Tag: politics

WORLDWIDE TERRORISM ON THE ASCENSION

The following blog is based on information disseminated by multiple media sources supplemented by my personal opinion where noted.

We are at war! Not with Russia. Not with China. Not with Iran. Not with any of the other “bad actor” countries prominently in the news. Actually, not with any individual country at all.

We are at war with radical Islamic terrorism, and we have been for some time. Many people trace the commencement of this war to the 9/11 attacks. I contend that the war goes back much further, all the way back to the Crusades in the 11th and 12th centuries. In any event, at the present time radical Islamic terrorism is omnipresent. Most of us are focused on the US, but as the recent attacks at Brown University and Bondi Beach in Australia illustrate the perpetrators can strike anybody, anywhere, at any time.

The definition of terrorism varies in different countries depending on their laws and legal systems. To me, however, terrorism involves violent acts or threats intended to create fear, intimidate civilians, or coerce governments for political or ideological goals.

The Global Terrorism Index, produced annually by the Institute for Economics and Peace, systematically ranks 163 countries based on the impact of terrorism, considering factors like the number of incidents, fatalities, injuries, and property damage. Based on the GTI for 2024, which utilizes data from 2023, Burkina Faso, which most people (including me) have never heard of, is the country most impacted by terrorism, accounting for a quarter of all terrorism-related deaths globally in 2023. Burkina Faso is a tiny landlocked country in West Africa, bordered by Mali to the northwest, Niger to the northeast, Benin to the southeast, Togo and Ghana to the south, and Ivory Coast to the southwest. It covers an area of 274,223 km. In 2024 the country had an estimated population of approximately 23 million.

The incidence and impact of terrorism have become increasingly concentrated. The epicenter of global terrorism has shifted from the Middle East to the Central Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa, which now accounts for over half of all global terrorism deaths. Most of the top ten affected by terrorism were located in that region. If you’re wondering, Israel was #2. The US did not make the top 10.

For the most part the sub-Saharin countries on that list live in a constant state of terrorism perpetrated by internal strife and even by the government against its own people. According to the GTI terrorism remains a serious worldwide threat. The data in the 2024 report denotes an overall increase in deaths from terrorism worldwide of 22% to a total of 8,352 in 2023, the most since 2017. Moreover, attacks are becoming more deadly. Over 90% of terrorist attacks and 98% of terrorism deaths in 2023 occurred in conflict zones, underscoring the strong link between conflict and terrorism.

For purposes of this blog, I will focus on terrorism as it relates to Western democracies. In 2023 the US accounted for 76% of terrorism-related deaths in Western democracies. By its very nature a terrorist act can occur anywhere, by any person at any time. As we have seen “soft” targets, such as a concert, a school, a place of worship, a mall, or a beach are inviting targets. Two recent attacks – at Brown University and Bondi Beach, Australia – illustrate this point. More on them below.

Most democracies, by their very nature, present a myriad of easy targets. We know that attacks are inevitable and predictable. We just don’t know where or when. For example:

  1. The US, Australia, UK, and France, among others, have sizeable Muslim populations that are disaffected, have failed to assimilate and are virulently antisemitic. The people are prone to recruitment by terrorist organizations. Many of them have carved out enclaves that are ruled by Sharia law, and even the police are loath to enter.
  2. Many countries have lax immigration policies and no or inadequate vetting. In Europe terrorists can move about easily from country to country. Thus, a terrorist entering a country with lax immigration policies can easily move to one with strict policies undetected and unimpeded.
  3. In the US due to the Biden Administration’s open border policy for the last four years as many as 18 million potential bad actors are believed to have gained entry undetected. We have no idea who they are, where they are, how many, or their intent.
  4. In many cases democratic countries’ civil rights laws and liberal politicians and policies have hampered law enforcement from acting until an attack is already in progress. Also, there is often limited funding and manpower.
  5. Many immigrants that have been vetted and approved for entry have become radicalized afterwards. Perhaps, a program of periodic vetting is needed. However, there would be restrictions emanating from a lack of sufficient funds and manpower.
  6. According to journalist Miranda Devine Australia’s lax immigration policies and strict gun laws have put them in the same boat as the US.
  7. Most governments have failed to curtail antisemitism, thus allowing it to fester. Often government officials and members of law enforcement, themselves, are antisemitic or at least indifferent. Thus, violent protesters are free to operate with impunity. The most common manifestation of this has been at various US colleges.
  8. Antisemitic-related attacks in the US, Australia and elsewhere have become common, particularly since 10/7/23. These include not just murders, rape and other violent crimes but also peaceful protests that often turn violent.
  9. Even locales that have strict gun laws are prone to violence because they hinder or prevent regular citizens from arming themselves, while perpetrators still manage to obtain weapons.
  10. In Australia politics has been a major factor. Government officials’ reluctance to identify certain people as potential terrorists for fear of being accused of bias is a problem. This was the problem regarding Bondi Beach.
  11. Like the Dem Party in Minnesota the Australian Labor Party panders to Muslims, perhaps due to the fact that they outnumber Jews 7:1 and constitute a strong and reliable voting bloc.
  12. Journalists who have dared to write about the terrorism problem have been denigrated as Islamophobic.
  13. In many cases potential terrorists are identified and placed on watch lists, because the country’s laws make it difficult to detain or deport them until they actually commit a crime. Often, persons on the Watch Lists are not monitored sufficiently due to incompetence or limited manpower.
  14. Just in the last week I became aware of four terrorist plots – (1) the shootings at Brown University, (2) the shootings at Bondi Beach, (3) a planned attack in LA that was thwarted by the FBI, and (4) Parisian officials canceling a planned NY Eve celebration due to fear of terrorist attacks by “rampaging migrant gangs.” French officials have been criticized for “giving in,” but one can argue that cancellation is better than suffering a tragic attack.
  15. The BB attack was a typical example of law enforcement incompetence. With Hanukkah approaching several Jewish leaders had warned officials that an attack of some kind was a strong possibility. In retrospect the Chanukkah by the Sea event was a tempting “soft” target and should have had better security. The perpetrators were a father and son who had suspected ties with a convicted ISIS terrorist. The Australia Daily Telegraph reported that both had traveled to an area of Southeast Asia that is a known ISIS training ground. Furthermore, supposedly the son was “known” to law enforcement and despite having “Islamic fundamentalist views” was disregarded as a “low level threat.” Somehow, between them, the pair owned six fully licensed weapons that were supposedly used for hunting. That dubious situation should have been a “red flag.” Why did they need six weapons to hunt? And did they actually hunt? Multiple witnesses and cellphone footage showed that when they commenced firing, inexplicably police in the area did not intercede for at least ten minutes while the perpetrators continued to mow down victims! That is inexplicable and unconscionable. It was only after an unarmed bystander interceded that they returned fire. Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is known to be hostile to Israel and soft on antisemites. But, like a typical politician, in the wake of the BB attack, he tried to adjust his previous position by characterizing the massacre as “an act of evil, antisemitic terrorism… [adding] an attack on Jewish Australians is an attack on every Australian.” Knowing his background, those comments rang hollow.
  16. To put it succinctly, the investigation of the Brown University shooting has been botched. As I write this it is nearly one week since the attack, and we have no more information than we did on Day 1. Usually by this time we know the identity of the shooter, what he looks like, his motive and his life history. Often, he would have been caught already. The press conferences have largely been attempts at “CYA” and a waste of time. The incompetence of the University and Town police has been astounding.

