Mysterious Disappearance

The ignorance or, more likely, dishonesty of the far left on the matter of the Israel-Hamas war rivals the ignorance or dishonesty that the right exhibits on so many issues.

Sorry, Emma V, but Elissa Slotkin is clearly, obviously, and demonstrably correct.

It's hard to pick the most satisfying moment of this interview, but this part where Slotkin tries, and fails, to insinuate that the pro-Palestine protestors are soft on Trump might take the cake. pic.twitter.com/3n3kZvjHr0

— Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) July 30, 2025

Senator Slotkin is seen stating "I just think it's interesting, right, that there was a ton of protests when Democrats were in charge." Co-host Krystal Ball responds "there was a protest in Manhattan yesterday."

Imagine! A protest in New York City! The heartland has spoken!

To be fair, the interchange appears to have taken place on July 29 and there was a protest in Manhattan on July 28, in front of a building at 26 Federal Plaza, at which many ICE detainees (and others) are held. The previous day, eight rabbis were arrested in NYC while protesting restriction of aid to Gazans.  By contrast, this from May 2, 2024:

An organization which tracks USA political protest activity reported on 5/30/24 that since October 7, 2023, there had been encampments on more than 130 campuses.  Nonetheless, the 1639 pro-Palestinian encampment days accounted for only 44% of the 3704 total days of protest activities on 625 campuses overall.  Although particularly prevalent on the coasts, there were protests throughout the USA, and a lot of them, as the Michigan senator recognizes.

The pro-Palestinian protestors- wherever they are now- are soft on Trump, for whatever reason(s).  Continuing the theme of useful idiocy on the far left, there Peter Daou:

I'm old enough to remember when students protesting the Gaza genocide were smeared, expelled, arrested, and brutalized under the Biden-Harris administration. In just about every way, Trump has continued Biden's policy on Israel. Dems laid the groundwork for 14+ months. Shameful. pic.twitter.com/uJXmTCuvN5

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) July 28, 2025

The "Biden-Harris administration" was so mean that, as The Guardian explained

In March, the Trump administration listed Swarthmore College as one of 60 schools at risk of losing hundreds of millions of federal dollars for allowing what it considered antisemitic harassment on campus. Colleges and universities across the country were already quashing pro-Palestinian protests by suspending and arresting students, and several revised their policies to ban encampments prior to Trump’s inauguration. But some have gone even further to penalize students in light of the government’s threats to pull their funding.

The federal government- under President Donald J. Trump- has taken punitive action. Before his inauguration- but apparently after his election- numerous colleges began to suppress "pro-Palestinian" protests.

The Mideast policy also changed. As Yair Rosenberg of The Atlantic writes. in January 2021

Secretary of State Antony Blinken flew to the region and assured America’s Arab allies that it opposed forced displacement. “Palestinian civilians must be able to return home as soon as conditions allow,” he said at a press conference in Doha, Qatar. “They cannot, they must not, be pressed to leave Gaza.” Blinken then traveled to Israel, where he apparently delivered the same message to Netanyahu. The next day, the Israeli leader posted a video in which he declared, “Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population.” A member of Netanyahu’s party told the press that the prime minister’s stance had shifted because of American pressure. For the moment, maximalism had been shoved back into the box.

Then Donald Trump won reelection, and everything changed. The same day Trump defeated Kamala Harris, Netanyahu fired Yoav Gallant, his defense minister, who had opposed the resettlement of Gaza and publicly criticized the prime minister for refusing to commit to returning the territory to Palestinian control. In one fell swoop, the chief external (Biden) and internal (Gallant) obstacles to conquering Gaza were removed. The only pressure exerted on Netanyahu now was from the hard right. And then Trump himself seemingly joined its cause.

 On February 4, sitting next to a surprised Netanyahu in the Oval Office, Trump dramatically undid all of Biden’s efforts, promising to take over Gaza, relocate its residents, and turn the area into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” The president may have conceived of this vision out of some misdirected sense of compassion, believing it would provide better lives for Palestinians now stuck in what he correctly termed a “demolition site.” But whatever Trump’s intentions, his proposal was immediately taken as affirmation of the maximalist dream of many Israelis, and an explicit warrant for ethnic cleansing by the Israeli far right. Once that prospect turned from a pipe dream into a president’s plan, it quickly became an obstruction to concluding the conflict.

At a press conference in May, Netanyahu declared that implementing Trump’s vision was now a condition for ending the war. Last week, the director of the Mossad reportedly visited Washington to discuss the “voluntary” relocation of “hundreds of thousands of Palestinians” to third-party countries. All the while, Gaza’s hunger crisis has dramatically worsened, while hostages continue to languish in Hamas dungeons. Far from expediting the conflict’s end, Trump’s proposal has been marshaled to prolong it. And as long as the president does not explicitly reject the goal of removing the Gazan population, it will continue to bedevil his plans for the region.

Most recently, President Trump said of Israel's campaign against Hamas "they're gonna have to fight and they're gonna have to clean it up. You're gonna have to get rid of 'em."Yet, Peter Daou claims "in just about every way, Trump has continued Biden's policy on Israel."  Krystal Ball and Emma Vigeland suggest that pro-Palestinian activism has not abated. Blindness seems to be contagious as the anti-Israel activists, once so very militant, have turned into sheep. And as Senator Slotkin implied, one has to wonder why that is.

Share |

Tell the Truth, Vivek

We don't know what precipitated or exactly what happened in downtown Cincinnati on Frida night/early Saturday morning. However, we do know that Vivek "the fake" Ramaswamy, running for the Republican nomination for Ohio governor, is right, and he is wrong. On Monday, Ramaswamy spoke to the young woman, Holly, who was assaulted and later that day stated

She’s a single working mom who went to a friend’s birthday party. It’s unconscionable that there were no police present in that area of Cincinnati on a Friday night, or even an ambulance to take her to the hospital. Hard-working Americans shouldn’t have to worry for their safety when they have a good time in our cities. Holly said not a single local or state official had yet reached out as of earlier this afternoon, other than one police detective.

