The Deep State Drops Joe Biden Overnight

This would not be allowed, even from Alex Jones, even from Tucker Carlson, if the lizard people weren't on board:

Jones told Carlson that he believed Joe Biden was 'completely out of his mind.'

. . . Jones said: 'He wanders around for the entire two and a half years naked in the White House. In the middle of the night, doesn't know who he is.

'They have to give him a bunch of drugs - a bunch of amphetamines in the morning, and they have to drug him at night.

'Sometimes he'll be out for the morning, for a while, then come back at night for a ball. That's when there's a real problem.'

Carlson nodded, looking grave.

'He is on drugs. I have established that,' said Carlson.

As of 2014, there were leaks to that effect about Joe when he was vice president:

According to a new book, Joe Biden's Secret Service detail is leaking information about where the vice president is most vulnerable to being assassinated, as well engaging in less dangerous breaches of decorum, like gossiping about when he gets naked. These are breaches of the strict privacy code usually kept by the agents.

I've noted here the occasions when Joe is able to speak without stumbling or slurring, and I've offered the most charitable take, which is that he's usually drunk, but his handlers can sometimes keep him off the sauce for important meetings. Alex Jones has a different theory, but he's responding to the same evidence. I can only assume that insiders have been able to keep this quiet for only so long. But why now? This has been the same Joe for years.

Here's one possibility:

The Biden administration is openly threatening Americans over Ukraine. In a classified briefing in the House yesterday, defense secretary Lloyd Austin informed members that if they don’t appropriate more money for Zelensky, “we’ll send your uncles, cousins and sons to fight… pic.twitter.com/BPKMEBW8TK

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) December 7, 2023

Note that this also comes from Tucker Carlson, for whatever it's worth, but Joe himself is saying essentially the same thing in public:

“Who is prepared to walk away from holding Putin accountable for his behaviors?” the president asked. “I’ll tell you I’m not prepared to walk away, and I don’t think the American people are either.” Failure to pass the funding, Biden warned, would give Putin “the greatest gift he could ask for.”

He again warned that Putin would “keep going” if he takes Ukraine, suggesting that Russia could eventually attack a NATO ally and draw US troops into conflict.

Larry Johnson at Gateway Pundit gives some background:

The blame game about who lost Ukraine is starting. We know this thanks to the Washington Post, which managed to do some real reporting by publishing a two-part series on Ukraine’s failed counter-offensive.

. . . Western military leaders are a bunch of arrogant dumb asses, who have not won a conventional military engagement like the one that confronted Ukraine in more than 70 years. They ignored the intelligence assessments from the CIA, they ignored the crucial role that air power plays in a all of NATO plans and they ignored the importance of having troops properly trained to conduct complex combined arms military manuevers.

. . . So, to summarize, the U.S. took the lead in coming up with a battle plan that it had ZERO experience in executing. It agreed to provide limited, inadequate training to Ukraine. It could not supply artillery shells or fixed wing aircraft required to pull off such an operation, and U.S. leaders were “surprised” that Ukraine’s counter offensive failed.

Johnson has been saying all along that the intelligence community has never been on board with the neoconservatives at State and Defense, and events seem to be reaching a tipping point with Congress over Ukraine aid -- the insistence in both the House and Senate on including border policy changes with Ukraine aid are an indicator.

But think about this for a moment: the news of Hunter's new tax indictments came out the same morning as the Washington Post story and Alex Jones's remarks to Tucker. The Hunter indictments in particular could never have happened without the approval of whomever approves whatever Merrick Garland does about the Bidens. The Hunter indictments will almost certainly lead to Joe's withdrawal as a 2024 candidate, but this will also force a negotiated settlement in Ukraine.

"I m Actually Doing You A Big Favor!"

Little signs are beginning to emerge that Joe is at least aware of his potential electoral plight. According to the New York Post,

President Biden said Tuesday that he might have retired after a single term of office if former President Donald Trump wasn’t running in next year’s election.

