Tag Archives: news

Bombing defenseless civilians clinging to a blown-up boat is murder

Posted on by
13

Credible reports are emerging on the latest shoot-fish-in-a-barrel episode in the Caribbean, where the force of the U.S. military is brought to bear on “fast boat” drug runners. For the record, I’ve supported these operations in the past.

A whistle-blower connected to the mission revealed that in this particular episode the boat and crew weren’t immediately vaporized. The initial missile strike destroyed the boat and killed nine on board, but the boat didn’t immediately sink. Two people were still alive in the water, wounded. The American military evidently saw from the air that the two men were alive.

The threat posed by this boat to American shores and American people was never imminent but was certainly real. Drugs kill, and they’ve recently killed more people than we’ve lost in highway deaths and gun shootings combined.

But the threat posed by this particular fast boat had ended. The boat was going nowhere.

The military had several options at that point. They could have simply went away. The effect would be to let the wounded go down with the boat or die of their wounds.

They could have rescued the wounded men and put them on trial for drug smuggling. Sure, the men were probably armed, and might have fought their rescuers – an apparent surrender can be an ambush. But that’s always a risk when taking a person prisoner. It’s one of the many risks that servicemen and women sign up for.

The mission leaders chose a third option. They conducted a “second strike” missile attack where they obliterated the already-disabled boat and killed the two wounded men who had survived the first strike.

That second strike was in direct violation of written Pentagon policy prohibiting attacks on shipwrecks where combatants on board are unable to fight.

I’ve defended these shooting-fish-in-a-barrel missions on the grounds that the law affords the President wide latitude in matters of foreign affairs. President Obama ordered lethal drone attacks on terrorists on foreign soil – including some who were American citizens, and I supported that as well. 

A President does not need a Declaration of War from Congress to take action to defend American interests. The last time Congress issued a Declaration of War was 1942. (Both wars against Iraq were approved by Congressional “resolutions” that fell short of a Declaration of War.)

So, the absence of express Congressional approval for these actions does not especially bother me. What bothers me is the circumstances of this particular episode.

Put aside the fact that there’s been no judicial adjudication that these drug runners are, in fact, drug runners. Threats to American shores do not always lend themselves to due process determinations by old judges in walnut paneled courtrooms a thousand miles away.

And put aside the fact that these drug runners who are being bombed seldom get to America – they go to intermediate points such as Mexico or Caribbean islands where their drug cargo is transferred to some other drug runner.

And put side the fact that while these drug runners are certainly wrongdoers who deserve punishment, they are hardly drug kingpins like El Chapo with nine-figure bank accounts. They’re typically impoverished fishermen or peasants looking for a five-figure payday. 

And put aside the fact that none of these fast boats has put up a fight. The crew are undoubtedly armed, but their arms are in the form of handguns, not surface-to-air missiles to deal with an F-16.

Put all that aside. It’s a close call, but I’m still willing to support the President in blowing up the drug runner boats. That’s not because I dismiss the gravity of doing so; in fact, it’s a matter of great gravity. Rather, it’s because I weigh that against the gravity of America’s drug problem.

Constitutional scholars are mixed on the legality of these fast-boat bombings.

But whatever the legality of a fast-boat bombing, making a second strike to kill the helpless wounded survivors – flailing in the water as they cling to their sinking boat – crosses a line. It’s in violation of Pentagon written policy, it’s a violation of the rules of war, it’s barbaric, it’s murder.

The President was understandably not aware of the situation in real time – he has other things on his agenda – but he said afterward that he would not have ordered the second strike.

The second strike was evidently on the direct orders of either the Secretary of War or an admiral in charge of the mission. Both were reportedly watching the mission live. The Secretary of War says the second strike was with his authority but he was out of the room when the order was given.

Either the admiral or the Secretary of War, or both, should resign or, in the case of the admiral, be court martialed. This cannot stand. It’s wrong.

Sadly, Republicans will be slaughtered in the 2026 midterms

Posted on by
10

As a three-time Trump voter with no regrets, I don’t like this message any more than most of you. So don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger.

The message is the Republicans in next fall’s midterm elections will lose the House, bigly, and probably the Senate.

If politics is indeed “war by other means,” expect the political war next fall to be bloody. Think Battle of the Little Bighorn. Think Stalingrad. Think Pickett’s Charge. Think the Battle of Midway. Think Waterloo. It will be one-sided.

Oh, I know the President has done some terrific things – at great personal risk to himself, by the way – even if they were sometimes done unartfully.

Stopping illegal immigration is near the top of the list. His crude methods were probably by design but might have been by fortuitous accident. Either way, he sent a message that transcended language barriers: The United States of America doesn’t welcome illegal immigrants anymore, and illegals who come anyway may find themselves on a one-way flight to West Africa. Due process? Mayyyybe . . . .

