Burning Food as Fuel in Airplane Engines to Combat Climate Change: Could Things Get Any More Ridiculous?

posted by Ward Clark at RedStateVIP 

In the course of a consulting career that lasted over 30 years and took me to do business on four continents, I spent quite a lot of time on airliners. In fact, for some years I spent so much time airborne that I routinely checked myself to see if I was growing feathers. Mind you that would have certainly saved me some serious money on airfare, although flying to some of the places I did business --Tokyo, say, or South Africa -- would have been pretty tiring.

Even now, our life in the Great Land requires a plane ticket any time we want to go visit family (unless, of course, we want to spend five or six days driving down the AlCan), whether it be in Colorado or Iowa, where our expanding brood has settled. And we do notice that, along with everything else, the cost of that airline travel has gone up in recent years. That's not surprising, given the economic policies of the current shambling wreck of a presidential administration we are saddled with. 

So, why, then, would various world governments, including our own, be pushing airlines into a practice that will make air travel less efficient and more expensive, and raise food prices into the bargain? The "Watts Up With That?" blog writes:

One of the absolutely nuttier ideas to come out of the climate change / anti-fossil fuels mania of modern times comes from the international airlines business.  They are being pushed by governments and getting unending pressure to signal their virtue by visibly climbing aboard the “Stop Fossil Fuels Now” bandwagon.  The hitch is, as we all know, is that airplanes need fuel to fly and currently, fossil fuels are the only choice.

But, thanks to the venerable Old Gray Lady, we are now informed, with interactive media,  that:

“Airlines Race Toward a Future of Powering Their Jets with Corn”

“Carriers want to replace jet fuel with ethanol to fight global warming. That would require lots of corn, and lots of water.”

The headline is simultaneously literal and tongue-in-cheek – the (I am fighting the urge to use the phrase “corny idea”) concept is to replace the more usual jet fuels  with ethanol made from corn. 

"Corny idea," while I appreciate a good pun as much or more as the next guy, just doesn't seem adequate. "Stupid idea" -- now that's more appropriate. And it's been quite a few years since the Old Gray Lady was worth anything more than fish wrap or birdcage liner.

Back to the issue at hand. There's a problem, of course, as there seems to be with so many such schemes: It won't work. "Watts Up With That?" continues:

How much ethanol are they talking about for automotive gasoline each year?  “14 billion gallons”.  “….the 135 billion gallons of finished motor gasoline consumed in the United States contained about 14 billion gallons of fuel ethanol.”  [ source – US EIA ]

How much fossil fuel-brd jet fuel is burned each year?  In 2019 commercial 95 billion gallons of jet fuel were consumed. [ source ]. The Covid panic reduced that somewhat, but the total is expected to reach that again this year.

To replace all of the fossil-fuel-brd jet fuel would require, if all things were equal (which they are not) another 95 billion gallons of ethanol.

The U.S. already uses up to 40% of its total corn crop to produce the measly 14 billion gallons of ethanol mixed into gasoline.  It would take 250% of today’s total U.S.  corn crop [ something wrong with my math here – a little help?  – kh ] to produce the 95 billions gallons of ethanol to replace jet fuels – not even considering the number of additional ethanol plans that would be needed.

At the end of the day, what we're talking about here is burning food in airliners, and that's just ridiculous. It's bad enough that we're burning food in cars and trucks. And there's another problem; ethanol has only about two-thirds of the energy content of a petroleum-brd alternative. So add, say, a third to that extra corn requirement. Not to mention a few other things, namely that much of the world's population depends on corn as a dietary staple, including, significantly, our neighbors to the south, who are already adversely affected by misguided U.S. practices. And we may just plain not have enough arable land to grow five times as much corn as we are now, just to power airplanes, especially since growing corn on much of the land west of the Mississippi requires irrigation.

And here's the thing: This is all so unnecessary. 

The Earth’s climate is a huge, chaotic system. Nobody, but nobody, can accurately predict weather (or climate) more than a few months ahead at best, and local weather forecasters routinely fail at predicting local weather more than a few days in advance. And through most of the planet's history, it's been warmer than it is now; sometimes a lot warmer. It is the height of human arrogance to claim that we know what the planet's "correct" temperature is.

