So, The Bulwark announces they're sending Sarah, JVL, and Tim to Minneapolis, and a few days before their arrival, Tom Homan announces they're ending the ICE invasion of that city. The fascist regime was simply not prepared to face the shock and awe of a Bulwark live show.
I’d still be very alert and careful if I were any of the Bulwark contributors. I only watched 3 minutes of Tom Homan’s press conference today and he used the term agitator at least 15 times during that short time I watched.
They aren’t going anywhere. They are gonna keep terrorizing the citizens of Minneapolis they are just trying to spin it so the rest of the country thinks they are behaving better and ramping down efforts. But that language tells me that they are there for the Americans that cross them as much as immigrants.
I think they are indeed drawing down in Minneapolis--and spreading out to other places, where they won't act with the theatrical cruelty of Bovino, but will be just as lawless and cruel. They aren't building those humongous detention centers around the country, at the cost of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, for no reason. And Homan himself kept saying, "we are still doing Trump's mass deportation plan."
At the same time Homan was talking about the 100s of "agitators" they arrested, there's an article in the Star Tribune today about what really happens with these arrests, which turn out to be largely for show:
"The federal government accused dozens of Minnesota’s anti-ICE protesters of attacking law enforcement agents and ramming their cars into federal vehicles, inflicting bodily injury. Prosecutors posed them for photos, shackled and flanked by Department of Homeland Security agents.
"In January, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi posted their photos in a virtual perp walk and called them “Minnesota rioters” in a social media post viewed more than 3 million times. Minnesota U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen said the federal government will “not tolerate assaults on federal officers and those who commit that crime will be held accountable.”
"Yet weeks later, federal prosecutors quietly charged the protesters with less serious crimes in about 20 cases. In at least three instances, charges were dismissed, Susan Du reports.
"Former federal prosecutors say it’s unprecedented to allege assault on a law enforcement agent and then charge it as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, which typically carries a harsher penalty. John Marti, former acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, said proceeding with lesser charges is an indication that prosecutors don’t have strong evidence and are “trying to avoid taking these cases before grand juries.”
“ "Are they really interested in getting convictions, or are they more interested in charging as a means to intimidate and abuse citizens who are opposing this administration’s policies?' he said."
Also, in more than a few cases an allegation that a protester had rammed ICE has been disproven. Video and, in a few cases, the fact that the protester was on the phone with police dispatch at the time, has established that it was ICE doing the ramming. (NPR - "This American Life."
Your first paragraph is right on, I'm afraid. My wife called me yesterday to report that she had seen what looked like an ICE arrest at the entrance to our neighborhood here in Charlotte, where "Operation Charlotte's Web" officially ended some time ago.
A car was stranded on the side of the road, and she saw three masked men wearing desert-tan tactical vests as they hustled a man into an unmarked vehicle. A CMPD officer was standing nearby, but not participating. Two locals had apparently stopped their own vehicles and gotten out to film the proceedings with their phones. One of the locals was talking to the police officer as he recorded.
This was yesterday.
My guess is that, under Homan's guidance, DHS is going to continue following the same playbook but with a more scattershot, low-key approach; less "city siege" and more "guerilla warfare."
Speaking of ICE, if you want some inspiration, you need to watch Ian McKellen's appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert that aired February 4th. The interview is really entertaining, so watch the whole thing if you have time. The best part was near 20:10 as he recites a speech written by Shakespeare that was contributed to another author's play - "Sir Thomas Moore." It was never performed during Shakespeare's time as it was considered seditious, but in 1964 it was performed, for the first time, with McKellen playing the lead. 400 years ago there was a riot in London as people were complaining about the "strangers" in their midst. Moore was a young lawyer sent by the authorities to quell the mob. McKellen's rendition, as he asks them to obey the law, while appealing to their humanity towards immigrants, was a master performance. You have to listen carefully, as the words are suited to a different time in history, but the substance is so prescient to our current times that it lifted my spirits and gave me hope. See it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l2RqzVG4ag
I almost think we should retire the word unprecedented as this administration tramples every law and long ago abandoned all norms. It’s now precedented for them to do whatever they damn well please. Bondi was a disgrace yesterday, but for the few who watched their outrage was the point.
Start with the biggest lie possible, then downgrade it as opposition mounts. Do this step by step until you finish up with the equivalent of a traffic fine. Whimper, how pathetic.
I watched both Homan's and Walz' press conferences.
Wow. Homan. To quote Sarah, "O - Kay." His performance was nothing more than face-saving. He's leaving because the city is now safe. He's leaving because the city and the state are now cooperating. He's leaving because the "agitators" have stopped "agitating." They're not REALLY leaving, he says. They've always been there. So they're staying, but they're going.
Sheesh.
And then you listen to Walz. Homan's goons came in there and did no end of physical damage. They harmed people, including children. They need to clean it up and he'll be sending the bill to the federal government. He doesn't want celebrations in the streets (although I suspect they're going to happen) and he wants to remain vigilant because Trump and his goons are not to be trusted.
Homan was saving face. Walz was coming up for air and thanking the people of Minnesota for being Minnesotans.
The character of the two men is striking. Homan is a mush-mouthed, bullet-headed, corrupt mediocrity. Walz is a good man, doing his best under terrible circumstances. Walz is far from perfect. (The fraud thing is real.) But Tim Walz is the guy who got Tom Homan to leave AND kept his honor clean.
Relocating 700 agents from Minnesota is only for show. If one half of the agents were removed from Minnesota there would still be too many agents in Minnesota.
I love the conspiracy theory, but I'm doubtful. I would love to think that Sarah, Tim and JVL have that much power. It's just as likely that Homan and Noem had a momentary flash of common sense. I don't expect it to last very long.
It ought to be possible to criticize the Israeli government 's response to the Hamas attack of 10/7/23 and the disastrous effects of that response on thr population of Gaza without being labeled antisemitic.
The real question which no one wants to deal with is what should our relationship with Israel look like. At a time when we are questioning all our old alliances, most notably trans-Atlantic one, why wouldn’t we question our relationship with Israel. The old consensus on Israel is broken, but we aren’t having an honest conversation so that vacuum is being filled by those on the extremes. It isn’t antisemitic to criticize Israel, though it can veer into antisemitism, but there are those for whom it is more convenient to label everything antisemitism rather than have an honest conversation.
Agree. But going one step further, I would ask: where does one draw the antisemitic line in criticizing the action of the Israeli government? Some Jewish citizens that harshly criticize the Israeli government provide some example. Surely, it is difficult to accuse them of antisemitism. Yet, just repeating what some of those people say publicly in Israel here on a campus in the USA can get you in a whole world of trouble.
The other similar principle/argument that I have when arguing with people who equate Palestinians with Hamas is to ask them if Joe Biden represented their opinions because he won an election.
My partner is a non-practicing Jew. The question proposed, “If I don’t support the political state (policies) of Israel, am I an antisemite, yes or no?” is valid and most definitely a third rail. We feel we can literally only speak of this behind closed curtains.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism, accepted by governments across the world and across the US, clarifies that criticizing policies of the Israeli government is not antisemitism. Holding Israel to different standards than you would hold any other country or denying its right to exist as a Jewish State is. Does that help?
What of someone who believes there should be no religiously-based states? Or that no states have an inherent right to exist? It seems to me that for that person, accepting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State would be incompatible with holding it to the same standards as they hold any other country. Do those underlying beliefs automatically make one antisemitic, even though they have nothing specifically to do with Jews or Judaism?
Whatever preferences somebody may hold, there are many religiously-based “ethno” states. More than 50 of them are Muslim. I’m not sure what the official count of Christian countries is, but many have official churches, like the Anglican Church of England. I am sure that there is only one Jewish state — and I’ve never heard anyone question any other country’s right to exist. The double standards are blatant. Should Russia exist? Should China? Should Iran? Should North Korea? Should Myanmar? All of these countries have horrendous human rights abuses.
Are Russians, Chinese, Iranians or Koreans living overseas widely attacked because of what their governments do? Generally not.
So whatever your hypothetical individual with unique views holds, this is present day reality.
Whether something should exist and whether it has a right to exist are different questions. “Should” can be contingent on all kinds of things. For example, if a limited group of people have standing to end something and they choose not to, then it “should” continue to exist but not because of a “right” it holds. I think a lot of people find the “right to exist” construct confusing at best and would never independently use it to articulate what they believe about any country.
And even on “should,” there certainly are radical schools of thought that believe things like “countries shouldn’t exist as a concept.” It seems strange to me to label that an antisemitic belief.
I intend to write a series of articles intentionally violating the "examples" of the IHRA.
I'd appreciate your feedback if you think they are antisemitic.
FWIW - I wish people would NOT hold Israel to a different standard. I wish they would hold them to the standard of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide.
You can be a democracy or you can be a religious state. You can't be both. Officially and legally favoring one religion over others is the moral equivalent of the Jim Crow laws and have no place in a democracy.
Many Christian countries have official churches, but religious minorities have equal rights. The same is not true for the 50-plus Muslim countries, where minorities do not have equal rights.
I don’t know how much you know about Israel’s democracy, but every minority group in the country has the same rights to voting, employment, education, healthcare and worship as the Jewish majority. The religious minorities in Israel Have a tremendous success rate in educational and professional attainment. There is no comparison to Jim Crow.
