Friday, December 8, 2023

The Most Insufferable Woman In America Wins Time’s ‘Person Of The Year’

Taylor Swift isn’t a thought leader or an artistic genius. 
She’s a ‘girl boss’ cat lady whose narcissism has 
made her a toxic romantic partner.



To the surprise of no one, corporate media darling Taylor Swift was named Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year” on Wednesday. In the lead-up to the announcement, Taylor Swift and her Eras Tour have dominated media headlines. Her hype has gotten so out of control that Harvard is now offering a class on Taylor Swift. 

The question we all should be asking ourselves is why? Sure, her concerts have gone gangbusters this year, she has an undeniably devoted fan base, and her music is wildly well-known. As a 24-year-old woman, I know a thing or two about the Taylor Swift effect. Like every other female around my age, I listened to “Shake It Off” and “Our Song” in high school. Taylor Swift’s music, particularly the older stuff, evokes a palpable nostalgia shared by millennial and Gen Z women everywhere. But just because her music is popular, and for some sentimental, does not mean it’s good. 

Swift’s melodies are objectively uncomplicated and repetitive. YouTuber and pianist David Bennett found that she’s used the same chord progression in more than 20 of her songs. “It’s not that uncommon for a songwriter to write more than one song using a particular chord progression,” Bennett explained in one video. “They might write three, four, maybe even five songs using the exact same order of chords. However, Taylor Swift takes this to a whole new level.”

Even hard-core Swift fans can admit there’s some truth to this. Watch the below and tell me it doesn’t sound like every Taylor Swift song ever: 

Her lyrics are notoriously redundant, too. The majority of them are about a specific break up from one of her dozen — literally dozen — past boyfriends. There’s something undeniably exploitative about profiting off songs that showcase one person’s side of a private relationship. Each of her ex-boyfriends subtweeted in her music, deservedly or not, gets treated to public humiliation and the vengeance of ruthless teenage Swiftie trolls.  

Sometimes Swift writes entire songs about people she barely even dated. Swift was in a relationship with actor Jake Gyllenhaal for three months before she released her 2012 song “All Too Well” based on their short-lived romance. Nearly a decade later, Swift rereleased 10-minute-long version of “All Too Well” — again, based on her three-month relationship. 

If around a dozen of Swift’s relationships have burst into flames and inspired countless vindictive break-up songs, at what point do we listeners start realizing that perhaps Taylor Swift is the problem?

Of course, even tentatively suggesting that Swift may not be that great of an artist or that great of a role model will land you in a world of hurt. Swifties, the media, and Taylor Swift herself will accuse you of misogyny because any criticisms of Swift must be entirely due to her sex. 

My Federalist colleague Mark Hemingway argues that Swift’s popularity is largely an indictment of our culture and “a sign of societal decline.” There’s a lot of truth to that, but we also can’t discount the media’s role in promoting and arguably creating the Taylor Swift phenomenon for its own ends.  

Taylor Swift represents the perfect, controllable woman. Joe Biden supporter? Check. “Feminist”? Check. Mask-wearer? Check. Like her young adult female fans, Swift is easily influenced by the left. She blamed Donald Trump for the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots (not the Democrats who put their Covid tyranny on hold just long enough to egg on terrorism and arson in American cities). She also accused Trump of trying to “destroy our right to vote” because the former president opposed the U.S. Post Office facilitating non-secure mass mail-in voting. 

In a tearful clip from her Netflix documentary, Swift claimed then-Tennessee U.S. Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn stands against “Tennessee Christian values.” Presumably Swift thinks Blackburn’s then-opponent, pro-abortion Phil Bredesen, does uphold “Tennessee Christian values.” Does Swift know anything about Christianity? Does she know anything at all? 

Even leftists have pointed out that Swift doesn’t know what it means to be a so-called feminist, nor does she understand what misogyny is, since she labels anyone critical of her or her music as sexist. 

Simply put, Taylor Swift is not a “radical.” She isn’t a Bernie Bro, nor is she a true-believer hippie liberal who departed from the masses in opposition to the experimental Covid shot. Taylor Swift is the definition of a naive basic b-tch. Come the 2024 election, Democrats will use her to shill for Joe Biden (again), a candidate not preferred by the young leftists she has influence over.

