Getting ready for the storm?
Seems like an unusually quiet day in the comments. Partying, or getting ready for the storm?
Jack Smith tries to run out the clock in his Congressional testimony
Ace covers the story quite thoroughly. A few excerpts:
Brandon Gill grilled Jack Smith on three points:
1, why he had sought the phone records of the incoming Speaker of the House, extending back a year, when he had just become speaker 16 days earlier. This makes it look very much look like a purely political witch-hunt, as Johnson did not have power to run interference for Trump before hand.
2, why he sought these phone records in defiance of a warning from a Biden attorney that doing so would be a violation of the Speech and Debate Clause. (A clause which says that no member of Congress shall be subject to legal process for any statement they make in Congress (later extended to cover any statement they make outside of Congress, so long as it’s part of their work as a congressman.)
3, why he claimed that Mike Johnson was a “flight risk” when he told Johnson’s phone company to hide the fact that his records had been granted to a third party. Jack Smith claimed that keeping this secret was necessary to make sure that Johnson did not take flight from prosecution.
He now admits that Johnson was no flight risk. …
Jack Smith is asking to have questions re-asked because each congresman only has five minutes total time, and he wants to waste as much Republican time as possible endlessly repeating and clarifying questions.
Just think how much power Smith had just a while ago, and how much he probably will have again if the Democrats take the helm any time soon.
Much much more at the link.
The anti-ICE lies that get halfway round the world
Whether or not it was Mark Twain who said it, it certainly is an astute and still-relevant observation: that a lie spreads fast and is often impossible to correct.
There are many variations on the theme. The first that’s documented is by Swift:
Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…
Hear, hear.
Other versions:
By the early 19th century, the idea had spread to the United States and, by 1820 (fifteen years before Twain was born), “the truth” was trying to pull on its boots before starting out after the lie. Various 19th century versions of this have “the truth” pulling on “her boots” or “lacing up her boots.” (Probably because, in classical artistic representation, “truth” often took a feminine form.)
At roughly the same time, people began referring to a lie travelling from “Maine to Georgia” while truth was still putting on its boots.
Liars and propagandists are well aware of the phenomenon, which means that lies are a tactic that often works. It’s a tactic the left has come to use very often, because the MSM is simpatico and complicit in the spread of such lies. That’s invaluable, as is social media.
Which brings us to the fact that last night I was in the company of a friend who was listening to the nightly network news, and it was full of references to some pathetic 5-year-old who supposedly was cruelly mistreated by ICE. And yet today we have this:
A Thursday update to the article said the Department of Homeland Security had confirmed to KARE that both Liam and his father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, were at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas.
DHS informed the media outlet that “its agents tried to get Liam’s mother to take the boy but she allegedly refused and ‘abandoned’ him.”
In the meantime, Omar’s one-sided version of events posted the previous evening had quickly set off a firestorm on social media. The sensational claim that ICE had arrested a lone five-year-old raced across the Twitterverse overnight, triggering widespread outrage among the Left. Countless users echoed the story uncritically, denouncing ICE and amplifying what DHS later described as a false narrative — before the underlying facts had a chance to emerge.
Conservative influencer Allie Beth Stuckey described the internet reaction in a post on X:
“On Instagram, it’s 2020 all over again. Women, including many, many Christian women, are being completely duped by the anti-ICE propaganda. Believed the “ICE arrested a lone 5-year-old” completely. It’s demoralizing. I am working HARD in my DMs and posts and on my show trying to combat this nonsense and appeal to these women. However, I felt like I was the only white evangelical woman questioning BLM in 2020, and I don’t feel as alone now. There are more of us 5 years later, and I am grateful for that.”
On Thursday morning, DHS published a statement to set the record straight. The agency wrote:
“ICE did NOT target a child. The child was ABANDONED.”
The left doesn’t care. Most of the watchers and readers of the MSM probably don’t care – those images of the child are burned into the brain along with the story.
And this:
ICE agents took that 5-year-old boy in Minnesota to MCDONALD’S, and “played his favorite music to comfort him”
McDonald’s? That’s child abuse right there.
[NOTE: And here’s a list of recently-debunked hoaxes about ICE.]
Open thread 1/23/2026
Fresh water under the ocean
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
This intrigues me:
A giant reservoir of “secret” fresh water off the East Coast that could potentially supply a city the size of New York City for 800 years may have formed during the last ice age, when the region was covered in glaciers, researchers say.
Preliminary analyses suggest the reservoir, which sits beneath the seafloor and appears to stretch from offshore New Jersey as far north as Maine, was locked in place under frigid conditions around 20,000 years ago, hinting that it formed in the last glacial period due, partly, to thick ice sheets.
