Author: haroldblackphd

SAVE the SAVE Act?

I am going to venture out of my comfort zone into the murky domain of the law and talk about the SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility) that passed the House and is now hung up in the Senate. The act says that voters in federal elections must show an ID and when they registered to vote they must show proof of citizenship. This seems to be the hill that many on the left and many on the right are willing to die on. I have friends on both sides. Personally, I don’t know why. The SAVE Act is redundant. It only has to do with only citizens voting in Federal elections even though there is already a statute on that. Those on the right express fear that large numbers of illegals will one day suddenly appear at the polls to vote in Federal elections. The democrats, as is their wont, are playing the race card claiming that somehow blacks will be disenfranchised. But aren’t blacks citizens? 

The primary problem that is not addressed is that voting fraud is usually commited by polling officials – not illegals voting. The SAVE Act does not address that issue which again is already covered in the law. So why do we need the SAVE Act? Apparently the only reason that the democrats do not want the act to become law is because they are hoping that one day the illegals will vote and that they will vote democrat. But they cannot say this out loud so instead they think they can dupe people into thinking that the law is aimed at blacks rather than illegals. 

Even the Heritage Foundation finds that the vast majority of fraud is by poll officials.

https://electionfraud.heritage.org

Isn’t there a disconnect here? The republicans are talking about preventing illegals from voting while the democrats are talking about Jim Crow 2.0? What does Jim Crow have to do with illegals?

The democrats love to play the race card even when it has no bearing on the situation at hand. Yelling racism has become a reflex action. They do it here. I don’t think Chuck Schumer is a fool only that he acts like one when it is politically expedient. Calling the SAVE Act “Jim Crow 2.0” is ignorant, stupid and an insult to our intelligence. It is also an insult to all those who endured Jim Crow 1.0. Schumer vowed that democrats will fight “tooth and nail” against the bill which he likened to racial segregation. Schumer said that there was no way the bill would ever get to the president’s desk and that republicans only support it because they do not want poor people and minorities to vote. Some democrat operative said the republicans and President Trump were “championing a bill that actually would take voting rights away from a lot of black people in this country.” That operative is a fool and anyone who believes her and Schumer’s lies are fools too.

The democrats make it sound like every time you show up to vote in any election, you must show proof of citizenship. Not true. This applies only to Federal elections and is only when you register to vote. Schumer knows that the vast majority of Americans already have IDs and support showing an ID at the polls. About 71% of Democrats and 95% of Republicans support requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification when they go to the polls. Other surveys show that seventy-six percent of blacks, 77% of Asians, and 82% of Hispanics support requiring all voters to show a photo ID. Now why would the minorities that Schumer is professing to protect not want his protection? 

Currently 36 states already require an ID in order to vote. Some require a photo ID while others that require an ID that not necessarily must be a photo ID. Only fourteen states and the District of Columbia do not require an ID to vote but do require an ID to register to vote. Among those states are Schumer’s New York, California, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Nevada, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Vermont.  All but Vermont have democrat governors. Interestingly, Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman was the only democrat in the Senate to vote for the bill. 

But I am confused. No one is being denied the right to vote no matter what Schumer and his mates are saying. I do remember when Jim Crow 1.0 when blacks were denied voting rights. People trying to register blacks to vote in Mississippi were killed. In my home state of Georgia there was a literacy test. An applicant was required to read a passage from the Constitution. In those days all the people working in the state offices were white. I remember registering to vote and the woman not paying any attention to what I was reading and registered me without a peep. However, in Augusta a professor at Paine College (an HBCU) was denied not because he could not read but because the registration worker who had only a high school degree did not agree with his interpretation of the Constitution. Of course the reading requirement was put into place because the white folks were assuming that more black folk than white folk could not read (which sounds silly in the state of Georgia).

More of my confusion stems from the fact that the Constitution gives the states the authority to write their own election laws for federal elections. Wouldn’t the SAVE Act violate the Elections clause – Article I, Section 4, Clause 1? I thought it was the republicans who were the advocates of federalism? But the Elections clause does not govern voter qualifications and perhaps the Congress can dictate this for federal elections so long as it does not violate the Seventeen Amendment and the Voter Rights Act.

The republicans state that the SAVE Act would lessen voter fraud. But would it? I said after the last election that my mother voted for Kamala Harris and I know that she wouldn’t have done that if she had been alive. Remember when it was said that in Chicago you should vote early and vote often? Also we have always heard that Philadelphia is the last to report their votes because they need to know how many votes are needed to elect the democrats. But people go to jail for voter fraud – see Tina Peters, a former Colorado election official serving time in prison for her role in a voting-machine security breach to overturn the election of Joe Biden in favor of Donald Trump. 

It has been illegal for noncitizens to vote since Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996. Violators can face up to a year in prison. Georgia’s 2024 voter rolls found 20 noncitizens out of 8.2 million registered voters. Ohio found 597 noncitizens out of 7.8 million people registered to vote, but only 138 had appeared to cast ballots. Texas found 2,724 noncitizens out of 18.6 million registered voters. But when one case arises the right wing media acts as if it is an epidemic. If there is evidence of widespread voting by illegals that could influence elections, where is the evidence? I guess one could argue that the SAVE Act is a preventative measure, just in case the illegals in those 14 states without ID all of a sudden decided to go to vote for president. Presumably, both the democrats and the republicans assume that all the illegals will vote democratic – but I have my doubts.  I guess the SAVE Act must also supersede the Motor Voter bill which allows for registration when one gets a driver’s license. Incidentally, although the Motor Voter act increased registrations it did not increase voter participation as most of the newly registered did not bother to go vote.

