Seems like the love affair between Trump and Musk is over

The New Neo Posted on by

Really really over.

It seems to feature a huge (yuge?) disagreement about the budget bill, including but hardly limited to a detail about subsidies for EVs:

[Trump] repeatedly emphasized that Musk only began voicing concerns after the bill’s EV cuts, insinuating that Musk’s discontent was less about principle and more about profit. “He never had a problem until right after he left,” Trump said. “He knew everything about it… better than almost anybody.” …

Trump reminded the press that he had stood by Musk for years—politically and personally. “I’m very disappointed in Elon. I’ve helped Elon a lot,” Trump said. “He hasn’t said bad about me personally… but I’m sure that’ll be next.” …

“The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump wrote. “I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”

I consider that last statement to be an inflammatory escalation, which is Trump’s habit.

And then – as Trump predicted – came a personal attack on Trump from Musk:

Childish of Musk. Of course Trump is in the “Epstein files.” We’ve known for ages that Trump had some dealings with Epstein years ago, as have so many people in public life. The so-called “Epstein files” are – as I wrote in this February post – merely a list of contacts. People have blown them up in their minds to be some sort of smoking gun, which they are not.

This whole thing is remarkably stupid and juvenile, perhaps even destructive. But we have two very powerful men at loggerheads, who don’t like to lose and are accustomed to winning, both of whom have quick tempers.

SCOTUS gets it right in reverse-discrimination case

The New Neo Posted on by

Not only that, but the decision was unanimous and Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the opinion.

Then again, this was a slam-dunk case in terms of the law, so it should have been unanimous. However, as we know, there is no limit to how much judges (particularly leftist judges) can turn the law inside out to reach the decision that aligns with their pre-existing political opinions. So the unanimity of this decision is something to praise.

About the case:

Petitioner Marlean Ames was hired by the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 and worked in various roles in the agency. In 2018, her boss, who is gay, conducted a performance evaluation and found that her work met or exceeded expectations in all categories. In 2019, she applied for a new position within the agency, but was passed over for another candidate—a lesbian. Then it got worse. The agency not only demoted Ames from her administrative position and reduced her pay, but also replaced her with a gay man.

She sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming she was discriminated against due to her sexual orientation.

The 6th Circuit Court denied her relief in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services. Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog explained:

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit threw out Ames’s sexual orientation claim. It explained that because she is straight, she was required to show “background circumstances” to support her allegations of reverse discrimination. And although plaintiffs usually make this kind of showing, the court of appeals suggested, with evidence that a member of a minority group made the allegedly discriminatory decision, or with evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group, Ames cannot do either. The decision-makers in her case – the people who hired someone else for the bureau chief job and who demoted her – were also straight, and there is no “pattern” of reverse discrimination beyond her own case, the court of appeals reasoned.”

In an opinion authored by none other than the uber-liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson, a unanimous Court ruled that the lower court must reconsider the case and exclude the “background circumstances” standard …

In other words, the lower court simply made up a new rule and applied it to Ames, holding her to a higher standard because she’s a straight person, which is (still) considered being in the majority. Many leftist judges seem to like to legislate in accordance with their own beliefs, but at least this time SCOTUS slapped them down:

The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs—those who are members of majority groups—to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard in order to carry their burden under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework. We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard.

Good.

Did you know that dog ticks can live for up to two years without a host?

The New Neo Posted on by

You can consider this fact depressing or inspiring. Or perhaps both. Depressing, because those little buggers can live a long long time without a good feed. Inspiring, in terms of the myriad methods earth’s creatures can develop in order to survive.

How do I know this factoid about dog ticks? Well, I looked it up:

Some sources say ticks can live for 24 hours or one full day without a host, while others say they can live for up to two years without food. The truth is, both could be right, but it depends on the conditions, species of tick and the stage of their lifecycle. …

The American dog tick can survive for even longer than deer ticks! Unfed larvae are able to survive for up to 540 days, while unfed nymphs have been recorded to survive for up to 584 days! Even more impressive, unfed adult American dog ticks can go 2-3 years (up to 1,053 days) without food!

Impressive indeed.

Why was I researching this? A friend of mine hosted a dog tick, and although I didn’t know it was a dog tick I took a photo and looked it up. The strange thing is that this friend hadn’t been outside (or around any dogs) for days.

The good news is that, at least in this part of the world, dog ticks don’t transmit disease compared to deer ticks, which can.

Trump institutes a travel ban

The New Neo Posted on by

And, as one might easily predict, the left is unhappy about it:

Nationals of 12 countries will be barred from entering the United States: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

Several of the countries on the list, according to Trump’s proclamation, regularly declined to accept the return of their nationals or had visa overstay rates the administration deemed “unacceptable” and indicative of “a blatant disregard for United States immigration laws.”

