Trump spars with black journalists …

The New Neo Posted on by

… and what you think about what he said depends on what you think of Trump – because at the venue, Trump was his inimitable self.

The left will try to make hay of it. People on the right either sincerely believe, or perhaps merely hope, that Trump’s remarks will strike a chord with many black voters as well as others.

Here’s a lengthy discussion of the questions that were asked, and Trump’s answers, including videos. The quote that’s been discussed more than any other is this:

SCOTT: Those are the words for, “DEI,” Sir. I’m asking you a question, I’ve defined it for you. Do you believe VP Kamala Harris is only on the ticket because she is a Black woman?

TRUMP: Well, I can say, maybe it’s a little bit different. I’ve known her for a long time indirectly, not directly so much. She was always of Indian heritage and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn, “Black,” and now she wants to be known as Black. So, I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?

SCOTT: She’s always identified as a Black woman. …

TRUMP: You know what? I respect either one, I respect either one, but she obviously doesn’t. Because she was Indian all the way, and all of a sudden she made a turn and she became a Black person. And I think someone should look into that too, when you ask and continue in a very hostile, nasty tone.

SCOTT: It’s a direct question, sir, do you believe that Vice President Kamala Harris is a DEI hire?

TRUMP: I really don’t know. I mean, I really don’t know. Could be, could be. There are some.

At the link there is also evidence that on many occasions – such as when Harris was sworn in as a senator – on which she identified primarily as being of Indian ethnicity.

I find Trump’s communication style fascinating. It’s a kind of free-form jazz riff that seems haphazard but is usually crafted to give the intended message to those who are ready to hear it, often in an amusing and unique way. This passage is no different. But those who can’t stand Trump tend to hear him as a loudmouthed bigot. So that communication style is both his strength and his weakness, but either way it’s his signature approach.

The question, of course, was a “gotcha” one, as were nearly all the questions. How might he have answered instead? He could have given a more boring version of the same thing, such as: “Whether or not Kamala Harris is a DEI hire, she plays the ethnicity card very well, and the ethnicity she emphasizes changes depending on her audience: sometimes Indian, sometimes black.” Would that have helped? I don’t think so, because he wanted to get the attention of black listeners (or any listeners) who might be susceptible to his sort of plain speaking and then have them ponder what he was actually saying, which is that Kamala is a shape-shifting racial opportunist. Dramatic remarks are better for that than bland remarks.

Or he might have just dodged the question and said: “I don’t know. But whether she was or wasn’t a DEI hire, she has been an integral part of a failed administration and as VP has no accomplishments to her credit.” Would that have been better? Maybe; darned if I know. I doubt it would have gotten the widespread coverage he wants. His actual remarks certainly accomplished that.

The odd thing is that of course Kamala was a DEI hire and everyone knows it. How do they know it? Joe Biden basically said it when he announced that his pick needed to be a black woman. Not “the best person for the job,” but a person hired for ethnicity and sex. He was upfront about it.

So another response might have been to quote Biden on it. However, then the rejoinder would have been something like, “Are you suggesting that limiting the choice to a black woman means that by definition it wouldn’t be the best person for the job?” Another trap.

All questions asked by leftist media are traps for Trump. He negotiates them in the way he thinks will reach people who still might be reached.

ADDENDUM: More here from Ace.

Is the Kamala coronation running into problems?

The New Neo Posted on by

This RedState author thinks so.

As for me, I think it’s way too early to know or even to hazard a guess. The last few weeks have been so – to use a word that seems to be current these days, weird – that I’m not making any prognostications.

I will say, however, that the only Democrat friend of mine with whom I’ve talked so far about Kamala doesn’t like her at all, and is quite angry at the way Harris seems to have been installed as the heir designate. My friend is a Democrat who would never, never ever, vote for Trump, but she thinks Kamala is a weak candidate and would make a lousy president. My friend would much prefer an open convention.

Make of that what you will; it’s an n of one, but I think it’s interesting.

Calley and My Lai

The New Neo Posted on by

William Calley has died at eighty. For those of us old enough to have been sentient during the Vietnam War, Calley’s name is instantly recognizable as one of the major players in the horrific and shameful My Lai massacre. He was the only person prosecuted, although hardly the only person involved.

I’ve written several previous posts about My Lai: for example, this as well as this. The latter contains some quotes based on an article that no longer can be found at the URL in that post; here’s a reference to the article but not the article itself. (If anyone can find the actual article, please give the URL in the comments).

