Blog

Trump’s latest slush fund

Breaking news. Donald Trump’s Treasury Department agrees to pay Donald Trump $1.7 billion. Recall that Trump sued the IRS for $10 billion when one of its employees released the president’s tax returns without his authorization. Well Trump’s Treasury Department within which the IRS resides has announced that Trump is dropping the suit and settling with the Treasury which is creating a $1.7 billion fund to compensate Trump’s buds who claim they were mistreated by the Biden Administration. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said (presumably with a straight face) that this “Anti-Weaponization Fund” of $1.776 billion is part of a settlement that resolves Trump’s suit over the leak of his tax returns. It will allow for people who believe they were targeted for prosecution for political purposes to apply for payouts, creating what Blanche called “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.” Blanche went on to say “The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again.”

Sure. This is a slush fund and is outrageous. We all knew that Trump has chutzpah but this is beyond the pale. The House democrats immediately filed a legal brief urging a judge to block what they described as an unprecedented resolution that enriches Trump’s buds with taxpayer dollars with meritless claims of political persecution. “This is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history,” Donald Sherman, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement. What about the republicans? To date nothing but silence except for Senate majority leader John Thune who said  he was “not a big fan.” “And I’m not sure exactly how they intend to use it, but my understanding is that was just announced. But yeah, I don’t see a purpose for that.” Sort of a milquetoast statement but at least it is slightly critical. What about our congressmen and senators? I bet none of them have the integrity or guts to speak out.

I don’t know of any single act taken by a president that is so in-your-face as this one. Jaime Raskin, one of Trump’s many enemies on Capitol Hill said “This case is nothing but a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund for Trump at DOJ to hand out to his private militia of insurrectionists, rioters, and white supremacists, including those who brutally beat police officers on January 6, 2021, and sycophant accomplices to his election stealing schemes.” 

At least one prominent government attorney has appeared to resign due to the impropriety of the “settlement.” Brian Morrissey, the Treasury’s general counsel, stepped down from his position just seven months after being confirmed by the Senate. Morrissey did not make a public statement indicating that he resigned as a result of the billion-dollar fund but he quit just hours after the “settlement” was announced. Although the headlines say that he “resigned in disgust” there is no direct confirmation from Morrissey – and in the vast majority of this instances one should not expect one.

Trump’s attorneys even suggested in their court filing seeking to dismiss the democrat’s suit that the resolution would not be reviewable by a judge! Again more chutzpah. The agreement sets up a commission to oversee the slush fund and would have the total authority to dole out the $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds to settle claims brought by anyone who alleges they were harmed by the Biden administration’s “weaponization” of the legal system, including the nearly 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6 riot that Trump has already pardoned. 

In addition to not wanting the “settlement” to be reviewable, the arrangement doles out taxpayer dollars with no oversight. Trump would have the authority to remove members of the commission running the fund without cause, and the commission would be under no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision-making process for awarding the money. The process for awarding money and the identities of the recipients would be kept private. Good grief. 

The arrangement would be an unprecedented use of taxpayer dollars with no oversight. Under the terms of the potential settlement agreement, Trump would even have the authority to remove members of the commission running the fund without cause, and the commission would be under no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision-making process for awarding the $1.7 billion dollars.

The president says that none of the money will be paid to him (ha ha). But people associated with him, specifically his sons, would be entitled to part of the pie. And because of the terms of the “settlement” we will never know how much went to Do Jr and Eric Trump, Can you imagine Trump’s tweets and the collective republican outrage if Biden had created a slush fund for Hunter?

One of Trump’s lawyers said “The IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically-motivated employee to leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to the New York Times, ProPublica and other left-wing news outlets, which was then illegally released to millions of people. President Trump continues to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable.”

Sure.

What makes this doubly outrageous is that it looked as though Trump was going to lose his suit against the IRS and thus reached the “settlement” instead. No attorney would have agreed to such a settlement given the judge’s ruling. But these are no ordinary attorneys. We had essence Trump’s attorneys on one side versus Trump’s attorneys on the other side.

The judge hearing the case had questioned the justification for the case proceeding. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams questioned whether Trump and the defendants — the Treasury Department and IRS — are “sufficiently adverse” for the case to proceed. “Moreover, although President Trump avers that he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity, he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction. Indeed, President Trump’s own remarks about this matter acknowledge the unique dynamic of this litigation,” she wrote.

No kidding. Again, this is outrageous. Even Trump when asked about the ethics of his filing suit against his own government said the lawsuit “sort of looks bad” but said he would donate any money he receives from the claims to charity. He said “It’s interesting because I’m the one that makes a decision, right, and, you know, that decision would have to go across my desk. It’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself.”

Maybe the first time Donald Trump has been given to understatement.

Clarence Thomas on Progressivism 

Congratulations to Justice Clarence Thomas who is now the second longest serving Supreme Court justice. If he hangs in there until 2028, he will eclipse William O. Douglas as the longest serving justice. Thomas is a staunch constitutionalist which is why the left hates him. No living constitution believer is he. I don’t think that any of us thought that he would last this long. Justices in the past either retire or die before reaching this point. We all remember his contentious hearing with the accusations of Anita Hill and the famous Coke bottle. He survived that – remember “a high tech lynching for uppity blacks who dare to think for themselves”? His confirmation vote was strictly among party lines and was 52-48. He got the Supreme Court and Anita Hill got famous and was rewarded with a professorship in the law school at the University of Oklahoma. She is now a law professor at Brandeis University.

For years Thomas – often joined by Antonin Scalia – was a lonely voice at the court. But the composition of the court has changed during his tenure. His previous dissents are now providing the basis of majority votes on the court like in Dobbs and in Callais which reflected his opposition to provisions in the Voter Rights act. Thomas wrote the dissent on the Thornburg versus Gingles (1986) ruling that had paved the way for widespread racial gerrymanders. Thomas wrote that “few devices could be better designed to exacerbate racial tensions than the consciously segregated districting system currently being constructed in the name of the Voting Rights Act.” Joined by Scalia, Thomas said “Our drive to segregate political districts by race can only serve to deepen racial divisions by destroying any need for voters or candidates to build bridges between racial groups or to form voting coalitions.”

I am personally uncomfortable with his broad tolerance for expansive executive power as in Learning Resources versus Trump. Recall Justice Gorsuch admonishing both Thomas and Alito saying that their past votes in similar major questions doctrine cases cannot be reconciled with their present votes in support of Trump’s tariffs. I was disappointed in his vote supporting the tariffs. Regardless, Clarence Thomas along with Thomas Sowell remains the last of my living heroes.

