Bayou Renaissance Man

The news and social media are full of rumors that President Biden may announce his withdrawal from the 2024 Presidential election.  That doesn't mean he'd leave office as well, of course:  that could happen, but there's no certainty that he'd be prepared to bow out early.  I suspect he'd be more likely to continue in office until his present term expires in January next year.

That could be a very big problem.  Biden has already demonstrated on repeated occasions that he can be vindictive, nasty and vengeful to those he thinks have slighted him.  Just how much damage could a lame-duck president do in the final half-year of his term in office?  I suspect the answer is "A heck of a lot!"

It may be that Congress and the Senate could prevent or mitigate the worst of the damage, by refusing to pass enabling legislation.  However, presidential executive orders can operate without such support.  Biden could install his supporters in critical positions in the Executive Branch;  reallocate budgets to support his preferred agenda, even at the expense of defunding other parts of government that are just as (or even more) essential;  increase his efforts to dilute the electorate by bringing in millions upon millions of foreign "migrants", and getting as many of them as possible to register as voters, even though that's illegal (just as his administration and Blue states are doing right now);  and so on.  Sure, some of those steps may be actionable in court - but it takes time to get such measures on a court docket, and there's no guarantee they could be blocked or suspended in time to avert the damage they might do.  So much depends on the perspective of possibly biased judges that it's hard to make that call.

It might be better for the country if he were to leave office at the same time that he withdraws from electoral contention;  but we have no idea how well Vice-President Kamala Harris would perform in his stead.  Based on her track record, I think she'd get even less respect and cooperation, nationally and internationally, than would President Biden - and that might make her vengeful, bitter and retaliatory in her governance.

A lesson one learns early on the African plains is that an animal is never so dangerous as when it's wounded and weakened.  It'll lash out and try to kill those threatening it, no matter who or what they are.  (I've never forgotten the dik-dik - a tiny antelope - that charged a game ranger near Rhodes Memorial on the slopes of Table Mountain in Cape Town.  He was trying to see whether any young were in her bush nest, but she was having none of it.  Her short, sharp horns penetrated his thigh and punctured his femoral artery.  He bled to death next to the nest before help - only a few minutes away - could reach him.  I was nearby that day.)

Biden and/or Harris might demonstrate similar pugnacity.  If they're politically weakened to the point that they believe they can't win, and/or have nothing to lose, they could retaliate against Democrats, or Republicans - even the entire nation.  That's a prospect not to be taken lightly, particularly given President Biden's ever-loosening grasp of reality, and Vice-President Harris' growing (and, IMHO, probably justifiable) outrage at the lack of respect, verging on contempt, shown towards her by her own party's leaders.

We might all live to regret something like that happening.

Peter

Four days after the assassination attempt on President Trump, there's still an awful lot of smoke blocking our view of the fire.  Unfortunately, that's likely to be the case for months to come.  The fact that the would-be assassin was allowed to get "danger close" and fire several shots is an indictment in itself of the US Secret Service and every other agency involved in providing security that day.  It was an unconscionable failure of policies and systems that should have been so well-rehearsed that they were almost on autopilot.  We've had so much experience of providing security to high-risk targets that this should have been a no-brainer.  Clearly, it wasn't.  Heads should roll at the highest level, and if any element of Diversity-Equity-Inclusion and other progressive buzzword policies can be shown to have contributed to the failure, it/they should be discarded at once and all concerned re-trained using more realistic, real-world-applicable frameworks.

Will that happen under President Biden?  Oh, hell no.  Might it happen under President Trump if he's re-elected, and if he stays alive (despite all the Secret Service, the FBI and other agencies can do) until he takes office?  You bet your life!  I daresay there'll be (metaphorically) a swinging sword scything its way through Washington DC, and it'll likely start with those agencies and people who failed so abysmally last Saturday.

I'm having fun watching the Democratic Party almost fall apart under the strain of deciding what to do next.  I'm pretty sure President Trump boosted his electoral chances very highly through surviving the attack;  most political commentators appear to agree.  That means any potential candidate to replace Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket has to face the very real possibility that he/she will be almost guaranteed to lose, all other things being equal (which they seldom are, of course).  That might spell political disaster for their future career.  To run and fail is much worse, in terms of future electoral optics, than to withdraw from the race out of "loyalty for the incumbent", appear to give him as much support as possible, then commiserate with him over his failure as he heads for the old age home.  Most potential Presidential candidates among the Democrats understand that very well.  I daresay they're now pushing for a Biden/Harris ticket in the confident expectation it'll fail, leaving the way open for one of them to replace it in future.

As for President Trump;  he continues to be the motivating spark trying to light a fire in the Republican Party.  I've been very disappointed in the Republican convention so far.  There appears to be a general lack of enthusiasm, drive and energy.  It's largely the same old, same old pious political platitudes.  Trump's selection of J. D. Vance as his vice-presidential running mate interests me very much, for a number of reasons.

1. Vance, like Trump, has for most of his life been outside electoral politics.  He only entered the Senate two years ago.  Prior to that, he made his own way in life, and comes from what many call the "underclass" of society.  He's a self-made man, in that sense.  That means he understands President Trump, and the two will probably work well together.
2. Vance is young enough (almost 40) to have decades left in his political career.  If he and Trump do a good job, he might be elected as President for one or two terms when Trump finally lays down the gavel.  However, would this be best for him?  He'd end up in his early 50's as an ex-President with very little to do.  He's unlikely to take well to that;  he'll be young and energetic enough to want to do more, but what is there that can compare to the Presidency?  It'll be interesting to watch how this works out.
3. I think it's very worthwhile to analyze those who are opposed to Vance's selection, and their reasons for their position.  He seems to be annoying all the right people!  As one source put it:  "If Mitt Romney doesn't like J. D. Vance, then J. D. Vance was the right choice."

One thing I must say, very vehemently, is that I'm sickened and disgusted by those who latched on to the fact that Vance's wife is of Indian descent (although born here in the USA).  So what?  Does her race make any difference to whether or not she's a good person?  They also object to the fact that she's Hindu, while her husband is Catholic.  It's their business to make that work for their family, not ours.  Leave them alone to do so!  Racism is still alive and well in the USA, and to see it so nakedly on display in the disparaging comments made about Mrs. Vance is nauseating.  I know some few of my readers are among those raising such objections, which saddens me.  I can only suggest that if they feel that way, they shouldn't be reading my blog either, because there's no place for such attitudes here.

