U.S. Leadership Fails Ukraine, Emboldens Russia

Russia's military is slaughtering Ukrainians by the hundreds. Bodies are piling up in makeshift graves. Russian missiles kill children, infants. Hospitals and maternity wards are targeted by the barbaric invaders. The brutal atrocities are on a level not witnessed in Europe since World War II. 

Americans are seeing televised images of the bloody massacre of innocent civilians. The grim footage is changing the public's view of the war. A new Monmouth University survey indicates more Americans believe the Biden Administration is not doing enough to help Ukraine.

The shift in public opinion has prompted President Biden to belatedly dispatch more arms and heavy artillery.  Last week Mr. Biden announced another $800 million in weapons and ammunition. However, by the time the weaponry arrives on the battlefield, Ukraine may have been destroyed and defeated.

Despite the aid, the president and former U.S. leaders deserve partial blame for the continuing horrific killing in Ukraine. For decades, American presidents sought diplomatic accommodation to appease Valdymir Putin. The Russian bully is not swayed by detente nor does he abide by agreements.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously presented the Russian ambassador with a plastic, red reset button to signal a new era of cooperation in 2009. The gesture generated Russian mockery instead of cooperation. There have been far worse policy mistakes for certain.   

President Barrack Obama and then VP Joe Biden were reluctant to confront Putin's public declaration that the dictator planned to reclaim lost territory once part of the Soviet Union.  When Russia invaded the Crimea region in 2014, the Ukraine government begged for arms, mortar and antitank missiles. 

In response, Secretary of State John Kerry announced an aid package of $16.4 million to be used to "buy basic items like blankets and clothing, along with counseling for traumatized civilians to help those who fled the fighting."  Mr. Obama stubbornly refused to provide weapons or lethal military gear.

Fact-checkers have tried to rewrite history by claiming Mr. Obama not only sent blankets, but weapons.  However, around $15 million in weaponry was not approved until Russia had already annexed Ukraine. Facts, not faux fact-checkers, confirm the arms arrived too late to stop the Russians. 

The weakness of U.S. allies was on full display during the Crimean crisis. European leaders, afraid of Russian retribution, watched from the sidelines, content to allow Putin to steal part of a sovereign country. Russian aggression was met with surrender by the United States and its allies.

In the run-up to the Ukraine invasion, Russia positioned tens of thousands of troops around Ukraine's eastern border. Last April the White House mulled over a $60 million weapons package for Ukraine, which included the much sought-after Javelin surface-to-air missiles. Mr. Biden punted the decision.

On October 27 of last year, National Intelligence director Avril Haines warned the White House that the Russian military was poised to attack by the end of January of this year.  Again Mr. Biden considered a new $200 million weapons commitment but concluded it would not deter Putin.

This dithering by the president persuaded Putin the U.S. would not support Ukraine.  Once an invasion appeared imminent, Mr. Biden made a series of statements that sent mixed signals.  He immediately proclaimed there would be "no boots on the ground" in Ukraine.  

Instead of confronting Putin, his words communicated reluctance to challenge  Russia. The president should have said "every option" is on the table if the Russians invade. He could have orchestrated a NATO military exercise on the European continent.  Putin may have had second thoughts.  

Mr. Biden made it clear he feared any direct confrontation with Russia.  After the war began, Mr. Biden ended a prepared speech with the off-the-cuff comment that Putin "cannot remain in power."  It showed a whiff of strength. The White House press secretary went into damage control.

The president's comment was walked back by Jen Psaki as she has done with so many of Mr. Biden's unscripted missteps.  In January before the invasion, the president assured that a "minor incursion" into Ukraine would not require the sort of response demanded by a major strike. 

After the baffling remark, Psaki quickly issued a statement than any Russian military invasion would be met with a swift response. Ukrainian officials rebuffed Mr. Biden's remark with this sharply worded response: "There is no minor, middle or major invasion.  An invasion is an invasion."

Putin may be a madman, but he only respects power.  When the president of the world's superpower has to be corrected by his press secretary, don't you think Putin took the measure of Mr. Biden?  Putin expected sanctions would follow, but he also recognized Mr. Biden was a feckless leader.

Biden defenders believe no amount of strong language would have mattered. Sadly,  the nation will never know. What should be clear is that Russia does not intend to stop its aggression with Ukraine.  It has its sights set on other so-called "breakaway" former Soviet vassals.  

There are lessons that Europe and America should have learned from World War II.  When a tyrant is left unchecked in the takeover of a single country, it just wets the appetite for further conquests.  If Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, the U.S. and its European allies may yet face a wider war.  

