HOW BIDEN-HARRIS IGNORED CONGRESS: Next time you hear a Democrat decrying the destruction of democracy by the Trump administration, remind them of how the Biden-Harris administration repeatedly and systematically ignored, delayed, diverted and outright refused constitutionally mandated congressional oversight by the people’s branch of the government.

The Heritage Foundation’s Dr. Robert Moffit lays it out in undeniable detail. This particular post is the fifth in an eight-part series on Restoring Public Trust in Public Health, published by The Daily Signal.

I HATE THE PROLIFERATION OF SCREENS: To Screen, or Not to Screen? “Last week Matt P. brought you a report showing the chief of design at Mercedes-Benz grumbling about the proliferation of screens in modern automobiles.”

Related: Bring Back Our Knobs.

Not so long ago, if I wanted to adjust the heat in my car, or the volume on my car radio, I could grab a nice, simple knob. Turn it to the right, and the car got warmer, or the radio got louder. Turn it the other way, and the opposite occurred. I could always sense how far I was adjusting things—without ever taking my eyes off the road—because millions of years of evolution have produced a neurological feedback mechanism that lets me know just how much I’m turning my wrist.

Easy, effective, intuitive. That’s simply good design, right? You’d think. But in most late-model cars, making those kinds of adjustments requires pushing buttons multiple times, or navigating menus within menus, and—almost always—taking your eyes off the road.

My thoughts.

YOUR SCIENTISTS WERE SO PREOCCUPIED WITH WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD, THEY DIDN’T STOP TO THINK IF THEY SHOULD:

They are awfully cute, though.

THE CRITICAL DRINKER: So The Oscars Happened, I Guess… (Video.) “There was an almost tangible feeling of unease this year, like they were some unproductive employee that knows their boss is watching their every move and is desperate not to attract any more attention to themselves. And you know what? I’m perfectly fine with that, because they 100% deserve this. They got too big for their boots, they overestimated their own importance and cultural power, and now they’re learning the hard way that they serve us not the other way around. A few more years of this and they might just learn their place at last.”

LEFT UNSAID: WHY THAT ISN’T HAPPENING.

For all the screeching about “genocide” or whatever, Israelis and/or Jews are among the world’s most civilized people.

MIDDLE EAST: Egypt Wants to Curb-Stomp Trump’s Gaza Plan, but Who Pays for Theirs? “What I’m trying to say here is that Egypt — which ruled Gaza from 1948-1967 and could have gotten it back in 1979 at Camp David but said, ‘HELL, no!’ — took one look at Trump’s suggestion of resettling countless Gazans in places like Egypt and came up with a plan of their own.”

BEN DOMENECH: Donald Trump in the Oval.

The tenor of this administration, the second time around, is that there is no time for sunshine soldiers. The gadflies and hangers-on are on the sidelines. Trump has surrounded himself with people who understand the tasks for which they’ve signed up.

“I’ve been here for four years under great pressure,” Trump says. “But one of the big things is that if you think about it, when I was first elected, I had two jobs: to run the country and to survive. And it was vicious.”

Trump confronted an unprecedented attempt not just to bar him legally from running again, but to bankrupt and ruin him. This brings to mind another president: Richard Nixon. After the election of 1960, widely considered to be stolen by John F. Kennedy, Nixon walked away — as he did after Watergate, when he was facing impeachment. For a politician who commands a similar coalition, with a similar list of enemies, what lessons does the 45th and 47th President take from the 37th?

“So Richard Nixon was a different kind of a guy, and he was a tough cookie, and he was very smart,” replies Trump. “People don’t realize how smart he was, but he made one bad decision. He didn’t fight. I spoke to his family. They say he regretted that until the day he died. He didn’t fight.”

Trump and Nixon were in contact throughout the 1980s, talking about football and politics. In a note from 1987, the former president addressed the future one with a comment from Pat Nixon, his wife: “As you can imagine, she is an expert on politics and she predicts that whenever you decide to run for office you will be a winner!”

Three decades later, Trump would learn a lot about the nature of political enemies in Washington. “He had a lot. I might have had more,” Trump says of Nixon. “Don’t forget, I went through two impeachments and probably eighty indictments.” He shakes his head as he recites the litany and gazes at the desk. “I went through a lot, but I tried not to… I just put my head down and just did it.”

