Jerome R. Corsi's Blog, page 25

Finding the energy to win the global AI race

Can China beat the United States in the new-age arms race for AI dominance? Some commentators think so, saying they came back from recent trips “stunned” at how far China has come.

The issue these tech journalists uncovered wasn’t lack of innovation – after all, the U.S. boasts 40 leading AI models to China’s 15. It wasn’t tardy investment, either. To the contrary, U.S. industry poured nearly 12 times as much money into AI as China did last year alone.

The real problem facing AI in America is electricity.

China is investing heavily in a next-level power grid and currently enjoys an oversupply of electricity at least twice its capacity needs. The U.S., on the other hand, scrapes by with electricity reserves of 15% on a good day. We face severe bottlenecks that, according to Goldman Sachs, threaten an AI energy crisis. And with AI data centers representing more GDP growth than consumer spending, it’s clear that AI will be a critical component of economic success going forward.

Producing energy, however, is only a small part of the problem. Distribution is a huge headache. String together the power lines the U.S. has installed since the advent of the lightbulb, and you’d reach the moon. To power AI from the grid, we would need to hang new lines going two-thirds of that distance within five years – a financial and physical impossibility at the pace of current infrastructure build outs.

So, is China’s AI ascendance a foregone conclusion? From my vantage point in the energy industry, I can say with confidence that it’s not. The U.S. is confronting serious challenges but in them lie incredible opportunities – if only we are willing to reimagine the future of energy the American way.

We can do this by generating the power right where it’s required. Bypass long transmission lines and the complications of heavy grid dependence. Slim projects down from huge undertakings to modular add-ons for rapid deployments that take months, not years. And do it all with clean energy producing significantly less CO2 emissions than traditional methods and integrating technologies that accept emerging fuel sources like highly sustainable biogas produced from waste.

Sound like a pipe dream? It’s not. Power conversion technologies available today, called fuel cells, are already notching these achievements and more at thousands of sites nationwide. These fuel cell systems efficiently, quietly, and affordably turn natural gas and/or biogas into electricity. They do so away from the grid – on data center campuses and at other facilities, from factories to hospitals – 24/7, onsite and without backup. And fuel cell blocks can be installed in as little as 90 days and added to as demand increases for carefully calibrated expansion and investment.

Fuel cell systems are ideally suited to power AI data centers, but the benefits extend beyond the tech sector. Onsite generation imposes no cost or energy-availability impact on residential or business ratepayers anywhere.

Fuel cells also take advantage of domestic fuel sources, preserving and enhancing America’s energy independence. And decentralized power production is more resilient and safer from a national security standpoint, offering no large, interdependent target for terrorists or malevolent state actors to take down.

Leaders across the political spectrum are beginning to recognize the potential in onsite power to secure America’s global AI leadership – not by mimicking China’s centralized, technocratic infrastructure planning but rather by expanding on the U.S. model of widely distributed, private sector innovation.

Nestled within recent government initiatives, for example, were Clean Electricity Investment tax credits worth up to 70% of eligible project costs, which should spark more onsite power builds. This measure follows on the heels of a July 2025 Executive Order designed to expedite permitting and roll back red tape hampering critical AI energy infrastructure.

These efforts are a nice start, but the U.S. must do more.

Elected officials at all levels can help by requiring better collaboration across jurisdictional lines separating federal and state regulators. Even as longtime chip manufacturing competitors NVIDIA and Intel join forces in a $5 billion investment deal aimed at taking on China-based Huawei’s AI chip development, U.S. leaders of all political persuasions can come together to avert the AI electricity crisis.

With common-sense, forward-thinking policies, we can advance the U.S. model of private sector innovation and investment that has made our tech sector second to none – and will keep us on the forefront as the AI era unfolds.

 

James Roth is  an award winning author  and head of government affairs and policy at  Bloom Energy , a leading provider of onsite energy solutions in the U.S. and globally. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

JD Vance: Israeli hostages should be home in next 24 hours

President Donald J. Trump and Vice President JD Vance

After two years in brutal captivity under Hamas, Israeli hostages are expected to begin to get released today. But when, specifically, will that release begin?

Appearing on “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel, Vice President JD Vance gave the latest update. “It’s hard to say [when the release will begin] because obviously this is a war zone,” he said. “They have to locate the hostages, they have to gather them up, they have to take them to a safe place and then transport them, so it’s a little bit unpredictable. But we’ve been told to expect them by tomorrow, Israel time, which of course will be early morning here in the United States. We’ll see what happens, but the president is extremely confident these hostages are going to come home. He’s actually flying to the Middle East later today so he can welcome them in person.”