Others on the list, like Sudan, Yemen and Somalia, were included for inadequate screening and vetting measures, the proclamation noted.

An additional seven countries came under partial travel restrictions, in which entrance into the country under several visa programs was suspended but an outright ban was not implemented. Those countries are Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

There are certain exceptions, including lawful permanent US residents and several other categories.

Trump’s previous travel ban had a great many legal challenges, but in its final form it was upheld (barely) by SCOTUS. I assume he’s thinking that SCOTUS will likewise uphold this one – which was sparked by the firebombing in Boulder from a man who had overstayed his visa and made an asylum claim that is almost certainly fake.

Democrats are taking their usual position on this – for example:

From his first Muslim Ban, Trump’s travel bans have always betrayed of the ideals and values that inspired America’s Founders.

Trump’s use of prejudice and bigotry to bar people from entering the U.S. does not make us safer, it just divides us and weakens our global leadership.

From the comments: “Our FF wanted foreigners to come here and set Americans on fire?”

I don’t think this is a winning stance for Democrats.

In the case of the pending deportation of the Colorado flamethrower’s family, the plot thickens

The New Neo Posted on by

And thickens and thickens … and at this point is clear as mud:

In an emergency ruling, a Biden administration-appointed federal judge in Colorado halted the deportation of the wife and five children of Mohamed Soliman, the Egyptian national under federal investigation for the Boulder firebombing attack on Sunday.

The temporary restraining order (TRO), issued by U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher, prevents federal immigration authorities from removing Soliman’s wife, Hayem El Gamal, and the couple’s five children from the country — at least for now. …

The order came after El Gamal’s friend, Susanna Dvortsin, sought emergency legal protection for the family. She argued that the family faced imminent deportation by the Trump administration without the opportunity to present their case in court.

Gallagher agreed, writing that the family’s deportation would cause “irreparable harm.”

So let’s see if I have this right – and I may not, because the reporting on this so far has been abysmal. The flamethrower Solamin and his wife and children came here on a tourist visa (or visas), good for six months, and that expired in August of 2023. Somewhere along the line someone – Solamin, the wife, the kids? – supposedly applied for asylum and that hearing has never happened (and I have no idea whether one is scheduled and if so how many years from now it’s supposed to happen). Meanwhile, Dad of the Year Solamin decided that, while he waited, it would be a great idea to fire away (literally) at some people who were part of a group calling attention to the plight of the Israeli hostages.

It seems to me that this particular family circle has forfeited any right to be in this country, if they even still had such a right after August of 2023. Judge Gallagher may find that their deportation would cause “irreparable harm,” but I think a more solid argument can be made that their remaining here would cause irreparable harm in the sense of giving out the message to the world that a person can come on a tourist visa, let that visa expire, and stay here no matter what as long as there’s been a request for asylum (bogus or not – and I’m going to assume theirs is likely bogus).

On the other hand, their deportation is only stayed until June 13, when a fuller hearing on the matter is scheduled.

And there’s also the statement that it was the wife’s friend who petitioned the court. Dvortsin is an immigrant lawyer. Is El Gamal her client or her friend, or both? The article adds that it was Dvortsin who had submitted the family’s asylum application. Did she do this in her capacity as their lawyer or as their friend? And when was the application made?

Looking at the court document about the stay of deportation, I see this:

The court finds it appropriate for these preliminary proceedings for Petitioner to proceed as next-friend because the filings indicate that there is no means to contact Hayem El Gamal and petitioner has a significant relationship to her.

Is that relationship “lawyer”? If so, why not say so? And why oh why is there no means to contact El Gamal? Surely she has had a phone or an address; the family has been living here for years. Is she in hiding? What on earth is going on here?

What’s more, “next friend” status, in the legal sense, ordinarily means that the person who would otherwise be the petitioner lacks legal capacity, either due to being a minor or being handicapped or being temporarily incapacitated by illness.

Just to cap it all off, Dvortsin was suspended from practicing law in South Dakota for 115 days back in 2019, due to “misconduct concerning an immigration matter.”

Hey, what’s this – Karine Jean-Pierre, political changer?

The New Neo Posted on by

Not sure what it means, and I very much doubt that Jean-Pierre has undergone any sort of significant political change to the right, or is eager to do some actual truth-telling, but she’s publishing a book – of course! – and the scoop is that she’s now an Independent. That covers a wide range of possibilities, including moving so far to the left that the Democrats are no longer radical enough.

But I’m interested, since political change is my specialty.

Jean-Pierre was given an impossible task, and she was extremely bad at it. Now she’s being blamed by the left for not succeeding at her impossible task, after they excoriated the right for criticizing her.