Recently, I explained to my granddaughter who is from Northern Virginia why their recent vote to disenfranchise the state’s republicans was the perfect example of the weakness inherent in democracies. It was tyranny by the majority where 51 percent of the voters could disenfranchise the 49 percent who disagreed with them. The Founding Fathers recognized this flaw and created a represented republic rather thana pure democracy. Without the Electoral College and a senate where each state gets two senators regardless of population, I seriously doubt if the United States would still be united.

Clarence Thomas recognizes this flaw and articulated it eloquently in his speech at the University of Texas. There is much to like and admire about Clarence Thomas – though a couple of my dearest friends would disagree. For me, this speech was one of the finest that I can recall in my lifetime. I cannot do it justice just to relate it so here I reproduce the excerpt from the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/opinion/justice-thomas-progressives-vs-the-declaration-50d5aea4

Justice Thomas: Progressives vs. the Declaration

The Constitution is the means of government; it is the Declaration that announces the ends of government. The Constitution achieves this purpose by protecting our natural rights and liberties from concentrated power and excessive democracy. Our Constitution creates a separation of powers and federalism—truly for the first time in modern history—to prevent the government from becoming so strong that it threatens our natural rights. Federalist No. 10 proposed the idea that the great threat to our rights comes from majority faction. Human history teaches us, alas, that numerical majorities frequently seek to control government, and use the state to violate the rights of the minority. Because man is fallen and the desire for power was, as James Madison described it, “sown in the nature of man,” government had to be limited. For, as Madison said, “if men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” But men are not angels. The slaveholders used the power of government to deny the fundamental natural rights of the slaves; the segregationists used the state to oppress the freed men and women—including my ancestors.

As we meet today, it is unclear whether these principles will endure. At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream. The proponents of this new set of first principles, most prominently among them the 28th president, Woodrow Wilson, called it progressivism. Since Wilson’s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads in our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.

Progressivism was not native to America. Wilson and the progressives candidly admitted that they took it from Otto von Bismarck’s Germany, whose state-centric society they admired. Progressives like Wilson argued that America needed to leave behind the principles of the Founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated people of Europe. Wilson called Germany’s system of relatively unimpeded state power “nearly perfected.” He acknowledged that it was “a foreign science, speaking very little of the language of English or American principle,” which “offers none but what are to our minds alien ideas.” He thus described America, still stuck with its original system of government, as “slow to see” the superiority of the European system.

Progressivism was the first mainstream American political movement—with the possible exception of the pro-slavery reactionaries on the eve of the Civil War—to openly oppose the principles of the Declaration. Progressives strove to undo the Declaration’s commitment to equality and natural rights, both of which they denied were self-evident. To Wilson, the inalienable rights of the individual were “a lot of nonsense.” Wilson redefined “liberty” not as a natural right antecedent to the government, but as “the right of those who are governed to adjust government to their own needs and interests.” In other words, liberty no longer preceded the government as a gift from God, but was to be enjoyed at the grace of the government. The government, as Wilson reconceived of it, would be “beneficent and indispensable.” Progressives such as John Dewey attacked the Framers for believing that “their ideas [were] immutable truths good at all times and places,” when instead they were “historically conditioned, and relevant only to their own time.” Now, Dewey and the progressives argued, those ideas were to be repealed. Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from the government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.

You will not be surprised to learn that the progressives had a great deal of contempt for us, the American people. Before he entered politics, Wilson would describe the American people as “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn” and “foolish.” He lamented that we “do too much by vote” and too little by expert rule. He proposed that the people be ruled by administrators who use them as “tools.” He once again aspired to be like Germany, where the people, he said admiringly, were “docile and acquiescent.” The century of progressivism did not go well. The European system that Wilson and the progressives scolded Americans for not adopting, which he called nearly perfect, led to the governments that caused the most awful century that the world has ever seen. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao all were intertwined with the rise of progressivism, and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our Declaration was based. Many progressives expressed admiration for each of them shortly before their governments killed tens of millions of people.

It was a terrible mistake to adopt Progressivism’s rejection of the Declaration’s vision of universal, inalienable natural rights. Wilson’s claim that natural rights must give way to historical progress could justify the greatest mistakes in our history. In Plessy v. Ferguson, my court upheld Louisiana’s system of racial segregation because “separate but equal,” it observed, was reasonable in light of “the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the public peace and good order.” It comes as no surprise that the progressives embraced eugenics. Progressives believed that Darwinian science—the idea of ever-advancing progress written into biology itself— had proven the inherent superiority and inferiority of the races. It was only a small step for Wilson to resegregate the federal workforce. It was only another step for the government to launch sterilization programs on those deemed by the experts of the day to be unfit to reproduce—upheld by my court in Buck v. Bell in an opinion written by no less a figure than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

We can argue over whether you believe in immutable, absolute natural rights or the Wilsonian idea of ever-progressing history. . . . But let me ask you to consider the consequences. European thinkers have long criticized America for remaining trapped in a Lockean world, with its weak decentralized government and strong individual rights. They say our 18th-century Declaration has prevented us from progressing to higher forms of government. Why has America never had a socialist party, one German sociologist famously asked. But we were fortunate not to trade our Lockean bounds for the supposedly enlightened world of Hegel, Marx and their followers.

Fascism—which, after all, was a national socialism—triggered wars in Europe and Asia that killed tens of millions. The socialism of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China proceeded to kill more tens of millions of their own people. This is what happens when natural rights give way to the higher good of notions of history, progress, or, as Thomas Sowell has written, the “vision of the anointed.” None of this, of course, was an improvement on the principles of the Declaration. Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” is largely about how America owed its superiority over Europe to its conscious decision to reject central planning and administrative rule root and branch. Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive.

As Calvin Coolidge said on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration: “If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.”

When Abraham Lincoln addressed the assembled crowd at Gettysburg, they had gathered to memorialize the past. But Lincoln’s address urged them to not do so with complacency. Instead, Lincoln said, they would look to the past as inspiration to take them to greater heights in the future. “It is rather for us,” Lincoln said, “to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion. That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation . . . shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government, of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Trump’s endorsements

The president’s hair is on fire.

