The host was having server problems for a couple of hours
You may have had difficulty accessing the blog for the past couple of hours. Apparently the problem happened to many blogs on one server at the host, although some viewers could see the blog and some couldn’t.
I couldn’t. Nor could I get to the back-end.
Apologies if you had difficulty getting here for a while. It’s just the way it sometimes is, with blogs, and hosts, and servers. I’ve researched it and so far haven’t found a host with a really great reputation for never going down, so I’ve stayed with mine.
Anyway, it seems to be functioning again.
Fraud? What fraud?
If you’re not looking for fraud, you’re unlikely to find it.
And if you’re not preventing it, it’s highly likely to happen.
I recall the DNC and Obama deliberately turning off location verification for donations — thus allowing foreigners to donate millions of dollars to them, illegally but untraceably — and I’m also reminded of the following new revelation, that Biden deliberately turned off all money-tracing on the billions he pumped out to his Democrat fraudster voters and illegal alien pirates.
“Eric Daugherty @EricLDaugh
HOLY CRAP. Health Sec. RFK Jr. revealed that the Biden White House ORDERED HHS to ignore fraud — and just focus on enrolling as many people on welfare as possible, legal or illegal‘One of the things that I found out from people in my agency was they were ordered by the Biden White House not to do program integrity — in other words, not to enforce against fraud.
“And they said, they were told we want to focus on only enrollment and getting more and more people into the system!”
The same thing reportedly happened in Minnesota:
Wall Street Apes @WallStreetApes
HOLY CR*P ? Minnesota Rep Krista Knudsen says they just found out the state TURNED OFF tracking for money being sent overseasThey turned it on for 2 weeks. Saw all the money leaving, and Democrats quickly SHUT OFF TRACKING to allow it to keep happening
READ THAT AGAIN
“Today in the fraud committee, the Department of Human Services testified that they haven’t been tracking the IP addresses of money that’s being literally flown out of our state and where it’s going.
They did turn on that reporting for 2 weeks, and they found that yes, a lot of those IP addresses were tied to overseas computers, and then they quickly shut it off after just 2 weeks of seeing where this money is actually going”
“Every time we turn around, it’s just more and more fraud scandals in our state”
It seems they didn’t want to offend the groups that were getting the benefits. It also seems they didn’t care that the taxpayers were paying for this.
I cannot understand how so many people keep voting for Democrats despite all this news – except I realize they either don’t get this sort of news, or don’t believe it, and/or believe the Republicans are Nazis so they must vote for the Democrats despite their awfulness.
Killing leaders in war
[NOTE: I know there are other topics than Iran. But Iran is really really on my mind. So here’s another post about it; there’s so much Iran news, however, I can only scratch the surface.]
During most modern wars until recent decades, the dead were soldiers at fronts and/or civilians who were bombed or who starved. Weapons were precise only when they were close up and personal. Bombs were imprecise, and they were used often.
Starting with the Gulf War we have used “smart bombs” that have gotten smarter and smarter and smarter. Also, starting in the 1970s, we’ve had an all-volunteer military and no draft. These two things have contributed to making us more averse than ever to having any soldiers killed. That’s very life-affirming, and I certainly don’t want a single soldier killed, but it also means that as our weapons get better and better we have become so risk-averse that we usually no longer use approaches that will decisively win wars.
In this war against Iran, we also are facing something else new in our warfare history, as far as I can tell. Iran isn’t just a tyrannical regime (we’ve certainly fought those before), nor is it just terrorists or states that shield terrorists (we’ve also fought those before). It is a terrorist regime that has waged a 47-year terrorist war against us, Israel, and the west in general.
Hamas is/was also a terrorist regime – and happens to also be a client/ally of Iran. But we haven’t been at war with Hamas. Israel fought that war, and we assisted them with military supplies. Plus, Gaza is a very small place.
Iran, on the other hand, is very large. And we are currently at war with them, or at least in an extended military operation of large proportions. They have been at war with us for their entire existence, but mostly through terrorism because they didn’t have the reach for anything else. The main reason we attacked them is that they were intent on expanding that reach and its lethality, and had already done so to an alarming extent.
