Monday, March 25, 2024

Trump says he’s 'allowed' to accept foreign money to pay fines






 Donald Trump had several different reactions to questions about money on Monday, after a five-judge appeals court panel slashed the amount he needs to post bond.

Asked if he if has ever accepted foreign money for legal fines of bills, Trump meandered, saying the thinks he is allowed to, before insisting that he doesn’t need to and never did.

“Did you ever accept money from a foreign government to pay the bond, or your fines, or any of your legal bills?” CNN’s Kate Sullivan asked the indicted ex-president.

“No, I don’t do that. I mean, I think you’d be allowed to, possibly, I don’t know,” said Trump, a former U.S. president who has done business for decades around the world.

He shot off a hypothetical: “If you go borrow from a big bank, many of the banks are outside of this – as you know, the biggest banks are outside of our country. So you could do that but I don’t need to borrow money. I have a lot of money.”

According to Forbes, the two biggest banks in the world are American banks.

Earlier in the day, asked by a reporter if he would accept foreign money to pay his bond, Trump appeared to ignore the question and walk away, a response the Biden campaign was quick to post to social media.

At one point on Monday Trump was asked if he would finance his presidential campaign with his own money – which he initially vowed to do when he first entered presidential politics in 2015. That pledge did not last long. As Trump began to gain momentum he quickly began accepting donations.

Trump had a terse response for the reporter who asked if he would be spending his own money on his presidential campaign.

“Yeah, yeah,” he said, before chastising the reporter.

“Well first of all it’s none of your business.”

“I might do that, I have the option.”

A reporter asking a candidate for president how they are financing or plan to finance their campaign is a valid question.

Over the weekend former FBI Special Agent Clint Watts, now a senior fellow at George Washington University’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, warned of the national security threat of a president being in debt to foreign powers.

“One of the things that is always a key question is, is this person financially vulnerable in such a way that they could be compromised? And in fact, probably most spies that you see even recent arrests related to China, the reason those Americans were compromised was due to money. It was due to finances. So we’re talking about the person that would be in charge of all national security potentially and who was in charge of all national security, being in a position that could be highly vulnerable, and not just a vulnerable position, but one that could have dramatic effects on policy.”

“The question about [TikTok owner] Bytedance. Just four years ago, it was discussed as we have to get rid of the whole thing, a complete reversal here just recently from former President Trump, so just magnify that out over a four year term.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

Trump says he’s 'allowed' to accept foreign money to pay fines (msn.com)

Bobulinski’s Testimony: Unraveling Allegations of Biden Family Influence Peddling

Joe Biden has repeatedly denied ever talking to his son about his business dealings. Bobulinski shows that it was an outright lie.


The entertainment committee never sleeps.  Hunter Biden’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski came to Congress a few days ago to testify before the House Oversight Committee about Hunter, his uncle Jim Biden, and the “Big Guy,” Mr. 10 percent, Joseph R. Biden himself.  It was an extraordinary performance. Calm. Deliberate. Detailed. Deadly. Mr. Bobulinski’s written statement shows what care he took in marshaling facts and evidence.

But it was his in-person testimony that made popping the corn worthwhile.  Tony Bobulinski and Congressman Jay Raskin. Tony Bobulinski and Congressman Dan Goldman.  He called both liars to their faces. It was delicious. It was also true.  Representative Raskin spluttered, stalled, and looked like he might burst into tears. He later, out of the line of fire, pouted about Mr. Bobulinski’s “outlandish and baseless accusations,” but that was just a feckless face-saving gambit.

Maybe the most entertaining moment of the afternoon came when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did her best Minnie Mouse impersonation and demanded to know what crimes, if any, Mr. Bobulinski was accusing Joe Biden of having committed. “RICO is not a crime!” she squeaked.  It was priceless.  The “greatest deliberative body in the world” in action, ladies and gentlemen. The country’s in the very best of hands.