That’s pretty nifty.
And then there’s the Board of Peace
An strange title, descriptive of a lofty goal and somehow sounding like something out of Orwell: The Board of Peace.
At issue is not a lack of goodwill or insufficient urgency around Gaza. Rather, the problem is structural. The Board’s design, scope, and governance diverge sharply from the mandate provided by UN Security Council Resolution 2803, which authorized a Gaza-specific, UN-anchored, and time-limited stabilization mechanism linked to a credible political horizon. Instead, the Board of Peace was introduced as a quasi-permanent institution, chaired for life, funded through high entry fees, and endowed—at least rhetorically—with ambitions extending well beyond Gaza. Notably, the word “Gaza” does not appear in the Board’s charter at all.
These choices were not lost on the international community. Nor were they merely inferred. Trump himself publicly suggested that the Board might one day replace or supersede the United Nations, and he repeatedly floated roles for the Board beyond the Gaza context. For many governments, this raised unavoidable questions about institutional overlap, mandate creep, and the erosion of existing international frameworks. The result has been hesitation where unity was expected — and absence where legitimacy was required.
“Unity was expected”? Give me a break. The article goes on to say that Europe’s leaders think it threatens the UN – which I am pretty sure it does, but that’s a feature rather than a bug. Speaking of “legitimacy,” the UN has lost all it ever had.
And about those Arab nations:
The pattern among Muslim-majority states is more nuanced, but no less revealing. Eight such states joined the Board, yet none of the Arab signatories did so at the head-of-state level. This was not accidental. It was a signal.
Across the Muslim world, there is broad consensus on a core point: without the Palestinian Authority, there can be no unified Palestinian governance, and without unified governance, there can be no credible path to statehood.
I think the last thing they actually want is Palestinian statehood.
Then there’s Jared Kushner’s presentation on Gaza:
Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, who played a leading role in brokering that agreement, leaned into optimism …
A map of Gaza was pulled up on a screen to show how the enclave would be developed.
A “coastal tourism” zone would run along the seafront — long enough for up to 180 skyscrapers, many likely earmarked as hotels. …
Kushner highlighted two urban developments, which he referred to as New Rafah and New Gaza.
At “New Rafah,” more than 100,000 permanent housing units would be built, along with over 200 schools and more than 75 medical facilities, he said. He expressed hope that the construction would be completed within two to three years. Work has already begun to remove the rubble, he said. …
“New Gaza” is to be a center of industry, with the aim of achieving 100% full employment, Kushner said. Computer-generated images suggest a metropolis bearing a strong resemblance to Persian Gulf cities like Doha and Dubai, with gleaming waterside accommodations and office locations. …
The presentation said that heavy weapons, tunnels, military infrastructure, munitions and production facilities will be destroyed, but it did not dictate how the process will be carried out.
Seems like a fantasy – to put it mildly – albeit a pleasant one. It would take a great deal more than real estate to transform a population raised on hate and destruction into this vision. The optimistic point of view says that the people in charge of this aren’t naive idiots (after all, the Abraham Accords probably seemed absurdly unrealistic at first) but time will tell.
“Trump is right” …
… says NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at Davos.
Yes, he did say that:
And when it comes to the Arctic, I think President Trump is right, other leaders in NATO are right: we need to defend the Arctic. We know that the sea lanes are opening up. We know that China and Russia are increasingly active in the Arctic. There are eight countries bordering on the Arctic. Seven are a member of NATO, that’s Finland and Sweden and Norway and Denmark, Iceland, Canada and the US. And there’s only one country bordering on the Arctic outside NATO, that’s Russia.
And I would argue there is a ninth country, which is China, which is increasingly active in the Arctic region. So, President Trump and other leaders are right. We have to do more there. We have to protect the Arctic against Russian and Chinese influence. And that is exactly what NATO ambassadors decided to do in September. We are working on that, making sure that, collectively, will we defend the Arctic region. …
There was one big irritant on the on the American side with NATO, and the big irritant, since Eisenhower, was that they were spending, the US was spending, so much more than Europe was spending. Even today, the US is spending 3.5% of GDP on core defence; we are spending in Europe average 2% on defence. And here’s my question to the audience. I mean, many of you, I know, criticize Donald Trump, but do you really think that without Donald Trump, eight big economies in Europe, including Spain and Italy and Belgium, Canada, by the way, also outside Europe, would have come to 2% in 2025 when they were only on 1.5% at the beginning of the year?
No way. Without Donald Trump, this would never have happened. They are all on 2% now.
On this Twitter thread from Fox News about Rutte’s remarks, about half the responses are anti-Trump.