But what about the disenfranchisement argument? That is every bit as specious as the argument about large scale illegal voting. The democrats rely on a study by the leftist Brennan Center.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/millions-americans-dont-have-documents-proving-their-citizenship-readily

What the study shows is not what it, or the democrats claim. The survey shows that 9 percent or 21.3 million Americans who can vote do not have citizenship documents available readily. That is they cannot go and lay their hands on them. However, this does not say they do not have them. The documents may be in a relative’s home or a safety deposit box. But they can get them and go register if they really want to vote. Only 8 percent of whites and 11 percent of minorities do not have the documents readily available.  On the other hand only 3.8 million do not have access to the documents at all. These are very small numbers. Although the Center points to blacks being disadvantaged, I bet if they did the math they would find that the number of whites swamp the number of blacks not having access to the documents. The Center does not tell us where these folk are located or their party leaning. It also does not even tell us if they are already registered to vote. This a nothing burger. There are 244 million Americans eligible to vote but only 161 million who are registered. That is a shameful statistic that 83 million eligible voters are not even registered to vote. And to think that those on the left and those on the right are going to battle over something so insignificant as the numbers impacted by the SAVE Act demonstrates the lack of seriousness in today’s American politics. 

But again, Schumer and his racist mates are plain stupid in trying to pretend that blacks will be disenfranchised. Instead, they should play the sexist card. What about the 69 million married women voters whose names on their ID are different from their birth name? Chip Roy, sponsor of the bill, said that those women would have to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury attesting that they are the same person even though their names might be different. The democrats are howling that women are going to be required to take extra steps not required of men and be burdened and inconvenienced in order to vote. Well what about people like Muhammad Ali or Marilyn Monroe whose names are completely different than their birth certificate? I guess they will also have to swear on an affidavit too.

Karoline (Lying) Leavitt accused the democrats of fear mongering saying if women changed their name they would not be allowed to vote. She called this a “complete fallacy.” But I guess the way you make this an equal burden is to have everyone regardless of gender and regardless of name sign an affidavit attesting that their birth certificate is not falsified. Right?

I know that my friends on both the left and the right are probably yelling at me for not drinking their Kool-Aid. Just show me the evidence that this is a serious problem. Just show me that this is not covered by existing law. Just show me that noncitizens are voting in large numbers. And please show me how blacks are somehow disenfranchised by the act. This is just an issue manufactured to get both bases riled up. Prove me wrong and I will adopt your position.

Sanity finally comes to the EPA

Hallelujah, it’s about time! Years ago I wrote a monthly business article for Knoxville’s daily. They fired me for questioning our local health department’s edicts during Covid. They were not at all pleased with my questioning global warming either and were looking for the right time to get rid of me. My articles that laid out the opposing evidence regarding the climate hysterics generated the most comments – mostly hate mail – of any subject I wrote on. In fact, one Sunday’s letters page was devoted entirely with letters either mainly condemning my heresy or a precious few supporting me. When I said there was no “settled science” and no “consensus” you might have thought I was saying the Pope wasn’t Catholic. I wrote about the flimsy evidence, the simplistic yet over complicated models, the poor predictions, the resulting over regulations, incredible costs and marginal benefits. All it did was make Al Gore and his buddies rich. The green lobby was dominant. The big banks and the big investment funds headed by Blackrock’s Larry Fink were driving us to net zero and a lower standard of living whether we liked it or not.

Then slowly but surely, the green religion started developing more skeptics as burdensome regulations started and the deterioration in the quality of our lives became evident. Toilets didn’t flush. Dishwashers didn’t clean dishes. Washing machines didn’t get clothes clean. Air conditioners didn’t cool. Automobiles got more expensive. Gasoline had to contain ethanol which ruined small gas engines and shortened the lives of automobile and marine engines. All of a sudden cars were stopping and starting driving drivers crazy. Windmills killed birds and disrupted sea life. Solar panels cluttered up the countryside. Nuclear energy was shut down as was coal. There was a war declared on fossil fuels. Lawn mowers, weed eaters, gas furnaces, pizza ovens were all banned in some states. Cow flatulence was thought about being taxed (like in Denmark). All the while gashouse emissions kept rising as China, India and the developing world refused to get poorer by adopting expensive green energy. Europe stagnated and quit growing as the greenies took control of governments.

Now all of that is coming to a screaming halt and we knew it would because President Trump had declared that the climate change was a hoax. His EPA chief Lee Zelden finally got around to repealing Obama’s EPA’s “endangerment” finding that declared greenhouse gas emissions a threat to public health and safety. I can just see the greenies running around like Chicken Little screaming “We’re all gonna die!” The “endangerment” finding came about due to a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court that greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act and could be regulated by the zealots at Obama’s EPA. The law required the EPA to regulate pollutants if it determined they can “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health.”

Does this mean that we are free at last? Well, be certain that the commissars of the environmental industry will sue – and likely lose. In the 5-4 decision Justices Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia voted no. Antony Kennedy joined the liberal justices in the majority. With the current court, expect a 6-3 majority in favor of the new EPA ruling.