It’s not just her politics that the media and Democrats love about Swift, it’s her lifestyle. It’s true that Swift is currently dating Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce. But the match that feels almost made by Pfizer and fawned over by the corporate media will inevitably disintegrate, as all of Swift’s relationships do. Then she’ll be back to spitefully crooning about why her ex sucks and she “doesn’t need a man.”

When the show’s over, she’ll go home to her mansion and her cats, and despite all her blessings, she’ll still be unhappy. Indeed, the single-lady lifestyle that Swift represents and fuels among young women has created one of the most consistently dependable voting blocs Democrats have ever had — and that’s the real reason she’s the “Person of the Year.”

Everything about Taylor Swift, from her music to her politics, is mediocre and predictable. She isn’t a thought leader or an artistic genius; she’s a depressed “girl boss” cat lady whose narcissism has made her a toxic romantic partner. To Democrats and their corporate media allies, however, she’s an invaluable asset in their political arsenal.



X22, And we Know, and more- December 8

 




How Were the Universities Lost? ~ VDH

The Ivy league and their kindred so-called elite campuses may soon go the way of Disney and Bud Light


After October 7, the public was shocked at what they saw and heard on America’s campuses.

Americans knew previously they were intolerant, leftwing, and increasingly non-meritocratic.

But immediately after October 7—and even before the response of the Israeli Defense Forces—the sheer student delight on news of the mass murdering of Israeli victims seemed akin more to 1930s Germany than contemporary America.

Indeed, not a day goes by when a university professor or student group has not spouted anti-Semitic hatred. Often, they threaten and attack Jewish students, or engage in mass demonstrations calling for the extinction of Israel.

Why and how did purportedly enlightened universities become incubators of such primordial hatred?

After the George Floyd riots, reparatory admissions—the effort to admit diverse students beyond their numbers in the general population—increased.

Elite universities like Stanford and Yale boasted that their so-called “white” incoming student numbers had plunged to between 20 and 40 precent, despite whites making up 68-70 percent of the general population.

The abolition of the SAT requirement, and often the comparative ranking of high school grade point averages, have ended the ancient and time-proven idea of meritocracy. Brilliant high school transcripts and test scores no longer warrant admissions to so-called elite schools.

One result was that the number of Jews has nosedived from 20-30 percent of Ivy League student bodies during the 1970s and 1980s to 10-15 percent.

Jewish students are also currently stereotyped as “white” and “privileged”—and thus considered as fair game on campus.

At the same time, the number of foreign students, especially from the oil-rich Middle East, has soared on campuses. Most are subsidized by their homeland governments. They pay the full, non-discounted tuition rates to cash-hungry universities.

Huge numbers of students have entered universities, who would not have been admitted by the very standards universities until recently claimed were vital to ensure their own competitiveness and prestige.

Consequently, they are no longer the guarantors of topflight undergraduates and professionals from their graduate programs.

Faculty are faced with new lose/lose/lose choices of either diminishing their course requirements, or inflating their grades, or facing charges by Diversity/Equity/Inclusion commissars of systematic bias in their grading— or all three combined.

The net result is that there are now thousands of students from abroad, especially from the Middle East, far fewer Jewish students, and student bodies who demand radical changes in faculty standards and course work to accommodate their unease with past standards of expected student achievement.

And, presto, an epidemic of anti-Semitism naturally followed.

In such a vacuum, advocacy “-studies” classes proliferated, along with faculty to teach them.

“Gender, black, Latino, feminist, Asian, Queer, trans, peace, environmental, and green”-studies  courses demand far less from students, and arbitrarily select some as “oppressed” and others as “oppressors”.  The former “victims” are then given a blank check to engage in racist and anti-Semitic behavior without consequences.

Proving to be politically correct in these deductive gut-courses rather than pressed to express oneself coherently, inductively, and analytically from a repertoire of fact-based-knowledge explains why the public witnesses faculty and students who are simultaneously both arrogant and ignorant.

