Language

On Wednesday, The Guardian reported

The Trump administration is facing rare bipartisan pushback for firing the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), amid turmoil at the US’ top infectious disease agency that prompted dozens of staff to walk out of its headquarters in protest on Thursday.

The White House has said Susan Monarez, who was confirmed as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just a month ago, was fired as she was “not aligned with the president’s agenda” – only for Monarez to refuse to depart. The official’s lawyers have said that, as a Senate-confirmed appointee, only Donald Trump himself can remove her….

Monarez was reportedly fired by Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary, for refusing to remove agency officials and committing to restricting proven vaccines....

“We are witnessing a full-blown war on science, on public health, and on truth itself,” (Senator Bernie) Sanders said. “In just six months, Secretary Kennedy has dismantled the vaccine review process, narrowed access to life-saving Covid vaccines and filled scientific advisory boards with conspiracy theorists and ideologues.”

As explained by Trump chronicler Michael Wolff, Mr. Kennedy was nominated for Health and Human Services secretary so that Donald Trump, responsible in his first term for Operation Warp Speed, could shore up the anti-Covid vaccine portion of his base. He is as much a public health menace as Senator Sanders maintains and the upheaval at the CDC ratches up the danger. Things turned silly, generously speaking:

The Trump administration shows no sign of backing down, however. In a press briefing on Thursday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, criticized one of the departing CDC officials for using the term “pregnant people” in his resignation letter.

“I understand there were a few other individuals who resigned after the firing of Ms Monarez,” she said. “One of those individuals wrote in his departure statement that he identifies pregnant women as pregnant people, so that’s not someone we want in this administration anyway.”

The official, Demetre Daskalakis, resigned from his position as director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC on Wednesday, accusing the administration of using the agency to “generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health”.

Daskalakis responded to Leavitt’s remarks in an interview on CNN. “I find it outrageous that this administration is trying to erase transgender people,” he said.

“I very specifically used the term pregnant people, and very specifically added my pronouns at the end of my resignation letter to make the point that I am defying this terrible strategy at trying to erase people and not allowing them to express their identities.

“So I accept the note from the press secretary and I counter that with: I don’t care.”

This is just such a stupid argument. Speaking of which...

Call me crazy, but if you tell me men can get pregnant, you have ZERO credibility with me on anything to do with health.

Why would I listen to a word you say if you fail basic biology?

Once again, I find myself being screamed at for taking the top side of a 97-3 issue 🤷‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/xnJgJrJiyK

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) August 29, 2025

Jennings began by complaining "I just have to say, he did use the term 'pregnant people.'" In the interests of parsimony, I will, uncharacteristically, keep it short: "pregnant people" is a silly term.

The phrase is "pregnant women" or, in some instances, "women who are pregnant." And that goes aside from the issue of whether it is currently, or will be in the future, possible for men to get pregnant.

Demetre Daskalakis, the CDC official with the great surname, should have made his remarks without invoking "pregnant people," which served only to give Karoline Leavitt an opportunity to twist the issue and stir up more hatred and divisiveness.  It was a shout out to the anti-LGBTQIA portion of the GOP basis, valuable because it's an issue which Trump, he of the whatever is in the Epstein files, does not want to deal with.

If Jennings had merely called for clear and unambiguous language shorn of political correctness, he would have been sensible. However, as someone wishing and hoping that the Big Guy in Washington will give him a blessing for a Senate run to replace the retiring Mitch McConnell, the Kentuckian couldn't leave it at that once Leavitt idiotically commented that because Daskalakis "identifies pregnant women as pregnant people, so that's not someone we want in this administration, anyway."

Host Abby Philip is somewhat disingenuous but in relevant part correct when she rhetorically asks Jennings

Are you serious- that of all the things we're talking about here- immunization, vaccines, autism, research on communicable diseases, on cancer. Are you- are the most concerned about someone's use of the word "people?" That's the most important issue?

Actually, Jennings was concerned about the phrase "pregnant people," rather than the word "people," and he has a right to be. Still, Philip came very close to the heart of the problem fundamental to Jennings' objection. All these matters- immunization, vaccines, autism, communicable diseases, cancer, and research on these and others- are far more important than language.

Or at least in this case. Jennings responds to Philip "because you were just complaining about the politicization of science and I can't think of- I can't think of politicization of science more than that."

Yes, he can. Daskalakis would have been politicizing science if the issue had been transgenderism. However, in his bold and thorough (nine paragraphs, 115 lines) emailed resignation letter, Daskalakis addressed that issue only once, citing "the recklessness of the administration in their effort to erase transgender populations." His only reference to "pregnant people" came in a different context.

Which is to say: the LGBTQIA issue was peripheral to his resignation and "pregnant people" nearly irrelevant. Yet, it was central to Jennings and Leavitt. Long gone are the days when conservative Republicans railed against "political correctness"; a good thing, too, because that's exactly what those two are leaning upon when they get bent out of shape with the use of a term,  "pregnant people," largely incidental to the topic. Science wasn't being politicized; language was being politicized, and even I don't consider that a crime.

There also was a time when the right believed in merit, or at least claimed to do so. Yet, here was the press secretary for a Republican president maintaining that the spoken word, a reference to "pregnant people," disqualified someone for a job; and a GOP strategist arguing that someone who uses the wrong language is proof he is ignorant on other, unrelated subjects.