In WWII the war had fronts and leaders were behind the lines in undisclosed places. I strongly believe that if we could have assassinated Hitler we would have done so. We couldn’t. Even the German Resistance failed to do it, although it tried very hard. We did manage, however, to do things like kill Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto:
To boost morale following the defeat at Guadalcanal, Yamamoto decided to make an inspection tour throughout the South Pacific. It was during this tour that U.S. officials commenced an operation to kill him. On April 14, 1943, the United States naval intelligence effort, codenamed “Magic”, intercepted and decrypted a message containing specifics of Yamamoto’s tour …
President Franklin D. Roosevelt may have authorized Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox to “get Yamamoto”, but no official record of such an order exists …
On the morning of April 18, despite urging by local commanders to cancel the trip for fear of ambush, Yamamoto’s two Mitsubishi G4M bombers, used as fast transport aircraft without bombs, left Rabaul as scheduled for the 315 mi (507 km) trip. Sixteen P-38s intercepted the flight over Bougainville, and a dogfight ensued between them and the six escorting Mitsubishi A6M Zeroes. First Lieutenant Rex T. Barber engaged the first of the two Japanese transports, which turned out to be T1-323, the one Yamamoto was travelling in. He fired on the aircraft until it began to spew smoke from its left engine. Barber turned away to attack the other transport as Yamamoto’s aircraft crashed into the jungle.
Yamamoto’s death was a major blow to Japanese military morale.
One of the interesting things about the Iran War is what it reveals about Israel’s penetration of Iran in terms of intelligence. Israel probably had the technical and intelligence ability to do this sort of killing of leading Iranian figures previously, but didn’t until now because it required not only the political will to do so but also the degrading of Iran’s air surveillance capacities as well as the weakening of Iran’s aggressive proxies that surrounded Israel. Previously, Israel seems to have thought bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities and killing scientists would do the trick. It didn’t. October 7 happened, waged by Iran proxies and originally planned to include Hezbollah, and it was a moment of sharp truth for the Israelis. The would be a war for its very existence.
I think many people underestimate how very different this war is from other wars we have fought. And yes, although regime change isn’t the stated goal, it is a goal in the indirect sense of facilitating its occurrence through the action of the Iranian people themselves.
And that is another difference – the Iranian people are strongly on our side. It is their own government that has warred against them. Unfortunately, it’s the Iranian government that has the weapons and not its people – at least so far.
Open thread 3/26/2025
I have never seen such devotion to a fish before:
What is different about this enemy in Iran
Explained here:
Dan Schueftan’s answer boils down to this: it will almost certainly take a long time but time is on our side, and although it would be great if this war would bring down the regime, it may not happen and we (Israel, in this case) are prepared to fight another war and another as needed.
The whole discussion is worth watching (with longer videos such as this one, I always speed them up when I listen):
Lindbergh and America First
We had a discussion on this blog recently about Charles Lindbergh and whether he ever actually supported the Nazis in the buildup to World War II, rather than just being an isolationist.
First, an interesting bit of background from Wiki:
Lindbergh’s father, a U.S. congressman from 1907 to 1917, was one of the few congressmen to oppose the entry of the U.S. into World War I.
I’m going to assume that his father had some influence on the formation of Lindbergh’s viewpoint about entering foreign wars
After the tragic kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh’s first child in in 1932, Lindbergh and his wife moved to Europe to try to recover. They visited Germany during the 1930s:
In July 1936, shortly before the opening of the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, American journalist William L. Shirer recorded in his diary: “The Lindberghs are here [in Berlin], and the Nazis, led by Göring, are making a great play for them.”
This 1936 visit was the first of several that Lindbergh made at the request of the U.S. military establishment between 1936 and 1938, with the goal of evaluating German aviation.
Lindbergh was aware of Kristallnacht when it happened:
“I do not understand these riots on the part of the Germans”, he wrote. “It seems so contrary to their sense of order and intelligence. They have undoubtedly had a difficult ‘Jewish problem’, but why is it necessary to handle it so unreasonably?” Lindbergh had planned to move to Berlin for the winter of 1938–39. He had provisionally found a house in Wannsee, but after Nazi friends discouraged him from leasing it because it had been formerly owned by Jews, it was recommended that he contact Albert Speer, who said he would build the Lindberghs a house anywhere they wanted. On the advice of his close friend Alexis Carrel, he cancelled the trip. ….
So it seems he continued to be German-friendly, and although he disapproved of the Nazis’ violence against Jews his main problem with it seemed to have been that it was disorderly and beneath his high opinion of Germans. The Jews themselves were undoubtedly a problem, however.