I could be ill-informed, but I do not think most of the religion-based countries limit the rights of those citizens who are not of the established religion.
I don’t believe any non-Muslim residents of an Islamic country have the same rights as Muslims living there. UAE may be an exception, but I’m not positive.
You may be surprised to know that all citizens of Israel have equal rights, regardless of their religion. That includes Christians, Muslims, Bahai, Druze, atheists, et al.
Are you against Hamas using homes as armories and rocket launch sites? Or boobytrapping every 2nd or 3rd house to prevent access to their tunnel shafts? Or preventing every single Gazan civilian from using its tunnel network as bomb shelters?
If you look at statistics from the war, something like 70% of buildings demolished versus 3.5% of the population killed (if you only use Hamas figures) — with nearly half (or more) of them being combatants — you can see that the IDF took exceptional caution to warn civilians to evacuate target areas. Otherwise there would’ve been a much higher percentage of Gazan civilians killed.
I think we both would’ve preferred that no civilians were killed. For that to have happened, Hamas would have had to not launch a war, knowing its consequences on their civilians and not have a human sacrifice strategy.
Let me help you with your phrasing: “It ought to be possible to criticize the Israeli government 's response to the Hamas attack of 10/7/23 and the widespread war crimes committed by the IDF against the population of Gaza, including murder of thousands of children and wanton destruction of hospitals and other infrastructure without being labeled antisemitic.”
Yeah. And it ought to be possible to criticize the American government and the pending and already disastrous effects of its policies and actions on not only Americans but people of every stripe all around the world without being labeled as an un-American traitor who deserves to be hung. But there you go.
I love a good idea. And America is a good idea, the best idea so far in man's search for a workable means of self-government as opposed to tyranny and oppression.
So, I love my country. But not its government.
In fact, my love for my country requires me to disdain and disapprove of *this* government in every respect and to do whatever I can to see that its days and the days of any like it that may yet come to power are as short as is possible.
And if that makes me a traitor, f**K it. Bring on the rope.
I think Israel has a right to exist and protect their population and their interests.
I also think that Bibi has got to GO, immediately, and the US should sanction Israel until that happens.
I read a book years ago called To the Ends of the Earth about The Jackal, a notorious international spy/double-agent/assasin/terrorist that wasn't even allowed to be sold in the US that gives a lot of insight into Israel/Middle East politics. Recommended if you can find it (I got it in England).
I'm also against Zionist expansion, but don't know enough about a Two State Solution or the particulars about places like the West Bank to really form an opinion.
I’m not a Bibi fan either, and even less so of his ultra right wing coalition members. He is up for reelection this year and I hope he loses. I also hoped that Trump would lose in 2014 and I’m not a fan of his or of his right wing coalition members either.
I don’t claim to be an expert on the Middle East, but what I do know is that representatives speaking for the Palestinians from the Grand Mufti in the 1920s, 30s and 40s (who worked with the Nazis while leading the British Mandatory Palestine territory) to Arafat to Hamas and Abbas have ALL rejected every two state proposal offered to them, often with violence.
They don’t want two states or their own state. They want one state: Israel, “From the river to the sea.” Sound familiar? For the uninitiated, that means the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, genocidally encompassing the entire State of Israel.
There's no genocide implied in a desire for a one state solution where Jews and Arabs share the same democratic, lay government in peace and with freedom of religion and equal rights. A state where whites and non-whites could coexist peacefully in South Africa seemed unthinkable until it happened.
The two women who were approached by Kim Jong Eun's agents to carry a piece of cloth up to someone at an airport and rub his eyes with the respective cloths probably didn't that there would be any harm as a result of doing so.
However, the two cloths were doused in substances that are harmless on their own, but form VX when mixed. Within minutes of the second woman rubbing his eyes with the cloth, the victim fell dead on a seat.
The moral of the story is that just because you don't see how a course of action can cause something horrific as a consequence doesn't mean that that course of action can't cause that consequence.
Before Apartheid ended in South Africa, was there widespread talk among non-white South Africans about annihilating the white population? There is such talk among the Palestinians of doing so to Israel, and it is not safe for Palestinians to publicly oppose doing so.
We can agree it is a more difficult path to peaceful coexistence. The Apartheid government was criminal, but it never killed 70.000 people, mostly civilians and children, during a single 3 year period of all-out bombings, shootings, and widespread demolition of hospitals, homes, and schools.
That figure comes from a bunch of habitual liars. As an example, as soon as an explosion happened near the Al Ahli hospital, they claimed that it was the result of an Israeli airstrike. It turned out to be an Islamic Jihad rocket that fell short. Their claims should not be trusted.
That said, the number of Gazans killed is awful. Nonetheless, a substantial portion of the casualties were active participants in Hamas or another militant group. In fact the proportion of combatant casualties to total casualties is higher than any urban conflict anywhere. This is despite Hamas's strategy of getting Gaza's civilians killed in order that the international community will restrain Israel, and the efforts Hamas goes to in order to frustrate Israel's efforts to protect civilian life other than by letting Hamas act with impunity.
As to the hospitals and other infrastructure, they have been used for Hamas command posts and storage of materiel. The Geneva Convention explicitly says that those circumstances render a hospital a lawful target. Denying that Gaza's hospitals are used for such purposes deserves as much respect as saying that Renee Good was attempting to run the ICE officers over with her car.
Sorry, but your statement is wrong. The Israeli government is the one that rejects the two state solution. Back when Arafat was still alive the Israelis told him that they would kill him if he ever declared Palestine to be a self governed state, and they haven't changed their stance since.
They probably don't like the hardliners any more than the rest of us. I imagine the VAST majority of the population in the Middle East just wants to live their lives without all this garbage.
Like they did, for centuries. Arabs and Jews were just neighbors coexisting until 1948. Have you ever thought why there are more than 5 million Palestinian refugees? Why are they refugees? Why did they flee? Why can't they go back to their homes?
You're engaging in cognitive egocentrism, projecting that they value for themselves what you value for yourself. It is one thing to have such a hypothesis. However, when data come in testing that hypothesis, accept the data and what they say about the hypothesis.
I am al ears for DATA that indicate that the just want to live their lives. I don't care about your feelings on matters that are empirically testable.
I agree that Bibi must go, but for two completely different reasons.
First, he is completely blind to the information war that Israel is engaged in. For instance, one of the rallying cries against Israel is the supposed plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza. To that, Bibi lets Smotrich and Ben Gvir yap about their plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
Second, in order to secure power, he is willing to undermine his country by protecting one group's right to shirk responsibility for protecting the whole, that is modifying haredi exemption from the draft, whatever cost that imposes on everyone else.
How illiberal of you. We should sanction countries when we do not like the outcome of their elections? That sounds very Trumpy. Should we sanction other allies until they elect the leader we prefer? Or this just a standard for Israel? This is for posterity, so please, be honest.
We should sanction countries that commit acts of genocide on other countries. Just like we do to a lot of others. But we're not doing anything like that for the reasons laid out in the piece.
I’ve never before heard any kind of “Zionism” name for the belief (incongruent with divine omnipotence) that Jesus isn’t able to show his face again on Earth without Israel existing, but that does clear up much of my confusion about the current arguments around Zionism.
When some religious MAGA types call Zionism a "Christian heresy," it is specifically this belief they mean, which used to supply a certain amount of the connective tissue that united national-security conservatives and social/religious conservatives behind the principle "America must be a strong ally to Israel."
That’s interesting. In my evangelical upbringing the rationale for support of Israel was that Jesus was a Jew and that Israelites were God’s chosen people. This makes more sense.
There is a faction of the religious right that thinks they can precipitate the Second Coming(tm) by their actions. Mike Pence was/is a member of that faction.
I was taught that the purpose of Israel's creation was a fulfillments of Christian prophecy, which would lead to Armaggedon, the destruction of Judaism (and pretty much everything else) and the return of Jesus (cross our fingers and pray that happens soon!)
It was all a bit complicated, but basically Israel existing = Jesus returning = everyone else dead = YAY!
But for Christian Zionists there is a second benefit for Israel existing in the here and now - they get to see brown Muslims beat up. Also YAY! Win-Win!
Took me my whole teenage years to extricate myself from this.
And I will chime in with the unprecedented number of Israeli settlements in occupied territory. I thought it was explicitly against the U.N. charter and international law to settle occupied lands.
One can certainly have legitimate criticisms of Israel as I have, as many supporters of Israel have had and as many Israelis have of their own government. Those criticisms come from a place of wanting to make Israel better, not to delegitimize it or effectuate Hamas's information warfare to render Israel unable to meaningfully defend itself. I believe much of the Left wants to see Israel weak and ineffectual (see Dara Horn's book "People Love Dead Jews").
If you are going to criticize the war, then you better have an explanation of what the alterative was. Otherwise, no supporter of Israel should take your criticism seriously.
Criticizing the Israeli government’s conduct in Gaza — or any other policy — is not inherently antisemitic or even necessarily antizionist. Heck, Israelis probably criticize their government more than anyone else!
Many of the criticisms though are based on extremely skewed data, bias, reports and assumptions. Inaccuracies are not corrected on the front page, if they’re corrected at all, and always long after the lie has made its way around the world.
