Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[bloocow2]

Ok, so, the Greenland thing.

It's nice that apparently you won't be going to war over it, but could someone please explain what the benefit of taking over Greenland is? I'm trying to be open-minded, but the only reason I can see at the moment is that Trump thinks a nice, big US territory would look good on a map.

Is there something else? The Danes don't want this. The Europeans don't want it. The people in Greenland don't appear to want it. Most of the Trump administration doesn't seem that enthusiastic about it either, when there are more than enough local problems to be worried about.

You already have military access to the place and its minerals, because the Danes don't like the threat from Russia any more than most Americans do. Why would you pay half a trillion for something you basically have free access to anyway?

What's the deal? Is it something to do with the share markets? Manufacturing a crisis to keep his name in the news? Trolling?

[AmosArch]

It's nice that apparently you won't be going to war over it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Actually libtoids are pissed off and apparently actually wanted Trump to attack Greenland. Or something to that effect I guess. I don't know why you'd criticize someone for doing something you want so I guess they wanted war despite all the squawking these past few weeks.

CNN: Trump’s latest TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) moment puts his increasingly erratic temperament in the spotlight

Daily Beast: TACO Trump Folds After Allies Give Him Cold Welcome Abroad

Vox: “Trump always chickens out,” briefly explained

[Sarcastr0]

Amos once again telling us all what the left thinks.

With a ‘well akshually’ even.

Turns out we all wanted Trump to wreck NATO!

I didn’t realize that; I’ll make a note for next time.

[hobie]

The mind boggles. They blame us for fielding candidates that forced them to vote for Trump. Now we're responsible for fomenting Trump into WWIII.

Are we dealing with Tylenol-induced mass autism, or just a bunch of 5 year olds?

[Drewski]

Trump explained it on Truth Social. It's for psychological reasons, to satisfy his need to ACQUIRE (capitalization in original).

[Kazinski]

Biggest reason is that the Kola Peninsula is where a large part of of Russian ICBM are located. All of the missiles there and from most of Siberia would have to pass over Greenland to strike the US. It is absolutely the best place to station a large middle defense installation to hit the missiles well before they could strike the US.

I might also add it would be a perfect place to strike the Russians and Chinese from too.

Then there are the rare earth's in Greenland and its control.of Arctic sea lanes.

I am not a supporter of Trumps Greenland tantrum, and I am glad it appears to be mostly over, but that is what was behind it.

[Commenter_XY]

The deal isn't done yet = I am glad it appears to be mostly over

[David Nieporent]

There is no deal of any sort. It's not started, let alone done. There's nothing to deal over.

[Michael P]

Yes, it's the (great circle) geography. It's not only the Kola Peninsula, either: ICBMs from a lot of Russia would pass over Greenland on their way to the East Coast, and more.

[Brett Bellmore]

We don't actually need Greenland's rare earths; We have them here, they're not as rare as the name suggests, and OUR rare earth deposits aren't under an ice cap and near active volcanoes. All we needed is some regulations that have been getting in the way of mining our own rare earths updated.

That's the same for a lot of strategic materials.

But, yes, Greenland is well positioned to be a platform for strategic missile defense.

[David Nieporent]

It is absolutely the best place to station a large middle defense installation to hit the missiles well before they could strike the US.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the acquisition of Greenland, since we can station a large middle defense installation there right now.

[Michael P]

How many missile defense systems does the mouse in your pocket have?

[David Nieporent]

Hey, that was funny. Not.

[not guilty]

"Biggest reason is that the Kola Peninsula is where a large part of of Russian ICBM are located. All of the missiles there and from most of Siberia would have to pass over Greenland to strike the US. It is absolutely the best place to station a large middle defense installation to hit the missiles well before they could strike the US."

And how is that not already permitted under the 1951 U.S.-Denmark Greenland Defense Agreement? https://militarybaseguides.com/greenland

[grb]

bloocow2 : "Trump thinks a nice, big US territory would look good on a map"

Close. Here's the reason, using my own take on Trump's BFF Putin as a parallel example:

So Putin led Russia, but didn't feel secure. So, to forestall any possible challenge, he destroyed the country's nascent democracy. To prevent attacks from the press, he destroyed Russia's independent media. To prevent any threat from the law, he destroyed the country's judicial system. And to secure wealth and the power it brings, he hardwired corruption right into the very fabric of the State.

Thus Putin is finally perfectly secure and begins to think of a "legacy". But where could that be found? To his own selfish ends, he'd already eliminated any possibility Russia could evolve into an vibrant, healthy, & creative country. The only thing left was petty mischief and foreign adventurism.

Little of that is a direct match with Trump, but there's an overall fit. Trump's presidency has been trolling, stunts, scams, and brat-child theatrics. Even all this ugly ICE business is just entertainment for the rubes. Like Putin, he's burned down everything in his wake with nothing left for a "legacy". Being increasingly desperate for something "lasting" (because a good conman is never fooled by his own hustle), Trump is flailing around with stuff like his bling-palace ballroom, triumphant arch, and fantasies of adding Canada or Greenland to the States. Not believing in anything, caring about no one but himself, and lacking the intelligence, focus, and discipline to pursue long-term policy goals, gimmicks are where he hopes to leave a mark.

[hobie]

Bingo! I mean - yikes! - BINGO!

[LexAquilia]

In retrospect, the entire Greenland hubbub was straight out of his book, The Art of the Deal.

He got what he wanted in the first place.

[bloocow2]

Which I'll bet is going to be basically the same as what he would have gotten anyway, if he'd just talked with Demark in the first place. And not, you know, threatening the entirety of Europe.

I'm not sure he's as much of a genius as you seem to think.

[LexAquilia]

Clearly not. Denmark hadn't been honoring prior commitments. Now they will, and we no longer have to ask them permission to defend our national interests.

They got sidelined. They wouldn't have voluntarily done so. The Art of the Deal.

Trumps a genius.

[Glaucomatose]

What prior commitments had they not been honoring?

Denmark was already meeting its NATO military spending target.

The US already had unfettered permission to build military bases in Greenland, and US companies were already mining there.

So what were these commitments you speak of?

[LexAquilia]

https://broadbandbreakfast.com/john-strand-denmarks-promises-on-greenland-must-be-delivered-not-just-declared/

The US now has sovereign rights to parcels of land enough to defend our interests. We didn't have that before.

----
At a White House meeting on 4 December 2019, Prime Minister Frederiksen committed Denmark to a DKK 1.5 billion Arctic capacity package—roughly €200 million or $224 million. The package included drones, satellite surveillance, early-warning systems, and ground infrastructure to strengthen situational awareness in the Arctic. These commitments were not symbolic; they were meant to address real security gaps between Russia and North America.

By mid-2024, however, Denmark had spent only about 1 percent of the pledged funds. Most of that went to basic education for 22 Greenlandic students. The core defense elements—drones, satellites, surveillance capabilities—remained largely unrealized.
----

We can't leave our national security to an "ally" who fucks us over this royally.

[David Nieporent]

The US now has sovereign rights to parcels of land enough to defend our interests. We didn't have that before.

The US has exactly what it had before, minus a lot of allied goodwill, plus a lot of mockery.

[LexAquilia]

David, are you lying on purpose?

Do you genuinely believe that no one in the US Administration, or Denmark Administration or NATO bureaucracy new this fact when they were negotiating the US will claim parcels of land as our territory?

I mean seriously. Is that how poorly you think of all the bureaucrats and civil servants advising NATO, Denmark, and the US?
I get it, Sarcastr0 sure has sullied their reputation around here, but come on man.

Hey, also, can you tell me how you're measuring this "loss of goodwill"? Or is it just your bluesky blues?

[David Nieporent]

I think you have no idea what you're talking about, are parroting a nonsensical Trump statement, and that everyone except Donald Trump understands that he got nothing out of this non-deal.

[LexAquilia]

You're really low information, man. I mean for real. IRL. No troll.

[David Nieporent]

Uh huh. Except no deal was reached — Trump doesn't even claim it was; he only claims the "framework" of a deal — and Denmark has made clear that the "sovereignty" idea of Trump's is a non-starter. The U.S. will get to use Greenland for bases just as it always did, no more, no less.

[Frank Drackman]

And yet he's POTUS and Hillary Rodman, Prostatic Joe, and Common-Law Harris are Non Complying, Dying, and Imbibing(closest I can come to a rhyme with "Dying") respectively.

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

AussieTrash, compared to Albanese (admittedly, a low hurdle), POTUS Trump is light years ahead.

[hobie]

You know, asshole, bloocow2 has only been with us a short time and has been nothing but polite and inquisitive, yet you've been calling him 'trash' from the get-go like you do Martin. Watching you - XY - devolve into juvenility has been one of the sadder things of the past two years

[David Nieporent]

C_XY has spiraled ever since 2020.

[hobie]

It takes a few earth-shattering events to turn the easily scared. 9/11 was the beginning. How many libs - I'm looking at you Dennis Miller and Ben Stein - dropped their principles for the illusion of security.

Then COVID finished the rest.

And J6 said to those newly-turned crazies...'you know, you don't have to modulate your new crazy behavior. There are no more limits. No consequences.'

And, presto!, we get XY.

[Commenter_XY]

The only thing broke here is your brain. You're the same people who cannot figure out what a woman is yet, Arthur.

[hobie]

I'll figure it out when you figure out the difference between sex and gender. Mic drop!

[TwelveInchPianist]

They're synonyms.

[grb]

Commenter_XY : (pathetic "know what a woman is" bullshit)

Because this constant tic seems to come straight from the Right's lizard brain, you have to wonder why. There are people who feel their sexual identity is different from their plumbing at birth. This is a sense wired deep into the very core of their being. It often starts at an extremely young age, from the very moment a child feels the first stirrings of a sexual identity. It has occurred consistently throughout human history in all cultures. It also happens in nature, where a small number of creatures perform the instinctive actions of the sex opposite to which they were born.

I have no idea of the current science on this, but it seems clear there are times the "software" in a person's mind doesn't align with what they see staring at their naked form in the mirror. My automatic inclination is to treat this tiny group of people with the same empathy and courtesy as I aspire to with anybody. But I'm not a rightwinger with their fetish for hate.

As for why, it's rooted in the Right's all-encompassing Victimhood™ and their associated addiction to zero-sum thought. To be a rightwinger, you have to believe "they" are continually "stealing" from you. And the logic of that belief is often ludicrous at best. After Obergefell, the Righties here insisted "they" (the gays) had "stolen marriage". Of course that makes no sense, but it did zero good to point that out. I tried recounting the perfectly heterosexual marriage I'd just attended, but to no effect. Another post here on Black Lives Matter had our Righties sputtering with fury because "they" (the blacks) had created their own slogan. I couldn't begin to understand how the Right-types thought that cheated them, but think it they did. Over the holidays Stephen Miller tweeted "they" (the immigrants) were somehow impacting his yuletide enjoyment of Frank Sinatra & Bing Crosby. Again, there's no "how" to be found here. Their existence somehow robbed Miller of something.

Thus Commenter_XY and transsexuals. The existence of the latter somehow robs poor, sad, XY of the satisfaction he gets cracking open his pants to stare down at his man parts. Me? I can get said satisfaction regardless of the existence of transsexuals, but XY is made of much more delicate stuff. He's a rightwinger. The pull of endless Victimhood™ is much too strong.

[Life of Brian]

C_XY has spiraled ever since 2020.

Provide whatever examples of "spiraling" in the early 2020s you think you have, my friend. In the world I lived in at the time, C_XY was scrupulously polite and kind toward the drunk-on-power Team Blue contingent around here well throughout the COVID debacle and beyond.

In those days, he merely (again politely and kindly) suggested that people keep in mind that the shoe would most assuredly be on the other foot again someday, and not take crazy extreme positions (oh, say, unbridled lawfare) they didn't want to be applied to them later on. But the drunk-on-power contingent simply wasn't in the mood for that sort of reasonable moderation, and kept upping the ante throughout 2023 and 2024.

Then the shoe did indeed reach the other foot, and the usual suspects started rending their garments and wailing about the very "norms" they had cheerfully abandoned. Sorry, buckos -- you burned that bridge to ashes years ago.

[Sarcastr0]

A pretty good window into the MAGA mind.

Feeling very wronged based on nothing notable, but embracing revenge to the point it's another sin against LoB if you say abuse of process and policy for revenge is bad, actually.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, hardly a surprise to get no actual examples from this sad sack -- just his typical mischaracterization, mindreading, and invective.

Just yesterday he piled on the "we're driving the world into China's arms" Journolist bandwagon, but is so willfully myopic he pretends not to understand how that sort of dynamic works on a personal level.

People have limits. Y'all found them. Congrats -- hope you're good and proud.

[hobie]

And there's the rub. XY did indeed used to be kind and polite. Any fool can recognize that...even absent all the culture war bullshit you threw into the mix.

[Life of Brian]

Yup, and as I just said above many here responded to that kind politeness by cheerfully shitting down his throat and many others'. Now that the worm has turned, that same crowd is bleating about bygones and sorrowfully stroking their chins about that which they gleefully took part in destroying. Maybe a lesson to play the longer game rather than burning the bridges next time.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't believe in turning the other cheek, LoB. They can go cry in their Earl Grey tea.