So, “Put not thy trust in princes,” or in politicians, nor guys flying in luxurious private jets to international climate conferences, and especially not in autistic Dutch teenagers. They’re pushing an agenda, and it will not work out in your favor; meanwhile, regardless of what people do, the Earth will keep ticking along, following the old feedback loops and patterns it has followed for four-and-a-half billion years now, regardless of what we tiny humans do.

There are, of course, far better uses for corn.

It's not at all unlikely, though, that this is a feature, not a bug, in the agenda of the climate-change elites. I've written before of an apocryphal statement from the Duke of Wellington, who allegedly opposed passenger railroads on the presumption that they would "...promote unrest by allowing the lower orders to move too freely about." I have little doubt that today, among some of the more strident voices shouting about climate change, the same attitude pertains.

X22, And we Know, and more- December 7

 

A Manifesto for a Renaissance of American Leadership

We need leaders who understand and value America

by James E. Fanell & Bradley A. Thayer for American Greatness

In a time of ideological upheaval and the threat from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Americans face acute perils to their lives, livelihoods, traditions, inheritance from earlier generations of Americans and obligations to future generations. Historically, American leaders would have been able to prevent or avoid the problems the country now confronts. America has had difficulties in the past, and American leaders resolved those difficulties, however painful and challenging.

Americans today are not receiving the leadership they need or deserve from the Biden administration. An apt analogy is the New York Mets disastrous 1962 season when the team went 40 wins against 120 losses, still the worst record in baseball, their manager, the great Casey Stengel said: “the Mets have shown me more ways to lose than I even knew existed.” Similarly, Biden is showing Americans new ways to lose. Now Americans increasingly feel that the country is becoming the equivalent of the 1962 Mets.

At this time of considerable menace, Americans have a right to expect the following standards from their leaders. Here is short list of what the American people should expect and demand from American leaders.

First, Americans should expect leaders who love the political ideology, principles, and culture of the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution and want to sustain that culture for their progeny. Americans want leaders who love America, the people and the land and want to preserve the political health and well-being of the American people and the natural beauty of the land.

Second, they should expect loyalty from their leaders—loyalty to the American people and to its political principles. Americans should expect that their leaders share the interests of the American people and provide a commonwealth for them. This requires what would have been self-evident in times past: American leaders must place the interests of the American people first. American leaders should understand and protect the American people from their domestic cultural, economic, and social concerns as well as the malign actions and intentions of foreign adversaries, most threatening that of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), that undermine their health through the poison of narcotics like fentanyl or of TikTok and other poisons of the mind of scores of millions of Americans.

Third, Americans should expect actual leadership through the honest identification of problems and answers to them. American leaders should provide positive solutions to illegal immigration inflation, the health and well-being of all Americans, most particularly America’s working and middle classes, those who perished or whose lives were disrupted by the forgotten opioid epidemic, by Covid, by the weakening of American civil society and communities, and by the willful lack of enforcement of America’s immigration laws. Leadership also means devising a solution to protect Americans and American interests from the PRC and the other threats that endanger American lives and prosperity.

Fourth, Americans should expect that their leaders are invested in America’s future. They do not saddle future generations with debt or reduced opportunity, robbed of their birthright and ability to enjoy the American Dream, they should not seek to separate the American people from their history and culture, and they do not provide succor to America’s enemies who will rob America’s of their future, liberty, and birthright. American leaders should ensure that future Americans have greater opportunities than Americans have at present or in the past.

Fifth, it is painful to state what would have been unthinkable to previous generations of American leaders: American leaders and their families should not profit directly or indirectly from investments in the enemy of the American people, the PRC. The fact that American leaders do profit is evidence of a far more significant problem than venality but of how far our leaders have fallen. It shows just how bad they are, and what a profound problem Americans have, and how the only way to correct this is by holding leaders accountable.

Additionally, that American leadership permits the PRC’s presence on American financial markets is beyond scandal and reaches deep into treachery. Investment that could be going to strengthen America’s development of 6G and beyond technology or artificial intelligence, bioscience, education, manufacturing, ship building, or infrastructure improvement, is instead going to the CCP, providing a brighter future for totalitarian rule in the PRC, and strengthening the PRC military by creating a more formidable enemy for the American people. What will those who invest in the PRC receive, more lucre, another house, at the cost of their children’s, and all American’s birthright. The 400 business leaders at their mid-November meeting with Xi Jinping in San Francisco should have been investing in American communities rather than trying to profit from trade with the PRC and by saving a few bucks by producing in the PRC, and aiding America’s enemy by investing in it.

