Wednesday, October 4, 2023

California, the Great Destroyer ~ VDH

The current disaster has many parents 


The rail authority now estimates that just the modest 178 mile route—only about a fifth of the authorized distance—will not be completed at least until 2030. Past high speed estimates of both time and cost targets have been widely wrong and perhaps deliberately misleading.

Total costs for the entire project are now estimated at nearly $130 billion. Many expect that figure to double in the next quarter-century. Planners also concede there will likely not be much high speed rider demand from San Joaquin Valley residents willing to pay $86 to travel at a supposed 200 mph from Bakersfield to Merced.

Nine years ago voters amid drought and water shortages also passed a state water bond, authorizing $7.5 billion in new water projects and initiatives.

Some $2.7 billion was targeted for new dams and reservoirs. The current water storage system had not been enlarged since the early 1980s, when the state population was 15 million fewer residents.

So far not a single dam or new reservoir has been built. And Californians expect more water rationing statewide anytime the state experiences a modest drought.

In 2017, a $15 billion bond authorized a complete remodeling of Los Angeles International Airport—recognized as one of the more congested, disorganized, and unpleasant airports in America.

Now the cost to complete the project has grown to an estimated $30 billion, with a proposed finish date of 2028—11 years after the project was authorized.

And the ongoing LAX remake is considered one of California’s more successful public construction projects.

In 2002, California began construction on the eastern span replacement of the iconic San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge—less than half of the bridge’s total length.

It was scheduled to be finished in five years at a cost of $250 million.

The job in fact took 11 years. And it cost $6.5 billion—a 2,500 percent increase over the estimate.

In contrast, original construction of the entire Bay Bridge began in 1933, at the height of the Great Depression. Yet the job was completed in a little  more than three years.

The list of such delayed, canceled, or prolonged projects could be expanded, from the proposed widening of the state’s overcrowded, antiquated, and dangerous north-to-south “freeways” to the now inert Peripheral Canal project that would have allowed the California aqueduct to transfer needed water southward by precluding the present inefficient pumping into and out of the San Francisco delta.

So what happened to the can-do California of former governors Pat Brown, Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, and Pete Wilson? They had bequeathed to the Baby Boomer generation a well-run state, renowned for its state-of-the-art infrastructure.

All four governors, a Democrat and Republicans, had ensured the nation’s most sophisticated higher education system, iconic freeways, and model water transference systems.

The current disaster has many parents.

A coastal culture of globally rich elites began passing some of the most stringent environmental and zoning regulations in the nation. Such Byzantine roadblocks deliberately stalled construction and skyrocketed costs—all of little concern to the “not-in-my-backyard” wealthy in their secluded coastal enclaves who had ensured the virtual end of infrastructure investments.

The state’s public unions and bloated bureaucracies guaranteed Soviet-style overhead, incompetence, and unaccountability. The more California raised its income taxes—currently the nation’s highest topping out at 13.3 percent—the more it borrowed, spent, and ran up huge annual budget deficits.

The nation’s highest gasoline taxes along with steep sales and property taxes—coupled with unaffordable fuel and housing, a homeless epidemic, dismal public schools, out-of-control crime, and mass, illegal immigration—soon all led to a bifurcated state of rich and poor.

The middle class either became poor or fled.

Indeed, businesses and millions of the middle class hightailed it out of California over the last three decades in one of the greatest state population exoduses in our nation’s history. But they also took with them the very prior experience, expertise, and capital that had once made California the nation’s envy.

In contrast, millions of impoverished illegal immigrants arrived over the last 30 years without legality, English, or high school diplomas.

And thus millions were immediately in dire need of costly state-supplied health, education, housing, and food subsidies. Currently well over half of all California births are paid for by Medi-Cal. Well over a third of the resident population depends on the state to provide all their health care needs.