Typical stuff.

Three years ago, I wrote a post entitled “Am I the only person on the right who has some sympathy for Biden’s press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre?” The answer to that question may just have been “yes,” according to most of the comments. But here’s a portion of what I wrote at the time:

Thing is, there are no good talking points for Jean-Pierre to fall back on. What can she say? Granted, I certainly don’t admire her for signing on to be an apologist for and booster of a corrupt president and a party dragging the country precipitously down. But whatever her reasons – personal belief system, personal ambition, all of the above or none of the above – her job is impossible. All she can do is preach to the choir, and weakly at that.

Plus – and this is actually the reason for my relative sympathy for her – she doesn’t have the snotty snark that Psaki had, the sheer duping delight I often saw in Psaki’s affect as she lied through her teeth without hesitation or shame. I think that what is perceived as Jean-Pierre’s failings may actually represent a problem she has with being required to constantly lie with no shame whatsoever (a problem that didn’t seem to perturb Psaki at all).

Maybe I’m giving Jean-Pierre too much benefit of the doubt; probably most of you think I am. But that’s what I see in her – or at least a glimmer of it.

That’s why I’m curious about her book and her supposed change to Independent. I may still be giving her much too much credit, even though I’m giving her very little.

In no surprise at all, Iran says it will do whatever it wants with its uranium

The New Neo Posted on by

I think that basically the Trump administration is doing some very good things, but that doesn’t mean I approve of everything it’s doing. Nor do I completely understand what’s behind everything it’s doing; sometimes there’s a hidden agenda that’s good, for example.

In the case of the Iran negotiations about enriching uranium and developing nuclear weapons I confess I’m stumped, although I can guess. Maybe they’re a prelude to more pressure from the US. Maybe they’re a prelude to an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Maybe they’re a way to say, “well, we tried, anyway – and now the gloves are off (and/or Israel’s gloves are off?).”

At any rate, here’s the latest news on it:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday defiantly rejected U.S. demands to halt uranium enrichment, declaring that the Islamic Republic will not concede to “the rude and arrogant leaders of America.”

In a televised address, quoted by Reuters and the Associated Press, Khamenei insisted that “uranium enrichment is the key to our nuclear program, and the enemies have focused on the enrichment.” He went on to criticize the latest U.S. proposal, claiming it “contradicts our nation’s belief in self-reliance and the principle of ‘We Can.’”

Yes, we can! Hope and change! Let’s hear if for the mullahs!

Israeli Knesset member Tally Gotliv remarked:

There was never a chance Iran would agree to a nuclear deal. Israel, as the nation responsible for its own security—and given Khamenei’s stated desire to eliminate the Zionists—should act accordingly and strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel is fully capable of carrying out such an operation, and I believe that’s exactly what will happen,” she added.

Time … will … tell.

Apparently the FBI relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center for its anti-Catholic memo

The New Neo Posted on by

Wonderful, just wonderful.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of those institutions that once was part of the fight for civil rights in the South and later became something else – in this case, a leftist propaganda machine against the right, specializing in labeling perfectly ordinary conservative groups as “hate groups.” Then the MSM and the left can quote the SPLC to smear its opponents on the right. Many readers are fooled; the FBI shouldn’t be.

Here’s the story:

The FBI Richmond office’s notorious anti-Catholic memo reached more staff at the bureau than previously suggested, and some FBI staff were aghast to see it, according to new documents released by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Tuesday.

The memo urged FBI agents to develop sources and surveil Catholic churches, citing the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of “radical traditional Catholic hate groups.” The SPLC’s “hate map” plots conservative and Christian groups alongside Ku Klux Klan chapters. While the SPLC claims to be exposing “the infrastructure upholding white supremacy,” critics say it uses the map to silence political opponents.

The FBI rushed to rescind the document after a whistleblower leaked it in February 2023. Then-FBI Director Christopher Wray testified in July 2023 that the memo came from “a single product by a single field office, which, as soon as I found out about it, I was aghast and ordered it withdrawn and removed from FBI systems.” Yet Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has claimed Wray may have lied under oath because multiple FBI offices were involved in creating the memo.

Grassley announced Tuesday that he found evidence that the memo had been disseminated to at least 1,000 FBI staff.

So, it was circulated, and Wray apparently lied about how widely. And we would know nothing about this if the Democrats had won the 2024 election.

Of course, this memo was hardly the only thing wrong with the FBI. But at least it seems to have gotten a certain amount of pushback from the FBI rank-and-file.

The immigration status of the Boulder flamethrower and his family

The New Neo Posted on by

Mohamed Soliman, the man in custody for the attack on the pro-Israel crowd in Boulder, Colorado, came here during the Biden administration:

Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, posted on X early Monday that Mohamed Soliman had entered the U.S. on a B2 visa that expired in February 2023. He had also applied for asylum in September 2022.