You won't get a viable alternative from anti-Israel/anti-Zionist Bulwark commenters. What you will get is a lot of unproven claims of "genocide" together with nonsensical suggestions like "it should all be 1 state" (as if Jewish Israelis will ever agree to be a minority under an Arab majority yoke as they were for centuries prior to the State of Israel) or other nonsense refusing to acknowledge that the war in Gaza was a war to destroy Hamas, that civilians are killed in wars, and some hand waving about "disproportionate response" which is a euphemism for their real view that Israel deserved what it received on Oct 7th and should have just sucked it up.
"I almost always feel inclined, when I happen to say anything to soldiers, to impress upon them in a few brief remarks the importance of success in this contest. It is not merely for to-day, but for all time to come that we should perpetuate for our children’s children this great and free government, which we have enjoyed all our lives. I beg you to remember this, not merely for my sake, but for yours. I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has. It is in order that each of you may have through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations. It is for this the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright—not only for one, but for two or three years. The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel."
As much as Lincoln's extemporaneous comments hold truth and meaning, it is the tone that jumps out at me, in light of the bombardment of our senses on (literally) a daily basis by another President when mouth opens and words tumble out.
In comparison, such eloquence seems like the relic of a bygone era, one we left behind with no one asking for our permission or endorsement to do so. Lincoln speaks from the soul, with clarity of mind and purpose of heart. He lifts and inspires, with words that even now can motivate our sense of mission. Flash forward 16 decades and more, and we hear the current occupant of the White House exhibiting the crudeness, crassness, and coarseness of a teenager far more impressed with himself than with anything to do with the greater good. Personal insults. Profanity. Constant glorification of the self. Obsession with his own perceived achievements and accomplishments. (Take a drink every time he uses a superlative form of an adjective whenever he refers to himself and his performance. See you under the table, soon.)
In a span of time marked by so much innovation and progress, how far our discourse has fallen and our communication skills have eroded, from top leadership to what we hear as conversation on the streets. I have little hope for us to return to our better selves, and the better angels of our nature, as long as That Man continues to debase the English language and our sense of grace and dignity every time he speaks. Truly words matter, both for better and for worse. How sad that we have reached a point that our nation not only tolerates, but also endorses, that the worst public speaker in its history is the best person to lead us all, and the free world, into the future.
I, too, was struck by Lincoln's carefully chosen words. One of the things that stood out to me was his realization that our country represented a NEW form of government where the POTUS steps down with a peaceful transition of power.
We are a representative republic that is extremely spoiled and ignorant of the dark forces that would love to do away with it and replace it with something "better" which no doubt involves giving somebody more power to do "better" things with it.
I recently have been debating a friend who doesn't like Trump but sees the GOP as the better party. I sent him 2 links: 1. Trump's 2026 Prayer Breakfast remarks 2. Obama's 2016 remarks. I asked him to compare them and realize that the GOP's acceptance of Trump's insane remarks is why I no longer believe they are capable of, nor interested in, pushing back against him.
As always, thank you for your articulate and thoughtful posts.
Yikes. And I just read an article about how many AI high level workers are leaving because they believe that AI will just manipulate people (I imagine to buy things) based on their individual fears, and that this is what the owners want. Manipulation. We've seen this....
Yes, there’s currently an exodus of leadership and scientific talent from xAI going on, as well as the op ed (I believe is what you read), about OpenAI making the same mistakes facebook made, but this has the potential to turn out much worse. I recommend the read. I don’t have a subscription to the NYT, but read if you can.
I’m not sure if we’re rebuilding road or creating new ones, but thank you for your beautiful and despairing remarks on Lincoln v Trump. Obama was a fine rhetor, but he did not inspire with words. The last president to do so was Ronald Reagan, I admit reluctantly.
He also has an obsession with perceived slights. Thin-skinned would be an understatement and if it were a drinking game as you suggest, I would be under the table within an hour.
Deutschmeister - dunno any of my Buckeye ancestors’ regiments. Do have a letter written in that era, the guy’s language was similar. Amazing that common folk could manage that palaver. What % of today’s registered voters could give an accurate recap of Lincoln’s brief, eloquent message ? …ooh, may I propose a rider for the SAVE America act?
More politicians should choose to quote other great leaders in their speeches. They are almost ALWAYS more intelligent, thoughtful, and cohesive than what we have been given lately.
EXACTLY what I said to my wife yesterday. The hearing is being held to hold her feet to the fire and to answer questions about important topics.
Maybe some sort of rule that prevents attacking the legislators about unrelated topics? An automatic contempt of Congress and if you get a certain number of them...an automatic impeachment hearing?
LOL...yah...like that'll ever happen! Nice to daydream though...
Great morning shots, as always! But be careful: you're steering mighty close to the treacherous waters of False Flag. You need an experienced pilot like Will Sommer to safely navigate those rocky shoals.
For other possible fissure-points in the MAGA coalition besides the posture towards Jews, there is always the embrace of the tech oligarchs that seems out of place in a purportedly populist movement, and the foreign interventions like the Venezuela or Iran operations that seems to play to the big swinging dick portion of the coalition while alienating the America First part of the coalition. And there's those pesky Epstein Files, too, where even some of Trump's most ardent shills seem to be jumping off the ship, like MTG and Boebert. MTG herself is all the evidence that we need to recognize that there are problems in the MAGA coalition that can be exploited. But, when it comes time to get in line and get behind a candidate in November 2028, it's very likely Republican voters will swallow any hypocrisy and vote against whomever the Democratic candidate is, even if they don't feel great voting for the Republican candidate.
MAGA of course would vote for Trump if he shot JESUS on 5th Ave, but there are a lot of less crazy Republicans (farmers, ranchers, oil guys here where I live) that are fed up with the nonsense. Immigrants are VITAL to our small rural towns- they buy homes, cars, pay taxes, keep our schools full, work in meat packing, feedlots, oil wells, oil rigs, ranches, farms, cotton gins, grain mills, etc.
Yes, we had illegal immigrants here who worked and lived here for years that have gone home to Mexico, but legal immigrants with green cards are leaving as well.
I’d like to see it play out that way. I’m sure there will be some percentage who have had that epiphany and decide not to vote for the R. But I think about those farmers; in Trump’s first administration, he voluntarily ignited a trade war and devastated many a small farm, yet those victims got their bailouts and almost all of them voted for Trump another two times. We’ll see in 2028 how many are more influenced by reality than by culture war fantasy.
Yet, from polling of farmers about a year ago, 54% of farmers are against Trump's use of tariffs, and 36% don't think they'll be compensated for their losses.
Plus, a lot of farmers, being self employed, used the ACA to get health insurance for their families and that's getting ridiculous. One woman I talked to said her ACA payment went from $25 a month to $800!!
So, as I =said above, MAGAs will never change but we don't need them all. Just 5% more...
Thank you, Sko, for the laugh ("... if he shot JESUS...") and for the comment about "less crazy Republicans.'
I live among farmers. I just wrote a letter to the editor about the stupid policies that are causing farm incomes to drop and farm bankruptcies to rise. I hope it confirms to these Republican farmers what they were fearing. A loss of reliable workers is one key reason for the current troubles in American farming.
I wish that the auto industry would get so upset with tariffs that they would throw their support to Democrats in the 2026 mid-terms, but I suspect that Trump's wholesale attack on emissions regulations will keep them on board. He has brought home the bacon in a way that even Reagan couldn't top.
I am not so sure that is entirely the case. The auto industry, for example, has made some significant investments in electric vehicle technology like batteries and many of those facilities are in rural communities in red states. If those facilities don’t come on line, workers will be screwed as well as the manufacturers.
The legacy US automakers had lots of nice things to say about Trump when he torpedoed emissions standards last month. In addition, Ford recently announced that it was pulling back on its EV program and writing off huge amounts of money to do so. Meanwhile, after a major management reshuffling, Stellantis has ditched major elements of its EV program in the US in favor of bringing back the Hemi V8. The former executive team that had gone strongly for EVs is now being blamed for the company's recent losses.
None of this is surprising. The US auto industry has long opposed, in almost knee-jerk fashion, pretty much every attempt by the federal government to regulate it. These guys -- and, yes, they are still mostly guys -- are pretty anti-government except when it comes to protectionist legislation (particularly keeping the Chinese out of the US market).
The other thing to consider is that the trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the US is up for possible renewal this year. The domestic automakers have so heavily integrated their supply chains between the three countries that keeping at least a semblance of an agreement is at the top of their policy agenda. That's going to be an uphill battle given Trump's inclinations. Thus, auto execs appear to be bending over backwards to play nice in the hopes that Trump will adopt what they see as a more reasonable stance than what he has done so far in his second term.
Karl - let’s message on tariffs are a tax on Americans, paid to the government in the higher prices we all see every day. AND there’s tremendous Big Govt intrusion in Trump’s admin advocating against 2nd Amendment rights & free speech, the Govt grabbing people without judicial warrant, claiming that standing or driving constitutes “obstruction” etc.