Vance pointed out how the corporate media continuously criticizes the president’s leadership and diplomatic style. However, whatever the criticism, the president actually gets results. “It’s an amazing thing, but I think that it shows the power of President Trump’s non-conventional leadership style, and that’s why we’re here,” said Vance. “I think the whole country — we should just be proud. We should be proud of this negotiating team, we should be proud of our country, because these hostages are going to live their lives thanks to what the United States of America did.”

Speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One en route to the Middle East, Trump said the 20 hostages may be released “a little bit early.”

“So, they have the hostages — I understand all 20 — and we may get them out a little bit early,” Trump said. “Getting them was amazing, actually, because we were involved, and they were in places you don’t want to know about.”

Wind, solar projects can stick taxpayers with the tab, coming and going

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

When it comes to our energy future, it is often true that what many on the left consider an enlightened long-term view is in fact short-sightedness that fails to reflect the full consequences of their actions.  

Such is the case with the liberal media’s fawning over the Republican governor of Wyoming for his embrace of “alternatives,” including a glowing profile last year on CBS’ “60 Minutes” for his advocacy for wind turbines. “Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon pursues green, carbon-negative agenda in one of the nation’s reddest states,” trumpeted the online version of the piece. 

Many Wyoming residents are not on board, including from his own party. The state GOP passed a “no confidence” vote on Gordon in 2023 after his climate-related remarks at Harvard University. And a New York Times story (written in 2021, updated in 2023) on Wyoming’s energy landscape noted that many residents have frequent complaints about turbines taking over hunting land, lights polluting the night sky and energy transmitted out of state. The controversy has dragged on into 2025.  

For Gordon and others, “Wyoming is very windy” seems to be the simplified justification for erecting unsightly wind turbines across the landscape. But what makes a Republican official’s championing of wind or solar concerning is not so much his belief in the (dubious) effectiveness of the energy source as appearing to brush aside the actual cost to taxpayers.  

How many wind and solar farms have sprung up across the U.S.? Estimates show nearly 1,400 utility-scale wind farms and more than 6,700 solar farms. Those farms consist of more than 70,000 individual wind turbines and more than 200 million solar panels, (according to AI calculations based on available information on estimated capacity data and individual panel wattages).  

It’s important to understand the vast array of individual wind and solar components because someday, starting in the not-too-distant future, they will individually wear out. What happens then? 

According to government estimates, many turbines are already nearing end-life status, meaning they will either need “repowered” or decommissioned. “The time to disassemble, demolish, and remove wind turbine components and wind energy project-related infrastructure and conduct restoration activities can be 6–24 months, depending on the size of the turbines and the number of turbines involved in the project,” according to government guidelines.  

For solar installations, the issue is even more pressing. “By 2030, the United States will need to manage around one million tons of solar panel waste,” according to a recycling industry estimate. “This number is expected to grow to 10 million tons by 2050, making the U.S. the second-largest producer of solar panel waste globally. Currently, only about 10% of decommissioned panels are properly recycled, despite containing valuable materials like silver, silicon, and aluminum.” 

Proponents of “alternatives” insist that the costs for decommissioning wind and solar installations are typically assumed by companies through agreements negotiated at the time of construction. That’s small comfort considering that more than 100 solar companies have gone bankrupt in recent years, including residential, community solar projects and utility-scale installations. The year 2024 “saw an uptick in bankruptcy filings in each of these three sub-categories,” according to one industry tracker. 

When that happens, taxpayers, of course, can be left holding the bag, even in cases where companies were required to secure bonds or other sureties in case of their demise. The fact that each state has different rules and varying levels of accountability complicates the picture. And the Biden administration’s lenient posture toward “renewables” leaves taxpayers with real reason for concern.  

The Functional Government Initiative recently discovered that “in 2021, the Biden Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) waived the customary financial assurance for decommissioning on the lease of the Vineyard Wind project off the Massachusetts coast.” Subsequently, “Documents recently obtained by FGI show how much taxpayers are on the hook for if Vineyard Wind can’t afford to decommission: $191 million.” 

Gov. Gordon insists he is taking an “all of the above” approach to energy. To be sure, Wyoming remains the nation’s top coal producer and a leading oil and natural gas provider. But “all of the above” is less appealing when we acknowledge that wind and solar projects exist largely thanks to taxpayer largesse.  