Leftists like to lecture about ‘systemic injustice’ while thugs turn our cities into war zones. I’m done with their excuses.  As governor, I’ll make sure they’re behind bars, not running wild. Our cops will have the green light to restore order—no apologies. Holly appreciates the kind words and prayers from patriots across the country, and hopes that the publicity around her story ensures that local & state leaders clean up our failing cities. We hope to visit Holly soon as she recovers.

      

The mayor of Cincinnati is chosen in a non-partisan election. The incumbent is currently embroiled in a re-election race with Corey Bowman, the half-brother of Vice President J.D. Vance. The Representative for the city in the US House of Representatives is a Democrat but the governor, as well as the state's two US Senators, are Republicans. 

Those are the public officials who could have called the young victim, about whom the gubernatorial candidate has some concern. Yet, Ramaswamy blames "leftists" whom, he claims, "like to lecture about 'systemic injustice' while thugs turn our cities into war zones." 

Our cities, the congressional candidate contends, are "failing" and  being turned "into war zones" by officials unwilling, unlike himself, to give police "the green light to restore order- no apologies." Accountability, evidently, is so last decade. 

And so, ironically, is Ramaswamy, who raves about those "leftists (who) like to lecture about 'systemic injustice."" In what world is the Ohio Republican living in? As a resident of the USA, I've heard very few leftists decrying systemic injustice the last few years. And the phrase "systemic injustice" has nearly disappeared from popular discourse.

At :50 of its video above, the New York Post noted "It remains unclear what sparked it- but witnesses told WXIX that one of the groups made racial comments before the blows started."

We don't know which side made a comment about race before the brawl started. However, we do know that the white man and the white woman were outnumbered and being pummeled. Police chief Terri Theetge, noting that only one  of the "over 100 witnesses" called the police (at 3:06 a.m.) remarked

Nobody called the police. Nobody got us there as quickly as we could get there. They waited until they saw it on social media. That is unacceptable, to not call the police when you view this. Traffic was horrendous. People saw this, they were fighting in front of traffic. Why didn't somebody call us?

Presumably, the main reason is that individuals, particularly young people as most of these were, prefer to use their phone as a cameras rather than, well, as a phone.  There also is the bystander effect.

Nonetheless, there is a likely third reason. The criminal behavior appears to have a racial component- and the blacks present seem to have emerged relatively unscathed. That lessened the incentive for witnesses to call the police. Nor did any of the witnesses remain behind to speak to the police.

That lessened the incentive also for two other, prominent individuals to get involved. Whenever there is a hint of a bias crime committed against one or more blacks or a crime which may, just may, have been racially motivated, Benjamin Crump and Reverend Al Sharpton are at the scene in two shakes of a lamb's tail.

They are, of course, not in Cincinnati and for that, police and the citizens of the city should be thankful as law enforcement continues an exhaustive investigation.   Ramaswamy need not have called out Crump or Sharpton by name. However, for a  guy quick to condemn government officials, leftists, and "failing cities," he's awfully reticent to identify what's really going on. Seems about right for a Trump acolyte.

Share |

Fraud and Waste Mike Johnson

Appearing on Sunday's Meet the Press, House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked about imprisoned sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, accomplice of the late Jeffrey Epstein. Of course, he did a tough on law and order bit, remarking

If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance. I think she should have a life sentence at least. I mean, think of all these unspeakable crimes. And as you noted earlier, probably 1,000 victims. I mean, you know, this is, it's hard to put into words how evil this was. And that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it, at least under the criminal sanction, I think is an unforgivable thing.

Of course, he also left himself maximum flexibility on the issue, having stated a moment earlier "Well, I mean, obviously that's a decision of the President. He said he had not adequately considered that.  I won't get in front of him. That's not my lane." After host Kristen Welker followed up, Johnson added "so again, not my decision...."

Look for the Speaker to be upfront defending the President when Trump ultimately extends a measure of leniency to Maxwell because Johnson is so far up Donald Trump's rear end that.... (You finish the punch line.)

Still, the Epstein saga is a scandal not for the House of Representatives but for the White House and the Justice Department, who are working a strategy to pin any blame for the crimes of Epstein's best friend not on that best friend but on Democrats. However, the House leader does bear considerable responsibility for the disastrous impact the Administration's recently enacted megabill will have on the American people.

 

WELKER: Why would Josh Hawley introduce a bill to roll back cuts in Medicaid if there are not cuts in Medicaid? He says the people in his state are going to suffer

MIKE JOHNSON: I will tell you that the one big beautiful bill safeguards the program pic.twitter.com/ikT8XeVxB4

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 27, 2025

Welker led off with

Two more critical topics to get to with you, Mr. Speaker. Let's talk about what has been called the Big Beautiful Bill. In June, you told me the bill would not cut Medicaid. But two Republican senators ultimately voted against it because of what they thought were cuts to Medicaid. And Senator Josh Hawley is already out proposing legislation to actually roll back some of the Medicaid cuts that he just voted for. Did the Medicaid cuts go too far, Mr. Speaker?

Oh, dear Lord. Why must the mainstream media, most of whose members (Welker among them) left-of-center, consistently adopt Republican messaging? Call it President Trump's, or the Administration's, or the Republican megabill of tax-and-spending bill. "Big Beautiful Bill" is obviously Trump's branding, an effort to manipulate the media, which was eager to accommodate him.