Pam Bondi resurfaces like a vampire from its lair as this is a woman who doesn’t believe in the disinfectant properties of sunlight. That wasn’t an oversight hearing but the parody of a hearing. That she didn’t have answers isn’t shocking; she could have answers, but that’s not what she’s hired for. I know she thought herself Al Pacino from Scarface with guns blazing, but it seemed more like Sunday brunch drag with a tad too much melodrama. When Fox can’t be bothered with an over-the-top performance you aren’t hitting the mark. I think the Democrats did a good job with the material they had, but there wasn’t much to work with. The administration feels no need to answer to anyone let alone Congress. I know there are some who believe the mere fact she showed up demonstrates the administration is still at least going through the motions, but will they do that after November? The only reason Pam went was because she thought she could own the dems and dominate, but she’s just not that talented or funny. It wasn’t Sunday morning, the audience wasn’t half drunk, and it wasn’t Raskin who looked washed up.
It's profoundly sad to think that most of her preparation for the testimony was oppo research. I truly mean that. The other sad part is that Trump and most of the GOP are ok with that.
Great point. I want to show this to my MAGA friends and challenge them about why this would be something so important to our AG that she brings it with her to the hearing?
NOW...that being said...if she had actually answered questions with a few "I'll be looking into that...thanks for bringing it to my attention" that demonstrated some actual good intentions about the DOJ Epstein release effort...I might be more conciliatory, but that's not what happened.
Like I said in an earlier post...this hearing will be such an object of shame in about 10 years when everything's revealed about Epstein and the DOJ's intentional coverup of it.
Right, she had a notebook for her insult attacks, but I didn't see anything she had prepared as a guidebook to reference and facilitate answers to proper questions about the Epstein files - which should have been her only mission. Gross incompetence.
She also had printouts for each Congress member showing what search terms used and chain of links used when viewing the somewhat unredacted Epstein documents. An astute photographer got a photo of such a page for Rep. Jayapal. Incredible.
To bring up the stock market, and the past impeachments in response to questions about the Epstein Files Transparency Act that DOJ is violating every day is pure partisan politics, with no relation whatsoever with her job as General Attorney. This is a direct violation of the Hatch Act from the GA, on TV. There ought to be legal consequences for her behavior from a future administration.
It was a performance for an audience of one, as usual. I bet Daddy Trump bought her a pony. It did bother me that she said she didn’t know about Maxwell’s change of prison venue. Does that mean that Todd Blanche made the decision on his own or bypassed Bondi and took orders from Trump? Is Bondi not actually in charge of DOJ and only trotted out for the camera?
I am wondering if after her performance in congress, Bondi is too unlikeable even for MAGA. Don’t they like well behaved submissive females? To me the whole episode seemed like a big fail, but I do t understand these people. Even Gym Jordan seemed a little less than thrilled at some points.
Just imagine what this testimony will look like in 10 years when most of the information in the Epstein files is known. It's truly hard to imagine how poorly this performance, that was utterly devoid of compassion combined with manufactured hubris, will play in history as the orange kool-aid wears off.
They believe in owning the libs and don’t care if it’s done wearing a skirt, but she’s riding it too hard. MAGA wants authentic owning the libs, not stale over-the-top owning the libs — wrong vibes.
Jordan possibly distracted by Signal chats re: risks to central Ohio money train due to continued Epstein news about Wexner and OSU gynecologist. Bad for bizness
Well, they asked for other fault lines and women having power is certainly one. I loathe Elise Stefanik but wish she would have some sort of MTG public “ah-ha!” moment. Or at least a Nancy Mace moment.
A "strong" MAGA woman prostrates herself before her pedophile convicted felon man by any means necessary, constantly singing his praises and attacking all his critics. Which isn't strong at all, actually. It is pathetically weak.
Remember 2009 the quaint days when Trump was just a birther conspiracy theorist? I haven’t heard the name Carrie Prejean since then when she lost the Miss USA pageant finishing runner up claiming it was her answer on gay marriage that cost her (Prop 8 had just passed I think).
Trump actually got into a war of words with her and fired her then after she didn’t show up to her appearances:
I remember her on Larry King and how she called coined the term “opposite marriage” for male/female unions.
Like every other aging person that once had their 15 minutes of fame, she will re-emerge decades later. Some try and sell memorabilia, some try and make a low budget documentary, but MAGA type celebs seem to go the Mel Gibson route and blame the Jews.
Re the El Paso airspace kerfuffle, if it is true that the Pentagon was/is testing drone interception, why not use one of the (many, huge, available) military proving grounds? White Sands, New Mexico, is just one example of sites where such work could be undertaken, just 50 miles away.
If you look at the map of the areas covered by the closure there was or is a piece along the border of New Mexico as well. From what I read it wasn’t clear they had opened up that piece of airspace which is discontiguous to El Paso.
Maybe they need to test how their new toy works in the presence of lots of ambient light from the city lights. White sands wouldn't have as much ambient light. It was reported to be a laser based weapon and that CBP were the ones that did the test.
I was actually laughing at the FAA Director closing the airspace around El Paso yesterday, but reading more last night, he might have made the correct decision, since their BILLION DOLLAR DRONE KILLER was deployed to shoot down a "cartel drone" that turned out to be a balloon.
Those planes flying in and out of El Paso could have been in real danger.
Personally, I think these operations served their desired purposes; these clowns knew that the party was over: For Now, at least!
Bottom line, the behavior has been normalized; no investigations into the shooting deaths will be conducted, and certainly no changes are being made to these depraved tactics employed by a bunch of lawless goons!
And now that we’re going into the midterms, you can expect more chaos from these morally flexible and bankrupt religious wing-nuts; swinging harder than ever!
One thing is for certain; these people are as relentless as they are ruthless, and they will never admit defeat!IMHO…:)
Bill's quote of President Lincoln's "extemporaneous remarks of August 22, 1864, to the 166th Ohio Regiment" brings to mind that in the future, no one is likely to cite quotes from Donald Trump, except as satire, or in warning or shame.
Great point. I've often imagined what a Trump leadership book would contain. I'm guessing that one of his Top 10 points would be to always come up with a catchy derogatory nickname for your political opponents.
The sad thing about the Lincoln quote, and it's message to the troops that protecting the freedoms of our country are of the upmost importance to their mission, is that a large majority of our current troops would not understand it. Their ability to interpret complex expressions in the English language has diminished. Current example: I have no doubt at all that the words in that speech would flummox our current Commander in Chief. He would not have the slightest idea of what Lincoln was trying to say. To Trump's uneducated brain, it would be nonsensical gibberish.
So, The Bulwark announces they're sending Sarah, JVL, and Tim to Minneapolis, and a few days before their arrival, Tom Homan announces they're ending the ICE invasion of that city. The fascist regime was simply not prepared to face the shock and awe of a Bulwark live show.
Imagine if they fully unleashed the Trio!
Finger Team Three
Middle finger team three!
Deploy the Potato Boys!
I’d still be very alert and careful if I were any of the Bulwark contributors. I only watched 3 minutes of Tom Homan’s press conference today and he used the term agitator at least 15 times during that short time I watched.
They aren’t going anywhere. They are gonna keep terrorizing the citizens of Minneapolis they are just trying to spin it so the rest of the country thinks they are behaving better and ramping down efforts. But that language tells me that they are there for the Americans that cross them as much as immigrants.
I think they are indeed drawing down in Minneapolis--and spreading out to other places, where they won't act with the theatrical cruelty of Bovino, but will be just as lawless and cruel. They aren't building those humongous detention centers around the country, at the cost of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, for no reason. And Homan himself kept saying, "we are still doing Trump's mass deportation plan."
At the same time Homan was talking about the 100s of "agitators" they arrested, there's an article in the Star Tribune today about what really happens with these arrests, which turn out to be largely for show:
"The federal government accused dozens of Minnesota’s anti-ICE protesters of attacking law enforcement agents and ramming their cars into federal vehicles, inflicting bodily injury. Prosecutors posed them for photos, shackled and flanked by Department of Homeland Security agents.
"In January, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi posted their photos in a virtual perp walk and called them “Minnesota rioters” in a social media post viewed more than 3 million times. Minnesota U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen said the federal government will “not tolerate assaults on federal officers and those who commit that crime will be held accountable.”
"Yet weeks later, federal prosecutors quietly charged the protesters with less serious crimes in about 20 cases. In at least three instances, charges were dismissed, Susan Du reports.
"Former federal prosecutors say it’s unprecedented to allege assault on a law enforcement agent and then charge it as a misdemeanor rather than a felony, which typically carries a harsher penalty. John Marti, former acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, said proceeding with lesser charges is an indication that prosecutors don’t have strong evidence and are “trying to avoid taking these cases before grand juries.”
“ "Are they really interested in getting convictions, or are they more interested in charging as a means to intimidate and abuse citizens who are opposing this administration’s policies?' he said."
Also, in more than a few cases an allegation that a protester had rammed ICE has been disproven. Video and, in a few cases, the fact that the protester was on the phone with police dispatch at the time, has established that it was ICE doing the ramming. (NPR - "This American Life."
Yes--it's ICE using vehicles as weapons, almost entirely.
Your first paragraph is right on, I'm afraid. My wife called me yesterday to report that she had seen what looked like an ICE arrest at the entrance to our neighborhood here in Charlotte, where "Operation Charlotte's Web" officially ended some time ago.
A car was stranded on the side of the road, and she saw three masked men wearing desert-tan tactical vests as they hustled a man into an unmarked vehicle. A CMPD officer was standing nearby, but not participating. Two locals had apparently stopped their own vehicles and gotten out to film the proceedings with their phones. One of the locals was talking to the police officer as he recorded.
This was yesterday.