Importantly, in addition to getting rid of all the nonsense stemming from the old ruling, the gashouse emissions rules for automobiles now also goes away. I presume with it go the fleet milage standards which forced auto companies to make vehicles that consumers didn’t want and to blow billions of dollars on electric vehicles. Also those silly emissions credits that made EV-only companies solvent or in the case of Tesla more profitable will go away. Look for more failures in that industry. So we got higher sticker prices, increased maintenance costs and lower component life. What’s not to love? Overall, the Trump administration projects more than $1.3 trillion in total regulatory relief. For automobiles per-vehicle compliance costs are estimated to fall by $2,400. Now if the president would get rid of his silly tariffs, imagine what the total fall in costs and sticker prices would be.

The heavy hand of the government just got a wee bit lighter.

The president’s offshore account, history erased and no indictments

Trump’s offshore account

Did you know that the president is putting the money generated from the sale of Venezuelan oil in several bank accounts, the largest being in Qatar? Pardon me if I think this is a bit weird? What is wrong with putting the money in the US Treasury? But no. the U.S. has now completed its first sale of Venezuelan oil for $500 million and deposited most of it in Qatar. Qatar? The official Trump apologists are saying that putting the money in Qatar rather than in U.S. banks means that this is a neutral location from which the funds could be freely and safely moved without risk of seizure. Huh? Seizure by whom? Is some country going to hack the US Treasury or are these so-called officials talking about US commercial bank deposits being subject to seizure? This makes no  sense. Recall that the president had earlier said that the US would get the proceeds from the sale and that he personally would decide what to do with it. Well it looks like he decided to put the money in an offshore account.

Well only the Congressional democrats are demanding oversight of the Venezuelan oil proceeds asserting that this is a situation ripe for corruption. Where are the Senate republicans? Only the democrats introduced legislation that the White House submit to independent accounting of the funds and their uses. Maybe the republicans were getting a cut. The democrats want the administration to close the offshore accounts and use domestic financial institutions that would be subject to congressional oversight. Elizabeth Warren said “There is no basis in law for a president to set up an offshore account that he controls so that he can sell assets seized by the American military. That is precisely a move that a corrupt politician would be attracted to.” This may be the first time I have agreed with Warren. But of course, the president will veto the bill.

Hey, maybe this is just a bit of quid pro quo for the $400 million jet that Qatar had gifted to the president. Remember that?

More history my way

In its continuing effort to counter the democrats where everything was about race in American history, the Trump administration has taken the opposite approach – trying to ignore it. The latest effort being the Interior Department removing all information about George Washington being a slaveholder at his Philadelphia house. Washington lived in that house at the founding of the United States and its government. The department was ordered by a federal judge to stop the removal of the information and to restore what was removed earlier by the National Park Service commemorating the nine slaves who served Washington’s household on the site. Those items were removed by the Trump administration as part of a broader effort to use its control of the park system to rewrite American history by eliminating materials that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.” Translation: let’s’ try to purge slavery and black history American government officials and their actions. Not being a lawyer, I presume that the ruling only applies to the Philadelphia house and not to any other site where the Trump administration is continuing to whitewash American history.

Another grand jury loss for the Administration

A federal grand jury has refused to indict Mark Kelly and 6 other democrat legislators for advising troops to disobey “illegal” orders. All of the democrats were veterans. Trump had said in his ransom note “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.” Those were marching orders for Jeanine Pirro (of Fox’s The Five) who is now the US attorney for the District of Columbia obliging her to bring criminal charges against the democrats – else she be fired. She lost. It is very rare for a grand jury to decline an indictment sought by prosecutors, because it only hears the government’s version of events and doesn’t require unanimity. It is even rarer for a grand jury not to have a single member vote for the indictment but this was the case here. I once wrote that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. But apparently not Trump’s ham sandwich. Speaking of sandwich, remember them trying to prosecute the guy who threw a Subway sandwich at a federal agent? This was another loss for the administration. Earlier a grand jury in Virginia did not return an indictment against New York attorney general Lititia James. At least they got James Comey indicted but the charges were promptly dismissed because Trump’s replacement prosecutor – one of his personal attorneys – was improperly appointed.

This is now a pattern where the president insists on prosecuting his enemies and his attorneys try to find charges under which to indict regardless of the merit of the cases. As demonstrated in Virginia, if the attorney refuses to indict Trump fires that attorney and replaces with another, even if the choice is completely unqualified. Another example is the spurious investigation of Fed chairman Jerome Powell ordered by Trump. Pirro’s office is tasked with trying to find some charges on which to take before another grand jury. Want to bet that no indictment will be forthcoming? But these indictments will continue because most of Trump’s people like their jobs and know that if they tell the president something that he doesn’t want to hear, that they are out the door.

I know that there are those who deflect the blame from Trump and his attorneys to say that all this is a result of “activist” judges and grand juries composed of Trump haters. But the search for a punishable crime is evident amongst the Trump legal team. In fact, one judge chastised Piro and her attorneys taking her office to task for a series of major errors during what he described as a “rush” to charge individuals during Trump’s takeover of the DC police department accusing them of “playing cops and robbers like children.” Importantly, Trump’s “Justice” Department is losing credibility. One former prosecutor has said that now “The judges do not trust the AUSAs (assistant US attorneys) to make good faith presentations in the most important cases, and the public now routinely refuses to issue indictments in the grand jury.” 

Also the judge in the Mark Kelly indictment was no liberal activist and was obviously appalled by the charges brought against the senator. While acknowledging that first Amendment rights are less rigorous for active duty military, the judge ruled that full protections exist for those who are retired – especially members of the Congress who exercise responsibility over the military. In essence, the judge said that separation of powers meant that members of Congress were free to express their views without fear of reprisals from the Executive Branch. Again this was no activist judge but rather a conservative one citing the fundamental foundations of this country.

