I came across a story on Facebook asking us to publicize the detention of UK citizen Becky Burke who is being held by ICE. She’s evidently unhappy to be wearing a orange jumpsuit while languishing in detention. She got there in a somewhat round about way. First Canadian authorities wouldn’t let her in when she tried to cross into Canada from the US. When the trotted her back to the US, the US authorities decided she was an illegal alien or undocumented immigrant or whatever term you prefer. They placed her in a detention facility. That’s the short story. If you are curious, you can read more.
Facebook stories being Facebook stories, details were sparse. Also, the source is mostly her Dad and so things are worded in a way that is rather favorable to Becky. Among other things he characterizes her situation as a “visa mixup”. The story as told in Facebook had me scratching my head a little. One question was “Why would a British citizen traveling as a tourist be refused entry into Canada?” British citizens don’t need visas when traveling as tourists to Canada. What could the “mixup” possibly be?
I had to google to learn more. Becky evidently traveled to the US, was here a while, then she tried to enter Canada. That’s where things first went wrong. From the BBC.
“However, when she reached the border, Mr Burke said the Canadian authorities denied her entry as they were concerned she may try to work illegally.”
When the Canadians escorted her back to the US, the American authorities agree with the Canadian’s interpretation that she has been working and plans to work while traveling through the US and Canada. So, the American’s weren’t letting her stay in the US without a work visa either. But unlike Canada, the US couldn’t just refuse her entry because she’s already here. They put her in detention.
Now you might as “Was she working”? After all, if she wasn’t working, this is horrible unfair. She evidently did housework for host families while they provided her with accommodations. Her trip was organized through a program called “Workaway”, which sort of implies that the program organizing it know it’s considered “work” in some sense the word. Becky’s family evidently considers this to be some sort of “cultural exchange”. Maybe it is. Working as an Au Pair is considered “cultural exchange.” Doing so requires a work visa.
The reaction from Workaway to her plight is:
A spokesperson for the company said it was “very sad” to hear about what had happened but that it was “the responsibility of the host and person travelling to make sure they are within the law, have the correct visa or permit and insurance in place before travelling”.
[..]
“Unfortunately if these warning are not followed and someone attempts to enter the United States without the correct permissions or visas in place then the US border control are within their rights to refuse entry.”
Anyway, Becky is now detained in the US and is evidently unhappy about the conditions in detention. A Daily Mail article describes the food and other conditions:
‘She is sharing a cell, surviving on a diet of cold rice, potatoes, and beans (she is vegan), and has limited access to phone calls,’ [her father] wrote.
‘Visitors are restricted to speaking through a glass screen via telephone.
‘All her possessions have been confiscated, and she feels isolated and desperate to come home.’
I guess you don’t get some veggies in detention? I would have expected the dorm cafeteria classic “mixed vegetables” would be served. I’d guess she can’t surf the internet either. I’m sure I would not enjoy being in detention either. I’d want to get out.
How could that be accomplished?
Melissa Chavin, a US immigration lawyer based in London, said Ms Burke could be released either through voluntary departure or expedited removal, but the process of appearing in front of a judge as part of voluntary departure could be delayed because judges had been fired by the Trump administration.
Voluntary departure is experiencing big delays due to judges being fired or resigning. Ok… that’s slow. Potentially it is very, very slow. Slower than normal. Because Trump.
What about this “expedited removal” thing? As far as I can tell, expedited removal needs only a low levels administrator and can be supposedly be done in one day. Many articles describing it seem to thing the swiftness of the process is a bad thing because it doesn’t give people seeking asylum time to make their case. But I’m under the impression Cheryl Burke is not seeking asylum for persecution in the UK. So I would think she might jump at this chance. And Trump has evidently expanded the expedited removal process.
The 2nd Trump administration, however, has expanded it to the maximum, to apply to foreign nationals encountered anywhere in the United States who have been continuously present in the United States for less than two years.
She seems to have been here less than two years.
The new rule appears to be described here. As far as I can tell, it could apply to her case. I don’t know why immigration officials did not apply this process to her– the articles don’t say. It sounds like if it was applied, she would no longer be in the detention center. That would seem to be a nice thing.
But also, you evidently can’t ask for expedited removal. Google’s nifty AI thing currently says
No, you cannot request expedited removal; it is a process initiated solely by immigration authorities against individuals they believe entered the United States illegally and are subject to expedited removal procedures, meaning you cannot ask to be removed quickly through this process; if you are facing deportation, you should consult an immigration attorney to understand your options.
In any case, two downsides of expedited removal is the person removed by this process can not enter the US for 5 years or possibly longer and there is an order of removal put on your record.
A British Member of Parliament (MP) is evidently involved in some way and FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office) are evidently in contact with local authorities. Even though technically you can’t ask for expedited removal, I would think the FCDO might suggest it to an official who would then say, “Hey! Yeah. If I decide to do this, she’ll be out quickly! Problem solved!”
Speculating, perhaps the British MP or FCDO is asking to not use expedited removal? Dunno. Anyway, I thought people might find this story interesting. It’s a bit out of the ordinary relative to other immigration stories.
As usual, this is an open thread. Talk about whatever you like. (I’ll leave comments on the other thread open for a bit since perhaps we’ll want ones on immigration near the top of comments.)
Lucia,
So I’m not prepared yet to argue that the claim that ‘Trump has fired the immigration judges’ is false, yet being the operative word here.
Moving in that direction though, NYT reported four days ago:
So maybe it’s fair to say DOGE has impacted this somewhat, but. The NYT’s story sort of implies to me that 94% of immigration judges have not been fired or agreed to leave. I’m skeptical of the notion that whatever delay this woman is experiencing is to be properly attributed to DOGE and Trump.
But I don’t know, I haven’t really started looking into it properly yet.
Maybe the delay IS due to Trump in the sense that our immigration laws were barely being enforced at all under Biden and so the ‘norm’ was that people could expect to pass through the border without friction.
Shrug. I’m sorry this happened to her. I hope our system gets fixed such that people who’s only violation is not being here legally who want to leave immediately get to do so [leave immediately] in the future. That’d be best for everyone, taxpayers included I think.
Sounds like that Workaway outfit might be a bit of a scam. They set people up to work in a foreign country, then leave them on their own for getting the right visas and permits. Those are probably not at all easy to get and the “advice” that they may be needed is quite possibly buried in legalese and/or fine print.
It does seem odd that there is not a away for her to request rapid deportation.
I would not be at all surprised to learn that Trump has forced out a small number of immigration judges. My guess is that had nothing to do with budget cutting and a lot to do with some judges being extremely lenient with illegals.
Mark
I’m also not sure the wait is entirely due to fewer judges. Even if it is, that’s a bit of “oh. well.”
Most of this story seems to be sourced from her Dad and are picked up by people “on her side.” I’d say lots of details are missing.
For example: I know some people waiting for hearing get out on bond. Could she have posted a bond? If yes, why didn’t she?
Why didn’t she get expedited removal? Does she want it? Yeah, you can’t ask for it. Technically. But Trump has been wanting to use that a lot– she’d be out of detention and back in Wales by now. (She’d be unable to return for a while. But… so? )
Why did she think she could work in exchange for lodging? (On reddit someone notes that she wasn’t advised on the proper lie to tell Immigration officials.)
Are there any other “horrible” conditions other than the vegan food is cold? (I’m guessing she is being given mixed veggies in addition to what is listed.) Or having to talk from behind glass? I think we’ve all seem movies– people in detention sometimes can only speak to others from behind glass.
Her family is evidently trying to figure out how to get money into her account in detention so she can buy stuff like tea. Evidently, only American’s can transfer money in. But I would think that wouldn’t all that hard. You Zelle or Venmo money to the Americans she “did not work” for. They send money to her account. If you know other Americans you get them to do it.
The family wants “help”. But what precisely do they want? Do they want her court date to be pushed up on the calendar so she can leave voluntarily? Do they want her to get expedited deportation? Do they just want me to send her money? Do they want to post a bond?
Mark
Your theory may also have something to do with how this woman ended up in an ICE facility rather than just sent back to the UK months ago.
Jim was puzzled why US immigration didn’t send her back to the UK. I said I *think* the problem is she wasn’t intercepted at immigration from Wales to the US. The articles don’t give the exact dates of her travels, but it was supposed to be a 4 month hiking trip, and she’s been here a while. If she arrived before Trump taking office, it may be that customs was not asking much before Europeans arrived on tourist visas. So she got in. Otherwise they might have asked her her relationship with the people she was staying with, we would have figured out she planned to work. She might have been refused entry– and having not entered, she might just have turned around and gone back home. Disappointed but not detained in an ICE facility.
But she continued her trip, she traveled and clearly told the Canadians something that went “bong! bong!” with the Canadians. They returned her to where she came from. At that point, that was the US where she already “was”. Of course, since Canadians were returning her for suspicion of wanting to work, the Americans were going to know she either planned to work or already had. (The latter seems true.)
The thing is: this woman did clearly work and did not have a work visa. The UK detains and deports people tooo!!!!
MikeM
If he’s done it, I would suspect that’s his motive.
He did change expedited removal to cover many, many more cases. That would reduce work load on judges because it doesn’t involve judges.
I think Becky can ask for “voluntary deportation”. But that still has to go before a judge. She’s going to have to wait like everyone else asking for that.
MikeM
Yeah. I’m looking at their site. On a long page of travel advice (https://www.workaway.info/en/info/safety/traveladvice ) I see this little bit
That’s really not enough. It should state clearly that these exchanges are considered work in many countries. When they are, you will need a work visa. They could then suggest you talk to an immigration attorney.
The page tends to make it all sounds like a social thing with “hosts” and “guests”.
I kinda gotta grin at them promoting carbon neutral travel.
https://www.workaway.info/en/community/climate
You know what’s even more carbon neutral? Not traveling! LOL!
Immigration judges are not real judges but rather administration judges and are appointed from and by the DOJ. They come from the lawyer ranks.
When I was doing my analysis of the immigration asylum courts with data from Syracuse University there was a substantial backlog of cases for the courts before the Biden Administration had allowed millions of immigrants into the US who would be required to be processed through those courts. I should go back to that website to see what the current situation is.
The cases processed by the “judges” varied by the judge but I was surprised at how few cases were heard over a years time. Expedited removal was a category of case results that I thought depended on immigrant’s decision to voluntarily go back to their originating country and retain the right to seek asylum at a future time.
I do not understand why the US would want to retain this Welsh lady and not let her voluntarily return home. It is costing money to detain her. Well maybe I do understand given how the government operates.
MikeM,
WRT to it being possible that customs and immigration may have been more lax before Trump was inaugurated and my suggestion that this could have been why she wasn’t turned back to the UK earlier (and so never detained), I’m looking for dates.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/10/british-tourist-detained-us-authorities-10-days-visa-issue
This doesn’t give the date. But I wouldn’t ever call February the “start of the year”. So, possibly she came in before immigration got direction to be tougher. Still… dunno.
Kenneth,
If you want to return to the US, I think the long term consequences of expedited removal are worse than voluntary departure. If you get “expedited removal” you generally can’t come back to the US for at least 5 years. You may be able to apply to get that waived, but you would need to do so. I think voluntary departure doesn’t have that– but she has to wait for a judge. Evidently, for her that will be in the detention center.
I would think since she is not planning on immigrating that the penalty of not being able to visit for 5 years wouldn’t be all that bad for her. I mean… if I had the choice of not returning to the UK for 5 years vs. sitting in detention for two weeks, I’d pick not returning to the UK!! It could be inconvenient in some industries, but for me now? Not so much.
She’s a cartoonist or artist or both. I doubt not being able to visit the US would affect her much.
Also, if she has any cleverness at all, she may be able to write a book and become a minor celebrity out of this.
Date of her entry appears to be Jan 7; that’s during the Biden Administration.
https://www.aol.com/dad-detained-tourist-urges-care-142448935.html
Off topic,
But it’s a bloodbath on Wall Street today. DJIA off 900 now, it was off over 1,000 earlier.
Kenneth Fritsch wrote: “I do not understand why the US would want to retain this Welsh lady and not let her voluntarily return home.”
So how do they do that? It might not be simple. They can’t just release her on her word that she will promptly fly back to the UK. Maybe they could take her to an airport in custody and put her on a plane. But they may not have the resources for that and might not have the authority to do that without some sort of court order. And then what would stop her from promptly returning to the US? Probably nothing, since to put her on a list to be denied entry probably requires going through a judge.
The expedited removal probably gets around all that by having the deportee sign a bunch of agreements and waivers. But of course there are probably rules for making use of that.
So maybe there are good reasons why it is not easy. Or maybe it is just inflexible bureaucracy. Hard to judge on limited info.
Lenient judges: Some years ago a young man in Massachusetts walked into a bar wearing a MAGA hat. A Brazilian woman, present in the USA illegally, immediately assaulted him (screaming/punching/kicking/etc) and was restrained by other patrons. The police were called, and as she was led out of the bar, she continued to try punching and kicking the guy with the MAGA hat. She was released on her own recognizance and never charged. May be those are the judges Trump wants to fire.
Since Trump’s election the S&P 500 is up >9%. The markets like Trump just fine. His tariffs are a negative influence, but his other policies are positives.
MikeM,
The moral of the story: don’t enter the USA illegally. Have the correct visa, and you will be fine.
Many years ago I had an au pair (from Norway). The organization that arranged her visit definitely got her the correct visa. She was a very pretty, very difficult, and quite unpleasant young lady, 20 YO, but here in the States legally. I believe she later later worked as a flight attendant and had a child in Norway, but never lived with the child’s father. Not surprised.
I want to the Syracuse University Trac website and found the immigration court backlog is 3,738,341 cases at the end of Nov 2024. The immigration courts processed a record 914,172 cases in 2024. Most of those cases ended in deportation.
I need to be clear that the immigration courts are divided into those handling asylum and those handling deportations. Cases go through the deportation courts at a much greater rate than through the asylum courts.
https://tracreports.org/whatsnew/email.241212.html
MikeM
Sounds like that’s what they do with expedited removal.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=expedited+removal+process
Kenneth –
From your link:
“Backlog: At the end of November 2024, out of the total backlog of 3,738,341 cases, 1,740,424 immigrants have already filed formal asylum applications and are now waiting for asylum hearings or decisions in Immigration Court. ”
and
“With the release of EOIR data updated through November 2024, Immigration Courts are on pace to close about 906,000 cases, including 852,000 deportation cases.”
852K from 906K leaves 54K asylum cases adjudicated per year…if there are 1.7M pending cases, it would take 30 years to dispose of all the cases at that rate.
Is that correct?
SteveF
March 10, 2025 at 2:44 pm
Steve, my oldest son and daughter-in-law had several au pairs over the years that their children were young and I got to know them fairly well. My daughter-in-law had local responsibiliy for the au pairs having the proper paper work and that they were treated well by those for whom they worked. The only problem was an au pair from Germany who was being hit upon by the husband of the family for whom she worked. My daughter-in-law had her become a second au pair for their family until the remainder of her tour of duty was up. She was a very nice young lady, as all but one of their au pairs were, and a bit of a flirt, but no excuse for what the jerk husband did.
My introduction to their au pair they had for only a short time, who was a young lady from a wealthy family in Sweden, was when my wife and I arrived at my son’s house and she set upon me to fix something in her bedroom. It was not an urgent issue in my eyes but she was near hysterical about it. My son was not home from work and try as I might I could not placate her and neither could my son when he arrived home. My son told me she was a spoiled rich girl who would have done better touring the country and not au pairing.
Their best au pair was a Brazilian gal of German decent who was hard working, great with the grandkids and sent money home to her family in Brazil. I still see her sometimes at my son’s home as she has become a US citizen. She is politically libertarian/conservative so we have a lot to talk about.
Nate Silver’s analysis says the US stock market (all three indices) are underperforming vs the rest of the world since Trump won the election.
https://x.com/natesilver538/status/1899220702529466624?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
I imagine Trump would definitely want to fire certain immigration judges, specifically the ones that don’t deport people.
I don’t think anything happens fast in the justice system. I don’t know how the process works but I doubt you can just walk up to a prison guard and say “I want to leave the US, open the door and let me out, you can trust me”. Fill out this form and we will get back to you, real soon…
Quite frankly it sounds like she is having the standard reaction to contact with the justice system. It’s not pleasant, and it’s not designed to be.
Russell,
This is likely what was going on in FL with your flight tracking
Air Force intercepts aircraft flying in a restricted zone near Mar-a-Lago
https://apnews.com/article/trump-maralago-club-florida-air-force-c7e2ddd48b95983edcbe95c058d680fa
“I still see her sometimes at my son’s home as she has become a US citizen. She is politically libertarian/conservative so we have a lot to talk about.”
Not surprising. My Brazilian kids’ mom is very much opposed to President Lula and the entire left/socialist ideology.
Left = theft.
To amplify just a little:
Marginal tax rates above 80- 90% = left
Wealth confiscation during life = left
Wealth confiscation at death = left
Education/jobs/promotions/income based on race = left
‘Slavey reparations’ = left
So again: left = theft
Always has been, always will be.
Bit O/T – “A Free Press investigation reveals that of the $27 billion, $20 billion was rushed out the door to eight nonprofit groups after Biden lost the election—but before President Donald Trump took office. As one former EPA official put it on a secretly recorded video, it was akin to “tossing gold bars off the Titanic.” – https://x.com/bariweiss/status/1896992192197013888
related link – https://www.thefp.com/p/a-20-billion-slush-fund-nonprofits
HaroldW
March 10, 2025 at 3:52 pm
Harold, your math looks correct to me. I’ll have to go back to that website again to check the rate of cases going through asylum courts. They previously had the cases processed by every asylum judge on an annual basis.
Anyway, that was a nice find and calculation on your part.
“Ukraine will propose a limited ceasefire during talks with the U.S. in Saudi Arabia, officials say”
OK, maybe Zelensky is coming to his senses. We’ll see. It least it is not “Russia must withdraw and then we can start to talk about war crimes and Russia paying for reconstruction”, which is where we were 6 months ago. That seems to me like progress.
Harold, I found the judges report at the link below that lists the location of the court, the judge, the number of completed cases and the decisions made over the period 2019-2024. I summed the cases completed and divided by 6 and obtained the result 54,338.
While you are at that page look at large range of cases decided and the decisions – even for judges in the same court.
I have previously done regressions that controlled for the variables that could effect the judge’s decisions and found statistically significant differences between judges and courts. The Syracuse University that runs the website talks about these differences and factors that could influence the differences but does not bother to do regressions that control for those factors.
After I finished my analysis I found a paper online that came to the same conclusions as I did with my analysis.
https://tracreports.org/immigration/reports/judgereports/
The Welsh lady’s case does not in my mind fit that for review by the immigration courts. She should be able to go before a judge post haste, explain her case and go back to Wales.
As an aside I have never been in an Immigration Court but I have been twice in probate court to secure guardianship of my grandson as a minor and an adult. Those courts operate like clockwork compared to what I imagine occurs in immigration courts. The clerks handle a good portion of the load and the paper work prior to the proceedings covers the critical issues. The judge does a short interview to make sure there are not potential problems. The only hold ups I saw involved some opposition to guardianship of an older person. I do not believe in immigration courts that there are any challenges. It involves mostly the judge asking questions . An interpreter could concieveably slow the process.
Anyway for the asylum court it appears the average case load is 142 per year per judge. I am judging that the number is much higher in a Probate court.
SteveF
March 10, 2025 at 4:48 pm
Left = theft.
Steve, mentioning theft and government actions in the same paragraph is considered as a radical view of those actions by libertarians and is very much frowned upon in polite company – even when you need it for rhyming.
I did a regression of case completed by asylum judges and percent of cases denied. Percent denied explained 1.5% of the variation in cases completed.
Kenneth,
My sense is the woman from Wales is mostly just waiting for a judge to get a voluntary deportation. She’s not going to ask to stay; she’s not going to ask for asylum. The big issue is how long it’s going to take because of back logs.
I am curious to see how long it takes. (I am glad I am not in her shoes. That said, I don’t plan to go to another country and risk working!)
Kenneth, taxes are “legalized” theft backed by lethal government force. Left leaning governments favor much higher taxes (theft) than conservatives , so pardon me if I just don’t care if some don’t care for the term left=theft.
Political discourse on the fundamental differences between the left and right is seldom “polite “. My experience is that the discussions are either contentious or both sides declares a temporary truce and don’t bring up politics.
One of the best and sanest voices raised in opposition to what passes here for commentary has been silenced. Kevin Drum has passed away. Most of you would sound so much more intelligent if you were at least aware of what he wrote.
Before you all took over this blog, Blackboard and Kevin Drum got me through many a dark day. I hope Lucia will someday reclaim the position–or at least attract a better class of commenters.
https://jabberwocking.com/health-update-100/
Thomas Fuller,
As always, all you have are gratuitous insults that you pass off as commentary. If you actually have a reasoned argument to make, then you hide it quite well.
Kenneth,
Unfortunately, polite company often does not want to deal with reality.
Boy that’s gonna get em’ mad:
“CANADIANS IN FLORIDA WARNED: YOU MUST REGISTER AND BE FINGERPRINTED”
“New Legal Obligation: Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Canadians staying in the U.S. for 30+ days (which includes virtually all snowbirds) must register and be fingerprinted.”
https://bocanewsnow.com/2025/03/10/canadians-in-florida-warned-you-must-register-and-be-fingerprinted/#google_vignette
Russell,
Wouldn’t you think that registration and finger printing would discourage Canadian snowbirds from joining us around this time nextyear? I would guess that most of those that are here now will do it because they have leases for the season which were pre-paid.
UK friends who spend winters here have to pay entire rent a month in advance. I suppose this will apply to them as well.
Canadians are going to be fingerprinted? That’s just dumb.
There are not too many Canadian terrorists. Seems like Trump punishing individuals for Canadian policy, which I doubt will be effective. If US citizens don’t have to be fingerprinted to stay in Canada for several months per year, then it is hard to justify insisting on that for Canadians.
I guess all foreign nationals who stay more than 30 days will be fingerprinted. I wonder if other countries will follow. If so, everyone who travels will soon need to be fingerprinted!
Like all things Trump, this policy may be reversed.
While I do travel internationally at least a few times per year, I never stay 30 days, so maybe I won’t have to be fingerprinted very often. But, I have been fingerprinted multiple times by US border security; it takes about 2 seconds and is electronic, not with ink. Since Canadians have to pass border security like everyone else, fingerprinting should be no more than a 2 second extra delay. Maybe it is much ado about nothing. What I have noticed in some places outside the USA is willful delay in processing foreign nationals…. forcing them to stand in line for hours. This seems almost always politically motivated.
SteveF,
If the border security is taking prints electronically, then I guess I don’t see a problem. I was thinking of people going in for some office visit yada, yada.
Only people doing things that avoid security will have a problem. (e.g. canoeing around Lake Superior?)
In order to become a landed immigrant in Canada, I had to get fingerprinted. I was already in the country, so I had to make my way to an RCMP station; it was done the old fashioned way, with ink. It was not nearly as bad as one might imagine, but the RCMP was super professional about everything.
If I recall correctly, to get a CA driver’s license, I had to get thumb printed.
I note that the article Russell linked seems to be based on one attorney’s take as to what will be required by a regulation that has not yet been published. So maybe it is accurate, or maybe it isn’t.
In my experience, snowbirds don’t fly. They drive. So even electronic fingerprinting is likely to be a hassle.
Fingerprints aren’t all that hard for a semi sophisticated attacker to beat these days (link here), I sort of wish the powers that be would deprecate their use. Everybody on God’s green earth has my fingerprints it seems like, it’s not a huge deal to me. On the other hand (heh) it’s a waste of time and money in general.
[It goes without saying (so I forgot to mention it) that a careful criminal can trivially defeat fingerprints in the first place with simple gloves. Fingerprinting is strictly useful in investigating small time crimes.]
Janet needed a background check when she worked at Miami International airport 1995-2003. From years of paper handling – consequence of jobs as statistician, her prints were difficult to get – ridges worn off. The FBI already had them via an earlier job she’d had in DC but that wasn’t enough for MIA.
No-one she tried in Miami seemed to be able to take them and finally the whole issue was dropped.
Later when we were getting the TSA Old Peoples’ Pass, we came up against this again. This time the print taker was told about previous experience, said “I know how to do it: and she did. The optical scanners that have been occasionally used since then have no problem at all.
Mark
Which is, oddly, still useful. The overwhelming majority of people are not planning to commit sophisticated crimes.
John ferguson
Mine are difficult to get and always have been. At PNNL, they had a printer reader to let us in the door.
They brought in everyone….
Then called the subset whose prints didn’t take back in to redo. These were mostly women.
Then called in an even smaller subset…ALL women.
And then there was me. I used my thumb.
A somewhat similar thing happened when they did self check out at Jewell. I suggested my thumb when the frustrated person trying to get it to work for me couldn’t get it to read for me. That worked.
Some people’s prints are just lighter. I don’t know how this would affect how easy my real greasy prints are to read, but scanners have a tough time. I can’t help but think I only need to cover my thumb when I commit my random crimes.
Edit: wrt to newer scanners, I haven’t used one since a bout 2010. So maybe they would be fine.
Lucia,
I wonder why women’s hands have this problem. I assume you needed ink prints to get your original clearance.
I do remember a scanner which couldn’t read Jan’s prints. Something about pushing her hand down hard against the glass which we’d already learned was not the way to do it. The print-taker was one of those types who believed her limited understanding of the process was all there was to be known.
We went elsewhere and got the required prints.
Here’s an advisory page from DHS on the fingerprints.
A lot of weasel words and exceptions to the rule:
https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration
John, your post:
“Russell, Wouldn’t you think that registration and finger printing would discourage Canadian snowbirds from joining us around this time nextyear?“
I think they will work out some simple process and the Canadians will keep coming. It would really help my traffic congestion in Fruitville if they stayed away though.
Russel,
https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration
Interestingly, Welsh woman held by ICE would have had to be fingerprinted because she was spending more than a month the US. (She arrived in NY Jan 7, visisted various places like Portland, then Seattle, tried to go Vancouver, Canada in Feb 10. I suspect she was going to come back. But who knows?) The first chunk would have gotten her past 30 days; she planned to be in US/Canada for 4 months.
As long as this isn’t too onerous, I guess it’s not so bad. Prints aren’t only useful to catch criminal perpetrators. They can also be useful to identify victims! Hypothetically, we can identify a child suspected of being a victim of trafficking or any number of things.
I’m sure I would disagree with at least part of Trump’s motive in this; I mean he does call it “the Protecting the American People Against Invasion executive order “. That’s pretty Trumpian right there. My first thought was that it was a horrible nuisance for travelers. But maybe the effects aren’t so bad.
It likely will mean that people who overstay tourist visas and don’t get fingerprints will have “another crime” added to their list. It will be federal. I’m sure that’s part of the motive.
In my area we have a travel trailer and mobile home park that caters to Canadians. It has several thousand units. They have an enormous Canadian flag at the entrance And many of the units fly the Canadian Flag. I occasionally use their fitness center. They are the most obnoxiously friendly people on earth.
A Chinese conglomerate bought it and have erected an American flag.
https://www.sunoutdoors.com/florida/sun-outdoors-sarasota?_vsrefdom=sfn&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAD-1k_5j3Ofij0KzlGlm3sg5dbf8z&gclid=CjwKCAjwvr–BhB5EiwAd5YbXutNptvL1pn8DpUCJXJURsSB9AuH2ZzwUbdaoieHKU9h3BTiuBrJ5RoCKNwQAvD_BwE
Hmm… maybe less that it seems. Everyone already “registered” doesn’t need to leave finger prints. So it applies to the “not registered”
The first bullet is intended for people who sneak across the border. It could occasionally affect some one cannoing on Lake Superior who doesn’t know where the boarder is and similar silly mistakes.
The second is specifically Canadians. I infer Mexicans aren’t included because the are always issued stuff at land ports of entry(?). I seriously doubt Trump wants to treat Mexicans more leniently than he wants to treat Canadians.
The third sounds like he wants to track everyone who is here under DACA or TPA. Those may be the largest group of people who are potentially seriously impacted. They need to go have their prints taken.
Lucia, if they make it simple I don’t have a problem with it. It will probably work to discourage some bad actors from coming in.
I have an inherited condition whereby I have extra layers of skin on my hands and feet. I have been finger printed once in my life and that was shortly after I was first born. As I recall looking at it later in life I think it was a toe print. My skin condition is not that apparent at birth. Visually I do not see finger prints on my hands. I ‘ll have to ask my son who has the same skin condition if he has been finger printed. He travels worldwide so he might have needed fingerprinting.
For a chuckle…
The Canadian RV park has an elaborate, stainless steel, dog washing facility.
Trump is so happy with how this tariff business is going, he just announced that he is doubling down:
“Trump announces double tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum”
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/11/nx-s1-5324639/trump-canada-tariffs-aluminum-steel
Trump had complained that Canada was imposing exorbitant tariffs on us goods pre election, so I asked Grok:
“prior to 2025 list of Tariffs Canada put on the US goods”
Some agriculture products examples:
Pre-2025 Tariffs Canada Imposed on U.S. Goods
Dairy Products (Supply Management System):
Milk: Approximately 270%
Canada heavily protected its dairy industry with high tariffs to limit U.S. imports and support domestic producers.
Cheese: Approximately 245%
Similar to milk, cheese imports from the U.S. faced steep tariffs to protect Canadian dairy farmers.
Butter: Approximately 298%
One of the highest tariffs, reflecting the priority given to domestic butter production.
Poultry and Eggs (Supply Management System):
Chicken/Poultry: Approximately 238%
Poultry tariffs were designed to restrict U.S. imports and maintain Canada’s supply-managed poultry sector.
Eggs: Approximately 163%
High tariffs ensured that Canadian egg producers were shielded from U.S. competition.
Other Agricultural Products:
Barley Seed: Approximately 57%
Applied to protect Canadian grain producers from U.S. imports.
Sausages: Approximately 70%
Processed meat products from the U.S. faced moderate tariffs.
Full answer:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_0aea2bb0-314d-4db4-9fb7-ff2f53330e60
The Russians are clawing back the territory Ukraine took in the Kursk region. A lot of people are blaming the US, like ISW:
“NEW: Russian forces are collapsing the northern part of the Ukrainian salient in Kursk Oblast following several days of intensified Russian activity in the area.
The temporal correlation between the suspension of US intelligence sharing with Ukraine and the start of Russia’s collapse of the Ukrainian Kursk salient is noteworthy. (1/2)”
Full post:
https://x.com/thestudyofwar/status/1898887404754448682?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Lucia, This may be of interest, Tina Brown article on Meghan Markle:
https://www.thefp.com/p/tina-brown-meghan-markles-buzzkill
Lucia,
Yes, but why aim this specifically at foreign visitors then? If they aren’t after drugs and/or criminal organizations, it just seems like petty bureaucratic harassment to me, honestly.
Pro tip: Apparently you can put super glue on your fingers temporarily to not leave finger prints in you planned crime.
Nothing says I want to negotiate an end to the war better than sending 91 attack drones toward Moscow. I know this is contentious but odds are good that Ukraine’s position will be worse next year, and the year after that. They may regret not trying to end to the war now.
A quick search turned up this:
“The Trump administration’s stated goal of the new registration process is to entrap undocumented immigrants. The Rule weaponizes outdated laws to try to force immigrant families to abandon their communities and self-deport or face possible criminal prosecution. Coming forward to register will be extremely dangerous for most undocumented community members. It could lead to detention, deportation, and possibly criminal prosecution.”
https://www.nilc.org/resources/faq-the-trump-immigration-registration-requirement/
Unlike the person who wrote those words, I approve of what the Administration is doing. I suspect that they are including Canadians because otherwise the rule could be attacked in court as being racist. Well, the Unamericans will do that anyway, but it will make it harder for them to prevail.
I watched the “The First 48” for a long time which is a weekly documentary on homicide investigations. The vast majority of those crimes were solved without any forensics. Either the perp did it in front of witnesses or citizens called in tips to inform the police who did it.
They did collect forensics many times to backup the investigation. Mostly trying to find the murder weapon which amazingly the perp kept more often than not. The perp often confesses when questioned.
The flip side to this is that it looks pretty easy to get falsely convicted by witnesses giving false testimony. Juries apparently like witness testimony.
mark
It’s going to apply to foreign visitors. It harassess them. But I think the “aim” is going to be for people who overstay.
Hopefully, doing the fingerprint thing will be made trivially easy
Tom
I always sort of assumed so but never tested it out. Heck, I suspect Elmers will work, but that will come off sooner.
MikeM
Yep. Bullet three seems designed to do that.
Mike M,
” The Rule weaponizes outdated laws to try to force immigrant families to abandon their communities and self-deport”
The “outdated laws” are “50 years old”…. so 1974 – 1975. Last I looked, laws don’t go out of force after 50 years, unless they have a 50-year sunset clause. Trump is going to deport a lot of people resident in the USA illegally. Some (but I doubt many) will self-deport. Most Dems will hate it. I could not care less. If laws are not enforced, the country becomes the kind of lawless dumpster-fire that the Biden administration was trying to put in place.
“Nothing says I want to negotiate an end to the war better than sending 91 attack drones toward Moscow.”
Zelensky clearly doesn’t want to negotiate, but I think he will ultimately have no choice; strong words of support from Europe won’t replace Patriot missiles. The bigger question is if Putin will negotiate…. especially if he thinks he can control a lot more territory before negotiations start. I am not certain he will negotiate in the immediate future.
Russell:
re: Pre-2025 Tariffs Canada Imposed on U.S. Goods
I have seen it claimed that the large % tariffs apply only after certain limits on the quantity of such commodities exported/imported are attained, which limits have not typically been reached.
I have not looked into this, so take it cum grano salis. Preferably, domestic salt, not imported.
HaroldW,
I think that is right.
US producers would never even try to pass the maximums, because the duties make any sales impossible… a bit like the import quotas for sugar in the USA…. no tariffs until reaching the quota, then impossible to import at all. For the part of Canadian dairy (and other agricultural products) US producers sell, the Canadian market is profitable, because the prices are inevitably a bit higher than in the States. Trump negotiated some increases in the Canadian maximums in 2018, but Canadian producers still remain quite protected. (Like the Europeans and others!)
HaroldW,
With a grain of salt, worth his salt, salty language, salt marsh, sea salt, pink salt, salt dome, salt of the Earth…. hummm, seems we humans think a lot about salt. 😉
The Kurst salient is collapsing with Ukraine forces in full retreat. This ends all talk of Ukrainian trade of occupied Kurst for Russian occupied Donbas.
I find it fascinating that NATO countries continue to discuss an immediate ceasefire in place, discounting Russian resolve to continue the war until a full resolution of the conflict is achieved that acknowledges Russian concerns. The war of attrition continues.
The below link discusses the Russian pipeline assault on the Ukraine Kurst rear area. Modern historical use of taking and holding enemy rear areas, and then holding until relief, had been achieved by airborne assault. Modern air defenses make airborne assaults vs high density air defenses highly risky.
The Russians have now made a number of successful rear area assaults in the war bypassing enemy forward positions by going underground.
[ Ukraine Conclusions ] MASSIVE COLLAPSE CONFIRMED; 1/2 of Kursk Front LOST; Russia flags everywhere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvVtImcCwfE
Re: Canada import tariffs
Per this source, tariffs on such goods as butter, cheese, yogurt, chicken, eggs, turkey are onerous (150-300%) above the imposed quotas. As SteveF wrote, sales are impossible with such tariffs, so it makes perfect sense that US exporters won’t exceed the limits.
Still, doesn’t seem to qualify as grounds for a “trade war”. These limits have been present, it seems, since USMCA and even NAFTA before that. From the same source:
The dairy tariffs seem to have been a sore subject for years. IIRC the issue is at it’s cheesiest on New York border with Canada
Dad jokes!
I don’t see any signs Russia wants to end the war which is why Zelensky is playing this hand wrong IMO.
A comment on airborne assault in WWII prior to modern air defenses.
On the more famous occasions, airborne assaults ended in either failure or extreme losses, and in many cases both.
The German airborne assault on Crete succeeded, but by a very thin margin. Losses were so high, and the margin of success so narrow, that future such large scale airborne were discontinued.
The allies attempted airborne assaults in both the North Africa and Sicily campaigns. Both suffered high losses and little strategic success.
The Normandy airborne assaults achieved its objectives and suffered high casualties. Allied command expected losses to be close to total but accepted the projected losses to get a foothold in France.
The allied Market Garden campaign was a complete failure with high losses.
The Russians conducted a number of airborne operations during WWII against the Germans that all ended in disaster.
For the beginning of the Ukraine war, Russia committed airborne forces to take the airport at Kiev. The result was failure and very high casualties.
Airborne assaults vs pier opponents has a very poor record of success but all the major powers commit vast sums to airborne forces as when/if it works, it can be strategically effective.
Not that any poster here does or should care, but for my own edification I have to correct the cases per year per judge that I estimated in a previous post at 142. First, I misread an 8 as a 3 and thus the calculated rate should have been 62. Second, that estimate does not consider the turnover of judges.
I went back and looked at two courts, Atlanta and Chicago, and obtained the years the judges worked and the cases completed. For Atlanta the mean years worked (out of a possible 6) was 4.3 with a std err of 0.35. The case rate per year per judge was 62.1 with a std err of 5.6 and a range of 21.5 to 103.3. Those same values for the Chicago court were 4.5, 0.45, 108.0, 22.7 and 27.7 to 259.6.
The 2 court counts yield an estimated mean case rate per year per judge of approximately 85. If the mean judge years worked were assumed to be 75 % of the 6 years possible, the calculation using all the data would be around that 85 number.
More interesting and revealing to me is the range of cases per year per judge. Maybe it needs a DOGE.
Trump wins on tariffs
Ontario BACKS DOWN, Suspends Electricity Surcharge After Trump RETALIATES With Tariffs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2C6wLgs3Is
Best viewing time for the ‘Blood Moon’ eclipse is
Eastern Time (ET): 2:26 a.m. — 3:31 a.m. (March 14).
More info:
https://www.space.com/what-time-total-lunar-eclipse-march-2025#
I see a lot traps being thrown about with gigantic chunks of red meat in them. This falls into the category of “doing the wrong things to the right people”.
The law firm Perkins Coie has been banned from doing business with the federal government, removed security clearances, and entering federal building (such as … ummm … courthouses). You may recognize this firm from from the Clinton Trump Dossier days.
Columbia University has had their federal funding revoked. This private university gets about 25% of its income from federal government grants and research, etc.
Columbia’s Mahmoud Khalil has had his green card revoked and faces deportation. He was an outspoken Gaza / Hamas activist.
I suspect these very unlikable people / organizations were chosen carefully by Trump’s team. This puts the left in a box because they must now choose to defend them. They would also have to get on their soap box and chatter on about free speech which they have zero credibility.
So good politics, bad policy. I don’t like slippery slope arguments but this is another case where it applies. Just as Facebook banned Alex jones and subsequently banned Trump only a few years later this sets up a series of attacks on organizations and people in the future.
We can survive these douche bags. Trump’s retribution is somewhat justified but at some point we need to declare a truce.
In a completely unrelated event …
NYT: More Universities Are Choosing to Stay Neutral on the Biggest Issues
Instead of speaking out on the hot-button debates of the day, more schools are making it a policy to stay silent as political pressure mounts against higher education.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/11/us/institutional-neutrality-universities-free-speech.html
I don’t think academia can just “take back” their previous activist stances and move on. There is more pain to come.
Kenneth,
The only really interesting information for me was how the political inclinations of the individual judges obviously controlled how many asylum claims they granted: from 3% to 85%??? In the same district???? It’s nuts. Everyone knows (including those judges, of course) that nearly all asylum claims are bogus. Any judge that grants 85% is just thumbing his/her nose at the law, and IMHO should be removed from office immediately. Isn’t even a close call.
Tom Scharf,
“There is more pain to come.”
Sure. The ‘dear colleague’ letters will be followed by something like:
“We are removing “xxxxxxxxxxx’ from the list of approved institutions for federal student loans because,
1) You are blocking exercise of the first amendment on your campus and
2) continue, in clear violation of the law, to admit candidates to your school based on race rather than merit.
Based on how quickly and completely you address these critical issues, we will determine, within 12 months, if Federal funding of research at your institution can continue.”
Colombia:
“I want to assure the entire Columbia community that we are committed to working with the federal government to address their legitimate concerns. To that end, Columbia can, and will, continue to take serious action toward combatting antisemitism on our campus. This is our number one priority.”
I suspect combating antisemitism is a #4 or #5 priority, after #2: “Support DEI in every way possible” and #3: “Block conservatives from speaking on campus”.
The only “serious action” they can take to get out of this mess is to expel all students who conduct themselves as nothing more than Hamas henchmen. I am reasonably sure Colombia won’t take that action. So I think they are toast.
Johnathan Turley opens up with both barrels:
“Progressives’ shock over the results of the last election could prove a prelude to what is coming if they continue to ignore parents’ rights. There is no more powerful identity than that of a parent.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2025/03/11/schools-gender-pronouns-kids-parents-rights/81342608007/
Turley’s usual calm analysis of Constitutional law is replaced by a visceral, almost enraged, rejection of the left’s desire to take control of children’s upbringing away from parents.
The Led Zeppelin drum video has been taken down by the evil capitalist oligarchs at Warner Brothers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcA83yr231k
Even though covers are automatically demonetized and all ad revenues go to the original rights holders.
CBC News just published an article:
“Snowbirds must soon submit fingerprints for U.S. travel under new Homeland Security rules”
They are not happy, although details as to how many are exempted are missing.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/us-travel-immigration-law-executive-order-canadians-1.7481054
Any Canadian who overstays their 30 day limit should have to mow my lawn for free, or maybe clean my pool.
There is more pain to come …
WSJ: Johns Hopkins Plans Staff Layoffs After $800 Million Grant Cuts
https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/johns-hopkins-federal-funding-foreign-aid-cut-ca841d31?st=ERoopS&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
The academy’s behavior in the last two decades was monumentally stupid.
Do not let your institution be politically captured.
Don’t bite the hands of the people potentially in charge of your future gravy train.
When Pew tells you “In January of this year, only 31% of Republicans said that colleges were having a positive impact on the nation” then you should consider doing something about it. They pay your bills and it is optional.
I went to my granddaughter’s tennis match yesterday. She plays on a local high school team.
Although Florida keeps the boys and girls seperate, I was again amazed at the difference in athletic ability between girls and boys at this age. Strength, height, speed and aggressiveness all favor the boys.
The boys and girls look like they are from different species at this age. Anyone advocating for these two competing against each other should be prosecuted for child endangerment.
I may be biased because my granddaughter is a freshman playing on the varsity squad, but the boys towered over the senior girls too.
The girls did have the edge in finesse [dropping it into the corner] and strategy [moving her opponent out of position followed by a kill shot].
For comparison, team photo:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1899762333091561814
“Any Canadian who overstays their 30 day limit should have to mow my lawn for free, or maybe clean my pool.”
I’d settle for not bitching too much to Floridians about Trump and US policies.
Rubio: Ukraine Has Agreed To 30-Day Ceasefire Offer To Begin Negotiations With Russia
Will Putin take the offer? Donno.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that science and engineering professors at Columbia are fighting with humanities professors over what to do about anti-Israel protests on campus. Good.
IMO women’s tennis is actually more interesting to watch because men’s tennis devolved into serve, volley, end of point.
But I don’t watch a lot of tennis anymore. I did during the John McEnroe era. He turned into a really good announcer.
I’ve been asking the question to the academy, which I historically very much support, “why are you making me dislike you?”.
It’s weird. They took a series a short term choices that damaged their long term credibility. They became activists and decided their job was to become moral leaders where many people didn’t want to follow.
The K-12 teacher’s unions did the same thing. Who doesn’t like teachers as a group? Nobody, but it has become easy to dislike teacher’s unions because they take overt stances on issues that have nothing to do with education, and then take whacky stances on education that look extremely self centered at the expense of student outcomes.
Is anybody in these organizations trying to stop this? It doesn’t seem like it. Perhaps the sciences fighting the humanities at Columbia is a good sign.
The humanities can either shape up or be cut adrift. I don’t mind them taking nutty stances as long as they are usually minority stances and are balanced by opposing views.
They see half the country as their political opposition, not the people they should be serving. These opposition people need to be converted in their view. They need to get their act together promptly, they should consider this an emergency.
It sounds like the $800 million in grant cuts at Johns Hopkins has nothing to do with politics or antisemitism, unlike the cuts at Columbia. And it sound like the cuts are not per year, but are over a period of years, such as the $500 million over 8 years from USAID. So it would seem to be a small portion, perhaps just a few percent, of the $3 billion a year they get in federal grants. Also just a modest portion of the annual income on their $14 billion endowment. It should not be a big deal.
SteveF
Yeah. Jim just told me about the engineers and meds arguing with humanities at Columbia. I’m currently reading…
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/columbia-university-trump-faculty-reaction-725a5e87
MikeM
Where did you get details on the Johns Hopkins cuts? I was reading the WSJ article and didn’t really see which programs got cut. (I just woke up and am on my 1st coffee…. so maybe I missed it.)
Ok… I guess even though I’m just hearing, the cuts at Johns Hopkis is a bit “old” (in the rapid fire Trump timeline.) This is from March 5. It has some details.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/columbia-university-trump-faculty-reaction-725a5e87
A lot of the cuts seems to be USAID
So my first question to myself when I read was “Why John’s Hopkins?” The answer is “They got a heck of a lot of USAID funds.”
The cap on indirect costs is also hitting them.
I should add, I sort of think schools can eventually recoup some of the money they currently collect as “indirect” costs my changing their accounting to make some costs “direct”. I suspect very, very few schools count things like office space and sometimes even access to lab space as “direct” costs. In some sense, I don’t really care whether costs are called direct or indirect. You sort of do need some degree of “indirect” or accounting for every pencil becomes an issue– and even an expensive one.
But…. limiting how much is tallied as “indirect” will potentially bring more transparency– and also change some dynamics. To high of “indirect” costs definitely permits people to fund things that have nothing to do with the grant, and so them makes grants end up supporting…. the dean for doughnuts. Substitute whatever non-grant program you want for doughnuts.
I should add: Of course this is not being done efficiently. Some good things are getting cut. Sifting wheat from chaff takes time. But…. I get why some would say– if we don’t do it this way, we end up keeping all the chaff forever. Sigh…
Yes, I think there will be some accounting wizardry in grant proposals to try get indirect costs back in but there are real legal obstacles. When they report what they spent money on these generally cannot say paying the janitor in another building or renovating the lab space if it isn’t in the proposal.
John Hopkins seems to be USAID central for whatever reason. An $800M budget hole can’t be made up very easily.
If my research group is buying me a new high end computer every two years I don’t really need and stocking my lab with high end equipment I’m not going to complain nor try to stop that from happening. Of course I “need” a new $50K oscilloscope this year.
I guess my overall feeling here is that I would normally be sympathetic to their plight, but I’m not, and I’m trying to figure out how that happened.
It seems to me that it would be helpful if states had laws that made attendance at campus disturbances by non-students a felony. Many of these dust-ups have partisans who are not students. Just attending an unpermitted disturbance should be a crime and local cops, not university cops should have jurisdiction.
My daughter works for one of the large local hospital chains and healthcare has the same sort of cost disease problem that academia has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect
They recently decided to change out their perfectly fine (and very expensive) medical carts. The biomedical group put the old ones in the hall for give away. So I now have two almost new tool carts at my house. (Related: does anyone know how to get MRSA off a cart, ha ha)
It’s just a symptom of how inefficient things are run there. Trying looking at prices for a medical bed and such.
You end up with gleaming new equipment everywhere but all the bathrooms have really crappy toilet paper somehow.
Tom
Yes. Withiout opaque indirect costs it’s harder for the money from an engineering or medical grant to be spent on “general infrastructure” — which potentially includes the social sciences building. I don’t know how opaque the accounting is. I can’t find the range of indirect costs at this moment, but I read Harvards and they were stunningly high compared to other schools.
Schools may find themselves having some support staff filling out time cards!! (I don’t, for example, know how the machine shop was funded at U of I. Some people sometimes needed them to do something that did support a particular research project. I don’t think we were billed individually project by project.)
At PNNL, support staff like the machine shop would have filled out time cards for the project they were working on!
Russell,
Columbia at some point blocked off the entrances and required an ID to enter the campus because of that problem. That’s not possible at many places.
What may ultimately get Columbia in trouble is they allowed these protest groups to block access to some places and/or made some groups “feel unsafe”. The protest groups will escalate agitation until they get media attention so this is almost guaranteed to happen.
The schools have to break up these protests when this happens and they didn’t.
Russel
Hmmm… that really might violate the 1st amendment. It’s certainly going to be a problem if non-students are allowed to be on campus for other reasons– like football games? Or frat parties?
They have to find ways to prevent certain activities. Those ways need to be neutral with respect to message. No masks is a good first rule– and long standing since it was instituted against the KKK. No batons, or weapon like stuff on campus might fly. (They need to define baton and make exceptions for canes and walkers for people who need them.)
Also: stricter policies for class attendance might help. Are protesting students missing tests? Not a valid reason. (I know there were student protestors stuck inside buildings at Columbia who were complaining they were going to miss tests! Those clearly were students. Whether they all werr… dunno.)
Lucia,
Question to Grok:
Could states make laws that attendance at campus disturbances by non-students is a felony?
Short answer, yes. With caveats about first amendment rights.
Details and several more qualifiers:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_6b3aa652-96e4-461d-ae90-d113207d2944
Ex-Chancellor of UC Berkely in The Atlantic:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-assault-universities-wake-call-120000265.html
“Universities have made two general mistakes in the face of sustained right-wing criticism. First, they have behaved as if their societal value is self-evident. In fact, they need to be far more proactive in communicating the enormous contributions they make to the public good
…
Second, university administrators have too often assumed that because a great deal of conservative criticism of higher education has been made in bad faith, none of it is valid. The truth is that universities have not always honored their commitments to free speech, academic freedom, and open inquiry as well as they should have, and the decline in public support for universities reflects, at least in part, those failures and shortcomings.
…
At the same time, the liberal consensus was unraveling. Some faculty and students had indeed rejected the premise of free speech, noting that when power inflected all social relations, there was nothing like a level playing field; universities, they argued, should side with those lacking power and limit the speech of the powerful. Concerns about the ways in which prejudice was expressed in everyday interactions, often through unintentional slights and statements, not only surfaced as priorities for administrators but were converted into speech codes and protocols. A new language of “harm” was used to prosecute new canon wars, target faculty who offended students in the normal course of teaching, and deploy a new range of techniques to censor, punish, or “cancel” other members of the university community.”
Russell,
I would say the caveats are so extensive the sort of turn the answer to no. My questions aren’t meant to be ones you have to answer. The only “point” I intend is to show they are ones that the people crafting the law need to consider.
First even grok grasps this:
* “If “campus disturbances” are defined too vaguely or broadly”
How do you define a “disturbance”? Can you do it in a way that is viewpoint neutral? Grok gives us no guidance on the answers. That’s because figuring out the answers are hard.
*Trespass Laws: Many states already have trespass statutes
Sure. But trespass rules generally block everyone. Or they allow entry to a sub group of people only. There is no distinction between whether the people are entering for a “disturbance” or “not a disturbance”.
WRT to “tresspass”: A state or school could easily write a rule that said you can only sit in on a chemistry class if you are enrolled in that chemistry class. If you weren’t enrolled, that would be a “tresspass”. But the distinction is not “disturbance”. (Granted, you could probably get away with it if you don’t cause a disturbance. But you might still be trespassing.)
The other issue is that Universities generally want non students to be able to access the campus pretty freely. They want the public to be able to attend talks by speakers, visit various workshops. They want high school students to be able to tour the campus. That’s one reason almost none are surrounded by walls with a gate.
How does a campus allow, even encourage, free access to campus to non-disturbances while blocking access to “disturbances”? Grok gives us no guidance on the answers and is silent on the issue of how to do this and still be a “university”. I mean, yes, a university who owned a large contiguous block of land to build a wall and blocked access to everything inside would not violate the 1st amendment. But it would also find it difficult to see itself as a “university” in the sense most see themselves. It would be more like a monastery or cloister.
Some people might think schools should be more like monasteries or cloisters. But monasteries and cloisters aren’t what schools want to be right now. It would also make universities much different in many, many ways. (Perhaps in good ones. Perhaps not.)
Schools with little disturbance and open campuses do still exist!! (MIT dealt with protest not so much by blocking non-students, but by suspending students. So that’s the opposite of the suggestion we block non students. )
Making “mere presence” a felony would be difficult if you allow people to be present for football games, commencement etc.
Technically, riots and violence are already illegal. Having a student ID doesn’t give you the right to throw a molotov cocktail or hit someone over the head with a baton. So this doesn’t really fit the “illegal for student but legal for student” distinction. So Grok is straying from the question quite a bit in order to justify it’s “yes”.
Tom
I think they also often mis-identify who falls in the category of “the powerful”. Also, it is inevitable that once the sois-disant “powerless” group gets a rule they can use against people who they don’t support, the “powerless” becomes “the powerful”.
Tom Scharf,
“Some faculty and students had indeed rejected the premise of free speech, noting that when power inflected all social relations, there was nothing like a level playing field; universities, they argued, should side with those lacking power and limit the speech of the powerful. ”
These are people who should not (indeed, must not) be funded by the public. If that means the university goes belly-up, so be it. No institution working to undermine the Constitution, and specifically to undermine the First Amendment, should be in any way, directly or indirectly, funded with taxpayer’s money.
lucia at 8:25 am citing WSJ: “Of that figure, $281.4 million went toward Johns Hopkins’ indirect research costs”.
That is the overhead on the USAID money? If so, that is stunningly corrupt, though not at all surprising.
The USAID money is supposed to be helping people in underdeveloped countries. It is NOT supposed to be a handout to wealthy universities. Of the $800 million, I would say that no more than $50-100 million should go to people in the US coordinating the program. Any overhead should only be charged on money spent at the University. So even at a 54% overhead rate, Johns Hopkins is siphoning off an order of magnitude more overhead than they should be. And 20-30 times as much overhead as would be reasonable. What a scam.
Hurrah for shutting off the USAID spigot!
Three cheers for Elon Musk!
Tom Scharf wrote: “all the bathrooms have really crappy toilet paper somehow.”
I’ll bet it is not all the bathrooms, only the ones used by the public and the non-executive who work there.
I do not think that there is any First Amendment issue with private universities banning or regulating protests on their private property. That is how private universities get away with speech codes that would be unconstitutional at a public university.
MikeM
Generally speaking, I don’t either. But that’s not what Russell suggested.
He suggested states making laws regarding activities on campuses. There was no caveat about public vs private campuses either.
States making laws that dictate rules on private universities is an entirely different thing from private universities making rules for themselves.
lucia,
I agree that states can not make such laws with respect to either private or public universities. I misinterpreted what I was commenting on.
MikeM
The thing is, I think Columbia University, which is private and is in the news, could have made quite a few rules if they wanted to do so. MIT, also private, suspended disruptive students who tried to take over their MIT owned spaces. Notre Dame did similarly. Here’s a student complaining.
When making their rules about trespassing, there may be some civil requirements that a school be even handed to all students. ND had a 10 pm curfew on using a lawn. Even though they are private, they probably do have to apply it equally. But private universities have a lot of things they can do. And there’s really no evidence they weren’t even handed about telling people they couldn’t sit on that particular lawn after 10 pm.
You can engage in free speech without impeding the movement of others, or being aggressive towards people minding their own business who failed to show appropriate concern for the issue. I’m certain this behavior contradicted all kinds of “inclusion” and “appropriate behavior” policy at the institutions concerned.
Columbia has some new rules now.
https://www.instagram.com/meghnadbose/p/C_O8b9wyUpa
No unauthorized tents or structures, unauthorized noise amplification, camping, using the lawn when it is closed. Protests must allow continuation of academic activities without disruption or interference.
The Feds can and do tell universities they much comply with free speech laws if they want federal funding.
https://time.com/7265702/free-speech-on-campus-columbia-university/
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5003970/supreme-court-social-media-case
Hmmm… we’ll see what happens next.
Senator John Kennedy on the deportation of the “college student.”
“I support freedom of speech. How else would we know who the idiots are without it?”
Russell,
Thanks for that. 🙂 Sen. Kennedy is a treasure.
lucia, from your link: “[Justice Barrett] said [plaintiffs] presented no proof to back up their claims that the government had pressured social media companies like Twitter and Facebook into restricting their speech.”
That’s odd, I thought the “Twitter files” showed numerous instances of the government reporting comments/users, “suggesting” taking down comments/accounts. “Suggesting” meaning that the government personnel worked with Twitter’s moderators, but did not take any actions (which were done entirely by Twitter employees).
Perhaps the wrong choice for plaintiffs?
The case got to the Supreme Court because lower courts held the government did illegally pressure social media companies to restrict speech. Exactly where asking nicely for speech restrictions (which is basically legal) turns into direct coercion (demanding restrictions with government penalties for non-compliance) is a gray area.
The environment we have know is the government can coerce private companies to restrict speech up to and over the line. If they step over the line there hasn’t been any kind of penalties for the government, only court reversals.
A good start would be mandatory transparency for all government communications to social media companies. A lot of Twitter meetings were behind closed doors.
I’m not sure if the First Amendment discussion above touched on Mahmoud Khalil or not. It doesn’t make any sense to me that we say that visitors to our country enjoy Bill of Rights protections but that we can deport Khalil because we don’t like what he said. Maybe I have this all wrong. If so, I’m sure someone will set me straight. 🙂
He’s not worth the foul. He’s a bit player of little lasting consequence. The potential long term damage to First Amendment protections far outweighs any consideration of this particular little cockroach.
Mark,
Well… I think the Khalil thing is a claimed distinction from “speech”. I don’t know enough of all he did to know if it’s a distinction with or without a difference. So I’m waiting to learn more.
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5325754/federal-judge-hears-challenge-to-mahmoud-khalil-detention-columbia-pro-palestinian
But note “activity”
and
Presumably we’ll here evidence of what he specifically is accused of as “activity”. Obviously he also participated in speech.
Lucia,
Yes. I’m not one of those ‘fiery, but mostly peaceful’ free speech advocates. Destruction of property is criminal in my book. If he actually did something, fantastic. But what do you think of the argument Rubio advanced?
I am dubious about this argument. He seems to be saying, since we don’t have to let anyone in in the first place, we can kick you out at will on the basis of whether or not we like your speech. I don’t think that flies. It *is* about free speech. Once your here, it doesn’t matter that the government didn’t have to let you in. They have to respect your right to free speech. IMO anyway, I’m often wrong about this sort of thing. Set me straight if so. Thanks!
To over simplify, non-citizens get to stay here at our pleasure.
The only argument now is whether he deserves a hearing and “who gets to decide” whether he has met some discretionary requirement for deportation. Historically the courts defer to the executive for this type of decision, another over simplification.
But I agree, this type of thing is not worth doing.
Trump is doing the Taliban style you only need to kill one villager to bring the rest in line strategy.
mark,
I am fine with Rubio’s explanation.
IMO, free speech is not mainly about the rights of the speaker. It is about the right of citizens to exchange information and opinions and to discuss and debate ideas and policy. So it need not apply in the same way to visitors as to citizens.
Of course, it can benefit the body politic to hear from those who are not citizens. But even for citizens, not all speech is protected speech. It is reasonable that the bar for what is allowed be lower for visitors than for citizens.
Tom,
Ok, but if the government can deport them because the government doesn’t like what they say publicly, in what sense do they enjoy First amendment protection?
Personally, I have always believed it is silly that we extend all the rights we extend to virtually anybody on our soil. Its how we end up with Gitmo’s I think. But given that we do, all things considered I think free speech is more important than any of the other issues in play here.
The government’s pursuit of Columbia is based of harassment of Jews on campus, which was (remains?!?) widespread on campus. If the former student facing deportation can be shown to have been instigating that harassment (and I think he clearly was), then revoking his residency visa and deporting him will stand up to legal scrutiny. If that can’t be shown, then he will get to stay. The guy obviously celebrated the murder/rape/mutilation of Israelis, and should probably never have gotten residency.
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of you. But I surely don’t understand how it can be said that this guy’s First amendment rights are being respected. I couldn’t explain it to someone else for example.
Shrug
Okay, actually I could do better now that I’ve read a little more about it. Here for instance:
https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-amendment/
Thanks all.
[Edit:
]
Here’s more over here:
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/131-five-questions-about-the-khalil
It sounds like there might be grounds:
We will see.
Which I see now is what Lucia was saying in the first place. Sorry Lucia. I’ll try to read more carefully.
I don’t think he is technically getting deported for speech violations, it is an obscure state department foreign policy violation which only applies to non-citizens.
EDIT: I see you have more or less come to this conclusion.
The key point is who gets to render the decision on whether his protest is terrorism related. I think it is close enough to supporting Hamas that they can get away with it. Is it wise? Meh.
FWIW I did a short search to identify what this guy actually said and found almost nothing. I suspect the government may have some dirt on him though.
Mark,
Some of what Rubio says is merely speech or thought. But this bit is not
As far as I am aware, some of the antiSemitic activities were keeping Jewish students from walking freely on campus and getting to classes. That’s not speech.
Speech to incite people to storm buildings imminently is also, I believe, not protected. I mean, sure “Let’s band together and overthrow the government!” one can claim it’s “just words”. But if you are really planning to do it and are saying that in order to organize people to do it– it’s not protected.
I’m still waiting to hear precisely what this particular person did or said. But we do know things that happened on Columbia campus. So I’m not going to jump to the conclusion the only thing he did was exercise his right to freedom of speech.
Back to the Welsh woman
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0l1x8ej6exo
[…]
Whoever is helping her will probably aim for “voluntary departure”. That’s almost certainly what she wants since looking at her instagram etc she really likes to travel.
Lucia, your post:
“So I’m not going to jump to the conclusion the only thing he did was exercise his right to freedom of speech.”
So I asked Grok:
“Why does the right to free speech not protect Mahmoud Khalil?”“
And he replied:
“Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and recent Columbia University graduate, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on March 8, 2025, and now faces deportation proceedings. The Trump administration has cited his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University during the spring of 2024 as the primary reason for his detention and potential deportation. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleges that Khalil “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization,” according to a DHS spokesperson. This claim is tied to his prominent role in organizing and negotiating during the Gaza solidarity protests, which the administration has characterized as “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity.”
More of this response:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_b2cc772a-7fbe-4003-96d6-6c80d8edba39
I asked this several ways:
“Does marco rubio have the authority to throw out Mahmoud Khalil?”
“Why does the right to free speech not protect Mahmoud Khalil?
Some of the answer:
“Mahmoud Khalil’s First Amendment right to free speech doesn’t fully protect him from deportation because, as a non-citizen, his constitutional protections are limited by the U.S. government’s plenary power over immigration. While foreign nationals on U.S. soil, including lawful permanent residents like Khalil, do have free speech rights, these rights don’t override the executive branch’s authority to expel someone if their presence or actions are deemed a threat to national interests—like foreign policy, in this case.
The key here is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i), which Marco Rubio invoked as Secretary of State. It allows deportation if he has “reasonable ground to believe” Khalil’s activities “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” The government claims Khalil’s pro-Palestinian activism—allegedly aligned with Hamas—crosses that line.”
More of this responce:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_f2f3a076-fc32-431c-8596-ee4c5eaacf3d
These statutes seem a little sketchy in this case. I still think the government [state and federal] needs to enact stronger laws to target non-students on campus and perhaps revisit SCOTUS decisions giving foreigners rights in the first place. More laws, less rights, for foreigners.
I have no problem with deporting a foreigner who comes here and proceeds to “rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, anti-Semitic activities”. There is a point at which such “speech” could (or should) get a citizen thrown in jail. The standard for doing that to citizens should be set very high because free speech is essential to the Republic. But it is perfectly reasonable to set a lower standard for people who have no fundamental right to be here.
Hypothetical: A speaker leads a mob in chanting “Kill the Jews”. Is that protected speech? I would hope not.
Here is a discussion of related issues from FIRE, titled “Why (most) calls for genocide are protected speech”:
https://www.thefire.org/news/why-most-calls-genocide-are-protected-speech
He says that: ” So, the First Amendment would generally protect, for example, students peacefully marching across the quad chanting ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,’ even if the chant were interpreted as supporting the ethnic cleansing or genocide of Israelis. ”
That seems right to me. Once you get into *interpreting* someone’s words as advocating some horrible thing, you are on a slippery slope. So definitely err on the side of free speech.
But a repeated chant of “Kill the Jews” requires no interpretation. So I would hope that crosses the line into unprotected speech.
There is a pretty good discussion of the limits here:
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis
It says: “Advocacy of genocide or violence remains protected speech, unless it meets one of these exceptions in the particular circumstances in which it’s uttered. Mere advocacy of lawbreaking or violence remains protected speech as long as it is not intended to and likely to provoke immediate unlawful action.”
So is “kill the jews” protected unless someone wearing a yarmulke passes by? I would think that one should presume that a Jewish person might be in the vicinity and that would be enough to put the chant on the wrong side of the line.
One more point: As I understand it, the mobs at Columbia were actually threatening and harassing Jewish students, not just expressing opinions that made those students uncomfortable. If so, not protected speech. And if the soon-to-be deportee was part of that, then the case against him would seem to be open and shut.
Maybe “free speech” has nothing to do with the expulsion. Under U.S. law:
Ҥ1182. Inadmissible aliens
(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
…
(3) Security and related grounds
…
(B) Terrorist activities
(i) In general
Any alien who-
…
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization
…
is inadmissible.”
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1182&num=0&edition=prelim
He has revealed that he is admissible, which means that his visas were obtained in violation of the law, which means they can be revoked.
Mike M.
Depends on context. Is someone literally advocating people in a crowd litterly go out and kill jews? Right now? “I’m gonna kill you!” is protected if it’s a joke. Saying, “I think Jews should be killed.” when you are sitting in a philosophy class is probably protected.
“Kill Jews” is not protected if you are holding a gun and pointing it at someone. Granted… the pointing itself is assault I think. (Not battery yet, right? I always get confused.) “The Godfather” saying “kill Joey” is not protected if he’s hiring a hit man to kill Joey.
Words and writing are involved in threats. But threats are not protected speech. Neither is honest to goodness incitement.
To figure out if it’s protected, you need to interpret the context. Is the person saying “Kill Jews” literally suggesting people actually go out and kill Jews?
Sort of… The fact that a jew is present could matter especially if people start menacing the Jew.
Threats are not protected speech. Harassment is itself often illegal. It’s presence tends to suggest the words were threats.
We’ll hear more evidence as this case comes out. But from news stories we know some of he “words” were linked to some harassment. It’s entirely possible his words were not “protected speech”.
I suspect SCOTUS may end up weighing in on whether this can be a ground for expulsion:
It may depend what “support” means. Dunno.
On another topic, Roger Pielke Jr. covers a ruling against Mann’s lawyers in his defamation claim.
lucia,
The law says that endorsing or espousing terrorism makes you inadmissible. Here is a summary of his positions and those of the group he heads: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/mahmoud-khalil-has-rights-dammit-immigration-israel-hamas-october-7-free-speech-antisemitism-columbia
Note that the author is defending Khalil’s right to remain in the US. And the author is correct that all of that hateful speech would be protected if said by a US citizen. But it seems to me that those positions are clearly endorsing and espousing terrorism. That would make Khalil inadmissible and justifies the revocation of his green card.
It is not a First Amendment issue at the center of this. It is an immigration issue.
Viewing potential map of seeing the blood moon eclipse tonight based on weather conditions:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1900202138334076975?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Full article from Space.com:
https://www.space.com/stargazing/eclipses/total-blood-moon-lunar-eclipse-2025-what-is-the-us-weather-forecast-for-march-13#
HaroldW,
It was a pure SLAPP case from day 1, and not funded by Mann himself but by organizations looking to silence critics of ‘climate catastrophe science’. The problem is that the judges who initially allowed the case to go forward were incompetent political hacks. The case should never have gotten past the preliminary hearing stage.
Lucia,
Yes. Pointing a gun at somebody is aggravated assault.
Mike M,
My guess is that at some point the guy will self-deport (to great fanfare by the MSM), rather than continue fighting deportation, especially if he remains in custody awaiting a final decision, which could take a year or more. He obviously hates the USA, and would probably be happier somewhere else…. I suggest Gaza… where he can take up arms against the ‘occupying Jews’.
What I understand right now is that Rubio has final authority over the deportation. The guy may get a hearing but it will likely be “Rubio said you have to leave, OK, next case”.
This person is not a hero so I shed no tears here. There is a combination of pro-Palestinians and Jew haters at these protests. Many are both at once.
I don’t think it’s worth the effort to deport him. Having a few people who make the case for every fringe cause is OK and makes our society more robust. Trying to hide from sight people’s vile feelings is not the same as eliminating them. When they act on those things and commit crimes then you deal with it, otherwise it is the thought police.
Tom,
Yeah. The guy is an unpleasant insect, but stepping on individual unpleasant insects isn’t a strategy that usually accomplishes anything when the insects are legion.
The strongman argument for deportation is a foreign adversary intentionally plants activists and agitators via student visas to create division in a country. They are essentially a large scale psyops effort.
I think we are big boys and can handle it.
mark,
It seems to me that your argument would imply that there is no point in sending a criminal to prison since there will still be lots of other criminals walking around. I reject that argument.
Game on! Advantage USA
Watching the EU twist and turn and finally back down will be entertaining.
Yesterday’s news:
“The EU said it plans to establish countermeasures in April that apply to products ranging from boats to bourbon.”
Today’s news:
“US President Donald Trump has threatened a 200% tariff on any alcohol coming to the US from the EU in the latest twist in an escalating trade war.”
Here’s some of the EU alcohol brands:
Wine,
France: Bordeaux, Champagne, Tuscany wines, and Provence rosé.
Italy: Chianti, Prosecco, and Barolo.
Spain: Rioja, Cava, and Tempranillo-based wines.
Beer,
Germany: Pilsners, Hefeweizens (e.g., Paulaner, Erdinger).
Belgium: Trappist ales (e.g., Chimay, Westmalle), lambics, and strong ales like Duvel.
Netherlands: Heineken, Amstel.
Ireland: Guinness (stout).
Spirits,
United Kingdom: Scotch whisky (e.g., Glenfiddich, Johnnie Walker) and gin (e.g., Bombay Sapphire, Tanqueray).
Ireland: Irish whiskey (e.g., Jameson, Bushmills).
France: Cognac (e.g., Hennessy, Rémy Martin), liqueurs like Cointreau and Benedictine.
Italy: Grappa, vermouth (e.g., Martini).
Germany: Jägermeister, schnapps.
“So is “kill the jews” protected unless someone wearing a yarmulke passes by?”
I think the constitutional exception is imminent action.
For student visas doing this would violate school rules, get you suspended, get your student visa revoked.
This case is not a speech issue, as in 1st amendment. It is a speech issue as in a legal resident supporting terrorism that has a much different standard, which is apparently whatever Rubio interprets it to be. People are willfully conflating these.
The case is politically useful because the usual suspects will predictably defend Hamas supporters because of their reflexive TDS. There is a possibility this was all expected and the government is holding back evidence to make him look bad and waiting for the TDS army to commit to supporting this guy.
FTA:
“Perhaps our Gumby secretary of state would so certify, but that is an abuse of authority and a step toward tyranny. Khalil’s views are execrable, but he has committed no crime and the government has made no showing that his continued presence in the country compromises a “compelling” foreign policy interest.”
I don’t know but I don’t think there is any real judicial oversight here, as in Rubio doesn’t need to prove much of anything to a court. He just needs to certify that as the reason for deportation.
The TDS people keep pretending this is a 1st amendment issue instead of opining on whether this is wise because it sure looks legal. It’s not an abuse of authority, exporting non-citizen Hamas activists is likely a popular move and in facts looks to be the expressed intention of the authority given to Rubio.
“They each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.”
Wait, is this the legal case or are we talking about his Hockey Stick? Ha ha.
One minute ago, good source, but take it with a grain of salt:
“ BREAKING: Putin agrees with U.S./Ukraine ceasefire, but wants to speak to President Trump first.”
Another source, video of Putin’s actual words:
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1900219328164675707?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
WSJ disagrees
“Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia wouldn’t agree to an immediate end to the fighting in Ukraine, as Moscow’s army made rapid gains toward expelling Ukraine’s forces from its Kursk region.”
NYT:
Putin Says He’s Open to Cease-Fire but Lays Out Conditions
Vladimir Putin’s remarks, made while U.S. officials were in Russia to discuss a cease-fire-proposal, signaled he was in no hurry to agree to a truce.”
SteveF
If he does, any guess as to whether his pregnant American wife goes with him? My guess is either (a) no or (b) doesn’t stay away long.
Mike,
Fair enough. I could argue, but. Eh.
.
[Basically, if Marco Rubio had to personally get involved with every criminal case, that’d be a losing strategy. The US fights the criminal insect swarm with a system of pesticide, to extend the analogy. But. Meh.]
Mike,
What I was really thinking when I said that is that Khalil is not essential. Deport him, big deal. This is essentially a noise level move. It is impossible to deport all of the actors involved, because many of them are not foreigners but are instead citizens.
“Cardinal Dolan: The Evils of Antisemitism”
New York’s Catholic leader reminds Catholics (and all Christians) that we should actively combat the hatred of Jews we are witnessing:
“While our country guarantees freedom of speech, no matter how loathsome, we should remember that there exists no tension between First Amendment legal protections and the Biblical obligation to denounce bigotry.
In other words, countering such opinions should not fall only to our Jewish brothers and sisters. Everyone must do their part. Sometimes in the past, sadly, we have been slow to do so.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/cardinal-dolan-the-evils-of-antisemitism?utm_medium=email
Mann has been consistent in all endeavors; science, press releases and now court statements. Most of his climate change and science supporters have been consistent in their support of and/or silence on Mann. The latter situation is the more worisome in my mind.
I went back to Google AI and ask the question listed below that before I corrected it would have answered in the negative. It answered in the positive and used references with which I was familiar when answering the second time.
“Is it true that a correlation of regression residuals and the dependent variable is related to the r square value and does not by itself indicate endogenuity?”
Google AI does adjust and correct over time evidently, but did strike out on the first round where more intensive searching would have avoided its error. In the session when I corrected it quickly backed off and agreed with me with no references.
On all occasions Google AI answered in a very informed and authoratative manner. It reminded me of occasions in my work career when I would hear an authoratative view by someone at a meeting and correcting that person after the meeting and then hearing my version at a later meeting with the same authoratative tone. I considered those individuals as a bit prone to BSing, but they mostly did well in the organization.
I have to agree with this statement. Even though he is not a citizen he has the rights to due process which I believe means that his case will go before a court to be decided there. It might even set a precedent.
Mark, the your comment:
“Deport him, big deal. This is essentially a noise level move.”
I disagree. This may be a significant new escalation in the fight against the campus riots and antisemitism in general. The threat of deportation back to the hell hole Middle East will deter other radical muslims.
