How Much Fossil Fuel Is Left?

Humanity can adapt to whatever climate change may occur

—with sufficient prosperity and political will.

by Edward Ring for American Greatness

Fossil fuel powers the economic engine of civilization. With a minor disruption in the supply of fossil fuel, crops wither, and supply chains crash. With a major disruption, a humanitarian apocalypse could engulf the world. Events of the past few months have made this clear. Without energy, civilization dies, and in 2020 fossil fuels continued to provide more than 80 percent of all energy consumed worldwide.

This basic fact, that maintaining a reliable supply of affordable fossil fuel is a nonnegotiable condition for the survival of civilization, currently eludes far too many American politicians, including Joe Biden. Observes energy expert and two-time candidate for governor of California Michael Shellenberger: “One month ago, the Biden administration killed a one-million-acre oil and gas lease sale in Alaska, and seven days ago killed new on-shore oil and gas leases in the continental U.S. In fact, at this very moment, the Biden administration is considering a total ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling.”

Another basic fact, easily confirmed by consulting the 2021 edition of the BP Statistical Review of Global Energy, is that if every person living on Earth were to consume half as much energy per year as the average American currently consumes, global energy production would need to nearly double. Instead of producing 547 exajoules (the mega unit of energy currently favored by economists) per year, energy producers worldwide would need to come up with just over 1,000 exajoules. How exactly will “renewables,” currently delivering 32 exajoules per year, or six percent of global energy, expand by a factor of 30 to deliver 1,000 exajoules?

The short answer is, it can’t. Despite the fanatical, powerful group-think that calls for the abolition of not only fossil fuels but also most hydroelectric power and all nuclear power, the reality is that most nations of the world are going to continue to develop every source of energy they can, and they’re going to do it as fast as they can. Renewables may have a growing role in that expansion, but renewables are decades away from providing more than a fraction of total global energy production.

How Much Do We Have Left?

The argument against fossil fuels rests on two premises. The first is that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing a climate emergency. Without (for now) arguing against the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is going to destroy the planet, suffice to say that we’d better adapt to whatever climate change is coming, because the only nations even semi-serious about eliminating the use of fossil fuels are Western nations. Once again, recent events have demonstrated that fossil fuel isn’t going anywhere, and nations that renounce its use condemn themselves to deindustrialization and eventual irrelevance.

The other premise underlying the drive to eliminate fossil fuels is more pragmatic. We are reaching “peak oil,” and there simply isn’t enough of it to last much longer. Oil, natural gas, and coal are all nonrenewable resources, with finite reserves. This argument is worth examining in depth.

The chart below shows how much fossil fuel is left in the world in the form of proven reserves (the blue bars), as well as how much, by fuel, was used up in 2020 (red bars, which are so short you can hardly see them). In 2020, 174 exajoules of oil were burned, with 10,596 exajoules remaining—a 61-year supply. As of 2020, and at current rates of consumption, there is a 208-year supply of worldwide coal reserves and a 50-year supply of natural gas.

These proven reserves, also reported in the 2021 edition of the BP Statistical Review of Global Energy, don’t tell the whole story. There are “unproven” reserves, which would very likely double the amount of fossil-fuel energy available for extraction, and possibly provide even more.

To understand this, first note that predictions of “peak oil” have been consistently wrong. In a well-known early example, economist M. King Hubbert presented a paper to the American Petroleum Institute in 1956 where he noted “the rate of consumption of these fuels was greater than the rate at which new reserves were being discovered.” Hubbert predicted U.S. oil production would peak in the 1970s, and indeed there was a peak in 1971, at just over 10 million barrels per day. By 2008, total U.S. production had fallen to as little as 4 million barrels per day. But thanks to the introduction of fracking and deregulation, domestic oil production had risen to a new peak of over 12 million barrels per day by 2019. New technologies and new exploration resulted in a major expansion of proven reserves.

Another indication of how much energy may remain out there in unproven reserves that are waiting to be tapped is in this 2022 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. It estimates America’s total proven natural gas reserves at 473 trillion cubic feet, but estimates additional unproven reserves of natural gas could total another 2,867 trillion cubic feet—six times as much.

