Connect with us

International

Too feeble to indict: Joe Biden’s disastrous press conference confirms diminished mental capacity

Published

8 minute read

Biden delivers remarks at the White House on February 8, 2024

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

‘This is becoming a five-alarm fire for the White House’

Joe Biden attempted to do damage control at a hastily-arranged White House press conference after the Department of Justice (DOJ) published a lengthy investigative report which concluded that Biden is a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” and “diminished faculties.”  

Much to the dismay of D.C. Democrats, Biden’s performance at the conference served only to confirm the report’s findings, opening the door for liberal and conservative pundits alike to question whether Biden is fit to continue as President of the United States.   

The DOJ’s damning 388-page report — issued by special counsel Robert Hur on the “investigation into unauthorized removal, retention, and disclosure of classified documents”— found that Biden had willfully mishandled classified documents and had disclosed classified military and national security information, but that because of his diminished mental capacity, no criminal charges would be filed against the 81-year-old.   

“In essence, the special counsel presents evidence that Biden should be removed under the 25th amendment,” noted conservative commentator Mark Levin.  

The issue of Biden’s national security breaches faded into the background after he stood behind an East Room podium to dispel the report’s assertions about his increasing feeble mindedness. Even far-left national media outlets couldn’t ignore last night’s train wreck at the White House.  

Biden angrily proclaimed “I am an elderly man. I know what the hell I’m doing!” during the evening presser, but few if any were buying it.   

“This is becoming a five-alarm fire for the White House,” declared a panelist on CNN’s 360 with Anderson Cooper, alarmed at both the DOJ report and Biden’s performance at the press conference. “I don’t think the president did himself any favors in that speech. He undercut two of his biggest messages.”  

A U.S. House Democrat called Biden’s verbal slip-ups “awful” and a former Biden White House official said the White House press conference was “brutal,” according to an Axios report.    

Former ABC and CNN personality Chris Cuomo asked Robert F. Kennedy Jr. a question that would’ve been anathema for liberal media up until now: “Do you believe that Joe Biden is fit to be President of the United States?” 

Kennedy responded: 

I think we’ve reached a time where it’s no longer character assassination to ask legitimate questions about the President’s competency.

There are so many decisions that require nuance, that require complex levels of thinking and that those kinds of issues are coming at you many times a day.

The American people have a right to understand whether their President is capable of making those decisions.

There are entrenched interests and special interests in government that actually benefit from having a president who is not completely competent.

My complaint about what’s happening in the White House is that it’s become the sock puppet for these large industries, the big hedge funds, BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, who give equally to the Republican and Democratic Party, and now are just comfortable calling the shots.

Conservatives pulled no punches

“This is the most catastrophic presidential press conference I’ve ever seen in my lifetime,” said the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh.   

“Not lucid enough to be charged for a crime but still running for President are not a complementary set of facts,” noted Andrew T. Walker, Ethics & Public Theology Professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.    

Many were moved to compare and contrast Biden’s press conference performance with that of Russian President Vladimir Putin whose lengthy interview with Tucker Carlson had been published on X earlier in the evening. 

“One of these world leaders sat attentive for a 2 hour interview and expertly gave a 30 minute history lesson in detail,” wrote Libs of TikTok. “The other confused his colors and mixed up the Presidents of 2 countries.”  

“Absolutely terrifying and embarrassing.”   

“Tonight as Putin gave intelligent, scholarly answers that delved into a thousand years of Russian history, President Biden was babbling incoherently about how the president of Egypt is actually the president of Mexico,” said Matt Walsh in a subsequent X post. 

When former Obama White House political advisor Jim Messina attempted to dismiss the significance of the special counsel’s report, American Principles Project President Terry Schilling called him out: 

It’s just all propaganda all the time from these people.

We see the decrepit and senile old man in the White House!

We hear him mumbling and stumbling.

You all are evil idiots destroying a great country.

NYT: Maybe it’s time to stop pretending that Biden’s age is not an issue 

The New York Times journalists offered remarkably honest, measured commentary amid the White House’s very bad day yesterday. 