On the other hand, Karoline Leavitt seems to be back conspicuously displaying a cross, so she is on God's side and right about everything and I'll deny I ever criticized her. 

Share |

Loathsome Leavitt

John Adams once stated "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."  Mark Twain said something similar and even the generally wrong conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro understood "facts don't care about your feelings."

So true- and yet so quaint.

Reacting to the school shooting in Minneapolis on Wednesday, MSNBC host and former press secretary to President Joe Biden:

Prayer is not freaking enough. Prayers does not end school shootings. prayers do not make parents feel safe sending their kids to school. Prayer does not bring these kids back. Enough with the thoughts and prayers.

— Jen Psaki (@jrpsaki) August 27, 2025

Personally, aside from residing to particular claims from the right, I would have confided my comments on this matter to the continuing danger of having firearms in the hands of criminals and individuals seemingly mentally disturbed, including those of Robin Westman.  If the turf of religion or theology is not a comfortable one, better to relinquish it to others.  

It's territory a little more familiar for Karoline Leavitt, President Trump's press secretary, but she is wrong nonetheless.

 

Responding to a question about Psaki's remarks, Leavitt, with a captive audience and safely ensconced behind a podium with the immunity conveyed by the cross she prominently sports, charged

I saw the comments of my predecessor and frankly, I think they're incredibly insensitive and disrespectful to the tens of millions of Americans of faith who believe in the power of prayer, who believe that prayer works, and who believe that in a time of mourning like this when beautiful young children were killed while praying in a church. It's utterly disrespectful to deride the power of prayer in this country and it's disrespectful to the millions of Americans of faith who need it now more than ever.

Psaki wisely emphasized her opinion that Psaki's words were "incredibly insensitive and disrespectful."  Insensitive and disrespectful reflect conventional wisdom and are solidly- in the words of early 21st century conservatives- politically correct. They are, spoken by the right, ironically critical of sentiment which is politically incorrect. There are few greater sins than being insensitive and disrespectful. 

But if the likes of Adams, Twain, and Shapiro (whom, as far as I know, has not weighed in on this issue) are correct, concern about insensitivity and disrespectfulness must give way to the facts. As David Hume understood, "a wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence."

As should a wise woman, were she also a sincere one, which as Leavitt continually evidences, cannot be any more presumed of a Christian than of a non-Christian. To be clear: being insensitive and disrespectful- which are subjective assessments, anyway- does not preclude an individual from being accurate or correct.

Prayer may indeed be efficacious, though scientific study of it is generally lacking and the question is sufficiently complex that a definitive answer may not be reached by objective analysts for decades, if ever. However, Leavitt is not here claiming anything about the power of prayer. She refers (emphasis mine)  to "the millions of Americans of faith who need it now more than ever."

Leavitt is not recommending prayer for the benefit of the individuals murdered and others shot, nor for their loved ones. She's encouraging it for "the millions of Americans," for people in this country writ large. She's arguing that the "need it now more than ever." If Leavitt is not advocating prayer- and she is not- because she believes it will stem school shootings- and she is not- it must raise suspicion that she is touting prayer to divert attention from prevention of such incidents.

And why, pray tell (pun intended), would those Americans need it now more than ever or more than they did a week ago? The obvious answer is that they need it in order to feel better, to be comforted, which should not be the major aim of prayer.  As one Pentecostal minister has put it, "The primary purpose of prayer is not to change circumstances; the primary purpose of prayer is to change us! But either way, the chief objective remains the same: to glorify God in any and every situation."

Contrary to Leavitt's accusation, Psaki did not even contend that prayer does not work. She said "prayer is not freaking enough," the unfortunate "freaking" added either in annoyance or to gain a little more attention. 

If prayer is effective, it has not ended school shootings nor, for that matter, other violent crime.  Moreover, those who call for "thoughts and prayers" are usually individuals who never give a thought to prayer. The larger irony, though, is that Karoline Leavitt speaks, lies, and insults journalists and others for a President who excoriates the the poor, the sick, the homeless, immigrants and even deceased veterans. When adorned with a cross and proclaiming her Christian faith, Leavitt stands before the media and public, she should ponder how that fits in with the words and desire of the founder and cornerstone of her church.

Share |

At Donald Trump's Discretion

The point that conservative journalist Jonah Goldberg is making is a good one.  It's not a small one, either.

This is just a bunch of bs. I’m sorry I live in DC. Miller is simply making stuff up. I mean I do believe DC is marginally safer now. But this version of DC where moms are coming out of their bunkers for the first time and everyone is rapturous is just a lie. It’s not a small one… https://t.co/7PkMF0PJ9q

— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) August 26, 2025

 

On second reading, I realized that Goldberg meant "I'm sorry but I live in D.C."  Evidently, crime is not not quite as bad in the District as Trump, Steve Miller, et al. claim because

More than 2,200 troops, some from as far away as Mississippi and Louisiana, have been deployed in D.C. since Trump’s declaration of a “crime emergency” here. Ostensibly, they were mobilized to support federal law enforcement and local police, but in recent days those orders have expanded to encompass “beautification” tasks such as trash removal and groundskeeping around the National Mall and other federal property. Service members may work on removing graffiti, too.