But, as the old song said, “it don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that swing.” In any normal polity, Mr. Bobulinski’s testimony would have been devastating to its targets. But in our polity, it was just entertainment.  If Congressmen Raskin and Goldman were capable of embarrassment, they would be squirming with shame.  But they are not so endowed, which means that they will emerge unscathed by any pangs of conscience. After all, they are still in office. Perhaps they will even be reelected and continue suckling at the public teat for the rest of their adult lives.

There will be a lot of tongue-clucking. You’ll see many columns rehearsing the details of Mr. Bobulinski’s testimony. At the end of the day, though, it won’t matter what evidence Mr. Bobulinski adduced.  The Justice Department is run by the State Party, aka the Democrats, and the DOJ is going to do exactly nothing about what Rudy Giuliani colorfully baptized the Biden Crime Family.

Besides, we had heard it all before.  This was not Mr. Bobulinski’s first rodeo.  Back before the 2020 election, he was interviewed by Tucker Carlson, and he laid out essentially the same allegations then. Among other things, Mr. Bobulinski showed, with copious contemporary documentation, that various Chinese entities had invested heavily in the Bidens via various of Hunter’s business enterprises. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars.

Why would the Chinese do this? To capitalize on the Biden name.  That’s all that Hunter had to offer. It was, Mr. Bobulinski said, his “only qualification.” But it was quite a lot.  Juliet was wrong when she deprecated the power of names. “What’s in a name?” she asked. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”  Hunter Biden could have schooled her.  In his case, the name meant access, back then, to the Vice President of the United States. Later, of course, Joe Biden became president.

So what he had here was influence-peddling of the most spectacular kind. When influence is peddled, obligations are incurred. When obligations are incurred, favors can be expected. When the favors are owed, directly or indirectly, to the Chinese Communist Party, you want to be sure that the people in debt are not, you know, presiding over the government of the United States of America.

You might have thought that Mr. Bobulinski’s testimony to Tucker Carlson would have been a sensation.  But it wasn’t. It barely registered. Most of the press either violently disparaged the revelations or willfully ignored them. The day after the interview aired, a search for “Bobulinski” on the CNN site produced a search-not-found result.

During the course of his long interview with Tucker Carlson, Bobulinski laid out the entire bizarre story of his association with the Bidens, including two face-to-face meetings with Joe Biden in the company of his brother and son. Every detail was carefully minuted. Bobulinski gave times and places, contemporaneous emails, texts, and other communications sent to him from the Bidens and their business partners.

Joe Biden has repeatedly denied ever talking to his son about his business dealings. He knew nothing about it, he said. That seemed highly improbable on its face. Bobulinski shows that it was an outright lie. Two communications stand out. In one, the equity stakes in a new company are broken out. The last item indicates that 10 percent will be held by “H”—that’s “H” for Hunter—for “the big guy,” which, along with “my Chairman,” is Hunterese for Joe Biden. The second communication of note is the direction that everyone involved had to maintain “plausible deniability” about Joe’s involvement. That, said Jim Biden, was all that would be necessary should Joe decide to run for president.

The Bidens thought they had insured such an alibi. Joe would just keep doing his Sergeant Schulz imitation—“I know nothing, nothing”—and a compliant press would leave it at that. Their conspiracy of silence about Hunter’s “laptop from hell” was impressive. Twitter shut down the Twitter feed of The New York Post, which broke the story. NPR wouldn’t cover it and explained that it would be a “waste” of its listeners’ time. Facebook sharply limited dissemination of the story.

That was in 2020, in the run-up to the election. How about now, in the run-up to the 2024 election?  Once again, I suspect, we’ll see a bit of hand-wringing in the conservative media, followed by… crickets.

At a time when Google can quietly change the online definition of “bloodbath”lest stories critical of the media’s efforts to smear Donald Trump over using the word get traction, anything is possible. Mr. Bobulinski’s testimony before Congress was devastating, but already it is being memory-holed.  The Department of Justice is supposed to be non-partisan.  The fate of Mr. Bobulinski’s testimony, like the corresponding fate of Donald Trump at the hands of the DOJ, shows that it is just a Democratic tool.



Will DEI End America—or America end DEI?