One study says that from 2010 to 2023, solar received $76 billion in U.S. taxpayer subsidies, while wind received about $65 billion. That was before the Biden administration’s subsidies kicked in for “renewables,” which cost taxpayers $31.4 billion in 2024 and were projected to cost over $421 billion from 2025 through 2034, until the Trump administration began rolling back as many projects as possible. When it comes to “alternatives,” taxpayers were forced to put up billions in subsidies to build them, and will possibly be on the hook for untold costs to demolish them.  

It is not unreasonable to fear that the coming solar and wind graveyards could be America’s next superfund cleanup burden. Politicians from the right and left who bask in the temporary glow of mainstream media approbation for embracing the “renewables” movement will eventually be held to account when the sun sets on the solar economy, and when our tax dollars are gone with the wind. 

 

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Empowerment Alliance.  

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Forfeiture fight delivers victory to savings account owner

Forfeiture schemes abound across America. Government agents have been known to see money in a traveler’s luggage, take it and keep it.

But it could be that the tide is turning, with the latest ruling from the Texas First Court of Appeals that reversed a civil-forfeiture judgment in Harris County.

The decision ordered the state to return to Ameal and Jordan Davis a total of $41,680.

The ruling confirmed, “Harris County’s evidence was legally insufficient to prove the cash was intended to be used to purchase a controlled substance—confirming that private property, including cash, cannot be taken on mere suspicion.”

“Cash is not a crime,” said Arif Panju, managing attorney of the Institute for Justice’s Texas office. “Today the First Court of Appeals entered judgment for Ameal and Jordan and ordered their life savings returned. That’s a decisive win for due process and a sharp rebuke to civil forfeiture based on hunches.”

The fight dates to 2019 when the Davises decided to pursue the dream of owning their own trucking business. They saved money from jobs, tax refunds, and by keeping expenses low—eventually accumulating more than $40,000, enough for Ameal to rise from truck driver to truck owner, the IJ said.

When Ameal was ready to buy his truck, driving from Natchez, Mississippi, toward Houston, he was stopped by police officers in Harris County. They took his cash and released him.

“Although the government’s forfeiture case involved no drugs or drug dealers whatsoever, and Ameal was never charged with any crime, the county nevertheless pursued civil forfeiture. After a six-day trial, a jury found the money was intended to be used to possess a controlled substance at some point in the future; the trial court entered judgment for forfeiture,” the IJ said.

However, the appeals ruling said the state’s evidence failed.

There was no evidence of any “substantial connection” between the money and the alleged and undefined “drug offense.”

“This ruling makes clear that the government can’t take people’s property without evidence of a crime,” said James Knight, attorney at the Institute for Justice. “Ameal and Jordan fought back, and today’s decision restores what was theirs and strengthens protections for everyone who carries cash.”

A class action lawsuit over Harris County’s practices of taking citizens’ money remains pending.

 

It’s time to rewire the Pentagon for modern warfare

Airmen refuel a B-2 Spirit at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, May 28, 2025. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Joshua Hastings)

The United States has been fighting tomorrow’s battles with yesterday’s playbook for decades. While America has long been accused of “planning to fight the last war,” nowhere is that seen more than in the arcane policies of military procurement and the ever-changing landscape of artificial intelligence (AI).

With the rapid development of AI the U.S. must prioritize modernizing its outdated systems more than ever.

In July, President Trump released an Executive Order that outlines a plan for strengthening America’s position in the AI race. The Executive Order will require technology companies to develop AI models that are unbiased and consistently produce reliable results. I agree with President Trump and believe this is an important step toward ensuring AI platforms operate at the highest possible level, particular in the defense world.

While we observe warfare revolutionized with drones, precise electronic warfare, and 3D printing, the Pentagon bureaucracy clings desperately to an old procurement system which takes the military decades to deploy new weapon systems. Specifically, this is seen in the Pentagon’s decades-old “requirements approval” process, “lovingly” referred to in the Pentagon as the JCIDS process, upon which tens of thousands of military positions and civil service jobs are dependent to feed the monster of the acquisition bureaucracy, and like most long-term bureaucratic structures, is now simply a  chokepoint for innovation rather than a process to fully vet military procurement requirements.

Take the example of the F-35 Lightning II jet, with a first prototype flown in October 2002, the first production airplane flown more than six years later in December 2006, but still not entering operational service until 2015 for the Marines, 2016 for the Air Force, and 2019 for the Navy, fifteen to nineteen years after first flight.  Even in 2006, the Government Accountability Office warned about this byzantine procurement process: “the JSF program continues to be risky… [it] has already encountered increases to estimated development costs, delays to planned deliveries, and reductions in the planned number of JSF to be procured that have eroded DOD’s buying power.”  Meanwhile, the cost of the F-35 skyrocketed from $89 million per copy in 2010 to $304 million per copy, a 366% increase for a system that took 15 years to field.