Balloons over El Paso, Super Ads, Homeland Security Soap Opera, Vaccines, Gunperson (?)

I was at breakfast the other day when one of my friends broke the news that the El Paso airport shutdown was not due to Mexican cartel drones but because of a party balloon. I almost choked on my biscuit. Then the other friend started singing “99 red balloons” – a song that I was not familiar with. The song is about some party balloons being mistaken for enemy aircraft igniting a nuclear war. Talk about life imitating art! The Trump Administration which seems prone to make statements prior to learning the facts – see the Minneapolis shootings – did it again. Transportation secretary Duffy said that the authorities had confronted a “cartel drone incursion” over El Paso and shut down the airport in order to use experimental lasers to counter the threat – only for the threat to turn out to be a party balloon. This sounds like something from the Babylon Bee and Duffy needs to fire whoever it was that made him look like a fool.

Were there any memorable commercials at the Super Bowl other than the Budweiser ad? The one that I thought was spooky was the Ring commercial that tracked lost dogs. I commented that I did not want those Ring cameras surveilling me. Talk about an invasion of privacy. Maybe it was a trial balloon (ha ha) because Ring has announced that it is discontinuing the feature.

Did you see the hit piece in the Wall Street Journal on Kristi (Border Barbie) Noem? It belonged more in the National Enquirer than in the Wall Street Journal mentioning that her relationship with her close “advisor” Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager, implying over and over a romantic relationship between the two. The article mentions their use of a private jet with a bedroom suite in the rear of the plane – the “adultery airplane.” Lewandowski apparently has a very close relationship with Noem and even tried to get Trump to name her as his vice president. Lewandowski has tried to run ads to burnish Noem’s image while the two have cut 80 percent of the original ICE personnel. Then there is the silly episode where a pilot was fired who did not transfer Noem’s blanket from one plane that had mechanical issues to another. The Coast Guard pilot was told to take a commercial flight home but had to be reinstated when no other pilot was available to fly them home. Basically the article points to infighting, dysfunction, and Noem’s obsessive self-promotion. This is embarrassing. Noem and Lewandowski should both be fired.

Speaking of firing, RFK, Jr and his team have done a good job shaking up HHS especially the “health” part. But they are creating chaos in the vaccine industry – and we all know what Kennedy thinks about vaccines. The latest being Vinay Prasad, Kennedy’s head of the FDA vaccine and biologics division, overruling staff recommendations by denying Moderna’s new flu vaccine application, arguing that its clinical trial was inadequate. Prasad has made a habit of overruling staff recommendations. At least nine companies, many of them focused on rare or hard-to-treat diseases, have said that Prasad has rejected their vaccines. 

Prasad must be doing Kennedy’s bidding here. Surely it has his blessing. Rarely had the FDA refused to review a drug or vaccine application. Prasad is making this a habit. Does this mean that potential lifesaving drugs will be denied the public? Will this be a chilling effect on the development of such drugs so long as Kennedy heads HHS? Moderna’s new flu vaccine is a mRNA vaccine which can be quickly adapted and manufactured to match new strains. The FDA also rejected Regenxbio’s gene therapy for the ultra-rare disease Hunter syndrome—which causes deformities and results in death in teenagers—despite the company following the agency’s guidance to win approval. This is the third rare disease drug Dr. Prasad has nixed in as many months. One writer says “It’s hard to recall a regulator who has done as much damage to medical innovation in as little time as Vinay Prasad.” But libertarians rejoice! The private sector is stepping up to certify safe vaccines since the FDA seems no longer willing to do so. Now, the American Medical Association along with the Vaccine Integrity Project at the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota will privately evaluate the safety and efficacy of selected vaccines.

Lastly, in the reporting of the shooting in Canada’s Tumbler Ridge, the shooter was a male who identified as female. The reporting initially was binary with the New York Post referring to the shooter as “male/he”, the Wall Street Journal saying “female/she” and the BBC going to pains not to use any label at all. One news report said “An 18-year-old Canadian woman shot and killed her mother and stepbrother at their home before going to the school.” Mind you this 18-year old “woman” is a troubled teenaged boy who wanted to be a girl. The Canadian Royal Mounted Police report’s initial emergency alert to residents described the active shooter as a “female in a dress with brown hair.” Then, later after finding out that the shooter identified as female, the RCMP communications referred to the shooter as a “gunperson.” I guess the RCMP doesn’t realize that “person” had “son” as its last three letters. 

Murder rates down. No funding for Homeland Security

The falling US murder rates

The US murder rate fell in 2025 and like any administration, Trump’s is taking credit for it. Karoline (Lying) Leavitt crowed that “that the murder rate across America’s largest cities plummeted in 2025 to its lowest level since at least 1900. This was “the largest single-year drop in murders in recorded history. This dramatic decline is what happens when a president secures the border, fully mobilizes federal law enforcement to arrest violent criminals and aggressively deport the worst of the worst illegal aliens from our country.” What, no praise for the democrat mayors and police chiefs of these cities? It is true that the drop in 2025 is the largest one year decline. But so was 2024 and 2023 before it. This has been a continuing post-pandemic trend. Now Trump is saying that the 2025 drop is due to being tough on crime, but surely the Biden administration wasn’t tough on crime. So why the fall during Biden’s administration? Trump isn’t going to credit Biden for starting the downward trend. BTW, there has also been a dramatic decrease in violent crime and property crime as well. 