Hunter Biden Scandal May Ensnare The President

The curtain of media censorship cloaking L'Affaire Hunter Biden is finally being lifted.  For almost two years the legacy media ignored reports about the contents of Hunter's laptop after the New York Post broke the story in 2020.  Social media platforms banned any mention of the emails and videos.  

The Post's bombshell report detonated during the final weeks of the presidential election. Much like the Hillary Clinton email kerfuffle, the revelations threatened to derail the Biden presidential run. Democrats needed a way to discredit the politically embarrassing laptop discovery. 

Team Biden recruited 51 former U.S. Intelligence officials to label the New York Post story a classic example of Russian disinformation. The media dutifully repeated the lie. The truth is not one of those intelligence chiefs, including former CIA Director John Brennan, ever examined the laptop.

Despite the coverup, more media outlets authenticated the laptop belonged to Hunter.  Politico, Fox News and a handful of others exposed the contents, which painted a tawdry picture of Hunter and contained clues the president knew more than he has admitted publicly about his son's deals.

In March,  The New York Times and The Washington Post belatedly ran stories about the trove of documents on Hunter's foreign deals.  The Twin Temples of Babble downplayed the significance of the details and reported they found no evidence Joe Biden knew about his son's deals. 

Apparently, they didn't look. The propaganda organs for the Democrats patted themselves on the backs and buried the matter. The fact both outlets corroborated the laptop's authenticity may seem shocking, but the liberal indoctrination voices are signaling there will be no more laptop coverage. 

This is a strategy orchestrated by the White House to inoculate the president once Republicans take control of the House in the mid-terms. Likely-Speaker Mike McCarthy has promised to launch an investigation into Hunter's dealings.   

The president and his press secretary will claim it is old news.  The GOP is conducting a witch hunt. Nothing to see.  However, storm clouds are hovering over the Biden family. A federal grand jury is investigating Hunter over allegations of money laundering, fraud and foreign lobbying.

Delaware U.S. Attorney David C. Weiss leads the probe. His boss is the president's Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has demonstrated he marches to White House orders. As a result, expect Hunter to receive a slap on the wrist and a fine before the mid-terms.  Case closed.

In anticipation of such an outcome, about 100 House Republicans dispatched a letter to Garland urging him to appoint a special counsel to remove the appearance of undue influence. Democrats used this same justification for the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to probe President Trump.

There is good reason for the GOP to suspect administration officials will stomp their feet on the scales of justice.  Hunter was under investigation by the Department of Justice for tax evasion for more than a year.  Last year he quietly paid $1 million in back taxes.   

The DOJ kept the probe under wraps.  There were no public details about how much Hunter owed.  Was this a partial settlement?  Did it include fines?  This is how justice works under the current Democrat administration. The Bidens are protected.  But those pesky laptop emails won't go away.  

Details of the emails are leaking every day suggesting the president not only was aware of his son's deals but may have used his influence to gain access for Hunter to the inner circles of business chieftains through his relationships with leaders in China and Ukraine.

Hunter's laptop contains a collection of incriminating documents and emails detailing schemes with foreign entities that doled out millions of dollars to gain access to then VP Joe Biden. Authenticated emails confirm Hunter's father attended dinners with foreign investors and business partners.

In addition, there are photographs of the president with Hunter's investors and partners.  The two jetted to China aboard Air Force Two where the president met with his son's business associates involved in deals to enrich Hunter. That's why the president's claims of "no knowledge "are ludicrous.

One email shows then VP Biden penned a letter of recommendation to Brown University on behalf of Hunter's Chinese business partner's son, Chris Li.  Hunter's firm Rosemont Seneca was at the time involved with Chinese investment firms Bohai Capital and BHR.

The Washington Post documented that the Communist Party-controlled CEFC energy giant paid $4.8 million to entities connected to Hunter over an 18 month period prior to Joe Biden's announcement that he was running for president.   Coincidence or influence peddling?

Another email on Hunter's laptop dispels the notion that Joe Biden was a bystander and not a participant in his son's business affairs.  In the 2017 email sent to a Washington office manager, Hunter asks to "have keys made for new office mates: Joe Biden, Jill Biden and Jim Biden."

Emails reveal that Hunter planned to also share the space with an "emissary" for the chairman of the Chinese energy company, CEFC. The so-called emissary represents Ye Jianming, the chairman of CEFC. Yet President Biden expects voters to believe he never spoke with Hunter about business deals.