Typically, custodial work like this falls to the National Park Service, which was already facing staffing shortfalls when the Trump administration this spring directed additional cuts as it gutted the federal workforce. The service used to have 200 people assigned to maintain thousands of acres of trees and gardens in D.C., and now there are 20, a Park Service official told The Post

Assigning members of the Guard to do work that in many jurisdictions is typically done by prisoners or offenders serving a sentence of probation is a misuse of their training and skills and makes them feel like volunteers or criminals being punished. However, on a positive note, these Guard members are not being called to perform police work, for which they are untrained.

Quite the national emergency the President has declared. Had crime there recently spiked or even been on a steady incline over the past few years, the executive order the President signed directed the Attorney General to address "the crime emergency and ensure public order and safety." Despite the many cynics- especially conservatives, but also moderates and even liberals- the reality that violent crime has declined in the District is no insignificant matter.

The declaration of emergency is akin to the President's contention that  economically, other countries are "robbing us blind."  While Trump frequently complains about himself being the victim, he periodically whines about the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth being taken advantage of. And now, we are being "robbed":

If I didn't win this election, this country was gone- I'm telling you- economically, it was gone. None of these things we're talking about would have happened and the shole world was robbing us blind. Friend and foe, they were stealing our jobs, our money, our factories. They were stealing everything. We would have been a shell. We would have been a bankrupt, broken shell.

Without  him, he's lecturing, the country economically "was gone," a falsehood that nonetheless could claimed as a pretext for doing- well, whatever he chose to do. And so now, in a different context, the President has established "specialized units" in the National Guard, specifically rained and equipped to deal with public order issues." CNN finds this "the clearest sign yet he intends to expand the US military's role in domestic law enforcement activities across the country." 

After fewer than two months into this term, the President threatened to decrease funding for colleges which permitted what he termed "illegal" protests and deport foreign-born students who participated in them. And soon, "public order"  Foreign students- for now.

He isn't entitled to any action he wishes to take- constitutionally. However, he has vowed not to let that stop him.

Trump on deploying the National Guard to Chicago: "I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the president of the United States." pic.twitter.com/CR2T6Srb5C

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 26, 2025

"If I think our country is in danger, and it is in danger in these cities, I can do it," saith the President. There need not be an emergency or the USA in crisis. He himself need only believe (or say) that the country is in danger- as it always is to some degree- from crime, protests, foreign enemies, the economy, or anything. Or nothing. As Steve Schmidt says (at 7:50), "There's a tank on a street near you- or maybe it's just coming to you soon. But it's coming." 

Share |

As the British Would Say, "Rubbish"

Former Ohio senator and current Vice President and master of irony:

JD Vance on Russia-Ukraine: "What I admire about the president is he's not trying to focus on every nitpicky detail of how this thing started three and a half year ago, he's trying to focus on the nitpicky details of now." pic.twitter.com/UCXG63U317

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 24, 2025

Focusing on a nitpicky detail of how the thing started three and a half years ago is exactly what Donald Trump has done. He always has blamed Ukraine, invaded from the east, for starting the war with Russia. As President, on February 18 he told reporters at Mar-a-Lago of Volodymyr Zelensky "You should have never started it. You could have made a deal." At the White House on April 14, he stated "you don't start a war against someone 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles."   And speaking on Fox and Friends the day after the August 19 summit with European leaders, he argued 

Russia is a powerful military nation. You know, whether people like it or not, it's a powerful nation. It's a much bigger nation. It's not a war that should have been started. You don't do that. You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size.

Donald Trump likes and admires Vladimir Putin. Putin projects strength, as does the American President.  However, unlike Trump, the Russian President is in total control of his country, a goal Trump obviously has set for himself.

And wealthy, perhaps the fourth richest individual in the world. Although we don't know the source of his wealth

The Russian president is worth up to $200 billion, according to financier Bill Browder. Once the largest foreign investor in Russia, Browder testified in 2017 that Putin's wealth was amassed after the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky was jailed in 2003 for fraud and tax evasion.

"After Khodorkovsky's conviction, the other oligarchs went to Putin and asked him what they needed to do to avoid sitting in the same cage as Khodorkovsky," Browder told the US Senate Judiciary Committee. "From what followed, it appeared that Putin's answer was, '50%.'"

That $200 billion estimate would make Putin one of the richest people in the world, behind Elon Musk and Amazon boss Jeff Bezos, and above Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Putin is often photographed wearing "high-end luxury watches" that retail "for multiple times his supposed annual income", said Fortune. He is also rumoured to be the owner of numerous homes and hundreds of cars, as well as dozens of aircraft and helicopters.

His "lavish lifestyle" is regularly "on display" said the UK Foreign Office in 2022, after the war with Ukraine broke out and the new sanctions on Russia were announced.

That's very important. As former Trump national security advisor John Bolton has explained, "if Trump believes that he has friendly relations with someone, you know, like Vladimir Putin, then relations between the two countries will be much better."

As a consequence, Trump

has made a habit of blurring the boundary between domestic policy grievances and foreign policy goals. He is uniquely vulnerable to manipulation, critics say, because he views national and international affairs through a single prism of self-interest. 

And so the American President has embraced Vladimir Putin and the latter's argument and rhetoric, which makes it less likely that an outcome critical to the security of Ukraine and the European continent will be achieved. That's hardly the stuff of "nitpicky details."