Finally, consider the map of Sub-Saharan Africa. Africa is a massive continent—more than 4,600 miles across at its widest point, compared to the lower 48 United States at only 2,800 miles wide—with massive reserves of oil and gas. The map below shows promising regions for onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration amount to hundreds of thousands of square miles. Now consider this report on “Natural Gas Reserves By Country.” Despite its vast potential, the first Sub-Saharan nation on the list is Angola, which ranks 40th in the world, with proven gas reserves equal to 0.14 percent of total global reserves. That’s probably a minute fraction of what Africa’s got.

Africa isn’t the only place where fossil fuel reserves have been barely tapped. Expect deposits to be found as needed pretty much everywhere, from the polar regions to countless offshore sites on the continental shelf, and elsewhere.

The current energy crisis is going to harm nations in Africa, and in other developing regions, far more than it will harm Western nations. That’s saying a lot, considering how cold it’s going to get in places like Berlin and Copenhagen if Russian gas is turned off this winter. But in African nations, the primary source of affordable energy is “biomass.” Put less euphemistically, and to this day, hundreds of millions of Africans still desperately strip the forests in order to gather fuel to cook food, because Western nations and Western-dominated banks have prevented them from developing clean natural gas.

This humanitarian folly is multifaceted. In 1950, there were 227 million people living in Africa. Today, there are 1.4 billion Africans, and by 2050 Africa’s population is projected to top 2.5 billion. On what had been a stable population for centuries, Africa’s population explosion was facilitated by Western aid, which reduced infant mortality and provided better food aid and healthcare overall. But now Western nations are denying Africans the prosperity and self-sufficiency that comes with affordable energy, all in the name of averting a climate disaster.

This absurdity ignores the catastrophic impact of a burgeoning population denied access to fertilizer, industrial agriculture, and a reliable power grid because these are byproducts of fossil fuel. Deliberately denying Africans the fundamental prerequisite for prosperity means their population will continue to explode at the same time as millions of them, desperate for food and fuel, will continue to strip the forests of wood and wildlife. Without exception, however, once a nation begins to experience prosperity, the population stabilizes and begins to decline.

There Is Plenty of Fossil Fuel

According to the most authoritative source on energy in the world, total proven reserves of fossil fuel currently total 49,023 exajoules. This means that just with proven reserves, and if only fossil fuel were used, and if global energy consumption were doubled to 1,000 exajoules per year, there would still be a 50-year supply of energy. How much more fossil fuel can be extracted from unproven reserves is anybody’s guess, but it is a safe bet that twice as much more is available, meaning there’s at least another century’s worth of fossil fuel even if we used nothing else to power civilization.

The benefits of abundant cheap energy are obvious: prosperity and voluntary population stabilization. In the decades to come, other forms of energy will be further developed. If hydroelectric power doubles, while nuclear power and renewables both go up by an order of magnitude, the three together would provide 636 exajoules of power per year. Under that scenario, fossil-fuel use could remain near current levels, and total global energy production would still double to 1,000 exajoules.

What is impossible, however, is for renewables alone to achieve this level of growth. More than half of renewable energy today comes from biofuel and biomass, which—ironically—is already wreaking havoc across the tropics as hundreds of thousands of square miles of rainforest are incinerated to make room for cane ethanol and palm oil plantations. And then there are the minerals required for the wind turbine towers, the silicon photovoltaics, and the billions of megawatt-hours of battery farm capacity. Where are the Malthusians when you need them?

Humanity can adapt to whatever climate change may occur, if there is sufficient prosperity and political will. We are already on the brink of commercializing innovations to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel. Should atmospheric CO2 be the horrific pollutant that so many claim it to be, it can be removed from the atmosphere and converted into fuel to drive our trucks around.

Until that time, fossil fuel isn’t going anywhere. 

X22, On the Fringe, and more- July 6

 

Non important news that I'll bring up anyways because I got nothing more interesting to say here today:

Via a couple of BTS stuff in the past week, I now have a very clear idea of what 'the NCIS show that should just be called Gay Fantasy in Hawaii' in Hawaii's 1st episode will be about: Another dumb looking crossover with NCIS. With the same dup from the last one!

Do I care? Nope. I may like Nick and Jess, but the only way I'll be convinced to ever try and sit through another episode of that embarrassing shit is if Hetty will be in an episode!

I'm also feeling quite bored at the moment and now want new info on NCIS LA, mainly about Hetty. (yeah, I get weird like this after a long period of no info, even when I'm 99 or 98% sure I'll be disappointed by the info and will just want to bitch about it. Why? Cuz I need something to talk about!)