A B2 visa is a tourist visa that allows foreign citizens to enter the country for a temporary stay. It’s usually granted after a background check and interview. Then, the person receives a 10-year permit to visit the country. Typically, each stay is limited to six months.

So, the person gets his or her foot in the door through a tourist visa and then switches to asking for asylum, which confers enormous advantages:

Jimenez [an immigration attorney] said that many people here on visas file applications for asylum, sometimes even after their permit has expired. He said it’s often a lengthy process, and he knows of people who are waiting eight to 10 years for an interview. While that claim is pending, applicants are allowed to stay in the U.S.

I assume that the enormous length of the process results from the fact that many more people are asking for asylum, having learnd the ropes online. It’s stated that he was born in Egypt but lived in Kuwait for seventeen years, before coming here. So, what’s illegal about his residence here? It seems his original tourist visa expired in August of 2023 and it was never renewed, although I’m not sure how the asylum request enters into it.

Meanwhile, he’s been living here with his wife and four children, all of whom have been taken into ICE custody:

The Department of Homeland Security is investigating “to what extent” the family of suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, “knew about this heinous attack, if they had knowledge of it, or if they provided support to it,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote separately on X.

If so, they could be deported expeditiously – unless a district judge rules against it, I suppose. Even if they didn’t know, it seems to me they could be deported after a more lengthy process. Interestingly enough, his daughter recently graduated from high school and was featured in this article in the Denver Gazette. Here’s an especially fascinating passage:

When she was young her father underwent a difficult surgery that restored his ability to walk. Habiba wrote that she considered the medical procedure nothing short of “magic.” She realized the importance of medicine and knew it was something she wanted to pursue. Habiba was born in Egypt but lived in Kuwait for 14 years. Because she was not Kuwaiti, the prospect of attending medical school there was not an option. The move to the United States provides a chance to fulfill her dream.

So, even though the family had resided in Kuwait and were Egyptian Muslims, the children wouldn’t have been allowed to attend medical school there? In the US, apparently no problem.

ADDENDUM: I’ve got a more recent post here with some updated information.

The media spreads the massacre hoax

The New Neo Posted on by

The media is poisonous in its propensity to spread Hamas’ lies about Israel. Actually, the media is poisonous in its propensity to spread lies about a lot of things. One wonders what the world would be like if that weren’t true.

One of the media’s specialties is the blood libel against Jews and Israel. Towards the beginning of Israel’s action against Hamas post-10/7, there was the infamous hospital bombing that never was. The hallmark of the media’s role is to spread the lies Hamas tells about the number of casualties and the source of those casualties, making sure that the lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its boots on.

Once again.

This time it was a report on a supposed Israeli massacre of people waiting in line for food in Gaza:

… [M]ajor news outlets, including Fox News, CNN, the Associated Press, and the BBC, rushed to publish a fake news story about a supposed “massacre” at an Israeli-allied Gaza aid distribution site. According to the Hamas-run “Gaza Ministry of Health,” Israeli “warships, tanks, and drones” randomly opened fire on thousands of people, killing 31 and injuring over 200 more.

Why would Israel do that when their entire strategy is to neuter Hamas’ power structure by not allowing the terrorist group to control the distribution of aid? The answer is that they wouldn’t, which should have been enough for these supposed unbiased press outlets to pause and do some actual research. Sure enough, within hours, surveillance video had been released showing that no such attack ever took place.

In fact, it’s Hamas firing on Gazans trying to get aid; the motive of Hamas appears to be that Hamas is no longer in charge of the aid and can’t earn money and power from its usual methods of controlling crucial supplies for the population. This is an Orwellian twist, which is also a feature of the MSM reporting on the Gaza War (and so many other things).

What’s the media’s game? Why do they do this? Why do they make the same “mistake” over and over? We have to conclude the reason is that it’s no mistake. If it were, not only would they be skeptical next time, but they would be extremely apologetic and do some soul-searching every time the error is found out. But nothing of the sort happens. Instead, the pattern repeats over and over.

The deeper “why” is that they have demonized Israel and made pets out of the Gazans. It would be “bigoted” to question Hamas’ word, after all. It would help the bloodthirsty Israeli “colonizers.” It would make the reporter who sympathized with Israelis persona non-grata in the MSM establishment.

Michael Oren writes:

The media’s message is, simply, that Jews are an inherently bloodthirsty people who enjoy slaughtering innocent people.

He describes some of the incendiary coverage. Seems to me it has probably contributed to some of the recent attacks on Jews in this country, but the MSM will never own up to that.

NOTE: The BBC issued a tepid withdrawal of the story, after the damage was done.