 

Share |

Not a Hoax, and Not For Publication

While first running for, and serving, his first term as President, Donald Trump used the term "hoax" almost 800 times.  He hasn't let up, and he is not letting up

Trump: “It's a Democrat hoax. It's just a hoax. The whole Epstein thing is a Democrat hoax.”
pic.twitter.com/AokjK6PWog

— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) August 23, 2025

Nonetheless, Attorney General Pam Bondi has signaled that the Epstein matter, especially as it applies to Donald J. Trump, is no hoax.

She first told us on February 21, 2025. Asked by Fox News America Reports host John Roberts whether "the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients" will be released, Bondi replied "It's sitting on my desk right now to review."

There probably is no actual list of men to whom Epstein supplied women for their carnal pleasure. Flight logs (to Epstein Island and elsewhere), a Rolodex-type record of contact numbers, sure; yet ironically, the list the right-wing has been pining for, unlikely.

However, the files are extremely vast and

When Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed President Donald Trump in May on the Justice Department’s review of the documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, she told him that his name appeared in the files, sources familiar with the discussion told CNN.

The conversation, which also included Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, was characterized by two White House officials as a “routine briefing” that covered the scope of the Justice Department’s findings. Trump’s name appearing in the files, they said, was not the sole focus of the discussions.

Translation: she told him, but we discussed other things, too. Three days prior to that conversation, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois, had sent to FBI director Kash Patel a letter requesting a response to 15 questions Durbin posed. The Senator noted that "according to information my office received," Attorney General Bondi

pressured the FBI to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division (IMD), including the Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS), which handles all requests submitted by the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act, on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrarily short deadline. This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBT New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests.

My office was told that these personnel were instructed to "flag" any records in which President Trump was mentioned.

In 2013, a group supporting Florida Attorney General Bondi accepted an illegal $25,000 contribution from the Donald J. Trump Foundation. The A.G.'s office thereafter declined to join a New York lawsuit against the Foundation despite 22 complaints against the latter and related entities.

That same Pam Bondi, now the US Attorney General de jure and de facto attorney for Donald Trump, pressures the FBI to assign 1,000 employees to review on 24-hour shifts approximately 100,00 Epstein-related files. They were expected to flag any records with a reference to Donald Trump so documents could be quickly released.

Yet, a "hoax."  Responding to a subpoena, the Justice Department on Friday gave to the House Oversight Committee a few files, no doubt those in which they've thus far been able to redact Trump's name. 

They all would be released, and with no redactions, if the President could make his name- and that of his wife- disappear without it being obvious. As usual, however, Trump's political instincts are sound. It might be Donald Trump's rape of women or of girls, or both; involvement in extensive money laundering schemes; Vladimir Putin's awareness of Trump's past and subsequent control of the American president; bygone activities of Melania Trump, nee Knauss; any combination of the other, or worse. 

President Trump, Pam Bondi, and possibly Kash Patel know that the full, unredacted Epstein files cannot be released and will make sure they're not.  If somehow they were, the political careers of Donald J. Trump and probably others would be over. 

Share |

A Cowardly Kind of Swagger

 

 

Share |

Ending Something or Other, Maybe

There he goes again. At Trump International Golf Course in Scotland on July 29, Trump claimed "We did one yesterday. You know, we stopped the war, but we stopped about five wars. So that's much more 

          

The Guardian notes

Trump and his administration have claimed to have helped settle the conflicts between Israel and Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, Cambodia and Thailand, India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo, and Egypt and Ethiopia.

Yet the claim to have settled those conflicts is embellished and in some cases contradicted by continued violence in countries like DR Congo, where Rwanda-backed rebels missed a deadline to reach a peace deal in Doha on Tuesday.

In Iran, the US carried out its own strikes using bunker-buster bombs against military and nuclear facilities before strong-arming Iran to accept a ceasefire. India has denied that Trump played any role in reaching a ceasefire deal with Pakistan to end days of strikes over the disputed Kashmir territory in May. Egypt and Ethiopia have no deal to settle the root of their conflict – a Nile River dam constructed by Ethiopia that would divert water from Egypt. And Serbia has denied it had any plans to pursue a war with Kosovo, although Trump took credit for preventing one.

The idea that President Trump has ended or resolved six or more conflicts or wars in this term has become a talking point for not only the President, but GOP strategists and pundits, implying or stating outright that he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

It can be five wars, as the President contended in Scotland. Or it can be "six wars," as Trump trumpeted on the day of his meeting with President Zelenskyy.

 

 Or it can be seven conflicts or wars, as effective Trump apologist Scott Jennings recently boasted on Abby Philip's CNN NewsNight.

On Israel-Iran, Donald Trump declared a "Complete and Total CEASEFIRE" after American forces largely destroyed one of three nuclear sites targeted. Politifact wrote that the President's "decision to bomb Iran likely ended the conflict more quickly." Even so, it concluded that "Trump's statement (i.e., of having ended six wars) contains an element of truth but it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False."