Twenty-seven percent of California’s resident population was not born in the United States. That reality created a vast challenge of civic education to ensure assimilation and integration. Unfortunately, millions entered California at precisely the time of a new tribalism and racial essentialism that has taken hold of the state’s government, media, schools, and universities. Tribalism, not the melting-pot, is California’s paradigm.

California is a one-party state. There are no statewide Republican elected officeholders. Progressive Democrats also enjoy a supermajority in both houses of the legislature. Only 12 of 52 congressional seats are held by Republicans. And almost all of California leftwing politicians are funded or influenced by Silicon Valley—the richest corridor in civilizational history, with $9 trillion in market capitalization.

In sum, a now broke California became a medieval society of Leftwing ultra-rich and Leftwing ultra-poor. On one end, there was no longer the skill or expertise to modernize the state. And on the other, an elite became more interested in dreaming of heaven on earth for itself as it ensured a veritable hell for others.

There is one thing, however, that California does quite well: demolition.

Currently it is destroying four dams on the Klamath River that had provided clean hydroelectrical power, water storage, flood control, and recreation. The media, the bureaucracy, and the politicians acted with unaccustomed dispatch to obliterate the dams and thus supposedly to liberate salmon to swim better upstream.

And the state is blowing up these dams partly by directing hundreds of millions of dollars voters had allotted for reservoir construction—adding insult to the injury of state voters.

A haughty green California also regulated timber companies out of business. It ceased traditional selective logging and clearing of brush from its forests.

It also limited cattle grazing of grasses and shrubs. And it embraced  new “natural” forestry initiatives that postulated that rotting dead trees, dense brush, and tall summer grasses—dry kindling for devastating forest fires—created a rich “sustainable” ecosystem for wildlife. Letting nature be would prompt occasional “natural” corrective fires as in the nineteenth-century past.

The predictable results were massive, destructive—and once preventable—forest fires in the Sierra Nevada mountains and foothills. During California summers, their vast plumes of soot and smoke have polluted the skies for months and sickened residents, destroyed hundreds of homes and businesses, and wiped out billions of dollars in valuable timber even as lumber prices soared.

And California’s lesson for the nation?

If you want to topple a statue, re-label an historically named street, burn up millions of pine and fir trees, blow up a dam, turn parks and the public square into dangerous and toxic squatter cities, then the state can do all of that and in record time.

But try building something to ensure Californians can travel quickly and in safety, or have affordable power, homes, and fuel, and assured water?

All that is simply beyond the current state’s comprehension, ability, and desire. So like modern Vandals or Goths, contemporary Californians are far better destroying the work of others than creating anything of their own.

And what is next? We await the 2024 national elections, when a few California politicians may run for our highest offices, no doubt with the campaign promise, “I can do to America what I did to California.”



X22, And we Know, and more- Oct 4

 




Donald Trump and His Supporters are ‘Existential Threat’ to the Leftists’ Vision for America

'We don't realize that we're in the middle of a revolution'


Victor Davis Hanson detailed the Left’s vision for America and said that “Donald Trump” and his agenda are an “existential threat” to that vision.

“I think they’ve come to the conclusion that Trump represented an existential threat and by association, half the country did, to their vision of what they want to transform us into,” Hanson told Tucker Carlson on Tucker on X. “And so they feel that any means necessary are justified by their noble spiritual ends.”

Hanson, an American Greatness contributor and board member of the Center for American Greatness, went on to detail the concept of the Left’s “Critical Legal Theory” and other areas such as border control, monetary policy, and other facets of American culture and government that the Left seeks to transform.

“I think we’re, we’re very naive, Tucker,” said Hanson. “We don’t realize that we’re in the middle of a revolution.”

“We think that we’re still playing within the same sidelines or parameters, and it’s not,” he said. “Everything’s under negotiation, whether it’s the Senate filibuster, the Electoral College, new states coming in, the size of Supreme Court.”

Hanson also expressed grave concerns about the future, especially should a Democrat win the 2024 presidential election. If that happens, he said, it could destabilize America’s democratic framework, especially given the Leftists’ actions in the 2020 election.