Too many private sector defense contractors make bags of money on such traditional contracts, purchased by DoD through conventional and decades-old contract vehicles weighed down by the incredibly complex Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) process that was developed to prevent challenges to contract awards, but not to deliver what the military needs quickly and inexpensively.  But when someone raises the specter that such traditional contracting vehicles delay the delivery of what the warfighter needs, the traditional defense contractors breathlessly warn that such contract cancellations will hamstring the military’s ability to operate, when in fact the only things hamstrung are those contractors end of year bonuses.

Enter two key reforms which can transform this process: First, is the development of new procurement methods known as “Other Transaction Agreements” (OTAs), which allows DoD to fast-track emerging research and development systems and prototypes, and “give DoD the flexibility necessary to adopt and incorporate business practices that reflect commercial industry standards and…provide the Government with access to state-of-the-art technology solutions from traditional and non-traditional defense contractors.”

Second, President Trump issued a DoD Acquisition Reform Executive Order on April 9th of this year which directs a wholesale reform of the lethargic Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS, as referenced above), as well as sets down a marker for DoD procurement officials to “prioritized us of…Other Transaction Authority” (OTA) agreements discussed above.  Together, these two reforms have the potential to completely transform DoD acquisition into support of military lethality and support for the warrior. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth followed the President’s Executive Order up the next day with directive to terminate another $5 billion in unnecessary IT contracts which were more a product of the legacy contracting process than a met need of the military’s IT requirements.

And the industry’s been waiting for DoD and its procurement corps to catch up, especially in taking advantage of what artificial intelligence and large-language model systems can provide the military.

Companies have emerged, like Distributed Systems, which specializes in producing advanced AI-powered sensors to detect incoming threats through radio signals.  Another is Shield AI, featured on CNBC’s Disruptor 50 list as a leading company in the next generation of artificial intelligence, developing drones and integrating A.I. and automation.

One particularly promising company is MetroStar, which through a contract vehicle called Rapid Task Order Response (RAPTOR), is showing how this smart contracting reduces time to field and close capability gaps. The RAPTOR vehicle streamlines the deployment of technology into the field, while still maintaining the oversight and budgetary control the DoD needs to maximize the monies appropriated by Congress.

Whether the traditional vehicle contracting officers within the DoD, or the mega-contractors who’ve built corporate empires hovering around those contracting officers like so many Mandarins in an ancient Chinese warlord movie, like it or not, this is the nature of today’s national security environment. We are now in an era where digital warfare, autonomous systems, and artificial intelligence define who wins and who falls behind.

Against this backdrop, the Pentagon must move with clarity and conviction. That means embracing firms that innovate, cutting ties with those that can’t, and rebuilding an acquisition culture that prioritizes agility and outcomes.

Captain Bob “Shoebob” Carey, U.S. Navy (Retired) is the Executive Director of the  National Defense Committee , a military and veterans advocacy organization dedicated to military and veterans civil and legal rights.  He served as a member of the Senior Executive Service in both the Departments of Defense and Energy and served as the national security advisor to two U.S. Senators.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

The least bad option for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

IDF soldiers

On Monday, Sept. 29, at a joint White House news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald Trump announced an ambitious plan for ending the war in Gaza. With America’s key Muslim partners in the region already on board, only Iran-backed Hamas’ assent was necessary to end the fighting.

On Friday morning, Oct. 3, Trump gave Hamas an ultimatum: Accept the plan by Sunday, Oct. 5, 6 p.m. EDT or face obliteration. Within hours, Hamas agreed to release the hostages and relinquish power, and to negotiate other elements of Trump’s plan. That was good enough for the president to declare that Israel should stop bombing Hamas. And it was good enough for Netanyahu to address Israel on Saturday expressing the hope that Hamas would soon release all the hostages, living and deceased.

These stunning developments, however, mark at best the early stages of a long, winding, and arduous undertaking.

At the Sept. 29 news conference, the president extravagantly suggested that the plan might result in “everything getting solved” in the region. It won’t. Indeed, the plan faces formidable obstacles starting with Hamas’ agreement to only a few of its elements. Nevertheless, the Trump plan, supplemented by a realistic approach to West Bank Palestinians, may represent the least bad option.