But here are some quotes from the original article, taken from my 2005 post about the article. I think you’ll see why I think it is extremely relevant to present-day events – specifically, the activities of Hamas and other Islamic terror groups – as well as shedding light on what happened in My Lai:

The Viet Cong conducted a guerrilla war that can best be described as “clutching the people to their breast.” They disguised themselves as civilians, hid amongst civilians, often fortified villages (with noncombatants being the vast majority of the population), and even used civilians of all ages and both sexes (little children, women, and old men, included) for logistical support, intelligence, and to plant mines and booby traps. There was widespread belief among American soldiers that the Viet Cong would use the type of civilians mentioned above to throw grenades. An expert on the Vietnamese army remarked that “the Vietnamese communists erased entirely the line between military and civilian by ruling out the notion of noncombatant.” …

A member of the Viet Cong would later confirm that: “Children were trained to throw grenades, not only for the terror factor, but so the government or American soldiers would have to shoot them. Then the Americans feel very ashamed. And they blame themselves and call their soldiers war criminals.” It was not rare for small children to wave an American patrol into a booby trap or minefield. Additionally, the Viet Cong would use women and children as lethal ploys or ruses to lead Americans into deadly ambushes. Female Viet Congs were just as effective as their male counterparts, especially in sniper fire. In other words, the civilians were not exactly sitting out the war. American servicemen soon grew wary and suspicious of all Vietnamese. …

… C Co.’s first casualty comes from a booby trap on 28 January 1968. The following month, on 25 February 1968, C Co. walked into a minefield. CPT Medina kept his head and, after three died and twelve suffered serious injuries, managed to lead his soldiers out. The soldiers of C Co. blamed the Vietnamese villagers nearby who failed to warn them of the minefield and booby traps.

1LT Calley, who had just returned from leave, saw the helicopters transporting the dead and wounded. 1LT Calley also noticed that, from that point on, the attitude of his soldiers toward Vietnamese children had changed — they no longer gave them candy, and kicked them away. According to one account, 1LT Calley could hardly restrain his satisfaction when he said “Well, I told you so.” Prior to the minefield incident, Task Force Barker had failed on two separate attempts to trap the 48th LF Bn in the Quang Ngai Province. During the second attempt, A Co. came under heavy automatic and mortar fire coming from My Lai 4., the second time in a month that Task Force Barker had encountered resistance from around the hamlet of My Lai. Its company commander is among the fifteen wounded, five other soldiers died.

After the minefield incident, C Co.’s esprit de cops and morale sagged and eventually vanished. They went down to 105 soldiers. To make matters even worse, on 14 March 1968, SGT George Cox, an NCO well liked and respected by the soldiers of C Co., an NCO with a reputation for looking after his soldiers, was killed by a booby trap while on patrol. Since arriving in Vietnam three months earlier, C Co. had suffered twenty-eight casualties, including five killed. All the casualties were caused by mines, booby traps, and snipers.

None of this information is meant to excuse anything that happened in My Lai at the hands of the American soldiers. But it gives the background events leading up to the massacre.

Hamas leader Haniyeh killed while in Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

Ismail Haniyeh was one of those Hamas leaders living in comfort, luxury, and seeming safety in Qatar since 2017. He was replaced by Sinwar, but became chairman of Hamas’s Political Bureau:

In early 2024, three of his sons and three grandchildren were killed in an Israeli airstrike in the Gaza Strip. On 31 July 2024, Haniyeh was himself assassinated by an Israeli strike during a visit to Iran.

He was in Iran for the inauguration of its new president.

Here’s an article on the assassination in the Times of Israel. Although Israel has not gone on record as having killed Haniyeh, it is pretty certain that’s what occurred.

I would think that the fact that Israel was able to strike him in Iran is somewhat chilling to both the leaders of Hamas and to Iranian leaders, despite their rhetorical bluster.

Meanwhile, Erdogan of Turkey has been issuing threats to invade Israel. I doubt he will, however.

Acting Secret Service head Ronald Rowe is every bit as awful as Cheatle

The New Neo Posted on by

Ronald Rowe is testifying today, and Legal Insurrection has many posts spotlighting his testimony. There’s this, this, this, this, and this.

The gist of it is, as Ted Cruz said, “Does the buck stop anywhere?”

Nope.

But we’ve seen this movie before, about any number of tainted government agencies: the FBI, the DOJ, the IRS, the Capitol Police, and more. And it’s obvious that getting rid of someone like Cheatle is just the tip of the messed-up (or worse) iceberg.