More:
In 1938, the U.S. Air Attaché in Berlin invited Lindbergh to inspect the rising power of Nazi Germany’s Air Force. Impressed by German technology and the apparently large number of aircraft at their disposal and influenced by the staggering number of deaths from World War I, he opposed U.S. entry into the impending European conflict. In September 1938, he stated to the French cabinet that the Luftwaffe possessed 8,000 aircraft and could produce 1,500 per month. Although this was seven times the actual number determined by the Deuxième Bureau, it influenced France into trying to avoid conflict with Nazi Germany through the Munich Agreement. At the urging of U.S. Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, Lindbergh wrote a secret memo to the British warning that a military response by Britain and France to Hitler’s violation of the Munich Agreement would be disastrous; he claimed that France was militarily weak and Britain over-reliant on its navy. He urgently recommended that they strengthen their air power to force Hitler to redirect his aggression against “Asiatic Communism”.
Following Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland, Lindbergh opposed sending aid to countries under threat … He equated assistance with war profiteering: “To those who argue that we could make a profit and build up our own industry by selling munitions abroad, I reply that we in America have not yet reached a point where we wish to capitalize on the destruction and death of war”.
He reminds me somewhat of our current isolationists, and they even use the phrase that was used back then: “America First.”
In late 1940, Lindbergh became the spokesman of the isolationist America First Committee, soon speaking to overflow crowds at Madison Square Garden and Chicago’s Soldier Field, with millions listening by radio. He argued emphatically that America had no business attacking Germany. Lindbergh justified this stance in writings that were only published posthumously:
I was deeply concerned that the potentially gigantic power of America, guided by uninformed and impractical idealism, might crusade into Europe to destroy Hitler without realizing that Hitler’s destruction would lay Europe open to the rape, loot and barbarism of Soviet Russia’s forces, causing possibly the fatal wounding of Western civilization.
He seems to have been so focused on the evil of the Soviets that he was blind to the evils of the Nazis. Was he merely naive? I think that was part of it, but still another part was his affinity for German culture and what he saw as German “order and intelligence.” Nor was he keen on Jews. But I think he was more a German sympathizer than an actual Nazi sympathizer, although he shared their emphasis on race.
One of Lindbergh’s worst acts was a speech he gave in September of 1941 (emphasis mine):
… for an America First rally at the Des Moines Coliseum that accused three groups of “pressing this country toward war; the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration”. He said that the British were propagandizing America because they could not defeat Nazi Germany without American aid and that the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt was trying to use a war to consolidate power. The three paragraphs Lindbergh devoted to accusing American Jews of war agitation formed what biographer A. Scott Berg called “the core of his thesis”. In the speech, Lindbergh said that Jewish Americans had outsized control over government and news media (even though Jews did not compose even 3% of newspaper publishers and were only a minority of foreign policy bureaucrats), employing recognizably antisemitic tropes. The speech received a strong public backlash as newspapers, politicians, and clergy throughout the country criticized America First and Lindbergh for his remarks’ antisemitism.
Sound familiar? It certainly does to me.
Roosevelt told Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, “If I should die tomorrow, I want you to know this, I am absolutely convinced Lindbergh is a Nazi.”
Lindbergh also believed that Communism would destroy the West’s “racial strength.” However, after the war he was shocked by what was revealed to have occurred at Nazi concentration camps: “Here was a place where men and life and death had reached the lowest form of degradation. How could any reward in national progress even faintly justify the establishment and operation of such a place?”
Once the US entered the war, Lindbergh did work for the Allied war effort. But he retained his admiration for Germany, later visiting often, having several long-term affairs with women there, and fathering children with those women.
There’s a great deal more about Lindbergh, but this is already so long that I’ll just end with this, which expands on the topic of his father’s influence:
Lindbergh was the son of a Progressive Republican congressman from Minnesota. His father, Charles August Lindbergh possessed Populist agrarian views prevalent in the Midwest and adamantly opposed the so-called “Money Trust,” an alleged de facto monopoly of powerful New York bankers, led by J.P. Morgan. The farmers the senior Lindbergh represented were wary of more cosmopolitan Americans, especially bankers from the east coast. They assumed bankers were to blame for the travails of Midwestern farmers and incorrectly assumed they were primarily Jewish. Many of Lindbergh Sr.’s constituents were xenophobic and often antisemitic. These were not uncommon themes throughout the country at the time.
