Tuesday, October 25, 2022

A Next President?




Who will wear number 47? 

When 2024 rolls around—sooner than you think, as the game has already begun—we will finally have the next president of these still united and continuing states, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Without a civil war, a new Fort Sumter, or any form of blue state secession or confederacy, relief from the continental discontent and burden of Joe Biden will arrive. 

Evidently, the country moans for that biblical-scale relief as soon as possible. 

And relief is on the way. The cavalry is coming. Look at the photo above, and the secret is disclosed.

Let’s start with who it won’t be first.

Joe Biden can’t run again. He is an unmitigated disaster, a complete “f-ck up,” in his own vulgar vernacular. The record on every front makes Biden the worst president in the long history of this 246-year-old republic. Worse than James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Franklin Pierce, or Zachary Taylor. 

Biden, a senile shell of a man, was never a good politician or a profound thinker. As a plagiarist, ill-tempered maniac, who ran his office more as a collection and bribery agency to benefit his crime family, Biden has sunk to an all-time low in the polls (33 percent, by one estimate). He is not just unpopular. The populace hates him and laughs at him out loud. “Let’s Go Brandon” is a mockery. After his coming defeat in the midterms; the likely indictment of his son, Hunter; and the repeated debacles of foreign policy, economic and energy policy, crime, and immigration policy, there is no way Joe has any future outside of a highly medicated residency in an assisted living facility cared for by Dr. Jill. 

Kamala Harris, unbelievably, is worse. The cackling idiot dimwit can’t string a sentence together, knows nothing about the real world, business, or international relations, is a critical race theory advocate, and wants to defund the police and attack America. 

Recall while she was born here of non-American (Indian and Jamaican) parents, her entire youth and education took place in Montreal, Canada. She is a committed globalist. Her popularity is even lower than Joe’s, which is hardly surprising. In the Democratic primaries, which she dropped out of early, her polling was hovering around 1 percent. She is going nowhere faster than you can say, “black lives matter.”

There are about 30-odd Democrats who think they should be president—from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Beto O’Rourke to serial election denier Stacey Abrams and California Governor Gavin “French Laundry” Newsom. None of them have the wherewithal or charisma to get to second base. I would nominate Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), just for the laughs. Cartoonists would at least have a field day.

The Republicans have a much better bench with more than a handful of qualified hopefuls. Some are too young for now, others need slightly greater executive-level experience, while others, like Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, and all the other RINOs, are castaways.

How to Hire a Chief Executive of the United States

It is time for a real “get things done” executive.

The U.S. economy is in shambles. There is no growth. Our trade deficit with other countries has ballooned; we are not creating enough decent-paying jobs. The recession is deepening; inflation is at a 40-year high, gas prices are rising again, and the stock market (and, hence 401ks) is collapsing.

The chief economist for the National Association of Credit Unions called the U.S. economic outlook “gloomy” and said there is “no silver lining” looking immediately ahead. Our wage growth has been nonexistent for more than a decade now. As Capital Economics put it, “the weakness in payrolls are widespread.” The high inflation means working people are losing every month, as wages are not keeping up, in fact, they are falling behind.

And who is to blame for this? 

Joe Biden, along with his inept team, has failed to perform. He should stop all the chest-thumping, screaming, and globetrotting and go back to school. Private forecasters estimate that U.S. economic growth is running at zero or less. This is plainly unacceptable. We need a president who can realize 4 or 5 percent growth rates.

The U.S. economy has failed to regain momentum, and the Federal Reserve has failed to act and now has crashed the economy and asset markets. Some smart people are arguing we are in for years of “stagnation or stagflation,” with lower standards of living and an erosion of wealth for the whole middle class, which means more economic inequality. And that doesn’t even admit to the risk of the deepening recession we have commenced. Deflationary processes are kicking in.  

What are Americans to do?

What we need is a new CEO. We should, as an electorate, use proven search techniques to find the next president. If we were to conduct our search the way a big company does, we would hire a qualified executive search firm, the likes of Korn Ferry, to find us the best and most qualified person for the position. Then we would honestly interview them.

And what would that search firm look for?

The job description they would follow would not be proscribed by the political parties or the media but dictated by the dire conditions we face.

America needs to find a vibrant, new CEO to address the personal, strategic, and organizational drivers affecting its dynamics and performance. And, as noted, that performance has been worse than poor under Biden. It needs a person who can walk and chew gum at the same time—who can conduct both domestic and foreign policy.