What is the explanation? Who knows? Not even the so-called experts can explain it. The trend is not just in large cities but is nationwide. Some have speculated that it may be due to advances in trauma care, but the numbers do not corroborate that. Others point to increases in funding for intervention. But decreases have occurred where there were no increases in funding. Some have speculated that crimes are being underreported. But that can’t be true nationwide. As one “expert” said, the reasons are multifactorial. Another said “we do not have reliable, multi-sector data or comparable contextual information available across jurisdictions to definitively identify—now or perhaps ever—what drove these declines.” Yet another “expert” said “The consistency of the homicide decline, both across cities and over time, makes me inclined to think this has to do with larger social movements, temporarily disrupted by COVID-19 when the world turned upside down, than with any one particular thing one particular city might be doing.” In other words, the so-called “experts” might be able to explain the causes in each individual case but haven’t a clue why this is happening nationwide. Some experts! Even I can make up a reason and I am no expert. How about there has been an increase in the purchase of handguns resulting in an inverse relationship between handgun ownership and the incidence of murders and property crime?

Homeland Security not funded

As expected Senate democrats blocked the Homeland Security Funding bill over limits on ICE. Apparently the announcement by border czar Tom Homan that the department was scaling back its disastrous operation in Minneapolis was not enough to convince the democrats to approve the funding. The vote was 52-47, when 60 votes were need for passage. John Fetterman was the only democrat to support the measure. Since Homeland Security had been separated from the appropriation bills only that agency will be affected with no larger scale government shutdown. Not just ICE, of course, is affected but also the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service and the Transportation Security Administration. But much to the chagrin of the democrats, federal immigration operations will continue. Republicans allocated $75 billion to ICE the border patrol in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill. Immigration officials have said they would continue drawing the funds during the shutdown. The rest of the agency will likely work without pay for a bit. I wonder under what conditions would the democrats agree to fund ICE? Perhaps firing Kristi Noem?

The Administration loses one and wins one on Temporary Protected Status

The administration is moving to expel from the country all those who entered under the TPS (Temporary Protected Status). It is also shutting down the program – except for white South African farmers. I am not clear under what circumstances are immigrants allowed to enter the country, how long they can stay and especially who is chosen to enter and who pays for it. 

What is TPS? This from the American Immigration Council:

“Congress created Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the Immigration Act of 1990. It is a temporary immigration status provided to nationals of specifically designated countries that are confronting an ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or extraordinary and temporary conditions. It provides a work permit and protection from deportation to foreign nationals from those countries who are in the United States at the time the U.S. government makes the designation.  A TPS designation can be made for 6, 12, or 18 months at a time. At least 60 days prior to the expiration of TPS, the Secretary must decide whether to extend or terminate a designation based on an assessment of whether the conditions in the foreign country have materially improved such that the reason for the initial grant of TPS no longer applies. Decisions to begin, extend, or terminate a TPS designation must be published in the Federal Register. If an extension or termination decision is not published at least 60 days in advance of expiration, the designation is supposed to be automatically extended for six months. The law does not define the term “temporary” or otherwise limit the amount of time for which a country can have a TPS designation.”

The Administration loses one

The administration is seeking to end the status for various immigrant groups and deport them. When it sought to expel over 350,000 Haitians who entered because of earthquakes in that country in 2010, it was blocked by a Federal judge who delayed the process until there could be a judicial review. Now it seems to me that 15 years is a bit more than temporary which is what the administration was arguing. In his first term Trump attempted to end the status for Haitians, but it remained in place due to court rulings and injunctions. Biden then redesignated the Haitians for TPS in 2021. Homeland Security had said that “Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from an activist judge legislating from the bench.” The judge had ruled that “Secretary Noem, however, is constrained by both our Constitution and the [Administrative Procedure Act] to apply faithfully the facts to the law in implementing the TPS Program.” The administration has also sought to revoke the status of those from the 12 countries currently eligible for TPS: Burma, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen. Also, countries whose TPS status has expired have been ordered to leave the country. These include Yemen, Afghanistan, Nepal, Nicaragua, Myanmar and Venezuela. These cases are also before the courts. So I guess this will be settled at the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court had ruled previously that a TPS recipient who entered the United States without inspection is not eligible for permanent residence. In order to obtain permanent residence the person must leave the country, apply for a visa at a consulate. However, exiting the country would bar the person for re-entry for a period of up to 10 years. I have read of cases where TPS holders were preparing to leave the country and leave behind their children who were born here. Their children being US citizens. Of course, the Trump Administration is in court to contest birthright citizenship. But even if the Supreme Court rules for the Administration – which I doubt – it would probably not apply to those already with citizenship status.

The Administration wins one

In a separate case the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a lower court’s order blocking Homeland Security from ending Temporary Protected Status for about 89,000 aliens from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. Homeland Security’s Kristi (Border Barbie) Noem said “TPS was never designed to be permanent, yet previous administrations have used it as a de facto amnesty program for decades.” Noem also said “Under the previous administration, Temporary Protected Status was abused to allow violent terrorists, criminals, and national security threats into our nation.” Oh come now. This is a bit much. Why must this administration characterize TPS aliens in this manner? Certainly there were criminal elements admitted in this program but it is ridiculous to assert what the secretary is saying. More fundamentally, a review of the program is warranted without all the vindictive. Moreover, the case is not over for the 9th Circuit Court said in its order that it will determine whether to grant a stay pending appeal if the party asking for a stay has shown a strong likelihood “to succeed on the merits” of the appeal. Stay tuned.