“If Trump wasn’t running, I’m not sure I’d be running,” the 81-year-old president told a group of Democratic donors in Boston. “But we cannot let him win.”

Well, certain kinds of people, if you suggest they've screwed something up in an unhelpful way, will try to turn things around and insist that "I'm actually doing you a big favor!" by, say, suggesting you didn't want that person as a friend anyhow. In the vignette above, I think Joe's subtext is that you may think he's screwing things up by insisting on running in 2024, but he's actually doing the country a big favor by keeping Trump out of the Oval Office, which by implication nobody else can do.

If Joe is acknowledging his awkward situation in even the most backhanded way, it must be because the auguries are beginning to look bleak even to him. I've already posted on the kinds of stories that emerged in the summers of 1988 and 2004, sourced to unnamed Democrat insiders, complaining about stalled campaigns, but we're beginning to see those stories now at the end of 2023, not next summer:

Democrats nervous about the president’s low approval ratings, and recent national polling showing him trailing or within the margin of error of Donald Trump in a potential rematch, have begun sounding the alarm about what they see as the lack of urgency on the part of Biden’s team.

Nor should we discount Trump's gut feelings on this or many other matters:

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday suggested that President Joe Biden's physical health and mental capacity might prevent him from becoming the eventual Democratic nominee in 2024.

"I don't think he makes it. I think he's bad shape physically," Trump said during an Iowa forum with Fox News's Sean Hannity. "I watched him at the beach, he wasn't able to lift a beach chair which is meant for children."

At age 81, Biden's health and fitness for office have attracted mounting scrutiny from the media, with his penchant for making awkward gaffes and telling bizarre anecdotes fueling much of that speculation.

It's worth noting that although there's been a series of revelations from House committees on Biden family business transactions that implicate Joe, these alone seem to have little impact on his poor polling. Currently,

President Joe Biden's approval hit an all-time low in a CNN poll released Wednesday.

Just 37 percent of the poll's 1,795 respondents approved of the president's job in office, while 63 percent disapproved. The numbers represent the lowest approval and highest disapproval rating Biden has received in a CNN poll since the beginning of his presidency. The margin of error of the poll was 3.2 percent.

. . . CNN's poll is not the only one to show Biden is struggling with public approval. The RealClearPolitics polling average on Wednesday shows 40 percent approve of his job and 56 percent disapprove. FiveThirtyEight's polling average the same day had his approval rating at 38 percent and his disapproval rating at 55 percent.

As I've been noting here already, one disadvantage for Joe is that he can't respond well to questions from the press about the family business, which applies as much to the issue of his age and fitness as it does to whether he's on the take.

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.

. . . 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.

RedState suggests,

At what point does the Democrat Party kick Joe to the curb?

Granted, the ultimate decision would be Biden's, but one would think that the people around him, even including his limelight-loving, pretend-doctor wife, at some point, would say, "Joe. It's time to go."

And Joe being Joe, he'd do his damnedest to make it look like it was his idea all along.

That may be, but if he withdraws, there's no serious Plan B. The bet is that he'll withdraw in favor of Kamala, but neither she nor Gavin Newsom at this point would be acceptable to the far left of the party, while one more traditional member of the New Deal alliance, the Jews, are following labor and Catholics out the door.

The Real Question About The Latest Payments To Joe

In a nutshell,

Newly disclosed bank records, released on Monday as part of the House Republicans' ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Biden, indicate that Hunter Biden arranged direct, monthly payments to his father. The records show that at least one payment of $1,380 was sent from Hunter Biden’s Owasco PC to Joe Biden in September 17, 2018.

On one hand, this is just the drip-drip-drip pattern of classic Washington scandals, ranging from the White House insistence in March 1973 that nobody had prior knowledge of the Watergate burglary, to Bill Clinton's insistence that he never had sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky, whereby presidential denials that such-and-such ever happened are gradually refuted as evidence surfaces that indeed they did. Ms Jean-Pierre's comment after being asked about the bank record was simply part of the pattern:

“So, I have to be clear with you. I have not seen that report, so I would have to refer you to my colleagues over at the White House counsel’s office on that particular question,” KJP said as she closed her binder.

