economicsts have been warning that is potentailly inflationary for a decade.
It is clear that sometime in the past couple of years we reached a tipping point – and shifted from potential inflation to rapid inflation.
It was clear that was happening early in the Biden presidency – and yet you went through with massive spending increases, and but for a few democrat holdouts would have doubled down on ever more.
The causes of this recession are no secret. This is a democratic party recession. You own it.
And now you think more spending and higher taxes are going to fix it ? Good luck with that.
Regardless, just more reasons we do not trust government.
Falsus in Unum, Falsus in Omnibus.
All of your lies, your mistakes, your dishonesty – it all amplifies each other.
Why should we beleive you about the election – when there are so many other things you have lied about ?
“I’ve finally figured out that I get censored here when I respond to others, so this post my not last long. I’ll just leave it that”
Evidence ?
Lots of posters respond to me – I have not seen where any are censored.
As you are posting anonymous, it would be difficult to impossible to tell if you were censored in the past.
Only you can know that.
And you are not trustworthy.
“as usual, you’re flagrantly wrong and quite confused.”
Again insult is not argument.
I want to engage you or anyone else on actual issues.
Facts, logic reason.
I am very careful about the assertions of fact that I post, you can confirm all of them easily.
Logic has rules, if I have violated them you should be about to demonstrate that.
Just as I have with others – “ad hominem” as an example is a fallacious argument.
It gets discarded, if anything it weakens your arguments.
With respect to Franklin – the Alito decision and prior remarks by Turely reference many state laws regulating or banning abortion prior to and through 1972.
The fact that some states and some people supported abortion is some foms, does not establish it as a right.
The fact that for over 200 years laws and regulation of abortion exists PROVES there was no recognition of it as a right.
“One must note that women were not granted the right to vote until 1920. Therefore, prior to 1920, men could have argued that there was ‘no history of women voting in this country’.”
That is correct – and they did argue that, and they prevailed, until the country adopted the 9th amendment.
If you wish to create a civil right to an abortion – pas a constitutional amendment.
19th amendment.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
John, just a slight correction. In one of the thirteen original states women were permitted to vote from the start. That right was taken away in the early nineteenth century. The state was NJ and they were under considerable pressure at the time.
“If you wish to create a civil right to” eat, sleep, go on a picnic — pass a constitutional amendment.
Despite a constitutional right to free speech, assembly and to petition government – it is clear that no one was going to be free to go to the capital on J6 petition govenrment to not certify a fraudulent and lawless election, to protest that certification.
Aparently we are free to protest the nomination of supreme court justices by republican presidents.
We are also not free to decide what we will put into our own bodies, we can not take whatever drugs we want – not Heroin, not HCQ, We can not choose not to be vaccinated – without losing other rights, We can not choose what we wear – without losing other rights – we must mask where our masters require.
The 9th amendment and thepriviledges and immunities clause in the 14th is supposed to over eating an sleeping, it never covered abortion.
“the 14th is supposed to over eating an sleeping, it never covered abortion.”
I must have missed that footnote.
There is no footnote. There is not and never has been a protected right to use force against others, to harm others.
The 14th amendment does not protect your right to murder, rape or assault others. Why would you assume it covers abortion ?
Your premise turns on equivocating between a potential and an actual.
“Your premise turns on equivocating between a potential and an actual.”
Nope. Guesses regarding what might result – “potential” are not the domain of government.
We do not arrest and convict people for future crime.
The courts do not accept cases claiming that some party may in the future breach their contract.
The courts do not accept tort claims of what MIGHT occur
Potential is not actual, and you can only use force in response to actual harm.
“If you wish to create a civil right to”
CIVIL right.
There is a natural right to eat and sleep.
Not that that has stopped the government – and those on the left from infringing on that right.
“If you wish to create a civil right to an abortion – pas [sic] a constitutional amendment.”
That fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the Constitution is precisely why some Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights should *not* be included in it.
I agree, that was also the purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments.
And later the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment.
The founders explicitly chose a written constitution and a written bill of rights over the British unwritten model.
Neither the american nor the British model have precluded government from trampling actual rights.
But the american model has done better in most areas than the british.
If you have an answer that works better – I would be glad to hear it.
It is absolutely true that our founders expected that far more individual rights would be protected by our constitution than are.