President Trump, or more likely Secretary of State Marco Rubio, does deserve a small amount of credit for at least making an effort. But the cessation of wars turns out to have been ceasefires and in some cases, not even a ceasefire. And in Israel's fight against Hamas, effectively won several months ago, Trump made matters worse when it supported the blockade by the Israeli government of the Gaza strip on March 2, facilitating famine by preventing shipments of food, water, shelter, and medication. More damaging to peace and justice in the region, Israel has since the beginning of the second Trump Administration more actively sought ethnic cleansing/transfer of Gazans from Gaza. 

President Trump has emboldened the government in Jerusalem, whose policy has been dictated by religious extremism. In eastern Europe, he has emboldened Vladimir Putin by his lukewarm support of Kiev.

Nonetheless, at the end of the first seven months of his Administration, President Trump has been less destructive globally than domestically. He has not been a total disaster on the international front, though closer to that than to the great peacemaker his disciples insist he is..

Share |

Passive-Aggressive Won't Cut It

As Philip Bump notes, the issue over public safety in the nation's capital is heating up as

Governors of three states — Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia — are sending members of their state National Guards to D.C. to … well, theoretically to combat crime but, if the past week is any indicator, mostly to stand near tourist sites and wear uniforms.

This isn’t because there’s no crime in D.C. to combat (of course there is, as the right-wing media insists one acknowledge) but because the mission as established by President Trump isn’t really about that. Crime is simply the pretext Trump is using to put into effect his long-standing desire to deploy troops on the streets of D.C. Maybe it’s a lingering frustration from what happened in 2020; maybe it’s about pressing his thumb down on a city that voted heavily against him. Either way, it is not centrally about crime.

It's not centrally about crime but more like a trial run as

President Donald Trump said he might expand his crackdown on crime in the nation's capital to other major U.S. cities as he announced plans to send 800 National Guard troops into Washington, D.C.

Trump singled out New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago and Oakland, California during a Monday, Aug. 11, news conference as potential future targets in what would be a drastic escalation of federal presence on the streets of American cities.

Nonetheless, Bump is right that it's partially about exerting control over a city demonstrably anti-Trump. New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, and Oakland all voted heavily against Donald Trump- as did the states of New York, California, Maryland, and Illinois.

The city of New Orleans (not exactly this City of New Orleans) also turned thumbs down on him. However, the governor of Louisiana is a Republican, as are the other top executive branch officials, both houses of the state legislature, and its two US senators. It routinely, routinely, and overwhelmingly, opts for the GOP nominee in presidential elections.

New Orleans traditionally is a haven of violent crime. However, as in Baltimore and some other major cities, violent crime is way down in 2025.  Its junior Senator:

 

If you don’t think Washington, D.C. has a crime problem, then try walking around H Street, Columbia Heights, or Navy Yard on a Wednesday night and see for yourself.

The tofu mob should be thanking President Trump for helping instead of having their 19th nervous breakdown. pic.twitter.com/bsmFGGbquc

— John Kennedy (@SenJohnKennedy) August 13, 2025

Senator Kennedy also has criticized Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and NYC Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani in an effort to ridicule the "loon wing" of the Democratic Party.  Always playing nice, the Democratic Party has not struck back, leading Steve M of No More Mister Nice Blog to argue

Imagine if Schumer surprised Kennedy by punching back. Imagine if he pointed out that Kennedy's home state of Louisiana has one of the worst crime rates in the country, and that his state's largest city, New Orleans, has the third-highest murder rate of any city in America -- more than twice as high as Washington's murder rate. Imagine if Schumer noted that a just-released study from WalletHub ranks Louisiana as the second-worst state to live in, a state that's dead last economically and second-to-last in terms of education and health. (To be fair, it's only 40th out of the 50 states in terms of safety.)

Leading Democrats have been relatively passive on this issue- and on most for the past four years or so. They have pointed out that Donald Trump, he of the pardoning January 6 criminals (and they can be called exactly that), is a world-class hypocrite on this subject. 

Democrats can hold Republicans such as John Kennedy responsible for the crime in their own jurisdictions.  Squeamish about that, they can deal with Republicans blaming Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton for virtually everything that goes wrong. Democrats then can move on to guns in the hands of juvenile offenders and challenge Republicans to do something about that. Democrats can do much more to turn the tables on the GOP, though the tea leaves suggest they won't.

                     

Share |

It's the Guns, Stupid

This is an old argument which until recently, we hadn't heard much of in years. 

It's NOT the guns. It's the CRIMINALS running around the streets using them to k*ll people.

Republicans put the blame on criminals. Democrats put the blame on inanimate objects. pic.twitter.com/8BNuoAlHhw

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) August 13, 2025

It was usually stated as "guns don't kill people. People kill people." 

The only problem is that it is guns which uniquely kill people. Cars kill people, too- but unlike guns, are not manufactured for the purpose of killing anyone, and get most people to and from work, which is a useful function. Moreover, cars in every state must be registered, whereas there is no firearm registration requirement in 42 states.

  

According to Wikipedia, there are at least six definitions of the term "mass shooting" and by a very expansive definition, 272 individuals were killed in such incidents from 1/1/5 through the end of July.  By contrast, the number of persons killed in mass stabbings in the same period was zero, zilch, none. The latest incident of a mass stabbing occurred on July 26 in America's heartland:

A 42-year-old man is facing charges of terrorism and assault with intent to murder after 11 shoppers were stabbed at a Walmart supermarket in the US state of Michigan.