 Our future hinges on how quickly we discard DEI orthodoxy.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/03/25/will-dei-end-america-or-america-end-dei/

At the nexus of most of America’s current crises, the diversity/equity/inclusion dogma can be found. The southern border has been destroyed because the Democratic Party wanted the poor of the southern hemisphere to be counted in the census, to vote if possible in poorly audited mail-in elections, and to build upon constituencies that demand government help. Opposition to such cynicism and the de facto destruction of enforcement of U.S. immigration law is written off as “racism,” “nativism,” and “xenophobia.”

The military is short more than 40,000 soldiers. The Pentagon may fault youth gangs, drug use, or a tight labor market. But the real shortfall is mostly due inordinately to reluctant white males who have been smeared by some of the military elite as suspected “white supremacists,” despite dying at twice their demographics in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they are now passing on joining up despite their families’ often multigenerational combat service.

The nexus between critical race theory and critical legal theory has been, inter alia, defunding the police, Soros-funded district attorneys exempting criminals from punishment, the legitimization of mass looting, squatters’ rights, and general lawlessness across big-city America.

The recent epidemic of anti-Semitism was in part birthed by woke/DEI faculty and students on elite campuses, who declared Hamas a victim of “white settler” victimizing Israel and thus contextualized their Jewish hatred by claiming that as “victims,” they cannot be bigots.

There is a historic, malevolent role of states adjudicating political purity, substituting racial, sex, class, and tribal criteria for meritocracy. They define success or failure not based on actual outcomes but on the degree of orthodox zealotry. Once governments enter that realm of the surreal, the result is always an utter disaster.

After a series of disastrous military catastrophes in 1941 and 1942, Soviet strongman and arch-communist Joseph Stalin ended the Soviet commissar system in October 1942. He reversed course to give absolute tactical authority to his ground commanders rather than to the communist overseers, as was customary.

Stalin really had no choice since Marxist-Leninist ideology overriding military logic and efficacy had ensured that the Soviet Union was surprised by a massive Nazi invasion in June 1941. The Russians in the first 12 months of war subsequently lost nearly 5 million in vast encirclements—largely because foolhardy, ideologically driven directives curtailed the generals’ operational control of the army. After the commissars were disbanded and commanders given greater autonomy, the landmark victory at Stalingrad followed, and with it, the rebound of the Red Army.

One reason why the dictator Napoleon ran wild in Europe for nearly 18 years was that his marshals of France were neither selected only by the old Bourbon standards of aristocratic birth and wealth nor by new ideological revolutionary criteria, but by more meritocratic means than those of his rival nations.

Mao’s decade-long cultural revolution (1966–76) ruined China. It was predicated on Maoist revolutionary dogma overruling economic, social, cultural, and military realities. An entire meritocracy was deemed corrupted by the West and reactionary—and thus either liquidated or rendered inert.

In their place, incompetent zealots competed to destroy all prior standards as “bourgeois” and “counter-revolutionary.” It is no surprise that the current “people’s liberation army,” for all its talk of communist dogma, does not function entirely on Mao’s principles.

Muammar Gaddafi wrecked Libya by reordering an once oil-rich nation on Gaddafi’s crackpot rules of his “Green Book.” At times, the unhinged ideologue, in lunatic fashion, required all Libyans to raise chickens or to destroy all the violins in the nation. I once asked a Libyan why the oil-rich country appeared to me utterly wrecked, and he answered, “We first hire our first cousins—and usually the worst.”

There were many reasons why the King-Cotton, slave-owning Old South lagged far behind the North in population, productivity, and infrastructure. But the chief factor was the capital and effort invested in the amoral as well as uneconomic institution of slavery.

After the Civil War, persistent segregationist ideology demanded vast amounts of time, labor, and money in defining race down to the “one drop” rule—while establishing a labyrinth of segregation laws and refusing to draw on the talents of millions of black citizens.

Yet here we are in 2024, ignoring the baleful past as the woke diversity/equity/inclusion commissars war on merit. Institutions from United Airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration to the Pentagon and elite universities have been reformulated in the post-George Floyd woke hysteria. And to the delight of competitors and enemies abroad, they are now using criteria other than merit to hire, promote, evaluate, and retain.

