There’s a lot of noise about who should be the GOP nominee, and that’s being sorted out as the primaries begin, but Bill O’Reilly has very effectively put the election into perspective as far as what’s at stake, not to mention the ridiculous fearmongering from the Left.

Bottom line: The country can NOT take any more of the Biden train wreck and intentional destruction of the republic (while ironically saying Republicans threaten “norms and institutions.”

Watch:

Bill O’Reilly has reached his absolute limit. pic.twitter.com/FkuGovnDHs

— Big Fish (@BigFish3000) January 11, 2024

In a word: BINGO.

I miss this guy. He was one of the best to ever do it. https://t.co/zDsWdJ6oPV

— Eric Matheny 🎙️ (@ericmmatheny) January 11, 2024

Bill is saying what every one of us has been thinking and shouting about- he’s just got a bigger platform for it and I love it! https://t.co/NOt9D8k7qh

— QueenMother👸🏻 (@QueenMother1976) January 11, 2024

He’s absolutely correct ~ https://t.co/aHNdiUF6as

— Sheryl #rescue #loveofcountry #2A (@sav01) January 11, 2024

Yep, this is what 2024 is all about folks. The Biden White House and this entire administration must be shown the door in a landslide fashion.

Recommended

Where Is the FBI?! The Media?! X Suggests Punishments for 7 Texas Men Who Assaulted Toddlers in Bathrooms

San Fran Resident Decries Attack on ‘Food Justice’ as Neighborhood Safeway Is Set to Close Due to Crime

***

Recommended (current Twitchy articles):

Where Is the FBI?! The Media?! X Suggests Punishments for 7 Texas Men Who Assaulted Toddlers in Bathrooms

San Fran Resident Decries Attack on ‘Food Justice’ as Neighborhood Safeway Is Set to Close Due to Crime

Matt Walsh Makes Waves With Clip Stating That Buying Valentines Day Gifts Early is… Well, Just Watch

A ‘New College’ Alumnus Lost It Over DeSantis’ New Degree Program But SHOCKINGLY She’s All Wrong

‘Go Off, Queens’: Southwest Airlines Shows Off Its All-Female Flight Crew

Army Sees a Steep Decline in White Recruits Over the Past Five Years

TRENDING ON TOWNHALL MEDIA:

1 Seven Men Gang Rape Two Toddlers in Shopping Mall Restroom and Post Video Online

2 Joe Biden Just Suffered Two Judicial Losses

Where Is the FBI?! The Media?! X Suggests Punishments for 7 Texas Men Who Assaulted Toddlers in Bathrooms

Is electricity a source of energy? Most people will answer yes, which is incorrect. Electricity carries energy but it is not itself a source of energy, which in the U.S. is supplied 60% by natural gas and coal, 18% nuclear and 22% renewables (hydro, solar and wind). 

The related question is whether cars are a major consumer of energy and hence a significant contributor of Co2 emissions? Again, most people believe both statements are self-evidently true, hence the importance of moving to electric cars. 

In fact, cars (light-duty transportation) account for less than 5% of global energy demand, with U.S. cars accounting for 19% of the global car fleet, declining to under 15% by 2050 as car demand grows faster outside the U.S. 

Putting these facts together, and they are indisputable facts, provides a stunning insight. 

The U.S. car fleet accounts for a mere 1.0% of global energy demand (5% x 19%), declining to 0.8% by 2050. So even if the U.S. shifts 100% to electric-powered cars, the maximum climate impact in 2050 is a meaningless 0.2% (22% x 0.8%) reduction in global Co2 emissions from the current electric grid, up to a maximum of 0.5% assuming solar, wind, and hydro can, implausibly, power 60% of electric demand. 

In other words, there is no factual basis to claim that the government mandate to switch to electric cars will have any material impact on global Co2 emissions. 

This is not a debatable point — it is easily verified, it is correct under any view of climate science, and it remains true even if solar and wind magically grow sixfold over the next 25 years, which is highly unlikely given the need to build a new transmission network, estimated at more than 200,000 miles of wires crisscrossing the country, and devise totally unknown, unproven, and likely impossible to achieve large-scale, economic battery storage. 

Nor does the picture change materially if the entire world goes 100% electric for cars. In that case global Co2 emissions fall a mere 3.5% in 2050 versus a baseline of 24% electric adoption by 2035. 

Put simply, cars are not a meaningful source of global emissions and electric cars do not and cannot curtail the continued reliance on fossil fuels in electric generation. On top of this, counting all sources, the U.S. is responsible for only 14% of all global Co2 emissions, declining to 9% by 2050 due to rest of world economic growth. 

