… some of you may have again encountered the “too many requests” message blocking the site for about an hour or so. My apologies; it’s very frustrating. However, today I spoke with a tech person from the host who was a great deal more helpful than usual. She not only fixed it for now, but she gave me some pointers for the future that I hope will work.
Time … will … tell …
Susan Rice hasn’t held elective office, but she’s been heavily involved in diplomacy, government, and Democrat politics as the ultimate insider. Now she’s trash-talking – not especially diplomatic, to say the least – in anticipation of holding the reins of power once again:
What [Trump] is doing, whether on the economy and affordability or on immigration, now, is not popular, and that there is likely to be a swing in the other direction, and they are going to be caught with more than their pants down.
They’re going to be held accountable by those who come in opposition to Trump and win at the ballot box. And I can tell you, Preet, you know, as I talked to leaders in Washington, leaders in our party, leaders in the states, if these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to, you know, play by the old rules, and, you know, and say, oh, never mind, we’ll forgive you for all the people you’ve fired, all the policies and principles you’ve violated, all you know, the laws you’ve skirted. I think they’ve got another thing coming because, you know, just like when Trump thought, “Okay, I’ll redistrict and the Democrats won’t have the guts to play hardball.”
They’re going to be surprised. Democrats have had a belly full, and we’re not going to play by, you know, the old set of rules. When these guys are playing by a very different set of rules, we’re going to play by the law, but that’s, we’re not going to violate the law the way they do, but we’re not going to be suckers.
Yes, indeed – Democrats are finally going to take those gloves off. They’ve been so restrained till now. It would be funny if it weren’t serious.
Who does she think she’s fooling with this “we’ve been so virtuous till now” routine? Democrat voters, that’s who. I believe most of them sincerely believe this.
And the idea that Democrats never gerrymandered till now is also ludicrous. But Rice is counting on people’s ignorance, and it’s not a bad bet.
And no, she’s not even especially old. Although it seems she’s been around for a long long time, I was surprised to see that she’s only 61. By today’s political standards, practically a teenager.
I simply had to click on this headline in the NY Post: “Skull of ‘dinosaur from Hell’ discovered with sword jutting from its head.”
Alas, not a sword. No duel with a dinosaur. The find was, “the skull of a supersized dinosaur from ‘hell’ with a swordlike horn protruding from its head … ”
There’s quite a difference between a sword and a swordlike horn. Not that I imagined there really would be a sword in a dinosaur, but I was curious to see the article anyway. This was the discovery:
According to the researcher, the primeval predator was a formidable-looking specimen, boasting a distinctive sail-finned back, and perhaps, most uniquely, a 20-inch scimitar-like bone jutting from its dome. …
In real life, this gangly creature was more akin to an oversized egret, pursuing fish and other aquatic prey, which it trapped using its long snout and rows of interlocking teeth.
In the photo, the “sword” looks something like a rhino horn to me.
A Virginia judge on Thursday blocked an April 21 referendum in the state on redrawing the state’s congressional maps, marking the latest legal hurdle in a string of challenges to the Democratic-led initiative.
The Tazewell County Circuit Court ordered a halt to voting after the Republican National Committee and state GOP filed a challenge to the vote. …
It remains unclear how the referendum will proceed, though the state Supreme Court has previously declined to block the vote altogether and a separate case is expected to continue on the merits.
So the fat lady hasn’t even begun to sing on this.
The hearing appears to be scheduled for March 18; that’s why I wrote “for now.”
More here:
In his written ruling, [Judge] Hurley found the plaintiffs have an “extraordinarily high likelihood of success on the merits,” including their claim that the referendum violates the timing requirement of Article XII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution because early voting is set for “sooner than 90 days after” the January passage of House Joint Resolution 4.
Hurley also found the ballot language — particularly the phrase “restore fairness” — is likely misleading and violates the Constitution because it “would lead a voter to believe he or she were doing something unfair by voting against the proposed amendment.”
The order states that “the equities of this case warrant temporary relief ‘for the limited purpose of preserving the status quo between the parties pending a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction.’”
The referendum was scheduled for April 21, with early voting scheduled to start March 6.
Alongside California, Virginia has become one of Democrats’ best opportunities to gain U.S. House seats in the upcoming midterms through redistricting. Under the current map, Democrats hold a narrow 6-5 edge in Virginia’s congressional delegation. The proposed map would boost that advantage to 10-1.
President Donald Trump received 46% of the vote in Virginia in 2024, Republicans note, but they contend the new map would reduce GOP representation to roughly 9% of the delegation.
Is there anything gerrymandering can’t do?
It seems a lot of people on the right who have followed this case closely are not especially surprised. I didn’t follow it closely, but I still am not especially surprised. It seems that he can still impose tariffs under other statutes – perhaps.