As a result, illegal immigration is at the lowest point in decades. The southern border in particular is more like, well, a nation’s border. All this has produced some human pain. Fixing big problems that politicians tolerated and sometimes encouraged often has that effect.

In the Middle East, the President let the Israelis beat and batter the barbarians of Hamas and then brokered a quasi-peace between the two. Even better, he prevented a nuclear Iran/Israel war by handing the Persians their biggest defeat since the Battle of Marathon two and a half millennia ago.

On tariffs, however, the President got out of his depth. His tariffs were defensible as an economic matter, maybe, but not as a legal matter. He will lose when the Supreme Court issues its decision next Spring – perhaps in a 9-0 decision – and the Court signaled as much in oral arguments a couple of weeks ago. At best, the decision will be 7-2 against the President.

The unravelling of those tariffs, which will have been in effect illegally for as much as a year, will be messy and embarrassing for the administration.

Intangibles are the most notable things on the score card for this administration. On the plus side, the President has made “woke” a four-letter word. That’s more than a stylistic change. Wokeness and all that it entails – abolition of merit, obsession with skin color and sexual preferences, the euphemizing of language, ubiquitous victimization – was highly destructive to America and the world.

On the minus side, the President has shown a tendency to say or tweet what he thinks in a way that often and needlessly offends. The most recent example was when a reporter persisted in asking yet another follow-up question during a press conference. Most reporters are loathsome creatures, but they paid to ask – nay, shout – questions in that manner.

The President could have ignored the reporter, or rebuked her with something like “let’s move on.”

Instead, he barked “Quiet, piggy!”

That may not bother you but it does bother millions of Americans, particularly women. Such people vote.

Right now, approval surveys suggest that many of them are sufficiently turned off by these sorts of crude insults that their vote will be against the GOP next fall. The outcome of the special elections around the country a few weeks ago supports that conclusion.

Forget about peace in the Middle East, the solving of the immigration debacle, and the mixed outcome on tariffs. Because the people will forget about those things.

What many of them will remember is that they dislike the President on a personal level. People vote against people they dislike. Right now, a large and growing number of people dislike the President.

That’s a fundamental flaw in representative democracy, but it’s an unavoidable aspect of human nature. We’ll see the results next fall.

Now, before you bark “Quiet, piggy!” at me, remember: I’m just the messenger and just doing my job. (And in case you think it’s relevant, I’m 6’ tall and weigh 160 pounds.)

Democracy destroyed America

Posted on by
7
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule”
-Thomas Jefferson

The other Founders were similarly scornful of pure democracies. John Adams proclaimed:

“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy.

James Madison said:

“Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention.”

Alexander Hamilton warned:

“Pure democracy is as much a fallacy as the idea of eternal vows and permanent alliances.”

Ah, you might say, but what about the democracy of ancient Athens?

I’m glad you brought that up. Athens was indeed a pure democracy in the sense that the people voted directly on matters of governance. But not all the people.

There was no vote for slaves, women, foreigners (meaning foreign to Athens), or people who had even one parent who was a foreigner. After all the winnowing down, only about 10-20% of adult Athenians had the right to vote.

Even that limited democracy of Athens was problematic. No less than Plato complained that “Democracy . . . is continually subject to the influence of demagogues and the passions of the multitude.”

Rome was more pragmatic in governance, as in everything else, and more successful. While Athens was never more than a city-state that faded in a couple hundred years, Rome expanded its empire to embrace about 60 million people – about a third of the population of the entire ancient world – and lasted nearly a thousand years.

It’s no coincidence that Rome was never a pure democracy, but was initially a quasi-republic. The people did not vote directly on matters of governance, but instead voted (sometimes) for representatives who made those decisions.

Rome eventually morphed from a republic into an empire ruled by an emperor, a transition precipitated by Julius Caesar. After conquering Gaul, he led his army east and then south, crossing the Rubicon River to invade Italy from the north – in defiance of the Senate – and journeying on to Rome to declare himself dictator. In Rome, there was enough popular adulation for the conquering hero that he got away with his coup for a while. His great nephew Augustus cemented the role of emperor, and Rome became greater than ever.

Eventually, nearly all of Europe became Roman, and also a good part of northern Africa and England. We still see the remnants of their incredible buildings and culture. Latin is the world’s biggest unspoken language and is the root of French, Spanish, Italian and a good part of English.

Fast forward a few empires, to the American one.  Benjamin Franklin was asked in the course of the Constitutional Convention what kind of government they were establishing. He famously answered, “A democracy, of course!”

Just kidding. His real answer was, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

They would be appalled by Americans today who pride themselves on tossing that republic into the ash bin of history. The people brag of being exactly what the founders feared – a “democracy.”

The Founders consciously sought to avoid that outcome by incorporating several basic buffers from the mob.

For one, the American mob doesn’t generally decide matters of governance. Rather, as in a republic, they vote for representatives who make those decisions. The thinking of the Founders was that informed gentlemen are more apt to make good decisions than passionate, uniformed mobs.

