Yes indeed, February is the shortest month. Whoosh! It just went by.
Fetterman will not become a Republican
He says so. And I believe him. He has few commonalities with GOP policies. But what he does have is some sort of integrity of the sort Democrats used to have long ago when I was a child. He doesn’t name-call Republicans, and he often says common-sense things.
That does not mean he has any intention of switching parties. His stance also is a way to keep favor with voters in Pennsylvania, which – unlike so many large states – is not blue.
The left now ♥ Tucker Carlson on Iran
Ace discusses how Tucker Carlson – who is totally against any sort of action against Iran – has now become the darling of the left (such as Ben Rhodes) on this issue.
Of course he has. I’ve noticed myself how the pro-Carlson commenters to his YouTube videos (be they bots or be they actual people) frame any US attack on Iran as evidence that Trump is Israel’s puppet, and ignore the fact that we have our own reasons for wanting regime change there.
From Ace:
… Tucker Carlson, who is not antisemitic, wants you to know that he is no coward and was not afraid to step into Israel proper …
In explaining that he’s not a coward who is afraid of Israel, he says that he asked the US to tell Israel the exact plane he was on, because this Non-Antisemitic Non-Coward really believed that Israel, which is “fighting a war with seven different countries,” was plotting to shoot his airplane out of the sky and then claim they thought it was an “Iranian Drone,” and he wanted Huckabee to tell them specifically he was on this plane so that Israel could not murder him by anti-aircraft missile and then pretend they didn’t know.
He cites the totally non-antisemitic USS Liberty trope to show that Pefidious Jews love doing that kind of thing. (He continues insisting Israel knew it was an American ship, even though the NSA has released intercepted radio transmissions showing that Israel had identified the ship as Egyptian.)
The hate-Israel group is very very big on the Liberty incident and ignores all the evidence that Israel attacked the ship by mistake and has made amends. Carlson cites the incident quite a bit, always indicating (falsely) that it’s a well-known fact that Israel knew it was a US ship. Carlson referenced this during his recent interview with Mike Huckabee, also saying that Israel is the world’s “most violent country,” as though Israel has been the aggressor in its wars against those who continually attack its citizens. (I watched much of the lengthy Huckabee interview and hope to write about it soon. But for now, suffice to say there’s a reason some people call him “Liar Tuck.”)
Ace writes, in that same post:
Tucker Carlson got sick of being called antisemitic by the perfidious Satanic Jews who drink Christian babies’ blood, and so he reached out to one of these Jewish Mind-Controllers to ask him how he could convince the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy to stop calling him antisemitic.
This particular Perfidious Jew, Yoram Hazony, told him he could start by ending his constant claims that Jews are engaged in a constant aggression against Christians and start all the wars in the world for no reason at all except to spread the Nefarious Jew Conspiracy.
Tucker Carlson then said, “Short of that, I mean.”
Or words to that effect. Tucker did not want to stop accusing Jews of conspiring against Christians, he just wanted the Jews to stop noticing he can’t stop accusing Jews of conspiring against Christians.
[ADDENDUM:
I think people who haven’t watched Tucker in the last year probably haven’t a clue how loathsome (a good word for him) he’s become. People who do imitations of him, such as the brilliant Ami Kozak, may seem as though they’re exaggerating wildly, but it’s actually only a tiny bit if at all.
Tucker is not only loathsome, he’s a dangerous man because he trades on his previous reputation and uses it now to spread Jew-hating lies, and he does so while claiming to be a Christian and to be working for Christianity.
Candace Owens does something similar, but what she says about Jews is even worse, and her previous reputation wasn’t as good.]
[ADDENDUM II:
For those of you who are wondering “what happened to Tucker Carlson?”, I suggest you read my 3-part series on the subject, particularly the first part.
Part I can be found here.
Part II can be found here.
Part III can be found here.]
What’s on tap for Iran?
I make no predictions on this. But a lot of people reading the tea leaves think some sort of attack is imminent. There’s this, for example:
Now it appears that the State Department has begun moving non-essential options out of the way – a warning, perhaps, that Trump has tired of circular arguments from Tehran.