Windsor to Detroit: A bridge too far?

For whatever reason Donald Trump hates Canada. First he imposes tariffs intended to cripple the country saying that the only way that they can avoid the tariffs is to become the 51^st state. Second, when Carney started negotiating a trade deal with China, Trump threatened a 100 percent tariff on Canadian goods. Third, Trump said he would decertify Canadian made Bombardier aircraft unless Canada accelerated the approval of Savannah, Ga made Gulfstream aircraft. Now Trump has seemingly come unglued over the new Gordie Howe international bridge set to be opened from Ontario to Detroit alleviating congestion on the busiest traveled corridor between the two countries.

Trump says the US should be given a 50 percent ownership in the bridge and complained that the Canadians built it using only Canadian products. How dare them! In its entirety here is his rant on Truth Social:

“As everyone knows, the Country of Canada has treated the United States very unfairly for decades. Now, things are turning around for the U.S.A., and FAST! But imagine, Canada is building a massive bridge between Ontario and Michigan. They own both the Canada and the United States side and, of course, built it with virtually no U.S. content. President Barack Hussein Obama stupidly gave them a waiver so they could get around the BUY AMERICAN Act, and not use any American products, including our Steel. Now, the Canadian Government expects me, as President of the United States, to PERMIT them to just “take advantage of America!” What does the United States of America get – Absolutely NOTHING! Ontario won’t even put U.S. spirits, beverages, and other alcoholic products, on their shelves, they are absolutely prohibited from doing so and now, on top of everything else, Prime Minister Carney wants to make a deal with China — which will eat Canada alive. We’ll just get the leftovers! I don’t think so. The first thing China will do is terminate ALL Ice Hockey being played in Canada, and permanently eliminate The Stanley Cup. The Tariffs Canada charges us for our Dairy products have, for many years, been unacceptable, putting our Farmers at great financial risk. I will not allow this bridge to open until the United States is fully compensated for everything we have given them, and also, importantly, Canada treats the United States with the Fairness and Respect that we deserve. We will start negotiations, IMMEDIATELY. With all that we have given them, we should own, perhaps, at least one half of this asset. The revenues generated because of the U.S. Market will be astronomical. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

Good grief. China will terminate all ice hockey being played in Canada, and permanently eliminate The Stanley Cup? Please understand that this is a Canadian bridge, built and paid for by Canadians using Canadian materials that Trump is insisting that we should own half of it. Trump apparently did not know that Michigan actually has an ownership stake in the bridge and that Canada is to recoup the cost of building the bridge with tolls it collects on the Canadian side. Also some U.S. steel and U.S. labor were used in the bridge’s construction.

I am almost getting inured enough to not consider this embarrassing. Of course White House press secretary Karoline (Lying) Leavitt said that Trump’s demand “is just another example of President Trump putting America’s interests first,” which he made “very clear in his call with Carney.” Again good grief.

The democrats have finally been able to get a bill to the House floor to rescind the Trump tariffs on Canada. The bill was sponsored by New York’s Gregory Meeks. The bill passed 219-211 and will pass the Senate given that twice last year the Senate voted to rescind the tariffs. Of course, the president will veto it and there are not enough votes in either the House or the Senate to override.

It is obvious to me that Trump is infuriated that the bridge is named after the legendary Canadian hockey star, Gordie Howe. I bet if Carney changed the name to the Donald J. Trump Memorial Bridge that the president would withdraw his all of his demands.

The Epstein files: Why does Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick still have a job?

I have tried to avoid the whole sordid Epstein mess. It looks like the mainstream media, including the Wall Street Journal, takes every opportunity to link Donald Trump to Epstein and yet there is no vocal movement to have Trump resign. Things are different on the other side of the pond. Britain’s prime minister Keir Starmer is “fighting for his job.” Why? Was he linked to Epstein like Donald Trump? No. It is because one of his ambassador appointments, Peter Mandelson has ties to Epstein. Mind you, Starmer has never met Epstein or been in any way associated with him. Yet Starmer is being pressured to resign. A member of his own Labour Party has said “the leadership on Downing Street has to change.” Starmer’s chief of staff and his communications director have quit but Starmer insists he will not step down. Starmer says he was a victim of Mandelson’s lies regarding his relationship with Epstein and would document it in releasing the files surrounding Mandelson’s appointment. However, the real bombshell is that Mandelson is being investigated over documents suggesting that he passed sensitive government information to Epstein a decade and a half ago. The offense carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Zowie! A person implicated in the Epstein sex scandal being investigated for passing sensitive documents to him? Of course there are all those rumors about Epstein being a foreign agent and likely blackmailing all these important figures through the use of his services for sexual favors. There is now an FBI document released as part of the dump of the Epstein files dated October 16, 2020 that says that Epstein was indeed a Mossad agent “trained as a spy” under Israeli former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. There are so many questions tied to the emergence of Epstein from relative obscurity to business and social prominence that heretofore have gone unanswered. One wonders if the full story will ever be allowed to come to light.

Regardless, isn’t it interesting that Britain’s Starmer is close to being ousted over having just appointed a figure tied to Epstein rather than being associated with Epstein himself? Meanwhile, Donald Trump is not yet under such pressure even though he had an association with Epstein. In parallel, one of Trump’s appointees, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is directly linked to Epstein. Lutnick has actually lied about his relationship with Epstein. Lutnick and Epstein were next door neighbors and Lutnick denied having anything to do with him after a visit to his home in 2025. Lutnick had said that “My wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with the disgusting person ever again.” However, Lutnick lied. in a recent hearing Lutnick told the Senate Appropriations Committee that he did in fact visit Epstein’s controversial island in 2012. Lutnick said “My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies. I had another couple. They were there as well with their children, and we had lunch on the island.” Oops!