The problem with this revelation is that it only raises more questions. The bank record simply indicates that a Hunter Biden shell company set up a monthly direct deposit to a Joe Biden personal account for $1,380, less than the average Social Security direct deposit of $1,705.79. For someone living the Biden lifestyle, this is little more than pocket change.

We've already had the Sept. 3, 2017 $40,000 personal check Joe's sister-in-law Sara signed over to Joe Biden as a "loan repayment. The funding for this has been traced to a $5 million payment from a Chinese company to another Hunter Biden shell company made on Aug. 8, 2017.

Again, this amount alone, while significant to ordinary middle-class people -- it'll buy a nice Toyota -- isn't the sort of thing the Bidens would even notice. To make a difference to any of them, there would need to be dozens of those payments coming in, every day, every month, all the time. While I think something like that must certainly be happening, it's a little strange that we aren't seeing more evidence of it.

The second question, which I think is more important, is that these payments took place in 2017 and 2018, while Joe was out of office and, at least in ordinary public expectations, retired and unlikely to return. If we look a little more closely, we know that he made a calculated decision to sit out 2016, apparently based on a consensus that it was Hillary's turn, but every indication we now have is that this wasn't going to be the end of the story, and by 2018, likely earlier, Joe was planning a 2019 announcement that he'd be running in 2020.

This isn't all that different from the Clinton Foundation, which had been collecting putatively charitable donations from the moment Bill left office in 2001 on the expectation that Hillary would run for president. The main difference was that the Clinton Foundation had a veneer of legality, while the Bidens never had any pretense that their business was anything but an influence shakedown. But let's also keep in mind that the likelihood of Hillary's candidacy, from 2008 onward, was something bankable, and her election once she was nominated would be only slightly less so.

The big-money corporate and quasi-charitable donors to the Clinton Foundation weren't throwing money away. It simply happened that in both 2008 and 2016, Hillary was overtaken by events. What intrigues me is how, in 2017 and 2018, there was at least some money being placed on Joe Biden's odds in an equivalent way. But at least in public, Joe's odds were never anything like Hillary's, and as of 2019, the conventional wisdom was that Joe's campaign was faltering. In The New Yorker on June 28, 2019:

The immediate question is this: Just how much damage did the second Democratic debate do to the campaign of the front-runner, Joe Biden? Only opinion polls conducted in the next few weeks will provide a definitive answer. . . . But one thing cannot be contested. Considering the debate over all, Biden’s performance raised fresh doubts about his preparation, age, grasp of the environment in which he is operating, and basic political skills.

Somehow, an invisible hand, whatever it was, restored Joe's credibility, and another invisible hand, or maybe it was the same one, gave us COVID and put bumbling old Joe in the Oval Office with the 2020 election. Somehow, The New Yorker thought Joe was the front runner in June of 2019 despite his preparation, age, grasp of the environment in which he is operating, and basic political skills, and while there were anxious moments aplenty, he never really lost that status.

As best we can tell, there were people in places like China that thought they had pretty good odds that this would take place, and they were putting money on it. Sounds like they weren't just fools or marks. There are lots of questions here.

Companies Waive Four-Year Degree Requirements For New Hires

From the UK Daily Mail:

Nearly half of US companies intend to eliminate Bachelor's degree requirements for some job positions next year, a new survey has revealed.

And 55 percent said they'd already eliminated degree requirements this year, according to an Intelligent.com survey of 800 US employers, carried out in November.

It comes after Walmart, IBM, Accenture, Bank of America and Google announced similar plans.

The survey found that the same employers that have already eliminated Bachelor's degree requirements were far more likely to continue doing so.