My guess is that, under Homan's guidance, DHS is going to continue following the same playbook but with a more scattershot, low-key approach; less "city siege" and more "guerilla warfare."
Speaking of ICE, if you want some inspiration, you need to watch Ian McKellen's appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert that aired February 4th. The interview is really entertaining, so watch the whole thing if you have time. The best part was near 20:10 as he recites a speech written by Shakespeare that was contributed to another author's play - "Sir Thomas Moore." It was never performed during Shakespeare's time as it was considered seditious, but in 1964 it was performed, for the first time, with McKellen playing the lead. 400 years ago there was a riot in London as people were complaining about the "strangers" in their midst. Moore was a young lawyer sent by the authorities to quell the mob. McKellen's rendition, as he asks them to obey the law, while appealing to their humanity towards immigrants, was a master performance. You have to listen carefully, as the words are suited to a different time in history, but the substance is so prescient to our current times that it lifted my spirits and gave me hope. See it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l2RqzVG4ag
this was such a gift, JMP -- thank you for taking the time to share it
I almost think we should retire the word unprecedented as this administration tramples every law and long ago abandoned all norms. It’s now precedented for them to do whatever they damn well please. Bondi was a disgrace yesterday, but for the few who watched their outrage was the point.
Start with the biggest lie possible, then downgrade it as opposition mounts. Do this step by step until you finish up with the equivalent of a traffic fine. Whimper, how pathetic.
I watched both Homan's and Walz' press conferences.
Wow. Homan. To quote Sarah, "O - Kay." His performance was nothing more than face-saving. He's leaving because the city is now safe. He's leaving because the city and the state are now cooperating. He's leaving because the "agitators" have stopped "agitating." They're not REALLY leaving, he says. They've always been there. So they're staying, but they're going.
Sheesh.
And then you listen to Walz. Homan's goons came in there and did no end of physical damage. They harmed people, including children. They need to clean it up and he'll be sending the bill to the federal government. He doesn't want celebrations in the streets (although I suspect they're going to happen) and he wants to remain vigilant because Trump and his goons are not to be trusted.
Homan was saving face. Walz was coming up for air and thanking the people of Minnesota for being Minnesotans.
The character of the two men is striking. Homan is a mush-mouthed, bullet-headed, corrupt mediocrity. Walz is a good man, doing his best under terrible circumstances. Walz is far from perfect. (The fraud thing is real.) But Tim Walz is the guy who got Tom Homan to leave AND kept his honor clean.
Tim, Sarah and JVL, Paid agitators! Domestic Terrorists! :)
Indeed, SEEING is BELIEVING.
Relocating 700 agents from Minnesota is only for show. If one half of the agents were removed from Minnesota there would still be too many agents in Minnesota.
Very Special Forces... .
"We will storm the beaches"........
You're onto something here - wish I could give you 100 hearts!
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) X 10
Well, can you blame them?
Sarah, JVL and Tim are awesome.
Make it a nationwide tour!
I love the conspiracy theory, but I'm doubtful. I would love to think that Sarah, Tim and JVL have that much power. It's just as likely that Homan and Noem had a momentary flash of common sense. I don't expect it to last very long.
F_ _ _ an 'A' :)
It ought to be possible to criticize the Israeli government 's response to the Hamas attack of 10/7/23 and the disastrous effects of that response on thr population of Gaza without being labeled antisemitic.
The real question which no one wants to deal with is what should our relationship with Israel look like. At a time when we are questioning all our old alliances, most notably trans-Atlantic one, why wouldn’t we question our relationship with Israel. The old consensus on Israel is broken, but we aren’t having an honest conversation so that vacuum is being filled by those on the extremes. It isn’t antisemitic to criticize Israel, though it can veer into antisemitism, but there are those for whom it is more convenient to label everything antisemitism rather than have an honest conversation.
Agree. But going one step further, I would ask: where does one draw the antisemitic line in criticizing the action of the Israeli government? Some Jewish citizens that harshly criticize the Israeli government provide some example. Surely, it is difficult to accuse them of antisemitism. Yet, just repeating what some of those people say publicly in Israel here on a campus in the USA can get you in a whole world of trouble.
Easy.
Criticize them for violations of international humanitarian law.
Don't let them hide their crimes behind Judaism or false claims of antisemitism.
The other similar principle/argument that I have when arguing with people who equate Palestinians with Hamas is to ask them if Joe Biden represented their opinions because he won an election.
My partner is a non-practicing Jew. The question proposed, “If I don’t support the political state (policies) of Israel, am I an antisemite, yes or no?” is valid and most definitely a third rail. We feel we can literally only speak of this behind closed curtains.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism, accepted by governments across the world and across the US, clarifies that criticizing policies of the Israeli government is not antisemitism. Holding Israel to different standards than you would hold any other country or denying its right to exist as a Jewish State is. Does that help?
What of someone who believes there should be no religiously-based states? Or that no states have an inherent right to exist? It seems to me that for that person, accepting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State would be incompatible with holding it to the same standards as they hold any other country. Do those underlying beliefs automatically make one antisemitic, even though they have nothing specifically to do with Jews or Judaism?
Whatever preferences somebody may hold, there are many religiously-based “ethno” states. More than 50 of them are Muslim. I’m not sure what the official count of Christian countries is, but many have official churches, like the Anglican Church of England. I am sure that there is only one Jewish state — and I’ve never heard anyone question any other country’s right to exist. The double standards are blatant. Should Russia exist? Should China? Should Iran? Should North Korea? Should Myanmar? All of these countries have horrendous human rights abuses.
Are Russians, Chinese, Iranians or Koreans living overseas widely attacked because of what their governments do? Generally not.
So whatever your hypothetical individual with unique views holds, this is present day reality.
Whether something should exist and whether it has a right to exist are different questions. “Should” can be contingent on all kinds of things. For example, if a limited group of people have standing to end something and they choose not to, then it “should” continue to exist but not because of a “right” it holds. I think a lot of people find the “right to exist” construct confusing at best and would never independently use it to articulate what they believe about any country.
And even on “should,” there certainly are radical schools of thought that believe things like “countries shouldn’t exist as a concept.” It seems strange to me to label that an antisemitic belief.
I intend to write a series of articles intentionally violating the "examples" of the IHRA.
I'd appreciate your feedback if you think they are antisemitic.
FWIW - I wish people would NOT hold Israel to a different standard. I wish they would hold them to the standard of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide.
You can be a democracy or you can be a religious state. You can't be both. Officially and legally favoring one religion over others is the moral equivalent of the Jim Crow laws and have no place in a democracy.
Many Christian countries have official churches, but religious minorities have equal rights. The same is not true for the 50-plus Muslim countries, where minorities do not have equal rights.
I don’t know how much you know about Israel’s democracy, but every minority group in the country has the same rights to voting, employment, education, healthcare and worship as the Jewish majority. The religious minorities in Israel Have a tremendous success rate in educational and professional attainment. There is no comparison to Jim Crow.
I could be ill-informed, but I do not think most of the religion-based countries limit the rights of those citizens who are not of the established religion.
I don’t believe any non-Muslim residents of an Islamic country have the same rights as Muslims living there. UAE may be an exception, but I’m not positive.
You may be surprised to know that all citizens of Israel have equal rights, regardless of their religion. That includes Christians, Muslims, Bahai, Druze, atheists, et al.
Zionists hold Israel to a different standard than they hold other nations. Are they antisemitic, or does it only work one way.
You’d be hard pressed to find anyone who is perfectly even-handed between all nations everywhere everywhen in all contexts.
I don’t think being against dropping sticks of 2000 pound bombs on apartment buildings is antisemitism.
Are you against Hamas using homes as armories and rocket launch sites? Or boobytrapping every 2nd or 3rd house to prevent access to their tunnel shafts? Or preventing every single Gazan civilian from using its tunnel network as bomb shelters?
If you look at statistics from the war, something like 70% of buildings demolished versus 3.5% of the population killed (if you only use Hamas figures) — with nearly half (or more) of them being combatants — you can see that the IDF took exceptional caution to warn civilians to evacuate target areas. Otherwise there would’ve been a much higher percentage of Gazan civilians killed.
I think we both would’ve preferred that no civilians were killed. For that to have happened, Hamas would have had to not launch a war, knowing its consequences on their civilians and not have a human sacrifice strategy.
Too much to debunk.
That’s an excellent line. I’ll have to steal it.
If you do steal it, you can just say you always owned it for the last 3000 years.
Let me guess, you’re moonlighting as Noem’s PR writer?
🤦♀️
Hey Luke,
So a day or two ago, someone replied to you about “it’s ok to bomb apartment building because Hamas are bad”.
I replied to that, debunking their claims.
But that thread is now invisible to me.
Can you still see it, linked off your post above?
Yes
Let me help you with your phrasing: “It ought to be possible to criticize the Israeli government 's response to the Hamas attack of 10/7/23 and the widespread war crimes committed by the IDF against the population of Gaza, including murder of thousands of children and wanton destruction of hospitals and other infrastructure without being labeled antisemitic.”
Thank you. I agree.
Yeah. And it ought to be possible to criticize the American government and the pending and already disastrous effects of its policies and actions on not only Americans but people of every stripe all around the world without being labeled as an un-American traitor who deserves to be hung. But there you go.