Unfortunately, very similar attitudes have become more common again in our time.
The fat lady hasn’t quite finished singing on Russiagate
If you want to see a good overall summary of the Byzantine twistings and turnings of Russiagate, take a look at this article by Jonathan Turley.
Here are a few excepts:
This week, we learned that the probe into the Russian conspiracy theory in Florida is moving forward with the disclosure that former FBI Director James Comey has been subpoenaed. What is different in this probe is that it is pursuing the real Russia conspiracy — the creation of a false narrative to kneecap the first Trump administration.
At issue is what could be the greatest political hit job in history. Of course, the growing evidence of this conspiracy continues to be buried by one of its key components: the media. Nevertheless, the “truth will out,” and it appears to be coming out in Florida.
That’s certainly optimistic. But how many people are still paying attention, and how many Democrats would change their minds on Russiagate at any point? Extremely few. Nevertheless, it’s good to hear that more is happening.
Ironically, the Washington Post and the New York Times received Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting promoting this Russian conspiracy hoax. The media spent years in wall-to-wall coverage of disproven allegations …
The true Pulitzer Prize-worthy story was staring the media in the face the whole time: a conspiracy to create a false conspiracy narrative to elect Clinton and later to derail the Trump administration. The latter effort succeeded with help from top intelligence figures.
A fairly good summary follows.
Iran-talk
I don’t know what to make of the news of talks with Iran. How can anyone know? We don’t even know with whom these talks are happening, or whether they’re just some sort of delaying tactic for Trump in order to get other things in place (such as Marines, or arming dissidents, or some inventive Mossad operation). We don’t know if they’re designed to get the mullahs quarreling with each other, trying to find the betrayers. We don’t know what’s in Trump’s head, or what the instructions are to the negotiators.
I can say that the very notion of negotiations with the current Iranian regime makes me very nervous, because they clearly cannot be trusted except to lie strategically. But if I know that and you know that, surely Trump and his US negotiators know that, and more.
In the meantime, here’s an article from the NY Post, for what it’s worth:
The US has sent Iran a 15-point plan and cease-fire proposal to end the war in the Middle East — and President Trump claims the regime has already agreed to a critical part of the peace framework: No nuclear weapons.
I don’t think he actually said “the regime.” He said this. Who’s the “they”?:
The 15-point plan was reportedly delivered by Pakistan. If the list is correct, you can see there’s nothing about regime change. Enforcement would be through the IAEA, which would be granted access. Sounds like the agreement to which Saddam Hussein acquiesced after the Gulf War, and which he continually violated by not letting the inspectors do their jobs.
I have been assuming for quite some time that regime change will not happen as a result of our military campaign in Iran, but that – as has been said many times – it’s up to the Iranian people. I also assume a lot is already going on behind the scenes to foster that, much of it dependent on Israel.
As for the supposed current leaders of Iran, they had some choice words about all of this:
Iran emphatically fired back at President Trump’s 15-point peace plan Wednesday – as the clerical regime reportedly fears it’s just another trick by the commander in chief.
Top military spokesperson Lt. Col. Ebrahim Zolfaghari criticized any talk of a deal between Washington and Tehran, warning “Someone like us will never come to terms with someone like you,” according to a video shared by the state-run Fars News Agency.
Zolfaghari didn’t refer to the US by name, but essentially branded Operation Epic Fury a “defeat” and accused Washington of making empty promises. …
“Have your internal conflicts reached the point where you are negotiating with yourselves?”
“Our first and last word has been the same from day one, and it will stay that way: Someone like us will never come to terms with someone like you. Not now, not ever.”
Much more at the link. It would make a good movie, I think – except this is our reality, or at least the part of our reality we’re allowed to see and hear.
Meanwhile:
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt signaled that the US military operations against Iran will continue until Trump’s objectives are met. …
Iran has made a set of demands in return, which a US official branded “ridiculous and unrealistic,” the Wall Street Journal reported.
I can well believe it. In addition, recall that a series of talks preceded the US attack on Iran – nor has that attack ended.
In related news, some countries are agreeing to take part in keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. After all, it’s to their benefit:
Over the weekend, the United Arab Emirates and Australia became the latest to join a growing list of nations, now numbering 22, offering their help to open the Strait of Hormuz.