“The decision on Thursday not to file criminal charges against President Biden for mishandling classified documents should have been an unequivocal legal exoneration,” wrote the Times’ Michael D. Shear. “Instead, it was a political disaster.”    

“Biden’s age is very clearly the most important non-Trump issue in this election,” said The New York Times politics reporter Astead Herndon. “Polling says so. Voters say so.”  

“It’s just the WH/DC have had a sorta gentleman’s agreement for the last year to pretend like it’s not. Maybe that ends now,” wondered Herndon.  

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

conflict

Trudeau pledges another $3 billion to Ukraine, including $4 million for ‘gender and diversity’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has sent Ukraine over $13.3 billion, including $4 billion in direct military assistance since 2022.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is sending another 3 billion taxpayer dollars to Ukraine, including $4 million for a “gender and diversity” initiative in the embattled country. 

On February 24, Trudeau’s office announced $3.02 billion in funding for Ukraine as it continues its war against Russia, including millions of taxpayer dollars to promote “gender-inclusive demining.” 

“Canada will provide critical financial and military support to Ukraine in 2024, including new financial support for Ukraine to meet its balance of payments and budgetary needs and stabilize its economy,” a press release promised, without explaining why it’s Canada’s role to prop up Ukraine’s economy.   

Within the 2024 funds, Trudeau promised $4 million to promote “gender-inclusive demining for sustainable futures in Ukraine.” However, the government failed to explain what gender or diversity have to do with demining, and how it is in the interest of the Canadian taxpayer to fund ideologically driven initiatives in foreign countries. 

“This project from the HALO Trust aims to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of Ukrainians, including women and internally displaced persons, by addressing the threat of explosive ordnance present across vast areas of the country,” the press release said.  

“Project activities include conducting non-technical surveys and subsequent manual clearance in targeted communities; providing capacity building to key national stakeholders; and establishing a gender and diversity working group to promote gender-transformative mine action in Ukraine,” it added.  

Additionally, $1.5 million is being given to the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining to “enhance the capacity of Ukrainian mine action institutions to implement effective and gender-responsive mine action operations, develop country-appropriate information management solutions, and lead efficient mine action donor coordination platforms.”  

Since the Russia-Ukraine war began in 2022, Canada has given Ukraine over $13.3 billion, including $4 billion in direct military assistance.   

Trudeau’s ongoing funding for Ukraine comes as many Canadians are struggling to pay for basics such as food, shelter, and heating. According to a recent government report, fast-rising food costs in Canada have led to many people feeling a sense of “hopelessness and desperation” with nowhere to turn for help. 

Continue Reading

Agriculture

‘Net-Zero’ Policies, ESG Reporting Raise Farm Costs, Food Prices—Report

Published on

From Heartland Daily News

Tim Benson

 

 

So-called “net-zero” climate policies are imposing significant costs on American farmers and families, according to a new report from The Buckeye Institute.

A model developed by Buckeye for the report, Net-Zero Climate-Control Policies Will Fail the Farm, indicates that complying with net-zero emissions mandates, and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting standards is likely to increase annual operating expenses for farmers by at least 34 percent. In addition, the model indicated the mandates will result in a 15 percent annual increase in grocery bills for families, as well as significant increases in individual grocery item prices, such as American cheese (79 percent), beef (70 percent), bananas (59 percent), rice (56 percent), and chicken (39 percent).

Net Zero and ESG

“Net-zero” refers to the balance between the amount of carbon dioxide emissions produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. For a country to achieve “net-zero,” means either not producing any emissions at all or “offsetting” an equivalent amount of emissions through methods like “carbon capture and storage,” reforestation, and the use of “renewable” energy sources. Carbon dioxide pricing schemes like cap-and-trade systems or carbon dioxide taxes are other significant “net-zero” policies.

Meanwhile, ESG scores are essentially a risk assessment mechanism increasingly used by investment firms and financial institutions that force large and small companies to focus upon politically motivated, subjective goals which often run counter to their financial interests and the interests of their customers.