Lutnick had previously said “I did not have any relationship with him. I barely had anything to do with that person. OK?” However, on that trip to Epstein’s island, Lutnick sent Epstein an email dated Dec. 19, 2012 saying “Hi Jeff, We are landing in St. Thomas early Saturday afternoon and planning to head over to St. Anguilla on Monday at some point. Where are you located (what is exact location for my captain)? Does Sunday evening for dinner sound good?” Also, In 2017, Epstein contributed $50,000 to a dinner honoring Lutnick and another investor, which was put on by Jewish philanthropic organization UJA-Federation of New York. Epstein was offered a table and 10 seats to attend the event but declined. 

Lutnick is obviously lying about his relationship with Epstein. The last time I looked, Lutnick was still on the job. He had not resigned. Trump had not fired him and Karoline (Lying) Leavitt said “Secretary Lutnick remains a very important member of President Trump’s team, and the president fully supports the secretary.” 

In a very testy House Judiciary Committee hearing, attorney general Pam (Blondie) Bondi was questioned about the relationship between Trump senior officials and Epstein. Bondi was asked if the “Justice” Department planned to investigate Lutnick. Bondi responded that Lutnick “had addressed this himself.” So I guess the answer is “no.” While several democrats were sharply critical of Bondi and her handling of the Epstein files, only one republican sparred with her – Thomas Messie of Kentucky – whom Bondi called “a failed politician.” Bondi also insulted several democrats and had to be chided by Jim Jordan, the republican chairman of the committee to stop shouting over her questioners. Bondi has obviously adopted Trump’s tactic of attacking her inquisitors and insulting them. She even demanded that the democrats on the committee apologize to President Trump.

If this were Britain, Lutnick and Trump along with Bondi and Leavitt would be ousted. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Bad Bunny and the Influencers: The sad consequence of social media

I keep seeing the term “influencer” and was wondering “what is an influencer” and who does an influencer influence? Wikipedia says “An influencer, also known as a social media influencer or online influencer, is a person who builds a grassroots online presence through engaging content such as photos, videos, and updates.” I also saw this definition: “An influencer is someone who has the power to affect the purchasing decisions of others because of his or her authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with his or her audience. Influencers are usually active on social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, X, TikTok, and Instagram.” 

So I guess that there are at least two types of “influencers”: one who influences opinions and one who influences purchases. But aren’t teachers influencers even though they may not have an online presence? Maybe it is just me and my scope of knowledge but I don’t know anyone who is influenced to purchase stuff because of someone on social media. I also don’t know anyone so addicted to a media personality to be swayed by their opinion either. Yes I know there are those who may be “influenced” but, thank goodness, I just don’t know anyone personally who is. I do remember CBS’s Walter Cronkite being called “the most trusted man in America” and Lyndon Johnson saying regarding the Viet Nam war “If I have lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” Is Joe Rogan today’s Cronkite?

What got me thinking about influencers was media reporting on reactions by certain personalities to the Super Bowl halftime show. Of course, those on the right hated it while just as predictably those on the left loved it. But what did us mostly normal folk think? I haven’t seen a poll yet but I can report on a very small sample. As has been the case for a number of years, my other half and I joined the same set of couples for a wonderful gathering hosted by a close and dear friend to watch the Super Bowl. Usually at halftime a few of us gather in the kitchen to engage in conversation when the game is in hiatus. So I did not watch Bad Bunny. In fact, I have only watched one halftime show – Beyonce in 2013. After halftime, I asked “How was the show?” The most common answer was “It was ok – but a bit risqué.” They were referring to the dancers but not the lyrics (no one spoke Spanish). Reports were that many parents were upset over what some called the “excessive twerking and raunchy dancing” during the performance. 

Later when I read the translation of the lyrics, it seems that “risqué” might have been a wee bit understatement. Were the lyrics closed captioned? I hope not. Go see the English translation of “Tití Me Preguntó” and you will see why one republican congressman is calling for the FCC to fine Mr Bunny for vulgarity. On the other hand the Washington Post – which obviously has different standards – said “In general, Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show had the kind of wholesome, traditional family values that would have fit right in with some of the more sentimental commercials that appeared during the game.” Eye of the beholder, I guess. By the way, the most sentimental commercial was the Budweiser one with the eagle and the Clydesdale. How the Post thought that Mr Bunny and the Budweiser commercial were somehow aligned in “wholesome, traditional family values” defies credulity.

What about the influencers? Some people labelled as conservative influencers had a take that I thought called into question their intelligence. Someone named Jake Paul said that Bad Bunny was a “fake American citizen.” Huh? What is a “fake American citizen?” Does Mr Paul think that Mr Bunny and his fellow Puerto Ricans are “fake American citizens” of just Mr Bunny? With an attitude like that I would contend that Mr Paul is the “fake American citizen.” Then there is someone named Laura Loomer, who is reputed to be a MAGA influencer with the ear of the president. Ms Loomer said of the performance “This isn’t White enough for me.” (I thought Mr Bunny was wearing white). She also claimed that she “can’t even watch a Super Bowl anymore because immigrants have literally ruined everything.” If she really said this, Ms. Loomer is a racist fool and anyone influenced by her is also a fool. Was she referring to the eight children of immigrants who were playing in the Super Bowl? Was she referring to the racial mix of the NFL? Maybe she can watch old films of pro football and basketball in the 1950s to see all white sport teams. Or maybe she can watch film of my years at the University of Georgia from 1962-1966 when no black athlete played on the Georgia campus. Or then she probably loves the Winter Olympics – especially the events on snow. Again, anyone who claims to be influenced by this woman should be embarrassed. 