The Electoral College is another example of a buffer from the mob. Today, the Electoral College is a mere formality. In each state, they all vote for the presidential candidate that won the most votes in that state. But originally, the Electoral College was free to vote contrary to the majority of the state they represented, and they sometimes did. Again, the intent was to put a layer of sanity between the hoi polloi and the decisions of government.

Another buffer between informed decision-making and uninformed mob rule took the form of voting restrictions. As in Athens, women and slaves were not permitted to vote in early America. In the pre-Civil War south, that literally excluded a majority of the adults.

The Civil War of course abolished slavery and finally enfranchised former slaves and their descendants. But in the Jim Crow South, literacy tests were used to bar many Blacks from voting on the rationale that illiterate people lacked the necessary sophistication to vote.

In many states in early America, voting was prohibited unless the voter owned real property, the thinking being, again, that persons without property lacked the sophistication necessary to choose good representatives. Those prohibitions continued for about half a century.

Women were not enfranchised until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

I personally am glad that we now allow voting by women, minorities and renters, though I’m not fond of renters.

But we’ve gone well beyond that. The Founders would be mortified to see the current trend toward what we champion as “democracy” and what those Founders would decry as mob rule.

For example, people are allowed to vote without presenting simple proof that they’re who they say they are.

They’re allowed to vote in many states even though they’re not citizens.

They’re often allowed to vote even though they’re dead.

They can vote multiple times – one time from their main residence, another time from their vacation home in a different state, and another time by mail.

They’re allowed to fill out ballots for their elderly grandmother, sign her name to it, and drop it off or mail it in. They can do that for as many grandmothers as ballots they can get their hands on.

This loosening of voting requirements coincides with a dumbing down of the voters. People are allowed to vote even though they graduated from public high schools in Democrat-controlled cities where they didn’t learn anything. In fact, they’re allowed to vote even though they graduated from no high school at all.

And even the ones who graduated from high school lack a basic education. A recent survey at the University of California at San Diego (ranked one of the leading universities in America) found that 25% of incoming freshmen cannot solve for X in the equation:

7 + 2 = X + 6

I wonder if they could solve for X in the equation:

7 + 2 = X + 2

Or the equation:

7 + 2 = X

Or the equation:

7 = X

These freshmen have no idea how many students make up 25% of the incoming class of 4,000. But I suspect they do know to label me a misogynist for using the term “freshmen.”

We can and should re-establish literacy tests for voting. They were outlawed generations ago on the grounds that they discriminated against illiterate Blacks, but today that objection is gone – we’re all illiterates now!

Is it any wonder that the state of the union is bad? We have a polarized government of mean girls (most of whom have penises) who don’t even try to solve problems. They just play to the mob that elects and reelects them.

And so, the minority party shuts down the government unless they get to act like they’re the majority party. They don’t really expect that to happen, but it’s great theater for a while for the mob in the nickel seats.

And there’s Epstein 24/7, as if anyone really needs to see the emails to know that Donald Trump’s relationship with a creep who exploited teenage girls might have been worth a whole chapter in The Art of the Deal.

And there’s a kooky Jew-hater who’s never had a job getting elected in a place that a kooky Black man once dubbed “Hymie-town” on a platform of arresting the Prime Minister of Israel and giving everyone free stuff paid for by the Jewish billionaires he’ll fleece on their way out of town.

And there’s a governor in California running for President on the platform “OMG, get a look at my hair!”

And 70% of the younger generation approve of socialism, while 45% disapprove and 17% aren’t listening to the survey question and 81% pick the New England Patriots by 7.

What’s the fate of our once-great republic now that it’s descended into mob rule?

History offers some lessons. Witness the mob of the French Revolution and the mob of the Weimar Republic. The path out of mob rule typically goes through despotism, and a lot of people get hurt.

Schumer failed, so his fascist comrades hung him from a lamp post

Posted on by
6

The fascist who gave fascism its name came to an ugly end. Benito Mussolini was impaled on a meat hook and hung upside-down from a lamppost. Fascists don’t tolerate failure.

Democrat leader Charles Schumer is someone I don’t like, and I felt a certain schadenfreude when his Democrat “friends” blamed him for their caving on what has come to be called the “Schumer Shutdown” or, more accurately, the “Schumer Sh*tshow.”

But there’s something disquieting about the barrage of criticism from the left.

The gist of the criticism is that Schumer failed to keep all the Democrat Senators “in line.” In other words, he failed to coerce every Democrat to vote the way he told them to, despite his best efforts at coercion. At coercion, he failed.

Criticizing Schumer for failing at coercion says a lot about the criticizers. It says that they think other Democrats are Schumer’s subordinates, and he is supposed to be able to control their votes.

That sounds vaguely dictatorial to me.

It would come as news to the people of New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Illinois who elected these particular Democrats that the Senators they elected are required to vote not their conscience, and vote not for the interests of the people who elected them, but vote the way an old guy in New York tells them to.

It seems the left wing of the Democrat Party believes that the only acceptable vote for the rank and file is a vote for insanity and radicalism. When the Democrat leader tells his “subordinates” to vote for insanity and radicalism, then, by golly, that’s what they’re required to do, their conscience and their constituents be damned.

The predicament of the Democrat leader is even more precarious. It’s not enough for him to vote insanely and radically. He’s also supposed to succeed in coercing every other Dem into voting insanely and radically. Any failures in his coercion earn him a meat hook and a hanging.

Regardless of what it says on paper, regardless of Senate rules, regardless of the will of the people, the leftists in the Democrat Party have a tyrannical and bloodthirsty grip on the party.

Dems denuded without even a fig leaf

Posted on by
2

We went to bed on Sunday and there was vague talk of a shutdown workaround. We wake up on Monday, and the Democrats have caved.

Analogies, anyone? If this were a boxing match, the Democrats didn’t come out of their corner for the 8th round. If it were a softball game, the ten-run rule got applied. If it were a war, they flew the white flag and laid down their arms. If it were wrestling, they tapped out.

If it were poker, they folded, though the time to fold ‘em was a month ago. They didn’t know when to walk away, and so now they have to run.

Feel free to add your own analogies. That’s what the comment section is for!

This all transpired because Democrats are the minority party in Congress at the moment. They consequently got outvoted on the tax bill last winter. Getting outvoted often happens to the minority party.

The Democrats’ solution to being outvoted as the minority party was to demand to be treated like the majority party, else they would shut down the government. They demanded a re-do of the tax bill, specifically the part that let expire the Obamacare insurance subsidies enacted as a temporary measure during COVID.

The Republicans’ reaction was, “Huh? Do you think that Democrats get to act like the majority party when they are, and also get to act like the majority party when they aren’t?”

It wasn’t hard for the Republicans to call that bluff.

After the biblical 40 days and 40 nights, give or take, and over a dozen votes blocked by the Democrats, eight of the 43 Democrat Senators finally broke ranks Sunday evening and voted to re-open the government.

The stock market cheered. Food stamp recipients rejoiced. Federal workers felt relieved. Holiday travelers were glad.

Democrats fumed.

Now there’s a civil war in the Democratic party. By the media reports, it sounds like the biggest one since Democrats quit America a century and a half ago to continue holding in chains some of the men God created equal.

In the resolution to both civil wars, the Democrats got hardly anything in the bargain.

At least this time, Atlanta didn’t get torched.

But Chuck Schumer did. Imagine Schumer stark naked with only a fig leaf, surrounded by ravenous dog-like Democrats looking for someone to blame. Now take away the fig leaf and let loose the dogs.

That’s the Democrat Party right now. It ain’t pretty.

Democrats will end the filibuster when they’re back in power, so Republicans should end it now

Posted on by
2
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY)

The Senate filibuster is an odd rule. It says 60 votes out of the 100 Senators are necessary to end debate on a piece of proposed legislation.

Absent those 60 votes, the legislation never gets put to a vote. The effect is that it takes not just a majority of the Senate – 51 votes out of 100 – to pass legislation. It takes a supra-majority of 60.

The filibuster rule is not in the Constitution. In fact, it’s not even in a statute. It’s simply a rule dreamed up by the Senate. In various forms, it goes back to the 19th century, and has been tweaked many times since then.

The original idea behind the filibuster was this: If Senators want to keep debating some proposed legislation, then – politicians being politicians – they should. Talk is not just cheap, but good, and so more talk is better.

But – politicians being politicians again – they soon abused their right to talk. Filibusters became not a way to keep talking about legislation, but a way to kill it. Legislation supported by 59 Senators, which typically meant Senators from both parties, could be killed by just 41 senators opposing it.

The result has been the occasional paralysis of the Senate. Controversial legislation cannot get passed unless it falls within one of the limited exceptions to the filibuster rule.

This outcome frustrated Democrats a few years ago, because it enabled the Republicans to stop the confirmation of a few of the controversial federal judges nominated by Barack Obama. Republicans didn’t stop all confirmations, mind you, but only the ones they especially disliked. Obama still got  the great majority of his judges confirmed, and we still see them in action.

This filibustering of judicial nominations did not start with the Republicans, of course. Democrats were at least as adept at the practice and, arguably, were the ones to start the practice.  

For example, a brilliant and highly qualified nominee by George W. Bush name Miguel Estrada was filibuster by the Democrats. And then again. And again, and again. And again, and again. and again.  

Seven times, the Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada.