The power to impose duties is the power to create revenue streams, and the framers of the Constitution understood the dangers of allowing the executive as both head of state and head of government its own independent revenue. Kings had those powers before Parliament became supreme in England, and for a while afterward as well. Trump and his team had proposed at times that he could exert full authority over tariff revenue without seeking approval from Congress, which makes this a very apt concern about crossing those boundaries. Tariffs imposed by Congress create revenue streams they control, and can then appropriate as they see fit, allowing them to use the power of the purse to oversee and check executive authority.
This is the reason I have always been skeptical that Trump would succeed in a challenge to these tariffs, at least under the emergency powers of the IEEPA. However, that’s not the only way in which Trump could justify these tariffs. Jonathan Turley reminded Fox viewers that Trump has other statutes on which he can rely, although those come with restrictions, and Bruce Mehlman laid them out on Twitter as well …
The ruling was 6-3, with Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh dissenting and Barrett, Gorsuch, and Roberts joining the liberals to make the majority.
What are these other ways that might be used impose tariffs? You can find a list here, but I have no idea how SCOTUS would react to them.
Trump has criticized the justices who voted against him, particularly the ones who are supposedly on the right; I think that’s a bad move for many reasons, and one of them is practical: it won’t make them more inclined to vote in his favor in the future. They’re only human. Trump added:
But at the same time, Trump said the ruling allows him to take other routes, and possibly impose stronger tariffs. So I cannot tell if he is happy or mad, especially since he said he should have used these alternative routes in the first place:
“Effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place… Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”
See also this from Turley:
Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley called the Supreme Court’s Friday decision on tariffs a “blow to the administration” and argued justices feared a “slippery slope” when it comes to President Donald Trump’s authority. …
Turley said Trump’s team did a “terrific job” and “could not have argued the case better,” but Chief Justice John Roberts and others viewed the emergency tariffs as a tax and under the authority of Congress.
“The night is hardly over for the administration,” Turley warned, arguing there are still other statutes the president can use to impose tariffs.
The latest decision, he added though, could have sweeping effects on both the economy and the administration’s foreign policy, which has sometimes included using the threat of tariffs against other countries.
See also this from John Hinderaker:
I think it is worth noting that the financial markets did not react to today’s decision, either positively or negatively. If it were true that tariffs would devastate our economy, as liberals have claimed, today’s news should have caused the markets to skyrocket. Conversely, of course, if the tariffs were seen by sophisticated observers as a great boon to our economy, the markets should have tanked. The fact that neither happened suggests that the overall impact of tariffs, at least in the short term, was close to being a wash.
I looked up a few of these, and they were indeed the wedding dresses the real people actually wore. So different from today:
Taking a leaf out of Greta Thunberg’s book, Tucker Carlson made the claim that the Israelis “detained” him at the airport:
“Men who identified themselves as airport security took our passports, hauled our executive producer into a side room, and then demanded to know what we discussed with Ambassador Huckabee,” Carlson stated in his Wednesday interview with The Daily Mail.
A spokesperson for the US Embassy in Israel told The Daily Mail that Carlson’s claims were inaccurate and clarified that he only received the same passport-control questions that many visitors to Israel encounter.
Israel Airports Authority further confirmed that Carlson was “politely asked a few routine questions, in accordance with standard procedures applied to many travelers” in a late Wednesday X/Twitter post.
The questions were asked in a private, VIP lounge to protect his and his party’s privacy, the authority said, adding that “no unusual incident occurred” and it rejects any such claims.
Not the first time Carlson has lied about Israel and Jews. And I doubt it’s the last. It’s his stock in trade, his clickbait.
Oh, and then there was this:
Tucker Carlson was seen hugging and taking a photograph with a Ben-Gurion Airport employee, according to footage circulating on social media on Thursday, contradicting his claim to The Daily Mail that he was detained and hauled off by security.
In the video, he was seen smiling and hugging staff at the airport. He appeared to be unaccompanied, further contradicting his claims that he was travelling with security guards.
Sources confirmed to The Jerusalem Post that Carlson did not leave the airport during his visit and conducted the interview with US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee there. He departed Israel around 3 p.m., concluding a trip that lasted only a few hours.
An in-depth fact-finding mission for the intrepid investigative reporter.
I also came across this today:
Most of the coverage says it’s because of his dealings with Epstein, and that is the case. But I would guess a lot of people who don’t bother to read the story think it’s for sex with underage women/girls. It does not appear to be, although I suppose that could change. It seems to be for giving Epstein investment tips based on insider information, otherwise known in British parlance as “misconduct in public office.”
It’s the first arrest of a British royal in 400 years, although he’s not been charged with anything and he was released pending further investigation.
Well, at least they’re not planning to behead him. The charge carries a maximum possible life sentence, however.
You could read much of that article I just linked and come away with the impression that the arrest was for something sexual. It isn’t until paragraph numbers ten and eleven that you get this tidbit:
Earlier this month, the Thames Valley Police said it was looking into a claim that the former prince, while serving as U.K. trade envoy in 2010, had shared confidential documents with Epstein.