Also please see this:

Israel strikes back at Hezbollah

The New Neo Posted on by

Israel strikes the Hezbollah terrorist who is said to have planned the attack on the Druze children in the soccer field in the Golan Heights. The Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr was in a southern suburb of Beirut.

As Ace writes, “They kill children, Israel kills the killer of children — and Israel is the bad guy, of course.”

The Biden administration (or should we now call it the Harris administration, or perhaps Obama 3?) wants Israel to show restraint:

The United States is leading a diplomatic dash to deter Israel from striking Lebanon’s capital Beirut or major civil infrastructure in response to a deadly rocket attack on the Golan Heights, five people with knowledge of the drive said. …

The focus of the high-speed diplomacy has been to constrain Israel’s response by urging it against targeting densely populated Beirut, the southern suburbs of the city that form Hezbollah’s heartland, or key infrastructure like airports and bridges, said the sources who requested anonymity to discuss confidential details that haven’t been previously reported.

So – the push was to deter Israel from striking where Hezbollah leaders (and followers) live. I guess Israel didn’t listen – nor should they, because how else could they retaliate? The US and the international community would like Israel to endure these inevitable and escalating attacks and not do much in return.

Maduro on the ropes?

The New Neo Posted on by

Perhaps.

When one studies the history of tyrants and how they are overthrown, a turning point often comes when either the police, the army, and/or the tyrants’ bodyguards desert them and side with the people aligned against them. Is that happening in Venezuela?

There are large protests but that wouldn’t ordinarily be enough to do the trick.

Here’s some background concerning the political role of the military in Venezuela, written prior to the election:

After years of indoctrination and growing political and economic influence, the Venezuelan military and other security forces are an entrenched part of Chavismo, the socialist movement that has been in power for over 25 years. Generals run several ministries and the national oil company, PDVSA; there is no big legal or illegal business in which the formal and informal repressive apparatus doesn’t have a certain sway.

The military has supported the regime’s brutal repression of recent years. At first sight, that makes the institution an obstacle to regime change. But now the military also runs significant risks from protecting the status quo, particularly if the government loses the vote by a large margin despite its manipulation attempts. How its top brass and the lower ranks react to the vote will be key to defining the country’s next political steps.

There are now reports such as this, which indicates a possible wobbling of the military’s support for Maduro:

You can read a lot about the demonstrations here.

However, today we have this, which seems an ominous sign:

…[D]eclaring the military’s backing for Maduro, Defense Minister General Vladimir Padrino denounced the protests, saying on state TV: “There is a coup in progress so President Nicolás Maduro has stepped up to stop it again, and with him the people who elected him president, all the institutions, the Bolivarian armed forces and the democratic institutions.”

“We will defeat the coup,” Padrino said.

The situation is fluid, but unless many of the security forces in Venezuela side with the protesters, I don’t see much hope for the anti-Maduro crowd. If Maduro has the power and is willing to use it, the crowds would have to swell to encompass a much much greater number of people to have any real chance of loosening his grip on power.

Biden still has plans to shore up “our democracy” though SCOTUS “reform”

The New Neo Posted on by

The Supreme Court needs the Biden touch:

In Biden’s latest blatant lawfare attack on Democrats’ top political opponent, he used these examples from a routinely unanimous court as a springboard to argue for amending the U.S. Constitution so that “there is no immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office.” The First Family’s history of evading accountability suggests the “No President Is Above the Law” pledge would presumably not affect the patriarch of the Biden family’s international influence-peddling scheme. …

Biden proposed in the pages of a publication known for smearing Republican-nominated justices and their families the enactment of “more predictable and less arbitrary” term limits for members of the high court.

“It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come. I support a system in which the president would appoint a justice every two years to spend 18 years in active service on the Supreme Court,” the Biden article argues.

The president did not explain exactly how he planned to do so. The White House’s eager endorsement of a 2023 Democrat-led bill to enact 18-year term limits and forced retirement for senior justices like John Roberts and Clarence Thomas, however, suggests the Biden administration plans to use its connections in Congress to do his bidding.

Much more at the link.

Biden – or whoever is behind this proposal – doesn’t expect this to happen prior to the 2024 election. It’s a blueprint for the next steps if the Democrats manage, by hook or by crook, to win in 2024 and to control Congress. The fact that the Supreme Court is one of the remaining institutions that isn’t wholly controlled by the left sticks in their craws. If they come to power again, that will change.

Other things will happen, too, because the left doesn’t give up; it merely postpones. There’s HR1, the federalization of relaxed voting security. There’s the push to make DC a state, as well as Puerto Rico. There’s plenty more, but those are the two that come to mind.