Conclusion

As I said at the beginning we are in a war with radical Islamic terrorism. Their oft-stated goal goes beyond the destruction of Jews and the State of Israel. Their ultimate goal is the destruction of all “non-believers” and Western civilization, itself.

The perpetrators are well organized, well-financed, relentless, and ruthless. Currently, most governments and law enforcement agencies, hampered by liberal/woke/socialist laws, policies and attitudes are ill-equipped to thwart them. Furthermore, terrorists have to be successful only once; the burden is on law enforcement to be successful every time.

As I said above the attacks, though fewer in number, have been getting more deadly. New Years Eve is in two weeks. We’d better “step up our game” quickly.

by Tags: , , , Leave a comment

TRUMP SAVINGS ACCOUNTS AND OTHER ECONOMIC MATTERS

President Trump has been responsible for a myriad of accomplishments in his short tenure, for example, closing the border, deporting illegal immigrants, reducing crime in cities that welcomed his assistance, passing the “Big Beautiful Bill (the effects of which will kick in commencing in 2026), reducing inflation, and eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities, among others.

To be sure, those accomplishments are laudable, however, a large portion of the electorate is still dissatisfied with the state of the economy, particularly the rate of inflation, the price of gas, the cost of healthcare and the unaffordability of buying a first home. Home ownership is and always has been an endemic part of the “American Dream.” Since Trump is the president, rightly or wrongly, most of them are blaming him.

According to the latest Economist/YouGov survey despite all of the above positives President Trump’s approval rating has been in a steady decline for the last seven weeks. His latest approval rating was 38%, and his disapproval rating was 57%. The latest Reuters/Ipsos survey yielded similar results. Even more ominous the same polls disclosed that 55% of the respondents were more likely to vote for the Democrat candidate in their district, compared to 41% who said they would vote for the Republican candidate. This does not augur well for Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections. If they lose control of the legislature Trump’s ambitious agenda is likely to be thwarted.

Also, history is not on his side. Normally, the party in power loses a goodly number of House and Senate seats in the off-year elections.

Of course, Trump is cognizant of all that. Consequently, he is beginning to focus more on the economy. Historically, absent a monumental catastrophe, such as a world war or a 9-11 style terror attack, the most important issue to voters is always the economy. Yes, people care about other issues such as crime, healthcare, security and immigration, but they care more about a good job, the cost of food, being able to afford a nice place to live, supporting their family, the cost of gas, the cost of healthcare, their retirement, and their children’s and grandchildren’s future. Hence, the well-worn expression: “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Below please find some of the recent Trump initiatives regarding the aforementioned, which are designed to lower the cost of living and enhance the quality of life for all Americans. Some of these are already in process; others are just proposals, some of which may require the approval of Congress.

  1. Ramping up drilling for oil and gas, which, due to the fundamental law of supply and demand, should lower the prices of fuel both in the home and at the pump. Lower energy prices lead to lower prices on all goods and services, most notably food. According to AAA the national average of a gallon of regular gas at the pump is $2.999.  Of course, this will vary from state to state depending on state and local taxes and other factors. By comparison, according to the US Energy Information Administration the cost in 2022 and 2023, the last two years of the Biden Administration, was $3.52 and $3.95, respectively. In my view, Biden’s woke, green energy policies drove prices up, whereas Trump’s “drill baby drill” policy is driving them down. Therefore, it is unfair to blame the current cost of energy on Trump.  According to the more recent data available (“blue woke”) California has the highest average gas price at around $4.65 per gallon for regular, while (“red”) Oklahoma has the lowest at approximately $2.53 per gallon.  Make of that what you will.
  2. For most social security recipients one of the provisions of the “Big Beautiful Bill” will enable them to offset their federal income tax liability with a special federal income tax deduction.
  3. The BBB also authorizes the creation of the so-called “Trump Accounts,” which essentially are a tax-deferred investment account for qualifying newborns into which the Treasury Department of the federal government will deposit $1,000. The account will grow tax-deferred until the newborn turns 18. Then, the account will function as a traditional IRA. Briefly, to qualify babies must have been born to American citizens from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2028 and have a valid social security number. In addition, the Dell family has pledged to utilize the “Trump Accounts” infrastructure to give $250 to each qualified child under 11. These initiatives are designed to encourage American citizen families to have babies by easing the financial burden of raising a family and helping to provide for them as they grow into adulthood. (For various reasons many families are postponing having children or deciding not to at all.)
  4. The BBB extended the 2017 “Trump Tax Cuts,” which will provide massive federal tax cuts for most taxpayers.
  5.  The so-called “Trump Tariffs” have been very controversial. The question is are they currently and will they prospectively have a positive or negative effect on the economy? Recent studies indicate that generally the impact of tariffs is to raise prices and reduce available quantities of goods and services for US businesses and consumers in the short run. According to the Tax Foundation the Trump tariffs will equate to an average tax increase of $1,100 per US household in 2025. On the other hand, the Trump tariffs, both threatened and imposed, have forced other countries who had been taking advantage of us in international trade for many years to lower their own tariffs substantially. Furthermore, the tariffs have been raising tens of billions, some claim trillions, of dollars for the federal government. Perhaps, more significantly, many foreign companies have invested or pledged to invest trillions of dollars to build or expand their businesses and/or build new factories in the US in order to avoid these tariffs. This will translate into good, high-paying permanent jobs and reduce the unemployment rate, which is currently slightly up at 4.4%. In summary, are these tariffs good or bad? In my opinion, it is still too early to tell. It may take years to determine. At the of risk oversimplifying matters I believe the answer is probably predicated on whether one is pro-Trump or anti-Trump.

Conclusion

As I said above, Trump is cognizant of the voters’ concerns regarding the economy. Accordingly, he has and will continue to develop policies to improve it. Many, if not most, of the problems with respect to the economy are holdovers from the Biden Administration and his woke/green policies. Data shows the economy is improving. Inflation is down. Gas is down. The positive impact of the BBB should be effective starting in 2026. The question is will the voters give Trump’s policies time to work or not.

The cost of healthcare remains a thorny, complicated and highly politicized problem that Trump and the Congress will have to address together. One can only hope that they resolve it expeditiously.

White House: Trump




by Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

MURDEROUS ATTACK ON NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL

The following is based on a compendium of media reports and my own opinion where indicated.