Here's tonight's news:

The Supreme Court Recaptures the Constitution and Returns to American Greatness

There can be no order without law, no law without morality, and no morality without religion. The Supreme Court has brought us closer to implementing this maxim than we have been in two generations.

by Stephen B. Presser for American Greatness

For fans of the rule of law and constitutional government, this has been the best Supreme Court term in memory. Our highest bench is now graced by five justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—who have the rare combination of courage and modesty to say what the law is, and not what they think it should be, and to resist what demagogues demand.  

This combination of judicial virtues on our highest court has been a long time coming, and, in the sudden manner in which so much has come together so quickly, dazzling. The Progressives, who thought it was the job of the Supreme Court to implement their preferred social programs that often failed to pass legislative muster are understandably irked, but the Court, guided by the maxim specified in Federalist 78 that judges are to exercise judgment, and not will, has lately splendidly manifested the core principle famously championed by Antonin Scalia, that the best way to judge is for the Court to adhere to the original understanding of the Constitution, and not to seek to change it to fit the purported needs of the times. 

The most prominent example of the work of this newly powerful conservative court majority is, of course, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the decision that overruled Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), two cases that erroneously and egregiously manufactured a constitutional right to terminate pregnancies before fetal viability. For almost 50 years, conservatives have lamented Roe and its progeny, but even those of us who were convinced of its manifest error, recognizing its influential supporters in the media, the academy, and the federal bureaucracy, thought Roe would endure. 

We were wrong. We were, it now appears, of insufficient faith. 

There is much merit in the enthusiastic accolade of my former student, Michael Paulsen, who says of Dobbs that it “may be the most important, magnificent, rightly decided Supreme Court case of all time. It is restorative of constitutional principle. It upholds the values of representative, democratic self-government, and the rule of law, at the same time that it supports the protection of fundamental human rights.” 

The most important fundamental human right Paulsen refers to, of course, is the fetus’ right to life, but he also recognizes that in supporting the right of the American people to have legislatures—not courts—decide law and policy, another fundamental human right has been affirmed. I’ve never been prouder of a pupil. 

Dobbs repudiates the several decades’ old dominant legal academic theory of the Constitution which denies there is a discernable governing constitutional intent and claims that it is the job of justices to remake constitutional law to meet the needs of the times. In other words, Dobbs reaffirms that law is to be made by legislatures—not judges—and that the job of justices is simply to rein in errant legislative and executive actors (and lower courts) who fail to follow clear constitutional law dictates.  

In 1994, disturbed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that entrenched Roe, and Lee v. Weisman, the decision that same year that forbade nonsectarian school-sponsored prayer at a Rhode Island Middle School graduation, I wrote my only book published by a popular press, Recapturing the Constitution: Race, Religion, and Abortion Reconsidered. It was one of several dozen such volumes lamenting “living Constitution” jurisprudence and urging the Court to return to the original constitutional understanding. 

I argued in Recapturing that in these three key areas of interpretation (race, religion, and abortion) the Court should (following the wisdom of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, among others) 1) declare that the Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the matter should be returned to the states; 2) recognize that the original constitutional scheme privileges Judeo-Christian piety over nonreligion; and finally, 3) renew the understanding that the Constitution is colorblind, and does not permit the state, local, or federal governments to confer benefits or discriminate based on the race of individuals or groups.   

It’s taken 49 years to reject Roe, and we now also stand on the cusp of realizing the two other important achievements conservative legal scholars have sought over the years. 

This term’s religion cases brought us closer to reaffirming John Adams’ observation that our Constitution was fit only for a moral and religious people, since without an understanding that morality follows Divine dictates, arbitrary rule or tyranny follows. In one of those cases, Carson v. Makin, by a vote of 6-3 the Court invalidated a Maine tuition program, forbidding the state from barring religious schools from receiving public grants available to other private schools. In another, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, by the same 6-3 vote, the Court ruled that there was no establishment clause violation by a football coach wrongly fired after leading postgame prayers on the 50-yard line.

And, indeed, almost perfecting my desired trifecta of constitutional jurisprudence, this term the Court granted certiorari in the Harvard admissions case, which offers the justices an opportunity to condemn counting by race definitively. 

There were other wonderful decisions this term—for example, one strongly reaffirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and another strongly reining in an out-of-control EPA that sought to impose constitutionally suspect fossil fuel restrictions without proper congressional authorization. This last was an impressive blow against the federal Leviathan.

