If you enjoy receiving my newsletters, please consider donating to my campaign. These updates, along with my entire operation, take a team of writers, editors, and content creators. I am only able to continue providing these free, regular updates with the resources provided from patriots like you. Any amount helps, and you can help me grow our conservative movement by donating to my campaign here. 

Here are some updates and here is why I still have serious questions:

First off, it appears the evidence definitively shows that the implosion did indeed happen on Sunday.

But what is also true is that no one could say for certain that it meant the crew had been killed. There was a “significant seismic event” detected which certainly dampened hopes, but did not mean for certain all was lost.

According to experts familiar with the engineering of the Titan, it was possible that other components of the sub imploded while keeping the habitat intact. So in conclusion, it was reasonable to believe there still might be uncertainty about the meaning of the seismic event heard on Sunday.

Then the situation became stranger. I have heard from multiple on-site crew members that they heard tapping at 30 minute intervals throughout Tuesday and Wednesday, and that these signals were widely assumed by Canadian and American officials to be the Titan crew doing interval tapping. The U.S. Coast Guard acknowledged these signals and even tweeted at one point “this is a rescue operation.”

In hindsight, most experts have analyzed the tapping noises and concluded there are other possible explanations for them. It remains a mystery.

So why do I still have questions? Because if the Coast Guard made the decision to pursue a rescue operation (which, given the information they had, was the right decision), why wouldn’t you bring all necessary assets to be successful?

This is why an investigation is needed.

My questions for the Coast Guard have not changed. If they were operating under the assumption that there was even a small chance of survivors, why did they choose to deny the deployment of the only asset that could rescue a crew if they were still alive – the Magellan system? They actively delayed the deployment of the only 6KROV that could dive deep enough to the ocean floor to get eyes on the sub. Why?

My point is this: given what they knew at the time, it seems to me that they made the wrong decisions. If the crew had been alive, the decisions made by the Coast Guard would not have saved them. That is a sobering realization and especially important when we consider future rescue operations. Whose fault is it? The Coast Guard leadership? The White House? Where was Biden during all this?

We need answers, because we should not let poor decision making affect future rescue operations. When America is called to the task, there should be no doubt that we will execute it better than anyone else.

I want to correct another misconception being repeated by many in the media, which is that the Titan was not rated to go down to that depth. The truth is that same submersible had made 17 prior trips to the Titanic. Clearly there was another reason for this catastrophic failure.

But increasing demand for EVs has never led to a corresponding decrease in price. The price of new EVs has risen by 50% in the last ten years, despite a concurrent increase in sales and production scalability. EVs on average cost $20,000 more than a similarly sized internal combustion engine vehicle. And it’s no mystery why. On average over 500,000 lbs of earth must be mined to obtain the minerals required to make a single EV battery. The supply chain is almost totally outside America's control - with 85% of all critical mineral processing done in China. These are facts about EVs that will not change anytime soon.

Car manufacturers like Volvo and Volkswagen have conducted their own studies which show manufacturing an EV produces 70% more emissions than manufacturing an internal combustion engine. And you need to drive an EV for 70,000 miles before you can break even with the emissions of an internal combustion engine. Even driving an EV for 100,000 miles only leads to a 20-30% reduction in carbon emissions compared to a gasoline-powered vehicle. And most EV drivers don’t even reach that number of miles driven. So the transition to EV actually increases global emissions in the short term.

So what are we getting out of all this? The EPA’s own website shows that since 1980, the total emissions of the 6 principal air pollutants have dropped by 73% even while there has been a corresponding increase in vehicle miles traveled by 100%. Our air quality is improving because of greater efficiencies in internal combustion engines and the broader transition to clean natural gas.

The EPA is attempting to impose enormous costs on Americans without any clear benefit and very obvious negative impacts to our economy and, ironically, the environment.

That's it for this week's campaign brief. Thanks for reading and your support.

Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here to get the latest updates on the fight in Washington direct from me.

Dan Crenshaw

If you'd like to donate by check, please make your check payable and mail to: Dan Crenshaw for Congress, 5900 Memorial Drive, Suite 215, Houston, TX 77007.

Any questions, comments, or concerns? Simply reply to this email or give Team Crenshaw a call at 281-888-4016.