Louisiana

Bill Cassidy lost his primary in Louisiana. The president was giddy with joy. Not only did Cassidy lose, he was humiliated. When in history has a sitting senator running for reelection come in third in his party’s primary? Cassidy, a physician, was seeking a third term so Louisiana voters were familiar with him. He became only the second incumbent Louisiana senator ever not to be reelected. Virtually every media outlet says this is because Trump endorsed one of his opponents and Louisiana is MAGA-land. But Cassidy did something dumb. He voted for the president’s impeachment when he knew that there was no way Trump was going to be removed by the Senate.

But did the Louisiana voters turn him out because of Trump’s endorsement of Rep. Julia Letlow as the media types proclaim? That may be true but it is also true that the state’s republican establishment also wanted Cassidy gone and supported Letlow. The state’s governor endorsed Letlow, had big donors support her and closed the state’s open primary system denying Cassidy the democrat votes he got in the past. Not surprisingly the president reveled in Cassidy’s loss calling him a “disloyal disaster” and a “terrible person” on social media and saying “Congratulations to Congresswoman Julia Letlow on a fantastic race, beating an incumbent senator by record numbers.” Letlow will now face a runoff with Louisiana state treasurer John Fleming a former congressman who served in the Trump administration as assistant secretary of Commerce for Economic Development and later as a White House aide. Despite not having Trump’s endorsement, Fleming is running as an “I-am-the-bigger-Maga-candidate.” Trump has even tweeted nice things about him.

Cassidy however could have the last laugh. Like Thom Tillis, he may become a Trump obstacle in his remaining days. He responded to Trump by saying “Insults only bother me if they come from somebody of character and integrity, I find that people of character and integrity don’t spend their time attacking people on the internet.” Ouch. Cassidy has already blocked a handful of White House appointees including Casey Means for surgeon general and still chairs the powerful Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. He has been a critic of Robert Kennedy’s vaccine policies. He also could refuse to fall in line on some key votes as well.

But Cassidy should have known better. He sealed his own fate with his impeachment vote. And Trump never forgets. “For a man with such a formidable intellect, his political strategy was breathtakingly dense,” said Lionel Rainey, a Louisiana GOP strategist. History will remember Bill Cassidy as the absolute smartest guy in the political morgue.” The question is whether Cassidy lost because of the Trump endorsement or because he was not loyal to the party? It may have been a bit of both.

Indiana

The same is true in Indiana where five republican state senators who voted against redistricting were the object of Trump’s wrath. In their primary, four of them lost. Again the media credits Trump. However, one of the state’s republican senators Jim Banks’ PACs poured millions into the races. All told, more than an astounding $13 million was spent in these state races. Most of the ads were paid for by Hoosier Leadership for America and American Leadership PAC, which are both affiliated with Banks. Turning Point Action financed volunteers going door to door. The attack ads followed the theme that the senators opposed “President Trump’s plan to remove liberal Democrats from Congress.” The media seems to have forgotten the role played by all that money injected in the races, an amount over 5,000 times what had been traditionally spent. “Nearly all of the commentary I’ve seen attributes it solely to the Trump endorsement, and I don’t think nearly enough weight is being given to the money side of things,” said Joshua Claybourn, a veteran political advisor in Southern Indiana. 

The bottom line is yes, the president was a factor. But Cassidy was his own worse enemy and the republicans in Indiana might have lost anyway but all that money and the backing of Jim Banks likely played a role in getting his supporters out to the polls to vote against the incumbents. 

Kentucky’s 4^th

The next test is Kentucky’s Thomas Massie who is the only consistent libertarian in the republican House caucus. Massie is from Trump country and Trump hates him. The president endorsed Massie’s opponent Ed Gallrein a retired Navy Seal who leads Massie in some polls while trailing in others. The president even traveled to Kentucky to campaign with Gallrein. He did not go either to Louisiana or to Indiana. As is his wont, the president blasted Massie, calling him a “nutjob” who “will go down as the WORST Republican Congressman.” At the rally for Gallrein Trump said to the crowd “I just can’t stand this guy. We have got to get rid of this loser.”  “Tom Massie of Kentucky, the worst and most unreliable Republican Congressman in the history of our Country, is an even bigger insult to our Nation than Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who suffered an unprecedented loss tonight by not even being allowed to run in the Republican Primary. Very disloyal, but Tom Massie, a major Sleazebag, is even worse!” Trump’s scathing post continued. “Kentucky, get this LOSER out of politics in Tuesday’s Election. He is nicknamed Rand Paul, Jr. another real ‘beauty,’ because of his absolutely terrible voting habits. Vote for Ed Gallrein a Successful Kentucky farmer and American War Hero who only ran because he thought that Massie was so disloyal and disrespectful to your President, ME!”

Good grief.

After the Indiana primary a Gallrein supporter tweeted “Hey @RepThomasMassie, you are next.” Massie’s primary is May 19^th.  I have posted before my admiration of Massie, one of our few principled politicians. Massie has consistently voted against increases in federal spending and what he views as violations of the US Constitution. He voted against the Big Beautiful Bill. Again money is playing a role. The race is the most expensive House primary battle in U.S. history with over $25.6 million spent in television, radio and digital advertising, as outside groups and national Republicans flood Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District with bitter attack ads.

Many of the ads are vicious, including several AI-generated “deepfakes.” One pro-Gallrein super PAC released an ad depicting Massie holding hands with Squad members Ilhan Omar and AOC and claimed Massie was “caught in a throuple.” (I wonder if Kentucky voters even know what “throuple” means). Massie’s criticism of Israel is also a key factor in the race, with the Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund and the AIPAC-affiliated United Democracy Project accounting for nearly half of all super PAC spending against him.

Massie’s reaction to all this? “Dogs don’t bark at parked cars. I’m the only car moving.” So has Massie despite his roots in the district and just being one its solidly agrarian people lose his seat buried under Trump’s barrages and $25.6 million of attack ads? We will see. But a Massie loss will be one for the country and not just for Kentucky District 4.

Next up: Colorado’s Lauren Boebert, once a MAGA star and now on the hit list for endorsing Massie. Trump called her “weak minded” saying “Boebert is campaigning for the Worst “Republican” Congressman in the History of our Country, Tom Massie, of the Great Commonwealth of Kentucky and anybody who can be that dumb deserves a good Primary Fight!”

There he goes again.