Me:
Is deportation of Khalil a new innovation for the US?
Grok:
“In short, Khalil’s deportation isn’t a “new innovation” in terms of legal authority—it’s grounded in a 70-year-old statute—but its application to this scenario could mark a significant evolution in how the U.S. wields that authority, particularly against lawful permanent residents for activism. The outcome, still unfolding as of March 13, 2025, will likely clarify whether this is a one-off or a harbinger of broader policy change.”
Full answer:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_db41cf57-5a72-4a27-ae0a-f699d48ab8e5
“Khalil’s views are execrable …”
Whoever said that is creating a straw man. Khalil was not eligible for a student visa or green card, so they can be taken away.
I don’t think the court has jurisdiction over this matter, it is up to the state department. The court can only make sure the state department followed its own rules. If so they will not take evidence and render another judgment.
The legal situation hasn’t been fully explained.
Russell,
Not the ones who are already U.S. citizens.
Mark,
That’s true. This new approach is only for visa and green card holders.
Naturalized citizens can be stripped of their citizenship under some circumstances such as lying on their immigration documents.
What may be the biggest scandal in US political history may be starting to gain traction. There is evidence that many of the executive orders and pardons issued under Biden’s signature may be forgeries. They appear to have been signed with an autopen.
There is a case to be made that an autopen signature can be valid if the President clearly authorized it. It seems to me that would require some sort of evidence of the authorization. Lacking that, I would think that any bills, executive orders, or pardons that can be shown to have been signed by autopen should be deemed invalid. And the people responsible for doing it should spend the rest of their lives in prison.
There are two sides on this issue with Khalil . If he fights this I do not see how it would not be decided in a court. I agree that it is not a free speech case that will be decided.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/experts-palestinian-activist-mahmoud-khalil-deported-due-process/story?id=119756360
MikeM,
Besides the question of people going to jail, there is the question of whether anything signed by autopen is valid. The obvious one: is Hunter really pardoned? Are others?
lucia,
That’s right. Anything signed by autopen, without some documentation that it was specifically authorized, should be deemed to be not legally binding.
My guess is that it will get swept under the rug since people will not want to deal with a mess of that magnitude. That would be very wrong, but much easier.
lucia,
My guess is that she will stay in the States, no matter what happens to her husband (who will likely be elsewhere). Anything is possible, of course. I could be mistaken, but my guess is this is not what she had in mind; good news: there are many organizations on the left to extreme left who can come up with a reasonable monthly stipend for her and her child.
New SCOTUS filling by Trump that is a twofer
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25560685/24a886.p
It attacks the legality of district court global injunctions in general in addition to specific injunctions vs Trumps EO on birthright citizenship
A must read if you have any interest in the subject
I got an error on the link
The doc can be pulled from
https://rollcall.com/2025/03/13/trump-administration-takes-birthright-citizenship-to-supreme-court/
Curious …(I can’t figure out what’s happening)
For the past two days, there have been a huge number of European military aircraft flying missions in the skies over Europe. Also notable is the near total absence of USAF aircraft. There are maybe ten times the normal number of European military aircraft, and maybe one fifth the US planes.
Screenshot at 8 AM (Florida time) of just the military aircraft in the sky. I have turned on the country flag where possible:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1900521184887808082?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Continue…
For comparison, Screenshot of just the USAF planes currently in the skies over Europe:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1900528750116098054?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Alexandria O-C is “outraged” by Chuck Schumer’s “betrayal” of the American people…. by pledging to vote for keeping the government funded. In other news: the sun rose this morning at the expected time.
Schumer will give other Dem senators cover to vote for the bill; he needs 6 other Dems to block a filibuster, and he probably already has them. Maybe Schumer thinks shutting down the government and laying off most federal workers is not really a good idea if you want to argue that a small fraction of the federal workforce should never be laid off.
The other issue is that, unlike other threats of shutdown, where the president was a Dem, Trump won’t try to exaggerate the impact of a shutdown, and probably say: “Thank you for helping DOGE do its job.”…. leading most people to just shrug and ask…. “Wait… the government is shut down?”
This is a question the party-of-government does not want people asking.
I saw the eclipse at three stages last night, as it darkened, full eclipse [it was orange] and as it lightened.
Schumer had previously announced he was going to shutdown government. That move was likely to backfire for obvious reasons. The left continues to be in disarray, but OTOH no president survives a bad economy …
With Europe’s recent show of force in air power, I wondered how the US, Europe, and Russia compared head to head.
Summary, from Grok: US has ~5,000 aircraft, Europe has ~1,800 and Russia has ~4,000,but only ~1,000-1,500 are combat ready.
More summary:
“Comparison
Quantity: U.S. and Russia have larger fleets than individual European nations, but Europe’s collective NATO strength is significant. Russia’s operational readiness is questionable.
Quality: U.S. leads with stealth (F-22, F-35, B-2) and networked systems. Europe’s 4.5-gen fighters (Typhoon, Rafale) are top-tier but lack stealth. Russia’s Su-57 is a step toward 5th-gen, but it’s outnumbered and outclassed by U.S. equivalents.
Strategic Reach: U.S. bombers and global basing give unmatched projection. Russia has long-range bombers but limited overseas presence. Europe relies on U.S. for strategic deterrence.
Innovation: U.S. invests heavily in next-gen tech (e.g., NGAD program). Europe’s future systems are promising but years away. Russia struggles to scale advanced projects.
In short, the U.S. dominates in technology, funding, and versatility. Europe excels in high-quality fighters and coordination but lacks scale. Russia leans on legacy systems and raw numbers, with spotty modernization.”
Detailed summary table:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1900575043718881332?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Complete write up:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_fae44285-c65b-4dc5-9867-88a5168b1c05
Democrats cave on spending bill. They are busy publicly sniping at each other.
This is part of them smacking down their activist ranks who want resistance for resistance’s sake. It’s a good sign for them, they need to stand up to their own party’s crazies more than the Republicans right now.
Speaker Johnson is also showing some effectiveness getting the spending bill through with a tiny majority. He may turn out to be a good leader.
Trump continues to be Trump.
EPA Slashes Thousands of Regulations, Ends the “Holy Grail” Of Environmental Rulings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLfGhTB17mg
Trump fell for a Russian PSYOP, or he is intentionally spreading fake news. He posted in all caps:
“BUT, AT THIS VERY MOMENT, THOUSANDS OF UKRAINIAN TROOPS ARE COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY THE RUSSIAN MILITARY, AND IN A VERY BAD AND VULNERABLE POSITION.”
The Ukrainians are losing ground in the Kursk area and Russian troops are surging forward, but so far the Ukrainian army has been conducting an orderly retreat and leaving behind only a rear guard to cover the retreat.
The Ukrainian General Staff has dismissed reports of encirclement as “false” and accused Russia of fabricating such narratives for “political manipulation and to exert pressure on Ukraine and its partners.
Independent analysis and open-source intelligence, as reported by outlets like Forbes and The Telegraph, support Ukraine’s position that no large-scale encirclement has occurred as of mid-March:
“No, Russia Has Not Surrounded Thousands Of Ukrainian Troops In Kursk“
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2025/03/14/no-russia-has-not-surrounded-thousands-of-ukrainian-troops-in-kursk/
Trump’s post:
https://x.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/1900692849668059451
“This is part of them smacking down their activist ranks who want resistance for resistance’s sake. ”
I don’t think it is so much resistance for its own sake as resistance to accepting that the most extreme ‘progressive’ policy positions, which have been official party policy for the past 4+ years, have to change (shift toward middle ground) if Dems want a reasonable chance to stop Trump’s policies after the 2026 election. After all, nearly half of House Democrats are officially members of the ‘progressive’ caucus…. true believers in leftie lunacy…. and they want the party to continue supporting those rather extreme policies, no matter the consequences. Schumer understands the policies have to change. The party can’t continue to support policies that are rejected by voters by wide margins; the Dem’s problem is not messaging, as ‘progressives’ claim, the problem is a message voters reject. The fight between the more moderate and the crazies will continue.
Alex Berenson discusses a story from Germany:
“But the BND had its own sources. And the agency concluded with 80 percent to 95 percent certainty that the virus had in fact leaked from a Chinese lab.”
The BND is the German spy agency, and apparently based their conclusions on ‘assets’ in China. That was in 2020. Angela Merkel, of course, never disclosed those findings. Antony Fauci should burn in Hell. More likely he will retire comfortably and continue to gaslight the public.
The sensible policy change needed: any research, or funding of research, which could plausibly create a human pathogen, or could plausibly enhance an existing pathogen, should lead to extended prison time for all involved. This isn’t even a close call. Some foolish people killed millions and did enormous economic damage….. many $trillions… because they were funding and doing exactly that kind of research.
April 1 there is a special election in Florida in two very safe Republican House districts, which will boost the Republican seats to 220, allowing Elsie Stefanik (NY) to resign and be confirmed for Ambassador to the UN. The governor of Texas is in no hurry to hold a special election in a vacant safe Democrat district, and the governor of NY in will be in no hurry to hold a special election to replace Stefanik (safe Republican). So on April 2, Republicans will gain a seat, even with Stefanik resigning; 219-214.
Maybe the Governors in NY and Texas could agree on holding special elections in those safe districts on the same day; 220-215.
I was curious so I asked Grok to:
“compare the ground forces of europe and russia”
The answer was well thought out. Here is the summary:
Summary
Personnel: Europe has more ground troops (~700,000–1 million vs. Russia’s 550,000), a 2:1 advantage.
Tanks: Russia leads (~10,000–12,000 vs. ~6,660–7,000), at least 2:1.
Armored Vehicles: Europe ahead (~48,971 vs. ~31,300), ~1.5:1.
Artillery: Russia dominates (~18,266 vs. ~7,000–8,000), 2:1 to 3:1.
Readiness: Russia’s battle-tested but battered; Europe’s larger but fragmented and less experienced.
Full response:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_07c92865-50f0-40a9-b493-eaf8fb07a981
“Beware of the ides of March”
In cartoon form:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1900947556504396196?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Russia has less tanks every day now …
The main factor is Russia would have to have some confidence it could win an engagement with Europe. Normally if the two sides are somewhat evenly matched neither side will start a war, too much destruction. Rule of thumb is the aggressor wants a 3:1 advantage. People do miscalculate. Putin miscalculated the response in Ukraine.
It’s unlikely to happen but Europe / NATO should expect a tough grinding destructive slog, that’s Russia’s style. NATO would hope air superiority would make a war of attrition too costly for Russia. Drones have changed everything and that is a wildcard.
In any event, Europe seriously preparing for that is good for everyone.
Tom Scharf,
“In any event, Europe seriously preparing for that is good for everyone.”
Sure, but is it even a little bit real? I doubt it. The Europeans have shown little evidence of actually following through with a better defense…. ever. More likely: strong words and animated arm waves.
In any case, so long as the USA is part of NATO, Russia is not going to attack a NATO country. The Europeans know that. The USA has too many military assets and too many nuclear weapons for that to be an option. Easier, cheaper, and less risky for Europe to let the USA continue to underwrite European security. Strong words about supporting Ukraine mean nothing.
The war in Ukraine will end long before the Europeans start re-arming. As you already noted in the last thread, an EC committee will likely be assembled to decide on the date for a planning conference, where they will target the date for the initial phase of a 5-step program to secure raw materials to start increased arms production; a year after that will come another committee to plan the conference which will plan and coordinate the actual start of increased arms production… targeted for not less than 6 years from now, but not more than 12 years from now.
European defense is a joke. Count on it.
Tom Scharf,
I forgot to include: there will have to be a parallel committee and subsequent parallel conference to evaluate the environmental impact and potential increased greenhouse gas emissions for any proposed increase in weapons production.
The EC defense is a joke on us. Of course, should the Europeans continue their current efforts to suppress free speech of US nationals, especially on the internet, the joke could be on them, not us.
NYT:
The End of the University as We Know It
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/university-defunding-trump-rufo.html
“A meeting at Yale, where I teach, to discuss the impact of the Trump administration’s policies had to be moved to a larger auditorium because so many concerned faculty members showed interest in attending. After listening to a bracing description of the financial implications of the government edicts, we milled about, stunned. The reality was much worse than we had imagined. I run a small program for students who want to be editors and writers. In the grips of uncertainty, I stayed up late that night to figure out which parts I would have to kill if my budget was cut. I finally realized there was no good solution; in that scenario, I would have to cancel the whole thing.”
Cry me a frickin’ river NYT and Yale, ha ha. Yale has an endowment of $41.4B. Forty one point four billion dollars. She might need to cancel a program! She worries about federal money! Oh the humanity!
It’s borderline malpractice that the NYT can’t find a more sympathetic target to write about. Completely clueless. Have you no contacts beyond the Ivy League?
Tom, your post:
“ Russia has less tanks every day now …”
Yes, to make it happen the Ukrainians are spilling their own blood and the US is paying for it and the Europeans are sitting back much relieved that it is happening.
“The End of the University as We Know It”
Yippee!
Looks like Ukraine has been kicked out of Kursk. I have a fantasy they are just doing a tactical retreat and will invade another lightly guarded area of the Russian border in a couple weeks.
“Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee”, Muhammad Ali
This also seems to be Trump’s strategy when dealing with Europe.
The continuing tariff match, History:
“The EU said it plans to establish countermeasures in April that apply to products ranging from boats to bourbon.”
“US President Donald Trump has threatened a 200% tariff on any alcohol coming to the US from the EU in the latest twist in an escalating trade war.”
Today:
“French PM says EU tariff on American bourbon probably mistaken”
Advantage USA. I find this game fun to watch.
France not only applies the historical EU tariffs on US goods but also applies a VAT of 20%.
Grok answers my questions on trade with France:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_d2aef549-5e9f-4eb7-a5ef-8dbaf686a72e
” Yale has an endowment of $41.4B. Forty one point four billion dollars. ”
Ya, so if Trump were to cut $750 million a year which had to be 100% replaced by endowment funds, it would take 60 years to exhaust that endowment….. assuming their investment earned zero return on capital….. more likely: Yale’s endowment would grow a little more slowly than it has in the past.
Here is a great idea: Why not pass an assets tax of 5% per year on any non-profit, any foundation, or any other non-taxed entity of total net worth above $10 Billion? How could AOC say no? The impact of such a tax in the USA? 8 foundations and 16 universities…. 8 of which would pay 95% of the total from universities. Sounds fair to me. Besides, every one of those 24 entities uses their assets to promote leftist garbage, so more than fair.
Tom, your post:
“Looks like Ukraine has been kicked out of Kursk. I have a fantasy they are just doing a tactical retreat and will invade another lightly guarded area of the Russian border in a couple weeks.”
I agree that Ukraine seems to be retreating from Kursk with Russian troops attacking from several sectors. However, I see conflicting reports on the orderliness of it all and
Russian sources are still claiming encirclement of large numbers of Ukrainian troops with Ukraine denying that. Independant ounces are few and conflicting. Grok just responded to me:
“The lack of real-time, verified battlefield data means the situation could evolve rapidly, but as of now, claims of a completed encirclement appear exaggerated or premature based on available information.”
There are [unverified] videos of Russian troops transporting undamaged US tanks and other war materials to the rear:
https://x.com/East_Calling/status/1899154104162939273
Also, I do not share your optimism on them opening a new incursion.
I find US efforts to negotiate a cease fire between Ukraine and Russia very strange as Trump is proceeding as if the US is a neutral party to the conflict. The Russians must laugh themselves silly with the fact that Trump might actually believe this.
Russia will continue to talk to the US on ending the war, but as the war is continuing to move in Russian favor, there will be no ceasefire until both the US and Ukraine accede to Russian requirements, which will be, in effect, a Ukraine surrender.
The Democrat party is in a death spiral and it’s not just us Right Wing Fascists who are taking notice.
CNN and NBC both conducted polls, from USA today:
“Democratic Party’s favorability hits record lows in two polls after 2024 losses”
And it gets worse, in both polls Democrats want their party to fight harder against the Trump agenda.
I think that is the death spiral.
Links:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/16/politics/cnn-poll-democrats/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democratic-party-hits-new-polling-low-voters-want-fight-trump-harder-rcna196161
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/16/democrats-record-low-favorability-republicans-trump/82471412007/
I have two questions, one to get information and one for discussion. The second depends on finding an answer to the first.
Trump has issued a proclamation regarding Tren de Aragua (TdA) and the Alien Enemies Act. In it he proclaims:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/
I am perfectly happy with doing that. But it raises two questions.
What procedures are used to determine if a detained person meets those criteria?
Is that procedure adequate to ensure that nobody is wrongly deported by mistake?
Mike M,
I’m unable to answer those questions, and the Trump administration certainly has not provided answers. That said, I suspect it will become moot because I very much doubt Federal courts (including the SC) will allow Trump to use a wartime law designed to remove citizens of enemy countries to be used to remove criminals like Tren de Aragua.
Of course, the scary images of Tren de Aragua members being marched into a hell-hole prison, outside the USA, will likely send a very clear message to other members still outside the States about the prudence of entering illegally.
I also am unable to answer those questions. I suspect and would suggest that there is no safety mechanism for protecting innocent people from the government making mistakes in this case. I think this ought to be alarming.
It can simultaneously be true that the Left has been losing their mind about Trump for stupid reasons AND that there are legitimate reasons for being concerned about Trump, let me just toss that idea out there.
It depends on how the law is written. It may specify exactly who makes the determination.
There is a fundamental question about what rights a non-citizen has such as right to a hearing, right to due process, rights to challenge an accusation, rights to confront their accuser, etc. I believe the current rights for non-citizens has mostly been determined by the courts in the absence of legislative direction. Some of this may end up before the SC again and Trump’s actions are almost begging for this.
Previous rulings have determined non-citizen rights out of thin air from the Constitution IMO.
I’m largely unsympathetic to non-citizen “rights” to remain in the country, specifically those who enter the country illegally or stay under false pretenses. I don’t discriminate too hard on whether we put trust in the courts to make that determination or the executive branch. I’m only one vote.
I’m a little more sympathetic to green card holders, legal permanent residents, etc.
If they get a hearing then the burden of proof should be on the non-citizen, not the government.
I would add that a judge ordering planes to turn around mid-flight (in yet another national injunction) is ridiculous.
The media pretends that the only possibility is that the executive oversteps their boundaries, but the courts can just as easily do that as well. It has to be determined which it is on a case by case basis.
Trump is definitely pressing the limits. It’s good politics for him. This is the same type of thing as Biden using OSHA for vaccine mandates or trying to get Trump kicked off the ballot with civil war era laws.
I expect Trump to lose a number of these cases.
It’s not necessarily about the rights of non citizens. Without due process, the odds of a false-accept are greater. The damage is greater. How does anyone know if a citizen got swept up in that?
The law gives the President the power to make the determination of who gets deported. In practice, that means he delegates that to somebody. That is fine as long as there is some mechanism to make sure that nobody is getting falsely swept up.
Tom Scharf,
“Trump is definitely pressing the limits. It’s good politics for him.”
He is definitely pressing the limits…. but I’m not sure it is good politics. Duplicating the lawlessness of the Biden (and Obama!) administrations doesn’t seem to me a prudent path…. for any president. While some dubious actions are strategic gambles designed to force the Supreme Court to act (e.g. birthright citizenship, district judges issuing nation-wide injunctions), some seem just over-the-top and not really needed. Most of the restraining orders from district courts will not hold up on appeal; I think the DOJ should just do their best to expedite review of those rulings, and move them to the SC when a district court refuses to reverse (like the 9th, 1st, DC, and a few others). It is not a surprise that nearly all the restraining orders come from Dem appointed judges in circuits dominated by Dem appointees; that means delay, but won’t keep them from ultimately being reversed.
On a related matter: Why are crazy Republican Congress-critters talking about impeachment proceedings against those judges, when any half awake person understands there is no possibility any of them will be removed from office. They are wasting political capital while tilting at windmills.
Sometimes I toy with the idea that Trump might be best understood as a rogue progressive. Same disregard for impediments to his power, just a different ideology.
Shrug.
SteveF,
What Trump actions “seem just over-the-top and not really needed”?
It’s good politics because it makes the Dems defend open border policies and also defend Hamas supporters and Venezuela gang members. Resistance for resistance sake in cases like this has the left at its lowest popularity in 35 years.
Trump is just maximizing executive power like his predecessors. I’m sick of all of it.
It has been very effective at reducing immigration though.
From NYPost:
This. The government doesn’t suddenly and magically become competent just because Orange Man President. What was unacceptable under Obama or Biden is still unacceptable under Trump.
SteveF “I very much doubt Federal courts (including the SC) will allow Trump to use a wartime law designed to remove citizens of enemy countries to be used to remove criminals like Tren de Aragua. ”
“In order to address dangerous migrants, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows deportation of natives and citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing. This law has been invoked three times, during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.”
Some of these Judges might soon fall into the category of vexatious litigants.
There is no rule apart from common courtesy to stop judges from frivolous or mischievous acts other than repeat offending finally summoning up an action from the Supreme Court that they would rather not be forced to take.
Impeachment proceedings while fuitil in being able to do anything now lower the bar for the Supreme Court to take action against such judges or group of judges.
Mark
“Trump might be best understood as a rogue progressive. Same disregard for impediments to his power, just a different ideology.”
“What was unacceptable under Obama or Biden is still unacceptable under Trump.”
Agree with both. I had hoped in Trump’s 1st term that Congress would be sufficiently outraged that they would actually curtail some of the Executive’s power. Didn’t then, and now that Republicans are in the majority, they won’t do it, because party loyalty is more important than intangibles like actually restoring a more equitable balance of power, curtailing (at least to some extent) the policy whipsaw which helps noone.
“Can the feds simply declare anyone a TdA member before putting them on a plane off to an El Salvadoran prison?”
That is not going to happen. And yet, it is really important that there be a mechanism in place to ensure that it does not happen.
Trump on removing aliens by use of implementing the wartime alien removal act and other constitutional actions for removal is multilayered.
A YouTube article (long) goes into a deep look at the recent district court case and the legal arguments made in the court filings and arguments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWfbZlfleBc
As to if the government ignored aTRO, the government’s position is no, they did not.
Generally, the TRO denied the government of the use of the wartime act. The government takes the position that other constitutional acts of removal were not enjoined by the TRO and removal was therefore allowed.
Trump on removing aliens by use of implementing the wartime alien removal act and other constitutional actions for removal is multilayered.
A YouTube article (long) goes into a deep look at the recent district court case and the legal arguments made in the court filings and arguments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWfbZlfleBc
As to if the government ignored aTRO, the government’s position is no, they did not.
Generally, the TRO denied the government of the use of the wartime act. The government takes the position that other constitutional acts of removal were not enjoined by the TRO and removal was therefore allowed.
In other words, Trump waved around a bright and shiny object ( the wartime act):and the district court and ACLU took the bait
Mike M,
Invoking a wartime act when no war has been declared is over the top, and will be blocked by Federal courts, including the SC.
Biden was the most lawless president in my lifetime (open border, refusal to deport, vaccine mandates, suspending rental evictions, student loan forgiveness, endless lawfare, and in the end, ‘tossing gold bars off the Titanic’).
Trump would be wise to stay away from policies of questionable legality. If he doesn’t, he will lose control of the House in 2026, and it will be investigation/impeachment 24/7 for the rest of his term in office. Does he prefer that or to be effective? If the later, he needs to be much better than the utterly lawless Biden.
Mike M,
“That is not going to happen.”
OK, and exactly how do we know this?
angech,
I am not sure what you imagine the SC can do to out-of-line lower court judges except reverse them. Futile impeachment efforts have zero to do with the relationship between the SC and lower court judges.
Congress, by passing laws, CAN limit what lower courts can do, but Congress can’t easily limit the jurisdiction of the SC. All lower courts are actually creations of Congress, and can be eliminated by Congress, changed in number, or restricted in jurisdiction (eg, ‘lower courts may never issue orders effective outside their districts’). Congress is not going to do those things so long as Republicans can’t get past a Senate filibuster (60 votes). So the painful/slow process of appealing garbage nationwide injunctions will continue.
The Alien Enemies Act is NOT a wartime law and does not require a declaration of war. It was passed during the “quasi-war” with France. Unlike other acts among the Alien and Sedition Acts, it was not directly used at that time. But it was used indirectly to get people to self-deport.
SteveF wrote: “Trump would be wise to stay away from policies of questionable legality”.
I don’t see why. Your advice amounts to giving the Dems a veto over what Trump does just by threatening to go before a biased judge. If he is to be effective, he needs to be willing to fight in court.
I see no real political downside to what Trump is doing. He is putting the Dems on the wrong side of 80-20 issues. And most of his actions will survive the legal challenges.
Mike M,
Here is the relevant text from the 1798 law:
Pretty clear: applicable during times of declared war, or when a foreign nation or government engages in acts like invasion. Criminal gangs are not foreign governments. The Federal courts, including the SC, will consistently stop Trump from using this law.
He is losing my support, my support and the support of others like me. Crazy progressives have been screaming about authoritarian Trump, I have been dismissive of the idea, and what does Trump do except force me consider yhe possibility that maybe the dang nutty progressives had a point after all. I don’t really appreciate him putting me in this position.
Mike M,
No veto for Dems; thoughtful actions. If trump believes in the rule of law, as he has so often said, then he should be cautious about actions of very dubious legality. Biden was utterly lawless; IMHO Trump should be better than that.
Mark Bofill,
I think Trump is less an authoritarian monster than he is blissfully unaware of the damage he does himself (and good government!) with rash and foolish choices. Biden had dementia, and was surrounded by lunatics, so at least had some excuse for his many terrible policy choices. Trump doesn’t have that excuse.
I say again: if Trump does not control himself better, he will lose the House in 2026, and then he will accomplish nothing more. He is making a terrible mistake with acts of dubious legality.
Steve,
Maybe, but I don’t know how comforted I’d be by the distinction you’re making. I used to spend countless hours trying to divide the ignorant from the evil until I finally realized it doesn’t really matter; the result is the same.
I agree with you. Trump needs to reign it in or he is going to be clobbered at midterms at best. At worst, well. They might actually get him with impeachment this go round.
Trump needs to rein it in, not reign it in. Freudian slip if I ever saw one.
Ed
In other words: You know we mostly aren’t going to listen to a long boring 2 1/2 hour youtube video with no transcript that clearly is going to be a waste of time because it starts out with shouted “Yes! Yes!”
Gosh I hate youtube videos without transcript. They are never well argued and always amble around pointlessly. Maybe that single sentence summarizes the whole 2 1/2 hour video. Maybe it doesn’t. Dunno.
If the video contains any specific information or makes and supports any important claims, please tell us what they are and point to the time stamps where they do it.
Steve
You forgot to highlight this part to the portion of the act you posted.
“ or any invasion or predatory incursion”
A declared war is just one of several actions that invokes the act.
Ed,
I think the words were likely intended to mean “military invasion” or “predatory incursion by the military” especially in context. I guess we’ll see.
The issue of whether Trump defied a court order is fuzzy. None of the articles I read have timelines. I know the flight was already in the air; it sounds like it hadn’t landed in El Salvador yet. I have no idea whose air space the flight was in was nor if the judge had jurisdiction over that airspace or whether that matters. I guess we’ll hear more on that too.
Trump is stretching lots of statutes. We are likely to see lots of court cases that settle the meaning of statutes and constitutional amendments.
“Freudian slip if I ever saw one.”
Ha ha.
Trump’s order argues that Tren de Aragua is being used a tool of the Venezuelan government, so their presence here qualifies as an “invasion or predatory incursion” perpetrated by a foreign government. If so, it meets the conditions for invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Plausible, but by no means a slam dunk.
Trump does not need to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport criminals or people here illegally. So I find it a bit of a head scratcher as to why he is going that route.
This whole business with the Alien Enemies Act seems a bit over the top. The videos of the bad guys being “welcomed” into that El Salvadoran prison, presumably released by the administration, makes me wonder if over the top is the point.
I note that Kristi Noem has been running an ad urging illegals to self deport. You can see it here:
https://www.dhs.gov/medialibrary/assets/videos/58918
Maybe the point of the videos from El Salvador is to imply to illegals “this could be you” and by doing so encourage them to self deport. Being vague about how the deportees were chosen and acting as if there are no safeguards would amplify any apprehension that the target audience might feel. Bad Cop to Noem’s Good Cop in the commercial.
That is just speculating. But I think it more plausible than assuming that Trump is just doing stuff for the heck of it.
Lucia
Here is one of the court documents addressing the issue and it gives a timeline of actions and court orders
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
No. 1:25-cv-00766
The Hon. James E. Boasberg
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL
https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/03/EMERGENCY-MOTION-FOR-A-STAY-PENDING-APPEAL-1.pdf
Little published on this gives anything close to a complete picture. The interaction between the judge on the bench and the government is very interesting, but little is yet in written transcription form. More details will come out over time.
One of the main arguments going back and forth between the judge and the government in this case is when an order from the bench becomes active.
The judge contends a bench order becomes active on oral proclamation
The government contends that case law requires bench orders to be written, fully explained, and signed before they are enforceable.
In this case, there’s about a one hour difference between the oral order and the written order.
Mike [This whole business with the Alien Enemies Act seems a bit over the top. The videos of the bad guys being “welcomed” into that El Salvadoran prison, presumably released by the administration, makes me wonder if over the top is the point.]
That is my take on this. I also think the administration was looking for a favorable case to take to the SCOTUS to limit TRO’s.
Ed,
It seems to me that a TRO in this case is much better justified than in some of the other orders. “Don’t ship anyone off to a prison in El Salvador until we are sure that everything is kosher” strikes me as quite reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than “You must send $2 billion out the door right now”.
Ed Forbes
That’s a motion, not a ruling. I grasp Trump thinks he can do this. I’m not reading anything I would call a “time line” — but maybe that escapes me. I’m not feeling enlightened reading that.
For those wondering: As of this morning, the Welsh woman on her way back to Britain.
https://bleedingcool.com/comics/three-weeks-detention-r-e-becky-burke-home/#google_vignette
She is reported to have sketched 78 comics while in prison and is planning a book. That is, of course, the sensible thing to do. (She should do a round of talks too.)
The BBC says she’s back in Britain. Headline
“Tourist detained in US arrives back in UK, father says”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjd3prze9yjo
Neither article has specific details on the ruling, type of deportation or penalties.
I’m not going to accuse the Trump administration of forethought and strategy but if they did have those qualities:
1. Choose very unsympathetic people to deport
2. Quickly deport them “without evidence”.
3. Allow the opposition to publicly oppose this (TDS).
4. Present the evidence you had all along.
I heard there may be gang tattoos involved. IMO if you show up at the border with violent Venezuelan gang tattoos then I don’t want to hear about how you really need “asylum” from that gang.
Anyway it is correct to argue some sort of due process is necessary to make sure citizens aren’t swept up, but if you are here illegally and you have gang tattoos then the hearing should last about 20 seconds.
What’s the purpose of all this? Political maneuvering and trailblazing. It sets the stage for much larger deportations of more sympathetic individuals without oversight. You always start by banning Alex Jones.
Lucia
On the time difference between the oral and the written order.
More is continuing to come out in text format over time.
“ The Trump administration has been arguing that it complied with Boasberg’s written order on halting deportations. However, Boasberg said the migrant flights should have been turned around or halted in a verbal order he issued 45 minutes earlier.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5201094-doj-info-judge-deportation-flights/?tbref=hp
In the court hearing, the government supplied quite a bit of case law supporting the contention that an order must be a written order to be effective .
This is all discussed in the long YouTube post I posted that has quite a bit of back and forth between the judge and the government on this issue.
Ed,
You gave one time issue. That’s not a time line. Time lines include multiple items that happened over time. The article you link says Trump’s side is refusing to provide time information.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5201094-doj-info-judge-deportation-flights/?tbref=hp
It appears that not only do we not have a “timeline”, Trump’s side is arguing he doesn’t need to provide it.
Case law cited by the government to support it’s case is not a time line.
I still know nothing of the time line and I’m not going to listen to a 2 1/2 your youtube video that is not edited for clarity to try to dig out a time line (even if it’s there.)
Mike M,
“Plausible, but by no means a slam dunk.”
And that is the whole point. Trump does things which can only be described as not at all carefully thought out. Why invite leftie judges to get involved with interpretations of a law from 1798 (which I think is extremely dubious at best) when deportation of illegal aliens is completely normal and completely without legal doubt? For heavens sake, just do the normal easy stuff, and stop doing the hard (and dubious) stuff.
IMHO, Trump needs to get himself under control, or he will lose enough support that he loses control of the House and suffer the consequences… which is to say, a two-year long effective presidency. I keep wondering: what the Hell is wrong with this guy that he can’t see this? It is a mystery to me.
Mark Bofill,
” trying to divide the ignorant from the evil..”
Biden (with dementia!) was arguably ignorant of what was actually happening in his administration. Those around Biden, controlling him, were (and are) IMHO truly evil. As in all of law, there is a distinction between the two which we need to consider.
Tom Scharf wrote: “It sets the stage for much larger deportations of more sympathetic individuals without oversight.”
That would be something that could sour me on Trump, although probably not to the point I’d vote Democrat, at least not until they return to sanity.
But I don’t think that is the plan. The Alien Enemies Act plainly does not apply to actual migrants. And there is law that can be used to deport anybody here illegally. And if courts force oversight even in the extreme cases (my guess is that they will) it will only reinforce the need for oversight in the lesser cases.
Maybe somebody has a better theory than the one I proposed above. But until I hear one, my guess is that the purpose of the latest action is to strike fear in the hearts of illegals, especially those who have committed crimes. Then make it easy for them to self-deport.
Ed Forbes,
“You forgot to highlight this part to the portion of the act you posted. ‘or any invasion or predatory incursion'”
I suggest you actually read the statute and then make comments. There is no foreign government involved in carrying out gang violence. Federal courts are going to keep Trump from using this statute… but only after Trump burns through a mountain of political capital. He is being dumb.
SteveF wrote: ” Trump does things which can only be described as not at all carefully thought out. ”
I see no evidence of that. What I see is that Trump is willing to take risks, challenge conventional wisdom, and find new ways of attacking problems. All of that is essential to making real change. Of course, if you are wedded to conventional wisdom, Trump’s actions look crazy.
Lucia
There is only one timeline issue in contention for this case that legally matters. It is the time difference between the courts oral order and the written order.
The Hill article I linked to discusses the issue in which the government has directly stated they were in compliance with the written order and therefore is in full compliance with the courts TRO. The Judge is of the opinion that the government was out of compliance of the TRO if the government did not immediately comply with the oral order.
The issue is if the aircraft carrying the deportees were still in US airspace when the TRO was legally activated. Might not matter much due to other factors involved, but is an interesting point in its own right.
SteveF wrote: “There is no foreign government involved”
But there is.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/
No doubt Trump can provide at least some substantiation for those claims. I don’t know how solid it would be. But I don’t think he needs to prove it in court since courts have no say over foreign policy.
It seems to me that the real concern should be not whether Trump can deport illegals and foreigners who break our laws, but whether he can send them to a prison in another country. I can see cases where it might be justified, but even then, it gives me the willies.
Have I suffered a stroke or something? It’s OK, you guys can tell me the ugly truth.
Here I read:
So here’s where I start questioning my faculties. Israel is not part of the United States, as far as I recall. U.S. criminal law is not applicable there, neither state nor federal. So what on earth does the DOJ have to do with Israel and what on earth makes them think the attack on October 7’th is within their purview?
Or have I just lost my mind?
[Rhetorical questions aren’t allowed when I fail to supply my own answer so: I don’t think I’ve lost my mind, but then again I suspect people who are insane aren’t always aware that they are insane, so I’m not 100% sure.]
Hamas killed and took hostage US citizens. Maybe that is the (weak) justification. But yes, it makes little sense.
Thanks Steve.
mark,
Note the words “potential civil rights violations and acts of antisemitism by anyone supporting the militant group”. That could be people in the US who support Hamas. Then RICO might apply: https://fmamlaw.com/when-can-the-u-s-government-prosecute-someone-for-acts-abroad/
“American laws may still apply to conduct that occurred overseas if some conduct relevant to the statute’s focus took place in the United States.”
The above link discusses “One example of the RICO law being stretched beyond recognition in the extraterritorial context”.
“Stretched beyond recognition” sounds about right.
Mike,
That makes a little more sense, thanks.
Part of what bothered me was the matter of fact way the AP article approached it.
Ed Forbes
Likely wrong. The location of the plane also matters because this affects jurisdiction.
If so the time line for this matters. This is more than the time difference you claim is the only thing that matters.
This all just reeks of Trump getting payback for the lawfare used against him. I’d prefer everyone just stop doing this, but it couldn’t happen to nicer people, ha ha.
Let’s hope that in 2028 the party in power thinks twice about the weaponization of the DOJ. At the very least it exposes the silliness of the left’s view that their tactics wouldn’t come back to bite them if they lost the election.
Trump, being Trump, also didn’t learn that using these tactics can backfire spectacularly.
A couple of points on the law in question
Trump has made the determination that Venezuela is an enemy state. This determination is a “political question” and is not reviewable by the courts.
Trump has made the determination that Tda is an arm of the Venezuelan state. This determination is a “political question” and is not reviewable by the courts
Trump has made the determination that Venezuela, through Tda, is engaged in a predatory incursion under the law “ or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event,” . This determination is a “political question” and is not reviewable by the courts .
The only review allowed for an individual to be removed under the act is that the court, under an action brought forward by a citizen charged under the act, can determine if the individual is in fact a US citizen or not.
So yes, Trump is on firm legal and constitutional grounds to deport Tda members without court intervention.
A discussion of the act
https://www.law.com/clecenter/assets/pgm_7125/library/alien%20enemies%20act.PDF
Ed Forbes,
I believe your legal analysis is wrong. Federal courts will ultimately say Trump can’t use the 1798 law against Tren de Aragua members. If you are convinced otherwise, do you want a friendly bet?
Mike M,
“it gives me the willies.”
You and almost everyone else.
The situation is: Trump has legal authority to deport ANY illegal alien, subject to due process requirements. Why on Earth choose to deport criminal gang members to a Hell-hole prison in El Salvador using (dubiously) a 1798 law? It is almost like Trump wants to pick a stupid and pointless fight on even the smallest of issues. He can do what he promised to do while campaigning without all the extra drama. Send Tren de Aragua members to wherever it is they came from, and be done with it.
Like I said up thread: I keep thinking… what the Hell is wrong with his guy? There is zero need for him to do what he is choosing to do.
SteveF wrote: “Send Tren de Aragua members to wherever it is they came from, and be done with it.”
Except we won’t be done with it since they will likely come back. And that would not have any deterrent power. Also, Venezuela might not let them back in.
Trump has released a video urging illegals to self deport and saying ““People in our country illegally can self deport the easy way, or they can get deported the hard way and that’s not pleasant”.
That is consistent with my theory about the deportations to El Salvador serving the purpose of “encouraging” illegals to self deport.
Mike M.
MARCH 18, 2025 AT 2:42 PM
It seems to me that the real concern should be not whether Trump can deport illegals and foreigners who break our laws, but whether he can send them to a prison in another country. I can see cases where it might be justified, but even then, it gives me the willies.
– Convicts in Australia?
Guantanamo Bay?
Private jails v Public jails?
Lunatic asylums?
Saudi Arabia where they would be free of being in jail?
Venezuela is barbaric horrible,, the idea of punishment is that it should fit the crime or criminal.
Think of the tax savings on prison guards and prisons.
Mike M.
MARCH 18, 2025 AT 2:42 PM
It seems to me that the real concern should be not whether Trump can deport illegals and foreigners who break our laws, but whether he can send them to a prison in another country. I can see cases where it might be justified, but even then, it gives me the willies.
– Convicts in Australia?
Guantanamo Bay?
Private jails v Public jails?
Saudi Arabia where they would be free of being in jail?
iElbSaalvador? Is barbaric horrible,, the idea of punishment is that it should fit the crime or criminal.
Think of the tax savings on prison guards and prisons.
“Except we won’t be done with it since they will likely come back.”
Only if we don’t enforce our borders.
SteveF,
There are still about 3000 known gotaways a month at the southern border plus some unknown number of unknown gotaways. An organization with resources and with people willing to take risks can still sneak people and contraband across the border. Hopefully, Trump can secure the border sufficiently to make illegal crossing a bad gamble. But that is going to take time. Until then, it makes sense to keep the bad guys under lock and key.
In other news, while no single event can definitively be tied to climate change, still; this is what we’d expect to see in a warming world:
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-say-fire-at-tesla-facility-likely-caused-by-climate-change
Mark bofill,
LOL
I still haven’t seen a single article by the legacy media on anecdotal examples of government bloat, waste, or fraud. Is there not a single example of a position at USAID that should be eliminated? Inquiring minds want to know.
Instead they flood the zone with sympathetic examples of people fired recently.
Even when they know (but rarely report) that most people want government reduced. This is yet another example of strident group think which has made them near irrelevant. Is there not a single person in any newsroom who says “let’s investigate an agency like USAID and assess how much bloat there really is”.
University of California leaders said Wednesday they are eliminating a years-old practice of requiring faculty job applicants to submit “diversity statements”
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-03-19/uc-eliminates-diversity-statement-requirement-faculty-hiring
““The requirement to submit a diversity statement may lead applicants to focus on an aspect of their candidacy that is outside their expertise or prior experience,” Katherine S. Newman, UC provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, said in a Wednesday letter to campus provosts.
…
She added that although stand-alone diversity statements in hiring will “no longer be permitted,” faculty are still allowed to optionally share any “inclusive academic achievements in teaching, research, and service” during the academic review process.”
Curious timing, I’m sure this had nothing to do with Trump announcing an investigation into DEI at UC schools. This is a HUUUUGEE liability for them and it’s too late to cover it up. From their own mouths:
https://ofew.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/life_sciences_inititatve.year_end_report_summary.pdf
“A total of 993 applications were received, of which 893 met basic qualifications. The LSI Committee conducted a first review and evaluated candidates based solely on contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion. Only candidates that met a high standard in this area were advanced for further review, narrowing the pool down to 214 for serious consideration… Limiting the first review to contributions in DE&I is itself a dramatic change of emphasis in the typical evaluation process which generally focuses on primarily on research accomplishments.”
This is more ideological conformity / McCarthyism than explicit racism but its clear that in order to get hired you need to be willing to use race as a primary factor in decision making. There is going to be no shortage of these explicit statements from all the virtue signaling over the past decade. Trump could easily pull funding from UC schools and make them defend it.
Tom Scharf,
“Is there not a single person in any newsroom who says “let’s investigate an agency like USAID and assess how much bloat there really is”.”
There is not, or if there is, they will get fired, demoted, or ‘reassigned’ if they suggest investigating the absurd waste/bloat/politicization in places like USAID. “You WILL do what we say!” is the way the left operates always and everywhere. The newsroom is no different.
It seems to me a consequence of two+ decades of academia choosing to operate as a leftist indoctrination mill instead of pursuing education and research. There is no depth to which true believers on the left will not go to defend and support their beliefs…. it shows in MSM reporting.
Columbia University signals it will comply with Trump administration’s demands
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/columbia-university-signals-will-comply-trump-administrations-demands-rcna197110
Trump administration pauses $175M in funding to UPenn over trans athlete policy
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/trump-administration-pauses-funding-upenn-trans-athlete-rcna197055
Asking a thousand different ways for academia to embrace ideological diversity pales in comparison to “we’re pulling your funding”.
I’ve seen this coming for years and it’s going to get worse. The social sciences are target #1.
To those of you who follow legacy media: Have there been any reports of foreign heads of state or heads of government bemoaning the cuts to USAID? There ought to be lots if USAID funding has been actually valuable and making us friends all over the world.
I have seen only one foreign head of state comment on the cuts. That would be Bukele in El Salvador, He basically said “good riddance”.
“The social sciences are target #1.”
Sure, as well they should be. They might as well change the description to be more accurate: “social sciences” ought to be “socialist training and development”.
I haven’t seen any reports, and like I said earlier I also read USAID functioned as front for the CIA in some cases.
Tom,
From your link https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/columbia-university-signals-will-comply-trump-administrations-demands-rcna197110
So, if Columbia’s going to comply, that suggest the demands do not violate Columbia’s principles nor do they violate the values of academic freedom.
it’s hard to see how banning masks during protests or completing disciplinary proceedings could violate a universities principles or the values of academic freedom.
Reforming its admissions process or getting rid of a department might. We’ll see. 🙂
“Academic receivership” is not getting rid of a department. It amounts to imposing an outside chair on a department that has become unable to properly govern itself.
Columbia was sending mixed messages to different people.
Columbia very recently “completed” disciplinary proceedings for people who took over campus buildings. They won’t say specific outcomes but referenced suspensions and expulsions. They knew the government was going to check on this so I suspect more harsh punishments were doled out. One of my pet peeves has been the catch and release of disruptors / law breaking protestors who are for favored causes.
Columbia will tolerate DEI and Hamas wackiness but they won’t give up $400M for it. Trump is doing them a favor by giving them an easy off ramp and they know it.
Tom Scharf,
“DEI and Hamas wackiness but they won’t give up $400M for it. ”
True, if they were honest; clearly they are not honest, so they will continue DEI (perhaps with a different name) continue to ignore anti-semitism, continue to admit based on race, and continue to support absurd “occupier/occupied” narratives like Israel/Gaza. Evil stupid people doing evil things.”
The Trump administration should not take them at their word on these issues AT ALL, and force them to make real changes to restore funding.
Will they rewrite major league baseball statistics to airbrush out the achievements of Jackie Robinson?
Racist bastards.
I asked ChatGPT “Where does Jackie Robinson rank on the all time statistics records for singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and stolen bases”
—
Response:
Jackie Robinson’s Major League Baseball career, spanning from 1947 to 1956, was marked by significant achievements both on and off the field. Here’s an overview of his career statistics and how they compare to all-time MLB leaders in singles, doubles, triples, home runs, and stolen bases:
Career Statistics:
• Hits: 1,563
• Doubles: 286
• Triples: 55
• Home Runs: 141
• Stolen Bases: 200
Note: The exact number of singles is not readily available, but it can be estimated by subtracting doubles, triples, and home runs from total hits.
All-Time Rankings:
• Doubles: 286 doubles place Robinson outside the top 250 all-time leaders. For context, the all-time leader, Tris Speaker, recorded 792 doubles.
• Triples: With 55 triples, Robinson does not rank among the top 100 in MLB history. The leader in this category, Sam Crawford, amassed 309 triples.
• Home Runs: Robinson’s 141 home runs do not place him within the top 200 all-time. Barry Bonds leads this category with 762 home runs.
• Stolen Bases: Robinson’s 200 stolen bases rank him outside the top 100. The all-time leader, Rickey Henderson, holds the record with 1,406 stolen bases.
While Jackie Robinson may not rank among the all-time leaders in these specific statistical categories, his impact on the game transcends numbers. Breaking MLB’s color barrier in 1947, he paved the way for future generations of players and left an indelible mark on baseball history.
—
I fully agree with the last paragraph. Fully. His contribution does transcend the game. But the claim was that JR’s statistics were going to be airbrushed out. What statistic is going to be airbrushed out?
As an addendum, his career in the Negro League was very brief – only 47 games (163 at bats, 63 hits), so it does not materially impact his overall career stats (not like Satchel Paige who spent 20 years in the Negro League).
Thomas Fuller,
I believe anger management courses are available in Spain.
Barry Bonds was arguably the most talented hitter in baseball history. Tiger Woods is arguably the greatest golfer in history. Lebron James is arguably the most dominant basketball player in history. Sounds perfectly racist to me.
BTW, you might do better than claiming people are racists with, you know, some evidence of that claim.
MLB is the most racially diverse of all the leagues. At 60% white players, baseball is not over represented by whites [like hockey, golf] or over represented by minorities [like NFL, NBA].
Historical demographics:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1903078169285918778
Ref:
https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/baseball-demographics-1947-2016/
Steve,
The sun rises in the east, leftists try to agitate malcontents. It never gets very far in this country, but termites gotta gnaw.
Shrug.
DeanP wrote: “his career in the Negro League was very brief – only 47 games (163 at bats, 63 hits), so it does not materially impact his overall career stats”.
That is a bit misleading since Negro League stats are notoriously incomplete. Jackie Robinson did play just one season in the Negro Leagues and one season in the minors that was probably not needed except to make sure he could handle the pressure. And a year playing pro football, 4 years in college and, I think, 4 years in the army during WW2. So he was already 28 when he made his major league debut. That is a big factor in his relatively light career stats.
I am thinking that we have a new He Who Should Be Ignored.
More fog of war: gas pipeline pumping facility in Russia near the Ukraine border suffered an explosion and fire. Russia says the Ukrainians attacked the facility. Ukraine claims the Russians are attacking their own facility to stop any ceasefire deal.
I rather suspect US intelligence knows who actually attacked the facility, just like they know who attacked the Nordstream pipelines. I think this is something Trump ought to announce publicly.
MikeM,
It is not difficult to ignore him, since his “contributions” consists of nothing but rage, insults, and nonsense. I hope he gets some help.
I respond by saying some comments are unworthy of a response.
I know I probably should have ignored it – but it is a pet peeve of mine when people say things and the facts so easily disprove what they claim.
And especially when they talk about something like baseball stats – where die-hards still argue whether there should be an asterisk on Roger Maris’ record!
And here I was thinking Boeing was nearing the end.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/21/air-force-boeing-f-47-fighter-jet/82594870007/
Huh.
They better not screw this up. Just saying.
All sophisticated fighter plane development gets screwed up and overruns schedule and budget it seems. If you are pressing the tech limits it’s going to happen. Boeing has a pretty checkered history recently with cost plus contracts, not to mentioned fixed price.
The bigger question is whether we should just dump manned aircraft completely. $50B buys a lot of drones. The comm link to the drones is a weak spot and I suppose a jet flying with them could command them more reliably. I’m not convinced either way.
The only thing worse than Boeing doing it is having only one major jet developer that the government becomes dependent on. That may have been a factor.
I don’t think a ceasefire in Ukraine is going to happen …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cas_52-Q6dc
Tom Scharf,
“$50B buys a lot of drones. The comm link to the drones is a weak spot and I suppose a jet flying with them could command them more reliably.”
I think the leap will be to AI self-controlled drones (AKA Skynet 😉 ), with some supervision, of course. Humans appear to be the weak link in fighters. Self-controlled drones would beat a human pilot every time…. no g-force limits, instant actions, etc….. human pilots seem to me destined for history in military (and ultimately civilian) aircraft.
mark bofill,
I would not be surprised if technological advances in AI make the “F-47” obsolete before it actually flies. The projected first-flight date late 2029 seems to me as likely as flying pigs. Just sayin’. 😉 I mean, this is Boeing we are talking about!
I agree with both of you.
Tom Scharf,
No, not very soon. But I suspect it will happen within a few months.
The Israelis are going to keep killing Hamas for a few months too.
Can be flown autonomously is probably the second requirement in the F-47 spec. It can add another 200 lb bomb without the pilot.
If you drop the ejection seat, all the displays, life support, etc. then your payload increases even more.
Boasberg and his good friend Roberts.
Worked in 2016 and giving it a good shot now.
–
Prisoner exchange is a good start.
Let,’s hope for once in this fairytale world that a good outcome follows shortly.
–
I think the swamp has been surprised by the swiftness of action affecting its members. It still holds a lot of anti Trump cards to play, judges, Rinos, etc .
–
I don’t mind Tom Fuller. He expresses exactly the mindset of many people here in Australia.
I understand how he developed his views and why he cannot change them now.
I would not argue with him or denigrate him, I feel it is much better to have him ( he has had good standing in the past) than a lot of others, providing a counter point, even if emotional, to remind me there are two human sides to consider at all times.
–
Even if the wars end, Europe stands on its own two feet again and pays its way. The Nuclear clock goes back an hour.
America manages to turn around and reduce its deficit and people are able to have safer and healthier lives.
Trump will be seen in the blackest of lights, an incidental vile bystander who stood in the way of these good things happening.
–
To paraphrase that excellent Climate Change cartoon for Tom.
(Joel Pett 2009) I think.
“What if it was a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing”
“What if Trump was framed all along and we shot him down to make a worse world instead”
–
I am not happy with Trump bribing Americans with money saved in waste cuts. It should all go to reducing the deficit.
Everyone should pay some taxes.
Education priorities should be a concern to every level of government even if paying for it is up to the States.
Well Angech, I could randomly call you a racist bastard from time to time, if that helps give you another side to consider; if you find some value in that. Just let me know, I’d be glad to help.
angech,
“I understand how he developed his views and why he cannot change them now.”
I don’t understand. Can you explain?
Hunter reportedly took 18 secret service agents with him on a trip to South Africa. That’s a bit excessive. I bet they have some tales to tell from over the years.
It is notable that the legacy media framing of law firms, universities, et. al. coming to agreements with the government is “capitulation to Trump”.
NYT: Paul Weiss Deal With Trump Faces Backlash From Legal Profession
“Many in the legal field condemned the agreement in which the firm said it would do $40 million worth of pro bono work for causes favored by the White House.”
This is just social pressure from the “legal profession” to coordinate against Trump and ostracize anyone who doesn’t. The legal profession already has a bad reputation and being captured by the left isn’t going to help. The government going after them isn’t going to make anybody weep.
Trump is a lot of thing but he does know how to choose the right enemies.
Trump does choose the right enemies. University presidents sitting on $25 billion endowments while crying poverty? Perfect enemy to have. A radical, terrorist-supporting green card holder who demands the destruction of Israel by any means available? Perfect enemy to have. Generously compensated bureaucrat weeping about having to actually go to the office (rather than sit at home in their PJ’s)? Perfect enemy to have. Loony left politicians screaming that men should be allowed to participate in women’s sports? Yet another perfect enemy. The list is very long.
But here is the thing: It is not so much that Trump is choosing his enemies wisely, it is that these people have all made themselves the obvious enemies of common sense and prudent public policies; Trump just has the good fortune of such a ‘target-rich’ environment.
mark bofill
“Well Angech, I could randomly call you a racist bastard from time to time, if that helps give you another side to consider; if you find some value in that. Just let me know, I’d be glad to help.”
–
Go for it Mark.
Randomly is fine.
Good for Tom to have an outlet in us for his frustration in how the world is not the one he wants and thinks he deserves.
Another side to consider?
Yes, I considered it and felt for old times sake that it is better not to overreact to him when he is so down and angry.
–
SteveF
To understand.
It helps to be American.
It helps to be well educated and have a sense of ethics driven into you by family friends, teachers and circumstances.
It helps to have lived through the missile crisis, the Vietnam war the Space Race to develop those feelings of wanting the world to be what it is not.
Then bring along T.. , living the American dream, money, a sharp finance brain, several marriages several finance dramas and then good enough to host a TV show where many people loved him, even those in Spain.
Run for President, get some free publicity.
–
Unfortunately a normal guy who was not a politician chucked into the snake pit.
All fun and games until his particular batch of skills left a clown car of Republican politicians stranded.
Cue the villain, Hilary from Battle Angel Alita
All the moves and machinations and skills of a Secretary of State and ex Presidents wife.
How to get rid of the enemy? Get Barrack to tell Joe not to run.
The TV fellow.
Smear him with false and true rumours.
Pay for non disclosure agreements to be disclosed.
Pay for off the record tapes to be released on the record.
Not working!
Pay for law firms to make up rotten filthy rumours.
Get your old firm, FBI, CIA, Five eyes to call in favours and fabricate salaciousness.
This is where Tom and many others close their eyes and refuses to believe in Trump anymore.
The old Michael Mann trick of hide the decline and he fell for it..
Result?
If he can deny reality he can think other people have to be evil and racist based on the evidence , not that they support Trump but that they do not condemn him.
He can support , and does any fantasy, such as allowing vicious illegal people to stay in America through “rights”
People scoffing his tax dollars at the pig trough because they have “rights”
Men running and fighting women in games of strength because they have “rights” to believe they can choose their sex and gender.
Wars should be fought forever on matters of principle because lives do not matter when “rights” are at stake .
–
Perhaps I labour under a misapprehension .
What did Joshua call it ?
Mind reading.
–
Think we should go back to more sensible topics of can the war be ended soon.
Angech, thank you for your kind words. You evidently realized what other commenters didn’t–that my calling the assholes who scrubbed Jackie Robinson’s data racist bastards did not imply that commenters here fit that description.
However, many here are endorsing individual moves and general policies that I find odious in the extreme. Their pallid defense tends to be whataboutism, such as pointing out the number of secret service agents that accompanied Hunter Biden on a trip, evidently ignoring that protection details work in shifts and that right wing idiots were targeting Mr. Biden.
But waddabout the number of times Trump went golfing since he was inaugurated? See how easy it is to play that game?
Dictatorship 101: Its not compulsive liars but compulsive believers that are important. (H/T Darth Putin)
Trump is a man of supreme ill will. He’s also a moron–he’s killing future sales of the US defense industry by saying they will sell ‘toned down’ versions of advanced aircraft.
But he’s your demented moron now. I live in Spain, relatively far from the havoc his policies on Social Security and deportation are causing in the United States of America.
You bought it. You own it. Enjoy it.
Tom thank you for your reply
Your comment
“Trump is a man of supreme ill will. He’s also a moron.”
is worthy of both comment and reflection.
Is that a mantra?
A general reasoned summary?
A mission statement perhaps.
–
I could provide counter examples to the first part.
Examples of generosity on his part to others are legion.
As are, of course, examples of his ego and sense of self importance but the issue you raised was specifically ill will.
I do not think he has the modern christian turn the other cheek attitude and most of what you see as ill will is caused by others attacking him first.
The second part is obviously wrong both literally and metaphorically but if you choose to call people with the intellect to run a successful election campaign morons go for it. Free speech does not have to mean thoughtful speech.
–
As an aside.
I voted for a man in our local council elections 20 years ago who had a checkered history and a lot of bluster but who was not woke.
It was a disaster.
The upshot was that the following council elections had a massive turn out and a lot of very good people elected.
He also got elected again without my vote.
–
The reason Trump got in was that the ordinary person in America was sick and tired of the corruption and wokeness and lack of free speech and Americans losing jobs.
I am sorry that you feel you are not an ordinary American wanting a better country than the woke years delivered.
If he does not work out there will be others, not in his mold but with the same passion for freedom and fairness which you currently seem to want frittered away,
Thank you Thomas Fuller. With all of his faults, Trump may still end up being one of the all time best Presidents this country has ever had. We do own him, proudly.
Angech, your comments make a lot of sense. Many Americans are tired of the ‘woke’ brigade–I feel that it went too far and needed to be reined in, so I understand that.
The fact that he hired a competent campaign staff is I suppose an improvement over 2016–but despite the wind at his back he barely won.
Yes, Donald Trump is on occasion very generous and on those occasions makes sure it is widely known. He also stiffs contractors working for him and is hell-bent on revenge for slights real and imagined.
He is a moron, functionally at least. The tariffs are a supremely stupid idea. Telling potential customers of highly expensive defense technology that they’ll get a cut-down version is… yes, supremely stupid.
Mark… whatever.
~grins~
I was wrong Thomas, Angech. I am glad Thomas posts here. I hope that he continues to share his anger and dismay as Trump undoes as much of the damage as possible Democrats have inflicted over the past 15 years. Thinking of Thomas and all the others like him puts a smile on my face and a spring in my step.
Thank you for reminding me of this.
Interesting article from Axios. They interviewed a lot of Democrat officials and listed the top ten reasons Dems think Dems are losers….
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/22/democrats-theories-identity-crisis
‘can the war be ended soon.’
I’d guess a few months for a ceasefire. Then a long and very difficult negotiation. An actual settlement is possible, but I think a ‘frozen conflict’ a la Korea is as likely as a negotiated settlement, because the minimum terms both sides demand may make a formal settlement impossible. Either way, the killing should stop in a few months.
Completely different conditions in Gaza. Israel wants Hamas gone. Hamas wants Israel gone; so no real possibility for accommodation. With Trump in office Israel will continue killing Hamas and, unfortunately, many civilians Hamas hides behind.
I sometimes find Fuller’s contributions useful and informative of the other side; I often find Fuller’s contributions angry regurgitations of the MSNBC broadcasts [but without the ugly women].
But, that having been said, his contributions do spark activity and interactions here, especially when we are in the doldrums.
Russell, MSNBC doesn’t get to Spain and although I miss Rachel Maddow a lot, I confess I don’t miss the rest of the MSNBC tribe. I see on YouTube that some of the MSNBC crew have migrated to CNN. I imagine some will eventually end up on Fox, as happened with Tucker Carlson.
Hunter needs 6 people watching over him 24/7 in 8 hour shifts? Ha ha. Not with my taxpayer money.
Another example of Trump making the left defend crazy things.
Thomas,
“[Trump is] killing future sales of the US defense industry by saying they will sell ‘toned down’ versions of advanced aircraft.”
My understanding — perhaps incorrect — is that foreign sales of US military aircraft are often not the same as US versions. That is, they might sell an older (read: less capable) variant, or without the most advanced avionics.
This quora post says as much, with some examples but without any citations.
Here is a discussion of foreign F-15 versions, describing the Japanese variant F-15J: “They differ from the F-15C/D with the deletion of sensitive ECM, radar warning, and nuclear delivery equipment. The AN/ALQ-135 is replaced by indigenous J/ALQ-8 and the AN/ALR-56 RHAWS is replaced by J/APR-4.” [And the latest domestic version of F-15 was F-15E, presumably improved over the C/D.]
But again, I can not vouch for the source.
Harold,
You are correct. I didn’t feel like there was any value in arguing with Thomas about it, but of course that’s correct and fairly well known also.
PolitiFact assessed social security being a Ponzi scheme as “false” primarily based on the fact that government is running the operation, not that it has a financial setup identical to Ponzi schemes.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/politifact-vs-elon-musk-f5a1c560?st=mbXMg8&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“Unlike a Ponzi scheme, Social Security is transparent, has multiple layers of oversight and doesn’t promise unrealistic returns. And if there isn’t enough money to pay benefits, mechanisms exist to make it financially sustainable.”
Yes, those mechanisms are forcibly extract more revenue from taxpayers by law which is a something a Ponzi schemer could only dream about.
“I didn’t feel like there was any value in arguing with Thomas about it”
Yes, it is not worth the effort when Fuller is just in a talking point copy / paste exercise. Some of his stuff is just mindless sh**posting.
Only our BFF’s get the latest technology and nobody gets an F-22, at least for now. Some people such as Israel put their own tech into an airframe and the technology transfer can even come back to the US.
The F-35 was designed for the export market and what options it has I believe is a case by case decision.
As for our allies going their own way that is a always a possibility but not one that can occur in the short term. These aircraft take at least a decade to design and get to operational status. That costs a crapload of money.
The EU has several mediocre to poor fighters and support aircraft. The US has always carried the big stick here. 3 or 4 presidents will have come and gone by the time the EU finishes a fighter development and the chances of it being competitive and sustainable are not great.
The US has shown the ability to get air dominance, not just air superiority, with its technology over Russian technology exports. Russia doesn’t export it’s best stuff either.
It is to everyone’s advantage to have only one or two suppliers here. The US stuff is expensive and it’s a huge commitment to train pilots, service aircraft, etc. The EU is punting and having the US do all the work here. They do buy some aircraft but that is likely due to complex NATO negotiations. This is tenable as long as the EU is doing some heavy lifting in other areas. It’s not clear it is.
Thomas
I don’t like Trump. He’s nasty piece of work. But he is clearly not a moron. I get that people like to use hyperbole. But inaccurate ideas like that likely contributed to Trump winning the 2024 election. Wildly underestimating your competition is foolish. The Dems should not have indulged in such foolishness.
Continuuing to indulge in the foolish idea that Trump is a moron is not going to help Dems win future elections nor will it help them thwart many of Trumps maneuvers
Snide remarks and name calling are also generally unhelpful as a method to advance your position. Even if everyone in your social circle knows what you are referring to, people out side it often just react with, “What’s he even talking about?” and then “shrug”. They aren’t all going to rush to google to try to figure out what you are complaining about.
I know you are angry. But to triangulate Trump, Democrats are going to need to marshal their brain power and actually advance facts and arguments. To criticize his actions, they need to state what precisely he did they object to and why it is wrong. To save programs, or get the general public angry some programs are disappearing or cut they are going to have to explain what good things that program did and why it’s worth what it costs.
This may be easier in a few months if actions do lead to material negative consequences that affect the general public. But right now, Democrats aren’t doing a good job defending their objection to cuts. Setting Teslas on fire suggest they know they don’t have any rational arguments.
You seem to be resorting to howling at the moon. As advice: I think you should calm down. Then look at your posts and see if you made any point about anything. For example:
March 23, 2025 at 2:08 am
I get it… you think he’s odious. Lots of people do. Obviously, that didn’t prevent him from being elected. And while you don’t like “what aboutism”, the fact is lots of politicians are odious. Clinton was odius for his treatment of women (e.g. Lewinsky, Paula Jones etc.)
And even if a response is “whataboutism”, if you have a little self reflection you see that that attack isn’t very useful. First: it’s the fact that odious people get elected all the time. Being odious clearly doesn’t prevent voters from voting for someone. People swallow hard and pick someone whose policies they favor. And if your goal is to make people guilty for supporting someone odious– it clearly doesn’t work. If it did work, people would not have voted for Clinton. But he was elected.
If you want to replace an odious politician, your time would be better spend discussing social and political issues that actually sway voters. Try to sway them to agree with you on those issues.
So if you want to sway people away from Trump (or any politician you don’t like) you need to do the heavy lifting of discussing policies specifically explaining what is wrong with the policies: and explaining why other policies are better.
The Democrats chose to resort to laziness in the past election. Or maybe they were so beside themselves with emotion their brains couldn’t function. If they want to regain their seats they need to be less lazy and engage their brains. Of course, if it’s not laziness but just stupidity, they have less hope.
You can of course, respond to this by posting insults. Or you can sit back, collect your thoughts and explain why something that happened is wrong. For it to be an explanation, you have to specifically describe something, with details. And then you need to explain why it was wrong. This will also give people a chance to suggest things with things like:
“Do you have more details? Inside information? How do you know that wasn’t done by a insider bureaucrat who wanted to create an easily discovered negative story?”
NYT: Musk Is Positioned to Profit Off Billions in New Government Contracts
The boost in federal spending for SpaceX will come in part as a result of actions by President Trump and Elon Musk’s allies who hold government positions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/us/politics/spacex-contracts-musk-doge-trump.html
Total mass to orbit last year:
https://x.com/dpoddolphinpro/status/1874191808751972447
Their cost per kg to orbit is also far cheaper. These two facts are not unrelated. SpaceX has earned these contracts by demonstrating competence. It would be extremely political to not give these contracts to SpaceX. The US does give contracts to others though because it strategically wants to maintain at least two suppliers.
Lucia,
Well stated.
There are two sides to the ledger for cost cutting. One assumes you are going to lose something when large scale cuts occur at an agency. The question is not whether somebody somewhere finds those services valuable but whether those services are worth the cost. It is a judgment call.
People can mow their own lawn and clean their own pool. If it is other people’s money paying for it then I suspect not many people would do either.
The government’s job is efficient allocation of scarce resources, taxpayer money.
Boeing stranded the astronauts during the Biden administration. Space X got them back after Trump took office.
It’s really hard to complain SpaceX is getting funding for space missions after that.
Case in point, Musk Derangement Syndrome
Trump administration poised to ‘strand rural America with worse internet’ to help Musk, official warns
US official urges stop to plan to re-evaluate Biden program to connect communities to high-speed internet, which will likely benefit Starlink
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/17/trump-musk-starlink-rural-internet
Ahem …
Why Has Joe Biden’s $42 Billion Broadband Program Not Connected One Single Household?
https://reason.com/2024/06/27/why-has-joe-bidens-42-billion-broadband-program-not-connected-one-single-household/
“In 2021, the Biden Administration got $42.45 billion from Congress to deploy high-speed Internet to millions of Americans,” Brendan Carr, the senior Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter) this month. “Years later, it has not connected even 1 person with those funds. In fact, it now says that no construction projects will even start until 2025 at earliest.”
What happened here is that Biden’s program effectively stipulated fiber connections to rural areas using union labor executed by a miasma of state/local organizations. Typical government sausage. Meanwhile SpaceX built an already operational satellite network that can serve rural areas efficiently.
Thanks for the feedback, Lucia. Criticizing Trump on tariffs is policy, right? It’s a tax on American consumers and businesses. Criticizing Trump for trash talking US warplanes is policy, right?
There is no logic or even common sense behind those two maneuvers. Both will hurt the country he took an oath to serve. Portugal has already canceled an order for 18 F35s. Europe, Canada, China and Mexico are lining up retaliatory trade measures. Nobody has advanced a decent reason for these actions, least of all Trump himself.
I suppose I could search for another adjective than ‘moronic,’
but it seems pretty accurate. I’m not calling him a moron because I don’t like him, although I don’t like him. I’m calling him a moron because of what he does.
What is Portugal going to do? “Seek alternatives”. Like what?
Portugal wants to not spend the money but get the benefits. That’s a good deal if you can get it. Nobody want to buy a bunch of crazy expensive planes right up until the moment the Ruskies cross the NATO border.
This is understandable but is the MO that Europe has had for decades now and what has placed them in an unfortunate defense dependency position with the US. The US never wanted this.
The Eurofighter Typhoon started development in 1983, it entered service in 2004. This is all pure EU bureaucracy, even worse than the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
“The Spanish MoD put the cost of their Typhoon project up to December 2010 at €11.718 billion, up from an original €9.255 billion and implying a system cost for their 73 aircraft of €160 million.”
“As of July 2024, the average flyaway costs per plane are: $82.5 million for the F-35A, $109 million for the F-35B, and $102.1 million for the F-35C”
Pilots and spare parts are extra. So you can have an F-35 for the price of Typhoon now or wait for another model later with a great deal of uncertainty. There will 1000’s of F-35’s around with a more or less guaranteed lifetime of decades. It’s a bird in the hand so I will not be surprised to see Portugal reverse course.
Otherwise by the time the 2040 Euro NGF fighter shows up (the year 2050 no doubt) Portugal might want to brush up on their Russian.
Thomas,
Three commenters above explained that selling slightly less capable versions of aircraft is standard practice for the USA and has been for decades. At least one of those commenters actually works on aircraft software. Maybe you could consider information like that before doubling down on ‘Trump is a moron’ because he says the most advanced versions of a sixth-generation fighter won’t be sold to other countries.
With regard to tariffs: I think Trump is mostly looking for other countries to change unfair trade practices, although in some cases he is also applying pressure for other reasons (illegal immigration, fentanyl smuggling). But all that considered, it is naive to suggest tariffs are just ‘taxes on the USA’. Production can (and will) shift to other countries (eg Vietnam instead of China), to avoid tariffs, and some companies will “on-shore” production where that is economically advantageous. And of course, existing domestic producers may well become competitive, with down-stream economic effects that benefit US employees and other US companies. Finally, to the extent tariffs lead to changes in unfair trade practices by other countries, that can open markets to US producers.
It is not so simple as ‘just taxes on the USA’.
Thomas
Of course. And now you have criticized him just like several other people here have. Look: You agree! 🙂
As for moronic– a politician doing something moronic doesn’t mean he is a moron.
I don’t think our government’s primary consideration ought to be economics in selling advanced fighter planes. I mean, it’s great if Northrop or Boeing makes a buck, but our national security interests are the actual consideration here.
It is not at all clear to me how Portugal holding out for eventual better fighter planes affects our national security interests. I dare venture that it likely has little impact either way. It might be that in future conflicts we won’t even notice whether or not Portugal rallies to our cause. Shocking idea, I’m sure.
I’m continually puzzled by the expressed idea that Russia will agree to a frozen ceasefire. Russia has been very consistent in stating that they will not go back to the frozen conflict that existed from the US instigated Ukraine coup in 2014 through the start of the current conflict in 2022.
The Minsk 1 & 2 agreements between the Kiev government, the breakaway Ukrainian provinces, the EU, and Russia seeking an end to the conflict all collapsed. EU representatives publicly admitted that the Minsk agreements were only agreed to by the EU and Ukraine in order to rearm the Kiev government. Russia has no interest in allowing Kiev to rearm and rebuild as happed twice before with the Minsk ceasefires. The Ukrainians that broke off from the coup installed government in Kiev suffered thousands of dead from this illegitimate governments assault on their territory during this “frozen” period.
Russia will agree to talks, but as the Russians have continually stated that one of their main objectives is the reduction of the Ukraine military, no general ceasefire will be achieved until the Ukrainian military is fully defeated on the battlefield. Russia is not looking to just defeat the Ukraine military, Russia is looking to totally destroy it.
Several quotes from the Union General Sherman of the US Civil War that applies to the Russian attitude towards the Kiev regime.
“We can make war so terrible and make them so sick of war that generations pass away before they again appeal to it.”
“War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
“We cannot change the hearts of the people of the South, but we can make war so terrible that they will realize the fact that however brave and gallant and devoted to their country still they are mortal and should exhaust all peaceful remedies before they fly to war.”
“This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”
“I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy.”
The heartburn many countries have with US weapons is a “you can only use those weapons against people we authorize you too”.
It’s easy to see why the US wants this and why the buyers don’t. It’s a good deal if you can get it …
Tom,
Fair enough. I still say Portugal is small potatoes anyway you look at it, and Portugal would be likely malleable to U.S. diplomatic pressures anyway you look at it, but OK.
Portugal doesn’t matter in the grand scheme. They have NATO obligations just like everyone else. Air forces in most countries are a vanity project, not for the US.
A lot of exports help fund the next generation of design. It’s a positive feedback loop that has kept the US defense industry on top. Economies of scale blah blah.
Europe, China, and Russia can design these things. The US isn’t the best at everything, just a lot of things and that advantage is fleeting if it isn’t kept up.
Demonstrated competence has helped sales. Lack of competition will lead to the defense industry getting fat and lazy, perhaps they already have.
The F-35 appears to be a mediocre product, but most major weapons systems start off like this. It’s just an airframe. The engines, weapons, sensors all get upgraded over time.
Ed,
It’s because Russia is not the invincible juggernaut you seem to want to make it out to be, that’s why. Nobody has the luxury of avoiding reckoning with the United States, and the President of the United States wants there to be peace. He might not get it, but then again he might.
Would you like to offer us some objective, verifiable predictions of how this will play out?
FYI: Perun on defense economics, and the US production advantage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z_gTGJc7nQ
When you have an hour to spare on manufacturing economics …
Tom (Fuller)
Part of the attraction of this site is its ability to go off on tangents about events with a science backing which we seem to be missing in the current climes.
Do you have any thoughts to share on the recent hottest satellite year and underlying causation and interpretation?
Do you have any problems with the surface measuring stations?
I have not been to WUWT often for quite a while but do you see a problem with the number of actual stations and the amalgamation of interpolated data ( an old bogey I know).
Curious to your actual position and trying to get some feedback from others like KF..
–
Thanks for continuing to contribute.