The Daily Mail title starts with "How the college degree lost its value", and the story implies this is a new trend. My own experience in the job market as a refugee from academia suggests the trend isn't quite so novel. Reflecting on my career path, after I left graduate work and low-level teaching, I went almost exclusively into jobs that simply hadn't existed before the computer age in the 1960s, with even more created by the rise of desktops and distributed computing in the 1980s.

These included programming, software technical writing, corporate computer operations, information security, and contingency planning. I began to work these jobs in the mid-1970s, and from the start, the education requirement was always four-year degree "or equivalent experience". But it took a long time for universities to come up with courses and major programs that matched what the new jobs needed, so HR departments had no choice but to hire anyone who seemed remotely capable of doing the new work, and very few of my colleagues ever had four-year degrees.

In fact, I would say those who had any sort of formal experience with things like punch card operations had picked it up in in enlisted roles in the armed forces. Everyone else just learned it on the job, the same way I did. One positive effect of this trend was that it basically took HR out of the loop; sure, you had to interview with HR and try to demonstrate whatever they thought they wanted to see, but the hiring managers would always override their reservations and insist no one else had even the remotest qualifications.

HR would ask me questions like, "Where do you see yourself in five years?" and I would give answers like, "This job I'm interviewing for didn't exist five years ago. I can't predict what jobs will be needed five years from now, so I can't really give you a good answer." The sour expressions of the HR reps are branded in my memory. I didn't get a lot of those jobs, but there were a lot of jobs open. I was almost always hired over HR's objections.

But this is a trend that's been going on at least since I went into the IT job market in the 1970s, it's nothing new. One thing I discovered while teaching as a graduate assistant before I switched careers was that universities are something of a racket -- their market is the socially mobile bourgeoisie that wants the chachet of a four-year degree as a class distinction. This is why parents tolerate their kids majoring in things like creative writing or ethnic studies, while they won't tolerate any uncertainty about their graduation. The job of low-level faculty is to bless this process. (The exceptions tend to be from Asian families who expect their kids to become doctors.)

If the rest of the middle class want their kids to have useful careers, they need to send their kids to local community colleges that offer courses in IT or law enforcement -- they won't get them at a liberal arts school. In fact, the young graduates my wife and I know have to find their way into low-pay internship-type programs with corporations after they get their degrees to have any hope of building careers there. So why bother with the four-year degree at all?

At the same time, corporations are recognizing that salary levels that allow employees to pay off student debts from four-year degrees aren't cost effective when students without that debt level but without the degree can do the job just as well -- what on earth does reading liberal-arts chestnuts like Coming of Age in Samoa or any of its contemporary successors qualify anyone to do?

These are the sorts of questions Mike Rowe has been asking for some time.

Yet More On Michael Voris And Church Militant

I've put up another post on he Michael Voris controversy at the Cold Case File blog.

Felicity Huffman Speaks Out!

According to Wikipedia, Felicity Huffman

is best known for her role as Lynette Scavo in the ABC comedy-drama Desperate Housewives (2004–2012.

But more recently, she's been better known for her role in the Varsity Blues scandal. At the link,

Huffman was among dozens charged by the U.S. Attorney's Office on March 12, 2019, in a nationwide college entrance exam cheating scandal. Prosecutors alleged that Huffman's $15,000 donation to the Key Worldwide Foundation, ostensibly a charitable contribution, was in fact payment to someone who posed as Huffman's daughter Sophia to take the SAT, receiving a score that showed significant improvement over Sophia's score on the Preliminary SAT (PSAT). Huffman was arrested at her California home on March 12 by FBI agents and IRS agents and charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services fraud.

According to Breitbart News,

Actress Felicity Huffman, who spent 11 days in jail after bribing college officials $15,000 to fudge her daughter’s SAT scores in what was part of the infamous college admissions scandal, said she felt she had “no option” but to break the law in order to give her daughter “a future.”

“People assume that I went into this looking for a way to cheat the system in making proverbial criminals [sic] deals in back alleys, but that was not the case,” Huffman insisted in a recent interview with ABC, breaking her silence on the matter for the first time since the scandal unfolded.