But facts count for nothing in the Biden era. The EPA seeks to force conversion to electric cars through draconian limits on tailpipe emissions. American taxpayers foot the bill for billions in subsidies to electric cars. California leads the way in mandating conversion to electric cars. Perversely, the major auto companies have signed onto the electric agenda, the harbinger of future bailouts. 

Perhaps most galling is the continuous misleading of the public. 

By law every new car must affix a window sticker with the following statement: “Vehicle emissions are a significant cause of climate change and smog.“ Any private company marketing such demonstrably false claims would be subject to ruinous civil and criminal liability. null

If going electric yields virtually no climate benefit, why bother buying a battery-powered car, with limited range, high purchase cost, and low resale value, the death knell to affordable leasing costs? 

Consumers are smarter than the government in figuring out that battery-powered cars are a raw deal, resulting in widespread reports of missed sales forecasts, high unsold inventories, and cancellation of future projections by the major auto companies. 

Here again the new car sticker hides economic reality by featuring in bold type a hypothetical five-year operating saving versus an average conventional car, based on the cost of gas and electricity. 

By sticker math, savings rise as gasoline prices increase, hence the perverse and persistent administration incentive to force high gas costs on Americans, except in an election year. And the savings disappear as electric costs increase. 

Already there is no operating benefit when charging stations routinely cost $.40/kwh-$.50/kwh, a fact conveniently not mentioned in the sticker calculation. Nor are consumers warned of the inevitable sharp increase in electric rates if the grid must absorb high-cost solar and wind, as in Germany where electric rates already are $.45/kwh, removing any incentive for electric cars. At current gas prices, a typical hybrid costs less to run on gas once electric prices exceed $.24/kwh.

Taking the broader view, fossils fuels currently account for 80% of global energy supply. Even if the world aggressively grows solar and wind, fossil fuels in 2050 continue to supply 68% of all energy. 

The reason is quite straightforward. The major sources of energy, and hence global energy emissions, come from non-car sources that are extremely difficult or technologically infeasible to convert to renewables, namely industrial, commercial transportation (heavy-duty trucking, aviation, marine, and rail), and residential/commercial. The government focus on cars is political theater. 

Nuclear energy can uniquely reduce emissions to zero in these sectors, but for reasons well-known, war has been successfully declared on nuclear energy in the U.S. and it is not growing globally at the exponential rates needed to solve global Co2 emissions permanently. 

The continued dominance of fossil fuels explains what is otherwise inexplicable: Warren Buffet’s multi-billion-dollar investment in oil companies, especially Occidental Petroleum, and the recent surge in oil acquisitions, notably ExxonMobil paying $58 billion for Pioneer Natural Resources and Chevron’s purchase of Hess Corp. for $60 billion.

Those with the greatest knowledge, betting real money, know oil and gas are here to stay. Without skillful, continuous oil and gas investment in the billions and trillions in the U.S. and the world, global oil and gas production by 2050 would drop more than 70% from current levels, yielding economic Armageddon.

The Biden Administration response is astonishing. As reported by the Department of Energy in September 2023, the National Security Council has issued an edict banning government employees from attending any international conference that promotes fossil fuel production, with limited exceptions.

Yet even at 68% market share for fossil fuels, global emissions will be cut significantly. By a factor of three, the most important lever of global greenhouse gas reduction is not growth in solar and renewables, but continuous private sector innovation in energy efficiency, reducing energy content per unit of output. 

Missing in climate change discussions is its inhumane logic. Global emission increases through 2050 are due to population growth and rising economic activity in China, India, and the rest of the developing world (i.e., non-U.S. and Europe). GDP growth raises living standards. Falling GDP and population reduction outside the developed nations are the true, but strategically hidden, moral epicenter of the climate change agenda. 

China, India, Asia, and Africa are not buying what world elites are selling as they self-righteously jet to exhilarating climate confabs. No one should. Demanding that 80% of the world, or some six billion humans, sacrifice their well-being, and their children, is an immorality never before articulated and rationalized. 

The hard truth is that no set of actions can remotely meet the arbitrary IPCC requirement for a 70% reduction in global Co2 by 2050, certainly not the puny contribution from electrified cars and indeed nothing short of a horrific determination to strangle the world whole.

By all means purchase a battery-powered vehicle if it pleases you. But do not imagine for a moment that it saves money or is doing anything that matters for climate change. 

We are ruled by liars, fools and demons, too often all three in one.