Johnson replied

The bill does not cut Medicaid. The One Big Beautiful Bill does not cut Medicaid. What it does is strengthen the program. And we talked about this, Kristen, is that the problem is there's a high degree of fraud, waste and abuse in that program. I'm talking about 10s of billions of dollars every year. What we did is we went in to go in and fix that.

He followed with fourteen sentences, none of which answered the question. But when in doubt, simply say "fraud, waste, and abuse," even though fraudsters would be prosecuted and abuse can mean anything in the world, though its most direct and accurate application is to violence against a member of a family and/or household, as in domestic abuse.

In early July, NPR reviewed the likely impact of the cuts Johnson says will "strengthen the program" and explained

The deepest cuts to health care spending come from a proposed Medicaid work requirement, which is expected to end coverage for millions of enrollees who do not meet new employment or reporting standards.

In 40 states and Washington, D.C., all of which have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, some Medicaid enrollees will have to regularly file paperwork proving that they are working, volunteering, or attending school at least 80 hours a month, or that they qualify for an exemption, such as caring for a young child. The new requirement will start as early as January 2027.

The bill's requirement doesn't apply to people in the 10 largely GOP-led states that have not expanded Medicaid to nondisabled adults.

Health researchers say the policy will have little impact on employment. Most working-age Medicaid enrollees who don't receive disability benefits already work or are looking for work, or are unable to do so because they have a disability, attend school, or care for a family member, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

State experiments with work requirements have been plagued with administrative issues, such as eligible enrollees' losing coverage over paperwork problems, and budget overruns. Georgia's work requirement, which officially launched in July 2023, has cost more than $90 million, with only $26 million of that spent on health benefits, according to the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization.

 "The hidden costs are astronomical," said Chima Ndumele, a professor at the Yale School of Public Health.

Briefly: Onerous reporting requirements will result in many millions of Americans losing their health coverage, in a country in which "(54%) of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level."

Additionally, "belt-tightening that targets states could translate into fewer health services, medical professionals, and even hospitals, especially in rural communities." As in will translate. And Affordable Care Act

marketplace policyholders will be required to update their income, immigration status, and other information each year, rather than be allowed to automatically reenroll — something more than 10 million people did this year. They'll also have less time to enroll; the bill shortens the annual open enrollment period by about a month.

That is to "strengthen the program" in a country in which a majority of Americans read no better than does an 11-year old.

Co-pays will increase for many Medicaid enrollees in states which have expanded Medicaid, thus discouraging individuals from seeking primary care. More people will get sick, then get help only when their situation is dire, boosting overall health care costs. 

Welker then asked

Josh Hawley says he is worried about cuts to payments and Medicaid reimbursements. Why would he be introducing a bill to roll back cuts to Medicaid if there were no cuts to Medicaid? He says the people in his state are going to suffer.

And Johnson responded

I haven't talked to my friend Josh Hawley about his legalization. I'm not sure what that's directed to. But I will tell you that the One Big Beautiful Bill safeguards the program. It strengthens it.

The Speaker responded with seven more sentences in which the question was not answered. However, the accurate answer would be: as he opined in The New York Times, "slashing health insurance for the working poor" would be "both morally wrong and politically suicidal."  That was in May, a few week before Hawley voted for the bill 

The "strengthens the program" or "safeguard the program," applied to Medicaid, is a chapter in the old GOP playbook. It is a variation- a slight variation- of the argument Republicans have invoked against Medicare and Social Security in which they promise to "preserve and protect" what they term "entitlement programs," i.e., Social Security and Medicare.

Mike Johnson once defended President Trump by rationalizing "Yeah, he may be breaking the rules but he's doing it where I can see it. So who cares?" That may be naivete about someone who is involved in a herculean effort to hide the report detailing his sexual and economic involvement with arguably the most prolific pedophiles ever. Or it may reflect on the Speaker's disdain for rules when it suits him. He's not the very worst thing the modern Republican Party is giving the country but he deserves (dis)honorable mention.

Share |

Very Bad Situation

There are many individuals confused, mistaken, or dishonest about what is currently happening in Gaza and Brigitte Gabriel is one of them.

Another lie propagated by CNN and Abby Phillip.

Israel is not preventing anyone from getting food, Hamas is responsible for all the suffering in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/k495XbASAS

— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) July 25, 2025

In the discussion to which Gabriel refers, Abby Phillip turned to Scott Jennings and summarized the situation, remarking

What is the rationale for blocking aid, period? Israel and the United States have put together a program to distribute food because they don't want the U.N. to be a part of it. They want to do it themselves. But that program is what everyone is saying is failing.

She was referring, as NBC News reported two months ago,  "aid groups led by the United Nations" had "carried out a massive operation moving food, medicine, fuel, tends and other supplies across Gaza since the war began in October 2023." However, Israel then blocked distribution of aid while it accused Hamas of hijacking shipments. In late May, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a U.S.-backed group approved by Israel assumed responsibility for aid distribution. However

The new mechanism limits food distribution to a small number of hubs under guard of armed contractors, where people must go to pick it up. Currently, four hubs have been set up, all close to Israeli military positions.

The GHF began to take over and 

two of the four hubs started distributing food, both in the Rafah area in the southernmost end of Gaza, where few Palestinians are located. On Tuesday, thousands of Palestinians walked from tent camps outside the city of Khan Younis, crossing Israeli military lines, to reach the distribution points.

At one point on Tuesday, chaos erupted as Palestinians overwhelmed a hub outside Rafah, breaking through fences. Nearby Israeli troops fired warning shots, sending people fleeing in panic. The military later said the situation was brought under control but at least three injured Palestinians were seen being brought from the scene.

GHF publicly launched early this year and is run by a group of American security contractors, ex-military officers and humanitarian aid officials. It has the support of Israel and the United States.

Until resigning, Jake Wood was the face of the foundation. Wood is a U.S. military veteran and co-founder of a disaster relief group called Team Rubicon. He said Sunday night he was resigning because it was clear the organization would not be allowed to operate independently.

Soon afterward, Johnnie Moore, described here as "an evangelical Christian and former PR consultant who advised President Donald Trump during his first term," was appointed executive chairman of the GHF. Source of the organization's funding remains in doubt because Moore claims the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is "a private foundation" and "like lots of private foundations, you know, it doesn't disclose its donors."

Swell. Houston, we have a problem. Significantly

Setting up so few sites for food distribution meant crowd control problems were inevitable, according to Ciaran Donnelly, the senior vice president for international programs at the International Rescue Committee, which ran major relief operations in Gaza. “No aid organization would recommend doing it that way,” he said.

Inside Israel, as well, critics have questioned its independence. Last month in front of Israel’s legislature, opposition leader Yair Lapid, without providing evidence, accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government of funding the GHF through foreign shell companies. And last week, citing unnamed public officials, Israel’s public broadcaster, Kan, reported that the Israeli government had sent hundreds of millions of shekels to the group.

Israel’s government has repeatedly denied it funds the GHF.

Phillip noted  

a statement from a hundred human rights groups that say "as the Israeli government's siege starves the people of Gaza, aid workers are now joining the same food lines, risking being shot just to feed the families. With supplies now totally depleted, humanitarian organizations are witnessing their own colleagues and partners waste away before their eyes. The Government of Israel's restrictions, delays, and fragmentation under its total siege have created chaos, starvation, and death."

Those aid groups never have been sympathetic to Israel. Their mission is to feed as many human beings as possible, not to acknowledge that there never would have been a calamity had Hamas not attacked Israel on October 7, 2023 with the aim of killing as many Jews as possible, extra points for raping women.

Nonetheless, Phillip was right when she added

Again, this is within the power of Israel to alleviate this. And even if the idea is that Hamas is stealing some of the aid, the quantity of aid, Scott, that is coming into Gaza right now is not even close to what is necessary to feed the population. So it would be one thing if they were giving as much food as is necessary and Hamas was stealing all of it but that's not what is happening.

At 2:17, former Republican US Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona comments (emphasis his)

I don't- I don't think Donald Trump wants children in Gaza to starve. I think he's simply saying that U.S. cold do more to put pressure on Israel to allow the food in to be distributed, um, that's what I'm saying.

Donald Trump doesn't want children in Gaza to starve. But he doesn't want them not to starve, either. He doesn't care one way or the other, because he is focused on one thing. 

Trump relatively recently has been nominated thrice for the Nobel Peace Prize: in November 2024 by the head of Ukraine's parliamentary foreign committee, a nomination withdrawn on 6/24/25; on June 20, 20245 by Pakistan leaders for his involvement during a recent India-Pakistan crisis; and on 6/24/25 by GOP Representative Buddy Carter of Georgia for the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Our President is obsessed with this and on June 24 whined on Truth Social "no, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be. But the people know, and that's all that matters to me!"

Evidently not. This is what interests him in the Israel/Hamas war. Trump wants to win a Nobel Peace, or two or three or four. That can happen only if this particular Mideast war ends and he has something to do with it. It may not end with the complete destruction of Hamas or security for Israel, with food for Gazan civilians, nor with a solution to the crisis on the West Bank or a homeland for Palestinians. A resolution probably won't be just for both sides and possibly for neither; yet, without at least a cease-fire, there is no chance the American President will get the prize he longs for..

And that illustrates a major tragedy of this conflict. Israel cuts off aid to Gaza, later allowing it but only on a limited and ineffective basis. If Hamas cared about the well-being of the people over whom it rules (or did before 10/7/23), it would have cried "uncle" long ago. However, it does not. It is a brutal, terroristic organization which dreams of the genocide of Jews it and its fellow travelers accuse Israel of committing against Palestinians.

Striving for the capitulation of its enemy and return of the hostages it holds, Israel continues starving Gazans as if that enemy is concerned about the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.

That political policy has not succeeded nearly as well as its military has succeeded in nearly destroying Hamas. That aim, justified and necessary, should have been its sole goal in Gaza. Instead, evidence grows that Israel's goal, in which starvation of Gazans is no objective, extends well beyond evisceration of Hamas.

The latter may have been the nation's major, if not primary, goal six months ago. President Biden, unlike President Trump, thought it a net positive that Gazans be fed, and was not interested in monetarization of the region with a Riviera of the Middle East.

And so while Brigitte Gabriel and Scott Jennings question nothing the Israeli government does, pro-Palestine student organizations throughout the USA protest Israeli policy and anti-Zionist Muslim groups such as Americans for Justice in Palestine Action ramp up their condemnation of the Jewish state. Correction: now that more Gazans are killed with the strategic objective of defeating Hamas no longer operative, these activists have held their tongue. 

They did all they could to prevent Israel from defeating Hamas. Having failed to do that, with the lives of Gazan people at stake, they've practically gone into hiding.  Jennings, Gabriel, and others are off-base. The other side is even worse.

Share |

Building Roots as Americans

It could be called the "State of Limbo" bill instead of the "Dignity Act of 2025." Maria Elvira Salazar, the daughter of Cuban exiles, was born in Miami and is now a U.S. Representative from the area.

Rep Maria Salazar is pushing hard for Amnesty.

The answer is, unequivocally, NO. pic.twitter.com/2tqb97WBQu

— Shawn Farash (@Shawn_Farash) July 22, 2025

Promoting this legislation, Salazar contends.

We give them dignity. At some point in the future, another legislator would write another law to give them a path to citizenship. Right now, what we need to do is bring peace for these people, allow them to stay, continue working, because they are needed. 

I wouldn't bet on another legislator writing a law in the future to give immigrants a path to citizenship.  f Salazar believes- a big "if"- another legislator would write a law in the future to give immigrants a path to citizenship,  It hasn't happened in the nearly 40 years since President Ronald Reagan enacted a bill giving illegal immigrants amnesty- the latter a term he actually, proudly, invoked. Second-class status legalization without citizenship-  was, and would be- very attractive to employers and monied interests. 

Salazar continues

All I'm trying to do is bring some common sense, which is the least common of all senses, to this conversation. The economy needs them. They do not have a criminal record. They have not gotten into trouble. They have been here for a long time. They have roots in the country. Let them stay. Don't give them any type of federal programs. And allow them to pay taxes, help the Social Security fund, and let them stay, contribute to the economy with no criminal record. What's wrong with that? We need them!

The economy needs some of them, not "them."  It needs a whole lot of immigrants or migrants, legal or illegal, in the agricultural sector. Picking crops is not a common career aspiration for many young people. Elsewhere in the economy, the nation  would benefit from fair wages. 

The federal minimum wage was raised to $7.25 per hour in July of 2008. Although many states have a higher minimum wage, twenty states have not raised it beyond $7.25. ($7.25 in July 2008 has the same buying power as $10.63 in June, 2025.) Meanwhile, wages have not come near to keeping up with productivity gains nor with the explosion in corporate profits.or CEO compensation.

The bill, co-sponsored by Representative Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) is comprehensive, complex, and would completely overhaul the immigration system. It includes several wise, and a smaller number of unwise, provisions.

Unfortunately, the legislation reflects a concept of immigration common among elites.  Salazar imagines "they have roots in this country."

Here illegally, they do not have meaningful roots. They don't have meaningful roots because, through their fault and that of the federal government, they are not citizens. If we the public wishes immigrants to have "roots in the country," we can provide them a relatively inexpensive, uncomplicated, and smooth pathway to citizenship. Our goal for individuals who want to reside in the USA should not be legalization but citizenship.

Individuals in the country illegally should be removed, though not as it is being done in the Trump Administration, simulating a police state. If they are here legally, they should not be relegated to purgatory status. "Legalization" without citizenship should be spurned.

Enforcement of immigration laws is difficult: should agricultural workers be exempt from deportation? should hospitality workers be exempt? But the goal should be clear, and it is not to expand a class of second-class citizens. It should be to identify residents who are considered eligible for citizenship, and then to encourage them to become citizens- to become full-fledged Americans, with the rights and benefits to which we all are entitled.

Share |

"White" Is Not An Insult

Ana Navarro and Brad Palumbo had a spirited argument on CNN's "NewsNight' on July 14. The clip as presented on Brad Palumbo's podcast, in which the pertinent clip begins at 1:54, is immediately below. On her podcast, Megyn Kelly vigorously attacked Navarro and defended Palumbo in a podcast which appears to show an edited- and slightly misleading- version of the argument.

   

Navarro (AN): Millions of people out there protesting in small cities and big cities, small protests and huge protests, defying, uh, the fear, defying the reign of terror.

Palumbo (BP): You're definitely being hyperbolic. You talk about a reign of terror when the doomsday alarm from Democrats or from media critics is always at a 10. It doesn't hit the same.

AN: Honestly, also I want to respond to you saying that I was hyperbolic when I talked about a reign of terror.

BP: That is hyperbolic.

AN: No, it's- it might be hyperbolic for you as a white man.

BP: Oh, O.K.

AN: It's certainly not hyperbolic for me as a Latino. No, I'm not being racist.

BP: Incredible to dismiss my opinion for being a white man.

AN: No, I'm not dismissing your opinion. I am tell you that- what the Latino community in America-

(crosstalk)

AN: O.K., let me speak with my voice. And you said I was being hyperbolic. 

(crosstalk)

AN: Let me respond- I'm not.

(crosstalk)

AN: Being a white man is an insult?

BP: When you invoke it to dismiss my opinion-

AN: Being a white man is an insult? Do you think Latinos are living under circumstances that other people may not be right now?

In the Megyn Kelly podcast with guest Rich Lowry, Kelly remarks (beginning at 1:12)

Unbelievable. Unbelievable. It was said and then Abby Phillip allowed it and defended it. Derelict in her duty as the anchor, first of all, and he was 100% right to call her out.

As shown in the Palumbo video (way above), Phillip ended the segment with

We're about to have a whole conversation about that very thing. But I just want to make a point that Brad, all she's saying is that her view of the situation is different yours. I don't think that's an insult. She basically said "I see it differently from you," which is not an insult. It's not.

That was nearly perfect. Unfortunately, Phillip added "also, it's not a racial explanation." 

It was a racial explanation. However, a racial explanation is not necessarily racist, and it was not in the case of Navarro's remarks. All racism is racial- but not everything racial is racist.

Navarro was merely explaining that the Latino community in the USA sees the immigration issue differently than do most white men (actually, most whites of either sex/gender) and thus has a different opinion on the issue. Their perspective is different. She did not suggest that Palumbo as a white man is not entitled to his opinion or even that his view is necessarily wrong. Unavoidably, the Latino community is going to see it through a different lens, either more or less accurately.

Kelly was incensed at Phillip for condoning Navarro's remark(s) and contended (2:05)  "I mean, how dare she allow that to happen on her set? And how dare they keep booking Ana Navarro, whose bread and butter is comments like this?"