An assailant used a folding knife to stab five men and six women, including a Walmart employee, on Saturday afternoon in Traverse City.

The victims, ranging in age from 21 to 84, are all expected to survive.

Notice something different about this, Jennings? Eleven strangers brutally attacked by a man wielding a knife with "all expected to survive." (They all had been released from the hospital as of eleven days later.)  If eleven people were shot in one incident, would we expect all to survive- and how often is it that eleven individuals are even wounded by a man with a knife?

People with guns kill people. Arguably, guns themselves don't kill people. But bullets from those firearms surely do.

Share |

Presaging Darker Days

Former U.S. Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois reminds us that President Trump "is operating within the existing laws" in federalizing the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department and sending federal soldiers to the capital city. However

... what he's trying to do is to convince people that he's this big, huge guy that's now, you know, invading Washington, D.C, and that's literally the farthest thing from the truth. So be concerned about this because this is all Donald Trump's thing. he did it in L.A., too, where he's starting, trying to make us numb to, you know, deployments of the D.C. National Guard or any National guard, the federalization of the Guard, which would take another couple of minutes to explain. But basically when Trump activates them and not the mayor or not the governor a a state, uh, they actually are Federal troops. They are not National Guard anymore. D.C. Guard is the exception to that and so, yea, I think it's a pretty bad day but also, let's not feed into this Donald Trump is a big, scary guy narrative because of this. 

Donald Trump is actually a little, weak, tiny man who has to do things like this to feel in any way safe and secure. This dude is President of the united States. He was President twice, literally the most powerful man in the world, and he still has this hole in his soul that he's missing where he whines about everything. He's the biggest victim,, such a crybaby. Everything he does is just "oh, it's so terrible, I'm Donald Trump. How do these people do this?" Like, what a not man, just the weakest man ever.

 

As an armchair psychologist, Kinzinger earns a grade of A. Yet, the President's action is a precursor to something less narrow than applied to one major city. More troubled, the Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch explained in October 2023

In War on the American Republic: How Liberalism Became Despotism, in which he rails against the “cosmopolitan class” of unelected elites he claims is running America, Slack writes that the “New Right now often discusses a Red Caesar, by which it means a leader whose post-Constitutional rule will restore the strength of his people.”

Amidst "crackdowns on universities, the media and vital scientific research," on August 12, 2025 the evidently prescient Bunch wrote 

just as I was finishing work on this newsletter, the Washington Post reported that the Trump regime is weighing a plan for an Alabama-based “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force” comprised of hundreds of National Guard troops that would respond quickly to protests — a constitutionally guaranteed right.

With each new erosion of democracy and freedom, a president whose supporters begged for “a red Caesar” to crush liberals is testing the limits, to see what public opinion, the media reaction, and ultimately the courts and Congress will allow. This unwarranted military occupation of the American capital is the greatest test yet, which is why we need to be clear-eyed about what this is.

Not a distraction. Dictatorship. 

As Kinzinger points out, the Donald Trump would need sixty votes in the USA Senate in order to end self-governance in the D.C. and "I don't see that happening."  

Nonetheless, this President is lawless . So his move on the District is not the primary issue, even though the he is threatening to extend, with congressional approval, the 30-day limit on control of the Metropolitan Police Department.

More concerning is Trump's reference on August 11 to New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, and Oakland, California , couple with his boast "We're not going to lose our cities over this. This will go further. We're starting very strongly with D.C., and we're going to clean it up real quick."

Thus, it is far more than a distraction; it is a harbinger. Yet, the President can be judged by his own words. "We're gong to clean it up real quick," he promises, and that's a challenge to Democrats.  When Trump fails to fulfill his promise, Democrats will have to pivot from "crime in the District is down from where it has been" to "Trump made a vow, and now he's breaking it." It's difficult but can be done.

That would be similar to the President's policy toward the Epstein file, in which he and his personal Attorney General teased release of the entire record and now are trying to move mountains in order not to disclose it. In turn, that fits Kinzinger's portrait of Trump:: he always chickens out (TACO). He promises everything but doesn't deliver because he isn't the man he pretends to be.

Share |

Promises Made, Promises Unkept

If it happened with Jeffrey Epstein, it can happen with the District of Columbia. As ABC News recalls

In June 2024, Trump was asked if he would release various files -- including the John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. assassination files and the Epstein files -- during an interview with Fox News.

"Would you declassify the Epstein files?" Fox News' Rachel Campos-Duffy asked. Trump responded, "Yeah, yeah, I would."

That clip was circulated widely online, including by the Trump War Room -- the social media account of Trump's campaign operation. The account posted it to X with the caption: "President Trump says he will DECLASSIFY the 9/11 Files, JFK Files, and Epstein Files."

But Trump's full answer to the question wasn't shown until it played on Will Cain's radio show.

Trump went on to say in the exchange with Campos-Duffy: "I don't know about Epstein so much as I do the others. Certainly about the way he died. It'd be interesting to find out what happened there, because that was a weird situation and the cameras didn't happen to be working, etc., etc. But yeah, I'd go a long way toward that one."

In September 2024, Trump made a more firm pledge to release Epstein files during a podcast with Lex Fridman.

Fridman, in conversation with Trump, said "it's just very strange for a lot of people that the list of clients that went to the island has not been made public."