The plan encompasses Israel’s principal war aims. It calls for, among other things, an immediate ceasefire in Gaza; prompt return of all Israeli hostages, living and deceased; delivery of substantial humanitarian aid; disarming of Hamas, demilitarization of Gaza, and deradicalization of Gaza’s Palestinian population; creation of a “Board of Peace” to supervise Gaza’s redevelopment; formation of a temporary transitional government composed of technocratic, apolitical Palestinians until the Palestinian Authority has completed reform; and mobilization of an “International Stabilization Force” to provide “long-term internal security.”

In addition, with a view to the long term, the plan states, “While Gaza redevelopment advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.”

In the spirit of his 2009 Bar Ilan speech and acceptance of Trump’s 2020 peace plan, Netanyahu stressed at the White House the stringent conditions that the PA must meet to reach a “credible pathway” to a Palestinian state. As presently constituted the PA “can have no role whatsoever in Gaza without undergoing a radical and genuine transformation.” That transformation, Netanyahu elaborated, “means ending ‘pay to slay.’ Changing the poisonous textbooks that teach hatred of Jews to Palestinian children. Stopping incitement in the media. Ending lawfare against Israel at the ICC, the ICJ. Recognizing the Jewish state, and many, many other reforms.”

Netanyahu’s demanding list of requirements for PA reform is a far cry from the announcements last month by 10 democracies. Joining approximately 140 nations which had already done so, Andorra, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Portugal, and the United Kingdom formally recognized a Palestinian state that does not exist. Their diplomatic grandstanding will do nothing to bring such a state into existence or to ameliorate Palestinians’ plight.

Indeed, formal recognition of an imaginary Palestinian state sets back security, stability, and peace, and not only in the Middle East. It panders to the growing Muslim populations in Western democracies. It reinforces the progressive fantasy that the primary obstacle to a just and lasting solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is Israeli belligerence rather than Palestinian intransigence and Hamas bloodthirstiness. It rewards Hamas’ barbarism by showing Palestinian proponents of armed struggle – a sizeable proportion of Palestinian society – that mass butchery of Israeli civilians rather than negotiation and building free and democratic institutions elicits Western nations’ concessions. It distracts from the painstaking construction – consistent with Israel’s basic security – of a better life for Palestinians. And, perhaps most importantly, it overlooks the feasibility at this late date of a Palestinian state.

Recently in Foreign Affairs, Richard Haass, an elder statesman of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, made the best case for a Palestinian state’s feasibility and desirability. President of the Council on Foreign Relations from 2003 to 2023, and from 2001 to 2003 under President George W. Bush, director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, Haass argues in “A Palestinian State Would Be Good for Israel” that a Palestinian state is the least bad option.

Owing to Israel’s extraordinary military achievements following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, massacre, “[t]he country has never been in a better position to address the strategic challenge posed by Palestinian nationalism,” maintains Haass. Addressing that challenge by cooperating to establish a Palestinian state would not only be good for Palestinians but “remains the best hope for” Israeli “peace and security.”

Notwithstanding Israel’s remarkable battlefield accomplishments, Haass recognizes that circumstances for the establishment of a Palestinian state are far from propitious, and the window of opportunity, he asserts, is closing fast. All previous attempts collapsed because Palestinians refused to accept the existence of a Jewish state, and no significant change of Palestinian attitudes is in sight. Extensive Israeli settlement building in Judea and Samaria obstructs the fashioning of a workable Palestinian state. And since Oct. 7, Israeli opposition to a Palestinian state has hardened.

Still, argues Haass, a Palestinian state would benefit Palestinians, Israel, and the region. The state would possess, he maintains, a compelling interest to keep in check terrorism within its borders. It would allow for broadening the Abraham Accords. It would enhance Egyptian and Jordanian stability by relieving pressure from their restive populations to champion the Palestinian cause. It would placate Arab citizens of Israel, who want better for their West Bank and Gaza brethren. It would enable Israel to preserve its status as Jewish, democratic, and free by giving West Bank Palestinians citizenship in their own state. It would reduce the international opprobrium to which Israel has been subject. And it would give Arab nations license to provide a stabilization force in Gaza to replace the IDF.

The argument of Elliott Abrams’ recent Mosaic Magazine essay, however, indicates that Haass’ solution suffers from an insuperable flaw: A Palestinian state has no chance of working because it cannot satisfy Palestinian national demands and it cannot meet Israel’s basic security requirements.

A Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow and chair of the Tikvah Fund, Abrams is, like Haass, an elder statesman of the American foreign-policy establishment who has grappled for decades with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In “There Will Never Be a Palestinian State. So What’s Next?” Abrams argues that the absence of a Palestinian state is not the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A member of the national security team in the George W. Bush administration that sought to bring into existence a Palestinian state, Abrams now argues that the principal reason that Palestinians don’t have one is that they have never really wanted a state, at least not one that coexists with Israel. The PA and Hamas differ regarding means and rhetoric, but they agree that Palestinians’ proper political aim is to rule all the land between the river and the sea. If Palestinians established a state alongside Israel, it would not end the conflict but rather provide a haven for Islamist radicalization, a new opportunity for Iranian proxy warfare against the Jewish state, and a platform from which Palestinians could more effectively pursue their national goal, which is to eliminate Israel.

According to Abrams, the least bad option for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Judea and Samaria has been around for a long time and is overdue for reconsideration: a confederation with Jordan. A Jordanian-Palestinian confederation would benefit Jordan, he argues, by increasing its size and influence in the region. It would benefit Palestinians by offering them citizenship in a sovereign state. And it would benefit Israel by placing responsibility for security in Palestinian areas of the West Bank in the hands of a pro-Western monarch who commands a professional military and police force.

Abrams understands that the Jordanian option may not satisfy Palestinian national aspirations. And he appreciates that billions in aid will be necessary to persuade the Jordanians to take on the risk of incorporating approximately 3 million additional Palestinians into a country in which Islamists and Palestinians already uneasily coexist. But, he concludes, it’s less bad than the alternatives.

In reply, Rafi DeMogge – pseudonym of an Israel-based author and researcher who writes on political demographics – explains that the chief problem with Abrams’ solution is that it won’t work. In “Jordan Might Not Want Confederation with Palestinians, and Might Not Survive It,” DeMogge observes that both Palestinians and Jordanians have good reasons to reject the Jordanian option. The Palestinians will reject it because it does not fulfill their principal national aspiration which, as Abrams himself emphasizes, is to destroy Israel. Jordan will reject it because, as Abrams also considers, the addition of 3 million disaffected Palestinians will destabilize the fragile country. And, one should add, Israel has good reason to reject the Jordanian option for the same reason: It would imperil the Hashemite kingdom, which provides a pro-Western buffer against jihadism on Israel’s eastern border.

All things considered, it would be better for American diplomats to shift focus from long-term resolution of the conflict in Judea and Samaria to near-term efforts, consistent with Israeli security, to promote West Bank Palestinian self-governance and prosperity. Admittedly, the focus on small-scale and near-term improvements in Judea and Samaria combined with President Trump’s ambitious plan for the redevelopment of Gaza has only a modest chance of long-term success.

Nevertheless, the approach may represent the least bad option.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Federal employees lied to ‘work’ multiple jobs

Topline: Working for the government is supposed to be a full-time job, but several employees have been caught working for several federal agencies simultaneously — or at least claiming to be.  

In a Sep. 23 letter to the new Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor, Sen. Joni Ernst identified $1.2 million in salary paid to employees with duplicative jobs.  

Key facts: From 2021 to 2024, then-Department of Housing and Urban Development employee Crissy Monique Baker also worked remotely as a contractor for AmeriCorps and the National Institutes of Health. She was paid almost $226,000 for hours she never worked, including 13 days in June when she claimed to be working 26 hours per day. Baker pleaded guilty to fraud this June. 

Daniel Glauber was convicted in 2017 of working for both OPM and the National Security Agency for four months and earning over $70,000. Both jobs were in-person, but Glauber wasn’t showing up to either one, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. 

Attorney John Beale earned $900,000 over 13 years by telling his managers at the Environmental Protection Agency that he often missed work because he also had a job with the Central Intelligence Agency, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. He admitted in 2013 that he was actually traveling overseas and spending time at his vacation home in Massachusetts, and was sentenced to prison. 

Former Peace Corps human resources employee Evester Edd is currently facing criminal charges for allegedly falsifying time cards to earn tens of thousands of dollars from the Federal Housing and Finance Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ernst noted that “According to his LinkedIn profile, he was ‘key in the development’ of the Peace Corps’ remote work policy, which he presumably took advantage of to get away with his job juggling.” 

Supporting quote: Ernst’s letter also called on Kupor to fulfill an open records request filed by Open the Books in 2022 asking for the names, salaries and other information of federal employees that had been redacted from previous record productions.  