I love a good idea. And America is a good idea, the best idea so far in man's search for a workable means of self-government as opposed to tyranny and oppression.
So, I love my country. But not its government.
In fact, my love for my country requires me to disdain and disapprove of *this* government in every respect and to do whatever I can to see that its days and the days of any like it that may yet come to power are as short as is possible.
And if that makes me a traitor, f**K it. Bring on the rope.
I think Israel has a right to exist and protect their population and their interests.
I also think that Bibi has got to GO, immediately, and the US should sanction Israel until that happens.
I read a book years ago called To the Ends of the Earth about The Jackal, a notorious international spy/double-agent/assasin/terrorist that wasn't even allowed to be sold in the US that gives a lot of insight into Israel/Middle East politics. Recommended if you can find it (I got it in England).
I'm also against Zionist expansion, but don't know enough about a Two State Solution or the particulars about places like the West Bank to really form an opinion.
I’m not a Bibi fan either, and even less so of his ultra right wing coalition members. He is up for reelection this year and I hope he loses. I also hoped that Trump would lose in 2014 and I’m not a fan of his or of his right wing coalition members either.
I don’t claim to be an expert on the Middle East, but what I do know is that representatives speaking for the Palestinians from the Grand Mufti in the 1920s, 30s and 40s (who worked with the Nazis while leading the British Mandatory Palestine territory) to Arafat to Hamas and Abbas have ALL rejected every two state proposal offered to them, often with violence.
They don’t want two states or their own state. They want one state: Israel, “From the river to the sea.” Sound familiar? For the uninitiated, that means the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, genocidally encompassing the entire State of Israel.
There's no genocide implied in a desire for a one state solution where Jews and Arabs share the same democratic, lay government in peace and with freedom of religion and equal rights. A state where whites and non-whites could coexist peacefully in South Africa seemed unthinkable until it happened.
The two women who were approached by Kim Jong Eun's agents to carry a piece of cloth up to someone at an airport and rub his eyes with the respective cloths probably didn't that there would be any harm as a result of doing so.
However, the two cloths were doused in substances that are harmless on their own, but form VX when mixed. Within minutes of the second woman rubbing his eyes with the cloth, the victim fell dead on a seat.
The moral of the story is that just because you don't see how a course of action can cause something horrific as a consequence doesn't mean that that course of action can't cause that consequence.
Before Apartheid ended in South Africa, was there widespread talk among non-white South Africans about annihilating the white population? There is such talk among the Palestinians of doing so to Israel, and it is not safe for Palestinians to publicly oppose doing so.
We can agree it is a more difficult path to peaceful coexistence. The Apartheid government was criminal, but it never killed 70.000 people, mostly civilians and children, during a single 3 year period of all-out bombings, shootings, and widespread demolition of hospitals, homes, and schools.
" it never killed 70.000 people"
That figure comes from a bunch of habitual liars. As an example, as soon as an explosion happened near the Al Ahli hospital, they claimed that it was the result of an Israeli airstrike. It turned out to be an Islamic Jihad rocket that fell short. Their claims should not be trusted.
That said, the number of Gazans killed is awful. Nonetheless, a substantial portion of the casualties were active participants in Hamas or another militant group. In fact the proportion of combatant casualties to total casualties is higher than any urban conflict anywhere. This is despite Hamas's strategy of getting Gaza's civilians killed in order that the international community will restrain Israel, and the efforts Hamas goes to in order to frustrate Israel's efforts to protect civilian life other than by letting Hamas act with impunity.
As to the hospitals and other infrastructure, they have been used for Hamas command posts and storage of materiel. The Geneva Convention explicitly says that those circumstances render a hospital a lawful target. Denying that Gaza's hospitals are used for such purposes deserves as much respect as saying that Renee Good was attempting to run the ICE officers over with her car.
We saw on Oct. 7 what a one state solution looks like. That said, I appreciate you demonstrating who who are by your comment.
Sorry, but your statement is wrong. The Israeli government is the one that rejects the two state solution. Back when Arafat was still alive the Israelis told him that they would kill him if he ever declared Palestine to be a self governed state, and they haven't changed their stance since.
"From the river to the sea" is a Palestinian/Arab battlecry from the hard line mullahs, etc. At least that's my understanding of the history.
Is there a non-trivial population of Palestinians living under Palestinian jurisdiction who PUBLICLY oppose "from the river to the sea?"
They probably don't like the hardliners any more than the rest of us. I imagine the VAST majority of the population in the Middle East just wants to live their lives without all this garbage.
Like they did, for centuries. Arabs and Jews were just neighbors coexisting until 1948. Have you ever thought why there are more than 5 million Palestinian refugees? Why are they refugees? Why did they flee? Why can't they go back to their homes?
"I imagine the VAST majority of the population"
You're engaging in cognitive egocentrism, projecting that they value for themselves what you value for yourself. It is one thing to have such a hypothesis. However, when data come in testing that hypothesis, accept the data and what they say about the hypothesis.
I am al ears for DATA that indicate that the just want to live their lives. I don't care about your feelings on matters that are empirically testable.
I agree that Bibi must go, but for two completely different reasons.
First, he is completely blind to the information war that Israel is engaged in. For instance, one of the rallying cries against Israel is the supposed plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza. To that, Bibi lets Smotrich and Ben Gvir yap about their plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
Second, in order to secure power, he is willing to undermine his country by protecting one group's right to shirk responsibility for protecting the whole, that is modifying haredi exemption from the draft, whatever cost that imposes on everyone else.
How illiberal of you. We should sanction countries when we do not like the outcome of their elections? That sounds very Trumpy. Should we sanction other allies until they elect the leader we prefer? Or this just a standard for Israel? This is for posterity, so please, be honest.
We should sanction countries that commit acts of genocide on other countries. Just like we do to a lot of others. But we're not doing anything like that for the reasons laid out in the piece.
I’ve never before heard any kind of “Zionism” name for the belief (incongruent with divine omnipotence) that Jesus isn’t able to show his face again on Earth without Israel existing, but that does clear up much of my confusion about the current arguments around Zionism.
When some religious MAGA types call Zionism a "Christian heresy," it is specifically this belief they mean, which used to supply a certain amount of the connective tissue that united national-security conservatives and social/religious conservatives behind the principle "America must be a strong ally to Israel."
That’s interesting. In my evangelical upbringing the rationale for support of Israel was that Jesus was a Jew and that Israelites were God’s chosen people. This makes more sense.
Boy, I wish that what was I had been taught.
That's much nicer.
In never made sense to me that if Israelites were STILL God's chosen people ... what are Christains?
There is a faction of the religious right that thinks they can precipitate the Second Coming(tm) by their actions. Mike Pence was/is a member of that faction.
Xtianity: 2000 years of "ANY MINUTE NOW!!!!".
Hi there RR!
I grew up in a conservative Christian family.
I was taught that the purpose of Israel's creation was a fulfillments of Christian prophecy, which would lead to Armaggedon, the destruction of Judaism (and pretty much everything else) and the return of Jesus (cross our fingers and pray that happens soon!)
It was all a bit complicated, but basically Israel existing = Jesus returning = everyone else dead = YAY!
But for Christian Zionists there is a second benefit for Israel existing in the here and now - they get to see brown Muslims beat up. Also YAY! Win-Win!
Took me my whole teenage years to extricate myself from this.
And I will chime in with the unprecedented number of Israeli settlements in occupied territory. I thought it was explicitly against the U.N. charter and international law to settle occupied lands.
One can certainly have legitimate criticisms of Israel as I have, as many supporters of Israel have had and as many Israelis have of their own government. Those criticisms come from a place of wanting to make Israel better, not to delegitimize it or effectuate Hamas's information warfare to render Israel unable to meaningfully defend itself. I believe much of the Left wants to see Israel weak and ineffectual (see Dara Horn's book "People Love Dead Jews").
If you are going to criticize the war, then you better have an explanation of what the alterative was. Otherwise, no supporter of Israel should take your criticism seriously.
we all deserve open, safe spaces to ask questions and speak to pain, anger, fear, sadness Who is now tending to the olive trees..
Criticizing the Israeli government’s conduct in Gaza — or any other policy — is not inherently antisemitic or even necessarily antizionist. Heck, Israelis probably criticize their government more than anyone else!
Many of the criticisms though are based on extremely skewed data, bias, reports and assumptions. Inaccuracies are not corrected on the front page, if they’re corrected at all, and always long after the lie has made its way around the world.
What was the alternative?
You won't get a viable alternative from anti-Israel/anti-Zionist Bulwark commenters. What you will get is a lot of unproven claims of "genocide" together with nonsensical suggestions like "it should all be 1 state" (as if Jewish Israelis will ever agree to be a minority under an Arab majority yoke as they were for centuries prior to the State of Israel) or other nonsense refusing to acknowledge that the war in Gaza was a war to destroy Hamas, that civilians are killed in wars, and some hand waving about "disproportionate response" which is a euphemism for their real view that Israel deserved what it received on Oct 7th and should have just sucked it up.
Exactly. Thank you for saying it.
Feeling better now about IDF snipers using Palestinian children for target practice? Good for you.
Hey pal. If you had the better argument, you wouldn’t have to make things up.
Well it should be of course. But much political capital has been invested by bad faith actors and political arsonists to blur the obvious distinction.
But you can't.