Sixth, Americans should expect that American leaders do not generate strategic vulnerabilities for the United States and the American people by manufacturing of strategic goods like antibiotics, medicines, medical equipment, and personal protective equipment in the PRC. Or by selling American soil to the Chinese regime’s investors. Or by allowing PRC entities to purchase oil from the American Strategic Petroleum reserve. Or by permitting China to siphon off technology from U.S. firms in exchange for access to the Chinese market.

In the Cold War, American firms would not tolerate American businesses investing in the Soviet Union. Known as Lenin’s favorite capitalist, businessman Armand Hammer was widely excoriated for his Occidental Petroleum’s and other business interests in the Soviet Union. Americans should expect of American firms that they act like American firms and support the American people and American interests. Lamentably, the actions of the 400 business leaders at their dinner with Xi was outrageous. It will not age well. They will rue the day they were there. Each of these “Americans” should account publicly for why he or she attended that dinner with the Communist dictator and provided such a rapturous welcome for him.

Any pretension to be universal or global in outlook or interest will be shattered by Beijing should it be successful in creating the world it wants. In the Sino-American struggle, business and cultural leaders will support either the Chinese regime or the U.S. Which side are you on should be asked of every corporate leader, venture capitalist, and Hollywood star on American soil.

Seventh, Americans should discuss how their leaders failed them so badly, and how they can find better ones. Where will the American people find men and women who inspire Americans, understand their difficulties, and provide answers to present and future problems that do not involve transforming America into a socialist, neo-totalitarian state, or an owned subsidiary of the PRC. Beyond a handful of prominent individuals, where are American leaders who will strengthen the country rather than weakening it. Leaders who will provide answers in accord with American political culture and practices, offer support for them, and seek to strengthen them. Leaders who do not profit from trade with America’s enemy or permit the enemy to use American investment and resources to become a greater threat while denying that investment to Americans to strengthen America.

In the wake of the June 1953 uprising against the tyranny of the East German government and Soviet occupation, Bertolt Brecht wrote his poem “The Solution.” In it, Brecht wondered—given that the East German government stated that the people had forfeit the confidence of the government—if it would not be easier for the government to dissolve the people and elect another. The hatred that the East German government had for its people is echoed in Biden’s insouciance and cool contempt for the people of East Palestine Ohio.

As a thought experiment, what if Americans could fire their leaders—if they could replace their political, economic, technological, media and cultural leaders as easily as immigrants now cross the southern border. What if decades ago American leaders had perceived the nature of the PRC and had worked to combat it rather than welcoming it into the West’s economic, political, and technological ecosystems. What if Hollywood made films about the Muslim genocide in China, oppression in Tibet, a Chinese official who denounced the racism and sexism of the Chinese regime, or a heroic Rosa Parks figure, who starts a civil rights movement in China.

At this critical time, Americans need leaders who understand and value America and the American people, and who appreciate the threat from the PRC, and what must be accomplished to defeat that threat. Americans should expect their leaders have the interests of the American people foremost in their minds. For decades, leaders have failed the American people. They no longer have the luxury to do so. Cursed with the leadership they have; the American people have been extraordinarily resilient. But this cannot continue.

Fortunately, Americans have a history of standing up under similar trying times. May we never forget the words of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg in 1863, who invoking the Declaration of Independence reminded every American that we are government of the people, by the people and for the people. The American people deserve and need to have far better leadership to face the challenges of the 21^st century—the responsibility falls upon the American people to get it done.

Bundle Up For Coal-Killer John Kerry’s Cold, Dark Winter

When your lights flicker and your heat fails 

this winter, remember to thank a climate czar

Chuck DeVore reporting for The Federalist

President Joe Biden’s climate czar, Obama’s former Secretary of State John Kerry, flew his jet into Dubai for the U.N.’s Climate Change Conference to demand that no coal-fired power plants be built anywhere in the world.

In the meantime, China, which generates upwards of six times more power from coal than the U.S. does, is building or planning to build even more plants, with the new ones totaling more than the entire existing U.S. coal-fired fleet. And while communist China claims to have environmental laws as strong as those in the U.S., a well-placed bribe will get local communist apparatchiks to look the other way.

All the while, some 80 percent of mercury pollution in America comes to our shores from overseas — much of it from China. 