We need to achieve alignment on strategic direction and risk, secure the best people for the right executive roles (the Cabinet) and build the capabilities necessary to deliver superior performance. Only this kind of focus will create good, high-paying new jobs and deliver wealth for the country over the longer term.

The president should align roles with business-oriented strategies and operating structures. By assessing and properly planning for risk tolerance, the president could then be bold and forthright. Within 100 days, the new president could begin to turn the economy back toward growth with the right policies, tax cuts, and initiatives.

By enabling significant structural change (such as lower personal and corporate taxes, curtailment of limiting or duplicative regulation, and movement to a balanced budget) and rapid, confident decision-making, a president, operating like a CEO, could navigate toward more effective governance. Putting the right people in the right positions and perfecting their management routines will make government both more appropriate and efficient. It would cost less and accomplish more.

We need to stop doing many things, deregulate others, streamline still other processes, and focus on one big thing: creating good jobs by growing the economic pie for all.

It is the president’s task to synchronize vision, mission, and goals to ensure everyone is pulling in the same direction. Picture a perfectly aligned crew that rows together. That kind of supreme effort, that kind of expert skill, and that kind of motivation is what the country urgently needs.

And only an experienced business leader or a state executive who has done it is up to the demanding, even daunting task.

The Case for Trump?

We don’t need just another politician—Left or Right—we need something different this time around. 

At this hour, I would predict Trump will run and win, but who knows in two years’ time? I doubt he will forfeit his Grover Cleveland moment.

Having the successful Florida Governor Ron DeSantis ready to go, fully prepared and energized, is another great prospect. It is our real insurance policy.  

Look at the photo again.






Christian Patriot News, And we Know, and more- Oct 25

 



2 weeks left to go! Here's tonight's news:


It Takes a Village to Take Your Child

Time to sharpen the pitchforks.



Hillary Clinton’s 1996 groomer handbook It Takes a Village made the case that parents can’t do it alone; you need an active and involved community to raise your children for with you. “We all depend on other adults whom we know—from teachers to doctors to neighbors to pastors—and on those whom we may not—from police to firefighters to employers to media producers [!] to political leaders—to help us inform, support, or protect our children.”

Increasingly, however, the only danger the Village wants to protect your own kids from is YOU.

America’s Favorite Supervillain, Governor Gavin Newsom, just legalized child kidnapping in California. 

State Bill 107 will allow the State to seize children from their own legal parents who are not sufficiently “affirming” of a child’s misguided wish to mutilate themselves and destroy their own lives. As the Federalist explains, “California courts will have the power to strip custody from parents, wherever they live, who doubt the wisdom of these experimental and irreversible procedures — if their child so much as steps foot in California.” In other words, even if you don’t even live in California, the long arm of the Village can capture your kid in their net.

Immediately after Newsom signed that law—almost as if there was a coordinated campaign by the village elders—the American Medical Association issued a letter to the Department of Justice begging them to imprison anyone who dares stand in the way of them having full access to your child’s body and mind. As Christopher Rufo tweeted, “The AMA asks the DOJ to ‘investigate and prosecute high-profile social media users’ who share ‘misleading information’ about ‘gender-affirming health care.’”

“Transgender medicine saves lives!” The medical experts and politicians scream at vulnerable parents. “Quick, inject your eight-year-old with experimental, off-label Lupron and synthetic chemical hormones before they/them kills their/themselves!” 

Castrating and sterilizing young boys is lifesaving health care. 

Double mastectomies and hysterectomies on teenage girls is pediatric best practices.

YOU are a child-abusing extremist if you object.

I wrote last year about our own family pediatrician, who is already shooing parents out of her examination room and asking teenage boys if they are “comfortable with their gender.” She somehow forgot to ask me, his mother, if I was comfortable with her unwelcome intrusion into my relationship with my own child.

The villagers are the new monsters 

In the final scene of 1933’s Frankenstein, angry villagers bearing torches and pitchforks chase the monster to a lonely windmill. The monster, cornered with his captive Dr. Frankenstein, pitches his creator out the window to the mob, then dies in the inferno.

Parents have been swiftly cornered by the full-frontal assault from all directions, and many are simply cowed into tossing their child to the hounds, who terrify them with misleading statistics on suicide and “affirm your child or they’ll die.” They make the fateful decision to trust the Village. 

