John Brennan gets physical

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve previously written several posts about John Brennan and his history; this one is about his Communist vote, this is about some of his offenses, and more background on Brennan can be found here.

I saw the following video yesterday. It’s quite an extraordinary moment, and Brennan’s actions speak louder than words to tell us what an arrogant thug he is. This is a man who doesn’t think he should ever have to answer for anything. And isn’t what he’s doing to this guy a battery? The situation was as follows:

After the conference on Thursday I confronted former CIA Director Brennan directly regarding his signing the 51 Intelligence Officers Memo knowing that the Hunter Biden laptop was real and not Russian disinformation. Watch his response.

Brennan’s also a weasel. He knew exactly what the effect of “has all the earmarks of a Russian information operation” would be, and the phrase was carefully crafted to maintain deniability.

One more video of Brennan at that same venue, being asked a question:

His demeanor is that of someone accustomed to being able to shut down anyone who might question him. Class act.

I did some more research last night on what really happened with that letter from the 51 former intelligence officers, and I discovered an astounding amount of very disturbing information. It’s not that I hadn’t covered the story before, when it was happening. But I hadn’t followed up in depth, and when I did I found it’s one of the best examples of what the government did to Trump – and how it protected Biden. And it’s one of the best-documented, although relatively few people have probably read the full story.

And so I plan to write one or two more posts on that subject. Not today, though!

The SNAP shutdown

The New Neo Posted on by

The SNAP program is what used to be known as food stamps. Now it’s done with EBT cards, which work like this:

Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) is an electronic system that allows a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participant to pay for food using SNAP benefits. When a participant shops at a SNAP authorized retail store, their SNAP EBT account is debited to reimburse the store for food that was purchased. EBT is in use in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. EBT has been the sole method of SNAP issuance in all states since June of 2004.

It’s been clear for years that there’s a lot of fraud in the system. From the same site:

EBT fraud, including the use of card skimming to steal benefits, is on the rise. Modernizing EBT, including the introduction of chip cards for SNAP EBT, is an important step to ensure that SNAP benefits are protected.

That’s certainly not the only form of fraud to which the system is subject.

And what of non-citizens? See this:

Only U.S. citizens and certain lawfully present noncitizens may receive SNAP benefits. Some lawfully present noncitizens must wait 5 years before getting SNAP benefits. You can find more information about whether you can get SNAP as a noncitizen at www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility/non-citizen.

However, that link only leads to a page that says the information is being updated. But generally, illegal immigrants are not supposed to be covered:

Undocumented immigrants, including DACA holders, are ineligible to receive most federal public benefits, including means-tested benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, sometimes referred to as food stamps), regular Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and are prohibited from purchasing unsubsidized health coverage on ACA exchanges. Undocumented immigrants may be eligible for a handful of benefits that are deemed necessary to protect life or guarantee safety in dire situations, such as emergency Medicaid, access to treatment in hospital emergency rooms, or access to healthcare and nutrition programs under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

Of course, many initially illegal aliens end up getting legal status through the asylum process. However, although some are valid asylum-seekers, some are not.

The reason we’re talking about this today is that the shutdown would ordinarily mean that EBT cards are no longer funded as of November 1.

Some statistics here on illegal immigrants and welfare programs:

Of households headed by illegal immigrants, CIS estimated that 59 percent use one or more welfare programs — cash, food assistance, Medicaid, or housing.

Illegal immigrant households have especially high use of food programs, with 48 percent enrolled in one or more of these programs — SNAP, WIC, or school lunch/breakfast.

In particular, our analysis found that 17 percent of illegal immigrant households used SNAP.

In addition to food programs, 18 percent of illegal immigrant households were enrolled in one of the cash programs; 4 percent were using a housing program; and 39 percent used Medicaid.

Illegal immigrants often receive welfare on behalf of U.S.-born children, and illegal immigrant children can receive school lunch/breakfast and WIC directly. Some states provide Medicaid to illegal immigrants, and a few offer SNAP. Several million illegal immigrants also have been issued Social Security numbers allowing them to receive cash payments from the earned income tax credit if they work.

Many immigrants have modest levels of education and low incomes, so suspension of WIC and SNAP will impact a large share of this population. But this situation raises important policy questions, including whether it makes sense to have an immigration system that allows in so many people who turn to taxpayers to support their children.

I wouldn’t doubt I’ve missed some of the finer points; it’s a complex system and it’s hard to get quickly up to speed on it. But birthright citizenship and the fact that many illegal immigrants have citizen children (born here) are the reasons the numbers are so very high, I believe.