Their intentions was limited government with enumerated powers, and near limitless individual freedom.
I will support you in claiming that many individual rights do not require explicit amendments for protection.
Though that does not extend far enough to reach a natural right to abortion.
But civil rights are not immutable unless they are in the constitution.
And government powers can not be expanded without changing the constitution..
Dobb’s will not cause problem pregnancies problems.
State laws might. Though certainly not “hell”.
I did not read your link – but if a womans water broke – nature is going to take its course and he fetus will be born.
If it is not viable it will die. There is very little difference between a miscarriage and an abortion at late term – except the first is driven by nature and not man, and can not be thwarted.
Of the institutions of Government – SCOTUS still has the highest level or Trust – it is just abysmal.
The president is next, with Congress at the bottom.
Trust in police, in the military has all declined.
Trust in media has declined.
This is the natural consequence of the lawless conduct of democrats.
I have some trust in SCOTUS – but little to none in the courts overall.
None in the current congress, little in the president.
This is what happens when government FAILS.
Anonymous the Stupid called himself Stupid. He is learning.
=====
self-deleted: Talking about himself “And you would know.”
“The court has to be unpacked. That’s a given.”
Nope.
“Just the fact that the first people to time out with this plan are all conservatives makes this clear. ”
Pretty much the opposite.
Tnhe fact that this plan is blatantly unconstitutional makes it clear that the left is the problem.
“The way i first heard it went like this: 18 year max, each presidential term gets 2 appointments. So one term gets two appointments, two terms gets four. Makes sense to me.”
It does not matter whether “it makes sense to you” – it is unconstitutional.
If you wish to do it anyway – change the constitution.
Either we have the rule of law – which starts by following the constitution until you change it when you do not like it.
Or we do not, in which case anarchy and chaos are the result.
Look arround you right now.
We went from faux fear of a natural pandemic in 2020 to ever increasing anarchy and chaos.
This is what the middle stages of the rule of man not law look like.
For decades, Repubs have castigated liberal Federal courts for legislating from the bench. But now, with a solid 5-4 or 6-3 conservative majority, Repubs in Congress seem to be withdrawing their objections.
The big battle is one of Constitutional principle — who makes the law? I take SCOTUS at their word that they are neutral on making abortion and gun policy, and want to see Congress and state legislatures take responsibility for resolving the most controversial policy nightmares.
Of course, after 60 years of passing the buck, Congress is loathe to take responsibility. It’s now in the People’s hands with the fall elections to send bipartisan problem-solvers to DC, and marginalize the political tribalists….if we want to see thru SCOTUS’s appeal to extricate itself from policymaking.
“For decades, Repubs have castigated liberal Federal courts for legislating from the bench. But now, with a solid 5-4 or 6-3 conservative majority, Repubs in Congress seem to be withdrawing their objections.”
How so ?
Every recent controversial SCOTUS decision restores the power to make that decision to legislators, not the courts.
“The big battle is one of Constitutional principle — who makes the law?”
There is no big battle here.
Laws are made by legislatures, enforced by the executive, and reviewed for constitutionality by the judiciary.
“I take SCOTUS at their word that they are neutral on making abortion and gun policy, and want to see Congress and state legislatures take responsibility for resolving the most controversial policy nightmares.”
First you have jumped from Law to policy. they are not the same. Laws are made by legislatures and are fully binding on all of us if they are constitutional. Policy is the wishes of the executive and have no power beyond direction to those in government – though they too must be lawful and constitutional.
The judiciary is neutral on policy. They are not neutral on enforcing the constitution (or the actual text of the law)
The executive has very little constitutional law making power.
“Of course, after 60 years of passing the buck, Congress is loathe to take responsibility. It’s now in the People’s hands with the fall elections to send bipartisan problem-solvers to DC, and marginalize the political tribalists….if we want to see thru SCOTUS’s appeal to extricate itself from policymaking.’
Would only that an election would settle the issue and you and your ilk would go away having last on the issue.
Let’s just state the obvious: Thomas can’t come back from being married to a woman who actively sought overthrowing an election she didn’t like the results of. He used up all his comeback energy trying to recover from his behavior around Anita Hill. Kavanaugh will face a similar fate down the line.