Six — United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Japan — jointly declared their “readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait” on Thursday; another 16 have signed on since. …
And NATO Secretary Mark Rutte says the alliance is working out a timeline for a joint response: “If Iran would have the nuclear capability, together with the missile capability, it would be a direct threat, an existential threat — to Israel, to the region, to Europe, to the stability in the world.”
It remains to be seen what they will actually do. But the Iranian attacks on Cyprus, and on the far-off Diego Garcia base, have alerted Europe to a danger to themselves which they should have recognized decades ago.
Open thread 3/25/2026
Joe Kent, leaker
On March 19 I wrote this about Joe Kent:
Lastly, I wonder – with zero evidence, so this is truly just a thought – whether the investigation of Kent for leaking (an investigation which started prior to his resignation) has to do with leaking information to Carlson or Owens or both.
Well, consider this new information, courtesy of Ace:
So here’s the story as alleged:
A TPUSA employee named Andrew Kolvet says he wanted to leave no stone unturned in the search for Charlie Kirk’s killer. This was in the early hours after the murder, before police discovered the rifle with Tyler Robinson’s fingerprints on it, and his texts telling his gay furry lover he was going to do something wonderful.
Kolvet knew Joe Kent. He passed to Kent some private DMs of Charlie Kirk — if I have this right — complaining that one Jewish donor had stopped funding TPUSA because he didn’t like the organization platforming confirmed antisemitic monsters Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson. Kovet’s idea — stupid from the start — was apparently that maybe this Jewish donor might have killed Charlie Kirk.
Kolvet claims he never believed this, but that he wanted to make sure every possible avenue of investigation was open. It’s silly, but I’m sure he wasn’t thinking quite straight in the hours after his friend was murdered.
He trusted that Joe Kent would act like a responsible government official in handling the texts in a responsible, official way.
Instead, antisemtic Nazi conspiracy theorist Joe Kent began demanding that Kolvet make the chats public. Kent wasn’t investigating the texts; he was trying to create a podcaster “investigation” and public witch-hunt.
Not long after that, Owens got hold of the texts:
Kovett’s conclusion is — and it seems hard to doubt — that Joe Kent was a determined conspiracy theorist who could not let go of the idea that Jews Killed Charlie Kirk, even after the proof emerged that the killer was a non-Jewish furry-fucker. And after Kolvett repeatedly refused to make the chats public, Kent gave them to Candace Owens (and probably Tucker Carlson too, although Owens could have given them to Carlson).
Note that Joe Kent was a government official and ostensibly a high-ranking counter-terrorism official, but decided to leak private DMs he had been given in his capacity as government official to an extremely unreliable and toxic internet personality.
The texts were the beginning of her “the Jews killed Kirk” smear campaign, which later morphed into all sorts of other accusations. It’s certainly possible that it wasn’t Kent who gave her the texts, but the timing plus intent certainly makes it reasonable to suspect that he was the source.
Oh, and this: the same Andrew Kolvet now says that Kent has “reportedly indicated he is willing to testify on behalf of [Tyler Robinson’s defense], to get Robinson off the hook for an evil he committed.”
This is terrible stuff, if true. You can read much much more at Ace’s.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the …
… rule the – what?
Certainly not the waves:
“Currently the Royal Navy has 63 commissioned ships. But of this number only 25 are really fighting ships. That is submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates. The balance are support patrol and survey vessels which, though armed, are not true fighting warships.”
“Britain is of course involved with a variety of defense tasks worldwide. But due to endless defense cuts, the Navy is hard-pressed to fulfill them. So of the fighting ships in 2026, Britain possesses ten submarines, two aircraft carriers, six destroyers, and seven frigates.”
“Such a small fleet might be sufficient for a small nation engaged only in self-defense. But Britain still has some 15 overseas territories, many of which, like the Falkland Islands, require naval protection.”
Much more at the link.
I used the song “Rule, Britannia!” in the title of this post. Then I became curious to see the rest of the words. First, the chorus, which is repeated many times:
Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves
Some of the verses minus the chorus:
… till more majestic shalt thou rise
More dreadful from each foreign stroke
More dreadful from each foreign stoke
As the loud blast that tears the skies
Serves but to root thy native oak …Thee haughty tyrants ne’er shall tame
All their attempts to bend thee down
All their, all their attempts to bend thee down
Will but arouse thy generous flame
To work their woe, and thy renown.
Well, what can you say? It was written in 1740.