The Democrats could end the shutdown any time, but they’d rather sacrifice the SNAP program and blame that on the Republicans.

Today’s news on the benefits:

The Trump administration will provide partial food stamp benefits this month as the government shutdown approaches a record length, officials told a federal judge Monday.

The administration indicated it will not tap other funds to fill the gap, meaning the more than 40 million people enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are set to receive reduced benefits. Administration officials have warned those recalculations could spur significant delays before November payments reach households.

On Friday, two federal judges ruled the Trump administration must empty a multi-billion dollar emergency fund before cutting off SNAP. The administration says the fund has $4.65 billion available for households. …

Democratic-led states, cities and private groups sued the administration last week as it warned that SNAP benefits would expire in November as shutdown negotiations remained at a stalemate.

So two judges have said the administration must cover for the Democrat shutdown, and blue states and cities sued the feds for what the Democrats themselves are doing.

My Halloween costume this year

The New Neo Posted on by

I went to a small get-together last night where costumes were obligatory.

I wore this, made of two garments bought on sale at Walmart and T. J. Maxx. The ensemble was finished off by white socks and white sneakers. I bet you can guess what I was:

(No, I’m not wearing the costume in that photo.)

A few ruminations on the latest fight on the right – involving the Heritage Foundation

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve been doing a lot of research for a post or series of posts on anti-Semitism on the right, and it’s got me down.

First of all, the usual disclaimer: there’s much more of it on the left, and in addition it seems to be mainstreamed on the left although often disguised as “Oh, we only hate the genocidal maniacal Israeli babykillers.” On the right, it’s still mostly outliers.

But not entirely. For example, Tucker Carlson’s viewpoints may not be popular with older conservatives, but he has influence with younger ones (as does the even-more-pernicious Candace Owens). And Carlson is still very tight with Turning Point, and is one of their major speakers.

Now Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation has weighed in, and it’s not good. Roberts seems to be confused about what canceling means, and it’s not the same as criticizing. Here’s what Roberts said [my responses are added in brackets]:

“When it serves the interests of the United States to cooperate with Israel and other allies, we should do so, with partnerships on security, intelligence and technology. But when it doesn’t, conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government [no one on the pro-Israel side is asking for that, so it’s a strawman argument], no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class [the actual “globalist class” detests Israel, so this is absurd] or from their mouthpieces [not sure whom he means – but I would guess Israeli lobbyists? As I said, globalists are very anti-Israel, so this seems to be some sort of code for something else he’s trying to say] in Washington.

The Heritage Foundation didn’t become the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement by cancelling our own people [criticizing is not cancelling] or policing the consciences of Christians [and yet that’s exactly and precisely what Carlson did when he accused “Christian Zionists” of heresy and said he despises them more than anyone else], and we won’t start doing that now. . . .

We will always defend truth [that’s all people are asking you to do by pointing out what Carlson is doing], we will always defend America and we will always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else’s agenda [hmm, who’s that “someone else” – could it be: Jews? Israel? Have the courage to come out with what you actually mean, at least, and stop talking in secret code]. That includes Tucker Carlson, who remains, and, as I have said before, always will be [no matter what he does or says, now and forever? That doesn’t sound very principled of you], a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.

The venomous coalition [“venomous” is quite a word – although actually, it’s more appropriate to Carlson and certainly Fuentes, to whom Carlson gave a fawning interview and huge platform] attacking him are sowing division [unlike Carlson, who attacked Christian supporters of Israel as heretics?]. Their attempt to cancel him will fail [They’re not trying to cancel him. They’re criticizing him and asking you to do the same]. Most importantly, the American people expect us to be focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not attacking our friends on the right. [The two are hardly mutually exclusive. If you fail to attack Jew-haters on the right, I don’t think you’ll win in the end.]

I disagree with, and even abhor, things that Nick Fuentes says, but canceling him is not the answer, either. [Again, you seem to be confusing criticizing with canceling. Nor is refusing to give someone a platform canceling; that person is free to speak anywhere else] When we disagree with a person’s thoughts and opinions, we challenge those ideas and debate. [But Tucker Carlson did very little debating of Fuentes; he added his own fuel to the Jew-hating and Israel-hating fire.]

As I said, I plan to write more about this because there’s much more to say, particularly about why I think Carlson is doing this and what might be motivating Roberts, about whom I know less. But at the moment I don’t have the stomach for it. Maybe some time next week.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) The other two liberal SCOTUS justices, Kagan and Sotomayor, are not all that happy with Ketanji Brown Jackson.