"It's very interesting, isn't it? It probably will be, by the way, probably," Trump said.

"If you're able to, you'll be --" Fridman started before Trump jumped in.

"Yeah, I'd certainly take a look at it. Now, Kennedy's interesting because it's so many years ago," Trump said. "They do that for danger too, because it endangers certain people, et cetera, et cetera, so Kennedy is very different from the Epstein thing but I'd be inclined to do the Epstein. I'd have no problem with it."

 And then in February of this year

Asked on Fox News if the DOJ would publish Epstein’s client list, Pam Bondi replied: “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review. That’s been a directive by President Trump.” Bondi and the White House have since said that the attorney general was referring to the entire tranche of documents related to the Epstein prosecution, rather than a “client list.”

In May, Attorney General Bondi informed Mr. Trump that his name was in the Epstein files (which of course, it is), though it is not clear how often, or in what context, it appears.

So the President is taking the only course of action- stonewall- he can, strategically.  He has not released the documents while he figures out  how some can be released without himself being implicated. That's a tall order and he and the fully-owned Justice Department would come under serious suspicion if the documents were exposed with the extensive, and likely awkward, redactions necessary.

Yet, the public and the media are being denied the complete files. As a distraction, the Justice Department asked a court (unsuccessfully) to unseal the grand jury transcripts because it knew that a) judges don't like to approve such a thing; and b) the grand jury information is but a tiny portion of the entirety. Through it all, the President's popularity has understandably plummeted as it becomes clearer that middle-aged Donald Trump  (and possibility female members of his family) was involved in very nefarious activities of a sexual or financial nature with Jeffrey Epstein.

It is conventional, and probably valid, wisdom that the President has taken a hit politically because he promised far more than he could deliver.  "I'd be inclined to do the Epstein. I'd have no problem with it." Compounding the problem was the strong suggestion from the Attorney General that those files would see the light of the day. Once she saw whose name was in, and probably saturated, the files, Bondi sang a different tune.

And now that Attorney General, who spoke too soon on Epstein, has made another rookie mistake. It is of the same kind, promising more than she can deliver.

Bondi: "Let me be crystal clear: crime in DC is ending and ending today." pic.twitter.com/oEhCHxG360

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 11, 2025

Bondi is referring to the deployment of approximately 800 National Guard soldiers to the District of Columbia, which began late on August 7, as well as placing the local police department "under direct federal control," in the President's words.  He can do the latter for "federal purposes" under terms of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act when he determines there are "special conditions of an emergency nature." 

Crime is ever-present, especially in major American cities (and some small towns), so there is no "emergency, " especially with violent crime in D.C. lower than it has been the past 30 years. The National Guard is part of the military, not part of law enforcement. Issues of coordination with D.C. police are unresolved and the soldiers will not be operating under the same rules (such as the wearing of masks) as do the municipal police.

Nonetheless, those issues, as well as what this portends for other Democratic-run cities as the Trump Administration continues, are a matter for another day, given that I started this post talking about an apparently unrelated matter.

But only apparently. Trump/Bondi nearly promised disclosure of the Epstein records. They have not done so (and cannot afford to do so in full) and President Trump has taken a political hit for it.

Crime in DC is ending and ending today. Obviously, Democrats cannot on facts win the political argument over National Guard soldiers being sent to the city and the city's police going under federal control. When it comes to crime, facts are optional; they are completely irrelevant. People just know that crime is going up whether it is or it is not, as long as Republicans claim it is rising and Fox News runs frequent video of black people vandalizing, looting, or beating citizens up.  If a Democrat notes that crime is declining, Republicans respond with "even one rape (or shooting or whatever) is too many" or "tell that to" or whatever the zeitgeist demands. The media says "people aren't feeling it," which is their way of saying "you're an idiot even for bringing it up."

Yet, Democrats can hold Republicans up to the standard they've set for themselves: crime disappears. They demanded disclosure of all Epstein documents. Now they say that crime will be vanquished, a goal even Superman could not achieve.

Hold them to it. Emphasize the Administration's promise now. The Attorney General has made a vow neither she nor President Trump can fulfill. Make them own it. And when crime in the nation's capital persists- whether it's down or up- remind everyone that Attorney General Pam Bondi said she would whip it... crush it... smother it. 

Then Democrats themselves could condemn crime, and more credibly than even centrist/moderate Democrats now do. They won't do it, of course, even those Democrats who disingenuously decry "woke" culture, and that goes to the heart of the party's problem. But they should.

Share |

Stand Tall, Spain

For a certain period, Neville Chamberlain also was a particularly consequential figure.

President Donald J. Trump, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan sign peace and economic agreements at the White House pic.twitter.com/yUvKZf0g0r

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 8, 2025

Following negotiations led by President Donald Trump, Armenia and Azerbaijan have signed a peace agreement to settle a dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, currently in Azerbaijan but populated by ethnic Armenians. It includes no guaranteed right of return, ignores Armenians imprisoned by Azerbaijan, and, according to one Armenian leader, undermines Armenia's sovereignty and "rewards war crimes." But it creates within the region a major transit corridor to be named the "Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP)." And it is yet another virtually meaningless deal the USA has negotiated in pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize for Donald Trump. 