Nevertheless, the story she tells is muddled.

“I worked with a highly recommended college counselor named Rick Singer,” the Transamerica star continued. “I worked with him for a year and trusted him implicitly. He recommended programs and tutors, and he was the expert.”

“And after a year, he started to say, ‘Your daughter is not going to get into any of the colleges that she wants to,’ and I believed him,” she added.

Here's the first problem. Her daughter was starting the college application rigamarole, so she must have been in her first years in high school, maybe 15 years old. How could she possibly have known what college she wanted to attend? She lived in Hollywood, so maybe USC or UCLA might have come first to mind, but she'd probably be a day student at those schools, or at least home pretty frequently. Might she want to go to college farther from home to become more independent? Was anyone asking her basic questions like that?

We just don't know what schools were on Rick Singer's list, but we do know that none was a school she could get into, because that was what Rick Singer, a convicted con artist, told Felicity Huffman. I'll be that an ordinary guidance counselor at whatever high school Ms Huffman was sending her daughter to could have come up with a list of schools that would indeed accept her daughter. A quick web search shows colleges with good reputations in California alone that will accept just about anyone, including

• Sonoma State University
• Marymount California University
• Mills College
• California State University Stanislaus
• Saint Mary's College
• Mount Saint Mary's College

As it turned out, once the scandal blew over and her daughter actually took the SATs under her own name, she got into Carnegie Mellon University. This says to me that what almost certainly should have happened was that Ms Huffman should have had a serious sitdown with a real school guidance counselor who would tell her that trying to get into Stanford wasn't realistic, but she could certainly consider many second-level schools lilke CMU, which has a perfectly acceptable acceptance rate of 11%.

But beyond that, a real guidance counselor would have put together a list of maybe half a dozen schools, ranging from an aspirational first choice, down through schools where there might be better odds, and ending up with a "safety school" that could assure almost certain admittance. College visits to each of them during the application process would probably make both the applicant and the parents comfortable with any outcome on the list.

So basically Rick Singer was scamming Ms Huffman and putting her into a panic because her daughter wouldn't get into any of the schools she "wanted", even though there doesn't seem to have been a serious effort to identify which those might be. Thus:

“And so, when he slowly started to present the criminal scheme, it seemed like — and I know this seems crazy — that that was my only option to give my daughter a future,” Huffman said. “And I know hindsight is 20/20, but it felt like I would be a mad mother if I didn’t do it.”

Desperate housewife indeed. I've already posted here about Dr Callahan, the principal of my junior high school, who was insightful enough to trace some of my adolescent behavior problems to my parents' panic to get me into the "college of my choice", which of course was the college of their choice -- at age 14 or 15, how could I possibly know anything about college at all, much less which one I wanted to attend? From what I recall, some time around my early adolescence about 1960, there was the first great media frenzy that the Ivies -- "the college of your choice" -- had become selective, and getting in would now be an arduous process.

My parents were among the first to buy into that mass hysteria, which seems to have gripped many levels of society, including even the Hollywood elite, ever since. What puzzles me is that Ms Huffman bought into the idea that her daughter would have "no future" without a highly prestigious degree, and she would somehow be a bad mother if she didn't bribe someone to get her in, when there are dozens of perfectly acceptable upper-middle-level schools that apparently would have accepted her daughter with the SAT scores she had.

In fact, an intensive SAT prep course like the Princeton Review costs $2100, a bargain compared to the $15,000 Ms Huffman gave Rick Singer. I think what this all boils down to is that the Ivies have certainly allowed the impression to continue, if they haven't enabled it, that admission into an entering class is an unsurpassed indication of merit, reflecting as much if not more on the parents as on the applicant. Thus con artists can play on the insecurity and thwarted aspirations of the Felicity Huffman style parents of the world, as well as inflating the value of their own decidedly inferior product.