The greatest problem historically with hiring and promoting based on DEI-like dogma is that anti-meritocratic criteria mark the beginning, not the end, of eroding vital standards. If one does not qualify for a position or slot by accepted standards, then a series of further remedial interventions are needed to sustain the woke project, from providing exceptions and exemptions, changing rules and requirements, and misleading the nation that a more “diverse” math, or more “inclusive” engineering, or more “equity” in chemistry can supplant mastery of critical knowledge that transcends gender, race, or ideology.

But planes either fly or crash due to proper operation, not the appearance or politics of the operator. All soldiers either hit or miss targets, and engineers either make bridges that stand or collapse on the basis of mastering ancient scientific canons and acquired skills, training, and aptitude that have nothing to do with superficial appearance, or tribal affinities, or religion, or doctrine.

The common denominator of critical theories, from critical legal theory to critical social theory, is toxic nihilism, which claims there are no absolute standards, only arbitrary rules and regulations set up by a privileged, powerful class to exploit “the other.” Yet, not punishing looting has nothing to do with race or class, but everything with corroding timeless deterrence that always has and always will prevent the bullying strong from preying on the weak and vulnerable.

Defunding the police sent a message to any criminally minded that in a cost-to-benefit risk assessment, the odds were now on the side of the criminal not being caught for his crimes—and so crime soared and the vulnerable of the inner city became easy prey.

Another danger of DEI is the subordination of the individual to the collective. We are currently witnessing an epidemic of DEI racism in which commissars talk nonstop of white supremacy/rage/privilege without any notion of enormous differences among 230 million individual Polish-, Greek-, Dutch-, Basque-, or Armenian-Americans, or the class, political, and cultural abyss that separates those in Martha’s Vineyard from their antitheses in East Palestine, Ohio.

Moreover, what is “whiteness” in an increasingly intermarried and multiracial society? Oddly, something akin to the old one-drop rules of the South is now updated to determine victims and victimizers—to the point of absurdity. Who is white—someone one half-Irish, one half Mexican—who is black—someone one quarter Jamaican, three-quarters German? To find answers, DEI czars must look to paradigms of the racist past for answers.

Moreover, once any group is exempted and not held to collective standards by virtue of its superficial appearance, then the nation naturally witnesses an increase in racism and bigotry—on the theory that it is not racist to racially stigmatize a supposedly “racist” collective. And we are already seeing an uptake in racially motivated interracial violence as criminals interpret the trickle-down theory of reparatory justice as providing exemption for opportunistic violence.

Throughout history, it has always been the most mediocre and opportunistic would-be commissars that appear to come forth when meritocracy vanishes. If there was not a Harvard President and plagiarist like Claudine Gay to trumpet and leverage her DEI credentials, she would have to be invented. If there was not a brilliant, non-DEI economist like Roland Fryer to be hounded and punished by her, he would have to be invented.

The DEI conglomerate has little idea of the landmines it is planting daily by reducing differences in talent, character, and morality into a boring blueprint of racial stereotypes. Punctuality is now “white time” and supposedly pernicious. The SAT, designed to give the less privileged a meritocratic pathway to college admissions, is deemed racist and either discarded or warped.

In its absence, universities are quietly now “reimaging” their curriculum to make it more “relevant to today’s students” and, of course, “more inclusive and more diverse.” Translated from the language of Oceania, that means after admitting tens of thousands to the nation’s elite schools who did not meet the universities’ own prior standards that they themselves once established and apprehensive about terminating such students, higher education is now euphemistically lowering the work load in classes, introducing new less rigorous classes, and inflating grades. In their virtue-signaling, they have little clue that inevitably their once prized and supposedly prestigious degrees will be rendered less valued as employers discover a Harvard, Stanford, or Princeton BA or BS is not a guarantee of academic excellence or mastery of vital skill sets.