“They systematically used COVID as an excuse and went into about nine states and changed the voting laws,” he said. “And I mean by that, that the error rate for mail in ballots dropped exponentially, as the rejection rate did, as they were swarmed by them, and they were bragging about it.”

“Mark Zuckerberg was bragging about spending $419 million to absorb the work of precinct workers in key states,” Hanson added. “Molly Ball, as you remember in that Time essay, just gushed about how they had outsmarted these stupid conservatives, and they had coordinated the Chamber of Commerce, the street people, Antifa, etc.”

He emphasized the importance of preserving the America and safeguarding its principles against the onslaught of a transformative Leftist agenda that may not align with the nation’s foundational ethos.

Carlson said the prosecution of Trump by Leftist prosecutors brings us to a “dangerous moment.”

“This is a dangerous moment,” said Carlson. “Without a legitimate legal system, people will no longer follow the law, and the country will collapse.”

“This is not about Trump,” he said. “This is about preserving the United States of America.”



Paul Krugman Smears Ukraine Aid Skeptics As Putin Propagandists

Krugman penned the column after conservative Republicans successfully stopped another round of funding for Ukraine.



Paul Krugman’s latest unhinged column in The New York Times wreaks of bad faith.

On Tuesday, the paper’s economic columnist from the City University of New York Graduate Center wrote a nearly 900-word piece outlining a false binary when it comes to aid for Ukraine. Republicans who oppose another multi-billion-dollar aid package to the war-torn country, he wrote, just “want Putin to win.”

“They view the Putin regime’s cruelty and repression as admirable features that America should emulate,” Krugman told the subscribers of The New York Times. “They support a wannabe dictator at home and are sympathetic to actual dictators abroad.”

Opponents of the generous aid packages might also be trying to avoid American involvement in another overseas war, but for Krugman, that would be giving his political rivals too much credit.

Krugman penned the column after conservative Republicans successfully ripped out another round of funding for Ukraine in the latest budget showdown last week. The compromise bill to keep the government open for another 45 days passed both chambers Saturday with bipartisan support. Absent from the measure was another $6 billion for Ukraine demanded by both Democrats and Senate Republican leadership. Lawmakers have until Nov. 17 to come to another agreement before a government shutdown.

Krugman criticized the conservative effort to eliminate more Ukraine aid, arguing the amount of tax dollars sent to Eastern Europe is a small budget item.

“Total federal outlays are currently running at more than $6 trillion a year, or more than $9 trillion every 18 months, so Ukraine aid accounts for less than 1 percent of federal spending (and less than 0.3 percent of G.D.P.),” Krugman wrote, as if $6 trillion was nothing to sneeze at. With a national debt of more than $33 trillion and rising, it might be time to question whether spending $9 trillion every 18 months is really sustainable. Instead, his focus is on whether taxpayer spending is a good deal for Ukraine.

The Biden administration committed more than $113 billion in aid to Ukraine last year, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. How much more money does Ukraine need? A blank check, apparently.

[READ: While You Pinch Inflated Pennies, Congress Sent $900 Of Your Household Income To Ukraine]

“Pay no attention to all those complaints about how much we’re spending in Ukraine,” Krugman wrote. “They aren’t justified by the actual cost of aid, and the people claiming to be worried about the cost don’t really care about the money. What they are, basically, is enemies of democracy, both abroad and at home.”

In other words, anything less than unchecked funding for the war effort, according to Krugman’s view, is antithetical to “democracy.” But is Ukraine even a democracy? In March, Federalist Senior Editor David Harsanyi outlined how it isn’t.

“Ukraine — which, before the war, regularly slotted in somewhere beneath Burma, Mexico, and Hungary on those silly ‘democracy matrixes’ left-wingers used to love — isn’t any kind of liberal democracy,” Harsanyi wrote. “Today Ukraine still shutters churches and restricts the free press. Maybe you believe those are justifiable actions during wartime, but under no definition are they liberal. Ukraine has never been a functioning ‘democracy.'”

