Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

Bipartisan group of senators cuts deal to change election laws in response to January 6 attack

A bipartisan group of senators reached a deal to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election, marking the most significant response by Congress to former President Donald Trump's relentless pressure campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The proposal still needs to be approved by both chambers and will need 60 votes in the Senate to break any filibuster attempt, meaning at least 10 Republicans would be needed to support any legislation. Announcement of the plan kicks off what is expected to be a challenging, months-long process to get the deal passed into law before the end of the year.

The deal is the culmination of months of negotiation led by Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, along with an additional six Democrats and eight Republicans. The proposal unveiled Wednesday is split up into two bills.

One of the bills is focused on modernizing and overhauling the Electoral Count Act, an 1887 law that Trump had sought to exploit and create confusion over how Congress counts Electoral College votes from each state. As part of that proposal, senators are attempting to clarify that the vice president only has a ceremonial role in overseeing the certification of the electoral results.

The proposal also includes key provisions intended to promote an orderly transition of presidential power by outlining guidelines for when eligible candidates can receive federal resources for a transition into office.

If neither candidate concedes within five days of Election Day, both candidates would be able to receive access to federal transition resources until "it is substantially certain who will win the majority of electoral votes," according to a fact sheet. Ultimately, only one candidate will be eligible when there is "a clear winner of the election."

Amid revelations of an effort by Trump allies to put forward illegitimate electors in key states, the bill tries to prevent a similar situation from happening again in the future.

It would also make it harder for members of Congress to attempt to overturn an election by increasing the number of House and Senate members required to raise an objection to election results when a joint session of Congress meets to certify them. Under current law, just one senator can join one House member in forcing each side to vote on whether to throw out results subject to an objection.

Roger's kinda right, but for different reasons.

Remember that officer that stayed outside while a shooting was going on?

The thing is, when leftism dictates hiring, we get pansy ass cops that are more concerned with not profiling or paying for sex changes than actually defending the public against crime.

400 cops that won't do their job, or one teacher who is directly threatened and will fight back? I think we all can admit who has more of a motive to stop a shooting.

When police are run by the right, they usually defend the public whether people scream racism at them or not. Blacks and whites both commit crimes. Police aren't the problem. But a leftist state is more likely to have police who always do the wrong thing.

Why? Because the left doesn't want to abolish the police, they want to BE the police. Hire corrupt and abusivee cops, people complain, police are defunded, but we need "conflict resolvers" and let's hire from prisoners. Those don't work either. Nevermind, we have military-trained woke storm troopers here. They'll take care of these out-of-control conflict resolvers. Only when you call the storm troopers, thet attack you instead of the criminal.

Today, documents released by the House Oversight and Reform Committee confirmed that the Trump administration’s attempt to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census was a strategy to skew population data to benefit Republicans. Trump had refused to turn over the documents, but the Biden administration agreed to allow the House committee to see them.

U.S. censuses, which are required every 10 years under our Constitution, have always counted “persons,” and both voting and public monies are proportioned according to those numbers. Under Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the Trump administration wanted to include a question about citizenship, and administration officials first suggested that they would count citizens, rather than legal residents and undocumented immigrants, for purposes of representation, and then said they needed citizenship information to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Opponents claimed the proposed new question was designed to scare immigrants, who tend to vote Democratic, away from being counted, which would have shifted representation and government monies toward Republicans.

A district court said Secretary Ross’s action was “arbitrary and capricious, based on a pretextual rationale, and violated certain provisions of the Census Act,” and the Supreme Court added that the administration’s claim to need citizenship information to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act was “contrived.” It blocked the administration from including that question on the census.

Now, we have documents showing that Ross and other Trump administration officials actively sought to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census in the hope that their erasure would also make legal immigrants avoid being counted, and thus cut representation for and funding to Democratic districts. One handwritten note suggests using the Voting Rights Act as cover.

This is a stark example of the dangers of turning our government over to an authoritarian leader who will use our fundamental governmental systems to draw power to himself. This census question had the potential to affect our governmental system profoundly. Even without the census question, the U.S. Census Bureau in March 2022 said a quality check revealed that Black Americans, Indigenous Americans, and Hispanic or Latino Americans were undercounted in 2020, while white inhabitants and Asian inhabitants were overcounted.

This is just the latest example of Trump and his allies trying to use our government to cement their power, among others that reached from Trump’s attempt to weaponize funds approved by Congress for Ukraine to fight off Russian incursions so as to damage likely Democratic opponent Joe Biden, to the January 6 attempt to stop Biden's certification as president-elect.

These attempts appear to have reached deep into the Secret Service as well, and today we learned that the Department of Homeland Security itself might have played along. Carol D. Leonnig and Maria Sacchetti of the Washington Post today reported that whistleblowers have revealed that DHS inspector general Joseph Cuffari, a Trump appointee, learned in February that nearly all text messages from around the time of the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol had been deleted from Secret Service agents’ cell phones but elected to keep that information from Congress. The inspector general’s office also declined to tell Congress that the Secret Service was refusing to turn over records from that period.