Read the whole thing.

IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED LAST WEEK WITHOUT ALL THAT FUSS, EMBARRASSMENT, AND ILL WILL, BUT ZELENSKYY CHOSE OTHERWISE…:

…and now he’ll have to bend the knee.

SPEAKING OF ROD MARTIN: Given his Silicon Valley background, this shouldn’t come as a surprise, but he’s the first social media influencer I’ve seen to point out this hugely significant implication of Elon Musk’s retrievable Starship:

“There’s no need for rockets to go to space. Now that rockets can land, they can just as easily take off from one place and land at another. Airplanes do this. ICBMs do too, albeit one-way.

“What SpaceX is building is more than just a rocket. Starship is a strategic weapon, not as a one-off but as a fleet. A fully reusable heavy-lift system capable of hauling 200 tons per launch per rocket is not just an engineering marvel: it’s a military revolution.

“Why? Because a fleet of Starships could land an entire armored division anywhere on Earth in under an hour and keep it supplied in the field.  Just as the speed of tanks revolutionized warfare between the World Wars, this development changes everything. Forget C-17s and cargo ships: you might as well use horses and wagons.

“A fleet of Starships is not just an incremental improvement in logistics: it’s a fundamental shift in the nature of warfare. The ability to almost instantaneously create and reinforce a whole combat theater anywhere on Earth will give the United States overwhelming power, unlike anything heretofore seen outside of science fiction.”

Read on here.

HAS RUSSIA LOST THE UKRAINE WAR? Substacker Rod Martin provides a forum for George Friedman to make a detailed case for the idea that Putin is indeed the loser and the consequences for him could be lethal back in the Motherland.

RAPID DEVELOPMENT: America’s First Unmanned Fighters Are Here: YFQ-42 and YFQ-44.

General Atomics’ CCA will be called the YFQ–42A and Anduril Industries’ CCA will be dubbed the YFQ–44A.

Under Air Force naming conventions, Y designates prototype, F means fighter, and Q means unmanned. Once a prototype moves into production, the Air Force would drop the Y from the prefix.

The chief said the unveiling represented far more than a name.

“We have two prototypes of Collaborative Combat Aircraft that were on paper less than a couple of years ago,” Allvin said. “For the first time in our history, we have a fighter designation in the YFQ-42 Alpha and the YFQ-44 Alpha—maybe just symbolic, but it’s telling the world that we are leaning into a new chapter of aerial warfare.”

CCA drones are designed to be “loyal wingmen” that can fly alongside new and existing crewed fighter jets, including the F-35 Lightning II. The Air Force believes a single manned fighter can control a larger number of drones than originally envisioned and can do so using less-sophisticated autonomous technology.

Plus, now that the airframes are nailed down, the computer hardware and software can always be upgraded later for greater autonomy.

I’M NOT SURE WHAT TO MAKE OF THIS: San Francisco (Yay!) asked the Supreme Court (Boo!) if they can be allowed to dump sewage. Um…is that a “Yay” or a “Boo”?
Or is CNN’s headline editor headline writer misreading the case?

Anything is possible.

BYRON YORK: For Democrats, what is to be done?

A new Axios report says some are planning to disrupt the speech, walking out at strategic moments: “Criticism of transgender kids was brought up as a line in the sand that could trigger members to storm out,” Axios noted. Others have talked about bringing noisemakers or props, such as empty egg cartons.

It’s hard to believe Democrats will actually do that. Are they really that dumb? Who knows?

As for Pelosi, the former speaker is urging fellow Democrats not to follow her example. She wants them to behave during the speech so that they can’t be criticized for disrupting the president. “Any demonstration of disagreement, whether it’s visual or whatever — just let him stew in his own juice,” Pelosi told the Washington Post. “Don’t be any grist for the mill to say this was inappropriate.”

It’s hard not to laugh at the woman who, while sitting in the most visible spot in the House chamber before millions of viewers, tore up the president’s speech and waved the torn paper in the air, now advises her fellow Democrats to show restraint. The bottom line is we don’t know what Democrats will do. They might not know themselves.

Related: Top Democrats humiliated as their attempt at edgy social media videos revealed as heavily scripted DC stunt.