Supporters of unlimited funding, meanwhile, are touchy when it comes to substantive aid oversight. In December, then-Democrat House Armed Services Chair Adam Smith said claims over lack of oversight “makes me a little crazy.”

“Number one, the focus on that is part of Russian propaganda. All these stories about how the money isn’t being spent wisely,” Smith said at the Reagan National Defense Forum. “Second, Ukraine is spending the money really well … That’s why they’re winning.”

The fact that Ukraine hasn’t lost the war, apparently, is all the evidence the Washington lawmaker needs.

In August, Democrats went on to block an effort to implement greater oversight of Ukraine funding. A leaked memo from the Biden administration published this week by Politico raised more concerns about where the tax dollars indeed went.

“Biden administration officials are far more worried about corruption in Ukraine than they publicly admit, a confidential U.S. strategy document obtained by POLITICO suggests,” the paper reported. “The administration wants to press Ukraine to cut graft, not least because U.S. dollars are at stake. But being too loud about the issue could embolden opponents of U.S. aid to Ukraine, many of them Republican lawmakers who are trying to block such assistance.”

Put simply, don’t talk about the transparency of taxpayer aid. It’s bad politics.



WATCH: Fox Reporters Dismantle KJP's Absurd Answers, Leading Her to Make an Even Bigger Fool of Herself


Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

As the wise old adage warns, never engage in a battle of wits with no ammunition. Unfortunately for Karine Jean-Pierre, the most inept White House press secretary in memory, she's either unaware of the advice or intentionally ignores it. Then again, one can't use what one doesn't have.

Such was the case on Monday when KJP once again chose to go toe-to-toe with Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy — and that was just for starters.

Doocy began his back-and-forth with Jean-Pierre by asking how Biden felt about the pending healthcare workers' strike:

Since President Biden is so pro-union, is he okay with 75,000 healthcare workers possibly walking off the job this week?

KJP responded like she always responds — with pre-canned White House talking points.

What I can tell you is that — I’ve said this many times already this morning: The President believes all workers — all workers, including healthcare workers and those that make their work possible — they [sic]deserve a [sic] fair pay and they deserve fair — a fair benefit. 

I’ll have to say, like, the Treasury Department laid out recently a major report that unions and collective bargaining are good for the overall economy and help raise wages at [sic] — for everybody, whether they are a union member or not and I think that matters.

Doocy then hit KJP with a well-thrown right hook, deftly alluding to Biden's recent 12-minute photo-op picket-line stunt with striking autoworkers in Michigan: "Would he consider joining them [healthcare workers] on the picket line if they strike?"

That was all it took to knock KJP off her game.

Look, I don’t have anything else to share on — on the President’s schedule. What I can say is...when we see this type of collective bargaining...it actually helps our economy overall...for all — not just union members, also non-union members.

In other words, she ignored the question.

Next up, Fox News correspondent Hillary Vaughn — AKA: Mrs. Peter Doocy — blistered the daylights out of KJP over the continuing Biden Border Crisis

Two questions on the border, if I can. New York Governor Kathy Hochul says the border is too open right now. Does the President think that the border is too open?

KJP went full-blown Clown World with her response.

So, here’s what I will say: The president, on his own, without the help of Republicans in Congress — let’s not forget, he put forward a comprehensive piece of legislation to deal with immigration reform. Remember, this — this immigration system has been broken for decades and it’s been three years. That’s been almost three years since he put forth that piece of legislation and three things — there are three things that he has moved forward in when it comes to his plan and looking at — looking at the border. 

Memo to KJP: You weren't asked about failed Biden legislative proposals, you were asked about the wide-open border.

