News roundup
(1) This move by Tucker Carlson is no surprise whatsoever: he wants to start a third party. It’s been evident for quite some time that he’d like to be a spoiler.
(2) I had never heard of Neville Roy Singham until today. But I probably should have. Here’s who he is and what’s happening to him:
The Department of Justice, authorized by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, launched a federal grand jury probe into the tech tycoon to investigate alleged wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering within his financial network.
Prosecutors are examining the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars that Mr. Singham allegedly funneled from Shanghai into the U.S. through defunct shell corporations and a Goldman Sachs philanthropy fund. …
The funds were allegedly distributed to a constellation of nonprofits, media operations and activist groups, such as CodePink, co-founded by Mr. Singham’s wife, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, that lawmakers and critics accuse of pushing Chinese Communist Party propaganda and sectarian division.
“Neville Singham is a traitor to our country. He has ties to the CCP,” Sen. Jim Banks, Indiana Republican, told Fox News Digital. “He is an American citizen, but all of his loyalties lie with the Chinese Communist Party. And when you begin to untangle the web of his massive fortune and his philanthropic activities, the money that he sends to left-wing groups in America, and not just groups that espouse ideologies, but espouse violence.”
How nice.
Singham was born here, of Sri Lankan ethnicity on his father’s side. Both parents were academics, and Singham made his own fortune in the software biz.
(3) Speaking of China – there are allegations that it may be funding the anti-data-center push. There’s an investigation going on.
(4) Glenn Reynolds is starting to support repealing the 17th Amendment:
If you’re worried about the influence of special interest money, you should probably give a thought to repeal. Beyond that, State legislatures choosing senators would make senators more accountable to state interests, acting as a check against federal expansion, unfunded mandates, and overreach. This aligns with the Founders’ intent for vertical separation of powers. And the need to be asking for money 24/7 demonstrably discourages otherwise qualified people from seeking office.
What’s more, Senators chosen by legislatures would be less likely to support expansive federal programs (e.g., certain aspects of Obamacare or No Child Left Behind) that impose burdens on states, as they would prioritize state budgets and sovereignty.
I’ve thought for quite some time that it would be a good idea. But there’s no way it could pass – just like most amendments. I’ve become convinced that it is nearly impossible to get 3/4 of the states to agree on anything, and this certainly wouldn’t be something that would even come close.
(5) How do Democrats feel about the DSA? From a Pew poll:
The survey found that 32 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said they like political leaders who identify as democratic socialists, while 56 percent said they neither like nor dislike such leaders. Just 11 percent said they dislike those leaders.
Support was stronger among exactly the group you’d think:
The survey also found support was strongest among white, younger, college-educated, and upper-income Democrats. White Democrats were the most likely to express favorable views of democratic socialist leaders, with 40 percent saying they like them — nearly double the share of black Democrats (21 percent) and Hispanic Democrats (20 percent). Thirty percent of Asian Democrats also expressed favorable views.
There’s also this unsurprising statistic:
An Economist/YouGov survey released earlier this week found that only eight percent of Democrats considered the United States the “greatest” country in the world ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary celebration, while nearly four in ten Democrats said they were ashamed to be American.
4: I’d rather see term limits but that also has a snowballs chance.
5: Democrats are the greatest danger to the country. Though the leftists I follow say exactly the same thing about the GOP and conservatives. I fear this will only be resolved by violence.
If the USA isn’t “the greatest country”, then which one _is_ ? And…why don’t they migrate to that”great” country?? I guess we can only hope. All talk, no action.
4: since repeal requires an amendment, this new amendment could contain all kinds of new restrictions including term limits and new eligibility limits.
5: they won’t like the civil war. Especially when in the aftermath a bunch of changes to the constitution are crammed down their throats.
There were whispers that Neville Roy Singham was the source of most of the money flooding into Minnesota to keep the anti-Ice riots going last winter. He and his wife are a pair of bad apples. I wonder if we could lift his citizenship? Did he get it through birth or taking a test?
I could get behind repeal of the 17th Amendment. The more I learn of our country’s founders, the more impressed with their foresight when they wrote the Constitution. There was probably good theory behind not having Senators popularly elected. Getting the necessary state support for an Amendment is probably a bridge too far, though, as Neo says.