And yet, for all the efforts of officials in the Trump administration to seize power by compromising our national systems, a Trump-era White House aide who testified before the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol claimed that it is he and his colleagues who are victims of a strong state. In a webcast after his testimony, Garrett Ziegler, an aide to trade advisor Peter Navarro who appears to have been the person who admitted Trump allies to the White House for the shocking meeting of December 18 where they discussed martial law, continued to claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

As for the January 6 committee: “They’re Bolsheviks,” he said, in an echo of Republican rhetoric calling all opponents communists, “so, they probably do hate the American Founders and most White people in general. This is a Bolshevistic anti-White campaign. If you can’t see that, your eyes are freaking closed. And so, they see me as a young Christian who they can try to basically scare, right?” He attacked the women who have cooperated with the committee with offensive language.

Meanwhile, the January 6 committee continues to bear down on the Trump administration. Amy Gardner, Josh Dawsey, and Paul Kane of the Washington Post reported tonight that at tomorrow night’s public hearing, the committee is planning to show outtakes from Trump’s reluctant video of January 7, when there was talk of removing him from office.

While the struggle between the Trump team and those trying to bring them to justice continues, President Biden is trying to move the country forward to address the existential crisis of climate change. Europe is suffering under a terrible heat wave; Britain has declared a climate emergency and, with airstrips softened by extreme heat, grounded the Royal Air Force; and 100 million Americans are under emergency heat warnings.

On Monday, the secretary-general of the United Nations, António Guterres, warned world leaders gathered at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Berlin, where they are gathered to advance multilateral climate negotiations: “Half of humanity is in the danger zone from floods, droughts, extreme storms and wildfires. No nation is immune. Yet we continue to feed our fossil fuel addiction…. What troubles me most is that, in facing this global crisis, we are failing to work together as a multilateral community. Nations continue to play the blame game instead of taking responsibility for our collective future. We cannot continue this way,” he said. “We have a choice. Collective action or collective suicide. It is in our hands.”

In the U.S., the recent West Virginia v. EPA decision of the Supreme Court, weakening the ability of the government to shift the country toward clean energy by regulating carbon dioxide emissions, has limited the government’s ability to address climate change. So, too, has the insistence of Republican senators, as well as Democratic senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, that short-term economic interests outweigh the imperatives of climate change. Days ago, Manchin said he would not support new investment in clean energy out of concern over inflation. Without him, the Democrats' plans for addressing climate change through legislation can't move forward, since no Republicans are on board.

So President Biden is working around them. Today, he traveled to Somerset, Massachusetts, to reiterate that climate change is an emergency and to illustrate that combating it offers us a new, innovative economy. As National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy explained to reporters, until 2017, Somerset was the site of one of the biggest and oldest coal-fired power plants in New England. Now that plant will be making cable to anchor offshore wind turbines.

Hoping to bring that innovation to the nation more widely, Biden noted that extreme weather events—wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and floods—cost the U.S. $145 billion last year alone. They damage our economy and our national security. “As President, I have a responsibility to act with urgency and resolve when our nation faces clear and present danger,” he said today. “And that’s what climate change is about. It is literally, not figuratively, a clear and present danger.”

Biden is planning to invest more than $2 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and $385 million from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to help people cool their homes. In early June, Biden used the Defense Production Act to speed up the domestic manufacture of solar equipment. The bipartisan infrastructure law has added $3.1 billion to the mix to weatherize homes and make them more energy efficient, and the American Rescue Plan provided $16 billion to clean up methane leaking from capped oil wells, abandoned when they stopped making money.

Biden vowed that addressing the climate crisis would provide good manufacturing jobs, repair supply chains, and clean up the environment. He promised to use the power of the presidency to do what Congress currently is not. “In the coming weeks, I’m going to use the power I have as President to turn these words into formal, official government actions through the appropriate proclamations, executive orders, and regulatory power that a President possesses,” he said.

“[W]hen it comes to fighting…climate change, I will not take no for an answer. I will do everything in my power to clean our air and water, protect our people’s health, to win the clean energy future,” he said. “We have an opportunity here.”

If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by clarity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

Biden has Covid, symptoms are mild

"This morning, President Biden tested positive for COVID-19. He is fully vaccinated and
twice boosted and experiencing very mild symptoms. He has begun taking Paxlovid.
Consistent with CDC guidelines, he will isolate at the White House and will continue to
carry out all of his duties fully during that time," she said.

This is the first time Biden, 79, has tested positive for Covid-19. He last tested negative
on Tuesday, per Jean-Pierre, who added that he will take Paxlovid.

Paxlovid is Pfizer's antiviral drug.

During US President Joseph Biden’s trip to Saudi Arabia, the world was so focused on how Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman would respond to his plea to pump more oil immediately that it missed a bombshell: the level at which Saudi oil production will peak.

It’s a lot lower than many anticipated. It’s lower than the Saudis have ever intimated. And with the world still hungry for fossil fuels, it spells long-term trouble for the global economy.