See the special election in the New Jersey 11th this week.
"I almost always feel inclined, when I happen to say anything to soldiers, to impress upon them in a few brief remarks the importance of success in this contest. It is not merely for to-day, but for all time to come that we should perpetuate for our children’s children this great and free government, which we have enjoyed all our lives. I beg you to remember this, not merely for my sake, but for yours. I happen temporarily to occupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has. It is in order that each of you may have through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations. It is for this the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright—not only for one, but for two or three years. The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel."
As much as Lincoln's extemporaneous comments hold truth and meaning, it is the tone that jumps out at me, in light of the bombardment of our senses on (literally) a daily basis by another President when mouth opens and words tumble out.
In comparison, such eloquence seems like the relic of a bygone era, one we left behind with no one asking for our permission or endorsement to do so. Lincoln speaks from the soul, with clarity of mind and purpose of heart. He lifts and inspires, with words that even now can motivate our sense of mission. Flash forward 16 decades and more, and we hear the current occupant of the White House exhibiting the crudeness, crassness, and coarseness of a teenager far more impressed with himself than with anything to do with the greater good. Personal insults. Profanity. Constant glorification of the self. Obsession with his own perceived achievements and accomplishments. (Take a drink every time he uses a superlative form of an adjective whenever he refers to himself and his performance. See you under the table, soon.)
In a span of time marked by so much innovation and progress, how far our discourse has fallen and our communication skills have eroded, from top leadership to what we hear as conversation on the streets. I have little hope for us to return to our better selves, and the better angels of our nature, as long as That Man continues to debase the English language and our sense of grace and dignity every time he speaks. Truly words matter, both for better and for worse. How sad that we have reached a point that our nation not only tolerates, but also endorses, that the worst public speaker in its history is the best person to lead us all, and the free world, into the future.
I, too, was struck by Lincoln's carefully chosen words. One of the things that stood out to me was his realization that our country represented a NEW form of government where the POTUS steps down with a peaceful transition of power.
We are a representative republic that is extremely spoiled and ignorant of the dark forces that would love to do away with it and replace it with something "better" which no doubt involves giving somebody more power to do "better" things with it.
I recently have been debating a friend who doesn't like Trump but sees the GOP as the better party. I sent him 2 links: 1. Trump's 2026 Prayer Breakfast remarks 2. Obama's 2016 remarks. I asked him to compare them and realize that the GOP's acceptance of Trump's insane remarks is why I no longer believe they are capable of, nor interested in, pushing back against him.
As always, thank you for your articulate and thoughtful posts.
As we build more innovative products we lose the ability to communicate. We are apparently waiting for AI to do all the talking for us.
I have no words.
Yikes. And I just read an article about how many AI high level workers are leaving because they believe that AI will just manipulate people (I imagine to buy things) based on their individual fears, and that this is what the owners want. Manipulation. We've seen this....
Yes, there’s currently an exodus of leadership and scientific talent from xAI going on, as well as the op ed (I believe is what you read), about OpenAI making the same mistakes facebook made, but this has the potential to turn out much worse. I recommend the read. I don’t have a subscription to the NYT, but read if you can.
Thank you.
As Bill said, history will discard DJT to the ash bin while Lincolns legacy lives on.
Oh, I think Trump's legacy will live on - as an epithet for uniquely gross incompetence and behavior.
Truly, he will be remembered as the worst president in our history.
Agreed, but ... gotta get there first. It remains a very rocky ride, with a lot of road to rebuild.
I’m not sure if we’re rebuilding road or creating new ones, but thank you for your beautiful and despairing remarks on Lincoln v Trump. Obama was a fine rhetor, but he did not inspire with words. The last president to do so was Ronald Reagan, I admit reluctantly.
He also has an obsession with perceived slights. Thin-skinned would be an understatement and if it were a drinking game as you suggest, I would be under the table within an hour.
He does have the thinnest of skins, and a memory that stops at the 1970s—1980s.
Deutschmeister - dunno any of my Buckeye ancestors’ regiments. Do have a letter written in that era, the guy’s language was similar. Amazing that common folk could manage that palaver. What % of today’s registered voters could give an accurate recap of Lincoln’s brief, eloquent message ? …ooh, may I propose a rider for the SAVE America act?
More politicians should choose to quote other great leaders in their speeches. They are almost ALWAYS more intelligent, thoughtful, and cohesive than what we have been given lately.
Did they get *anything* they wanted out of Bondi? Why is Bondi's contemptuous performance not deemed Contempt of Congress?
When she kept digressing and fulminating, I kept yelling, “Turn her mic off!”.
EXACTLY what I said to my wife yesterday. The hearing is being held to hold her feet to the fire and to answer questions about important topics.
Maybe some sort of rule that prevents attacking the legislators about unrelated topics? An automatic contempt of Congress and if you get a certain number of them...an automatic impeachment hearing?
LOL...yah...like that'll ever happen! Nice to daydream though...
If Bondi can be painted as the protector of rapists and traffickers, then maybe. I would give impeachment without conviction half credit.
Because the Trump toady Jim Jordan is the chairman.
That's going to change in a year.
I think they got another pretty powerful indication that the regime is guilty as hell and pretty desperate.
Great morning shots, as always! But be careful: you're steering mighty close to the treacherous waters of False Flag. You need an experienced pilot like Will Sommer to safely navigate those rocky shoals.
Nova Anglia secedenda est
For other possible fissure-points in the MAGA coalition besides the posture towards Jews, there is always the embrace of the tech oligarchs that seems out of place in a purportedly populist movement, and the foreign interventions like the Venezuela or Iran operations that seems to play to the big swinging dick portion of the coalition while alienating the America First part of the coalition. And there's those pesky Epstein Files, too, where even some of Trump's most ardent shills seem to be jumping off the ship, like MTG and Boebert. MTG herself is all the evidence that we need to recognize that there are problems in the MAGA coalition that can be exploited. But, when it comes time to get in line and get behind a candidate in November 2028, it's very likely Republican voters will swallow any hypocrisy and vote against whomever the Democratic candidate is, even if they don't feel great voting for the Republican candidate.
I wouldn't be so sure.
MAGA of course would vote for Trump if he shot JESUS on 5th Ave, but there are a lot of less crazy Republicans (farmers, ranchers, oil guys here where I live) that are fed up with the nonsense. Immigrants are VITAL to our small rural towns- they buy homes, cars, pay taxes, keep our schools full, work in meat packing, feedlots, oil wells, oil rigs, ranches, farms, cotton gins, grain mills, etc.
Yes, we had illegal immigrants here who worked and lived here for years that have gone home to Mexico, but legal immigrants with green cards are leaving as well.
I’d like to see it play out that way. I’m sure there will be some percentage who have had that epiphany and decide not to vote for the R. But I think about those farmers; in Trump’s first administration, he voluntarily ignited a trade war and devastated many a small farm, yet those victims got their bailouts and almost all of them voted for Trump another two times. We’ll see in 2028 how many are more influenced by reality than by culture war fantasy.
Yet, from polling of farmers about a year ago, 54% of farmers are against Trump's use of tariffs, and 36% don't think they'll be compensated for their losses.
Plus, a lot of farmers, being self employed, used the ACA to get health insurance for their families and that's getting ridiculous. One woman I talked to said her ACA payment went from $25 a month to $800!!
So, as I =said above, MAGAs will never change but we don't need them all. Just 5% more...
Yes!
Trump’s hardcore base in VERY loyal. The rest, not so much.
Thank you, Sko, for the laugh ("... if he shot JESUS...") and for the comment about "less crazy Republicans.'
I live among farmers. I just wrote a letter to the editor about the stupid policies that are causing farm incomes to drop and farm bankruptcies to rise. I hope it confirms to these Republican farmers what they were fearing. A loss of reliable workers is one key reason for the current troubles in American farming.
Because ... taxes and regulations. Nothing else really matters to the car dealers and other petit bourgeois that are the funding base of the R party.
I wish that the auto industry would get so upset with tariffs that they would throw their support to Democrats in the 2026 mid-terms, but I suspect that Trump's wholesale attack on emissions regulations will keep them on board. He has brought home the bacon in a way that even Reagan couldn't top.
I am not so sure that is entirely the case. The auto industry, for example, has made some significant investments in electric vehicle technology like batteries and many of those facilities are in rural communities in red states. If those facilities don’t come on line, workers will be screwed as well as the manufacturers.
The legacy US automakers had lots of nice things to say about Trump when he torpedoed emissions standards last month. In addition, Ford recently announced that it was pulling back on its EV program and writing off huge amounts of money to do so. Meanwhile, after a major management reshuffling, Stellantis has ditched major elements of its EV program in the US in favor of bringing back the Hemi V8. The former executive team that had gone strongly for EVs is now being blamed for the company's recent losses.
None of this is surprising. The US auto industry has long opposed, in almost knee-jerk fashion, pretty much every attempt by the federal government to regulate it. These guys -- and, yes, they are still mostly guys -- are pretty anti-government except when it comes to protectionist legislation (particularly keeping the Chinese out of the US market).
The other thing to consider is that the trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the US is up for possible renewal this year. The domestic automakers have so heavily integrated their supply chains between the three countries that keeping at least a semblance of an agreement is at the top of their policy agenda. That's going to be an uphill battle given Trump's inclinations. Thus, auto execs appear to be bending over backwards to play nice in the hopes that Trump will adopt what they see as a more reasonable stance than what he has done so far in his second term.
