An Average Citizen’s Views On The Southern Border

I may not necessarily be an “average” citizen, as I’m also a Texan and living in a state directly affected daily by what is happening on our border with Mexico gives me a closer insight into the impact of present policy more than someone living in a non-border state. I consider myself to be average in every other way.

A lot has been said about the current administration’s policies being directly responsible for the increased flow of Fentanyl into the United States and the deaths that increase has caused, insofar as illegal immigrants being the direct reason for the rising numbers.  Facts show that the majority of Fentanyl entering the United States is smuggled in by our own citizens through legal ports of entry in coordination with cartels and transnational criminal groups.

Those facts normally fail to mention that  the drain on resources caused by the enormous influx of those seeking asylum is also hugely responsible.  Agents who might otherwise be concentrating on investigating drug trafficking are dealing with inordinate numbers of migrants.

Here are a few facts you might find interesting.  I did at least. Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris as his running partner in early August of 2020.  He then, after inauguration in 2021, named her in March of the same year to lead efforts to slow migration across the U.S.-Mexico border.  As of today, I fail to see that that was an intelligent choice, as it doesn’t seem that she’s done anything at all to accomplish the task she was given.

What’s interesting about that?  On June 18th of 2020, just a little shy of two months before being chosen as Biden’s running mate and nine months before being given the job of exercising control over the southern border. Bill S.4011 Immigration Enforcement Moratorium Act was introduced  by Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts. There were four co-sponsors of this bill, one of which was Kamala Harris, then Democratic senator from California.  The bill has gone no further since its introduction, but the text of the bill is what makes this interesting, particularly in light of one of its co-sponsors being put at the helm of border control.

And this-   Criminal Noncitizen Statistics Fiscal Year 2023

Just an opinion from an average citizen.

Responsible Journalism, A Thing of the Past?

The Society of Professional Journalists was created in 1909 and have the following tenets in their Code of Ethics:
Seek Truth and Report It
Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Minimize Harm-
Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
Act Independently-
The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.
Be Accountable and Transparent-
Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.

There are many other statements of expected conduct listed beneath those headings as well and make for an interesting read when considering what may be reported in various publications or seen on  different news channels.
During the last few weeks leading up to the 2020 Presidential election much attention was given to Hunter Biden from the Trump camp  about his supposed involvement with a Chinese fund and monies he may have received via that avenue and whether his father, Trump’s main opposition, Democratic candidate Joe Biden, had any knowledge of that involvement.  Also questioned was Hunter’s stint on the board of Burisma.

I was doing some research into the accusations and found an article from The Washington Post dated October 13, 2019 with a dual byline by Michael Kranish and Anna Fifield.  According to the information listed there about these two, Mr. Kranish is a national political investigative reporter, and Ms. Fifield is a former Beijing bureau chief.  With those type of credentials I imagined they’d have some real insight into the article titled,  Hunter Biden says he will resign from Chinese company board and won’t take foreign work if his father is president.”
Having done a bit of research myself into these events I thought it would be interesting to see how our information lined up.  The gist of their coverage as I’m seeing it is this-

Li, the Chinese investor, would become general manager of BHR, the “first cross-border investment private equity firm” to be registered in Shanghai’s free-trade zone, according to Chinese business-credit record search engine Tianyancha.

Archer created a new company, which he wholly owned, to form a joint partnership with a Chinese firm run by Li, according to those involved in the deal.”

“It’s not clear whether Hunter Biden did anything other than provide a high-profile name — and a connection to the vice president of the United States — that might lure investors.”

Li did not respond to phone calls, a fax, emails or a hand-delivered letter requesting comment. BHR took down its website after Trump’s comments attracted attention to the fund. The Washington Post sought to reach Archer for comment through his lawyer, who did not respond to the request.

“The archived website shows a picture of Hunter Biden, identified as a director, alongside Archer, the vice chairman, and a number of Chinese executives.”

The following is why I’m questioning the integrity of this article. How is it possible that at the same time these two reporters wrote this article I also wrote an article (questioning some things I didn’t believe The New York Times got quite right) and found the answer to one of their most important questions and I didn’t have to request that information from anyone, Devon Archer, Li, their lawyers, or otherwise?

It’s said a picture is worth a thousand words. I have to agree in this case.

In that last quote you’ll see where they’ve referenced “the archived website”.  The archived website they refer to may or may not be a capture by The Wayback Machine, or The Web Archives, whichever you’d like to call it, but there is an archived version there and it’s the one I’m using.  One of my questions is why didn’t they dig a little deeper and find what I found?  Let me start with that first quote-

Scroll over images for a magnified view.  Check the date at the top to see when the capture was taken. 

Now note what I’ve highlighted in yellow on BHR’s site; Rosemont Seneca Partners (“RSP”). This is important.  Why?  Because RSP is a company Hunter Biden created with his partners, one of which was Devon Archer.

screen capture

Here are the members of RSP on October 30, 2011.  Notice who the chairman is?

Rosemont Seneca

Is this the supposed company created by Devon Archer that he owns wholly alone?  I think not.  If you’ll notice the date, it’s October of  2011, so it could be said that perhaps by the time BHR was created in 2013 that Hunter Biden was no longer a part of Rosemont Seneca except for the following:

Managing partner

Now just to make matters more interesting, take a look at the original overview from October of 2014 on the first image, and compare it to these below from March of 2018 and the other from September of 2019.  Why was Rosemont Seneca Partners dropped from the information?  If that isn’t interesting I don’t know what is.

It’s not like this is some major secret that no one can locate in the “archives”.  Wikipedia even has a page dedicated to RSP. So how is it that these esteemed journalists from The Washington Post managed to find archives with a picture of Hunter Biden shown on the management team page as a director (even though they just linked it), but had to ask questions of people (to which they received no reply) to try to arrive at the answers they were  seeking?  All they had to do was research a little further or open their eyes.

It’s painfully clear that the fund was created with the help of RSP.  You know.  The company Hunter Biden was the chairman of.  How’s that for responsible journalism?  It was also said that BHR closed their website because of all the attention from Donald Trump.  Um, OK.  Where did the Internet Archives get their captures from?

I’m not even going to touch on the Burisma portion of said article.  I’ll leave this link for the Staff report though, from the following committees- U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs  and the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance Majority – if you’d like to see what they have to say about it all.  Actually, I’ll give you their conclusion before the link-

The records acquired by the Committees also show that Hunter Biden and his family
were involved in a vast financial network that connected them to foreign nationals and foreign
governments across the globe. Hunter Biden and Devon Archer, in particular, formed significant
and consistent financial relationships with the corrupt oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky during their
time working for Burisma, and their firms made millions of dollars from that association while
Joe Biden was vice president and the public face of the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy.
Rosemont Seneca Thornton, an investment firm co-founded by Hunter Biden, received $3.5
million in a wire transfer from Elena Baturina, who allegedly received illegal construction
contracts from her husband, the then-mayor of Moscow. Moreover, Archer’s apparent receipt of
money for a car from Kenges Rakishev of Kazakhstan while Vice President Biden was in Kyiv is
especially concerning in light of the timing. And finally, Biden and Archer’s work with Chinese
nationals connected to the Communist regime illustrate the deep financial connections that
accelerated while Joe Biden was vice president and continued after he left office.
The Chairmen’s investigation has faced many obstacles from the minority and from
executive agencies that have failed to comply with document requests. Accordingly, there
remains much work to be done.

It’s a lengthy read but VERY interesting. Perhaps Mr. Kranish and Ms. Fifield should give it a look.
Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns

Constables Immune To Covid

I had to go to downtown Houston today and into the Harris County Criminal Courthouse where the first thing they do is hand you a mask that has got to be one of the most uncomfortable types made in accordance with this whole Covid charade. They expect you to wear it too. 😂😂😂

Anyone care to guess why the constables standing watch aren’t wearing one? I was about to ask when my son guessed my intention and hustled us off to the elevators before I could try to get myself into trouble.  