Mark “Would you like to offer us some objective, verifiable predictions of how this will play out?”
Predictions :
Russia will not agree to a general ceasefire.
Ukraine manpower reserves are dwindling and getting worse. Losses continue to exceed mobilization replacements. There comes a time when manpower losses in a war of attrition pass a certain threshold and collapse then happens quickly.
The EU and the US will not put boots on the frontlines to shore up Ukraine manpower requirements.
The economic sanctions by the west on Russia has failed to bring Russia to its knees as was expected.
The difference in war production between the west and Russia is pronounced. Russia has been much more efficient in rooting out waste and corruption in its defense sector.
One example is the cost of 155mm artillery shells
“The research on artillery rounds by Bain & Company, which drew on publicly available information, found that Russian factories were forecast to manufacture or refurbish about 4.5 million artillery shells this year compared with a combined production of about 1.3 million rounds across European nations and the US.
On cost, it said the average production cost per 155 mm shell – the type produced by NATO countries – was about $4,000 (£3,160) per unit, though it varied significantly between countries. This is compared with a reported Russian production cost of around $1,000 (£790) per 152 mm shell that the Russian armed forces use.”
https://news.sky.com/story/russia-is-producing-artillery-shells-around-three-times-faster-than-ukraines-western-allies-and-for-about-a-quarter-of-the-cost-13143224
Some say the difference is much more stark
“ The head of the NATO military committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, announced the current prices of conventional artillery 155-mm ammunition, which can really just shock. Because according to him, now their price is 8000 thousand euros for one piece of ammunition.”
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2023/10/25/155-mm-shells-price-is-growing-8-6-million-for-1000-units/
Thanks Ed,
I’m a simple man. I see two concrete predictions there?
and
If other predictions are embedded in there, it wasn’t clear to me and I invite you to identify them.
As it happens, I agree with the idea that the US will not put boots on the frontlines for sure. I don’t know anybody who thinks otherwise, so as far as I am concerned we can dispense with that one. I am agnostic about what EU will do, largely because I don’t much care.
Would you clarify what qualifies as a general ceasefire in your book? In my view, you are saying there will be no negotiated / agreed on ceasefire where Russia completely stops attacking on the battlefield at any point before Ukraine either surrenders or their military and / or political leadership are destroyed and / or taken fully into custody. This it?
I will offer my predictions in response, so I’ll have skin in the game too:
A peace will be negotiated between Russia and Ukraine, and the war will end. Ukraine will have less territory after the war ends than Ukraine had before the war started. They will retain sovereignty over [the] remainder of their land and they will retain an intact military. The remainder of their land will be greater than or equal to 75% of what they had before the war started.
I agree with Mark’s prediction.
mark bofill,
Yes those are the most likely outcomes.
The sad part (for me) is that Ukraine could have kept nominal control over much more land by agreeing to 1) not join NATO, 2) giving Donbas and Crimea regions much greater autonomy, before the war started. A joint-security agreement, including a promise to eventually join NATO, was signed by our idiot-secretary of state Blinken three months before Russia invaded, and the Russians began moving military assets to the border immediately after that agreement was signed. Ukraine could have had a better outcome, hundreds of thousands would not have died, and the world would not have wasted hundreds of billions (not counting the cost of reconstruction) if the USA had a pragmatic foreign policy.
Mark “ In my view, you are saying there will be no negotiated / agreed on ceasefire where Russia completely stops attacking on the battlefield at any point before Ukraine either surrenders or their military and / or political leadership are destroyed and / or taken fully into custody. This it?”
Close, but not quite.
I see the possibility of a limited ceasefire, say each side agrees to not target each other’s energy supply or not attacking shipping in international waters. It would give Russia some cover with Trump for Russia to say “ see, we are being reasonable “ and to drag out negotiations while continuing to advance on the battlefield.
But yes, I see no possibility of a full ceasefire that stops Russian offensive actions across the frontline until the major points of Russian goals are reached.
The main Russian military goals are to drastically reduce Ukraine military power, ensure Ukraine is not part of NATO, ensure that NATO forces are not deployed inside Ukraine, and the annexed Ukraine territories still under Ukraine control are transferred to Russian control.
Russia sees the western nations fighting this proxy war against Russia as unable to stay the course in a long war and unwilling to spend the amount of resources needed to compete militarily over the long run.
Russia also sees the western nations as corrupt and decadent. The western costs for 155mm artillery shells as one example of corruption and trans and DEI programs for examples of decadence , have all been Russian talking points on these issues.
So I see little reason to think Russia will suspend military conflict with Ukraine any time in the near or medium future.
Thanks for clarifying Ed.
Steve,
It’s hard to argue that mistakes weren’t made. It IS a shame. But maybe it will end soon.
Mark Bofill
March 23, 2025 at 4:53 pm
A peace will be negotiated between Russia and Ukraine
the war will end.
Ukraine will have less territory after the war ends
–
“But
“the US will not put boots on the front lines for sure. I don’t know anybody who thinks otherwise, so as far as I am concerned we can dispense with that one.”
–
If Russia does not cooperate then-I could see Trump order troops to the front line possibly in combination with NATO as a peace keeping force and stating to the Russians stay out,
We are not here to fight you. If you fire on us we will fire back
–
This is what Biden and NATO should have done soon after the start of the conflict anyway.
Trump will use all other possible leverage first but in the case of super sanctions and tariffs failing I can see him using this strategy./
Russia would have very little choice but to back of if everyone combined peacefully demanding an end.
Politico had an interesting article:
“We Dug Into the Polls. Democrats in Congress Should Be Very Afraid.”
The finding are nicely summarized in this graph:
“Net approval rating among self-identified Democrats or Republicans of their party in Congress”
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1904046739989938674
Basically the graph illustrates that democrats are at an all time low [-9] and sinking. Republicans are at an all time high [+69] and rising.
The rate of change of this curve has been very gradual in the past, so the authors expect the Dem’s voters to still be angry next year for the midterms.
Some quotes:
“The numbers are clear: No longer satisfied with the status quo in their party, Democrats are on the verge of a Tea Party-style, intra-party revolt.”
“The intensity of the anger roiling the party is at a historic level, suggesting a breach between congressional Democrats and the party grassroots so severe that it could reshape the 2026 primary election season.”
Full article:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/21/polling-data-democrats-primaries-grassroots-tea-party-00241769
angech: “Russia would have very little choice but to back of if everyone combined peacefully demanding an end. “
So you’re willing to bet against full scale nuclear war when NATO “peacefully” injects itself directly into the war.
The US wouldn’t back off from a similar push into its backyard. Why are you convinced that Russia would in its backyard?
Then there is the problem of what exactly NATO could bring in actual conventional forces. Historically, NATO only provided ammunition stocks for, at most, several weeks of full scale combat. NATO was designed only as a trip wire prior to going nuclear.
And for current NATO ammunition stocks, the cupboard is bare.
“So you’re willing to bet against full scale nuclear war when NATO “peacefully” injects itself directly into the war. ”
No bikes threatened. no war.
Just a peaceful protest like Ghandi .
Pull out as soon as fighting stops.
Just an idea.
We need ideas.
I don’t know what will happen in Ukraine. I do think the next steps will not be the last, whichever direction they take.
I also think that Russia has exhausted itself in this conflict and will need half a century to recover. I wish it were longer.
angech,
I agree with very little of what you are saying but have no interest in arguing about it.
One of the many reasons DOGE is important:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/fmcs-slush-fund-abolished-by-trump
An ‘independent’ agency which did nothing and existed entirely to enrich and pamper its 280 employees, all funded by the taxpayer…… including first class airfare to exotic locations, fraudulent use of agency credit cards for personal expenses, not showing up for work, and a hundred other blatant thefts. It is gone now, but should never have existed. I am sure this is not the only case of an agency which should not exist.
I should have said “mostly gone”, since the FMCS agency can only be fully eliminated by an act of Congress.
SteveF wrote: “giving Donbas and Crimea regions much greater autonomy, before the war started”.
Those areas were already under Russian control before the war started.
SteveF,
Wow. The FMCS story is worse than I could have imagined. I want those people living at government expense in government provided housing. I hope that Patel and Bondi are working to being that about.
Thomas, something we agree on, your post:
“I also think that Russia has exhausted itself in this conflict and will need half a century to recover. I wish it were longer.”
Although the war aficionados I have read say Russia can be back at full strength in about ten years.
I hope they never recover.
No explanation of this so far:
“At least 18 US Air Force tankers are being staged in the Pacific with several each at Travis AFB in CA, Daniel K. Inouye IAP in HI and Andersen AFB in Guam.l
All of these flights are carrying a RCH0## call signs in sequential order from RCH011-RCH033. Mission coding appears to be linked as well.
This suggests some kind of large movement of air assets into the Pacific theater will take place this week.”
Stay tuned.
European air forces are again saber-rattling in the air today. There are uncounted numbers aloft at 11AM (Florida time).
There are only 11 USAF plane aloft.
Two screenshots showing all Military aircraft over Europe and Only USAF:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1904188154346627373?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
MikeM,
In fairness: the remaining managers at FMCS have put up a message that the agency was really bad, but that was a long time ago…. now they are super-efficient, tightly controlled, and dedicated to the prudent use of taxpayer money 24/7…. a true model for what all of government should be.
I am sure they have moved to a modest and inexpensive office in someplace like Scranton, PA, sized to accommodate the 50 odd-people who were working in Washington (not a 9-story building on K-street that is multiple times too large), have forced everyone to show up at the office every day, have eliminated all the fancy perks and exotic travel, eliminated all DEI employees, and that they can document hundreds of cases where their 200-odd field employees around the country have, like magic, averted major costly strikes….. strikes that some private arbitrator could never have avoided.
No, I am joking; it is unlikely any of those things have happened.
As Reagan noted, the closest thing to eternal life…… exists only in Washington DC
Mike M,
Eliminating whole agencies that are of little or no use (thus saving a lot of money!) is exactly what is supposed to be in a reconciliation bill….. I sure hope Republicans in Congress use this opportunity to clean the stables in Washington, DC.
SteveF/Mike M,
Has anyone stepped forward to defend this agency or it’s work yet? (I guess I could google. My guess is no?)
Rand Paul has introduced a bill (again) to try to abolish DOE. Let’s see if the ball rolls at all.
[Edit: Sorry, he says he will do so next week. Here:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2025/03/24/rand-paul-to-introduce-bill-to-get-rid-of-department-of-education-n2654359
]
Lucia,
sure: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fmcs-statement-on-the-executive-order-continuing-the-reduction-of-the-federal-bureaucracy-302406098.html
Their web page says they are “studying” the recent executive orders before proceeding. They say “some services” may be interrupted. I suspect that means everyone either has been or will be put on administrative leave.
This is FMCS defending itself
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fmcs-condemns-overtly-misleading-online-article-302406542.html
The link to support this claim appears to be a flyer published by FMCS. They flyer has no link to whoever generated the estimate of claimed savings and cites no one.
I really don’t know how you can truly figure out how much union-company mediation saves the economy. After all, lost of things go into that– including how much might have been saved if a lower cost contract was negotiated because employees and the union were under pressure to settle to avoid their own loses during a shut down. Obviously, service disruptions are also economically costly.
Example:
Securing “competitive pay” for temporary workers at a government agency may or many not save the government money. See pdf for more details.
I think non-tenure track faculty tend to be abused and favor them unionizing. But I’m dubious about the claim by FMS in their supporting FMS published pdf. For example, evidently FMCS mediation
Non-tenure track faculty are almost always people who would prefer to find tenure track positions and, if valuable, eventually find more stable jobs. Turn over should be high. I’m also dubious that paying them more will ” [foster] community engagement through education”.
Maybe the economy would benefit if these non-tenure track people took other jobs. Also: I would imagine if their work is valuable, they could negotiate without FMCS intervention.
You can go through click links and find all sorts of claims supported by links to other self-promotional FMCS.gov flyers.
The FMCS mediation surely affects tax payers, and all sorts of people. Whether it saves money or provides a net benefit? It seems FMCS’s main “proof” of this is that FMCS claims it does so –in documents they wrote, published on the web and can link.
Maybe someone other than FMCS will step forward and explain how their work provides a net benefit when we include possibly higher personel costs under the new budget.
Lucia,
The agency Chief of staff put out a defense. It was weak.
I am astounded at the success DOGE is having finding FWA [Fraud, Waste, and Abuse].
I am curious as to the compound final savings number, for this and future budgets, [maybe this is more hype than money].
It is a political homerun for Trump….. Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents are cheering him on and Democrats are making fools of themselves in opposition.
https://doge.gov/savings
The claim to have saved $115 Billion.
The legacy media simultaneously claims that cost saving are wildly overestimated and the consequences to the cuts are devastating to our democracy, science, and world health.
I’m still waiting on word from them on whether any cut to any agency was warranted or useful in any way.
Tom Scharf,
“I’m still waiting on word from them on whether any cut to any agency was warranted or useful in any way.”
Of COURSE not. All agencies were woefully underfunded, and had income taxes been much higher, and funding for all (socialist) agencies much more generous, we would be living in a perfect world… and the grifters sucking money from those agencies would be buying beachfront condos in Hawaii.
The grift has to end.
One of the small joys in life is watching the insane left eat its own over lack of purity. Eg: “Dems pile on Schumer as bashing goes mainstream”.
Which just means the crazies are still in charge of the Dem party. The beauty of this is: every time the crazies advance within the party, the more likely the 2026 midterms keep Republicans in control in Washington.
So to leftie crazies: Yes, yes, PLEASE KEEP BEING CRAZY! The crazier you are the more you will help the Republicans return government to normal.
Steve,
The impression I have is that Dems are discovering that all of the vocal crazies they have taken in over the years (trans activists, eco terrorists, neo communists, Palestine supporters, race hustlers, etc) have no intention whatsoever of sitting down and shutting up. They aren’t going anywhere.
There’s a price to be paid in the end for summoning demons in all the stories, and that price is going to be paid right now by our friends on the Left, by the look of things.
I find I can endure their suffering with great fortitude somehow. 🙂
Yep. It looks like the crazies will be in control of the Democrat Party for the foreseeable future.
National security advisor Waltz effed up good, including a journalist on an encrypted online chat about an upcoming military operation. I’m sort of with the critics on this one; checking the list of people in on the discussion is so basic and rudimentary that I’m at a loss to understand how this was anything other than gross negligence.
Story here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/ar-AA1ByMHr
Mike and mark,
Ya. Here is the thing that is hardest for me to understand: any rational Denocrat would look at AOC and say, “Yes, she is completely nuts; what she says is disconnected from reality”. But that is not what is happening at all. Complete crazies like AOC, the ‘burn-it-down-and -start-over’ Socialists of America types, now dominate and control the Dem party, with close to a majority of the Dem seats in the House, and a very significant following in the Senate among Dems. It is both frightening and amazing.
mark bofill,
“….trans activists, eco terrorists, neo communists, Palestine supporters, race hustlers, etc”
That only scratches the surface. The common threads: 1) unhinged thinking 2) give me a lot of taxpayer money 3) wanting existing governing structures to fail completely. It just seems weird to me.
Mark: “I’m at a loss to understand how this was anything other than gross negligence.”
The situation was engineered to create that appearance? Just happened to have a journalist on a such a list doesn’t sound like incompetence to me. They were placed there by someone, and I highly doubt Waltz makes, or vets, his own lists.
I received a flyer today from a candidate for township supervisor who evidently was attempting to provide a definition of an independent. He states: ” Why am I running as an independent? Local politics has shifted so much in recent years, with one side wanting to provide services and programs and the other preferring wasteful spending. My experience and convictions place me in the middle of these opposing views.”
From that I judge he is for a moderate amount of wasteful spending. I suppose that allows him to maintain his independent credentials.
I think Schumer is toast. You can’t cross the crazies and survive undamaged. He may well lose a primary challenge by none other than the lunatic princess herself: AOC. In any case his leadership position is severely damaged….. too many crazies among Dem Senators for a pragmatist to survive unscathed.
Bernie and AOC are playing to large crowds. I hope we all can remember that Bernie well could have been the Democrat candidate for President in 2020. They are very much representative of the Democrat party – I am not shocked or even suprised.
DaveJR,
Maybe. Maybe we will find out more as time goes on.
Interesting that the MSM now sees shutting the government down as a practical political strategy, while when the Republicans threatened to do that it was going to be a tragedy in many different ways. Not unexpected once the MSM got its talking points.
I am waiting for the other shoe to drop regarding the journalist included in a secure discussion of very sensitive matters. Maybe it was just a screw up; but it smells fishy to me.
DaveJR,
Maybe Waltz does not. His people certainly should. I hold heads responsible for the failures of their underlings. But I also think we should wait for more of the story.
Somebody needs to be fired over the … uhhhh … leak of war plans. Maybe somebodies.
Clear and convincing incompetence.
OK, the White House has fessed up on the chat story.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/white-house-acknowledges-journalist-was-inadvertently-added-to-high-level-chat-on-houthi-strikes?topStoryPosition=undefined
Truly a spectacular screw up.
My guess is whoever created the group has the journalist in their contact list (why?). They probably finger fudged it. One thing for sure is it shouldn’t be very hard to get to the bottom of this. Any delay is simply a coverup.
I’m not sure I’m a fan of war plans being discussed on Telegram/Signal anyway, even if it is allegedly pretty secure. Amateur hour.
What’s next? Nuke St. Petersburg! Wait, wait … not the one in FL!
Pete Hegseth is saying no war plans were discussed.
“When asked about Goldberg’s access to the chat, Hegseth told reporters Monday, “Nobody was texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that.”
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins noted the comments from Hegseth in an interview with Goldberg Monday night.
“I want to start by getting your reaction to what we heard from Secretary Hegseth there, saying that ‘Nobody was texting war plans.’ Given you were privy to this group chat, is that how you saw it?” Collins asked.
“No, that’s a lie. He was texting war plans,” Goldberg responded. “He was texting attack plans. When targets were going to be targeted; how they were going to be targeted; who was at the targets; when the next sequence of attacks was happening.”
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5211996-atlantic-journalist-pushes-back-hegseth-war-plan-comments/
“I’m old enough to remember when Secretary Hegseth tried to publicly mock Judge Reyes—suggesting that she didn’t know what she was doing when it comes to protecting our national security.
It was … two days ago.” Steve Vladek on BlueSky
Lucia, way up thread you observed that just because Trump does moronic things it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a moron.
In theory I think that is correct. However, I must simultaneously bow to and refer you to the wisdom of Forest Gump’s mother–stupid is as stupid does.
Inviting journalists to an illegal war plans meeting? Moronic. Sending an envoy who doesn’t know the territory he’s negotiating over? Moronic. Threatening to take over Canada and Greenland? Moronic. Accepting the word (or the instructions) of a genocidal maniac as gospel? Moronic.
I swear, some of the people on this thread sound like an anguished parent in front of a juvenile court judge. ‘He’s a good kid, your honor. He just messed up.’
It is because I love the United States of America that I want her to be just. To be honorable and merciful. To be kind. And my Left has disappointed me often enough that I have had to be very critical of the Woke Brigade, etc. But at least they have the (wrong) idea that they can make America better. Trump and his henchman are just milking it and playing to the worst instincts of the Proud Boys. And because he and they are morons, they can’t even do that without messing it up. Who needs F35s when you can have a Gripen without the anguish? Who needs Kentucky bourbon when you can get champagne fresh off the shelf? Who needs a Tesla when a Chinese EV can get to full charge in 8 minutes?
I don’t know which is worse–evil or moron. But we can plainly see that they are a deadly combination–for the USA.
I also saw upthread someone (Tom Scharf?) detailing the superiority of the F35 over its European competitors. I’m not qualified to judge, but I think Tom (or whomever) is forgetting the parable of the bear. European fighters don’t need to be better than the F35. They need to be better than the Russians. I don’t specify frame numbers because the SU57 is a shambles and I don’t know what the next best thing is for the Russians.
Thomas, weren’t they talking on a voice system so no need for texting?
Fuller seems to be obsessed with the President’s performance as an arms dealer and airplane salesperson. I don’t think anybody else much cares.
This ‘moron’ closed the open southern border that the last President assured us couldn’t be done without an act of Congress. People cared about that.
This ‘moron’ is the reason Wokeism and DEI is on the run. Reading Fuller’s musings about it one might think the tide had turned because he and his fellow democrats had had enough of it, which absolutely is NOT the reason for the cultural turnaround.
The ‘moron’ is trying to put an end to the senseless war between Russia and Ukraine, where I guess the ‘smart’ move is to perpetuate the meat grinder stalemate. What the hell right, it’s not our kids dying over there. Pretty cynical, you ask me.
The ‘moron’ is trying to use tariffs to get America to a place where middle class people in manufacturing have jobs again. Ambitious and dangerous, but give the moron credit for trying. Democrat politicians gave no sign they cared in the slightest about the American middle class.
I think there’s a difference between Fuller not giving a crap about any of what the American people generally care about and Trump being a moron.
[Edit: I could go on, but going through Trump’s many triumphs is a lengthy process. But there’s definitely more we could celebrate that the ‘moron’ got right, and that Dems who I guess Fuller believes are not morons did not.]
Mark, anyone who thinks Trump’s tariff policy is a triumph definitely was on Sally Field’s mind in that movie. And Trump doesn’t care about peace in Ukraine. He cares about one-upping Barack Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize. So he’s giving Ukraine to a genocidal agressor. America will be apologizing for this ‘triumph’ for a century. Unless Trump succeeds in dragging America into a proto-fascist autocracy ala Orban’s Hungary.
You may not care. It is very obvious that many do. Enjoy your closed borders–Trump’s only success. Enjoy the consequences too.
Whoa wait, TRUMP drag us into a fascist autocracy? You mean, President Trump, who is laying waste to the federal bureaucracy and who is being hamstrung at every turn by politically appointed Federal judges in defiance of the democratic mandate bestowed on Trump by the American people? THAT Trump?
You know, there is a political party in the United States that tried to jail the leader of their political opposition though recently, not unlike Erdogan did in Turkey. Speaking of proto fascism.
The political disagreement is almost 100% about policies, not about Trump and his many personal flaws. I do note that only one side in the disagreement is tossing Molotov cocktails and shooting at cars to advance their policies….. backed by “leaders” who are unwilling to condemn plainly terrorist violence….. mostly they wink and snicker. This will not help them gain voter support.
Thomas
I know which is worse: Evil.
I’m surprised you don’t know that.
Oh noes! Tesla share price has recovered to ~$278 (from a low of $227)…. adding $20 billion to the value of Musk’s shares. Maybe fire-bombing is not a good political strategy.
Lucia,
Setting people’s cars on fire is evil. Looks like many on the left can’t see that…. which suggests they too are evil.
Yeah, left wingers set cars on fire. How evil.
H/T ChatGPT.
Right-wing terrorism in the United States has resulted in numerous tragic incidents involving the loss of innocent lives. Here are ten notable cases:
Oklahoma City Bombing (1995):
Incident: A truck bomb exploded outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Casualties: 168 people killed, including 19 children; over 600 injured.?
Perpetrators: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, motivated by anti-government sentiments.
Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting (2012):
Incident: A gunman opened fire at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin in Oak Creek.
Casualties: 6 people killed; 4 others injured.
Perpetrator: Wade Michael Page, a white supremacist and U.S. Army veteran.
Charleston Church Shooting (2015):
Incident: A shooter attacked the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church during a Bible study session.
Casualties: 9 African American parishioners killed.
Perpetrator: Dylann Roof, who espoused white supremacist beliefs.
Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting (2018):
Incident: A gunman opened fire during services at the Tree of Life synagogue.
Casualties: 11 worshippers killed; 6 others injured.
Perpetrator: Robert Bowers, motivated by anti-Semitic and anti-immigrant ideologies.
Overland Park Jewish Community Center Shooting (2014):
Incident: A shooter targeted the Jewish Community Center and a nearby retirement home in Overland Park, Kansas.
Casualties: 3 people killed.
Perpetrator: Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., a known white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader.
PBS: Public Broadcasting Service
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Shooting (2009):
Incident: A gunman opened fire at the museum’s entrance in Washington, D.C.
Casualties: 1 security guard killed.
Perpetrator: James von Brunn, a white supremacist and Holocaust denier.
Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church Shooting (2008):
Incident: A shooter attacked a children’s performance at the church.
Casualties: 2 people killed; 7 others injured.
Perpetrator: Jim David Adkisson, who cited hatred for liberals and Democrats as motivation.
Los Angeles Jewish Community Center Shooting (1999):
Incident: A gunman opened fire at the community center’s daycare facility.
Casualties: 5 people injured; subsequent murder of a postal worker.
Perpetrator: Buford O. Furrow Jr., associated with white supremacist groups.
Charlottesville Car Attack (2017):
Incident: During the “Unite the Right” rally, a car was driven into a crowd of counter-protesters.
Casualties: 1 person killed; 19 others injured.?
Perpetrator: James Alex Fields Jr., linked to white nationalist ideology.?
Family Research Council Shooting (2012):
Incident: A gunman entered the council’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., and opened fire.
Casualties: 1 security guard injured.
Perpetrator: Floyd Lee Corkins II, who targeted the organization due to its liberal positions.
Very fine people on both sides.
Oh, wait–Lefties burnt another car! Oh, the horror!
11. Buffalo Supermarket Shooting (2022)
Incident: A gunman opened fire at a Tops supermarket in a predominantly Black neighborhood in Buffalo, NY.
Casualties: 10 people killed; 3 others injured.
Perpetrator: Payton Gendron, who espoused white supremacist and Great Replacement conspiracy theories.
12. El Paso Walmart Shooting (2019)
Incident: A gunman targeted Hispanic shoppers at a Walmart in El Paso, TX.
Casualties: 23 people killed; 22 others injured.
Perpetrator: Patrick Crusius, who cited anti-immigrant beliefs and white nationalist ideology.
13. Austin IRS Building Attack (2010)
Incident: A man deliberately flew a small plane into an IRS office in Austin, TX.
Casualties: 2 people killed, including the perpetrator; 13 others injured.
Perpetrator: Joseph Stack, who left an anti-government manifesto.
14. Portland MAX Train Stabbings (2017)
Incident: A man attacked three people who were defending two young women, one of whom was wearing a hijab.
Casualties: 2 people killed; 1 injured.
Perpetrator: Jeremy Christian, who had expressed far-right and white nationalist views.
15. Kansas Militia Bomb Plot (2016, Foiled Attack)
Incident: A group plotted to bomb an apartment complex housing Somali immigrants in Garden City, KS.
Casualties: No casualties (FBI stopped the attack before execution).
Perpetrators: Three members of the far-right militia group “The Crusaders.”
16. Olympic Park Bombing (1996)
Incident: A bomb exploded during the Atlanta Olympics, and additional bombings followed in the coming years.
Casualties: 2 people killed; 111 injured.
Perpetrator: Eric Rudolph, a far-right anti-government extremist.
17. Muslim Students’ Murders in Chapel Hill (2015)
Incident: Three Muslim students were shot execution-style in their home in North Carolina.
Casualties: 3 people killed.
Perpetrator: Craig Hicks, who had a history of anti-Muslim and far-right beliefs.
18. California Synagogue Shooting (2019)
Incident: A gunman attacked worshippers at the Chabad of Poway synagogue near San Diego, CA.
Casualties: 1 person killed; 3 others injured.
Perpetrator: John Earnest, a white supremacist who also attempted to burn down a mosque.
19. Jewish Family Services Bomb Plot (2017, Foiled Attack)
Incident: A man attempted to bomb a Jewish center in Florida but was arrested before carrying out the attack.
Casualties: No casualties (FBI intervention).
Perpetrator: Richard Holzer, a self-described white supremacist.
20. Hanukkah Stabbing Attack (2019)
Incident: A man attacked a Hanukkah celebration in Monsey, NY, with a machete.
Casualties: 1 person killed; 4 others injured.
Perpetrator: Grafton Thomas, whose writings included anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
I’m loving this.
Go ahead and minimize the domestic terrorism your ideological group is committing instead of addressing it. Every little bit helps, and this could actually spell the end of the Democratic party for all time, if you and others like you stay the course. Keep it up, and good riddance!
Oh, noes! People are protesting against Elon Musk! Somebody stop them now! But Mark told me to do this, so…
21. Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting (2012)
Incident: A white supremacist opened fire at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, WI.
Casualties: 6 people killed; 4 others injured.
Perpetrator: Wade Michael Page, a neo-Nazi and member of the white power music scene.
22. Las Vegas Police Ambush (2014)
Incident: A married couple ambushed and killed two police officers eating lunch, then killed a third person before dying in a shootout.
Casualties: 3 people killed (excluding perpetrators).
Perpetrators: Jerad and Amanda Miller, anti-government extremists with ties to far-right militia movements.
23. Knoxville Church Shooting (2008)
Incident: A gunman attacked a Unitarian Universalist church, targeting liberals.
Casualties: 2 people killed; 7 others injured.
Perpetrator: Jim David Adkisson, who cited right-wing grievances in a manifesto.
24. Charlottesville Car Attack (2017)
Incident: A white supremacist drove his car into counter-protesters at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA.
Casualties: 1 person killed; 35 others injured.
Perpetrator: James Alex Fields Jr., a neo-Nazi supporter.
25. Overland Park Jewish Center Shootings (2014)
Incident: A former KKK leader targeted a Jewish community center and a Jewish retirement home.
Casualties: 3 people killed.
Perpetrator: Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., a white supremacist and anti-Semite.
26. Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood Shooting (2015)
Incident: A gunman attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, CO.
Casualties: 3 people killed; 9 others injured.
Perpetrator: Robert Lewis Dear, an anti-abortion extremist.
27. Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting (2019)
Incident: A gunman opened fire at a food festival in Gilroy, CA.
Casualties: 3 people killed; 17 others injured.
Perpetrator: Santino William Legan, who had posted white supremacist material online.
28. Federal Building Bomb Plot (2019, Foiled Attack)
Incident: A man plotted to bomb a federal building in Oklahoma City, inspired by the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
Casualties: No casualties (FBI intervention).
Perpetrator: Jerry Drake Varnell, a right-wing extremist who believed in an anti-government conspiracy theory.
29. Texas Naval Air Station Attack (2020)
Incident: A gunman opened fire at a military base, citing far-right religious extremist ideology.
Casualties: The attacker was killed; no one else was seriously injured.
Perpetrator: Adam Alsahli, who had expressed anti-Semitic and far-right views.
30. Tennessee National Guard Bomb Plot (2014, Foiled Attack)
Incident: A man attempted to attack a National Guard facility in Tennessee.
Casualties: No casualties (FBI intervention).
Perpetrator: Robert Doggart, a former congressional candidate and right-wing extremist.
Lol. Yes, more! Spam away Fuller, you’ll persuade EVERYONE youre correct by cutting and pasting tons of more garbage!
I have a lot more, sadly, if you’re interested. Lucia, you can take this as a response to your question about me distinguishing or preferring moronicity over evil. I didn’t think it was necessary to belabor something so obvious.
No, Mark. Recounting and memorializing the murder victims of right wing killers is not garbage. We’ll save that title for what you spew.
Quick question–do you spend as much time trivializing the deaths of Holocaust victims?
Maybe Lucia will be persuaded to muzzle you if you keep it up. I like hearing you whimper and cry about the decline of your misguided ideology but I’d also enjoy you being post limited.
Wassamatter, Mark? Mommy, mommy, Fuller is being nasty!
I have 100 more examples of right wing people killing innocent people. I will spare you all unless requested.
‘We’ burn cars. ‘You’ kill people.
What do you think, Lucia? I started by answering the ‘moron’ claim with reasoned argument. Thomas has resorted to spamming to disrupt the thread.
I get the sense you prefer for such tactics not to be used, but maybe I’m wrong. I can fight Fuller on even ground using whatever tactics I come up with. OR I can behave in a civilized manner, if civil behavior is a requirement here in your place.
Let’s be civil. We could call it a civil war!
Starting with civility, I will acknowledge freely that my fellow leftists also can be violent–as violent as those listed above:
Terrorist Attacks by Ideology (1970-2016): Research from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) indicated that in the 1970s, left-wing extremism accounted for 68% of terrorist attacks in the U.S. However, between 2010 and 2016, there was a significant increase in attacks by right-wing extremists (35%) and religious extremists (53%), with a decline in left-wing extremist attacks to 12%
In a separate category of Domestic Extremist-Related Killings, “According to Statista, between 2014 and 2023, 76% of all domestic extremist-related killings in the U.S. were carried out by right-wing extremists, while 19% were attributed to individuals affiliated with domestic Islamist extremism.” That sums up to 95%.
My point still stands, however. Most Leftist extreme activity is property oriented. Most Right wing extreme activity is oriented towards personal violence.
My compatriots (Whew! I almost wrote comrades.) are not perfect. We are not a league of saints. But we don’t barge into churches and synagogues and start gunning people down because of their religion or the color of their skin. That would be your side, Mark.
I’m not going to get into semantics on what “war plans” is. Including clearly unauthorized people into discussions of military strikes is not something up for debate.
This is not defensible. If Hegseth defends this as OK, he should be fired. If Trump wants to cut him some slack because he is inexperienced then that is his decision. What can’t happen is pretending this is not a big deal.
Thomas Fuller,
I think the ‘whos excrement smells worse’ argument is not even a tiny bit interesting, and is largely irrelevant to the issues we were discussing. You are incidentally wrong, as leftists own the deaths of hundreds of millions in the 20’th century, but this is neither here nor there.
Feel free to continue discussing that of course, but not with me.
and just like the US Civil War the Republican solder will be for justice and the Democrat will be for evil.
Mark, I have so far limited my observations to the US. If you want to go international, I suppose we could, but I think I have made my point adequately enough for you to bow down and acknowledge the holy righteousness thereof. Or not…
Russell, yes, Lincoln belonged to the Republican party and in that era I would have too. Why did the Republicans change so much? Or don’t you think it has changed?
Tom Scharf, the administration is indeed pretending this is not a big deal. Next steps?
I think it was Keith Kloor who told me that when he woke up in the morning and saw a million comments on a thread, he knew I had spent a lot of time there. Maybe it was Bart… Ahh, good times.
Tom Scharf,
I agree. Somebody’s head ought to roll for this.
Thomas,your post:
“Russell, yes, Lincoln belonged to the Republican party”
It wasn’t just Lincoln, the Republican Party was solidly anti slavery.
And the Democrats:
“In the South, Democrats were the dominant political force and overwhelmingly supported the Confederacy. They defended slavery, states’ rights, and the Southern way of life, which they saw as threatened by the Republican-led federal government. Most Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis, were Democrats.”
From Grok
Russell,
Dems usually point me to this when I point that out. Maybe you will do better with that line of argument than I do though.
The great thing here is lighting cars on fire and shooting into buildings (and the occasional “mostly peaceful” protests/riots/looting that kill and injure police and others) will only make Dems return to power less likely, not more. Keep it up Thomas to ensure Dems don’t control the House after 2026.
Here is a distinction that Thomas seems to miss: Nobody I know thinks right wing lunatics are justified in shooting up a church or synagogue or blowing up a government building. It is always perpetrated by a crazy person or a few crazy people, with no real support among conservatives…. the crazies get condemnation, not tacit approval. The fire bombing of Tesla dealers (and private cars and charging stations) is tacitly supported by many people on the left…. no widespread condemnation. Politically motivated punishment for Musk supporting policies the left doesn’t like. And don’t forget: looting stores… often followed by arson… is really just a form of ‘reparations’ for slavery 150 years ago…. also tacitly supported by many on the left.
“29. Texas Naval Air Station Attack (2020)
Incident: A gunman opened fire at a military base, citing far-right religious extremist ideology.”
Islamic terrorism = far right religious ideology…
“27. Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting (2019)
Incident: A gunman opened fire at a food festival in Gilroy, CA.
Casualties: 3 people killed; 17 others injured.
Perpetrator: Santino William Legan, who had posted white supremacist material online.”
White supremacist material = ‘Read Might Is Right by Ragnar Redbeard. Why overcrowd towns and pave more open space to make room for hordes of mestizos and Silicon Valley white twats?”
The author sums up his work as follows:
This book is a reasoned negation of the Ten Commandments—the Golden Rule–the Sermon on the Mount—Republican Principles—Christian Principles—and “Principles” in general. It proclaims upon scientific evolutionary grounds, the unlimited absolutism of Might, and asserts that cut-and-dried moral codes are crude and immoral inventions, promotive of vice and vassalage.[2]”
Far right material?
If I went through the rest of the list, how many more dubious examples would I find?
Mark,
Do you have a Cliff Notes version of that?
I’m sorry Russell, that was poor form on my part, sure.
The idea is that Republicans ‘switched sides’ and became champions of racism to appeal to southern white voters in the 50’s and 60’s.
Who knows? Maybe this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It was eighty years ago.
Dave,
Yes. You and me (and Thomas, and probably everyone else reading as well for that matter) both know that the device Thomas used was to flood his interlocuter with so much material that answering him would take considerable time and effort. Thomas didn’t care about the quality of any of those items, he was quickly throwing AI generated shit at the wall to see if any of it stuck, so to speak, and did so knowing that it’d cost his interlocuters time and effort to clean up the mess. As far as I am concerned, his resorting to such tactics in the first place illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of his position. If you look back (and as he himself appears to fondly reminisce about), this is a tactic he employs repeatedly over time.
Tom Scharf,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK_lhcJN2Nw&list=TLPQMjUwMzIwMjUtt218ZFs3Ew&index=3
Five Eyes may become Four.
SteveF,
Exactly. What did we just see Fuller do here? ‘Oh, my side just destroys property, it’s OK.’ No condemnation from Thomas Fuller.
Yeah, Mark. Just like you didn’t condemn synagogue and church massacres. They were just Jews and black people.
Very civil, aren’t we?
I absolutely condemn those. People who commit violence based on race or religion have no part in my party, as far as I am concerned.
Have no place is what I meant to say, not part, beg pardon. Work intrudes..
A few crazies on the right hate people because of their race or religion. A huge number of people on the left hate people because they reject leftist policies. Not the same thing at all.
So violence that is not based on race or religion is okay, then?
Just… kidding… enjoy work, Mark.
BTW, I neither condone nor accept violence against people or property for any reason, political or otherwise. Give Peace a Chance! Imagine all the people, living life in peace…
LOL Thomas. I will give you this; music is crap these days. At least your hippie cohort produced good music way back when.
Ciao.
.
[Edit: Sometimes violence is necessary and even proper, yes. It’s why we have a military and police. A discussion for another day I guess.]
Define huge, SteveF. And then tell us how you know this. Did you ask a huge number of people? Or did Mark Levin and Joe Rogan tell you? HYYYUUUUUUUGGE, I tell you! HYUUUUUUGE.
But they’re not shooting at you. Unlike the right wing extremists shooting at leftists, Jews and black people. See the difference?
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was more strongly supported by Republicans than Democrats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party
That goes against the idea that Republicans were courting southern racists. The real divide in Congress was southerners (almost unanimously against) and non-southerners (overwhelmingly in favor, from both parties).
Nixon’s Southern Strategy was based on southern Democrats being much more conservative than the Democrat party as a whole.
Hey before I go, there *is* a big anti-semitic block in the US right now. A bunch of people who chant things like ‘from the river to the sea’.
Do you know, now that I think about it.. I don’t believe those are right wingers!
Thank God our idiots and haters don’t use guns. Although those chants could bore me to death.
Yes, MikeM, there are several periods in our history when the Republican Party was demonstrably better than my Democratic Party. I would have cheerfully switched had I been living then.
Sadly, this is not one of those periods. The Democratic Party today is awful. No leadership, no resistance to bad policies from the administration, no loyalty–they are horrible.
And they are ten times better than the Republicans of today.
At least the chat group has the correct views on Europe, ha ha. Why are the Europeans making near zero effort to keep shipping lanes open?
Trump Prompts European Calls for a Homegrown Nuclear Umbrella
The U.S. is the biggest nuclear power in Europe, but doubts about Washington’s commitment has leaders questioning their weapons arrangements
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/europe-nuclear-umbrella-france-britain-nato-10c78d15?st=V8RXS2&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
To be clear, the US is calling out Europe for being a free rider. Being upset at the US for calling them out is a bit strange. Calling them out behind closed doors has had no effect. Nobody likes dependency and the US is tired of perceived European entitlement.
The EU / USA squabbling over defense arrangements is like millionaire players and owners fighting over sports contracts and then going on strike. Can’t these people work out an equitable arrangement?
Three years after a land war started in Europe they have barely done anything beyond mighty words, gentile posturing, and committee meetings.
Tom Scharf, you are IMO completely correct.
“gentile posturing”?
Do you remember the baseball player Jim Gentile? I always wondered about the source of his name…
“But they’re not shooting at you.”
Really? Tell the people at the Trump rally.
Maybe sending swat teams to the homes of conservatives isn’t directly shooting at them, but it’s a close second, and the goal is the same: have somebody else shoot them…. it is pure politically motivated violence.
“https://www.newsweek.com/maga-swatting-homes-armed-police-2044774”
Mark,
Thomas F is beclowning himself by refusing to criticize people who are burning cars right now and doing it as political protest. He can continue to beclown himself.
No one thinks posting a bunch of events that happened over decades and which no one justified or applauded some how makes the current spree of setting things on fire along with enthusiastic celebration ok. Well, almost no one.
Those excusing or applauding people setting cars on fire or minimizing how bad that behavior is are evil. Similarly, people who excused or applauded those mass murders minimizing how bad that behavior is would be evil. All these peoples would also be morons.
I think the second category is the empty set. The first set is not empty — especially if you count the people minimizing those behaviors and suggesting they are not evil.
gentile posturing … looks my brain’s thesaurus is failing again, just another step of endless decay. The intention was elite posturing.
I would point out that one party candidate has had two assassination attempts that would count as political violence in a world without deranged academic scorekeepers who coincidently also spout on about existential threats to democracy, but this is a pointless debate.
I find the view that the Republican party somehow owns antisemitic violence a bit curious given recent events.
There will be no end to the supply of lunatics or extreme political rhetoric. Argue about that resulting in violence with people who support it if you can find them.
Just to confirm Lucia’s opinion of me:
Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) – 2017
Incident: In 2017, Rep. Eric Swalwell, a vocal critic of Donald Trump, was targeted by a SWATting attempt. A false emergency call was made to authorities claiming there was an active shooter at his residence. Law enforcement responded in full force, but no threat was found.
Impact: Swalwell later spoke out about the incident, emphasizing the dangers of SWATting and the potential for violent escalation.
Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) – 2018
Incident: In 2018, a SWATting attempt targeted Senator Kamala Harris, who was then serving as the junior senator from California. The false report claimed that there was a hostage situation in her home. Police responded to her residence but found no threat.
Impact: This incident highlighted the risk of SWATting and the growing number of such attacks on political figures.
Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) – 2018
Incident: Rep. Maxine Waters, a progressive Democrat known for her outspoken opposition to President Trump, was the target of a SWATting attempt in 2018. The false report to authorities claimed that Waters had been involved in a violent crime, prompting a large police presence at her home.
Impact: Waters, like many other targets, used the opportunity to call for better protections for elected officials and warned against the increasing threats of violence against political figures.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) – 2019
Incident: In 2019, a SWATting attempt occurred at the home of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A fake emergency was reported to law enforcement, claiming that she had been involved in an active shooter situation. The police responded but found no emergency.
Impact: The incident was part of a larger trend of targeting progressive politicians with SWATting, and Ocasio-Cortez later addressed the danger and the need for more safety measures for lawmakers.
Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) – 2020
Incident: In 2020, Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Somali-American congresswoman, was targeted by a SWATting attempt after facing criticism and threats from far-right groups. A false emergency call was made, leading law enforcement to her residence. Police found no threat.
Impact: Omar, who had been the subject of numerous threats during her tenure in Congress, used this SWATting attempt to advocate for better security for elected officials.
Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) – 2017
Incident: In 2017, a SWATting attempt was made at the home of then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. A false report claiming that Pelosi had been involved in a violent altercation was made to law enforcement, triggering a large police response. Fortunately, no threat was found.
Impact: The incident drew attention to the dangers of SWATting, particularly for high-profile political figures like Pelosi, and underscored the security risks faced by top lawmakers.
Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) – 2018
Incident: Rep. Adam Schiff, a leading member of the House Intelligence Committee and a vocal critic of President Trump, was targeted by a SWATting attempt in 2018. The false report to law enforcement indicated an active shooter situation at his residence, but police found no evidence of any crime when they arrived.
Impact: Schiff was one of several Democratic politicians who spoke out about the growing number of SWATting incidents, urging both law enforcement and tech platforms to take action against online harassment.
Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) – 2019
Incident: In 2019, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a progressive congresswoman from Michigan, was targeted by a SWATting attempt after receiving threats from far-right extremists. The false report claimed a violent crime had taken place at her home, leading to a police response. No emergency was found upon their arrival.
Impact: Tlaib and other targeted members of Congress called attention to the alarming rise in political violence and online extremism, and the need for better protection for public officials.
Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) – 2020
Incident: In 2020, Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, was also targeted by a SWATting attempt. A false emergency call was made to law enforcement, claiming an active shooter situation at Khanna’s home. Police responded but found no evidence of a crime.
Impact: This incident is part of a larger pattern of harassment directed at progressive politicians, underscoring the dangers of SWATting and the need for increased safety measures for elected officials.
Representative Lauren Underwood (D-IL) – 2020
Incident: In 2020, Rep. Lauren Underwood, a Democratic congresswoman from Illinois, was targeted by a SWATting attempt. A false report was made to the authorities, claiming that she had been involved in a violent crime, which led to a heavy police response. There was no threat found when authorities arrived at her home.
Impact: Underwood, like other Democratic officials, expressed concern about the rise in SWATting and other forms of political violence, urging both government agencies and the public to take these threats seriously.
Lucia, please read my comment at 8:38: “BTW, I neither condone nor accept violence against people or property for any reason, political or otherwise. Give Peace a Chance! Imagine all the people, living life in peace…”
I don’t like people on my side of the fence burning cars. I don’t like them chanting from the river to the sea. I express my opinions to them about this in the appropriate forums (fora?).
But when people like Mark try to tar all Democrats (or Dimocrats, as he likes to say) with the brush of either burning or cheering the burning of cars and to characterize it as a crime deserving of… what? the death penalty?… I’m going to remind him that his side of the fence has problems too.
As for decades old, I guess 2024 is just so… passe…
Thomas W Fuller
March 25, 2025 at 8:49 am
Oh? I think this is a rather hasty conclusion. Chicago has been dubbed murder capital of the US. Voting goes far left in that city. Lots of murders use guns.
News reporters don’t generally interview the gun toting murderers to learn their political affiliation. I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion they mostly lean right.
Just because no one asks and no one has done a study of the political leanings of random Chicago murderers doesn’t mean they don’t have leanings.
I beg your pardon.
I challenge you, Thomas, to link a single instance where I EVER used the term ‘Dimocrats’. This is an outright lie, I have never used that term.
I would appreciate your apology and retraction of this lie.
If I’m wrong, (certainly possible–could have been another commenter) I apologize unreservedly.
Lucia, read my comments, please. I was talking about analysis of violence that was judged to have been politically motivated, not violence in general. What? Democrats commit crimes? Stop the presses.
Lucia,
I understand. Thank you for your response.
WSJ: “The Atlantic’s report has put a spotlight on national security adviser Mike Waltz, who organized the group thread”
Trump is defending him, for now. He would be justified in firing him. Everyone else on the chat could see who was in the group so nobody has an out here. This is why we end up with very expensive and hard to use secure communication systems.
“Dimocrats” I like that. Try to remember who said it, I want to thank him [or her].
[Childish, I know, but I like it anyway]
My own:
Dopeocrats
Wokeocrats
Thomas
This fall far short of condemning them. If you don’t want to be thought to be evil, do better.
Only “don’t like?” So still unwilling to actually condemn them. As you can see above– tons of people are condemning the mass murders.
Has he claimed all Democrats are tarred with this? There clearly are some who are cheering. There are also some who find themselves unable to condemn the burnings. And some who want to point out it’s “only” property damage.
Sure you can point out there are bad Republican’s. But you haven’t found anyone here saying the murderers are “ok”. Everyone condemns those people.
I am reading your comments. I quoted a conclusion you made– it was brood and rather hasty. You seem to be on your retreat to the Motte after trying to claim the Bailey.
Yep. Motte-Bailey.
My point wasn’t that Democrats commit crimes. My point was that you appear to have made a hasty conclusion that those in your party (i.e. Dems/those on left) don’t use guns. I think there is strong circumstantial evidence some on the left do use guns. It’s even plausible just as many violent gun deaths are by left-leaning. We just don’t have data because people don’t ask individual murders their political leanings.
Thomas Fuller,
Your conditional apology is not satisfactory.
You do not appear to have any idea whether or not your claim is true or false, nor are you concerned about it. I think the term for this, at best, is ‘bullshitting’.
Bullshitting in general sucks. Bullshitting about specific people is worse, IMO.
To illustrate:
It is disgusting in the extreme, all of the young children you have personally raped and murdered, Thomas Fuller. You should be ashamed to show your face here.
[It’s possible I have you mistaken for someone else, and if so I apologize.]
Thomas
I want to add a response to this specifically:
To whatever extent these are politically motivated (and if you look at the underlying stories, it’s generally unclear they were), they are an individual’s motives. They are not the motives of a collection of individuals. These mass murders aren’t planned by any collection of people. They aren’t applauded by people.
At least as far as we can tell, the torching of and shooting at Tesla’s is not a single individual with some isolated fringe idea. It is a widespread activity– a wave of attacks– being conducted by numerous people. The idea that Teslas specifically should be attacked is certainly being picked up. While one can’t say all Democrats are applauding or excusing, it’s certainly more than just one or two applauding or excusing.
And for the record, the crazies doing this are using guns. Or at least I infer that. I doubt theis report involved a water pistol.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/18/us/tesla-fire-las-vegas-explosion/index.html
And you can’t even say this behavior is wrong. You don’t like that people on your side do it. Well, I don’t like Tofu. That’s not a condemnation of Tofu or people who serve Tofu. I also don’t like beets.
Evidently, there has been an injury associated with Tesla fires
https://nypost.com/2025/03/18/us-news/south-carolina-anti-musk-activist-who-vandalized-tesla-dealership-accidentally-sets-himself-on-fire/
Headline “Hapless anti-Musk activist sets himself on fire after attacking South Carolina Tesla charging station with Molotov cocktails”
On the subject of condemning violence…
Whenever a right wing nut job commits an act of violence the legacy media rush to ask prominent Republicans if they condemn the violence.
But when a left wing nut job commits acts of violence the media never ask prominent Democrats if they condemn the violence.
I can’t remember a single Democrat being asked to condemn an act of violence by left wing perpetrators.
Mark/Thomas
As admin, I can do a word search on all comments ever posted here. In the entire history of this blog, there have been 4 comments that use the term Dimocrats. They appear in this order.
Since it’s 1 typed letter off from the correct spelling, I am actually surprised there wasn’t some random typo in the history. I know I once wrote something like “demoncrats”.
But it seems the person who introduced the term here is Thomas Fuller. Or perhaps he read it at some other blog or forum he frequents. It seems it was already coined. The term can be found in the wikitionary.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dimocrat
At the present time, circulation of this term seems small. It’s use peaked sometime between 1820 and 1840.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=dimocrats&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3
I judge the people who judge that a violent attack is political to be biased. It’s a “person who happens to be right wing” versus “definitive proof of political intent required” exercise. It’s pretty transparent but the usual suspects lap it up.
If we get into general gun violence then they like to include suicides to even out any perceived partisan distribution. There are lots of dependencies, poverty, education, culture, genetics, etc. Politics isn’t a very strong driver. The dead gang bangers aren’t wearing MAGA hats.
We have laws against violence. Every act is motivated by something and varying grades of mental illness are prevalent. People who are irrationally angry about politics are more likely to get violent, but they also tend to be irrationally angry about a lot of things. They are mentally ill violent people first, partisans second.
Lucia, thanks for the vindication, at least insofar as this blog goes.
“As top Trump aides sent texts on Signal, flight data show a member of the group chat was in Russia” CBS
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability
Some of you guys think these people should be taken seriously?
I am surprised that not one of the participants except maybe Jeffrey Goldberg understood what was wrong.
Mark Bofill,
“It’s possible I have you mistaken for someone else, and if so I apologize.”
I am sure that is the same excuse Thomas would use for calling commenters here “racist bastards”. Like “Oh, you may not be a racist bastard, and if you are not, then I am sorry. I was only talking about all the other racist bastards who comment here.” Utterly dishonest.
John,
It was a big eff up, for sure.
This said, have you ever been in a large meeting where you didn’t personally know all of the players? I’ve been in many. Frankly, I have no idea who should or should not be on the WebEx if they aren’t a member of my department, or if I don’t happen to know who they are for some other reason.
But this is not to dismiss it. It was a big eff up, and somebody ought to get axed for it, no question. Our country can’t be run this way.
john ferguson,
“Some of you guys think these people should be taken seriously?”
Yes, I take the administration very seriously. The southern border is effectively closed to illegal immigration. The attacks on shipping in the Red Sea will end. The war in Ukraine will not go on much longer.
Having a reporter listen in was a terrible mistake, but I doubt that means the Russians were also invited to the conversation. To the reporter’s credit, he didn’t tell the Houthis what was planned.
Mark, I apologize unconditionally. I also condemn my fellow leftists that torch cars or commit other acts of vandalism / destruction of property. I actually though my previous disavowals of their behavior to amount to condemnation. To be clear, I condemn it. Those who did it should be prosecuted.
I did not call anyone on this blog a racist bastard. I used that term for the racist bastard that erased Jackie Robinson’s profile.
Lucia, I think most of your criticism of what I have written here is entirely misplaced.
Several agencies charged with the collection of data and analysis of that data regarding extremist violence and domestic terrorism have repeatedly written that it is far more commonly found to be committed by right wing extremists.
You have repeatedly asked me to condemn leftists who vandalize Teslas. You could point me to any time you asked any conservative to condemn right wing murders, massacres, terrorism… You might say ‘of course I don’t need to ask them–everyone condemns this stuff.’ But then, you might have afforded me the same implicit courtesy.
You say right wing terrorists are individuals. Tell it to the Proud Boys. Tell it to Donald Trump who said he would pay their legal fees. Well, those torching Teslas are individuals too, but I don’t claim they are acting individually–they’re caught up in the moment and being criminally stupid. But right wing terrorists don’t wake up one spring morning and say ‘I think I’ll go down to the synagogue and kill me some Jews.’ I think it is rank hypocrisy to even intimate that. There is history for each of them.
I am sorry that I am not familiar with either Motte or Bailey.
Signal is just an encrypted communications app. It’s irrelevant where any participants are. Somebody controls Signal servers and somebody knows exactly how encryption keys are made. It’s open source and theoretically secure, although I imagine the NSA has worked pretty hard at breaking this encryption since a lot of bad guys use this or Telegram.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)
No amount of fancy cryptography gets around “idiot chooses to include a journalist”. Fat fingering in “Vlad (Moscow)” may not end well either.
We shouldn’t be discussing national security details using this IMO. This is inexcusable. They bypassed all security precautions because they were lazy. I expect / demand better.
That’s why they have SCIFs. ‘But her emails!….’
SteveF,
I repeat once more that it isn’t at all impossible that Trump and associates will do some wonderful things, certainly things that the previous regime seemed incapable of doing, but the cost is too many loose-ends, the product of elevating tv-personalities far beyond their experience or aptitude.
I think I would have expected Stephen Miller would have known better, but maybe this is another case like the Korean Airliner cockpit interactions approaching a descent into the rocks where the second in command is afraid of informing the Captain that they are looking at what we used to refer to as an “Off-airport landing” I suspect that the Trump management array suffers from the same thing. It was also true at Biden’s shop where no-one was prepared to tell him what they really thought.
Very well Thomas. I will drop the matter.
Had Trump ever read Clausewitz, assuming he ever read anything, he’d have learned that Clausewitz had recognized as early as 1815, that if a general doesn’t receive bad news, news he hates, almost every day, he should assume that it’s being kept from him, investigate and cure the filtering.
He said he knew nothing about it. Which is worse? He’s lying or he’s telling the truth?
Yes, this is a huge step down from President Biden, who wasn’t aware he’d frozen L[N]G permits. Now THAT was a President who stayed on top of details.
Around 2010, I learned that one of the more popular email encryption sites was run by some of the techs at Fort Meade. I can’t remember all of the guys I knew who hadn;t grokked it mostly using it to trade guns on, which I suspect was not what the listeners wre interested in.
Gullible?
BTW, just because I’m higly sceptical of any prowess which Trump might have which has any benefit to the rest of us doesn’t mean that I had any respect for Biden, who in some ways was even worse.
At least with Trump, there isn;t any real mystery about what he intends, or where he’s coming from.
Yes, Trump is not a mystery. He is lifting sanctions on Russia in exchange for… nothing.
John,
Too funny. Encryption has to happen locally of course for it to be any good.
. I’ll ask joe to ask around and see if anyone will relay my plaintext message for encryption! Haha
John,
Well. It was Trump or Biden or Harris. Biden appeared to be the preferred choice over Trump for four years, so the comparison generally seems relevant. I take the liberty of assuming you supported Biden until he was out, after which you supported Harris preferentially to Trump. This is not a baseless assumption. We never learned all that much about Harris, but she appeared to have significant issues.
I guess what I’m saying is, we all know Trump isn’t perfect. He was the best we could do, given the circumstances. All things considered (such as the likely alternatives) he seems pretty good to me!
HI Mark, Although You’ve guessed right about my choices, one of the things which makes our past choices questinable is that we have no idea what sort of disaters we wuld have had in eithe Hillary or Harris regimes, or Gore for that matter. It’s so easy to be perfect when you’re out of office.
That sai, I’m still choking on all of the childish revenge Trump seems to have tied himself up in.
It’s also possible that Harris might have been managed by competent people, although I concede that their goals would not have been yours or in many ways mine either.
Sunday night’s PBS special on birth control options referred to intra (inter?)uterine devices being implanted in people.
akkkkkkk!!!!!
Mostly security clearances, right?
You know, down here in ‘little people’ world, security clearances go inactive after people haven’t needed them for a couple of years. They’re a privilege people are allowed to keep when there’s cause for it, not a right for former officials and lawyers and whatnot to keep in perpetuity.
It’s almost .. what is that word AOC and Sanders aren’t supposed to use? Oh yes. It’s almost as if there’s a permanent oligarchy class that get special treatment the rest of us don’t.
Thomas,
You have finaly condemened the behavior. I don’t know why you thought your previous statements were “condemnation”.
I don’t.
So? This doesn’t address my criticisms of what you have written.
Huh? You were engaged in a discussion of specific behavior: The current burning of Teslas by (presumably) leftwing people. In that specific discussion, You posted long responses that amounted to “what aboutisms” and trying to make the case that the other side was some how worse. You were the one who spent time trying to say “all” your side did was property destruction.
I’m the context of you saying all that here, very recently, I pointed out that you were not condeming the leftists who did that. (I didn’t ask you to do it– I just pointed out you were not doing so.)
You now seem to think there would be some balance if I were to have somehow, somewhere condemned some unnamed right wing murderers, massacres or terrorism. I’m pretty sure at some point in my life I have condemned the holocaust or said some murder some place was attrocious. But I would guess I haven’t spent time doing so here on this blog because we haven’t discussed those topics. But I guess for the record, I will now formally condemn the holocaust, the trail of tears march, tons of stuff done by Pol Pot, Boko Haram, Stalin and the WWII Japanese. Sadly, I can’t make a complete list of everyone I condemn for attrocities because:
You seem to think there is some equivalence to pointing out you don’t condemn the Tesla burners when you are here telling us all they are doing is property damage. That’s pretty dang close to defending their behavior — if only by minimizing. And then you decide you bring up the behavior of stray individuals who committed crimes in disorganized ways and try to tar people whose politics you disagree with with those loonie people’s behavior.
In responses to the cases you brought up, I said they were individuals. If you don’t want someone to point out that your attack on “the right” involves a bunch of disorganized individuals who have nothing to do with each other each doing something different over decades, then don’t use that collection as your defense.
No? Maybe some person you are thinking up didn’t say that that morning. They planned. But some crazies do act individually or almost individually. For example: The Tsarnaev brothers. They weren’t “linked in” to some grand movement, taking orders from anyone. They were generally condemned. (While I’m at it, let me condemn the Tsarnaev brothers. And also that kid who shot up people at a 4th of July party in Highland park.)
I continue to believe my criticism of you is entirely sound. You don’t need to accept it as sound for it to be so.
Google is your friend.
Evidently you are not. Your whataboutism and misidentifying the sequence of my comments and imputing things to me that a) have no basis in reality and b) could have been clarified by a simple question lead me to believe that you are more interested in scoring brownie points with your loyal and conservative following than in having a real discussion.
“You seem to think there is some equivalence to pointing out you don’t condemn the Tesla burners when you are here telling us all they are doing is property damage.” Find where I said that. Maybe Google is your friend too.
Find where you said that. Ok.
Fuller : 246712 : ..My point still stands, however. Most Leftist extreme activity is property oriented..
Bofill: 246728: ..What did we just see Fuller do here? ‘Oh, my side just destroys property, it’s OK.’ No condemnation from Thomas Fuller.
Fuller: 246729: ..Yeah, Mark. Just like you didn’t condemn synagogue and church massacres.
As the resident conspiracy theory aficionado, I have another:
Perhaps including Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg was not an accident; maybe it was a trap. I know they don’t like him, From AI:
“He has been described by critics as a liberal, a Zionist and a “frequent critic of Israel”. The New York Times reported that he “shaped” The Atlantic’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 United States presidential election, only the third endorsement in the magazine’s 160-year history.”
Maybe that’s why they were using that dubious Signal platform, too.
We, of course, will never know if it was a covert ploy.
Whatever it was, it backfired politically.
Ouch!:
I just got slapped in the face. Heh. Maybe it was justified! I’ll think about it.
Russell,
I’m reading Ratcliffe now says Signal was A-OK and approved for business use, and I’m reading Gabbard claim no classified information was spilled anyway.
We are sort of taking Goldberg’s word about that.
From here:
The March 18, 2025 Pentagon memo adds, “Please note: third-party messaging apps (e.g. Signal) are permitted by policy for unclassified accountability/recall exercises but are not approved to process or store non-public unclassified information.”
Did the conversation contain classified information, or “non-public unclassified information”? It certainly seemed like such a discussion would contain classified information. [I haven’t read the Atlantic article.] But it sounds like the participants were, at the least, not careful about classification concerns.
Of course, recent Presidents have demonstrated that they — well, I suppose it’s really their staffs — are not good at following proper procedure for classified information. That doesn’t excuse the negligence (or so it seems) in this case. When I was working, we used to get regular talking-tos about the need to protect secrets, and the methods/restrictions surround these. While those sessions were sometimes boring, perhaps all White House & Cabinet personnel should be subjected to same.
Harold,
My guess is it would normally be considered classified. This said, the President is the final authority on this. If the Commander in Chief says something isn’t classified, it’s not classified. AFAICT anyways. But had the leak not occurred I’m fairly sure this information would have been considered classified yeah.
read jeffrey goldberg’s bio. He’s not an ordinary reporter. I also suspect that lying about or misrepresentation of what he wintnessed would be more costly to him than it apparently is to members of the Trump regime.
“We are going to hit XYZ’s house with a Hellfire missile” would certainly be classified, at least until the attack took place… After? Not so much. It was a foolish mistake to have accidentally invited a journalist to join; I doubt it will have much long term effect on US security.
Thomas,
Said it directly? No. You communicate by implication. That’s why it’s “seem to think”.
Here you go:
Using sarcasms
And implying all “you” do is burn cars vs others who do bad things
More minimizing property damage– once again sarcasms
You may think you don’t sound like you are minimizing the arson, and shooting at Tesla plants, but these sure sound like minimizing it to me.
Oh noes! Tesla stock up another $10 today….. adding $4 billion to Musk’s share value. Tim Walz must by now be depressed. OTOH Minnesota’s state pension fund also added a lot of value.
Has anybody here used Signal? Luddite that I am, I have not. From what I have seen of this (I have not gone to the original), Goldberg did not actually know who else was included in the chat. He had to infer that. So he speculated that ‘SM’ was Steven Miller, etc.
That would imply that others in the group would not have been able to know who else was included in the chat. Maybe Goldberg was identified as ‘JG’ and there was some other JG who should have been included. If that is so, it would seem to be a serious design flaw in the software.
I think that might greatly reduce culpability for all involved except the person who added Goldberg. He was obviously careless. Also, for the mistake to happen it would seem that somebody had Goldberg’s contact info on a secure phone. I can’t see a good reason for that.
Mike,
Good points. I agree.
The bottom line is, Trump is the guy voters elected to be in charge of all this, to use his judgment. We can all second guess him all we want to, but it doesn’t actually make any difference. He’s apparently decided Waltz deserves another chance, so. That’s that. Anyone who wants to tell us otherwise should persuade the voters three and a half years from now, not us.
Mike,
From this story:
This story also claims Goldberg has lied before to smear Trump:
I’ve never used Signal. The story definitely does sound like a screw up. Certainly, someone (or two) should be tasked with vetting the list of participants, which includes figuring out who “JG” and and whether they belong in the meeting.
Sounds like some things were shared that definitely should not have been. Was classified stuff shared? Dunno.
It is very unlikely anyone is going to lie about a conversation that’s written down and everyone has access to. It is what it is. I find the “not classified” as a dissembling dodge.
Talking about a near future military strike would probably be quite prosecutable if Goldberg had gotten the information illicitly and then revealed this and it caused negative consequences. About 1000 lawyers probably reviewed his article.
Goldberg is the editor in chief of The Atlantic. The Atlantic was one of the most virulent anti-Trump magazines this election. They ran one entire month on the consequences of a Trump that had the FUD turned up to 11.
He is quite partisan but that is irrelevant to somebody doing something idiotic. This was a gift tied up with a golden bow for him. He doesn’t need to lie about this.
Lucia,
I agree. Still, it helps me understand why nobody caught the mistake. But certainly it could have and should have been caught by somebody/s checking and rechecking; security isn’t generally rocket science.
SteveF,
These guys have been in office about 7 weeks. One might assume from this revelation that all manner of communications have been conducted in unsecure environments both physical and electronic. One might assume that the folks on that call had no idea what was appropriate, or for that matter required by regulation.
What else would you think when none of these guys objected to conducting this discussion on private phones using a commercial encryption system? One about which warnings had been issued the previous week?
John,
I’d wonder why Ratcliffe said this, if it was really inappropriate to use Signal for this purpose:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/25/inside-cias-use-signal-americas-enemies-try-hack/
The fact is, our government sucks at cybersecurity. China hacked OBM and stole security clearance applications for about 20 million people about 10 years ago. There is nothing new about this. We continue to try to come to grips with the issue, but we are hacked all the time.
It’s only a problem when people are looking critically at the government. Another reason to be grateful for Trump in office I guess; I think it’s good for people to finally be looking critically at the government again for a change. But let’s not lose our perspective about it.
Does someone like Waltz or Rubio manage his own contact lists? Does he set up group chats himself? Is it his job to proofread who was added to the group? I am thinking that all 3 answers are “no”. That is what staff are for. It might even be that such tasks are assigned to permanent employees as a sort of tech support.
I would think that there must be protocols for managing such apps when sensitive information might be involved. It would seem that the protocols were either inadequate or not followed. I note that the Trump administration inherited the system from the Biden administration.
It was a horrible screw up. It should not have happened. But I do not think we know enough to assign blame, other than on the principle of “the buck stops here”.
Signal isn’t really the issue here, it is theoretically a good product.
A secure defense department system wouldn’t allow a journalist or any uncleared person to be accidentally added to a conversation.
Secure systems are a pain to use which is their main flaw, but they have to protect people from themselves which was self evidently needed in this case.
The primary failure would be Walz’s who apparently setup the group chat. I presume it is nearly identical to setting up a group message chat in normal phone apps.
There is some chance that some on the Trump team don’t trust the designated secure systems. The deep state may be listening …
Tom,
I personally agree with you and that lines up with what I’ve been taught. I’d still repeat though that at the end of the day, what the Commander in Chief says is by definition the gospel regarding what is necessary and sufficient security. In fact, isn’t the whole darn classification system prescribed by executive order in the first place? I read this and think it might be:
Here:
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/appendix/12958.html#:~:text=Classification%20Authority.,in%20the%20Federal%20Register%3B%20and
Wikipedia thinks so too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States
I think the classified or not classified is a side show. It might be important if legal proceedings occurred (2026 …) and gross negligence was alleged. Nothing really happened because Goldberg kept the information undisclosed. Trump can declare it is unclassified but I’m not really buying it.
I’m focused on some dumba**es being so dumba** as to not frickin check the list of participants on such a discussion. And WTF is Goldberg doing in his contact list? I can see reasons for that but the question needs answered.
If they aren’t going to be completely transparent about what happened here then it does need an investigation. It can’t happen again.
I understand you now I think. Yes. There’s what’s legal and procedurally correct and what is actually secure. I’m saying whatever the President says regarding security is procedurally correct and .. I think anyways .. legal. This has nothing to do with what is actually secure of course.
Thanks.
[Edit: I didn’t say that particularly well. It’s not whatever the President says, exactly, but what he orders via executive order.]
Nah. I don’t really get what you’re saying. It’s ok. I don’t have to.
Shrug.
The discussions here a few weeks ago got me back into making yogurt. I just finished incubating another batch in the Instant Pot….. nothing exotic just 2% cow’s milk and Cabot yogurt as a starter. It smelled like yogurt and behaved like yogurt. I’ll give it the taste test after it sets up tomorrow.
Something I really don’t understand: Chuck Schumer and several other (5?) Dem senators voted to allow the Republican bill increasing the debt limit to proceed, yet it is only Schumer who is being attacked by his party’s most extreme members. If there were 6 of 46 who voted to advance the bill, that means a significant fraction of the caucus thought keeping the government open was better than the alternative. So why the focus on Schumer? I really don’t get it. Maybe the whole point was to let Dem senators in competitive states avoid a vote that could hurt them in their next election, with Schumer taking the heat, but I haven’t seen much commentary on all the other senators.
“It’s woke, let’s not go”
That’s what moviegoers are saying about Disney’s $250,000,000 fiasco Snow White.
Woke and DEI created this monstrosity.
For example, there is no Prince Charming; instead, Snow White falls in love with a bandit who is leading a group that steals from the monarchy to give to the poor.
And, Snow White is portrayed by an actress of color
And, it’s a live action film but the used CGI to pencil in fake dwarves “To avoid reinforcing stereotypes from the original animated film”
Hollywood’s star dwarf actor, Peter Dinklage [Game of Thrones] was pissed and calls Snow White and Seven Dwarfs remake ‘f*cking backwards’
It’s also being panned by critics with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 42.
edit; The evil witch is Isralie Gal Gadot
I was mistaken, it was 10 Dem senators who voted to advance the bill, so 10 of 46. Why does Schumer get all the heat? I find it very strange.
Steve,
I assumed it was because its traditionally been the job of minority leaders and whips and so on to get the rest of the party lawmakers in line on issues, but their may well be more to it than that.
I like Mike M’s theory that this was the handiwork of staff. I also like the idea that Walz is now in trouble with Trump for having a reporter’s phone number in his phone.
Does Signal work like zoom where you can toggle video of yourself on or off?
Friend suggested that someone felt that they needed somoene besides Rubio with brains on the call.
As to, “We’re all using Signal”
Sounds a lot like it’s “all the rage” and ignores the possibly too recent notification I linked above informing the recipients that this wasn’t a good idea.
Does anyone know whether a cell phone can be interrogated by some other means than using it’s own transmitter? Or if using the transmitter, doing so covertly such that the owner doesn’t know it’s happening?
SteveF,
apparently the continuing resolution (if that’s the right name) contained some things some Dems really didn’t like. Schumer gets the heat because he led the charge.
Unscheduled Russian diplomatic airliner is over the North Atlantic near Iceland, heading to New York, JFK. It is a Ilyushin Il-96-300 and originated in Saint Petersburg. These flights are typically used to ferry diplomats and embassy staff. I can’t find out who is aboard.
Screenshot of track at 8:40 AM [Florida time]
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1904877528713437615
Live track, if still aloft:
https://www.flightradar24.com/RSD848/399fd64f
Russell
Snow White meets Robin Hood!!!
I haven’t seen the movie. Reviews aren’t great. I guess we’ll see if it makes money. Even bad movies sometimes make money.
The two actresses are evidently exchanging barbs.
John,
The phone is a little computer running Android or IOS with a wireless network stack both WiFi and cellular. Bluetooth support is ubiquitous. Phones also support USB, over which virtually any type of digital channel or protocol can be implemented. Attack vectors abound.
John,
To geek out a little, if you really want security you need to start with hardware and firmware where security can be achieved. I was surprised to discover how rare and difficult to achieve this actually is. Most microprocessors are inherently vulnerable to certain known attacks. Its really quite difficult to accomplish good digital security in some areas.
John Ferguson,
“Does anyone know whether a cell phone can be interrogated by some other means than using it’s own transmitter?”
Most can be read in their entirety via a close-by link (I assume via bluetooth or similar); this is done when you switch to a new phone…. everything in the old phone is transferred to the new in a couple minutes. I think a lot of phones (from the same manufacturer) can exchange information in much the same way if physically close to each other. Cell phones are continuously monitored by their carrier networks, of course, including (I suspect) even when powered off. If you really don’t want someone gathering information from your phone, then either don’t own one or put it in a Faraday cage… which kind of makes it less useful in making calls. 😉
WRT to “the Signal call”, Mike Walz has stated that someone on his staff added the reporter, and that he (Walz) has never had the reporter’s contact information nor spoken with him. The “off the record” reporting seems to be that the reporter was mistakenly substituted for someone who was actually supposed to be included. Of course, that seems to me to beg the question that Republicans are asking: why was that reporter’s contact information on someone’s phone or computer in the first place? I expect whoever added the reporter will soon be gone.
But strangely, the people screaming most loudly about this “security breach” seemed unworried about Hillary using an unsecured personal server for all kinds of classified messages over a period of years. Methinks there are pre-existing political inclinations involved.
Microchip PolarFire SoC (IIRC) has some basic material on common exploits that most processors don’t properly protect against.
Steve,
IKR? Trump has been President for a few months and everyone is just now realizing that the government does a poor job at cybersecurity. News flash: we have been bad at cybersecurity since before cybersecurity was a thing.
Lucia,
Estimates of production cost for Snow White range to $250 million or more. Yikes! Maybe with a hefty loss Disney will learn from this movie.
But maybe not; I suspect the Woke never sleep.
SteveF,
I thought Hillaery completely bungled her response to the3 discovery of her amateur server which shows how much more skilled a politician Trump is.
“….Zegler, 23, and Gadot, 39, seemingly clashed because of their opposing views on the war in Gaza….”