She continued:

There’s enforcement and so, we’ve deployed additional troops and federal agents to the border and removed or returned more than 250,000 individuals since May 12th alone. That’s what we’ve been able to do without the help of Republicans and deterrence — we’ve had the largest expansion certainly of a [sic] pathways to — pathways to — pathways in decades and we’ve made clear that attempting to cross the border unlawfully will result in prompt removal, a five-year ban on — on reentry, and potential criminal prosecution. 

And let’s not forget the diplomacy that we have done with the region, including Mexico, to deal with this issue because it’s not — this is a — this is a regional issue that we’re seeing with — as it relates — as it relates to — as it relates to unlawful migration.

Now to put this tactfully... what a complete crock of manure. First, Biden intentionally created the border crisis. Second, despite his lies and those of his administration, to the contrary, the crisis not only rages on unabated; it continues to expand.

She then doubled up, further humiliating herself:

What I’m saying is that the president, without the help — without the help of Republicans, is doing everything that he can to deal with the border. That’s what he’s been able to do, while Republicans tried to push forth a CR to limit — to take away the federal — the federal agents that we see at the border.  

That’s what he’s trying to do. They’re trying to politicize it and make it worse — make it worse. That’s what Republicans are trying to do and ma — turn it into a political stunt. The president is actually dealing with the issue that’s in front of him by getting record funding, 25,000 federal agents at the border. That is something that this president has been able to do.

Here's the thing. If Democrat politicians (and their respective mouthpieces) told the truth about their objectives, very few of them would win reelection — or be elected in the first place. 

And if Karine Jean-Pierre answered Hillary Vaughn's questions honestly, her response would go something like this: 

Look, I've answered this question multiple times. What this president is doing is trying his damnedest to import as many illegal aliens into this country as he can get away with — for as long as he can.

In response to "Why?" she'd say:

Because it's part of the Democrat Party's overall election strategy. First, if we can't win by the rules, we cheat. Then, if cheating doesn't work, we try to change the rules. And if that doesn't get it done, meaning we win every national election, we'll continue to import as many what we see as future Democrat voters as it takes. 

Oh, and finally, we want to create a permanent majority underclass that's dependent on the federal government — the Democrat Party, as we see it — for daily living. 

If you doubt any of the above, you haven't been paying attention for the last three years.



WATCH: Chip Roy Goes Absolutely Ballistic on Those Calling Him a 'RINO'


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Rep. Chip Roy pulled no punches on Tuesday while discussing the current failure theater making its way through the House of Representatives. As RedState reported, Rep. Matt Gaetz filed a motion to vacate against Speaker Kevin McCarthy. That fight is underway on the House floor at this moment, where Democrats are looking to join a small group of Republicans to oust McCarthy. What would happen next is completely unclear, as it appears those running this gambit have no plan whatsoever. 

Roy has sided with McCarthy for obvious reasons. Namely, since there is no plan, ousting the Speaker and opening the door for total chaos in the middle of an impeachment inquiry is objectively self-destructive. There isn't much point in fighting if you are benefiting your enemy. To the extent that Joe Biden can process what's happening, he has to be filled with glee at what's occurring. 

That brings me to Roy's latest comments. Some have called him a "RINO" for daring to not hand Democrats such a major win, and he's done with it.

ROY: I would also argue that some of our brothers and sisters, particularly in the MAGA camp, I think, particularly enjoy circular firing squads. You want to come at me and call me a RINO, you can kiss my ***. Look, I've spent a lifetime fighting for limited government and conservative. I have laid it all on the line. I have not seen my family but two days in the last 30 days. You go around talking your big game and thumping your chests on Twitter, yeah, come to my office and come have a debate mother. 

You know why? Because I'm standing up for this country every single day. And Steve, I'm not going to give up, I'm not going to go to a nunnery because **** it. There were people who were buried over in Normandy who deserve us to stand up for what they fought for. That's what I'm going to do. And all of you ******** out there who are out there saying what you're saying on social media, you stick it. I'm going to go down to the floor and do my job, and I'm gonna stand up for the people who fought for this country, and I'm going to do it the way I think is right for the people that I represent. That's what I think. 