The Taiwan Rope-a-Dope

President Xi is said to have given President Trump a warning on Taiwan. There is much talk about the “Thucydides Trap” named after the Greek historian. Thucydides contended a rising power – in his case Athens – put fear in the declining established power – Sparta – which led to the Peloponnesian War. Xi apparently envisions China as the rising power and the US as the power in decline with the possibility of war over Taiwan. Xi is warning Trump not to interfere if China decides to blockade Taiwan or seize it or its islands by force.

I hope the president told Xi to go pound sand. Secretary of State Rubio said “We always make clear our position and we move on to other topics” and that it would be a “terrible mistake” if China were to try to take Taiwan by force. I think that China is doing a Taiwan rope-a-dope – with the dope being us. There is very little chance that China will do something as stupid as invading Taiwan.

China is a country in decline. Its economy is a mess. It is too dependent upon exports (hear that President Trump?), the country is fast aging, its population is in sharp decline due to its disastrous one child policy. Its military leadership is in disarray as Xi has moved to fire its leaders (hear that Pete Hegseth?). The worry is that Xi may actually try to take Taiwan to save his leadership much like Putin has tried to take Ukraine. But Xi needs to heed the lesson that the Russians have painfully learned because Taiwan will be a tougher nut to crack than Ukraine. Unlike Ukraine, the Chinese cannot amass 500,000 troops on the Taiwanese border and walk across. Instead they will have to deal with the Taiwan Strait which at its narrowest point is 90 miles wide. 

The strait is one of the world’s most treacherous waters swept by seasonal monsoons and typhoons. These storms provide only a narrow window in which a waterborne invasion could be launched. The Taiwanese would be ready with its anti-ship missile systems. There is little chance that the Chinese will be able to get its army and navy across that strait except at a horrendous loss of life. And recall, no war has ever been won solely by aircraft and/or missiles and drones. We are learning that lesson in Iran right now. Taiwan has considerable air defenses and will be able to deal with Chinese airpower. Its submarines are capable of warding off the Chinese navy and sinking any troop ships. Of course the Chinese may attempt to send in troops by air but the likelihood of reaching Taiwan over those 90 miles would be slim and none and end in disaster.

Even if somehow a Chinese amphibious landing were accomplished, the Taiwan coastline presents a daunting obstacle. It is a natural fortress. Only the western coastline is a feasible landing site and here the water is too shallow for ships to come close in to disembark men and materiel making the ships sitting ducks for missiles and mines. The eastern coast is lined with imposing cliffs making large scale landings impossible. The Taiwanese not surprisingly have fortified all potential landing sites with anti-landing spikes, mines and missiles. You think Normandy was bad even with all the deception? Well it took 7,000 ships and 850,000 troops back then. Now with the spy satellites and all the technology, there will be no deception and no surprises. How many ships and men will China be willing to sacrifice in a likely fruitless effort to invade the island?

Lastly, the interior terrain of the island itself is daunting. The western plains are narrow, creating bottlenecks that limit the maneuverability of any army creating choke points and ideal locations for ambushes. In the east are mountain ranges that are over 12,000 feet, acting as formidable barrier and perfect for guerrilla warfare. Xi is no fool. He can saber rattle all he wants. But on Taiwan he is full of it and a failed invasion would likely end his career. So like Trump, he is full of empty threats and bluster. Taiwan is his rope-a-dope having us and the world concentrate on the island when his true intentions lie elsewhere. I have said this before: while we are looking at Taiwan, the Chinese have easier pickings at Siberia and Manchuria. China needs Lake Baikal more than it needs Taiwan.

Xi undoubtedly will keep feigning toward Taiwan and warn Trump not to continue selling Taiwan defensive armaments. Trump should tell him to pound sand and continue to approve arms sales to Taiwan. Of course, the Taiwanese can go elsewhere but Trump acts as though he needs the money. Trump though is no real friend of Taiwan slapping a 32 percent tariff on their exports – save semiconductors. The tariff is now 20 percent. It should be zero.

If truth be told, China needs the US more than we need China. Trump should say that and mean it. Trump should tell Xi that in order to restore good relations China should quit threatening Taiwan. To eliminate any tariffs, China needs to become a team player in world markets and in world politics. He should put his foot down on Chinese spying, hacking and intellectual theft. He should offer trade agreements that benefit both countries and threaten to withdraw them along with imposing punitive tariffs and financial restraints on China if they act up.

China, like Russia, is a poor third world bully with nuclear weapons. They will remain third world so long as they embrace communism and depress the freedom of their people. Trump could even offer to let Chinese EVs into the country (more on that later) in order to give the American public access to low cost automobiles. The caveat is that any Chinese product imported into the country cannot have spying apparatus embedded in it. That goes for all electronics, solar panels and of course EVs. Any violation would be met immediately with an embargo of all Chinese goods and a seizure of all Chinese assets. Trump is a bully. Its time for him to bully China.

Will Warsh’s confirmation hearing come back to bite him?

Kevin Warsh was confirmed by the Senate to lead the Fed in an historic vote of 54-45. No Fed chair has ever been confirmed by such a narrow margin. John Fetterman was the only democrat to vote for confirmation. Prior to Warsh here are the votes for the past four Fed chairs: Bernanke 70-30, Yellen 56-26, Powell 80-19. Yellen also has a place in Fed history as the first Fed chair to receive less than 60 votes. In fact, prior to Yellen, Fed chairs needed 60 votes for confirmation.

Virtually every observer would say that Warsh’s vote was a reflection of the animus that the democrats hold for the president rather than an indication that they think about the qualifications of Warsh. However, Warsh did not make any attempt to ingratiate himself with. The democrats. He knew that he was going to be confirmed. He also knew that the democrats hated the president. Warren said “Trump has made clear that he wants to do a full takeover of the Fed” and that “if the Republicans won’t stand up against that takeover, the Democrats should not help them.”

But Warsh did not want to make any statement that would turn our mercurial president against him before he could even get started. In doing so he did not make any friends across the aisle and may need to patch up those bruised feelings once in office. He did not make any friends among the dems with his responses to their questions especially those from Elizabeth Warren and Raphael Warnock. The right wing press chortled at Warren’s frustrations over Warsh’s answers.

Here is some of the exchange: 

Warren: The Fed has been plagued by deeply disturbing ethics scandals in recent years involving at least six Fed officials. So it’s critical that the next Chair have no financial conflicts—none. You have more than $100 million dollars in investments that you have refused to disclose to ethics officials and to the public. So let me ask: do the Juggernaut Fund or THSDFS LLC invest in any companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies that have facilitated money laundering, Chinese-controlled companies, or financing vehicles established by Jeffrey Epstein?