At some universities “blacklists” circulate warning “marginalized” students which professors they should avoid who still cling to supposedly outdated standards regarding exam-taking, deadlines, and absences.

All these radical changes explain the current spectacle of angry students citing grievances, and poorly educated graduates who have had little course work in traditional history, literature, philosophy, logic, or the traditional sciences.

Universities and students have plenty of money to continue the weaponization of the university, given their enormous tax-free endowment income. Nearly $2-trillion in government-subsidized student loans are issued without accountability or reasonable demands that they be repaid in timely fashion.

Exceptions and exemptions are the bible of terrified and careerist administrators.

Faced with an epidemic of anti-Semitism, university administrators now claim they can do little to curb the hatred. But privately they know should the targets of similar hatred be instead blacks, gays, Latinos, or women, then they would expel the haters in a nanosecond.

What is the ultimate result of once elite campuses giving 70-80 percent of their students As, becoming hotbeds of dangerous anti-Semitism, and watered-down curricula that cannot turn out educated students?

The Ivy league and their kindred so-called elite campuses may soon go the way of Disney and Bud Light.

They think such a crash in their reputations is impossible given centuries of accustomed stature.

But the erosion is already occurring—and accelerating.

At the present rate, a Stanford law degree, a Harvard political science major, or a Yale social science BA will soon scare off employers and the general public at large.

These certificates will signify not proof of humility, knowledge, and decency, but rather undeserved self-importance, vacuousness, and fanaticism—and all to be avoided rather than courted.



Toxic masculinity? No, essential masculinity


One of the books I’ve picked up recently is The Warrior Poet Way by John Lovell.  John is a veteran Army Ranger turned missionary turned firearms and defense instructor.  He asserts that the insanity of the modern world demands a balance between the man of brute and the man of brains, the man of force and the man of finesse.  He calls this balance the Warrior Poet Way, and his media organization, the Warrior Poet Society, seeks to reinforce the whole man with a commitment to God, faith, family, and country. The Warrior Poet Society is a response to a culture that seeks to diminish the innate and necessary traits of masculinity in society.

In recent history, organizations like the Proud Boys have sprung up as an overreaction to attacks on masculinity in society.  What the government and leftist corporate press paint as a terrorist organization exhibits more like an obnoxious fraternity that exists to reinforce stereotypes of what the leftists call toxic masculinity.  They advertise themselves as proud Western chauvinists who built Western civilization and are known for open displays of bravado and idiocy.  There is nothing masculine about grown men shirking family and responsibilities to self-indulge with their frat brothers.  Those men who built Western civilization went home to wives and children after work. Because of organizations like the Proud Boys, genuine models of masculinity like the Warrior Poet Society are necessary. 

As the father of two boys, I have been intentional about seeking out like-minded tribes where I might instill the positive attributes of masculinity in them.  Attributes like hard work, selflessness, courage, and, where required, compassion define true masculinity.  We are presented with this picture in the person of  Jesus Christ.  Society often wants to fixate on the compassion of Jesus Christ so that they can paint Him as an all-accepting, domesticated, and weak pacifist. Christ was not at all a pacifist.  His entire ministry was a violent war on evil, though He wasn’t the picture of the earthly warrior king that His contemporaries anticipated. 

The depiction of Christ the domesticated ignores the fullness of Christ: Christ the carpenter with blistered hands and a sore back, Christ who dared challenge the high priests’ authority, Christ the righteous anger that stormed into the temple and overturned the merchant’s tables, Christ who stood in defense of the defenseless.  Jordan Petersen once said, “A harmless man is not a good man. A good man is a very dangerous man who has that under voluntary control.”

Historically, men were expected to be the bulwark against evil in society.  Their biological disposition to physical strength established their duty as protectors of the tribe.  Modern cultural forces desire a society that punishes virtue and rewards criminality.  They intend to discourage civic goodness and promote vice.  They wish to create a society where good men fail to act and allow it to be brought into submission by authoritarians. 

Examples of this societal push can be seen in the prosecution of samaritans like Daniel Penny or Kyle Rittenhouse and the martyrdom of men who choose a life of vice, like George Floyd and Michael Brown.  Suppose they can sufficiently criminalize public opposition to evil. In that case, the government can more effectively assume the role of the protectorate of society, and arguments about the necessity of measures like gun control follow.

Masculinity is not found solely in the warrior role.  The physical strength of men sees them most fit for physical labor, and the Bible tells us in Genesis 3that since the fall of mankind, man has been cursed to toil the land by the sweat of his brow until the day he dies.  Is it ironic or merely foretold that men are ten or more times more likely to die on the job than women are today?  Men disproportionately fill the roles of laborers, and these occupations come with an inherently increased risk of physical harm.  Bear in mind that this statistic does not include the occupation of soldiers, which would increase the disparity all the more.

The war on traditional masculinity extends to a war on traditionally masculine occupations.  If the whole man is a balance between the physical and the cerebral, physical labor has been sold as the default for the brainless.  From a young age, students are taught that physical labor is for those who can’t pass the rigors of academia.  This creates a severe shortage of physical laborers while society disadvantages men in competition for finite specialized roles in business, law, or STEM in the name of equality.  This discouragement of men in the workforce has seen 7.5 million men drop out of the American workforce altogether. With a lack of production and the accompanying self-worth, paired with public attacks on traditional masculinity, it is unsurprising that men are dying by suicide at three to four times the rate of women.

Masculinity is an essential piece of the human equation, and its complement, femininity, is no less vital.  It has been said that true feminism is not about proving that women are capable of the roles of men but celebrating those roles in which women uniquely excel.  Conversely, true masculinity requires men to fulfill their uniquely adapted roles. In all things, balance is essential.  Our society reflects a deficit of essential masculinity. 




What The Outcome Of Taiwan’s Presidential Election Could Mean For Cross-Strait Relations

While Taiwan’s presidential candidates support maintaining ties with the U.S., they diverge in their respective approaches to China.



In January, Taiwanese voters will head to the polls to elect the island’s next president, who will be instrumental in shaping Taiwan’s policy toward the United States and Red China. With Beijing becoming increasingly aggressive toward Taiwan — which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) claims is Chinese territory — the outcome of the nation’s presidential contest will be felt throughout the region for years to come.

Running to succeed term-limited President Tsai Ing-wen are three main contenders: Lai Ching-te, Taiwan’s current vice president and member of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP); Hou Yu-ih, the mayor of New Taipei and member of the rival party Kuomintang (KMT); and Ko Wen-je, the former mayor of Taipei and founder of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP).

While polls are often inaccurate and used to shape rather than reflect public opinion, they currently show a tight three-way race slightly favoring Lai. According to The Economist, a series of surveys conducted from Nov. 10-25 shows Lai averaging roughly 32.3 percent support, with Hou and Ko garnering 30.3 percent and 24.6 percent, respectively.

The DPP’s growing unpopularity among the Taiwanese electorate prompted talks between Hou and Ko about a possible unity ticket to improve the opposition’s electoral chances against Lai. That proposal ultimately collapsed after the camps couldn’t agree on polling to decide whose name should appear at the top of the ticket.

Taiwan will also hold elections for its Legislative Yuan, the national unicameral legislature controlled by the DPP.

Views on U.S. and Cross-Strait Relations

As with any country, Taiwanese voters’ political preferences are often based on numerous factors and issues. But as far as America is concerned, it’s worth focusing on each candidate’s views on U.S. and cross-strait relations.

Having served as Tsai’s second-in-command for nearly four years, Lai has indicated he will maintain his boss’s stance of strengthening ties with the U.S. and advancing the notion that Taiwan is an independent country, the latter of which has thoroughly angered China. After Lai visited the U.S. in August, for example, Beijing launched a series of military exercises in the airspace and waters surrounding Taiwan. According to NBC News, the island’s defense ministry “detected 42 Chinese aircraft and eight ships,” with 26 of the aforementioned aircraft crossing the Taiwan Strait’s “median line.”

Lai has expressed interest in establishing a peaceful relationship with China but, much like Tsai, has declined to recognize the 1992 Consensus. That agreement between Tapai and Beijing acknowledges there is only “one China,” despite both sides having different interpretations of which government is representative of China.