William Levin

The ongoing spate of antisemitism and anti-Israel protests sweeping the country following Hamas’s attacks on Israeli civilians last October are just the latest example of how the Democrat establishment has lost control of the radical left-wing activist class it has fostered and egged on for years. With a major election now less than a year away, the escalating extremism of these activists could cost Democrats big at the ballot box.

After Hamas’s terrorist attack left more than 1,200 innocent civilians dead, most elected Democrats – with notable exceptions like “Squad” members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar – condemned the violence and called for solidarity with Israel. But many of these same Democrats have since backed down from that stance amid fierce backlash from their far-left base, which has not only excused Hamas’s brutal actions, but even celebrated them.

While the mainstream media has been reluctant to report on it, this unrest stemming from the militant antisemitism on the left only seems to be increasing despite attempts by the Democrat establishment to quell it.

Biden Watching CNN

On January 6, for instance, as the press engaged in their annual campaign of smearing Donald Trump and conservatives as “insurrectionists,” anti-Israel leftists blocked a major interstate in Seattle, causing traffic to be backed up for six hours. The same day, another anti-Israel protest caused major gridlock on Chicago’s famous Lake Shore Drive.

A few days before those incidents, on January 3, left-wing protestors shut down the California General Assembly. Anti-Israel protestors also attempted to disrupt New Year’s Eve celebrations in New York City and Boston.

Elected Democrats have been largely powerless to stop or even discourage the alarming spike in antisemitism from their own supporters. On November 29, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer grudgingly acknowledged that the recent incidents of antisemitism were mostly coming from “people that most liberal Jewish Americans felt previously were their ideological fellow travelers.”

The backlash from the left against President Joe Biden, who has wavered in his support for Israel but also has not openly endorsed Hamas’s actions as his left-wing base wants him to do, has been severe. Polling evidence shows that young voters are abandoning Biden in droves over his refusal to demand Israel stop its war on Hamas. In perhaps the clearest evidence that Democrat leaders have lost control of their base, even young White House staffers are in open revolt against the president over his stance on the war.

While many Democrat leaders and corporate media pundits have expressed alarm over the anti-Jewish radicalism of the left-wing activist class – in between excusing leftists’ calls for genocide – the liberal establishment should hardly be surprised.

Back in 2020, following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Democrats and the legacy media openly encouraged the chaos that gripped American cities for weeks – violence that was far more widespread and deadly than the heinous antisemitic demonstrations on American streets today. Democrat leaders like Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren all marched in anti-police protests that later turned to riots, while the Democrat Party embraced the imagery and themes of the radical Black Lives Matter movement at their 2020 convention.

Despite the George Floyd riots causing more than $1 billion in property damage and leading to dozens of deaths, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X, “The whole point of protesting is to make people uncomfortable.” The Democrat establishment tacitly endorsed this sentiment, signaling to their activist base that violence was acceptable so long as it is in support of a left-wing cause.

In 2020, that cause was the “Defund the Police” movement and so-called “racial equity.” In that case, Democrats were able to largely escape the blame for the violence and destruction caused by their activists with help from their media allies.

But nearly four years later, it seems the radicalism of Democrats’ activist class has finally caught up to them and is costing the party big with everyday Americans. However, after years of telling fierce partisans that they are accountable to no one and nothing except the edicts of woke ideology, Democrats have created a major danger for themselves and the country that they are powerless to do anything about.

If liberal activists are indeed waking the rest of the country up to the growing extremism of the modern Democrat Party and setting the stage for an electoral wipeout this November, Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.

Andrew Shirley

At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama said: “There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America… We are one people…”

After announcing his candidacy for president, Sen. Obama appeared on “60 Minutes”:

“60 Minutes”: “You think the country’s ready for a black president?”

Obama: “Yes.”

“60 Minutes”: “You don’t think it’s going to hold you back?”

Obama: “No. I think if I don’t win this race, it will be because of other factors. It will be because I have not shown the American people a vision for where the country needs to go that they can embrace.”

Polls offered support for Obama’s optimism. The 2008 principal primary candidates for the Republicans were Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. For Democrats, the candidates were Obama and Hillary Clinton. A 2007 Gallup poll found that 42% of Americans said they would not vote for someone of McCain’s age. Twenty-four percent said they would not vote for a Mormon, Romney’s religion. As for Clinton, 11% said they would not vote for a woman. Just 5% said they would not vote for a black person.

Shortly after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an optimistic Rev. Martin Luther King said, “Frankly, I have seen certain changes in the United States over the last two years that have surprised me.” He said, “We might be able to get a Negro president in less than forty years.”

Fast forward to 2008. Even those who voted against Obama nevertheless felt his victory made a profound statement about the country. Polls showed both blacks and whites expected “race relations” to improve. But after Obama’s eight years in office, both blacks and whites thought race relations got worse. What happened?