Isn’t that a surprise. Woke lefty actress who has “publicly supported Palestine in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict since 2021” and said “May Trump supporters and Trump voters and Trump himself never know peace”, vs a former Israeli beauty pageant winner and Israeli soldier. A perfect pairing for a spat.
I find it refreshing to hear a “secret” conversation by administrative officials. Obviously this occurred by way of an inadvertent screw up. No harm no foul.
The MSM take on leaked information usually concentrates on the contents and not the leaking process, but not this time.
We have way too many government secrets that run counter to claims of a democracy and more importantly a constitutional republic.
“more skilled a politician Trump is”
I wouldn’t say that at all. Trump had little background in politics before 2015, Hillary studied ‘political science’ at Yale and has been a politician for most of her life. Trump is a real estate developer, huckster, and showman, who is much like a fish out of water in Washington, while Hillary has been swimming… like a fish…. in the Washington ‘swamp’ for decades.
I believe Hillary just thought she would never be held to account, which was a big mistake. Had she followed the rules and used State Dept equipment, she would likely have been elected president. Of course, that would have required she separate the Clinton Foundation grift from official State Dept business, and would run the risk of disclosure of the grift at some later date. She bet on a personal server and lost that bet.
SteveF,
Beyond the $250 million, they seem to also have pissed off numerous blocks of people.
* Dwarf actors are unhappy– they could have had jobs! (And as a non-dwarf, I have to wonder: If they could replace the dwarves with CGI, why not replace everyone?)
* Fans of the original movie are unhappy- Zegler went around talking about all it’s “bad” features. (She probably needed coaching in how to discuss changes without slamming the film that inspired this one.)
* People who are bugged by “Snow White” not looking like the description in Grimm’s fairy tale. (“”How I wish that I had a daughter who had skin as white as snow, lips as red as blood and hair as black as ebony.”) Other fairy tale people aren’t as specifically described. But she is.
* Evidently some sort of level of communism/socialism story lines? (Robin Hood? ) The original story has little mention of capitalism, socialism, social justice etc. (Well. Other than family dynamics aspects.)
* Disney and the actress campaigning to explain why these deviations are superior and how the original choices are wrong. (For good PR: Want a movie with a non-white princess? Just make one. Don’t go out talking about how bad it is the other princesses are white! People who like those princesses aren’t going to be happy. )
Disney didn’t have to remake “Snow White”. If they wanted a social justice movie, they could have picked something else. All the public patting themselves on the back for changing the classic story really soured people before the movie came out.
The hurdle is now high for the movie. We’ll see if they end up covering their costs. They might. Little kids aren’t going to be aware of all the controversy. Parents may end up downloading, buying DVDs getting costumes. We’ll see
Lucia,
” If they could replace the dwarves with CGI, why not replace everyone?”
Good question. AI generated videos of “people” are approaching a level of accuracy that is almost indistinguishable from a video of a real person. At some point (and probably not far from now!) it will be simpler (and cheaper) to make an entire movie with computer generated images…. no lighting, no sound hardware, no on-site filming, no studios, and no actors.
‘Hollywood’ will no longer need to exist at all.
As to why they wanted to “re-make” Snow White: I suspect part of it is atonement for all the politically incorrect evil in the original, and part is because the “woke” want always to rub people’s faces in their world view.
Lucia, your post:
“We’ll see if they end up covering their costs. They might.”
The Hollywood Reporter talked on this issue:
“Final weekend numbers released Monday showed the domestic opening coming in lower at $42.2 million; ditto for global. The pic took in $43.9 million overseas for a global start of $86.1 million, according to Comscore.
While those hauls wouldn’t normally spell disaster for a female-targeted pic, Snow White has found itself in potential bomb territory because of its hefty production budget of $270 million before another $100 million or so in marketing costs. “
It’s an interesting article if you want to look at movie finances
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/is-snow-white-box-office-bomb-1236170816/
Their final analysis is, as you said, they might cover costs, but covering costs isn’t why Disney investors put up 250 million.
In an interview, Zegler claimed she was a narcissist. I don’t think she was joking.
The CGI dwarves were an attempt to walk back some of the wokeness by unwinding the original diverse cast of the dwarves. Testing on this must have had awful results and this was an attempt to save what they could. https://www.disneydining.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Untitled-design-1-10.jpg
Recent quote from Rachel Zegler: “People will wait in line despite my flaws.”
Missed on that one!
WSJ: “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted plans for the timing and weapons to be used in a military strike against Houthi militants on a nongovernmental group chat at least two hours before the first bombs were scheduled to drop, according to texts published Wednesday by the Atlantic magazine.”
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/atlantic-signal-chat-attack-details-829f6e33?st=cgcbB6&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Not classified? Calling it unclassified after the mistake was exposed is just not credible. Hegseth knows what the journalist has so it’s ridiculous he has taken this line of defense.
What they (also HRC) can’t do is admit they knew they were transmitting classified information, so this is just legal maneuvering.
Tom,
I saw this:
What were the targets? What was the strike package? Where were they going? How many?
This doesn’t look like intel to me. This looks like a joke. There’s no substance in there.
Ouch! IMDB viewer rating for Snow White is 1.7 out of 10.
Ouch! IMDB Meta critic score is 50 out of 100, with 48 reviews.
I don’t have a link, I use the app.
I found a link
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6208148/?ref_=ext_shr_imdbWS
SteveF,
I’ll stick with my belief that Trump is a far more effective poltician than Hillary. He seems to me a natural. I seriously doubt that this is a skill which can be acquired at the unversity, even Yale.
Her inability to defuse concern when caught with her hand in the cookie jar was exhibited repeatedly over her ‘career’ going back to the “straddle” in Arkansas. Then there were the snarky comments about folks living in trailers, the “deplorables” and her failure to recognize that she came off as the type of “elite” that a lot of us despise.
You might not buy this, but when her server was discovered, sh might have confessed and said something like:
“Yes I did it. At the time we moved into state, their system was unreliable and we needed to get to work immediately (true, I understand). Additionally, I thought I might want to run for President some day and was worried that what should have been secure communications might not stay that way and something I’d done in the course of busines wouldlook different to different people, possobily becoming a challenge to my future campaign. And then it worked so well that we all sort of forgot about it. And yes, in the larger sense of the thing, it was not a good idea overall, and I’m sorry I did it.”
But she thought she could bull her way through this. Obviously she couldn’t.
Trump’s skill is in defusing legitimate objections to things he and his cohorts have done. No-one else since I’ve been paying attention is nearly as good at it as he is.
And, to beat a dead horse a little further, there is no classification authority beyond the President. It is nonsensical to claim that something is classified that the President says isn’t. Classified according to whom, God? It’s the President’s classification system, established by executive order.
Dave JR
Did Zegler claim Godot was a narcissist? Or was Zegler admitting to being one?
It seems fashionable to tag people you don’t like with “narcissist” these days. “Everyone” claims their ex was a narcissist — as opposed to someone who just treated them badly. The labeling seems to be as important to the narrative.
I’m sure that many if not most Hollywood stars who “make it” are big self-promoters who make many things “all about me” — or at least do so more than average. (Everyone needs to recognize that it sometimes should be “about me”.)
The self-effacing, self-sacrifing get lost in the entertainment business. Being a wall flower does not get you cast as the star.
The consequence is that if people like to label others as “narcissists” for putting themselves first “too much”, lots of Hollywood stars are going to be “narcissists”. Two of them butting heads? I’m not surprised to hear the term bandied around. Though I’d suggest the first to label the other is probably more likely to be the true narcissist.
John, your comment:
“I’ll stick with my belief that Trump is a far more effective poltician than Hillary. He seems to me a natural. I seriously doubt that this is a skill which can be acquired at the unversity, even Yale.”
I think it’s all the transparency.
He is sitting down in front of reporters every day (it seems).
He takes all questions, unscripted and answers them extemporaneously.
People are inclined to accept a leader like that. (Except the TDS crowd)
Even the Left Wing reporters have adopted a less combative stance with him.
Tom
Even if it was ‘not classified’ as a formal matter, it was clearly a blunder to share with a journalist — or anyone outside the ‘circle of trust’. So the argument about classification is somewhat of a distraction.
Someone or some people were very sloppy about organizing this meeting. And it’s the sort of meeting that should be organized with extreme care. We are in a weird situation were it might be better to not reveal how this came to be. Perhaps that would reveal too much about how things are organized . Even though “hiding something under the mat” is often a stupid idea, sometimes “don’t tell people we hide something under the mat” is a better policy that “tell people we hide something under the mat”. . But whatever was done wrong needs to be fixed. This was bad.
John ferguson
Yeah…. well, you know the Chicago area from your youth. Her father was “a businessman”. Her father seems to have not been born “elite”– but he did well, moving to the fairly swanky Park Ridge. The family could “summer” in a fairly swanky location in Pennsylvania.
My experience is kids growing up in Park Ridge often don’t recognize they are “elite”. They look east toward Kenilworth, Winnetka, Highland Park who they “wanna be”. They imagine they are “middle class” — as in really truly “the middle” And to some extent they are “middle class” in the sense that they don’t have fabulous levels of multigenerational wealthy. But they are still much better off than most people.
The kids in this group tend to take a dim view of those west who they “don’t wanna be”. They sometimes grow up not knowing people live in trailer parks. They don’t really understand there are tons and tons of “middle class” but not ‘impoverished” people much worse off economically than they are– people as far below them economically as they are to those “landed gentry” in Kenilworth!
Hilary is a product of that environment.
We all agree about that, yes. It was a blunder and steps ought to be taken to ensure the mistake doesn’t get repeated.
I should add: Hilary is the sort whose physical residence was “one layer in” from “true wealth”. I lived “two layers in” but went to highschool with kids who were “true wealth” and “one layer in”. In Chicago, the “layers” could be diagnosed by (a) physical location –and (b) generation that established the money.
In the north shore, both “more north” and “more west” got you geographically further from “true wealth” and of course, grandpa leaving the enough money to last was “true wealth” while working for a company (because you need to do so to maintain a high level of income) was “adjacent”, no matter how much you made.
I”m sure there are similar “layers” and “adjacencies” in other cities. I’ve met people who I could see as “wanna be ‘true’ elite”. And also: not everyone who grows up in those regions ends up exactly the same. Individual experiences; different families they make a difference. But the type exists. They don’t “know” they are elite.
It seems the CIA and crew pretty much agrees with my view on the Russia / Ukraine war.
Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2025%20Annual%20Threat%20Assessment%20of%20the%20U.S.%20Intelligence%20Community.pdf
A portion of the report:
“Russia views its ongoing war in Ukraine as a proxy conflict with the West, and its objective to restore Russian strength and security in its near-abroad against perceived U.S. and Western encroachment has increased the risks of unintended escalation between Russia and NATO. The resulting heightened and
prolonged political-military tensions between Moscow and Washington, coupled with Russia’s growing confidence in its battlefield superiority and defense industrial base, and increased risk of nuclear war, create both urgency and complications for U.S. efforts to bring the war to an acceptable close.”
.
“Russia in the past year has seized the upper hand in its full-scale invasion of Ukraine and is on a path to accrue greater leverage to press Kyiv and its Western backers to negotiate an end to the war that grants Moscow concessions it seeks. Continuing the Russia-Ukraine war perpetuates strategic risks to the United States of unintended escalation to large-scale war, the potential use of nuclear weapons, heightened insecurity among NATO Allies, particularly in Central, Eastern, and Northern Europe, and a more emboldened China and North Korea.”
“I”m sure there are similar “layers” and “adjacencies” in other cities.”
Sure. I live about 1.5 miles as the crow flies from the Atlantic Ocean beach, which is actually the outside coast of a barrier island called Jupiter Island. In my inland area, houses generally cost in the range of $300 per square foot (but varies with neighborhood!). The next big step is houses with access to the intracoastal waterway (dock your boat behind the house!); the intracoastal separates Jupiter Island from the mainland…. these houses cost more like $500 to $900 per square foot…. and nothing cheaper. The final step is to Jupiter island itself, where there is essentially no upper bound on prices…. Tiger Woods, Selene Dion, and a multitude of very wealthy unknowns live there. Most houses are valued at ~$10 million to ~$85 million, with a few smaller ones a little lower and many large mansions MUCH higher. Just a piece of land on Jupiter Islands could easily cost $40 million or more.
The situation on Cape Cod is not as extreme, but still a very steep price gradient……. a (smallish) beachfront house is $5 million and up. 120 yards from the beach the same house is ~$1 million. A mile from the beach more like $350K.
As they say; God is not adding waterfront land any more.
One more thing: almost no house anywhere near the water on Cape Cod ever changes hands. You have to guess values based on real estate valuations.
Classified according to the norms of what typically gets classified. Specific timing of an attack, the weapons used, targets. The defense dept. doesn’t post this to X before an attack for a reason.
Goldberg (he’s a total a-hole) hilariously called that bluff and said if it’s not classified then he’ll just disclose it all. Wait … no …
People involved are apparently defensive about this because there may be legal exposure. I’m not really that interested in that but it likely isn’t prosecutable if the Hillary standard is used. If Trump wants to post-hoc declare it unclassified then that is his decision, but nobody is going to convince me this type of information isn’t normally classified.
Beyond idiots including journalists, why do people use external systems? Because communications can be FOIA’d if they use government systems. FOIA is there so we know what our government is up to. This bypasses that. Government people want avenues to freely discuss issues without public disclosure. That is a legitimate need but this isn’t the answer.
Lucia,
From Glenbrook, the Elite were new Trier students.
I should have expanded my earlier note a bit. I intended to say that Hillary acted elite without actually being elite in the sense that you are born into it. In that sense she was a bit of a fake.
I should also have been clearer about not being a skilled politician. I meant that she was not a skilled retail politician. Trump clearly is.
I don’t doubt that she is superb at creating legislation, the work itself.
I expect Zegler has seen her last Disney film. Her antics (along with the director / writer / producer) realistically cost the company $100’s of millions.
It’s OK for Snow White to be white and the dwarves to be dwarves and the prince to be a prince. Really, it is.
Tom Scharf,
While your comment about using external communications to avoid FOIA is, I suspect, largely true, I doubt that military planning is subject to FOIA. It would be entirely logical to exempt that. [Of course, declaring such discussions classified would also have that effect.]
I’m sure that directives exist that require archiving of external communications, and I’m equally certain that those are ignored. Cynical me.
Tom,
There are IMO enough actors undermining the authority of the President that I’m not going to assist by pretending that the President is subject to ‘the norms of what typically gets classified’ when he is in fact the ultimate authority over what is classified. There’s more than enough of that going on without me, and it certainly isn’t helping any.
I still maintain there wasn’t anything in that conversation anyway. Was the secret that the US uses F-18’s, drones, and cruise missiles in combat? That’s not classified information. What was it specifically that you think was classified? The conversation revealed that the United States was hitting somebody, somewhere, using their usual hardware. AFAICT, that was about it.
“I doubt that military planning is subject to FOIA”
They should be exempt, but not forever. It would be reasonable to declassify all that stuff after 25 or 50 years. A lot of FOIA stuff ends up with 99% redactions as it is.
It’s also true that having that stuff laying around is prone to getting leaked by partisans without context for political gain. They are mostly hiding from political opposition more than the people of the US.
To elaborate on my point – the President has spoken with Waltz, and is satisfied with his explanation. That should be enough. I mean, if you guys want to think you know better than the American people, that’s up to you, but it doesn’t really matter if you think that. This guy has been elected both by an electoral majority and popular vote, he IS the Commander in Chief, security and classification IS his bailiwick, he has dealt with the matter and is satisfied, and BY GOD, that ought to be enough.
Timing of an attack. Weapons used in a specific attack, not their mere existence. Targets. Allegedly “the missile guy is at his girlfriend’s house” or something to that effect. Before the strike.
This would all be useful if the Houthi’s knew about it so it’s kept secret. I don’t know of a single instance where that kind of information was revealed before a military strike, but maybe there is.
Discussing this on Signal is a bit dubious but I can live with that. Discussing this with a unknown journalist monitoring it is something I cannot live with.
So can you tell me what the targets were, and where the F-18’s went? Who’s the girlfriend, where is her house?
Yah. Except it happened, so we’re going to have to live with it.
The whole of the breach was the journalist being included in the discussion. If the Houthis knew of the discussion, that would have been the security breach. Saying ‘Oh, first wave of F-18’s going to get the guy at the girlfriend’s house’ would have told them absolutely nothing further, just as it tells us nothing. There weren’t enough details for any of that to matter.
Tom Scharf,
“I expect Zegler has seen her last Disney film.”
I expect she is not going to get too many offers in the near future. If you choose to tell half your potential audience that you think they are a$$holes, and you want them to be miserable, it doesn’t help the box office. Producers who have to put up a lot of money may be very wary of a loose cannon like Zegler.
The claim was ‘war plans’. Those weren’t ‘war plans’.
So no, I didn’t read anything about ‘his girlfriend’s house’. Are you referring to this?
“Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME”
Who’s the Target Terrorist? What is his Known Location?
I tell you, there is nothing here.
Oh I see.
“The first target—their top missile guy—was positively ID’d walking into his girlfriend’s building. It’s now collapsed.”
The after the fact report that their top missile guy was killed, that was classified, huh.
[Edit: I don’t get why you think this was classified at all.]
If the Houthi’s knew of an imminent attack aimed at their leadership they could take evasive action. Simply leaving their houses or places they normally go would spare their lives. They could alert all their forces to an imminent attack so they are on high alert, or go to safer place, etc. Maybe they have a few air defense weapons on loan from Iran. Perhaps they move all their anti-ship missile underground.
What I expect is for operational security to be taken seriously. Trump calling it unclassified to protect legal exposure doesn’t tell me anything has changed.
The legacy media is having a field day with that response because it is weak. This will all blow over because there were no real effects, but it is not confidence inspiring.
NYT: White House Uses Semantics to Downplay Gravity of Signal Leak
“War plan or battle plan? Classified or not? The answers to those questions amount to a distinction without much of a difference.”
Fine. Then what you object to was the initial screw up, not any of the details that were discussed. They would have known of an imminent attack if they knew of that conference at all. NONE of the details that Goldberg shared make any difference in that regard. That has nothing to do with the classified war plans claim.
No, because Goldberg specifically made claims here that needed answering, for effs sake. You can’t just ignore why the White House is addressing that in the first place and say ‘oh, that’s a distinction without a difference, I don’t care!’
Tom Scharf,
“NYT: White House Uses Semantics to Downplay Gravity of Signal Leak”
“NYT: Trump appears to be a Russian agent.”
The NYT is suitable only for fish cleaning. Any Houthis who were targeted are either dead or not dead, quite independent of the Atlantic reporter listening. Yes, it was a screw-up. No, the call didn’t reveal all nuclear targets in China and Russia. I should add: nor did it lead to hundredes of thousands of deaths in Ukraine like the Biden policies did (remember Biden saying something like , “maybe if it is not too big an incursion.”)
You were still east of 294. Libertyville was west of it. My highschool was in Lake Forest which on the lake. New Trier kids were all from “on the lake” towns and close to the city.
We can debate exactly the border of “elite”. But east of 294 while not on the lake? They definitely are in sight of where many people with true wealth lived.
Not specifically to Tom but a general remark:
I agree that there was a huge OPSEC screw up. The problem with screw ups like this is that they can cause missions to fail and lots of American soldiers to get killed. Obviously this is a problem that needs to be fixed.
I personally think there are those who care less about whether or not American soldiers get killed and missions fail than they care about exploiting issues like these to damage Trump’s administration. IMO, this also matters. I’m not helping with that. So I draw this line – the mistake was that Goldberg got added. That needs to be fixed. Done. All of the rest; was any of the material formally classified, why were they using Signal, was Hegseth drunk (yes, a congress critter actually put this idea forward) at the time, all of these are pile ons as far as I am concerned by people looking to exploit this incident to damage Trump. They can forget it, they will get no help from me.
WSJ: “A senior GSK scientist, who formerly worked at rival Pfizer, had told GSK colleagues that Pfizer delayed announcing the success of its Covid vaccine in 2020 until after that year’s election.”
https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/pfizer-covid-vaccine-2020-election-probe-2f3ec247?st=H6wX4s&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
The non-denial denial…
“In a statement, Dormitzer said that Pfizer moved rapidly to get the vaccine approved and that he didn’t tell his GSK colleagues otherwise. “My Pfizer colleagues and I did everything we could to get the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization at the very first possible moment,” he said. “Any other interpretation of my comments about the pace of the vaccine’s development would be incorrect.””
Tom, your post:
“It’s OK for Snow White to be white and the dwarves to be dwarves and the prince to be a prince. Really, it is.”
It’s more than OK, it’s mandatory, if you want the film to be a critical and commercial success. The original story was ‘Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs’. It featured the original Prince Charming.
This was not a remake but an excursion into DEI masquerading as Snow White (and The Seven Magical Creatures).
A quote from Bavaria, in 1812:
“When the wicked woman returned home she went to her mirror and asked:
Mirror, mirror, on the wall,
Who in this land is fairest of all?
The mirror answered once again:
You, my queen, are fair; it is true.
But Snow-White, beyond the mountains
With the seven dwarfs,
Is still a thousand times fairer than you.“
She was‘Fair’ and her benefactors were ‘Dwarfs’
Tom Scharf,
“A senior GSK scientist, who formerly worked at rival Pfizer, had told GSK colleagues that Pfizer delayed announcing the success of its Covid vaccine in 2020 until after that year’s election.”
Ummmm… I have been saying this since a couple days after the 2020 election. It is so obvious, so transparent, that it almost beggars belief it never became a big political issue.
“Trump announces ‘dramatic success’ of the experimental vaccines…. it looks like many millions will not die who otherwise would.”
Of course, that headline never happened a week before the election, because the FDA and Pfizer made sure it didn’t happen… even though they knew full well what the trial results were. These are evil, dishonest, corrupt people who should be sitting in prison today. It is that simple: prison time for all involved in blatant election interference, and especially the still CEO of Pfizer.
I read that the Snow White team had problems with the phrase “the fairest of them all”. If only those meetings were recorded for posterity, I’d rather watch the comedy of those instead.
Hi Lucia,
294 wasn’t there yet when I was at GB. the cotton was plenty tall in Lake Forest. East Glenview was the big deal in those days. In the late 50s, the girls from East Glenview all seemed to have cashmere sweaters for each day of the week. Some had T-birds and a few Corvettes, but the classiest had a 1935 Ford coupe in mint condition. She maintained it herself.
Interesting conversations about the geography of wealth. I agree with Lucia’s take on the Chicago area. I once thought that being located near Lake Michigan was a large factor in housing prices, but it is not except in communities were wealth gathers. I have been in locations on Lake Michigan in Michigan where the housing is ordinary to humble.
Where I live the the degrees of wealth and class appear very close together. On my block housing prices are from $500,000 to $600,000. At the end of my block and across the street is a house priced near 2 million. A quarter of a mile away are mansions in the multiple million dollar range. On the street one over are condos in the $400,000 neighborhood. A quarter mile in another direction and close to the mansions are condos that can be purchased for $250,000. There are a big percentage of younger people in all those locations and particularly so in the mansions. The bodies of water are a creek and a pond.
You can consider me your US military leak source….
Remember over the weekend I noted the USAF was moving about 10 KC135 refueling aircraft to the Western Pacific? Well thing have gotten more interesting. Three B2 stealth bombers have landed at Diego Garcia NSF to join the four stationed there already. Also four B-52s are now operating there and three more tankers have moved in.
As far as I know the USN still has three carrier battle groups in the area:
USS Nimitz (CVN-68), USS George Washington (CVN-73), and USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
[With probably around 200 aircraft onboard].
I do not know their intentions.
If you are curious, here is the location of Diego Garcia:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1905108474398203952?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
I found out who was onoard the Russian diplomatic flight that landed at JFK yesterday. Headline from TASS:
“Russian Ambassador Alexander Darchiev arrives in US”
https://tass.com/politics/1934695
john ferguson,
Never heard that expression (tall cotton) before. I must have led a sheltered life.
SteveF,
Mom was a real talker and amazingly didn’t repeat herself all that much. Since there’s no cotton in NW Minnesota or Illinois as far as I know, I can’t guess where she got it. My first wife also used the term.
We grew up in a subtly bigoted family and have had to watch ourselves with some of the expressions that were used around the house. One, which I feel is a bit tricky is “white trash” That’s the least obvious one I can think of off the top of my head.
Another one when getting dressed up was “Do you think I’ll pass for white?” I’m sure our colleagues know more of them.
Both first and second wives and I set out to produce kids without any tinge of bigotry, or if they developed it, they didn’t get it from us. I think (well, hope) that we were successful.
For the two of us, it’s still with us, but we strive never to reveal it in any way thinking that our interactions with other people should always be positive no matter what.
We’ve found all over the world, english speaking or not, that almost everyone is ready to laugh and most interactions can be funny with a little creativity.
There’s a great line in one of Ferdinand Celine’s books, “If you cannot be rich, at least try to be useful” to whicih my Dad added “if being useful doesn’t work, then be funny”
Kenneth,
The real estate agents always say “location, location, location”. Where the local geography….. attractive beach access, high altitude (cool-in-summer) towns in North Carolina, cool dry California costal region…. influences the “wealth gradient” is pretty easy to understand. Where it is not so clear based on geography, it is more like ‘birds of a feather flock together’; wealthy people want to be around other wealthy people, for multiple reasons.
john ferguson,
My parents never showed racial prejudice (at least none I can remember). My mother sometimes said “I wouldn’t care if someone was green in color”. Of course, outside my family I was exposed to some prejudiced people, but it wasn’t very common. When I spent a summer at 16 YO working 7 days a week, 10 hours a day (picking peaches) with black migrant farm workers, I didn’t become prejudiced against black people, but I did better appreciate the large cultural and behavioral differences between that group of men, all poor, and the people I had been exposed to growing up.
I have been careful with my own kids to insist individuals should always be judged as individuals, never based on immutable characteristics. When they got a bit older we naturally discussed more complicated issues like disparities in life outcomes, disparities in wealth, prejudices of all kinds, and the behaviors everybody needs to be successful; I still have these kinds of discussions with my youngest daughter (turning 17 next week).
Well it’s no longer our little secret, it’s now in the news:
“ B-2 Bombers Land at Diego Garcia”
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/b-2-bombers-land-at-diego-garcia
And:
“ The arrival of three C-17s and eleven KC-135s to the Island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is raising eyebrows as a possible attack pointed towards the Houthis.”
SteveF
Racial prejudice was not a constant stream at our house when I was trying to grow up – never really succeeded.
But it was there. Mom grew up in a town in NW Minnesota of 25,000. There was more prejudice between the Swedes and the Norwegian than anyone else. There were two black families in town; both fathers worked for the Great Northern. As I said, the prejudice was subtle. I doubt if it affected any of their actual interactions with any members of the groups they were skeptical about.
i cannot remember discussing anything like this subject with our daughter or son. It just wasn’t part of our lives.
Trailer trash is how we said it in WV, plenty of it there, ha ha. I guess we were all white trash in WV. I remember going to LA the first time and they definitely looked down on WV people out there.
There is class prejudice everywhere and I’m betting there are uppity areas of trailer parks, the doublewides.
Yup. Plenty of trailer trash in my neck of the woods. And yup; them doublewide people are posh. I seen them supersizing at the Mickey D’s. That’s old money right there.
There have been protests against Hamas for two days in Gaza, very unusual. This may be the end for them.
Like I have said before, they will just get replaced with Hamas like people who equally dislike Israel. There is some chance they won’t decide to do suicidal invasions of their neighbors or allocate so much effort building tunnels.
We shall see.
I’m hesitant to post the list of groups considered suspect by my Dad and his father, but you can probably guess.
Pittsburgh was a hodgepodge of ethnic neighborhoods. The Jewish (Kikes) area was Squirrel Hill, Coloreds (N word) was ‘The Hill’, Slovaks (Hunkies) was Hazelwood, Italians (Degos) ‘Little Italy’, Irish (Paddy’s) were everywhere but Lawrenceville was a hub, Germans (Krauts) were Bloomfield.
My neighborhood was a duke’s mixture of all of the above, except blacks.
We did often go to the German and Irish areas to visit my grandparents and cousins.
My Irish mother and her clan were all bigots. My dads German family were modicum’s of decency.
Mom’s dad grew up in Mascoutah, Ill which was German. He spoke German at the time (early 1900’s). He graduated from Southern Illinois Normal School in 1912, Went to Champaign (UofI) got a Masters degree 1914 in Animal Husbandry, and became a county agent. Mom’s mother was Scots/English from Eau Claire Wis, graduated with BA from Carleton in Northfield.
Jules was sent to Fergus Falls in NW Minnesota, where they were excluded from the local version of high society, probably because he was German. I don’t know what hhis reaction to this was, but they didn’f leave and he played violin inthe civic orchestra in addition to starting his own business and inventing a machine to make salt-blocks for the cattle.
Mom told me that her mother was bitter about the exclusion all of her life.
NPR finally shows up for congressional testimony. NPR covers it and finally is asked the question about ideological diversity.
NPR:
“Berliner argued that NPR’s coverage increasingly reflects a rigid progressive ideology.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, pointed to Berliner’s accusation that “in the D.C. area editorial positions at NPR, he said he found 87 registered Democrats, 0 Republicans.”
“Is that accurate?” he asked Maher. She responded: “We don’t track voter registrations.
Jordan asked whether Berliner was lying. “I’m not presuming such, but we don’t track that information about our journalists,” the NPR CEO said.”
NPR can probably quote the racial / gender / sexual orientation makeup of their employees to 2 decimal places.
Tom Scharf,
“the doublewides”
LOL.
When my parents retired they spent their winters at a “mobile home community” in Fort Lauderdale. It was ~100% middle-class retirees, but there absolutely was stratification and envy between the “double-wide” owners and the “single-wide” owners. I found it funny, but never said anything to my parents (single wide owners). Envy is just hard wired I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
“NPR can probably quote the racial / gender / sexual orientation makeup of their employees to 2 decimal places.”
Of course. They don’t need to keep track of party registration; anyone with the nerve to say something other than the standard progressive tripe would be driven out on NPR in short order.
I grew up in a white farming area about 40 miles west of Chicago. My early life experience with a variety of racial, ethnical and cultural individuals came from visits to Aurora and Chicago. As an outsider I was probably more aware of the differences and fascinated by it than those living in more diverse urban areas.
Within my rural communities were two junk dealers, one which went by the moniker Jaffy the Jew and the other was an African American who was married to a white woman and shoe store owner who was Jewish. They were all very personable and liked by my parents. When the black junkman would refer to me as the brother of my vain father there was an immediate connection with my father. Wealth was varied greatly in my rural community but did not affect relationships.
I worked for neighboring farmers and found them to be very different from one another than one would expect from a superficial relationship. Most were good people except one who was downright weird.
When I went off to college I was surprised by how much in common there was between the rural, suburban and urban living students.
Post from Ari Fleischer:
No one is talking about this part of the Signal call, but in many ways it’s the most important revelation.
European Navy ships are militarily incapable of defending against Houthi attacks. A rag tag militia built by Iran is stronger than French, British, etc navies.
Disgraceful
Russell,
Some think the bombers at Diego Garcia are a prelude to (or keeping the option ready for) a strike on Iran. Here.
Russell,
Interesting…I’d like to read the full texts, but the only place I could find them is paywalled at the Atlantic. Is there another location online?
Edit: never mind, the Ari Fleischer post is enough to see that Waltz is talking about cruise missiles, presumably those which fly just above the sea surface. US has systems to detect those (and launch interceptors). Didn’t realize that other navies do not.
HaroldW,
Which article are you asking about?
mark, your post:
“ Russell, Some think the bombers at Diego Garcia are a prelude to (or keeping the option ready for) a strike on Iran. Here.”
I saw that too. Who knows!
That lethal arsenal buildup does seem excessive for combating Houthi’s rebels.
The FAA has issued a TFR (temporary flying restriction) for West Palm Beach zone starting tomorrow at 3:45 PM, lasting two days. Gee, I wonder what that means!
https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_5_7639
Russell, I used to fly R/C aircraft at a field west of Delray. It is located within a 30 mile radius of Mar-del-Lago which means that there is a TFT whenever his majesty is there, which lately has been almost every weekend which mans no R/C aircraft flying at that location. I’m still on that clubs mailing list so I get the TFR’s automatically.
SteveF,
There is also a presumed step between owning and renting which applies to Condos as well. When we moved out of the Condo we’d bought in St Pete because I didn’t think the board had really understood what was going to be required and what it would cost for the necessary structural, some people we knew were sympathetic about being forced to rent.
At this point in our lives we don’t need appreciation and suspect that in the case of the subject building there won’t be any. In fact units like ours have lost about 1/3 in vaule since we left in 2022.
But then there are a lot of people out there who don’t understand their own finances. Single Family home isone thing, a condo in Florida is an entirely different animal.
John,
It’s written “His Majesty”, not his majesty. Don’t go disrespecting the God Emperor.
Mark, thinking out loud….
The buildup at Diego Garcia took place over a ten day period. It was all very public, takeoffs and landings in daylight, transponders on, flying in convoys. This seems like ‘Saber Rattling’ more than preparation for a military strike.
Russell, yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I think it’s part of the diplomacy going on. Something like:
“You don’t like the deal? Hmm. Welp, you know we’ve got an alternative on the airstrip at Diego Garcia..”
Yes Mark,
His Majesty – good catch- thanks
His Royal Majesty, maybe?
HaroldW,
Al Jazeera has the whole thing.
John Ferguson,
It’s no fun passing Mar-a-largo on the intracoastal when Trump is there. Naturally, there is a bascule bridge (15ft clearance?) right in front with a 30 minute opening schedule. Coast guard boats with manned (and loaded!) 50 caliper machine guns on the front sit and watch you from about 50 yards away. They don’t look even a tiny bit friendly. I passed once early morning, right before sunrise, and they had their spotlights on me the whole time I waited for the bridge.
Ninja swords have been outlawed in the UK. I think those carrying daggers, rapiers, short swords, long swords, bastard swords, great swords, gladius, and blades forged of Valyrian steel are still OK though.
It’s a darn good thing they have gun control. Personally, I’d much rather be run down and hacked apart with a bladed weapon than shot. No, wait..
mark bofill,
Coincidentally, California and the UK have almost the same GDP, and the same crazy lefties in charge. The big difference is the UK has no constitutional limits on Parliament, so they go utterly bonkers with really bad policies.
mark bofill,
Coincidentally, California and the UK have almost the same GDP, and the same crazy left tendencies. The big difference is the UK has no constitutional limits on Parliament, so they can put in place really bad policies.
Steve,
Yes. Having a Bill of Rights makes all the difference, it would seem.
The 80s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon was renamed Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles in the UK and Michelangelo’s nunchuck action scenes were censored…
On the Enemies Alien Act for the DC appellate court decision
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25870610/order-and-opinion-on-attempt-to-block-stay-on-aea-flights.pdf
The dissent by one of the 3 judges is directly on point. The dissent is at the very end of the court document. Well worth reading and will likely prevail at SCOTUS.
Some of the main points:
1. the DC court does not have standing. Must bring action in district where the party is being held, which is Texas. Plaintiffs are judge shopping.
2. Only action allowed to the party is a writ of habeas. If a party holds that they are not a party to the presidential finding, file a writ of habeas.
3. No action allowed under the APA ( Administrative Procedure Act) as the findings were made by the President, not an agency. The presidential findings are not reviewable under the APA, which the court majority has done.
4. The court TRO action is immediately appealable as the courts action is irreparable for the government.
Ed Forbes wrote: “Only action allowed to the party is a writ of habeas.”
That sounds right. I don’t know if it *should* be that way, but I am pretty sure it is that way.
The US has a new version of the mineral agreement they want Ukraine to sign.
60 pages of legal text
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/03/trumps-rewritten-deal-with-ukraine-is-imposed-indentured-servitude.html#more
* The Fund is managed by five people, three of whom are from the United States and will have full veto power;
* We are talking about all minerals, including oil, gas and undeveloped deposits throughout Ukraine;
* we are talking about mining by both public and private campaigns;
* the Fund’s money will be immediately converted into foreign currency and withdrawn abroad. If suddenly, for some reason, something did not reach the Ukrainian side, Ukraine pays extra;
* US contribution – assistance already provided to us from 2022 (according to the Kiel Institute, US assistance to Ukraine in 2022-2024 is estimated at $ 119.7 billion)
* The United States can choose to make a profit. At the same time, they will receive “royalties” from the Fund first (and then Ukraine) +4%.
* The agreement will be valid indefinitely
* Changes to the agreement or its completion are only possible with the permission of the United States;
* US priority right to all new infrastructure projects and veto the sale of resources to other countries.
Bret Baier interviewed Elon Musk and some of his DOGE lieutenants it’s worth watching. 38 minutes
https://youtu.be/l7kQNwJ4H_w?si=dPJqkdEPx17f4aQJ
Thanks Russell, I agree that was worth watching.
It’s almost like something out of an Ayn Rand novel. We have a bunch of collectivist politicians rabble rousing against DOGE, claiming DOGE will destroy Social Security and government services, and the interview reveals a bunch of businessmen and engineers who (quite to the contrary) are trying to make the inefficient broken government system work at least as well as a mediocre company would. Elon’s promise that there would be MORE money available for government programs, not less, as a result of DOGE efforts in particular was noteworthy.
That interview was really something else.
Trying to destroy the people who are trying to keep your boat afloat was the Randian theme. This incident might have come straight from Atlas Shrugged.
mark,
Hard for me to see that group as a bunch of villains, yet that is what they are being called. They are not being paid for their work, giving their time without compensation; doesn’t sound very villainous.
I loved the $800 million contract to set up an on-line survey for the national park service. My son-in law could have done it for several thousand. It is the kind of waste that should appall everyone, yet it seems some are perfectly OK with that kind of waste.
Mark,
A lot of accolades on social media for that interview, some examples:
Guy Benson:
If every American watched this, DOGE approval would hit super-majority levels. It’s also important for the outcomes to align with the way the mission is being sold here:
Byron York:
Communications has been a big weak spot for the DOGE team. Which is why the @BretBaier group interview was hugely important for them. Seeing Musk with his top aides brought home the point that these are serious people doing serious work. When the whole thing is posted, watch it.
Brit Hume:
The interviews were illuminating.
Tami Lauren
Everyone who baselessly hates Elon should watch this and the extended DOGE panel.
The people who really need to watch this will dismiss it out of hand, and that is their loss.
No one may be interested, but you can track JD Vance’s aircraft on it’s waay to Greenland:
https://www.flightradar24.com/SAM411/39a75a0c
It over Eastern Canada at 10:00 AM Florida time.
One of the flaws in government contracting is that places have a policy of keeping money local. They want county paid contracts executed by companies residing in the county.
This makes total sense in many ways. It helps local companies become successful, it allows taxpayer funds to not be sent to other jurisdictions, etc. If it were to go the free trade route then some counties would send almost all their money elsewhere.
It’s very inefficient. Biden’s infrastructure plan for broadband and EV stations are glaring examples of what happens. Obama’s solar plants. Just a big stinking mess of wasted money. Does every city need to have its own subway building crew?
You can spend money elsewhere but I believe it requires bureaucracy to be conquered. It’s not that people don’t know what is happening, it’s that they don’t care enough to fix it.
I have brought up the EU extortion policies where they “penalize” US companies for violations of their tech morals. This now happens continuously every year. it is an effective tech tax.
The indirect effects of Trump:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/03/eu-will-go-easy-with-apple-facebook-punishment-to-avoid-trumps-wrath/
“The EU is set to impose minimal fines on Apple and Facebook-owner Meta next week under its Digital Markets Act, as Brussels seeks to avoid escalating tensions with US President Donald Trump.”
Speaking of efficiency.
SpaceX has launched a Falcon 9 139 times in the last year. They relaunched the same booster 9 days apart recently.
“Mirror mirror on the wall, what’s the worst movie of them all?”
“Fair princess, the very worst ever is Disney’s Snow White”
The widely used rating service IMDB continues to have Disney’s Snow White ratings going down, now at 1.6 out of 10.
‘Snow White’ Hits Another Remarkable New Low’
https://www.outkick.com/analysis/snow-white-hits-another-remarkable-new-low
IMDB:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6208148/
Unfortunately review bombing is a real thing. It happens on video games as well. Amazon reviews have become less reliable.
It also works in reverse for critic reviews. Subjects such as slavery and the Holocaust generally always receive positive reviews because the critics are afraid of being labelled.
Book editor reviews have become almost totally useless. 80% of the books they promote have the “correct” politics and trying to sort that out is nearly impossible. It’s clear they want to be seen promoting the right books. The capture of their field results is people ignoring them.
Tom,
The 1.6 out of 10 for Snow White is the audience review number. It has over 200,000 votes.
Russell,
That’s a red flag for review bombing.
Mufasa: The Lion King, 2024 ($720M box office)
214 user reviews
https://www.metacritic.com/movie/mufasa-the-lion-king/
Snow White, 2025
https://www.metacritic.com/movie/snow-white/
1148 user reviews
One can also look at the number of lowest reviews versus higher reviews, number of first time reviews, etc. I’m not saying it’s a good movie, just saying reviews here are likely not reliable.
In video games if the company producing the game puts out a initial buggy release and are perceived as not committed to fixing the problem fast then they will get bombed.
When this happens you have to wait for the emotional tirade to be over, then sort by review date and look at recent reviews.
So far, it looks like Ed Forbes was right on the money about Russia being uninterested in peace. Putin has violated limited cease fires to ‘finish them off’ I read (referring to Ukraine forces).
Remains to be seen if the Dealmaker in Chief will find a lever to move Russia.
Yes, I don’t think Russia is interested.
It was worth the effort to find out, but not surprised at the result. It’s up to the US to respond by keeping support at the current rate or increase it.
I would say advantage Russia at this stage. Ukraine could still end this war with much of its land intact but it looks less likely. The EU security force effort looks like it has fallen through as well.
Big armies win more often than small armies. At this point it seems to be a game of kill as many Russians as possible.
I posted here (more than once maybe) that Trump would need leverage to bring Putin to negotiate. I knew of no such carrot or stick that Trump could wield, but he was so cocky-sure he could influence Putin, I really thought he had some secret leverage he could employ. I now think I was wrong about that.
Aside: Has Zelenskyy got Trump in a corner with the minerals deal?
If we sign it, we would have a dog in this fight if it drags on.
From Politico:
“In multiple surveys since the election, a plurality of Democratic voters has said that Harris should be the 2028 presidential nominee.’
I really hope they don’t change their minds. Lost-in-a-word-salad Harris vs extemporaneous-eloquent JD Vance. There could not be a clearer contrast. Dems: Yes, please (pretty please!!) do continue to support someone for 2028 who can barely formulate a single intelligible sentence.
Steve,
I think Dems will have to recreate themselves. ‘Recreate’ is a harmless, happy sounding word for this process of deciding what parts (plural) of their insane ideologies and activist following to alienate and exile, and what new ideology will take its place. So far, they have been (perhaps understandably) reluctant to step into the flames, but without immolation there will be no rebirth for them. Look at Moulton for example:
This is just one corner of the crazy as you of course know, more than this is going to need to be reconciled for Democrats to move forward. It’s going to hurt.
.
[Edit: Another way to look at it might be this: they at minimum need to find a way to move back towards the center. Not just economically, but culturally and philosophically as well. But then, why not stick with Trumpism?]
Sorry, I ran out of edit time. What I meant was, they can move towards the center, sure. But what will that make them other than a watered down version of MAGA. Why should anyone choose the soy substitute as it were; there needs to be something more, some upside. Something different. They still need to figure out what that might be.
Perhaps it will become easier for them, as time progresses and Trump does the work for them of driving the crazies back out of mainstream society and to the distant ‘lunatic fringe’. The personal and political cost of stepping towards the middle will become less, probably.
mark bofill,
I think the biggest factor will be how the mid-terms go in 2026; until then, I very much doubt Dems are going to meaningfully tern from all the extreme policies most people hate… policies where 70% to 80% of voters are opposed, and Dems pretty uniformly are in support. This is how you lose elections.
Historically the President’s party loses a significant number of seats in a mid-term, especially in the House. If that DOESN’T happen, then Dems will face an existential decision: change, or become irrelevant for some extended time. Much will depend on how things go for Trump, of course.
Yeah. It’s crazy that we aren’t even through his first hundred days in office yet. There’s still a ways to go. His tariffs may give us enough short term pain to cost him in midterms & the benefits of those are likely in my view to take a lot longer to materialize. We will see!
For now, there is nothing the Dems can do. They are in thrall to the activists, who rule the primaries, and the big money donors, who mostly align with the activists. They won’t be rid of the crazies without a uncivil war within the party.
Mike M,
I think a lot of the big donors will close the checkbook if all the crazy policies keep Dems (and by implication their donors!) out of power. I suspect plenty of the more extreme members of the progressive caucus in the House could be primaried out of office if big donors decide they are wasting their money with the most extreme calling the shots….. and they have been calling the shots for the past 5+ years.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178088/gov.uscourts.ca4.178088.18.0.pdf
Trump wins at appellate on USAID.
“While defendants’ role and actions related to USAID are not conventional, unconventional does not necessarily equal unconstitutional,”
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41816/gov.uscourts.cadc.41816.01208724995.0_1.pdf
Trump wins on appeal to fire heads of independent agencies
A federal appeals panel on Friday halted the reinstatement of two independent agency members fired by President Trump, clearing the path for the president to remove them from their positions.
SteveF wrote: “a lot of the big donors will close the checkbook … plenty of the more extreme members of the progressive caucus in the House could be primaried”.
No doubt some of the big donors would be willing to back primary challenges to the crazies. But other big donors will back the crazies over moderates. The crazies will win that fight, at least in safe districts, since there are enough activists to carry low turnout primaries.
Maybe the big donors will be able to push the lip service moderates to actually back moderate policies. But the activists will respond to that by looking to primary those “turncoats”. Since the crazies don’t believe in compromise, it will be a fight to the finish.
And by the way, the extremists have been calling the shots in the Democrat Party since Obama’s second term. They are thoroughly entrenched. They won’t be readily dislodged.
My conclusiion to 2024 was that the Dems had such an aura of crazy about them (earned) that the moderates we supported were wiped out in the disdain for the Democratic True Believers.
I think it’s going to be very difficult to shed the many cultist assumptions that the party has built up over the years and despite what their campaigners are saying there will not be any Democratic landslides, unless of course Trump somehow conspires to do something so nuts that even his supporters can recognize it.
Make Greenland safer?
John,
People probably would have scoffed at the idea that Cuba might become a satellite of our most powerful enemy in the 20’th century too at one point, say back in 1940. It’s easy to assume that because nations don’t change hands every day that it’s insane to think they ever change hands, but history shows it’s a mistake to think that.
Here’s Wikipedia on it:
If the idea is crazy, we’ve been crazy this way for some time now. Shrug.
mark bofill,
Offer every Greenlander US residency and $10million…. 10 million * 50,000 = $500 Billion; heck, we waste more than that in a couple years on boondoggles and lefty NGOs. 😉
I’m still following the Snow Woke reviews.
Jan Moir, Daily Mail, 28 March 2025:
“Working in Los Angeles, I went to see the film on a 70-foot XD screen at the Cinemark Playa Vista. There were six customers in the cavernous 450-seat auditorium. Two walked out after about 40 minutes”
“The humourless girl-power plot is laboured, the new songs are sub-Take That drear – and then there are the computer-generated dwarfs. From the moment they first trundle onscreen in their red onesies, the terror begins.”
“after this Snow White has finished, the remaining four of us shuffle outside the cinema having lived through the longest 109 minutes of our lives. Heigh ho.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14548885/snow-white-woke-cinema-review.html
Steve,
At least we’d have something to show for the $500 billion when it was all said and done.
Matt Taibbi on the loony left clamoring for AOC to run for president in 2028:
If nothing else, Taibbi knows how to write.
AOC vs Vance, that’d be good. That’d work for me.
I think the most sensible future for Greenland would be to become independent from Denmark and form a Compact of Free Association with the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association
That would give the Greenlanders what they want and us what we want. I don’t care what the Danes want.
I just realized something about the Signal kerfuffle. Either everybody has been overlooking it, or you all know something I don’t know.
Set aside the question of how Goldberg got put on the list. How could he read the messages? The encrypted messages. I would think he would need a password exchanged by an independent means of communication.
better yet: Offer Trump’s “Gold (green) Card” for $5 million, then use the money to motivate Greenlanders to sell to the USA. It’s the Art of the Deal writ large. 😉
MikeM,
I suspect the technology of Signal is pretty well known….. but I have never looked at it.
Mike,
The details are public. X3DH and the double ratchet algorithm. There’s explanations of it here and there. Here is one.
I’ve never looked closely either, so thanks for bringing it up.
The progressives will always be there, just like libertarians will always be around. It’s a matter of how much power they are granted by a majority.
They only need an increase of less than 5% of the vote which can be made up entirely by disappointed moderates in Trump policies so … prepare for disappointment.
I expect we will see movement in some areas similar to dropping “defund the police”. Specifically I think they will take this opportunity given by Republicans to deemphasize DEI as most of their party hates this too. Good riddance and a victory for everyone.
Things are trending toward a loss of the house in 2026 so the Republicans need to pass a bill this year and that will be that. Some of the DOGE cuts will stay permanent hopefully. I don’t see the left campaigning specifically on increasing obscure government services.
Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange is the short answer. Signal basically does this anew every time a message is sent and received. But this has been standard for awhile now in public key cryptography I believe.
MikeM,
I suspect the technology of Signal is pretty well known….. but I have never looked at it.
Wikipedia and this explain: https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/03/27/1113919/what-is-signal-the-messaging-app-explained/
Signal is open source end to end encryption communications. Technically it is allegedly very good. Like all encryption you need to be a serious math-o-lete to understand how good it is and only a few are at that level.
It is an open question on whether the deep state or Russians have cracked it. Specifically whether quantum computing has reached that level and who has that tech.
https://signal.org/blog/pqxdh/
I would not make an assumption that Signal is secure if inquiring minds with very deep pockets are interested.
Mark Bofill,
Cross posted.
Steve, yep.
Tom, YEP! I would NOT bet against at least the United States and China having the power to break this security. But to give Signal its due, it makes this a bigger pain in the rear by forcing an attacker to crack every message independently.
There are almost certainly far easier ways to defeat Signal than cracking the encryption. Security on the device almost certainly is easier to beat. See Meltdown and Spectre. These are just the two poster children that everyone knows about, there are very probably other methods.
The whole crypto key exchange arm waving seems like a fundamental flaw. I don’t understand it very well.
The transmitter and receiver need to agree on what the keys are and somehow the receiver needs to be given the key. This usually involves some sort of public trusted entity. It seems rather complicated.
Tom,
Yeah, the key exchange is subject to man in the middle attacks and that has to be dealt with by some device.
Finding the key in memory on a compromised device is all rather technically clever. They have made some hardware changes to protect that going forward. If you have compromised the device you might as well just read the messages outright via the screen or install a fake Signal app.
Intercepting and decoding the communications enroute on public/private networks is the Holy Grail.
Beware suspiciously cheap phones and routers. A lot of comm equipment being manufactured in China is a big problem. TeamViewer is based out of China. Some backup software is funded by China. Fortunately I don’t need to worry about it much because it hurts my brain pretty quickly.
Yup.
Basically, nothing is guaranteed ‘secure’ if an attacker with resources is interested. There’s almost always another way to attack.
Ugh. I need to learn to let things go. Until I learn that though, let me footnote that being subject to man in the middle attacks is NOT the same as having unsecure key exchange. Diffie-Hellman is a method by which two or more cooperating people can together arrive at a mutual secret across an unsecure channel. This is better than unsecure key exchange.
However, the scheme does not solve the problem of how Alice can verify that she is cooperating with Bob and vice versa rather than some man in the middle imposter at the start of the session, which is man in the middle in a nutshell.
Yet another Columbia University president is tossed out. They seem to believe they are entitled to federal funding. They need to just forego it and be completely private with their $15B endowment.
I’m not a fan of loyalty purges by the federal government but I’m also not a fan of funding entitled ideological institutions. There needs to be a civil war inside of these institutions where the normies take over and demand better behavior by their radical counterparts who provide little towards making society a better place.
Let the doctors and engineers run the place, not the social sciences. They can find their own funding.
HTPPS is run this way and the logic diagram of the exchange is all very messy.
https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/what-happens-in-a-tls-handshake/
AFAICT it is dependent on certified/trusted authorities (SSL certificates etc.). If any of those are penetrated then it all falls apart? The claim is this is secure.
Tom Scharf,
“Let the doctors and engineers run the place, not the social sciences.”
You forgot the appropriate scare quotes.
“Let the doctors and engineers run the place, not the ‘social sciences’.” Fixed. Socialist/communist studies would be a far more honest description.
‘Social sciences’ have as much to do with science as my programming efforts have to do with Italian language opera.
Tom,
Ugh, that is way overcomplicating it. I agree with you that that diagram makes little sense. It’s a little mathy but it’s not crazy mathy, its basically this:
1) publicly agree on primes p and g,
2) A = g^a mod p, Alice sends this publicly, note that this doesn’t give away ‘a’,
3) B = g^b mod p, Bob sends this publicly, note that this doesn’t give away ‘b’,
4) Alice computes s = B^a mod p and Bob computes s = A^b mod p.
5) so Alice and Bob now have a symmetric key S, derived from their choices of ‘a’ and ‘b’ without Alice sharing ‘a’ or Bob sharing ‘b’.
At the end of the day, the magic that makes this work is:
(g^a mod p)^b = (g^b mod p)^a
[I know it’s counterintuitive to think that (g^a mod p) doesn’t give away ‘a’ if you know ‘g’ and ‘p’, but if the numbers are yuge and relatively prime, nobody knows how to compute this in polynomial time.]
The certificate authority is the means by which A can trust she is talking to B in the first place, this is the defense against man in the middle.
But man in the middle requires active participation. You have to be on the communication channel spoofing in real time. This is much harder than just passively recording for example and witnessing the unsecure key exchange and then using that key to decrypt further communications.
If the man in the middle knows everything Bob knows and monitors the exchange then he should be able to break the encryption?
If the two sides both had the keys provided by “other means” then there is no need for a public key exchange. This has a major flaw that if that key is ever found out then that encryption link is forever cracked until the keys are refreshed. Storing those keys in memory or disk is another rabbit hole. These get routinely cracked by a lot of different means.
I read the CIA had CD’s of random weather data they sent to different sites to get random numbers for encryption.
Cryptography people view hard coded keys as fatal. Instead they require everyone to go through this complicated mess. However I think this is mostly all about creating a temporary encrypted link between two unknown parties. Different requirement. I’m far from an expert.
I had a customer tell me I needed to do a TSL type key exchange over a 3 foot USB link or I wouldn’t pass a security audit. If the bad guys are monitoring that link then they have already broke physical security and they might as well bring an axe instead and destroy the device.
If I understand what you are asking correctly, no, because public key (g^b mod p) doesn’t give you ‘b’, so you can’t compute A^b mod p. In other words, having the public key isn’t the same as knowing everything Bob knows.
Being the man in the middle, you have to generate and supply your own public key to be able to break in. You can’t use somebody else’s public key.
Look at it this way. Alice needs both her public AND her private key (a) to generate her copy of the secret. Bob needs both his public AND his private key (b) to generate his copy of the secret.
The secret is what they use to mutually communicate with.
Yes. This drives me absolutely wild at work sometimes, when people introduce requirements in defiance of common sense. Security inside the skin of the aircraft? If the enemy is inside the skin of the aircraft, spoofing 1553b traffic is not going to be how he attacks, unless he’s a total moron.
I am so sorry, I misspoke. I mis-thought, actually. Alice needs Bob’s public key and HER private key. Bob needs Alice’s public key and HIS private key. That’s how each of them arrives at the secret.
If you know Bob’s B then you can break the encryption. It isn’t much different then needing to know Bob’s hard coded encryption key in a simple example.
This allows/obfuscates a public key exchange between unknown parties and allows keys to be temporarily generated which is useful, but it still involves a public key exchange.
The basic decryption problem is harder if there is no key exchange at all. The attack vector is the key exchange and how A/B are generated. It’s all rather obscure.
https://www.acunetix.com/blog/articles/tls-vulnerabilities-attacks-final-part/
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/post-quantum-tls/
I’m way past my depth here, ha ha.
One last remark and I’ll muzzle myself. Being ‘man in the middle’ isn’t the same as passively observing the conversation.
Man in the middle actively has to generate his own private and public key and use those in conversations with Alice and Bob.
This is still secure in a weird way; the man in the middle is himself having a secure conversation with Alice, and a separate secure conversation with Bob. Alice could not decrypt man in the middle’s messages to Bob, and Bob could not decrypt man in the middle’s messages to Alice. And no passive observer could decrypt any of the messages.
.
[Cross post – That appears to be talking about a man in the middle attack. Yes, Diffie-Hellman is vulnerable to man in the middle, but still better than plain unsecure key exchange. But I don’t know how to explain it any differently than I already have. I guess I suck at explaining things. I’m sorry about that.]
OK SteveF,
you can unwrap those fish and read something in the NYT which echos a lot of what’s been written here about how the Dems have no idea.
It’s today’s editorial in the NYT and I think right on point. I hope it isn’t paywalled, but if it is, I’ll come up with some other way to share it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/29/opinion/democrats-strategy-2024.html
Gift link from Reddit:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/29/opinion/democrats-strategy-2024.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7k4.8vSC.cj40ZmPjL_dW&smid=re-nytopinion
“Second, Democrats should recognize that the party moved too far left on social issues after Barack Obama left office in 2017. ”
NYT, April fools a few days early?
As usual, it is the comments that are most enlightening.
“Let’s get something straight: It’s not progressives out there pushing for decriminalizing the border or paying for prisoners to change their sex. I ask you: When is the last time you heard Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hammering away on those topics? Sadly, the GOP is free to spend unlimited money scaring people about those issues. President Biden cracked down hard on the border and if there are some crazy Democrats who want to pay for prisoners to change their sex, please tell them to find another party to represent! What we need to do is get big money out of politics. The GOP is free to spend UNLIMITED money coming up with divisive issues to sway voters and then spend UNLIMITED money flooding the airwaves and print publications putting those issues front and center. And they don’t even have to tell the truth about them! I fear the Democrats are doomed to failure if we can’t get big money out of politics.”
“I stopped blaming the Democrats on November 6. My ire is directed squarely at the 77 million Americans who looked at a convicted felon, sexual-assaulter, con man, grifter, frequently-incoherent, petty guy who said he would be a dictator “on day one”. Then they looked at a competent, experienced, coherent woman who is a former prosecutor who believes in democracy and the law and said, “Nah, I’ll take the felon”. That fact told me that our electorate is so far down the “own the libs ’cause Trump is a god” rabbit hole, that there is no longer hope. And now, thanks to that 77 million, Trump, Musk and the Project 2025ers have destroyed so much of our structure and our norms that Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again.”
John,
Realizing what the problem is is one thing. Actually solving it is another. But honestly, I wish Democrats all the best. I think that if they successfully dispose of the crazy and put forward some sane ideas for governance that’d actually lead to peace and prosperity, fantastic. Maybe I’d vote for them, if I could convince myself it wasn’t a bait and switch.
John,
Which sort of ties into something I’ve been wondering. I’ll ask, you certainly don’t have to answer, and honestly maybe I wouldn’t in your shoes. Maybe this isn’t a friendly enough forum for it. I’ve certainly contributed to that.
Why stick with the Democrats at all? What is it you think they’ve fundamentally got right that Republicans have wrong? Or is it that you just don’t like clubs that begin with the letter R?
Answer if you feel like it. I’ll make an effort not to attack your answer if you do; I’m not looking to attack you (right at this moment anyway, hah) but rather to understand you a bit better.
John Ferguson,
I wrap the fish guts in the NYTs, then dump everything a few miles off-shore…. everything biodegradable.
That said, The editorial board said a lot of more sensible things than the wild-eyed reporters say. Still, they have some real blind spots, both in terms of facts and their perception of the voting public. Examples:
1) They blame things like supply chain disruptions for inflation; they are stupidly and utterly wrong. As Milton F said “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.”. The inflation during the Biden years was the direct result of a huge expansion of the money supply by the Fed, which was required by the obscene and foolish spending by Dems when they had a trifecta.
2) They imagine issues like allowing uncontrolled illegal immigration and endless focus on crazy stuff like “gender affirmation” hurt Dems, which is true, but they ignore other very unpopular issues which also hurt them, like the “whole of government” focus on DEI, affirmative action mandates, race based benefits, vaccine mandates, law-fare efforts, etc. Most of these are 60:40 to 80:20 against issues, yet they are ignored.
Short summary: IMHO, the NYT remains delusional about both facts and policy. BTW, it is often hard to find a print copy for my fish. It’s OK: the fish wouldn’t learn much from the NYT. ;-(
DaveJR,
What deranged individual are you quoting? Maybe the Dems will listen to him and not change a thing.
John Ferguson,
I think this analysis of what Dems need to do is a lot closer to the mark: https://town halls.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2025/03/29/its-not-the-message-its-the-madness-n2654676
Roadside rib stand in rural Florida… featuring by old pal, Choo Choo. Image:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1906099343666377061?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
My sons came to help me with a project, but only because I promised them Choo Choo’s BBQ.
Russell, how would you compare this stand to Sonny’s? Where is it?
General question –
I know few here believe in God. What do y’all hang your ideas about good governance on? Is it basically natural rights theory ala Locke, or something different? I assume this but I figured I might ask to see if I’m assuming correctly.
I’m not sure exactly what my ideas rest on. I think it is this, but I’m trying to sort it out now actually. The trouble is, I don’t understand natural rights theory as well as I’d like, so I’m not sure.
Thanks in advance to anyone who cares to answer.
Mark,
Could you please explain your question a little further. I’m afraid I am unfamiliar with “ natural rights theory ala Locke”
mark bofill,
The desire for good governance depends, I guess, on a more fundamental issue: what does one think is “just”. And that, I think, depends on your view of human agency and responsibility. Those who believe that outcomes depend mainly (or entirely) on circumstances rather personal choices, agency, and effort are usually more ‘on the left’, and believe the collective should have power over the individual in virtually all things, while those who believe outcomes depend mainly on personal agency/choices (and effort) tend to reject that the collective should have power over the individual in most things. The definition for ‘good governance’ then depends a great deal on those underlying beliefs.
Of course, it is normally not so stark a choice as that; some power for the collective is needed if people are going to live in communities. The fundamental question is “how much power”?Socialists/communists are on one extreme, while libertarians are on the other. Profound disagreement about where ‘good governance’ sits on that philosophical spectrum is what makes politics important, and during my lifetime, the disagreement in the USA has never been as great as it is now.
I should add: societies organized around religion are always fundamentally opposed to personal liberty: the collect, through religion, controls all personal behaviors. The conviction on the left about what is good governance is almost exactly the same, in that personal liberty is controlled by the collective
Russell,
I’m asking what philosophical foundation your ideas about government rest on.
For example, if you were a progressive trans rights activist and you were being honest, you might answer ‘post structuralism ala Judith Butler and blah blah..’ whomever else. If you were into the racial DEI game, you might answer ‘Marxism, pragmatism, and Derrick Bell’. If you were a libertarian you’d have different answers (I won’t presume to speak for them).
A related question I’m thinking about is this: why be a Republican vs a Democrat, or why be a Democrat vs a Republican.
That should have been “the collective” not “the collect”.
John,
Choo Choo’s ribs beats Sonny’s by a lot (Sides are ok, hot sauce is great).
He is located at the T&T gas station 6001 Palmer Boulevard in Fruitville Florida. He is only there Saturday mornings, except when he has a catering gig (and there is no way to know!) Go early, he sells out.
If you want to try it let me know and I will go scout for you early.
Thanks Steve.
Ultimately though ideas about right and wrong and good and evil are rooted in something. Justice might arguably be downstream of whatever this something is.
Mark,
I have never thought about it, give me some time to ponder it.
Steve,
I am not on a mission to convert people, not at all. Let me emphasize that, not at all. I am on a mission to understand the ground I’m standing on; whether or not secularism can provide what I consider to be an acceptable bedrock for my ideas. It gets slippery quickly though. The line between conservative and progressive thought may be severe but it may also be extremely fine, if both have the same secular basis as the starting point. I don’t know.
John,
He has a Bradenton location too:
https://www.bradenton.com/entertainment/restaurants/article283568533.html
Here, let me disarm suspicion this way. Religion doesn’t really solve the problem either, let’s just get that out of the way. It doesn’t remove the problem of ‘yeah, but how do you know that’s right?’ Since there are many religions that disagree, and ultimately they have to be taken on faith.
In what way can we find more solid footing, that’s what I’m after. Perhaps there is no solid footing. For instance, Ayn Rand tried to give us Objectivism – if we bought that we’d have a solid secular basis for answering questions about right and wrong. I borrow from Objectivism in a lot of ways without claiming to be an adherent. I flirt with lots of ideas and borrow stuff from here and there. It’s the best I can cobble together. Can I do better? Do you know something I don’t and can use?
This is what / why I’m asking.
Many societies through history with different Gods share similar morals. This is also shared among other species to varying degrees, Wolves form tribes for protection, don’t eat your fellow neighbors and family, etc.
I think the basis for rules based group behavior are primordial, communicated through DNA, and focused on survival of the species.
The higher order stuff such as free speech vs censorship is mostly different, although if you are the duck quacking constantly you might get eaten by a predator. Rules that work against long term genetic survival are the exception. Humans protect their weak much more than other species for example.
If you can throw out the emotional component to religion, what purpose does it serve through the ages? One possibility is controlling the tribe with promises of eternal salvation, based on a very strong base fear, fear of death. Behave and you get your virgins.
I doubt that answer is very satisfying to anyone, ha ha.
Tom,
No, it helps. I borrow from evolutionary biology too. Thanks.
I have a sort of pragmatic view of things to some extent in that – if ‘good’ doesn’t tie somehow in some at least approximate way to ‘things that help me survive, and help my kids survive’, then I frankly don’t care about what’s good. But for my own complicated reasons I happen to believe that what is good and what is useful for survival has a lot of overlap.
I think the optimal survival arrangement is a collective, but with exceptions. You want individuals / small groups experimenting with different options to break out of “local maxima”. Crazy uncle Joe leaves the reservation and finds better hunting grounds over the mountain, although mostly he goes over the mountain and dies of various maladies.
Basically genetics with mutations at a high level, a proven survival strategy. Libertarians are the heroic mutations.
I don’t think there is a solid footing that cannot be corrupted. Religion, I think, is the closest you can get, which falls prey to disbelief and may come with other things. Emotion will often overrule objectivity and logic. Humans, on the whole, prefer the comfortable, feel good, simplification to coping with harsh, unsettling, complexity.
Thanks Dave. I’ve thought before that trying to prescribe some finite code to deal with all possible eventualities is in some ways a fools game. It’s sort of like trying to solve life in closed form to avoid having to wrestle with it. Besides that it’d be a totalizing system, totalitarian in a sense. Nobody really wants all of their problems solved in advance for them, humans just aren’t like that.
I sort of expect my working solution set to either be false or incomplete, and I’d prefer incomplete. This is not to say I give the matter no thought, but. Maybe we will arrive at the full solution by the end of time, if either such thing ends up existing.
Mark,
My thinking is not as highly evolved as is yours and others here. My thinking is more basic, but here it goes.
I want to keep religion and government separate in my mind. If I lived in an isolated off grid situation I would have no need for government but hope I would keep religion as an internal guiding light. It is a personal way of approaching the world.
Many times when religion and governments have intermingled really bad things have happened; The Spanish Inquisition for example and Muslim jihads. Also very bad things happen when the government is anti- religion for example Nazis, Soviets and Chi-coms.
Government is two things in my mind:
First government is a necessary evil to keep bad actors, both domestic and foreign, from harming me physically or financially.
Second government gives us the opportunity to accomplish things collectively we could not do individually. For example build bridges or rocket ships.
I know this is simplistic, but I hope it helps.
Tom, your post:
“One possibility is controlling the tribe with promises of eternal salvation, based on a very strong base fear, fear of death.”
Yes and is the basis for the saying ‘There are no atheists in foxholes’.
Thanks Russell. I don’t sneer at simplistic. I’ve gotten the sense before that there must be some post graduate studies PhD’s are required to master in pretentious obfuscation before they’re allowed to publish anything. It’s not helpful.
I largely agree with your thinking.
I am not an anarchist. I want to be a citizen of a government I have representation in to some extent, in no small part because I do not want to be subject to a worse government I have less or no representation in. But there’s going to be a government, one way or the other, so I might as well make peace with it.
I do worry about the basis of our ideas though. We all have an idea of what right and wrong is from our daily lives and interactions. Is it that we are all coasting on inertia from ideas about good and evil that have been propagated on down from earlier generations that did more strongly and openly believe in Christianity in this country? I worry that this might be the case. (I don’t take it as given that this IS the case however) Without having some basis outside of religion for feedback and error correction on our ideas of right and wrong, where are our ideas, and our children’s ideas, and so on, going to end up?
These aren’t meant to be rhetorical questions. This is meant to be me relating the questions I am thinking about. I think these issues play into the evolution of politics in this country.
IMO all philosophical moral foundations fail miserably at scale if they are implemented with purity. A dynamic system that is constantly in flux based on current conditions with a lot of people arguing is a sign of health.
Trump: “”If they [Iran] don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” Trump said in a telephone interview. “It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.”
Well this supports my theory that B2 stealth bombers and B52s moving to Diego Garcia are saber rattling [at least initially].
Thanks for all the responses.
This may be of interest (let me know).
There is a tornado possibility for a large swath of eastern US starting tomorrow. The US Air Force routinely evacuates assets in advance of severe weather.
Here is a screenshot of the big C-130s evacuating Little Rock Air Force Base in Jackson, Arkansas:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1906398639225717243?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Oh. G*d!
Lucia,
Even worse, it may be a US- Israeli joint strike.
If the U.S. and Israel are eventually going to fight Iran, I’d rather we do it before Iran solidifies nuclear weapons. Also, better to be the hammer than the nail.
I guess it’s unfashionable to call for regime change, but that’s what we need in Iran IMO.
Mark Bofill. General question
“I know few here believe in God. What do y’all hang your ideas about good governance on? Is it basically natural rights theory ala Locke, or something different? I assume this but I figured I might ask to see if I’m assuming correctly.
I’m not sure exactly what my ideas rest on. I think it is this,. “
–
Thanks, Mark.
We have a Socrates Cafe at our local University of the third age (U3A) where we discuss society ethics and morals and local school education failures!
–
Good governance is a prescribed talking point in a DEI Australia, even seminars and courses on the blasted issue. Lip service by many people of course, talking the talk only.
–
I would approach good governance as an overall concept from my perspective and experience in this way.
We are all human and have good and bad qualities and desires.
We live in a world theoretically not of our conscious choosing*.
We are exposed to life circumstances beyond our control on a continuing basis.
Yet for those who have survived the game so far ( it is a bit like the Squid game is it not?) we do have a chance to look at the results so far and ponder.
–
There is the achievable goal, practical and mundane and safe .
There is the practical goal, improving oneself and then the situation around oneself (Confucius).
There is the aspirational goal, to go out a few more circles and help more distant others, missionaries if you like.
Then there is the dream goal, the perfect world and governance, a pipe dream.
–
We are all part anarchist raging at the system, part libertarian wanting our own desires and part autocratic, wanting to be a deity.
–
Good governance lies in agreeing with good ideas and supporting and maintaining them.
Your Constitution is a good start in part.
Religions embody a lot of good concepts which do not require a god along with a lot of bad implementation at times.
There are no external winners in a game which ultimately seems to have no prizes.
Can you have have internal winning by living up to your internal morals and principles?
Probably not.
But up until the crunch comes where you have to betray those principles you will feel better in yourself and hopefully make the world a better governanced place.
–
*Only a personal view with a lot of caveats.
angech,
Thank you for your response.
Lucia.
World war 111 with a nuclear Iran or WW3 with a non nuclear Iran?
The decision to attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities has been around for decades and is now approaching the crisis point.
–
By doing so the nuclear powers currently existing guarantee themselves fewer competitors in this dangerous market.
–
The Iranians do not need to be able to manufacture bombs. They can just import them from Pakistan.
Bombing them does significantly increase a risk of use by the fanatical branch of the Muslim faith but this is already intractable built in.
Better to have less countries with such power if it can be achieved to avoid another North Korea.
Fortunately that is ultimately China’s problem and I am sure that the Chinese are working day and night to find away to inactivate North Korea effectively without blowing themselves up..
–
All other nations seem to have less need to destroy the world.
Iran cannot afford to lose face by backing down, no Schumer with common sense there so your comment seems likely to come true.
Angech,
Iran can’t import nuclear weapons from Pakistan. They would have done so long ago if this had been an option
Lots of severe weather breaking out, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio.
Live storm streaming information …. Ryan Hall Y’all
https://www.youtube.com/live/rUv90fPwazo?si=fVt_bX5LCzjb2_2b
Attacking Iran won’t make them forget how to design and manufacture nuclear weapons. It might slow them down or allow for a change in leadership (but I doubt that).
Like the Norks the time to stop them was a decade or more ago.
Giving them pause with their ever present meddling in the Middle East neighborhood might be useful but I don’t think it is worth it because I don’t see much getting achieved. I also am not overconfident we can protect a bunch of Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, especially if Russia decides to return the favor of US Ukraine support by supplying Iran with modern anti-ship weapons.
I don’t think we can do a lot of damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure if they have properly buried it. We can do a lot of economic / punitive damage to their oil infrastructure.
I’d give it better than even odds Iran wouldn’t fight back but not much better than even.
I’d like to see a much firmer useful goal.
Angech, Iran can’t import nuclear weapons from Pakistan.
–
I’m sure they could if the money and motives were right.
I’m sure they import and export a lot of other things both legally and legally.
The only problem I see with Pakistan sending a nuclear weapon to Iran is the age old one of trust in them not using it in the future on you.
–
The ability to build a nuclear weapon is a lot easier now than in 1944..
For a start we all know how to do it now and the rest is not rocket science.
A desperate and determined state under existential threat with a
cadre of well trained scientists could do it in 2 years with the right equipment.
The major hassles being obtaining, purifying and storing the U238.
This should have been a job for a true united nations to declare and enforce policy on.
America is doing the world a favor if it destroys the capability of another member joining the club and secretly welcomed by all the other members.
Pakistan and India both achieved this goal many years ago under these conditions with antiquated technology.
Iran is on the brink, much closer to Europe and hence a thousand times more dangerous.
An interesting point is that Israel is reputed to have the bomb, hence already is a member of the club with all the leverage that gives.
Probably the only thing keeping it safe.
Russian P-800, built since 1987, 2000 mph sea skimmer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks
You would have <5 minutes of warning in the Persian Gulf.
Russia's most recent missiles reportedly may reach Mach 9.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
Tom,
You might be right, and then again you might not. Does Iran know how to make a bomb? However far along they are, they could be farther. Destroying their labs and killing their personnel is a setback. But sure, sooner or later everybody has every tech.