In general, but especially when discussing immigration, the individual(s) responsible for booking decisions appreciates getting the perspective of a Latino, especially one such as Navarro, who already had a national following because she is a co-host of The View. She is a compelling figure, and the days of television as a strictly "cool" medium are long gone. (See Trump, Donald; also, Sanders, Bernie.) 

Nonetheless, this was the fun part  At 1:59, Miss anti-identity politics Kelly maintained

I don't know if it matters but Brad also happens to be gay. So he checks the minority boxes. Abby Phillip should be interested in defending him to the extent that it was necessary, though he was raising exactly the right point.

Let's clear it up for Kelly, It most certainly does not matter that Palumbo is gay. Phillip should be no more (nor less) interested in defending any of her guests because he or she is gay. Were the discussion about gay rights or the LGBTQQIA community, Palumbo's perspective as a gay man would be relevant. However, he never suggested that his view of the Trump Administration's immigration policy is informed in any way by his sexuality, and it is unclear why or how it would. And gay people need no more (nor less) defending from a news host than does a straight person.

It turns out that "checking the minority boxes" is more important for the right-wing Megyn Kelly- when that "minority" is a conservative- than it is for most people on the left. Perhaps it's unsurprising for a pundit who asserts that Jesus, a first-century Palestinian, and Santa Claus, a mythical figure, were white.

That's ignoring reality, which was at the heart of this clash. Ignoring race is not proof of objectivity and raising its issue is no evidence of racism. It can, as it was in this case, merely a recognition of reality.

Share |

Scott Jennings Finally Disagrees With Donald Trump

As Mediaite recounts

A CNN panel exploded on Thursday after one guest claimed President Donald Trump “supposedly got shot,” leading to Scott Jennings demanding an immediate correction.

On CNN NewsNight, Abby Phillip had to wrangle control of her panel after podcaster Touré exclaimed that Trump “supposedly” was shot in July 2024 in Butler, Pennsylvania. The comment came during a discussion about the president’s health.

Adrienne Elrod, a former campaign spokesperson for former Vice President Kamala Harris, accused the White House of having “not always been forthcoming” about the current president’s health following White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressing Trump’s bruised hands, chalking it up to “minor soft tissue irritation from frequent handshaking, and the use of aspirin” after reading a note from the president’s physician.

Elrod also brought up the point that Trump appeared to forget that he appointed Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.

Daring to be politically incorrect

“He supposedly got shot in the ear. We never heard from his doctors about that,” Touré added, immediately setting off Jennings, a senior CNN correspondent, and conservative pundit Ben Ferguson.

“Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Did you say supposedly?” Jennings asked, then pointing to the podcaster next to him and saying, “Abby, Abby,” to the panel’s anchor.

“If y’all stop screaming at the table, maybe I can actually respond,” Phillip said over the crosstalk.

“Supposedly,” Jennings said in frustration.

“Supposedly. That’s where we’re at now,” Ferguson added. “Touré, he was shot in the ear.”

Supposedly. That's where we're at now. Toure, he was shot in the ear.

Don't blame Toure, who said merely "supposedly." Instead, blame the only two individuals who have de facto stated that candidate Trump was not struck in the ear by a bullet. Objective yet sentient, Phillip continued as if she were a professional mediator and

“Hold on a second!” Phillip said. “Touré, he was shot in the ear.”

“But did we hear from the doctors? We would always hear from his doctors when he gets shot?” Touré asked.

“Did we hear from his doctors?” Phillip then asked Jennings.

“I mean, all I know is I went to the Republican National Commission and he had a bandage on his ear,” Jennings answered.

“That would be a no,” Touré said.

That indeed would be a "no" but

“He had blood on his face! Where did it come from?” Jennings asked.

Phillip cut through crosstalk yet again and got things back on track.

“This is not really what we’re talking about because the one of the reasons he released this information is because there were photos of his swelling. There were photos of his hand. They kind of had to say something at some point,” she said. “And look, it’s a benign — hold on — it’s benign condition. He is fine. It’s just a function, frankly, of being an older person.”

"Where it did come from,"  asked Jennings. Without the medical report, we don't know.  It may have come from Trump hitting his head, as he was going down, on the pistol of one of the Secret Service agents. It may have come from Trump scraping his ear against the ground. There may have been another source.

There is no reason to doubt, however, that Trump still takes a baby aspirin prescribed for him years ago. Aspirin is a powerful anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic non-prescription drug. In the latter role, it helps prevent blood clots and in so doing, makes it very likely that a patient will suffer bleeding episodes.

And yet Donald Trump was hit by a bullet and had the presence of mind to yell "Fight! Fight!" It may have happened that way- but two prominent individuals see it otherwise.

On June 6, Vice President Vance stated "I mean, think about it. It's a guy who, not even a year ago nearly took a bullet in the process of campaigning. Went back on the horse the next day." Nearly took a bullet.

JD Vance said Trump “nearly took a bullet” at his Butler rally.

Why did he say “nearly?” pic.twitter.com/Is0eJ4r0X4

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) July 13, 2025

It was only 35 later that his boss would confirm Vance's assessment.  The President told Fox News' Dean Cain "The people that are shooters- not so much, but people that, who are shooters, say "it's almost impossible that that was a miss". And it was a hit (pointing to his ear) but it was a miss."

President @realdonaldtrump was saved in Butler, PA by the Grace of God: “I was really saved by somebody very special…. people that are shooters say it is almost impossible that was a miss." pic.twitter.com/rugD5RODCh

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) July 11, 2025

Almost impossible that that was a miss- but not quite impossible. The President and the Vice President admit that Donald Trump was not hit. Yet, supposedly! supposedly! Jennings and Ferguson should take up their disagreement with Trump himself., the man who slipped and let be known that which is blasphemous for anyone else to suggest even is possible.

Share |

False Idol

Well, yes, on several occasions.