[Life of Brian]

Hey now, I enjoy a cup of Earl Grey from time to time! LOL

(Actually more into herbal tea when I drink it. Coffee's the main caffeine delivery vector....)

[Brett Bellmore]

I am, in fact, drinking Earl Grey at this very instant. I actually prefer Constant Comment, but I was out of it.

[not guilty]

"I don't believe in turning the other cheek, LoB. They can go cry in their Earl Grey tea."

It seems to me that you regularly turn the other cheek, XY.

Just not while facing forward.

[Mr. Bumble]

@LOB:
Herbal tea is to tea what soy, almond or oat milk is to milk.

[Life of Brian]

Ouch, Bumble! I do put genuine milk in my coffee if that's at all redemptive....

[Bob from Ohio]

"It seems to me that you regularly turn the other cheek, XY.

Just not while facing forward."

Gay insults are so cooool! When done by a leftist that is.

[not guilty]

That was not a gay insult at all, Boob from Ohio. Showing one's ass is an expression often applied to one who is acting like an obnoxious jerk in general.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=show+your+ass

[bloocow2]

Thank you for the support! I don't really know much about the history of people here, but it is a little weird to be called names almost immediately. Or that Lex Aquilas guy going on about gay sex orgies and the like.

(you're invited to the next one, Lex! I promise you'll have fun!)

[bloocow2]

I did also call someone on here a psychopath recently, so it's not like I'm above the odd name-calling. But they were talking about executing illegal immigrants tbf, which I think is pretty psychopathic.

[Bob from Ohio]

"little weird to be called names almost immediately"

The last thing we need is another foreigner coming here, the Dutchman is more than enough.

[David Nieporent]

1) It's not his book.
2) This is Pee Wee Herman saying, "I meant to do that" after falling off his bike, not some sort of "art" of a "deal." The cult has to pretend, though.

[hobie]

I can tell you one thing...from the standpoint of the extraction industry (whether that be mining or oil) it is always at least 5X more expensive to operate in the artic.

Greenland's two world-class rare earth deposits - Kvanefjeld and Tanbreez - are both a thousand feet below glaciers. They're not even remotely close to the surface. Does anyone realize how many hundreds of billions of dollars it will take to burrow a fucking glacier?

The reason no one has challenged China on rare earths is that we just cannot be competitive price-wise. So how is 5X more expensive Greenland rare earths supposed to work?

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree, rare earths are a bullshit reason for the US to want Greenland.

The US has entirely adequate rare earth deposits to satisfy our needs, and they're neither under glaciers nor near active volcanoes. The only obstacles to using them are regulatory, mostly on the processing end.

China is cheaper because they do the mining with slave labor, and have next to no environmental regulations driving up the cost of processing.

Buying our rare earths from China instead of producing them domestically is a classic example of greenwashing.

I'd add that we could also obtain a lot of rare earths while remediating coal fly ash dumps. It's just not cost effective because of that slave labor.

[hobie]

I am enthusiastic about fly ash. If the tech proves out, it could be a game changer. Could also be a neat segway to get us back into full-on coal!

Also, Brett, there is nothing clean about rare earth concentration. It requires massive amounts of inorganic acids, and the waste products are highly radioactive. There's a reason the Lynas Corporation of western Australia (the only viable rare earth extractor outside of China) didn't set up concentration next to their remote Mt. Weld mine. Where nary a person lives for hundreds of miles. No, they ship their ore all the way to Malaysia to let them deal with it. It's that nasty to mess with.

[Mr. Bumble]

You should be serious more often. Your comment above is on the money.

[Bwaaah]

^that, hobie.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say there was anything clean about it, in fact I thought I implied the opposite.

"and the waste products are highly radioactive."

Hey, nuclear renaissance, baby. The radioactive components of the fly ash are primarily Uranium and Thorium, both are usable as fuel.

"No, they ship their ore all the way to Malaysia to let them deal with it. It's that nasty to mess with."

Like I said, greenwashing.

[Riva]

Why? You’re not actually interested in learning anything or having a reasonable exchange. Most if not all here aren’t, some gratuitously trolling, many just rent-a-trolls with multiple aliases. I could note (again) that Greenland is critically important strategically for US and western security. I could note its importance in missile defense, naval choke points, arctic shipping routes, and critical resources; and that our adversaries are focused on the arctic polar region but that would be pointless. Because you’re not honestly engaging in conversation. You’re just trolling, with a dash of the usual projection. This is the new Twitter trash heap.

[David Nieporent]

Bot programmed to call everyone smarter and more informed (which is everyone) "trolls." (Also, only his neo-Nazi friends are "trolls with multiple aliases" here, and anyone who would be renting them would be paying too much at $0.01 a year.)

[Riva]

Case in point. Nothing like some clownish trolling with some "nazi" tropes to prove that you're not a troll. I guess. And he (she or whatever) is probably saving more Russian collusion fraud for later. I know you get the rent-a-troll you pay for but this is like clearance rack rent-a-trolling.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I'm trying to be open-minded, but'

As usual, everything before "but" is BS.

Why bother? Your brief sojourn here refutes the BS.

[John F. Carr]

I heard an interview this morning with one of the authors of this report:

https://www.occrp.org/en/scoop/as-trump-talked-about-seizing-greenland-former-employees-gained-a-foothold-in-the-arctic-island

"President Donald Trump has grabbed headlines with his vow to acquire Greenland — by force if necessary. Behind the scenes, a handful of Trump’s former employees and staffers have been pursuing business interests involving the Arctic territory."

[BrotherMovesOn]

The Greenland Defense Front, Toyota pickups running snowcat treads, remain undefeated!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I thought the fentanyl fold was funnier.

The difference between the left and the right is the right still has a sense of humor, and something that is funny remains funny, even if it pokes fun at us, which this did.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/greenland-locals-mock-americans-for-fentanyl-use-in-savage-video-trend/ar-AA1UEgm0

[hobie]

Just look at them little Eskeemoes running around for their lives. We did that! Isn't it hilarious?!

[Bwaaah]

That's great! Their gates are a bit too symmetrical...missing the typical about-to-tip-over lean. But scatter some litter around them, maybe a rifled backpack thrown off to the side with some dirty clothes hanging out of it, and they'd look ripely urban American.

It gives me hope to see such humor undergird people across the planet.

(P.S. Now I see the video below that correctly shows them teetering.)

[Glaucomatose]

"The difference between the left and the right is the right keeps doing objectively stupid things and then claiming it was just a joke when those things blow up in their faces, ha ha isn't it funny that we've permanently damaged our standing in the world."

[Armchair]

You laugh, but...it's actually the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Dog_Sled_Patrol

[Martinned]

Yes, you definitely don't want to fuck with those guys. Can you imagine that they are out there for such long periods without any kind of Burger King nearby?

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK. Here is the latest on the Greenland matter.

Back in the 80s it was something called Star Wars with the concept of a missile Defense shield. The Israelis developed the concept into what they call Iron Dome and it works. The Israelis have shared that technology with us.

We have Putin threatening to nuke us. We have the CCP threatening to nuke us, and those nukes would come travel over the North Pole. What Trump is proposing is expanding iron dome into what he calls a golden dome systemthat would protect us from incoming ICBMs.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/20/us-news/greenland-critical-for-us-to-fend-off-icmbs-from-russia-and-beyond-experts/

[David Nieporent]

Iron Dome is not ballistic missile defense and thus has no connection to SDI other than that they both involve stopping missiles. Neither China nor Russia is "threatening to nuke us"; the only person who might be crazy enough to start a nuclear war is Trump himself. And none of this has anything to do with acquiring Greenland.

[Don Nico]

" Neither China nor Russia is "threatening to nuke us"; the only person who might be crazy enough to start a nuclear war is Trump himself. "
Another of david's opinions from the end of his digestive tract.

But seriously, the new heavy Russian ICBM has a range that would allow target the US by flying over Antarctica, what is for if not for attacking America.
China is in a program of increasing the number of deployed ICBMs from 300 to 3000.

[David Nieporent]

what is for if not for attacking America.

"Russia has the capability to attack America" != "Russia is threatening to nuke America."

Also, not clear how Greenland would stop an attack coming from Antarctica.

[Glaucomatose]

If they can have penguins and polar bears in the same Coke commercial, then by gum they can stop missiles from Antarctica by building bases in Greenland.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So the south is about to be buried in global warming.

Is this enough to convince you folks that the whole thing is a hoax?

[Estragon]

“Is this enough to convince you”

This gets rolled out every winter when it snows somewhere.

Gee, Ed, I dunno. What does this convince you of? Lemme guess.

https://www.oregonlive.com/weather/2026/01/portland-just-saw-its-warmest-december-on-record-how-did-the-year-rank.html?outputType=amp

[Frank Drackman]

So you counter Ed's Anecdote with one of your own, Idiots of a Feather I guess.

[Estragon]

As I said, this gets rolled out every winter— and it is dumb every time for the very reason you point out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I wonder if you’ll be saying that a week from now — they’re talking a few feet of snow, not a few inches…

[Estragon]

Sigh. Again. I wonder if you will feel any different about the “hoax” in a week if it stays warm and dry in the PNW, as it is supposed to? You would view one month of record warmth in Oregon as kind of foolish basis upon which to accept global warming is real— right?

[LexAquilia]

Conversely, Estragon, every other 'out of the ordinary' signal that could support the global warming narrative gets trumpeted far and wide.

[Estragon]

You might or might not be right about that but it doesn’t make Ed and Mr. P below any less foolish.

[Michael P]

You might have a screwed up sense of significance if you think the weather of the country's 28th most populous city balances out (checks CNN) "nearly half the US".

[Estragon]

“screwed up sense of significance”

You’re sooooo close to getting it.

[Michael P]

You're sooooo far from having a point.

[Drewski]

Good point. We should look at the US overall. It's been 1.9 degrees F above the 25-year average, continuing the upward trend of the past century.

[Mr. Bumble]

Bullshit.
Please provide a source.

[Brett Bellmore]

Asymmetric warming: The lows have been rising about 3 times faster than the highs, are responsible for most of the increase in average temperature.

They don't talk about that much because milder winters and warmer nights aren't very terrifying.

[Sarcastr0]

THEY

[Brett Bellmore]

You're still showing that silly rhetorical tic where you just repeat a random word from somebody's comment as though doing so was an argument.

Well, I suppose it's more responsive than going with a random word that wasn't in the comment, so there is that.

[jb]

Unless you work in the ski industry. Or more generally: live in the parts of the county where snowpack is important to the water supply.

[Brett Bellmore]

I used to live for a while in an area that got 30 feet of snow a year. In my experience you don't actually get a lot of snow when it's really cold, cold air can't hold much moisture.

[jb]

Brett--I think that's generally true, but kind of irrelevant. If it's a few degrees warmer in the winter in the Rockies or the Wasatch Mountains, you end up with two problems:

1) Some days where the temperature would have been 31 or 32 with snow suddenly become 35 with rain. We're not seeing the same extreme in the US, but if you look at ski resorts in the Alps the amount of snow falling is just way, way lower than a few decades ago. Only the really high altitude spots have reliable natural snow at this point, and

2) The snow melts off more during the winter and more quickly during the spring, so there's less natural storage of the water supply. If your 30 feet of snow melts off right away in the Midwest, it's no big deal because it's going to rain later on the year anyway. If all the snow in Colorado, Utah and New Mexico melts in the winter there's very little rain for the rest of the year and the whole Colorado River basin is on trouble for the summer.

[Brett Bellmore]

In any event, it's a detail that, yes, "THEY" usually avoid mentioning.

[not guilty]

I am curious, Brett, as to how you happened to move from Michigan to a locale where a child may reach adolescence before realizing that "damn" and "Yankee" are separate words.

[hobie]

Every snowflake or raindrop that falls on the earth satisfies Ed that we're still in the primordial.

[Bob from Ohio]

"This gets rolled out every winter when it snows somewhere.

Your side does the opposite though. Every hot day proves man made change is real!

[SRG2]

Certainly enough to convince me that prior evidence that you're an ignorant fuckwit who doesn't understand climate change is still valid.

[ThePublius]

That's unnecessarily harsh. You damaage your own credibility by using such profanity and personal insult.

It's a falacy to say that someone who disagrees with you is ignorant, as if to say your position is irrefutably correct. News flash: it's not.

Few refute that the climate is changing, as it has always done, since time immemorial. We are exiting the last glaciation, and naturally the climate is warming. The objection that many have is that this is due to man's activities on earth. I reject that, as do many others. There is precious little hard evidence that man's activities are contributing to or accelerating global warming. 'Climate science' is mostly bunk. I have lived through global heating, the sun roasting us, the new ice age, and so on. How many climate doom predictions have come true? None. Things have remained pretty much the same, on a century-timeframe scale. Where's the ocean rise? And why do the wealthy who push this stuff continue to buy mansions on the seacoast?

[SRG2]

It's a falacy to say that someone who disagrees with you is ignorant, as if to say your position is irrefutably correct. News flash: it's not.

It's not a fallacy. It may or may not be true. In the specific instance, if someone asserts or implies that a single cold weather event in a small region of the globe proves that climate change is a hoax, they are ignorant and don't understand climate change. That is a factually correct statement - that is actually independent of whether climate change is real.

It is, granted, only my opinion that Dr Ed is a fuckwit, though he continues to provide support for that opinion.