It’s a very American way of looking at it; worrying about if we can we protect our ships in the Gulf. We have become used to overwhelming superiority and have become risk adverse in our war making. Nations that are not first world don’t share this inhibition.
We’ve tested hypersonic defenses. If Russia was responsible for supplying weapons that caused the sinking of a US warship they would pay a hell of a price for it.
All this said, I think it’s obvious Trump prefers diplomacy to attack. He is trying to bring them to the table.
We pay something like 10 billion a year to run our nuclear aircraft carrier fleet. If we dare not send them into hostile situations, maybe we oughtta sic DOGE on them and build smaller and cheaper ships that we feel more comfortable risking.
The NYT has a huge and deeply sourced article on the Ukraine war.
The Partnership
The Secret History of America’s Role in the Ukraine War
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html
It details the involvement of the US in detail battle planning and all the internal squabbles with the Ukraine leadership. It appears the US has been deeply involved the war effort.
AFAICT Iran knows how to make a bomb, has approx. enough refined nuclear material for one bomb, but has not detonated a bomb which we would detect. Their increase and decrease of detectable rate of refining appears to be a political choice.
Once they have enough material then 1945 era tech can detonate a bomb. Making a hydrogen bomb is much more technically difficult, but a fission bomb would do plenty of damage to Tel Aviv and is probably all they need for deterrent. They also need to make it small enough to fit on a missile but I think that is overrated when you could just smuggle one in.
When we allowed US missiles to be fired into Russia the door was opened for Russia to fairly return the favor. Will they do it? Who knows.
My guess is once sophisticated anti-ship missiles start flying in the Persian Gulf and theoretically vulnerable turns into actually vulnerable the US Navy surface ships will leave. The Strait of Hormuz is very dangerous. It’s OK to take risks, just not silly risks. The US Air Force can pickup the slack from area bases. What stops Iran would be the terrible price they would pay.
There is a great deal of uncertainty on how these systems would perform but we have had recent practice with the Houthis low end weapons.
I agree that Trump is just saber rattling but he is not predictable.
What makes you think they want nuclear weapons for deterrence? I think that’s looking at it the wrong way round. The only reason Israel is a threat to them is because Israel believes, quite reasonably, that Iran wants to wipe them from the earth.
You’re not wrong in the rest of what you’re saying.
It’s sad though. In WWII, the fact that all of our ships were vulnerable to U-boats did not stop us from taking action. We are a shadow of what we once were with a fraction of our former national courage.
“What makes you think they want nuclear weapons for deterrence?”
Because the US and Israel keeps threatening them (in their view). The UK and US have historically meddled in their political affairs. Their scientists are assassinated, their equipment is sabotaged, their military leaders are routinely killed when abroad. The US navy is constantly prowling their shores. We shoot down their airliners. Hamas leaders are assassinated on their soil.
They would like to deter these type of actions / responses while they continue their campaign of righteous regional terror.
Iran is by far the most likely next country to use a nuclear weapon in anger. I just don’t think it is stoppable by a military strike at this point. They will need to be annihilated if/when they make that unwise choice. Iran needs better leaders.
I should have said, what makes you think they want a nuke primarily for deterrence.
I think they would (and will) cheerfully try a first strike on the little Satan. After all, Allah is on their side.
I agree with you that they’d be wiser to smuggle the weapon in. Israel might successfully shoot down a nuke delivered by missile, although the Iranians could arrange the trajectory so the defense computers would ignore it and still have a good lethal airburst. But why take a chance when you have fanatics and tunnels.
[Edit: I don’t know if it’s stoppable or not. I’m not sure it’s not, let me put it that way.]
German u-boat submariners had a 75% casualty rate, the highest of all German forces during the war. That was mostly an end of the war thing, the Germans were very successful early on.
There wasn’t much of a choice in alternate strategies here. About 10% of convoys were attacked and 10% of the ships in those convoys were lost. Even during the worst years ~95% of ships reached their destination. The effective was cumulative though, sunk ships don’t sail again. Overall the losses were sustainable.
The question is whether fighting Iran without ships in the Persian Gulf would be a huge impact.
Mark Bofill
I remain nervous.
I’m not going to claim to know what the best chess moves are. But I’m getting the heebie jeebies.
Tom Scharf,
“It appears the US has been deeply involved the war effort.”
Money talks.
Mark, Lucia,
No doubt he is trying to force them to give up their nuclear weapons effort via negotiations.
But I am a little puzzled by the sudden urgency. Maybe US spies have determined they are very close to a test.
If there is an attack on Iran, there are three key targets, in order of importance: leadership (both religious and secular leadership), nuclear facilities, and petroleum export infrastructure. What needs to change in Iran is their official policy of “death to Israel, death to the USA”; only eliminating leadership will accomplish that. The oppressed citizens have been ready to revolt for many years. Any military force should try to make revolt more likely, not less.
Tom Scharf,
“Iran needs new leadership.”
And that has to be the top priority of any military action.
I’d worry about mahdism in the IRG. The wrong person being in charge of their nuclear arms might lead them to doing that strike to facilitate to the return of the 12th iman.
Messiahs and martyrs. In other news, the French judiciary has banned Joan of Arc from running in 2027.
I’m sure that won’t come back to bite them at all.
[Edit: Oops, not Joan of Arc. I meant Marine Le Pen of course.]
“Trump promises ‘big, big problems’ if Zelenskyy backs out of minerals deal”
https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-promises-big-problems-for-zelenskyy-who-wants-to-back-out-of-the-mineral-deal/
I posted the terms of the deal here some days ago, see below. As the proposed agreement gives the US total control due to how it’s setup, I can see why Ukraine is hesitant to sign.
If Ukraine does blackout of the “deal”, it gives Trump an excuse to pull back support from Ukraine. I think Trump is beginning to see the Ukraine slide to defeat and Ukraines refusal to accept surrender to mitigate its losses as a boat anchor on US finances. Trump is looking for a pathway to escape the war and this just might be the way he does it.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/03/trumps-rewritten-deal-with-ukraine-is-imposed-indentured-servitude.html#more
* The Fund is managed by five people, three of whom are from the United States and will have full veto power;
* We are talking about all minerals, including oil, gas and undeveloped deposits throughout Ukraine;
* we are talking about mining by both public and private campaigns;
* the Fund’s money will be immediately converted into foreign currency and withdrawn abroad. If suddenly, for some reason, something did not reach the Ukrainian side, Ukraine pays extra;
* US contribution – assistance already provided to us from 2022 (according to the Kiel Institute, US assistance to Ukraine in 2022-2024 is estimated at $ 119.7 billion)
* The United States can choose to make a profit. At the same time, they will receive “royalties” from the Fund first (and then Ukraine) +4%.
* The agreement will be valid indefinitely
* Changes to the agreement or its completion are only possible with the permission of the United States;
* US priority right to all new infrastructure projects and veto the sale of resources to other countries.
The danger to democracy crowd strikes again, boy is that phrase getting old.
Banning Le Pen from running is a huge mistake, or as we say over here … HUUUUUGE.
I can’t say how the French people like having the elites designate exactly who is allowed to run in their “democratic” elections but they did have that French Revolution thing.
I haven’t followed this closely but it reeks exactly like the Trump political persecution which resulted in what we have now. The governing class telling us “nobody is above the law, especially and specifically our political opponents” isn’t a message they want to send in this political environment.
Macron should immediately pardon her (if he has that ability) and avoid the civil strife.
As a reminder of the EU’s righteous and enduring dedication to democracy
Romania’s cancelled presidential election and why it matters
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2yl2zxrq1o
“Forty-eight hours before Romanians were due to vote in a presidential election run-off, the whole process was scrapped because of an unprecedented ruling by the constitutional court.
The court’s decision to annul the first round came after a far-right independent candidate, Calin Georgescu, came out of almost nowhere to lead the first round two weeks ago amid allegations of Russian interference.”
German lawmakers can’t agree whether to seek ban on far-right AfD
https://www.politico.eu/article/alternative-for-germany-afd-ban-debate-far-right-german-election/
What a bunch of self righteous hypocritical blowhards we have running institutions, it’s an embarrassment to everyone.
Steve,
This tickled me:
https://townhall.com/columnists/williammarshall/2025/03/31/why-dont-we-buy-greenland-n2654708
You proposed the same thing earlier in jest (I thought). This guy recommends starting at one tenth the price you proposed.
$50 billion’s not a bad price when you think about it.
[Edit: I think they propose paying Denmark as well so it comes out to around $165 billion. Still not awful, if we exploit and if it’s in fact worth it in resources.]
I have been reviewing information on the attack on Iran, if it comes to that, and have a prediction on the battle plan.
The Isralie air force will go in first and take out the air defenses and the USAF B2 Stealth Bomber wil deliver the MOAB [Mother of all Bombs], to destroy the facilities hidden underground.
I am a registered armchair general with no bonafide military experience, so feel free to take the above with a grain of salt.
From AI and Grok:
“The U.S. Air Force utilizes the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000-pound, precision-guided “bunker buster” bomb designed to penetrate deeply buried and fortified targets, with the B-2 Spirit bomber being the only aircraft currently certified to carry it. “
How Israel did it last year:
“The operation began with Israeli Air Force (IAF) aircraft, including F-35 stealth jets, F-16s, and possibly F-15s, taking off from bases in Israel. These jets were supported by refueling tankers and reconnaissance aircraft, indicating a long-range mission requiring coordination and mid-air refueling to reach Iranian airspace.The attack was structured in waves. The initial phase focused on neutralizing air defenses and radar systems to pave the way for subsequent strikes. Israeli aircraft reportedly used Syrian and Iraqi airspace to approach Iran, exploiting gaps in regional air defense networks. Some accounts suggest that a preliminary strike targeted a radar site in Syria to blind Iranian early-warning systems, followed by efforts to suppress detection capabilities in Iraq. This allowed the jets to approach Iran with reduced risk of interception.”
Russell,
Sounds reasonable to me.
New video from Elon:
Millions of illegal immigrants were handed Social Security Numbers under Democrat policy—then quietly registered to vote, plugged into full federal benefits, and in some cases, actually cast ballots.
New data, confirmed by Elon and independent investigators, shows a staggering jump from 270,000 non-citizen SSNs in 2021 to over 2.1 million by 2024.
Of those, 1.3 million are already enrolled in Medicaid, and many were defaulted into max Social Security payouts—with minimal verification or oversight.
Even more disturbing? Sampling shows some of these individuals voted.
This wasn’t an accident: it was the plan, and had the Kamala machine succeeded, the American people would have been completely disenfranchised.
https://x.com/marionawfal/status/1906542888596509084?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
The Israeli’s used a series of 2000 lb bombs to kill Lebanon’s leader in his bunker.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2024/october/closer-look-israels-use-80-bunker-buster-jdams-beirut
Iran’s facilities are reportedly 80M to 100M deep. Realistically you want to use a nuke there if it wasn’t so taboo.
https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-natanz-uranium-enrichment-underground-project-04dae673fc937af04e62b65dd78db2e0
Nasrallah’s bunker was about 20M deep. It was protected by buildings though.
I suspect multiple conventional bunker busters, each designed to reach 80-100 meters, dropped in series on the same spot (the same hole after the first), could reach a 200 meter deep facility. I sure wouldn’t want to be in that bunker when the bombs start falling.
GBU-72, 5000 lb bunker buster, it’s capabilities are classified at least until Mike Walsh sends them to a journalist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-72
GBU-57A/B 30,000 lb Massive Ordinance Penetrator, B-2 Only
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP
I have been trying to pin down the us carrier groups in the Middle East. This is more speculation than science ridge now.
I think only the USS Harry Truman is in position to assist, probably in the Red Sea. USS Carl Vinson may have approached the Surigao Strait (Philippines). USS George Washington was in port in Yokosuka Japan.
I do not subscribe to the paid ship locator services, so you all may have better information.
https://news.usni.org/2025/03/31/usni-news-fleet-and-marine-tracker-march-31-2025
Russell,
I have no idea if this site is telling me the truth or not, but I use this:
https://news.usni.org/category/fleet-tracker
Oh. LOL. I’m sorry, same site. blush!
[Edit: To be fair, I’m not having a very good day in any sense.]
Thanks Mark, I’ll check it out, Grin
Do our physics Gurus have any thoughts on the torpedo bat phenomenon?
Is it ‘hype’ or science?
“What is different about the torpedo bat is not necessarily its barrel diameter, but how the wood on the barrel is distributed: Rather than the even taper that most bats have on the barrel, the torpedo bat moves weight from the top of the bat, where hitters do not want to make contact, to the sweet spot of the bat, which players gesture to as the best place to hit a baseball.”
https://defector.com/what-is-the-deal-with-the-yankees-weird-bats
MLB is perplexed:
“MLB scrambling to catch up after Yankees’ power show with perfectly legal torpedo bats”
https://nypost.com/2025/03/31/sports/mlb-scrambling-to-catch-up-with-yankees-legal-torpedo-bats/
Re: torpedo bats
Sounds logical. The new design moves the center of mass closer to the batter, so increases the rate of rotation (for a given torque). The higher rate of rotation means the bat is moving faster when contact is made.
As this is basic, there must be some trade-off involved. Perhaps poorer results if contact is made toward the end of the bat? In which case, the antidote would be to throw the ball on the outside edge of the plate.
HaroldW,
Doesn’t the batter control the bat speed? Would not moving mass inward reduce the kinetic energy of the bat?
(This is not my field)
Week two box office take is in and Snow White continues to bomb.
“Snow White’, Poisoned By Controversy At Box Office, Won’t Have A Happy Ending With $115M Loss”
https://deadline.com/2025/03/snow-white-bombs-rachel-zegler-1236354912/
HaroldW
Unless struck very near the end (2 inches?), the increase in rotational speed (as you go from the handle to the end) ought to mostly compensate for the loss of rebound from less weight being present.
My guesses: the bat offers advantages because 1) its center of gravity is closer to the hitter’s hands….broadening the sweet-spot along the barrel, 2) the entire hitting zone is “stiffer”, and 3) the lower moment of inertia allows a faster average swing speed over the part of the barrel where most balls strike the bat.
Much like golfers swinging golf clubs, the “functional” moment of inertia of the bat is set by the total weight and the distance of the center of gravity from a rotational point that is several inches off the handle end of the bat (towards the hitter’s chest). If you watch baseball hitters (the good ones anyway) in slow motion and compare with golfers in slow motion, the similarity of the hitting action is remarkable, with the hands essentially rotating the bat (or golf club) around a theoretical pivot point that is beyond the end of the club/bat as the ball is struck. Which is probably why ex-pro baseball players are usually very long off the tee.
MB
“$50 billion’s not a bad price when you think about it.
[Edit: I think they propose paying Denmark as well so it comes out to around $165 billion. Still not awful, if we exploit and if it’s in fact worth it in resources.]“
–
Awfully cold place.
If commercially feasible would it not already be pumping out oil and rare earths?
Its value, to America is mainly strategic , both in the sense of being very close to America and of course Europe.
Would never want the Chinese buying it and having their missiles there.
As a serviceman having to live on a base there I think my name would be General Milley and I would consider it worse than Siberia.
Canada would be a better acquisition and both would be fantastic.
In real life and board games!
angech,
Here:
And of course we already have a military base there that Vice President Vance just visited.
Talk about a bleak existence. The poor bloody infantry on both sides are going through pure hell on the front lines almost entirely due to drones.
Being targeted by a drone is compared to lighting strikes. Coming in at well over 100mph, they strike with very little warning.
The interviews with the front line troops are depressing. Attrition warfare at its finest
“‘Please don’t use my name’ A report by journalist Shura Burtin on the growing war weariness among Ukrainians”
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2025/03/27/please-don-t-use-my-name
According to the monster NYT article on Ukraine a Russian general advocated using tactical nukes if Crimea came under threat.
The CIA gave the Ukrainians a naval drone prototype that was the base for their further naval drone attacks.
HIMARS was a significant weapon with Ukrainian generals fighting over who got to use it. It was causing a lot of Russian casualties.
American advisers have been on the ground in Kyiv, SME’s, subject matter experts. Later they were positioned across the front lines.
The decision to allow weapons fired into Russia was based on Russia positioning troops in northern Ukraine to attack Kharkiv and allowing easy resupply from just over the border. They left their equipment and troops undefended believing the US wouldn’t cross that line. Russia suffered some of their heaviest casualties when the US crossed that line (still a mistake IMO). These losses formed the basis of Ukraine taking a bite out of Russia’s Kursk region.
The US saw no plausible way for Ukraine to gain territory in 2024. Not enough equipment, not enough manpower.
The Ukrainians many times did their own thing against American advice / directives. I think this is a bit of military CYA now that things aren’t going so well. The Americans were frustrated with Ukraine not advancing fast enough at certain designated areas and Ukraine was constantly asking for more munitions.
The CIA provided intelligence, targeting information, and drone routes for the massive ammo depot explosion in Toropets, Russia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeXof9lc7ak
This thing is chock full of likely classified material from anonymous sources. Why (why, why, why, and why now?) the military allowed this to be written (very likely authorized leaks) is a bit of a mystery. Could be political.
The Russians will read this as undeniable proof the west is directly involved in a war against Russia, on Russian soil.
The TRO’s being granted against the Trump administration are looking more and more suspect.
It seems laws on the books on RO’s MUST have performance bonds covering the government’s costs if the government eventually wins.
https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-28-appendix/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure/title-viii-provisional-and-final-remedies/rule-65-injunctions-and-restraining-orders
(c) SECURITY. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.
The EU tech tax on America, part 346 …
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/03/france-fines-apple-e150m-for-excessive-pop-ups-that-let-users-reject-tracking/
“France’s competition regulator fined Apple €150 million, saying the iPhone maker went overboard in its implementation of pop-up messages that let users consent to or reject tracking that third-party applications use for targeted advertising.”
This has truly turned into a farce.
thanks Mark.
Tom Scharf,
If the Europeans want to understand why Vance is scolding them, they could start by looking at how they extort money from US based companies.
BTW, the deep involvement of the USA in the Ukraine war with Russia has been obvious since the initial efforts to negotiate a settlement were kneecapped by the Biden State Department…. with the help of Boris Johnson. I hope Trump has the good sense to reveal who was responsible for sabotage of the Nordstream gas pipelines (almost certainly approved by Biden if not actually done by the Biden administration).
I see two problems with the torpedo bat that will doom it to being just a novelty. The first is that the shape of the bat: the sweet spot is now obvious. Only balls struck cleanly in that specific area will go anywhere. And two, pitchers will alternate between a constant diet of outside pitches and busting them inside.
The shape also suggests that when the ball hits outside the sweet spot, it is more likely to deflect foul. With the traditional shape, the ability to reach out and hit the ball and put it in play is greater. If the batter is fooled by the outside pitch, then likely he is also swinging late. The bat shape says that late contact will go foul more often than not. That will make up for any gain in bat speed by having the CG closer to the batter.
And while I do not like Aaron Judge (he is just too good to be on a team I cannot stand), he has said he won’t use it. And he doesn’t have to – his stats speak for themselves.
Read a post from a hitting coach who says the whole thing is about the wider sweet spot giving a greater probability of the ball making solid contact. So what would’ve been a ground out or pop up becomes a line drive.
that makes sense to me.
Dean P,
Plenty of batters will try the bats….. ultimately the stats will be the real judge. With regard to outside/inside pitching: I suspect the benefit of having the center of gravity of the bat a little closer (1″? 2″?) to the batter, and the barrel a little thicker closer to the batters hands will make inside pitches less effective… but only time will tell. I suspect the MIT trained PhD physicist who developed the new shape has looked at all the issues, but maybe not.
DeanP: “The shape also suggests that when the ball hits outside the sweet spot, it is more likely to deflect foul. With the traditional shape, the ability to reach out and hit the ball and put it in play is greater. If the batter is fooled by the outside pitch, then likely he is also swinging late. The bat shape says that late contact will go foul more often than not.”
That may be a feature. If those stay fair, they’d likely be weak ground ball outs; if they go foul instead, that would be beneficial to the batter.
Four years ago, Democrats in Maine changed their law to require that “transgender” students be allowed to play school sports in their preferred gender, not according to their genetic sex. Even in Maine, this is very unpopular: “A University of New Hampshire poll released Thursday showed that 64% of Maine residents believe transgender athletes “definitely should not” or “probably should not” participate in girls’ and women’s sports. Only 29% of Maine residents believed that transgender athletes “probably should” or “definitely should” compete against girls and women in sports.”
Which, once again, puts Dems on the overwhelmingly unpopular side of an issue. Maine has been referred to the DOJ for prosecution under Title IX. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court chooses to enforce a clear and longstanding Federal statute, or chooses to punt on yet another case of unlawful actions by elected Democrats.
With Roberts (and now Barrett) often siding with the Court’s three progressives (who, one must remember, appear quite unable to define what a woman is) on divisive issues, I have no idea how the Court will rule. But it is likely Maine will refuse to comply unless the SC rules against them, which is likely two or more years away.
Seems the Jacobins have been re-born in France, sans guillotine: https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/03/31/banning-le-pen-playing-with-fire/
I predict this will not end well for the ruling (Jacobin) elite.
I very much doubt it was just yesterday somebody thought changing the characteristics of baseball bat might be useful.
You can also make golf clubs and golf balls more effective but they closely regulate them to keep competition fair.
Perhaps there should be some latitude for a batter’s personal style of hitting, but they still force bats to be made out of wood for a reason and it isn’t because that’s the best material.
Wood is the best material for baseball bats, at least if you aren’t worried about expense.
It’s April 1, and not being able to fool anyone with fake headlines like: “Trump resigns!”, I’ll try to inject some humor with a pun from Arthur C. Clarke’s short story “Neutron Tide”:
Setup: a U.S. spaceship had gotten very close to a neutron star, and the gravitational gradient had torn the ship apart.
“Months later a radar sweep by the Salvage Corps located some of the debris. I’ve seen it —- surrealistically shaped lumps of the toughest metals we possess twisted together like taffy. And there was only one item that could even be recognized—it must have come from some unfortunate engineer’s tool kit. … [T]he only identifiable fragment of the pride of the United States Space Navy was—one star mangled spanner.”
From the AI overlords:
Durability and Cost:
Aluminum bats are significantly more durable than wooden bats, meaning they last longer and require fewer replacements, which translates to lower overall costs for college baseball programs.
Performance:
While wooden bats are still used in some leagues and by MLB players, aluminum bats have a larger sweet spot and are lighter, making them easier to swing and potentially resulting in more power and distance.
NCAA Standards:
The NCAA has implemented standards like the Ball Exit Speed Ratio (BESR) and the BBCOR standard to regulate bat performance and ensure a level playing field, addressing concerns about increased batted-ball speeds and home run rates.
Thanks, Tom. Like I said, wood bats are best if you don’t mind the cost.
I am annoyed by the aluminum bat ‘ping’. Nothing like the sweet soundg of a good smack with a wooden bat.
I bet car sales are good today.
Breaking news: Ukraine and Russia agree to a complete ceasefire for 90 days to start negotiations.
April fools.
Proxy voting privileges for new parents. We really are the party of stupid, aren’t we.
Link here. This is not the time.
I had an interesting conversation with my sister this afternoon. (She is an uber-liberal in Massachusetts). Instead of wanting to talk about the subject I called her about, she wanted to tell me how worried she is for the future of the country and how her grandchildren will suffer….. which is to say, she thinks Trump is going to destroy everything!
I didn’t argue (which would be pointless, of course), but it tells you the mindset of the ‘non-deplorables’. They actually believe Trump means the Devil is in control. I find it amusing, kind of weird, and a more than a little troubling. It is like an alternative reality,
No April fools here.
Mark, [and others]:
This is a detailed account of a recent attack on the U.S. Navy by the Houthis and the subsequent counterattack on the Houthi Base.
The technical specifics are beyond my pay grade and I am curious how a third party knows all this detail.
Do you guys think this is legit or a fabrication?
https://youtu.be/TAX7UjO3A0E?si=zixNWtZ6sBeGqZb3
Thanks Russell. Ironically, I can’t watch such videos at work. Wouldn’t want me inadvertently learning something that might positively impact something I’m working on I’m sure, or similar HR logic. I’ll check it out this evening though.
[Edit: Odds are I won’t be able to tell you anyway, but I’ll still watch and comment.]
Tom Scharf,
“You can also make golf clubs and golf balls more effective but they closely regulate them to keep competition fair.”
Sure, and my guess is that if batting stats show the new bat is actually a significant advantage, then MLB will put severe restrictions on the barrel shape…. if not outright banning the end of the barrel being smaller in diameter than the widest part of the bat.
Thanks Mark. It has the air of authenticity, but I can’t believe an outside party has all this detail, and this soon.
As far as I know the Houthis haven’t verifiably directly targeted the US military. That’s an overt act of war. It can be unclear what are the actual targets of incoming missiles and drones and the Houthis might have targeting mistakes. Theoretically they target ships that are “Israel-linked” but it’s pretty much amateur hour targeting over there.
I read that the Houthis use commercial shipping tracking databases and they likely don’t know where the US navy actually is.
I find that any video that is 90% stock video clips doesn’t score high on the reliability scale.
Catherine Horridge:
“Newly released internal FBI chat messages reveal senior bureau officials actively shutting down discussion of the laptop’s credibility days before the 2020 Presidential election.”
And in other news, sunrise today was at the expected time.
The leadership (at least) of the FBI was utterly corrupt, and should be prosecuted for election interference. The vice president of the USA was obviously selling influence for personal gain. FBI response: “Everybody shut up!”
Those FBI leaders are nothing but criminals.
Add to that: the FDA was utterly corrupt in delaying the release of the Pfizer vaccine trial results until after the 2020 election, even while they knew the results well before the election, and had even established a clear study endpoint (satisfied) for publishing the results.
The Federal bureaucracy is in need of a major housecleaning…. the deeper the cleaning the better.
Russell,
Yeah that’s stock footage and publicly available clips AFAICT so in some sense it’d be better just to listen or read a transcript and not be distracted by the video.
Regarding the rest, beats the heck out of me honestly. It strikes me as plausible military fiction based on publicly known info, but I’m sure the real operational details are classified and I’d honestly be surprised if they exactly matched publicly known info perfectly.
TLDR; I don’t know.
Sorry, “Catherine Herridge”, not “Catherine Horridge”.
Fat fingers and a careless eye sometimes corrupt posts…. unfortunately.
A bit of a stick in the wheel spokes for US strikes on Iran. Narrows any attack approach paths by quite a bit.
“ Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have imposed a ban on US warplanes using their air fields or skies to attack Iran after US President Donald Trump over the weekend threatened to bomb the country.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Kuwait have all told the US they will not permit their airspaces or territories to be used as a launchpad against Iran, including for refuelling and rescue operations, a senior US official told Middle East Eye.”
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/gulf-states-refuse-launching-pad-for-us-attacks-iran
Ed Forbes,
And where will Saudi Arabia get its next purchase of military airplanes? Or parts for it’s existing fleet? Trump will ignore them if there is military action against Iran. Are the Saudis going to try to shoot down US jets? I doubt that would be prudent. Their announcements are for consumption by the rabid rabble that make up the population of these countries. It is useful to always keep in mind: these are places where leaving Islam (or being homosexual, or… many things) is punishable by death…. and that is how the rabble wants it.
I spent time in the Middle East; it is frightening what most of the populace wants. And most support “death to Israel”. With that as a backdrop, odd things happen in these countries.
As long expected, Republicans won both special elections in Florida, boosting Republican seats in the House by 2 (220/213). Two Dems passed away in the last month (Arizona, Texas). The Arizona Dem governor will race to have a special election, while the Texas governor is in no hurry for a special election. This makes passing legislation in the House easier for Johnson over the next few months.
It should be interesting to see if Crawford or Schimel wins the Wisconsin SC vote. Polls favored the Dem, Crawford. The tally hasn’t gone very far yet I think.
Thanks Mark and Tom.
For the past few days or so (I was directed to it yesterday by another plane watcher) there has been a “conga line“ of heavy lift USAF aircraft flying between the US and the Middle East. They take the great circle route from the US to Europe and then a beeline from Europe to the Middle East. I have two screenshots from 2:30AM, one of the line of planes and one detail of the track of a single Boing C-17 Globemaster III. These are really big birds.
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1907326962852385086?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Mark Bofill,
The liberal Crawford won easily. Chalk it up as another solid vote against severe abortion restrictions. Republicans lose on this issue just about every time it is actually put to the voters. Trump was right to let this issue go; legislatures controlled by conservatives are damaging other conservative priorities with severe abortion restrictions.
SteveF,
Maybe the Saudi et. al. rumblings about not supporting us in an attack on Iran is to hopefully (for them) avoid any attacks on themselves from Iran.
I still don’t understand why the Israel-Iran disputes have never evolved into anythiing really serious such as Israel destroying their Nuke project.
john ferguson,
That could be part of their motivation, of course, but I would guess they are more afraid of their own populations than afraid of an attack by Iran.
Israel has been targeting Iran’s nuclear program for decades, they just haven’t gone all-out. When Israel bombed Iran (following Iran’s missile attack on Israel), it was reported they concentrated on Iran’s air defense batteries…. perhaps in preparation for a latter attack on the nuclear program. Should the USA actually attack Iran over their nuclear program, I expect the Israelis will also be involved.
Thanks Steve.
I wish everyone an absolutely stellar Liberation Day, or whatever in heck it’s called.
This morning, there are two US Air Force C-17 Globemaster aircraft returning from Israel.
There are two more USAF big birds over Europe and one over Canada.
Screenshot of the ones returning from Israel:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1907428552300966135?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
This may be just a coincidence, and not related to the airlift to the Middle East, but at 10:40 AM there are five USAF C-17 Globemasters off the coast of Florida heading South.
Screenshot:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1907444139651727695
None of them has a stated destination?
On that 5 heavy lift air convoy off Florida…
One landed at Miami, one landed at Palm Beach, one turned off its transponder as it descended between Haiti and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the other two are still flying South, crossing Haiti at 32,000 feet.
Your guess is as good as mine as to the mission.
The thing stopping Israel from attacking Iran’s nuke facilities has been the effective US veto. They have reportedly wanted to do it for quite a while. It’s hard to separate fact from posturing here.
Other countries preventing the use of their airspace and bases for certain military actions is pretty common, they want to stay out of any conflict. It’s a bit unusual for them to announce it publicly which implies permission may have been requested…
Trump does not like Iran very much. Like myself he grew up in the Iran hostage crisis era which colored most people’s views on Iran.
There were two of the Shah’s admirals at Westinghouse Defense Electronics Group at BWI in ’85-’86 when I worked there. We’d go to lunch with these guys in Glen Burnie. My conclusio is that it’s really tough to have used to be an admiral.
john feruson,
“My conclusion is that it’s really tough to have used to be an admiral.”
Inscrutable. Can you amplify /explain?
SteveF,
It’s hard for some people not to be running the place any more. Or at least so it seemed when these guys were about six year from pfremature retirement. On the other hand, they were still alive.
There are currently [9:30 PM] six big birds in the pipeline between the US and the Middle East [and one diplomatic plane headed to Brussels].
Screenshot:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1907608146610171912
I stopped watching, but I did see a couple of the planes that were in the convoy off Florida returning, One from West Palm and one from Haiti.
C-17 airlift is still active at 8:54 AM with nine planes aloft.
Forbes (the publication) has posted a list of the targets of the new tariff system. Norfolk Island, a remote territory of Australia has a separate listing to the amazement of everyone who has the slightest familiarity with the place. Yet the Northwest Territory which actually is home to entities which trade with entitities in US is so far unrecognized.
One source suggests that this list was devised by the Council of Economic Advisors and was based on trade imbalances.
Read down the list and see if you think some of the entries do not make any sense. It looks more like a list invented by a program and not reviewed by anyone who actually knew anything.
Let’s see, first they came for Canada, then Greenland, now Norfolk Island.
Link for tariff list mentioned above: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2025/04/02/heres-the-full-list-of-trumps-reciprocal-tariffs-announced-wednesday/
Although the tariffs were announced as half of those imposed on US goods (which is generally the case), I notice that 10% tariffs are countered by 10% (rather than 5% as one might expect).
We shall see how this tariff madness works out, I’m not optimistic.
The hoped for effect of bringing manufacturing back on-shore is unlikely to happen if everyone thinks these things will be assessed and removed willy nilly. You don’t want to make a big investment only for tariffs to be removed later.
If people voted for change, they got it.
John,
The ‘my political opponents are Nazis’ thing hasn’t gotten old yet apparently. I’d have thought this sort of thing beneath you.
Tom Scarf,
i think if one decided to on-shore a serious plant, it would have to be with the expectation that it could be justified if the tariffs go away.
My guess is that Trump is going to get to eat this idea. Since he’s been advocating this from before the time he needed to do the comb-over, it may be really tough for him to admit this wasn’t a great idea. But then maybe he’ll be able to blame it on poor implementation.
Chinese people may decide not to buy Tesla’s in reaction even though the ones the would buy are built there.
i wonder how the Dow will react.
Dow down over 1,000 points already.
Hi Mark,
I realize it was pretty obvious, but i don’t think i take the full hit for this if i didn’t use the n-word. I think you have to use the word to get Godwin points.
Does any of this (annexing Greenland, and/or Canada and the tariffs) look sensible to you?
For one thing, I suspect that if Canada became the 51st state, the Republicans would never win another national election.
Maybe time for another viewing of The Madness of George III.
John,
It’s not my judgment that matters. But don’t you think it is preferable to attack your opponent openly in the sight of gods and men, rather than trying to avoid actually articulating what you mean? All those who doeth evil hateth the light for a reason.
Canada will not become the 51’rst state, to imagine Trump intends that is to continue to misunderstand his use of social media. Greenland might well become tied more closely to the US, and why not. Greenland does indeed look sensible to me. The tariffs are high risk business for sure, but that is the nature of the President’s job. He will doubtless be roasted at midterms for the economic cost we will incur, and possibly, if we are fortunate, be praised after his term ends for the long term good his tariffs did.
We generalize and sometimes that gets us into trouble.
Cutting people open with sharp knives does not improve their health. This is unquestionable true in the general case. There are these odd edge cases called ‘surgery’ where lives are actually saved by cutting people open with sharp knives and downstream activities.
Tariffs are not a good idea, that is unquestionably true in the general case. This is not sufficient to say that tariffs can never improve any situation at all. I’m going to reserve judgment.
john ferguson
Well… it won’t become the 51st state for the forseeable future. Among those: they will never consent to be a state.
The world stage would have to change drastically for Canada to want to join the US. It would probably have to change so drastically that neither the US nor Canada would exist as currently constituted. Although, if Trump starts bombing more people and the world gets upset, who knows? Maybe the world will change drastically. Maybe the US can become a province of Canada.
Guys,
Trump has made it very clear that just because something he says looks nuts to us, doesn’t even hint at whether he couldn’t possibly mean it or is just kidding.
There’s something strange about supposeing a guy who does crazy things can be trusted to keep his head when a serious and unprecedented problem surfaces.
I think anyone facing a tough situation should get some slack for doing the wrong thing. But our leader’s persistence in all of this craziness does not give me any confidence that he even understands the effects of what he does.
I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. Maybe the reaction this time will clarify thinking in some more quarters.
Trump went about the Canada and Greenland thing all wrong. I agree that the US would bolster its security with additional assets located up north, and that would also increase the security of Canada and Greenland. Trump lead with the stick rather than the carrot. With Russia entering this aggressive phase, both Canada and Greenland might have been amenable to some sort of strategic alliance. Particularly now that the sea channels seem to be opening up, a defense strategy for all three countries might be in order.
john,
I think Putin is playing Trump. (Why would anyone think Putin negotiates in good faith?)
I like some of the cuts in the government, but there is disorganization. The head veteranarian dealing with bird flu and was evidently fired and staff dealing with bird flu were cut. I have no idea whether there was some competence issue, but my first reaction to that is “Yikes! We do actually need to get bird flu under control!” Did people who elected Trump and worried about food prices really want to cut staff dealing with bird flu? I doubt it.
Maybe things will work out– but it’s no big surprise the stock market is down.
Clinton and Gore were able to trim 480k +/- employees out of the government in 7 years, without many of us, (well me) having any idea it was being done.
I worked at Amtrak in 94-95. It was subjected to a serious rif after I left, 1996 i think.
The reduction was enough that getting rid of the usual slackers wouldn’t meet the quota.
Some genius suggested that everyone’s original applications for employment be audited.
I read somewhere that between 15% and 20 % of employment applications contain stuff that isn’t quite right.
It was and it worked. The departures inclulded a department head that I respected, very bright, but he did not have a degree from Brown after all.
Tariffs hurt the imposing nation’s economy and its citizens well being. Tariffs are mostly imposed by a nation leader’s desire to exercise power at the expense of its citizens. Retaliatory tariffs have the same negative consequences as any imposed tariff.
Consequences of tariffs are mostly ignored by political leaders who are primarily interested in using all the levers of powers put at their disposal by their governments and obliging citizens.
Trade wars have some of the emotional appeal and susceptibility to propaganda as military wars with the exception that when the citizens become aware of the negative effects it is not consider traitorous to oppose them.
Given the nature of governments and the politicians running them, a world wide trade war with the US and its current trading partners is very possible. Given Trumps egotistical behavior and exaggerations, it is not unrealistic to expect him not to relent on his imposed tariffs even in view of observable negative effects and citizen disapproval. Given the expected citizen reaction for the midterms dispite some favorable Trump administration actions outside of tariffs, it can be anticipated that the Republican majorities are doomed.
I think Trump’s tariffs are crazy but his job is to look out for the welfare of the people, not the stock market. The usual suspects would be cheering this thing on if Sanders was President.
If it doesn’t work out then the Republicans will be rightly obliterated in the midterms. No politicians survive a bad economy.
It’s a high risk move, and I don’t foresee a high reward out there.
OTOH I haven’t read market prediction articles in the WSJ for years now because the experts aren’t very good at predictions. As of now the reaction is the market hating uncertainty and instability.
Lucia, your post:
“I think Putin is playing Trump.”
Me too. Trump promised to end the war on day one, multiple times he said that. Now he’s got egg on his face and he’s pissed off.
I am suspicious that he’s picking a fight with Iran just to safe face.
Edit, not only to save face but also deflect attention away from the Russian debacle.
Tom Scharf
Sure. But the stock market often reacts badly to things that are bad for the economy or create economic uncertainty. Both are often bad for people’s welfare.
Sure. Neither uncertainty or instability is a good thing though. Of course, things that are certainly bad are worse. And if getting too “good” requires uncertainty and instability, that will have been worth it. But if we knew these were good things, the situation would not be uncertain and unstable.
If there is one thing that doesn’t keep me up at night, it is the Ruskies invading the US Red Dawn style.
The NIH et. al. has plenty of money and if they haven’t been prioritizing bird flu then that is on them. They can cut some lower priority stuff. Perhaps they did have some “bird flu personnel” cut but I don’t trust them to tell me that accurately versus them spreading FUD for their own self preservation.
They dropped the ball with covid (this just in … everyone on earth got covid) so I’m a bit skeptical on everything they say.
Their current job is monitoring and containment. This appears to be happening and perhaps competently. It may be the case that this is beyond their capabilities. I don’t want to hear excuses from them. If they believe it is an existential threat then they need to behave like it is.
The market may be wrong about tariffs, but I’m guessing they are not. It’s going to be volatile for a while I suspect.
Boeing’s Starliner had to be manually controlled approaching the space station last year (it is normally completely automated).
They lost enough thrusters that the flight rules designated that the docking should be aborted and the Starliner should return to earth without docking. If they had lost another thruster in the wrong place then they wouldn’t have been able to control the spacecraft.
Problem with return was that confidence was not high that the return was going to be successful with the lost thrusters. NASA waived the flight rules about loss of thrusters and docked anyway.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/the-harrowing-story-of-what-flying-starliner-was-like-when-its-thrusters-failed/
“But if you lose thrusters in off-orthogonal, the bottom and the port, and you’ve only got starboard and top, you can’t control that. It’s off-axis. So I’m parsing all this out in my mind, because I understand the system. And we lose two of the bottom thrusters. We’ve lost a port thruster. And now we’re zero-fault tolerant. We’re already past the point where we were supposed to leave, and now we’re zero-fault tolerant and I’m manual control. And, oh my, the control is sluggish. Compared to the first day, it is not the same spacecraft. Am I able to maintain control? I am. But it is not the same.”
…
And this is the part I’m sure you haven’t heard. We lost the fourth thruster. Now we’ve lost 6DOF control. We can’t maneuver forward. I still have control, supposedly, on all the other axes. But I’m thinking, the F-18 is a fly-by-wire. You put control into the stick, and the throttle, and it sends the signal to the computer. The computer goes, ‘OK, he wants to do that, let’s throw that out aileron a bit. Let’s throw that stabilizer a bit. Let’s pull the rudder there.’ And it’s going to maintain balanced flight. I have not even had a reason to think, how does Starliner do this, to maintain a balance?””
This was VERY close to a disaster. I wouldn’t have gotten back in that spacecraft under any circumstances.
The S&P 500 is down about 7% since Trump took office. The drop today (immediately after the tariffs were announced) was a bit over 3%. We will see over the next several months what the impact is on stock prices; the immediate reaction of the market may not be a good indicator of what will happen to prices over the next several months.
The impacts of tariffs are not so simple as “it’s just a tax”… especially over longer time spans. Since the announced tariffs are not at all uniform, some countries will be in a better position to export to the USA than in the past, some in a much worse position. On-shoring of common products which are labor intensive is not going to happen much, but shifting production to countries with low labor cost lower tariffs will for sure happen if the tariffs stay in place for long.
The announced tariff rates don’t seem to be only based on tariffs imposed by other countries (non-tariff barriers?), but there has been zero effort to explain how the individual numbers have been arrived at. I suspect the administration will claim (100% wrong on that) that some VAT and sales taxes in other countries should be considered tariffs, when they clearly are not if they are applied to all producers.
The administration owes it to the public to be very clear about how the tariff rates were calculated.
Tom Scharf,
“This was VERY close to a disaster. I wouldn’t have gotten back in that spacecraft under any circumstances.”
Me neither. Burning up a couple of astronauts would be very bad for Boeing; I am shocked they (Boeing) disagreed with the decision to not have people on the return flight.
Even more, I am shocked NASA (under Trump) has not pulled the plug on the boondoggles….. multiple $billions per flight!?!. It is nuts that these programs continue at all.
We should also remember that the stock market actually went up considerably after Trump won in November; so, as of this afternoon, the S&P is down 4.3% since election day (but ~12% from its peak in February). Trump giveth to the market, Trump taketh away. 😉
How many times have we heard predictions of disaster because Trump did this or said that or just doesn’t know what he is doing? Surely that is in double digits by now. How many times has the predicted disaster come to pass? I can’t think of one.
Yet people keep making such confident predictions over and over. And keep being wrong, over and over. I suppose they figure that they have to get one right sooner or later, if only because of dumb luck. Then they can shout “I told you so!”
It seems to me that the smart money should bet on Trump being right.
The H5N1 virus family (bird flu) has been around for a very long time; it is found in many wild birds (usually with little illness). It is prudent to develop vaccines to the currently circulating H5N1, but considering that very few cases have been found in humans (all people who handle sick chickens!), the immediately danger does not seem that great. As for the prudence of firing people at the NIH: as Tom correctly says, these folks don’t have a good track record with pandemics, and they may be just a little tiny bit motivated to preserve their own jobs…. whether those jobs are really needed or not. Kennedy should explain in detail the job functions of the people fired, and the reason(s) they were fired. Silence instead of clear explanation is not good for this administration.
Tom Scharf
April 3, 2025 at 9:02 am
A proponent of an opposing political philosophy or an otherwise biased or wrong headed commentator can make the correct (incorrect) call on a given issue without implying an overall agreement (disagreement) on other issues.
I suspect that opposition to all of Trump’s issues and proposals by some has much to do with what I stated above. Each issue should be judged on its confined merits. The otherside of this way of thinking has to do with those who make heroes out of politicians and and agree with their hero’s proclamations unthinkingly.
Murray Rothbard who I have favorably quoted here more than a few times fell into this trap during the Viet Nam war and those demonstrating for its end. He somehow concluded that the demonstrators view against the war and the ruling regime made them budding libertarians. He finally realized that the war opposition was a single issue and that their leftist notions on other issues were still very much intact.
Mike M,
Yes, every policy and every pronouncement by Trump, no matter how sensible, serious, or important (including obvious jokes), will be ‘trumpeted’ by the MSM as the end of the world as we know it. It has been going on since 2016. It is not going to stop now.
SteveF wrote: “some VAT and sales taxes in other countries should be considered tariffs, when they clearly are not if they are applied to all producers. ”
Nope. VAT acts like a tariff on imports and a subsidy on exports. A US manufacturer that exports to Germany pays our taxes AND their taxes. A German manufacturer that exports to the US pays neither country’s taxes.
For trade between countries that have a similar VAT, it ends up being pretty nearly a wash. But it is a big disadvantage for US producers.
Mike M.
I agree with your take on VAT taxes although I just paid $10 +/- tax in Deutschland for a used tape recorder. Seller, whom I trust, said having me pay saved them a day of paperwork.
I haven’t thought it through (probably obvious) but agricultural subsidies and government market manipulations even though not necessarily applicable to a particular crop tend to reduce cost of farming and maybe create an unfair advantage for our farmers in comparison to their Canadian brethren althugh possibly the same thing is going on up there.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/ch17.htm
Mike M,
Producers based in Europe who sell in Europe ALSO pay the same VAT (generally 15%) as USA based producers selling in Europe. European producers who sell in the USA don’t pay VAT, but neither do USA producers who sell in the USA. VAT is a horrible, regressive tax regime which generates mountains of paperwork and red tape, but it is not fundamentally disadvantageous to imports.
I export products all the time, (probably 70% of my business is exports). VAT’s are a sorry substitute for a much simpler system (like a sales tax), and are designed mainly to hide from voters the extent of tax that the government actually takes on every purchase. So long as a VAT is uniformly applied by a country (not always the case!) then they hurt all producers equally. What is unfair are duties that are put up against imports but that don’t apply to domestic producers. Which is why the Trump administration should clarify where their numbers for import duties are coming from. Calling VATs ‘import duties’ does not make them import duties.
“designed mainly to hide from voters the extent of tax that the government actually takes on every purchase”
Absolutely.
john ferguson,
Canada (like many other countries) has long supported their farmers with market distortions, subsidies, and tariffs. The issue is: most countries simply refuse to depend mainly on imports for their food. Brazilian farmers can grow most anything for much less money than farmer in Japan….. but Japan protects it farmers, and does Europe (about the worst in the world!), the USA, and most other countries. The 10% ethanol in gas boondoggle is blatant protection for US corn farmers and distillers…. if it were really a question of ‘reducing petroleum consumption’ to stop global warming, then you could import the ethanol from Brazil (where their cost is much lower and the petroleum used per liter of ethanol MUCH lower). But importing ethanol is blocked by quotas and tariffs.
Just like Trump’s tariffs, these long-standing agricultural protectionist policies exist for political reasons, not economic reasons. Trump wants to on-shore industrial production to reverse the woeful loss of income growth and wealth in the bottom 60% of taxpayers over the past 30 years. I don’t believe it will do nearly as much good as Trump imagines, but it is a political not economic choice. Consider who has lost the most wealth since Trump started talking about tariffs. It isn’t the bottom 60% who Trump wants to help, it is the top 20% (and especially the top 5% to 1%) who have lost wealth.
Mike M.
April 3, 2025 at 10:46 am
Mike M, I would rather hear your take on the issues than whether we should be persuaded by the thought that Trump is always right on all the issues. The latter is like having Trump do your thinking.
SteveF,
I don’t care if VAT is or is not technically an import duty. It has the same effect as an import duty (and export subsidy). Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
Kenneth Fritsch wrote: “The latter is like having Trump do your thinking.”
No, I am just objecting to passing off conventional wisdom as “thinking”. Trump’s track record is almost always that when he differs from conventional wisdom, he turns out to be right.
Mike M,
How is it an advantage for the European producers to sell subject to the same VATs as USA producers when selling in Europe, and also an advantage for European producers to sell in the USA not subject to VATs…. just like USA producers are not subject to VATs in the USA? I really can see no (zero) net benefit for European producers to have VATs in Europe…. VATs do harm European consumers, of course, but that is a completely different subject. Please do explain exactly where you see a financial advantage for European companies because of VATs.
SteveF: “How is it an advantage for the European producers to sell subject to the same VATs as USA producers when selling in Europe”.
One producer has to pay payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, property taxes, etc. A second producer pays none of that. I do not believe that you can’t see how the second producer has an advantage.
Mike M: I’m a bit confused about who your “One producer” is, are they Europe or USA? Producers in Europe face many taxes beyond VAT including company and property.
Mike M,
“social security” taxes in Europe, which combines retirement, unemployment, and other benefits, are much higher than in the USA. Companies pay real estate taxes and both countrywide and local corporate income taxes. Overall payroll costs in most of Europe are generally higher than in the USA, with the possible exception of some of the former Soviet block countries, where taxes are lower than in Western Europe.
I still see no advantage or disadvantage in a uniformly applied VAT. I don’t think a VAT is good economic policy, just that it doesn’t amount to the equivalent of an import tariff.
Andrew Kennett, SteveF,
The question of what other taxes are paid by European producers is a fair one. My main point is that you can not look at just one tax in isolation. My main assumption was that VAT is by far the dominant revenue source in most countries. Maybe a full comparison would show the overall burden is more even, but I am skeptical.
Here is an impassioned defense of Trump’s tariffs from a “former Democrat”. I don’t know anything about her, but I think she gets the essence of the issue.
https://x.com/ImMeme0/status/1907781018402132119
Mike M: according to google in 2023, in the EU the VAT revenue amounted to 15.7% of total government revenue. And according to Statistica in 2021 the split was Income tax 51.4%, Consumption (VAT and other levies) 27.5% and Taxes on Capital (which includes company tax, property tax and other smaller levies) of 21%
Mike M,
As I said above: slapping on tariffs is a political not economic choice….. and that seems to be what the lady in the video is saying. She is absolutely right that the last thee decades have not been so good economically for the lower 60% of taxpayers. She does seem more than a little confused abut what the tariff levels actually are on US exports…. they are nothing like Trump’s numbers.
The sources I saw say European VAT revenues represent about 17% of total government tax revenue; social security about 28%, income taxes ~50% and the balance every other tax (there are dozens).
A post on tariffs, US global reserve currency status, Russia not listed in the new tariff, and other points of the new Trump policies.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/trumps-liberation-day-another-pr?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1351274&post_id=160454420&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=182d3m&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
An interesting conclusion:
“If true, this would be an interesting development, as it would mean the US-Russia rapprochement is much deeper than assumed, and Trump could be banking on ingratiating himself to Russia as a way to truly turn the world on its head with an unprecedented eventual partnership between the two superpowers.
This comes amidst Putin’s personal presidential economic development envoy Kirill Dmitriev landing in D.C. today, along with full media circuit: Video 1, Video 2. Dmitriev is a Kiev-born, US-raised, Goldman Sachs-trained financier who’s got a unique handle on the lay of the land. His recent rise to prominence clearly indicates the coming together of Russian and American business interests and thawing of relations, which could be a positive sign of Trump’s long term global reorientation strategy.”
SteveF
“Mike M, Producers based in Europe who sell in Europe ALSO pay the same VAT (generally 15%) as USA based producers selling in Europe. European producers who sell in the USA don’t pay VAT, but neither do USA producers who sell in the USA.
So long as a VAT is uniformly applied by a country (not always the case!) then they hurt all producers equally. ”
–
The difference is that the European manufacturers do make much cheaper cars!
The VAT is paid by the purchaser so while you are right in theory, in practice the American car is made more expensive again by having the VAT, which is not an American tax, put on it .
If the VAT did not exist for imported products , the car could be sold at a cheaper, more competitive price.
–
On the other hand if America puts a tariff on foreign cars it makes American cars more competitive at home. It brings the foreign cars up to parity.
–
I cannot see foreign companies dropping their blood sucking VATS so the reality is that American producers will have artificial protection which will save jobs at a cost of becoming greedy and complacent.
–
It is unfortunately the only way to preserve jobs in America against a sea of cheap imports.
Angech,
You are mistaken about car prices: https://www.hotcars.com/this-is-why-american-cars-are-cheaper-than-european-ones/
The European do not even try to sell their less expensive cars in the USA. US automakers have never had a lot of success in Europe. The reasons are manyfold, but Europeans simply don’t buy many US manufactured cars. But it is not price or VAT that are the issues. I also note that while VAT adds about 17% to prices in Europe, US sales taxes add 4-7% in the states.
angech,
I purchased two cars in the last 7 years, one made in Germany and one in Korea. The Korean car (for my wife) was about 15% less expensive than a comparable US made car and just about identical otherwise. The German car (a VW Atlas… SUV) was actually slightly more expensive than a comparable US manufactured car. But it came with a reasonable standard-equipment package and a ‘trailer -towing’ hitch. The US manufacturers tend to offer almost only over-the-top option packages at the dealers, which I didn’t want. A trailer package, which I had to have, required a special order…. raising the price to match the VW. So I could drive away with what I wanted, or wait 2 months for a special order. It wasn’t a hard choice.
Ed Forbes,
The link you provides shows how the tariff levels were set: just based on net trade flows. More than a little nutty IMHO. Vietnam, which has almost no import tariffs, will now be subject to a mind-boggling tariff in the USA, because it has an unfavorable trade balance with the USA.
Trump’s tariffs are in no way ‘reciprocal’; they are protection for US producers, pure and simple.
I expect Congress will put some restraints on Trumps tariffs. I also expect the rapid drop in the value of the US dollar will mean a lot less international travel by US nationals.
Even more, I am shocked NASA (under Trump) has not pulled the plug on the boondoggles….. multiple $billions per flight!?!. It is nuts that these programs continue at all.
The Starliner contract is part of the Commercial Crew Program, and is a firm fixed price contract – NASA has contracted with Boeing to deliver a capability and said that capability has a value of $4.2B. That’s all NASA wants to pay.
Boeing has spent much more than that – Wikipedia says $2B more. NASA is not liable for the overruns.
The question is why hasn’t Boeing cut bait and gone home on this. There must be a penalty clause in not delivering what they contractually signed up to deliver.
DeanP ,
Yes, Boeing has lost $billions (and will lose $billions more on their capsule project). They should take the loss and walk away if that is remotely possible.
But I was mostly writing about the Space Launch System, which has so far cost $32 billion (today’s dollars), and has yet to fly with a crew…. earliest possible crewed flight: some time in 2026 if everything goes right. (I am betting 2027 or 2028, after another $10 billion has been wasted.)
But worse than all that, the entire idea of an expendable rocket that costs at least hundreds of millions of dollars a copy is insane in light of the technology SpaceX has already demonstrated. NASA still acts like it is 1969, not 2025.
Trump tried to kill the program in 2019, but Congress insisted on continued funding. There is no good reason for the program to continue.
I think your budget numbers are optimistic. The number I see for SLS to date is $26B, but you didn’t include the cost of Orion (another $26B to date). And then you have a handful of billions for the new mobile launch platform (current estimate is $2.7B, but is years behind schedule).
This also does not include the cost of the Ares V system that was the predecessor to SLS under Constellation – and SLS has many of the same features – assuming a billion or two per year for the 5 years – that’s another $7-10B that has to go into the current system cost. So we are now approaching $65B.
That is just to get the Orion capsule to the moon – and this doesn’t include Gateway costs or lander costs. Nor does it include future overruns.
All these programs are late. When Charlie Bolden left NASA in early 2017, he said the next administrator was going to have a wonderful year as SLS, Orion and JWST were going to launch and would have people back at the moon by the end of the next term. None of those things happened in that timeframe. JWST launched December 2021. Orion and SLS have had 1 flight (uncrewed) and uncovered issues with the heat shield.
And don’t believe any schedule you hear coming from NASA – so these costs are only going to go up.
I disagree with NASA acting like it is 1969. NASA in 1969 actually did things. Sure, the actual costs were nowhere near the initial estimated costs, but look at everything NASA actually did in the 60s. NASA now isn’t that capable.
I have a feeling if Boeing walks away from their fixed price Starliner contract (which financially makes sense) then their F-47 contract might be in jeopardy. I have no evidence but there may have been a quid prom quo here. At least internally at Boeing that had to be part of the discussion.
FWIW this is exactly what the government messing with the economy in a bad way looks like. I think this will eventually work its way out but damage will be done.
The main question is if this looks like no improvement will Trump be able to reverse course? Trump is obsessed with saving face and can obviously convince himself of fairy tales.
Many have pre-convinced themselves this will not work out, I happen to agree but not with certainty. Markets want predictability when making large financial decisions. I wouldn’t blame anyone for withholding large investments until Trump is gone.
SLS is a boondoggle but I love big rockets! At the moment it is still a go. The new NASA head is to be confirmed shortly and he is a big space fan.,
They should just give all that money to SpaceX, but the worst thing you can do is to continuously fund expensive technically complex projects, then “discover” they are over budget and schedule, and then cancel them. This is a complete waste.
The people who initiate these projects know better and play games. They knowingly under budget them.
EU tech tax #347
NYT: E.U. Prepares Major Penalties Against Elon Musk’s X
European regulators are considering fining X more than $1 billion, after weighing the risks of further antagonizing Mr. Musk and President Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/technology/eu-penalties-x-elon-musk.html
Fines are like a heroin addiction to the EU now.
Trump’s hairbrained tariffs may result in the Republicans regaining some of their lost courage in pointing out Trump mistakes – like the whopper on tariffs.
Tariffs are obviously a tax and in the purview of congress. Further congress should not be allowed constitutionally to give up that power to the executive branch of government. Now that many (besides those invested in the stockmarket) realize the mistake of ceding that power, we could see congress take back that power and rid us of Trump’s terrible taxes/tariffs.
I would hope that those who see tariffs and other impositions by other nations as problematic will also see that the problem falls mainly on the citizens of those imposing nations. Doing retaliatory impositions is the same as saying we can punish our citizens as bad or worse that you are punishing yours.
Kenneth,
It is a political decision to protect domestic producers.
That may be a terrible economic mistake, of course. But we should not confuse imposition of tariffs with anything beyond the desire to protect domestic producers.
Tom Scharf,
“Fines are like a heroin addiction to the EU now.”
Sure. But the weird thing is: they don’t seem to appreciate that the fines are nothing more than economic retaliation (AKA tariffs) against the success of US tech companies. Trump is probably right to focus their attention with tariffs on their products. Will it help? Maybe not; the Euros are almost immune to learning.
SteveF
April 4, 2025 at 2:19 pm
Steve, while I respect your opinion, my economic judgment is that tariffs hurt the citizens of the nation imposing them and overall are no help to domestic producers. Tariffs are imposed out of ignorance. That ignorance could well be a death knell for the Trump administration.
Kenneth Fritsch
“SteveF while I respect your opinion, my economic judgment is that tariffs hurt the citizens of the nation imposing them and overall are no help to domestic producers.”
–
Kenneth.
This clip may change your views.
A very young Nancy Pelosi railing against Chinese tariffs.
–
Breitbart
“Watch: Nancy Pelosi in 1996 Assails U.S. Free Trade with China: ‘Is This Reciprocal?’”.
–
Could I respectfully ask you to explain how China imposing 35% tariffs back then has hurt Chinese Citizens in the intervening 31 years.
–
Is it the exception that proves the rule??
Kenneth Fritsch: “Tariffs are imposed out of ignorance.”
That is an ignorant statement. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. EVERYBODY knows the conventional wisdom against tariffs; it has been repeated as nauseum. Maybe Trump is right, maybe not. But yo suggest that Trump, Bessent, etc, are “ignorant” of those arguments is to make a statement devoid of thought.
I believe that in 1996 China lowered tariffs to 35% rather than impose them (had been very much higher prior to that (https://www.ide.go.jp/library/English/Publish/Reports/Apec/pdf/1996_27.pdf). Still not low enough for MFP in Pelosi opinion.
Trended downward to an average about 8% prior to 2018. I would say trade liberalization has very much benefited Chinese citizens. They wouldn’t have iphones with 140% tariff.
Kenneth,
I suspect that there is a lot more to it than a simple “tariffs” vs “no tariffs” question. Yes, of course, if you look at the ‘global impact’, then tariffs reduce net productivity, and so total global wealth. That said, the issue before the US electorate is not global wealth. It is if policies improve or hurt the economic status of US production workers. If US workers have to compete (for example) with Vietnamese workers, then the US workers lose every time.
As I have said many times: Trump’s tariffs are pure protectionism for US workers. Whether or not that makes any sense (political or otherwise) is an open question.
The point is taken. A LOT of conservatives think this is a yuge mistake. Maybe most of them? I don’t know.
It’s a little late to decide we don’t want to ride this ride; the roller coaster is at the top of the starting hill. Hold on tight, keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle at all times, and try not to smile too much; you get bugs in your teeth.
By which I mean to say, like it or not, we have front row seats to witness the effects, good, bad and ugly. And we will.
SteveF other reasons include Europeans drive small csrs while Aussies and Americans drive large gas guzzlers Toyota sales of small cars go through the roof when we have a petrol crisis
Kenneth,
What is undeniable is that the “free trade’ policies of the past 25+ years have reduced the growth in income (and wealth) of the bottom 60% of wage earners, and especially the bottom 40%.
Clearly, the overall wealth of the USA has increased tremendously. But the discrepancy between the lowest 60% and the richest 1% (and even more, the richest 0.1%!) has grown to the point that the Jacobins are ready to swoop in. This is not sustainable in a democracy. Trump, for all his many, many faults, understands (I think) that closing off the possibility of economic security for 60% of the voters is not sustainable.
I think you have a very “globalistic” outlook on tariffs, Kenneth, and a very narrow definition of what is “problematic”. The politics of running a nation is not as simple as handing over your food production, manufacturing, IT, call centers etc etc to the lowest bidder. People could benefit from the cheaper goods and services, but not if they’re destitute. You’re handing over your security and wellbeing to the whims of others who care not a jot about it and may very well exploit it for their own ends. See Europe and Russian energy, for example.
Kenneth is consistent. He’s a libertarian, and he is espousing the libertarian view on tariffs. Why would we expect something different from him? His view is unsurprising, it’s stuff he’s always professed. There’s no sense getting upset with him about it IMO.
We will see how this plays out. My guess is we are in for short term pain over the next couple of years. After that is the part of the question that interests me. Will we eventually see some improvement as a consequence of this?
It’s going to take some time I think, even in the best of all possible worlds.
angech,
Unfortunately for you,. Australian petroleum reserves are indistinguishable from zero.
Gas guzzlers or otherwise, Australia is in the clutches of the global petroleum industry for the next many years.
angech,
Build 100 nuclear power plants and drive electric cars. But OBVIOUSLY, neither is likely to happen. 😉
Mike M.
What if the conventional wisdom on tariffs is correct?
Sometimes conventional wisdom is correct.
There’s a lot to be said for seeking out other ways to look at what’s happening, but an alternative view doesn’t automatically better describe a situation.
Notwithstanding the above, developing alternative views is how our understanding can become more accurate, but when the thing is fairly simple, maybe not.
I agree with Kenneth’s observation.
further from the National Review, not the most leftist outlet around.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/sorry-there-is-no-genius-plan-behind-the-tariffs/
The big hole in the free trade / comparative advantage theory is when the earnings distribution gets too lopsided. Effectively optimizing solely for GDP doesn’t work sometimes in a democracy. At this point politicians need to step in and redistribute income or else the peasants will storm the gates and all is lost.
Of course the winners in the local economy want to outsource everything to low wage China and allow unfettered low wage immigration. It’s ideal for them. They have failed to convince others that free trade is the ideal route for peasants too, mostly they haven’t even tried to do this. Instead they have relied on appeal to self authority via their awesome credentials.
The key here is they need to recognize early enough the peasants are buying a lot of pitchforks and torches. It’s been badly mismanaged.
Tom Scharf,
Sure, and the phrase that epitomizes the mismanagement is “They should just learn to write code.”
That said, the US trade imbalance ($125 billion per year?) is not large compared to the total economy of $30,000 billion. The imbalance is just a symptom of the impact of off-shoring on the value of labor in the production of goods. Off-shoring will gradually move up the labor food chain, with activities like writing code and doing design work being off-shored when possible. There are language and management barriers, of course, but the wage differentials are so large that it is financially worth the effort to overcome these barriers.
It is worth keeping in mind that the top 1% of the population today has an average personal net worth of $11 million, while the bottom 20% has an average personal net worth of about $65,000. Which is not nearly as mind boggling as the top 0.1% with an average personal net worth north of $50 million. This divergence of wealth has grown dramatically during the past 30 years, in large part due to globalization, and the concurrent drop in the relative value of labor versus capital and physical labor versus intellectual labor.
As you say, the ‘peasants’ are unhappy with this situation. I suppose you could use taxes to address the growing gap, or use tariffs to disadvantage off-shoring. I don’t know how much effect Trump’s tariffs will have on increasing physical production in the USA, but I do know that automation will similarly put downward pressure on the value of physical labor. There are no simple solutions to growing income and wealth disparities. Force McDonald’s to pay $25 per hour for someone to put French fries in the peanut oil, and soon enough there will be an automatic French fry machine instead of employees.
If you can get past the paywall, there’s an interesting piece by Ross Douthat in the NYT which discusses other possible aims of Trump’s tariff actions.
He quotes a source for one of them, but the others seem more speculative. It’s very hard for me to imagine that Trump does very much involving careful thought, but Douthat’s possibilities don’t seem at all crazy.
Lecturer at yesterday’s talk suggested that the existing world order seems to have run it’s course and maybe a shock to encourage a global rethink is worth the anxiety.
Day 4 of the Airlift and there are 11 C-17s flying the mission at 8:45 AM. This is massive. It never sleeps.
Screenshot:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1908500678277808425
The Middle East Airlift security is tight, e.g., no airmen [or women] posting vanity selfies from the mission, no legacy media stories, very few social media posts… mostly guessing at what those birds are carrying.
A commentator on a news show last night made a good point. Trump claims that tariffs will result in short-term pain but not long-term gain as industry moves back to the US. But investing in building factories requires long-term planning (decades) and there is no assurance that tariffs will remain in place for that long. It doesn’t make sense to finance a US factory, if tariffs are removed in 4 years and a foreign producer can then sell at a price below yours, before that capital can be recouped.
Not that I track C-17 airlifts as a hobby (ha ha Russell) but I would agree this looks like more than a run of the mill exercise.
C-17 carries 80 tons. A bunker buster weighs ~16 tons. Could be a lot of bunker busters. I expect the Mullahs are taking note. Iranian air defenses are not very modern, and were already damaged by Israel. Their air force is all antiquated 1960’s-1970’s era aircraft which will be instantly shot down if they take off.
I suspect any strike by the USA will target the Mullahs. Will they blink? Donno…. its hard to say, since they have so many virgins waiting for them in Heaven.
SteveF is doing a good job of describing how globalization has been undermining the middle class. Although he is off on the magnitude of the trade deficit: It is now $1.2 trillion per year.
According to textbook free trade theory, trade benefits an economy by allowing resources to be shifted to more productive activities. That has plainly not been happening in the US. Instead “free trade” deals have been undermining the productivity of medium skill workers and have been shifting income and wealth from them to high income individuals.
The tariff critics never seem to address that question. By ignoring it, they are ignoring the reality of the policies they support. So their criticism of tariffs amounts to nothing more than comforting, self-serving shibboleths.
I do not buy the argument that Trump’s tariffs can not work because the required adjustments take too long. Yes, it will take a decade or more to *fully* realize the benefits. But some benefits will accrue quickly while others take longer. If the result is a one percent per year boost to growth, that will be significant, even in the short run.
One gets the overwhelming feeling that once free trade and AI comes for the governing class’s jobs then the protectionism will kick in with a fury.
Ludwig von Mises, the eminent Austrian economist, wrote about income distributions and standards of living in a capitalist economy 70 years ago. What he states applies today and belies the Marxist and socialist view of income equality.
https://mises.org/mises-daily/inequality-wealth-and-incomes
When I was a kid, an aunt of mine discovered credit cards. She thought it was great: You could buy stuff without having to pay for it. It did not take too long for her to discover that it was not so great.
I was reminded of that by people saying that trade deficits are not a problem since they amount to a net gain in terms of the goods and services we consume. It strikes me as much the same logic as my aunt’s. And it seem to me that ultimately it will be just as wrong.
Mike M,
You are right, I was off on the trade imbalance by a decimal point.
iPhones allegedly will cost $300 more.
https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/iphone-apple-tariffs-china-bb20c7a3?st=nj2hbZ&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Most people will just keep their current phone instead of buying a new one.
I really do not see how lowering the standard of living by way of tariffs is going to do any economic class any good.
Tariffs as a tax are very regressive.
If the current Trump tariffs remain in place we will soon see what the middle and lower economic classes think about how much they are helping their well being.
While addressing the hollowing out of wealth for the lower 60% (and especially the lower 40%), the influence of high levels of unskilled immigrants (both legal and illegal) is a reduction in wages for lower skill level jobs…. including all kinds of service jobs, as well as some manufacturing jobs. Who benefits from those lower wages? People who “consume” a lot of service labor… those in the top 20% in income, and especially those in the top 5%.
Restricting immigration of low skill workers (especially illegal immigration, which is almost all low-skill) will automatically raise the wages of the less skilled. Switching immigration rules to allow high skilled people to enter will automatically increase competition and put downward pressure on wages in higher skilled fields. I can only imagine the hysteria at the American Medical Association if Trump were to give green cards and a path to medical practice to a couple hundred thousand foreign medical doctors. It is the labor market equivalent of NIMBY opposition to nuclear power: “Immigration is swell, so long as it imp[roves my standard of living…. and doesn’t threaten my earnings.”
Perhaps the lower classes will learn the hard way about free trade but the arrogance and entitlement of the upper classes has led to this forced experiment.
If this experiment turns out positive for the lower classes or even if it is neutral trust in our economic wizards from the Ivy league will be tarnished for a generation.
I don’t know that I trust anyone to measure outcomes properly here.
Kenneth,
“I really do not see how lowering the standard of living by way of tariffs is going to do any economic class any good.
Tariffs as a tax are very regressive.”
I don’t know why you can’t. Yes, tariffs are regressive. But if GM hires a bunch of people to build autos that would otherwise have been imported from Korea (for example), the overall impact on the USA is negative (somewhat higher prices for cars), but the impact for those hired workers, and for the local economy those workers support, is very positive.
The link below explains the investment side of balance of payments and why the imbalance fears go back to the gold standard.
https://mises.org/mises-daily/trade-deficit-austrian-perspective
The credit card analogy does not apply.
The thing I worry about is that free trade theory is correct but that other unrelated external factors in the near future will improve outcomes for the lower and middle classes. Good luck explaining that to the electorate professor. President AOC and VP Sanders say otherwise.
“I really do not see how lowering the standard of living by way of tariffs is going to do any economic class any good.”
Overall GDP is lowered 10% but the income distribution is shifted such that the lower and middle classes see a positive benefit.
Will that happen? I doubt it, but it could.
Kenneth,
No matter how much duties, tariffs, and import quotas hurt Europeans, the EU is not going to stop protecting its farmers. Nor will Canada stop protecting its dairy industry, the USA its (ridiculous) sugar industry, and the alcohol-in-gasoline boondoggle is not going to end soon. Governments everywhere do things which explicitly benefit some economically and hurt others. So do graduated income taxes. Trump’s tariffs are no different except in scale; of course they will reduce global wealth, but maximizing global wealth is not their objective at all.
Steve,
FWIW, what you’re saying makes perfect sense to me.
Shrug.
Tom Scharf,
“Most people will just keep their current phone instead of buying a new one.”
Apple share price is off 15% since Wednesday. My iPhone is about 3 years old….. I’m in no hurry to shell out an extra $300 for a new one. 😉
Tom Scharf wrote: “Perhaps the lower classes will learn the hard way about free trade”.
The lower classes have been learning the hard way about “free trade” for 30 years or more. They have been quite thoroughly schooled on the subject.
Here is a solid defense of Trump’s tariifs and a condemnation of benighted policies that have brought us to this point”
https://amac.us/newsline/economy/elites-hate-trumps-tariffs-because-they-work/
Mark Bofill,
I don’t know that Trump’s tariffs will actually help the bottom 40%, of if they do, how long that will take…. too many complicating factors…. but I do think that is Trump’s goal.
I’m a lot more confident that restricting immigration of low skill workers will increase wages for the less skilled….. switching immigration to admit mostly higher skill people would do even more for the lower skilled, and raise GDP at the same time. But that switch faces opposition.
Kenneth Fritsch wrote: “I really do not see how lowering the standard of living by way of tariffs is going to do any economic class any good.”
The policies of the last few decades have most certainly lowered the standard of living of low and middle skilled workers, as SteveF has been ably describing. They constitute a transfer of income and wealth from lower income to higher income.
The claim that the result has been a net benefit to our economy is highly doubtful. As those policies have taken hold, they have lead to weaker overall economic growth in this century compared to previous.
SteveF is correct about the impact of excessive low skill immigration. That, not trade policy, is what has really impacted low skill workers. Trade policy has had a greater impact on medium skill workers who used to have good jobs in factories.
In a simplified model the lower and middle classes may currently be at an optimum, or maybe not. If you effectively tax the upper classes (the productivity class) to shift income to the lower classes then the lower classes may indeed end up with an increased portion, but of a much smaller pie. Everyone loses.
Alternately you must also run a thought experiment to convince yourself that the upper classes can get greedy and run at an optimum for themselves rather than society as a whole. I don’t think this one is very hard, it is the default condition for human groups. That they market themselves as benevolent overlords is unconvincing to me but they manage to convince themselves.
How do you know the difference? Where are we on this curve? I don’t know. In the lab you would just experiment and find out. Otherwise you can trust professor so and so to tune it correctly or open the markets in a free for all. We are a little short on trust.
It’s OK to run the experiment if you are also willing to fairly analyze the results.
The idea that the upper classes are the “productivity class” is rubbish. Yes, the upper classes include a small number of successful entrepreneurs and innovators. And those people are essential to a healthy economy. But a large portion of the upper classes are essentially rent-seeking parasites. They are less productive than the hard working lower income people who produce the actual goods and services people need.
Meh, the most productive in society vote and behave in their interests. They are most concerned with competition among their peers rather than in general society’s outcomes.
There are most certainly some rent seeking classes. Lawyers for instance. Environmental lawyers even more so. The military could be seen as rent seeking if it wasn’t for all those bothersome humans trying to assert dominance.
But yes, it is a mixture of both of those. Many in the productivity class are productive to the extent we allow competence to guide outcomes. Even when we do that perfectly we end up with stratified income distribution.
It can be argued that we got very good at identifying the most productive and this is why we are both the most powerful economy in the world and have wild income distribution. This would be the outcome of a free market.