Doesn’t the New Testament say something about ‘false idols’? https://t.co/chfgEzoS5R

— Ellen Barkin (@EllenBarkin) July 15, 2025

Isaiah prophesied from approximately 740 B.C. to approximately 680 B.C., in the early portion to both the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah, and in chapter 44:9-20 maintained 

All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame. Who fashions a god or casts an idol that is profitable for nothing? Behold, all his companions shall be put to shame, and the craftsmen are only human. Let them all assemble, let them stand forth. They shall be terrified; they shall be put to shame together.

Contrasting the fruit of the spirit with the works of the flesh, Paul wrote the Galatians in chapter 5 (19-21) 

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do5 such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

And continues in the first three verses of chapter 6

Brothers,1 if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 

In verses 21-23 of chapter 2, he told the Romans

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Whichever "John" it may have been, his first letter, concerned with an individual's relationship with God, ends with the warning "Dear children, keep yourself from idols."

Habbakuk prophesied around 607 B.C., including in verse 18 of chapter 2

What prophet is an idol when its maker has shaped it, a metal image, a teacher of lies?                               For its maker trusts in his own creation when he makes speechless idols.

Before the whale exhumed Jonah, he prayed to God, concluding with verses 8 and 9 of chapter 2 

Those who cling to worthless idols turn away from God's love for them. But I, with shouts of grateful praise, will sacrifice to you. What I have vowed I will make good. I will say, "Salvation comes from the Lord."

And in the first six verses of Exodus, in the chapter (20) known for the Ten Commandments, Moses noted

And God spoke all these words:

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods (before me. You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments....

So Scripture is clear on God's opinion of idols, those who would construct them, and those whom they'd depict. Nevertheless, five months ago Newsweek reported

As the country observes Presidents Day, one man has honored the occasion by producing a statue to cement Donald Trump's place in the pantheon of American leaders.

Steven Barber, a filmmaker and former combat reporter, told Newsweek that he is "on an incredibly divine path unlike anyone else on earth, to shine the light on American exceptionalism at the highest level."

The imposing statue—Seven feet and 680 pounds of gold-painted bronze atop a granite pedestal—depicts Trump holding a Make America Great Again hat, with his fist raised in the now-infamous "fight, fight, fight" stance from the July 13 assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania.

This fellow Barber is another standard grade idol worshipper. Worse

Described by Barber as "the most impressive significant presidential monument in history," the piece is currently in Colorado and due to be shipped to Trump International Golf Course West Palm Beach, Florida, in the coming days. Members of Congress and other "big folks" have journeyed to see the statue, Barber said, including Colorado Representative and MAGA advocate Lauren Boebert, and the President himself has already thanked Barber for immortalizing his likeness.

It was in June, 2023 that Boebert- whose website proudly proclaims "I believe strong families are the foundation of American society- filed for divorces. However, shortly before that, she remarked at a Christian-themed event 

Are you struggling in your marriage? Begin to speak life into your marriage. Ladies, you were called to something great in your marriage. The power that you have in Christ, for your marriage, is unmatched. And if you start chasing Jesus, with everything that you have, I promise you that your husband will chase you, chasing Jesus. To be able to speak life into a marriage that seems like it's ending is so powerful.

Marjorie Taylor Greene was a critic of both Pope Francis and of Klaus Schwab, the founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum. When in April of this year Francis died and Schwab resigned as head of the board of the WEF, Greene tweeted

Today there were major shifts in global leaderships.

Evil is being defeated by the hand of God.

— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) April 21, 2025

The following month, X's artificial intelligence arm replied "whether she's really a Christian is subjective" to a question about Greene's faith, the Representative replied "{T}he judgement seat belongs to GID, not you a non-human AI platform." Also, Greene appears, for religious reason(), to be skeptical- properly- of cryptocurrency. (Time will tell.)

Many Republicans, including Greene, Boebert, and most notably Mike Johnson, want people to believe that they are Christians and are not shy about it. Though speculation is fair, who is, or is not, a genuine Christian is not for mortal men or women to decide.

But it is fair and accurate to note that these politicians are violating what many theologians believe is not only the first, but also the most important commandment. The Almighty asserts "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" and therefore "You shall have no other gods before me." It suggests

that the essence of true religion is placing the God of Israel, the God of the Bible, as the exclusive object of our worship. If we make the God of the Bible anything less than the exclusive object of our worship, then we have swerved into a false religion.

Critics charge that many Trump enthusiasts have devolved into a cult. But it's worse than a cult. They have established a false religion and the object of their worship is an individual who already has labeled himself the "Chosen One" and whom they increasingly view as a messiah.

Share |

True Love

Don't kid yourself. Ken Langone very much wanted to vote for Donald Trump, and probably did.

🚨BREAKING: Home Depot Co-Founder, who DIDN'T WANT TO VOTE TRUMP, just said Americans are "walking with more bounce" thanks to Trump SAVING the U.S. economy.

"I am sold on Trump."

Trump was right about everything.
pic.twitter.com/jevkDfmEYc

— Bo Loudon (@BoLoudon) July 15, 2025

A long-time GOP donor who supported Nikki Haley for the presidency, Langone once stated that he wouldn't vote for Trump if he won the nomination, evidently because the latter is rude and crude. However, when Trump was ostensibly shot in Butler, Pa. in July, Langone instantly- as he wanted us to believe- became a supporter of the ex-actor. He told Fox News' Neil Cavuto on July 15, 2024

Saturday night is the beginning of an opportunity for him to carve a very significant place in history. I'll tell you why. One guy that ought to be really impacted by Trump's performance Saturday night, if I was Putin across the table from him, I'd say, ‘Hey, I better not bluff or I better not think this guy won't pull the trigger. This guy will pull the trigger.’ He proved that Saturday night.