In closing, let me repeat that I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat.  I'm genuinely independent in my thinking, and will always support the best candidate for a given position rather than a political party.  (Yes, that means I might vote for a Democrat over a Republican if the former candidate warranted it, and/or the latter candidate was a particularly poor politician.)  However, in the present situation in this country, there's only one side that appears to be trying to restore genuinely constitutional government;  what President Abraham Lincoln famously summarized as "government of the people, by the people, for the people".  I may not agree with every position taken by that party, but its foundation(s) is/are solid in that sense (unlike their opposition).  Therefore, that side, and its candidates, gets my vote.  We'll "sweat the petty stuff" later.

Peter

I've said nothing yet in these pages about yesterday's attempted assassination of former President Trump.  I won't have anything substantial to say until more information is available - and that may be some time in being made available.  I certainly don't trust the FBI to conduct a reliable, impartial, non-partisan investigation.  As Rep. Thomas Massie tweeted this morning:

Quite so.  I said some years ago that "The FBI can no longer be trusted in any way, shape or form".  I've seen nothing since then to make me change that opinion - rather the opposite, in fact.

And what about the abysmally poor security coverage of President Trump?  How, precisely, could a man with a clearly visible and identifiable rifle climb onto a rooftop only a few hundred feet from him, take aim, and fire several shots before being neutralized?  How did he penetrate the secure perimeter that should have been in place for several hundred yards around the venue?  Failure of security, much?

In years past, before being elected President, Trump hired a very efficient and effective Israeli security company to handle that sort of thing.  Perhaps he should do so again, to remind the Secret Service how it's done.  They appear to have forgotten.

Then there's this allegation.  It may be a complete fabrication - we don't know yet, and I've seen nothing to confirm it - but I'd love to know whether the shooter was observed by President Trump's security detail before he pulled the trigger, and if so, why none of them stopped him before he could do so.  Was permission to shoot denied?  If so, by whom?  And why?  And who told the leader(s) of his security team what to do under such circumstances?

As for all the calls for restraint from so-called "moderates" and the progressive/liberal/left-wing half of US politics . . . no.  Simply "No."  When the only candidate who offers anything to "constitutional Americans" - those who support our traditional values, who reject the political, social, economic and cultural "norms" of the Obama and Biden administrations - is targeted, so are all of us who want the same things.  I personally don't like the thought of a sometimes vulgar, sometimes obsessive, loudly outspoken President Trump in charge of the country again:  but if (as it currently appears) he's the only candidate who's prepared to dismantle the administrative "deep state" and restore our country to something at least approximating "government of the people, by the people and for the people", he'll have my vote every day and twice on Sundays.  I have nothing left about which to be moderate, because every time our side tries moderation, the other side grabs more power and refuses to relinquish it.  If it takes a morning star to beat some sense into their heads, I'll buy one, gift-wrap it and personally hand it to President Trump, along with a bouquet of roses and a smile.  The time for moderation just went out the window.

Several bloggers have been expecting an attempt on President Trump's life, and I've foreseen the possibility in several previous posts in these pages.  Yesterday, all of us were proven correct.  The only question now remaining is whether this was merely one facet of a much wider, deeper and more sinister plot.  Was it a "lone wolf" acting on his own?  Or was it the harbinger of many more such attempts, each fostered and encouraged by a progressive left wing of US politics (and its "deep state" allies) that will do literally anything to stop President Trump from being elected to a second term in office?  And will the FBI and Secret Service, both very much a part of the "deep state" and therefore tainted by association, offer more effective (and trustworthy) protection to him?  I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of that . . .

Finally, the assassination attempt has "rattled the cages" of vast numbers of Americans who thought it couldn't happen here.  Clearly, it could - and it has.  The result?  As SGAmmo, my favorite ammunition supplier, pointed out in its latest advertising flyer, published today:

It is safe to say the next rush to buy ammo is here. As I have talked about in past emails, the lion's share of the volume in the ammunition business is based on hoarding and panic buying, not consumption, and demand is such cases is a fear-driven. Yesterday, due to the tragic events, we saw order volume increase by about 2000%, 20 times recent normal from around 6pm CST to 11pm when I stopped monitoring the flow for the night. Order volume then sustain massive elevation through the night and into this morning ... Yesterday, we saw several  of our so-called 'competitors' raise prices almost instantly, especially on 5.56/223, and as of so far we have not increased any prices, however please consider this notice that there may be upward movement in the days ahead unless demand settles quickly.

Clearly, many US citizens understand that in uncertain times, you'd better have ammunition with which to respond to any threat requiring it.  As the old saying goes, "it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it".

I've got mine.  I hope you've got yours.  Keep it handy.

Peter

James Howard Kunstler imagines the unthinkable:

Finally, there’s the novelty solution to this fine mess: “Joe Biden” stays in the race, bumps Kamala, installs Barack Obama in the veep candidate slot, they romp, then somewhere around January 21, 2025, “JB” bows out. . . and cazart! It’s back to the Good ol’ days with President Obama again! What a play!  Genius! You see, the 22nd Amendment only says: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice. Doesn’t say anything about getting elected veep and then being elevated to president by happenstance. If that doesn’t save our democracy, I don’t know what will.

A nightmare prospect indeed!  That'll make it Obama's fourth term, because he's effectively been in command all the way through Biden's first . . .

Peter

Remaining alert and prepared for danger, whatever it may be, is the hallmark of successful individuals, groups, tribes and nations.  Those who don't . . . well, most of them aren't around any longer, or if they are, their lack of preparedness has cost them dearly before they could ensure their survival.  That's not just in military terms, either (although the example of Formerly Great Britain in 1914 and 1939 should convey its own message);  it applies to being prepared for emergencies of any kind, at any time.

I was reminded of that by a citation over at Larry Lambert's place, where he referred to this article.

Two underlying assumptions guided Israel’s security establishment for the past generation. The first asserted that with the end of the Cold War, the era of conventional wars had ended. In the present age, brains, rather than brawn, would rule the roost ... A generation of IDF Chiefs of General Staff organized around the vision of a “small, technological and lethal army.”

. . .

Brick’s warnings fell on deaf ears until the “small, smart army” fallacy was obliterated by Hamas invaders on Oct. 7. Israel’s multi-billion shekel “smart fence” was felled by bulldozers. Its automatic response system was obliterated by RPGs. Hundreds of soldiers manning these worthless technological wonders were slaughtered or kidnapped. Everything failed.