(2) There’s been some progress on a way to restore aging skin. As Glenn Reynolds might say, “faster, please.”

A lot faster.

(3) Don’t click on this if you don’t want to get depressed by the amount of depraved cruelty circulating online about Kirk’s assassination and his widow’s grief. That features mockery coming from the left, which is where you’d expect it to come from and from where I’m virtually certain the vast majority does originate. But a few on the right – or who used to be on the right, at least for a while – get into the “hate Erika Kirk” act in other ways (I’m talking about the Jew-hating Owens, accusing Kirk’s widow of covering up the fact that the culprit was – of course, because this is Owens – Israel).

(4) I have no idea whether this is true or not. But it’s certainly interesting, and it’s certainly a possibility:

Zohran Mamdani’s campaign is facing explosive allegations that it benefited from tens of millions of dollars in donations funneled from George Soros-linked charities as part of an elaborate scheme that may have violated federal tax laws.

The 34-year-old State Assemblyman’s team has always claimed that he rose from obscurity to become New York City’s mayoral front-runner thanks to an organic, grassroots movement involving many small donations and hundreds of young people with backpacks canvassing on his behalf.

But the Daily Mail can reveal that that narrative is now being called into question according to a report from a watchdog website.

(5) A recent NYC mayoral poll shows this:

According to Atlas Intel, Mamdani leads with 41 percent, Cuomo sits at 34 percent as an independent, and Sliwa trails with 24 percent. The poll carries a ±3 margin of error, a much tighter margin than other major surveys that have shown Mamdani leading by double digits.

That seems to be due mostly to Sliwa picking up support. If Sliwa-supporting people decide to switch to Cuomo when actually in the voting booth and faced with the reality of what their Sliwa vote facilitates (a Mamdani victory), that would give Cuomo the win.

In this poll, the “undecided” vote has shrunk to almost nothing. The poll is an outlier, however; others show Mamdani with a much bigger lead – but Atlas has been known for greater accuracy in the past.

So, will it be the nuclear option to end the shutdown?

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t see the Democrats capitulating and ending the shutdown. They seem to have boxed themselves into a corner.

Trump is all for Senate Republicans invoking the so-called nuclear option:

“Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!’” Trump posted on his social media platform Truth Social.

In a separate post, he wrote, “THE CHOICE IS CLEAR — INITIATE THE “NUCLEAR OPTION,” GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

There is no question in my mind that the Democrats would end it themselves in the future, when and if they get control of the Senate, and if they have the votes for it and need it to pass something they consider important. The only reason it did not happen already during the Biden administration was the presence of two Democrat “no” votes in the persons of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. They’re gone from the Senate now and I think we can be pretty sure they won’t be returning, so the only Democrat I can see blocking the nuclear option in the future would be – perhaps – John Fetterman.

So, should the Republicans vote to be able to end the shutdown by a simple majority? I’m not sure that they presently have the votes to do it. In fact, I think they don’t have the votes to do it – there’s Collins and Murkowski and Tillis, for example. Only Thune knows if they do, and although he hasn’t revealed the head count, he seems to be saying “no”.

Johnson – who really has no say, being in the House – likewise isn’t in favor.

Another thought I have is that the Republicans seem to have gained support during the shutdown rather than lost it. That might make them less-than-eager to use the nuclear option to end it, at least not yet.

Musings on divorce after a long marriage

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Rufus T. Firefly” writes, in contemplation of the fact that James Lileks and his wife are separating after decades of marriage:

I think this fascinates me because he is being so very open and public about something that all of us who are married are susceptible to. When my wife and I had been married about 7 years I heard a stat on divorce. More than 20% of divorces occur after 25 years of marriage. I was shocked. How could a couple live together for 25 years and then divorce? It would seem, if you make it that far, you’d have things pretty much worked out. I would have guessed almost no one divorces after 20 years of marriage.

Then, around the 25 year mark, the Lovely Mrs. Firefly and my nest was emptying out and her and had a lot more free time and were spending a lot more time together. That’s when it hit me. “Oh, this is a whole, different thing.” And we were entirely different people than the two, young people who exchanged vows at an altar so many years ago. I remember talking with my wife about it when we were on a long drive to visit friends for the weekend. I realized her and I had to figure out a new way to live together. When kids are around and you’re working and busy you have far fewer options regarding how you spend your time, what you will do with your nights and weekends, where you will live, what you will eat*… Sometimes limits to freedom can make things easier.