I seem to recall that Trump has been harping on this “Europe doesn’t pay its share of defense” message for a long time. He seems to be making good on the goal of making them pay more of their share.
Oh, and Greenland? Stay tuned, but here’s what he’s saying now:
Based on a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations — They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
… [E]ssentially it’s total access. It’s, there’s no end, there’s no time limit. We’re not doing a 99 or 10 year or anything else. You know, the famous 99 year deals that you hear about because countries can’t do it for that countries go on longer. And so I think it’s going to be something that’s very well. Already it’s being reviewed very well. Well, I noticed the stock market went up very substantially after we announced it, but the details are being negotiated now. It’ll be very good.
Pipe dream? Empty braggadocio? I doubt the details will be as rosy as that picture, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the results are advantageous to both the US and Europe – and maybe even to the people of Greenland.
Open thread 1/22/2026
I don’t think the fat lady has yet sung regarding an Iran attack
U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. forces in the region, confirmed the squadron’s presence in the Middle East with an official photo posted on social media Jan. 20. C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft have also flown from Britain to the Middle East on missions that appear to be supporting the fighter squadron’s deployment.
“The F-15’s presence enhances combat readiness and promotes regional security and stability,” CENTCOM wrote in a post on X accompanying the photo. The command did not offer any further comment.
The U.S. military has also dispatched an aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, to the Middle East. …
Speaking during a press conference at the White House on Jan. 20, Trump left open the option of some military action against Iran.
“We’re just going to have to see what happens with Iran. There’s a military option,” Trump said.
In recent days, Trump has also suggested he wants the Iranian regime to fall.
“It’s time to look for new leadership in Iran,” he told POLITICO Jan. 17.
The beefed-up American airpower could assuage fears that the U.S. does not have enough firepower in the region, particularly if even more aircraft are deployed.
It’s even possible that the threats regarding Greenland were cover for whatever might be going on militarily regarding Iran.
One thing about Trump, he keeps everyone guessing – even the people who think they have him all figured out for good or for evil.
Greenland clarification
Trump says no, he’s not going to attack Greenland:
President Donald Trump told the World Economic Forum that he won’t use force to take Greenland from Denmark.
“We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won’t do that,” Trump said, reported by Politico. “That’s probably the biggest statement I made, because people thought I would use force, but I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force.”
Trump also reinforced that him wanting Greenland has nothing to do with power or greed.
It has to do with protection:
“We want a piece of ice for world protection… We’ve never asked for anything else—and we could have kept that piece of land, and we didn’t. So, they have a choice. You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.”
The reference is to Golden Dome.
I tend to assume that Trump is very strategic and tactical, even when it sounds like he’s impulsively mouthing off. That doesn’t always mean the mouthing off works as planned. Sometimes it doesn’t, although more often it has. Was his previous insinuation that maybe he would use force a tactical feint? I think probably, to make the alternative – negotiating and ultimately giving in – seem better to the Europeans. Was it counterproductive? I don’t know.
Much-appreciated longtime commenter “Paolo Pagliaro” gave the view from Italy yesterday, before Trump backed off on the consideration of using force:
You can bet that “Trump’s mild saber-rattling about Greenland gives his enemies ammunition for stirring up fear.”
Promising to get your hands on a land legitimately belonging to another country who did nothing to you, and with which you could entertain any kind of joint collaboration, resorting to bullying from the beginning, is not a great strategy to win consensus and trust, to say the least.The vast, vast majority of the people here in Europe is now convinced that Trump is a deranged buffoon bent on destroying everything in order to appease his ego: the media is immensely partisan, but why should they think differently? No one is normally interested in spending time understanding what’s really happening in the US, if the PotUS never tries to be diplomatic and his standard approach is “if you don’t obey I will punish you, because I only do my interests”.
On Greenland Trump is simply wrong: you can have all the legit reason to desire this land, but once you assert your **right** to it just because you are interested, what can you say to China or any Communist regime?
Of course, as Paolo indicates, most of Europe and the European press probably already think Trump is “a deranged buffon bent on destroying everything in order to appease his ego.” So perhaps his initial hint at using force over Greenland doesn’t matter because they already detest and fear him quite enough. What was it that Machiavelli (another Italian) wrote – that if you can’t be both loved and feared, it’s better to be feared than loved. I imagine Trump has taken that counsel to heart.
At any rate, his explanation makes sense – at least to me. I make no predictions about what will happen in subsequent negotiations.
[NOTE: This has little to do with the post, but it has to do with Greenland.
I once was coming back from Europe and flew over Greenland on a very clear day. It was exceptionally beautiful, with the icebergs sparkling in the sun.
And this song comes to mind: