“Mr. President‚ it is time to tap the brakes on the unrealistic government electric vehicle mandate.” That’s the pointed message a whopping 3‚882 automobile dealers from coast to coast sent in a joint open letter to President Joe Biden made public last week. We couldn’t have said it better—or more succinctly—ourselves. The auto dealers’ nine-paragraph letter explains—more politely and deferentially than we would have—to the president that his administration’s EV mandate is not just unrealistic‚ but unachievable as the requisite technology and infrastructure stand today (and well into the future)‚ to say nothing of the lack of consumer buy-in. That the administration’s unilateral mandate calling for 60% of new-vehicle sales nationwide to be EVs by 2030 and rising to 66% just two years later is unrealistic is not at all surprising. That’s because it was created out of whole cloth by environmental extremists inside and outside the Biden administration with little or no understanding of—or regard for—market economics and business. An auto dealer hands the keys to the proud owners of a new car. Electric vehicles remain a small share of the overall car market. (Photo: WestEnd61/Getty Images) The letter from the auto dealers—representing every major brand and nameplate sold in the country—acknowledges that many “excellent” EVs are currently on the market. “The reality‚ however‚ is that electric vehicle demand today is not keeping up with the large influx … arriving at our dealerships prompted by the current regulations. [They] are stacking up on our lots‚” the dealers’ letter read. After initial “hope and hype‚” they wrote‚ “enthusiasm has stalled‚” and the EVs are not selling as fast as they are arriving on dealership lots and in showrooms—“even with deep price cuts‚ manufacturer incentives and generous government incentives.” The latter include federal tax credits of up to $7‚500‚ which amount to regressive tax subsidies for well-to-do liberals who can already afford EVs to satisfy their virtue-signaling desires. But there would be no need for those inducements if there were broad consumer demand for EVs. To some extent‚ it’s akin to offering a $2-off coupon on a bag of brand-name cat litter to people who don’t have (or want) a cat‚ albeit on a macro scale. At the root of the problem is the attempt by the Biden administration (and by the governors of several blue states) to contravene the economic law of supply and demand by stipulating what consumers will be allowed to buy whether they want to or not. The government also has no business telling an industry what it must produce and attempt to sell‚ even—or especially when—consumers don’t appear to want it. “We are agnostic as to what we sell. Our business is to provide customers with vehicles that meet the needs of their budgets and lifestyles‚” the dealers averred in their letter. They added that “the majority of customers are simply not ready to make the change.” The reasons a scant 6% of new-car sales in 2021 were battery-electric vehicles are manifold‚ not the least of which is cost. The entry-level Tesla‚ for example‚ starts at $40‚000‚ while the electric version of the Ford F-150 pickup truck goes for about $25‚000 more than the gasoline-powered model. There are also stumbling blocks to sales relating to the charging of EVs‚ starting with: How do homeowners without garages or apartment or condominium dwellers charge them? Moreover‚ there are not now nearly enough charging stations widely available across the country‚ especially in rural areas‚ to plug into‚ even for the relatively few EVs on the road today‚ much less the infrastructure for the numbers of vehicles the Biden administration demands less than a decade from now. Besides‚ who wants to spend hours recharging a car when it takes only minutes to refuel a gasoline-powered vehicle at a filling station? And do we really need to restate the obvious about the dangers inherent in being dependent on an economic adversary‚ China‚ for EV batteries or‚ at minimum‚ for the rare earth minerals their manufacturing requires? The open letter from the nearly 3‚900 auto dealers—including 98 from Maryland and 90 from Virginia—explains all of this and more to Biden in urging a retreat from the current top-down diktat and for letting market forces work things out over time. Originally published at WashingtonTimes.com Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Car Dealers Flash Stop Sign on Biden’s ‘Unrealistic’ Electric Vehicle Mandate appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A California mother who lost her daughter to suicide after transitioning and was removed from her custody for not supporting her gender identity filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case from another mother in Indiana facing the loss of custody for not supporting her daughter’s gender transition. Abigail Martinez is a Salvadoran immigrant who raised four children in California‚ one of whom began questioning her sexuality amid a struggle with depression in high school. School staff told her daughter to join the school’s LGBTQ club‚ where the mother claims in her amicus brief the school club “persuaded that the only way to be happy was to change her gender‚” and that the school psychologist encouraged her daughter to do the same. With a new policy at the school requiring staff to use students’ pronouns and preferred names for students without parental notification or permission‚ Martinez was not informed of her daughter’s new identity‚ and feels “the school staff should have helped me‚ but they became my worst enemy.” After Martinez’ daughter was hospitalized for attempting suicide‚ Martinez says the school psychologist told her daughter to accuse her mother of abuse so “she would lose custody and the state would pay for gender-transition treatments without parental consent.” As a result‚ the California Department of Child and Family Services took her daughter and placed her in a group home‚ after which a judge ordered Martinez’ daughter be allowed to receive cross-sex hormones to further her transition. While Martinez fought against the allegations of abuse and ultimately was exonerated and removed from the child abuse registry‚ soon after the court found her to be a fit parent her daughter committed suicide by lying down on tracks in front of an oncoming train. Martinez had sought that her daughter be treated for her underlying depression instead of receiving cross-sex hormones‚ a lack of treatment that she blames for her daughter’s suicide. In Indiana‚ the case of M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services follows a similar contour: A child was removed from custody of parents nonetheless found “fit” by the state for the parents’ religious beliefs about gender identity and decision not to support the child’s transition. In their case‚ the parents allege Indiana failed to follow the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by preventing them from raising their child according to their faith‚ and that the Indiana Department of Child Services censored the parents’ First Amendment speech rights by limiting what they were allowed to speak about with their child during their limited visitations. “When governments usurp the essential role of parents in the lives of their children‚ tragedy ensues‚” said Kayla Toney‚ associate counsel for First Liberty Institute‚ who is representing Martinez and filed the amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take the Indiana case. “The Constitution ensures that states cannot target parents because of their religious beliefs‚ interfere with the religious upbringing of their children‚ or impose prior restraints on speech in their own homes. We hope the Supreme Court will act to prevent state officials from committing any more violations of parental constitutional rights with impunity.” With Indiana courts upholding the Department of Child Services’ decisions‚ the writ of certiorari filed by the parents seeks review by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court hears the case and rules against Indiana‚ the result would be to overturn state laws in California‚ Washington‚ and Oregon‚ and court decisions in Indiana‚ Ohio‚ and Illinois that lead to parents losing custody if they do not seek or affirm gender-transition treatments for their child. Originally published by The Center Square Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post California Mom Urges Supreme Court Review After Child Lost to Suicide appeared first on The Daily Signal.

How Do We Protect Our Money? Exclusive Interview for OP Readers

15 Things Everyone Will Be Looking For After SHTF

Why You Should Bury Your Vegetables In Sand

Getting Home At Night. (Get Home Bag Hike At Night)

How to Store Flour So It Lasts Over 10 Years

How to Raise Chickens for Food After the Collapse

Prepper Holiday Gifts That Won’t Break The Bank

NY Lawmaker Claims “Smoking Gun” In NYC Migrant Voter Fraud Scheme