It's important to remember that all the concessions gained from McCarthy when he was first made Speaker, including the now-ongoing investigations that conservatives begged for, were the result of Roy negotiating and securing them. For anyone to call him a RINO is laughable. He is perhaps the most conservative member in the entire House, only challenged by Rep. Thomas Massie. 

The disconnect here is simple. Some in the party value social media clout over actually trying to garner tangible wins. "But he fights" has become the rallying cry of a wing of the party that would rather lose continually than operate with any sense of strategy. There is no reality where McCarthy is removed as Speaker and Democrats don't end up the big winners. It is not "fighting" to run headlong into a buzzsaw in exchange for cable news hits. 

Frankly, I'm sick of the Republican Party. I'm tired of the failure theater. I'm tired of the most incompetent among us being rewarded while those who actually get things done are maligned. We deserve to lose.



US District Court in Texas Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Government in Stabilizing Brace Lawsuit


Matt Funicello reporting for RedState 

In yet another victory for the Second Amendment, the U.S. District Court for Northern Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the Federal Government which prevents the ATF and other law enforcement entities from enforcing a new rule regarding stabilizing braces for rifle caliber pistols. This followed yet another big win for the same case in a similar ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, where they ruled the pistol brace rule was unlawful. Firearms Policy Coalition was the lead counsel representing the plaintiff in this case. This chalks up yet another legal victory for the advocacy group, which prides itself on going through copious amounts of ink and paper in printing so many lawsuits.

Here's a good explanation of what a pistol brace actually does: 



This ruling, now by two federal courts, will set the stage for a probable Supreme Court hearing on this case and a few others that the FPC and other gun rights advocacy groups are heading up. There are dozens of active court cases right now, ranging from California's handgun roster to the so-called "assault weapons" ban, as well as a slew of others. FPC, along with the other groups, are actively and courageously fighting state governments, along with the Federal government, against all their attempts at destroying our Second Amendment rights; the 9th Circuit alone has 12 cases against California in front of it.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, the hostility shown to it has reached epic levels in the past ten years alone. More and more often, you hear and or see the left demonstrate their ignorance regarding the Second Amendment. Gun owners are either demonized, belittled, or gaslighted, but most importantly, law-abiding gun owners are always the ones who pay the price for the criminal acts of a few.

...the Second Amendment wasn't about hunting, it wasn't about sport shooting; it was literally about the God-given right of the individual to own and carry weapons of war to protect themselves and their property from a tyrannical government. The rights are given to us by our creator, NOT by the Federal government, not by any body of government. It was given to us as part of the checks and balances our Founders spoke about. We, as Americans, are the only people on Earth who have that right, that power. But the more time goes on, the more Americans are lied to by elitists like Biden, Harris, and countless others, who say we are being overly paranoid and that we are the problem. We are the ones that need to disarm for the common good. 

Our rights do not give a damn about your feelings. Americans need to finally come to terms with that fact and stop capitulating our rights to a corrupt and power-hungry government. We have a fundamental problem in this country, when the nation that our Founders founded with the blood and sweat of their friends and families is being relegated to the dustbins of history. Our politicians have abdicated their responsibilities to the courts, and we, as voters, have abdicated our rights and responsibilities to the politicians. Make no mistake about this: the left will never stop when it comes to guns.

As long as groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition, National Association for Gun Rights, and others are taking the fight to the government, we have a good chance to not only protect our natural rights but possibly even restore the rights that have been taken away. As I mentioned above, with all the lawsuits pending and several of them being re-heard in the light of the Bruen SCOTUS Ruling, some of these bigger cases, of which several are from California, we may see SCOTUS actually issue Writs of Certiorari for some of them. Some of the legal and Second Amendment experts that I have spoken to all agree that SCOTUS will most likely take up California's so-called "assault weapons" ban, along with the state's illegal handgun roster. 