Speaking of repealing Amendments, since it’s mostly women who are electing all these Marxists, what would y’all say to repealing the Nineteenth? No, I didn’t think so. Me neither. But I sure wish we could get these young, college-educated women to stop voting for Marxists.
There will be blood .
Democrats are the enemy. Literally.
I’m not opposed to repealing the 17th Amendment, but I believe we would be fooling ourselves if we thought it would solve our problem of centralization of power into federal hands. Along with the selection of Senators by state legislatures the whole culture underpinning it has disappeared too. Like Neo, I’m in a deep-blue state. Do we really think state legislatures in New England would at this point in time still appoint people to the Senate who would protect their states’ rights and budgets? Not seeing it.
Right now the senators are virtually independent Prince electors.
I am sure Art Deco or someone can do better, but here are my ideas for an amendment: blast away!
I the seventeenth amendment is hereby repealed.
II United States Senators shall be elected by majority vote of the various state houses (unicameral) or both state houses (bicameral) and approved by the state governor.
III Eligibility edit for both senator and representative
A Senators shall be limited to two terms consecutive or non-consecutive.
B Representatives shall be limited to six terms consecutive or non-consecutive.
C Congressional service shall be limited to sixteen years combined senator and representative consecutive or non-consecutive.
D Must be no older than 74 years of age at time of swearing in.
E Must be a natural born citizen with at least one parent who is a natural born citizen
F Natural born citizen is defined as a person born in or on US enumerated territory with at least one parent who is a natural born citizen or whose mother is a legal permanent resident at time of birth.
G The natural born citizen definition shall be retroactively applied (ha ha goodbye Kamala) effective after January 1, 2001 (rats, Kamala is grandfathered).
E A Person whose US citizenship has been rescinded by this amendment and who has legally resided in or on US enumerated territory (some duration requirement ) has one year from the date of enactment to apply for amnesty. Amnesty shall be by act of Congress and signed by the President.
Convention of States. The Constitutional path to avoid Civil War II (two not eleven, Ilhan).
Young affluent college-educated whites (male and female) are a pox on this nation. Nepos.
And stay off my lawn!
physicsguy: “I’d rather see term limits but that also has a snowballs chance.
Better yet, I’d like to see party turn limits for congressional committee chairman. These committee chairmen are very powerful, are NOT elected by the voters, and, these positions are held by one party or the other for years.
Some time ago I saw an account of a study of how members of Congress allocated their time. Members of the House were inclined to have meetings with constituents. Members of the Senate spent time with donors. Election by state legislators might have pitfalls we haven’t considered, but it would be a blow to McConnellism.
==
My personal preference would be for some salutary rules applicable to each chamber or to each caucus within the chamber.
==
(1) Any person due to reach their 80th birthday during the coming Congress is ineligible to be an officer of the chamber (e.g. the Speaker and President pro tem, the clerks, the parliamentarians), a floor leader, a whip, a committee chairman, or a ranking minority member.
==
(2) Any person who, during the coming Congress, would reach a point where they had held the position of floor leader (minority or majority) or whip (minority or majority) for 10 out of the previous 11 years is ineligible to stand for the position in question.
==
(3) Any person who, during the coming Congress, would reach a point where they had sat on a particular committee for 10 of the previous 11 years could not be allocated a seat on that committee.
==
(4) In any election in the chamber or a caucus thereof, there shall always be the option of ‘None-of-the-Above’. In any election with more than three options, the election shall be a ranked choice ballot.
==
(5) In a ranked choice ballot, the caboose candidate in any round of tabulation is eliminated and ballots allocated to him previously are redistributed per the surviving candidate with the highest rank on the ballot; if there is no such candidate, the ballot is removed from circulation and the tally. The process continues until a candidate receives a majority of the tally.
==
(6) Ballots marked ‘None-of-the-Above’ are those which reject all corporal candidates and any ranking between them. Such ballots cannot be reallocated and if ‘None-of-the-Above is the caboose option, ballots so marked are removed from the tally. It is possible in a contest with > two options for None-of-the-Above to be the victorious option, but if that is to happen, None-of-the-Above must be the most popular option the first round of tabulation; it must either win a majority of the tally on the first round or the tally must shrink to such a degree that the votes None-of-the-Above received on the first round amount to a majority of the tally.