This brings us to the second underlying assumption that guided Israel’s security establishment for the past generation. This assumption, also championed by Barak, asserted that Israel’s most important strategic asset was the United States ... Under the spell of Barak’s U.S. dependence doctrine, Israel gutted its domestic military production capabilities. Nearly everything that it had produced domestically—from uniforms to rifles to bullets, to artillery and tank shells—was shut down. Thousands of military industry workers lost their jobs. Knowledge was lost. The contracts moved to the United States. Even projects developed jointly by Israeli engineers financed by America were transferred to the United States for production. So it happened that Israel’s Iron Dome missiles are solely produced in the United States.

Along with Barak, the dependence doctrine’s biggest champions were the air force generals. Under their leadership, Israel’s air force effectively became a U.S. asset. The air force cannot operate without U.S. platforms, spare parts and bombs. All air force ordnance is made in America.

. . .

It will take years to correct the damage the generals wrought by reducing the size of the IDF and inducing its total dependence on the United States ... the Defense Ministry is launching a crash program with Israel’s military industries and major industrialists to make Israel independent in everything related to ordnance. In the initial phase, Israel will begin producing bombs for its aircraft. Jerusalem also intends to expand its production of tank and artillery shells, as well as assault rifles and bullets. Separately, there is increased discussion regarding the establishment of a missile force as an independent arm of the IDF. The force would reduce reliance on the air force and develop more versatile, more easily defended missile launch platforms and massively expand Israel’s missile and drone arsenals.

. . .

Brick and others argue that had Hezbollah joined Hamas in invading and bombing Israel on Oct. 7, Israel may well have been destroyed that day. A combination of Hezbollah’s 10,000-man Radwan Brigades perched at the border and capable of invading the Galilee, and a barrage of up to 4,000 missiles with various payloads targeting Israel’s air bases, and other strategic sites and civilian population centers every day for weeks, would have caused irreparable damage equal in force to a nuclear bomb.

There's more at the link.  The whole article is well worth reading in full.

The article drives home, yet again, for the umpteenth time in history, the truth of Vegetius' adapted and oft-repeated statement:

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

If you want peace, prepare for war.

Nobody ever won a war by preparing for peace.

Nobody ever became more prepared for an emergency by ignoring emergency preparations.

Nobody ever prospered by ignoring the dangers that imperil prosperity.

We can put it any way we like, in any context of human endeavor that we wish, but the truth remains inescapable.  If we close our eyes to reality, and relax, and forget about the innumerable lessons embodied in human history, we're going to get clobbered when it comes around again.  For a very sobering example of that, see this post from Karl Denninger, where he describes how a well-prepared friend was undone by the little things that had been forgotten or ignored - but came back to bite him when his emergency preparations were really needed.

How many people in the Caribbean, and the Yucatan Peninsula, and the southern Gulf Coast of Texas, did nothing to prepare for a hurricane - despite living in one of the most hurricane-prone regions of the world?  Hurricane Beryl is currently reminding them to be more prepared and proactive in future.

How many of us are watching the present political instability in the United States' government and not preparing for major upheavals?  We have a President who's manifestly incapable of managing his own affairs, let alone the nation's.  Can we trust his finger on the nuclear button in emergency?  I don't.  I don't think anyone with any sense does . . . yet he's still in office, and the powers that be are desperate to persuade us that everything's fine, and there's no danger.  One rogue state taking matters into its own hands, and that can change in literally seconds.  Do you feel safe?

Our economy is a mess.  Warning signs are flashing all over (I'll be writing more about that later today or tomorrow.)  Do we feel prosperous?  Do we feel economically secure?  Then we aren't prepared for what's likely to happen Real Soon Now.

BE PREPARED.  IF YOU'RE NOT YET PREPARED, GET PREPARED AS BEST YOU CAN . . . or else.

Peter

... unless and until you verify it through at least half a dozen reliable (well, as reliable as possible) sources.  I don't care whether Ukraine or Russia is claiming something:  they're all lying.

The latest example is the "scandal" over Ukraine leader Zelensky's wife's alleged purchase of a Bugatti sports car.  It was made up out of whole cloth by Russian propaganda sources.  You can read all about it in this BBC report, which shows how it was created and disseminated, and why it's "fake news".

I've gotten to the point where, if I know that a news report originated from one or the other side's official sources, I automatically disbelieve it.  The only people I'll listen to are those that use independent sources (particularly satellite imagery, reports from people on the ground who've established a reputation for reliability, and so on).  If they report and/or confirm something, all well and good.  If they don't . . . fuggetaboutit.

The same goes for video clips of fighting in the area.  We've seen "recycled" video footage dating back years, even decades, purporting to show atrocities.  I'm sure there are some real clips among them, but when it's so difficult to verify any of them, why waste time trusting them?  Given modern technology and editing facilities, the camera can - and does - lie like a trooper.

Trouble is, too many of our legislators believe - or pretend to believe - such biased sources, and use them to justify voting for a few dozen billion dollars more for Ukraine, or more sanctions against Russia.  They don't want to know the truth, because if they did (and their constituents did) they'd be voted out of office for being spendthrift wasters of taxpayer dollars.  US veterans need health care?  Victims of natural disasters in our country need help to recover?  None of that matters as much as funneling more of our dollars into the bottomless pit of the Ukraine war - not to mention the few billion here and there that get kicked back to our politicians as a "Thank you!" for their compliance.

One of the nicest things about President Trump's term of office was that he didn't get America involved in any more foreign adventures;  in fact, he pulled a lot of US troops out of areas they had no need to be, and brought them home.  That alone offers good grounds to vote for him next time round, IMHO.

Peter

In his usual famously polite, delicate, shy and retiring way, author and friend Larry Correia points out what's needed after the Chevron precedent was overturned.  I've edited it for language (this being a family-friendly blog), but if you want the unexpurgated original, it's at the link.

In honor of today's argument about Chevron, here's my proposal for a new government agency that I wrote on here years ago. The Department of **** Your Job Security. :D 

## 

We need somebody who actively HATES the government to run it.

If I was President (ha!) I would only create a single new executive branch entity. The Department of **** Your Job Security.

The DoFYJS would consist of surly auditors, and their only job would be to go into other government agencies to figure out -

A. do you ****ers do anything worth a ****?

B. which of you ****ers actually get **** done?

Then fire everyone else.

Right now it is pretty much impossible to fire government employees. The process is asinine. It is so bad that the worst government employees, who nobody else can stand, don’t get fired. They get PROMOTED. It’s easier, and then its somebody else’s problem.

But the DoFYJS don’t care. If your job is making tax payers fill out mandatory paperwork and then filing it somewhere nobody will ever read it? **** you. Gone. Clean out your desk.