All of this has happened, at this moment, not only because of the courage and wisdom of a newly active conservative majority of justices, but also because of the boldness and commonsense audacity of one man, Donald Trump, who appointed Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, without whose views this return to sensible constitutionalism would not have occurred. 

Almost to a person, the legal academy regarded Donald Trump as a reality-TV semi-buffoon, but a few of us recognized that Trump’s admiration for Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia was genuine, and when he turned to Leonard Leo, the executive director of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy for advice in picking justices, our support for Trump was vindicated. 

This term, then, is a great victory for right-to-life advocates such as Clarke Forsythe of Americans United for Life, who have been fighting Roe since 1973. But it is also a signal victory for the Federalist Society, founded in 1982 in response to cases such as Roe where the Court clearly abandoned the two core principles of the Constitution: federalism (giving primary law-making authority to the states) and separation of powers (forbidding the judiciary from legislating). The Federalist Society, essentially a discussion forum for scholars, lawyers, and law students, founded with the influence of Justice Scalia and by at least one of his distinguished former clerks, Steven Calabresi, became the most successful law student and lawyer organization of the modern era. Once it gained the ear of Donald Trump, it had become a potent political force. Ideas do indeed have consequences.  

This wonderful website celebrates American Greatness, which, for me includes the wisdom of our founders that there can be no order without law, no law without morality, and no morality without religion. The Supreme Court’s October 2021 term, just ended, has brought us closer to implementing this maxim than we have been in two generations. 

Behind the Desperate Democrat Drive to Dump Joe Biden

Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

As a growing number of Democrat politicians openly distance themselves from Joe Biden, reports continue to surface of a behind-the-scenes plan to dump the most inept president in history well ahead of the 2024 election. Make no mistake: the Democrat Party is terrified by the prospect of Biden seeking reelection.

Bottom line: “It’s pretty clear that the left is organizing to dump Joe Biden.” So concludes political commentator and policy scholar, Powerline’s Steven Hayward. In an analysis titled Pincer Movement to Dump Biden Taking Place, Hayward went bottom-line from start to finish.

It’s pretty clear that the left is organizing to dump Joe Biden when it becomes evident that he’s a certain loser in 2024. Rather than waiting for a Ted Kennedy-like figure to challenge him in the 2024 primaries, which would likely doom Democrats to certain defeat, the left will need to push him out early, and clear the calendar for one or more Democrats to organize a serious presidential campaign.

Hang on. The Democrats (pundit checks notes) do not have a “Ted Kennedy-like figure” to challenge Biden. Worse, the Democrats don’t exactly have a deep bench, these days. And as noted by Hayward, “It goes without saying that the Democratic Party intelligentsia knows Kamala Harris is a hopeless candidate.”

Think about it through the eyes of a Democrat. I know: terrifying thought. Everywhere one looks, the evidence is overwhelming that Biden is cognitively lost on a daily basis, with nearly every new poll painting an ever-bleaker picture. Quite the pickle, isn’t it? Hey, play stupid games; win stupid prizes.

Hayward believes the Democrat “pincer movement” has three parts.

First, “We can expect a steady drumbeat of [left-leaning] media stories,” predicts Hayward, such as the latest from so-called mainstream political reporter Ronald Brownstein, whose latest op-ed, Is Biden a Man Out of Time?, makes clear that the media and the Democrat base remain just as clueless as Biden — wishing he would be even more radically leftist.

I’m no larger-than-life “very stable genius” Republican with a “very, very, big brain” and “good words,” (I couldn’t resist) but even I find it incredible that the Democrat state media and the socialist radicals within the Democrat Party fail to see that the majority of American adults overwhelmingly reject their so-called “progressive” push to destroy America and its valued institutions on as many fronts as possible.

In addition to the direct “reporting” about Biden’s problems, Hayward suggests there will be an increasing number of indirect attacks:

There will be indirect attacks about general failures of the administration. This week Politico ran a long piece about what a terrible press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is turning out to be. My theory is that she was picked to make Kamala Harris look good by comparison, but her failure at the job is so conspicuous that it can’t be papered over.

Speaking of Karine Jean-Pierre, as I previously suggested, she is so miserable at her job she makes Jen Psaki look like Dana Perino under George W. Bush. Perfect example: KJP recently laughed off a question from CNN host Don Lemon about Biden’s stamina and declining mental acuity.