Old age + a position on the SCOTUS has proved to be questionable of late. They hang on too long. They can’t come back from the next scandal after barely surviving the one where they had problems keeping mr. happy in the barn. They shoot people in the face…
Plus, the dour, desiccated and virulently white consciousness of the Federalist Society doesn’t mix well with the SCOTUS for any other reason than to game the rules for minority rule.
Eighteen year term limits seem totally appropriate to me. Also scaling appointments to presidential terms seems sane. The fact that a guy who never won a popular vote got to name three justices only because of senate tradecraft is pretty much totally egregious.
What is eqregious is that you actually believe that a duly elected President doesn’t get the rights of other Presidents because he won by the rules of the competition and not the rules you wish they were.
Fools will be fools.
IF 18yrs seems appropriate to you – then amend the constitution.
As to the rest.
Actually learn something about the federalist society. They are fairly young and not that much in line with Thomas.
Thomas has been in the wrong side of many decisions.
He has also stood alone on the right side of many.
He is far from perfect – but he has a strong legacy whether you like it or not.
He may not be remember as long as Thurgood Marshall. But he will be remembered longer than Breyer or souter, or stewart.
I do not know why he bailed at GW, but he is getting older, and I am not sure I would want to keep things up with the leftist nutjobs that law schools are churning out at his age.
He will likely be replaced soon enough. He is 74, and he is a black man. They do not typically live that long.
Take that, Maeva Marcus, Research Professor at the George Washington University Law School, Director of the Institute for Constitutional History, says Kevin W.
Perhaps she’ll call you, Kev.
No, better yet, Professor Turley may be available to pass on a message from Maeva directly.
For your and Maeva’s edification:
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/federal-judiciary-act
Relevant passage:
Transcript
Congress of the United States,
begun and held at the City of New York on
Wednesday the fourth of March one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages.
There you go. Congress can change this at any time in the same way.
“George Washington DID NOT set the number of justices at six.”
– Kevin W
________
And Neil Armstrong didn’t land on the Moon, his Apollo Lunar Module did, right?
Better re-read the ACTUAL Congressional act in which THEY, NOT George Washington set the number of justices.
For your and Maeva’s edification:
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/federal-judiciary-act
Relevant passage:
Transcript
Congress of the United States,
begun and held at the City of New York on
Wednesday the fourth of March one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages.
The cry of every cheater who can’t win on the agreed-to rules: “Work harder, Hell! Change the rules!”
Here’s one of the more erudite sponsors of the legislation, Hammered Hank Johnson:
Roske appears to have wanted to kill Kavanaugh and two other Justices, to preserve Roe and ensure leftist control of the Court “for decades to come” after Biden’s appointment of the three replacements while the Democrats still controlled the Senate. It is only due to his failure that legislative options are now under consideration. Fortunately these too will fail.
Whatever the dims have up their sleeve, they better do it before January. After that, things will start to go downhill for them.
One of the major roles the Justices play is to stop the tyranny of the majority when it comes to Constitutional issues. Without their role we would have laws that are subject to the vagaries of the times and our laws would be worthless.
Without their role we would have laws that are subject to the vagaries of the times
Well put
Our laws are already useless. The selective prosecution is destroying the idea America is a nation governed by laws and not men. Once this complete transformation is achieved, forget about that shinning city on the hill. You have the democrats to thank for it.
To anyone else who might be considering it, the obvious joke about Hank Johnson and the court “tipping” to the right is already making the rounds. I Googled it.
Johnson made a crucial mistake in his rhetoric. He asserts that Presidents Bush and Trump “lost the popular vote” when there is no such thing as a “popular vote.” The only vote in the Constitution is the electoral vote. He is also wrong that Bush “lost the popular vote.” He didn’t. He received some 3 million more votes than John Kerry in the 2004 election. The so-called “popular vote” is an invention of media and politicians who do not understand presidential elections as spelled out in the Constitution. Presidents are elected by THE STATES, not the general population.
Natacha & friends are just Evil Anti-Americans & Lairs!
**************
Wood Cabinets USA ends 229% subsidies to China
Wilbur Ross Hits Chinese Cabinet Manufacturers With $4.4 Billion Countervailing Duty – Beijing Caught W/ Stunning 200%+ Subsidy Rate For Chinese Companies…
August 7, 2019 | Sundance | 188 Comments
Wow. Go Wilburine! U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has slapped a whopping $4.4 billion countervailing duty on Chinese cabinet manufacturers. The rate of manufacturing subsidy identified within the ‘wood cabinet‘ study shows a massive 229% subsidy rate via discounted land, free lumber, electricity, raw materials, direct grants from government and discounted loans from Chinese banks to enhance export incentives.