Warsh: Senator Warren, thank you. Let me first share a point of agreement with you. The Fed has two tools. One is its monetary policy and the second is its credibility. And the scandals that you talk about, the ethics problems you talk about, run to the core of the credibility that has hurt the Fed.

Warren: Mr. Warsh I appreciate that but- Would you answer my question please? I asked, You have 100 million dollars in undisclosed assets. What I’m asking is, are any of those with this outfit that invests in companies affiliated with President Trump and the family, companies that facilitated money laundering, Chinese controlled companies, or financing vehicles set up by Jeffrey Epstein? It’s a yes or no question.

Warsh refused to answer.

Warren: Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?

Warsh: We try to keep politics, if I’m confirmed, out of the Federal Reserve.

Warren: So let me ask you another question. In our meeting, you said you would be independent because you’re quote a, “tough guy”, those were your words, “tough guy” and will be able to stand up to President Trump. So let’s try it again: Name one aspect of President Trump’s economic agenda with which you disagree.

Warsh: Well Senator, the Federal Reserve in recent years has wandered outside of its realm, wandered into other areas. That’s not something I’m prepared to do. If I’m confirmed, the Federal Reserve should stay in its lane.

Warren: I’m asking for something you disagree with Donald Trump on. Just one economic- just one economic- just one. Just one little place where you disagree with Donald Trump.

Warsh: Well I do have a disagreement actually, Senator, with the President. I think, even this morning, he said that he thought I was at a central casting. I think central casting, I’d look older, grayer, and maybe show up here with a cigar of sorts.

Warren: Quite adorable. But you know, we need a Fed Chair who is independent. That’s the only way that we preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve.

Warren also called Warsh a “sock puppet” for Trump – which of course Warsh denied.

The right wing media loved the exchange, however the democrats and some independent observers did not calling Warsh’s responses “jokey” and “disrespectful.” Yes, I know that it is difficult oftentimes to be respectful to Elizabeth Warren who is so often disrespectful herself. But it is not wise to alienate all the democrats. See the exchange with Georgia’s Raphael Warnock.

Warnock: If Professor Warsh were to assign a letter grade to the American economy today for the average working family, what grade would you assign?”

Warsh: “In modern academic institutions they give everyone A’s. If I give a student anything but an A, I would have been summoned to the dean’s office.”

The audience in the hearing room laughed but Warnock was not amused saying “Consumer confidence is at a record low. That’s Americans’ grade on the economy.”

When Warnock followed up with written questions about what Warsh would do if the president tried to fire him, Warsh simply refused to answer. Warnock was also upset that Warsh did not respond to requests for comment that were placed through the Hoover Institution, where the former Fed governor is a distinguished visiting fellow in economics. Warnock was not pleased. He said “He’s now under the oversight of my committee. He needs to get used to answering my questions.” Warnock is the ranking member of the Fed oversight sub-panel and has every political incentive to make Fed oversight a visible part of his portfolio.

One veteran observer said “His jokey replies to Warren and Warnock at the hearing were a disrespect I have never seen a Fed Chair show in testimony. I’ve watched a lot of hearings and testimony that Fed chairs have given—ones where they’re getting some very tough lines of questioning. They show a lot of respect.”

This is because ultimately, the Fed is the creature of the congress. Every Fed chair pays homage to the congress – both sides of the aisle. Jay Powell was especially respectful to all of congress during Trump’s first term which paid dividends during his second. Despite all of Trump’s vindictive badgering, the republicans and democrats in the congress never turned on Powell. Warsh did not need democrats’ support for confirmation but he will need them especially if the dems return to power after the midterms. Armed with subpoena power, the democrats will not be the loyal opposition. Far from it. One of the first things Warsh must do is to go to Capitol Hill and mend fences with the democrats. He may not need them now but he will later. Bet on it.

Free the beagles!

My first dog as a new parent was a beagle named Letta – named for the South African singer Letta Mbulu. She – the dog – was perfect for small children. She was also a perfect companion. I was at the University of Florida and we rented a house with a fenced in backyard to keep the alligators out that lived in the creek running behind the house. We concluded that alligators must really like dogs because it seemed that most every time Letta was in the back, that an alligator would come and sun itself up against the fence. 

I guess the most famous beagle is Snoopy, inspired by a dog from Charles Schulz’ childhood. His Snoopy is anthropomorphic portrayed as the opposite of his owner, Charlie Brown. In reality, beagles are loving, sweet and gentle which may explain why so many are bred for medical experiments. Now I am no PETA person – although some say that stands for People Eating Tasty Animals. I know the value of conducting life saving research on laboratory animals (rather than humans). But beagles? By some estimates over 70,000 are bred only for medical purposes. These dogs never can show their love to a family with young kids. They will never hunt rabbits – my grandfather had a bunch of them solely for that purpose. They will never experience human kindness and reciprocate it.

Well just recently a court case made the news. It concerned the theft of 22 beagles from a kennel that breeds them for medical research. Wayne Hsiung a Californian went into the Ridglan Farms facility in Blue Mounds, Wisconsin and liberated the dogs. He recorded the heist on video to tell the world what he was doing. Laura Trump, Lara Loomer, congressmen Nancy Mace and Young Kim voiced their support for him. Loomer tweeted to her 1.9 million followers: “Terrible! Save the dogs!”In 2025, following a petition by Hsiung a judge found probable cause that Ridglan had broken Wisconsin anticruelty laws, including conducting certain medical procedures without anesthesia and failing to provide adequate sanitation and ventilation. 

Ridglan, which denied wrongdoing, offered a deal: it would close its breeding operation, keeping only its smaller testing operation open, in exchange for avoiding charges. Lara Trump urged Ridglan in an Instagram video to accept a $1 million offer from animal-rights groups to rehome all 2,000 dogs. Big Ranch Dog Rescue and the Center for a Humane Economy reached a deal to rehome the dogs for an undisclosed sum. There are videos of the dogs being released and some people adopting them. One particularly poignant scene is one in which one beagle raises her paw as if to shake hands with her new owner. It turns out that the dog thought that she was supposed to be giving blood.