The second part of the pincer movement, says Hayward, will be as I suggested in my opening paragraph: Democrat Party insiders will start publicly dumping on Biden. Last week it was David Axelrod, the architect of Barack Obama’s rise to power. In an appearance on CNN, Axelrod said “There is this sense that things are kind of out of control and he’s not in command.”

“Out of control”? Definitely. “Kind of”? Hardly. And we all know what “not in command” means.

Third, believes Hayward, as I have previously written, it won’t just be conservative writers who pull hamstrings rushing to “report” on Biden’s latest poll disaster.

Look for the pace of Bad-News-for-Biden polls to pick up in frequency and intensity. It becomes a self-reinforcing feedback loop for party insiders like Axelrod and the media alike: every new poll gives them the opportunity to provide “analysis” that all points in the same direction.

Incidentally, the practice of running or commissioning a poll and then reporting the results as “news” is hardly new. Hayward pointed to the late historian Daniel Boorstin, who called the practice a pseudo-event, the definition of which is “not spontaneous; planted primarily, but not always exclusively, for the purpose of being reported or reproduced.” Bingo.

The bottom line:

As to the Democrat Party’s Biden problem, it could be clearer that the Republicans will have a golden opportunity to reclaim the White House in 2024.

While I have an uneasy feeling that Republican voters will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, I’m also encouraged by the reality that an increasing number of conservatives continue to wake the hell up.

Consider This Your Sign To Start Homeschooling Your Kids

Parents are already teachers. 

We offer lessons all the time, 

and we learn as we go. 

by Jessica Marie Baumgartner for The Federalist

I write education news for a living. My job, every day, is to report on what’s happening in education. I have great respect for teachers in all settings but have been a homeschooling mother for more than 10 years now, and what I’ve researched and written on recently is horrifying. 

The public school system is a mess. Hardly anyone wants to be a teacher anymore, and with good reason. Too many educators in the system have little to no respect for parental rights and believe they are above the law. 

Most recently I reported on a gym teacher who allegedly sexually abused 7- and 8-year-old girls for three years. This occurred between 2015 and 2018, but he is just now finally being brought to justice. I wish this were a rarity, but unfortunately 1 in 10 schoolchildren will be subject to sexual misconduct at the hands of a teacher or school staff member. 

Sexual Agendas in Government Classrooms

As if that weren’t enough to drive parents to seek alternative options, the Biden administration is rewarding schools for pushing identity politics in the classroom. Government grants are now being offered to schools that push “equity” ideologies into classrooms.

Gone are the days when working hard made the grade. Now schools across the nation are grading students based on what they look like instead of the content of their work. In addition, some districts will offer harsher punishments for white students who break the rules than non-white students as part of “culturally responsive discipline” (one rebranded form of critical race theory), which teaches students and educators that minorities aren’t smart enough to follow the rules. 

This rhetoric is not only destructive to white people, but all people. That includes Asian students, who are now being pushed out of top schools in order to admit a racially conscious student body. In addition, black students are being held down by the false idea that they cannot succeed in the current system.

This is, of course, hogwash. Black students have proved they are brilliant when given the opportunity to excel. In 2021, the Scripps National Spelling Bee was won by a black girl for the first time in its long history. She is homeschooled by her father and represents the importance of parental rights in education. 

Parents know their kids’ needs. We budget and teach and offer love and wisdom, sometimes without even realizing it. While public schools spend thousands of dollars trying to educate children through an ongoing teacher shortage and culture war, homeschoolers spend hundreds and somehow produce better results. 

Yes, You Can Teach Your Kids!

During the lockdowns, many were thrust into homeschooling without warning. It was wrong and jarring and detrimental to everyone involved because it was so abrupt. But many families realized just how easy it is to teach children at home, and teach them well.

This year, an Ohio high school student graduated college just weeks before she received her high school diploma. She joined a community college program that offered courses to qualifying students while remote learning. Children are smart — smarter than we give them credit for — but so are parents. If you graduated high school, you can teach it. There are more resources available for homeschoolers than there have ever been. 

Instead of working around the Department of Education’s unnecessary red tape, parents can customize what their children learn and keep them engaged based on their interests. Instead of being shoved in a desk for seven or eight hours, students get up and move around and learn tangible, real-life lessons. Instead of being vilified for having energy or wishing to learn through hands-on activities, boys especially benefit from homeschooling. 