“While some government managers do not know, or even care, where their employees are, I tried tracking down the exact locations of the federal workforce with the help of the nonprofit transparency group Open the Books. The quest turned into a game of bureaucrat hide-and-seek with the Biden administration redacting the names of 350,861 rank-and-file employees and the worksites of over 281,000 bureaucrats,” Ernst wrote. 

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com.  

Summary: The easiest way for the public to have oversight of federal employees is for the government to commit to transparency. The names, salaries, work locations and more of all taxpayer-funded workers should be available to all. 

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

Dept. of Corrections earn overtime, vacation in one day

Topline: Overtime pay is meant for employees working more than eight hours per day, but the Illinois Department of Corrections has found a way to circumvent that rule. Employees are using paid time off to stay home during work hours and then coming in later the same day to work overtime, according to a report from the state auditor released on Sept. 23. 

Key facts: Employees are more than happy to gain extra overtime hours and earn 1.5 times their regular salary, but the practice of “shift swapping” violates the Department of Corrections’ training manual, in the opinion of the state auditor. The department gets billed for overtime twice: first to pay an officer to cover for the employee on paid leave, and then again when the employee on leave returns later in the day.

Auditors reviewed the 20 highest overtime earners from two of Illinois’ largest prisons. They found 150 times where an employee used an entire days’ worth of paid leave and also worked overtime the same day. 

The audit says that the Department of Corrections spent $151.7 million paying for nearly 3 million hours of overtime in 2024, but it’s unknown how much money individual employees earned in overtime. The audit does not specify, and the Illinois Comptroller did not separate base salary from overtime earnings in response to Open the Books’ open records request for employee compensation. 

Open the Books’ records do show that the highest-paid employee in the Corrections Department last year was Jermiagh Daly, who made $360,790. Another 107 people made more than $200,000. 

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com.  

Supporting quote: The Department of Corrections disagreed that shift swapping violates state policy because they are required to find volunteers for overtime hours before forcing any other employee to work overtime.  Otherwise, it would be a “violation of the collective bargaining agreement and would result in a higher cost to the State,” the department claimed in its response to the audit. 

Summary: Private companies can pay their employees however they like, but the government has a responsibility to field a workforce that is the most efficient for the taxpayers it serves. 

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com 

 

This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

Why is China funding the Russian war?

Chinese President Xi Jinping with Russian President Vladimir Putin

For the first two years of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, China presented itself as an independent arbiter. In 2023 it even proposed a 12-point peace plan that was mainly commerce-orientated. Practical goals such as protecting civilians and prisoners of war were included, although notably it does not criticize Russia’s unreasonable rationale for the invasion.

Now that plan is missing from official Chinese government websites and China unequivocally supports Russia economically, and with millions of dollars of military aid.

One example is Silva a Russian shell company, headquartered in Buryatia, Siberia. According to Politico it filed declarations in January 2025 detailing orders for 100,000 bulletproof vests and 100,000 helmets from manufacturer Shanghai H Win.

Chinese manufacturers providing Russia with dual-use (military and commercial) components has been critical in boosting Russia’s military capabilities. In 2024, dual-use shipments from China to Russia surpassed US$4 billion according to Dr Daniel Balazs of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS). These included optics, transmitters, engines, microcircuits, antennas, control boards, software and navigation systems.

While there are no examples of China supplying heavy weaponry like artillery, they have certainly provided essential laser guidance systems, ball bearings, and gunpowder.

More significantly, drones are critical on the Ukraine battlefield. China is the major supplier to Russia of military surveillance and attack drones, initially the Mavic series from DJI. From 2022 to 2023 Chinese firms sold $12 million (U.S.) worth of drones and spare parts to Russia. Currently, the Russian V2U strike drones, which have artificial intelligence capabilities, are entirely made up of Chinese components.

In return, Russia shares its expertise with China in submarine technology, missile systems, and advanced radar. Ironically, China takes these systems, reverse-engineers them and produces jets and jet engines that are superior to their Russian counterparts. As Russian military equipment losses grow, and they no longer have the technology to replace them, they will be forced to buy more military materiel from China.

Moreover, as the Russian economy collapses, they increasingly rely on China to prop it up.

In July 2025, Russia sold China 8.71 million tonnes of crude oil, representing nearly a fifth of China’s total crude imports. Nevertheless, Chinese industrial demand is declining, and they are wary of further U.S. sanctions. Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil refineries are affecting Russian production and domestic supply.