You can read the full story here https://www.wsj.com/us-news/the-fight-to-free-hundreds-of-beagles-from-a-rural-wisconsin-research-lab-3c3a49ff

Here is a recent paper on the use of beagles in medical research: “Beagles in Biomedical Research: Scientific Justification, Biosafety Protocols, Ethical Debates, and Emerging Alternatives.” https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1709256.pdf

Follow the science? Academic fraud can kill

There were three reasons why I was a climate skeptic. The first was that the main supporters were those on the left who wanted more power to control people’s lives. I would not ever vote for. Any of those advocates. The second was that I did not believe the models. After modeling economic hypotheses all my professional life I knew intimately the limitations of formulating mathematical equations to mimic real economic phenomena. The third and most important was that I knew that empirical scientists lied. They fudged their models, changed the signs on the parameters if they did not conform to expectations and manipulated the results. I mentioned that when I was in graduate school that my advisor, the great Karl Brunner, edited the Journal of Money, Banking and Credit. One year he announced that all accepted papers prior to publication had to have their results independently verified. Submissions fell dramatically and papers already in review were withdrawn.

This, sadly, was no isolated incidence. Here is what I wrote in the Knoxville Focus, November 20, 2023: “There is a large scientific literature – mostly suppressed – that finds that the world is not in imminent danger from changes in the climate. Many prominent scientific journals will not publish these studies and many funding sources will not fund research contrary to the climate change narrative. Since researchers are driven to publish for success and to acquire funding, they are motivated to cheat and falsify their findings in order to achieve the “correct” results. It has been reported elsewhere that over 60 of published empirical results may be compromised.  These falsifications are not merely of young assistant professors struggling to publish in the top journals to achieve tenure and promotion. It is also the most eminent scientists in the country. The climate director at Berkeley altered results in order to get a paper published. The president of Stanford recently resigned accused of falsifying data. Plagiarism has always been rife within academics (as well as politics, see Joe Biden).”

“There is a large scientific literature – mostly suppressed – that finds that the world is not in imminent danger from changes in the climate. Many prominent scientific journals will not publish these studies and many funding sources will not fund research contrary to the climate change narrative. Since researchers are driven to publish for success and to acquire funding, they are motivated to cheat and falsify their findings in order to achieve the “correct” results.” So within the “settled science” of studies on the climate, don’t be shocked if many – if not most – fail the smell test.

There is actually a website called Retraction Watch that documents academic fraud. https://retractionwatch.com

Last year it identified a record 13,000 retracted academic papers – articles that had been published (in many cases having first gone through peer review) but were subsequently proven wrong and withdrawn from circulation. The entire

catalogue of Retraction Watch has swelled to over 50,000 entries. “Our database is updated every day,” says Ivan Oransky, Retraction Watch’s co-founder, “Usually with about 40 new retractions daily.” One scientist said “The level of publishing of fraudulent papers is creating serious problems for science. In many fields it is becoming difficult to build up a cumulative approach to a subject, because we lack a solid foundation of trustworthy findings. And it’s getting worse and worse.” It is commonly reported that 60 percent of all academic papers may have fraudulent findings.

So spending trillions and trillions of dollars on what turns out to be truly a big green scam is bad enough.  But the fraud in medical research is not only shocking but is criminal and has cost lives. An article in Reason entitled “How a Scientific Cartel Protects Fraudsters and Rakes in Billions of Taxpayer Dollars” says “Corrupt scientists rarely face accountability. The real victims are everyone

else.” https://reason.com/2026/05/06/how-a-scientific-cartel-protects-fraudsters-and-rakes-in-billions-of-taxpayer-dollars/

The author describes in heartbreaking detail the slide of his grandmother into Alzheimers. He then describes the following:

“Sylvain Lesné, a neuroscientist at the University of Minnesota, published a paper in Nature in 2006 claiming to identify a specific amyloid beta protein assembly as the direct cause of memory impairment in Alzheimer’s. This reinvigorated the amyloid hypothesis at a moment when skepticism about it was ramping up. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) devoted $1.6 billion to projects that mention amyloids in 2022 alone, nearly half of all federal Alzheimer’s funding that year.  Lesné was a star.

But there were rumblings. Numerous amyloid drugs made it to trials with billions invested by pharmaceutical companies. They failed repeatedly. A question arose in the pharmaceutical community: How can this be right? How can the trials keep failing if the underlying research is correct? In 2022, the Vanderbilt neuroscientist Matthew Schrag uncovered evidence that images in Lesné’s paper had been manipulated. Science magazine found more than 20 suspect papers by Lesné, with over 70 instances of possible image tampering. Nature retracted the paper in June 2024. Every author except Lesné signed the retraction. Lesné himself resigned from his tenured position at the University of Minnesota on March 1, 2025, three years after his fraud was exposed.

Lesné resigned, but was still rich. None of his grant money was clawed back.”

“The victims of corrupt science and siloed information never know they were harmed. The child who dies because her cure was delayed by a few years never knows the hurt that she received. The researchers who didn’t get the grant for their novel idea because the cartel (here the National Institutes of Health) was funding their buddies on the backs of fraudulent graphs never knew they got screwed.”

“Science must be a free market of ideas, but now it’s a cartel. NIH grant funding is centrally planned science. A small committee directs billions, yet is structurally incapable of knowing which directions are most promising.”

BTW, the author uses a pseudonym “Seconds”, likely a scientist seeking to protect himself within the academy and to continue to receive grants from the cartel that he so rightly criticizes. Antony Fauci repeatedly said “follow the science.” Well I don’t believe the science until proven otherwise. Al Gore’s “settled science” is based on lies, misrepresentations and outright fraud.

What can be done? The government has the power to fine violators up to  $10,000 a day but has done nothing. This is only for government grants. The government should verify each funded research. If fraud is found, the grant monies should be returned and the researcher should be fined, banned for life or in the case of medical fraud be put in jail. What of all the fraud in academia that is not funded by the federal government? I suggest that what Karl Brunner did those long years ago at Ohio State become the norm. All papers must be independently verified prior to publication. Period. If that happens then maybe even I might believe some of the results.

Virginia’s racist gerrymander. More tariffs for dummies?

Virginia’s racist gerrymander 

Virginia’s current congressional map has no majority black districts. However, two are majority-minority. District 3 is 39 percent white, 43 percent black and 8 percent Hispanic. District 4 is 42 percent white, 41 percent black and 10 percent Hispanic. Both the representatives are black democrats, Bobby Scott in the 3^rd and Jennifer McClellan in the 4^th. The proposed gerrymander to shift the state’s congressional representation from 6 democrats and 5 republicans to 10 democrats and one republican would dilute the minority majorities in both districts. Now in District 3 the white population would rise to 45.1 and the black population would fall to 41 percent. In District 4 the white population would go to 50.7 percent and the black percent would fall to 39 percent. 