Despite the mounting evidence, President Biden clings to his tattered, old answer on all subjects Hunter: 'I love my son and I knew nothing about this dealings and never spoke to him about the matter.'

Democrats often complain there are two systems of justice.  They actually are right.  There is one system for Democrats and one for Republicans. Powerful Democrats always manage to escape justice. Will this be another example?  Don't bet against it. 

Denying Reality About Transgender Athletes

The news media dove into the deep end of the ideological pool after a transgender swimmer won the NCAA women's championship. Coverage was effusive for the victor Lia Thomas, a biological male. Historic. Courageous.Transformative.  The media drowned viewers in its own gender delusion.

Lia Thomas swam three years on the University of Pennsylvania men's swim team as Will Thomas. He won no NCAA titles. After undergoing hormone therapy, Will became Lia.  Thomas switched to the women's team in 2020.  The university and the NCAA affirmed Will is now officially a female. 

Since adopting a new gender, Thomas has been unstoppable competing against women.  He or she has set school, Ivy League and NCAA records. In a 1650 freestyle final, the six-foot-one, 132-pounder vanquished women competitors, winning by 38 seconds.  That margin is unheard of in swimming. 

Many female swimmers criticized the NCAA for allowing this travesty. They were vilified as bigots.  In fairness, others supported Lia Thomas. They were lauded for showing compassion and respect for transgender athletes.  Today there are 31 transgender athletes competing in women's sports. 

Joining the chorus of adulation were college administrators, sports organizations, pro athletes, Hollywood, politicians, corporations, social media and LGBTQ activists.  Although they are few in number, their voices are amplified in the media. However, most Americans disagree with their views.

A Gallup poll last May found that 62% of those surveyed said they "felt transgender people should have to complete on teams with athletes of their birth gender."  Just 34% supported transgender athletes playing on teams that aligned with their gender identity. 

Gender ideologues disagree, claiming excluding women who are trans harms all women.  It reinforces stereotypes that women are weak, activists point out.  Gender zealots argue women don't need protection from the intrusion of transgenders in their sports. Their position denies science. 

No amount of estrogen can undo the biological benefits of male genetics and development. A 2020 study in the British Medical Journal concluded that athletes transitioning retain a competitive advantage against women even after two years of hormone treatment.   

Weeks after Thomas demolished women's competitors, the Biden Administration announced plans to amend Title IX regulations that ushered in an era of equal resources for facilities, training, recruitment and scholarship for female college athletics 

Under the guise of combating discrimination, the administration's Education Department plans to endorse biological males to compete in women's athletics in the name of equity.  This action would undo 50-years of women's progress in college athletics achieved under Title IX.

State lawmakers are fighting to preserve equal competition in women's sports.  A total of 37 states have introduced bills to keep women athletics for biological women.  Nine states have approved such measures. Expect Biden to unleash the Department of Justice to attack the laws as hate legislation.

The administration won't stop with colleges.  High schools sports will soon be in the bullseye. Public schools will cave because the Department of Education will jerk funding in retribution. For that reason, school districts don't dare  challenge the authority of Washington. Most will surrender without a peep.

In a sign of how far this ideological illusion is embedded in the culture, Supreme Court nominee Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dodged a senator's question on the definition of a woman at the Senate hearings.  Her response: "I'm not a biologist." Her reply reveals more about the culture than the nominee.

What's ironic is less than 0.6% of people identify as transgender, according to a study by UCLA's Williams Institute. That amounts to about 1.4 million Americans.  Progressives and activists demand that society caters to this tiny minority.  The other 99.4% of Americans must bow to this ideology. 

All sports are underpinned by competition and fairness. Biological males have no right to compete against women.  Female athletes harbor no ill will toward the LBGTQ community.  Many insist they respect the transgender revolution. The issue is fairness not discrimination.

Our nation is saturated with identity phobia. Americans must rebel against the cultural doctrine that biology is just an identity choice. The Creator made male and female.  He was not confused. 

Do Parents Have a Say In Their Kids Curriculum?

Skirmishes are erupting across America over parental involvement in the curriculum of public schools. Teachers unions and many school boards are crusading for their right to exercise control over what a child learns. Parents are pushing back, fighting for the imperative to influence curriculum content for their kids.

The confrontation over the competing ideas on education is sparking a national debate that first ignited in Virginia and has spread like a wildfire from big cities to rural school districts. Online learning during the pandemic, opened the eyes of many parents, who were vaguely aware of what their kids were taught.