From the beginning of Obama’s presidency until its end, the man America’s considered a unifier played one race card after another. He enraged American law enforcement by falsely accusing a white Cambridge police officer of “acting stupidly.” He implied the officer was racially motivated when he gave to a reasonable and lawful order to a black Harvard professor, who resisted it. When black Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman, Obama said, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” The jury found the defendant not guilty, and the jurors said race played no role in the encounter. But Obama, who later embraced Black Lives Matter, again advanced the false narrative of anti-black “systemic racism.” Never mind studies showing cops more reluctant, more hesitant to pull the trigger on a black suspect than a white suspect.

In an interview, the man who said he would not blame race if he lost the election said: “The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives — you know, that casts a long shadow, and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on. We’re not cured of it. … Racism — we are not cured of it.” Obama invited the race-hustling Al Sharpton to the White House over 70 times.

Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder complained of America’s “pernicious racism,” giving as an example voter ID. In Obama’s second term, a black man motivated by the Obama-promoted police anti-black narrative murdered two NYPD cops as they sat in their squad car. In Baton Rouge, another black man driven by the same narrative ambushed and murdered three police officers. In Dallas, another black man influenced by this narrative ambushed and murdered five police officers.

There is a straight line between Obama’s rhetoric and the months of the deadly, costly 2020 Black Lives Matter/George Floyd protests. Never mind that the lead prosecutor, a black man, never argued the officer-defendant was racially motivated, and the officer was not charged with a hate crime.

Obama, post-presidency, still fans the flames of race and identity division. Less than two years ago, the man America hired as a uniter said: “I have little sympathy for reactionaries who cynically condemn identity politics or cancel culture when really all they’re doing is trying to preserve existing privilege or excuse entrenched injustice, or bigotry.”

Thanks, Obama.

Larry Elder

For a long time now, the debate has raged as to whether it’s worth going to college anymore.  The libertarian view on this question has typically been along the lines of… if people are foolish enough to waste money on worthless degrees, the world will soon enough teach them another lesson.  While valid, that view ran aground on the Democrat vote-buying scheme to insulate those with useless degrees from the consequences of their poor choices and indebtedness, with our tax money.

The cynical motives behind this ploy aside, I very much doubt many students enroll in college with the intention of eventually being bailed out by their fellow citizens.  These bright, young minds have simply bought into the hype that a college degree, any degree, is the ticket to prosperity.  That might have been mostly true, back in the day when the people who ran higher education actually focused on educating.  In the past, a degree could give someone who was willing to work hard a leg up on the competition.  Somewhere along the road, we lost sight of the fact that hard work was the not-so-secret essential ingredient, not that scrap of paper with the fancy calligraphy on it.  Through greed and cowardly moral blindness, the grifters who run our colleges have transformed these venerable institutions into the educational equivalent of shady time-shares.

Although the rot is extensive and accelerating, there are still college degrees which might be worth the time and money thrown at them—medicine, science, engineering, and a few others.  Better learn fast though.  These disciplines remain only relatively uncorrupted because they’re harder to infiltrate.  In the spirit of the hard sciences, it’s informative to analyze which college degrees are the more useless, and why.  Rational analysis, scorned as patriarchal, racist, and colonialist, comes in handy when exposing scams.

Upon reflection, it appears that “useless” degrees share one or more common traits:

• Lack of Job Market (outside of academia or government subsidies)
• Not Data-Driven
• Demands Post Grad Degrees
• General Lack of Scholarly Rigor
• Rampant Groupthink and Plagiarism

Look upon these features as red flags.  The more of these red flags a field of “study” flies, the higher the likelihood recipients of these degrees will wind up as a burden on society.  More bluntly, a burden on you.  Below is a table of arbitrarily-chosen college degrees, rated on the scale described above.

Image created by the author.

Some may quibble with the labels or applicability of the red-flag traits, or the number of flags assigned to certain degrees.  But the overall method of analysis is valid.  This can serve as a road map of sheepskins to avoid.  The more of these boxes are checked, the more money colleges will scam out of you, and the less likely you are to ever earn it back.

Further, it’s enlightening to contrast the differences between the upper reaches of the table with the lower.  Those degrees with a score of 2 are not inherently useless, but they simply provide less opportunity in the private sector.  There just aren’t that many open positions for astronomers, dancers, etc…  The jobs are there, and arguably provide a measurable benefit to society, but it doesn’t take much of a pipeline to satisfy the demand.  Historically, people embarking on these careers realize that they’ll be scrapping for the few jobs out there, and accept the low pay which the law of supply and demand enforces.