It was inevitable. It was only a matter of time. It was just a question of who, where, when and how many. Of course, I’m referring to an unprovoked, premeditated, murderous terror attack by an improperly vetted alien on two US National Guard personnel while they were in legal performance of their assigned duties. One, Sarah Beckstrom, subsequently died from her injuries; as I write this, the other one, Andrew Wolfe, remains in critical condition.

As most of you know, the National Guard was deployed to the nation’s capital as part of Trump’s federal takeover of the city and crime crackdown in August. All indications are that this initiative was working as crime has declined dramatically. Even Muriel Bowser, the Dem mayor of DC, had praised the program. According to the most recent update, there were 2,188 National Guard personnel assigned to D.C.

According to multiple media accounts the perpetrator, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national, allegedly drove from Washington State to Washington, DC specifically to target Guard members. Film footage from the crime scene revealed that he “barreled around the corner” and just commenced firing on the victims with a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver. Washington DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro reported that he attacked “without provocation, ambush style,” struck one of the victims, leaned over and shot the individual again, before firing at the other National Guard member “several times.” The shooting took place around 2:15 p.m. last Wednesday near the Farragut West Metro station. As I write this there is no known motive. Due to the heinous nature of this crime Attorney General Pam Bondi and Attorney for DC Jeanine Pirro have both vowed to seek the death penalty. I concur.

According to various law enforcement sources Lakanwal entered the United States in 2021 under the Biden Administration’s “Operation Allies Welcome Program.” FBI Director Kash Patel noted that the FBI received confirmation from the Department of Defense and CIA “that the subject had a relationship in Afghanistan with partner forces,” which enabled him to enter the United States in 2021 under that program.

CIA Director John Radcliffe asserted that nevertheless Lavanthal “should never been allowed to come here.” Kristi Noem opined that at some point he became radicalized, and some media outlets have speculated he may have become afflicted with PTSD, which fueled his rage.

He applied for asylum and was granted it in April 2024 under the Trump Administration. According to multiple reports “he was vetted, and the vetting came back clean.” He has a wife, five children and a brother in the U.S. Apparently, he has been unable to find employment because he had an expired work permit. Moreover, he had become more isolated the past few months, could not pay rent or afford food, was relying on others for help and was growing desperate.

For years many of us have been warning that Biden’s lax open border policy had enabled millions of illegal and/or improperly vetted aliens into the country. We don’t know how many, but some people put the number as high as 18 million. In many cases we don’t know who they are, where they are, and their intent. As I have denoted in previous blogs this policy exhibited absolutely no regard for the safety and security of American citizens. It was part of a broader policy that favored illegal immigrants over American citizens. Furthermore, it has had and will continue to have far-reaching negative ramifications on Americans politically, militarily, economically and socially.

Beckstrom was a native of a small town in WVA. According to friends she enlisted in the NG because she wanted to serve her country, help people, and gain experience to enable her to attain her long-term goal of joining the FBI. By all accounts she was a good person who in the words of her ex-boyfriend would “do anything for anyone who needed it.” Her mother described her as having “a heart of gold.” Attorney General Pam Bondi, commented that she could have gone home for the TG holiday, but she volunteered to remain in DC “so others could be home with their families.”

In the wake of this heinous crime the US is re-examining the entire aliens’ vetting process. In my opinion this is long overdue. It is apparent that the vetting of aliens has been incomplete and unreliable. More on this later.

The NY Post reported that of the thousands of aliens who were allowed to enter into the US under the expedited processing required by the Program, DHS investigations have now discovered “potential derogatory information” relating to national security, “public safety,” “fraud” and inclusion on “watch lists” with respect to 6,800 or more of them. This is unacceptable and calls into question the veracity of the entire vetting process. According to the NY Post former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker asserted that “you have to have an analyst, or an agent look at every doggone one of them and do it critically and set some objective criteria for disqualification.” It should be noted that Trump opined it was “virtually impossible” to deport people who arrived under the aforementioned Program.

US Senator Chuck Grassley has long been a critic of this process and has denoted various “red flags.” He received no cooperation from Biden Administration officials, but Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has been providing Grassley with the information requested.

Part of the problem is the difficulty of obtaining complete and accurate information. This is often exacerbated by the huge influx of applicants as happened with the sudden collapse of Afghanistan. You may recall that the US withdrawal was totally botched.

Additionally, asylum seekers have not been subjected to any periodic updates. Applicants who seem to be all right initially can become radicalized after they enter the US. That seems to have been the case with Lavanthal.

Conclusion

One should not ignore or downplay the effect that the irresponsible rhetoric emanating from the left (in particular the “Seditious Six”) and their allies in the media has had in fomenting violence. As we have seen with the assassination attempts on Trump, the murder of Charlie Kirk, and several other instances unstable persons like Lavanthal are particularly susceptible to being influenced.

Trump has initiated prompt and decisive action. (1) He has “stopped indefinitely pending further review of security and vetting protocols” any immigration requests “relating to Afghan nationals.” (2) He has ordered a review of all asylum vettings approved by the Biden Administration. (3) He has authorized a “sweeping review” of the millions of green card holders from 19 countries, which have been deemed security risks. US Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow announced that his department “has halted all asylum decisions until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible. The safety of the American people always comes first.”

These actions will affect the lives of millions of asylum applicants and green card holders the majority of which are not problematic. It will likely engender complaints and even accusations of bias and racism, but I maintain they are long overdue. It is a shame that a good person had to die beforehand.

by Tags: , , Leave a comment

JFK ASSASSINATION

Few people in history are so recognizable that with the mere mention of their initials one instantly knows about whom you are talking. Such is the case with John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States. He flashed across our lives like a comet, brilliant but brief. He was only president for 1,000 days before he was assassinated, yet, even today, people remember him and recognize his name.

Tomorrow, Saturday, November 22, will mark the 62nd anniversary of his assassination. Almost anyone over the age of 70 remembers vividly where they were and what they were doing when they first heard of it. For example, I, a freshman in college, was walking to a history class. (Yes, I did attend classes, even on a Friday afternoon.) I heard some other students talking about the President having been shot. I wasn’t sure I had heard correctly, but unfortunately, I had.

What was strange about the whole incident was the lack of reliable information. It wasn’t like today when news is known and disseminated instantaneously. It might be hard for you youngsters to believe, but there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no cell phones, no Tik-Tok, no internet. Even computers were in their relative infancy.

Communication between New York, where, at the time, all media communications were centered, and Dallas was sketchy. Even worse, Dealey Square, the site of the assassination, was not close to the addresses of the network news’ Dallas offices. Reporters on the scene had to communicate by public telephone, when they could find one. Often, competing reporters ended up sharing telephones. At first, information was incomplete and contradictory.

Eventually, however, we found out the horrible news. No one will ever forget the grim look on venerable CBS anchor Walter Cronkite’s face as he removed his glasses, stared into the camera, and told a shocked, confused and scared nation that the President was dead. At the time, Cronkite was generally considered to be “the most trusted man in America.” When we heard it from “Uncle Walter,” we knew it was true.