The New York Times, in an effort to sabotage the nascent parental movement, echoed the arguments of an education establishment invested in mandating every aspect of a child's learning. The Times headline could have been written by the establishment:

"Parents claim they have the right to shape their kids school curriculum.  They don't"

The Times authors conceded that parents have an obligation to raise and educate their children. Then the writers added: "This right, however, does not mean that public schools must cater to parents individual ideas about education."

In The Times view, parents can send their children to private schools if they don't like the curriculum.  This patrician attitude is exactly what is wrong with today's educators, teachers and schools.  If parents don't like what their kids are being taught, then find another school.  If only most parents had that option.

Teachers unions are chagrined that any parent has the audacity to tell an educator what content might be inappropriate for their children. Unions view parental involvement as a nuisance.  Here's a sample:

"In our constitutional order, children's freedoms take priority over parental freedoms.  Given the overriding importance of schooling to democracy, our laws elevate and protect the rights of children to learn and to grow as citizens," the educational lobby insists.

Educational elitists compare the current wave of parental 'interference' to segregation.  In that era, they claim parents fought to preserve racial division in schools. With Critical Race Theory a current lightning rod for parents, the education establishment is playing the race card to silence dissent.

Ironically, African-American parents as well of those of mixed-raced children are among the most vocal opponents.  A Nevada mother of a mixed-race son sued the public school over a curriculum that teaches Critical Race Theory tenants, which elevate racial identity over individuality. 

Despite the Times claims, unions and educators are on the wrong side of the law.  Federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions have reinforced the rights of parents to be involved in their children's education. They are in charge of their child's learning, not unelected teachers, education bureaucrats or unions.

In 1925, the Supreme Court in the case of Pierce versus the Society of Sisters ruled: "The child is not the mere creature of the state...the state of Oregon, by forcing parents to place their children in public schools, unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians..."

Although educators dismiss the nearly century-old decision as outdated, the court's ruling has been cited in more than a 100 Supreme Court decisions and nearly 70 by lower courts. The concept is enshrined in American education.  Why change it now?  What is different today?  What are educators afraid of?

In 1978, the Congress passed a federal law that protects parents right to review curriculum.  The law, in the form of an amendment to existing legislation, is known as the "Protection of Parents Rights." Under the act, parents have the right to review a copy of their child's curriculum.

Despite the rulings, courts continue to tinker with the right of parental involvement in education. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court in Fields versus Palmdale School District ruled the foundational right to control the upbringing of a child "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door."

The education establishment usurps the ruling to justify its efforts to fend off the parental movement.  With air cover provided by the legacy media, the establishment has mounted a disinformation campaign to brand parents efforts as anti-LGBTQ, anti-African American and anti-sex-education.

In addition, the education establishment blames conservatives for using this as a hot button political issue, while accusing them of not being interested in the welfare of children. Despite the bluster, the education fraternity is losing because many states have moved to expand parental involvement in education.

Indiana, Georgia, Florida and Texas--to name a few--have seized the initiative to fashion new laws to reinforce the rights of parents to be the primary decision makers in all matters involving their children. That includes protecting children from age-inappropriate classroom materials.

In Georgia, the House version of a parental right bill gives parents the right to review all classroom materials, the right to access all records relating to their children, bans the teaching of "divisive concepts" on race and prohibits transgender girls from playing on girls sports teams.

Democrats claim the bills are election fodder for Republicans and nothing more without acknowledging the right of parents to be involved in the education of their children.  They allege the movement could worsen an antagonistic relationship between parents and teachers.

Notice how parents are painted as the villains.  The education establishment, which contends it values parental involvement, wants to control what students are taught, irrespective of the views of the parents. Education elitists value parents tax dollars but not their rights.

Federal, state and local spending on kindergarten through twelfth grade in the U.S. totaled $734.2 billion in 2021, according to the National Center for Education Studies.  The federal Department of Education contributed $73.5 billion of that amount.  Those billions were paid by parents and those without children.

Taxpayers, especially parents, deserve the right to demand their children get an appropriate education.  Those with the financial means are deciding to pull their children out of  public schools. Eleven percent of students were home schooled last year. Homeschooling leaped five-fold for black families. 

There are 34,576 private schools in the U.S., serving 5.7 million kindergarten through twelfth grade students.  Private education accounts for 25% of the nation's schools and 10% of students. Enrollment is declining in public schools, which lost 1.2 million students at the start of the 2022 school year. 