[Martinned]

Talk to me when we have an Elfstedentocht again. We used to have one once or twice per decade, and now the last one was in 1995 when I was in high school. The chairman of the Friesche Elfsteden just stepped down after 20 years in post without ever having organised the sole event for which that organisation is responsible.

[jb]

Once again, a MAGA can't tell the difference between anecdotes and data.

[John F. Carr]

Climate change explains cold as well as warm, dry as well as wet, violent weather and calm weather. It was renamed from global warming so it could be cited with less embarrassment.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, pumping energy into a chaotic system will make things tend towards extremes more often across just about every metric. That's immediately going to come out of nonequilibrium systems analysis; no need for full-on climate science.

Calms should not be as common, on average.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When are we going to step in and do something about Iran?

[Frank Drackman]

What? Replace an Evil Dictatorial Regime with another one? Worked so well in 1979. Every bullet the IIRG fires in Terror-Anne is one they can't fire in Gaza. Speaking of Terrorists, when are we going to step in and do something about Mogadishu-St. Paul??

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, the Iranian people are on our side, they have lived behind an iron curtain for 45 years. Obama, the antichrist, sold them out the last time they tried to get free and we can’t do it again.

Don’t we have a few spare missiles to knock out the power grid or something? Anything that would stabilize the repressive abilities of the fascist in charge.

As to Mogadishu, Saint Paul, where is our nearest B-52 base?

[Frank Drackman]

Don't have a Google Subscription? I can get you one for a nominal (50%) Finder's Fee.
There are only 2 remaining B52 bases, Minot ND and Barksdale AFB in LA (Louisiana, not Los Angeles) for the remaining 70 or so B52-H models, built in 1961-1962. Average time on the Air Frames is 20,000 Hours or about 1/2 of what that UPS Jet that went down in Louisville had. The "H" models didn't go to Vietnam and were considered the "Cadillac" Model (back when "Cadillac" meant something) with (for 1962) "New Fangled" Turbo Fan Engines and a 20mm Tail gun instead of 40 50 cals.
My Favorite was the "G" Model, which did Fly (and get shot down) over Hanoi, it had Turbo Jets with Water Injection (about 600 gallons distilled water for every takeoff, multiply that by 50 Sorties a day for months, and tell me how you get that much water to Thailand or Guam.
So what do you plan on doing with them? Putting Somalians in the Bomb Bay and dropping them on Greenland??

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

What I would’ve done is build a large still on site and distilled water from tapwater, swamp water, or even salt water from the ocean.

All you would need is a heat sauce, you’ve got plenty of aviation fuel.

At the UPS plane went down because part that should’ve been replaced wasn’t mandated to be replaced and UPS didn’t bother to do it because it wasn’t mandated.

[hobie]

Hey! Let's give nation-building in the Middle East another shot! After Iran we have plenty of other enemy states that have fomented attacks on the United States: Saudi, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel, Yemen, Somalia.

Will be wild.

[John F. Carr]

We're not going to invade. What target should we bomb?

[Bob from Ohio]

The Supreme Fuhrer's residence or bunker as a start.

[David Nieporent]

Mar-a-Lago?

[John F. Carr]

Khamenei is 86 years old. Bombing him advances the succession by a few months or years.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ok, kill the next in line too.

[not guilty]

"When are we going to step in and do something about Iran?"

What would you have us to do, Dr. Ed 2? As Justice Holmes in another context wrote in New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921), "Upon this point a page of history is worth a volume of logic."

When has American intervention in Iran worked out well?

[Dr. Ed 2]

1953. The CIA put the shah in power back then and he lasted for 26 years. He lasted longer if we either told the French that would shoot down their airplane if they let Khomeni return to Iran and then done it if the French obnoxious enough to still send the airplane.

[not guilty]

You count the tenure of Shah Reza Pahlavi in Iran as an American success story?

Really??

[Frank Drackman]

Rodney King, Floyd George, and Rebecca Good walk into a Bar.
That's it, that's the Joke, I'll leave it up to you to finish it,
That whole "Theater of the Mind" Concept.
Or "The Aristocrats"

Frank "and the Bartender says, "They all look like that!!!!!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

According to Jay Leno, Texas has a law permitting someone to kill someone who “needed killing.“

In all three cases……

[Malika la Maize]

Was Ashli Babbitt the bartender?

[Frank Drackman]

Hey-Yo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I kid Queenie, but He's come up with a great new way to get rid of unwanted Pubic Hair!
(makes "PATOOIE" Spitting Noise")
Yes Queenie did that "23 and Me", He was so disappointed the "23" referred to Chromosomes and not Guys,
But he did find out, in his Family Tree, he's in the Fruit Section.....

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Edgelord wannabe got upset awful quick there. He can dish it out but not take it, but people do get only half their genetics from their mom so I guess that’s understandable for him.

[Frank Drackman]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, but what should I expect from someone who can't tell an Exit from an Entrance?
You get all of your Mitochondrial DNA from your mom, what are Mitochondria? They're described as the "Power Plants" of the Cell, when you Jerk off Alouicious or Jean-Pierre, the ATP you burn comes from your Mitochondria.
Theres a few Cells that don't have Mitochondria, Red Blood Cells for one, They're described as the "Box Cars" delivering Oxygen to their Customers.
That's the problem with Science, they try to make things complicated,

[Bwaaah]

Rodney King, Floyd George, and Rebecca Good walk into a Bar.

One says to the other two, "Look...there's a cop sitting over there at the bar!"

And then all three say at the same time, "I GET TO GO FIRST!"

[Bwaaah]

As I reflect, it occurs to me that a joke, to be funny, has to be sufficiently distanced from reality.

[Bwaaah]

And also: if it's not funny, it's not a joke.

[Michael P]

Did Barron Trump never hear that in this kind of situation, one is supposed to drunkenly leave a female friend to asphyxiate in the back of a submerged car, not call emergency services and apologize for coming across as rude due to one's shock and urgency?

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/barron-trump-son-saves-woman-facetime-call-court-xd6xhxxts

[Malika la Maize]

Party like it’s 1969!

[Commenter_XY]

Barron vicariously learned from Ted Kennedy what not to do. Barron did the right thing in calling the authorities. Barron seems to have his head on straight.

Ted Kennedy is dead, and rots in a grave. Unlamented and forgotten. That is some liberal lion.

[Frank Drackman]

Are you kidding? There was so much Crown Royal in Ted's Corpse the Mortician gave the family a discount on the Embalming!

[Commenter_XY]

You really need to wonder about the people who venerate this liberal lion that deliberately left a young woman to slowly asphyxiate in a car, and made absolutely no effort to save her life.

[not guilty]

As I have said time and again, Senator Kennedy's conduct at Chappaquiddick was inexcusable. His return to the mainland and the refusal to summon help when he got there killed a woman who likely would have otherwise survived. He deserved to spend time in prison for manslaughter, or if Massachusetts recognized the offense at that time, reckless homicide.

Not all partisans defend the reprehensible conduct of their own. I wish that MAGAts would learn that and emulate it.

[Frank Drackman]

Finally! someone gets it right (Asphyxiated, not Drowned, there's a difference)

[Michael P]

Is there? Generalized hypoxia due to oxygen deprivation in the lungs sounds like pretty much the same cause of death to me.

[Brett Bellmore]

Falling from the window of a tall building and being hit by a car on the freeway kill you by much the same mechanism, too. But we still distinguish them.

Basically, the difference here is that, if the car had filled with water early on, she likely would have drowned, and this would establish that she died too quickly for Kennedy to have sent help in time. So just taking a quick shower and going to bed, as obnoxious as it was, probably wouldn't have made a difference.

But as she asphyxiated, it's likely her death took long enough that if he'd reported the accident her life would have been saved. So instead taking the shower and getting a good night's sleep killed her.

[Frank Drackman]

It breaks down like this, it's legal to own it, it's legal to buy it, oh wait, that's Vince explaining the Legal Status of Marriage-a-Juan-a in Amsterdam,
So, Drowning is a form of Asphyxiation, All Drownings are also Asphyxiations, but not all Asphyxiations are due to Drowning.
Mary Joe Kopeckeny was Asphyxiated, NOT Drowned, (there's a difference)

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

The difference is that she could’ve been saved if someone had gone and got the guy who was more in capable of diving at night and pulling her out.

He’s on Rick saying he could’ve gotten her out in half an hour if he’s been called but no one called him

[Dr. Ed 2]

63 year-old Delta Charlie harasses city police officers until they convince her that they are city police, and not ice.

In colonial days, “scolding women“ were dunked in the dunking pond now known as the duck pond, on Boston Common. I think we should bring back this practice.

https://www.themainewire.com/2026/01/anti-ice-protester-blows-air-horn-in-faces-of-brewer-officers-while-they-investigated-a-series-of-false-threats-against-schools/

[Michael P]

Would you have endorsed that woman's behavior if a man was doing it? If not, it was probably counterproductive to lead with the "Delta Charlie" bit.

[Estragon]

“counterproductive”

I’m sorry— counterproductive… as to what goal? Bringing back the dunking of “scolding women”?

[hobie]

Ed and MichaelP and Frankie have yet to come to terms with the concept of equal rights.

[David Nieporent]

Counterproductive? It's what he thinks, and he is trying to make it clear. Dr. Ed is an extreme misogynist who blames women for all of the many many many personal and professional failures in his life.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Being punched in the face is a strong incentive not to. A man would do that sort of thing. The reason women do is because you don’t hit girls.

[Malika la Maize]

“I’m helping Europe, I am helping NATO, and until the last few days when I told them about Iceland, they loved me,”

“They’re not there for us on Iceland, that I can tell you. Our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland. So Iceland’s already cost us a lot of money.”

“Iceland, without tariffs, they wouldn’t even be talking to us about it.”

[hobie]

"If you're not with us, you're against us"

[Malika la Maize]

How to even be with someone who confuses Iceland and Greenland repeatedly?

[Commenter_XY]

Well, well, well....Looks like the House is about to vote on contempt of Congress charges this week for Pres Clinton and his sidekick Hillary. How about that? When Rashida Tlaib votes to advance the charges, you know there is a problem for the Horn Dog.

David Kendall will become uber-wealthy from the legal fees.

Will the Clintons be tried and found guilty of contempt of Congress? Answer: Yes

Will there be jail time at the end of the process? Yes or No.

[Malika la Maize]

Now maybe the administration can stop dragging its feet and get on with full release of the Epstein files?

[LexAquilia]

whatabout
Whatabout
WHATABOUT

[Magister]

Both the Clintons' appearance and the Epstein files that Congress previously passed a law requiring release are about investigating Epstein, so it hardly seems like it's whataboutism. Pursuing information from the Clintons in person when they might just read over and over the written responses they already gave seems to be entirely about trying to distract from the person who appears to have had far more ties to Epstein.

[jb]

I wonder if Lex has any idea what Congress is asking the Clinton's to testify about. I'm going to assume no based on this.

[Swede425]

LOL!
The Queen of scolding people for Whataboutism is actually also The Queen OF Whataboutism.
All hail The Queen!

[Malika la Maize]

lol, see Magister’s response above, no wonder your ASVABs were too low to get into the Air Force.

[Swede425]

The Air Force?
I was in the Army!

WhAtAbOuTiSm!!!

[Frank Drackman]

Love how the Army's changed their Uniforms more than a Lady Gaga Concert.
Were you in when they made everyone go to those Adorable Berets? Remember walking into the front of the old Walter Reed, thought I'd gone to a Girl Scout Jamboree by mistake.

Frank

[Swede425]

I was in Airborne units most of my career, so we already had them.
But yes, I was there when that happened.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are "cunt caps" still part of the uniform?

[Commenter_XY]

I am 100% for that Queenie = release of Epstein files and let the chips fall where they may

The men and women who sexually abused teen girls (and boys) are sick people who should be shunned from society.

Bill Gates, Jes Staley, Reid Hoffman, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and a host of others should be named, shamed, and shunned. And if possible, prosecuted, imprisoned, and put into the general population of prison to face street justice.

[hobie]

Send them to BOP summer camp!

[SRG2]

Bill Gates, Jes Staley, Reid Hoffman, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and a host of others should be named, shamed, and shunned

You missed Trump. I wonder why.

I have heard other cultists say "release the Epstein files and let the chips fall where they may". I believe that they think that at the time they say it. But I also am confident that if the files inculpate Trump, they will in general tie themselves into knots to explain why in fact Trump is not guilty - we will hear that some of the documents are forged, that some are hearsay, that the context of photos is missing, blah blah blah.

[Commenter_XY]

If POTUS Trump diddled with teenaged girls at Epstein's place, he should immediately resign. There are no ifs, ands or buts.

[John 4]

“POTUS Trump” — why oh why are the cultist so fucking weird!??

[Life of Brian]

If you actually engaged with people around here instead of your drive-by sniping model, you might avoid beclowning yourself so badly by just suddenly noticing a longstanding bipartisan turn of phrase:

POTUS Obama

POTUS Biden

POTUS Clinton

Etc. etc.

[Sarcastr0]

Optimal point, Internet Political Form Commenter Life of Brian!