We need to get rid of entire agencies. Gone. WTF does the Department of Education improve? NOTHING.

Gone. Fire them all. Sell the assets.

Any agency that survives this purge, move it out of DC to an area more appropriate to its mission. Do we need a Dept of Agriculture? Okay. Go to Kansas.

This will also cause all the DC/NOVA power monger set to resign so I don’t have to waste time firing them.

Oh, and right wing pet causes, you’re not safe. I worked for the Air Force. We all know that we could fire 1/3 of the GS employees tomorrow and the only noticeable difference would be more parking available on base.

Cut everything. We never do, because somebody might cry. Too bad. They’re called budget cuts because they’re supposed to hurt. Not budget tickles. **** you. Cut.

Shutting off the money faucet will also destroy the unholy alliance between gov/media/academia/tech.

Right now there is a revolving door, government job, university job, corporate board, think tank, the same crowd who goes to the same parties and went to the same schools and all that other incestuous **** just take turns in the different chairs.

Sell the ****ing chairs.

Every entity that gets tax money inevitably turns into a pig trough for these people. Cut it all off. All of these money faucets ALWAYS cause some kind of financial crisis later anyway.

See the student loan crisis caused by the government, here is free money, oh college has become expensive and useless, so now we need more government to solve it. You dummies get to pay for it. Have some inflation.

It’s all bullshit.

Quit pretending any of this makes sense.

The only way the leviathan shrinks is we elect people who actively hate the government to the government, and then only let them stay there long enough to **** the government without getting corrupted by it.

The instant you see the small government crusader you sent to DC going “Oh, well maybe an unholy alliance between the state and OmniGlobalMegaCorp to develop a mind control ray is a good thing” FIRE HIM.

So there you have it. That’s my platform if you elect me president. Fire ****ing everybody. And only give me one term. Thank you.

I think I've found my ideal candidate for November 2024 . . .

Peter

I'm long since sick of the talking heads that are yammering on about the Biden-Trump debate last week.  The essential elements could be figured out by anyone with two working brain cells (or even less) in a few minutes.  Nobody yet knows how it'll work out (although it promises to be a cross between a tortured melodrama and a laugh-a-minute yuckfest finding out).

There's one commenter who seems to have his finger on the political pulse of last week's encounter.  Speaking in Australia at a conservative conference, Tucker Carlson had this to say.  Even if you've seen or heard bits of it before, it's worth taking nine minutes out of your day to hear it again.

I wasn't very enamored of President Trump's performance last week either.  Bombastic, sometimes shrill, sometimes childish, sometimes downright dishonest . . . he did not come across as presidential, I'm afraid (at least, not by my somewhat old-fashioned standards).  Nevertheless, if the choice is between him and President Biden, I think most of us will line up behind him.

Unless . . . we could persuade Tucker Carlson to offer himself as a candidate?

I'm not sure that would be a good idea;  Carlson is invaluable as an honest, no-holds-barred observer of the scene and a trenchant commenter.  We need him doing his present job, and calling the rest of our political establishment to account (frequently).  Nevertheless . . . what if we had a mind like his in charge - whether from the left or the right, I don't care - taking a long, unafraid look at the catastrophe which is our federal government at present, rolling up his sleeves, and starting in on the cleanup?

Tempting thought . . .

Peter

Yesterday I said:

I can only presume that the Democratic Party, knowing his health to be so poor as to preclude re-election, has been frantically looking for any way to remove President Biden from the election ticket, and possibly from his current office as well ... Biden's handlers almost literally threw him to the political wolves last night.

After reading many more comments about Thursday's debate, from both sides of the political aisle, I'm even more sure I was right.  I can't see any reason for the Democratic Party to allow a semi-senile President Biden to debate a former President Trump unless it was to provide a clear demonstration of the former's disastrous state of mental health.  Having exhausted most of their other options to replace him with a better candidate for November's election, they're now effectively providing the ammunition for his enemies - aided and abetted behind the scenes by Obama loyalists, who have in effect been running the Biden administration since its beginning - to remove him for them.

The trouble is, too many people seem to have forgotten one critical point.  President Biden has already won the Democratic Party's nomination to be its Presidential candidate in 2024.  That can't simply be ignored.  If he refuses to go, his party has almost no way left - in the time available - to legally replace him on the ballot with someone else.  If President Biden, angered and frustrated at the way he's being treated by his party, turns on them and rejects their demand that he resign, there's not much they can legally do about it in terms of internal party politics.

That leaves the available options as the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, and/or some other major health crisis.  Congress can order the President's removal under the 25th Amendment:  or, alternatively, if President Biden falls seriously ill or is injured by whatever cause, his Vice-President may be able to take over his office until (if?) he recovers.  That, in turn, might provide at least some legal justification to replace him as the candidate in November.

However, the latter case raises yet another issue.  I can't see Kamala Harris willingly resigning the Vice-Presidency;  and if she doesn't, she automatically becomes President if anything happens to her current boss.  That would, in turn, give her a relatively strong case to go into the November election as the incumbent, with all the advantages that provides to a candidate.  Sure, she's even more unpopular on a national basis than are most potential candidates to replace President Biden;  but she's got the inside track, and in the absence of a suitably tempting "carrot" to give it up, she probably won't be afraid to use it.

That brings up another factor favoring Kamala Harris.  We've never had a woman President.  If she succeeds to President Biden's office, she can claim to have "shattered the glass ceiling" keeping women out of the top spot (much as Hillary Clinton tried to claim during the 2016 election).  That might galvanize parts of the Democratic Party base who are currently wavering in their loyalty to the political establishment.  Yes, her personal unpopularity would still be a factor in the election, but (IMHO) less so in the presence of that reality.  She can argue that much of the former is due to men wanting to keep women down.  There might even be an element of truth in that perspective, given the sheer nastiness displayed by some of our politicians.

I have no idea what will happen.  I guess most of us don't.  However, behind the scenes, the unseen powers manipulating both political parties are making deals, calling the shots, and getting ready to impose their preferred solution on the rest of us.  I won't be surprised to see at least some of the following measures over the next month or two, not necessarily in this order.