Homeschooling Is Especially for Energetic Boys

The public education system is currently designed for passive learners. Males are more likely to be diagnosed with behavioral issues than female students in the system. About 12 percent of boys are highly intelligent but do not start talking until well after girls do, and because milestones are over-emphasized, many of those boys are put in speech therapy even though they often catch up without intervention. 

Instead of accepting that boys and girls are different and have different educational needs, the public school system punishes them. Many encourage parents to medicate young males even though most just need more physical activity and better education methods. 

Nearly every parent I’ve talked to recently (who isn’t already homeschooling) tells me, “We’re thinking about homeschooling.” I know it’s a leap of faith. I was terrified when our school district lost accreditation and I had to homeschool, but once you start it’s so easy. Kids learn faster, and they have fun doing it. 

Get Started Here

Many people just need a little help. I can say that three amazing resources gifted me enough confidence in my teaching skills that my children enjoyed learning and craved more. 

First, the Starfall.com website is amazing. It’s packed with fun learning games and free features as well as an affordable membership that covers preschool through fifth grade. 

Then, there are the ALEX Toys for craft-loving kids and Kidz Labs for kids learning about science. Each of these kits comes with all or most of the items needed to create art and science projects. What pieces they lack are household items which are incorporated (like a tin can for robotics). These are such wonderful hands-on learning options. They get kids involved and excited to see what they can do. 

Lastly, although they might seem old-fashioned, the School Zone workbooks host hundreds of pages of fun worksheets that teach children lessons through sixth-grade material. My children love sitting down to fill out the pages, which are full of word games and math puzzles. Even my high-energy 4-year-old son will sit and work on them because he enjoys it.  

You Are Your Child’s Best Resource

There will be hard days. Everyone has struggles sometimes, but parents are already teachers. We offer lessons all the time, and we learn as we go. 

Some people think homeschooling is expensive. They think a good education has to have a massive budget — because that’s what the public education system does — but in truth, throwing money at materials doesn’t get the job done. Giving children individualized learning experiences and the ability to grow and ask questions is more important. 

All you need is a reasonable budget and the will. If you’re not already homeschooling and you can’t afford private school, this really is your year. You will not regret it. If you’re too afraid to fully commit, test out a few lessons this summer. See how it goes. Purposeful teaching is a learning experience itself.

The Ineptness of the Biden Administration Is Becoming Comical

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Earlier on Tuesday, I penned a piece about the White House’s pathetic response when pressed on the president’s voicemail to Hunter Biden discussing the latter’s business dealings. But little did I know that I was leaving a bunch of meat on the bone by just talking about that exchange.

Apparently, Karine Jean-Pierre had one of her worst briefings yet, and the ineptness is becoming comical. It sure feels like we are at the point where it’s worth asking exactly what this administration does know because the perpetual shoulder-shrugging has long grown old.

I wrote on Macron’s confrontation with Biden in Europe where he essentially told the US president that he’s clueless without actually saying it. It was all over the national news, with the exchange being caught on tape in a quasi-hot mic moment. Yet, Jean-Pierre claims she hasn’t even heard about it? Can someone remind me what her job is again? She’s the press secretary for the President of the United States and claims to be completely unaware of one of the biggest stories to come from the G7?

I mean come on, you can’t do anything but laugh, and Jean-Pierre was delivering her best stand-up routine all briefing.

Wait a second. The White House is unaware of reports that oil released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ended up overseas, including in China? How is that even possible given that the oil market is global? Anyone with a remedial understanding of the issue should know the oil we are releasing is ending up in foreign countries because that’s how it works. It’s also why emptying out the SPR to purchase a few cents off at the pump is so stupid and short-sighted. But the White House wants to have its cake and eat it too, pretending they are “doing something” while obfuscating about what that something entails.

And speaking of obfuscation, when Jean-Pierre was asked about the recession we are currently in, this is what she had to say.

We live in a day and age of everyone being able to “identify” as whatever they want, facts need not apply, and the White House seems to identify as being economically literate when it clearly isn’t. The Atlanta Fed tracker showed 2Q GDP at -2.1 percent. Given that 1Q GDP came in a -1.6 percent, the United States is in a recession using the most common definition, which is two straight quarters of negative growth. The administration’s response: “Nah, we aren’t in a recession.”