Talk about your double standards. It’s OK for the law to flout their own rules but I know damned well if I were to do the same I would have been made to do as they wanted or escorted out of the building at the least 

Maybe there’s something special about the uniform that shields them from “contagion” or maybe they just don’t care to follow the same rules as are laid out for the rest of us. What I do know is it’s bullshit, and really grinds my gears. 😁

Where Is The Periodic Transaction Report From The Pelosi Purchase Of Nvidia Call Options?

Let me begin by saying that I am way out of my league when dealing with stock options and calls and puts.  I am, however, totally within it when it comes to spotting shady things, be those trees, canopies, or people trying to cover their asses.

OK.  The story here is that Nancy Pelosi’s husband had bought Nvidia stock by using call options he’d purchased and then sold for a loss because the purchase was being questioned due to its proximity to a bill that would likely be passed (and now has been) that gave billions in subsidies to United States producers of semiconductors.  The theory is that he had knowledge from his wife that the bill would be passed and that his purchase of the stock was insider trading.  The Pelosi’s were quick to refute these claims and it was stated that he’d bought the call options a year before and couldn’t have known then about the bill or it’s likeliness to pass.

According to the Ethics In Government Act members of Congress who receive certain pay rates are required to file Periodic Transaction Reports.  Below you’ll see the report filed by Nancy Pelosi where it shows the stock purchase plus a couple of sales of other stocks.

In the description of the Nvidia stock purchase it states: Exercised 200 call options (20,000 shares) expiring 6/17/22 at a strike price of $100. It then shows the amount being between 1 and 5 million dollars.  Bear with me here.

In the next image of the Periodic Transaction Report it shows where the description states that 25,000 shares were sold on 7/26/22 with their value being between 1and 5 million dollars. Then below that there’s a comment that states 25,000 shares were sold at an average price of $165.05 for a total loss of $341,365.00. Loss? And how did 20,000 turn into 25,000? Even though I’m a bit out of my league in the math department as well, let’s do some anyway, but first it might be helpful to understand how a strike price on a call option is defined.  According to Investopedia:

Strike prices are used in derivatives (mainly options) trading. Derivatives are financial products whose value is based (derived) on the underlying asset, usually another financial instrument. The strike price is a key variable of call and put options. For example, the buyer of a call option would have the right, but not the obligation, to buy the underlying security in the future at the specified strike price.

Now if I’m understanding this correctly and Nancy’s husband bought the 20,000 shares at $100 each that would be 2 million dollars he was out of pocket.  Now we’re into the math. If the shares were sold at $165.05 you’d subtract the $100 strike price and multiply 20,000 by $65.05 to determine the loss. That comes to $373,750.00.  A bit more than the $341,365.00 stated on the FTR.  To be fair though it does say “at an average price”. But I don’t understand this either, how is that a loss if he’s selling for $65.05 more than he paid? LOL Where’s a broker when you need one?

What confuses me (other than the obvious) is where in that Periodic Transaction Report where the sales of the stock are reported it shows the amount of stocks being quite a bit different than the original purchase reported.  Is this just more of Nancy Pelosi’s inability to do anything correctly or is she confused or hoping that no one will catch this vast discrepancy?

I surely hope whoever is in charge of viewing these PTR’s notices the difference and requests an explanation.  I’d also like to see the original PTR of the call options purchase.  I think that would be extremely valuable in determining if they actually were purchased “a year ago”, and if a PTR had even been filed for those.

Whatever the date, I know that 20,000 is not 25,000.  Someone needs to look into the differences between these two PTR’s and they should also request as I said, the original PTR of the purchase of the call options.

Either there’s some hanky panky going on here, or Nancy’s screwed this up like she’s done everything else she’s had her fingers in.  Or like I said to begin with, I’m totally out of my league and don’t know what the hell I’m writing about. I do know one thing after looking into all of this; I’ll let professionals do my investing.