The timing and the choice both seem significant. First, the US has begun moving non-essential personnel from Iraq, likely the closest and most vulnerable target for Iran’s proxy militias …
More pointedly, the State Department ordered the same evacuation in Israel …
That seems like a very clear signal that the talks in Oman did not go well. The urgency of these moves is another indicator that the talks produced nothing more than the same demands from Iran to keep enriching uranium and the same refusals to discuss their ballistic missiles and terror proxies.
I have always felt the talks with Iran are some sort of stalling tactic. But I also think an attack will be very hard to pull off successfully (and it certainly won’t be an invasion), and that there’s quite a bit of disagreement within the administration on what to do, and when to do it.
On the difficulty of getting accurate statistics on illegal aliens and US crime
Today commenter “Snow on Pine” offered this link on the subject, which says:
[Crime rates are] almost always statistical projections.
Look, if we can’t accurately quantify crime stats in a closed ecosystem like cybersecurity, we don’t have a prayer of tabulating crime rates everywhere else. Too many variables. …
Some states explicitly prohibit the police from asking about or tracking the data. You also have the problem of unsolved crimes: If you don’t catch the perpetrator, you’ll never know who did it.
Furthermore, it’s reasonable to assume that someone who’s cagey enough (or well-connected enough) to illegally cross the border, live in the shadows, and evade authorities would likely be a more successful criminal than your Average Joe. And if illegal immigrants are targeting other illegal immigrants, that increases the probability of the victim staying silent — for very obvious reasons.
There’s much much more of interest at the link. However, as the article points out, one indicator is the fact that the crime rate has fallen just about simultaneously with the deportation crackdown – although even that could be a coincidence, albeit an unlikely one. Social science research – which criminology research basically is – is very difficult to do in a way that indicates an unequivocal cause/effect relationship.
Remember back in 2015 when Trump first announced he was running for president and there was a huge megative reaction from the press and Democrats when he spoke about illegal aliens and crime? Funny thing, but the very first post I wrote about Trump’s candidacy, back in early July of 2015, was on that topic. It’s worth going back to it to see that one of the main points was how much flak Trump was getting for pointing out the phenomenon, and how very difficult it was to confirm whether or not he was correct, and to what extent.
A few excerpts:
Let’s look at what he actually said:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump said. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
“And some I assume are good people,” he added.
But it’s not just Mexico that’s dumping all of it’s problems in the U.S., Trump continued. “It’s coming from all over South and Latin America and it’s coming probably, probably, from the Middle East. We don’t know.” …
Then I offered a bunch of links that to some extent backed up what he was saying. If you’re interested, go to the post and read the whole thing. One of the things I wrote was this:
The media and liberals are hyper-concerned with campus rapes whose high numbers are largely a myth. But they seem to show little concern for [women raped by illegal aliens, either while in transit or in the US] – as long as it’s Trump bringing it up.
And here we are nearly ten years later. What a long strange trip it’s been.
[NOTE: I was writing about the topic of the difficulty of getting statistics on illegal aliens and crime even before Trump’s candidacy. For example, please see this detailed post on the subject from July of 2014.]
Open thread 2/27/2026
So wonderful:
Roundup
(1) Schumer’s answer, when asked why Democrats didn’t stand when Trump said to stand if they believe that “The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens,” was: “Of course we support Americans; we’re not going to be a prop in Donald Trump’s little show.”
Chuck Schumer says Democrats didn't stand when President Trump said our government should work for Americans, not illegals because he didn't want to be a "prop."
Democrats have made it clear: they do not care about the American people.? pic.twitter.com/tLcmycJnmO
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) February 25, 2026
Ah, but the Democrats love to put on their own “little shows” – wearing all white, dramatically ripping up the SOTU address, yelling at Trump, boycotting the address. The other irony is that, by refusing to stand, they guaranteed that they would earn a place as the villains in “Trump’s little show.”
(2) J. D. Vance makes this observation about the Democrats’ repeated refusal to stand during the speech:
But I will say, Bill, something that I saw that probably most TV viewers didn’t see was really the cowardice, because there were a few Democrats who sort of politely clapped. They didn’t want to stand up. I guess maybe they were worried about being primaried by the far-left fringe of their party. But they were all looking around. They weren’t actually saying, you know what, I’m going to stand and support this because this is a common-sense, obvious statement. They were all looking around for cues from their colleagues, because they didn’t have the courage to stand on their own.