Toxic tribalism is also, unfortunately, like nuclear proliferation. Once one group goes full tribal, others may as well, if for no reason than their own self-survival in a balkanized, Hobbesian world of bellum omnium contra omnes. If our popular culture is to be defined by the racist hosts of The View, or the racist anchorwoman Joy Reid, or members of the Congressman “Squad,” or entire studies departments in our universities that constantly bleat out the racialist mantra, then logically one of two developments will follow.

One, so-called whites in minority-majority states like California will copy the tribal affinities of others that transcend their class and cultural differences, again in response to other blocs that do the same for careerist advantage and perceived survival. Or two, racism will be redefined empirically so that any careerist elites who espouse ad nauseam racial chauvinism—on the assurance they cannot be deemed racists—will be discredited and exposed for what they’ve become, and thus the content of our character will triumph over the color of our skin.

Finally, do we ever ask how a country of immigrants like the United States—vastly smaller than India and China, less materially rich than the vast expanse of Russia, without the strategic geography of the Middle East, or without the long investment and infrastructure of Europe—emerged out of nowhere to dominate the world economically, financially, militarily, and educationally for nearly two centuries?

The answer is easy: it was the most meritocratic land of opportunity in the world, where millions emigrated (legally) on the assurance that their class, politics, religion, ethnicity, and yes, race, would be far less a drawback than anywhere else in the world.

The degree to which the U.S. survives DEI depends on either how quickly it is discarded or whether America’s existential enemies in the Middle East, China, Russia, and Iran have even worse DEI-anti-meritocratic criteria of their own in hiring, promotion, and admissions—whether defined by institutionalized hatred of the West, or loyalty oaths to the communist party, or demonstrable obsequiousness to the Putin regime, or lethal religious intolerance.

Unfortunately, our illiberal enemies, China especially, at least in matters of money and arms, are now emulating the meritocracy of the old America. Meanwhile, we are hellbent on following their former destructive habits of using politics instead of merit to staff our universities, government, corporations, and military.

Our future hinges on how quickly we discard DEI orthodoxy and simply make empirical decisions to stop printing money, deter enemies abroad, enforce our laws, punish criminals, secure the border, reboot the military, regain energy independence, and judge citizens on their character and talent and not their appearance and politics—at least if it is not already too late.

Biden’s Green Policies Will Leave People Freezing This Winter

 Joe Biden and his EPA’s push for electric heat pumps will be an even bigger fail than their push for electric vehicles.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/25/bidens-green-policies-will-have-people-freezing-this-winter/

Although Biden’s various electric vehicle (EV) mandates and subsidies tend to get more press than his other half-brained attempts to reduce carbon dioxide, the administration’s push for electric heat pumps could prove to be even more of a disaster.

Heat pumps are a novel innovation for electric heat that are presented as innocuous but are arguably the most ill-advised of consumer products. In addition to concerns about cost, functionality, net pollution, and disposal, the elephant in the heat pump living room is grid dependency. If the electric grid fails even temporarily, homeowners in cold regions reliant solely on electric heat face life-threatening consequences. Consumers may want to hold off disconnecting their woodstoves in blind trust of such a fragile technological reed.

Heat pumps are extolled as climate-saving alternatives to traditional energy sources such as gas, oil, and firewood. The Biden administration announced $169 million of manufacturing subsidies for heat pumps as part of his “Investing in America” agenda, which his National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi claimed was “using his wartime emergency powers under the Defense Production Act to turbocharge U.S. manufacturing of clean technologies to strengthen our energy security…”

Americans are justified in seeing that they are the targets in Biden’s war, using EPA regulations to compel EVs over gas-powered vehicles, and unfairly “turbocharging” (favoring) an elitist industry that itself is drawing ever more energy from the grid, does not deliver on “clean” promises, and cannot compete in the free market even after subsidies and regulatory favoritism. But the biggest lie by Zaidi and the administration is that heat pumps will “strengthen our energy security.” 

Electric heat has not historically managed to compete with fossil fuels on cost, but heat pump efficiencies are touted as game-changing. Yet even if all the claimed benefits of these new supposedly salvific gadgets were true, there are glaring hazards that go uncritically challenged. The greatest of these is grid dependency.