The practical problem with Biden’s war on American coal — one of the few 2020 campaign promises he kept — is that even if the Biden administration is bending or breaking the rules to shut down American energy production, the effect goes far beyond regulations lawfully enacted. Investors hate risk. 

People aren’t building new, efficient, clean American coal plants. Instead, they’re being shut down and replaced with unreliable wind and solar (much built in China by slave labor) that require massive Chinese-made battery farms to keep the lights on. 

But new coal plants are being approved in China to the tune of a couple a week — and something tells me China cares not for Kerry’s scolding. 

Affordability and Economic Considerations

Coal has historically been one of the most affordable sources of energy. Even with the decreasing costs of renewables, coal-fired power plants still play a role in keeping electricity prices lower, particularly in regions where coal is readily available. This affordability is significant for both individual consumers and industries, especially those that are energy-intensive. Higher energy costs can lead to increased costs for goods and services, affecting the broader economy.

Biden and Kerry want high energy costs. For them, it’s a feature, not a bug. The problem is that it increases costs on American manufacturing, leading to more things being made in coal-fired China — and then imported back to America — along with the fentanyl to numb the pain of a lack of prospects. 

Want to see America’s future under the Biden-Kerry policies? Look to Gavin Newsom’s California. The Golden State had the second-highest electricity prices in the U.S. in 2022 (only Hawaii’s are more expensive), and this year through September, it still has America’s second-highest prices at 24.87 cents per kWh, more than double Texas’ price at 10.15 cents per kWh.

Reliability and Energy Security

One of the primary arguments for maintaining coal-fired power plants in the U.S. is their contribution to the reliability and security of the nation’s electricity supply. Coal plants are capable of providing baseload power, meaning they can consistently generate electricity at a steady rate, independent of external conditions. This contrasts with renewable sources such as wind and solar, which are intermittent and reliant on weather conditions. The ability of coal plants to supply constant power is crucial for maintaining grid stability, especially during peak demand periods or when renewable sources are less productive.

But America’s electric grid is getting perilously close to winter blackouts, with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) warning a few weeks ago that more than half of the country is at a heightened risk of blackouts this winter thanks to a combination of high demand and deficits in regional power generation — the latter being code for wind and solar not being enough to make up for early coal plant retirements. 

So when your lights flicker and your heat fails this winter, remember to thank a climate czar.

We Have to Stop Using the Left's Descriptive Language

posted by Brandon Morse at RedStateVIP 

As a personal rule, I try to be as accurate with the language I use as I possibly can. Not just because I'm a commentator on a news website, but because I'm in the midst of a socio-political and cultural battle where words are weapons that are only effective to one side's cause when used. 

Words are how we define the world around us. They can change our minds and take us from one opinion to the polar opposite of that opinion after a mere paragraph. Words are the tools you need to win debates, capture hearts, and change minds. 

But you make it much harder on yourself when you're using words cooked up by the opposite side to describe a group, person, event, or concept. 

For instance, I've made it clear how much I hate the fact that the left is described as "liberal," and I hate it even more than the right reinforces the delusion by using the same descriptor when discussing them. To be "liberal" means having a leaning toward liberty and freedom, and the modern left has absolutely no spiritual claim to that concept and, thus, no right to use that word to describe themselves. 

Yet, I can't stop even some of my more famous talking head friends from talking about the "liberals" who are ruining this country. 

Liberals aren't ruining this country...leftists are. I'm the liberal, and I'm willing to bet many of you reading this are as well.

(READ: Stop Calling Leftists "Liberals")

But there are other words that the left uses that they have absolutely no right to use, or worse, have no basis in reality. "Progressive" is a word that causes my eyes to involuntarily roll when I hear it. When I hear the word "progressive," the question that immediately pops up in my mind is "progressing toward what?" 

"Progress" is a positive word. It means moving forward, usually toward something good. The phrase "we're making progress" is used when describing the headway being made. It elicits the idea of pushing forward and overcoming difficulty. When Democrats use the term "progressive" to describe themselves, they're preying on that knee-jerk reaction from your brain. 

What they're progressing toward isn't a forward direction. That much is clear by now, and anytime that word is used, it should instantly be hit back on. 

Then there's "alt-right." 

It's a term that, when expounded, means "alternative-right," with "alternative" meaning something that is mutually exclusive from the thing presented. When you stop to think about it, what "alt-right" really means is "the opposite of the right." Do you know what the "alt-right" is in this case? 