When the Republicans repaid the filibustering favor, it didn’t sit well with the Democrats. The Democrat Senate leader was a sleazy old battle ax named Harry Reid who served in, or at least enjoyed, the Senate for 30 years and mysteriously amassed a fortune doing so. He threatened to, and did, abolish the filibuster for ordinary judicial nominations. From that time forward, it took only 51 Senators to break a filibuster on ordinary judicial nominations.

You might reasonably ask how he got the 60 votes to abolish the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

Here’s where it gets curious. It takes 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on proposed legislation, but it takes only 51 to change the Senate rules allowing for filibusters. And so, with a simple majority, Senator Reid jammed through his change to the rule requiring a supra-majority to confirm a judicial nominee, to require only a simple majority.

The Republicans warned Senator Reid and his Democrat colleagues that they would regret abolishing the filibuster. They warned that someday the tables would be turned, and it would be the Republicans who would take advantage of the power to confirm judicial nominations with a bare majority of 51 Senators, rather than the traditional 60 Senators.

That’s what happened, in spades. Senator Reid abolished the filibuster for judicial nominations with the exception of Supreme Court nominations. In 2017, the Republicans saw his bid and raised him.

President Trump had the opportunity to nominate three Supreme Court Justices in his first term to replace conservative and liberal Justices who died in office, and a moderate Justice who retired.

Unsurprisingly, President Trump nominated three conservatives. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats went ballistic and promised to filibuster. Unsurprisingly, the Republicans took the natural step of abolishing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, just as the Democrats had for lower court nominations. Unsurprisingly, all three were confirmed by Republican Senate majorities (even though the Democrats shamelessly defamed Justice Kavanaugh).

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court is now 6-3 conservative, and will remain conservative for the foreseeable future.

This 6-3 conservative Supreme Court has been a key component to President Trump’s power. On political cases, the outcome is generally (not always) five or six conservatives to four or three liberals.

Which brings us to the government “shutdown.” Of course, the government is not shut down, but the word “shutdown” generates clicks for click-baiting whores that comprise today’s media, and so that’s the term they use – together with the suggestion that it’s all the fault of the Republicans because they refuse to un-do the tax bill that was passed last spring.

But that’s just an excuse. The real reason for the “shutdown” is that the Democrat leader, Now York’s Charles Schumer, is panicking that a loony Democrat woman with initials for a name will challenge him in a primary and defeat his ambition to stay in the Senate well into his 80s. He’s in need of loony lib cred in a state that prizes such stuff. (See, e.g. Zohran Mamdani.)

And so, the Democrats have filibustered the legislation to keep the government open a dozen times.

In ordinary times, the rank-and-file Democrats would go along with Schumer’s selfish shutdown scheme, for about as long as they can say those four words fast.

But in today’s political climate, even rank-and-file Democrats oppose practically everything Trump proposes, just because it’s Trump who proposes it. When the leftist base of the Democrats demand brave “resistance” to Trump, the rest of the Democrats willing grovel in compliance to show their bravery.

The Republicans could thwart the Democrats and end the shutdown in hours by taking a simple majority vote, a la Harry Reid, to suspend the filibuster. They wouldn’t even have to abolish it. They could do a one-time suspension of it. With 53 of the 100 Senators being Republican, that one-time suspension should pass.

By the way, if the Republicans were to abolish the filibuster for everything, not just as a one-time exercise, then they could run roughshod over the Democrats for at least the next year until the 2026 mid-term elections.

I like the idea of running roughshod over Democrats who are “bravely” groveling to their crazy leftist base.

Ah, you say, but then the Democrats would turn the tables against the Republicans next time the Democrats have a majority of the Senate.

Yes, they will.

But they will do that whether the Republicans suspend the filibuster now or not. These are Democrats, by golly. Do you expect them to abide by the filibuster later just because the Republicans do now? Do you expect them to play fair?

“Black” voting districts are unconstitutional, unfair, and condescending

Posted on by
7

The map shows the contorted Congressional District in Louisiana that is at issue in the Supreme Court case that was argued yesterday.

You won’t see this map in most of the news reports on the case – not because it’s not newsworthy, but because it is. This picture speaks a thousand words about the absurdity at issue.

All parties to the case – and the Supreme Court Justices, as well – agree that this strange amalgamation was created for the express purpose of establishing a district that is supposedly Black* so that Blacks could be assured of electing Black representatives.

(I say “supposedly Black” because most Blacks in Louisiana, as in other American states, are actually of mixed race.)

There are several problems with this notion of Black Congressional Districts. First, it assumes that people identifying as Blacks can be represented in Congress only by other people identifying as Blacks. Why is that the case? I’m white and I’ve voted for Black candidates, and I’m sure many Blacks have voted for white candidates. In fact, Donald Trump got a substantial share of the Black vote last year.

Second, the flip side of concentrating Blacks into Black districts is to concentrate whites into white districts. If we’re to have separate Congressional Districts, should we also have separate schools? Separate drinking fountains?

In a region of the country with a sordid Jim Crow history of “separate but equal,” having separate Congressional Districts strikes me as a vile throwback.