Do you think Virginia’s white democrats wanted to get rid of the two black representatives and used the excuse of getting rid of the republicans to do it? Just asking. So if like the southern states, the purpose of the gerrymander is to reduce black voting power, Virginia is no different from Tennessee, Louisiana or Alabama. So in the deep south when republicans do it they are called racists. When the democrats do it, they are called – democrats.  Strange since it has the same effect and impact on black voters.

So Virginia can have a new slogan: Virginia is for racists

Our trade representative hates trade

Earlier I reported that Jamieson Greer the U.S. Trade Representative has launched “investigations” into dozens of countries under a separate authority – Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 – in order to conjure up some more tariffs. Well the justification for the investigations is about the dumbest reason I have seen – and that is saying something. It something called “structural excess capacity.” That is, any country that produces “excess capacity” displaces existing U.S. domestic production or prevents investment and expansion in U.S. manufacturing production. So says Mr. Greer. But isn’t that the reason you trade in the first place. You produce those items in which you have a comparative advantage and trade them for goods that you don’t. Don’t America’s farmers produce way more corn, barley, soybeans and other stuff than they could possibly consume? Why? So they can sell it.

Mr. Greer says this is bad and should not go unpunished. Mr. Greer also says that a country shouldn’t have unused factories and that nations producing less than 80% of what their factories could potentially make are likely “structural excess capacity” offenders. Well the Wall Street Journal points out that the US is then an offender with a domestic capacity utilization of only 75.2 percent. The administration actually pointed to Norway’s high seafood exports as evidence that the country produces more fish than it needs making it a prime candidate for Trump’s tariffs. Good grief. Doesn’t Norway have a comparative advantage in growing fish? This basically means that all countries that export anything are subject to Trump’s new tariffs, including everything exported by the US. Apparently Trump wants only the US to have “excess capacity” and none other. Only in the US is “excess capacity” good. Those farmers can’t eat all those soybeans, can they? Greer’s job is to figure out a way that Trump can get more tariffs and keep them, even if he looks stupid doing so. Apparently, he is going to test every trade stature for the one that can pass legal scrutiny. But actually, the task can be made much simpler – just follow the Constitution and have the congress enact the laws to make it so. Until then, Mr. Greer will be the president’s hit man and look stupid doing so. Tariffs for dummies, anyone?

Comey: Another day, another indictment. Bye, Bye Dr. Makary. The Reflecting Pool.

Comey: Another day, another indictment

The former FBI director, one of many on the president’s hit list, has been hit with another indictment. This time for the silly “86-47” seashell photo from a trip to the beach. I haven’t heard the argument that the shells just randomly arranged themselves that way, but I wouldn’t be shocked if that were not forthcoming. The seashell photo appeared over a year ago but I guess Trump’s acting attorney general Todd Blanche knows that if he wants to get the job then he must aggressively pursue Trump’s enemies, no matter how flimsy or absurd the charges. Comey, you may recall, was the FBI director who as had overseen the early investigation into whether Trump’s 2016 campaign had coordinated with Russia to sway the outcome of the presidential election – aka the Russia hoax.

The number “86” may be interpreted as “eliminate” and “47” refers to Trump – the 47^th president. The indictment charges Comey with “knowingly and willfully” making a threat to “take the life of and to inflict bodily harm upon the president and with transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.” I predict the outcome will be Comey 2 Trump 0.

Bye bye Dr. Marty Makary

The president professes to hate the Wall Street Journal. He sued the paper and its owner Rupert Murdoch for $10 billion over an article saying that he sent a letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 that featured the drawing of a nude woman. The president said “We have just filed a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved in publishing the false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS ‘article’ in the useless ‘rag’ that is, The Wall Street Journal.” The suit – not surprisingly – was dismissed.

Well if the president hates the Journal then why did he fire Homeland Secretary Kristi (ex-border Barbie) soon after it ran a hit piece on her relationship with Corey Lewandowski and her excessive spending on self-promotion? Not to mention the disaster that unfolded with ICE in Minneapolis. One day he was praising her. The next day she was gone.

Well it has happened again. The Journal does not like Dr. Marty Makary, the FDA commissioner – take a number. It has been relentless in attacking him in a series of articles. The articles, mention that first the president was angry at Makary for moving slowly to authorize the approval of flavored vapes and nicotine products. Makary was reluctant to do so because of the impact on young people and refused to approve menthol, mango and blueberry vape flavors from Los Angeles manufacturer Glas. The president, on the other hand, wanted the flavors approved precisely to help gain the favor (flavor?) of young MAGA voters. Makary folded and the flavors were approved. Don’t you think that an inquiring press would have looked into the relationship between Glas and the Trump family? Where are the headlines “TRUMP WANT YOUTH HOOKED ON NICOTINE”?

Once upon a time the administration was full of praise for Makary releasing a statement saying “The only factor guiding the Trump administration’s health policymaking is Gold Standard Science, and the FDA under Commissioner Makary’s trailblazing leadership will continue to make evidence-based decisions that rectify the Biden administration’s missteps and that are in the best interest of the American people.” A White House official said the president had confidence in Makary and was “thrilled with his accomplishments.”

But then came the critical articles. I reported on Dr. Makary’s rejection of rare disease drugs. He and the FDA’s former biologics chief Dr. Vinay Prasad rejected a promising melanoma drug among others. The Journal said “The rejection will have a chilling effect on drug development by signaling that the FDA is slamming the door on accelerated approvals and requiring a level of evidence of efficacy that fewer cancer drugs could meet. Congress ought to haul in Drs. Makary and Prasad for questioning. And President Trump might ask why his choice for FDA Commissioner and the mess with Dr. Prasad have undermined his desire for faster cures.”

Makary has also been roundly criticized on personnel decisions with firings and leavings of key personnel. The latest piece in the Journal appeared on May 3 entitled “President’s Trump Marty Makary problem” by Allysia Finley. In it she asks “Has any Trump administration official caused more political headaches for the president than Marty Makary? His Food and Drug Administration has turned into a soap opera, with real lives hanging in the balance.” She mentions the melanoma therapy rejection and says “Dr. Makary decided patients shouldn’t have the right to try the drug. Ditto a gene therapy by UniQure for the brutal neurodegenerative Huntington’s Disease, which slowed progression by 75% in a clinical trial.” Congress has started investigating complaints from FDA staff and Makary is making the president’s life more difficult as the midterms are approaching. After listing complaint after complain Finley concludes “It’s time for Mr. Trump to pull the plug on the Makary show.”