While the DPP is considered to be a more “pro-independence” party, Lai has dismissed the need for Taiwan to issue a formal declaration of independence, reaffirming the Tsai administration’s position that the island is “already a sovereign, independent country.” This reasoning has only further prompted the island’s DPP leadership to ramp up its defense spending and purchase additional military weaponry from the U.S. in recent years to deter a potential Chinese invasion.

Meanwhile, Hou — whose party has historically been much more China-friendly than the DPP — appears to be adopting a somewhat tougher stance on deterring Chinese aggression. In September, the KMT candidate penned an article outlining his strategy for ensuring Taiwan remains a sovereign country, including plans to bolster Taiwan’s national defense capabilities and “enhance cooperation with partners and allies,” including the United States.

Hou did, however, pledge to reverse an order issued by Tsai that would extend Taiwan’s compulsory military service for men from four months to a year. The policy is set to take effect on Jan. 1, according to Reuters.

In his article, Hou expressed support for the 1992 Consensus and pledged to oppose “any push for independence” and attempts “to absorb the island into unification with mainland China under the guise of ‘one country, two systems.’” He also described a willingness to reestablish dialogue and relations with Beijing, which he believes will “reduce the probability of conflicts” in the Taiwan Strait.

Similar to Hou, Ko has proposed a strategy based on deterrence and communication. During a September Bloomberg interview, the third-party candidate threw his support behind reestablishing dialogue between Taipei and Beijing. He also expressed the need for Taiwan to increase its military budget and criticized the DPP-run government for the way it opposes China, saying, “I can’t see they have made any preparations.”

Regarding independence, Ko voiced support for Taiwan maintaining the “status quo,” in which the nation continues to operate as a recognized country without declaring independence or unifying with China. The TPP candidate did not, however, say whether he supports the 1992 Consensus.

Interestingly, Hou and Ko both reportedly back efforts to revive a contentious economic treaty with China considered during the presidency of Ma Ying-jeou, a member of the KMT who served from 2008-2016. The proposal, which was signed but never ratified, generated widespread protests, the participants of which feared that “closer economic integration with China would compromise Taiwan’s political autonomy and self-governing status.” The backlash to the agreement is believed to have helped launch the DPP into power in 2016.

What This Means

While all three candidates have expressed support for maintaining strong ties with the U.S., they diverge in their respective approaches to China.

Across the board, Taiwan’s main presidential candidates appear to agree that Taiwan needs to enhance its national defense if it wishes to deter further aggression from China. On the issue of dialogue, however, Lai seems much more reluctant to reestablish talks with Beijing than either Hou or Ko. The latter two also appear more eager to enhance greater economic cooperation with China than their DPP rival.

Should Lai prevail in next month’s election, it’s likely his administration will continue the same cross-strait policies carried out under Tsai’s presidency. If Hou or Ko win, there’s a possibility that Taiwan’s approach to Beijing could become much more friendly. While both opposition candidates have pledged to deter Chinese aggression via increased military spending and maintain Taiwan’s sovereignty, their willingness to enhance economic ties with Beijing may cause concern among those distrustful of communist China.

As shown with its takeover of Hong Kong, the CCP cannot be trusted to play fairly when it comes to historical claims over contested territory. Chinese dictator Xi Jinping has made very clear his intention to “reunify” Taiwan with the mainland, either by peaceful means or force. The belief that China will allow Taiwan to exist as a sovereign state for good is foolish, irrespective of whether the two nations have an established dialogue.

Whatever outcome January’s elections may yield, the one thing that seems certain is that U.S. support for Taiwanese sovereignty in the face of chinese Communist authoritarianism will continue.  



WH Quickly Distances Itself From CAIR After Exec Dir. Admits He Was 'Happy' Hamas Attacked Israel


Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

The White House is frantically trying to distance itself from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) after its executive director Nihad Awad claimed he was “happy” to watch the Oct. 7 Hamas terror attack unfold. Speaking at the 16th Annual Convention for Palestine in the U.S. on Nov. 24, he said that the people of Gaza were merely “breaking the siege”:

The people of Gaza only decided to break the siege, the walls of the concentration camp, on October 7th, and yes. I was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land and walk free into their lands that they were not allowed to walk in. [Applause.]