However, on the other side, the laudatory comments were almost as bad and biased – again see the Washington Post. ESPN’s Sportscenter was full of in your face DEI talk and was totally unwatchable. I turned it off. One writer wrote that “the Super Bowl is a color-blind celebration of excellence. It is the exact opposite of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion efforts that the Trump coalition opposes.” To be kind, this is idiotic. This is not the embodiment of DEI at all. It is just the opposite. The Super Bowl and the world of sport have absolutely nothing to do with “equity”. Equity seeks to normalize outcomes. The Super Bowl is the opposite of that. The Super Bowl is about “equality” not “equity.” No player on the field got there in order to meet a quota – which is what equity is all about. They were on the field because of excellence and because of excellence there is inclusion resulting in diversity. 

We don’t want equity in sports which ideally would result in all teams finishing with equal records. We should not want equity in life either. That is why socialism always fails. Sport is the opposite of socialism because it rewards individual excellence, achievement and in teamwork in team sports. Capitalism anyone?

I have opposed Trump’s war on DEI as being misguided. But I also opposed how DEI was implemented, practiced and abused especially in our universities. Years ago I wrote why the left favored “equity” over “equality.” The mess in higher education is a tribute to equity. The Super Bowl and excellence in sport are tributes to equality. And as to influencer, I don’t if this post changed anyone’s mind. Influencer I am not.

Who is stupider, Russian recruits or the rest of the world?

Excuse me but you don’t look Russian

Does this look like a Russian soldier fighting in the Ukraine? He is actually Kenyan. We know about the 12,000 or so North Koreans that are fighting alongside the Russians but Kenyans? Actually they are not alone.  Fighters from thirty six African countries including Cameroon, Ghana, Senegal, and Uganda are adding a bit of color to the front lines in that brutal war. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that foreign troops from China, Cuba, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and Nepal are also fighting for the Russians. Shades of the French Foreign Legion! However, there are foreigners fighting for the Ukraine as well – Brits, Canadians, Americans, Colombians and other westerners. The British rented Hessian soldiers during the Revolutionary War. I guess this may be a throwback to when countries like the Swiss leased out mercenaries to both sides of the same war. It’s highly likely to be the case here. Some reports say as many as 35,000 foreigners fighting in this war are from 50 different countries. The media seems to concentrate on saying that many of these fighters are duped into joining the Russian army. If that is true then the Ukraine is a test of Darwinism. It is hard to believe some of the accounts of how the media is portraying these recruits. Call they be that stupid?

The world is getting stupider

Maybe the Russian recruits are that stupid because it seems that everyone else is getting stupider. Literacy levels and math proficiency in this country are falling. Test scores show that almost each generation is less proficient in math and reading that the previous one. But we are not alone! In an OECD report of literacy levels in 31 countries it finds that literacy levels are declining in almost all of them.

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2024/12/do-adults-have-the-skills-they-need-to-thrive-in-a-changing-world_4396f1f1.html

The report says that in literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving proficiency, only Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden excelled in all three areas. Literacy proficiency has declined more strongly among men than women, but men continue to outperform women in numeracy and adaptive problem solving. Chile, Croatia, France, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Korea, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Spain consistently perform below the OECD average in all skills domains. I was shocked to see Israel and Korea listed here. Notably, the lowest-performing adults saw the biggest decline in literacy skills, and on average across only one in five adults is only able to understand simple texts or solve basic arithmetic. Duh. Also adults with college education consistently score higher than those who have no college. But all education is not the same across countries and higher levels of education do not always equate to better skills and knowledge. The study finds that Finnish high school graduates consistently outperform college-educated adults in several countries, including Chile, Israel and Lithuania. Again I am shocked to see Israel on this list of poor performers. In countries with a large influx of migrants, the migrants are typically poorer performers than native residents. I guess that should be expected of the first generation of migrants but I would like to know how subsequent generations fare. I am reminded that almost all high performers at the national spelling bee seem to be children of immigrants.

The study also notes that internet usage has grown to 93. percent of those surveyed. This confirms what I have always said that we are now substituting tik tok and X for knowledge. The world is made up of three types: the three percent who make things happen, the 7 percent who know what’s happening and the 90 percent who haven’t a clue what’s happening. I had hoped that the internet would shrink the 90 percent as they became better informed. The OECD report shows I was wrong. The 90 percent is staying constant but is getting dumber. I was once criticized by a student who didn’t care for my course requirements and said “Why do I have to know anything when I have the internet?” Later in life he probably said “I went to the doctor and got a vasectomy because I didn’t want kids. When I got home they were still there.”

Given the failure of the US education industrial complex to educate our children we are getting dumber as a nation and may be less capable to compete on a worldwide level. But is that really true as the rest of the world is getting dumber along with us in a race to the bottom. The OECD study has opened my eyes but I get little comfort in finding that we are not alone in the march to stupidity. Speaking of marches, when is the best time to have a parade? March 4^th. Someone once said “Life is hard. But it is harder if you are stupid.” It’s even more harder if you are stupider.