The war in Ukraine has also resulted in severe manpower shortages. In 2024, Russia’s industrial sector hired approximately 47,000 foreign workers, many from China. Furthermore, according to the BBC, over13,000 North Koreans are forced to work on construction sites in Russia in substandard conditions.

Everyday consumer items in Russia are now Chinese.

Chinese cars accounted for nearly 60% of the new car market in 2024. China’s total exports to Russia reached a record $240 billion, with clothing being a significant component. Even their essential down jackets and fur coats are provided by Chinese companies. China dominates the Russian market in cell phones, refrigerators, televisions, furniture and bedding.

Russia is trying to limit this dependence and seeks to set up factories in Russia, with limited success to date.

In many ways the Russia-Chinese relationship is symbiotic – Russia provides natural resources like minerals, oil and gas, and China, the world’s largest manufacturer, turns these resources into sophisticated modern products. Of course, the finished product is much more valuable than the raw materials.

So, what does China get out of this uneven relationship?

Some pundits believe that China wants to take territory from Russia, in the Far-East  when the Putin regime ends. This is highly unlikely. Whoever gains power in Russia also inherits their nuclear arsenal. China has no territorial ambitions in Siberia.

Nevertheless, both China and Russia explore new economic opportunities in the Arctic. China defiantly buys liquefied natural gas from the sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project in northern Siberia.

China really needs Russia, and its new ally North Korea, to confront its great economic and political rival, the United States. In part America’s increasing isolationism, and trade war against China, exacerbates this divide.

China’s focus is to the East and the Pacific.

It wants to retake Taiwan and a recent leaked report indicates that Russia is allegedly training China’s airborne troops for this purpose.

China wants to construct a military base in the South Pacific where France and America have long-established bases – hence the one-sided financial agreements with the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and the Cook Islands. When Australia attempted to seek a security deal with its closest neighbour Papua New Guinea, China objected to its exclusivity. The small Melanesian nation is over 3,400 miles (6300 kilometers) from China.

China also seeks to separate America from its traditional allies, South Korea, The Philippines and Japan. As a result of American tariffs, Japan, China and South Korea are laying the basis for free trade deals, something that was previously inconceivable.

In 2023, China obtained the use of the Russian port of Vladivostok for its domestic commercial traffic. On the other hand, Russia wants unfettered sea access for its covert (and hazardous) oil tankers through the Indian Ocean and along the Chinese Coast.

In the end China will support Russia for as long as it can leverage these advantages

The traditional Chinese parable of The Fight between Snipe and the Clam, teaches that when two parties are locked in a prolonged conflict, a third party will often exploit their weakened state to their own advantage.

So, China is playing a long game. Millions of Ukrainians and Russians are suffering as China seeks one-upmanship in a geo-political game.

Patrick Drennan is a journalist based in New Zealand, with a degree in American history and economics.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

JD Vance confirms extent of U.S. military’s ‘boots on the ground’ involvement following Middle East peace deal

Vice President JD Vance

Vice President JD Vance said there are no plans for U.S. troops to be on the ground in Israel or Gaza after both sides agreed to the first phase of President Donald Trump’s peace deal.

The agreement involves both Israel and Gaza releasing all their prisoners and hostages, respectively, and for Israel to withdraw its troops to a designated position in the Gaza Strip. Vance said on “Meet the Press” that, while Trump does not plan to put boots on the ground, the U.S. will “monitor” both territories to ensure the terms of the peace agreement are followed.

“We’re not planning to put boots on the ground,” Vance told NBC host Kristen Welker. “What we already have is a U.S. Central Command. We already have people in that region of the world. They’re gonna monitor the terms of the ceasefire. They’re gonna monitor, ensure that the humanitarian aid is flowing. They actually confirmed yesterday that Israel pulled back to the agreed-upon lines, which, of course, is the first condition. The second condition, or the second term, is for the hostages to be released. So we have people in that region of the world who are gonna monitor parts of this peace proposal, but the president is not planning to put boots on the ground in Israel.”

WATCH:

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u3rtroj&qu..., document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v6y0sua","div":"rumble_v6y0sua"});

Welker stated she based her question off of two U.S. officials telling the outlet the U.S. military planned to send 200 troops to Israel to support the stabilization in Gaza. Vance had stated Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that that story has been “misreported.”

Trump is expected to travel Sunday afternoon to Israel to celebrate the peace agreement and oversee the start of its first phase. Vance noted the hostages in Gaza were expected to be released at any moment and that the president will be greeting them.

There are 48 hostages remaining in Gaza, of which Israel believes 20 are still alive.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.