The Military Money Crunch

Right now, the US is fighting two hot proxy wars, one in Ukraine and one in Gaza, but at the moment, it's running out of money:

The military, like the rest of the federal government, is operating under a temporary funding measure that freezes spending at the previous year’s levels. And because the Middle East troop movements weren’t planned, the Pentagon has had to pull money from existing operations and maintenance accounts, DOD spokesperson Chris Sherwood said. President Joe Biden signed the stopgap measure this month to keep the government open until lawmakers can agree on a full-year spending bill.

. . . “Current events have revised some of the operational assumptions used to develop the FY 2024 President’s Budget request. Specifically, neither the base budget request nor the FY 2024 supplemental request included funding for U.S. operations related to Israel,” he said.

“We’re taking it out of hide,” Sherwood added.

This may bear some relation to reports of reduced enthusiasm for supporting Israel in its current Gaza action:

According to Ch. 12 report, Blinken clashed with Israel’s war cabinet about the next phase in the Gaza operation.

“I don’t think you have the credit for that,” Blinken reportedly told the defense minister about his stated goal to “dismantle Hamas, even if it takes months.” pic.twitter.com/qAFnJ2YvAC

— Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) November 30, 2023

At the link, someone writing as Bonchie comments,

Keep in mind, this is the same Biden administration that has repeatedly pledged to back Ukraine for "as long as it takes." I guess Israel, which is in a far better military position to deal with its enemy, doesn't get that same treatment.

Let me briefly digress into the pervasive unseriousness at Consrvative Inc. I suspect writing for Red State isn't Bonchie's day job, and he understandably wants to avoid exposing himself and his family to repercussions if he's outed as a conservative part-time pundit. But of all the pseudonyms he could choose, he picked "Bonchie", which is his byline for discussing the weightiest public policy issues. It's just short of "Muffie".

But back to the matter at hand. According to PBS, as of October 1,

Since the war began, the Biden administration and the U.S. Congress have directed more than $75 billion in assistance to Ukraine, which includes humanitarian, financial, and military support, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German research institute. (This figure does not include all war-related U.S. spending, such as aid to allies.)

It's worth pointing out -- and this is worth serious congressional investigation -- that some significant part of that $75 million has been diverted due to corruption, and the result of the whole boondoggle has been a deteriorating battlefield situation in which Russia appears to be succeeding in an overall strategic plan:

Not - and again we stress this - a war of genocide, but a war which will destroy Ukraine as a strategically potent entity. Already the seeds are sown and the fruit begins to bud - a Ukrainian democide, achieved through battlefield attrition and the mass exodus of prime age civilians, an economy in shambles and a state that is cannibalizing itself as it reaches the limits of its resources.

. . . Putin is not going to leave a geostrategically intact Ukraine which will seek to retake the Donbas and exact revenge, or become a potent forward base for NATO. Instead, he will transform Ukraine into a Trashcanistan that can never wage a war of revanchism.

Compare this to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's recently recalibrated words:

All Allies agree that in the midst of a war full [NATO] membership [for Ukraine] is not possible. But of course, we will continue to look into to address how we can move Ukraine and NATO even closer together.

What he's saying is, given the battlefield situation, the corrupt current regime in Ukraine, and the likely medium-term outcome, we're just gonna be sorta-kinda about the sweet bye and bye. And no matter to us in Europe, this will all be on the US Visa card.

In contrast to the US $75 billion already down the drain in Ukraine, the current aid package to Israel is $14.5 billion, which in light of other defense priorities will be difficult to sustain. The basic problem is that the idea of turning Ukraine into a NATO country was, in light of Russia's strategic priorities, never realistic, and certainly never achievable at the funding levels assumed in the optimistic early days of the war.

It looks like there was never a serious or comprehensive Ukraine plan, either diplomatic or military, something that's concerned me from the start, and never a serious assessment of the prospects for success. Nor, we're beginning to see, has there been any planning for other contingencies. Without the money to exert leverage on Israel, the US will have a hard time controlling its Gaza campaign, while the appearance of weakening support for Israel will drive US Jews further from the old New Deal coalition.