...the left. 

If you really want to describe people on the right as the "alt-right," then the closest you're going to come is someone like Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney. There are plenty of Republicans who could be described as being alt-right, and they're usually the ones doing the Democrat Party's chores. 

We can even pull back and look at a few of the politically correct phrases you're probably hearing a lot today that should be — and more and more are — brutally mocked.

"Cultural enrichment," as it's described by leftists, isn't cultural enrichment; it's displacement. 

"Transgenderism" isn't a real thing; it's a political concept that makes suffering from gender dysphoria, a very real and hellish mental disorder, into a popular personality quirk you can make your entire life (and voting habits) about.

"Non-Binary" runs along the same idea as transgenderism, but it's the idea that you're not male or female, which is ridiculous on two levels. Not only are there only male and female humans, but hilariously, saying you're non-binary indicates you're not part of the "male/female binary," putting you in a second group of people and thus right back into a binary. 

"Trans kid" is the idea that a child was born in the wrong body, but what it really is is an indicator that the kid's parent, guardian, or teacher is a child abuser since no one has ever been born as the wrong gender, of which there are only two.

"Democratic Socialism" is just socialism trying to use the word "Democratic" to make itself look youthful and dynamic in the same way an aging, past-her-prime stripper uses makeup to make herself look like she's still a viable stage presence.

"Feminism" isn't about equality between men and women; it's a female supremacist movement, and when broken down, the term even implies that. 

You can probably think of a million more in the comments, and you should feel free to post your own. 

The point is that there's a reason these words have been introduced into our lexicon through constant usage in the media in order to reinforce them. Once these phrases become accepted descriptors, any political or cultural battles that take place around these events are technically done on leftist territory. 

Refuse to argue by their terms before you argue at all. 

The Military Recruitment Crisis Mirrors America’s Changing Values

Dismal recruitment numbers are more than a Pentagon issue.

 They reflect our societal values, aspirations, and doubts.

Joshua Claybourn reporting for The Federalist

The U.S. Army’s recruitment efforts are so dismal, it is now asking soldiers it previously dismissed over the Covid vaccine requirement to come back. Earlier this year, the Pentagon rescinded its Covid vaccination mandate entirely. These decisions not only reflect the Army’s urgent need to attract new recruits but also underscore the evolving landscape of military service in modern America. The armed forces must adapt to changing societal norms and expectations, a challenge that extends far beyond mere numerical recruitment targets.

The ongoing military recruitment crisis transcends simple statistics, mirroring our national character and the shifting values of our society. Military service, which was once a unifying American experience cutting across class and geography, now appears increasingly alien and less understood by the civilian populace. This detachment is not just physical but also cultural and emotional. For many, the inherent valor and sacrifice of military service seem distant, perhaps even anachronistic, qualities that were once central to our national identity.

This struggle for recruitment illuminates deeper societal shifts. The traditional appeal of military service, anchored in notions of patriotism and duty, now competes with a changing job market and a new generation’s redefined sense of purpose. Young Americans navigate a world with unprecedented information access, diverse opportunities, and evolving definitions of societal contribution. Against this backdrop, the military, with its rigid structures and demanding commitments, may struggle to resonate.

Sobering statistics quantify the challenge: In fiscal 2023, only the Marine Corps and the Space Force met their recruitment goals. The Army, Air Force, and Navy fell short, with the Army expecting to miss its target by 10,000 recruits and the Navy by 6,000. Even more striking, the Air Force faces a potential deficit of 27,000 recruits, while the Air National Guard anticipates a shortfall of 4,000. These figures underscore the growing disconnect between military service and the aspirations of a new generation.

The historical trajectory, from World War II’s shared national duty to the Vietnam War’s shift, is key to understanding the current crisis. The draft’s controversy and subsequent dissent drastically changed public perception, culminating in 1973 with the transition to an all-volunteer force. This shift from conscription to volunteerism, symbolizing a move from unifying civic obligation to one of many career options, highlights the dynamic interplay between military service, societal values, and historical changes, informing the challenges in modern recruitment.

Compounding these challenges is a significant policy shift post-9/11. Prior to these events, the U.S. armed forces welcomed recruits from any nation, embracing a diverse, global cohort. However, post-9/11 policies instituted residency requirements, narrowing the pool of eligible candidates. This change, aimed at enhancing security, inadvertently shrinks the recruitment base and excludes a once-accessible international talent pool. The shift reflects a broader narrative of national security and identity, affecting the military’s ability to attract a wide range of perspectives and skills crucial in modern warfare.