• Biden digs in his heels and resists calls to resign.
• Congress invokes the 25th Amendment to force him out of office.  If confronted with a fait accompli, will Biden resign rather than be removed?  Is he still capable of making such a decision?  There's a distinct chance that things could turn nasty, and very publicly at that.
• While that's going on, frantic negotiations take place behind the scenes to select a more electable candidate for November.
• Kamala Harris might be allowed to take over the Presidency on a short-term basis (thereby "ensuring her place in history" by allowing her to claim that she "broke the glass ceiling" for all who follow her), but on the understanding she will not be the Democratic Party candidate for the position in November.  She'll demand, and almost certainly receive, a substantial quid pro quo for her cooperation.  Perhaps, if Gavin Newsom becomes the presidential candidate, she could take his place as Governor of California for a term?  I'm sure she'd also become considerably wealthier if she cooperated.  If she doesn't cooperate?  Well . . . accidents happen . . .
• While all this is going on, I'm sure there will be immense resources devoted to finding the most electable Democratic Party candidate for November 2024.  Who that might be remains to be seen.  I daresay that, of the names currently in (public) play, Gavin Newsom and Michelle Obama are the front-runners;  but either will have to give up a lot of the power they've currently amassed among their existing supporters if they're to run.  Will they be prepared to do so?  And will enough Americans, already sickened and frustrated by the political corruption in both of their backgrounds, be willing to put aside their distaste and vote for them?
• Finally, can the security, fairness and honesty of the November 2024 election be sustained?  Many have their doubts.  Others insist that there's no evidence of any attempt to fiddle with the results.  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Peter

President Biden's performance at yesterday's debate was pitiful;  a shambling wreck of a re-election bid that must have given great aid and comfort to this country's enemies.  After all, if you were President Xi of China, or President Putin of Russia, or Kim Seriously-Ill of North Korea, how could you not be encouraged to realize that the current President of the USA was supposed to be the person holding you in check?

I can only presume that the Democratic Party, knowing his health to be so poor as to preclude re-election, has been frantically looking for any way to remove President Biden from the election ticket, and possibly from his current office as well.  After seeing that debate, I don't see how a 25th Amendment motion to remove President Biden from office can be resisted, on either side of the political aisle.  Biden's handlers almost literally threw him to the political wolves last night.  (I've been saying for years that the way they've been manipulating him is nothing less than elder abuse.  Last night's exhibition simply made that even more clear.)

The question is, who might take his place in the Oval Office, and on the ticket in November?  None of the usual suspects appear capable of attracting enough positive attention and support to succeed.  Kamala Harris?  Hillary Clinton?  Michelle Obama?  They all have their partisan supporters, but they've also attracted so much vituperation, disgust and dislike that I can't see them as viable candidates.  So . . . if not them . . . who?

Wouldn't it be fun if the Democratic Party chose Stormy Daniels to run against former President Trump?  Bring on those debates, boys!

Peter

Yesterday we saw headlines like these about a Supreme Court ruling.  Click the links to read the articles.

They sound alarming to those of us who view Big Brother with intense suspicion, and see the courts as avoiding their constitutional responsibilities by failing to rein in said brother when necessary.  However, as worded, they are not true.  The Supreme Court made no such decision and no such ruling.  What really happened was rather simpler (although, to my mind, still not satisfactory):

In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue - as opposed to tossing the case on merit - just like the vast majority of election fraud cases which didn't make it past lower courts.

There's more at the link.

We may dislike it when a court decision goes in favor of the progressive left, and cheer when the opposite happens - but we're allowing our partisan likes and fears to color our understanding of the truth.  To claim that the Supreme Court yesterday allowed federal government censorship of social media is simply not true.  The fact that SCOTUS' decision allows a questionable relationship between government and social media to continue in certain forms unless and until plaintiffs with standing to sue take up the matter does not mean that it's legal, and does not mean that any illegal acts committed until a ruling is given can't be prosecuted.

That's why we have courts.  That's why we try to implement the rule of law, rather than partisan political perspectives, in our society.  The courts are supposed to prevent excesses, stop legal violations, and punish those that occur.  If they acted in an arbitrary, opinionated way instead of within the framework of the rule of law, the courts themselves would be untrustworthy - as partisan as the legislative branch of government, in fact.  We've seen in recent weeks how some of our courts appear to be precisely that, in cases against former President Trump in New York.  Even liberal/progressive judicial authorities have joined the chorus of disapproval and anger against such visibly partisan proceedings, and are calling for them to be overturned.  The outrage, the bias, is so blatant that I hope and trust the New York courts will be stopped in their tracks - but that has to happen through the legal system, not because those with one political viewpoint "win" over those with another.  If we stopped those cases by employing legally questionable tactics, just like those who "won" them, we'd be as guilty as they are of corrupting the law to serve partisanship.

I don't like yesterday's decision.  I don't like anything that gives the executive branch of government any form of censorship or control over news and social media.  I hope any and all such things will be systematically dealt with in future.  However, that will only happen if those who do have standing to challenge them, raise such a challenge.  Instead of moaning because partisan political perspectives (look at the political views of the challengers yesterday) were not able to impose their viewpoint on those of a different perspective, why don't we encourage the judicial (and, if necessary, the legislative) branches of government to clarify the laws and standards involved, so that loopholes are blocked and those with standing to intervene are defined more clearly?

When any side tries to manipulate, obfuscate or adumbrate the law for partisan advantage, we all stand in danger.  Let's not allow our own passions to lead us astray.

True dat.

Peter

Trust Politico to report the obvious with an appropriate headline.

You mean, if we make an effort to give our taxpayer dollars only to those who are entitled to them, we save money?  Say it ain't so!

DeSantis signed a law last year directing hospitals that accept Medicaid to ask patients about their immigration status when they seek treatment. While the law does not force patients to provide hospitals with an answer, immigrant rights groups feared the mandate would scare migrants away from seeking urgent medical attention. The DeSantis administration and other Florida Republicans say any marked decreases in spending are signs his immigration crackdown is working.

Florida’s Emergency Medical Assistance program for undocumented immigrants has seen a 54 percent drop in expenditures billed to Medicaid this year — with less than two months remaining in the fiscal year — since the state immigration law took effect, according to a POLITICO analysis. Thomas Kennedy of the Florida Immigrant Coalition said while there is no concrete evidence that the drop in Medicaid spending is a result of the law, which took effect in July 2023. there have been other signs of fallout.

“Obviously, there’s been somewhat of an exodus of migrants in Florida,” Kennedy said. “When this was all going through — we had warned about the exacerbated work[force] shortages and the distressed industries — we said this would be a bad idea.”

Federal law bars undocumented immigrants from Medicaid eligibility, even if they meet other requirements. But federal law also requires that states authorize limited Medicaid coverage for migrants facing a medical emergency, including dialysis, a pregnant woman delivering a baby or trauma.

. . .