Karl - let’s message on tariffs are a tax on Americans, paid to the government in the higher prices we all see every day. AND there’s tremendous Big Govt intrusion in Trump’s admin advocating against 2nd Amendment rights & free speech, the Govt grabbing people without judicial warrant, claiming that standing or driving constitutes “obstruction” etc.
Trump’s is NOT a conservative govt
How much are the billionaires contributing to the Rs these days? A lot, it seems.
There must be an equation using the number of presidential pardons to calculate the number of billionaires contributing to trump and his spawn.
Some of the pardons are political (like the J6 crowd) but some are due to bribes, like the Binance guy, CP Zhao.
An old saw; ‘hold nose with left hand, vote republican with the right’! And it works just fine when the party denomination is switched. Sadly. Bigly.
Pam Bondi resurfaces like a vampire from its lair as this is a woman who doesn’t believe in the disinfectant properties of sunlight. That wasn’t an oversight hearing but the parody of a hearing. That she didn’t have answers isn’t shocking; she could have answers, but that’s not what she’s hired for. I know she thought herself Al Pacino from Scarface with guns blazing, but it seemed more like Sunday brunch drag with a tad too much melodrama. When Fox can’t be bothered with an over-the-top performance you aren’t hitting the mark. I think the Democrats did a good job with the material they had, but there wasn’t much to work with. The administration feels no need to answer to anyone let alone Congress. I know there are some who believe the mere fact she showed up demonstrates the administration is still at least going through the motions, but will they do that after November? The only reason Pam went was because she thought she could own the dems and dominate, but she’s just not that talented or funny. It wasn’t Sunday morning, the audience wasn’t half drunk, and it wasn’t Raskin who looked washed up.
It's profoundly sad to think that most of her preparation for the testimony was oppo research. I truly mean that. The other sad part is that Trump and most of the GOP are ok with that.
It’s because Republicans, and not just Trump, don’t value Congress and have done their best to make it useless.
Yep. Congress is like democracy...the worst form of government except for all the others.
A photographer took a shot of her laptop. She had summaries of the Epstein computer file searches done by each Congressperson.
Great point. I want to show this to my MAGA friends and challenge them about why this would be something so important to our AG that she brings it with her to the hearing?
NOW...that being said...if she had actually answered questions with a few "I'll be looking into that...thanks for bringing it to my attention" that demonstrated some actual good intentions about the DOJ Epstein release effort...I might be more conciliatory, but that's not what happened.
Like I said in an earlier post...this hearing will be such an object of shame in about 10 years when everything's revealed about Epstein and the DOJ's intentional coverup of it.
Right, she had a notebook for her insult attacks, but I didn't see anything she had prepared as a guidebook to reference and facilitate answers to proper questions about the Epstein files - which should have been her only mission. Gross incompetence.
She also had printouts for each Congress member showing what search terms used and chain of links used when viewing the somewhat unredacted Epstein documents. An astute photographer got a photo of such a page for Rep. Jayapal. Incredible.
To bring up the stock market, and the past impeachments in response to questions about the Epstein Files Transparency Act that DOJ is violating every day is pure partisan politics, with no relation whatsoever with her job as General Attorney. This is a direct violation of the Hatch Act from the GA, on TV. There ought to be legal consequences for her behavior from a future administration.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Bondi just pulls the trick that Trump learned from disgraced & disbarred Roy Cohn: admit nothing and attack back.
To rational ppl it's transparent nonsense that wouldn't be allowed in a normal debate or in a courtroom. To the MAGA, it's formidable argument.
It was a performance for an audience of one, as usual. I bet Daddy Trump bought her a pony. It did bother me that she said she didn’t know about Maxwell’s change of prison venue. Does that mean that Todd Blanche made the decision on his own or bypassed Bondi and took orders from Trump? Is Bondi not actually in charge of DOJ and only trotted out for the camera?
When it comes to responsibility, it is the 3 monkey’s defense: hear no evil, see no evil, but of yes do all sorts of evil.
Another day, another freak show.
I am wondering if after her performance in congress, Bondi is too unlikeable even for MAGA. Don’t they like well behaved submissive females? To me the whole episode seemed like a big fail, but I do t understand these people. Even Gym Jordan seemed a little less than thrilled at some points.
Just imagine what this testimony will look like in 10 years when most of the information in the Epstein files is known. It's truly hard to imagine how poorly this performance, that was utterly devoid of compassion combined with manufactured hubris, will play in history as the orange kool-aid wears off.
They believe in owning the libs and don’t care if it’s done wearing a skirt, but she’s riding it too hard. MAGA wants authentic owning the libs, not stale over-the-top owning the libs — wrong vibes.
Jordan possibly distracted by Signal chats re: risks to central Ohio money train due to continued Epstein news about Wexner and OSU gynecologist. Bad for bizness
Well, they asked for other fault lines and women having power is certainly one. I loathe Elise Stefanik but wish she would have some sort of MTG public “ah-ha!” moment. Or at least a Nancy Mace moment.
I live in NY Stefanik is insufferable, but Trump owned her after she called Mamdani a jihadi.
She will be happy to have a public epiphany if it advances her but then she may have another opposite one when she needs it.. she just has to go.
Nah...this is what a strong MAGA woman does. Like Sec'y Noem only without a hat.
A "strong" MAGA woman prostrates herself before her pedophile convicted felon man by any means necessary, constantly singing his praises and attacking all his critics. Which isn't strong at all, actually. It is pathetically weak.
I agree, but I was not talking about an objective view of strong. I'm talking about the alternative reality view of strong.
Remember 2009 the quaint days when Trump was just a birther conspiracy theorist? I haven’t heard the name Carrie Prejean since then when she lost the Miss USA pageant finishing runner up claiming it was her answer on gay marriage that cost her (Prop 8 had just passed I think).
Trump actually got into a war of words with her and fired her then after she didn’t show up to her appearances:
https://abcnews.com/Entertainment/story?id=7805752&page=1
I remember her on Larry King and how she called coined the term “opposite marriage” for male/female unions.
Like every other aging person that once had their 15 minutes of fame, she will re-emerge decades later. Some try and sell memorabilia, some try and make a low budget documentary, but MAGA type celebs seem to go the Mel Gibson route and blame the Jews.
I am not sure thanks is right word but now that you mention it, it all comes back to me now.
At least the trad Catholics do.
Carrie Prejean converted to Catholicism last Easter. She was raised evangelical, according to her Wikipedia.
I don’t know if she’s associated with Trad Catholics or not.
Re the El Paso airspace kerfuffle, if it is true that the Pentagon was/is testing drone interception, why not use one of the (many, huge, available) military proving grounds? White Sands, New Mexico, is just one example of sites where such work could be undertaken, just 50 miles away.
Because they are like children with a new toy they have to try out right now and right here.
Great point, but possibly that was the first phase and this is the second.
If you look at the map of the areas covered by the closure there was or is a piece along the border of New Mexico as well. From what I read it wasn’t clear they had opened up that piece of airspace which is discontiguous to El Paso.
Maybe they need to test how their new toy works in the presence of lots of ambient light from the city lights. White sands wouldn't have as much ambient light. It was reported to be a laser based weapon and that CBP were the ones that did the test.
They needed to be near a populated area, for the best chance of getting a party balloon to kill.
A toast: confusion to our enemies.
I was actually laughing at the FAA Director closing the airspace around El Paso yesterday, but reading more last night, he might have made the correct decision, since their BILLION DOLLAR DRONE KILLER was deployed to shoot down a "cartel drone" that turned out to be a balloon.
Those planes flying in and out of El Paso could have been in real danger.
“Ice leaving Minneapolis?”
Personally, I think these operations served their desired purposes; these clowns knew that the party was over: For Now, at least!
Bottom line, the behavior has been normalized; no investigations into the shooting deaths will be conducted, and certainly no changes are being made to these depraved tactics employed by a bunch of lawless goons!
And now that we’re going into the midterms, you can expect more chaos from these morally flexible and bankrupt religious wing-nuts; swinging harder than ever!
One thing is for certain; these people are as relentless as they are ruthless, and they will never admit defeat!IMHO…:)
Robert - not so much leaving as taking the show on the road 😠
Agreed…:)
Bill's quote of President Lincoln's "extemporaneous remarks of August 22, 1864, to the 166th Ohio Regiment" brings to mind that in the future, no one is likely to cite quotes from Donald Trump, except as satire, or in warning or shame.
Great point. I've often imagined what a Trump leadership book would contain. I'm guessing that one of his Top 10 points would be to always come up with a catchy derogatory nickname for your political opponents.
Sad but true isn't it?
Yes, sad but true.
His Top 10 would also include "Lie with confidence, never apologize, never admit mistakes, always deflect the blame."
The sad thing about the Lincoln quote, and it's message to the troops that protecting the freedoms of our country are of the upmost importance to their mission, is that a large majority of our current troops would not understand it. Their ability to interpret complex expressions in the English language has diminished. Current example: I have no doubt at all that the words in that speech would flummox our current Commander in Chief. He would not have the slightest idea of what Lincoln was trying to say. To Trump's uneducated brain, it would be nonsensical gibberish.
Thank you for this informative and illuminating article.