Although I’ve read Lileks at times, I’m not a regular there and know zero about his marriage. But I do know about divorce after a long marriage, from personal experience. I’m not going to tell my story, because my ex and I are friends now, but suffice to say that even he would say that he was at fault.

I got a divorce, having left very reluctantly after thirty-one years of marriage. It was something that had to be done, but it was incredibly difficult. Heartbreakingly so. Among other things, I was recovering – slowly – from a big surgery at the time, and I was in a lot of physical pain as well as emotional. I had no other romance in my life and saw no prospect of one. I had loved my husband very much, and I didn’t fall in love easily.

Of course, as regular readers here know, after a while I did have another relationship – with Gerard – but not another marriage.

It’s my observation that most long marriages that end do so for one of two reasons, and often for both of them. The first is what “Rufus” mentions: the empty nest changing the marital equation. The other is that one of the spouses has found someone else, or at least thinks that he or she has found someone else who’s much better than the spouse of whom he or she has grown weary.

There’s a lyric in a Jackson Browne song that covers that situation rather well, I think:

But when you see through love’s illusions, there lies the danger
And your perfect lover just looks like a perfect fool
So you go running off in search of a perfect stranger
All the loneliness seems to spring from your life
Like a fountain from a pool …

“A perfect stranger” is a phrase that takes on new meaning there, doesn’t it?

I know next to nothing about what happened in Lileks’ marriage to end it. It may not fit the scenario I just outlined. But I believe that most later-life divorces do. I wish him well. Most people recover, more or less; sometimes very well. But some never do.

[NOTE: I wrote a piece a while back that touches on some of this, in particular the empty nest phenomenon; please see this.]

It’s Halloween

The New Neo Posted on by

[Note: This is an edited version of a previous post.]

Halloween was my favorite holiday, bar none, as a child.

The main reason was probably the candy. But the secondary reason – and perhaps it even superseded the candy, come to think of it – was the opportunity even as a little kid to get dressed up in a costume and go out in the dark with other kids, prowling around the neighborhood and ringing doorbells.

Alone, with no adults present after we attained the ripe old age of 4 or 5.

Those days are gone. And not just for me – since I’m not a kid anymore – but for children these days. Everyone under twelve or so has an adult escort or escorts.

But it’s still a lot of fun to see the kids in their costumes, especially the little ones. Which I plan to do in a little while.

I wish I was with my grandchildren, though.

Our old friend Judge Boasberg enabled Arctic Frost

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember Boasberg? I do. My first mention of him on this blog was back in 2015, concerning his ultra-liberal rulings on illegal immigration. Here’s a list of all the posts in which I mention Boasberg; there are quite a few.

And here he is again:

The subpoena [in Arctic Frost] requested records and communications related to over 430 individual and organizations — all of them appear to be aimed at Republicans,” the Iowa Republican [Grassley] added, noting requests sent to the late conservative icon Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA and the Republican Attorneys General Association.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), one of the nine Republicans whose phone metadata was sought, said “Arctic Frost is Joe Biden’s Watergate.”

“Merrick Garland was a fundamentally corrupt attorney general. Jack Smith was a fundamentally corrupt prosecutor. This was a political enemies list from the beginning,” he told reporters, brandishing the court order that demanded AT&T hand over his cell records to the feds.

The order was signed by US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg and barred the cell carrier from letting Cruz know about the request “for at least one year,” he said.

The Texas Republican and others called for Boasberg’s impeachment in the House, with Cruz claiming the judge was “abusing his power” by asserting in the order there were “reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses and serious jeopardy to the investigation.” …

“If a judge signs an order reaching a factual conclusion for which there is zero evidence whatsoever, that judge is abusing his power. I am right now calling on the House of Representatives to impeach Judge Boasberg.”

Boasberg issued a scathing order against the Trump administration earlier this year to halt deportation flights of alleged MS-13, Tren de Aragua and other gang members from the US to a Salvadoran mega-prison.

The MSM doesn’t seem to be covering this; certainly not in the way it deserves. If Watergate had occurred under a Democrat administration, it would have been a nothingburger in the MSM as well.

But impeachment won’t lead to conviction in the Senate, for obvious reasons: no Democrat would vote for it. Attorney “Shipwreckedcrew” writes, however:

Impeachment by the House, even if a conviction in the Senate is unlikely, would have the salutary effect of having the entire episode aired publicly, and forcing the Dem. Senators to vote in such a way that has them affirm their approval of this kind of effort against sitting Senators of the opposition party.

unfortunately, I believe Democrat voters would applaud. That’s what it’s come to.