And that is a major foreign policy goal of this Administration. It is not, however, Donald Trump's major foreign policy goal- dissolution of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance. Alas, that has hit a significant sang. In March, President Trump 

cast doubt on his willingness to defend Washington’s Nato allies, saying that he would not do so if they are not paying enough for their own defense.

“It’s common sense, right,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them. No, I’m not going to defend them.”

Trump said he had been of this view for years and shared it with NATO allies during his 2017-2021 presidential term. Those efforts prompted more spending from other members of the 75-year-old transatlantic alliance, he said, but that “even now, it’s not enough.”

He added: “They should be paying more.”

Of course, the President did not say "if they do pay, I will defend them," only that if they don't, he won't. Trying to appease a thug often backfires, as Chamberlain sadly discovered. And Spain isn't playing as we learn

NATO ally Spain has decided against buying the US-designed F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, opting instead to invest in European-made aircraft for its air force.

Spain's decision comes after several NATO members publicly questioned their commitment to the jet, made by Lockheed Martin, amid concerns about President Donald Trump's attitude toward the alliance. Antagonism from the White House has rattled several American allies, though there were no firm decisions made concerning the F-35.....

Richard Aboulafia, an aviation expert and the managing director of US consulting firm AeroDynamic Advisory, told Business Insider that Spain's decision fits with "the broader European objective of sovereignty and self-sufficiency."

The Eurofighter Typhoon under consideration is a fourth-generation, multi-role combat aircraft made by a consortium of European companies: Airbus, BAE Systems, and Leonardo. And the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) is an initiative from France, Germany, and Spain to create a sixth-generation jet, with an operational rollout planned for 2040.

Aboulafia noted that Spain has a personal interest, including in job creation, with the FCAS.

Spain has wavered on the F-35 in recent years, sometimes leaning more toward other fighter types or extending the life of older aircraft. Its recent decision speaks to its new focus on European-made military technologies and comes at a time of anxiety among allies, including Madrid, over their relationship with the US....

Interest has been growing in building out Europe's defense industrial base and buying more homegrown gear. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, said in March, "We must buy more" European weapons.

Part of this drive is Trump, whose rhetoric has created new tensions between the US and its longtime allies. He excluded European allies from peace talks over Russia's invasion of Ukraine, criticized the NATO alliance, and has threatened to annex a European territory. He also said last year that he would "encourage" Russia to attack any NATO member that doesn't spend enough on defense. And the tariffs have been another source of tension.

When 'Trump's efforts prompted more spending from other members" of NATO, the President was hailed by fellow Republicans for his toughness and dealmaking. But it appears that Don the Con has overplayed his hand because

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez rejected Trump's call for NATO members to spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035- more than double the current 2% target, calling it "unreasonable." He warned  against European reliance on U.S. security: "Only Europeans will know how to protect Europe."

Trump responded by calling Spain's position "very unfair" and hinted at trade penalties, escalating diplomatic tensions.

"Very unfair?" Oh, boo-hoo. Grow a pair, Donald. It's getting serious now that

There's a growing wariness among US allies and partners when it comes to weapons technology.

Canada's defense minister said that his country was reviewing its contract for F-35s and looking at "other alternatives," the chairman of Denmark's parliamentary defense committee said he regrets choosing the F-35 for his country, and Portugal's defense minister said his country was unsure about plans to move to the F-35, pointing to uncertainties in US reliability as an ally.

And politicians across all of Switzerland's political parties also said this week that the country should withdraw or reconsider the planned purchase of 36 F-35As due to the tariffs Trump put on the country.

In Europe alone, there are at least Spain, Denmark, Portugal, and Switzerland which have begun to figure out that President Trump is out to break not only the bond between the USA and its European allies. He's out to break Europe, specifically the part which is not Russia or aligned with it. Ironically, Trump may be the one who has spurred members of NATO to understand fully their reliance upon each other. This may be only the beginning of their recognition but if it is, Europe will be better off, and so will the Free World.

   

Share |

Masquerade

I've heard- we all have- far worse things from Tim Scott. However, this is simply not accurate:

Tim Scott: Remember Romans 13:1-4 simply says that there are ministers in government called law enforcement officers given the sword so they can exact the wrath of god pic.twitter.com/kxy9Vxugpy

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 6, 2025

In the New International Version translation of Romans 13:1-4, Paul writes

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

There simply is nothing in there about law enforcement officers. Verses 5-7, with which 1-4 often is grouped, reads

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Paul said "This is also why you pay taxes....." By contrast, in a presidential debate in 2016

When Hillary Clinton said that her Republican rival Donald Trump had paid no federal tax in some years, (Donald) Trump didn't deny it.  In fact, he said "That makes me smart.

        

And yet, Senator Scott appeared with Trump and Vivek "the fake" Ramaswamy at Trump's victory rally following the New Hampshire primary in 2024. There, he gushed "I just love you" to the 45th President. Donald Trump, and Senator Scott his acolyte, should remember the warning when the man believed to be Jesus' half-brother warned in chapter 5

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 

When there are politicians such as Tim Scott intentionally misinterpreting Scripture in order to pave the way for the police state Donald Trump plans, it shouldn't be ignored. President Trump's servants cover themselves in the garment of piety for Trump's sake. But the South Carolina senator should heed the words of Paul to the Corinthians when he asserted "and no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. it is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness."

Share |