==
(7) If None-of-the-Above carries the day, you have to hold a follow up election. All candidates who lost to None-of-the-Above the first round are debarred from running in any subsequent election for a given office for the coming Congress.
==
(8) Open seats on particular committees are (in both caucuses) allocated by lottery.
==
(9) One’s seniority in a given chamber is to be calculated by the number of days you’ve served in the chamber. If two members have served the same number of days, you calculate their seniority by the sum of the number of days they have served in each chamber. If that number is the same, seniority is assigned to the more elderly member.
==
(10). Qualifications: (a) no member is assigned seniority for having been in Congress on 29 February; every Congress is treated as 730 days in duration; (b) members elected in November de novo (or recalled to office after a period out of office) who are sworn into office before 3 January ordinarily do not receive seniority credit for days prior to 3 January; (c) appointive Senators ordinarily do not receive seniority credit for time on the payroll between when Congress goes into recess or adjournment in preparation for elections and the following 3 January; (d) members sworn in prior to 3 January and also appointive Senators can receive credit if (i) Congress goes in to recess and does not adjourn; (ii) Congress reassembles for a terminal session and a successful quorum call is held at some point. These being the case, any time between the quorum call in question and final adjournment can be assigned a member for calculating seniority if it overlaps with the period of time subsequent to when he was sworn into office. If an appointive Senator is due to return after the election and hold office after 3 January, the time in office between adjournment / recess and 3 January can be added to his accrual.
==
(11) At the beginning of each Congress, member of the majority and minority caucuses can be rank-ordered according to seniority. Those due to reach their 80th birthday during the course of the Congress and those under disciplinary interdicts are then removed from the rank-order. Members of Congress are then asked to submit a preference ranking of the committees on which they sit in order to allocate the positions of chairman and ranking minority member on each committee. You start with the most senior member of the caucus not mandated to stand down; he gets his first choice; the next in seniority gets his first choice unless it is already taken but will get his 2d choice; the third ranking member may or may not get one of his choices; you continue down the rank-ordering in each caucus until you have managed to allocate all chairmanships / ranking-minority-member positions. Exceptions would be the Rules committee, for which the floor leaders would be (ex officio) the chairman and ranking minority member and the Budget committee, whose chairmen and ranking minority members would be elected by each caucus.
==
(12) Make it the rule that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tem of the Senate are to be elected from outside the membership of the chamber, ideally from the ranks of elderly or retired judges. Remove these positions from the order of succession in the Presidential Succession Law.
==
(13) The appropriations committees would be abolished. Each authorization committee would be in the Budget Resolution assigned a sum of money to allocate among the agencies under its jurisdiction.
==
(14) Balloting in caucus is confidential, not open.
==
(15) All members have a committee assignment. No member may be placed under a disciplinary interdict (with penalties of loss of committee seats) absent a ballot of his caucus.
I’m surprised you hadn’t heard of Singham before, neo. As F suggests, I had read that he was a key supporter of groups that were training “activists” for the anti-ICE action in MN. And I think I heard his name before then, in addition to being married to Code Pink’s Jodie Evans.
Dragging the Leftists states to change the 17th Ammendment which does what they wanted is impossible.
No number of “salutary rules changes” will eliminate the single greatest source of governmental corruption; as much as such things appear to be helpful, they will not change mankind’s tendency toward evil. The Founders knew this and attempted, as best they could to design a system that would at least retard this tendency, but Adams knew the truth and expressed it best: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. When America abandoned its moral and religious (specifically Biblical Christian) roots, our doom was sealed. This can be most easily seen in the statistics quoted by Our Gracious Hostess, whereby the youngest and most mis-educated among us are the ones most likely to despise our country. Their lack of religiosity and good morals leads them to this position. And while on the topic of corruption, I urge everyone to visit today’s AMUSE on X, the substack authored by Alesander Muse, which may be the best explanation yet for CJ Roberts’ otherwise mysterious judicial rulings and further demonstrates why “judicial ethics rules” are a charade if those allegedly bound by them are unrestrained by internal moral standards.
FOAF, yes I’d heard that of Singham, too.