Watch:

Now if that's not openly endorsing the savage terror attacks, the rape and torture of women, the beheading of babies, and the wanton killing of civilians, then I don't know what is. 

The Biden administration launched an anti-Islamophobia initiative several weeks after the Hamas assaults -- even though antisemitism is a far worse problem in the country right now --  and listed CAIR as "one of several independent organizations" involved in the effort. 

The White House is now "removing their commitment" from the initiative after Awad's comments went viral

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates told Fox News Digital, "We condemn these shocking, Antisemitic statements in the strongest terms."

"The horrific, brutal terrorist attacks committed by Hamas on October 7th were, as President Biden said, ‘abhorrent’ and represent ‘unadulterated evil,’" Bates said.

Predictably, Awad tried to walk back the remarks Thursday, saying there were "misleading reports" about his words and they were taken "out of context." Nine times out of ten when people folks use phrases like "misinterpreted," "taken out of context," and "misleading," it means, "I said it, we all know I said it, but I'm not brave enough to take the heat for it, so I'm going to blame it on you." 

But don't take my word for it—and certainly don't take his. Read what he said for yourself, and you decide if this man was mourning the savage murders of over 1,200 unsuspecting Israelis, the captivity and brutal treatment of over 100 hostages. You decide if when he said he was "happy to see people breaking the siege" he wasn't celebrating the attacks (bolding mine):

The people of Gaza only decided to break the siege, the walls of the concentration camp, on October 7th, and yes, I was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land, and walk free into their lands that they were not allowed to walk in. [Applause]  

And yes, the people of Gaza have the right to self-defense, have the right to defend themselves, and yes, Israel as an occupying power does not have that right to self-defense.  

Gaza became the liberation source. The inspiration for people.  Gaza transformed many minds around the world, including people who are not Muslim, what kind of faith these people have. They are thankful. They're not afraid. And Israel did not scare them.  

Because they knew that their heaven is in Gaza and... if they would like to die, they would go to another heaven. That is the faith of the people of Gaza. And that's why Gaza and the people of Gaza were able to transform everyone who's watching. They have learned from these people. And those who felt bad for Gaza, they don't understand the equation. Those who thought that the Gazans are less than, those who can help them, they are mistaken. They are mistaken.  

The Gazans were the victorious.

For him to turn around now and say he condemns violence is laughable, when he clearly just endorsed it. It's like if you said you were happy to see a spree shooter be able to express himself, and when somebody said you're promoting violence, you said, "Oh, I didn't mean I supported the shooting stuff. I meant, you know, the other stuff."

It's ridiculous, and what he said is on tape, and it's hateful, plain and simple. Good for the White House for doing the rare right thing and ditching this outfit.



Senate Republicans Demand White House Forfeit Biden’s Election Interference Plans



Nearly two dozen Senate Republicans are demanding the White House release long-withheld documents related to President Joe Biden’s executive interference in U.S. elections.

In their Nov. 28 letter addressed to Biden, the 23 GOP senators highlighted the White House’s failure to abide by a May 23 request that the administration forfeit information regarding Executive Order 14019. Signed by Biden in March 2021, this order directed hundreds of federal departments to interfere in the electoral process by using U.S. taxpayer money to boost voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities.

The head of each department was furthermore instructed to create “a strategic plan” describing how his or her agency intends to comply with Biden’s directive.

“This policy directive merits congressional oversight both as a general matter and under the Antideficiency Act,” the senators wrote. “Accordingly, we write to reiterate our request for information regarding the implementation of this executive order, including copies of the plans submitted to the White House.”

The Biden administration routinely stonewalled attempts by Senate Republicans and good government groups to acquire these “strategic plans” by slow-walking its response to federal court orders and heavily redacting any related documents it released.

Biden’s order additionally required departments to collaborate with supposedly “nonpartisan” third-party organizations “to provide voter registration services on agency premises.” As The Daily Signal’s Fred Lucas reported, many of these groups are extremely left-wing. Among those coordinating with the Indian Health Service, for instance, are the ACLUDemos, and the National Congress of American Indians

Given these revelations and the partisan nature that often accompanies voter registration, it’s unsurprising that congressional Democrats have gone to extreme lengths to assist the Biden administration with its concealment of agencies’ strategic plans.