The purpose of this blog is not to relate the details of the day’s events, nor do I wish to get bogged down in the various conspiracy theories, some of which persist to this day. Many books have been written on the subject, and I can’t possibly cover these topics in a short blog. Suffice to say, it was a surreal experience. Many emotions swirled through my head – disbelief, denial, fear and uncertainty. Who did it? Why? Was it a single gunman or a conspiracy? Was it part of a larger plot? Would we go to war? These and other questions came to mind.

Most everyone was glued to their television sets for days while events played out – Lyndon Johnson sworn in as the 36th President of the US on Airforce 1, Jackie Kennedy standing beside him still in shock and wearing the blood and brain-stained pink suit she had been wearing in the limo (which, she had refused to remove, declaring “I want them to see what they have done”), Lee Harvey Oswald arrested, Oswald shot live on national tv while under police escort (How in the world did Jack Ruby get access to that corridor, anyway?), JKF’s funeral procession, the “riderless” horse, young John Jr’s salute. The assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy followed soon after. It was a time of chaos and uncertainty, the end of innocence.

JFK had won the Presidency by the narrowest of margins over Vice President Richard Nixon. He had received 49.7% of the popular vote to Nixon’s 49.5% and won several states by the slimmest of margins. In that relatively primitive era of communications the end result was not known until the next morning. In the wee hours, the networks “called” CA for JFK which finally made him the winner. (Ironically, Nixon ended up winning CA after all the absentee ballots were counted.) Many people, including a 15-year-old girl in Berwick, Pa., caught up in the drama, stayed up all night to await the results.

JFK was young, handsome, bright, vibrant, dynamic, scion of a famous and wealthy family, and a war hero. He and his beautiful, glamorous wife, Jackie, seemed like American royalty to many Americans. He gave us hope and optimism. In the eyes of his supporters, he was the one who would transform America. During his inaugural address he uttered the famous line that symbolized the great hope that he would lead us to “A New Frontier,” as his campaign had promised (“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”). Unfortunately, today, many people espouse the opposite philosophy.

JFK got off to a rocky start with the Bay of Pigs fiasco. But he seemed to make up for it when he faced down the Russians and Premier Nikita Khrushchev in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Most of us did not realize how close we had come to nuclear war, but in the end, Kennedy won that round and showed he was learning on the job. His administration was dubbed “Camelot” after the description of the mythical King Arthur’s court.

Unfortunately, Kennedy made a lot of powerful enemies. Many Republicans thought he had “stolen” the election (shades of 2020). Indeed, there had been whispers about voting irregularities, notably in Chicago, which had long been notorious for that sort of thing and where for many years it was said, only partly facetiously, that even dead people voted. However, in the end nothing came of that – no media exposes, no court challenges. Yes, times have certainly changed.

Many conservatives thought he was too soft on communism and too aggressive on civil rights issues. He had made powerful enemies among organized crime and at the FBI and CIA, among others. Fidel Castro hated him for the Bay of Pigs attack. On the other hand, many Cuban ex-Pats thought he had betrayed them by failing to intervene militarily to support the invasion when it fell apart. All in all, he had a plethora of powerful enemies with the motive, means, opportunity and funds to plan and execute a Presidential assassination and cover-up. In retrospect, one should not have been surprised.

CONCLUSION

A favorite speculation has been how American and world history would have been different had JFK not been assassinated. Would he have pulled us out of Viet Nam as has been speculated? If so, would there have been an antiwar movement in the 1960’s with the attendant protests, turmoil and violence? Would MLK and RFK still have been assassinated? Would the civil rights movement have progressed differently, more peacefully? We will never know. There have been many books written about this topic, including one by Stephen King called “11/22/63” about a fictional time traveler who journeys back to 1963 to try to prevent the assassination, which makes fascinating “what if” reading.

Virtually the entire country became immersed in the assassination and its aftermath for weeks, if not months. My recollection is that the news networks covered it continuously. A cloud of conspiracy still hangs over the assassination 62 years later. As I said, books have been written and movies produced dealing with the conspiracy theories. Did Oswald act alone? Was he tied to the KGB or the CIA? How did Ruby get close enough to kill Oswald from point-blank range? Was there an accomplice on the grassy knoll? Why was Ruby killed in prison? What of the roles, if any, of mobsters, like Sam Giancana, Head of the Chicago mob, and Carlos Marcello, Head of the New Orleans mob, as well as the CIA, the FBI, the Russians, and/or Castro? Were the Warren Commission’s findings accurate or part of a cover-up?

At this time, as we mark the passage of another anniversary of JFK’s assassination, we are reminded that these issues, and others, have still not been resolved to many Americans’ satisfaction. Conspiracy theorists maintain that there is much information that has remained classified all these years. If so, perhaps, President Donald Trump’s administration will make it available to the public. After all this time, why not?

For you readers of a certain age, what are your memories of the assassination and its aftermath? Where were you when you heard the awful news? I would like to know.

by Tags: , , , , , , Leave a comment

DEMS FOMENTING INSURRECTION

For ten years Dem politicians and their supporters in the media and elsewhere have employed a myriad of means, some illegal, to hamper Donald Trump’s presidency. For example, they spread false and malicious rumors that he was a puppet of the Russians; they impeached him twice on “trumped up” charges; they indicted him for fake crimes; they tried to imprison him; they tried to bankrupt him; and they tried to incite violence against him by continually call him “Hitler,”, “Nazi,” “evil,” and an “existential threat to democracy.”

As I have explained in previous blogs each of these tactics was ultimately exposed to be mendacious with evil intent. Now the Dems are so desperate they have outdone themselves. Recently, several lawmakers, including Sen. Elissa Slotkin of MI, Sen. Mark Kelly of AZ and Reps. Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania and Jason Crow of Colorado all of whom have served in the military or the intelligence community and should know better, released a video containing a message that, in my view, advocates insurrection.

It advises national guardsmen and military personnel that they may and, in fact, should disobey any order that they deem to be illegal. Their message stated, in part, “our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” they said, taking turns delivering virtually identical lines as if from a prepared script. So, in their opinion, if an enlisted person were to disagree with a lawful order by a superior officer to enforce one of President Trump’s policies for instance to engage an enemy combatant or detain illegal immigrants who are wreaking havoc in a US city he can and should disobey it. To me, that is a clear attempt to incite insurrection.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution states, in part, that “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States…” It defines insurrection as a violent uprising against an authority or government. For example, the IA empowers the president to deploy federal troops and/or to federalize the National Guard units of the individual states in specific circumstances, including, among other things, the suppression of “civil disorder.” Persons attacking ICE personnel who are enforcing federal law, such as we have been witnessing on tv is a classic instance of “civil disorder.” In my opinion, inciting insurrection by words or deeds is a clear violation of that law. There is no ambiguity. We cannot have privates debating the merit of lawful orders with lieutenants in the heat of battle. (We are not talking about orders, for example, to torture a non-combatant.)