Plus, he’s involved in funding for the organized violence in multiple other states.
I hope the investigations lead to some actual downfalls of such rich coward-thugs. Soros guys, too.
Dream big!
Concerning 5.
To meld philosophy and Christianity: “There is truly nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9), and,
The price of apathy in public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
The Republic
All lessons have to be relearned at high cost. What is going on is the results of an equation known for thousands of you. Still we forget.
It seems to me that this phenomena can be found in a whole lot of situations–there’s always someone who has to be “extra”, to “standout.” *
* See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFYylqBnHmw
No number of “salutary rules changes” will eliminate the single greatest source of governmental corruption; as much as such things appear to be helpful, they will not change mankind’s tendency toward evil.
==
And who in this thread suggested they would?
I was thinking yesterday of the strange similarity between Kristof and Carlson, two journalists who have both gone far around the bend.
Re: (5) DSA polls
Doubling down on the hard left looks like a Ghost Dance for Democrats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dance
The Ghost Dance was the last mystical hurrah for Native Americans to unify, then drive out the White Man. It mustered support, but didn’t go well.
It is regrettable that our young college-educated whites in super-blue areas are falling for the DSA dream and it will pose problems. But I see this as a doomed strategy.
Overall the US is not going left at this point as the pendulum swings.
Republican strategists will be running a full-court press to link the whole D party to its DSA leaders.
I was a bit shocked to read that Neo hadn’t heard of Singham.
Even neo can’t know everything. I know a few things.
I learn new things here most days.
Charles Harris: “… two journalists [Carlson and Kristof] who have both gone far around the bend”
They haven’t gone around the bend, they started out around the bend. Perhaps gone further though.
Dear Mr. Deco:
I meant no slight to your obviously painstakingly crafted fifteen paragraph list of recommendations. I only wished to note that regardless of the number or stringency of rules, human beings will always find ways to evade, circumvent, bend and ignore rules they are not internally constrained to obey. I think in this I agree with John Adams.
@steve:I meant no slight to your obviously painstakingly crafted fifteen paragraph list of recommendations. I only wished to note that regardless of the number or stringency of rules, human beings will always find ways to evade, circumvent, bend and ignore rules they are not internally constrained to obey.
I think Art Deco enjoys coming up with them, but he is quite familiar with the fable of the mice that decided to bell the cat. Nonetheless the exercises he runs through are valuable because lots of people say that they think there’s just no solution to the problem. By demonstrating the existence of possible solutions, Art Deco shows that it’s not that the problem is insoluble, it’s that the people in position to solve a problem don’t actually want to solve them. The cat is not willing to wear a bell, no matter how good an idea it is or how many bells we come up with, and so the cat never gets belled.
(4) I don’t recall exactly when I read about the 17th amendment and the problems that it purported to remedy, but it was in the ballpark of 30 years ago.
I was sort of shocked by the whole mess. Supposedly, it was known or perhaps common knowledge that state reps. were selling (or trading for other items of value) their votes for senators. As neo quotes, one of the primary goals of the old system was to ensure that senators would be more accountable to state interests.
But I think there was also another, possibly secondary motivation for the old system. Reps. are supposed to be selected by the populace and close to and accountable to the populace. Reps. meeting with their voters often is very much what was intended. However, I think the founders were wary of a system susceptible to occasional bouts of social hysteria. Students of governmental system like Frenchman de Tocqueville were extremely concerned about that.
Senators were supposed to be men of stature, and intellect. State representatives were supposed to pursue that in their selections. I’m not sure how wise the founders were in thinking this might actually function in the intended manner.
The other shocking thing for me reading about all this 17th A. history was, why didn’t they dream up a method to attack the primary problem. Stopping state reps. from selling their votes. Do your job properly instead. Obviously, the big question is how to do that.
A final random musing: I don’t think most of us, myself included, really appreciate just how corrupt our representatives and government functions are. Our media saturated culture is very largely swayed but all the posturing and smoke screens and subterfuge. We think maybe we are penetrating a couple layers to see the truth, but did we get past all or even most of it?
*by all the posturing
Having Senators chosen by state legislatures would at least introduce some accountability into the process which the 17th eliminated by making the primary determination of who becomes a Senator the person who can raise the most money for a statewide election campaign.