[Magister]

In the linked comments, the status as president at the time of the actions or comments being discussed was relevant. There was certainly a huge push to refer to Donald Trump as President after he left office in 2021, and indeed the felonies he was convicted of were when he was president. Here, it's not clear if Commenter_XY is trying to avoid talking about what Trump may have done before he was president, which would seem the only time frame for Trump to have "diddled with teenaged girls at Epstein's place".

[not guilty]

"If POTUS Trump diddled with teenaged girls at Epstein's place, he should immediately resign. There are no ifs, ands or buts."

Do you realize how your second sentence -- "There are no ifs, ..." contravenes the first sentence, to-wit: "If ..."?

As Cassandra said to Wayne Campbell, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV9U23YXgiY

[Life of Brian]

Do you realize how your second sentence -- "There are no ifs, ..." contravenes the first sentence, to-wit: "If ..."?

If your reading comprehension was that poor when you actually held a law license, I genuinely feel sympathy for your generally unsympathetic clients.

If (threshold condition) then (definitive outcome). Really uncomplicated, unless you're bending over backwards trying to make it otherwise.

[David Nieporent]

Bill Gates, Jes Staley, Reid Hoffman, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and a host of others should be named, shamed, and shunned. And if possible, prosecuted, imprisoned, and put into the general population of prison to face street justice.

Sounds like you're not in favor of releasing the so-called Epstein files, since doing so would remove the talking point that any of these people did anything to be shamed, shunned, prosecuted, or imprisoned.

[hobie]

I'm not sure you want Bill spilling the beans under oath, XY. He knows some things. But since you're so gung-ho for the truth, I know someone else you could subpoena.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Will the Clintons be tried and found guilty of contempt of Congress? Answer: Yes"

With a DC jury? Impossible.

[not guilty]

As I have said before, the Clintons are pursuing a high risk strategy here, however amusing the prospect of seeing the buffoon Rep. Comer is. The statute at issue, 2 U.S.C. § 192, states:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

Civil disobedience is always an option for someone willing to live with the consequences. Here, if I had been advising President or Secretary Clinton, I would have recommended appearing in person in response to the subpoena, being sworn in, and responding to each question, "That is not pertinent to the question under inquiry."

Since the statute defines the crime as refusal to answer "any question pertinent to the question under inquiry," part of the standard of criminality is the pertinency of the questions propounded to the witness. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 208 (1957). Let the government try to prove pertinency beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

Congressional investigating committees are restricted to the missions delegated to them -- to acquire certain data to be used by the House or Senate in coping with a problem that falls within its legislative sphere -- and no witness can be compelled to make disclosures on matters outside that area. Id., at 206. As broad as is the Congressional power of inquiry is, "it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress." Id., at 187.

A Congressional investigation into individual affairs is invalid if unrelated to any legislative purpose. Id., at 198. The Watkins Court explained:

We have no doubt that there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure. The public is, of course, entitled to be informed concerning the workings of its government. That cannot be inflated into a general power to expose where the predominant result can only be an invasion of the private rights of individuals."

Id., at 200 [Footnote omitted.]

[not guilty]

Correction: I meant to write, "As I have said before, the Clintons are pursuing a high risk strategy here, however amusing the prospect of seeing the buffoon Rep. Comer testifying in open court, subject to cross-examination, is."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump will step in and commute the incarceration, but not the fine.

He’ll do it for the go of the country and because the Secret Service doesn’t have the personnel to provide the letter security necessary.

The five sane Democrats left in the country will respect him for it.

[Malika la Maize]

Duke standout quarterback Darian Mensah can enter the transfer portal but cannot enroll at another school or play football for another program, according to a temporary restraining order granted by a North Carolina judge.

The written order, issued Wednesday, comes a day after Duke filed a lawsuit against Mensah in Durham County, N.C. in an attempt to prevent the second-team all-ACC pick from entering the portal. The judge, Michael O’Foghludha, temporarily granted most of Duke’s requests, preventing Mensah from joining another program or licensing his NIL somewhere else, at least through the next hearing, currently scheduled for Feb. 2. Duke has filed a demand for arbitration, and O’Foghludha wrote the temporary restraining order was “necessary for the protection of Duke University’s rights” in that process.

The judge’s order did not prevent Duke from entering Mensah into the transfer portal, which is expected to happen Wednesday. Mensah notified the school in writing of his intention to transfer Friday afternoon, hours before the sport’s lone transfer window was set to close. NCAA bylaws state that, once an athlete informs the school of their intention to transfer and follows the necessary procedures, the school has two business days to enter the player’s name into the portal. Because of Monday’s Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Duke had until Wednesday to enter Mensah’s name.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6988921/2026/01/21/darian-mensah-duke-transfer-portal-lawsuit/

[Commenter_XY]

Illegal alien deportation update....YTD 1/26 ~56K.

You know, we are a run rate of 1MM+ deportations for 2026, to go along with self-deportations (roughly 2MM last year - that we know about). If Team D wishes to run on protecting criminal illegal aliens instead of American citizens, by all means, please do so. It will be an electoral bloodbath.

The deportations are starting to bite. How do I know? The bleating of upper middle class AWFLs that they cannot find good nannies and hired domestic help. A pity.

[LexAquilia]

My favorite picture spreading like wildfire on the socials is of that White women just hysterically crying over ICE searching for two illegal child rapists in a neighborhood.

[Frank Drackman]

If I was going to rape children I’d stick with the Illegal ones.

[Josh R]

Trump has had his highest approval ratings on immigration. But, that has slipped since ICE ramped up in Minnesota. The problem is when deportations go beyond violent criminals (that and the jack-booted ICE thug tactics). The majority don't like it when they lose their nannies, maids, farm workers, day laborers, etc.

[John F. Carr]

We're overdue for immigration reform. Trump may have increased support for an amnesty for the most useful aliens.

[Mr. Bumble]

"The majority don't like it when they lose their nannies, maids, farm workers, day laborers, etc."
It is illegal to hire illegal aliens to fill those jobs.

[John F. Carr]

The majority don't like it when laws that are supposed to affect other people affect them too.

[SRG2]

Very much this.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R...The overwhelming majority of the American people do NOT have nannies or hired domestic help. They could give two shits whether an AWFL has to cook for herself. You live in an elderly, upper middle class bubble.

[Josh R]

The nanny and maid are exemplary. There are all manner of jobs (such as farm workers and day laborers) being done by unauthorized people who contribute to the good of the community. The majority recognize this even though you do not.

[ThePublius]

Ah, yes, what would we do wiithout our modern day slaves?

[Josh R]

I'm sympathetic to the argument that unauthorized workers are being unfairly taken advantage of. But, the solution is not deportation. It's amnesty (*) which will lift the yoke of slavery.

(*) ... along with building the wall and/or other measures to close the border to illegal entry and overstaying visas.

[Mr. Bumble]

Amnesty will only encourage future illegal entry as the past has shown.
Also, no refugee status unless you're a Canadian or Mexican citizen.

[Josh R]

Why would a Mexican, and especially a Canadian, seek or be granted refugee status?

[ThePublius]

We tried amnesty under Reagan. Didn't work. Never does. It offers hope to illegal border corssers. It's an incentive, not a remedy.

[David Nieporent]

We tried amnesty under Reagan. Didn't work.

If by "work" you mean, "Gets rid of all the brown people," then, no, it didn't work. If by "work" you mean, "Makes everyone better off," then it did.

[ThePublius]

The "deal" was that with Reagan's amnesty the border would then be closed. It wasn't. That's what I meant by 'didn't work.'

[Josh R]

Let's build the wall or whatever it takes to close the border. You name it.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, it's hard to make a badder faith argument than claiming that people who desperately want to be here to work are equivalent to people held in chains and forced to work.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you don't think that illegal immigration doesn't include forms of real slavery or indentured servitude?

[David Nieporent]

So you don't think that illegal immigration doesn't include forms of real slavery or indentured servitude?

Is there some sweatshop somewhere in the U.S. where foreigners who were lured here under false pretenses are locked in and forced to sew clothes for 16 hours a day for nothing other than room and board? I'm sure there is. Do I think this is more than an infinitesimal portion of the illegal immigrant population of the U.S.? No. It's certainly not who we're discussing. (The current ICE agenda is not about going after those people, either. They're grabbing people off the streets, not rescuing them from captors. And ironically, such people would be eligible to stay here with U- or T-visas.)

[ThePublius]

No, it's not. It's affluent people who want domestics, and businesses who want cheap labor who work under the Damocles sword of deportation that make them slaves. Illegal immigrants, who can't vote and otherwise participate in civic activities are second class residents, and we shouldn't condone or support that situation. It's unfair to the U.S., and unfair to the illegals.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and remember countless women come here because they want to be prostitutes.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, you heartily endorse a situation that makes them vulnerable and then talk about how awful them being vulnerable is. I have a simple solution to that, that's cheaper and fairer and better for everyone.

But you have a weird view of what illegal immigrants' lives here are like. They are not slaves. Day laborers and restaurant dishwashers and delivery people and car wash workers and home companions and construction workers and landscapers, and none of them are working meekly under fear of deportation. (Or not pre-Trump anyway.) I've represented thousands of these guys (and a smaller number of their employers) over my years as an employment lawyer. If an employer doesn't like them, he just fires them, and if they don't like their employer, they just quit.

[not guilty]

"You know, we are a run rate of 1MM+ deportations for 2026, to go along with self-deportations (roughly 2MM last year - that we know about). If Team D wishes to run on protecting criminal illegal aliens instead of American citizens, by all means, please do so. It will be an electoral bloodbath."

I doubt that it will be necessary to campaign on "protecting criminal illegal aliens instead of American citizens," although an appeal to preserving the rule of law more generally will likely be appealing.

An increase in lawless deportations will lead to higher prices for groceries, overnight lodging, dining out, construction costs for new and remodeled houses, and a host of other things. That will not bode well for the electoral fortunes of the GOP, especially in the light of poor historical performance of the party in control of the White House during the sixth year of a presidency.

As Aesop's Fables teaches, be careful what you wish for, lest you get it.

[Malika la Maize]

“Dear Jonas,” Trump wrote, “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”

It is hard to know where to begin with this letter, delivered by text, which reads like the product of a disordered mind. To start, the Norwegian government does not choose the winner of the prize directly, leaving the decision to an independent committee. And the president, his claims notwithstanding, has not ended “8 Wars PLUS,” or anything close to it. He hasn’t even ended the one he pledged to resolve upon taking office — Russia’s war on Ukraine. “They’re dying, Russians and Ukrainians,” Trump said in 2023. “I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done — I’ll have that done in 24 hours.”

We’re still waiting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/opinion/trump-norway-letter.html

[Swede425]

Try holding your breath, I hear that works.
Maybe if we'd all held ours, Biden really would have cured cancer.

wHaTaBoUtIsM!!!

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's a proven fact that holding your breath long enough WILL kill cancer cells. So maybe you're right!

[Frank Drackman]

Only if you cross your legs, squeeze your nostrils, and fart.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I assure you that if you hold your breath long enough, even without doing those things, all the cancer cells in your body will soon die.

Along with the rest of the cells in your body, of course, but that's true of almost all of the "X kills cancer cells!" headlines, isn't it?

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure I agree with your Oncology knowledge, Babe Didrickson’s (spelling?) Cancer Cells are still dividing away 60 years after she died.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

But they're not doing it in her body, now, are they?

[Drewski]

Trying to be so pedantic that you came out the other side as an idiot. It's actually impossible to hold your breath until you die (unless the stress of it causes a stroke or something).

[Brett Bellmore]

In my experience 40-60 seconds is a bit unpleasant, but by 90 seconds the urgency to breath has largely gone away. I don't know what was going to happen after that because my scuba instructor decided enough was enough and yanked me up to the surface. A bit of a spoilsport, but I had already convincingly won that contest.

But, yeah, without assistance you're just going to pass out and resume breathing automatically. If you happen to be underwater at that point you drown.

That wasn't me being pedantic, it was me making a joke.

[Magister]

Yes, talking about Biden and cancer cures when the topic was the disordered mind of Donald Trump is indeed whataboutism.

[Malika la Maize]

Some goatfuckers like to announce when they are on their way to fuck a goat.

[Swede425]

I'd tell you to eat a bag of dicks, but we all know that ship has already sailed.

[hobie]

A whatabout for a primary comment!

Haberdasher: 'Try on this new whatabout garment, Sir. It's what all the Libs have been wearing.'
Swede425: 'Oh it's lovely! I'll wear it everywhere!'

[Malika la Maize]

Swedish Meatball also of course missed the extreme narcissistic pettiness of Trump there: “you didn’t give me an award so now I’m gonna…”

What was in those latrines he tended too?

[Swede425]

Latrines and showers.
Your mind seems to spend a lot time there.
No judgement, but no surprise either.

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/woman-american-citizen-describes-being-held-by-ice-for-two-days/

"Ahmed said that she was in the area when she believes ICE were targeting two men she did not know, only for agents to shove her to the floor. She said that one of them called her a racial slur before putting her into a vehicle, where she said she met another woman who was detained. "

"Ahmed spent the next two days detained, only to be released without any charges. The 23-year-old was born in the United States and WCCO found no evidence of a criminal record."

"On Jan. 18, ICE detained Chongly Scott Thao at gun point at his home in St. Paul, bringing him out into the frigid temperatures in little more than a blanket. The American was released without being charged.

On Jan. 11, ICE detained Rogelio Jimenez, dragging him out of his vehicle after he said that they mistook him for a different person. The American was released without being charged.