The Fox Business host claimed "that's a real turnaround because you didn't want to vote for him." But Langone is not some guy at the other end of the bar from you. He is the billionaire founder of Home Depot, and the idea that he was inclined to vote for the Democratic nominee for President until Trump became the victim of an assassination attempt defies credulity.

Not when one knows which side of his bread is buttered. During the general election campaign, the GOP nominee promised to "renew the Trump tax cuts, which were the largest in history, but we will make it even better. There will be no tax on tips. It will all be made up with tariffs."  Trump vowed

a large-scale demolition of government regulations starting on Day One if he returns to the White House.

Trump spent his last administration rolling back Obama-era regulations, including climate, air pollution and water rules, some of which have since been overhauled by President Joe Biden’s team. As he eyes a return to the White House, Trump is signaling an even bigger strike against federal rules if he reclaims the presidency.

On the campaign trail in recent weeks, Trump has promised the “most aggressive regulatory reduction” in the country’s history if he’s reelected....

Trump said last week, “On Day One, I will sign an executive order directing every federal agency to immediately remove every single burdensome regulation driving up the cost of goods"....

(Elon) Musk has embraced the idea of joining Trump as a government efficiency czar. The Tesla CEO and Trump ally said in October that “a bonfire of nonsense regulations would be epic.”

Trump has also said he would order the government to eliminate at least 10 regulations for every new one — an expansion of his first-term policy that promised to slash two regulations for every new one.

And now, of course, the tax cuts, because of course a Republican president slashes the taxes of the wealthy. If there is a higher god for Republicans than slashing regulations protecting consumers and workers, it's reducing the taxes of the rich, both the core of shoving wealth upward. No doubt the ultra-rich Langone pals around with are "walking around with more bounce in their step." The "they" who have more bounce in their step have much reason to be doing cartwheels. the impact upon federal incomes of the megabill recently signed by the President will find

some 60% of the benefits would go to those making $217,000 or more (the top 20%). These folks would receive an average tax cut of $12,500, or 3.4% of their after-tax income, in 2026, the analysis found.

But the lowest-income households, who earn about $35,000 or less, would receive an average tax cut of only $150, less than 1% of their after-tax income. Middle-income households would see their taxes reduced by about $1,800, or 2.3% of their after-tax income, on average.

This analysis does not take into account the historic cuts to the nation’s safety-net program, which would hurt lower-income Americans. They would see their income reduced after factoring in the changes to Medicaid and food stamps, according to a report from the Budget Lab at Yale.

In December, 2017 Ken Langone claimed that he would "feel better when we address the debt, when we address the deficit, in a way where we're doing this over a period of time." Now he says "I am sold on" the architect of a bill which is likely to add $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.

It's not accurate that Ken Langone "didn't want  to vote for Trump." He merely wanted traditional GOP exploitation of middle, working, and lower class people, as well as significant tax breaks for the wealthy and the very wealthy, to be administered by Nikki Haley or someone less personally offensive than Donald J. Trump. And when it comes down to a choice, Langone and his fellow travelers always remember that the bottom line is wealth and power, and it comes with an (R) after the last name.

Share |

Agreement on Deception

They're saying the quiet parts out loud but it doesn't even matter.

In early June, Vice President James David Vance sat for an interview with what PBS described as "''manosphere' comedian Theo Von, who last month joked about snorting drugs off a mixed-race baby and the sexuality of men in the U.S. Navy when he opened for Trump at a military base in Qatar."  Somehow, PBS omitted what should be a rather curious- and is damning remark- made by the Veep. Fortunately, Raw Story reported

Referring to Trump, Vance said, "I mean, think about it. It’s a guy who, not even a year ago nearly took a bullet in the process of campaigning. Went back on the horse the next day."

He continued:

"And if you look, obviously I’m biased, but you look at what we’ve done on the border, you look at what we’ve done with trade, fighting back against a generation of theft of the American Dream, which is what the president’s trade policies are starting to do. I just think you’ve gotta have some respect for him and say, ‘Look, we don’t have to agree on every issue.’ I’m talking about if you’re Elon Musk. We don’t have to agree on every issue. But is this war actually in the interest of the country? I don’t think so."

Raw Story is not The New York Times or the Congressional Record. However

JD Vance said Trump “nearly took a bullet” at his Butler rally.

Why did he say “nearly?” pic.twitter.com/Is0eJ4r0X4

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) July 13, 2025

Vance made his de facto admission in the interview taped on June 6, 2025. Thirty-five days later, President Donald Trump in a Fox News journ- well, person, anyway- would make the same admission.

President @realdonaldtrump was saved in Butler, PA by the Grace of God: “I was really saved by somebody very special…. people that are shooters say it is almost impossible that was a miss." pic.twitter.com/rugD5RODCh

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) July 11, 2025

Unlike Vance, Trump is quick on his feet and has a little self-awareness. When he conceded "the people that are shooters... say "it's almost impossible that that was a miss," he quickly reversed himself- sort of-and added "and it was a hit but it was a miss."

Now that the Vice President and the President have unmistakably acknowledged that Donald Trump was not hit by a bullet on July 13, 2025, the media will- oh, who's kidding whom? This is analogous to Trump once bragging that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes. His Administration is making it clear that his camp lied when it claimed that he was shot in Butler, Pa Yet, the media persist in taking as gospel the nearly impossible, that Trump's ear was struck by a bullet traveling at 3200 feet per second and in a few days exhibited no scratch or scar. 

And all that without Donald Trump, who always demands to be the center of attention, authorizing release of a medical report. This is a media which at arguably its most important moment, is failing the public miserably.

 

Share |