I maintain that the Justice Department should prosecute those people in accordance with the Insurrection Act of 1807 and/or other applicable laws. Otherwise, we risk anarchy or an attempted coup, (which is probably what these insurrectionists want). Certain Dems have made it clear that they oppose Trump’s military deployment in various cities. The Trump administration sharply criticized their communique.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said those Dem lawmakers are “openly calling for insurrection.” Many people, including me, agree. Attorney General Pam Bondi averred on Fox News that the DOJ would be investigating. I hope it follows through and metes out appropriate punishment to the inciters.

The deployment of federal troops to deal with local criminal matters is not unique. “Well, it’s been invoked before,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. He’s correct. It has been many times, for example, in southern states in the 1950s to enforce civil rights and in various cities in the 1960s to suppress anti-war violence. Trump has asserted that troops are needed now to protect federal property and personnel in carrying out their lawful duties, as well as assisting in an overall drive to round up and deport illegal aliens and suppress crime.

In other related news:

  1. Reuters has reported that a federal judge has temporarily barred Guard troops from heading to Portland, Oregon. I expect that this outlier ruling will be overturned on appeal as others have in the past.
  2. In a separate, but similar ruling another judge has allowed for now a deployment to proceed in Chicago, where federal agents have embarked on a sweeping crackdown regarding illegal immigration. Illinois Governor Pritzker has been a constant critic of the deployment of federal troops in Chicago. This is ironic as Chicago has one of the highest crime rates and murder rates in the country. It’s obvious that federal assistance is needed there desperately, and Pritzker cares more about opposing Trump than the safety of his own citizens. Meanwhile, people are dying. President Trump has characterized Chicago as “a great city where there’s a lot of crime, and if the governor can’t do the job, we’ll do the job. It’s all very simple,”

CONCLUSION

Many liberal/progressive/socialist/communist commentators have tried to poo-poo this incident, but you know if a Republican had said the same thing about a Dem Administration multiple law enforcement agencies would have raided his house en masse at 3:00 AM with tv cameras at the ready to record it. This cannot be swept under the rug. An example must be made to forestall similar incitements prospectively.

by Tags: , , Leave a comment

SOCIALISM IN AMERICA

In the wake of Comrade Zoh’s election as mayor of NYC socialists around the country are optimistic that an inexorable trend to the left is developing. They cite the 2025 election of socialist Katie Wilson as mayor of Seattle (whose policies and beliefs are closely aligned with those of Mamdani), Mikie Sherrill as governor of NJ, Abigail Spanberger as governor of VA, and the approval of CA’s redistricting plan, which is expected to yield several additional Dem seats in the House of Representatives. They are anticipating that this trend will carry forward to the 2026 off-year elections and beyond.

I say, “slow your roll.” While there is no denying the significance of Zoh’s election I would suggest that Dems should be cognizant of the fact that NJ and VA are traditionally blue states, so in essence they have merely “held serve” in those two elections. Additionally, the CA redistricting was expected, and it merely balances out the Rep gains from the redistricting in TX.

That said, in my view the socialist wing of the Dem Party, though a minority in terms of numbers, has taken control of the Party. With few exceptions, such as PA Senator John Fetterman, moderate Dems have become reluctant to speak out lest they face a primary challenge the next time they are up for re-election. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has become a “dead man walking.” As a result, the de facto leaders of the Dem Party are left wingers, such as Bernie Sanders, AOC and Jasmine Crockett. They and their supporters are dragging the Party so far to the left of the mainstream that it will be difficult for it to win the 2028 Presidential Election, but that is the subject of another blog on another day.

Although no one would characterize the US as a “socialist country” in fairness I would be remiss if I failed to denote that the US economy does contain certain elements of socialism, such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance. These programs are not perfect, but they are well-established and have served us well. Regardless the US is overwhelmingly a capitalist, free enterprise country.

There has been much speculation of the impact of Zoh’s program prospectively. As I have discussed in recent blogs the conventional wisdom is that, though alluring, most of them are impractical, illegal, and exaggerated, and they won’t work. Already his ill-conceived, ill-advised scheme to have social workers respond to 911 calls has been exposed.

Many people have denoted various examples of socialism’s failure in other countries. Of course, advocates of the program dispute this. However, we have empirical evidence of its failure right here in the US.

Portland, Oregon has a strong socialist history dating back to the early 20th century. Currently, according to articles published in the NY Times and elsewhere the city is run by officials affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, which have majority control of the city council. Their current mantra is that the city has been “run by the rich” for too long, and their aim is to “rectify” that. I assert that their programs mirror those proposed by Mamdani, and their failures present a precursor for NYC under Mamdani.

As we know, the keystones of Mamdani’s campaign is free stuff, such as free buses, frozen rents, defunding the police, and levying higher taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals to pay for it all. The masses drank the Kool-Aide and elected him. So, what will happen next? How will his socialist “utopia” be enacted? What will the results be?

Well, we don’t have to speculate. All we have to do is look at the city of Portland, which as I said has been operating under socialism for many years. According to the NY Post Portland has devolved into the “poster child of urban decay, a smoldering mess of crime, with businesses fleeing and [rampant] homeliness.” It has “defunded and defanged” the police considerably. Large corporations such as Intel have drastically reduced their number of employees. Unemployment is up to 5%. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the US Bancorp Tower, which was formerly one of the most prestigious addresses in the city is now characterized by a 60% rate of vacancies and is infested with vagrants living in the hallways and abandoned offices who “start fires in the stairwells,” take drugs and defecate whenever and wherever they want.

Those people remaining are fed up. In lieu of “equity” and “social justice” they are just interested in providing for their families. According to a recent survey by Public Opinion Strategies 67% of respondents described Portland’s economy as “pretty seriously on the wrong track.” The term “buyers’ remorse” comes to mind.

Conclusion

The horrendous situation in Portland is yet another reminder that socialism does not work. It never has and never will. It may sound good and look good, but eventually the blemishes appear. We don’t have to speculate. Portland is providing empirical evidence. Eventually a socialist government runs out of other people’s money. This is what the people of NYC voted for, and this is what they can expect.

Mamdani has not even been sworn into office, yet policemen, businesses and wealthy taxpayers are leaving. According to Police Pension Fund data 245 police left the force in October, a 35% increase from October 2024. Thanks to the internet one can conduct business remotely. There are a plethora of business-friendly and tax-friendly states to which they can relocate such as Florida, Tennessee, and Texas. Financial firms such as Goldman Sachs have been relocating to South Florida to such an extent that Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties have been dubbed “Wall Street South.” This trend will only accelerate as time goes on.

The socialist Dems and their supporters should take heed, but they won’t. In the short term they may win some local elections, but eventually the “chickens will come home to roost.”

by Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

LIFE UNDER COMRADE ZOH

So, all you Mamdani voters got your wish. He won, but my message is to be careful what you wish for. You drank the Kool-Aide, but in my opinion, you got suckered. You fell for the mirage of free stuff. You fell for the promise of free buses and subways, rent controlled apartments, government-operated grocery stores and the like.

Consequently, you have elected an inexperienced, antisemitic communist who has continually associated with known terrorists and has exhibited a deep disdain for America, its way of life and its system of government. All of this has been well-documented by Zoh’s own words and actions.

Many of his supporters view him as a panacea for their economic and social problems. Many of them are frustrated by their failure to get a good job, afford a home, and support a family. They choose to blame the system not themselves. Maybe they didn’t go to college or learn a trade. Or maybe they went to college but earned a worthless degree in Asian studies, liberal arts or humanities, etc., rather than one such as accounting, finance, engineering or the medical field that would translate into gainful employment and a career. They not only want what other people have without working for it, they feel entitled to it. They are not cognizant of or choose to ignore the historical failures of socialism/communism. They don’t realize that America does not owe them success; it owes them the opportunity to succeed. Success comes from the individual’s ingenuity, ambition and work ethic.

Zoh is charismatic and articulate, but he is a phony. He tells people what they want to hear, but I assert that he is not the solution to their problems. The solution has to come from within. Such is the basis of America’s free enterprise system.

Astute people know there is no such thing as free stuff. Somehow, somewhere, someone has to pay for it. Don’t expect Zoh to deliver on most of his promises, which I discussed in a previous blog. Some of them are illegal; some are just not practical; others will require the approval of NYS or the Feds. Governor Hochul will probably cooperate to an extent, because she is afraid of the radical left, but she cannot afford to be “all in” as she is facing a tough election campaign next year. President Trump, whom Zoh arrogantly and foolishly has antagonized in an effort to act tough for his base, will likely provide only the bare minimum of money and other assistance.

Where will Zoh get the billions of dollars necessary to implement his policies? He has told us he will raise taxes on businesses and rich individuals to the tune of $8 billion according to the NY Post. This may sound good to the masses, but it is deeply flawed. For one thing, it will cause an exodus from NYC and possibly NYS. This has already begun, and now that he has actually been elected it will increase, perhaps considerably.

In the internet age it is no longer necessary to be located physically in NYC to do business there. Many financial institutions have already relocated much of their business activities to other more tax-friendly states, such as Texas and Florida. Additionally, wealthy people can easily relocate, and those who choose to stay have the wherewithal to transfer their wealth elsewhere. To quote the late Margaret Thatcher, “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Zoh does not have the foggiest notion of how to administer a city of eight million people. He lacks the requisite experience and knowledge. You, I, and millions of others would be better qualified. His ill-advised policies will adversely affect every aspect of life politically, economically and socially.

His antipathy toward the police and leniency toward criminals have been extensively documented. He has characterized the police as “racist,” and “wicked” and has advocated cutting their funding and curtailing their authority. The exodus of cops has already begun. We have already seen the results of lax law enforcement in other cities such as Chicago and Minneapolis. As I have written in other blogs his administration has the potential to ruin a once-great city that to many is the very symbol of the USA.

As I have written in previous blogs Comrade Zoh is NOT a socialist as he and the media like to portray him. He is an antisemitic communist who hates America and all that it stands for. What is the difference?

Socialism and communism are both economic systems focused on shared ownership of the means of production, but they differ as to the role of the government and the extent of private ownership. Briefly, socialism is characterized by a mixed economy with private property existing alongside public ownership. On the other hand, communism features a stateless, classless society where all property is communally owned, and resources are distributed based on need (“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”). Historically, communist states have been ruled by autocratic governments that have subjugated the citizenry, eliminated private property and individual liberties and controlled all aspects of life politically, economically and socially. 

Historically, socialist states have developed through the democratic process, whereas communist states have developed as a result of violence. For example, much of Western Europe is socialist; China and Soviet Russia of the Cold War Era are and were communist. These systems have failed everywhere they have been tried. The most recent examples are Cuba and Venezuela.

Conclusion

Lefties everywhere are hailing Zoh’s election as a clear mandate and a portent of the rising tide of socialism. Some of them such as Bernie Sanders and AOC are predicting that this trend will continue through the 2026 and 2028 elections. On the other hand, most moderates and conservatives maintain Zoh’s mayoralty will be an abject failure for all the reasons I have cited and will demonstrate once again that socialism/communism will not work. Who is correct? We’ll see, but for the sake of our way of life and the future of our children and grandchildren I strongly hope it is the latter.

by Tags: , , , , , , Leave a comment

THE SCHUMER SHUTDOWN

The contents of this blog are a compendium of information gleaned from multiple media sources. Any content that is my opinion is noted as such.

As of today, October 1, the Federal government is shut down due to Congress’ failure to pass a CR to extend the federal government’s funding for next year. It seems that every year the funding agreement is a bone of contention between the Dems and the GOP. Normally, the two sides negotiate down to the wire and reach an agreement at the “eleventh hour,” but not this year.

As the deadline approached, a bill to keep the government operating passed in the House barely, but it failed in the Senate 55-45. (60 votes were required for passage.) President Donald Trump and a bipartisan group of congressional leaders met at the White House on Monday in a last-ditch effort to forestall a shutdown, but no compromise was reached. The Senate is expected to vote again on Wednesday, likely on the same two measures that failed Tuesday, and likely with the same result. So, we have a shutdown. The primary issue seems to be that Congressional Democrats are demanding overhauls to Medicaid cuts and extensions to health care tax credits, which would cost an estimated $1.7 trillion. Republicans are opposed, but they have signaled they would agree to address those concerns in a separate bill.

The current situation is far from unique. Since 1976 the government has undergone ten shutdowns and numerous additional funding gaps that did not result in a shutdown. The last shutdown was from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019 during President Trump’s first term. It lasted 35 days and was the longest ever. The primary issue was Congress’ refusal to provide funding for the U.S.-Mexico border wall. Another recent notable shutdown was for 16 days in 2013 during the Obama presidency over the GOP’s demands to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Prior to the 1980s, funding gaps did not normally result in shutdowns. The difference between the two is a funding gap occurs whenever Congress has missed the deadline to pass a budget or a stopgap spending bill (also called a continuing resolution). In those instances, federal government agencies were able to continue to operate on the “assumption” that funding would eventually be restored. And eventually it was. No harm, no foul.

After 1980, however, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued legal opinions that eliminated this tactic. His opinion stated that under federal law agencies were prohibited from spending money without prior congressional approval. Only essential services – such as national security, air traffic control and law enforcement – could continue. Thus, funding gaps morphed into shutdowns.

Some of the implications of the current shutdown are as follows:

  1. “Essential” personnel – such as military service members (including hundreds of members of the National Guard that Trump has deployed to various U.S. cities), law enforcement officers ICE agents, and air traffic controllers – would be required to keep working, with pay deferred until funding has been restored.
  2. Federal contractors, including hourly workers such as janitors and security guards, are not required to work and are also not guaranteed back pay.
  3. Congresspersons would continue to get paid their $174,000 annual salaries (naturally).
  4. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid disbursements would continue unabated, although there could be delays.
  5. Various “nonessential” federal services, such as national parks, monuments and museums, would be halted, reduced, or closed.
  6. Hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of nonessential government employees would be furloughed, placed on unpaid leave, or terminated. Most significantly, the determination of which employees get furloughed, placed on unpaid leave or terminated will be the sole province of the Executive Branch, i.e. President Trump and the Budget Office without recourse. Thus, they could take this opportunity to effect further DOGE cuts, which the Dems have opposed. The Office of Management and Budget has not yet provided an estimate of how many federal workers are expected to go without pay, furloughed or fired. However, OMB Director Russ Vought has threatened mass firings. Democrats have called this an intimidation tactic, but they cannot stop it.
  7. Mail would continue unabated as the U.S. Postal Service has its own revenue stream independent of government funding.
  8. Ultimately, the ramifications of the shutdown will likely spread beyond the purely political arena and impact the lives of many Americans who rely tangentially on the above government payments and services.

Conclusion

In my opinion, once again, the Dems have walked into a trap and find themselves on the wrong side of a critical issue. According to a recent NYT/ Siena Poll 65% of Americans are opposed to a shutdown.

In my view the blame for this one rests squarely on the Senate Dems and their inept, blundering leader, (Up)Chuck Schumer. His approval rating is very low, and he is facing a primary challenge for his Senate seat from AOC, which many believe he will lose. Moreover, the left wing of his party is dissatisfied with his leadership, and he faces a likely challenge there as well. I believe he is doing this to placate the left wing, but it will backfire.

To make matters worse Fox News has been playing recordings of Schumer, Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and other Dems condemning past government shutdowns, which contradict their current ranting in favor of this one. I don’t know how they can spin that discrepancy. The optics are really bad. Yes, they will try to blame the GOPers for the shutdown, but the public will not be fooled.

It is in the Senate where the Dems have blocked the CR. Even though the GOP has a slim majority there the Dems were able to prevent them from getting the required 60 votes.

Eventually, this shutdown, like all the others, will be resolved via a CR, and government operations will return to normal (such as they are). This shutdown will become known as the “Schumer Shutdown” and will constitute his political epitaph. Regular readers of my blogs are cognizant of my extreme antipathy for him and, I will not be sorry to see him go.

by Tags: , , , Leave a comment

CHARLIE KIRK’S LEGACY

In my view, we can all agree that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a senseless, horrific tragedy (those of us that are sane, anyway). Charlie was a healer, not a divider, and the outpouring of praise, respect and love for him since his assassination has been astounding. It’s almost what one might expect for a Head of State. As his wife, Erika and many others have said, if the goal of the assassin was to silence Charlie and his cause the assassin miscalculated greatly, and the repercussions for those who opposed Kirk will be just the opposite.

In fact, it has already begun. His death has sparked international attention and has reignited the condemnation of violence rather than peaceful and respectful discourse as a means of resolving political differences.  To paraphrase what Erika said in Charlie’s eulogy and what many other commentators have since reiterated, “they have unleashed the whirlwind.” Trump announced that Kirk would posthumously receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is the highest medal that can be awarded to a civilian.

Charlie has been martyred. As I said, he has become more popular in death than he was in life. In the aftermath (of his assassination), millions of people who had never heard of Charlie Kirk and his forum, Turning Point, have become ardent supporters. They have become cognizant of what he stood for and his ability to communicate peacefully and respectfully with young people, especially college students. TP’s popularity has never been higher. Recently, tens of thousands of fans have been attending TP’s sessions and often there have been many more who could not get into the venue. Fox News has reported that there have been in excess of 120,000 requests for new TP chapters.

Kirk was born and raised in the Chicago suburbs of Arlington Heights and Prospect Heights. He attended Harper College, but he dropped out after one semester to pursue his real dream, political activism. (He was a prime example of “college is not for everyone.”)

He published a range of books and hosted The Charlie Kirk Show, a talk radio program. He co-founded Turning Point (USA) (TPUSA) in 2012 and was its executive director. Kirk described it as a student organization advocating for free markets and limited government.  Kirk remained the executive director, chief fundraiser, and the public face of Turning Point USA until his death. Kirk was one of the most prominent voices of the MAGA movement and an ardent supporter of President Trump. Many people viewed him as an icon of contemporary conservatism.

He became renown for visiting college campuses where he would debate peacefully and respectfully with anyone, not only students but also anyone in the audience who espoused an opposing viewpoint. He would listen patiently to their side of an issue and then say “prove me wrong” as he rebutted their arguments.

According to the Associated Press and other media outlets video clips of these campus appearances spread online. AP reported that the result was “a steady stream of donations that transformed TPUSA into one of the country’s largest political organizations.”  Eventually, TPUSA began holding massive rallies in which top conservative leaders addressed tens of thousands of young voters. 

Commencing in October 2020 Kirk hosted a daily three-hour radio talk show, The Charlie Kirk Show, on Salem Media Group’s “The Answer” radio channel. Also, he launched “Turning Point Live,” which was a three-hour streaming talk show aimed at Gen Z’ers. It was among the most-popular podcasts on Apple Podcasts. According to internal data from TPUSA, Kirk’s podcast was downloaded between 500,000 and 750,000 times each day in 2024.  

In 2021, TPUSA launched Turning Point Academy, an online alternative to schools that were “poisoning our youth with anti-American ideas.” TPA was intended to cater to families seeking an “America-first education.”

In a March 2025 interview with California Governor Gavin Newsom Kirk related that while building TPUSA, “I recognized that there was an ideological imbalance on a lot of these college campuses, and we wanted to provide a counterpoint rooted in conservative, pro-freedom, pro-liberty, America First ideas.”  He added that when TPUSA began, about 75% of college students identified as Democrat. Non-progressive students were afraid to voice their opinions and beliefs for fear of retaliation from students, professors, and school administrators. TPUSA provided emotional support for them.

TPUSA sought to make both the colleges and professors accountable for their actions. TPUSA’s goal was to shift the youth vote at least 10 points toward Republicans, a target that they achieved by the 2024 presidential election. I believe this shift helped Trump win the election. TPUSA’s other activities include the publication of the “School Board Watchlist” and the “Professor Watchlist,” which are lists sourced by published news stories that describe instances of radical behavior among college professors and schools.

Conclusion

In view of the foregoing, it is easy to see how Kirk became a target of the radical left. In retrospect it should not be surprising that a deranged far-left activist, fueled by the irresponsible, hateful and inaccurate characterizations spewed by Dem politicians and their supporters in the media would decide to assassinate him. Erika Kirk has said she “forgives” the assassin, which is her right, but I and many others cannot. Charlie was a great man, an icon, who was an inspiration to millions. The assassin’s goal was to silence him, but as I said above, it has had the opposite effect.