On Jan. 8, ICE agents held two Target employees in Richfield on the ground before forcing them into the back of an SUV. Minnesota Rep. Mike Howard, who represents Richfield, said he confirmed that both are Americans.

On Jan. 6, a naturalized citizen told WCCO that ICE left him hurt and hospitalized after they detained him. ICE then released him.

On Dec. 10, Minneapolis leaders said ICE wrongfully arrested a U.S. citizen because he looks like he could be Somali."

[LexAquilia]

For every one of those there are 1000 of these:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/illegal-immigrant-accused-dui-crash-killed-college-soccer-player-girlfriend-report

You hate Americans. You should be ashamed of lying in furtherance of your targeting of lawful government actions. Your intentional lies to subvert government functions are criminal.

[David Nieporent]

Tens of thousands of people die in car crashes every year. Unless you knew the victim, why would it be of any interest?

[Frank Drackman]

Why do people care that Floyd George OD'd on Fentanyl?

[not guilty]

I would allow immigrants, regardless of legal status, to obtain driver's licenses, in part so that they could obtain auto liability insurance.

[Life of Brian]

If you happen to have any source materials on the rough percentage of illegal immigrants who are just dying to buy auto insurance but can't because the state won't issue them a driver's license, I'd very much like to read them.

[not guilty]

I don't have statistics, but I am confident that the number of illegal immigrants who have liability insurance but no driver's license is zero.

Disqualifying them from purchasing insurance and leaving them to flout the law, heedless of whether they can demonstrate an ability to operate a vehicle and obey traffic laws, does nothing to benefit collision victims.

[Life of Brian]

I don't have statistics, but I am confident that the number of illegal immigrants who have liability insurance but no driver's license is zero.

John Venn wept.

[Commenter_XY]

It is really a shame you don't put a smidgen of effort to identify Americans killed by illegal aliens (murder, manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, drug ODs, etc). That numbers in the thousands.

Why am I not surprised? What a piece of work.

[Sarcastr0]

Why would I care about state action versus some random collection of people, whose only correlation with criminality is that they're less likely to be criminals than the population at large?

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG-119-JU01-20250122-SD004.pdf

(I can't like the the paper at the NiJ because it got scrubbed.)

You seem mad at me because I'm not the bigot you are.

[LexAquilia]

>whose only correlation with criminality is that they're less likely to be criminals than the population at large?

Here that guys? Why would Sarcastr0 care that 30M illegals are in this country killing 1000s of Americans annually because they were arrested less in Texas from 2012 to 2018??!@?!

It's a nothing burger!! What matters more are these sob story anecdotes with their exaggerated emotions and intentional lies targeting lawful government functions!!!

[David Nieporent]

Here that guys? Why would Sarcastr0 care that 30M illegals are in this country killing 1000s of Americans annually because they were arrested less in Texas from 2012 to 2018??!@?!

I think you meant "30 zillion illegals" and "killing trillions of Americans annually."

And why would anyone care, yes. Is someone less dead if killed by a "heritage American" [sic] than an illegal immigrant?

[Brett Bellmore]

We might note that their presence here is a result of deliberate state inaction during previous administrations, which puts those administrations at least somewhat on the hook for what they do.

[hobie]

Please! No one show XY the daily crime blotter from Salt Lake City!

[LexAquilia]

https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/2014059890243936762

This is what conquest looks like in 2026. 5th generation warfare.

[David Nieporent]

Assuming that is even what the fake Nazi twitter account that Voltage! relies on for his "news" claims it to be, it is of course not what conquest looks like. (I'm curious what the first four generations of warfare are, though.)

[LexAquilia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_warfare

I thought more people knew this stuff, maybe it's more esoteric than I realized.

[Malika la Maize]

VC’s own Orin Kerr notes a questionable ICE practice under the 4th Amendment:

This DHS memorandum says that the DHS General Counsel's office has adopted a new position that the Fourth Amendment allows entry into the home to make an arrest just based on an administrative warrant.

I would like to see that argument.

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:t4ajdi5kxxppgki47pgefvs3/post/3mcxxhzjzvs24?ref_src=embed&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com%252F2026%252F01%252Funreasonable-searches-and-seizures

[LexAquilia]

You linked to Bluesky instead of the article just above this one?

lol --- now we know where you get all your shitty hot-takes. lmao that's Retard Central...

Or you're just a bot? Naw. Not even an AI-bot can be that stupid.

[Swede425]

She's recovering from a bout of retard, not realizing that it's terminal.

[LexAquilia]

He just comes here every morning and posts his bluesky feed. If I wanted to go read bluesky, I'd give myself my own lobotomy and do it myself.

[Malika la Maize]

Oh no, he said retard! Somewhere Sarah Palin just gained.

If you like your former latrine diggers edgy just know Swedish Meatball is trying!

[Malika la Maize]

It’s got a snapshot of the pertinent language in the order, sorry if it came from a source that makes you cry.

[Commenter_XY]

I have to be honest....I think DHS is wrong on their legal interpretation and I especially don't want the Executive branch conducting warrantless search for 'reasons'. One day, the shoe will be on the other foot; we would do well to remember that.

The 4th and 5th amendments are in danger of becoming second class rights, along with 2A. Well TBH, with the passage of the Patriot Act (how ironically named is that law?!), 4A became a second class right.

[Michael P]

I am inclined to agree that DHS/ICE has the worse argument on what kind of warrant suffices, but the real problem is that federal agent immunity has gone way too far, so nobody really has standing to even bring these cases.

[Commenter_XY]

I cannot emphasize this enough: One day, the shoe will be on the other foot.

And it won't be administrative warrants looking for criminal illegal aliens; it will be administrative warrants to target people for their religious or political beliefs.

[LexAquilia]

They were already doing that. They're going to do that again. This won't magically give them permission.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not at all sure what the administrative warrants add to this scenario. Would the Branch Davidians have survived their compound being set on fire if the feds had a different sort of warrant?

Are we pretending the government has never previously targeted people for their religious and/or political beliefs, for lack of administrative warrants?

[jb]

Let's put this in practical terms: should the ATF be able to break down your door because they made some internal document that says "there is some guy named Brett Bellmore who we're pretty sure has an illegal gun". Should they be able to break down your parents' or kids' doors because you might be there with your supposedly illegal gun? Should they be able to take all the guns they find whenever the break into someone's house, not tell you where they are for a month, and then eventually tell you to come pick them up an hour away when they realize they're actually okay for you to possess?

Sure, the outcome would have been the same for the Branch Davidians (since the feds actually had judicial warrants in that case), but the issue here is that the government has decided that it can go searching for whatever it wants in everyone's house with no need for any judicial oversight whatsoever. You may have decided that the Fourth Amendment is already a dead letter, but I think it's a pretty important Constitutional protection that we should fight for even when the government is abusing it to accomplish goals we might agree with.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not arguing that administrative warrants are meaningless, but the federal government targeting people for their religious and/or political beliefs is hardly novel, and I've never noticed that they seem to have had trouble getting warrants.

[Michael P]

As Lex and Brett pointed out, this pretty much is the shoe being on the other foot now. I still think we need better remedies against federal agents who violate rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

The best way to achieve that would be to have the feds involved in much less of our lives, depriving them of the pretext for violating rights.

[SRG2]

but the real problem is that federal agent immunity has gone way too far,

Yup. As someone noted, pretty much the only person who could sue under Bivens now would be Bivens.

[not guilty]

It is withing the power of Congress to create a cause of action for damages against persons acting under federal law subjecting others to deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, as it did in 1871 as to persons acting under color of state law.

Congress should do so. And abolishing the execrable doctrine of qualified immunity as to both state and federal officials would be good, too.

It is worth noting that, where federal actors conspire with state officials to act under color of state law to deprive a plaintiff's constitutional rights, and such deprivation actually occurs, all conspirators may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 623 (7th Cir. 1979) ("when federal officials are engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive constitutional rights, the state officials provide the requisite state action to make the entire conspiracy actionable under section 1983"), rev'd in part on other grounds 446 U.S. 754 (1980). The Second Circuit has stated: "When the violation is the joint product of the exercise of a State power and off a non-State power then the test under the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983 is whether the state or its officials played a 'significant' role in the result." Kletschka v. Driver, 411 F.2d 436, 449 (2d Cir. 1969).

[SRG2]

abolishing the execrable doctrine of qualified immunity as to both state and federal officials would be good, too.

Not going to happen as long as Trump is president and Kristi Nöhm heads up DHS.

[David Nieporent]

(how ironically named is that law?!),

For the record, the name of the law is actually the USA PATRIOT Act, and it's a backronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. (I had to look up the "PATRIOT" part; I remembered the USA part.)

[Commenter_XY]

It is a horribly misnamed law; it is anything but patriotic.

[jb]

I appreciate that you're being consistent about this.

Last week when we talked about the video of a warrantless raid, though, you were arguing that there's no reason to think that this sort of thing is happening more often than in the course of normal police work. But now we have a document from the administration telling agents to conduct these illegal raids. So while it's cute for folks like Michael P to decry the fact that individual agents are immunized, this is an official position of the administration, not rogue agents going out and behaving badly. Of course there's going to be a lot more unlawful activity by law enforcement officers if their bosses are telling them to do it!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Orin Kerr wrote a post about the 4A issue.

He suggests a possible argument used by the DHS.

Doesn't think it's crazy, but seems to think it is not the right one under the current law.

[not guilty]

Professor Kerr wrote in his post:

As I read the memo, DHS's position is that they authorize ICE to enter homes based on Form I-205 orders everywhere except in the Central District of California—with that exception due to a 2024 ruling in that district, Kidd v. Mayorkas. Unfortunately, however, the memo does not include any legal analysis.

To paraphrase The Treasure of the Sierra Madre -- Legal analysis?? We ain't got no legal analysis! We don' need no legal analysis! I don' have to show you no stinkin' legal analysis!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

[Mr. Bumble]

Nine more days until the next "government shut down"?
Maybe what we need is the equivalent of a Papal Conclave, in which the House and Senate are locked in their respective chamber until we see the white smoke signalling a true budget has been passed.

[Commenter_XY]

I am fine with shedding more non-essential bureaucrats in a shutdown.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm fine with just forgetting about the "until" part.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Cask of Amontillado ?

[Frank Drackman]

Revenge is a dish best served with Sherry.

[John F. Carr]

If we could have a constitutional amendment,

Any appropriation that is not for a full fiscal year, or that is passed at any time other than the three months preceding the end of the fiscal year, shall require a recorded vote and be approved by 60% of all members present.

I want to take away their pay and disqualify them from reelection, but it's hard to write a short definition of what counts as failure to pass a budget. The supermajority rule provides pressure to get the budget done on time.

[Brett Bellmore]

Just record ALL of the votes. They're voting with clickers these days, it's as easy to do a roll call vote as a voice 'vote'.

I still recall breaking my leg back in the 90's, and watching a lot of CSPAN while healing up enough to walk again. "ALLINFAVORSAYAYEALLOPPOSESAYNAYTHEAYESHAVEIT" is one word.

[hobie]

Top two headlines from todays papers:

NY Times:
'China Wins as Trump Cedes Leadership of the Global Economy'
'Trump Promotes Gaza Plan and Meets With Zelensky at Davos'

WAPO:
'As Trump drops Greenland threats, Europeans say they are still on guard'
'ICE memo allows agents to enter homes without judge’s warrant, legal group says'

The Hill:
'Trump walks back Greenland threats, but Congress fears long-term NATO damage'
'Greenland deal triggers global sigh of relief'

National Review:
'Democrats’ Radical Left-Wing Vision for Virginia'
'California Flirts with Economic Suicide'

Fox News:
'Former special counsel [Smith] faces tough questions over payment to witness in Trump case'
'World leaders join Trump to sign Gaza Board of Peace agreement in Davos'

[Commenter_XY]

Will Alberta province have a vote to separate from Canada? Yes or No
Will Albertans vote for Canuckxit? Yes, or No

Answers: Yes and Yes. Stay tuned for a vote in October 2026.

[ThePublius]

What's the difference between those two questions?

[David Nieporent]

I think the first question was asking whether the vote would be held, and the second was asking what the result would be.

[ThePublius]

Ah, yes, thank you David.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I have a third question, how many people saying no will vote yes in the privacy of the voting booth? Remember that Canada has no first amendment.

[Mr. Hook]

"Remember that Canada has no first amendment."

Remember that we call it Section 2b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Bob from Ohio]

Not applicable to protesting truck drivers

[John F. Carr]

What should we give Canada in return?

[Mr. Bumble]

Somalians?

[Mr. Hook]

Are you answers guided by an understanding of Albertan politics and Canada's constitutional framework or your hopes?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Look into the issues of Quebec succession in the 1970s

[Mr. Hook]

I'm a fucking Canadian, you dolt. Don't tell me what I need to look into.

Also, the roots of Quebec separatism and Albertan separatism are distinct.

Also, it's secession, not succession.

Also, we don't use the term secession here.

[John F. Carr]

Here are some recent poll numbers.

Should Alberta join the US: 24% yes 71% no.
Should Alberta be an independent country: 31% yes 62% no.