Data provided to POLITICO by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services show $148.4 million in state and federal Medicaid dollars went toward emergency coverage for immigrants in Florida in the year before the state’s new immigration law took effect. As of May 3, $67 million has gone toward emergency coverage this year. With two months left in the fiscal year that number will rise, but the state is still on track for a dramatic decrease in spending.

Thomas Kennedy doubtless has allies who believe that spending taxpayer dollars on those who are not entitled to them is "a bad idea".  Personally, I wish we had similar legislation in Texas.  Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize those who broke the law to be here?

Peter

Venezuela appears to be in a very parlous state, according to Peter Ziehan.  The brief video below is worth watching.

That puts a different emphasis on Venezuelan President Maduro's threat to take over a resource-rich area of neighboring state Guyana.

Venezuela continues to build up military infrastructure and hardware close to the border with Guyana as President Nicolas Maduro and his supporters scale up their threats to annex an oil-rich piece of Guyanese land.

In a report shared with CNN, the Washington-based think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) warns that while the Venezuelan government “has little to gain and much to lose from a full-blown conflict” it continues to play “a dangerous game” over its claim over the densely forested Essequibo region.

“The constant drumbeat asserting ‘the Essequibo is ours,’ alongside the creation of new military commands and legal structures to oversee the defense of the region, is helping to institutionalize a sense of perpetual prewar footing,” it wrote.

There's more at the link.

That's a very old tactic indeed:  distract one's population from severe internal or local problems by focusing them on an external grievance, war or other provocation.  Argentina did it with the Falkland Islands when the former's military junta was about to lose control of the economy and drive the nation into ruin.  An appeal to patriotism, particularly in a continent that fought a war over a soccer match (!), is almost guaranteed to divert attention.

Unfortunately, that won't help Guyana, which is much smaller and weaker than Venezuela;  and it won't help peace and stability on the entire South American continent, where drug cartels and other evils will use the distraction to shore up their own positions (and, probably, fight with each other to gain "market share" in the perennial drug war).  It might also drag the US into intervening in a war nobody except Venezuela wants.

This will bear watching.

Peter

UnHerd has produced a masterly analysis of the trap into which government spending and subsidies has led much of American life today.  Here's an excerpt.

Democrats and Republicans alike, under the cover of good intentions, have been passing laws that undermine the economic well-being of American families. Even more disturbing, these policies have created a whole new class of robber barons, who rely on government policy to enrich themselves. But these new robber barons aren’t railroad tycoons or rapacious oil companies. Indeed, many of them are non-profits: they include universities and hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, K-12 school districts, and real estate investors.

. . .

This is how it works: Claiming to be the guardian of “quality”, policymakers put up barriers to entry, making it extremely costly, for example, to launch a new university or hospital. This is the restriction of supply. At the same time, in the name of “helping” consumers, they push billions of dollars into student loans or healthcare payments. This is the subsidisation of demand.

. . .

... all of the universities, including elite colleges in the Ivy League, have reaped billions of dollars in economic rents — excess profits — from student loan programmes, even as the value of many of their degrees has fallen dramatically.

At the same time, the universities operate an accreditation system which makes it extraordinarily difficult and costly to launch a new university that might compete with them. In fact, you usually can’t get your new university accredited until four-to-six years after you open. That means that your first students aren’t eligible for federal student loans — their subsidies — until you get your accreditation. It’s a huge handicap for anyone who wants to disrupt the current oligopoly of higher education.

These dynamics play out in all of the most important sectors of our economy. In healthcare, new hospitals in many states have to apply for a “certificate of need”. Often that certificate has to be signed by the other hospitals in the area — in other words, their potential competitors. Meanwhile, federal and state governments flood the healthcare system with subsidies that increase demand and drive prices up: almost 50% of health care spending comes from governmental entities in the US.

In housing, similarly, we restrict supply by making it harder and harder to build new units, especially in city centres where demand is the highest. Meanwhile, we subsidise demand by providing government-guaranteed mortgages and by offering huge tax breaks for anyone who purchases real estate, especially investors.

And in K-12 education, school districts around the country are trying to stamp out charter schools, which increase supply, while at the same time arguing for higher and higher per-pupil spending. The cost to educate one child for one year has increased 173% (adjusted for inflation) since 1970, and half the kids still can’t read.

The pathologies of these sectors all follow similar patterns. Politicians proclaim their desire to “protect” quality and “help” consumers. Industry lobbyists step up to write bills that restrict supply and subsidise demand. Prices go up. Providers become more and more reliant on the government for their profits. Consumers become more and more reliant on the government to afford homes, healthcare, and schools. Instead of investing in innovation, providers spend their money on political donations and lobbyists. Politicians become dependent on those donations. Consumers demand more and more help because prices are going up, and they’re getting ripped off. And the beat goes on. “It really is a self-reinforcing process,” says Kling. “People don’t understand that the subsidies drive up prices, so they keep demanding more.”

There's more at the link.

To all those negatives, add two more:

1. All those subsidies and other government programs add layer upon layer of bureaucrats to government to administer them.  In other words, government becomes a fulfilment machine rather than an administrator.  More and more of its money is spent on such subsidies and fulfilment programs rather than on the business of government.
2. The level of government involvement in such programs affects how government governs.  Lower-level governments - e.g. town and city councils - don't have enough money to subsidize such programs, so they push it up to state level.  State legislatures don't have enough money either, so they put pressure on their congressional representatives and Senators to get that money from the federal government.  The feds duly provide it, but have to increase taxes and/or borrow more money to pay it;  and they also have to hire more bureaucrats to administer it.  The state governments also need more staff to administer where the money comes from and where it goes, expanding state government.  Finally, at the "coalface" where the money is paid out, more government staff are needed to administer, account for and report back on how it's used.

The only way to stop this perpetual motion machine is, of course, to take away many of the things it currently does that were never envisioned by the Founding Fathers.  They'd be horrified if they saw the myriad things on which the federal government spends its money, things that were never envisioned in or authorized by the constitution, but which now consume the vast majority of government income and effort.

The problem, as always, is this:  how do we break the cycle?  If we cut off the subsidies, those deprived of them will scream blue murder, and vote against the politicians who acted responsibly by terminating them.  That means the politicians dare not tackle the monster they've helped to create.  Argentina is trying to do so by dismantling whole swaths of its national government, but that's because the problem had grown so great there that the state had become a behemoth that was strangling the country as a whole.  President Milei has only just begun the job, and there's no guarantee his opponents - now united against him - will allow him enough space and time to finish the job.  I wish him every success, but the odds are against him.

Do we have a President Milei who can do the same for us?