I don’t doubt it. You can call it “party discipline,” but it’s actually quite chilling.
(3) Dueling Trump impersonators:
I prefer Kozak, although they’re both good. Kozak’s Tucker is astounding, though, and even more so if you’re really familiar with Carlson’s mannerisms. It seems like an exaggeration but it resembles the real Carlson quite closely.
(4) Wine seems to be losing popularity:
Jon Phillips, the owner of Sonoma County winery Inspiration Vineyards and Winery, told The Post that the population decline of the industry’s top wine-consuming generation has led to a recent downturn in sales.
“A lot of people have a misconception that the Boomers are drinking less,” he said. “This cannot be emphasized enough: it’s not because the Boomers are drinking less, it’s because there are less Boomers.”
That would be fewer Boomers, not less. But you get the idea. As a non-drinker, I know next to nothing about this. Looking it up just now, I find the following:
The 2025 sample included nearly 5,000 U.S. adults over the age of 21, balanced to the U.S. census for age, income, education, gender, and ethnicity. It found that 31% of wine drinkers are now Millennials, surpassing Baby Boomers at 26%, whose share has dropped significantly from 32% in 2023. Gen Z’s share also climbed from 9% to 14%, despite only half the cohort currently being of legal drinking age.
“These findings show both opportunities and challenges,” said Liz Thach, President of the Wine Market Council, who presented the results alongside Research Director Christian Miller during a recent webinar for WMC members. “We’ve seen gains among Millennials and Gen Z; however, the industry is concurrently experiencing a decline in overall wine consumers.”
“What is interesting about this change is that despite all the talk about young consumers reducing alcohol, the largest erosion we found was in Baby Boomers – consumers over 60 years of age,” stated Christian Miller.
So again, is it because there are fewer Boomers around? It’s not clear. However, it’s part of an overall decline in alcohol consumption, with “beer, spirits, and wine sales all experiencing declines in the past year.” Is that because cannabis consumption is up? That’s my guess. And it appears to be a distinct possibility.
(5) Thune says the SAVE Act will come to the Senate floor. That does not mean it will pass; there aren’t enough GOP votes to go with the nuclear option or impose a talking filibuster, as far as I can see.
India ♥ Israel – for now
Modi and Bibi seem very buddy-buddy (see the photos at the link, as well):
In a clear message to the region emphasizing the strength of their alliance, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged on Wednesday to work in lockstep to confront Islamist terrorism, with the Indian leader telling the Knesset in a historic address that his nation stands “firmly” with the Jewish state.
“India stands with Israel firmly with full conviction in this moment and beyond,” Modi told lawmakers during a special session in the Knesset honoring the Indian premier, the first time an Indian leader has addressed Israel’s parliament.
The two long-serving leaders have developed a famously close personal relationship — occasionally uncomfortably so — reflecting a strategic relationship that has been expanding steadily for decades. …
In the Knesset on Wednesday, Modi called Israel “a protective wall against barbarism,” echoing language that Netanyahu has used when speaking to Western audiences.
Netanyahu wants to create a regional alliance to counter Iran’s alliances.
From Modi:
The massacre of October 7 made it absolutely clear: either the jihadist axis of evil will break us, or we will break it …
If you want to learn more about the history of Israel/India relations, see this.
Open thread 2/26/2026
Let’s revisit the ways to prove citizenship under the SAVE Act
I see there’s some disagreement in the comments today about how hard it is to prove citizenship under the proposed SAVE Act.
From commenter “Betsybounds”:
This is an interesting read: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/
Among the interesting information it presents, there is this:
“Although at least one of these documents are in theory available to most citizens, not all voters have them readily available. According to recent studies:
… 11% of registered voters do not have access to their birth certificate.”
From commenter “Niketas Choniates”:
I’m sorry, your source is completely lying here. I followed the link in your link which goes to a Substack and it did not say this.
What it said was 89% of people in the survey said they had their birth certificate. It did not say they “do not have access” to their birth certificate or cannot get it. It is very, very easy to get a copy of your birth certificate, and you can get 100 copies if you want.
I did the same as Niketas, just to make sure. While it’s true that the article Betsybounds linked to did say “11% of registered voters do not have access to their birth certificate,” it included a link to this piece as the source of that information. That latter article makes it clear the reference is to people not actually having copies of their birth certificates in their possession, and not to people not having access to birth certificates. The latter group is nothing remotely like 11%.