Heat pumps may be terrific for areas of the country that rarely see freezing temperatures. (This is true also for EVs, which in deep freezes pose serious problems not faced by their California Dreamin’ cousins.) An efficient supplemental heat source in a house, barn, or garage in Kentucky or Tennessee, where temperatures do not often dip to sub-zero threats, let alone over sustained periods, may be a wise and efficient upgrade. Most northern U.S. regions, in contrast, annually battle that ancient enemy: Old Man Winter. For centuries, people have chopped and dried wood in anticipation of that often-grueling combat, only recently augmented by oil furnaces or gas heaters.

But even oil and gas heat can usually be kept running when the grid goes down, for homeowners equipped with a modest (gas-powered) generator. If not, pipes can freeze and cause extensive damage; cold children get sick; and old, sick, and isolated people freeze to death. Businesses cannot operate to provide goods or services.

Pushing heat pumps without such backup threatens future disaster. The exponential demands being placed on the nation’s electric distribution system by data processing centers and AI are already straining a grid weakened by climate policies that undermine routine maintenance of transmission lines. New manufacturing facilities to assemble heat pumps, solar panels, and EVs add to that camel’s back burden. The drastic push for yet more EVs (and EV truck and bus fleets) slurping energy will steadily increase infrastructure fragility.

This creates a climate of vulnerability as novel as these new technologies. Trusting technology above local reliance is a high-stakes gamble for millions of rural Americans living in winter climes.

Vermont received $58.5 million for Home Energy Rebates under the Inflation Reduction Act. The State’s Department of Public Service announced:

The High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Program will provide point-of-sale rebates to low- and moderate-income households for a variety of electric technologies, including heat pumps for space heating and cooling, heat pump water heaters, electric stoves and ovens, and electric service upgrades. Eligible households will be able to receive up to $14,000 for installing energy efficient electric equipment, including up to $8,000 for heat pumps, $1,750 for heat pump water heaters, and $840 for electric stoves.

These are expensive upgrades, despite substantial subsidies. More costly yet may be the resultant dependency which places many low- and moderate-income households at unprecedented risk of property damage or death when (not “if”) the lights go out. According to the messaging of climate alarmism that claims every cold snap, heat wave, wildfire, or flood is the direct consequence of climate change, this plan seeds disaster. Americans are told they should brace for ever more storms, blizzards, and extreme weather events, which threaten to disrupt the power supplies to the expensive technologies that are supposed to save them from … more storms, blizzards, and extreme weather events.

Vermonters routinely face sustained, brutal temperatures and blackouts that can last for days. Historically, Green Mountain woodchucks have sawed wood against that threat: They might lose TV in a winter blast, but they were always warm. Even in days before insulation and chain saws, hard Yankee muscle work ensured the family would always be warm.

Self-reliance is abandoned if this independence is displaced by government-subsidized techno-dependency. Human mitochondria generate adenosine triphosphate (ATP), employed by the body to push and pull a bucksaw, swing an axe, haul and store wood, and feed a woodstove. ATP is a form of chemical energy naturally available at hand, without any need for fossil fuels (or grid energy) of any kind.

EVs won’t go far with a dead grid, either. At least an old pickup and a jug of gas keep chugging when three feet of snow (and temperatures) fall. An entire grid-dependent fantasy is being regressively implemented.

Is this hazardous dependency the consequence of a lack of foresight or a planned enslavement? It doesn’t really matter. The outcome is the same. Americans are being force-fed untested boondoggle products like imprisoned geese, paid for with their own tax dollars, using “wartime” powers never intended to compromise free markets or individual freedoms. All this under the snake oil clarion of “strengthening energy security.” As for me and my house, we will keep our woodstove and a sharp axe.



Biden’s Electric Vehicle Dreams Are Running Up Against Electoral, Electrical, and Economic Realities

 


https://www.nysun.com/article/bidens-electric-vehicle-dreams-are-running-up-against-electoral-and-economic-realities

President Trump’s anodyne if overexcited comment that the American auto industry would face a “bloodbath” if he’s not elected and doesn’t impose 50 percent or 100 percent tariffs on cars produced predictable results.