The Golden State's safe handgun roster has been a very sore spot for Californians since its enactment in 2001. It made it illegal to manufacture, sell in, and import to California any semi-automatic handgun that hasn't met the state's firing, safety, and drop tests, as well as meeting the state's internal criteria of what a safe handgun is. The law was designed to eventually phase out handguns in the state due to the listing requirements. For any one gun to be added, five guns had to be removed, and manufacturers had to renew existing guns on the roster, or they were removed. For any cosmetic or minor mechanical change to an existing gun on the roster, the manufacturers were required to submit to the state five models of the gun for testing, which they never got back. And if they failed to do so, it was removed. As such, the roster of approved guns has shrunk continuously over the years, and now fewer and fewer handguns are offered to the public. For example, in California, nobody can purchase any Glock handgun model past a generation three model. Additionally, any new Glock model made after 2009 can't be bought in California because Glock stopped submitting to the state's requirements, and they weren't the only company to do that either. 

Americans all across the country, especially here in California, are eagerly awaiting the next step in all these cases. We especially are looking forward to SCOTUS actually hearing the case I spoke of as well. We want our God-given rights back, and seeing the left meltdown when we win is another great gift to get. 



Email Shows Weiss Violated DOJ Policy By Sending Letters to Coverup for Garland


Now we know it wasn’t merely ‘unusual’ for Weiss to respond on behalf of the attorney general — it was in apparent violation of DOJ policy.



The Department of Justice directed Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss not to respond to congressional inquiries, according to an email provided exclusively to The Federalist. That same email stressed that under DOJ policy, only its Office of Legislative Affairs, or OLA, can respond to requests from the legislative branch. 

Yet Weiss would later sign and dispatch a letter to the House Judiciary Committee in response to an inquiry sent directly to Attorney General Merrick Garland. And in that letter, Weiss misleadingly claimed he had “been granted ultimate authority over” the Hunter Biden investigation. The DOJ’s disregard of its own policy provides further proof that both Garland and Weiss intended to obfuscate the reality that Weiss never held the reins of the Hunter Biden investigation.

On May 9, 2022, Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin wrote to Delaware U.S. Attorney Weiss inquiring about several aspects of the Hunter Biden investigation. After the senators sent a follow-up email to the Delaware U.S. attorney’s office requesting a response by week’s end, Delaware’s First Assistant U.S. Attorney Shannon Hanson asked the DOJ about protocol and then updated Weiss, stating in an email:

Consistent with my conversation with [redacted] last night, we are supposed to forward this and any other correspondence to OLA. Per DOJ policy, only OLA can respond on behalf of the Department to a request from the legislative branch.

On June 9, 2022, the OLA, as provided for in the DOJ’s policy, responded to Grassley and Johnson’s letter. The following month, Grassley and Johnson dispatched a second letter to Weiss, as well as Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray. In an email reviewed by The Federalist, the Office of Legislative Affairs told Weiss’s office it would “take the lead on drafting a response” to Grassley and Johnson’s letter.

The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project obtained these emails and the most recent one revealing the DOJ’s policy that only the “OLA can respond on behalf of the Department to a request from the legislative branch,” after its Director Mike Howell filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the DOJ. The email to Weiss summarizing the DOJ policy contained in this latest batch of court-ordered disclosures proves huge given the sequence of events that occurred earlier this year. 

On May 25, 2023, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland questioning him about the removal of the IRS whistleblowers from the Hunter Biden investigation. Although Jordan directed his inquiry to Garland, on June 7, 2023, Weiss dispatched a letter to the House Judiciary chair, noting in his opening: “Your May 25th letter to Attorney General Garland was forwarded to me, with a request that I respond on behalf of the Department.”