They think you are stupid, or at least they think they can get away with treating you like you are. Peter Doocy exposed that attitude in this final clip I’m going to share. Jean-Pierre is asked about Biden’s shift from blaming Vladimir Putin for gas prices to blaming individual gas stations, of which a majority are individually owned.

If you watch the clip, Jean-Pierre tries to dodge the question by suggesting that wholesale oil prices have come down 15 percent while retail gas prices have only come down 3 percent.

First of all, that’s not true. Gas prices have fallen from a record $5.01 a gallon on June 14th to $4.80 a gallon as of this writing. That puts the decline at less than 5 percent. As for oil prices, on June 14th, they were $118 a barrel. Today, WTI Crude closed at $102. That represents an 8.5 percent decrease.

Even still, the White House’s answer ignores that raw crude is not the only factor in gas prices. It costs money to transport fuel, and when diesel prices are through the roof and pipelines are shut down, the cost at the pump rises. Then there’s the issue with refining capacity, which appears to be the biggest bottleneck right now. In short, Jean-Pierre’s lesson on gas prices is something out of the mind of a seven-year-old. It ignores key factors while making a painfully simplistic argument.

All to protect the Biden administration from having to take responsibility for anything. Remember, the “adults” are back in charge, but apparently, the adults know absolutely nothing and can’t accomplish anything. The White House can’t have it both ways, and the ineptness on display speaks for itself.

Nurse Ratched’s Soft Target List

The cul-de-sac busybody masquerading as New York’s governor provided would-be mass shooters with a comprehensive soft target list.

posted by Dianny at Patriot Retort

The cul-de-sac busybody masquerading as New York’s governor provided would-be mass shooters a handy, comprehensive soft target list this weekend.

Yeah, really.

See, New York State’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed carry applicants was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on June 24. But rather than accept defeat, the Democrat-controlled legislature, working with Governor Busybody, created a new law that is just unconstitutional as the one the SCOTUS overturned and twice as shitty.

In addition to replacing the “proper cause” requirement with the “prove you are of good moral character first” requirement, this new law also makes it virtually impossible for those who manage to secure a concealed carry permit to carry their weapon anywhere.

See, to successfully obtain a concealed carry permit in New York, an applicant must first submit three years’ worth of social media content to the state so they can make sure you have “good moral character.” Heaven forbid somewhere in three years’ worth of tweets you “misgendered” somebody!

But the law also restricts where you can carry your weapon if you are lucky to have been deemed “of good moral character.”

The law includes a comprehensive list of “sensitive locations” where guns will be illegal in New York. But it isn’t so much a list of “sensitive locations” as it is a soft target list.

On Saturday, as part of her victory lap over signing the stupid law, Governor Busybody proudly tweeted out her soft target list.

“Houses of worship” should tell Governor Busybody to stick her soft target list up her puckered ass while whistling a show tune.

Okay, that’s probably not very churchy. Let’s leave that to restaurant and bar owners.

Civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon said on Twitter that Nurse Ratched’s soft target list won’t hold up in court.

I mean, that’s fairly obvious even if you’re not a civil rights attorney.

The state may have the authority to make government buildings gun-free zones, but they don’t have the authority to impose gun-free zones on private businesses or “houses of worship.”

But the law seems contradictory, doesn’t it?

Why should New York State bar people of “good moral character” from carrying their weapons anywhere? Is the state implying that people of “good moral character” don’t have the “good moral character” necessary to avoid shooting up a restaurant or a church service?

This isn’t about making sure permit holders can be trusted. It’s about throwing up as many roadblocks as possible to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to self-defense.

When she took a lap over this garbage legislation last week, Hochul quivered with excitement at the prospect of signing the law during the July 4th holiday weekend, bragging that this legislation that manages to infringe on the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments is “the embodiment of what it means to be an American.”

No, it’s the embodiment of what it means to be a pinch-faced busybody dictator with a stick so far up her ass that it keeps her hat from blowing off on a windy day.

Good heavens, I had no idea I could despise someone as much as I despise this odious, pursed-lipped fishwife.

Even the Democrats in Albany expect lawsuits challenging this garbage legislation. They know the law defies the Supreme Court’s ruling. They know they’re not just skirting the edges here, but full-on trampling all over the decision.

They just don’t give a shit.

Oh, and if you live in New York: VOTE LEE ZELDIN in November. Every New Yorker of “good moral character” should.