The current study and duty only applies to wood cabinets and vanities, but if you ever wondered how come Chinese furniture is so cheap, well, it’s not a stretch to consider those same subsidy rates likely apply to their household furniture and wood products.
(Bloomberg) Add $4.4 billion in imported cabinets to the long list of Chinese goods slapped with U.S. levies in the escalating trade dispute between Washington and Beijing.
The Commerce Department said Tuesday it will ask the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect cash deposits from importers of the wooden cabinets and vanities from China based on subsidy rates of as much as 229%. Commerce issued a preliminary determination in response to a petition filed earlier this year by the American Kitchen Cabinet Alliance, alleging at least $2 billion in harm from the Chinese shipments.
The petition alleged dumping margins of more than 200%. Tim Brightbill, a trade lawyer from Wiley Rein LLP in Washington representing the industry, said in March that Chinese exporters get double-digit subsidy margins based on the number of programs supporting their domestic industry, including discounted land, electricity, raw materials, grants, discounted loans and export incentives.
“Today’s determination gives the American kitchen cabinet industry the hope it needs in our fight against China’s unfair trade practices,” Stephen Wellborn, director of product and research development at U.S. manufacturer Wellborn Cabinet and a member of the American alliance, said in an emailed statement. (more)
That $4.4 billion is a pretty hefty duty within a relatively small manufacturing sector. Can you imagine if anyone has filed a trade/manufacturing complaint against the much larger ‘wood furniture’ and household goods? Jumpin’ ju-ju bones.
In related news a lot more exporters operating manufacturing in China are starting to see the writing on their noses, realizing that Trump tariffs are only going to get worse, and are making plans to get the heck out of China, ASAP.
(CMP) Traditional export manufacturers in China’s Pearl and Yangtze River Delta regions already struggling under the weight of existing tariffs levied by the Trump administration expect the new tariffs on US$300 billion of Chinese imports to cause their businesses to shrink, force them to lay off workers, and for some, speed up relocation plans. (more)
Think of China like a big lake filled with U.S. dollars and economic value; the result of our purchases of their products. Through his ASEAN discussions with Vietnam, S Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, Japan, et al, President Trump has stealthily built a thin levy, an ASEAN dam of sorts, that will direct the China lake of economic value into Southeast Asia.
At any given moment Trump can blow that dam by triggering bigger tariffs. The exodus will benefit those who partnered with Trump. Vietnam’s economy has jumped over eight percent so far this year…. almost exclusively as a result of companies leaving China.
China has no substantive tools in their economic armory to defend against President Trump in a one-on-one battle. And Trump keeps landing body blows, the latest was the seizure of all Venezuelan assets. The number one investor in Venezuela is China (by a mile). China owns 49% of PDVSA Venezuela’s state owned oil company as an example.
The labeling of China as a currency manipulator opens the door to even more sanctions, and Beijing has no measurable way to respond. Beijing can threaten other trade partners, but more than China everyone wants access to the U.S. market; so no-one wants to become a target for Trump by standing near Xi Jinping or engaging in transnational shipping.
(On Devaluation) Shen Jianguang, chief economist at JD Digit and a veteran Chinese economy watcher, said the timing is not good for Beijing to allow the yuan to slide below seven, and that a currency war would not favour China.
“It is not in China’s interest to escalate the trade war into currency or financial fields,” Shen said. “The countermeasures available for Beijing are quite limited.” (more)
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2019/08/07/wilbur-ross-hits-chinese-cabinet-manufacturers-with-4-4-billion-countervailing-duty-beijing-caught-w-stunning-200-subsidy-rate-for-chinese-companies/
OT
Biden must be impeached for treason for allowing China to purchase and posses property proximate to military installations and Washington D.C., including the Pentagon, allowing China to monitor U.S. security.
Biden must be impeached for treason, dereliction of duty and failure to secure and protect American borders.
OT
Fed raises rates on order from the Chinese Communist Party which exerts influence and control over Fed members and associates.