Third, what happens if one of the white districts in Louisiana elects a Black? That would result in Blacks having too many seats, right? Conversely, what happens if a Black district elects a white? Does that mean we need to go back to the racial gerrymandering board to re-draw the districts again?

Fourth, this notion that Blacks are entitled to Congressional representation in exact proportion to their population (or more in the event a Black gets elected in a white district) would seem to apply equally to other races.

In Washington State, for example, about 10% of the population is of Asian descent. Many of their ancestors were exploited and discriminated against. Should we gerrymander the Congressional Districts in Washington to ensure that 10% of the representatives are Asian?

What do we do if the Asian voters don’t go along? What do we do if they “wrongly” vote for a white or Black or Hispanic rather than for the Asian candidate that they’re supposed to vote for? What if they vote for politicians on the basis of policy, not race? Or on the basis of the content of their character, not the color of their skin?

Gee, that’d be horrible, huh?

What about other minorities? In New York State, about 11% of the population is Jewish. Should we gerrymander some Jewish districts? Does it matter whether the Jews are observant or not?

What about transexuals? In California, about 97% of the population is transexual.

OK, I made that up, but you get the point.

The premise to this racial gerrymandering is that Blacks are unique among minorities, in (1) possessing “Black issues” that only they care about, and (2) lacking the ability to persuade non-Blacks to their side of those issues.

I disagree. I think Blacks are fully functional citizens who can vote their minds on all issues, side-by-side with the rest of us, and they have the ability to persuade the rest of us on those issues. They are not in need of child-like allowances any more than Asians or Jews or transexuals or Hispanics or Scots. It’s time to end the separate-but-equal Congressional Districts and end the soft bigotry of racial condescension.

*Although much of my tribe disagrees with me on this, I use “Black” rather than “black” when referring to American Blacks. That’s not because the AP Style Manual calls for it, but because I’m willing to call a race by the name that a majority of the race prefers. If a majority of whites start asking to be called “Whites,” or a majority of Scots start asking to be called “scots,” then I’ll go along with that, too.

In California – and probably your state – illegals easily get driver’s licenses and are automatically registered to vote

Posted on by
2

There’s an odd little side show that caught my attention in the vaudeville act of “Dr.” Ian Roberts, the illegal immigrant from Guyana whom the Des Moines School District hired, heroized, and paid $300,000/year. (None of those particular things caught my attention in themselves, since they’re all par for the illegal immigrant course, these days.)

What caught my attention is that he’s registered to vote in Maryland, which was one of his waypoints on his grand and illegal tour through America. How, I wondered, did he manage to register to vote in Maryland?

It’s easy. In fact, it’s automatic.

Like about 18 other states, Maryland allows illegals to get driver’s licenses. Yes, it’s illegal for an illegal to be in America but, no, it’s not illegal in those states for them to get a driver’s license to drive around. Their presence is illegal, but their driving is not.

Okay, fair enough. On second thought, that’s not fair at all to the rest of us who wind up dodging illegals whose driving “skills” are the product of the roads and customs of such places as Guadalajara while we see our insurance premiums skyrocket.

But, anyway, there’s more.

In about 24 states, when the state issues a driver’s license, it automatically registers the person to vote – completely and willfully ignorant of whether the person is an American citizen.

Re-read that last paragraph. Yes, you got it right.

This scheme has a name. (The Democrats are great at branding things. See, e.g., “Affordable Housing,” “Reproductive Rights,” and “Me Too.”) They call this one “Automatic Voter Registration” or “AVR.” Democrats boast that AVR makes it easier to vote.

About that, they’re right.

Back to the erstwhile “Dr.” Ian Roberts. He got a driver’s license in Maryland while he happened to be on-the-lam there. Under their AVR system, Maryland automatically registered him to vote, as other states with AVR would have done.

Voila! He was in the country illegally, but had a valid driver’s license to drive around and was duly registered to vote.

Nothing odd or extraordinary took place. What happened undoubtedly happens thousands of times every day. It’s supposed to happen that way. There was no breakdown in the system. His voting registration was not a mistake.

The mistake was a bigger one. The mistake was a failure of American government. One political party has hijacked the levers, arms and dials of American government to produce deliberate and systematic voting fraud.

Democrats: “Nobody move, or we’ll shoot ourselves!”

Posted on by
2

Democrats are willing to shut down the government if Republicans refuse to re-negotiate part of the tax bill passed in July. They say the main thing they want re-negotiated are government subsidies for Obamacare.

The Democrats have some leverage here because, while it took only a Senate majority to pass the tax bill, and the Republicans hold that majority, it takes a supra-majority to pass a bill to keep the government from shutting down. A supra-majority cannot be achieved without a handful of Democrats.

There are several principled objections to this strategy by the Democrats, which are worth mentioning before I get to the main point.