For years, Saudi oil ministers and royals have sidestepped one of the most important questions the energy market faces: What is the long-term upper limit of the kingdom’s oilfields? The guesstimate was that they could always pump more, and for longer; if the Saudis knew the answer, they kept it secret. And then, almost casually on Saturday, Prince Mohammed broke the news, revealing that the ultimate maximum capacity is 13 million barrels a day.

Prince Mohammed framed his answer emphasizing that the world — and not just countries like Saudi Arabia — needs to invest in fossil-fuels production over the next two decades to meet growing global demand and avoid energy shortages. “The kingdom will do its part in this regard, as it announced an increase in its production capacity to 13 million barrels per day, after which the kingdom will not have any additional capacity to increase production,” he said in a wide-ranging speech.

It bears repeating: Saudi Arabia, the holder of the world’s largest oil reserves, is telling the world that in the not-so-distant future it “will not have any additional capacity to increase production.” Let that sink in.

The first part of his announcement was well known. In 2020, Riyadh instructed its state-owned oil giant Saudi Aramco to embark on a multiyear, multibillion-dollar program to boost its maximum production capacity to 13 million barrels by 2027, up from 12 million. The project is ongoing, with the first small additions coming online in 2024 followed by larger ones in the following three years.

But the second part was completely new, setting a hard ceiling at a much lower level than the Saudis have themselves discussed in the past. Back in 2004 and 2005, during Riyadh’s last big expansion, the kingdom made plans to expand its pumping capacity to 15 million if needed. And there was no suggestion that even that elevated level was an upper limit.

For example, Aramco executives told the CSIS think tank in Washington in 2004 that the company could sustain output levels of 10, 12 and 15 million barrels a day for 50 years if needed. At the time, Riyadh was fighting the views of the late Matt Simmons, author of the much-discussed book “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy.” The book argued that peak Saudi oil production was just around the corner.

One reason why Saudi Arabia is now setting a lower production ceiling may be related to climate change. Unsure about future oil demand growth, Riyadh may calculate that it’s foolish to spend billions of dollars in new capacity that may not be needed.

In his speech, Prince Mohammed stressed the “importance of assuring investors” that policies do “not pose a threat to their investments,” with the aim of avoiding “their reluctance to invest.” I don't think Prince Mohammed was talking about Wall Street money and hedge funds when he said “investors.” It’s a term that also covers Saudi Arabia’s interests.

Oil demand forecasting is as much art as science — and the kingdom is conservative by nature. A decade ago, then Saudi energy minister Ali Al-Naimi said Saudi Arabia would be “lucky” to be pumping more than 9 million by the early 2020s. “Realistically, based on all projections that I have seen, including ours, there is no call on us to go past 11 million by 2030 or 2040.” The reality has turned far more positive than he anticipated: next month, Aramco will lift daily production to just above 11 million barrels.

If demand proves stronger in the coming years than the Saudis currently anticipate, the kingdom may simply revise its investment plans, and announce it’s able to boost output further. But Prince Mohammed sounded rather definitive in setting that 13 million upper boundary. If money isn’t the constraint, then it must be geology.

For years, Saudi Arabia has brought new oil fields online to offset the natural decline of its aging reservoirs, and allowed Ghawar, the world’s biggest oil field, to run at lower rates. As it seeks to boost production capacity and not just offset natural declines, Aramco is increasingly turning to more expensive offshore reservoirs. Perhaps Riyadh is less confident in its ability to add new oilfields. Ghawar itself is pumping far less than the market assumed. For years, the conventional wisdom was that the field was able to produce about 5 million barrels, but in 2019 Aramco disclosed that Ghawar’s maximum capacity was 3.8 million.

If the obstacle to boosting production is geology, rather than pessimism about future oil demand, the world faces a rocky period if consumption turns to be stronger than currently expected. For now, Saudi peak production is a relatively distant matter, at least five years away. More urgent is whether Riyadh would be able to sustain its current output of 11 million — something it has achieved only twice in its history, and then only briefly — let alone increase it further. But that ceiling will matter towards the end of the decade, and perhaps even earlier.

Despite widespread talk about peak oil demand, the truth is that, for now at least, consumption keeps growing. The world relies heavily on three nations for crude: the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia. Together, they account for nearly 45% of global total oil supply. With US investors unwilling to finance a return to the days of “drill, baby, drill” at home, American output growth is now slower than it was in the 2010s. Russia faces an even darker outlook as the impact of Western sanctions not only curb current supply, but also hinder its ability to expand in the future.

In an era of climate change, Saudi oil production will be, ironically, even more important. And Riyadh has now, publicly, set a hard limit on how much it can pump. This time, oil demand will have to peak — because there won’t be additional supply. Ultimately, there are only two routes to that outcome: Voluntarily, by shifting to low-carbon sources of energy such as nuclear power or wind; or by compulsion, via much higher oil prices, faster inflation and slower economic growth. If we don’t take the first path, we’ll be forced to follow the second.