Rest in peace, Charlie. You will be sorely missed and long remembered.

by Tags: , , Leave a comment

WHO REALLY KILLED CHARLIE KIRK?

In my view, we can all agree that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a senseless, horrific tragedy (those of us that are sane, anyway). Charlie was a healer, not a divider, and the outpouring of praise, respect and love for him since his assassination has been astounding. It’s almost what one might expect for a head of state. As his wife, Erika and many others have said, if the goal was to silence Charlie and his cause the assassin miscalculated greatly. In fact, it has had the opposite effect. More on this later.

So, back to the title of this blog. Who really killed Charlie Kirk? We all know that the disaffected dirtbag loser Tyler Robinson, pulled the trigger, but who financed him? Who supported him? Who inspired him? How did he conclude that Charlie was such a “danger to society” that killing him was “justified?” Good questions. Read on for my opinion as to the answers.

1. Utah records disclosed that Robinson was registered as a voter, but he was not affiliated with either political party. His voter status is inactive, (which means he did not vote in the prior two general elections).  However, according to Utah Governor Spencer Cox speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, there clearly was a leftist ideology [regarding Robinson]”  Indeed, Robinson’s family and friends denoted he had become “more political in recent years, had “turned left politically,” had become “more supportive of gay and transgender rights,” and had become a persistent critic of Kirk. The AP reported that it was unclear what had caused this transformation of Robinson’s personal politics, but I believe his relationship with his gay, transgender roommate likely played a significant part. Cox added that the ammunition found at the scene was engraved with taunting, anti-fascist and meme culture messaging.

2. The AP reported that last week, the House observed a “moment of prayer for Charlie Kirk and his family” at the request of Speaker Mike Johnson. A subsequent request for a “moment of prayer out loud elicited vocal objections and chaos on the House floor,” primarily by Dems. I view this as a blatant lack of respect, but that’s just me.

3. The left-leaning media and social media outlets have traditionally slanted their news coverage. Much of what they report as “fact” is often exaggerated, taken out of context or simply false. Unfortunately, a goodly number of people believe it as fact and formulate incorrect opinions. For example, on MSNBC, which has largely been discredited as an objective news outlet, Rachel Maddow, who is well-known for her far-left politics and virulent hatred of Donald Trump, devoted just 22 seconds of airtime to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. She characterized Kirk’s murder as “horrific,” but then quickly shifted to speculation that the Trump administration could use the assassination as a pretext to intensify “crackdowns.” I believe Maddow had an axe to grind. According to Outkick last year Maddow had devoted an entire segment on her show denouncing Kirk as a “racist.” Kirk had then denounced Maddow for “calling me a racist,” which he described as a “typical leftist smear.”  Maddow’s disrespectful characterization of Kirk was in violation of a company-wide directive from Comcast and MSNBC executives that condemned violence and urged employees to “uphold civil discourse across its platforms.” The statement stressed that while employees may “disagree, robustly and passionately,” debate must be conducted “with respect.” “The tragic loss of Charlie Kirk … reminds us of the fragility of life and the urgent need for unity. Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and President Mike Cavanagh added “our hearts are heavy … there is no place for violence or hate in our society.” Clearly, Maddow and other commentators at MSNBC are out of step with the brass.

4. The FBI and the DOJ are cognizant that although Robinson pulled the trigger he may not have acted alone. They will be conducting an extensive investigation in order to ascertain whether or not Robinson was part of a broad conspiracy. For instance, he may have been influenced by some of the participants of various radical chat rooms he frequented, and he may have been supported financially by “dark money” from surreptitious radical groups, domestic and/or foreign. During a recent interview on Hannity Patel disclosed that the FBI will be “interviewing scores of people, on not just these chats on Discord, but any communications that this individual [Robinson] had.” When asked by Senator John Kennedy whether Robinson had acted alone Patel hedged replying “There are a number of individuals that are currently being investigated and interrogated – and a number yet to be investigated and interrogated related to that chat room…. We’re running them all down.” That may just be the FBI being thorough, but it sounds to me like it is considering at least the possibility of a conspiracy.

Furthermore, Patel confirmed that investigators had confiscated electronics from both the suspect’s home and that of his alleged partner. “We’ve seized multiple electronic devices from the home of the suspect and his romantic partner. We’ve got computers, we’ve got laptops, gaming systems, cell phones.” Patel added, “the evidence and information will come out. I won’t stylize the evidence, but I will say what was found in terms of information was a text message exchange where he, the suspect, specifically stated that he had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and he was going to do that.” When pressed on Robinson’s possible motive, Patel noted words attributed to him: “And when he was asked why, he said some hatred cannot be negotiated with.”

Therefore, I maintain that although Robinson pulled the trigger all of the foregoing had some responsibility for Kirk’s murder to some degree.

Conclusion

Writing in the NY Post columnist Miranda Devine asserted that “we are suffering through an epidemic of leftist violence. She characterized the Kirk assassination as “the latest manifestation of the hateful rhetoric aimed at President Trump and his MAGA movement. Any negative incident is seen as justification for violence.” Several additional commentators have opined similarly, and I concur. To buttress her point, she cited a recent poll that 48% of self-identified “liberals” felt it would be “somewhat justified” to murder Elon Musk and 51% said the same with respect to Trump. Most of you will recall I cited several examples in my previous blog.

In my opinion, clearly Robinson was influenced by his association with the radicals who populate the chatrooms he accessed, his roommate, and incendiary statements by political figures and celebrities. Over the last few years, they were able to change his political ideology. In addition, he came to believe that violence, rather than respectful debate, was an “acceptable” even “necessary” way to resolve personal and political differences. Moreover, it is very possible that he was influenced and supported financially by dark money emanating from radical domestic and foreign groups.

In addition, as I mentioned in my previous blog let’s not overlook the atmosphere of hate and divisiveness created and perpetuated by hateful speech of left-leaning politicians, celebrities, and the media. Labeling a person as “fascist,” “Hitler,” “evil,” and “a threat to democracy” resonates with a disaffected loner like Robinson. If a lie is repeated often enough it becomes perceived as the truth. In their twisted mind they come to view the murder of those persons as justified.

As reported in the NY Post as predicted by Erika Kirk in the wake of Charlie’s assassination we are experiencing a massive shift of voters from the Dem Party to the GOP. Florida reported that the rate of GOP registrations has tripled. Other areas have reported similar GOP gains.

People are fed up and turned off by the excessive violence on the left. For instance, Christopher from Bucks County, PA said he was “embarrassed for voting left in my life.” Sheilfer, a farmer in CA, was turned off by the “jubilation” [exhibited by some Dems over Kirk’s murder]. Finally, Siqi a finance executive said “my entire life I voted Democrat… Today, I registered Republican. Obviously, this does not augur well for the Dems in the upcoming midterm elections and beyond.

by Tags: , , , 2 Comments