Tom, your post:
“Not that I track C-17 airlifts as a hobby”
I would not recommend it. It’s addictive.
The Austrian economics article linked by Kenneth Fritsch (April 5, 2025 at 9:07 am) does nothing to convince me. Yes, our trade imbalance is matched by an imbalance in capital flow. No news there. But that just means that we are selling off capital assets in order to support short term consumption. The problem is really no different from borrowing money to support short term consumption. Sooner or later, we will hit a wall.
It would be one thing if our economy accrued some benefit from the capital flow. But I see no evidence for that; it has been accompanied by weak economic growth. What HAS happened is that the price of certain assets, such as stocks and real estate, have been relentlessly bid upwards. That has benefited the ownership classes. But it has been a negative for most others, including those who aspire to ownership of a business or home. That has not been a good thing.
The capital flows have been just one more way that our 21st century economic regime benefits those on top while hurting the large majority of the people.
I believe there is confusion about the origins of who the elite are over time and whether their influence is manifested in a truly free society or by the help of government coercion to further their influence and power.
Murray Rothard recognized the “natural aristocrates” who rise in a relatively free society by their individuality and abilities. He contrast those individuals with the “artificial aristocrats” who gain influence and power through governent coercion. It is that latter aristocrat who will favor government imposed tariffs for their benefit.
A big factor in tilting the advantages of the stock investors over other economic classes is the actions of the Federal Reserve. Due to the lack of most peoples’ understanding of monetary policies and the effects on the economy, the Fed operates mainly in stealth mode. It does not take any genius to notice how much the financial class observes and reacts to Fed pronouncements and actions.
The ruling class rules through government. Without government interference those who gain influence have to do it through voluntary cooperation and actions.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/western-ruling-elite-its-development-and-its-betrayal
It looks like Trump just won a whole bunch of “spending” cases, at least for now:
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/04/scotus-to-inferior-courts-review-tros-that-function-as-preliminary-injunctions/
SCOTUS ruled (5-4, Roberts and Dems in the minority) that district courts do not have jurisdiction; the cases belong in the Court of Federal Claims. The Court also ruled that TRO’s must require the plaintiffs to post bond, something the anti-Trump judges have not been doing.
So Trump can go ahead with a lot of his spending cuts. Of course, there is the possibility of judgements for damages going against the government in future. But I suspect the opportunity for anti-Trump mischief has been severely curtailed.
Roberts is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
he enabled the Democrats unlawful tapping and malicious investigation of Trump in his first term.
He goes on extended overseas holidays at the place of the Democrat lawyer organising the current lawfare resistance and is buddies with the judge , Boasbag.
He votes openly on the Supreme Court against Trump with the minority liberals.
When does conflict of interest require recusal or retirement.
He is a disgrace to the Bench.
JF. Surely you agree?
Enough of todays rant.
Russell, I think you will find this interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCfpYI4qViQ
3D Printed Anti-Drone AK Rounds
Ed,
Thank you. Who needs DAPRA! The advances in weapons of war now seem to be coming from the homes of peasants in Russia and Ukraine.
(Edit DAPRA is The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency)
Congratulations to the Gators on winning their Final Four matchup.
I tried to watch it, but men’s college hoops is a waste of TV time. That being said, I’ll probably try to watch the championship game on Monday.
Hi Angech,
My take on Roberts is that he’s more a sheep in sheep’s clothing.
The not-surprising distribtion of complaints about corruption on the high court seem almost entirely to ignore Sotomayor whose staff “recommends” that the campus book store “stock up” on her books when they discuss a speaking engagement with some institution of learning – higher or lower, your choice.
The other thing that puzzles me is statements from Democrats that the 20% decline in the Dow is wiping out 401K’s. Clearly it’s a serious decline, but “wiped out”?
I confess to ignorance on the percent of low-skill workers affected by the reduction in domestic manufacturing via NAFTA and growth of Chinese exports to US. What have they been doing in the last 20 years? Are they still there? Do they want their old jobs back? If they really are out there, what are they going to do when the onshoring plants don’t show up for reasons suggested by HaroldW above?
As to decades to build a plant, I think it depends on what the plant does and suppose based on experience from the ’70s that a more labor intensive plant assuming minimal permitting obstacles (reasonable to expect in Age of Trump) could go from grass to operation in 18 months, or less.
I do agree that 40% of our fellow citizens have not thrived economically in last 20 years, but what have they done about it?
None of the above is intended to seem sarcastic.
john ferguson: “I do agree that 40% of our fellow citizens have not thrived economically in last 20 years, but what have they done about it?”
They voted for Trump.
The most recent Tesla Gigafactory, in Austin, broke ground in July 2020, started production in late 2021, and employed 20,000 by 2023.
Mike, your post:
“ They voted for Trump.”
Yes, they did!
The Duke / Houston game was pretty good, especially if you think the media had gone a little too far down the Duke worshipping lane. Benighted Duke completely choked at the end, that’s why they play the games.
Victor Davis Hanson PRAISES Trump’s strategy of driving Dems bonkers:
“He doesn’t care. He thinks, ‘I’m only here one term. How do I get back at those people for all the things they did to me?’”
“’I know what I’ll do this week: I’ll say I’m going to invade Panama.’ ‘Oh my God!'”
“‘Well, that didn’t last long. Maybe I’ll say that I’ll make Canada the 51st state.’ ‘Oh my God!'”
“’How about invading Greenland? I got a better idea — I’m going to run for a third term.'”
“He’s not going to do any of that, but he wants to make them go insane. And that’s what they’re doing.”
“And you know what? I wouldn’t do that. And if I was president right now, the Democrats would probably have a 40%. He’s president and he’s got them down to 23% — because he understands their mentality and what makes them go nuts. And when they go nuts, they show who they are. And they’re absolutely blank blank crazy.”
Tom, you got a favorite in the Florida/ Houston game?
“Court of Federal Claims”
You learn something new every day, never heard of that one. The entire concept of the executive not being able to decide how to spend its own money is silly.
Trump will still lose some on these cases where money was allocated by Congress.
It reminds me of all the legal shenanigans of Obama et. al. getting to decide to open the borders but the lower courts holding that Trump is not allowed to close the borders due to to technicalities.
The best part here is the SC signaling they have had enough of national temporary restraining orders / injunctions.
I’ll be rooting for the local team FL, although Houston is in the same conference as WV. I think Houston will win, they showed some real character against Duke.
Tom, your post:
“I’ll be rooting for the local team FL”
Yea me too. Both my sons, two of my old cars and a lot of my money went to the University of Florida!
Guys, it’s obvious that they voted for Trump, but that didn’t get them through the last 30 years. Obviously they’ve been working somewhere?
John,
Perhaps they have been struggling. Underemployed, part time, fast food, etc.
I don’t understand what point you are trying to make by this. Could you put it plainly for the simpletons like me?
Ex manufacturing workers just learn to code! My plumber fixed several bugs in my code for me recently, ha ha. I wasn’t much help with the pipes either.
The manufacturing sector has declined from 25% of all jobs in 1970 to less than 10% today. People who used to work in manufacturing have shifted to the service industry. Instead of building cars they serve fries, work at Target, * leave the workforce *, or find a way to social security disability.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191734/us-civilian-labor-force-participation-rate-since-1990/
(PSA: Note the non-zero axis here)
These places used to have teenagers working at them, but many do find other decent jobs. The south has gotten more manufacturing jobs lately because of more favorable conditions for employers.
Offshoring is only part of it, automation is also a very real issue.
john ferguson,
I took your question as rhetorical, with a strong undertone of “learn to code”. Let me try taking it seriously.
The tens of millions of people negatively impacted by our self-destructive trade policies have no doubt taken many individual paths. Some possibilities:
Entering an early, poverty stricken retirement.
Taking jobs that were far less rewarding, both financially and otherwise.
No doubt many managed to adjust and find new careers or start businesses.
Some found sympathetic doctors who helped them qualify for disability benefits.
Hundreds of thousands, or maybe millions, died of drug overdoses and other deaths of despair.
One thing is for sure: Many lives and communities were destroyed beyond repair.
The overall picture is that skilled manufacturing jobs were replaced by jobs requiring less skill and thus having less perceived value.
Inflation adjusted household income by Quintile over past 50 years
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_image/data/f2/f2964553f2c8551399e9f8897e7a0bc3.png
Whether there is something meaningful that can be done about this is an open question. I don’t think the upper quintile people are very concerned and it shows, so they get Trump, I hope they are enjoying it. They didn’t seem to get the message the first time around, perhaps they will the second time.
I don’t think platitudes about an opportunity economy are going to win the day in 2028. Anyone who wins in 2028 is likely going to do so by effectively promising to redistribute income.
Mike M.
There was no “learn to code” intended here.
I think your list is a good one. There are a lot of people out there in this situation. I cannot see moving manufacturing onshore as a complete solution even where it can be done in a short period and not be mostly capital intensive and the industrialists assured that the demand for the product at a profitable price will survive the inevitable decline in tariffs.
I do worry about what’s going to happen when the affected eventually realize that Trump can’t solve this problem.
Paying people not to work might seem obvious, but my guess is that few want unproductive lives no matter where their economic support may come from. Maybe the decline on our birth rate will solve the problem for us.
Maybe John isn’t aware of the “learn to code” meme. It was posited by the media in response to the problem of lost jobs. When the media started losing their jobs, people told them they could “learn to code”. Those people promptly got censored on Twitter etc for not being suitably sensitive to the plight of others.
i had heard “Learn to Code” and thought it was both nuts and insulting.
In late ’70s I was involved in the construction of a factory in Texas which effectively moved a manufacturing activity from East Chicago to a site NE of Hiouston. Typical salary for workers in East Chicago was $14.00/hour – they were organized. Better quality work was available in East Texas for $7.50 an hour. The guys in East Chicago were not liad off, just no more of them hired and eventa=ually there were some buyouts.
There are two parts to the problem. One is to get people income which doesn’t necessariyl require that they work if they aren’t able to do what is available assuming enough work even is available, and the other is to create an envrionment where people can be proud of their lives.
I think pride in their lives is critical and completley ignored by the libs.
To be fair John, before Trump I don’t think cons gave a hoot either. Indeed I am still trying to decide how much of a hoot I actually give. Needless to say, I am not a factory worker.
I don’t have the numbers but it used to be possible to go to work at GM at 16 years old, work for 25 years, retire on a siginifcant pension and spend lots of time touring the US on a Harley. This was explained to me by someone who was doing just this in the Keys in 2010.
My Ex- Cousins in law who spent the ’70s hanging doors on Buicks at Flint were making into the high $30s working 12 hour shifts when I was making $12k as a fresh graduate architect.
But then it waas over when Buick discovered that Mexicans in Mexico would hand doors for $5/day.
I don’t know how the counsins retrenched, but I think it was by reviving the farm in LaPeer Mich. Obviously, If there wasn’t a family farm then ???
As to whether Cons or Libs really cared? I don’t think anyone but the victims of this change. Even now, I think most Liberal compassion is worn on the sleeve, if at all. After all who else would call a fellow citizen deplorable??
If liberal approaches can garner votes, then they have them, but otherwise, nada.
Drone development in the Ukraine war has many similarities to aircraft development during WWI.
Aircraft starting out in WWI as slow reconnaissance vehicles with no weapons and progressing to pilots bringing personal weapons to shoot at enemy planes. The war ending with high speed aircraft with technically advanced mountings for bombs and machine gun dedicated to hunting down and destroying both enemy ground and aircraft targets. The tactical and strategic nature of war being completely overturned in the space of just several years.
Ukraine War: More Gun Drones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoirTLwxLs0
watching the women’s basketball final and it’s a lot more watchable than the men’s game. I can’t really explain it, but I do like to watch it.
It should be noted when factories were in full vogue the usual suspects considered this akin to prison labor, low wage, child labor, dangerous working conditions, manual repetitive labor, etc. The demands for better working conditions set the stage for exporting the jobs.
It’s not a bad thing to automate out a lot of this stuff.
It’s a political problem to leave a life void for a large segment of the population.
john Ferguson
“Hi Angech, My take on Roberts is that he’s more a sheep in sheep’s clothing.
Meh.
–
Russell Klier. APRIL 6, 2025 AT 1:22 PM
“watching the women’s basketball final and it’s a lot more watchable than the men’s game. I can’t really explain it, but I do like to watch
–
I wonder why too (grin )
–
Pride in our lives (JF) comment raised a bit of introspection for me.
How much of that is really a reflection of how we think other people think of us?
Does a Rolls Royce feel proud that it is a fantastic machine compared to a bicycle when it was constructed to be a Rolls Royce and could not be anything else?
Does Usain Bolt feel proud at being the fastest in the world or proud that he tried his best and looked after his family?
A lot of people just want to get through their lives with as much happiness as they are privileged to be given.
Women’s game was a total blowout.
Watch a professional boxing match and then watch two unskilled people fighting. Tell me which one you find more interesting to watch. Highly skilled means a lot, but it isn’t everything.
Yes Tom, I slept through the second half.
No angech, it’s not that.
Russell
I liked the women’s roller blading back in the 70s on TV, perhaps before your time.
Angech,
I remember it, but wasn’t a fan.
Seeing a couple places talking global market problems:
“Trump digs in on tariffs as global stock markets go into freefall
US president likens tariffs to ‘medicine’ as panicked investors extend massive sell-off.”
I wonder if Trump was planning on a global meltdown because he was figuring the US could weather it better giving him a negotiating advantage.
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/4/7/trump-digs-in-on-tariffs-as-global-stock-markets-go-into-freefall
I have no financial credentials, but there is a lot of really bad news today in the Asian Stock markets. At 2 PM Hong Kong time:
Red ink across the board, Japan China, Korea, Hong Kong, India, Australia…nothing but red:
Nikkei 225 off 7%, Shanghai Stock Exchange off 7.29%, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng off 10.2%, South Korea’s Kospi off 5.25%
Live update:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/stocks/world-indexes/asia-pacific
I posted on the RO’s against Trump being largely invalid earlier. Much more on this starting to hit the news. RO’s MUST have performance bonds covering the government’s costs if the government eventually wins.
Why are Judges Issuing Nationwide Injunctions Without Collecting the Bonds Required to Do So?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hzotd0hfFo
Judge’s Ruling BLOCKING Trump Deportations Is INVALID, Argues WSJ Column: Dan Huff Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYzTeW-mhio
Not sure why the government isn’t hitting this issue in its legal briefs. One thought that crossed my mind is the government wants the fight for strategic advantage for some unknown reason.
?https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-28-appendix/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure/title-viii-provisional-and-final-remedies/rule-65-injunctions-and-restraining-orders?(c) SECURITY. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.?
At 10:51 AM London time all European stock indicators are red. Everything is off between 4% and 8%.
I really wonder if this is part of Trump’s plan.
Russell Klier
APRIL 7, 2025 AT 3:55 AM
Trump, does very little planing vis a vis what the reactions will be to his actions. I hear his advisors commenting that lowering tariffs by other nations will not be sufficient for a same reaction by the US. Trump has not put forth a well detailed strategy with regards to tariffs.
All the talk here about Trump wanting to help the middle class evidently did not consider a stock market crash and the affects on their savings.
If the Republicans do not regain their courage and take from Trump the power to impose tariffs arbitrarily, they will go down with him. They must remember that they face re-elections while Trump’s delusional third term is just that- delusional.
Kenneth,
“If the Republicans do not regain their courage and take from Trump the power to impose tariffs arbitrarily, they will go down with him. They must remember that they face re-elections while Trump’s delusional third term is just that- delusional.”
Last part first: Trump is joking to troll Dems (and libertarians apparently).
Yes, if the economic consequences get bad enough (a significant recession starting), Republicans will join Dems in restricting the actions Trump can take on tariffs. I think it is still early for them to take that action…. a month or two from now it could happen. Of course, if the administration immediately negotiates less onerous tariffs they will likely defuse the need for that.
WRT stock market losses: Much will depend on the size of the stock market drop. If it is under 20%, I doubt it will matter than much. More than that is going to cause Trump political problems.
Roller Derby! Ha ha. Perhaps this was the origin of the phrase “nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JySr3QeeOs
I suppose there were rules and a way to win but I have no clue what they were. I’d rather watch bowling.
I would say the chances of a Republican wipeout in the midterms is very high today. The Democrat strategy to sit around and wait for Trump to screw it up is working. We shall see how it all works out. Unforced error.
Ed Forbes,
As I posted above, SCOTUS has read the riot act to district courts on the subject of Federal Claims as well as on Rule 65(c). Trump’s team was not ignoring those issues. But most of the press were ignoring them..
Trump’s words (CNBC):
“I don’t want anything to go down, but sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday night when asked about the markets.
Translation (KLIER):
Trump wants everything to go down.
WSJ on VAT taxes:
https://www.wsj.com/economy/global/what-is-vat-the-tax-trump-hates-and-the-rest-of-the-world-wont-give-up-357aeb03?st=cecMys&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
The claim here is there is a trade disparity between low-ish sales taxes in the US and higher VAT in Europe.
“Instead, U.S. states’ poorly-designed sales taxes are harming their own businesses’ competitiveness—whether they’re selling down the street, across state lines, or around the world.”
That’s quite the government centric view of things.
Kenneth Fritsch: “Trump, does very little planing vis a vis what the reactions will be to his actions.”
That is an idiotic and thoughtless comment, as I have pointed out above.
Trump clearly expected a correction in stock markets. Such a correction was likely due; so almost mouse could have triggered the stampeding elephants. In this case, we also have the Wall Street moguls seeing a chance to punish Trump and the media cheering on the stampede.
It will be interesting to see how long the stampede lasts.
If you start a game of chicken, don’t blink first, especially when you’re driving a pickup, and the other guy has a skoda.
The stock market will probably recover once everyone understands the actual impacts of the tariffs and who are the winners and losers.
Probably.
DaveJR,
Yes that’s Trump’s plan. We will see if he can pull it off.
He truly thinks he will win this game of chicken.
Ironically, Kenneth’s opinion of Trump is just the kind of thinking he uses to his advantage. Unpredictable, reckless, thoughtless, stupid? Don’t play chicken with people like that.
Tom Scharf,
“The stock market will probably recover once everyone understands the actual impacts of the tariffs and who are the winners and losers.”
Yes, some recovery is likely once the panic selling ends and some leverage is removed from the market (which is what generates a lot of panic selling in the first place 😉 ). There will be winners and losers, and the market already recognizes some of the winners….. but certainly not all. The magnitude of losses for the losers is also uncertain. Apple has been hammered, but my guess is that there is an over-reaction with Apple. After all, how many smartphones are made in the USA and so not subject to Trump’s tariffs? AFAIK, none. If I were a betting man I might buy Apple calls at 10% above the market price.
Off topic, but I’ve read an explanation about how Goldberg got onto the Signal chat here. Seems plausible to me. Basically operator error.
Mark,
I saw that. I have a saying that applies:
‘Some people aren’t smart enough to have a smart phone.’
I suppose that is technically operator error, but it seems more like a design flaw. From mark’s link: “This [iPhone] feature automatically adds a new number to an existing contact if the phone’s algorithm detects a possible connection.” So the phone put Goldberg’s number under the name of a Waltz staffer. With “features” like that, who needs bugs?
It is not clear to me if the feature operated entirely in background or if the phone prompted Waltz for permission.
‘Some people aren’t smart enough to have a smart phone.’
That’s me. Macular degeneration is a handicap. A smart phone is useful in emergencies and for 2-factor verification.
Snow White And The Seven Figure Disaster!
Ater three weekends the gate receipts have spoken, headlines this morning:
‘Snow White Suffers Double Blow: Second Weekend Decline’
‘Snow White Skids To No. 4 At Box Office With Single-Digit Take’
‘SNOW WHITE May Fail To Hit $100 Million At Domestic Box Office After Disasterous 60% Drop’
‘Disney reportedly halts Tangled live-action remake after Snow White’s box office flop’
I suspect that most of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs will be eliminated as other countries agree to greatly reduce trade barriers. I am guessing that the 10% base tariff is here to stay along with many tariffs on China.
I am thinking that the large tariffs right now are to force other countries to make quick deals so as to get the disruption over with.
Trump, 22 minutes ago:
“The United States has a chance to do something that should have been done DECADES AGO. Don’t be Weak! Don’t be Stupid! Don’t be a PANICAN (A new party based on Weak and Stupid people!). Be Strong, Courageous, and Patient, and GREATNESS will be the result!”
He planned it this way.
Amazing to me how some here seem to know Trump’s intentions before he does or ever does. I do think I am sufficiently knowledgable to know cheerleading when I hear it.
I would not be surprised to hear that Trump knew he was going to cause a recession and for good purposes. Purposes to be determined as required.
It’s going to be a long 80 weeks till midterms.
I heard today that the Trump administration was considering payments to farmers for financial injury from tariffs. There goes the revenue from tariffs argument.
Nothing new here that is pretty much the big government answer for a failed program.
It is sounding more and more like Putin will only agree to a ceasefire when he thinks Russia will be able to hold all of the four Ukrainian oblasts they have ‘annexed’ plus Crimea. They probably want complete control of the Dnipro river that feeds water to Crimea (by canal).
So unfortunately, the fighting will continue a while longer.
Kenneth,
I am not cheerleading for Trump. I think his policies are often poorly thought out and instituted in ways that make them less effective and more likely to be resisted. He is like a bull who brings his personal China shop with him wherever he goes. He also willfully trolls his political enemies, complicating the implementation of his policies. The drama/results ratio is way higher than it need be.
SteveF,
Well, Trump promising to get this ended quickly was a campaign promise I knew would not happen.
lucia,
Politicians overpromise and underdeliver almost all the time. Trump is no exception.
mark bofill,
“It’s going to be a long 80 weeks till midterms.”
Why?
I mean, having a dementia patient as president for 4 years was no box of chocolates…. and Biden’s policies (or the policies of whoever was actually setting policy) were horribly destructive, even if met with much less hysteria by the MSM. We won’t be seeing any more of Biden (obviously too far gone ), but terrible damage was done.
Steve,
It’s just my personal uninformed opinion of course. I think we are in for a bumpy economic ride for at least a couple of years. Midterms seems like the earliest opportunity for political pressures to either commit us to our current course or rescind what Trump is up to.
Nobody is suicidal, but there are some morose people in my office who have ‘lost’ significant 401k money on paper as of today.
As far as I know you always get prompted to add a potential contact, it has never just added one automatically for me without asking.
The problem is in a secure system there would have never been an option to add somebody without a clearance to the group chat. They use Signal to avoid public exposure from FOIA and are thus also avoiding these things that are useful.
It can remember emails and phone numbers for autofill when typing them in.
Meh. Midterms is just a future date. What I really meant but didn’t really say is, I don’t have confidence that I know what the economic outcome of this will be long term, but I think its going to hurt in the short term. As in for the next couple of years. Painful things subjectively seem to take forever to get through. I hope it turns out to be worth something.
“Trump said Monday he plans to add an additional 50% tariff on China starting Wednesday if the country doesn’t withdraw its retaliatory tariff increase on the U.S. “Additionally, all talks with China concerning their requested meetings with us will be terminated!” he wrote.”
That should calm the markets.
Kenneth Fritsch wrote: “Amazing to me how some here seem to know Trump’s intentions before he does or ever does.”
Nobody here has made any such claim. Except maybe you.
Many of us assume that Trump has intentions and has a plan to achieve those aims. That ought to be obvious to everybody except those whose brains have been hopelessly scrambled by Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Trump has made his overall objectives quite clear. He has not been clear as to many details, especially when it comes to how he intends to achieve those objectives. Trump keeps his cards close to his vest and likes to keep his opponents off balance. The fact that he does not show his cards does not mean that he does not have any.
I and others have speculated about the details. I have certainly not claimed to know what they are. I often indicate that with words like “I suspect” and “my guess”.
Maybe Trump’s strategy will work, maybe not. His track record indicates that the former is more likely. Recognizing that is not “cheer leading”.
Mark Bofill wrote: “I don’t have confidence that I know what the economic outcome of this will be long term, but I think its going to hurt in the short term.”
That is a sensible position. I am hoping that Trump can get some significant concessions in exchange for lowering the more extreme tariffs. If that happens quickly, the short term might be quite short. If the current status quo remains in place, the pain might last longer than I would like.
Mike,
I’d guess we will reach some agreeable tariff ‘steady state ‘ with smaller players relatively quickly. We might be in for a long term trade war with China. Mutual disadvantage, see who can stand it the longest.
All just guesses though.
Tom Scharf,
“The problem is in a secure system there would have never been an option to add somebody without a clearance to the group chat. ”
I am thinking the same mistake isn’t going to happen again.
Mark
I know Jim and I aren’t typical, but when the market has gone up, or philosophy is the most recent two years of “up” don’t count. We “really” only have what we had two years ago.
On paper is both real and not real. After all, we could convert it into cash — if we convert “now”. But we aren’t going to hold 100% cash either because odds are that’s just stupid and we aren’t psychic.
A “trade war” with China might not be a bad thing. We definitely need to be less dependent on them for things like pharmaceuticals and critical metals. In the long run, they have much more to lose.
That’s interesting, thanks Lucia. I never quite know how to characterize paper losses. I think your approach is useful; paper truth that persists over time is probably ‘real enough ‘ for most intents and purposes.
lucia’s attitude toward the stock market is extremely sensible. Stocks go up and down, one should never make a big deal out of short term changes.
Another off topic sally : I can get AI to do useful work for me, but the work involved in breaking the task down into manageable context window ‘chunks’, feeding the chunks to the AI, concatenating all of the output, and smoothing or normalizing it all at the end seems to be more work than just doing the job myself in the first place. The obvious solution is more automation; maybe I need a supervisor AI to manage the worker AI. Some inductive intuition in my mind is objecting to the notion for some reason.
Maybe not another AI. Maybe the same AI iterating over the problem, with state and persistent storage. I’m pretty sure that’s closer to what humans actually do.
Mark, there are packages which are set up for AI managing and coordinating the output of AI. I think they’re called teams. Maybe those would help. if you aren’t using already.
DaveJR, thanks! I actually have been paying no attention whatsoever to Microsoft’s offerings for no particularly good reasons. I’ll look at it.
MikeM
The thing is, my method allows us to stay in the market rather than digging a pit in the back yard to hold a bunch of gold coins we pull out when we need them. At the same time, it recognizes the market fluctuates.
Obviously, if it slides and loses 90% nearly all of us are screwed.
Over 40 years, the inflation adjusted S&P 500 index has increased at an average annual rate of 5.7% (compounded continuously; value doubles every 12.25 years).
The three bear markets in that time had substantial value corrections: ~40%, ~50%, and ~25% (the last was covid). The two corrections in 2000 and 2008 dropped inflation adjusted values so much that the peak value in 2000 wasn’t duplicated until 14 years later. https://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-data
So while a simple index fund is probably the best bet in the long term, if someone is nearing retirement (5 to 10 years) and will need to draw on their investment funds when they retire, they might want to move some of their funds to cash equivalents…. regardless of what the market is doing as they approach retirement.
If you don’t have mystical capabilities to time the market then don’t try to time the market.
Target date funds automatically adjust allocations as you near retirement.
SteveF
APRIL 7, 2025 AT 12:49 PM
I agree that cash equivalents are important and particularly when the markets take a dive. I have used short term corporate bond funds as my cash equivalents. While there are some price movements there it has never been enough for me to use money markets.
I have heard naive investors talk of lost money when the stock market goes down. That only happens if you have to sell in a down market for current spending or you panic sell.
I think one with any awareness must understand that a goodly part of the market reaction to the tariffs had much to do with how Trump presented them, i.e., without details and purpose.
“They have been ripping us off for years” doesn’t do it.
Mark, I think there are various free versions as well.
mark bofill
APRIL 7, 2025 AT 11:56 AM
I do not know how you use AI, but I use it as a much better and faster searcher than me. My AI does not integrate data but rather throws out several pieces of information. It’s major problem is attempting to always have an answer and that answer can sometimes be wrong. Of course, I have known humans with the same condition. It usually gets it wrong when the answer lies indirect in form. Overall it has been useful for my purpose.
Kenneth,
I’m trying to get it to do stuff at work that I could trust a moderately bright and motivated intern with. Of course security is a concern, but there are edge cases where we work with publicly available 3rd party stuff where the normal ‘Controlled Unclassified Information’ obstacle does not apply.
The latest thing I’m having it do is read source code and produce high level design summaries for me. One barrier is that if the code is lengthy, it’s too much for the AI to ‘chew’; it ends up producing a really inadequate summary. I’ve found if I break up the code I present to the LLM however it can do a reasonable job. I just have to be sure not to overwhelm what it can deal with per invocation, and then figure out how to stitch the outputs together in a coherent way (surprisingly I have not been able to get the LLM I’ve been working with to do this successfully for me, although I read there are LLMs out there that specialize in this task that might do a better job. But there’s only so much play time).
Regarding the always having an answer (and making one up if necessary), if you can control the ‘system prompt’, you can emphasize to the LLM that it ought to tell you if it can’t find the answer and that this is OK. It doesn’t always work, but it sometimes helps me anyway.
mark bofill,
I think there are commercially available AI based software evaluation services, but I do not know how much they cost. Maybe they would do a free evaluation of a routine for you to prove to you they can do it.
Steve,
Well, you caught me. I don’t actually care very much about the summaries [for their own sake. I mean, they DO need to be done, but..] . What I’m really doing is exercising a pretext that justifies experimenting with LLMs and work related problems.
I have my company’s blessing for this. Sort of..
Anyway.
Kenneth,
I’ve found AI responses to my searches not always correct, but more generally what is widely believed. I think this happens more often in trying to chase down a way to do something with say “rsync” where there are a lot of flavors and even if I specify which one, the answers don’t sort.
It occurs to me that as this gets better, it may be useful to apply the Richard Feinmann test where you ask AI “What could be wrong with this answer?”
I sat in some dissertation review sessions at Florida Atlantic U a few years back and found that no-one there ever included a doubt appendix, so I’d ask. I was never encouraged if all I got was a blank look. The other question was “What surprised you the most in the course of this project?” Again, deer in the headlights seemed to me a symptom that we were being entertained by a stamp collector not a serious researcher.
There was one presentation which involved several guys. When the “Surprise” question was asked, there was brief silence, then a lot of laughter and from one of them the question “How much time do we have?” We gave them all they wanted. It was one of the most interesting presentations I’ve ever heard.
So we need to ask AI “How could this be wrong?”
Does this make any sense to you? (My Feinmann question)
Kenneth Fritsch wrote: “the market reaction to the tariffs had much to do with how Trump presented them, i.e., without details and purpose.”
I am curious as to what you mean by that. It is clear that Trump’s major purpose is to reshore much manufacturing, resulting in an improved trade balance and higher income for Americans. That is somewhat muddied by the fact that he also sees tariff’s as a revenue source and wants to reduce exposure to critical supply chains starting in China. I don’t why that should be a big problem.
It is not clear how much of the tariffs Trumps is willing to drop in exchange for concessions from trading partners. That is indeed unsettling. But that is also the nature of negotiations.
I think the real problem is that the money men expect to be hurt by policies that help most of the public. I think that expectation may well be correct. And it does not bother me at all.
Greg Abbot:
“I’ll bet some of the best Texas BBQ and cold Lone Star beer that the Coogs will beat the Gators.”
Ron DeSantis:
“Ok, let’s do it. I’ll put up stone crab claws and key lime pie. Go Gators!”
Tonight at 8:50 PM
I do believe Peter Navarro does not understand at all what he is talking about: “Navarro: Vietnam’s Zero Tariff Offer “Means Nothing,” “It’s The Non-Tariff Cheating That Matters”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/04/07/navarro_vietnams_offer_to_remove_tariffs_means_nothing_its_the_non-tariff_cheating_that_matters.html
He is very, very confused.
“Dumping” has a definition, as does intellectual theft, VAT, and everything else he is bitching about. He needs to put up data supporting those… because he can’t.
I can tell you exactly why Vietnam exports to the USA ~15 times what they import: average wages in Vietnam are US$700 per month while in the USA they are US$5,500 per month. Making widgets, sewing clothing, or farming tiger shrimp is a lot less expensive with very cheap labor.
I just wish Trump and company would be up-front about why they are imposing tariffs…… it has nothing to do with what Navarro said, and everything to do with wage differentials.
Sort of cool, it appears we’ve brought dire wolves back to life. I didn’t realize dire wolves were ever a real thing. I’m not sure how much of an accomplishment this really is yet, this might be another wooly mouse or something of that ilk.
Still, seems neat.
Maybe the robots that rise to enslave us will have to fight the dinosaurs we’ll resurrect next. Skynet vs Jurassic Park sort of thing.
[Joke]
Yeah no. This is another woolly mouse:
I mean, it’s still cool, but it’s not what they try to imply.
mark,
Yeah. The article says that dire wolves share 99.5% of their genome with gray wolves. I think that 0.5% of the genome is a heck of a lot more than 20 edits.
Yup
Oh it’s great…to be…. A Florida Gator!
Looks like I was correct in my post with my interpretation of the AEA.
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to use an 18th century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants, but said they must get a court hearing before they are taken from the United States
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRPzTXVgX4
SCOTUS order on the AEA
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
“Snow White Has Another Massive 58% Decline At The Box Office”
Snow White financial analysis based on the three weekend current run:
“predicts the film will have a guaranteed loss of $300 million” based on a production of $270 million.” and “a potential loss of $350+ million”
Link:
https://fandompulse.substack.com/p/snow-white-has-another-massive-58
Mark Bofill,
I read the long article. They targeted a handful of genes which influence hair color, hair length, overall size, and the size and shape of the head.
They can call it a dire wolf all they want, but it is really just a gray wolf in dire wolf fur. 😉 Or maybe more accurately a gray wolf slightly genetically modified to look like a dire wolf. Are 9 foot tall 450 lb genetically modified humans next? Could be.
I read some of Tim Walz’s comments on immigration (had he and Kamala won). He really does just want to open the border, give everyone who crosses illegally a green card, and (most important) a path to voting (for Dems).
It is no wonder he and Kamala lost….. they are fundamentally opposed to the concept of the nation-state; which is to say, fundamentally opposed to borders.
Ed
Interesting. Thanks for the link to the ruling on the appeal by the Venezualan detainees.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf
Before I post my interpretation of that ruling, I want to address this.
I’m not sure what your position was. Your interpretation of the AEA was a link to several youtube videos, right? I rarely dash of to long youtube videos. Even if I do, I don’t infer any “point” made by the person who linked it. I still don’t know what interpretation you advanced in the past nor what your current interpretation is.
Can I ask you a favor: When you link to a youtube video and think you are making some point or advancing an interpretation, please also post your interpretation in words here, at this blog, were we can benefit from it. Otherwise, none of us really know what point you are making.
But anyway, this is my understanding of the SCOTUS interpretation of the statute:
That is: They do not reach arguments on the interpretation of the AEA. None.
Why didn’t they even get to the point of interpreting the AEA?
I’ve heard habeas corpus I had to google for more…
Anyway: It appears that the TRO was over turned for improper venue. Those seeking Trumps action be restrained decided to bring the case in Washington DC. But, because this is a “habeas” petition, it had to be brought in the court in which they were held. That was in Texas.
Washington D.C. is not in Texas. So the DC court has no jurisdiction in this habeas case. And their ruling is overturned for that reason. As far as I can tell, SCOTUS has said nothing about the legality of Trumps use of AEA. Consequently, no ones interpretation of the legality or meaning of the AEA has been shown to be “right”. No. Not even yours– whatever it is.
That’s what I get from this. Real lawyers feel free to correct me. But that’s how it reads to me.
Thursday morning and there are seven C-17‘s aloft that are probably involved in the air lift to the Middle East. The activity is about half of what it has been for the past 10 days or so. It started dropping off yesterday.
8:10 AM screenshot:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1909581412438548982?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Tuesday morning
I have a theory. I may be all wet on this, but hear me out.
In March, Russia is visually confirmed to have lost 50 tanks. The number has been hovering in that area for several months. Russia’s capability of producing tanks and recovering tanks from storage is a State secret but I have seen estimates.
From Grok:
“New Production: Approximately 60–70 tanks per year, with potential to edge toward 90–100 under optimal conditions.
Removed from Storage: Around 1,000–1,300 tanks per year currently, though this rate is unsustainable long-term as stocks deplete.”
So Russia’s has reduced their rate of losses of tanks to less than their rate of replacement.
This is not the whole picture of course, the war effort may be limited by many things like artillery shells, warm bodies, or drones. But Russias has reduced their losses of naval ships and aircraft to sustainable levels previously.
This may be a very long war.
Tank losses:
https://x.com/verekerrichard1/status/1906776112165949673?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Grok:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_1e4f1128-87d9-48a2-83a2-005f4f0a60a2
Lucia,
“The detain-ees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the Dis-trict of Columbia.”
Judge shopping in Texas is not so simple as in DC.
All of the cases leading to TRO’s (about 12?) have been brought in district courts where the judges are known to be adamantly opposed to all things Trump. The SC could stop this if they wanted to (they evidently don’t), but the real solution is for Congress to explicitly restrict the jurisdiction of district judges and circuit courts of appeal: no issuing nation-wide orders…. jurisdiction within their districts and applying to the plaintiffs and defendants before them, no one else and nowhere else.
Unfortunately, Congress will probably never do this over a Senate filibuster. Dems won’t support it with a Republican President, and Republicans won’t support it with a Dem president.
SteveF,
Oh, I’m totally aware the detainees and their lawyers went “judge shopping”. In this case, it was a big mistake because, (a) the district judge ruling is over turned and (b) most people aren’t going to read the reason. They will tend to jump to the conclusion that the ruling is related to the interpretation of the AEA. It’s not.
We still don’t have much of a ruling on the AEA. The only thing we have is they do get whatever due process requires.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-deportations-alleged-venezuelan-gang-members/
Over all it looks like Trump’s actions did violate the detainees due process. The are required sufficient notice to be able to have a hearing. They almost certainly were not. However, the detainees and their lawyers brought their case to the wrong court.
Not being a lawyer, I don’t know how SCOTUS overturning the ruling affects this part of the story:
Boasbergs ruling is now set aside as invalid. Does that make the legal problem of Trump not obeying it go away? (I honestly don’t know. And of course the ‘ethical’ problem is somewhat separate. At the time not obeyed, it was a judicial order.)
Shockingly the SC says illegal immigrants and people here on visas can be deported in most cases. It’s almost like they view them as not citizens that require permission to be here and that permission is granted at the whims of the executive / legislative branches.
As I have stated many times I am neutral to immigration. I think we need it for economic purposes but the legacy media view that illegals have fundamental “rights” to stay here is crazy. The US has no obligation to protect El Salvadorian gang members from gangs in El Salvador.
Recently they just call everyone “immigrants” as if there is no distinction from coming here legally or illegally. This is insulting and unfair to those who go through the legal process.
Steve,
That gets to the heart of the matter, exactly.
Trump overstepped his authority when he deported people without any due process at all.
The judge overstepped his authority when he made unreasonable demands to stop the deportations of people.
Both of these people are just performing for their audiences.
There should be due process, but that is mostly just making sure the rules are being followed and to ensure citizens don’t accidentally get deported. This should not be the judiciary making * independent * evaluations on the legitimacy of deportation. The burden of proof should not be on the US once non-citizenship has been verified.
1. You aren’t a citizen.
2. The executive doesn’t want you here.
3. Good bye
Behave yourself. If you come here on a student visa and start protesting in the streets then you should be able to be deported at the whims of executive. It’s like being asked as a guest in a house and you start screaming about what’s being made for dinner IMO.
Accountability through elections.
The Supreme Court decision requires habeas corpus despite what the law in question suggested. I had made this point previously here. The Court very specifically noted they were not ruling on the use of the law for deportation in this case. That evidently can be decided by the court in Texas where habeas corpus will be exercised.
Tom, would not free speech reign even for a student on visa unless the visa had some contractual language on acceptable behavior and consequences.
Ummmm … I don’t want a bunch of real dire wolves running around in the woods and suburbs. Can’t they start with some awesome speckled furry owl with extra big eyes or something?
Kenneth,
I don’t think it is a free speech issue. You aren’t granted full citizenship rights through a student visa (? I really don’t know this for a fact).
It depends on how one views it. I see student visas as being a guest in a home versus an alternate view where they are viewed as the public having equal access to a shopping mall.
I really don’t think I should be able to go to Russia or Spain and make demands on their government of how they should treat me. They may * choose * to treat me well but they have no obligation to do so. They have an obligation with citizens. It’s a hard line of demarcation.
To be clear personally I don’t care if they scream about Hamas but the government doesn’t have to tolerate it. Plenty of citizens will scream about Hamas anyway so my view is the government should tolerate it, but choose to do so.
Kenneth,
I take seriously the claim that governments are instituted among men to secure our inalienable rights. If someone is a visitor and not a citizen, in my view our government wasn’t instituted to secure their inalienable rights. I mean, seriously. There is a legitimate reason we do not march off to defend the rights of victims all over the world, is there not? I think there is, and I think this is it.
In practice it seems to boil down to where one is standing. Our government secures our inalienable rights by securing inalienable rights [for] everyone on American soil. This is a pretty decent approximation, but to my mind this is just a heuristic. There’s nothing magical about the land, it’s the citizenry that is important.
My view is non standard, is not legally correct, and, well. People can argue about what moral or philosophical value it may or may not have.
Shrug.
Also consider obligations. Along with rights go obligations, and I don’t think non citizens have the same obligations that citizens do. I mean, they can (and do) leave approximately at will. They don’t have the same skin in the game, so to speak. They are less likely to be invested in the welfare of the nation in the same manner as the citizenry.
John Ferguson, I wholeheartedly agree that that is a most important question for any search or research. I do independent research on various popular current topics and questions. When I write up my initial results – for my own edification – I, in effect, ask my self that same question about parts of what I have written. It often means I go back and look more closely at the data and methods used.
What I have found the most exciting part of research to be is when the data suggests something very different than what I had expected. That is when discovery begins.
As an example:
Does that giant “13” or “18” tattoo make you an unwanted gang member worthy of deportation or are you just an unfortunate person who got a 13 tattoo for your favorite soccer player in El Salvador?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MS-13_tattoo_2.jpg
Who makes that determination? The court? Who has the burden of proof and at what level? Should gang members be allowed to stay anyway? Do they deserve protection from their bad life choices in another country?
It’s one thing if there were 100 cases a year that went through a judicial process, it’s another when the system is being exploited at scale in a 1 million cases a year.
Lucia,
“Boasbergs ruling is now set aside as invalid.”
Yes, but on the issue only of jurisdiction for a habeus claim.
The judge’s order was arguably insane: turn planes around mid-flight? Madness. Judges could tell a president to do any number of insane things contrary to his/her oath of office, and they would always be ignored, even if those insane things were obvious “judicial orders”. IMHO, activist district judges need to put on a short jurisdictional leash. Until then, they will continue to cause many problems with rational administration of laws.
mark bofill
April 8, 2025 at 8:25 am
Not all citizens of the US can be considered to have the same skin in the game depending on how that might be measured, but that should have no bearing on their natural rights.
We allow protest by citizens for causes we do not all agree with and thus I see no reason why adding a few non- citizens makes any practical difference. I want to know where my enemies stand.
No bearing on their natural rights, I agree. But I think it has bearing on the obligations of our limited, finite, member composed nation of citizens to secure those rights.
Everyone has natural rights. That doesn’t mean me and my government are obligated to secure everyone’s natural rights.
Kenneth,
If you disagree with this point, I’d be interested to hear why you believe we should not intervene in other nations. I mean, other nations violate the natural rights of their citizens all day long. Why do we have no obligation to go fix that? Or do we, in your view?
There is a disconnect on the trade/tariffs issue. On one hand, economic theory suggest that free trade is good and tariffs are bad. On the other hand, our trade policies have rather clearly led to major negative effects. Without being able to reconcile the two, it seems that those who emphasize the theory and those who emphasize the empirical results are doomed to talk past each other.
I think the disconnect might be due to the Baumol Effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect#
Rising productivity in some sectors produce rising wages in all sectors. “The rise of wages in jobs without productivity gains results from the need to compete for workers with jobs that have experienced productivity gains and so can naturally pay higher wages.”
The Baumol Effect is often referred to as a “cost disease” which would seem to imply that it is a bad thing. But it seems to me that it is clearly a good thing since it provides a market based way to reduce extreme income inequality. Without it, capitalism might have eaten itself a long time ago.
I have long been aware of the phenomenon, but it had not occurred to me that it might be relevant to trade and immigration. The connection comes from the fact that the Baumol Effect depends on a *finite* labor supply. Open borders and free trade with low income countries creates a nearly unlimited labor supply, thus undermining the natural income redistribution that occurs with a limited labor supply. I think that fits well with what has been observed compared to what free trade theory predicts.
The Wikipedia article linked above does not discuss that point. It does have an interesting graph that shows that, in the US, goods producing employment has increased very little while service providing employment has increased more than a factor of six: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment.jpg
That graph is qualitatively consistent with the Baumol Effect prediction that service employment should increase more rapidly than manufacturing employment. But it does not work quantitatively, as discussed in the section on “Labor force distribution”. The magnitude of the shift in employment seems to be too large, possibly much too large, to explain by the Baumol Effect. The article mentions various proposed theories for the discrepancy including “outsourcing to countries with lower labor costs”.
Kenneth,
I have to confess that most of my surprises have been the result of failure to understand what I was doing, but then they occurred and the ultimate result was as good as I could do.
As an aside, it’s been realized here in St Pete that most of the toilet paper consumed (?) in the US comes to us from Canada.
Errrrr? Eh?
Tom Scharf,
“1. You aren’t a citizen.
2. The executive doesn’t want you here.
3. Good bye”
Yup, that is pretty much the way immigration law has always been enforced: the executive has plenary power to deport any non-citizen who’s continued presence is deemed deleterious to the USA. I have zero problem with that. Non-citizens should behave like house guests, not political activists.
If I go to the UK and start protesting in the streets about UK’s laws restricting free speech, then I expect to be instantly deported. I am not a citizen of the UK, and I can stay in the UK only at the leisure of the government. End of story.
Kenneth,
Yes. This is because you are wise enough to understand that listening to what people have to say is profitable. This is an argument as to why one might willingly choose to listen to what non-citizens have to say and one I agree with. But what we choose to do and what we are obligated to do are not the same thing. We can choose to permit non citizens freedoms that we are not obligated to protect for them, and choosing to permit them does not create the obligation. It’s not the same thing.
“So Russia’s has reduced their rate of losses of tanks to less than their rate of replacement.”
Yes, they also changed battlefield tactics to reduce tank losses. leading with infantry, cheaper AFV’s, and riding on ATV’s and motorcycles.
You can count me in the club of “I don’t want to ride this ATV into an armed drone swarm”.
SteveF
I get that. But my questions (which I don’t expect anyone but lawyers to know the answer to) are:
If a ruling is set aside as invalid,
(1) Does the law treat it as always having been invalid? That is, from the moment it was issued? ( Mean… it must have been invalid all along. But does the law treat it as having always been invalid.)
(2) Does the law then treat not following the ruling that was not yet decreed invalid as perfectly ok? Or is it illegal for the President to not follow a ruling even though it is later decreed as invalid?
I get that some would be “concerned” that a President didn’t follow an order that was not yet deemed invalid. After all that would seem to give him carte blanche to just not follow judicial orders because of whatever theory he has. So generally, the presumption ought to be the judicial order is valid.
But at the same time, a President should be able to not follow clearly invalid orders by a judge. If the latter part is not true, some judge could order Trump to bomb Moscow and Trump’s refusal would be illegal and punishable even after SCOTUS deems to judge’s absolutely stupid and dangerous ruling invalid. (Yes– silly hypothetical. But sometimes you need them to highlight ‘the problem’.)
Anyway, I suspect the “rule” has to be something that “works”. And it’s probably that if he doesn’t follow it, he risks being wrong in his interpretation. And if he is, then he gets dinged for not following a valid judicial order. But if the order is decreed invalid– for any reason including a ‘technicality’, then there is no legal penalty for not following it. (There can be a political one. But there are always political consequences to a politician’s choices.)
That is comparative advantage. We have it within the US with manufacturing locating in lower wage rate locations.
Tariffs could well price car purchases out for some of middle class Americans for even US made cars that require foreign made parts.
Temporary restraining orders and injunctions are there to prevent the executive from doing near term and irreversible damage while the courts work out the validity of the law. It can be appealed all the way to the SC.
That is how it is supposed to work but it doesn’t cover all cases.
The guy in the El Salvador prison could remain in custody in the US without much impact. If he gets killed in prison while waiting for a reversal that is an impact to him.
It gets more complicated with things like Biden’s vaccine mandate. In theory people are endangered without the mandate. The law looked unlikely to pass constitutional muster. You can’t uninject somebody. People will get fired who can’t be rehired. Who would compensate them if it is deemed unconstitutional. Restrain, not restrain?
These require complex judgment calls. That part is not going away and no system will fix it.
Kenneth Fritsch wrote (April 8, 2025 at 8:59 am): “That is comparative advantage. ”
No. What is described in what you quoted is absolute advantage.
I’m not trying to be obnoxious, but observing rights only within our territory seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
On the one hand, people who are not citizens on US soil should not be silenced or deported based on their speech because natural rights.
On the other, they [non citizens] can be slave labor on non US soil and we could care less, so long as we can have cheap cars.
lucia, April 8, 2025 at 8:52 am,
I think that a partial answer is in the Rules of Civil Procedure. If a plaintiff asks a court to impose a TRO that would cause the government to spend money, then the court is supposed to require the plaintiff to set bond equal to the government’s potential losses. Then the government is protected against the potential cost of complying with the TRO. It is rule 65(c):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65
There are different kinds of “speech”. There is speech that we might disagree with but might still listen to for our own edification. I don’t think anyone should be deported for such speech and I am not aware that anyone is being deported for such.
Then there is “speech” in the form of a demonstration designed to intimidate those who disagree. Or speech designed to stir people to violence. Or speech designed to support a terrorist organization by recruiting money or manpower.
We should largely tolerate such speech from citizens, not because it is good but because restricting the speech of citizens is so damaging. So we err on the side of freedom. But we need not (and should not) tolerate such speech from people who are in the country as guests. It is appropriate to kick them out the door.
What the heck is happening in the stock market?
The Dow was up about 800 points at noon. The NASDAQ and broader markets were also up.
Who the heck knows?!
MikeM,
You are going to have to connect dots for me on that theory. My question has nothing to do with cost shifting. It would have to do with contempt and/or criminal liability for not obeying a court order.
Lot of speculative trading. Volatile stock markets are a big money making opportunity for day traders. If only they really knew where the bottom of the market was …
lucia,
You asked: “Does the law treat it as always having been invalid? ”
Part of the answer to that would be covered by the restrained party’s ability to recover costs from the security posted by petitioner. And that would remove any reason to ignore the order. Although that covers some of the practical implications of your questions, it does not address the theoretical question.
Lucia,
“Or is it illegal for the President to not follow a ruling even though it is later decreed as invalid?”
The president is not subject to federal prosecution by his own DOJ, since he/she is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. So if he/she ignores a court order, then there is one and only one remedy: Congressional impeachment and removal from office. Any president can ignore court rulings so long as Congress is not motivated to remove him/her from office.
Impeachment is a purely political action, so I think we need to keep some perspective here. Will Trump be impeached for ignoring a numbskull, unhinged, activist lefty judge? (sorry, I repeat myself a couple of times) Of course not! If he ignores a ruling by the Supreme Court? Then he might well be impeached if Dems control the House. Removed? Maybe, maybe not. Consider that Biden ignored even the Supreme Court multiple times…. but was in zero danger of impeachment and removal.
IMHO, all of the hair-on-fire coverage of lunatic lefty judges’ orders is misplaced. Those judges have zero authority, legal, moral, or otherwise, to force a president to do anything…. as our first SC chief justice clearly understood in writing Marbury v Madison.
I am not surprised if the stock market recovers a big chunk of last week’s losses. Much of that was a stampede; i.e. an over reaction. So now we get a correction to the correction.
The extreme case is countries fomenting intentional dissent in other countries through student “spies”. This should obviously be disallowed but separating one from the other is not easy. I don’t think this is a real problem that needs dealt with, dissent is done via many other platforms as it is.
The same kind of thing applies to asylum. Should we allow asylum cases to be fully heard before deportation … in the abstract? Yes. Should we allow this when the rule is being massively exploited by millions of economic immigrants? No.
In summary it is optional by operational necessity and we allow our elected representatives to make the call.
Lucia, below is what I posted on 3/27 & 3/18. No YouTube links in them.
Let me add that the plaintiffs who filed the action originally filed habeas but withdrew their habeas requests for some reason, likely to move venue to DC.
[. On the Enemies Alien Act for the DC appellate court decision
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25870610/order-and-opinion-on-attempt-to-block-stay-on-aea-flights.pdf
The dissent by one of the 3 judges is directly on point. The dissent is at the very end of the court document. Well worth reading and will likely prevail at SCOTUS.
Some of the main points:
1. the DC court does not have standing. Must bring action in district where the party is being held, which is Texas. Plaintiffs are judge shopping.
2. Only action allowed to the party is a writ of habeas. If a party holds that they are not a party to the presidential finding, file a writ of habeas.
3. No action allowed under the APA ( Administrative Procedure Act) as the findings were made by the President, not an agency. The presidential findings are not reviewable under the APA, which the court majority has done.
4. The court TRO action is immediately appealable as the courts action is irreparable for the government. ]
Ed Forbes
MARCH 18, 2025 AT 5:31 PM
A couple of points on the law in question
Trump has made the determination that Venezuela is an enemy state. This determination is a “political question” and is not reviewable by the courts.
Trump has made the determination that Tda is an arm of the Venezuelan state. This determination is a “political question” and is not reviewable by the courts
Trump has made the determination that Venezuela, through Tda, is engaged in a predatory incursion under the law “ or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event,” . This determination is a “political question” and is not reviewable by the courts .
The only review allowed for an individual to be removed under the act is that the court, under an action brought forward by a citizen charged under the act, can determine if the individual is in fact a US citizen or not.
So yes, Trump is on firm legal and constitutional grounds to deport Tda members without court intervention.
A discussion of the act?https://www.law.com/clecenter/assets/pgm_7125/library/alien%20enemies%20act.PDF
Ed Forbes wrote: “The only review allowed for an individual to be removed under the act is that the court, under an action brought forward by a citizen charged under the act, can determine if the individual is in fact a US citizen or not.”
Trump’s order regarding Tren de Aragua only applies to people who are neither citizens or legal permanent residents. So I would think that a legal permanent resident could also petition for a writ of habeus corpus.
What about someone who is not from Venezuela? Or who claims to not be a TdA member? I would think that such people could petition for a writ. But the government’s bar might be really easy to clear.
Supreme Court Halts Order Requiring Trump Administration to Reinstate Federal Workers
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-lets-trump-fire-federal-employees-90307339?st=78MBuE&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Shockingly the SC says the executive is allowed to fire its own employees even if somebody claims it will restrict public services.
The US is moving back towards mercantilism. The fight between laissez-faire proponents and mercantilism proponents will continue to get ugly.
https://www.britannica.com/money/laissez-faire
https://www.britannica.com/money/mercantilism
“mercantilism, economic theory and practice common in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century that promoted governmental regulation of a nation’s economy for the purpose of augmenting state power at the expense of rival national powers. It was the economic counterpart of political absolutism. Its 17th-century publicists—most notably Thomas Mun in England, Jean-Baptiste Colbert in France, and Antonio Serra in Italy—never, however, used the term themselves; it was given currency by the Scottish economist Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations (1776).”
.
“It was believed that trade balances must be “favourable,” meaning an excess of exports over imports.”
.
“Mercantilism was based on the conviction that national interests are inevitably in conflict—that one nation can increase its trade only at the expense of other nations.”
Tom Scharf,
“Shockingly the SC says the executive is allowed to fire its own employees even if somebody claims it will restrict public services.”
Not so shocking, I think. The shocking things is that lefty-activist judges imagine they control what the executive is allowed to do…. and can demand the executive do whatever they say. They are delusional; only Congress has that power over the executive, and only via impeachment. Lefty lunatic judges need to give it a rest, for the good of the country.
Elections have consequences. Trump is going to get rid of a lot of Federal government employees (direct employees and many more employed under contract). He is also going to eliminate use of the Federal government to finance/support lefty policy goals, censorship, and a sorry array of NGO’s that advance leftist policies.
They need to get over it.
Mike “What about someone who is not from Venezuela? Or who claims to not be a TdA member? I would think that such people could petition for a writ. But the government’s bar might be really easy to clear.”
.
All detainees prosecuted under the act may file a habeas action.
The habeas action inquires if:
. Is the person detained a member of the proclaimed group
. Is the person detained a citizen or lawful permanent resident
. Is the person detained 14 years of age or older
Trumps EO
“I proclaim that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/
As usual, the UN does its level best to make itself morally and ethically obtuse:
“United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Tuesday that Gaza had become “a killing field,” blaming Israel for blocking aid and failing in its “unequivocal obligations” to meet the needs of the Palestinian territory’s residents.”
IMHO, the USA is foolish to :
1) Host such a morally corrupt organization, and
2) Continue supporting such a morally corrupt organization.
A UN headquarters in Caracas, Havana, or perhaps Cairo would be far more consistent with UN General Assembly policies, and would (of course) mean the end of a useless international entity disrupting traffic in NYC. How many pig-at-the-trough diplomats would want to be stationed in Havana? Exactly none.
I spoke too soon, day is ending up in the red (probably )
SYMBOL PRICE CHANGE %CHANGE
DJIA
37,750.55 -215.05 -0.57
NASDAQ
15,311.97 -291.29 -1.87
S&P 500
4,994.92 -67.33 -1.33
Not unusual after a sudden shaep market downturn and even when the market eventually goes lower. Obviously it is buyers thinking the market had hit some duration low.
And if you look now a correction to a correction to the correction. Volatility after a sharp drop is not unexpected. The S&P is at where it was a year ago.
It should be noted the Constitution deals with persons and not citizens. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of persons not citizens. Non citizens are persons and are protected under the Bill of Rights. The exceptions to citizens for non citizens are in voting and holding elected offices.
Kenneth,
I understand that. It’s why I said my viewpoint is non standard and doesn’t actually reflect what is legal. I am still more than a little curious to hear how you’d answer the questions I posed though.
The Supreme Court does not have the leverage of the other branches of government and thus must depend on persuasion and political consequences to obtain actions on its decision. Andrew Jackson famously refused to follow a Supreme Court decision telling John Marshall to enforce it – which he obviously did not have the power to do so. Court decisions and required actions therefrom have been slow walked and ignored in the past.
I don’t see how part of the answer by the restrained party’s ability to… Trump is the one who ignored the order.
I don’t see how it addresses either the practical or the theoretical part of the question. Maybe I should put it this way: Can Trump or similar be punished for not following the judges order?
Kenneth Fritsch wrote: “The Bill of Rights protects the rights of persons not citizens.”
For the most part, it does not refer to either persons (except in the Fifth Amendment) or citizens. It talks about the rights of “the people”. It is not obvious if that means “all persons” or “the citizenry”.
EdForbes:
So the ruling is irrelevant to nearly all of your analysis, but one of your points was correct. The habeas action must be brought where they are held. (Your points 1 and 2 were redundant.)
lucia wrote: “Trump is the one who ignored the order. ”
He did? I missed that. In what case?
I guess you were referring to a specific case among the flood of improper court decisions. I did not realize that and don’t know which case you referred to.
MikeM,
I’m talking about the specific judicial order SCOTUS over ruled. I don’t see how this is unclear.
Non-citizens who enter our country illegally are free to purse life, liberty, and happiness in their country of origin. The constitution nor bill of rights gives them the right to unilaterally decide for themselves to do it here at our expense.
It may be fairly interpreted they have the right to free speech, etc. but the United States of America also has the right to deport them which makes the argument more or less irrelevant.
An immigrant’s * presence * in the US is a privilege. The US may decide to create or remove laws that decide when that privilege can be revoked. This is not constitutionally protected.
lucia wrote: “I’m talking about the specific judicial order SCOTUS over ruled.”
There have been a number of those in the last couple days.
MikeM
I’m talking about the ruling we’ve been talking about here in comments — which Ed linked.
He’d linked and I replied.
On the alian invasion case, it appears Judge Boasberg has cancelled his planned hearing to consider whether Trump was in contempt of court.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-court-ruling-judge-boasberg-cancels-hearing-alien/story?id=120574536
https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hear-arguments-trump-deportation-flights-defied-court/story?id=120446845
So it appears Judge Boasberg is not pursing the notion that Trump might be in contempt of an order Boasberg issued but which was later set aside by SCOTUS.
President Trump is again pushing for utilization of US coal for electrical generation. I was cool to this proposal the last time he brought it up but I’ve warmed up to it now that the current and future costs of alternates including natural gas and residual oil has made coal more competitive again. The US energy information administration publishes a report that is quite useful [link is below]. Current cost of fuel for electric generation is $2.42 per million BTUs for coal, $4.6 per million BTUs for natural gas, and a whopping $16.16 per million BTUs for oil [although this price is coming down and is expected to continue coming down.]
Interesting [unbelievable actually] data; In the mid 1970s we had a contract with DOE investigating conversion of oil generating stations to coal because of the Arab oil embargoes and OPEC price gouging. At that time US coal and oil were both hovering just below $2 per million BTU. 50 years later coal is at $2.42 and oil $16.16. I need to look into that.
Trump thinks big and bold. Big and bold would be to build huge generating stations at the coal mine site and transmit the power to distant population centers via new transmission lines. The US has some of this now but the high capital cost deters it. The US holds the largest share of the world’s proven coal reserves, estimated at 22%.
Time to turn it loose.
Go bold Trump.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/pdf/compare.pdf
Lucia,
Like contempt of Congress by Biden administration officials, contempt against Trump for not following an order from Boasberg would be (correctly) ignored by the Justice Department. Maybe at some point Boasberg read Marbury v Madison.
Does anyone know (and would they mind sharing with me if they do) the libertarian answer to what to do about slave nations? My admittedly superficial understanding is that they do not believe the use of military force against other nations except for self defense, so that’d appear to be off the table. I think economic interference such as tariffs are off the table. What then is the answer? It’d seem the prescribed course is simply to do business with the slave owners and ignore it.
I find this very difficult to believe, so I keep on thinking I don’t understand this correctly. I would be grateful to be set straight on this.
Mark,
Donno. May just choose to shun the country 100%. No travel, no business, no diplomacy.
Coal fired plants are uneconomical compared to dual cycle natural gas turbines plants: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capital_cost_AEO2020.pdf
So, I asked Grok:
“Why has the cost of coal for electric generation not increased significantly in 50 years?”
Grok had the answers; chief among them:
“Mining tech has also played a role. Advances like longwall mining and surface extraction have boosted productivity—tons per miner-hour in the U.S. jumped from about 1.9 in 1970 to over 6 by 2020—cutting labor costs and offsetting inflation.”
Full answer:
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_429e46f9-c9c5-417f-87fc-8b378e0cdd46
Steve, those economics on coal are woefully about of date. It was published 5 years ago based an data from 8 years ago.
Steve, those economics on coal are woefully about of date. It was published 5 years ago based on data from 8 years ago.
For example it includes a lot of carbon capture nonsense.
And was done when gas prices were in free fall due to the explosion in fracking.
Levelized costs for natural gas fired electricity is generally much lower than the levelized cost for coal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
Which is why the fraction of electricity from coal has dropped continuously for a long time…. and will almost certainly continue to drop.
The global warming wackos have been targeting coal worldwide for over a generation. The Obama and Biden administrations were particularly diligent in regulating coal out of existence. Of course coal use declined under the constant barrage of regulation and bad press. Maybe that is all about to change.
Lucia, you raise an interesting question about the consequences of the executive branch and President not following a court order. In the ABC link it stated that the judge in question was considering a contempt charge against the current administration. That statement would raise the question of how a contempt charge would actual be executed against an administration and gets to the crux of the issue in general of government entities not following Court orders.
There was an earlier discussion here about what action could be taken against a government entity that used a private concern to restrain free speech. Ideally the government entity would comply with any Court order to desist or face political consequences for not doing so.
I do not know if this be the case, but the court could order some law enforcement agency to retain specific government officials involved in the case. I need to search for cases where this might have occurred.
I think the standard answer from libertarians is effectively wishcasting. All countries see the error of their ways and unilaterally turn libertarian and we all live happily ever after.
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Well I can imagine that. I can also imagine a world with Hamas, Putin, and Trump.
It’s not completely hopeless. Most slavery has been eliminated, there is a lot of open trade though I wouldn’t call it libertarian level free trade. The number of people dying in wars is way down historically.
Closing coal mines was the origin of the “learn to code” meme.
Nothing says commitment to eliminating the existential threat of global warming like selling your Tesla because you don’t like Elon Musk.
Mark, most libertarians do not moralize economically about the actions that individuals can or do take except where it involves coercion. When most libertarians promote free trade with other nations they are talking about the individuals in the nation being able to purchase from who they choose and not by way of some inter nation trade agreement.
Morality is an individual matter and an individual’s morals may well determine their reactions to another nation’s or individual’s behavior. Another libertarian issue with trade is that it should be considered in the context of individuals and private entities and not government to government. Bad government does not imply that the people living under its auspices are all bad.
SteveF,
I know contempt of court would be ignored by the Justice Department. But I still wonder about the legal issue. For example: what if the person ignoring (or not following) the order was some state governor? Or just an ordinary person? Does the issue go away if the order is tossed out?
(I now people ordinarily just obey and appeal. Or the order is deferred pending appeal– or something. But still, what is the rule?)
Tom
This why I only lean libertarian. Some things benefit from collective action. Some require it. You can be against war all you want; that won’t prevent you from being invaded. Then you’ll need an army; to be effective, the army needs some structure.
“Ideally the government entity would comply with any Court order”
No, not “any”. This presupposes the judicial branch is not itself corrupt. Thus the tenuous balancing of powers between the branches. I would also point out that most judges are not directly accountable to the voters.
Determining which side is corrupt is not trivial.
My guess is that when a corrupt executive ignores valid judicial orders then it is ultimately up to the voters to hold them accountable, or else the politician can be impeached by the legislature.
This only gets serious when an order from the SC gets ignored. I would advise Trump to avoid that at all costs.
Tom Scharf
April 8, 2025 at 5:42 pm
“Non-citizens who enter our country illegally are free to purse life, liberty, and happiness in their country of origin. The constitution nor bill of rights gives them the right to unilaterally decide for themselves to do it here at our expense.”
I believe the important point is that by the Biden administration, and to a lesser extent previous administrations, allowing very large numbers of immigrants to cross the border illegally and in the legal flux of a future asylum court date creates a problem whereby simply being in the US they do have most constitutional rights afforded citizens. Once due process or even a court date with a severely backlogged asylum court is required for these non citizens it is going to be justice delayed and for a very long time given the current conditions.
The immediate relief has to be controlling who comes into the US and that is what should be given priority. The problems noted above do not even reach a government wishlist and instead are mostly ignored.
In the series of “It’s going to get worse ….”
Trump Team to Freeze Nearly $2 Billion at Cornell and Northwestern Universities
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/trump-team-to-freeze-nearly-2-billion-at-cornell-and-northwestern-universities-2e13a88a?st=5m1DeN&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“… earlier Tuesday the school had “received more than 75 stop work orders” from the Department of Defense related to national defense, cybersecurity, and health research.”
The gravy train ends when you foolishly allow your organization to be run by social science political activists. This is all destructive but realistically needed to be done, it was not going to be fixed from within. I expect most of this will be reinstated, they are making a point in a language the academy understands.
From Congress,gov concerning contempt against government and the penalties:
“A party held in civil contempt may be fined or imprisoned pending compliance with a court order. (Attorneys, including attorneys representing the federal government, may also be held in contempt or may face sanctions or professional discipline for filing pleadings that are intended to cause delay or are legally or factually unfounded.) In contempt proceedings against the federal government, fines may target a noncompliant agency as a whole, or the head of the agency may face personal fines or imprisonment.While those sanctions are possible in theory and have sometimes been ordered by courts, there is some question whether sovereign immunity limits their availability as a legal matter. As a practical matter, a2018 law review article surveyed contempt proceedings in cases against the federal government and concluded that federal courts are sometimes willing to hold federal agencies and officials in contempt but rarely actually impose sanctions of fines or imprisonment, and when sanctions are imposed they are often halted by appellate courts.When a federal court imposes contempt sanctions, the U.S. Marshals Service enforces the order, including arresting persons ordered imprisoned for contempt. The U.S. Marshals Service is an executive branch agency within the Department of Justice. Some commentators have expressed concerns that, if the executive branch chose to defy a court order, it might also seek to prevent the U.S. Marshals fromenforcing contempt sanctions. The U.S. Marshals are required by statute to “execute all lawful writs, process, and orders issued under the authority of the United States,” and the President’s pardon power does not apply to civil contempt sanctions. The 2018 review of contempt against the federal government notes that, historically, Presidents have complied with federal court orders and have not directed the U.S. Marshals not to enforce contempt orders.In theory, the whole process from injunction to contempt to sanctions might proceed in a district court. In practice, however, it is likely that appellate courts would also be involved. A court order fining or imprisoning a person held in civil contempt generally may not be appealed until the court enters a final judgment. However, a district court order granting injunctive relief is immediately appealable to the appropriate federal appellate court, and rulings of the appeals courts related to injunctive relief may immediately be challenged via a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court (though the Court has discretion whether to consider such matters).As an example, in the Rhode Island case discussed above, the Trump Administration appealed the district court’s TRO and order granting the motion for enforcement. On February 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied a motion for an administrative stay of the orders. On February 14, 2025, the First Circuit granted the government’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. As of the date of this Legal Sidebar, the case remains pending in district court. Subsequent decisions of the district court may be subject to renewed appeals.”
Kenneth,
I agree this would be a non-problem with border enforcement.
Tom Scharf
Ideally, the judicial branch is not corrupt! Or even just lazy, befuddled etc.
But yes, this is the problem. That’s one of the reasons I was asking what is the legal status of the person who “did not follow” the order in this situation:
1) The judge orders X to do something.
2) X does not comply. (Ignores… refuses…)
2a) Possibly the judge threatens contempt charges.
3) On appeal, SCOTUS sets aside the order.
Legally could the judge continue to pursue contempt charges because X did not comply while the order was (don’t know a good word) “alive”. So they did not comply during the period between 1 and 3.
I know Justice won’t pursue X when X is the president and head of the executive branch. And so on. I know in the closest approximation to this currently in the news, the Judge has dropped any pursuit of contempt charges. But I don’t know if he pretty much must drop those, or just did so.
Continuuing to pursue contempt against X would, lets face it, look really really bad. And since X is Trump, lots of people would witness this bad behavior. But I still wonder about technicality here.
Note: this has nothing to do with cost shifting yada, yada. It’s not addressed by making the plaintiffs provide a bond to cover X’s costs. I mean… I don’t think Trump would have complied even if the plaintiffs had provided a bond. And my question on the technical legal issue remains.
If I had Pam Bondi and her DOJ guarding my six, I might tend to flip off a few local judges too.
It also helps when the Supreme Court bitch slaps a couple local judges.
Kenneth,
I very much appreciate your answer. Unfortunately the sky is falling today and I’ll have to think it through later. But still, thanks very much, I think that might be enough for me to figure out my mistake.
This is the potential “constitutional crisis” the NYT has been bemoaning for a while now. As Kenneth said the executive would be in charge of arresting, imprisoning, and making itself comply with judicial fines, etc. The executive routinely uses prosecutorial discretion to ignore this stuff for regular Joes and it can also do so for irregular Don’s.
The executive would be convicted by the judiciary, the executive would choose not to pursue fines and imprisonment for corrupt charges, and Trump would then pardon all involved. All completely legal. The only recourse is legislative impeachment and/or the voters. He could then also ignore impeachment and election results and we can settle it the old fashioned way via civil war.
For the most part the judiciary has been running the general’s strategy of “never give an order you know will be ignored” and that works right up until an activist judge presses the issue. The SC was wise to nip this one in the bud, going to the mat on reversing planes in flight is dumb.
lucia wrrote: “Legally could the judge continue to pursue contempt charges because X did not comply while the order was [in effect].”
Now that I understand what you are asking, I think I see what the logical answer must be. Of course “legal” and “logical” are not always the same. Consider the following:
(1) A court orders X to do something that is impossible (find a cure for cancer by midnight) and/or illegal (assassinate the President).
(2) X does not comply.
(3) The order is squashed on appeal.
(4) The court holds X in contempt.
If that were allowed, then a judge could manufacture a bogus reason to hold X in contempt and make it stick. It would make no sense for that to be allowed.
My examples are extreme, but consider that a judge recently gave Trump until midnight to make a foreign country do the judge’s bidding. I don’t see how the basic sequence above could be allowed simply by the judge giving the unreasonable order a bit of camouflage.
Egad, the media trying so hard to fit a narrative.
University of Florida student deported to Colombia following traffic stop
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/university-florida-student-deported-colombia-traffic-stop-rcna200366
Traffic stop body cam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-izOkwvi0CQ
His student visa was expired. He chose self deportation versus staying in detention. He was stopped in December at UF and cited for driving on a suspended license and an invalid tag. He did not show up for court hearings or pay his fines. 4 months later he was stopped again for driving on a still suspended license and he had modified his tag illegally to appear valid (taking somebody else’s annual license sticker and putting it on his car). This is why he was arrested, not a “traffic stop” and not because he was on an expired student visa. During the stop he claimed he was injured and couldn’t take care of his citations … or something.
Mike M,
Yes, the whole thing makes no sense.
Lucia,
“For example: what if the person ignoring (or not following) the order was some state governor? Or just an ordinary person? Does the issue go away if the order is tossed out?”
The president and his administration is not ‘just an ordinary person’. An ordinary person, some state governor, absolutely could be prosecuted by the DOJ. The president and the administration. Not going to ever happen unless some administration official has decided to act contrary to the President’s instruction.
It does not matter if a statues say US Marshals ‘must’ do something. Statues also say the President ‘must’ deport illegally present aliens, and we know how carefully that law is followed. Presidents and their administrations pretty much do whatever they want WRT to prosecutions and certainly with regards to adhering to nutty orders from district court judges, Congressional contempt citations, and more.. The ‘legality’ of a court order is not terribly relevant…. unless it comes from the Supreme Court.
Trump sees the light, there is still some hope. That’s about the biggest near instantaneous stock jump I can remember ever seeing.
Tom Scharf,
6% in an hour is pretty fast appreciation. 😉
Tariffs are still at 10% for everyone except China… 125%.
Judges have near free reign in charging contempt and thus if the case is “live” the judge could charge contempt. If the contempt charge involves confinement it could be immediately appealed. If the charge does not include confinement it can only be appealed on the conclusion of the case.