First, this isn’t the way legislation is supposed to get done. Once a bill is passed, the losing side is not supposed to get another bite at their losing apple by threatening to shut down the government many months later.

Second, shutting down the government is a little like hostage-taking. The threat is of a different kind and degree from the matter in dispute.

Third, this is stupidly hypocritical by the Democrats. The party of Big Government says that if they don’t get their way, they’ll . . . shut down Big Government.

It reminds me of Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles, when he pointed a gun at his head and warned his pursuers, “Hold it! Next man makes a move, the n***** gets it!” (Note that in what passes for today’s “culture” you can get all manner of porn and snuff films with a few clicks on the internet, but finding that clip takes some effort.)

Fourth, the Republicans are prepared to turn the tables. Trump says that if the government gets shut down, he’ll have no choice but to fire government workers. There’s some logic to that. It’s not fair to employ workers you can’t pay.  

Democrats have shown a talent for political malpractice lately, but this one looks like a real boner. The Democrats can be stupid, but usually not this stupid. So why are they doing it?

The conventional wisdom is that they are captive to their “base,” the far-left kooks. That’s true, but it leaves the question, why are they captive to kooks?

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to the question “Why do you rob banks?” asked of serial bank robber Willie Sutton. He replied, “Because that’s where the money is.”

Kooks don’t normally have money, but these particular far-left ones do. Billions are funneled to them from unabashed radicals like George Soros and billions more from purportedly philanthropic foundations and leftist non-governmental organizations like Greenpeace, Common Cause and Black Lives Matter that are only slightly less radical. (Imagine entrepreneurs like John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford and John D. MacArthur turning in their graves at the sight of how their money is spent today.) The kooks receiving those billions, in turn, are major campaign donors to Democrats.

These monied far-left interests are not really driven by details like Obamacare subsidies. That’s just an excuse. If the Republicans compromised on that, there will be another demand and another. What really drives them is a desire to sow chaos and confusion in American society, culture and government. Shutting down the government, they believe, serves that end. They seek a revolution, by whatever means necessary but preferably through a societal breakdown – by violence.

If the Democrats want to shut down the government in order sow a little chaos and confusion, fine. They’ll lose in the end, and it won’t take long. Let’s not take the bait for a violent confrontation.

Charlie Kirk debates Jimmie Kimmel — a BS construction by AI

Posted on by
3

Note to readers: This is what ChatGPT came up with when I asked it to imagine a debate between Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel. Every word is from ChatGPT, except that one or two AI typos have been corrected.

_________________

Moderator: Welcome everyone to tonight’s debate on “Free Speech and Violence in America.” We’re honored to have Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel here to share their insights. Let’s begin with opening statements. Kirk, you have the floor.

Kirk: Thank you. Free speech is the foundation of democracy. It empowers individuals to voice their opinions, challenge authority, and push society forward. Throughout history, free speech has been instrumental in civil rights movements, political reform, and social progress. That said, with this freedom comes a responsibility. Words can incite violence, spread misinformation, and deepen divisions. Our goal should be to promote responsible speech—not censor it. Education, open dialogue, and adherence to social norms are the way forward. The core principle is that speech should thrive, but it should not be used as a weapon.

Kimmel: Thanks. I agree that free speech is vital, but let’s be clear. With the right comes the duty to prevent harm. In today’s world, inflammatory rhetoric, hate speech, and conspiracy theories are fueling real violence. We’ve seen many incidents where words have led to deadly actions — racial violence, terrorist attacks, online harassment turning into physical violence. Protecting free speech doesn’t mean tolerating speech that incites or promotes harm. Platforms — especially social media — must be held accountable. We need regulations and policies that draw the line where speech becomes dangerous. Society must defend freedom, but not allow it to devolve into chaos.

Moderator: An important discussion. Kirk, when you hear about hate speech, do you believe there should be limits?

Kirk: I believe in strong protections for free speech. Historically, censorship often suppresses dissent and can be used as a tool of oppression. The issue isn’t speech per se, but how we handle its consequences. Education is key — if people understood the impact of their words, they might moderate their tone voluntarily. Legal limits should be narrow– focused on directly inciting violence or spreading lies that cause harm. Broad restrictions risk infringing on fundamental rights and silencing constructive debate. The solution is fostering social responsibility, not censorship.

Kimmel: But history shows us that certain speech, especially hate speech, has led to violence and suffering. It dehumanizes people and can ignite mob actions or even genocide. Allowing unchecked harmful speech gives license to hate groups. That’s why platforms need clear policies– like removing hate speech and threats — and authorities should intervene when necessary. Sometimes, restrictions are essential for protecting vulnerable communities. We must recognize that the harm caused by hate speech is real, and it requires action.

Moderator: Let’s talk about where to draw the line. Kirk, do you think social media platforms should limit or regulate content more heavily?