"Poll conducted by Research Co. in Alberta - January 8, 2026"
https://researchco.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Tables_Separation_AB_08Jan2026.pdf

[Kazinski]

The first 3rd quarter GDP revision came out this morning:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Powered by strong consumer spending, the U.S. economy grew at the fastest pace in two years from July through September, the government said Thursday in a slight upgrade of its first estimate.

America’s gross domestic product — the nation’s output of goods and services — rose at a 4.4% annual pace in the third quarter, the Commerce Department reported Thursday, up from 3.8% in the April-June quarter and from the 4.3% growth the department initially estimated. The economy hasn’t grown faster since third-quarter 2023."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/consumer-spending-pushes-us-economy-133751928.html

Strong Consumer spending? I thought they couldn't afford anything. More on that later.

[Kazinski]

PCE came out today too, for October and November, so they are still catching up from the shutdown. The PCE indexes was pretty much unchanged;

"From the preceding month, the PCE price index increased 0.2 percent in both October and November. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index also increased 0.2 percent in both months. (Refer to “Technical Notes” below for information on how BEA imputed missing BLS October prices.)

From the same month one year ago, the PCE price index increased 2.7 percent in October, followed by an increase of 2.8 percent in November. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index also increased 2.7 percent followed by an increase of 2.8 percent."

In fact if you look at the graph (4th graph down) Core PCE has been almost flat for about a year.
https://www.bea.gov/news/2026/personal-income-and-outlays-october-and-november-2025

But real disposable personal.income per capita, while up slightly, its pretty stagnant:
"With the release of November's report on personal incomes and outlays, we can now take a closer look at "real" disposable personal income per capita. To two decimal places, disposable income per capita was up 0.23% month-over-month. When adjusted for inflation, real disposable income per capita was nearly flat, up 0.02%. The year-over-year metrics are 3.23% nominal and 0.45% real."

Since real disposable personal income is after taxes, if the OBBB hadn't of passed it would be negative, and we might be headed to a recession.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2026/01/22/real-disposable-income-per-capita-flat-november-2025

[Dr. Ed 2]

THE FBI IS NOW ARRESTING THE SCHMUCKS WHO DISRUPTED THE CHURCH SERVICE IN MINNEAPOLIS LAST SUNDAY!!!

Yes,

[Dr. Ed 2]

it appears that the federal magistrate refused to sign the warrant for Don Lemon. Bondy reportedly is pissed.

It’s time for a wholesale impeachment of the federal judiciary.

[jb]

Those evil judges who read the part of the First Amendment about the press. Get rid of the lot of them!

[CountmontyC]

Does being a member of the press entitle a person to break laws?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why no, it does not.

[jb]

What law do you think Lemon broke? As I understand things he was documenting other people breaking the law, not doing so himself. Being a journalist in a place where other people are breaking the law doesn't make you guilty of those other people's actions.

[David Nieporent]

I asked repeatedly the other day what they think Lemon did that violated FACE, and got crickets.

[JohnSmith97]

Are you suggesting that it is legal to protest inside an abortion clinic? You must be if you are just fine with this.

Just wondering, what news agency does Don work for? He hasn't worked for CNN for a while now, and the left has been saying for years that bloggers/vloggers etc are not journalists.

[David Nieporent]

Me: "Sexual assault is nonconsensual sexual acts."
JohnSmith97: "Are you suggesting it's legal to burn down a building?"

[CountmontyC]

He was part of the group that illegally disrupted the church's services and even provided donuts and coffee to the activists prior to their entering the curch.

"The Act: Video evidence and social media posts show Lemon handing out coffee and donuts to the activists just prior to them entering the church. One video captured someone saying, "Hey Don Lemon got some coffee for y'all and donuts"."

https://www.google.com/search?q=don+lemon+provide+donuts+before+group+entered+church+service&oq=don+lemon+provide+donuts+before+group+entered+church&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBECEYoAEyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigAdIBCTM2ODIwajBqNKgCCLACAfEFFlR78gLx_VY&client=ms-android-att-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

He also argued with a church official about the legality of interupting the service( falsely claiming the disruption was allowed under the 1st Amendment). That shows foreknowledge of what was to occur and collaboration with the activists.

[jb]

Wow, he have coffee and donuts to people that later broke the law? Looking forward to the amicus brief from Dunkin.

[CountmontyC]

He did this knowing that they were planning to disrupt a church service and after the disruption tried to justify the disruption to a church official.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not seeing conspiracy, so I'm afraid you've identified no criminal act in this donut providing.

[CountmontyC]

The criminal act was being part of a group that disrupted a church service which is a violation of the Face act.

[David Nieporent]

disrupted a church service which is a violation of the Face act.

We went through this the other day. It is not. It requires force (or the threat thereof) or physical obstruction, not mere disruption.

[Sarcastr0]

Being part of a group isn't an act; it's a status.

[CountmontyC]

Being part of a group that invades a church service is a conspiracy. The fact is that Lemon was part of the group as evidenced by his foreknowledge of what they planned and his providing food and coffee. He was not a dispassionate observer/journalist but an actual participant of the crime. His claim of being a journalist does not absolve him of his criminal actions.

[David Nieporent]

Being part of a group that invades a church service is a conspiracy.

No, agreeing to commit a crime is a conspiracy. Being "part of a group" is not.

[David Nieporent]

He did this knowing that they were planning to disrupt a church service

And? Do you think that's Misdemeanor Snacks in the First Degree, or is it Felony Serving of Refreshments in the Third Degree?

after the disruption tried to justify the disruption to a church official.

Ah, so Attempted Justifying also.

[CountmontyC]

It shows he was part of the group that disrupted the church service. If he had been there simply as a journalist he would have had minimal contact with the group. He had foreknowledge of their plans, knew the people involved and literally defended their actions to the pastor. As a journalist he should have not been involved at all but clearly was.

[JohnSmith97]

DN, we all know that you and the usual suspects have no problem with this - but do this at an abortion clinic - and your performative outrage would be on full display.

[Life of Brian]

Wow, he drove people to a bank who "later" went in and stole the money?

Oh, right, and he actually went in the bank with them, just to "commit journalism"?

Come on.

[jb]

Despite your attempt at incredulity, going into the bank, not participating in the hold up, but instead broadcasting it where the police and everyone else could see it, also doesn't strike me as aiding the crime.

If a journalist observes a crime, do you think they're duty bound to try to stop it versus documenting it?

[Bob from Ohio]

"strike me as aiding the crime"

They wanted publicity, he provided it.

[John F. Carr]

Without knowing or caring about all the details of the church case, people have gone to prison for helping publish terrorist videos. There's a fuzzy line between advocacy and assistance.

See also Wilson v. Layne. It's not directly on point because it is a Fourth Amendment case. It was a constitutional violation for reporters to enter a house with police executing a warrant.

[not guilty]

"See also Wilson v. Layne. It's not directly on point because it is a Fourth Amendment case. It was a constitutional violation for reporters to enter a house with police executing a warrant."

It's been a while since I have read Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999). Having now reread the relevant portions, the constitutional violation was not the reporter and photographer entering the home -- they were not acting under color of law. The Fourth Amendment violation was that of the law enforcement personnel who admitted them to the homeowners' premises.

[Sarcastr0]

Donut consumption is not the material part of a criminal scheme the way that having a getaway car is.

Come on yourself.

Quit trying to get revenge on the left by abusing every process you see. No one can force you to become an authoritarian by doing stuff you don't like; that's a choice you make.

[Life of Brian]

What sacred process is being abused here, O wise one?

[Sarcastr0]

Going after a dude for donut providing is the abuse of process.

Biden was a status quo Democrat. Not far left by any stretch; what did he do that oppressed you?!
You're bursting with resentment at him and every liberal in the entire country and it makes no sense, and seems a bad way to be.

[Life of Brian]

If you want to actually discuss this, drop the "donut providing" baloney. He was there in full-throated support, egged them on, and went in with them.

[CountmontyC]

Sarcastro Lemon was part of the group that disrupted the church service. He went in with them and he left with them. He also argued on their behalf with the pastor. His providing food and coffee is further proof that he was part of the group and not there as a neutral observer of events. I repeat that he was part of the group that disrupted the church service which is the crime.

[Sarcastr0]

Part of a group doesn't mean shit. As has been pointed out.

You don't know the law, and don't much care about the law.

You just want to punish the donut-providing bad guy.

What a child.

[Life of Brian]

OK; you're just here to transmit, as usual. What was I expecting?

[David Nieporent]

Incidentally, we've now seen the arrest warrant for one of the people who was arrested (not Lemon, obviously; Chauntyll Louisa Allen) and the magistrate found no probable cause that she violated the FACE Act. The warrant was solely for conspiracy agaInst rights, 18 USC § 241,

[not guilty]

I haven't yet seen the arrest warrant or supporting complaint. It seems to me, though, that 18 U.S.C. § 241, prohibiting conspiracy against rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, may be a bit of a stretch.

In order to satisfy the Due Process requirement of fair warning, prosecution under §§ 241 or 242 requires that the targeted federal right(s) have been identified at some level of specificity comparable to the civil litigation requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (regarding individual capacity damages liability) that the right at issue be "clearly established" by the statute itself or by judicial decisions concerning such right(s). United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 270-271 (1997).

The parishioners of course have a First Amendment right not to be disturbed in their worship service by the government. They have a statutory right not to be disturbed by private persons by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2). The church and its members have a statutory right to be free of private persons' intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting by force or threat of force to do so, in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 247(a) and (b). The church and its members have a statutory right to be free of private persons' intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting to do so, because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 247(c).

Do those federal rights extend to freedom from private persons' entering a building and verbally disrupting a worship service? (Separately from state law prohibitions against criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc.?) I could be persuaded of that, but at this point I am not sure.

[not guilty]

"Does being a member of the press entitle a person to break laws?"

No one here (except perhaps David Nieporent) is discussing what the relevant statute prohibits. Per 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2), whoever:

by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship [emphasis added]

commits a crime as to which a first offense is a misdemeanor and a second or subsequent offense is a felony.

The language bolded above is an essential element of the offense which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disturbing others' worship service by shouting and carrying on is a dick move, and is likely counterproductive as to persuading anyone. It is not, however, by itself a federal crime.

[David Nieporent]

It is not, however, by itself a federal crime.

Right; it should be clear that it might be trespass, disturbing the peace, some other state offense. I am not familiar with the nooks and crannies of the Minnesota penal code (or any local Minneapolis ordinances, either), so I can't identify every potential offense. But merely disrupting a service by being a jerk is not a violation of FACE.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Get rid of the lot of them!"

The one's wife works for the Attorney General of Minnesota. The AG was on Lemon's podcast this week justifying the invasion.

[John F. Carr]

AP coverage: https://apnews.com/article/justice-department-minnesota-church-disruption-bondi-ed084f5005187f58eabe0cc627d1862b

[not guilty]

Does anyone have a link to the affidavits of complaint pursuant to which any arrest warrants issued?

[apedad]

Virginia Democrats schedule April 21 redistricting special election

Virginia Democrats scheduled an April 21 special election for a ballot measure that would give lawmakers the ability to temporarily redraw a new House map as the party looks to do so ahead of the November midterms.

If approved, the ballot language would state: “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”

The move puts Democrats one step closer toward redrawing Old Dominion’s congressional lines before the midterms. Virginia Democrats, who enjoy a 6-5 edge in their congressional delegation, are eyeing either a 10-1 map or a 9-2 map, giving the party between three and four pickup opportunities in the lower chamber.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5701097-virginia-special-election-redistricting/

YAAAY Virginia!

And yes, this move will (most likely) be offset by FLA's and TX (and other) changes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That strikes me as a 14th amendment violation. The principles of due process and equal protection or explicitly intended to prevent stuff like this.

It will be one thing to change the constitution this year and then to change it back next year, that would be sleazy, but Legal. This or the other hand……

[jb]

I have only so many LOLs to give.

Which part of the 14th Amendment do you think this violates, and why do you think it's worse to return to non-gerrymandering as a default rather than having to do another election to put that back in the constitution?

[Brett Bellmore]

It was remarkably stupid of Trump to have started a midterm gerrymandering war without first checking to see that state level Republicans were onboard with fighting in it. The result is going to be a significant net loss for Republicans, because, while they actually had more unused gerrymandering potential, most of it's remaining unused, while Democrats are going after it hammer and tong.

[Bob from Ohio]

State level Republicans outside the South and Texas are generally worthless with isolated exceptions.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I find this both understandable in a "no unilateral disarmament" sort of way and rather depressing.

In an ideal world, we would have national voting rights reform, which in part addresses partisan gerrymandering, and a rule where there was no mid-decade districting except in narrow circumstances.

Now, we are stuck with this sort of thing.

[John F. Carr]

The fight over allowing 18 year olds to vote resulted in a constitutional amendment. We can hope people will look at what their politicians have done recently and be disgusted.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Opposition to abortion is a strong reason a certain group of people support Trump. His appointment of the justices necessary to overturn the ruling make him a sort of messiah (anointed one) to these people. Like King Cyrus, a pagan king who encouraged the Jews to return to their homeland, he is seen as a tainted vessel used by God for His own purposes.

I wondered once why opposition to Trump, given all that he entails, was a bad idea. One person offered three reasons. First, Biden supposedly threated free speech. The reasons are not really credible but even granting it, Trump has been much worse.