But the Village turned on them long ago, and no one told them.

In New York, the father of an 11-year-old is fighting desperately to prevent his child from being transitioned against his will by his ex-wife (it’s always the ex-wife), who has whipped up state law enforcement and medical authorities to help her. The Village is the villain now.

Hillary’s book description reassures us that she “doesn’t believe that we should, or can, turn back the clock. False nostalgia for ‘family values’ is no solution.” Her monstrous creation launched a movement that was nothing more than a progressive apologia for the purposeful destruction of the American family wrought by progressives like her. It was a clumsy attempt to make parentless children into a societal good. “Yes, we destroyed your family and forced your mom back to her full-time job, yes! But don’t worry about it—we are all your parents now, kiddo. We have teachers, doctors, and media producers standing by—to protect you.” 

She insufferably dares parents to get back to work, because the Village will take it from here. This relatively benign 1990s-era mentality is now devious government policy. “We will allow you to raise your own child until you decide to go off-script, in which case we will be forced to step in and finish the job as we see fit. Buzz off, parent.” 

Hillary created this monster, and there is no capturing it this time.

As she wrote in the 2007 republished edition, “The simple message of It Takes a Village is as relevant as ever: We are all in this together.” 

All together in the gulags, maybe!

It’s going to take a different kind of village to rescue children from our current monsters masquerading as benevolent leaders. They can be found in the gender clinics infesting every major hospital. They run the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. They are legally in charge of your children now, and they’re making the rules.

You are going to have to harden your perimeter, seal the doors, and tint the windows on the minivan. Do we need to burn our babies’ birth certificates? File the serial numbers off our newborns so they can’t be traced? Create “ghost children” who are invisible to the roving mobs? 

The gender fanatics have picked up their pitchforks and are headed your way to claim scalps—and scrotums—for their trophy walls. 





Steve Bannon Is Now A Political Prisoner, And The Rule Of Law Is Dead

America’s rule of law is dead, and Democrats killed it. But in its wake, Bannon’s political imprisonment is a call to action.



Former top Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon was sentenced on Friday to four months in prison for ignoring a subpoena from the House Jan. 6 Committee. He is also being fined $6,500.

The chain of events is simple: Bannon refused to comply with the House select committee’s subpoena for documents and testimony because he argued it would violate President Donald Trump’s executive privilege. The Biden administration contested this argument, and the House of Representatives voted to hold Bannon in contempt of Congress last year.

The Bannon sentencing is unprecedented. Individuals are rarely prosecuted, let alone convicted and imprisoned, for being held in contempt of Congress. Ten years ago, then-Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpoena related to the Fast and Furious scandal in which, due to negligence, the United States government supplied a Mexican cartel with firearms that were used to terrorize and kill Mexican and American citizens. Even though the Fast and Furious scandal was far more deadly than the capital riot, Holder was never prosecuted for snubbing the Republican-led Congress. The last time someone was even charged with contempt of Congress was nearly 40 years ago, and the accused was cleared.

The Sham J6 Committee 

The Jan. 6 Committee that targeted Bannon was a sham from its inception. For the first time in the history of the House, the speaker barred the minority party from appointing members, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocking Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s picks, Reps. Jim Jordan and Jim Banks. Instead, Pelosi appointed her own favorites who serve Democrats’ interests: Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. Because there was not one Republican-appointed member present on the committee, the GOP conference had no representation. 

Bannon’s lawyers tried to dismiss the charges against him by asserting that the select committee was not a valid entity because it had no ranking minority member. Democrat House lawyers, however, waved this argument, writing in their amicus brief: “As a practical matter, the Select Committee is functioning differently than other House Committees. Here, there is no formalistic division between majority Members and minority Members, or majority staff and minority staff.” 

Legal counsel for McCarthy rejected the Democrat lawyers’ statement, writing that the committee’s power “is limited to its authorizing resolution,” and adding that “had the House desired the Select Committee’s subpoena authority to ‘function[] differently than other House Committees’ it should have explicitly so said” in its resolution to create the committee. Even though, as McCarthy’s lawyers point out, the formation of the committee did not follow House protocol, the federal judge refused to dismiss Bannon’s charges.   

But there’s more to the J6 Committee’s disdain for norms. In 1961, the Supreme Court affirmed that questions asked of individuals subpoenaed by Congress must be relevant to whatever subject the committee has been authorized to investigate. Yet according to a Federalist analysis from January of this year, only 10 percent of the J6 Committee subpoenas were even related to the Capitol riot. 