Weiss then stated, as Garland had previously indicated, that he (Weiss) had “been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution…”

That Weiss would respond on behalf of Garland raised eyebrows at the time. Jordan noted “the unusual nature of your response on behalf of Attorney General Garland,” and asked for information concerning the names of individuals who drafted or assisted in drafting the June 7 letter, as well as details concerning the drafting and dispatching of the letter.

But now we know it wasn’t merely “unusual” for Weiss to respond on behalf of the attorney general — it was in apparent violation of the DOJ policy that only the OLA would respond to legislative inquiries. And it was that same policy that prevented Weiss from responding to the earlier questions posed by Johnson and Grassley directly to the Delaware U.S. attorney.

The content of Weiss’s June 7 letter provides a pretty clear answer for why the DOJ ignored its own policy and enlisted the Delaware U.S. attorney to respond to Jordan: Garland needed Weiss to verify what the attorney general had previously told Grassley during a March 1, 2023, hearing. During that hearing, Garland expressly stated that “the U.S. attorney in Delaware has been advised that he has full authority … to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels it’s necessary.” Weiss’s assertion in the June 7 letter that he had “been granted ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when, and whether to file charges and for making decisions necessary to preserve the integrity of the prosecution…” seemingly confirmed Garland’s testimony.

Of course, as informed Americans now know, the release of the IRS whistleblower’s testimony — that Weiss claimed he was not the ultimate decisionmaker — forced the Delaware U.S. attorney to pen a follow-up letter to Jordan. In that June 30, 2023 sequel, Weiss, while purporting to stand by what he had previously written, contradicted his earlier representation that he had “been granted ultimate authority.” Instead, Weiss explained he had “been assured” that “if necessary,” he would be granted authority to charge Hunter Biden in any other district.

Having ultimate authority and being assured that you would be given ultimate authority if necessary are clearly two different things, yet Weiss gave cover for Garland in his June letters. Now we have further proof that the DOJ was behind those letters — otherwise, Weiss would be in violation of the department’s policy.

The DOJ did not respond to The Federalist’s request for comment on Weiss’s apparent violation of the department’s policy.



Joe Biden Still Has No Idea How Many Grandchildren He Has


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Joe Biden still has no idea how many grandchildren he has. That's the story after the president appeared at a recent fundraiser and screwed up the total number of grandkids he has no less than three times. 

See if you can make sense of this.

Biden spoke at a private fundraiser reception in Atherton, California, hosted at the home of Mark Heising and Liz Simons, two billionaire philanthropists. on Sept. 26. The president, while speaking about his family, struggled to remember how many kids his son Hunter Biden has, according to a White House transcript.

“And I have my deceased son’s two children, one is now a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania, one is a senior in high school; and my son Hunter has three children — four children, but we’re — they’re very small. Actually, five children — two of them are under the age of four. But they’re in the — and, you know, they’re grown women now,” Biden said during the reception.

How do you read a transcript of Joe Biden's words and not come away with a migraine? It's impressive how much he manages to talk himself into various corners. First, his son Hunter has three grandchildren. Then he has four. Finally, Biden arrives on five, stating that two of them are under the age of four, which is not true. But to follow that up, he then says they are "grown women now." 

It is really not this difficult to keep track of how many grandchildren you have. The number is seven. Biden has seven grandchildren. He has had seven grandchildren for several years now, to the point where it shouldn't still be a game of brain ping-pong to figure out. I guess that's what happens when a person doesn't acknowledge one of their grandkids until they are almost five years old. Old habits die hard. 

As RedState previously reported, Biden didn't acknowledge the existence of one of his grandchildren, Navy Roberts, until this past July. That only came after Hunter Biden's child support proceedings became national news, representing an embarrassing story for the White House. Given that, the motive behind the belated acknowledgment has always been in doubt.

Regardless, Democrats have a choice here. Either Biden is a deeply unserious person suffering the deteriorating effects of senility and shouldn't be president, or he's a cold-hearted man who doesn't care about his own grandchildren and shouldn't be president. Pick one, because there's no other option where these repeated "mistakes" are normal.