Peter

Watching our country descend into banana republic territory (see the Babylon Bee for more about that), I came across this graphic on MeWe.  I find it eerily disturbing.  Click the image for a larger, readable view.

That may be ten years old, but it also might be a scarily accurate prediction of our present situation . . .

Peter

Via anecdotal data and reports, we've been aware for years that the COVID-19 vaccines were causing serious harm to many of those who took them.  It's been said that they're responsible for many deaths, possibly more than the disease itself, and fringe commenters have even alleged that they were a deliberate attempt to reduce the world's population.  Politicians and the mainstream media have debunked such talk, but they've never actually addressed the existing data head-on and examined it impartially.

Two recent reports from the UK and Japan, may signal the breaking of the ice over that.  First, in Japan, a former cabinet minister has publicly apologized for the damage caused by the vaccines.  I've not seen any reference to his speech in mainstream US news media, but fringe media and foreign reports like this one from Thailand have been less reticent.

A high-profile Japanese government official has issued a public apology to his people over the mass deaths and vaccine injuries caused by Covid mRNA shots.

The apology was made by Kazuhiro Haraguchi, a former Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications in Japan who currently serves as a member of the House of Representatives.

Haraguchi made a heartfelt statement during a speech at a major protest against the World Health Organization (WHO) on Friday.

"I apologize to all of you," Haraguchi told the massive crowd.

"So many have died, and they shouldn't have."

. . .

Elsewhere in the speech, he also apologized for the suppression of alternative Covid treatments such as ivermectin.

He revealed that ivermectin was blocked from use because it was cheap and would "interfere with the sales of the vaccines".

There's more at the link.

In another report, British newspaper The Telegraph reports that Netherlands scientists have found that the COVID-19 vaccines may be responsible for at least part of the explosion in "excess deaths" in recent years.

Covid vaccines could be partly to blame for the rise in excess deaths since the pandemic, scientists have suggested.

Researchers from The Netherlands analysed data from 47 Western countries and discovered there had been more than three million excess deaths since 2020, with the trend continuing despite the rollout of vaccines and containment measures.

They said the “unprecedented” figures “raised serious concerns” and called on governments to fully investigate the underlying causes, including possible vaccine harms.

Writing in the BMJ Public Health, the authors from Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, said: “Although Covid-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality by the Covid-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well.

“Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”

. . .

The study found that across Europe, the US and Australia there had been more than one million excess deaths in 2020, at the height of the pandemic, but also 1.2 million in 2021 and 800,000 and 2022 after measures were implemented.

Researchers said the figure included deaths from Covid-19, but also the “indirect effects of the health strategies to address the virus spread and infection”.

They warned that side effects linked to the Covid vaccine had included ischaemic stroke, acute coronary syndrome and brain haemorrhage, cardiovascular diseases, coagulation, haemorrhages, gastrointestinal events and blood clotting.

German researchers have pointed out that the onset of excess mortality in early 2021 in the country coincided with the rollout of vaccines, which the team said “warranted further investigation”.

Again, more at the link.

For those who've been skeptical about official sources' attempts to "whitewash" the issue, this is nothing new:  but to see reports from such sources is an eye-opener.  Is the official "wall of silence" crumbling?  Will we see more and more authoritative sources acknowledging what's been obvious to any informed observer for years now?  I won't hold my breath waiting, but these are at least encouraging developments.

Meanwhile, given that background, with alarmist threats of new health dangers such as bird flu (H5N1) "migrating" to the human population, I'll continue to watch all such official pronouncements with skepticism, and investigate alternative therapies to any recommended by the establishment.  After all, if they lied to us for so long about COVID-19, why should we believe that they're not doing it again?

Peter

Solomon is a former Marine and a law enforcement officer (I think he's a sheriff's deputy) in Louisiana.  We've mentioned him before in these pages.  He penned a short post yesterday that I think is spot on.  I hope he'll forgive me if I reprint it here in full, as it's something we should all consider.

We are ONE galvanizing issue away from this nation going pop...

Been drinking in the Trump conviction.  From my chair it seems like a kangaroo court but who knows.  From my chair it seems like a DA that's been letting violent criminals out of jail on the regular but decides to do this is highly questionable.

The timing of this thing is jacked to hell.  This could have waited till the dude got out of office.  Quick question.  Did you know that EVERY president we've ever had in the modern era has engaged in criminal behavior?  At its most base form, warfare is illegal (we put "rules" on it but how do you lawyer yourself out of ordering people to kill?) but take that further.  We've done targeted killing and missed hitting families instead but no one has ever even been grand juried!

But to my main point.

Think back to the civil war.

Slavery was the cause, some say it was state's rights (slavery just a bit friendlier without the ramifications) and others say it was about economics (the bottom line on slavery...its about the money ya ****!), but it took just one galvanizing issue.

One issue.  People had enough.  Society blew up and the nation started killing itself.

Look at the divide between the states today.  How far are we from one major league issue to having things go pop?

What should worry you is that we have more than one issue that has people inflamed.  No need in listing them but I mean seriously!  In another age people would have already been grabbing their mags and heading to hurt someone!

Someone that considers themselves a puppet master better figure out how to turn down the heat.

As things stand now the Chinese are the least of our problems.

Yes, indeed.  The rest of this year is likely to be fraught.  There are a lot of people out there determined to "right the wrong" of the 2020 election.  There are equally many determined that President Trump is an existential threat, and must never be allowed to be re-elected, no matter what it takes.

That's our nation today.  We're sitting on an open gunpowder keg, with people on both sides tossing lighted matches at it.

Peter

Recently Tucker Carlson interviewed Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, in an extended dialog over the Ukraine war and several related issues.  It's almost two hours long, but it's very worthwhile to take the time to listen and think about it.  You'll find the entire podcast here.  Highly recommended.

Real Clear Politics published part of the podcast, Erik Prince's views on the Russia-Ukraine war, that I found very sobering.  I daresay Mr. Prince is far more accurate in his assessment than most of the talking heads we're seeing in the mainstream media.  Here's an excerpt.

TUCKER CARLSON: So, yeah, I mean, he's a child, obviously. And like an angry destructive child. But what happens? Like, where does this go? We send another $60 billion to Ukraine.

ERIK PRINCE: Most of that money goes to five major U.S. defense contractors to replace at five times the cost, what the weapons cost that we already sent the Ukrainians. Meaning, you know, if we send them something that was built 10 years ago, well, now it's gonna cost four and five times as much. So, again, it's a massive grift paid by a Pentagon that doesn't know how to buy stuff cost-effectively. It doesn't change the outcome of the battle.