In October, Senate Democrats killed an amendment proposed by Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C., that sought to effectively prohibit federal agencies from using taxpayer dollars to carry out Biden’s order. Democrats have similarly opposed the American Confidence in Elections Act, or ACE Act, a bill sponsored by House Republicans that, among other objectives, sought to repeal Executive Order 14019 and require federal departments to turn over their strategic plans to Congress.

Senate Republicans concluded their Nov. 28 letter once again demanding that Biden provide copies of federal agencies’ strategic plans to Congress, as well as a “list of which agencies have not yet submitted a strategic plan” and a “full accounting of all federal funds” used to implement the order.



Could Joe Biden Hand Off the Nomination at the 2024 Democratic National Convention?


Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

On Thursday, The Federalist ran a piece by scribe Eddie Scarry, which presented an interesting possibility many of us may not have given enough thought to. He describes a scenario presented by Independent 2024 presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.:

In an interview with Patrick Bet-David this week, Robert Kennedy Jr. said something about the eventual Democrat presidential nominee I hadn’t considered. “If he were going to drop out,” Kennedy said, referring to Biden, “the time to drop out would be during the convention because then he would control the delegates, because they’re all Biden delegates, and he would then be able to pick his successor.”

The idea being that Biden, with the full Democrat apparatus behind him, would lock up the nomination by formally “running” but then direct all of his secured delegates to fall behind someone else, either because he knows he can’t endure a general election campaign, or because he’s been told he better not try.

You can watch the entire RFK Jr. interview below:



Of the two possibilities Mr. Kennedy mentions, namely, that President Biden either knows he can't endure a general election campaign, or that he's been told he better not try, I'm more inclined to believe the latter. After all, in 2020, he wasn't called upon to endure a general election campaign, instead running the bulk of his effort from his Delaware basement; the other possibility seems more likely since it's pretty apparent he no longer has the wit or self-awareness to try to run again. His mental decline becomes more apparent by the day, he may well be facing impeachment for influence-peddling, his approval ratings are in the toilet, and it's pretty apparent that one way or another, he's on the way out.

But the convention scenario, now that does open up an interesting can of worms; this would allow the Democrats to sidestep the incompetent VP Harris and anoint someone right out of left (ha) field -- say, the impeccably-coiffed California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Scarry goes on to describe the... let's call them challenges facing the Democrats.

Democrats are, of course, in a problem of their own making. They nominated a cadaver who was twice rejected for the spot in the past. But it turned out that with a little pandemic hyping, race riot stoking, and mail-in ballot rigging, they were able to pull things off and foist him into the White House, defeating (temporarily) Donald Trump. Unfortunately, the country collapsed into ruin under Biden, and the next election was fast approaching. They knew he shouldn’t run again, but his natural successor was an inept and undeniably unqualified Kamala Harris, Biden’s black woman of color female vice president.

2020 was something of a perfect storm, what with all of the issues and electoral shenanigans described above. But can the Democrats, even given their choice of candidates for when Joe Biden inevitably shuffles off to Delaware, pull it off again?

Here are a couple of problems they may face. I mentioned Gavin Newsom (as he sure seems to be running a shadow campaign), but he's arguably not the best choice; under his direction, California has sunk into a quagmire, and any GOP candidate with enough brains to pound sand will hang that around his neck like an albatross. Who do the Dems have, even in the event of a wide-open, deal-making convention? Joe Manchin? Would they try to talk Kristen Sinema into coming back to the Party? Neither of those options seems likely. 

Whether the Dems stick with befuddled old Joe Biden, or do a lateral arabesque to hand the candidacy over to Gov. Newsom, VP Harris, or someone else, there is another problem. It's difficult to see them coming up with a candidate who can capture urban progressives, and still appeal to enough independents and blue-collar Democrats to defeat Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, or whomever else the GOP's standard-bearer might be.

The Democratic National Convention next year is scheduled for August 19 to 22, 2024. That's when we'll all find out.