So, why would anyone choose such a fate?  The answer is passion.  The people who become dancers, archaeologists, photographers, artists, and art historians simply can’t imagine following any other calling.  They pay for that passion with an expected lack of financial security.  They will spend the rest of their careers singing for their supper.  And who am I to say they are wrong?

Of course, the already wealthy have the luxury of studying whatever strikes their fancy at college.  Financial security doesn’t enter into the calculation, having been previously addressed by successful relatives.  And, I am reliably informed that some people attend college simply to find and hogtie a spouse; but that subject is beyond the scope of this discussion.

English as a degree is a special case.  An English major has been the clichéd useless degree, even before the current unpleasantness.  Ironically, an English degree is not actually useless.  English departments are simply clogged with useless people—both students, and faculty.  The unconstrained, open nature of literary analysis and composition attracts people who see it as an easy ride.  In reality, an English degree teaches how to convey concepts effectively, which is an extremely useful skill.  However, the fuel to make that engine run is an elusive mixture of honesty, hustle, and hard work.  Build that combination and the job opportunities are nearly limitless.

Then we come to the odious top of the table.  Communications is no more than an English degree, stripped of any scholarly rigor and diluted with multi-media focus to a ridiculous easy-pass version.  As one wit quipped, the only purpose of sociologists is to breed more sociologists.  Any degree which ends in the trigger word “studies” is a contrived pyramid scheme, manufactured to wring money out of the student’s bank account while simultaneously fostering an entitled, sullen, negative view of life.  This scam only seemed to be viable while corporations fell for the DEI grift.  But all pyramid schemes collapse eventually.  Those with black-, queer-, women-, media-, fill-in-the-blank studies degrees are left holding the bag.

Saddest of all is an educational degree.  Frankly, these people should know better.  Learning is supposed to be their business.  They have coarsened it to the level of organized crime.  Not only do they pump out too many teachers for the available teaching jobs, but those teachers are trained to indoctrinate, not teach.

The root cause of this mess is, as is often the case, an over-intrusive government.  Leftists cling to the belief that all people and institutions must serve the state as an unchallenged article of faith.  That certainly applies to education.  By bribing academia with essentially unlimited funds via guaranteed student loans, it uncoupled school administrations from any but feigned concern for students.  The math is brutal, but inescapable.  More students processed, and the longer you can trap them in the system, translates to more money from Uncle Sugar; the quantity of degrees puked out matters, not quality.

Some time ago, a scholar surveyed institutions in Europe which had survived the past several hundred years of tumultuous history there.  The findings were surprising.  A handful of church denominations and parliaments were still standing.  However, dozens and dozens of universities across the continent had somehow floated serenely on the blood-soaked tide of history, still functioning amidst the chaos.  Universities can be resilient institutions.  Physically there’s not much there to destroy.  All that is really needed is a place to sit, students eager to learn, and professors willing to teach.

And yet, we have found a surefire way to kill universities.  Simply pay them to teach lies and useless nonsense.  Sooner or later, they commit suicide.  What an accomplishment.

American Thinker

According to Democrat staffers, volunteers for Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign are quitting in significant numbers, mostly because they’re angry about Biden’s failure to call for a ceasefire in Israel.

Democrats are in a very tough spot over this. Polls show that most Americans support Israel, but the far left base of the Democrat party is largely anti-Israel, so Biden is caught between a rock and a hard place.

There are so many things to dislike about Biden’s presidency, but this is the issue that the far left loses their minds over.

A group of staffers working on President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign warned the president that his volunteers are quitting “in droves” over his handling of Israel’s military response in the Gaza Strip.

Biden has faced immense pressure from members of his own party over the United States’ policies in light of the surprise Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, which killed about 1,200 people and resulted in roughly 240 hostages, including some Americans. In response, Israel launched an extensive air and ground offensive in Gaza, killing nearly 22,000 Palestinians over the past several weeks, according to Gaza health officials cited by the Associated Press (AP).

In a letter published Wednesday on Medium, an anonymous group of Biden’s campaign staffers demanded the president call for a ceasefire in Gaza, citing concerns that not shifting his policy on the issue could hurt his 2024 chances.

“Biden for President staff have seen volunteers quit in droves, and people who have voted blue for decades feel uncertain about doing so for the first time ever, because of this conflict,” the Medium letter read.

“It is not enough to merely be the alternative to Donald Trump,” the campaigners continued.

Even some of his paid people are quitting over this.

The left is all that Biden has left. If they abandon him in 2024, he’s toast.

Mike LaChance