As the fields dry, it's May now, coming up on tank season. Weather still matters in warfare. If you have a wet, snow-covered farm field, it's very muddy, very gooey. Not great for tanks, mud season, I think the Russians call it the great slush. That's done now.

As June comes, it'll be game on and I think the Russian bear is hungry, and they're gonna have a time. So the war should have been ended. It never should have started. They should have made a deal, and froze the lines six months into it. But the Biden administration believed that all this American weaponry would have saved the day.

It hasn't. And it's ugly. And you know, the Russian commanders are not idiots. They know their history. The Battle of Kursk, which happened just North of where the fighting is now was the largest tank battle in history. It was the last offensive effort of the German army against the Soviets. They tried to push from the north and south on this salient. It was a bulge and the Russians knew they were coming. So they built lots of lines of defenses. It's the same thing they've done now, that they did last summer, which ate up all that equipment.

And now the Ukrainians are very thin. They've had a lot of corruption issues. All the defenses that were supposed to be built by the Ukrainians are much smaller or non-existent. So now it's allowing maneuver and especially as the tanks, as the fields dry and you can maneuver, it's gonna be a very ugly summer.

TUCKER CARLSON: What do you think the Russians want?

ERIK PRINCE: I'd say now they want to absolutely humiliate the West and make sure that they never have a problem with Ukraine again.

TUCKLER CARLSON: And that seems achievable. So, what happens to Ukraine?

ERIK PRINCE:I don't know if it survives as an independent country. If they take Odessa, if they take the ability for Ukraine to export its grain, that really threatens the long-term economic viability.

Maybe it goes back to -- look, Western Ukraine used to be part of Poland, right? Eastern Ukraine used to be part of Russia. Maps move depending on you know, military victories drive diplomatic breakthroughs. And right now the Russians are winning and they're going to have a very good summer.

TUCKER CARLSON: Is there anybody who is knowledgeable on this subject who believes Ukraine can "win," which is to say, push Russian troops all the way back to the old Russian border?

ERIK PRINCE: I didn't really believe it ever. I don't know who's advising the White House at this point or who they're listening to, but they probably need to change out their advisor list.

There's more at the link.  Highly recommended reading, and even more recommended is to listen to the entire podcast.  It's worth your time and attention.

Peter

The partisan political nature of the prosecution of President Trump on so many charges, in so many venues, is beyond any doubt whatsoever.  That's made clear by the preliminary instructions to the jury in New York.

To find Trump guilty of felony-level falsification of business documents, the jury must unanimously find that Trump falsified the documents in order to commit or conceal a separate crime. But the jurors do not all have to agree on what that separate crime was, Justice Juan Merchan ruled.

. . .

In other words: If some jurors believe that Trump falsified business documents solely to cover up a tax crime, while others believe that he falsified business documents solely to cover up an election crime, the jury can still convict Trump on the felony-level falsifying-documents charges, despite disagreeing on the predicate crimes.

There's more at the link.

This is beyond belief.  It demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever the complete and utter disregard for the law that we see in Judge Merchan's courtroom.  Consider:

• In order to be convicted, one must be found guilty of a specific crime.
• The jury instruction above tells jurors that they don't have to agree on what specific crime was committed.  In other words, President Trump might not be convicted of a specific crime at all (because that would require a jury verdict to that effect).
• However, despite there being no specific conviction, the jury will be allowed to find President Trump guilty of falsifying documents in order to conceal a specific crime.
• But . . . if no specific crime was committed (and, in the absence of a jury ruling to that effect, that will be the legal reality) then how can President Trump be convicted of falsifying documents to conceal a crime?  If the act is not specified, and no conviction is handed down, then in legal terms he is not guilty of any crime, and therefore there is no crime to conceal.

This is so bizarre it defies belief.  Any half-way competent lawyer can see that in a heartbeat.

The judge's conduct is well summed up by former Professor Alan Dershowitz:

“This judge has committed more reversible errors in the one day I was in the courtroom than I’ve seen in years and years of practicing law. It’s just an outrage,” Dershowitz stated.

I think that if President Trump is convicted by this kangaroo court under such pretexts, it will virtually guarantee his victory in the November 2024 elections . . . if his enemies allow him to live that long.  If he's incarcerated on such flimsy grounds, one can only assume that it's to create the conditions under which he might suffer a terminal "accident" or "assault" in prison, to finally remove any possibility of his winning re-election.  Frankly, I wouldn't put that past his political enemies.  Their desperation to derail his campaign is beyond clear.

As always, I note that I am not a fan of President Trump, and I'd prefer a more balanced candidate in November.  However, that's beside the point.  Whatever one's views of President Trump, the fact that he's being treated like this by our so-called impartial, balanced judicial system is cause for the deepest concern.

Peter

I note that the President-elect of Panama has vowed to stop the influx of migrants across his country towards the USA.

President-elect Jose Raul Mulino vowed to shut down a crucial migration gap through Panama that has been used by more than 500,000 migrants over the last year, signaling a shift in the country’s policy as the US continues to battle a crisis at its southern border, according to a report from Voice of America.

“Panama and our Darien [Gap] are not a transit route. It is our border,” Mulino said, according to the report.

Panama had previously helped bus migrants through the critical gap and allowed them to continue their journey north, a policy that has allowed thousands to reach the US border with Mexico.

There's more at the link.

That sounds like good news for us, but it's unlikely to succeed.  For a start, international organizations ranging from the United Nations to NGO's are all trying to facilitate migration from South America through Panama to Mexico, and ultimately to the USA.  To make matters worse, drug cartels in Mexico and countries south are making billions of dollars by transporting such migrants to our borders.  Finally, the Biden administration and the Democratic Party are openly admitting as many migrants as they can, in an attempt to change the future makeup of the US electorate to favor their policies.

With all those interests arrayed against him, how can President-elect Mulino hope to succeed?  I'm willing to bet large sums of money that he'll be "persuaded" through bribery and/or threats (the infamous "plata o plomo" question) to change his tune.  If he doesn't, I'm equally willing to bet that he'll be assassinated or otherwise removed from office (a fraudulent, rigged investigation for corruption, perhaps?) as quickly as possible.  He threatens too many powerful, rich constituencies with his proposal, and they won't stand for it.

I certainly hope he succeeds with his proposed policies . . . but I don't think he stands a snowball's chance in hell.  The forces arrayed against him, politically, criminally and monetarily, are simply too powerful.  I'd love to be wrong about that, but I doubt it.

Peter