Let us say the judge charges contempt without confinement to a case closed for his jurisdiction. What happens to the charge and appeal. If the charge remains in play for the original judge it would appear the case would never close for that judge and the contempt could never be appealed. That is untenable and thus should be ruled out as a possibility or the judge doing it could be disbarred for attempts to make a mockery of the justice system. Can a contempt charge change venues with the case. I do not think so since it is contempt of court and not courts.
Why then would the original judge officially dismiss the original contempt charge. Probably in order to keep his job.
MikeM
I agree it would make no sense. Sadly that by itself doesn’t mean I know it can’t happen! That’s why I ask.
But this actually has an element out of Trumps control: The foreign country. So you’ve added an element that dramatically changes things. If Trump tries but fails to get Putin to do the judges bidding, Trump wouldn’t be incontempt just because he at least tried to get Putin to do the judge’s bidding.”
Change it to “Judge Caligula the insane orders Trump to stand in Times square at midnight and shoot a round of bullets at passers by, aiming to kill.” Trump refuses (justifiably.) When midnight passes and Trump does not shoot a round of bullets, the judge charges Trump with contempt. Meanwhile, Trump has appealed the ruling.On appeal, SCOTUS over turns Judge Caligula’s order. ”
In this ridiculous example we have the example where clearly Trump should not have obeyed the contemptible order. He didn’t– which is contempt or court. SCOTUS sets aside the insane order.
In this hypothetical it’s clear that Judge Caligula should not be able to pursue his insane order. But…
The problem is the other principle is that while an order is in place, it should not be up to the person ordered to intentionally disobey it. But of course…. this assumes there isn’t some serious irreversible harm in carrying out an order.
Unlike the one in my Judge Caligula example, usually orders are not utterly insane. But I used that to create an example.
Wow! On Saturday, Vlad, my dance teacher, was telling someone he was buying on the dip. I hope he did!!!!!!
8% in 3 hours is pretty fast appreciation as well.
Some were criticizing Trump for not announcing the tariffs with several months lead time before going into effect. I figured that he did not do that because it might have lead to foot dragging negotiations in an attempt to get a reprieve for a few more months, then a few more, etc. Trump needs quick negotiations so as to put as much time as possible between the shock and the midterms, perhaps even getting a strong positive result before the midterms.
So why did Trump grant the delay? Maybe he caved to pressure. Or maybe he figured he delivered his message sufficiently that most negotiations will be complete before the 90 days are up. I hope that is what happens.
Musk:
““Navarro is truly a moron,” replied Musk in a Tuesday post on his social-media platform X. “What he says here is demonstrably false.”
Musk and I agree. The Navarro is a clown.
The good news for Musk: His Tesla shares increased in value by ~$40 billion today.
What is a person called who takes advice from a moron or clown.
By giving a date certain to end negotiations he puts pressure on the 70 or so countries wanting to make a deal to not be too demanding or they will be left by the roadside while other, more agreeable trade partners move ahead. Brilliant!
Kenneth,
We don’t know if Trump ever took advice from Navarro. I think he’s perfectly capable of screwing it up without any help from anyone else.
Russell.
I don’t know if Trump’s move is brilliant or not. If we see a flood of deals in which our trading partners make significant concessions, then brilliant. But not brilliant if other countries now try to run out the clock in the hope of getting a further extension. We shall see.
Hammering out details will take time. So I expect it will take at least weeks before we get an indication of whether Trump won or caved.
Kenneth,
There are millions of people who take advice from clowns like AOC and Bernie Sanders. Let’s face it: there are many clowns in both parties. I doubt Trump pays particular attention to Navarro…. Trump is surrounded by a lot of people giving him advice…. oh say, like Musk.
Mike M,
I think Trump was getting too much pushback from many people around him…. but not from numbskull Navarro, of course. Yes, I think he folded, but as you say, negotiations with our main trading partners over the next couple months will clarify the situation.
I will advance a theory that the tariff strategy was looking like a bad outcome and Trump wisely reversed course. Sacrilege to some but like I said earlier, experiments are OK if you are willing to reverse course.
People may score Trump’s thoughts as they wish. Since he never really explained his thinking we are all right.
Trump said it was a “great time to buy” this morning, he was right about that.
Trump rescinds showerhead water flow restrictions with an executive order. Hail Trump, bring on the 3rd term!
Tom Scharf
April 9, 2025 at 5:45 pm
I agree with your points made here.
The only downside for Trump on this move is if the NYT or WaPo finds any relatives or friends of Trump’s making trading money on his moves. You know they are looking.
“Trump rescinds showerhead water flow restrictions with an executive order. Hail Trump, bring on the 3rd term!”
If Trump really did make that order and most voters enjoyed their showers as much as I do, he is a cinch for a 3rd term.
Trump is not giving up on tariffs. He might be correcting course. Or maybe Bessent was telling the truth when he said this was the plan all along.
“Trump rescinds showerhead water flow restrictions with an executive order.”
These showerhead water flow restrictions made me a law breaker. I modified (broke actually) ours from the start.
I am convinced the ‘Delay’ is just a negotiation tactic.
The Biden nanny state wanted to join you in the shower…… weird. Glad that’s over. 😉
“….X raised roughly $900 million from new and existing investors at a valuation just above its initial takeover price. The raise had reset the value of the company, putting it more in line with where it sat when Musk took Twitter private.”
Advertisers have been returning to the platform, but more importantly, the intention is for X to merge with XAi (Grok) and incorporate Grok into the user interface. XAi is apparently valued by investors at far more than former Twitter.
European stocks jumped this morning by ~6%.
I have been accessing Grok from my X home screen for weeks. So far it’s free but I keep expecting it to be a premium feature. It is seamless and bug free [better than the Google Chrome version]. It is slightly unnerving because it remembers your previous searches, I suppose that is tied into targeted advertising.
NBC settles defamation lawsuit right before trial in rural Georgia. This goes back to MSNBC claiming an ICE doctor was a “uterus collector” and performing unsanctioned hysterectomies at detention centers several years ago.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nbc-defamation-settlement-georgia-doctor-finalized-court-following-msnbcs-uterus-collector-coverage
“”NBC investigated the whistleblower letter’s accusations; that investigation did not corroborate the accusations and even undermined some; NBC republished the letter’s accusations anyway,” Judge Wood wrote last year in a 108-page summary.”
The lawsuit was for $30M, settlement terms undisclosed. That is a string of losses by media outlets where they feared actual malice would be found, an indirect effect of their well deserved loss of trust,
Ari Fleischer gets Trump in a nutshell:
“my advice to President Trump’s critics and to his allies is stop being surprised that Donald Trump does surprising things.”
“He said [in 2015] American leaders have been too predictable and therefore we get taken advantage of and a key to being successful, especially in foreign policy, is not to be predictable.”
“We want the status quo, except the American people don’t want the status quo. They want Washington to be changed, to be shook up.”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/04/09/fleischer_trump_is_governing_exactly_how_he_said_he_would.html
“The only downside for Trump on this move is if the NYT or WaPo finds any relatives or friends of Trump’s making trading money on his moves. You know they are looking.”
NYT: Trump’s Encouragement of Stock Investors Draws Scrutiny
Was the president manipulating the market with his comments, as his critics say, or reassuring Americans, as the White House maintains?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/us/politics/trump-stock-market.html
Ha ha.
Tom Scharf,
Lemme see…. most anything Trump says, on most any day, will influence the stock market…. as the last couple months so clearly shows. Nancy Pelosi and her investor husband (and a lot of other Congress critters!) made a fortune off Congressional inside knowledge…. and not a peep from the NYT. But the loudly proclaimed possibility, without a shred of evidence, that Trump is dealing inside information to his friends seems a wee bit different from the coverage Pelosi gets.
Lol.
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=site%3Anytimes.com+pelosi+stocks
Wait, I thought I was banned… Anyway, for some reason that didn’t pull them up, but just using Google did show many NYTimes articles about Pelosi and stock trading.
Here, this should work:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+pelosi+stocks&oq=site&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7MgYIARBFGDkyBggCEEUYPTIGCAMQRRg9MgYIBBBFGDsyBggFEEUYQTIGCAYQRRhB0gEFMWowajmoAgCwAgE&client=ms-android-verizon-us-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
I guess some things just don’t change.
I guess I’m not banned.
So I asked Grok to summarize what’s at the NYTimes. Admittedly it’s very thin, especially compared to what it should be. But the “loudly proclaimed” speculation about Trump doesn’t seem terribly “loud” in comparison:.
Here’s the list of the most relevant NYT articles:
“Pelosi, Facing Criticism, Says She Supports Stock Trading Ban for Congress” (December 15, 2021)
This article reports Nancy Pelosi’s shift toward supporting a ban on congressional stock trading after initially defending it. It highlights Paul Pelosi’s 2021 trades in tech stocks like Nvidia and Alphabet, which raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest given Nancy’s legislative influence.
“House Democrats Push for Ban on Stock Trading by Lawmakers” (September 27, 2021)
Covering Democratic efforts to restrict stock trading by Congress, this piece mentions Paul Pelosi’s 2021 purchases of call options in Apple and Tesla as examples that fueled public and political pressure for reform, noting Nancy Pelosi’s initial hesitance to embrace a ban.
“Congress Faces New Pressure to Curb Lawmakers’ Stock Trades” (July 20, 2021)
This article discusses early 2021 calls for tighter rules on congressional trading, citing Paul Pelosi’s June 2021 Alphabet options purchase (valued up to $5 million) as a high-profile case that amplified scrutiny, especially given Nancy Pelosi’s role in tech-related legislation.
“Pelosi Says Bill on Investing Rules for Lawmakers Will Face Vote This Month” (September 14, 2022)
This piece details Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that the House would vote on legislation to limit lawmakers’ stock trading. It briefly references Paul Pelosi’s trading activity as part of the broader context of perceived conflicts of interest driving the reform push.
“97 Members of Congress Reported Trades in Companies Influenced by Their Committees” (September 13, 2022)
An investigative report analyzing congressional stock trades from 2019 to 2021, this article includes Paul Pelosi’s trades among examples of transactions by lawmakers’ spouses that intersected with committee work, raising ethical questions about Nancy Pelosi’s oversight.
Of course, there are some more articles that dicuss stock trading in Congress more generally, but even there the coverage is far lighter than it should be. And the pearl-clutching about potential for corruption in Trump’s admin his hilarious. Of course, there’s no doubt that there would be an imbalance in the Nytimes’ interest in that topic when it comes to Trump, as there should be (not to say there shouldn’t be more with members of Congress).
I mean check this out:
https://x.com/danpfeiffer/status/1910337208655270194?t=ppavIFruT8oI5zxtU266GA&s=19
And check this out:
https://x.com/mtracey/status/1910340690237612082?t=A5-jxgbSwbAREyFuuLwvcQ&s=19
OK. Last post. You might like to see a clip from 6 days ago.
https://x.com/saikatc/status/1907978316541231190?t=oLoIWxtCWXU4wmbQ1rgPXw&s=19
Lol. OK, one more (am I the only one who can see these comments? Maybe I’m banned and can’t tell).
I just thought this was good on the topic. But clearly Lucia doesn’t want me here, banned or now banned. So I’ll stop after this:
https://x.com/DarrigoMelanie/status/1910143548768322019
Really. I will. Lol.
Friday 7 AM and I only see two C-17s on airlift duty to the Middle East. That mission may be accomplished.
I read Huntsville Alabama has finally secured that tasty bit of pork called Space Force Command. If dems stay exiled in the wilderness for another term after Trump it might finally stick.
I scanned a few days of Real Clear Politics headlines (links); nary a word about Gaza or Ukraine. Seems raging about Trump (and that evil N*zi car maker Musk) uses up most all the oxygen available for the left, with little remaining for complaints about all the other things the left cares about.
Speaking of Musk: I wonder if the crazies who damage Teslas in parking lots and set fire to dealerships and charging stations appreciate that they are making a lot of Tesla owners (for sure mostly financially successful progressive Dems) unhappy with those crazies.
Among registered Dems, a majority think assassinating Musk (and Trump) would be at least ‘partially justifiable’. Not surprising, considering that history shows the left tends always to use violence for political ends. The current crop of leftie crazies are no different.
To all: I’ve added a new spam filter. Banhammer seemed to drop banning by email/username. I’ve also added all my regulars to the “allow list” in the allow file. So this shouldn’t affect you.
Test of new spam filter
“Among registered Dems, a majority think assassinating Musk (and Trump) would be at least ‘partially justifiable’. Not surprising,”
I find that surprising. I am not at all surprised that “progressives” think that way, but most registered Dems aren’t crazy, they just vote that way.
This might end up being a duplicate post.
“Among registered Dems, a majority think assassinating Musk (and Trump) would be at least ‘partially justifiable’. Not surprising,”
I find that surprising. I am not at all surprised that “progressives” think that way, but most registered Dems aren’t crazy, they just vote that way.
I’m not sure the filter works. . . Three non-spam comments were flagged as spam. Their emails were already in “allow” list.
Well, my coworkers say everything I send them ends up in the spam folder anyway. Sometimes my missives slip through and they have to manually move them to the spam folder, or so they tell me.
This is a test.
Posting works fine for me but editing appears to be disabled. I’m not complaining. In fact, let me thank you once again Lucia for spending your valuable time running and managing this blog. I continue to appreciate it very much.
Thanks Mark!
I’m trying to post a fresh post. I forgot to turn off plugins… then purge cache. (There is some interaction.)
Anyone who posts a test will be useful.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
Mark,
I may handle the problem by just going into the database, changing all the user’s emails to something else, and then have the “first time commenters moderated” feature kick in. But potentially a plugin works better.
But… I think it might be it’s sensitive to people posting “too many” comments too quickly. Ordinarily, this can be nice. But on this blog, we have conversations, it might not be good. Dunno.
If it puts too many people in spam, I’ll turn it off and just go to the database.
Lucia,
My limited observations so far support this. My first comment appeared immediately. There was a delay with the second; I don’t know if you had to fish it out of spam or not.
Lets see how this comment does.
I find interesting that Joshua must test his status at the Blackboard periodically.
I like that no one replied to the content of his posts. I call that crowd as opposed to host censoring.
mark,
Editing is temporarily disabled when I try to post a new main post. There is some interaction between plugins/caching at cloudflare etc. So (if I remember) I turn off all the plugins, clear the cache… yada, yada. If I forget, I get a weird error. Then I need to just wait and retry.
Technically, the editing is back on…. I’ll be trying to post a fresh post over the weekend.
Also: I did by the way, just change all Joshua’s old “user emails” to something relatively difficult to guess. Now “first users are moderated” will kick in (unless he managed to guess what I’ve turned his “user email” into. Afterwards I turned the new spam filter off. I don’t know why the old spam filter didn’t block him, but perhaps it was case sensitive. Dunno.
Clearly, the “allow” list in that filter doesn’t work the way I would prefer, I’m not going to try to fiddle with the new plugin. Changing all the entries in the data base was quick.
This is a test. This is only a test. If this had been an actual comment, I’d be saying something beside test test test. This is a test.
[Cool beans, edit is indeed back on]
Lucia,
That’s a neat trick. So effectively email is the secret held for authentication, and you can lock somebody out by changing their ‘password’ to something they don’t know.
Post to try the new spam filter 12:06 pm
This is a test…..
Lucia, I echo Mark’s Thank you for your hosting efforts.
Kenneth,
Perhaps he did test periodically. If I’ve fixed things we will not learn what he did because he won’t be able to post to tell us. I have no idea when the plugin stopped banning his email. Maybe it’s been not banning him for months and he only just tested today.
Mark,
The built in “block first comments” checks to make sure that “user email”, “username” combination has at least one approved comment. Sometimes “regulars” get blocked because they have a typo in one or the other.
Obviously, this is not a very secure method 100% fool proof method of preventing malicious individuals from entering comments. But… if they figure out they can be sneaky, I can fix that up too.
Am I back?
Yes, I am back.
Mike M,
I had that a little wrong: The murders for political reasons was “at least partially justifiable” for a large fraction of people who self-identify as “left-of-center”, not all democrats. Still among all adults, the number was 38%!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/assassination-culture-half-of-left-leaning-americans-say-assassinating-trump-musk-is-justified/ar-AA1CCYqV
Like religious zealots, people on the left are all too often willing to use violence to achieve their desired outcomes.
SCOTUS with the return of subject mistakenly deported to El Salvador
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
A win and loss for the administration. They have to “facilitate”, but not required to “effectuate” the subjects return. The administration has to “try” and recover the subject.
As the subject is an El Salvador citizen, this issue can get messy.
Since when does other people reading your posts matter? I’m just screaming into the void. It’s good for my mental health.
Editing works for me.
Ed,
You shouldn’t deport people you aren’t supposed to deport. They should ask nicely for his return. Whether that guy should be deported as a general rule is a completely different question.
The original judge found evidence he was a gang member, he claimed he wanted protection from said gang, IMO the US shouldn’t be in that business. Quite a big loophole.
Until the asylum system is fixed by the legislature I’m OK with shutting down the border using the executive.
“I call that crowd as opposed to host censoring”
We would need to have personal block filters to avoid sh**posters.
Tom “ You shouldn’t deport people you aren’t supposed to deport.”
The subject was deportable, just not to El Salvador.
If El Salvador doesn’t want to give up its own citizen then the administration can say “we tried”
It’s an intresting issue. If El Salvador wanted to extradite this guy, but hadn’t got around to it, and Trump’s relocation served El Salvador’s needs, wouldn’t you think that this could be solved by some paperwork?
The situation with the El Salvador guy is ridiculous. An immigration court ordered him deported. Then he decided to claim asylum or refugee status of some such; which he had no right to do at that point. Some judge bought his story and said he could be deported, but not to El Salvador. So that created some weird legal limbo. Now sort of resolved, albeit in an unsatisfying way.
Mike M.
Are you writing that El Salvador guy had no right to make a claim for asylum once he was ordered deported? Are you sure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia
“Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador and illegally entered the United States in 2011.
…
An immigration judge determined that the informant’s claim[8] was sufficient evidence for denying Abrego Garcia’s bond request,[5] and another judge upheld that ruling, saying the claim that Abrego Garcia was in MS-13 for purposes of the bond determination was not clearly wrong.[5] He has consistently denied any connection to MS-13.
…
Abrego Garcia and his family live in Maryland. In 2019, with his lawyer, Abrego Garcia fought allegations against him in deportation proceedings in court and applied for asylum. His request for asylum was denied, as one must submit an asylum application within a year of arriving in the U.S. However, the judge granted him “withholding of removal” status that would block his deportation to El Salvador due to the threat that gangs would pose to him, finding that “he was more likely than not to be harmed if he was returned to El Salvador.”
Ed
Are they saying they want to keep him?
Lucia, it’s too early in the process. Governments generally run MUCH slower than blog posts 🙂
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/11/nx-s1-5361208/mahmoud-khalil-deported-judge-rubio-antisemitism-immigration-court
“During a hearing at the remote Louisiana detention center where Khalil is being held, Judge Jamee Comans said Friday that she had no authority to question Rubio’s determination.”
This is what I suspected, due process is only determining whether Rubio made the determination, not the court relitigating it.
From the quote Tom Scharf provided: “His request for asylum was denied, as one must submit an asylum application within a year of arriving in the U.S. However, the judge granted him “withholding of removal” status that would block his deportation to El Salvador”.
That is even worse than I thought. Garcia had no right to ask for asylum, the judge recognized that fact, and then the judge granted Garcia de facto asylum.
Mike M,
“Garcia had no right to ask for asylum, the judge recognized that fact, and then the judge granted Garcia de facto asylum.”
And the part that surprises is? Immigration judges have ignored the law for decades. There are endless horror stories. Who appeals these decisions? Not the DOJ. The solution: disband the umpteen pseudo-judges who work on immigration and replace them with judges willing to actually enforce the law.
test – Russell Klier April 9, 2025 at 7:52 pm said –
“Trump rescinds showerhead water flow restrictions with an executive order.”
Dougie from the UK . Was that a real restriction in the US & if so how was it enforced?
Dougie,
From this White House release (feel free to ignore the ranting part): “Under Obama and Biden, the government issued lengthy rules … making multi-nozzle showers illegal if they collectively discharged over 2.5 gallons of water per minute.”
[Although I did chuckle at the notion that “over 13,000 words” were used to define “showerhead”. Who says the government has no sense of humor?]
Presumably, these regulations were intended to conserve water, much as toilets in the US must use less than 1.6 gallons (I think) per flush.
Harold W
I assure you, I didn’t not go check my shower nozzles for their volumetric flow rate nor did I replace them. I assume this applied to nozzles that were for sale or being installed in new construction.
That said, I prefer baths. A full tub is a full tub.
“ A full tub is a full tub.”
Which is not illegal as long as you fill it with a faucet with a flow restriction. It’s called Liberal logic.
Harold W,
I think the biggest motivation for restricting flow to shower heads was global warming (too much energy and CO2 emissions to warm all that water you know). Which is bizarre. In Florida, municipal water is in the 70’s year round, so only needing ~25 F increase for a shower. Compare to Wisconsin… ~55F rise needed. Logically, we Floridians should be able to use 5 GPM shower heads if we want. 😉 The great thing about the enviro left is that they are idiots.
Russell,
I think the shower head flow restriction did not appply to faucets.
i think the restrictors were required in plumbing codes at least as far back as 1992 – maybe farther.
We always drilled them out, even on the boat where the issue was water conservstion but then we took navy showers on the boat.
John,
I think you are right. I was just making a joke.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the restrictors went back to Nixon. I started trying to do architecture in 1967. There were building codes then, but mostly they were reasonable and fairly brief. The engineering understanding of wind and earthquake loads was evolving and dind’t get to where it needed to be until the ’90s. Sometime in the mid ’70s restrictions, limits, and various goofy impositions started to creep into the codes. Sometimes they made no sense in the industrial projects I worked on.
I don’t know if it’s still out there, but there was one which required that door knobs on doors leading to dangerous areas be knurled so that blind people who couldn’t read warning signs would be alerted to the potential danger.
The Chicago Building department wanted these on doors in a shop we were designing for Amtrak. I refused saying that there was no way a blind person could be safe in this facility. They insisted.
We bought knurled knobs for both sides of every door in the project. I never heard if anyone noticed them and we were never asked.
Another time we were required to provide lighted exit lights in a kiln for curing freshly poured concrete pipes. Temperarture in the kiln was over 140F IIRC, and we couldn’t find lights which would survive this temperature. We went around and around with the inspector on this and eventually had the lights made. But then he wanted the entire kiln to be lit. I finally got the chief inspector to make this go away.
As to SteveF’s remarks about heating water, I believe that the price of natural gas was controlled in Minnesota so that people could afford to heat their single family homes. Gas in Texas was not price controlled for the locals who felt they were subisidizing people in Minnesota. this was in 1979 and I may have the story screwed up. I do remember bumper stickers there which said “Drive 70 and freeze a yankee” Maybe someone can straighten this out where I’ve gotten it confused.
From here,
“Under a 1992 energy law, showerheads in the US are not allowed to produce more than 2.5 gallons (9.5l) of water per minute.
Obama introduced a redefinition, as part of an Energy Conservation Program, that meant for showers with multiple nozzles, the restriction applied overall rather than to each nozzle.”
Assuming that a “nozzle” refers to an entire showerhead (rather than, say, each hole in a showerhead) suggests that a multiple-nozzle shower might be one that has a fixed overhead nozzle, and a handheld one as well. In such cases, in my experience there’s a diverter to direct water to one or the other, so I don’t see a problem needing a complicated regulation.
Although I’ve personally not had the problem Trump complains of, as long as the showerhead has a setting for “fewer holes, stronger spray”.
John Ferguson,
” There were building codes then, but mostly they were reasonable and fairly brief.”
I built a house in 1977 to 1979 (own hands); the codes were quite reasonable.
I looked at current code (Massachusetts) for a small renovation/addition project. Many thousands of pages, and mostly absurd stuff: adding to an uninsulated/unheated structure STILL required minimum R30 ceiling and R19 walls and R19 under the floors. There are Florida-like requirements for connecting walls and ceilings to roofs to guard against high winds.
The electric code now calls for an “arc-sensitive” breaker on any new circuit (a microprocessor looks at the noise signature on the line and trips if it thinks there could be a tiny arc somewhere.) Of course, many existing appliances generate a noise signature that instantly trips the breaker…. the official rule is: if an appliance is not consistent with arc-sensing breakers, then it must be replaced with one designed to not trip arc-sensing breakers. So a perfectly good appliance, in service for a decade, must be thrown away because it is connected to a different circuit? No grandfathering allowed?
It is all nutty.
HaroldW,
Minneapolis was enjoying an economic boom in the ’20s. The effects which survived into the ’60s when we spent time there included bathrooms with purple fixtures and art deco tile. Even movie theaters wer so done. They are quite impressive.
Relatives had a very large house built in 1927, complete with the purple fixtures and the artistically done Deco tile. The handles on faucetss were white porcelain, looked like Micky Mouse hands.
The shower was walk-in, more purple tile, and IIRC 7 nozzles. There was one on top, and three on each side at different heights, There was a manifold with more mouse-handled valves which allowed one to set the temperature for the entire system and also the force of each outlet.
I was a kid when I saw this thing and just visiting didn’t have an opportunity to take it on.
Doubtless, Obama objected to the whole concept of the thing. Imagine that this was the same guy who thought the cost of Arugula in Iowa was a bit pricey.
CA state law is 1.8 gpm for showers and 1.2 gpm for faucets.
I think states will still be able to supersede the fed limits.
One can imagine another system where people can choose to pay more if they consider water flow an important aspect of their daily existence while still having water restriction devices available.
I have even in my vivid imagination thought of having the water flow easily manageable by using a mechanical flow throttling device. I was thinking of calling it an adjustable flow valve or something crazy.
Mad genius.
One of our contractors said he could date our house to about a 2 year period because all our light switches were lower than normal. He said there was a brief period where the code required them at that height for ADA reasons.
John Ferguson,
Apparently my exposure to shower varieties is insufficiently broad. Still, I wonder how common multi-nozzle showers are, and how serious the water/energy conservation issues which they pose.
HaroldW,
We saw multi nozzle showers in hotels overseas. There was some confusion at a hotel near the airport in Cario and we wound up with a room which had a bathroom with every imaginable device and a tub you could wash a horse in. I thought it was a joke until I tried the faucet which was up to the job.
They do have the Nile.
I loved Egypt and especially my introduction to the Uzi’s and Uzi knockoffs the guards all had. One was even chromed. I wonder if the Israelis get royalties on these things.
I doubt if Kalashnikov ever did for themillions of AK-47’s around the world including some in Egypt which were brandished by unlikely Militia members some of which didn’t have magazines attached.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the brokest of them all?
Snow White!
Grok:
“losses could range from $100 million to $200 million”
Forbes:
“After dropping out of 450 North American theaters last weekend, Snow White shed another 1,210 venues on Friday. As a result, Snow White is projected by Deadline to earn $2.8 million this weekend from 2,540 theaters domestically for a No. 8 finish at the box office in its fourth Friday to Sunday frame.”
And:
“Snow White is raising the white flag as the Disney film has tumbled out of the box office top five less than a month after opening.
In the film’s second weekend, Snow White’s business dropped a staggering 66% percent for a $14.3 million tally from 4,200”
Disney is dropping a similar move, US:
“Disney Pauses Live-Action ‘Tangled’ Adaptation Amid Snow White’s Low Box Office: Report”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timlammers/2025/04/12/snow-white-drops-out-of-box-office-top-5-after-shedding-1210-venues/
https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/disney-halts-live-action-tangled-amid-snow-white-criticism-report/
The man knows how to make an entrance, New York Post:
“Trump attends UFC fights in Florida with star-studded cast — and receives insane applause while entering arena”
Video:
https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1911239189737226370
Crowd chants- USA,USA, whole entourage procession- Musk, Rubio, Bodi, Granddaughter Kai, rock music…. It was a mad scene.
https://nypost.com/2025/04/12/us-news/trump-set-to-attend-ufc-314-in-miami-with-fbi-director-others/
It finally happened. Gambling syndicate / egghead bookmaker buys (almost) all possible tickets for a lottery and walks off with single ticket winner. Clears 10’s of millions.
How a Secretive Gambler Called ‘The Joker’ Took Down the Texas Lottery
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/texas-lottery-gamblers-jackpot-win-40e3d6fb?st=RQAm3E&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
3 days of 24 hour printing on dozens of machines. Appears to be 100% legal and I wouldn’t even call it immoral in any way. They are taking steps to limit the number of tickets any machine can print in order to restore the “spirit” of the lottery.
Comment editing will be off for a while. The side bar will also vanish.
Test.
Tom
From the WSJ:
I’m puzzled…..
If the jackpot was $95 million paid immediately this works– that’s if the cash value was $95. But, generally, when a lottery calls the prize $95 million they mean 30 payments over 30 years.
Texas publishes both the case value and the annuitized value. Right now Powerball is $100 millions, cash value 44.8 million. ( As an individual investor you aren’t likely to tax shelter this and you won’t have tons of tickets to write off, rough guess, assume you pay half in taxes– you’re haul if you buy one ticket and match is 22.4 million.)
lucia,
I noticed that the numbers did not seem to add up. I attributed that to the journalist being functionally innumerate. Most are.
Lucia,
If the present cash value of the annuity is $43 million (based on $95 million jackpot), and you had to “invest” $26 million for the tickets, then you could deduct the $26 million from the value of the annuity (I think) and pay taxes only on the profits….. so maybe net $10 million or so after taxes, a return of ~38% after tax on the $26 million. Still, it is a bet with risk: split the prize with someone else and you lose $4 million.
Right, this accounting was a bit weird, that’s why I called it 10’s of millions. It uses the term “estimated cash value” for whatever that means.
It may be possible that they are running some kind of tax game as well. Most likely the question was asked by the journalist and not answered. I believe the taxes are collected before the payout so not sure they can be avoided.
This cash payout being 50% of the marketed value of the lottery would likely be seen as deceptive by the very same state authorities if a private company did it.
NYT: “China Halts Critical Exports as Trade War Intensifies
Beijing has suspended exports of certain rare earth minerals and magnets that are crucial for the world’s car, semiconductor and aerospace industries.”
This is serious leverage for China and can cause a lot of pain. It is best for this to happen now in order to force the US to diversify where it gets this stuff.
The major “Trump card” for China though is that they hold a crapload of US debt and if they chose to sell it all off or just under market value then it will cause a serious problem for the US which needs to continuously finance it profligate ways.
Both sides knows this so it’s Trump playing a crazy game of chicken.
MikeM,
The thing is, they were sufficiently innumerate the didn’t mention the difference. (Also– even apart from counting costs of the activity, the profit will be different from the difference between the cash value of the jackpot and the amount to cover the tickets. If you buy enough tickets you’ll also have some that match 3,4,5 but don’t hit the jackpot.)
But if $95M was the cash value, I would expect the syndicates to have swooped in sooner. They are doing this as a syndicate with investors. Their operating costs can’t be astronomically high, but the incremental break even point for an individual game is when this is negative:
Loss= { [price all the tickets (~$25M) bought] + [operating costs to buy/store/manage tickets for this specific draw] + [operating costs to collect prize] } –
{ [value of single CASH payment] + [payment for smaller matches] + [cost of communicating with customers about how much they won and cuttign them their checks] }
The cost to buy manage tickets can’t be too high. You fill out the tickets — possibly getting your printer to print on the entry forms. You have someone go stand in line feed the slips and money in and wait for tickets to print. (Those machines are a bit slow– so 3 minutes per 10 sets of numbers?) That’s not a high skill job– maybe a bit over minimum wage to be sure they are honest. 🙂
If you’ve organized this well, you filled out the tickets in some sort of order and stored them in boxes. So the costs of collecting the money can’t be too large. I don’t know the value of the smaller tickets– but it’s not zero. (There are 26 power balls and the prize is $1M. I don’t know if that’s lump sum or annuity. Say annuity. Knock it down by half, multiply by 26. ~13Million. )
So gut feeling, I’d expect the syndicates to swoop in when the cash value of the jackpot is near or just a little over the costs of the tickets. But the didn’t swoop in that soon… which suggest $95M was the “advertised” pot.
I may need to do a calculation. . .
lucia wrote: “I’d expect the syndicates to swoop in when the cash value of the jackpot is near or just a little over the costs of the tickets.”
But that does not account for the risk that they might have to split the jackpot or that something stupid might go wrong. I don’t think they take that risk for a potential 10% profit. I don’t know what potential gain might make it worthwhile. 50%?
By exerting their leverage, China proves the need to reduce our dependence on China.
This might let Trump use the Defense Production Act to fast track the development of domestic supplies. There is at least one massive source in Texas that has been in development hell for years.
This calc is for powerball. The calc assumes the “small” prizes are all cash payouts. If the only costs to running this scheme was buying tickets.
Assuming the operator is the only winner, the nominal cash value of the jackpot to break even is slightly below the cost to cover all the tickets. (This is a big risk if other operators start catching on.)
So the true break even cost needs to cover the costs of things like handling the money, tickets, people standing in line. Everything is in millions. If they could be sure of being the only winner, I’d guess the operators collecting the deterministic small game wins would be enough to make them swoop in when the cost of the tickets was equal to the cash value of the jackpot.
That said: I don’t really know the costs. The other problem is that if there weren’t many tickets OTHER operators would swoop in. If a 2nd operator swoops in and both all cover all the tickets they will have to split the pot. (If they are the only operator and know it, they can estimate the chance of splitting the BIG jack pot.)
For numbers see below.
> #power ball — costs $2 to play.
> Prizes=c(1e6,50e3,100,100,7,7,4,4)
> prob_inv=c(11688053.52, 913129.18, 36525.17, 14494.11 , 579.76, 701.33, 91.98, 38.32 )
>
> small_game_win= sum(Prizes/prob_inv)*292201338.00/1e6 # amount you win on the “small” games. in millions.
>
>
> cost_to_play= 292201338.00*2/1e6 # spend buying all the tickets in millions. ($2 each)
>
> nominal_break_even_jackpot= cost_to_play-small_game_win;
>
> small_game_win
[1] 93.46885
> cost_to_play
[1] 584.4027
> nominal_break_even_jackpot
[1] 490.9338
Mike
Agreed. You can estimate the probability of this. The estimate is different if you KNOW another operator swoops in vs. you know you are the only operator. (Another operator buys tickets systematically. Normal people draw more or less randomly over the full set. Probably not quite– but more or less. If lots use “quick pick”, they draw very randomly. )
I think it’s worth knowing the base case.
As a practical matter, usually these big jackpots are not split. When no operator is involved in buying up all the tickets, the probability of the jackpot being won by anyone during a draw is low. That’s how the jackpots accumulate.
Tom Scharf
I googled. The TX winner has a corporation incorporated in some tax free haven. I guess the TX rules allowed corporations to win. Or the person who heads the corporation nominally wins? Not surprisingly, the gambler thought of this tax angle.
lucia wrote: “The thing is, they were sufficiently innumerate the didn’t mention the difference. ”
In other words, typical journalists.
Tom-
Yeah, they deduct estimated taxes. But you file your return and if your taxes are lower, you should get a refund. Just like the normal process. If you took cash value, you’ll be getting your refund in about a year and a half or less. It depends when the game was drawn.
I added:
> small_game_win/cost_to_play
[1] 0.1599391
So if you cover the tickets, you win back about 16% of what you spent in the “small” games. (This is assuming those are cash payouts.)
I’d guess the power ball small payout percentage is typical. (?) All these games have some small pay outs– that’s what helps addict people. Plus they like to advertise there were winners this week– just not the big jackpot.
I can’t see how hiring people to stand in line would work. With 25M $1 tickets, as in TX, You would need to hire 5000 people to each buy 5000 tickets. Is it even possible for one person to buy 5000 tickets in 2-3 days? But a bigger problem is that you would have to trust each of them with $5000 (or $5000 worth of tickets). It does not seem feasible.
China can probably live with curtailed exports to the US, Grok:
“ In 2023, about 14.8% of China’s total exports went to the United States, based on data from sources like the Observatory of Economic Complexity and posts found on X. This figure comes from China’s total export value of roughly $3.73 trillion, with approximately $501.22 billion directed to the U.S.”
Lucia,
“You have someone go stand in line feed the slips and money in and wait for tickets to print. (Those machines are a bit slow– so 3 minutes per 10 sets of numbers?) That’s not a high skill job– maybe a bit over minimum wage to be sure they are honest.”
They set up multiple “shops” (using retail vendors) that ran 24 hrs per day, and each shop with dozens of machines and a staff to do nothing but make the machines print tickets. They did have to organize the tickets to be able to find winners, which was likely a fair amount of work. The licensed retail merchants took a commission on the $26 million sales, but that’s all.
MikeM
Yes. Evidently he managed. The WSJ article says he and his “lieutenants” flew to the US from the UK to stand in line and buy the tickets. They must have had some money here already? Carrying cash through immigration is dicey.
Maybe the lieutenants are all investors in the scheme? And professional gamblers? It reads as if they are watching lottos everywhere and arriving when the lotto is ripe for the picking.
They also had wins in Australia and Australia came after them for taxes.
Honestly, as long as the US and individual states write tax laws to ensure that lottery winnings will be taxable in the US, and at least one state, with no deductions for gambling expenses accrued in other countries, and a limit to how much you can write off in gambling expenses even in the US. (Say limit using losses to off-setting winnings to claiming $10K in spending on lotto tickets or losses on games of chance like poker, horses, dogs etc.) Also: limit the credit for taxes paid in other countries to non-game of chance earnings.
Then also withhold with an assumption of zero deductions so winners can’t just escape by taking the money and being in another country beyond easy grasp of the IRS.
If they do that, I don’t see this as a any sort of problem. Heck, unless there is an equal protection problem, you could put an additional surtax on nonUS citizens without student or work visas. (So, tourists pay a 5% surtax on lottery winnings.)
It would make operating costs for syndicates higher, but wouldn’t affect “normal” players much. “Normal” players mostly aren’t going to spend more than $100/week! That’s a gambling addition right there!!
I mean, from a revenue POV: When the syndicate swoops in, they pay taxes on their winnings. They wouldn’t be able deduct most of the cost of tickets when tallying their cost of operation. Some US state got money for the sale of those tickets. Yeah, sometimes the syndicate can still profit. But they’ll have to wait for the jack pot to roll over more. They state and feds will probably still stay in the black on the over all transaction– which is really all you want wrt to people who try to game the game.
Oh. Well.
The main risk is sharing the jackpot which is pretty significant when the jackpots get high. I would guess they want to see a break even on a 2 ticket win.
They probably analyzed trends and saw that TX didn’t get a lot of added action relatively when the jackpot neared 100M.
Apparently they exploited a loophole where they could buy / lease / use dozens of ticket printers for their own exclusive use. There is likely some simple and effective way to mass print tickets using a computer app.
lucia wrote: ” Evidently he managed.”
I don’t know who “he” is. The Texas scheme did not have anybody standing in line. They acquired the terminals to print out the tickets and sold the tickets (with revenue going to the state) to themselves. SteveF says they needed to give license holders a cut, that sounds plausible to me.
It seems like other groups have just bought huge numbers of tickets from retail outlets when odds were favorable. I suspect that such operations can not buy more than a small fraction of available numbers. So sometimes they win, sometimes they don’t.
I think the fairness issue with the syndicate is that it resulted in a greatly reduced chance of winning by the normal lottery players, without whom the lottery can not function.
Edit: Actually a reduced potential jackpot since the normal players could not win more than half the jackpot.
The chance of a normal player winner is still the same except the chance of them sharing the jackpot was now 100%. So effectively the jackpot was cut in half.
The losers are the daily lottery players. Money has been taken out of the pot. The state, as always, wins no matter what. I’m not too sympathetic to the players though. The state can choose to stop this behavior and probably should but I see nothing wrong with it retroactively. They should pay taxes and fees.
WSJ: Harvard Says It Will Fight Trump Administration Demands
Harvard says it will fight the government because it is entitled to taxpayer money and can do whatever it wants with it and is answerable to nobody.
OK, that last part I made up, ha ha. This is a bad fight for them but Trump put them in a box. Even if they win, they will lose.
Mike M: “SteveF says they needed to give license holders a cut”
He wrote that they got a commission, this presumably comes from the state. Also, stores where a (big) winning ticket is sold, get a bonus, also coming from the state.
I suspect that the syndicate didn’t need to pay the license holders at all; they’d be very happy with what they get from the state. They win, the syndicate wins, the state wins — the loss comes from the accumulated jackpot. The state probably doesn’t care — the jackpot was going to be paid out sometime anyway. In the meantime, they get greatly increased sales.
The president of El Salvador will hold Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia
https://x.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1911812937599115411
President @nayibbukele
tells WH reporters he will not return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the U.S.: “I’m not going to do it. The question is preposterous…You want us to go back to releasing criminals?…That’s not going to happen.”
MikeM
This is what the scheme does. Over the full course of the lottery cycle, the jackpot builds up in draws where no one wins. Then eventually, someone matches. That might be one person (most often) or several.
The odds of matching 5 numbers plus a power ball don’t change based on how many people play. But the jackpot being larger makes it a better game for players that round. More people playing does increase the odds you’ll split the large jackpot.
In the case of a syndicate, the other players are also covering the tickets uniformly. So the chance of splitting is higher than if other players just picked uniform bets.
Well…. there’s a limit to how many more people are going to play. When the jackpot is small, “regular” people play their weekly amount. When it grows, some people find it fun to play. (I do. I like to fantacize about winning. So I buy if the stated jackpot for Powerball is $400 million. It’s still a rippoff game. The cash value is closer to $200 million, the odds of winning the big are 1/292 million. If you assume you don’t split the pot, that mean without the “small” wins, the “expected value” of the payout is roughly 200/292 = $0.68. The value of the small pots adds to that; the chances of someone else winning whacks it down.
A ticket costs $2. I buy 1 ticket. But I enjoy dreaming about all the money I’d spend frivolously if I won.
It almost always rolls over and I keep playing until someone wins. The jackpot has gotten to a billion. It has to be higher than that for it to be worth it to “the operators”.
I waste money on other things too.
HaroldW
As a “player” in “the game” the Texas shouldn’t care other than the effect of taxes and/or where the winner later spends their money. . Technically both are “outside” the game. But if a Texan wins, they will likely pay some sales tax in TX. If the own a TX residence they will pay some TX real estate taxes. Otherwise, they take their money and pay whatever taxes elsewhere.
The Feds– who are technically outside the game– should prefer a US resident to win. A US resident has to pay federal income tax on their winnings.
As a US taxplayer who wins the lottery, I want people visiting the country to pay US taxes. These guys being from the UK and not paying US taxes on their wins is my only gripe. 🙂
lucia wrote: “A US resident has to pay federal income tax on their winnings.”
So do non-residents, if the lottery is in the US. The winnings are income in the US, so subject to US federal income tax. Non-residents might also have to pay tax in their country of residence.
If you or I won a lottery in Canada, we would have to pay tax in both countries. There is a tax treaty to cover such cases. Most likely the Canadians would withhold a portion (either 15% or 25%) and say “we’re good”? Then on your US federal return you’d claim a foreign tax credit that would count against your federal liability.
And then, of course, we’d have to pay state income tax. Most likely no foreign tax credit there.
In effect, the court is asking Trump to ask the El Salvadoran government to deport an El Salvadoran citizen to the US. Not gonna happen.
Unless we have a crime to charge him with here, we have no basis to request extradition. He is staying where he is. Fine with me.
Mike M.
I think you have the El Salvadorean tango exactly right. It seemed obvious once I understood the guy was a Salvadorean. Whatever the truth might be, they will say he’s a terrorist and belongs in their jail. If Trump needs to remind them of this, he’d be crazy not to.
This solution seems so elegant and not a serious basis for all of the Constitutional Crisis bed-wetting going on.
I’m guessing there isn’t a lot of arm twisting by the US going on to get this guy back. Clever lawyers at work. “Please send him back but we want to make sure that you know we completely respect your decision to keep him if necessary”.
Tariff threats? Nope, never crossed their minds.
Ah, life in Florida, a 10 foot alligator showed up on the courts for my granddaughter’s tennis practice, and everyone waited for him to pass and just went about their business. This time of year, the big males are getting amorous and go looking for girl alligators.
Video:
https://x.com/rklier21/status/1911901151056052687?s=46&t=ZvqHpxBnQGny72gLoGhKXw
John Ferguson,
IIRC, the claim was that the guy would be subjected to (non-government) attacks if he was in El Salvador, so he was supposed to be deported to some place other than El Salvador. OK, but since he is in an El Salvadoran government prison, is he really in any more danger than other prisoners?
The whole issue is the claim that Trump should not be able to deport illegal alien residents. You don’t have to go far past that issue to understand the politics. IMHO, the courts are not going to get involved very much, beyond a few lunatic leftist judges who will be overturned. The executive has plenary power to admit and deport foreign nationals. For this particular executive, the emphasis will be on ‘deport’… especially for those who are here illegally.
i don’t buy the theory that the libs support all this illegal immigration because they think they’ll gain voters eventually, but I do think it’s clearly misguided do-goodism.
One of the most interesting discoveries of the 2024 election was that get-out-the-vote produced more Republican than Democratic votes.
Our friends at League of Women Voters are still trying to digest that one. It’s tough to be “un-aligned” when you aren’t getting the results you were hoping for.
John,
You puzzle me. On the one hand,
but on the other,
where you seem to be saying in the next breath that libs act to gain votes with do-goodism as just a pretext.
I can’t help but feel like I’m walking into the punchline of a joke. Let me have it, I guess. I didn’t see it coming whatever it is.
john ferguson,
Even if not many illegals vote, they still impact elections. They settler in mainly Democrat areas and increase the representation of those areas in Congress and the Electoral College. That dilutes the votes of citizens in areas without a lot of illegals.
Also, Democrats will not go along with any immigration reform unless it is “comprehensive” by which they mean that it must include a path to citizenship for illegals.
I think that you are correct that a lot of rank and file Democrat voters support open borders and such out of misguided do-gooderism. But at higher levels in the Party, it is very much about using illegals to expand their political power.
According to Stephen Miller, the order barring the deportation of the El Salvador MS-13 guy to El Salvador was based on his fear of a rival gang. “The other criminals might hurt me” does not sound to me like a reason to not deport the guy. But it gets better. The gang he was supposedly afraid of no longer exists.
Mike M,
Mostly, he doesn’t want to be in an El Salvador prison. Which is perfectly understandable. But he was illegally in the USA is still an El Salvadoran criminal. This doesn’t seem all that complicated… except perhaps to a loony-left judge.
Mike M.
increasing the district population is a good catch. I think you’re correct on that. If the new regime throttles federal help to these districts, the idea of encourging, or not resisting the illegals may lose its attraction.
mark,
get-out-the-vote by the likes of league of women voters is supposed to be strictly non-partisan. Local chapter has both Republican and Democratic women.
the vote they are tryng to get out is people legally qualified to vote. despite the non-partisan stance they take, I really do think that my friends who belong were perplexed that in 2024 more Republicans than Democrats were discovered by beating the shrubbery.
I apologize because maybe I’m not writing clearly.
I actually spit out my morning tea when I read this…
Sean Davis comment on Gayle King and her space jaunt:
“We were so obsessed with whether we could bring people back from space that we never considered whether we should.”
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/1911882706709041189?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
I’m sorry John, the failure is mine I’m sure. It’s not important.
[Edit: What I should have said is, I don’t understand why you don’t buy the theory that liberals are trying to gain votes with the illegal immigrants, when the [idea] you supply in the next sentence is liberals trying to gain votes with do-gooderism as the pretext.
But it’s OK. I don’t need to understand.]
Mark,
If you think the Lib goal is to naturalize most of the illegal immigrants who don’t have some obvious problem beyond being illegal via some sort of seriouus qualification route hoping that they will vote Democratic, I’d say sure, but not all the Lib’s.
I think a lot of them are just attempting to solve a problem we’ve found ourselves in from lax border controls, the problem being how to deal with folks who’ve been living here for years in a sort of Limbo. And that’s not to get to dealing with their kids who were born here and are therefore citizens.
It seems to me that Obama was more williing to deal with the border problem and needed deportations than mr vapor, Biden.
And no-one could accurately characterize Obama as anything but a serious Lib.
I may be all confused here.
An ocean of red ink. After another disastrous weekend box office take of only $2.8 million, Snow White has total gross receipts worldwide of around $180 million. This is the fourth weekend of poor showing in a row. Projections now that total final receipts will not top $200 million. With production and marketing costs estimated to be near $400 million this movie is officially a flop.
I have always been partial to Disney films, mostly due to my granddaughters’ infatuation with princesses as they were growing up, but I enjoyed some outright. The 2021 ‘Cruella’ [from the 101 Dalmations franchise] was great. At that time Disney stock was comfortably holding around the $200 mark. But it’s been a disastrous four years. The Stock is now hovering at about $90.
Fair enough John. I’ve got no sources that suggest the number of illegals in the United States net increased under the Obama administrations. If ‘what Obama did’ and ‘what liberals believe’ are synonymous (and maybe that’s reasonable), I see your point.
Thanks.
[Edit: Well, except this:
https://cis.org/Report/25-Million-Join-Illegal-Population-under-Obama
]
I think the left’s political support of open borders isn’t about illegal voting per se, but it is about pandering to the Hispanic community for their votes. This hasn’t been very effective as they continue to bleed Hispanic votes. It turns out that Hispanics don’t uniformly support illegal immigration and they, like most of the electorate, have other priorities.
So now the left is diminishing this part of their platform.
john ferguson wrote: “attempting to solve a problem we’ve found ourselves in from lax border controls”.
Under Biden, and to a lesser extent under Obama, the lax border controls and resulting problems were a deliberate policy.
WSJ: U.S. Freezes Billions in Funding After Harvard Says It Will Fight Trump’s Demands
The government responds to university with a $2.26 billion freeze of the school’s grants and contracts
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/harvard-says-it-will-fight-trump-administration-demands-288e489a?st=wNunqe&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“The Trump administration said Monday that the school’s response “reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges—that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws.””
Trump was begging them to take the bait. It blows my mind that our best and brightest could not see this coming. Open and proud discrimination against the majority, what could go wrong?
I expect the usual suspects to knee jerk defend all these policies with the end result being further erosion of trust in the academy.
Tom
Tom,
I suspect some of the things Trump is demanding exceed the authority of the Feds, others don’t. We’ll see what happens.
One aspect of Trump’s behavior is we are getting a lot of SCOTUS rulings — often making precedents.
Harvard is not going to run out of money. $52B endowment. I don’t even give the government good odds at winning this case, basically they need to treat all universities the same, more or less.
But the government also ran around putting the screws to police departments with individual consent decrees based on civil rights violations and these are the same tools used against universities. The universities put out miles of DEI rope in which to hang themselves.
When the fight is over and the smoke has cleared these endowments may see different tax status and the public may demand redirecting taxpayer funds to state universities.
I doubt Trump cares very much who wins, he just wants the public spectacle of a fight against elite education. Similar to high brow law firms and the media he is picking the right enemies.
For at least 60 years, the feds have been using grants to bribe private colleges and universities to do the government’s bidding. That is why some conservative colleges, like Hillsdale and Grove City, do not accept any government money. If Harvard chooses to go that route, I applaud them for it. Not that I expect them to actually do it.
Another US carrier battle group has joined the scene in the Middle East. Looks like the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), with their F-35C’s, is now working with the USS Harry S. Truman.
The end result of all this will be further polarization of funding higher education, particularly private universities. Confidence in higher education has dropped 20% in just the last 10 years.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/646880/confidence-higher-education-closely-divided.aspx
It is near impossible to launch this fight without appearing pompous, entitled to taxpayer funds, and ideologically rigid. Shall we protest for our billions in front of the climbing wall or on the finely manicured quad?
Higher education should have never allowed themselves to be captured politically. Why? The vocal defenders now will be politically aligned activists who aren’t going to be very good at marketing to the people who matter, the general electorate. This is * predictable * and falling for it is bad strategy.
Who is going to make the case to the 20% (mostly Republicans) already lost in the last 10 years? Political partisans are not going to save higher education by calling detractors fascists, they are going to destroy it.
Higher education needs to eject the partisans. They meticulously document every racial and identity characteristic in their institution but cannot say how many conservative professors they have because it’s not important to them to measure it. Bizarre.
Tom
I’m not sufficiently familiar with the tax status of endowments to have an opinion on their current tax status. However I think there should be a time limit during which an endowment is tax advantaged. Even saying: it will only be tax advantaged for 50 years, or better, insist on a rate of spend down that depletes it. So
Say the initial endowment was $100 million is established in 2000.
* 100% of initial value of endowment is tax advantaged for the first 10 years. If in any year from 2000-2009, if the current value of the endowment is $100 million or less, any income is tax advantaged. But if it’s grown to $120million, then any tax credit will be 100/120 * (full tax credit it would get if it was still $100 million.)
* 80% of the initial value is tax advantaged for the next 10 years
and so on. So the tax advantage declines. If in any year from 2000-2009, if the current value of the endowment is $80 million or less, any income is tax advantaged. But if it’s say, $90 million , then any tax credit will be 80/90 * (full tax credit it would get if it was still $100 million.)
The tax advantage slowly declines and the endowments can’t “grow”. (Heck, they can’t even keep up wit inflation). The endowment could fund student scholarships, research, building buildings– whatever. But it would be being spent down.
(I get this spending it down makes it “not an endowment”. But the endowment can exist and grow. To the extent it grows, it doesn’t get favorable tax treatment forever.)
This encourages spending down the money and using it for some tangible benefit. Or they just lose favorable tax treatment– which is a choice. But when money is not spent but just grows then it’s not really achieving any charitable, educational or religious missions. Money doesn’t have to do those things. But those missions are the justification for lower taxes– and if it’s not doing that, they shouldn’t get lower taxes.
Admittedly, endowment could also be wasted on something stupid. But the latter can happen anyway. But regardless, letting money sit accumulating and not being spent is not a social benefit and so should not be rewarded with tax advantaged treatment. If the university wants to not spend it down, then they should pay taxes like everyone else!
To an extent, I think a similar thing should apply to all donated pots of funds that are dedicated to “support a cause” or endowment like things. But I’m not aware of who accumulates big pots of money that.
Exceptions for certain endowment causes could be made if warranted and the fund isn’t structured to fund things that are really just branched of a university. (Hospital? If it’s really a hospital and the money is earmarked for the physical plant that supports patient care and patient care itself and not to fund university research staff or students– that should follow the same rule of spending as university endowments. If it’s really university research… Follow the rules for university endowments. Retirement home– same. Bill and Melinda Gates foundation? Same rules.)
Permanent endowments could still exist. They’d just be taxed like other things.
My impression is they aren’t– they are tax advantaged. I’m ok with that for a period, but not for an amount of time that exceed a typical adult life time (20-70 years =50 years.)
Mike M,
” Not that I expect them to actually do it.”
.
No, there is not an ice-cube’s chance in Hell they will actually walk away from Federal funding a la Hillsdale. They will fight in court to keep Federal funding without any restrictions, and may even agree to reduce DEI hiring and promotions, and reduce (this time fore real) race-based admissions. But if they lose in court, they will not abandon $billions per year in funding. There are no Hillsdale-like policies in Harvard’s future.
Tom Scharf,
“…but cannot say how many conservative professors they have”
I can: very close to zero, because they have been excluding people based on conservative views for decades. Most of these schools instituted required statements of dedication to “equity” (AKA “equal outcomes”), as a condition for employment. The left does not compromise on substance and does not even countenance opposing views even being presented.
lucia,
I agree that endowments should not be forever, at least not unless they are replenished by new donations. I think a simple solution would be that any endowment investment income not spent on the endowments purpose (which would not include administrative expenses) would be taxed at whatever the maximum income tax rate is.
Or, to be more aggressive, the amount subject to tax if not spent could be income plus, say, 2% of the principle. But I think that would be an unconstitutional direct tax.
Lucia,
I agree that tax advantage for endowments, trusts, foundations, etc should be limited. But I would withdraw the tax advantage of those things much faster…. certainly not more than 50 years before they are treated as normal taxable entities. Otherwise, these things will grow until they dominate the economy…. not to mention that they are very likely to be captured by people who’s idea of “good causes” is contrary to the public’s interests.
I don’t have a fundamental issue with tax favoritism for endowments, only when they are being used for very partisan outcomes.
OTOH plenty of tax advantaged non-profits are very partisan.
Universities should be somewhat neutral, or at least neutral on the whole when averaged across the spectrum. Universities need to try harder to appeal to both sides or suffer the consequences. They have an obligation and responsibility to do this IMO.
If they try harder with tangible results then I can live with their tax favoritism.
Princeton’s president last week arguing against viewpoint diversity. I don’t find this acceptable but I get what he is saying:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/podcasts/the-daily/princeton-university-trump.html?showTranscript=1
“So it is important for universities to have vigorous contestation about the truth and to make it possible for people of diverse viewpoints to express their opinions and to flourish on the campus. So we need to be a place where conservatives feel welcome. We also need to be a place where conservatives feel they can speak up. And we need to be a place where when there are important conservative arguments to be heard and when political viewpoints matter, people are asserting those.
And I do think universities can do better about that. That is, when we’re talking about free speech, we have to talk about the importance of having multiple viewpoints heard. And we should care about that because it’s integral to our own mission and what we’re trying to do in education and research.
That’s different from saying that universities should reflect the political ideology of the country. We shouldn’t, actually.
rachel abrams
We shouldn’t?
chris eisgruber
We shouldn’t. It’s not our job to reflect the political ideology of the country. We’re not a Sunday morning talk show that has ideological balance on it. We need to be open to conservative views. We need to be a place where conservatives feel they can flourish. But we’re supposed to be doing something different than just reflecting what’s going on in the country.
We’re supposed to be having arguments that get at truth and knowledge, and that’s different from a political debating society. It’s different from what goes on in Congress. And it’s different from what goes on in a lot of journalism or from the political distribution in the country.”
This fails the test when you lean 10:1 or more liberal and there aren’t any other high end universities for conservative views. It’s systemic as the culture warriors would say.
I wondered how large endowments are taxed. I randomly chose the MacArthur foundation — first one to come to mind — and found this tax return.
Apparently they are taxed 1.39% of their investment income. That’s a pretty favorable rate. And no ACA surtax.
Speaking of …
Trump Threatens to Revoke Harvard’s Tax-Exempt Status
“Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!’”
I suspect this is saber rattling just for his own entertainment. I think I hear a lot of distant screeching coming from up north.
Trump’s methods are not rocket science. Make the opposition defend unpopular causes.
After he gets through with Harvard maybe he could take a whack at a number of churches I can think of.
Those who haven’t might want to read the last two issues of The Economist to get some grasp of how what’s happening here looks to some of the rest of the world.
john ferguson,
Your last post was way too cryptic for me.
Scientology … HQ is Clearwater FL.
Gee … yaaaaad. I finally tried out AI. Found out I had automatic Gemini 2.5 access and did a couple experiments.
Very, very impressive. It’s over for us humans. All my painfully acquired search skills are now obsolete for many things.
Example: How do I complain about a deceptive car repair practice? Very detailed answer specific to my location and vehicle. Links to file a complaint etc.
Not magic as we all know but realistically a real leap ahead.
Idiocrocy here we come.
John Ferguson,
I suspect my take on what is happening in Europe is at least as negative as how many Europeans view what is happening in the USA. Such is politics.
Tom,
Gemini 2.5 is quite good, I agree. I just looked at its ‘Deep Research’ feature today myself.
Lucia,
I expect you will be pleased to hear that Gemini cannot access the Blackboard. Your anti-bot defenses are apparently in good order:
query: ‘summarize the last few threads from this blog for me please : https://rankexploits.com/musings/2025/welsh-woman-detained-by-ice/#comment-247596‘
yielded:
Mark,
Haha! It’s probably on a server that I’ve blocked!
Mike M.
Tax-free status of religious organizations is conditioned on them not being politically active.
Wasn’t Trump’s objection to Harvard’s tax-free status based on its political “stance”?
john ferguson,
I think Trump says funding for Harvard depends on following Federal Civil Rights laws, and the combination of DEI hiring, racial preferences in admission, and failure to protect jewish students from intimidation violates those laws. That makes funding Harvard unlawful.
It will be hashed out in the courts, but when it finally reaches the SC in a couple of years, I expect Harvard will lose. They most definitely do discriminate based on race…. because that is what they believe is right. The law says otherwise, and large majorities of voters think that racial preferences are immoral.
I think SteveF is correct as to the action being against Harvard being based on civil rights law.
john is correct that tax-free status places limits on political activity. But I think that is only a limit on direct involvement in elections. Charities can support a point of view without losing tax free status.
Edit: I was actually thinking about whether donations are tax deductible, not whether the organization is tax free. But I think the rules are very similar if not the same.
These guys are tax free and donations are deductible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Partnership_Institute
Parts of what the Feds were asking Harvard to do was almost certainly over the line. The government can’t really formally demand viewpoint diversity least of which because it is undefined, etc. The government can softly demand it via just not giving grants and so forth to disfavored schools and researchers. This is how it works for climate and social science research.
The Feds also need to have plausible deniability at a minimum that they are treating all universities the same and not discriminating against their protected speech. The government will lose on parts of their demands.
I don’t think Trump wants Harvard to comply, he wants them NOT to comply because he wants this fight politically. He just kept increasing demands until they balked.
The effort is to publicly discredit academia at large by picking a fight and make them defend unpopular stances. DEI. Hamas support. Systemic bias against conservatives. Antisemitism. Illegal immigration. Trans and other niche social issues. It’s not that there is support for this stuff, there is only one opinion allowed. Most of all demonstrate to everyone how Harvard et. al. could care less about anyone’s opinion outside their social orbit.
The exact wrong people will go running to Harvard’s defense, mostly leftish tribal partisans. What academia needs to do is shore up Republican support. 48% of people in a recent WSJ poll favored withholding funds to universities. Republican support should be seen as a crisis to them IMO. Trump’s move makes increasing this support very hard as academia and their defenders who they cannot control will invariably attack Trump and his supporters. It’s the only note they know.
Research universities are a public good. They really f***ed this up in a major way. If they cannot even say the platitudes of viewpoint diversity having value then maybe they are too far gone and drastic action is required.
The RNC and DNC are tax exempt non-profits. I’d argue they are political in nature, ha ha. I think the status is along the lines of them being a “public good”.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organization-types
Political organizations are not tax exempt.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/political-organizations/taxable-income-political-organizations
But they do not pay tax on certain types of income provided that the income is used for certain purposes.
I suspect that Trump would be happy to negotiate with Harvard and give up some of his demands in exchange for Harvard agreeing to others. I also suspect that Trump would be happy with Harvard taking a defiant stance and defending highly unpopular positions. Heads, Trump wins. Tails, Harvard loses.
From what I have seen, Trump would never start a negotiation be asking for the moon. He not also demand the stars.
I doubt you can revoke the tax exempt status at Harvard without revoking most other similar universities.
I should add that the government didn’t require Harvard to implement viewpoint diversity per se AFAICT but required that they measure and report it. This might pass legal muster.
The media should be up front with how academic research really works instead of passing along arm waving myths.
>99% of it is discarded and has almost zero/incremental value to society. Many breakthroughs occur in the private sector.
Harvard isn’t some magical place. Redirecting all that money to other institutions is likely to have similar results. The researchers will follow the money.
5 year survival rates for all cancers. Progress has flattened out. They aren’t producing miracles here.
https://progressreport.cancer.gov/themes/custom/custom_base_theme/images/graphs/lbox_lsu1.jpg
The U.K. hasn’t gone completely nuts
UK Supreme Court rules ‘woman’ means biological female
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-supreme-court-rules-woman-means-biological-female-trans-gender-recognition/
Thanks Ed. I hadn’t bumped into that and was wondering what inspired the Bee to write this:
https://babylonbee.com/news/a-woman-is-an-adult-human-female-rules-uk-judge-that-looks-suspiciously-like-matt-walsh-in-a-powdered-wig
Funny how they called that a “landmark ruling”.
Tom scharf,
“The researchers will follow the money.”
Of course. The thing I find most amazing: how did real researchers (people who deal with technical issues, not politics) ever get all wound up in the DEI/woke/politically correct narrative in the first place? Is it that they were brainwashed into believing leftist insanity as undergraduates? Or is it just they migrate to where the money is, and will say/do anything to get money for research? I don’t know, but I do know that they are worse off if they sold their souls for funding. And they are too incompetent to merit funding if they actually believe the leftist DEI/woke rubbish.
“Funny how they called that a “landmark ruling”.”
My 3 YO grandson is more capable of understanding that there are girls, there are boys, and the two are not the same, than are educated elites. IMHO, defunding colleges and universities is a perfectly reasonable public policy to reduce this widespread insanity.
I attended one of those self-described elite univerisities for my undergraduate and another for my graduate degree. I stopped donating to my alma mater over a decade ago because of how the faculty and administration had regressed.
I hope Harvard and Columbia both stick to their guns and they both get completely defunded. Harvard has more than enough funds in its endowments to keep going without getting any taxpayer funds; it’s not like they are educating their students anyway from all appearances.
SteveF,
I’m not surprised that the researchers got caught up in the DEI mess. If you want to do your work at a particular institution then you don’t have much choice but to sign on to all the goofy stuff HR sends your way.
I can remember being forced to sit through a diversity lecture at the last place I worked with among others, four south asians with whom I’d been involved in trying to settle a “caste” issue down without hurting anyone’s feelings.
Fool that I was (maybe still am), I asked our “trainer” (she really was called that) if she had any insights into how to deal with “caste” conflicts. Her answer was the company did not recognize the existence of castes.
One of my south asian collegues who had thanked me for trying to make everyone comfortabler snicker loudluy at this. We had offices in Mumbai and Bangalore at the time and I had no idea what they did.
SteveF,
I suspect that you haven’t worked for anyone else in years. Its even worse than you suspect; much worse.
This sort of thing had gotten so annoying that along with mandatory continuing education and the exponential growth in the number and burden of regulations affecting my work that it took me years after retiring to quit having nightmares about the office.
I suspect that neither Tom Scharf nor Russell watch much PBS, but if they do, they will enjoy the ads for BDO which are generally some overly self-centered Gen (?) er sharing how well her needs, and career goals, and so forth are being met by working at BDO. Nothing about enjoying the work, or being challenged, just me me me me.
I think BDO is an outfit that people hire, like McKensey or Booz Allen to have someone outside the company to blame when something goes south.
I find it promising that some posters here are critical of parts of what Trump is attempting to change and particularly so when it involves executive orders. From my libertarian point of view choosing what to criticize is straight forward. Those actions that reduce government power and size I can support and those that increase the power and size I oppose and no matter the good intentions of actions that I would like to see occur in the private sector by reason and argument and not by the coercive hand of government.
I vehemently oppose the Trump tariff policies and how the administration is chaotically attempting to implement them. The authority that Trump is using for imposition is surely not constitutional and made obvious by the arbitrary manner and justifications used for implementation. I hope the Supreme Court soon gets involved and stops the nonsense presently. Just as partisan Republicans attempt to justify what otherwise they well would see from a Democrat imposition as authoritative, the partisan Democrats will not straight forward oppose the authoritative part of it but rather oppose because it is being done by a Republican. I see the level of public discussion more and more not getting beyond the partisan inputs. From a practical perspective it is becoming obvious to the (voting) public that the tariffs and threats of tariffs are going to do significant economic harm in near current time.
Executive orders involving private individuals and organizations that receive money from the government and often in large sums, as in the example of Harvard, bring forth the thorny issue of constitutional and natural rights of private parties and what the government can take away on providing money to those parties. The best answer for me is not to provide the money in the first place. The lesson to the general public that should be shouted from the roof tops is that government dependency in any manner or form leads to losses of individual freedoms.
I have observed with the recent changes of administrations the disturbing influence the increasing power government has over businesses whether by a Democrat or Republican administration and how that affects a near obsequious relationship of business executives with government. Again, there is a powerful lesson of the negative effects of government dependency whether voluntarily acquired or imposed.
I watch some clips of Brooks / Capehart from PBS but unsurprisingly find Capehart so insufferable that I can barely stand it lately. He is always so disappointed in the American people, ha ha.
Trump found some dirt on New York Attorney General Letitia James .
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-refers-ny-ag-letitia-james-possible-prosecution-allegations-mortgage-fraud
“FHFA Director William Pulte said in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi that James appears to have falsified records to meet certain lending requirements and receive favorable loan terms.
Pulte cited a property in Virginia that James allegedly claimed as her principal residence and a property in New York she claimed as a four-unit structure instead of five, which he said could mean she was able to get a different and more favorable loan.
…
James is also accused of saying her father was her husband to file as a married couple, Turley added.”
James spokesperson response: she has been “focused every single day on protecting New Yorkers, especially as this administration weaponizes the federal government against the rule of law and the Constitution. She will not be intimidated by bullies — no matter who they are.”
Uh oh, sounds guilty.
john ferguson,
“I suspect that you haven’t worked for anyone else in years.”
That is true. I said goodbye to (utter a$$hole) bosses in May 1992. I have been (and am still) a ‘boss’ for many years in my business ventures, but try my best to not be an a$$hole about it. 😉
I’ve also worked as a contracted consultant… though I honestly never have been asked to agree to any nonsensical ‘woke’ stuff.
As a supplier (several different products, different companies) I have been asked to verify that 1) I don’t discriminate against minorities, 2) don’t use slave or child labor, and 3) don’t falsify documentation.
I would OBVIOUSLY not fit into the woke culture in many companies today. Hell, I didn’t fit into the (dishonest, backstabbing, sycophant) culture at a large chemical company 33 years ago! Add woke, and it would be even more unbearable.
Looks like Trump is serious about revoking Harvard’s tax exempt status.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/16/politics/irs-harvard-tax-exempt-status/index.html
“In the 1980s, the agency revoked the tax exemption of a Christian college that the IRS determined had used a racially discriminatory admissions policy.”
“The IRS challenged Bob Jones’ status in 1970, but the Supreme Court didn’t rule until 1983 that in order to be tax-exempt an organization must, “demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest, and the institution’s purpose must not be so at odds with the common community conscience as to undermine any public benefit that might otherwise be conferred.””
That seems like a rather ominous precedent … good thing Harvard doesn’t have racially discriminatory admissions policy … or hasn’t been found by a court to do that … oops.
They probably have enough to revoke it, Harvard will have to fight it in court and some judge will put a restraining order on it no doubt.
The process is the punishment.
Tom Scharf,
It will take years to resolve, but one way or another, Harvard (and a host of other ‘progressive” colleges and universities) will suffer for their horrible racist policies, all of which are contrary to the public interest.
Next year’s reconciliation package could start taxing Harvard and others at full non-exempt rates. Increasing revenue definitely falls under the acceptable subjects for reconciliation.
Tom Scharf,
“Harvard will have to fight it in court and some judge will put a restraining order on it no doubt.”
Sure. Harvard will not actually be forced to comply until the case (s) reaches the Supreme Court. They will no doubt try to run out the clock on the Trump administration, delaying the case reaching the SC for as long as possible. They may be just a little disappointed with a likely Vance administration in 2028. 😉
Thanks to HaroldW & others for response to my shower query.
Made me think of this for some reason ““the land of the free and the home of the brave”
1st hit – https://www.post-journal.com/life/viewpoints/2020/05/the-land-of-the-free-and-the-home-of-the-brave/
“A United Airlines plane headed from Colorado to Edmonton, Canada, on Sunday had to return to the airport after reportedly hitting wildlife.
Footage of the plane in the air showed bright flashes coming from the engine.
It is unclear what type of wildlife was possibly hit, but other outlets, including the New York Post, reported it may have been a rabbit.”
I guess it is still April?
Alternatives anyone?
Musk.
Mandrake.
An Albuquerque Rabbit
Or an illegal immigrant stowaway rabbit going back to Canada?
Those who remember that Jimmy Carter was unable to subdue the killer rabbit he encoutered while canoeing, may be able to imagine that said killer rabbit emigrated to Canada.
Interesting take on revoking Harvard’s tax exempt status:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/04/harvard-meet-bob-jones.php
Mike M,
Right, but I think it is probably too early to tell whether Harvard has complied with the ruling “in spirit”, but also too early to tell whether it hasn’t. The government requiring admissions data and oversight is appropriate in order to find out.
It might also be appropriate for cutting off funding until Harvard has proven they have complied (Harvard has the burden) versus the government proving they haven’t (government has the burden). Not sure legally but since Harvard lost and the case and fought it the entire time it doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.
There is plenty of reason to believe Harvard from their past statements will continue to effectively discriminate but using different methods which are in a gray area.
In any case Harvard will just try get a restraining order and run the clock out until a more friendly administration is in place. They are very good at this type of tactic.
The question is whether this is a good long term strategy. I don’t think so but I am biased. Trump has them in a box.
Tom Scharf,
I agree with your analysis. Trump has Harvard in a box.
I think that one thing that Trump is demanding from Harvard is the admission data needed to analyze whether Harvard is still discriminating. The administration probably can’t proceed with revoking tax exempt status until one of two things has happened. (1) Data shows that Harvard is still discriminating. (2) Harvard refuses to provide the data. As you say, because of their Supreme Court loss, the burden is likely on Harvard.
“ ‘Maryland man’ Kilmar Abrego Garcia exposed in police records as ‘violent’ repeat wife beater”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/crime/general/maryland-man-kilmar-abrego-garcia-exposed-in-police-records-as-violent-repeat-wife-beater/ar-AA1D45sU
Also
“
According to a Prince George’s County Police Department interview sheet shared with Fox News by DHS, local police discovered Abrego Garcia during a murder investigation. Police found him loitering in a Home Depot parking lot with other known MS-13 gang members in possession of illicit drugs in 2019”
Tom Scharf,
It is true that it is too early to tell for sure if Harvard will comply with the Supreme Court ruling, but I very much doubt it.
Since the ruling (June 29, 2023) came after the admissions for the fall 2023 incoming freshman class were set, the ruling could not change the 2023 class. In 2023, and all years back to 2017 (or earlier), Harvard had kept African American admissions between 10% and 11% of the freshman class. Same for Hispanics 10% to 11%. Asians: between 18% and 23%.
For perspective: those groups represent 12% of the population, 19% of the population, and 2.9% pf the population.
But in 2024 (after SFFA v Harvard), things changed: African American admissions increased to 15.8% (the highest ever), Hispanic admissions reached 13.4%, and Asian admissions jumped to 29%.
So Harvard admitted many more Asian students (outlandishly more than their overall population!), but also many more African American students (well in excess of their overall population), and a few more Hispanic students, but well below their overall population. The other group that is very “under-represented”: White students: 50% admitted versus 62% of the population. In fact, white student enrolment declined between 2017 to 2019 by about 12%.
So, we can either believe that the African American’s are far more likely to be outstanding students than are white Americans, or Harvard is still admitting based on race.
I think the latter is far more likely than the former. We will see what the fall class looks like this year, but I strongly suspect Harvard will continue to ignore both Federal law and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling…. until and unless they lose all Federal Funding.
Harvard can recruit who they want, they just can’t use race as a selection tool and get federal funds.
The police can arrest law breakers but they can’t use race as a selection tool for who they arrest.