And it seems that he has. The leader of this disaster at the FDA (and the CDC) is the MAHA guru Robert Kennedy jr. I really don’t know how Kennedy has somehow avoided the wrath of the president. But it is only a matter of time.

Trump’s reflecting pool

Its probably no big deal but Washington’s reflecting pool is being painted blue. The firm Atlantic Industrial Coatings was awarded a no-bid $6.8 million contract to do the job. Just coincidentally, the company renovated a pool at the president’s Virginia golf course. The president said “You’re going to end up with a beautiful, beautiful reflecting pool, the way it’s supposed to be. Much better than it ever was actually.” The president said “I know a guy.” Actually he said “I have a guy who’s unbelievable at doing swimming pools. He looked at it. He

called me up. He said, ‘Sir, we can do something on it.’” One critic said that under Trump he renovations and changes had “become a secretive project where the friends and business associates of the president are being rewarded with no public scrutiny”.

No kidding. I just wonder if the reflecting pool will still reflect? Well some group instantly appeared to sue to stop the blue paint job. The complaint filed by the Cultural Landscape Foundation says “The vivid blue coating will fundamentally alter the visual and experiential character of the pool and the broader Lincoln Memorial Grounds landscape, The new coloration will cause the pool to resemble a large swimming pool rather than the reflective civic landscape it was designed to be, distorting the experience of the site for the millions of visitors who come to it each year.”

Yep, I think that says that the Reflecting Pool won’t reflect.

The Trump Mahal. More TACO. Cruisin’. Illegal tariffs, redux.

How much for the Trump Mahal – er ballroom?

Donald Trump who sic-ed his “Justice” department on the Fed’s Jay Powell, ostensively for a cost overrun of $500 million dollars should be ashamed. The ballroom which the president said would cost $200 million went to $400 million. Trump said that it would be built with private funds. Now the republicans on the senate judiciary committee want to spend $1 billion in public funds for security enhancements to the ballroom. Predictably the democrats are outraged. “Republicans are on a different planet than American families,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote “Republicans looked at families drowning in bills and decided what they really needed was more raids and a Trump ballroom.” The democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee responded with an AI-generated image of Trump as Marie Antoinette, who lived at the Palace of Versailles, captioning it, “$1 BILLION for ballroom funding? Marie Antoinette would be proud.” Hey, if Trump can sue his “Justice” Department then maybe he needs to get his “Justice” Department investigate himself.

LET THEM EAT CAKE!!!

Trump’s Iran War – more TACO?

Would someone kindly explain to me what is going on in Trump’s head? The president boldly announced that the navy institute an escort service for vessels through the Strait of Hormuz and if attacked by Iran then all hell would fall down on them bombing “at a much higher level and intensity than it was before”. He called this “Project Freedom” for some reason. I think the navy took two ships through before the president for reasons only known to himself stopped the escort service without “raining hell down on the Iranians”. What’s up with that? I guess the president’s detractors will say this is another instance of “TACO” – Trump always chickens out. BTW, those ships have been stuck in the Persian Gulf for a month. Why haven’t problems of feeding them and sanitation been covered? 

Also please tell me why Trump declared that Iran’s bombing the United Arab Emirates was not a ceasefire violation? Some friend we are! So what is the end game? What terms are we going to accept? It will have to do with Iran’s nuclear program. But what about its armaments? What about its proxies? What about its funding of terrorism? What about regime change? Huh?

Trump’s illegal tariffs are again ruled illegal

When the president lost his tariff fight in the Supreme Court, he immediately rushed to reimpose them under Section 122 which allowed tariffs for 150 days under certain conditions. Trump doubled down and raised those tariffs to 15 percent and just recently raised them on European automobiles to 25 percent. Well the U.S Court of International Trade (CIT) just ruled that the 10 percent “global tariff” is also illegal. I thought this would happen and had posted earlier that Section 122 applied in order to address deficits in the “balance of payments.” However, the balance of payments is not in deficit. Rather one of its components – the balance of trade – is what is in deficit. The court ruled that the president cannot impose tariffs under Section 122 without that prerequisite (which does not exist). In the words of the court “Nowhere does [Trump’s executive order imposing the tariffs] identify balance-of-payments deficits within the meaning of Section 122 as it was enacted in 1974.” Because of that, the executive order “is invalid, and the tariffs imposed on Plaintiffs are unauthorized by law.” 

This is the fifth straight defeat for the president in the courts. Where does he go from here because surely the “tariff man” will not give up easily. Indeed, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has launched “investigations” into dozens of countries under a separate authority – Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 -in order to conjure up some more tariffs this summer.

Cruisin’

I have several friends who love to cruise. I question their sanity. Cruise ships are floating petri dishes and the latest two incidence just confirm it. First, a hantavirus outbreak has occurred on the Dutch cruise ship. MV Hondius. Three people have died and the ship has been diverted to the Spanish island of Tenerife, off the coast of West Africa. I guess the PR people will call this a bonus cruise stop at no extra charge. Investigators suspect a Dutch couple may have first contracted the virus while on a bird-watching trip before they boarded the ship in Argentina on April 1. Once the ship reaches Tenerife, passengers will be evacuated in small boats to buses only once their repatriation flights are ready to take them. The United States and Britain have agreed to send planes to Tenerife to pick up their citizens. Other governments, provided they can find the island on a map, have not yet indicated what they will do regarding their citizens. Hantavirus is from rodents and humans can contract the disease when they come into contact with infected rodents or their saliva, urine, and droppings. Medical authorities say that human to human transmission is rare but undoubtedly occurred in this instance. 

Second, over 100 people were sickened by a norovirus outbreak aboard the Caribbean Princess cruise ship. The CDC reported that 102 of 3,116 passengers and 13 of 1,131 crew members were reported ill with symptoms including diarrhea and vomiting. Hey, but it is only a mild gastrointestinal illness. Nothing as serious as the hantavirus. Just a little diarrhea and throwing up – what we used to call in my childhood the GATs (green apple trots). You may love to cruise, but the only cruising that I want to do is told by Smokey Robinson and it isn’t on a boat with three thousand of my closest friends. So do you still want to cruise?