The second was that Democrats didn't support a certain reform. Of the two parties, Democrats were more likely to support this specific reforms. It is not a credible ground.

The third (and real) reason was abortion. Even there, I noted that Dobbs did not reduce the abortion rate. This person is a strong opponent. Yes, people cite federalism and/or that the opinion was shoddy. But these people rarely are consistent about such things. Trump and his justices surely don't do more than the alternative in that department in various respects.

Anyway, Roe v. Wade was rightly decided & reproductive justice overall should be protected either way.

[Commenter_XY]

Oh please. Roe was a poorly reasoned, crap decision.

The world did not end with Dobbs and neither did abortion. All Dobbs did was return the abortion question back to the people, where it belonged.

Guess what? The people figured it out.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The world didn't end? I thought I was in the afterlife.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That is correct. The world ended on December 21, 2012.

[John F. Carr]

No, the saved are in the afterlife and the rest of us are in the seven years of tribulation.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's one person's account of why, anyway.

For my part, abortion, sure. Even if the end result isn't even one fewer abortion, Roe was a constitutional law abomination, because there simply is not such a right in the Constitution. So I'm glad to see that abomination erased.

Gun rights. Trump has been pretty good on those. Not perfect, but pretty good. Joe was a long time gun control crusader, he sure as hell wasn't any good on the topic.

Illegal immigration. He's delivering on that one, albeit in a sloppy an obnoxious manner. Joe was anti-delivering on it.

Nuclear renaissance. Honestly, I hadn't even hoped for that one, a pleasant surprise.

Rooting out official discrimination in government and those funded by it, even where it gets called "DEI". That's pretty important, I don't want the country backsliding into racial quotas by any name.

Freedom of speech? Well, a lot of what the left calls attacks on freedom of speech are just putting an end to using claims of "disinformation" to justify cracking down on free speech, and similar Orwellianisms, but I'll grant he's not perfect on the topic.

All in all, I voted for what I thought was the lesser evil, and got an evil that, by my standards anyway, is lesser. Albeit not nearly as lesser as I'd have liked.

[John F. Carr]

If Trump cared about abortion, blue state doctors prescribing abortion pills across state lines would be in prison.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump also repeatedly displayed his trademark willful ignorance, for example when talking about renewable energy. While berating Europe for using wind energy, he admitted that China also has big wind farms — someone must have showed him pictures — but declared that

"They put up a couple of big wind farms, but they don’t use them. They just put them up to show people what they could look like. They don’t spin, they don’t do anything."

In reality, China accounts for almost 40 percent of total world generation of electricity from wind power, substantially more than Europe.

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/courageous-carney-vs-demented-donald

Krugman noted:

I listened to Trump’s Davos speech with fear: How much damage will this demented, vindictive individual do to America and the world? I also felt a deep sense of shame: What is wrong with my country, that we put someone like this in a position of unprecedented power?

As the whole world watched, the president of the United States (God help us) repeatedly referred to Greenland, which he is willing to blow up NATO to acquire, as Iceland. Don’t dismiss this as trivial: if any previous president had been that befuddled, the whole press corps would have been howling about senility and demanding that he step down.

[apedad]

"What is wrong with my country, that we put someone like this in a position of unprecedented power?"

It's because the Trump voters don't vote FOR their interests; they vote AGAINST Dems.

And now Trump is routinely screwing them too - which is fucking hilarious.

[Mr. Bumble]

What's wrong with a country that puts ANY stock in anything Paul Krugman says?

[ThePublius]

Exactly.

[apedad]

[Michael P]

People knock Donald Trump for not knowing geography, but look what the French are teaching on TV:

https://x.com/blingsabato/status/2013686052913828023

[ThePublius]

Yea, who knew Iceland was south of Spain?

[John F. Carr]

We've been warned that anthropogenic effects are so serious that the poles are shifting.

Outside of ecological alarmism, pole shifts are an occasional science fiction plot device. The movie Damnation Alley had our heroes trying to get to Albany to save the world from tilted axes. I never saw the whole movie. It did not convince me the world was worth saving.

[David Nieporent]

Um, what? Greenland is closer to Europe than to the U.S.

[John 4]

Not once Chairman Trump unleashes the Peace Board on Canada, making it the 51st state!

God damn, this timeline is so dumb. Good job MAGA

[ThePublius]

Really? My research shows Maine to Greenland as about 1,500 miles, with mainland Europe to Greenland at about 2,500 miles.

But, that's beside the point. Did you even look at the link? The French media's map shows such a distorted picture that it puts Iceland south of Spain.

Are you simply a contrarian?

[Mr. Bumble]

No, he's David Notsoimportant.

[jb]

Have we just decided that Norway isn't part of Europe?

I agree the French map is dumb. I think they were trying to use the perspective of the map of the right but then just left continental Europe on its typical north/south access.

FWIW, Greenland is:

(A) By far, closer to Canada than anywhere else,
(B) Part of North America, geographically, and
(C) Closer to Europe than the US

[ThePublius]

O.K., if you're counting Norway, it's marginally closer to Greenland than Maine, by about 34 miles. So, there, you win. I was refering to 'mainland Europe' in my previous comment.

[jb]

I don't understand why you think Norway isn't part of "mainland Europe". It's one big continental mass. Norway is the northwesternmost part of Europe just like Maine is the northeastern most part of the US. If you're going to require a comparison to a point like Paris or Berlin, why look at Maine versus Chicago or Denver?

[David Nieporent]

Norway is the northwesternmost part of Europe

Actually, Iceland is the northwesternmost part of Europe, but who's counting? (I agree that Norway is the northwesternmost part of the mainland.)

[ThePublius]

Not geograpically, it isn't. Politically, yes.

For that matter you could say that Greenland is 0 miles from Europe, as it's currently considered a part of Denmark.

Perhaps I should have said 'continental Europe.' Norway generally doesn't consider themselves part of continental Europe.

It doesn't matter. The OP was about the distorted map that French TV presented.

[David Nieporent]

I don't know what Norway doesn't "consider itself" part of continental Europe even means, or where it comes from. And, yes, Iceland is geographically part of Europe. And it "considers itself" part of Europe. (I suppose if you want to look at plate tectonics, it's not. But if you want to do that, then Norway is.)

Greenland is indeed part of Denmark, but that doesn't make it Europe, any more than French Guiana is Europe.

[David Nieporent]

Really? My research shows Maine to Greenland as about 1,500 miles, with mainland Europe to Greenland at about 2,500 miles.

If you do it to the Bosphorus, you can make it 3,500 miles! But normally if one is talking about whether A is closer to B or C, one chooses the closest point in each, not the furthest.

But, that's beside the point.

How is it beside the point? The linked tweet incredulously exclaimed that they said Greenland was closer to Europe than the U.S. And it is.

Yes, I agree that Iceland was weirdly moved on that map, but the whole map was just kind of distorted. (Remember that Lisbon and NYC are about at the same latitude IRL — but not on that map.) Moving Iceland further from Greenland — they're actually very close — doesn't help them prove their point.

[ThePublius]

There's been zero discussion here (that I recall) of KBJ's justtification of Hawaii's concealed carry bans via the 'black codes.'

Is she the most idiotic justice we've ever had? I think of her as 'Biden's revenge.'

[John F. Carr]

Josh Blackman posted yesterday. Not everything needs to be in the Open Thread.

https://reason.com/volokh/2026/01/21/the-perversity-of-citing-the-black-codes-to-defend-gun-control-laws/

[ThePublius]

Not everyone in the Open Thread reads anything else on VC.

Is this a problem, to post this?

[Sarcastr0]

Tell us more about how this black woman Supreme Court justice is dumb according to your studied and objective evaluation.

If you're going to bring up a topic, maybe don't do it while spraying bile, Mr. Civility.

[ThePublius]

I never mentioned race. You always play the race card. It doesn't win arguments anymore.

And what 'bile?' I think she's dumb. I am not alone in that view. She has made many remarkable and sometimes incomprehensible arguments and questions.

Go ahead, defend her. You think this particular argument makes sense?

[David Nieporent]

I think she's dumb. I am not alone in that view.

True; lots of racists who don't know anything about law claim the double-Harvard graduate is stupid because they don't even understand what her positions are and/or don't understand how oral argument works.

[ThePublius]

So you're saying domeone's credentials preclude criticism from someone not so credentialed? That sounds like an appeal to authority. Similarly, I think Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman is an idiot. So what?

I'll remember that next time you criticize any public figure.

[grb]

I don't understand your point. If the limits of gun regulation are determined by the laws / mindset of a historical era, then why wouldn't it be critical to determine what those historical limits were? It wouldn't matter if they were based on "good" reasons or "bad". Either way speaks to the degree gun regulation was acceptable in the period that decides whether the same degree of regulation is acceptable now (according to reigning conservative judicial doctrine)

What part of that don't you understand? You might wanna go find a mirror, take a long look, and reconsider who qualifies as "idiotic".

[grb]

JUSTICE JACKSON: So I guess I really don't understand your response to Justice Gorsuch on the black codes. I mean I thought the black codes were being offered here under the Bruen test to determine the constitutionality of this regulation. And it's because we have a test that asks us to look at the history and tradition. The fact that the black codes were at some later point determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn't seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make. So can you say more about that?

[ThePublius]

So, you think her argument makes sense?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. (Hint: her argument is as much about why the Bruen approach is bad as it is about this case.) You don't only get to pick the parts of history you like if you're looking at history and tradition.

[ThePublius]

I reject her argument. I suspect a majority of the justices will as well.

It's like arguing the Plessy v. Ferguson being part of history and tradition justifies segregation today.

[David Nieporent]

It is not like that, because "history and tradition" isn't the test that SCOTUS says applies to the equal protection clause.

[grb]

ThePublius : "So, you think her argument makes sense?"

Of course I do. Please try putting on your thinking cap. There are people who say the Second Amendment is holy and inviolable. Hannibal Lecter merits concealed carry during the trial for eating his fourth victim.

Others say "living constitution" vibes makes the 2A mean whatever whoever thinks after full consideration (and digestion) of what he had for breakfast.

Twixt these two extremes, Bruen is alleged to provide a solid judgmental basis determined by what people of a historical era considered acceptable regulation limits. And the people of that era embraced broad regulation latitude. That you (and I) find their motivation icky doesn't change the degree of latitude they found acceptable.

Personally, I have no idea whether Bruen was wise jurisprudence. (Best DeForest Kelley voice): "I'm an architect, damn it, not a lawyer". By superficial observation, it seems a bit unwieldy. But regardless of that, it's the game & rules everyone's been told to follow. Which is what Justice Jackson did.

[ThePublius]

So, I call a public figure an idiot, and your retort is to call me an idiot. Got it.

The black codes were unconstitutional the moment they were enacted, not only after they were declared unconstitution or negated by the 14th Amendment. To cite them as history and tradition to support gun control today in HI is ridiculous. Or, should I say, idiotic.

[David Nieporent]

The black codes were unconstitutional the moment they were enacted, not only after they were declared unconstitution or negated by the 14th Amendment

Whether that's true — it's one philosophical way to look at law, but not the only — is irrelevant to the point. They were deemed constitutional at the time, which reflects an understanding of the second amendment at the time. And Bruen tells us that how people understood the 2A bears on what it covers.

[Absaroka]

"which reflects an understanding of the second amendment at the time. And Bruen tells us that how people understood the 2A bears on what it covers"

I see the argument that that history would mean that a modern law against blacks owning guns should pass 2A muster. And hopefully fail on other grounds, of course.

[Bob from Ohio]

"understanding of the second amendment at the time"

So SCOTUS should except blacks from a favorable result in this case? Seems harsh.

[ThePublius]

"Justice Gorsuch asked Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris about the Black Codes, which — among many other things — limited how Black Americans in the post-Civil War South could own and bear firearms.

"There's been some discussion about the Black Codes. And maybe they should be relevant, and maybe we really should consider them as significant here. In fact, they're a dead-ringer. Thoughts?" Gorsuch asked.

"It is 2026, and it is somewhat astonishing that Black Codes, which are unconstitutional, are being offered as evidence of what our tradition of constitutionally permissible firearm regulation looks like," Harris replied. "Those laws are dead-ringers only in the sense that this law too is an unconstitutional pretext. The Black Codes were enacted by states before their readmission to the Union, as you mentioned. It is not an indictment of the Bruen framework to say that unconstitutional laws do not count in illuminating a valid tradition.""

I'm with Harris, and I think Gorsuch agrees.

[LexAquilia]

There was an article somewhere that I saw that his whole purpose of putting her on the D.C. Circuit court was to lay the groundwork to appoint to SCOTUS.

She was picked early on by Bidens' masters because she's clearly at the average IQ for her race and sex, an activist, and nowhere near a jurist.

[David Nieporent]

The whole point of putting anyone on the DC Circuit is to lay the groundwork for appointment to SCOTUS. That's why the Dems blocked the appointment of Miguel Estrada and the GOP blocked Elena Kagan's nomination.

[LexAquilia]

Not Merrick! lol that sucker he wasn't black enough for Biden, since no one in DC are biologists, they decided to punt on the sex thing. since the Biden Administration can't determine what's a male or female without a biologist handy, that couldn't discern which was male and which was female or if they were both one or the other. It's confusing. So Biden just focused on important superficial attributes, like skin color. Hey, it's all pink on the inside they say, and since her skull cavity is hollow, you can see the all the pink underside in her empty cavity.