There are disparities in both and it has to be sorted out if they are illegal disparities or legal disparities. Harvard hides their racism behind an opaque holistic review process. The police can’t hide their data. It is reasonable to force Harvard to open their admission books to receive Federal funds. The Feds can then do a holistic review of their own, ha ha.
There is precedent. Southern states have been under a high degree of review for any changes to voting laws because of their previous behavior.
Harvard is not in a good position because they openly asserted they used race and thought it was an important factor. It was pervasive throughout their institution. Their arm waving inscrutable defense might work in a Boston Court but it won’t work in many other places including the SC.
If Harvard doesn’t like being called racist then they need to stop discriminating by race.
Tom Scharf,
“If Harvard doesn’t like being called racist then they need to stop discriminating by race.”
That is the thing they are least likely to do. African American students increased in excellence relative to white Americans by 30% in a singe year, immediately after the SC told them to stop selecting by race? It is a sorry joke. IIRC, Harvard claimed that a strictly merit based system would drop African American admissions by at least half.
Defund them.
“ Supreme Court to hear arguments on Trump’s bid to start implementing his plan to end birthright citizenship”
https://www.politico.com/
Interesting. If the court thought there was no basis for Trumps order they would have declined to take up the case and let the appellate case stand.
Trumps EO on birth right citizenship is in play
I would be very surprised if the SC rules anything but 9-0 on not allowing birthright citizenship to be ended by executive order.
We may end up with a whole lot of rulings on immigration which is probably a good thing.
I do grow weary of Obama / Biden being able to allow immigration by decree and local judges saying Trump cannot end it by decree. The SC is getting tired of it as well and this might ultimately end national injunctions if we are lucky.
So far as I know, birthright citizenship was created by the Executive Branch, although I am unclear on specifics. I am quite sure there is no act of Congress establishing birthright citizenship.
Tom Scharf,
Having her lawyer claim residence in VA at the same time she was living in NY to serve as its AG is the hardest action for Letitia James to explain away.
Repeatedly miscounting the units in her structure … well, I find it entirely plausible she can’t count past four.
Father as husband (in addition to the man she was living with)? Who am I to question her religious or cultural beliefs? 😉
Tom Scharf,
“I would be very surprised if the SC rules anything but 9-0 on not allowing birthright citizenship to be ended by executive order.”
I think 9-0 is most likely, but it could go 7-2 to maintain birthright citizenship.
No Mike M. it’s in the Constitution. To wit:
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
john ferguson,
The wording of the 14th Amendment does not specifically say anything about the children of foreigners ion the US and was clearly not intended to change any laws regarding that. Congress has never passed a law clarifying that. The interpretation that is used is imposed by the Executive.
I should have quoted what Tom said: “not allowing birthright citizenship to be ended by executive order.” That implies that it could be ended by Congress, which I think is true. If it can not be ended by Congress (SCOTUS might well rule that way) then the it about “executive order” is irrelevant.
For the people who voted for a big MMA style fight to change institutions, they got what they voted for. I suspect a great many people voted for exactly that.
It’s a bit ironic that assertive overreaching government is being used to put a stop to assertive overreaching government. The two sides do have different targets, one is targeting control of the people, the other is targeting the government itself and major supporting institutions .
I do wonder if there is any other productive way to get this done other than Hurricane Trump. Perhaps, but decades of grinding growing centralized bureaucracy says otherwise. Maybe there just isn’t a nice way to do this. The pitchforks are out.
What happens after Trump? Who knows?
Tom Scharf: “It’s a bit ironic that assertive overreaching government is being used to put a stop to assertive overreaching government. ”
Indeed. But I don’t see another possibility. If the criminals have guns, the cops need guns. If one side will use any tool that it can get away with while the other side refuses to dirty its hands, then we know who will win. Pacifists do not stop armies.
Trump is using the tools at his disposal. It does not make sense to say that he should refuse to use a tool just because idealists disapprove. Doing so will not in any way prevent future administrations from using that tool to their advantage.
I think that certain tools that Trump is using should probably be taken away or severely limited. That is mostly the job of Congress, only occasionally the job of courts. If Congress declines to act, then Trump should continue to use the tools he has.
I don’t like it. I believe in a limited Executive within a limited government. But as it stands, the choice is between action and surrender. I prefer action.
Hopefully, when a semblance of sanity is restored, it won’t be too late to repair the guardrails that have been increasingly abused for generations. Optimist that I am, I can barely manage to hope that will happen.
Ed Forbes
Not necessarily. They may be very interested in the issue of overly broad injunctions. That’s the issue they are looking at.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/17/supreme-court-end-birthright-citizenship-trump-00296984
They say they are taking up the issue of injuctions.
The position Trump’s administration argued is about broad injunctions.
The question about overly broad injunctions is currently very important. It affects separation of powers and cuts to the presidents ability to execute laws. It is also time critical.
The issue of birth right citizenship? Not as time critical. It only affects babies. Those case will only be ripe when we have actual plaintiffs before us.
“ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Defining the above is the entire case. If it doesn’t address the issue, why include it?
I would very much like to read the legislative notes on the debate to add this language to the text to see what congress was intending when they approved this language.
Way to much blather on what people “think” it means and almost nothing on what the legislature of the time thought it means.
Meanings of words change over time, so context matters.
MikeM
Sorry to be sarcastic, but have pod people taken over your body? You are usually familiar with constitutional law. Birthright citizenship is in the constitution.
It’s one thing to argue about what “subject to the jurisdiction of” means. But that clause grants citizenship by birth to those born in the United States. The 14th amendment was not created by the executive branch!
MikeM
No it doesn’t!!! Sme things can neither be done by executive order nor by Act of Congress!!!!
lucia wrote: “But that clause grants citizenship by birth to those born in the United States.”
No, it grants citizenship by birth to SOME people born in the United States. And it excludes others, namely those not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. There is a SCOTUS decision that those domiciled in the US are “subject to the jurisdiction”. Beyond that, we have State Department policy, which Trump is entitled to change. As I said above, SCOTUS might or might not let that stand.
lucia,
When Tom said “not allowing birthright citizenship to be ended by executive order” I thought (and still think) it seemed clear that he meant something different from “not allowing birthright citizenship to be ended.” I commented on whether or not the bit about “by executive order” is relevant. It is not.
I admit that my comment was not clear.
Ed Forbes,
It seems that the debate can be found in the Congressional Globe (ancestor to the Congressional Record) for May 30th, 1866. I have never gotten around to tracking it down. If you find it, please let me know.
Debates in state legislatures should also be relevant. I have no clue how to find those.
Mike
https://archive.org/details/sim_united-states-congress-congressional-globe_1866_index_0/mode/2up
Will take a bit to parse it out
Mike M,
If the Court actually considers birthright citizenship directly, I am pretty sure they will affirm it 7-2 or more. The issue is similarly way-out-there to states deciding who can be on their ballot for a Federal office. No chance.
I don’t doubt that people will make serious legal arguments against birthright citizenship, and some people will find those arguments convincing (remember our hostess believed arguments about Colorado excluding Trump from their ballot!). But like he Trump ballot case, this one is way too disruptive to ever get past the Court.
Weren’t births to people here in the US on diplomatic passports the only ones not subject to US jurisditciton because of diplomatic immunity?
John
That and Indians born on reservations. Reservations have quite a few self governing clauses and it affects whether they can be charged with crimes on reservations.
Then Congress granted Indians born on reservations citizenship at birth. Congress can extend citizenship but not contract it. Their ability to extend is why I got citizenship at birth through my parents.
If you eliminated birthright citizenship I’m not sure what you would replace it with. Everyone applies for citizenship at birth?
The intent seems to be to deny anchor babies from illegal immigrants citizenship. I very much doubt the executive can decree this and I also doubt even Congress can do it based on the existing Constitutional amendment.
Getting control of the borders will resolve this going forward. Leaving babies without a nation would be untenable. I’m not sure what you would do with them? It’s all too messy so I expect the SC to find a way to not eliminate it and they have credible paths to do that.
Eliminating national injunctions from lower courts is definitely a worthy cause though. This will increase the SC’s workload though, some executive actions are rash and require being temporarily stopped (vaccine mandates, loan forgiveness, eliminating coal …). Maybe they will allow some courts to issue them.
Tom Scharf
Sure. But cases can be brought in multiple jurisdictions and 11 circuits. If all jurisdictions agree and put in a local injunction, they get appealed and all circuits agree, that likely means the move is illegal under current law. SCOTUS could still take it up either
(a) to agree and give a firmer specific decree — and so get this issue more settled,
(b) to clarify which reasoning they think matters or explain where lines are drawn,
(c) to overturn or
(d) other I haven’t thought of.
If there is a circuit split, SCOTUS will likely take it up quickly especially on a matter like citizenship. It would be very weird for kids born in Iowa to have natural right citizenship but kids born in Florida to not have it.
The SCOTUS is a very political institution. I have no illusions that they will not rule legally, but politically.
So birthright citizenship for all is the expected outcome as it is the one that is politically expedient.
One only has to look at the 2A for SCOTUS political rulings.
“.. , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Originally, this was understood to be all arms, including cannon. While having rival gangs duel it out in the streets with TOS-2 thermobaric rocket launchers or suitcase nuclear weapons might be an “issue”, banning such weapons for the public was a political decision, not a legal decision.
Thermobaric rockets in use would likely lead to overturning the 2nd amendment so that ruling was a good thing depending on where you land on this issue.
Tom, the 2A is not a law that can be legally overturned as unconstitutional. It would have to be repealed as it is written into the US constitution.
As it stands, the SCOTUS has illegally overturned the original interpretation of the 2A for political purposes.
Using legal shortcuts that overturn clear language leads to results that can verge on insanity.
Take the example of Title IX and the issue of the definition of a woman. Pure insanity.
One can disagree with SC. One can call them mistaken fools who inconsistently applied principles, etc..
It’s foolish to say they have illegally interpreted the Constitution. By definition, their decisions / interpretations regarding the Constitution are the law, however misguided they may or may not be.
[Obviously, right?]
Was it John Marshall who said “The law is what we say it is.”
I’ve found it helpful to read the entire opinion including dissents when I didn’t like the result. In two of the cases, involving use of Eminent Domain for urban renewal purposes, I came away appreciating the reasoning, but still not liking the result.
This said, it’s strange that libertarians seldom seem to stand up strongly for 2A. If the proper perspective and focus is individual and not collective, I can’t imagine that the libertarian view could be much different from the idea that individuals need to be able to provide for the national defense. They would need to be able to own the full gamut of weapons of war to equal or better the weapons of foreign invaders.
Shrug.
[Perhaps I shouldn’t have said ‘seldom’. What I probably should have said is, I have known many libertarians who don’t appear to give a fig about 2A.]
Ed,
This might be a better place to access the debate:
https://guides.loc.gov/14th-amendment/digital-collections
The images seem to be clearer and navigation looks easier. Note that there are links to multiple days. The most relevant seems to be May 30, 1866. It looks like you have to download one page at a time. The key part of the debate is on pages 2890-2897.
Interpreting law by expediency leads to tyrants.
The constitution was designed to guarantee protection of the people’s rights against a possible tyrannical government.
If the constitutions clear meaning can be changed by reinterpretation, the people have no guaranteed rights.
Thanks Mike !
Ed Forbes
Which is why SCOTUS birth right citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
Ed,
Sure. But that’s a different claim. The thing is, somebody has to figure out how the Constitution applies in a world that is constantly changing and moving forward. Somebody is going to have to ‘interpret’ the Constitution, or we don’t have any guaranteed rights either outside of the context of a 18’th century world which no longer exists.
As far as the rest goes, at the end of the day we guard ourselves from the guardians or nobody does. If we elect goobers who in turn appoint goobers as SC justices, we destroy ourselves. Nobody guards us from that except us. So yes, it is entirely possible that we will stupidly steer the vehicle that guarantees our rights off of a cliff. In that sense, we have no guaranteed rights except those we have the wits and resolve [and principles, dedication to our principles, and general fortitude, and probably a smattering of good luck wouldn’t hurt either…] to retain by intelligence participation in our political system.
Lucia [Which is why SCOTUS birth right citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th amendment.]
And also restricted by the 14th
“ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
If this restriction is not addressed with what the common usage of the times understood, then it’s being argued for expediency, not legality.
I’m going to try and parse the legislative debate on the 14th on this restriction. Arguments without facts is just blowing hot air.
The extreme case is everybody gets to walk around with a nuclear weapon in their pocket and a big red button. We would have a lot more dead people.
If you look at police shootings there is a great deal of mental illness involved all around. Somewhere between knives and nuclear weapons there is a line where society should ban the weapon for public safety.
I could imagine a libertarian thing where all weapons but mine are disabled on my property or some variant.
Tom, no argument from me that restricting certain classes of weapons by the public is in itself a “bad” thing.
My gripe is in the haphazard way the clear and unambiguous language of the text of laws and the rulings being made on these laws for expediency, not legality. Add to this expediency in interpretation is the ability of judges to interpret into existence “new” constitutional rights out of thin air.
The view by some that the US constitution is a “living” document is a dagger poised at the very heart of our republic and rule by expediency is at the root of this view.
Tom,
No doubt. The trouble is, as our technology improves, so does our ability to quickly and easily kill large numbers of people, and the number of people we can kill increases, and the quickness and ease with which we can do so also increases. Also important to realize that destroying has is and always will be easier than defending, and our ability to protect ourselves has not scaled up with our ability to kill. And this, as you correctly point out, is a hell of a problem.
I consider myself a strong 2A advocate. My inexpert opinion is that indeed originally 2A was intended to protect the full gamut of weapons of war. And yet, as you noted earlier, I am grateful that SC has saved some reasonable portion of my right to bear arms from repeal, as would have inevitably been the case otherwise. Obviously, we can’t have crazy people walking around with thermobaric weapons and nukes.
lucia,
Could you explain why you think that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship for Indians? I agree that it does not, but am curious as to your reason.
Ed,
The debate I cited above is actually about including the words “excluding Indians not taxed” in the citizenship clause. So the debate is not exactly on point, although some of the statements made are relevant.
MikeM
I’m not sure it doesn’t. I’m just giving a traditional interpretation.
Mark [By definition, their decisions / interpretations regarding the Constitution are the law, however misguided they may or may not be.]
A right the court interpreted out of thin air in Marbury v. Madison and Congress let them get away with. At no point in the Constitutional debate on adoption was this “power” brought up.
If the idea that an unelected court would have veto power over a legislature elected by the people had been expressed, it would have made ratification of Constitution impossible. Adoption was a near run thing as it was.
Ed,
At the end of the day there was precious little legal justification for the Second Continental Congress IIRC, and they far exceeded their legal authority, purpose and mandate. So what?
Conservatism isn’t a religious principle for me. Its merely by default and absent other factors the wisest choice in general in my view. But there is no substitute for ‘ good’ human judgment. There is a time for every purpose under heaven, including expediency and rule breaking.
I should add, it’s a damn good thing for us second Continental Congress acted as they did!
Likewise SC with Marbury Madison.
Looking at a site that addresses “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and birthright citizenship with original intent.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/29/applying-the-citizenship-clauses-original-meaning-to-modern-controversies/?itm_source=parsely-api
One telling quote from above:
“Children of aliens not lawfully present in the U.S. may seem a more difficult issue. There were essentially no such people in 1866-1868 (because there were no federal immigration laws), and there’s no evidence the enactors considered the matter. How can we say the clause covers them if the enactors didn’t know about them?”
“No federal immigration laws” for the period in question is an important point. No such thing as an “illegal alien” as we understand today.
An early court case is on point for “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
“Jurisdiction” is defined
Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/11/116/#opinions
Several quotes
“The jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory, is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of that restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.”
.
“A sovereign entering a foreign territory with the knowledge and license of its sovereign, that license, though containing no stipulation exempting his person from arrest, is universally understood to imply such stipulation.
.
A foreign minister is considered as in the place of the sovereign he represents, and therefore not in point of law within the jurisdiction of the sovereign at whose court he resides.”
Looking like Trump loses the argument for his EO on citizenship.
WSJ has started to use the ‘C’ word with Biden.
Questioning Biden’s Capacities Was Taboo a Year Ago. Now It’s Everywhere.
Several new books reveal how long Democratic insiders knew about—and covered up—the president’s age-related problems.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/questioning-bidens-capacities-was-taboo-a-year-ago-now-its-everywhere-728abd4a?st=xyi7Bo&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“In early June, three weeks before the debate, my colleague Siobhan Hughes and I wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal that offered the first detailed reporting on how Biden’s decline was raising concerns in Washington. The article generated enormous pushback from the White House, Biden’s allies and left-leaning media commentators, who impugned the motives of the Journal’s sources rather than reckoning with what they had to say.
Now we know that at least some of those Biden defenders privately harbored their own concerns.
…
Next month comes “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” by CNN host Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson, which will focus more squarely on the Biden drama.”
I suggest the C word also applies to most of the media.
“Both Daley and Pelosi were each concerned enough to urge Biden’s team to cancel the planned debate with Donald Trump. “Do not do this,” Daley warned Jeff Zients, Biden’s chief of staff at the time, according to Whipple. “Come up with something, but do not do it.”
Pelosi told Biden directly, “You cannot go on stage with him,” according to Allen and Parnes.”
Absolutely bizarre action in WI:
“(Governor) Evers in 2023 issued a partial veto that increased how much revenue K-12 public schools can raise per student by $325 a year. Evers took language that originally applied the increase for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years and instead vetoed the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425, more than four centuries from now.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/18/wisconsin-veto-tony-evers-00298372
The WI Supreme Court approved the change.
To make the WI case even more bizarre apparently the legislature updated the partial veto a while back to not allow striking out single * letters * and since Evers only struck out non-letters it passed legal muster.
I guess there must be some very strict originalists on the WI SC.
The case of the deported “Maryland Bro” is getting strange.
I’m leaving off the issue of contempt being issued vs the administration by the judge for failure to comply with a vacated order.
As I understand the issues.
1. Kilmer was in the country illegally
2. An immigration judge upheld his deportation, but ordered him not to be deported to his home nation of El Salvador
3. Immigration judges are under the direct supervision of the administration ( I think the DOJ). Completely different rules and supervision than federal district judges.
4. The administration overruled the immigration judge and ok’d deportation to El Salvador, which they are allowed to do.
5. As such, Kilmers deportation was not in error as noted and was legal under the Enemies Alien Act.
6. The administration attorney who made the admission of error in court was uninformed of the entirety of the record.
7. This administration attorney was Immediately suspended by the administration for making declarations to the court without first obtaining fully accurate information from the different agencies and departments involved. He should have pleaded ignorance of the situation and offer to gather the facts.
8. The SCOTUS issued an order that vacated the order to “require” Kilmars return, but upheld the order to “help” his return. They have to “facilitate”, but not required to “effectuate” the subjects return.
9. Kimar looks like he is now out of the El Salvador prison from the interview he recently made and that was broadcast on multiple channels. May just be out on a parole, not sure.
10. The administration has made statements that if Kilmer does return to the US, he will be immediately detained and again deported.
The administration is in a full blown war with certain DC district
Judges.
Upss..
not Enemies Alien Act
Should be Alien Enemies Act
Tom,[. To make the WI case even more bizarre apparently the legislature updated the partial veto a while back to not allow striking out single * letters * and since Evers only struck out non-letters it passed legal muster.
I guess there must be some very strict originalists on the WI SC….]
My response is that the legislature needs to write better laws. It’s not the courts job to write laws. The courts job is to see the law enforced as written.
If the legislature is going to write stupid laws, which this one is, it’s not the courts job to fix it.
The legislature has one primary job and that is writing laws. And this legislature failed in its primary duty. So now the legislature can fix its screwup.
I know I have brought this up before but I am still struggling for an answer. Democrat politicians keep taking politically bad positions. It happened again with the Maryland Senator going to El Salvador. The vast majority of the country supports Trump and his efforts to rid the country of violent criminal illegals. Some Democrat politicions support this one guy that was deported to El Salvador when he was supposed to be deported elsewhere. My position is oops; full steam ahead. I have conjured up several reasons why some Democrat pols support these politically losing positions:
1. They are afraid of being primaried by the wacky left wing base.
2. They are consumed with Trump hatred, also known as TDS, and they don’t care that it’s a political loser for them personally.
3. They believe they are doing what is right.
4. They don’t believe the polls and think that they are doing what is politically smart.
5. Something else.
6. All of the above.
I vote for number 6.
Good Friday turned out to be very good indeed. My granddaughters came to came to visit and we watched a movie matinee….. The African Queen, with Humphrey Bogart and Catherine Hepburn. We also made stovetop popcorn (not microwaved!). Watching classic movies is our tradition. Last month we watched Casablanca, with Bogart and Ingrid Bergman.
Ed Forbes,
Trump will lose at the SC on birthright citizenship, for a multitude of reasons, including the one you describe.
I have to believe there are people advising Trump he would definitely lose this case. Trump’s goal may not be trying to eliminate birthright citizenship by EO, but rather raise the issue for public discussion and debate. I doubt it will make much difference, because there is no broad consensus to change the Constitution over this issue. There is probably pretty broad agreement among voters that a pregnant foreign national who enters the country illegally (or on a short term visa) shortly before giving birth , ought not bequeath US citizenship on her newborn. Unfortunately, separating that case from one where a child born to a foreign national, present illegally, and who grows up in the USA , is fraught with complexity that is not going to be easily resolved.
I think the answer is not to change the constitution, but to be very careful about allowing women to enter the country late in pregnancy, and more importantly, enforce existing immigration laws to drastically reduce illegal immigration. ‘Holiday birthing’ is really a small part of the problem. The real problem is allowing in millions of foreign nationals to enter illegally. Existing law is very clear on that, no matter what the loony left thinks.
Ed Forbes
This says Kilmer is out of the CECOT prison but still in a prison. He’s been moved to Santa Ana.
https://nypost.com/2025/04/18/us-news/alleged-ms-13-member-kilmer-abrego-garcia-no-longer-in-notorious-cecot-megaprison-senator-says/
This article is an interesting comparison of Disney Snow White to a previous Disney live action remake Cruella, [from the original 101 Dalmatians].
Snow White who was a box office flop but Cruella made money.
I think I commented on these pages when Cruella came out that it was a worthwhile movie even for adults. I know I did like it at the time.
Cruella has a 97% score on Rotten Tomatoes.
From the article:
“Snow White’s budget of about $270 is pretty massive, all things considered. To break even, Disney would have to make about double that, and such a goal seems entirely out of reach at this point. Cruella, on the other hand, cost Disney far less money. The 2021 film’s estimated budget was only about $100 million. Cruella came close to covering that with just its domestic box office”
https://screenrant.com/snow-white-2025-box-office-cruella-comparison-difference-explainer/
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cruella
What the Democrats keep doing is demonstrating they care a lot more about illegal immigrants and fringe social issues than they do about US citizens and their everyday lives. Wasting so much political capital on this kind of stuff ends up hurting them. Trump opens the door and invites them into these traps.
Part of it is the media also chooses to only cover these kind of things in their TDS fury, but the Democrats go right along with it.
Bad strategy. They need to get a grip on their “the perp is the victim” obsession.
The judiciary is always going to need to interpret the laws, least of which is the world is not static and unanticipated conditions arise. If the legislature does not like a judiciary interpretation or executive abuse they can update the laws. IMO the legislative branch has been rather passive.
Some laws are more carefully written than others. The biggest problem lately has been the legislature delegating authority to regulating agencies that then overstep their rule making abilities.
Tom’s comment:
“ Trump opens the door and invites them into these traps.”
They fall for it. Everytime!
And:
“ Wasting so much political capital on this kind of stuff ends up hurting them.”
I certainly hope it carries into the mid-terms.
Ed Forbes wrote: “4. The administration overruled the immigration judge and ok’d deportation to El Salvador, which they are allowed to do.
5. As such, Kilmers deportation was not in error as noted and was legal under the Enemies Alien Act.”
I think the Alien Enemies Act is irrelevant to the Garcia case. Trump’s invocation of that Act was for Venezuelan members of Tren de Aragua. Garcia is neither.
I am skeptical that the administration can simply overrule an immigration court. Do you have evidence for that claim? Is it more than a legal theory based on immigration courts not being Article 3 courts?
The administration had grounds for challenging Garcia’s status. The reason he was afraid of deportation no longer applies since Bukele broke the power of the gangs. Independent of that, he was likely a member of a foreign terrorist group. Did the administration follow procedures to do either before the deportation?
The inane ruling in Wisconsin was in no way the fault of the legislature. What the governor did was like erasing the decimal point in an amount on a check.
Edit: It might have been partly the legislature’s fault if the line item veto law was badly drafted.
Jeeeezusss WSJ
WSJ: The Mild-Mannered Harvard President Who Became the Face of Resistance to Trump
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/harvard-president-alan-garber-trump-fight-5082903a?st=EZm5nq&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“Alan Garber, then Harvard University’s interim president, stepped onto a stage in Harvard Yard last May to address thousands of alumni and faculty. As the applause faded, a woman approached the lectern and dumped gold glitter on Garber’s head, shouting about releasing monkeys from Harvard labs.
His face still half-covered in sparkles, Garber assured nearby attendees he was all right before telling the surprised crowd, “I hope that Harvard will always continue to be a place where…free speech continues to thrive.””
Harvard gets worst score ever in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings
https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankings
“And this year, Harvard completed its downward spiral in dramatic fashion, coming in dead last with the worst score ever: 0.00 out of a possible 100.00. This earns it the notorious distinction of being the only school ranked this year with an “Abysmal” speech climate.
What’s more, granting Harvard a score of 0.00 is generous. Its actual score is -10.69, more than six standard deviations below the average”
The legacy media puff pieces are a bit over the top. Every single one has written an article on how they can’t reaaaallllyyy use their endowment because …. reasons.
The main counterargument in WI is that the executive is not allowed to make laws. That type of per letter editing is effectively making new laws. This was not a veto, stopping something, it was creating something new. Very weird stuff.
“A 1930 amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution created the governor’s partial veto power. The amendment provided that “Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor, and the part approved shall become law.” This language remained unchanged for 60 years.”
Tom Scharf,
If the veto can be overcome by a larger majority vote, I don’t think your objection has weight.
Suppose the effect of a veto is that the Governor is asking “Are you guys really sure about this? ”
And everyone thinks about it a little more, the 51% hustles the earlier nay-sayers and finds that enough of them weren’t that that much against it, they get their 66% and it goes back to the Governor for signature.
john ferguson,
You missed the point. The WI governor did not just strike an item from the budget. He made edits that fundamentally changed the meaning of what the legislature approved.
Mike M. I did miss the point and agree that if that is what the Governor did, it was naughty.
In fact outrageous.
It’s a poorly written law and has been abused multiple times over the decades. The “I didn’t strike any letters this time” excuse is hilarious. I’m not even asserting the WI SC decision was wrong technically.
The problem is this ability is an amendment so its hard to change.
You can imagine the legislature trying to write a budget bill that can have any character struck to change the meaning, kind of a hard and ridiculous exercise. They have been calling it the Vanna White veto, ha ha.
Tom Scharf,
“…..legislative branch has been rather passive.”
I think “ideologically deadlocked” is a better description than “passive”. There are almost no issues of substance where there are 60 supporting votes in the US Senate. There is a fundamental and deep ideological divide over what kind of country the USA should be, and that divide will block the passage of most laws until one party or the other gains a trifecta and 60 votes in the Senate… or worst possible case…. decides to do away with the filibuster with a bare minimum majority in the Senate.
I don’t see 60 votes in the Senate in the next 25 years or more. So the ideological impasse will continue.
Unfortunately, a Dem trifecta very well may decide to do away with the filibuster (remember we were only 2 votes away from that before Dems lost control of the House in 2022). Should that happen, I honestly fear for the future of the USA as a single nation….. 49% simply will not accept being be trampled upon by 51%. I hope that more sensible people will be elected to the Senate on the Dem side, but I am not confident that will happen. It seems there are few-to-no moderate Democrats running for office anywhere.
Mike [ I am skeptical that the administration can simply overrule an immigration court. Do you have evidence for that claim? Is it more than a legal theory based on immigration courts not being Article 3 courts? ]
Immigration Judges are DOJ employees
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-1003/section-1003.0
8 C.F.R. § 1003.0(b)
2003.
§ 1003.0 Executive Office for Immigration Review.
(a) Organization. Within the Department of Justice, there shall be an Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), headed by a Director who is appointed by the Attorney General. The Director shall be assisted by a Deputy Director and the heads of EOIR’s other components, who shall report to the Director and Deputy Director. EOIR shall include the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge, the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, the Office of Policy, the Office of the General Counsel, and such other components and staff as the Attorney General or the Director may provide.
It looks like we might get an answer to lucia’s question about contempt charges being brought for not obeying an invalid court order. Boasberg has been pushing ahead with criminal contempt proceedings and the DC Circuit has granted (2-1) Trump a temporary stay of those proceedings.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/19/d-c-circuit-stays-judge-boasbergs-criminal-contempt-proceedings/
MikeM,
And I had hoped the answer was “No. Of course you can’t bring contempt charges for refusing to obey an invalid court order!” There are harms possible on both the “No” and “Yes” side. But (based on hypotheticals I dream up) I see greater potential for really, really terrible harm on the if the answer is “Yes”. But maybe there is something I am missing.
lucia,
I too think the answer must be “no”. A favorable decision in the first circuit (even if only a temporary stay) is a hopeful sign.
If the DC circuit (foolishly) rules for contempt against theTrump administration, the SC will (quite sensibly) strike that ruling. Really, this is completely nutty stuff at the DC circuit. The constitution is very clear: the president can only be removed from office by impeachment, and he/she is not going to prosecute him/her self based on a district court ruling. The DC circuit is setting itself up for losing every time.
The courts have (thankfully!) no means to enforce an order which the executive refuses to enforce.
Congress desperately needs to restrict the jurisdiction of district courts to the cases, parties, and controversies directly before them, and forget about becoming mini-presidents. The alternative is utter chaos.
If the DC circuit (foolishly) rules for contempt against theTrump administration, the SC will (quite sensibly) strike that ruling. Really, this is completely nutty stuff at the DC circuit. The constitution is very clear: the president can only be removed from office by impeachment, and he/she is not going to prosecute him/her self based on a district court ruling. The DC circuit is setting itself up for losing every time.
The courts have (thankfully!) no means to enforce an order which the executive refuses to enforce.
Congress desperately needs to restrict the jurisdiction of district courts to the cases, parties, and controversies directly before them, and forget about becoming mini-presidents. The alternative is utter chaos.
SteveF,
I know courts have no means to enforce orders against an executive because the executive is the one who enforces. Nevertheless, the question itself is an important one. If the answer is “yes”, then courts can hold someone other than the executive in contempt and then the wheels of the executive office could turn and enforce it. This could be almost inevitable in the case of someone who is not politically important.
It happens somewhat often that eyewitnesses recant testimony or other new evidence comes to light in criminal cases. The justice system rarely revisits cases once a jury has rendered a decision. The point is that the justice system is kind of preprogrammed to look away once decisions have been made. The focus is usually legal errors by the justice system to get a new trial.
There are reasons for this. Eyewitness can be bribed or threatened after a trial. Just because some new evidence comes to light doesn’t mean the original decision was wrong. A verdict is not a living document.
There are exceptions. If blood type was used to convict somebody and later DNA showed it wasn’t the perp’s blood then a retrial may be warranted. AFAICT it is a major battle just to get these tests done and the justice system won’t usually do it. Just because it wasn’t the perp’s blood doesn’t mean he still didn’t do it. Basically the burden has shifted to the perp to prove his innocence and the justice system actively doesn’t help.
In the Trump case the verdict hasn’t been rendered so it will likely get throw out one way or the other. This would be a dumb case to go to the mat on for the TDS judges.
The “by any means necessary” crowd has made their job harder by previously persecuting Trump. Trump is a target rich zone but you still need to choose wisely and that isn’t happening.
How Texas Officials Invited the Rigging of the State Lottery
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/20/us/rigged-texas-lottery.html
“The draws, three times a week, brought only modest interest from lottery players, who bought around one or two million tickets on each draw.
…
With a surge of ticket sales in mind, the lottery commission expedited the delivery of around 30 additional terminals to a group of lottery couriers.
…
Texas law prohibits the connecting of devices to lottery terminals”
The ticket buyers rented 4 storefronts, one storefront printed 11M tickets, 4 per second. There’s a video in the story of the ticket printing in action. The state welcomed lottery couriers to allow out of state buyers … as they should(?).
The narrative in this story is that this was a criminal conspiracy aided by the government but it is not very compelling.
Germany seeks to deport an American and 3 EU citizens after pro-Palestinian protest
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/20/g-s1-60984/germany-deportation-protesters
“Berlin’s Immigration Office has told three European Union citizens and one American they are to be deported from Germany this week over alleged actions at protests against Israel’s war in Gaza. Their cases have not yet been heard in court.”
Color me not outraged.
Tom,
Good for Germany. But I didn’t know they could deport EU citizens.
Deported to another EU member?
Very deep look into the timeline of the deportation case of the “Maryland Bro”
Center for Immigration Studies
The Latest in the Case of the Salvadoran Removed Due to ‘Error’
https://cis.org/Arthur/Latest-Case-Salvadoran-Removed-Due-Error
“Yes, people can be deported from the EU. EU citizens residing in another EU member state can be deported, and non-EU citizens can also be deported if they have no legal right to stay.”
They don’t have intra-EU border control so I suppose they can easily return. I guess you are subject to arrest if you do that. Maybe it’s like trespassing.
Maybe somebody here can answer these questions.
The latest judicial kerfuffle over immigration is AARP v Trump.
AARP? Is there more than one AARP? If so, does anybody know what that stands for? If not, then what does AARP have to do with deporting illegals?
It seems as if it is the ACLU driving the case. That figures. But AARP, whoever they are, must be involved.
MikeM
https://www.aclu.org/cases/aarp-v-trump?document=Habeas-Petition-
The Pope is dead. I hope the College of Cardinals choses a more Conservative candidate next time.
Mike M,
The class action suit by the ACLU is why the SC put a hold on the Trump administration using the Alien Enemies Act to deport without any kind of judicial hearing.
It is a case where Trump could have deported using normal means, where he used the Alien Enemies Act instead. I think the Trump administration will lose at the fifth circuit district court on the merits of using the Alien Enemies Act, lose on appeal, and finally lose at the SC. I have not the slightest clue why he figured he would win the legal argument. I think the Trump administration will win a lot of the nationwide injunction cases about stopping waste and fraud, but IMHO, this case is multiple bridges too far.
Mike M,
Sorry, I should add: the Alien Enemies Act case may never be taken up by the SC if there are not four justices who disagree with the ruling by the 5th circuit court of appeals….. and I doubt there will be.
I hope the Cardinals have the good sense to not pick another socialist to be pope. I am not confident they have that level of sense….. they seem to never have read about socialists thinking religion is an opiate for the masses.
My vote for pope:
Bishop Athanasius Schneider saying that Europe isn’t taking in real refugees but rather taking part in a process of mass-islamization of the West.
“It’s an invasion.”
He says that it has been going on since at least the 1960s and 1970s but has accelerated in recent years.”
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1901077651466457210?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
Thanks, lucia.
Vance did it!
SteveF wrote: “It is a case where Trump could have deported using normal means, where he used the Alien Enemies Act instead. ”
Could you elaborate? I don’t even know what you mean by that, let alone why you say that or how you could know that as regards hundreds of individuals.
At this point, we don’t even have a ruling from the district court.
It’s impossible to get inside Trump’s head but he / his staff seem to be using very public intimidation tactics similar to the Taliban. Border crossings are at extreme lows and one story I read had the immigrants specifically bringing up the fear of being deported to an El Salvador gang prison.
Make a high profile example and the rest will fall inline, this doesn’t even need to succeed to be effective. Demonstrating intent to close the border chokes traffic off faster than any specific hard action.
We are not in a kinder, gentler phase of governing.
… and on the subject of incentives …
43% of student loan borrowers are officially behind on payments after covid and only 33% are making payments at all. The legacy media narrative is that the oncoming credit score drop is a tragedy for them because of the “burden” of repaying loans they took out. They had 5 years of non-payments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/21/podcasts/the-daily/student-loan-forgiveness.html
“They’re seeing their credit scores drop, which will make it more difficult to buy a car or rent a home.”
Lee Zeldon, EPA Administrator, yesterday:
“This morning on Face the Nation, I was asked why EPA is fixing the definition of “Waters of the US”.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett, we must provide clarity for America’s farmers, ranchers, and landowners.”
In my half century of working in that field the worst abuse of the 1972 Clean Water Act was the WOTUS definition under the EPA. I posted here how important the Sackett was going to be. The old definition gave the Corps jurisdiction over artificial, man-made watering holes if they supported wetland vegetation. It stopped many projects dead in their tracks and severely curtailed the scope of many many more.
The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Act established federal jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” defined in the Act as the “Waters of the United States”. That was the original scope ‘Navigable Waterways’ not frog ponds.
GROK on Implications of the Sackett Decision:
Loss of Federal Protections for Wetlands and Streams:
Estimates suggest that up to 63% of U.S. wetlands and millions of miles of ephemeral or intermittent streams may lose federal protection, particularly in arid regions like the American West, where over 90% of streams in states like New Mexico and Nevada are non-permanent.
Adoption of the “Continuous Surface Connection” Test:
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, ruled that the CWA only extends to wetlands and water bodies with a continuous surface connection to “relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water” that are traditionally navigable (e.g., rivers, lakes, oceans)
Exclusion of Non-Adjacent Wetlands:
Wetlands that are not directly adjoining navigable waters or lack a visible, continuous surface connection are no longer considered WOTUS and are thus excluded from CWA protections. This excludes many isolated wetlands, ephemeral streams, and intermittent streams that do not have consistent surface flow.
https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_ae018ff5-03a6-4617-9586-24c755cbca7c
The Bee nails it again:
https://babylonbee.com/news/people-who-bypassed-legal-process-in-migrating-to-usa-demand-due-process-before-being-kicked-out
Mike m.
Do you really not think due process is owed to everyone found in the US?
John ferguson,
You ask an ill posed question. It depends on what you mean by “due process”.
Everyone should have access to habeas corpus, if only as a safeguard against mistakes. If you are not who the government says you are, you ought to be able to challenge that. If you are a citizen or permanent resident, you must be given a chance to prove that, although in some cases the latter does not matter.
For normal deportations, there is no need for more due process than that. It does seem to me that something more is needed if they want to send someone to a prison in a third country. But I see no need for that to match the process due a citizen.
p.s. – You do know that the Bee is a humor site?
John,
I’d like to know if MikeM thinks that also.
An obvious problem with saying you know criminals or illegals shouldn’t get due process is that the entire point of due process is to give the non-criminals a chance to show they aren’t guilty.
Trump does seem to be managing to violate the due process rights of amazingly unsympathetic people. But mistakes can get made. Deciding that Trump and his administration get to set it aside ‘cuz they can never be wrong is not a good idea.
So, in researching in preparation to argue with Lucia and John I actually became persuaded somewhat towards their position. I read that in 2024 we did close to a million deportation hearings. At that rate, if we doubled our allocations and managed twice as many hearings, we could pretty close to get through a hearing for every illegal alien in the country by the end of Trump’s term.
Fair enough. Due process seems ‘doable’ to me and doesn’t appear to have a prohibitive cost associated (as Vance seems to try to imply) . We can reasonably believe we might deport a few million illegals a year if we reach for it with court hearings before judges.
Mike, do you think I am missing anything?
[Edit: Vance seems to think there are twenty million illegals in the country, and the source I used for my estimate suggested 9-10. Still, tomAYto TomAHto; close enough]
[Edit: my numbers come from here
https://tracreports.org/whatsnew/email.241212.html
]
Due process should be given but on one end it can simply be:
1. Are you here illegally?
2. Does the US (executive) want to deport you?
3. Get on the bus.
From the other end I don’t think they are “due” a long winded independent multi-stage judicial review at taxpayer expense where the burden is on the government to prove they don’t deserve asylum when >99% of these requests are an invalid stalling tactic.
I’m willing to accept a compromise in between but I’m closer to get on the bus at the moment.
Tom,
If the problem proves to be logistically intractable, I think it’s reasonable to streamline the process. I mean, the millions of illegals can’t stay, full stop. They can have as much due process as we can manage, but if due process means that we can’t deal with the problem, that’s not acceptable.
I just question whether or not it’s really logistically intractable or prohibitively expensive.
Shrug.
A look into the problem of the US and NATO ammunition magazine depth. Seems only having about 1 week of ammunition reserves in a per to per conflict is a bad thing.
NATO’s Munition Challenge – Costs, Recent Lessons & Rebuilding Magazine Depth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfmZ_rajdrs
Mark,
In the particular case of Garcia, there was a court order to not send him to El Salvador. ICE could have appealed that ruling when it was made, but they did not. (This was during the Trump administration.)
Trump/Ice sent him to El Salvador– that’s the one country they can’t send him. No matter what argument he advances about the other deportees, Trump should not have sent Garcia to El Salvador. Trump’s Ice should have either given up on deporting this one guy or come to some arrangement with another country– say Guatemala?
After screwing up, Trump should try harder to get Garcia back. Once he’s back, detain him. It’s legal to detain him. Meanwhile, work at finding another country to take him. Guatemala took 66,000 people in 2024. I suspect Trump could persuade them to take him. Then start deportation proceedings to send him to Guatemala.
The stubbornness to not bring him back, detain him and then deport him somewhere else is silly.
SCOTUS has ruled that the only due process required for illegals are an administrative review ( administration immigration judge) and possible habeas corpus review.
The only contention with the SCOTUS I see looks to be defining on the amount of time required between notice of removal and removal to allow of a habeas corpus filing.
20 million illegals in the country is a lower bound. The oft cited 11 million uses a method that is pretty much guaranteed to give an under count. In 2018, a careful study from MIT and Yale estimated 22 million illegals.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/mit-yale-study-of-govt-data-finds-22-1-mil-illegal-immigrants-in-u-s/
According to CBO, net immigration during the Biden administration was about 3 million a year. There is a discussion of that here:
https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2024/0702
Less than one million a year were legal. They did not account for gotaways, roughly another half million per year. So that makes an INCREASE of at least 10 million illegals under Biden. Note that I am counting those admitted under illegal “parole” programs as illegals.
So 22 million pre-Biden + 10 million more because of Biden makes 32 million total.
We can not ship them out fast enough.
It is not clear that the administration screwed up the Garcia case. His being a member of a terrorist group overrode the withholding order. Maybe they failed to file some paperwork.
They also could have been able to easily get the withholding order lifted, since the reason it was granted is no longer applicable. They might still be able to do that while Garcia is in El Salvador.
Setting aside legal niceties (which have their place) Garcia is where he belongs. We are arguing over procedure.
But it does not matter. I am pretty sure that under Salvadoran law, there is no legal way to return Garcia to the US. I think that under US law, there is no legal way to admit Garcia to the US. So it is over. He gone.
Several snapshots in time on how the administration controls immigration review.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
Attorney General Sessions Issues Memo Outlining Principles to Ensure That the Adjudication of Immigration Cases Serves the National Interest
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-issues-memo-outlining-principles-ensure-adjudication-immigration
April 14, 2025
EOIR Memo Empowers Immigration Judges to Dismiss Legally Insufficient Asylum Cases Without Hearings
https://nepyork.com/2025/04/14/eoir-memo-empowers-immigration-judges-to-dismiss-legally-insufficient-asylum-cases-without-hearings/
Lucia,
I’m sure I don’t understand exactly what the Garcia intransigence is really all about. Sending messages I’d imagine, although we might debate what messages and to who. I don’t like it when Trump does things that fuel the ‘fascist’ hysteria, so for me personally it’s not worth it and I agree with you; I wish he’d quit doing whatever he’s doing as far as Garcia is concerned.
Is anyone aware of an obstacle that would prevent Trump from expanding the number of immigration judges? I am under the impression that they are ultimately part of the executive branch and that he (Trump administration) could hire a boatload of these guys if Trump so decided.
Although Trump *might* have screwed up legally, he sure hasn’t screwed up politically. He has Dems defending an illegal, wife beating, human trafficking, terrorist gang member. And he is encouraging other illegals to self-deport.
mark bofill: “Is anyone aware of an obstacle that would prevent Trump from expanding the number of immigration judges?”
I think Congress has to fund it. That was maybe the one good thing in Biden’s border bill.
I do not know if the reconciliation bill will provide more funding for immigration courts. I sure hope it does. It is supposed ti have more border security money in it.
I don’t know why Johnson does not bring a stand alone bill forward to fund more immigration courts and dare Dems to oppose it.
Mike M:
“Everyone should have access to habeas corpus, if only as a safeguard against mistakes. If you are not who the government says you are, you ought to be able to challenge that. If you are a citizen or permanent resident, you must be given a chance to prove that, although in some cases the latter does not matter.”
Prove that you are innocent or at least not guilty of whatever the charge might be?? Prove??
And this full process is only available to citizens or permanent residents?
It seems to me that the right to due process is available to everyone who find themselves in the clutches of our government, no matter how they got here. Does “Innocent until proven guilty” not ring some chime somewhere in your view of things?
Mike,
Good point, thanks. I didn’t think of that.
John,
I don’t ask you to engage my viewpoint, because I don’t think there’s anyplace for it to go; we just disagree. But FWIW, I strongly disagree with you. I’m not claiming that the law is this (AFAICT the law is not this), I am claiming that the law should be this; that our legal protections against the government are for the citizens of our country. It’s our government, instituted to secure our rights.
I think the benefits are obvious in according visitors some legal rights and protections and that doing so is both civilized and conducive to civilized business, but I don’t think it is [ought to be] mandatory in the same sense that it is [ought to be] mandatory for our citizens.
Congress should make asylum claims easier to dismiss and faster to process. It should increase the legal threshold to prove asylum.
Asylum seekers also don’t have to claim asylum in the US. They can also be sent to another country to claim asylum there. A simple rule of forcing asylum seekers to first get rejected by all other countries in their neighborhood before seeking it in the US would virtually eliminate judicial decision making in the US.
john ferguson wrote: “Does “Innocent until proven guilty” not ring some chime somewhere in your view of things?”
If they are here illegally, that is guilt enough to deport them.
Mike M.
I suspect that it is pretty easy to prove that they are here illegally and once done, of course they can be deported. No-one said due process needed to be laborious, just sufficient.
Mark, there is a lot of conjecture in this and previous threads that depend on what the poster thinks the law ought to be. I, too, am sometimes disappointed that the law when correctly applied does not produce the result I would have preferred.
This is one of the reasons it can be informative to read SCOTUS rulings. They often reflect a balancing of interests that make sense even if I don’t like the effect of the ruling.
For example, the recent recognition of legal immunity for a President’s official acts. I was surpriesed that it did not already exist, or was implicit in the role – sovereign immunity. But apparently SCOTUS thought that although Sovereign Immunity might be assumed, or not, it was btter to be specific.
I don’t like what I am about to say, but I am afraid it is an uncomfortable truth.
Biden was easily the most lawless President in our history. No news there. But his open border has created a situation where it at least arguable (some would say obvious) that we have to choose between enforcing our laws and observing procedural niceties. If that is where we are, then I vote for enforcing our laws.
The niceties are very important. But if we don’t enforce our laws, they will no longer matter.
john ferguson,
Presidential immunity has always existed. A district judge decided to dramatically restrict it. An appeals court (DC circuit) upheld. So SCOTUS had to spell it out.
Mike M. why do you think I would disagree with anthing you’ve written just above? It may be that we don’t begin to have enough judges to hear each case, rule that the illegal presence has been proven and thsu enable the government to deport them.
I think Biden’s unusually porous border was more due to his incompetence than any particular political scheme.
john a ferguson: “No-one said due process needed to be laborious, just sufficient.”
I don’t think anybody here has said it must be laborious, but those trying to hamstring Trump want that. I agree that due process must be sufficient. I think that sufficient should be an easy bar to clear when dealing with illegals.
Biden’s porous border was 100% intentional. He promised to do it and took a large number of deliberate actions to keep that promise.
Of course, it might be that Biden never signed those orders. That makes it an even bigger crime.
Lucia: “Trump/Ice sent him to El Salvador– that’s the one country they can’t send him.”
It was a BS argument from the get go. A gang member afraid of other gang members hurting him, like this isn’t the status quo everywhere in that line of business. Break out the worlds smallest violin…
Insisting he be sent to a third country who is not legally responsible for him, and foisting him on their citizens, seems like a really really poor answer. He belongs in El Salvador. He doesn’t belong here or anywhere else. He made his bed, and probably did some terrible thing when he did. No reason to wring our hands over him lying in it.
It’s all about asking for the inch, and then taking the mile. Tying up the system in red tape.
If an illegal crosses the border, refuses to show up for court hearings, refuses to cooperate in any way, provides no ID, no country of origin, then the burden is on the government to “prove” they are not a US citizen? I don’t know how they do that and I definitely don’t know how they reasonably do that 10M or 20M times if that is the burden. This is why immigration court has different standards.
“In immigration court, refusing to identify oneself can lead to several consequences, including expedited removal without a hearing (to where?), a harsher penalty if the case proceeds to a full hearing, and potentially being deemed untruthful, which could affect the outcome of the case”
The primary strategy for an illegal is to use the US system’s bureaucracy against itself. They are assisted by immigration activists who intentionally advocate for policies that make deportation a complicated nightmare.
IMO for now the US needs to get harsher because of the scale of the problem and abuse of the system.
We don’t need to import and feel sorry for these people. Going above and beyond to protect them is just sentencing others to misery and a grusome death.
“A man was murdered by MS-13 gang members who stabbed him more than 100 times, removed his head, and ripped out his heart, Maryland police say.”
“Florida prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for the “demonic” MS-13 gang member accused of decapitating an Uber Eats driver — revealing that the innocent family man had been stabbed 35 times.”
“MS-13 gang members in Los Angeles hacked to death seven people in the last two years, including a rival gang member who was dismembered and had his heart cut out by six MS-13 soldiers in the Angeles National Forest for defacing the gang’s graffiti, federal authorities alleged in an indictment unsealed Tuesday.
Twenty-two people allegedly affiliated with the gang’s Fulton clique in the San Fernando Valley were indicted by a grand jury on racketeering charges that include nearly 200 criminal acts, committed across several states over nine years.”
“Montgomery County’s State’s Attorney John McCarthy has said MS-13 has been implicated in up to 18 murders over the past two years in Montgomery County.”
“On Dec. 24, 2016, Yanez Cruz was involved in the murder of a teenage boy in East Boston. Specifically, Yanez Cruz informed at least one individual of the murder before it occurred and participated in the planning of the victim’s murder, which was based on the belief that the victim may have been associated with a rival gang. Yanez Cruz was present at the murder along with other MS-13 members to serve as both a witness for El Salvador leaders and to assist as needed. At the time the murder was committed, Yanez Cruz was a juvenile.
Following the murder, Yanez Cruz boasted about his involvement in the murder to help recruit others, including minors, into the MS-13 gang and to earn elevated gang status. Intercepted communications showed that Yanez Cruz communicated with both national and international MS-13 leaders and members about MS-13 gang matters, including the transmission of fees to El Salvador.”
DaveJR,
I wouldn’t conflate the vast majority of illegal immigrants with ‘MS-13’ or ‘Tren de Aragua’ gang members. I mean, sure; illegals break the law coming here illegally. That doesn’t make them brutal killers of course.
Feeling sorry for them doesn’t play into it for me. I sympathize with everyone who wants to become a US citizen, especially the ones who want it badly enough to honor our legal process. I think those people [the ones who honor our legal process] should have precedence over those who don’t want it badly enough to do it right.
Mike M.
“Sufficient” in most cases is very likely to be expeditious. I still think we need many more courts, possibly temporarily, to assure that i’s are dotted and t’s crossed such that no-one will be able to say that we diluted anyone’s rights in our haste to solve this problem.
MikeM
Procedure is not unimportant. The right to trial by jury is procedure. Due process is procedure.
I don’t know that there is no legal way for Garcia to be returned by El Salvador. I think Bukele might be saying so… or not. Do you have Bukele quotes? So we can read exactly what he said? And we could also go see what El Salvadoran lawyers say.
El Salvador moved him to a different prison in Santa Ana.
DaveJr
The argument isn’t that he should have been protected from being sent to El Salvador. It’s that there was such a court order. Back in 2019, Trump’s ICE had the opportunity to appeal that and make precisely the argument you advance. They chose not to do so.
It is not a BS argument to note that the order existed, Trump’s previous administration did not appeal. The shouldn’t just ignore it.
Linda McMahon: Accountability Returns to Student Loans
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/accountability-returns-to-student-loans-forgiveness-borrower-debt-payment-9508da8d?st=jRKSDR&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
“Borrowing money and failing to pay it back isn’t a victimless offense. Debt doesn’t go away; it gets transferred to others. If borrowers don’t pay their debts to the government, taxpayers do.
…
If a borrower stops paying a mortgage or a car payment, he will go into foreclosure or find his car repossessed. Student loans have no collateral. It is impossible to repossess a college degree.”
Tom [It is impossible to repossess a college degree.]
but not impossible to file suit for civil damages and garnish wages
Mark: “I wouldn’t conflate the vast majority of illegal immigrants with ‘MS-13’”
It was suppose to be conflated with MS13 members and those just like them ie tren de aragua.
The people who got big loans and never completed a degree are in a world of pain. The article above also cited a study that said for every dollar the loan cap was increased tuition was raised $0.60.
Having no incentive to keep costs down, handing out federally subsidized loans like candy, promoting worthless degrees, and giving students very little info to make good life decisions with is tantamount to fraud if this was the private sector. I understand why borrowers are pi**ed, I just don’t want to pay their bills.
Dave,
Ok. I got confused because the questions of due process and so on aren’t solely pertinent to gang members. Sorry I misunderstood.
Lucia: “It is not a BS argument to note that the order existed,”
Sure. Which doesn’t change the fact that the order was nonsense. I think we can guess why nothing happened in 2019. Running out the clock. As I said before, the point is to ask for an inch to turn it into a mile. Mire the process in so much red tape it cannot function. He got his mile, and now he doesn’t. Judge said he should have gone. He’s gone.
DaveJR
Which doesn’t change the fact that it existed, was legal and Trump didn’t appeal.
Huh? Trump could have filed an appeal. He didn’t.
Well… that’s what Trump is doing.
lucia,
The last I looked, El Salvador was a democracy. Find me a democracy that allows the head of state to order a citizen deported. I bet you can’t. Even in autocracies that is probably not allowed by the laws that are actually on the books.
I don’t think the administration has to go to court to deport a member of a terrorist group. Heck, they can deport a green card holder for supporting a terrorist group.
The issue of the “error “ gets strange.
Judge Orders Return of Alien Removed to El Salvador in ‘Administrative Error’
Was immigration judge’s reference to Guatemala the source of the error?
https://cis.org/Arthur/Judge-Orders-Return-Alien-Removed-El-Salvador-Administrative-Error
“DHS has not shown that there are changed circumstances in Guatemala that would result in the Respondent’s life not being threatened, or that internal relocation is possible and reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the Respondent’s application for withholding under the Act is granted. [Emphasis added.]”
The judge clearly referenced Gautama, not El Salvador in his protection order.
Looks like he made a mistake in the order, but he did make the order referencing Gautama, not El Salvador
The judges order
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.1.1_2.pdf
Sigh….I just love autocorrect
Guatemala, not Gautama
MikeM
In other words…. you have no idea what the law in El Salvador is, nor what Bukele’s options are. But you figure giving me a challenge to search out all laws everywhere somehow shows…. something.
Ed Forbes,
Interesting!!!!
The order under IV Conclusion pretty clearly says he can’t be sent to Guatemala! And the order also pretty clearly applies to only one country!!!!!
The rest does discuss all the reasons he feared going back to El Salvador– and discusses the Gang shaking down his mom’s Pupusa business. (Pupusas are delicious!!!!)
Looks like the “Maryland Bro” was the one who needed to appeal the judges protective order, not the administration . He didn’t and that’s his fault. Not like he didn’t have time to apply for a corrected order as it was issued in 2019
The “Maryland Bro” was legally deported to El Salvador
lucia wrote: ” you have no idea what the law in El Salvador is”.
No, I am saying that in this case we can be pretty certain of the law in El Salvador because it is a matter of common sense and is probably the same as everywhere else.
The claim that a President can not deport one of his citizens is very ordinary, at least in any country with a semblance of rule of law.
The opposite claim is extraordinary. You bear the burden of proof.
This just goes to show that the administration lawyer who stated the “Maryland Bro” was deported in error deserved being fired.
Not reading the protective order in question prior to making an admission of error to the court is pure incompetence.
Ed Forbes,
The 2019 judge clearly references both El Salvador (pp 1-3, pg 13) and Guatemala (pg 8, pg 13). The actual order (pg 14) does not mention either. What an incredibly sloppy “judge”!
Whether the administration made an error depends on what was entered in the government database.
Mike,
no, it’s the order that matter, not what some clerk entered in a database.
El Salvador is listed in the discussion
Guatemala is listed in the Conclusion, which is the finding that supports the order.
Sure, the judge seems to have made a mistake , but the Conclusions are the basis for the order.
Ed,
Sure, but the ICE agents would not have gone to the original opinion. They would have checked some database. For the reason you give, that database might well have told them that Garcia could be deported to any country other than Guatemala.
But then, that is why we have habeas corpus.
MikeM
You think you can use your version of “common sense”. And you also don’t know the law is what you claim “everywhere else”. You haven’t looked it up.
Stop this!
Right now, Bukele is negotiating to exchangehundreds of prisoners held in El Salvador with prisoners Venezuela. The notion that “common sense” tells us he can’t figure out a way to send one prisoner on a plane to the US is ….. well.. not “common sense”!
Actually,, I believe “administrative error “ and “legally deported “ are both true as the judge is a member of the administration and the order did not apply to El Salvador.
Mike. [But then, that is why we have habeas corpus.]
Not a help as the order clearly reads Guatemala
And the subject was clearly the person of interest
Re: Sackett “Wetlands” decision.
My parents bought about 70 acres of land in Northern Collier county Florida in the mid to late ’60s when there were no wetlands regulations.
Out of nowhere, in the 1970s, we found out that 90% of the property was so-called wetlands and functionally unusable by my parents or future buyers. However the definition of wetlands was whether there was water within 12 inches of the surface for 10 days. The more accurate description of my parents property was occasionally moist land. Of course, the environmentalists were lying about the land they were taking over and tried evoke images of ducks and water lilies.
The government entity mainly assuming jurisdiction over the so-called wetlands was the army corps of engineers supposedly for national defense purposes. A total joke. Haven’t had time to read the case, but it seems like a very big step forward.
Sackett was decided a couple years ago. The holding of the court was that the EPA interpretation of the CWA was wrong, and not at all what Congress had intended when the law was passed. Specifically, the court said that a wetland could only be regulated as part of the “waters of the United States” if that wetland had a continuous surface connection to a lake, river, or stream, noting that the EPA’s definition would subject most all lowland areas to EPA regulation, no matter its distance from a body of water.
Sackett had been fighting the EPA over the construction of a house that required adding some fill dirt prior to construction; they threatened Sackett with fines of $40,000 per day if he did not remove earth already on the property. The case draged on for well over a decade before the SC ruled for Sackett. Sackett was important for 1) limiting the regulatory power of the EPA with regard to wetlannds, and 2) because it was a significant step away from the ‘Chevron deference’ that the Court had always used to allow over-the-top crazy regulations by Federal agencies.
Give me a break already. If Trump wanted Garcia back in the US to be processed a certain way, Garcia would be back in the US for processing. Trump has a Federal district judge order for legal cover if he needed any, which he does not. Bukele would bend over backwards to accomodate whatever Trump asked for.
Maybe Trump won’t do it because it’s turned into a pissing contest between him and Democratic congress critters. I read that Rep Maxine Dexter of Oregon is the circus act currently performing in El Salvador.
I read that Pope Francis installed more than half the voting Cardinals who will choose his successor. He selected people who agreed with his socialist politics. So, there seems a very good chance the next pope will be a ‘progressive socialist’ like Francis. If so, I doubt this will end well for the Catholic Church.
Mark Bofill,
I am sure the pissing contest is a big part of it. But yes, Trump could ask for El Salvador to return him.
But here is the weird thing: the original justification for not deporting him to his home country was because he was in danger of being killed by rival gangs. OK, but El Salvador has since then broken up those gangs and put them all in prison…. the murder rate in El Salvador has dropped by 95% since the gangs were put in prison. So realistically, the guy seems not in any unusual danger in El Salvador, and the president of El Salvador will likely make sure he isn’t killed in prison. Trump is, as usual, just trolling his political opponents, something that seems to me counterproductive.
I was mistaken: the murder rate dropped in El Salvador has dropped more than 98% in the last decade.
Steve,
Regarding the actual purported danger Garcia is in, I agree that this is likely a BS issue. Honestly, I don’t care at all if this guy is in danger or not. All gang members are in danger from their fellow gang members; it’s how and why gangs work. The idea that he was somehow made safe by being in the US when he was repeatedly seen in the presence of known gang members in the US is BS as well.
Yup though. Just Trump being Trump.
Mark, Steve, Mike,
I think Garcia is not in danger from a rival gang. I doubt very much Bukele could not figure out a way to put him on a plane. Bukele didn’t say he was barred from by law. He didn’t say he needed to look into El Salvador law on getting it done, nor did he give any reason why it’s barred. Nothing.
He just said he wasn’t going to smuggle the guy in. That he couldn’t smuggle him in. This is side-step language: No one is asking him to smuggle him in.
Bukele’s “thing” is to reduce gangs and violence. Looking tough on a purported gang member is something he wants. He doesn’t particularly want to life a finger for Garcia and he knows Trump doesn’t want him to do so. Win, win for him.
If Trump wanted Garcia back, the could change their rhetoric and Bukele could still look anti-gang (which he is.)
Neither Bukele nor Trump want Garcia to be released from El Salvador, both for reasons of their own. They are both doing what they want and what the other person wants.
Trump could perfectly well admit there was a legal issue– explain the weirdness about “Guatemala”. Say we will detain him and put this through court. Possibly have the “no send him to [whichever country]” yanked and then send him back.
Not doing this is his side of the pissing contest. And it’s just stupid because I’m sure he could re-deport the guy. He is here illegally. And the danger to him is gone (owning to Bukele actually having reduced gangs.)
Ed Forbes,
The order in the Garcia case is on the last page of the decision. It says nothing about any country. It only says that Garcia’s application for withholding of removal was granted.
There might be additional paperwork for entering the judgement. If so, that might clarify what was actually ordered.
I find it fascinating that people who are bent out of shape over Trump’s supposed violation of the rule of law think that Trump and Bukele can do whatever they like to return Garcia to the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_abode#
The right of abode is broader than citizenship.
The Guatemala thing is very interesting.
I can imagine that a gang tried to shake down a business in El Salvador, however anyone can just make that assertion and even if it was true it would be unlikely it could be proven in the US. Even that by itself isn’t enough for the commonly understood definition of * political * asylum which was the intent of law as written.
You can’t leave gigantic loopholes like this in the system.
JDOhio, your comment:
“Out of nowhere, in the 1970s, we found out that 90% of the property was so-called wetlands and functionally unusable by my parents or future buyers.”
Your family’s experience was repeated thousands of times, from coast to coast. It got continually worse as the WOTUS jurisdiction continually expanded. And big business was effected too… pipelines, land development, factories, generating stations, mines, were all stopped or scaled back by this confiscation of private property. Governments too, roads, bridges, drainage projects, the effects were pervasive.
The Corps had historical justification for navigable waters, from GROK:
“The Corps has long regulated activities in navigable waters under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, which addressed obstructions like dredging and filling. When the CWA was enacted in 1972, Congress expanded the Corps’ role to include regulating discharges of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States,” including wetlands, due to its existing jurisdiction over waterways.”
Trump can do whatever he likes in this case. Who gets bent out of shape over his supposed lawlessness has nothing to do with it.
If you are arguing that Pam Bondi is going to go after him with a special prosecutor, or that the next Attorney General will come after him once he leaves office, say so. Tell us why you believe Trump can’t facilitate what the Supreme Court instructed him to. But if you tell me Trump can’t because of his deep respect for the law, I will laugh in your face.
I’m sure El Salvador could choose to not deport one of their own citizens to another country, but they can also choose to do so as well. Extradition, etc. It would depend on what agreements both countries have signed up to.
Trump could also pressure El Salvador to return this guy like he did with Columbia and he isn’t doing that.
This is just an intentional political circus by both sides.
“It only says that Garcia’s application for withholding of removal was granted.”
If the application states El Salvador and the application is granted then I’m guessing there isn’t any issue here.
RK: “The Corps had historical justification for navigable waters, from GROK”
I know a lot more about this than GROK. The army corps of engineers responsibilities dealt with actual navigation problems not environmental problems. The environmentalists used “wetlands” jurisdiction to achieve environmental goals. My parents property was not within 20 or 25 miles of any river.
MikeM,
I find it fascinating that you like to a “right” that exists is select countries as if that means it must exist in other countries. The page says nothing about El Salvador. It also doesn’t say criminals can’t be, for example, extradited. We aren’t asking for extradition, but clearly whatever this “right” is, people don’t have an absolute right to not be sent out of the country to another country that requests them– not even in the countries listed on that right of abode page.
Look: If you are going to prove Bukele can’t find some way to send Garcia here find El Salvadoran law. Not some sort of “general principle”, that we know doesn’t apply in tons of countries. Bukele doesn’t even say El Salvadoran law blocks him from escorting Garcia to a plane.
We can’t force Bukele to send Garcia– that’s true. But I doubt Bukele can’t find a way to send him.
The US has been known to use special forces to do snatch and grab operations in foreign countries when it suits them. I doubt that is on the table here, ha ha.
Tom,
If it came to that, it wouldn’t surprise me if Bukele ordered gang members through back channels to nab the guy and bring him to the US.
Wouldn’t that be a hoot.
https://archive.ph/50Vgo Saved URL
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/world/americas/el-salvador-bukele-abrego-garcia.html
Bukele’s theory certainly seems to be he perfectly well can release Garcia.
Maybe MikeM can explain the right of domicile to Bukele– A man who seems to have suspended the constitutional right of habeus corpus.
JDOhio, your comment:
“The environmentalists used “wetlands” jurisdiction to achieve environmental goals.”
Yes, you, I and Grok are in agreement.
The original 1972 legislation specifically applied to ‘Navigable waterways’ and hence jurisdiction was given to the Corps. The EPA eco-freaks began expanding the jurisdiction by defining Waters of the United States [WOTUS] more broadly and eventually included upland areas with no connection to navigable waterways. The Sackett SCOTUS decision struck them down and sent them back to where they belong, ‘Navigable Waterways’!
EDIT:
The EPA is now rewriting the definaiton of WOTUS and are seeking citizen input.
https://bbklaw.com/resources/la-032525-epa-seeks-public-input-on-wotus-implementation-post-sackett-ruling#:~:text=The%20EPA%20has%20opened%20a,reading%20of%20what%20constitutes%20WOTUS.
On the right of domicile MikeM alluded to: It’s also probably irrelevant. The right of domicile would forbid El Salvador from forcing him to leave. But supposedly, Garcia wants to leave El Salvador. His lawyers are asking for El Salvador to let him leave and go to the US.
The right of domicile doesn’t give the government the right to forbid someone to leave.
The SC hears the case today about whether parents can opt out of having their kids read LGTBQ books in elementary school.
What I find hilarious is that this is a school district right outside of DC and DC has some of the highest absentee rates in the nation for high school. 60% of high school students in DC are chronically absent and 73% graduate, somehow.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/01/16/578310510/students-across-d-c-graduated-despite-chronic-absences-an-investigation-finds
They don’t care if you show up at all in high school but you absolutely need to send your grade schoolers in for LGTBQ indoctrination, that needs to be fought all the way to the SC.
Overall it’s a classic SC case. Balancing / conflict of rights. It could go either way.
lucia,
You have been claiming that there is no real barrier to sending Garcia from El Salvador to the US. I am claiming that it is not that simple and asking that to explain how you think it might be done.
Yes, Bukele can almost certainly release Garcia. But he can not make Garcia leave. So then he has put a MS-13 member on his streets. It is not at all clear that Garcia would want to return to the US.
Suppose he does want to return. He can’t just get on a plane, he would need a visa. Maybe the court could force Trump to see that he gets one promptly. It is not obvious how that could be done legally since Garcia is inadmissible to the US. Maybe Trump has the power to grant a waver and maybe the court could force him to do so. Suppose that happens and Garcia gets on a plane to the US. What happens when he arrives? He gets taken into custody and put in detention pending a deportation hearing. That will surely result in the revocation of his Withholding status. Then he gets deported back to El Salvador.
All that Garcia gets out of that is a free plane ride and a stretch of time housed unpleasantly at US government expense. I think it very unlikely that he would choose that over walking around free in El Salvador.
So Garcia is staying in El Salvador. The only question will be if he does so as a prisoner or as a free man. Bukele is opposed to the latter.
I don’t see how a US court can have any business ordering a President to pressure a foreign government to release one of their own citizens from prison.
The guy is not going to come back from El Salvador.
I am sure Trump will be impeached for this if Dems gain control of the House in 2026.
I am sure he will not be removed from office by the Senate.
Everything else is window dressing. I can’t understand why this is a big issue.
Mike,
I might have this wrong, but last I heard Garcia is not free in El Salvador. He was transferred to some other prison. Bukele could ship him to the US if he chose I’m sure.
I agree with much of the rest of your comment, basically from this point:
on. Trump should have listened to the courts, but he didn’t. Trump can insist that he’s doing all he can to comply with SC directives and Bukele can refuse. The trouble is, of course you are correct in saying courts have no business interfering in foreign policy, which is what this turns into.
Steve is right. Everyone ought to let this one go. Nothing is going to come of this. The ship has sailed, burned, and sank, and there’s no bringing her back to port now.
The Bee:
“ Dalai Lama Quietly Cancels Scheduled Meeting With JD Vance”
mark bofill: “Bukele could ship him to the US if he chose I’m sure.”
In democracies, heads of state can not simply ship citizens to other countries. Usually the only way to do that is if the other country requests extradition. But that would require that Garcia be indicted in the US and, I think, would require the US to convince a Salvadoran court that he will likely be convicted.
MikeM
You have things backwards. Whether Bukele can or cannot ship citizens to other countries is irrelevant to the Garcia situation.
Garcia supposedly wants to come back to the US. His lawyers are asking that he be allowed to return. In democracies, heads of states can certainly allow people to go to other countries if they so desire.
Bukele is preventing Garcia from getting on a flight bound to the US. To do so, prevent Garcia from coming to the US, Bukele has him locked up in a prison in Santa Ana. If Bukele allowed Garcia to get on the US bound plane, Garcia would voluntarily get on it.
Some perspective: The issue of one wife-beating gang member, long living illegally in the USA, in spite of a final deportation order issued over a decade ago, and now actually in his home country of El Salvador, has sucked all the oxygen from the room. Little talk of Gaza, little talk of Ukraine, little talk budget reconciliation or the looming and unsustainable Federal budget deficits and how to reduce them. Tempest in a teapot.
SteveF
I think extracting Garcia from his plight in his homeland is all the rage because it’s easy to understand even if what is understood is erroneous.
Mike,
What Lucia said, but even if what Lucia said wasn’t correct, I think you are being naive about El Salvador. The place is corrupt, and here I read stuff about Bukele and gangs that makes me believe the best spin one could put on Bukele is that he is pragmatic. I think he would have Garcia on a plane to the US in less than an hour if he thought it would lead to a politically favorable position for him with the US. You say ‘Democracies aren’t like that’, but not all democracies are equal. Latin America isn’t Europe.
But I don’t actually know. I’ve never even traveled in Latin America. We are in the realm of opinion at this point. Or at least I am.
The tea leaves say parents will prevail in SC case today
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/22/supreme-court-support-md-parents-lgbtq-storybook-challenge-00303001
“The parents aren’t even allowed to know they are being taught out of these books”
Tom Scharf,
Let’s hope so.
On Jackson’s bit
Are there scenarios that might make it difficult for the school district to offer advance notice? Sure. But that’s no reason the school shoudn’t be required to offer advance notice when it’s not difficult.
As for some of these things: Parents aren’t asking for transgender student to not exist or not be allowed in the classroom.
Today’s parental rights SCOTUS case seems to have united Jews, Muslim, Protestants, and Catholics. It should have a good chance of uniting all 9 justices.
MikeM,
I bet it won’t be 9-0!! We’ll see.
john ferguson,
“easy to understand ”
Sure; what is not easy to understand: why are some people so worked up over this? I mean, really, this is a) not somebody who should ever have been in the USA in the first place and b) someone who should never be in the USA in the future. What is the point of bringing him back to simply deport him again? I fail to see a reason beyond the desire to ‘stick it to Trump’ for making the mistake of not sending him to somewhere other than his home country of El Salvador. Sure, Trump could have brought him back and deported him instantly… but who cares? Certainly not me. What is more: the entire reason for the restriction on where to deport him is moot: murders in El Salvador are <2% of what they were when gangs were killing each other with abandon. The gangs are all in prison. The guy is in little danger. IMHO, this 'issue' is 100% a waste of time.
Luica,
“I bet it won’t be 9-0!! We’ll see.”
Agree: 7-2 is far more likely. Could even go 6-3. 5-4 seems very unlikely.
After all, we are talking about reading explicit stories abut transgenders to kids in elementary school. If the public schools want to be sure to have parents pull their kids out of those schools, all they have to do is insist on transgender teaching in grade school.
I should add: there are two certified crazies on the court, who can’t define what a woman is. I doubt Kagan will go along with them in this case. Kagan knows electoral suicide when she sees it… the other two? Not so much. Kagan is almost as politically sensitive as mealy-mouth Roberts.
Jackson and Sotomayor look to vote for allowing.
The county had a hard time explaining why they thought it was proper to ban showing Mohammed in a story book but not ban talking about LGTBQ themes. Alito accused them of being hostile to (Christianity) religion.
It all came down to exposure (books on a shelf, pictures on a desk) vs coercion (teacher reads the book, teacher morally opining) in the arguments. Use of the books was required in this case, just not books on a shelf, and for “English” class to teach civility. That’s probably why they will lose.
They didn’t have good answers for why they couldn’t give an opt-out except “we can’t give an opt-out for everything”. I think they want to indoctrinate by subterfuge, they basically admitted to this.
It’s also not a burden to the school if they choose to not put these things in for mandatory use in the English curriculum for 3rd graders.
Oral arguments, over 3 hours
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pllUWAq-Wag
Perun: NATO’s Munition Challenge – Costs, Recent Lessons & Rebuilding Magazine Depth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfmZ_rajdrs
The US is getting plenty of weapons testing lately.
The US would likely use 5000 missiles in 3 weeks in a war with China over Taiwan. Anti-ship missiles would be gone in a week. Lots of damage would be done.