Another layer is our collective unease with international affairs and the U.S. military’s global role. Endless wars have left scars, both on veterans and the national psyche, leading to introspection about our global footprint. This introspection, while healthy, may also contribute to a reluctance among young people to join an institution at the heart of these complex, often controversial engagements.

The evolution of warfare in the digital age, with its new challenges and opportunities, demands recruits proficient in digital skills, and adaptable to rapidly evolving combat environments. As conflicts increasingly incorporate advanced technology, cyber capabilities, and unmanned systems, the skills required for modern military service are undergoing dramatic changes. This shift toward technology-centric warfare may appeal to young Americans, who are often immersed in a tech-savvy culture.

However, the traditional image of military service, typically associated with physical prowess and ground combat, may not resonate with these new, tech-focused roles, potentially deterring skilled individuals who do not see themselves fitting the conventional military mold.

This crisis is more than a Pentagon issue; it’s a mirror reflecting our societal values, aspirations, and doubts. It compels us to question the alignment between our national institutions and the evolving ethos of the country. Are we, as a nation, providing the right incentives, fostering the necessary understanding, and nurturing the sense of shared purpose that once made military service a common, respected choice?

This is not just about boosting numbers or meeting quotas. It’s about bridging divides, both real and perceived, between the military and civilian worlds. It involves reengaging with service in ways that resonate with a new generation. And perhaps most importantly, it involves reexamining our role in the world, our priorities as a nation, and the values we cherish and wish to uphold.

As we ponder the military recruiting crisis, we’re invited to a broader conversation about America and ourselves. It’s a conversation about our identity, our place in the world, and the legacy we aspire to leave. The answers we find will shape not just the future of the military but the very fabric of our society.

Biden Makes Shocking Comment on Ukraine, Border; Gets Nailed on Fib; Runs Away

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

Joe Biden said some shocking things on Wednesday, not the least of which was he again called the fact that he interacted with his son's business associates "lies." 

Biden also spoke at the White House Tribal Nations Summit. Biden being Biden, he tried to pander to the Native Americans saying he wanted to play lacrosse (a sport invented by Native Americans). Among the things he said was that he wanted to play lacrosse, but it was the same season as football so he couldn't. But as we noted, those sports don't run in the same season. But there was another problem with Biden's claim—they didn't have lacrosse at his high school until 1993. 

So what is he saying here? Again something that sounds like a Biden tale that isn't possible. 

He also spoke about Ukraine and the border during remarks at the White House. This is shocking what he says, but liberal media will ignore that he said it and what it means. 

says Republicans trying to hold up funding for Ukraine until he does something to secure our border is holding Ukrainian funding hostage "with their extreme, partisan border policies." 

Yes, how dare they want to secure the border that Biden has broken wide open? The nerve of those nasty Republicans, doing their job to protect the country! For shame! 

But this truly reveals his priority: funding for his buddies in Ukraine. If he cared about the border he would have taken action long ago. But the only action he's taken was to destroy the successful policies that his predecessor put in place and make everything worse. That's why it's such a mess now, and it's all on him. As one African illegal alien put it succinctly after he'd successfully crossed the border, "I love you Joe Biden, thank you for everything, Joe Biden!"

Biden said that we had to fund Ukraine because if we didn't do it now, we'd end up fighting the Russians because they weren't going to stop with Ukraine. By that token, he'd have us funding people all over the region without end because of the possibility that the Russians might go beyond Ukraine. 

Listen to the video on the Reuters site, at the end where he says, "We can't let Putin win. Say it again. We can't let Putin win." He's clearly reading a Teleprompter, and it sounds like he read the teleprompter direction as he has done in the past because half the time he has no idea what he is reading. The White House transcript appears to cover it up, saying he added an "I'll" that was not there. 

We can’t let Putin win. I’ll say it again: We can’t let Putin win. It’s in our overwhelming national interest and international interest of all our friends.

Gaffes, fibs, and failure to focus on the security of America. On top of the incoherence. 

Why would anyone vote for this guy in 2024?

Joe Biden Freaks Out When Asked About Payments 

He Received From Hunter Biden, Shuts Down Presser

Bonchie reporting for RedState

Joe Biden spoke to the press for the first time since the revelation that he received direct payments from one of his son's shady businesses. That news broke in the face of the president's repeated denials over the years claiming that he had zero connections to Hunter Biden's dealings. 

When faced with the glaring contradiction, Joe Biden freaked out, doubling down and storming out of the press conference.

The problem with being senile is that it gets in the way of being a good liar. It has been proven through numerous pieces of evidence that Joe Biden met directly with his son's business associates. In one case, a Russian oligarch was even granted dinner with the then-vice president after she paid Hunter Biden $3.5 million. 

There is also direct testimony, including from Devon Archer, showing that Joe Biden would routinely end up on the phone during his son's business meetings. Other times, Hunter Biden would be with a client and his father would just so happen to call in to talk about "the weather." On that front, the most recent report shows that the now-president had 327 different such encounters.  As many have speculated, it appears the real goal was to show that Joe Biden was involved and that the influence-peddling operation was sound.

Long story short, it is not a "bunch of lies" to say that Joe Biden interacted with his son's business partners. We know he did, and the fact that he continues to blatantly lie about it is astonishing. It's so astonishing that even CNN did a report exposing it earlier in the year.

I'm hesitant to say the walls are closing in because Democrats have a political plot armor, but it's undeniable that things are getting bad for Joe Biden. He can't just keep shutting down questions on this without inviting a backlash from even those in the press who are predisposed to defend him. Further complicating his situation is that there are many Democrats who do not want him to be the nominee in 2024. Every piece of bad news provides fodder for those trying to force him out. 

I think most Democrats realize that this is only going to get worse as more and more is uncovered. To ride with Biden in 2024 is to invite very bad odds of winning the presidency. I expect the internal drama to get much worse in the near term.

House Republicans Probe Collusion Between J6 Committee And Georgia Trump Prosecutor

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist

House Republicans are investigating collusion between the since-disbanded partisan Select Committee on Jan. 6 and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, whose persecution of former President Donald Trump in Georgia culminated in a grand jury indictment.

On Tuesday, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio and Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, who is leading the Republican investigation into the Jan. 6 Committee’s conduct, sent letters to Willis and the former Select Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. In August, Willis charged Trump with 13 counts related to the former president’s efforts to protest aspects of the 2020 election. The Georgia district attorney also charged 18 Trump allies, several of whom have taken plea deals.

In Jordan’s letter to Willis, he wrote, “Although we were aware that your office had coordinated its politically motivated prosecutions with the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith, we recently learned that your office also coordinated its investigative actions with the partisan Select Committee.”

Jordan referenced a letter from the Fulton County prosecutor to Thompson in December 2021 in which she requested “records that may be relevant to our criminal investigation.” According to lawmakers, Willis sought recordings, transcripts, and records of travel, among other things, and even offered to meet with investigators on the Jan. 6 Committee early last year.

“Although it is not clear what records, if any, you obtained from your coordination with the partisan January 6 Select Committee,” Jordan added, “this new information raises additional questions relevant to the Committee’s oversight of your politically motivated prosecution of a former President of the United States and several former senior officials.”

Given the Jan. 6 Committee’s track record of manipulating evidence, the Republican told Willis that her potential reliance on the committee’s records “only reinforces concerns about your commitment to due process and whether you have fulfilled your obligations to properly disclose this material.”

Jordan gave the Georgia prosecutor until Dec. 19 to turn over all communications and documents between the J6 Committee and the Fulton County DA’s office, and any other communications the DA’s office possesses “referring or relating to records … obtained” by the Jan. 6 Committee.

In a Tuesday letter to Thompson, Loudermilk raised concerns over the Jan. 6 Committee’s failure to preserve important records. “Clearly,” he wrote, “Ms. Willis agrees that video recordings of witness interviews and depositions are important records.”

Loudermilk gave the Jan. 6 Committee chairman until Dec. 11 to hand over all records related to the partisan panel’s coordination with Willis.

“The coordination between Fulton County, GA District Attorney Fani Willis, and Pelosi’s January 6 Select Committee, should be concerning to everyone,” Loudermilk said in a statement. “This new information raises questions about Willis’ and Thompson’s commitment to due process, and whether House Rules were violated when the Select Committee failed to properly disclose this material. We have serious concerns about this behavior and we are seeking the truth.”