Oh they can't use xrays to determine either, because observing bone structure differences is transphobic.

[ThePublius]

"President Trump sued JPMorgan Chase and its longtime CEO, Jamie Dimon, on Thursday over accusations the company “debanked” him by closing his accounts in 2021 and putting him on a blacklist.

The 26-page complaint, filed in Florida state court in Miami, seeks at least $5 billion in damages from JPMorgan Chase (JPMC), the largest U.S. bank by assets."

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5701492-trump-sues-jpmorgan-chase/

This drove the Trump businesses into crypto, among other avenues. It could be a massive mistake and backfire for J.P. Morgan Chase and Jamie Dimon, who is named in the lawsuit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is the type of suit that will play well in Peoria, that will help Trump with the midterms. Everyone hates the credit card companies, and they were quite sleazy here. They deserve to lose.

The larger question of the platforming also needs to be addressed. Should bank be considered common carriers, legally required to accept money from any lawful customer?

[John F. Carr]

Currently banks are required to discriminate against suspicious customers not proved to be breaking the law.

[ThePublius]

I don't know the law or regulation on that, but it seems intuitively wrong to me.

[John F. Carr]

"Customer due diligence" and "know your customer" are starting points on this subject. The Bank Secrecy Act requires banks not to be secretive when it comes to things the government doesn't like.

[LexAquilia]

Debanking individuals due to politics or pressure from government agencies (which has been reported), should be a violation of civil rights. Coordinated debanking should carry RICO-like risk.

[Bwaaah]

Generally speaking, businesses are disinclined to "debank" anybody. But neither is it considered permissible for them to provide assistance to a party in the commission of a crime. What's assistance? Banking services. What's a crime? Take your best guess, understanding that government actors have a de facto monopoly on the definition of "crime."

Businesses already face punishment from the government for non-compliance with the government's broad definitions of [potential] "money laundering." Your proposal to also punish businesses for their compliance with those laws is quite a pinch.

Fuck 'em that way. Fuck 'em this way too. I see the convergence, but I don't like much of it.

[LexAquilia]

> Your proposal to also punish businesses for their compliance with those laws is quite a pinch.

I wasn't referring to their compliance to law.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91246294/why-marc-andreessen-and-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-talking-about-debanking

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-bank-regulator-says-large-banks-engaged-debanking-disfavored-industries-2025-12-10/

This sort of discrimination. The willful or malicious kind.

[Bwaaah]

Both of those articles support my point. For example:

U.S. regulators have also examined themselves to see if overly strict supervisory policies discouraged banks from providing services to certain sectors. All three major U.S. bank regulators this year have agreed to scrap the use of "reputational risk" by their examiners, which banks complained was often used to push them away from certain contentious industries.

Government regulators were driving banks to "debank" customers simply because those customers were politically objectionable. Of course, the government is highly selective at who it targets like that. For example, Democrats have targeted the fossil fuel industry that way.

[Bwaaah]

I believe it comes under the general category of "anti-money laundering" laws, including what is called "know your customer" obligations. The government has significantly ratcheted up regulatory risk and liabilities to companies (particularly banks and money-changers) beyond what they know to be unlawful doings of their customers, more recently including what they [allegedly] should have known were the unlawful doings of their customers. It's an ambiguous and chilling aspect of regulation that calls for a When-In-Doubt-Don't approach to compliance.

Government with a big ambiguous stick.

[David Nieporent]

Should bank be considered common carriers, legally required to accept money from any lawful customer?

No. Nothing should be, but banks less than that.

[John F. Carr]

A man blames doctors for the murder of his three children by his wife. She was receiving psychiatric care and his lawyers say the doctors failed her and her family. The lawsuit is filed as the statute of limitations is about to expire. I don't know if the courts will treat this as a medical malpractice case or ordinary negligence. In Massachusetts medical malpractice cases are screened by an expert panel. If the panel rules against the plaintiff, the plaintiff must post a $6,000 bond. Not a big deal in this case which is worth seven figures or more. In some states the panel has more power.

The murders got a lot of publicity in Massachusetts. Dead upper middle class white people. The wife will stand trial for murder this summer. I'm calling it murder because I'm not sympathetic to the postpartum depression defense. The courts are more sympathetic to crazy women than I am.

https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2026/01/22/lindsay-clancys-husband-sues-mental-health-providers-accuses-them-of-overmedicating-duxbury-mother-prior-to-killings/

[LexAquilia]

The courts must have never been married.

[SRG2]

The courts are more sympathetic to crazy women than I am.

Married one, did we? LOL

[LexAquilia]

https://x.com/RepAngieCraig/status/2014389922724008189

This week in Minnesota, ICE detained a five year old boy. Five years old.

I can’t even believe this is America.

If you support this, you have lost all humanity.

-----

Rep Craig is violating the law. She knows this is a lie, the boys father abandoned him, and she's targeting a lawful government function.

She needs to be charged with harming our democracy and be placed in prison.

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts will hear a case about religious symbolism on public property.

The state constitution states

all religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

Was this clause violated by the Mayor of Quincy's choice to erect bronze statues of two Catholic figures, "Saint Michael, the patron saint of police officers, and Saint Florian, Michael’s counterpart for firefighters," on a public safety building?

I am more worried about the $850,000 in public funds spent on the statues than I am about the offense they cause. But the money is spent and the statues are in storage awaiting a decision.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/01/22/metro/sjc-appeal-quincy-religious-statues/

[grb]

Meanwhile, ICE "disappeared" a five-year-old as he returned home from school. Masked goons tossed the child into a SUV in Minnesota, then immediately spirited their "prize" half-a-country away to Texas - far from the boy's family.

Little Liam Ramos was last seen wearing a blue hat with bunny ears and carrying a Spider-Man backpack. Then he was kidnapped by lawless thugs. The family had a pending asylum case and no outstanding deportation order, but goons gotta goon.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/5-year-asylum-seeker-detained-ice-expands-enforcement/story?id=129451987

[grb]

School officials accused immigration agents of making the child knock on the door of his home as “bait” to apprehend others.

These so-called "agents" are loathsome soulless pigs.....

[LexAquilia]

You are intentionally lying to subvert lawful government functions.

https://x.com/ICEgov/status/2014447833555075497

You are committing a heinous crime against our sacred democracy.

Sick. Actual lawbreaking being allowed on this board.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside that the shtick got old about 5 minutes after you started it, your quoted tweet proves he's telling the truth.

[LexAquilia]

grb:
" Masked goons tossed the child into a SUV in Minnesota, then immediately spirited their "prize" half-a-country away to Texas - far from the boy's family."

David Nieporent says this:

"FACTS: A criminal illegal alien ABANDONED his child as he fled from ICE officers, and our officers ensured the child was kept SAFE in the bitter cold. ICE made multiple attempts to get the family inside the house to take custody of the child. They refused to accept custody of the child. The father told officers he wanted the child to remain with him."

....proves grb's claims.

You are intentionally lying and targeting lawful ICE activities. You're on notice that I have informed [e-mail] about your criminal activity and he will shortly be convening a grand jury in DC to indict you for criminal fraud.

If you were a man of integrity, which you're not, you would immediately surrender yourself to the authorities at Bluesky while you await the impending warrant.

[David Nieporent]

....proves grb's claims.

It does. The opposite of what DHS says is always true, so — logically — the fact that DHS contradicted grb proves grb to be correct.

[LexAquilia]

You are intentionally lying to interfere with the lawful operation of DHS.

Turn yourself in.

[David Nieporent]

Yawn.

[Bob from Ohio]

Some Gestapo we have. All those agents in town and no one can just disappear one podcaster.

[SRG2]

That's why I prefer the term Brownshirts

[grb]

Donald Trump has declared war on facts that make him feel bad. This child-like behavior continued Thursday, when the toddler-in-chief pledged to expand a lawsuit against the New York Times. Why? Because a new poll shows Americans increasingly disapprove of the job he’s doing.

Hell, he'll probably sue everybody and everything after the midterms. But by then it'll be too late.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Saw two classic films, both named "Easy Living."

The first is a screwball comedy starring Jean Arthur with Ray Milland having an early role as her love interest. The film is a series of misunderstandings, many of them arising from the assumption that Arthur is Milland's father's mistress. Amusing film, written by Preston Sturges. Well-paced and acted.

The second film is a drama with Victor Mature as an aging QB who finds out he has a medical condition that makes continuing to play dangerous. Fitting for playoff weekends.

Lucille Ball has a supporting role. This was shortly before she broke big on television. She was in a bunch of films, both dramas and comedies. A couple of other familiar t.v. faces in the film too.

(I saw another Jean Arthur film recently, and a supporting character looked familiar. And, yes, it was "Max" from Hart to Hart.)

The film has various subplots, including the QB's wife trying to become successful without talent. I'm not familiar with the actress, but she was in a sizable number of film noir-type films.

Victor Mature might be best known for a few biblical roles, but he was in various other films, too. That turns out to be his actual name. "Jean Arthur" is a stage name.

[SRG2]

Lizabeth Scott - famous for her teeth, and known in Hollywood for preferring the company of her own sex.

[Bunny495]

Not to forget Jack Parr in a bit part.

[David Nieporent]

So — as we've discussed here — the other day DHS engaged in a home invasion of a U.S. citizen, arresting him and dragging him off in frigid weather without even allowing him to get dressed, despite the fact that they don't even allege that he had done anything wrong. Their "explanation" was that the guy was living with two sex offenders, and because he refused to identify himself they had no choice but to arrest him because he "matched the description."

Every bit of that was bullshit:
1) They didn't have the warrant that the Supreme Court says is required to enter a home.
2) The sex offenders didn't live there.
3) DHS had no lawful right to demand that he identify himself.
4) They had pictures of their supposed targets, and he looked nothing like them.
5) Their arrest of him was 100% unjustified and illegal.
6) Even if they had any lawful grounds to arrest him — which they did not — common decency would've allowed him to get dressed first.

But it turns out to be even worse than we thought. Not only was DHS's claim that they were looking for sex offenders obvious bullshit to cover for their malfeasance, but they could not possibly have believed that at least one of the guys lived there because he's in prison right now, and has been there since 2024, as revealed by Minnesota's prison inmate locator website.

[Life of Brian]

That was a really nice, organized stream of vehement froth laden with weasel words the truth does just fine without, along with rather implausible high-level takes (#3 in particular looks suspicious on its face, and #1 we've been debating all day here).

Any shot at knowing where you cribbed it from?

[David Nieporent]

It's called reading. You might want to try it sometime.

[Life of Brian]

I'd love to, duckie. That's why I asked for a source. Rather telling you snarked out rather than providing one.

[not guilty]

Police officers in general, not just ICE agents, can ask a person to identify himself, but the person is not required to answer. In Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991), sheriff's deputies boarded a bus, approached Bostick, who was a passenger on the bus, and asked for his ticket and his identification. They then explained that they were narcotics interdiction officers, and asked Bostick for permission to search his luggage, which was found to contain cocaine. In upholding the search against Fourth Amendment attack, SCOTUS opined:

The Court has dealt with similar encounters in airports, and has found them to be "the sort of consensual encounters that implicate no Fourth Amendment interest." Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U. S. 1, 469 U. S. 5-6 (1984). We have stated that even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, see INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 466 U.S. 216 (1984); Rodriguez, supra, 469 U.S. at 469 U.S. 5-6; ask to examine the individual's identification, see Delgado, supra, 466 U.S. at 466 U.S. 216; Royer, supra, 460 U.S. at 460 U.S. 501 (plurality opinion); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 446 U.S. 557-558 (1980); and request consent to search his or her luggage, see Royer, supra, 460 U.S. at 460 U. S. 501 (plurality opinion) -- as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required. [Boldface added.]

501 U.S. at 434-435 (cleaned up).

In Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979), two policemen physically detained the defendant to determine his identity, after the defendant refused the officers' request to identify himself. The Supreme Court held that, absent some reasonable suspicion of misconduct, the detention of the defendant to determine his identity violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable seizure. Id. at 52.

In INS v. Delgado, supra, The Supreme Court opined:

Unless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave if he had not responded, one cannot say that the questioning resulted in a detention under the Fourth Amendment. But if the person refuses to answer and the police take additional steps -- such as those taken in Brown -- to obtain an answer, then the Fourth Amendment imposes some minimal level of objective justification to validate the detention or seizure. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 446 U.S. 554; see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U.S. 21.

466 U.S. at 216-217.

[David Nieporent]

The follow-up to Brown v. Texas is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), in which SCOTUS held that — at least absent a self-incrimination situation — a person who was the subject of a Terry stop could be required to identify himself. (Not to show ID, but to disclose his name.) But that requires reasonable suspicion that the person is currently involved in a crime. Here, they broke into his house. They knew he wasn't either of the people they were supposedly looking for. They had no information of any sort suggesting any criminal activity. Therefore, he was free to ignore any request that he ID himself.

[not guilty]

Hiibel also requires a state statute authorizing such an arrest for failure to give identification where reasonable suspicion is present. Absent such a statute, the suspect can tell the cop to go pound sand.

[Michael Resanovic]

Well, that's true of all S&S authority. It's not like a requirement for statutory authorization is something Hiibel creates just for identification.