Kirk: Platforms do have a role, but overregulation can suppress legitimate discourse. They should implement moderation tools and community standards, but these must be transparent and fair. Ultimately, the true solution lies in education — teaching people to critically evaluate content and behave responsibly online. Suppressing speech outright risks creating echo chambers and authoritarian control, which is dangerous for democracy.

Kimmel: I agree moderation is important, but the scale of social media makes it hard to control harmful content. Platforms often hesitate to act decisively due to fear of backlash or legal challenges. Meanwhile, harmful rhetoric continues to spread. Regulation can set standards that protect users without infringing on free speech. Additionally, social media companies must be held accountable for their role in amplifying dangerous content. We need collaborative efforts—government regulations, technological tools, and community initiatives—to create safer online spaces.

Moderator: Now let’s introduce a new topic — recent controversy surrounding Kimmel’s firing from a major network over comments related to political beliefs. Kimmel, would you like to comment on that?

Kimmel: Absolutely. The situation was very personal to me. I was fired after making some jokes that, depending on who you ask, were either funny or inappropriate, but what struck me was how quickly the culture shifted to silencing opinions and entertainment if they didn’t align perfectly with certain political narratives. It raises a fundamental question about free expression — should entertainers be penalized for their viewpoints or jokes? I believe that diversity of opinion, even offensive or controversial humor, is vital in a free society. Silencing voices due to pressure or fear undermines that principle.

Kirk: I agree with you. Freedom of speech includes the right to express unpopular opinions, including satire and humor. When society starts punishing individuals for expressing their views, it’s a step toward authoritarianism. The marketplace of ideas flourishes only when all voices can be heard, even if those voices are uncomfortable or controversial. I believe that silencing or punishing individuals—whether entertainers, journalists, or citizens — because of their opinions or jokes — undermines the very foundation of our democracy. Free speech is messy and can be uncomfortable, but it’s essential for progress. When we start policing humor or viewpoints out of fear, we risk creating a society where only certain approved voices can be heard, and that’s dangerous. We need to defend the right to express even unpopular or provocative ideas, because only then can real debate and growth occur. Censorship, whether by corporations or government, erodes liberty and sets a dangerous precedent.

Kimmel: Exactly. When individuals are silenced or penalized just for expressing their opinions, it sends a signal that certain ideas are unacceptable — no matter how silly or offensive. That’s not the path to a healthy democracy. We must stand firm in defending free expression, even when we disagree with what’s being said. Otherwise, we pave the way for authoritarian control and a stifling culture where conformity replaces free thought.

Moderator: Thank you, Kirk and Kimmel, for your insightful perspectives. To summarize, both of you agree that free speech is a fundamental pillar of democracy, but with important responsibilities. Kirk emphasizes the importance of education, responsible discourse, and cautious moderation to prevent censorship and authoritarianism. Kimmel highlights the need for accountability, especially on social media, and stresses that harmful speech can incite violence and must be regulated to protect vulnerable communities.

Regarding the recent controversy about Kimmel’s firing, both agree that silencing or punishing individuals for their opinions erodes free speech and opens the door to authoritarian control. The balance, as you both suggest, is in protecting the right to express unpopular ideas while ensuring public safety and social harmony. Ultimately, fostering open, respectful dialogue and safeguarding free expression are essential for a healthy society.

Thank you both for a compelling discussion.

_________________

I say bullshit. This sanitized, anodyne debate imagined by ChatGPT sounds like a love-fest.

Sure, it’s likely that both men would come down on the side of free speech, in the abstract, and both would caution against internet excesses.

But the debate imagined by ChatGPT completely ignores the overt calls for violence by such groups as Antifa and BLM and the barely-concealed calls for violence from Democrat leaders such as Senator Schumer’s threat against Supreme Court Justices.

It also ignores Kimmel’s false suggestion that the Kirk murderer was “one of” MAGA. Any legitimate discussion of Kimmel’s firing has to deal with that lie. Finally, it ignores the refusal by about half of the Democrats in Congress to join in a joint resolution condemning that violence.

So why did Chat GPT sidestep these issues?

I saw a piece a few months ago (if I could remember where, I would give credit to the author) suggesting that AI will not take bias out of the news. Rather, it will legitimize it. When you’re watching Rachel Maddow, you know she’s biased. When you’re inquiring with ChatGPT, you assume that the machine is not.

In addition, AI knows only what it reads on the internet. The old saw “the internet says . . .” is literally 100% of the basis for AI’s conclusions. Computer programmers would say garbage in, garbage out.

For the record, I think Kimmel’s bosses should fire him, or not, based on their sense of human decency and what he brings to their business. (My own sense of decency comes down in favor of the firing.) I think viewers should watch Kimmel, or not, based on their personal sense of human decency and what he brings to their entertainment life. I’m wary of the government getting involved in those decisions.

Also for the record, I occasionally use AI for research, but never for writing. I happen to think that, for now, I’m a better writer than the machine.