Some sources I’ve seen use the term “readily available,” which is also misleading. No, the birth certificate might not already be in the person’s nightstand, but the document is ordinarily available with a modicum of effort. Fees are usually minimal, and can sometimes be waived entirely for various forms of financial hardship.
Some people who find it hard to get birth certificates are naturalized citizens who were born in war-torn countries where records have been destroyed, but those people would have naturalization papers and those can be used to prove citizenship.
Plus, most people discussing this issue completely ignore another alternate means of proving citizenship under the law:
Subject to any relevant guidance adopted by the Election Assistance Commission, each State shall establish a process under which an applicant who cannot provide documentary proof of United States citizenship under paragraph (1) may, if the applicant signs an attestation under penalty of perjury that the applicant is a citizen of the United States and eligible to vote in elections for Federal office, submit such other evidence to the appropriate State or local official demonstrating that the applicant is a citizen of the United States and such official shall make a determination as to whether the applicant has sufficiently established United States citizenship for purposes of registering to vote in elections for Federal office in the State.
“(ii) AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENT.—If a State or local official makes a determination under clause (i) that an applicant has sufficiently established United States citizenship for purposes of registering to vote in elections for Federal office in the State, such determination shall be accompanied by an affidavit developed under clause (iii) signed by the official swearing or affirming the applicant sufficiently established United States citizenship for purposes of registering to vote.
There’s an awful lot of propaganda floating around about this and so many other things. When in doubt, best to go to the source, the original material if possible.
Spanberger gives the SOTU rebuttal
Why Spanberger? Maybe because she’s a relatively new face, she’s under eighty years old (actually, she’s forty-six), and she’s a white woman with various college degrees. Thus she represents a very large portion of the Democrat demographic.
Spanberger hammered home the message of “affordability,” which the Democrats apparently think is the way to win. After all, it helped get Spanberger into the Virginia governor’s seat, and it also made Mamdani New York’s mayor. From Spanberger:
She began her remarks by telling Americans that “tonight … we did not hear the truth from our president.”
After claiming that President Donald Trump’s tariff policies were making the price of goods more expensive, she told a whopper: “But here in Virginia,” she said, “I am working with our state legislature to lower costs and make the Commonwealth more affordable.” …
After campaigning on affordability, her administration unveiled a series of tax increase bills within the first 48 hours of her inauguration. And these tax hikes weren’t aimed solely at high-income earners; most targeted ordinary Virginians. The sheer speed and scope of this legislative blitz drew immediate criticism, with detractors branding it a classic bait-and-switch. The sweeping power grab quickly commanded national attention, dominating headlines for weeks. And no one has forgotten.
The bills included the creation of two higher tax brackets of 8% and 10% on people making over $600,000; a 4.3% sales tax on services like Uber rides, DoorDash, and Amazon deliveries; a 3.8% investment tax; an increase in hotel taxes; a new personal property tax on landscaping equipment; a $500 sales tax on firearm suppressors; an 11% sales tax on all firearms and ammunition; and more.
It’s almost as though Democrats consider “affordability” a magic word, an “open sesame” spell that gets them into office, after which they can redistribute wealth to their hearts’ content.
NOTE: In the comments at the link, I found this:
“Her full remarks can be viewed below.”
Thank you. No.
I’d rather listen to Yoko Ono’s greatest hits.
The predictable Democrats at the SOTU
Trump knew they wouldn’t be standing or applauding for things that the vast majority of Americans favor, and he used that fact to castigate them. Some Democrats also yelled at him; John Fetterman had warned his fellow Democrats against that sort of thing, but they couldn’t resist:
“I mean, there’s just no dignity if you have paddles, if you are yelling and saying those kinds of things,” Fetterman said. “I mean, you can agree or disagree on things, but if you’re going to show up, just do it with dignity because, you know, really need to respect the office.”
So far, I haven’t been able to find out whether Fetterman actually stood for things like the following. If so, he would have been lonely:
There was more where that came from. As they say: the campaign ads write themselves.
Will it matter, though? Does that sort of thing change any minds?
[ADDENDUM: Here are four picks from the SOTU for campaign ads.]