The committee also targeted private citizens who exercised their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble, which, as The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway reported, calls into question the constitutionality of the committee’s actions “since Congress is not one of the branches of government tasked with investigating alleged crimes of private citizens.”

There was no justice or fact-finding, as the committee promised to do. Instead, with the blessing of Pelosi, the Jan. 6 Committee went scorched earth on Trump, his supporters, and his advisers, such as Bannon. It ignored House precedent, violated its own organizing resolution, refused to follow House deposition ruleslied in subpoenas, and doctored evidence. The J6 Committee’s very formation was predicated on the ridiculous notion that Trump incited an “insurrection” by questioning the integrity of the 2020 election — a legitimate and increasingly substantiated concern. 

The Real Insurrectionists

Bannon’s conviction brings into focus the Democrats’ weaponization of government power to punish their political enemies, but it’s merely the latest — not the first — in a parade of abuses that gutted the rule of law in America.

While the bogus J6 Committee cries insurrection, for instance, Americans are just supposed to forget about when Democrats and the deep state conspired to annihilate the Trump campaign and subsequently overthrow his presidency using falsified evidence and illegal tactics. But unlike Bannon, not a single one of the Russia collusion hoax co-conspirators spent a second in jail.

And it’s emboldened them, especially the hyper-partisan FBI. Last month, a whistleblower alleged the FBI is going to move agents off of child sexual abuse cases to devote more manpower to punishing political enemies like the Jan. 6 protesters. The agency’s 2022 budget has its largest funding increase request under the category of combatting “domestic terrorism” — the same label leftists used to smear parents who peacefully protested at local school board meetings

And consider the disparity in how different groups are treated under the law. When Black Lives Matter rioters caused death and billions of dollars in property damage during the summer of 2020, federal law enforcement and their corporate media enablers gave them a free pass.

The same pattern has occurred following the leak of the Dobbs opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade. Despite pro-abortion vandals and arsonists attacking at least 86 Catholic churches and at least 75 pro-life pregnancy centers across the country, the FBI has announced zero charges and zero arrests.

Case in point: After CompassCare Pregnancy Services in Buffalo, New York, was firebombed in early June, it gave local police and the FBI surveillance footage to help bring the arsonists to justice. Despite a pro-abortion group even taking responsibility for the attack, the FBI has yet to charge or arrest anyone. 

When CompassCare asked for its footage back because law enforcement was apparently not investigating, the FBI and local police refused, claiming that if the care center had its own tapes back, it could incite right-wing violence. What?

Meanwhile, the FBI is very interested in pro-life protesters. It has now publicly indicted 22 of them, and in just the last two months, it has raided the homes of two.

Catholic father of seven Mark Houck was raided and arrested on Sept. 29 in front of his wife and screaming children by what his wife described as a swarm of 25 to 30 FBI agents for alleged “FACE Act” violations. Chet Gallagher’s Tennessee home was raided in earlier October for the same charges. Houck, Gallagher, and six of Gallagher’s fellow demonstrators face a maximum possible sentence of 11 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and fines of up to $350,000. 

Only the Beginning

“Today was my judgment day by the judge,” said Bannon, but “on November 8th, [there’s going to be] judgment [for] the illegitimate Biden regime and … Nancy Pelosi and the entire [Jan. 6] committee.”

Bannon might be onto something. Day by day, deep-state corruption becomes more apparent. From the FBI interfering in the 2020 election to its raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, anger builds. The left’s Jan. 6 show trial will not end with the committee’s last hearing either, with a subpoena outstanding for Trump and former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro heading to trial next month on the same charges as Bannon. 

Conventional wisdom and norms used to dissuade elected leaders from prosecuting their political enemies to avoid the appearance of a Third World banana republic. Recall the criminal accusations against Hillary Clinton, who was never prosecuted. Today, that status quo hasn’t just been broken, it’s been obliterated. Anyone associated with Trump will have the book thrown at them, from Bannon and Navarro to Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and any number of innocent J6 protesters whose lives have been destroyed by the corrupt Department of Justice. 

America’s rule of law is dead, and Democrats killed it. But in its wake — amid a mass loss of faith in our elections, justice system, media, health officials, tech oligarchs, universities, and other institutions — Bannon’s political imprisonment is a call to action.

“The Biden administration ends on the 8th [of] November,” Bannon said. “Merrick Garland will end up being the first attorney general that’s brought up on charges of impeachment and he will be removed from office.”




Putin, Ukraine, and the Nuclear Threat, Redux

The reality is that technological advances have caused the effects of nuclear and nonnuclear weapons to converge, making it less likely that Russia will cross the nuclear Rubicon in Ukraine.


As Russian military failures in Ukraine pile up and Ukrainian forces counterattack and recover territory once seized by Russia, some analysts are raising the specter of Vladimir Putin’s possible employment of nuclear weapons. Such talk is not new. Even before he launched his invasion of Ukraine, Putin was rattling his nuclear saber, warning against Western interference with his assault on Ukraine and placing Russian nuclear forces on alert.

As I have argued in the past, although such a threat must be taken seriously, the likelihood of Putin using nuclear weapons appears low. In an essay for American Greatness  in April, I offered a tutorial on the evolution of nuclear technology, policy, and strategy explaining why this is the case. Even though Putin seems backed into a corner, I maintain that the potential costs of Putin’s use of nuclear weapons far outweigh the benefits to him.

A nuclear weapon produces a violent release of energy arising from either the fission or fusion of an atom. A conventional high explosive weapon generates blast and some heat. A nuclear weapon generates vastly more blast and heat as well as radiation.

Strategic, Theater, and Tactical Nukes

It is customary to classify nuclear weapons as “strategic,” i.e. capable of striking assets in the enemy’s homeland; “theater,” capable of striking strategically important targets within a theater of operations; and “tactical,” intended to attack enemy units or weapons in relatively close proximity to one’s own forces. 

Strategic weapons have generally featured a higher “yield” of explosive power. In the early years of the Cold War, the main means of delivery was a gravity bomb dropped by an aircraft. Next came ballistic missiles, both land and sea based. These were of intercontinental range, meaning that the United States could attack targets in the Soviet Union and vice versa. The United States ultimately deployed a nuclear “triad” consisting of strategic bombers (e.g., the B-52 and B-2), land based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The Soviet arsenal followed a similar pattern. At the theater and tactical level, delivery systems included aircraft, cannon artillery, and intermediate range ballistic missiles. Today, cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles are also in the mix.

With the end of the Cold War, the central importance of nuclear weapons to U.S. security policy declined sharply. Of course, there were concerns about potential rogue actors such as North Korea and Iran. And one of the justifications for launching the Second Gulf War was to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring a nuclear capability.

As a result, thinking about nuclear strategy and force structure atrophied. For instance, the 2010 Obama Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) stated that although Russia remains a nuclear peer, “Russia and the United States are no longer adversaries, and prospects for military confrontation have declined dramatically.” The Trump NPR attempted to reinvigorate U.S. nuclear weapons policy and strategy, especially in light of the reemergence of great power confrontation and Russia’s nuclear modernization. Joe Biden has yet to issue his own NPR.

What does this all mean for Russia in Ukraine? According to the Arms Control Association (ACA), currently deployed U.S. and Russian warheads are about equal in number: 1,458 warheads on 527 intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles and bombers for Russia; and 1,389 warheads on 665 intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles and bombers for the United States. Both sides have more warheads in storage. No other country possesses anything near these numbers.

A major development in the evolution of nuclear strategy has been the vast improvements in accuracy. For instance, satellite-linked guidance systems make it possible to deliver a warhead much closer to a target than in the past. This means that even strategic nuclear weapons now feature reduced yields because of the cubic relationship between accuracy and effect: doubling the accuracy of a weapon is equivalent to increasing the yield eightfold.

In practice, this means that a more accurately delivered weapon requires a much smaller yield, compared to a less accurately delivered warhead, to achieve the same effect on the target, producing the necessary overpressures to destroy even hardened targets while simultaneously reducing collateral damage. Ironically, this theoretically removes an obstacle to the use of nuclear weapons, which has led some observers to express concern that increased accuracy means that nuclear weapons have become more “usable.” 

Given this reality, would Russia consider using tactical nuclear weapons within Ukraine to break the current stalemate? On the one hand, the Russians have apparently developed very low-yield nuclear warheads that can be delivered by air or short-range ballistic missile (SRBM). Of most concern is the Iskander-M (NATO designation SS-26 Stone), which has already been employed extensively to deliver nonnuclear explosives.

On the other hand, Russia possesses nonnuclear warheads that produce blast effects and overpressures similar to those of a small nuclear weapon, e.g.thermobaric weapons. The Russians no doubt also have munitions such as the U.S. Massive Ordnance Air-burst Bomb (MOAB), which was used against an ISIS tunnel complex in Afghanistan in 2017. The latter contains some 18,000 pounds of an ammonium nitrate/powdered aluminum gelled slurry detonated by a high explosive booster. 

Russia also has a nonnuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) warhead capable of knocking out communications and modern electronics in a broad area. Such a specialized Iskander radio frequency warhead delivered by an Iskander-M would affect electronics and communications within a radius of some 10 kilometers from the detonation point.

So far the United States and its NATO allies have been successful in providing aid to Ukraine without being drawn into a direct conflict with Russia. This is the mirror image of Soviet and Chinese support for North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

But the critical fact is that Russia has already escalated the conflict in Ukraine, attempting to achieve the psychological effects of nuclear weapons by conventional means. It did so by launching a series of widespread and coordinated missile strikes against targets in 20 Ukrainian cities, attacking primarily civilian and critical infrastructure targets and leaving the country in ruins. Notably, Russia attacked Ukrainian thermal power plants and command centers, forcing Ukraine to impose emergency measures on electricity use.

These escalatory attacks were intended to raise the cost of the war for Ukraine. The fact that many of these targets were part of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure is a signal to the Ukrainians that they are in for a long, cold winter. As the recent critical infrastructure attacks illustrate, for all of its operational, personnel, and logistical shortcomings, Russia still has escalatory options that Ukraine does not. But since Putin is achieving the same effect with his infrastructure attacks, there is no military reason for him to choose the nuclear option. 

In the end, as one commentator has noted, “Putin has nothing to lose by threatening to use nuclear weapons. But he has everything to lose by actually using them.” The reality is that technological advances have caused the effects of nuclear and nonnuclear weapons to converge, making it less likely that Russia will cross the nuclear Rubicon in Ukraine. 




McCarthy Says He Won't Impeach Biden, Administration Officials if GOP Regains House Majority


Mike Miller reporting or RedState 

House Republicans have for months threatened to impeach Joe Biden and equally disastrous members of his administration for their intentional attempts to destroy America if — which is now pretty much when — the GOP retakes control of the House in the midterms, now just two weeks away.

Apparently, those threats weren’t serious. At least not in Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s case. McCarthy last Wednesday downplayed talk of impeaching Biden or officials of the disastrous administration if the GOP regains control.

Just one problem. Republican lawmakers have introduced more than a dozen impeachment resolutions targeting Biden, Kamala Harris, and controversial Cabinet members, including Attorney General Merrick Garland, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

As reported by the Washington Post, McCarthy told Punchbowl News: “I think the country doesn’t like impeachment used for political purposes at all,” and,

You watch what the Democrats. They all came out and said they would impeach before Trump was ever sworn in. There wasn’t a purpose for it. If you spent all that time arguing against using impeachment for political purposes, you gotta be able to sustain exactly what you said.

Even worse, when he was asked if anyone in the Biden administration has risen to a level that would prompt him to consider impeachment proceedings, McCarthy said: “I don’t see it before me right now.”

Wait. So stage 4 TDS-afflicted Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats impeached Donald Trump — twice — and McCarthy uses that as an excuse not to impeach Biden and any number of administration officials, beginning with Merrick Garland and Alejandro Mayorkas?

Just three weeks ago, Sens. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz put Garland and Mayorkas on notice with a blistering “grounds for impeachment” letter. And Biden? His impeachment should be a foregone conclusion if the Republicans retake the House.

Speaking of the dozen impeachment resolutions, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote five of those articles of impeachment, including for “dereliction of duty in Afghanistan,” “causing a national security crisis on our Southern border,” and the administration’s extension of the eviction moratorium during the COVID pandemic.

None of Greene’s impeachment resolutions have advanced. But after what McCarthy just said, it wouldn’t seem to matter if they had.

As far as McCarthy’s “political purposes” reasoning, would he consider the impeachment of Biden for his Afghanistan debacle, including intentionally abandoning a still unknown number of American civilians behind Taliban lines, to be a “political” impeachment? Would Biden intentionally allowing more than two million illegal aliens and untold tons of shipments of deadly fentanyl to stream across the southern border be politically-motivated impeachment?

As I said at the top, Kevin McCarthy has already played his “no impeachment” card, and midterms haven’t even happened.

As noted by WaPo, Texas Senator Ted Cruz suggested during a January episode of his podcast that Republicans would impeach Biden “whether it’s justified or not.”

That’s not how impeachment is meant to work, but I think the Democrats crossed that line. I think there’ll be enormous pressure on a Republican House to begin impeachment proceedings.

Look, I love me some Cruz, but c’mon, Ted.

If the impeachment of Joe Biden isn’t beyond justifiable by now, what would it take to push the most inept president in history over the top? And Merrick Garland, of Mar-a-Lago raid “fame,” or Alejandro Mayorkas for his disastrous mismanagement of the U.S.-Mexico border; while he continues to lie that the border is “secure”? Ted, dude, again — c’mon.

As for McCarthy, the salient question is whether he will become Speaker if the Republicans retake the House in November. Trump loyalists favor Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz or Ohio’s Jim Jordan, both of whom remain card-carrying Trump loyalists. Other possibilities include Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise and New York’s Elise Stefanik. Regardless of who might emerge to challenge McCarthy, it’s likely to be pay-per-view-quality stuff to watch.

All of that said, while the much-ballyhooed “Red Wave” is far from certain, I expect the Repubs to pry the Speaker’s gavel from Nancy Pelosi’s bony death grip. Then there’s the Senate, which could be a toss-up, and finally, the biggest prize of all in 2024, which should pretty much be a sure thing — unless Republican voters manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with a boneheaded move.

Meanwhile, cluelessly destructive Joe Biden must be stopped.




Clean-Up on Aisle Biden By His Handlers Just Makes Things All the Worse


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Joe Biden’s senility isn’t new, but that doesn’t make the last week’s escalation of his condition any less concerning.

Things kicked off Tuesday when Biden delivered a gaffe-filled speech on abortion. By Friday, clips of an MSNBC interview begin to circulate, and in one of them, the president appeared to nearly pass out until the interviewer stepped in. Hours prior on the same day, Biden had gone on an unintelligible rant while campaigning with John Fetterman in Pennsylvania.

Then there was Sunday. The president attended a forum put on by the radically leftwing outlet NowThis News, and at one point, he was interviewed by a man who claims to be going through “girlhood” as a transgender “girl.” Yes, it was as disturbing as it sounds, with Biden fully endorsing the mutilation of young children in the process.

At the same event, though, the president made another wild claim. Specifically, he said that his illegal student loan forgiveness order was actually passed in Congress by “a vote or two.” That was obviously news to everyone given that Congress never even brought a bill to the floor on the issue, much less did they vote on one.

I’d encourage everyone to watch the clip before reading further because he clearly says what he says in regard to Congress supposedly passing a bill to forgive student debt. There is no missing context. He didn’t stumble over his words. He just outright proclaimed it with authority.

That left his handlers scrambling, and a day later, they have finally come up with a reason for Biden’s completely false comments. Apparently, he actually meant another bill that he didn’t mention and which does nothing to address student loan debt.

The lies are just getting lazier and lazier. I mean, I know that Karine Jean-Pierre is the worst press secretary in modern history, but you’d think she could get a few people around here with some sense of creativity. If you are going to tell a falsehood, at least make it somewhat believable, otherwise, it just mimics parody.

Biden was not talking about the Inflation Reduction Act. There is no argument to be made that he was. We can all watch the video. He himself never made that argument nor did he even elude to such. Rather, this clean-up attempt is a clear retcon, completely made up after the fact. And because of that, it simply insults the intelligence of every fair-minded onlooker observing this abject farce of a presidential administration.

Laughably, to put a cherry on top of things, the clearly false statement put out by Biden’s comms shop to “correct” what he said was later corrected. The mention of “millions” was meant to read as “billions.” The president’s handlers are complete amateurs, which makes the arrogance dripping from their every utterance all the more absurd.

None of this stops until the press begins to call it out for what it is, and while I’ve got no love for the mainstream media, I do think the gloves are going to come off after the mid-terms. They are holding their fire in the hope that Democrats can stave off the red wave. Once it crashes on the shore, though, a lot of people are going to go under the bus, first and foremost the mentally degraded man occupying the Oval Office.