One email in the latest U.S. release appears to show Mountbatten-Windsor forwarding Epstein a report from his special adviser about the then-prince’s visit to Southeast Asia.
Easy to miss or gloss over that, but it appears to be the subject matter involved. Here’s more about it:
The Telegraph revealed last week that the former prince appeared to have forwarded a Treasury memo in 2010 about the Icelandic economy to a banker whose firm had just bought assets from a bank there.
At the time, Britain and Iceland were engaged in a diplomatic row over British deposits lost in the 2008 banking crisis.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor suggested the information might be useful to his friend “before you make your move”.
The Epstein files also appear to show that he forwarded official reports to the paedophile about trips to Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam and China in November 2010.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor also appeared to have forwarded the paedophile a separate briefing on investment opportunities in Afghanistan’s Helmand province in December 2010.
I assume this was either classified information or at least information that Andrew was not supposed to be sharing in order to help someone make investment decisions. It also seems to me that someone – or many people – wants to make sure Andrew is punished for something. There’s little doubt in my mind that Andrew is a sleazebag in a host of ways, including sexually. But I don’t think there’s any evidence of sex with underage girls – although again, that could change.
He sure was a good friend to Epstein, though.
I can’t quite imagine what the royal family members are saying to each other behind closed doors.
See also this bit of backstory involving Starmer:
The latest document release included a number of new revelations about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, including more evidence of the pair’s yearslong friendship continuing after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution in 2008, and emails suggesting Mandelson shared sensitive government information with the financier.
Mandelson’s involvement with Epstein has more broadly threatened Starmer’s leadership—because he appointed Mandelson to be ambassador—with two of Starmer’s top aides resigning in the wake of the Epstein files’ release and the PM facing calls to resign.
I would wager it’s not so unusual for people in public office to be sharing that kind of information, but the Epstein files have allowed some prominent people to be caught. Perhaps Andrew’s arrest is meant to be a distraction from Mandelson/Starmer?
… I’ve been struggling with internet connectivity for hours. I think it’s finally resolved. Post coming up in a moment.
At the moment, they’re not talking about “diverse” people moving to the countryside. They’re talking about tourism:
National Landscapes, a charity mostly funded by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), has 46 landscapes, previously called areas of outstanding natural beauty. Management plans for each area are aiming to address the barriers faced by underrepresented and diverse groups to accessing the countryside.
What are these “barriers”? Are the Brits who live there banning “people of color”? No, they’re not. It’s the latter who don’t want to visit. But hey, that needs to change:
Reports that have been published gradually since a Defra report in 2019 reveal that many communities perceived the countryside as “being for white people and middle-class people”.
The 2019 report said: “The countryside is seen by both black, Asian and minority ethnic groups and white people as very much a ‘white’ environment. If that is true today, then the divide is only going to widen as society changes. Our countryside will end up being irrelevant to the country that actually exists.”
“The country that actually exists” is becoming less and less white – thanks to unlimited “migration” – and so the countryside must become so, too. The tourism seems to be just the beginning of a larger plan, because why else would they be caring what people do with their vacation time?
More:
The latest region to update its five-year management plan was Cranborne Chase National Landscape, which overlaps the boundaries of Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire and Somerset. Its plan, published last month, said that it would “develop strategies to reach people or communities with protected characteristics such as people without English as a first language” and “diversity of ethnicity”.
On Monday, National Landscapes published an update titled “Nature is for everyone”.
It read: “There are innumerable reasons why people don’t spend time in the outdoors and National Landscapes teams are committed to reducing the barriers to access.”
“Protected characteristics”? What does that mean? And again we have that phrase “barriers to access” – as though there’s some sort of de jure apartheid going on, rather than the choice of members of those “protected” ethnic and language groups.
In Luton, the Nature Calling project coordinated visits from groups from all backgrounds including people seeking asylum who had mainly been indoors since arriving in the UK. …
… [T]he management plan for Malvern Hills covering 2025-30, published in March, acknowledged that attitudes varied within ethnic minority groups.
“Many minority peoples have no connection to nature in the UK because their parents and their grandparents did not feel safe enough to take them or had other preoccupations,” the report said.
It added: “For some people with a recent history or lived experience of subsistence within the family, having come from rural areas in developing countries, nature can be associated with hardship and struggle in having to work the land.”
Nidderdale National Landscape in North Yorkshire said there were a variety of barriers stopping ethnic minorities from visiting areas of outstanding beauty. The consultation draft for its management plan, published last August, read: “These can be practical issues such as lack of transport and a lack of awareness but may also involve concerns about how they will be received when visiting an unfamiliar place.”
You will visit nature, and you will like it.
And I’m sure these programs will help the people who live in the area be even more “receptive” to the visitors.