The education monopoly is showing signs of cracks.  The erosion of support for public schools is hastened by the education establishment's hostile attitude toward parents' request for curriculum transparency.  Ignoring parents will one day doom the public education system to irrelevance.    

Biden's Blame Game For Skyrocketing Gas Prices

President Biden's speech on banning Russian energy was littered with misrepresentations about the oil crisis.  Mr. Biden blamed petroleum firms for excessive oil prices while denying his administration's war on oil and gas was partly responsible.  

Before the announcement, Press Secretary Jen Psaki had spent days brushing off suggestions the president had any intention of sanctioning Russian oil. Her explanation was a ban would pump up gas prices, which would impact Americans.  Her boss wanted to hurt Putin not Americans, she said. 

So why did the president pivot? Mr. Biden was not only being pressured by his own party, but an overwhelming majority of Americans support a ban.  A Wall Street Journal poll prior to the Biden ban found 79% of registered voters, including 88% of Democrats, favored sanctions on Russian oil. 

After finally bowing to political pressure, Mr. Biden savaged Putin in his announcement but saved some of his indignation for the American oil industry.  Here are the three most egregious distortions of the facts from his March 8 speech. Quotes from the official version released by The White House:

"First, it's simply not true that my administration or policies are holding back domestic energy production"

During his first days in office,  President Biden signed executive orders implementing sweeping changes in energy policy.  The chief executive halted new oil and gas leasing and permits on federal lands and offshore.  He also paused the leasing programs in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Wyoming.

In addition, the president withdrew permits of the Keystone XL pipeline.  Psaki keeps reminding the media there is no crude in the pipeline, therefore, shutting down construction has no impact. Her explanation may be technically correct, but it's grossly misleading.   

Construction was expected to be completed this year on the $9 billion pipeline from Canada to Nebraska.  Estimates are the pipeline will have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil every day to the U.S.  But Biden's administration went even further than Keystone, 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) signaled it would reconsider pipeline projects, which would delay the permitting process for natural gas and Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) infrastructure. These measures are handcuffing oil and gas producers. 

Perhaps, the most harmful blow to American gas and oil producers was an International Energy Agency report calling for the world to stop drilling for gas and oil immediately.  The report, embraced by the Biden Administration, has ignited an activist movement to strangle investment in oil and natural gas.

Administration supporters have targeted institutional investors, banks and large pension funds to halt oil and gas investments. Shareholder activists put a bullseye on Exxon Mobil, after it announced a hike in oil exploration last year.  Other big oil companies are being hectored to invest less in fossil fuels. 

The activists have succeeded in turning off the spigot for oil producers while instilling uncertainty in the oil industry's future. Without assurances the administration will avoid imposing even harsher restrictions, producers will be hesitant to ramp up exploration or to build new pipelines.

To further discourage exploration and production, Democrats led by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have introduced legislation to impose a new tax to punish oil companies. The senator justified the tax as a way to curb what she termed "Big Oil profiteering."

Is there more evidence needed as proof Democrats and their leader President Biden have used everything at their disposal to hobble the oil and gas industry and discourage production? 

"Second this crisis is a stark reminder: To protect our economy over the long term, we need to become energy independent."  

This sound bite suggests Mr. Biden wants America to start producing more energy immediately.  But that is not reality.  His plan is to transition to clean energy, primarily wind turbines and solar. Few oppose clean energy, but the transition will take years if not decades.

In the interim, what is the plan to supply enough energy to run American businesses and supply electricity and gas to households? Higher prices will not only damage the economy but will be a tax on those who can least afford to fill up their vehicles and heat and cool their homes. 

When Mr. Biden came into office, the U.S. was energy independent. For the first time in 50 years, America was producing more oil than it consumed.  The U.S. had a 4% surplus of domestic oil and natural gas production for export. Since then, domestic oil and gas production has fallen to a 4% deficit.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that in February of 2020, before the pandemic, America's crude oil production averaged 12,826 barrels a day.  In 2021, the daily production of crude oil never reached 12,000 barrels. 

If the U.S. was energy independent, the nation could mitigate the world's oil and gas turmoil.  Prices at the pump would still rise because the price of crude oil is set on the global market, however, the U.S. would be more insulated from dramatic spikes by relying on American production rather than foreign sources.    

"They (oil companies) have 9,000 permits to drill now.  They could be drilling right now, yesterday, last week, last year.  They have 9,000 to drill onshore that are already approved."

Mr. Biden is either ill informed about the nature of permitting or is deliberately obfuscating the issue to blame oil companies for high gas prices. Oil producers currently hold 9,173 approved permits to drill on federal and Indian lands. Many of the permits were issued under President Trump.

Mr. Biden and Psaki both used the permit issue to create the impression that oil companies are deliberately avoiding drilling. Permits do not guarantee the leased lands hold enough oil to be economically feasible to drill.   In any case, holding a permit is just the first step.

Before drilling for oil, producers must locate an existing pipeline or build a new one to connect to the existing pipeline. Rigs, crews and other equipment must be secured.  Mr. Biden and Psaki made it seem oil companies could just flip a switch and crude oil would gush from the ground.

Thousands of unused permits are not uncommon.  It happens under every presidential administration.  This is not a new phenomena.  Oil companies have more than 24 million acres under lease today, but close to one-half are not producing oil.  

Mr. Biden's use of the permit data is sheer political chicanery.    

Gas prices had rocketed to new highs in the U.S. before the Russian invasion. When Mr. Biden took office, the price of a regular gallon of gas at the pump was $2.39.  It had been as low as $1.80 in May of 2020.  Long before Putin's invasion, gasoline hit $3.39 a gallon on February 2 of this year. 

Prices for a barrel of West Texas Crude were $55 when Mr. Biden moved into the Oval Office.  By February 2, prices had swollen to $88.26 a barrel, a hike of 60.4%. 

Some administration officials and Democratic Party progressives believe steep gas prices will prompt more Americans to switch to electric cars.  They view the run up in price as a welcome development. These tin-earred politicians have no regard for the inflationary impact on average Americans.      

No doubt Putin's war triggered higher oil prices.  But Mr. Biden's policies had already fueled a 61% increase in gasoline. If the Biden Administration continues to hamstring oil and gas production, the economic pain will worsen for average Americans.  Blaming Putin and oil companies is not a solution.  

Thinking of Buying a New Car? Good Luck!

There has never been a worse time to buy a new or used car.  Car dealership inventories are skimpy. Some automobile models, especially lower priced cars, are nowhere to be found.  Prices for cars are soaring near historic highs. Forget deals. Car buyers are now paying above sticker price.  

The automobile market is reeling after the pandemic upended the balance of supply and demand. Supplies of semiconductors used in today's cars and trucks remain a scare commodity. Semiconductors are a critical component in today's feature-rich cars.  

The chips power back-up cameras, blind spot detection, adaptive cruise control, heads up displays, call phone integration, emergency braking, bluetooth connection, power management and many other features buyers want.  That is driving the demand for semiconductors at time when supplies are tight.    

This has triggered near record prices. The average new vehicle price in January reached $44,905.  The previous high for any month in history was set last December when prices hit $45,283, according to J.D. Power. Industry sources are forecasting the average will top $47,000 before the end of the year.  

In January, 80% of new car buyers paid more than sticker price, reports Edmunds, an online site that tracks pricing. Average buyers paid $900 above sticker, while luxury car shoppers shelled out $1,300 above sticker, according to data compiled by Kelley Blue Book.  

The manufacturer's suggested retail price (MRSP) jumped nearly 15% from January a year ago and $7,000 higher than the average price paid before the pandemic began roiling the automobile and light truck industry.  Customers price negotiations with salespeople are a relic of the good old days.

Some unethical dealers are tacking on up to $10,000 onto the sticker price of hard-to-get luxury cars and trucks, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.  Buyers in some markets are driving to neighboring cities for a better deal.  Manufacturers are beginning to crack down on price gouging.    

Spiraling new car prices and limited choices have steered buyers to used cars.  But there are even fewer bargains to be found.  Used cars now sell for an average of 42% more than before the pandemic.   Good luck trying to find a car under $15,000.  Used car prices have added one percentage point to inflation.    

Auto inventories on dealer lots are stingy.  According to the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) inventory levels at the end of last year totaled 1.12 million units, down 59.1% compared to the number at the end of December 2020.  January's inventory sank below one million units.

With fewer cars, auto dealers are selling vehicles as fast as they arrive on the lot.  In January, nearly 53% of vehicles were sold within 10 days of being transported to the dealer, says J. D. Power.  That would be great news for dealerships, if their lots were jam-packed with cars and trucks.  

Auto manufacturers sold 14,697,837 cars and light trucks last year, the lowest since 2012, and 15.8% lower than 2020. Demand is strong enough to support 17 million in sales this year, according to research site CarGurus.com.  But until inventories return to normal, total sales will remain suppressed.

Despite the depressed sales volume, G.M., Ford and Tesla all reported record revenues in 2021.  With semiconductors at a premium, auto manufacturers shifted to producing higher-margin vehicles, including light trucks and luxury models to fatten profits. 

Pandemic-induced shutdowns continue to hamper semiconductor supplies. The shortage has squeezed lead times.  The gap between when a semiconductor chip is ordered and then delivered is at a record high of 22 weeks, despite some improvement late last year. Chip shortages are expected through 2023.

Car manufactures are taking matters into their own hands. Currently car makers rely on Taiwan and South Korea, which account for a combined 87% of the global semiconductor market.  Chip makers shipped a record 1.15 trillion semiconductor units in 2021. Global sales topped $559 billion.

Ford signed an agreement with U.S. based semiconductor supplier Global Foundries to collaborate on developing microchips for Ford vehicles.  GM is forging ties with San Diego-based Qualcomm and NXP Semiconductors, a company headquartered in the Netherlands but with a factory in Austin. 

In an effort to reduce its reliance on China for chips, last year Tesla turned in house, switching to a new semiconductor technology using silicon carbide materials for its chips. The unique properties of silicon carbide made it more energy efficient and more durable than traditional silicon wafers. 

That is good news for American automobile manufacturers.  However, ramping up production at Ford and GM will take years.  

American car buyers likely will be hanging on to their cars and trucks a little longer.  The University of Michigan, which has been polling consumers for more than 50 years, found that more people today than ever before say it's a bad time to buy a car. 

This is another case of American dependence on overseas companies for strategic components. Car makers are captives of chip fabrication firms in Taiwan and South Korea. It may take years, but at least GM and Ford are headed in the right direction, aligning with American chip suppliers.  

A turnabout in the semiconductor supply chain can't come soon enough for American car and truck buyers. 

Putin's War: A Sober Lesson For U.S. and Its Allies

Kremlin thug Vladimir Putin strutted on the world stage for weeks, daring any country to intervene with his plan to invade Ukraine. The West, including the U.S., bloviated and did little else.  Sensing weakness, the former KGB agent unleashed his military on Europe's second largest country.

While Putin issued chilling warnings about Western inference, President Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken threatened sanctions, but appeared helpless in the face of the Russian pariah's threats. Their tone was defeatist. It was a striking juxtaposition on the projection of strength. 

Russia's mafioso-president was relying on U.S. vacillation.  After all, Putin had invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea, intervened in Syria's civil war, interfered with American elections and waged cyber warfare. In response, the U.S. inflicted sanctions, which proved inept and short-lived.  

It wasn't until Russian troops stormed into Ukraine that the U.S. and Europe levied sanctions targeting Kremlin banks, imports and rich oligarchs.  Even as sanctions were unfurled, Mr. Biden admitted the restrictions would not deter Putin.  The West played defense while Russia was on the offensive.

The ruthless dictator's ambitions are to reclaim territories of the old Soviet Union and to defang the NATO military alliance.  Ukraine had been lobbying NATO for membership. Putin loathed  the idea of NATO forces and weapons camped on his border.

Europe is economically handcuffed by its reliance on Russian natural gas.  The European continent gets nearly 40% of its natural gas from Putin, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA).  In addition, Russia ships 48% of its crude oil production to European nations.

Germany depends on Russia for 65% of its natural gas. Poland gets 50% of its supply from Russia.  Italy receives 43% of its natural gas from Russia, while France imports 16% of its needs.  Smaller countries, such as Czech Republic, Hungry and Slovakia, are nearly totally dependent on Russian gas.  

Those figures explain why Europe balked at diplomatic suggestions to embargo Russian oil and natural gas, the so-called nuclear option. Today, if Russia turns off the spigot, European homes and factories go cold and dark. Natural gas prices would skyrocket, crippling the entire continent's economy.

The United States, despite its title as the world's largest oil producer, also is ensnared in the Russian bear trap.  

Until the invasion, few Americans knew the U.S. is also dependent on Russian crude.  Beginning in 2021, our nation began importing between 12 and 26 million barrels of crude oil from Russia every month.  In November, the latest data available, Russia shipped 17.8 million barrels to this country.  

For context, the U.S. uses about 18.9 million barrels of crude oil every day, according to the EIA.  President Biden pleaded last year for Russia and OPEC to ramp up oil production to ease U.S. gasoline prices.  OPEC ignored Biden's overture, while Russia willingly acceded.

Biden surrendered American oil independence when he became president.  One of his first acts was to cancel permits for the Keystone XL pipeline, a 1,200 mile project from the Canadian province of Albert stretching down to Nebraska to join an existing pipeline. 

The pipeline was designed to carry 830,000 barrels of Canadian crude to the U.S. every day. Through executive orders and regulatory maneuvers, the Biden Administration has made its mission to decrease American oil and natural gas production, leading to higher prices at the gasoline pump.

Europe made a deal with the devil in the Kremlin because it had few crude oil and natural gas reserves. Decades ago, Putin schemed to exploit Russia's rich natural resources to make Europe a vassal of Russia. 

Russia received an unexpected assist from environmentalists. Germany, in particular,  embarked on a Green Energy diet, turning to wind and solar power.  Nuclear facilities were unplugged.  Coal burning plants shuttered.  However, the unreliability of alternative energy created power gaps.

To meet energy needs, Europe turned to Russia, which had laid the groundwork to seize the opportunity.  Putin bulked up Gazprom, a Kremlin controlled company, into a natural gas powerhouse. Over two decades, Russia constructed natural gas pipelines into Europe to supply the continent. 

In 2011, Russia turned on the spigot on the first pipeline, called Nord Stream 1.  A second line was added a year later.  The 759-mile pipeline runs through Ukraine and Poland, which creates a potential problem for Putin.  Germany is the largest customer for Russian natural gas on the continent.

With an eye to expanding its European footprint, Gazprom began constructing a 764-mile long natural gas pipeline, dubbed Nord Stream 2, in 2016.  The pipeline traverses under the Baltic Sea from Russia straight to Germany's Baltic coast.  The undersea line will double current natural gas capacity.

Although Gazprom owns the entire pipeline, it only paid half of the $11 billion in costs.  The remaining costs were shared by Shell and European natural gas and energy companies: Austria's OMCV, France's Engie and Germany's Uniper and Wintershall DEA.  Europe is heavily invested in the pipeline.

In the wake of the Ukraine invasion, Germany's new chancellor Olaf Scholz called off certification of the pipeline.  The largely symbolic move will have little immediate impact on Russia since Nord Stream 2, completed last year, was already on hold, awaiting European Commission and German approval.

Germany had green lighted the new pipeline after the Biden Administration last year lifted sanctions on the project.  Those sanctions had been ordered by President Trump.  Only after Russian troops entered Ukraine did Mr. Biden reverse course and reimpose the sanctions. 

Those sanctions will not stop Russian natural gas from flowing through Nord Stream 1 pipelines to supply Europe with natural gas.  In fact, Putin has virtually guaranteed he will continue to pump natural gas without interruption because it enriches Russia. Gazprom even raised prices before the invasion.

With unrest in Ukraine, the U.S. and Europe will soon begin feeling the pain of sky-high gasoline prices at the pump. Any disruption of oil production by Russia will ignite a gold rush for a crude oil.  In January, the global benchmark for a barrel of oil passed $90.  

Oil traders are predicting a barrel of crude oil will touch the $100 milestone soon.   That compares to $41.96 in 2020 and $54.25 in 2017.  A rise of $10 a barrel for crude oil correlates to approximately a 25-cent per gallon rise in gasoline prices.  Experts are forecasting $5 to $6 gallon prices in the U.S.  

Putin wins no matter what Germany or the West does.  Rising prices for crude oil make Russian oil and natural gas more valuable on the open market.  And Putin just inked a $117.5 billion deal with China, to keep Russian exports of oil and natural gas flowing despite any delays in Nord Stream 2.

There are two lessons for the U.S. and Europe. First, they can no longer kowtow to the unhinged Putin. His threats have to be met with strength and an immediate response.  Also, the allies should work together to support a regime change in Russia. As long as Putin is in power, the world is not safe  

Secondly, dependence on Russia for a strategic resource, such as energy, gives Putin the bargaining chip he needs to discourage interference with his expansion plans and his effort to weaken NATO's resolve to come to the aid of other countries in future confrontations. 

Energy independence would help insulate Americans from spiraling prices for crude oil, triggered by the Russian invasion. In addition, the U.S. could assist Europe by shipping crude oil and liquified natural gas to ease the continent's dependence on Russia.  

However, the Biden Administration has made it clear it will not unshackle energy production, a decision that leaves the U.S. at the mercy of OPEC and Russia for crude oil to satisfy our nation's energy requirements. 

Russia's incursion into Ukraine is a pivotal point for the world.  These are dangerous times. How the U.S. and its allies react will determine how other rogue nations, including China, Iran and North Korea, view the West's willingness to discourage future military aggression.