Companies are graded on these mandated commitments to promote, for example, climate or social justice objectives. Those that score poorly are punished by divestment, reduced access to credit and capital, and a refusal from state and municipal governments to contract with them.

ESG Targeting Agriculture

Many of ESG’s metrics, primarily those related to imposing environmental controls, are directly linked to the agricultural industry and food production. Examples of some of these metrics include: “Paris [climate agreement]-aligned GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions targets,” “Impact of GHG emissions,” “Land use and ecological sensitivity,” “Impact of air pollution,” “Impact of freshwater consumption and withdrawal,” “Impact of solid waste disposal,” and “Nutrients”—which, despite its innocuous-sounding name, is a metric that forces companies to estimate the “metric tonnes of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium in fertilizer consumed.”

Farmers and food producers use chemical fertilizers and pesticides for crop growth, in addition to producing waste biproducts, consuming substantial quantities of water, using vast swathes of land, and releasing what climate alarmists claim to be planet-ending carbon dioxide emissions.

“Europe, fully committed to the Paris Climate Accords’ decarbonization plan, provides a forecast of the agricultural and economic consequences likely to result from the ESG-reporting agenda,” the report notes. “After implementing strict ESG-reporting mandates, European banks, for example, became reluctant to lend to farmers with high nitrogen and methane emissions.   Reduced credit strained family farms.

“Europe’s emissions cap-and-trade policies exacerbated the problem and helped put generational farmers out of business,” the report continues. “Those policies also raised prices of farm-related energy and fertilizer, which, in turn, raised the price of food and groceries.”

‘Immolated’ Farming Industry

The report describes how the European Union’s commitment to the Paris climate agreement and associated ESG and net zero goals are undermining its agricultural sector and food security, which has lessons for the United States.

“Europe immolated its farming industry and made the continent’s food supply more expensive and less secure,” the report says. “Adopting similar policies in the United States will yield similar results.”

Federal and State Fixes

The report makes a number of recommendations for what can be done to “avoid the failures of net-zero policies.”

Federally, they suggest the United States withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords, repeal the “renewable energy” and carbon capture and sequestration subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act, and consider banning federal agencies like the Farm Credit Administration from utilizing ESG policies.

On the state level, the report recommends states legislatures pass laws preventing “state agencies, fund managers, insurers, and lenders from using ESG criteria to guide investment decisions and set insurance policies and premiums.”

Enlisting the Private Sector

For the private sector Buckeye’s report suggests corporate boards from industries “that will be negatively impacted by ESG reporting and other net-zero policies should inform shareholders about how ESG-reporting requirements will affect operations and long-term shareholder value.” They also suggest farmers “decouple farming practices from their purported climate benefits and use the methods that are best for their farms, families, and produce.”

“Government climate-control policies ensconced in the Paris Climate Accords, the Inflation Reduction Act, and ESG-guided mandates carry a hefty price tag, especially for U.S. farms and the American consumer,” the report concludes. “The full price of climate control policies and directives needs to be measured and understood, especially the costs they will inflict on American farms and households.”

‘Unrealistic, Unattainable,’ and Costly

Buckeye’s analysis is important for putting numbers on the high cost of ESG and Net Zero policies, providing an evidence-based warning to Americans not to follow Europe’s path, says Cameron Sholty, Executive Director of Heartland Impact.

“This report shows what American and European farmers intuitively knew: that net zero carbon emissions are unrealistic, unattainable, and ultimately add cost through the supply chain and ultimately to consumers’ pocket books,” said Sholty. “Buckeye should be commended for putting the numbers to the insidiousness of ill-advised carbon-free farming pursuits.

“Its folly imposed by activists seeking to control the means of production and how we live and thrive in a civilized society,” Sholty said.

Tim Benson ([email protected]is a senior policy analyst with Heartland Impact.

For more on farm policy, click here.

For more on net zero, click here.

For more on ESG, click here.

Continue Reading

Trending

X