“Don’t outsmart yourself,” Senator Schatz posted, and President Biden’s campaign promptly charged Mr. Trump with promising a “bloodbath” if he loses, without saying that he used a common metaphor and was talking about the auto industry.

That’s a subject Team Biden is understandably touchy about, given the conspicuous fiasco of its electric vehicle policies.

It’s summed up in a lengthy Wall Street Journal report on how a “dramatic societal shift to electric cars” had “overlooked an important constituency: the consumer.” 

Evidence is plentiful. Manufacturers have been cutting prices as dealers’ lots filled up with unsold electrics. Ford is halving its output of electric F-150 trucks at its Dearborn, Michigan, plant. General Motors dealers are pressing the company to reverse its strategy, cut EV production, and build hybrids instead. Tesla chief executive Elon Musk warned of “notably lower” EV production.

Expectations elsewhere went unmet. Hertz sold off 20,000 rental EVs at a loss of $245 million and its chief executive, a Goldman Sachs alumnus, stepped down. EV startup Fisker, which defaulted on $192 million in Obama administration loans, is reportedly preparing for bankruptcy. Apple is shutting down its multibillion-dollar electric car division.

“Plans for an EV-led industrial revolution are in full-scale retreat” in Britain, France, and Germany, the London-based Telegraph reported. “It looks like all those ‘well-paid green jobs’ are going to take a little longer to arrive than anyone anticipated.”

Liberals justify the $7,500 consumer subsidies for EVs as a way to reduce carbon emissions. Yet, of course, reductions depend on where the electricity, and the rare earths and metals in batteries, come from. Meanwhile the environmental pitch may have boosted sales among Democrats, but it also has resulted in low sales to Republicans.

These attitudes correlate with geography. EVs may be practical to zip about in the mild weather of the Pacific Coast and over the short distances of the Northeast — Mr. Biden’s territory in 2020.

Yet EV batteries run out of charge over long distances, when it’s freezing outside, or when you’ve got your air conditioning on — all common experiences in the South, Midwest, and Rocky Mountain states, which Mr. Trump carried in 2016 and 2020.

It’s not hard to see, though government projections seem to have missed it, that many people would be reluctant to pay more for a vehicle likely to totally stop functioning in common use, and much more expensive to repair.

And irksome to charge. In the 1920s, the private sector built vast networks of gas stations capable of refueling a vehicle in five or ten minutes. In the 2020s, the government has taken on the task of building electric charging stations, with predictable results. After more than two years, the $5 billion 2021 charging station program has produced exactly eight charging stations.

In the marketplace, it’s clear the demand for electric vehicles is much smaller than that predicted by environmental enthusiasts and imposed on carmakers by the Biden administration. Toyota’s hybrid gasoline-and-electric vehicles, while less fashionable in certain quarters than battery-powered EVs, are rated as more reliable and just as green, and they are outselling the all-electrics.

As the late economist Herbert Stein said, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Projections for EV sales have fallen woefully short month after month. The Environmental Protection Agency projects EV sales will rise from 7.6 percent in 2023 to 67 percent in 2032, but the EPA’s tailpipe regulations, the tool used to raise EV sales, are not on track to do so.

At least not without drastically cutting total auto production. Environmental nonprofit organizations may not mind that, but the United Auto Workers, which represents laborers at Detroit’s Big Three but not at Tesla or foreign-based companies, does and has demanded the administration change policy.

Which it has, sort of. The EPA is now announcing it won’t enforce EV sales requirements until 2030. Only it still says it’s requiring two-thirds by 2032.

As you may have noticed, there are three presidential elections between now and late 2032, when Mr. Biden will turn 90 and Mr. Trump 86. Team Biden is obviously fiddling with its failed EV policies in the hopes of smoothing over the differences between its environmentalist and union constituencies, Marin County, California, and Macomb County, Michigan. That might work, up through Election Day.

Then, whoever wins, there will come something you might provocatively call a bloodbath. For an industry with large capital needs and long lead times, or for environmentalists determined to phase out vehicles that most consumers prefer and can afford — maybe for both.