ADVERTISEMENT

Mike Johnson Just Confirmed How Unserious He Is

It didn’t take long for the new House speaker, Mike Johnson, to demonstrate to the world that he will not be a serious partner for American allies or for those who still believe that governing is not a petty little game.
On Monday, only five days after being elevated to one of the most important leadership roles in the country, he upended a major foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, meekly obeying those Republican House members who see their main role as disengaging from the world and taking self-destructive potshots at Democrats. Nothing in Mr. Johnson’s record suggested he might try to shore up America’s leadership in the world, but his actions show that his new position has not added any gravitas to his thinking; he’s just pandering to his cronies in the far right wing.
Specifically, he stripped money for Ukraine and Taiwan from the $105 billion package requested by President Biden, leaving only the $14.3 billion the administration wants to send to Israel. But then he imposed a condition on the Israel money: Mr. Biden must agree to cut the same amount out of the money the Internal Revenue Service uses to chase down high-income tax cheats. So essentially the U.S. can protect Israel as long as it also protects rich white-collar criminals.
The I.R.S., of course, has nothing to do with the war between Israel and Hamas, but it has everything to do with the Republican desire to score political points whenever possible. Ever since Mr. Biden won $80 billion for stronger I.R.S. enforcement in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, Republicans have made that money a target, exploiting the agency’s Sheriff-of-Nottingham public image by trying to delude ordinary taxpayers into believing the extra funds meant the agency was coming after them.
But the aim of the extra enforcement was always the wealthy, whose complex tax fraud schemes cost the Treasury billions every year. Reducing the I.R.S. budget would actually widen the deficit, the opposite of what Republicans claim they care about. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that if the I.R.S. enforcement budget is cut by $25 billion, as some Senate Republicans have proposed, it would cost $49 billion in revenue from auditing the rich, and widen the 10-year deficit by nearly $24 billion.
Another study published earlier this year by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that every additional dollar spent on auditing high-income taxpayers yielded $12 in new revenue for the Treasury. By that calculation, Mr. Johnson’s stunt could cost the country $171.6 billion. Earlier this year, Republicans forced Mr. Biden to cut $20 billion from the I.R.S. as part of the price for avoiding a debt default; having shown that the White House would agree to chip away at a top priority to prevent a crisis, they are returning to the same playbook.

But in the end, the I.R.S. cut isn’t really going to happen, as House Republicans know, because Mr. Johnson’s bill will die in the Senate, where many leading Republicans already oppose it. Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, has made it clear the final bill will have to include money for Ukraine, and hawks like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have said the Ukraine money was related to Israel’s war against Hamas.
“Hamas was just hosted by the Russians in Moscow,” Mr. Graham said, adding, about Ukraine, “I think breaking them out sends the wrong signal.”
Other Republicans like Senator Mitt Romney of Utah and Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina agreed with the White House that cutting the I.R.S. budget made little sense in the context of national security.
But making sense isn’t really Mr. Johnson’s game. He’s got a few calculations going on that show the kind of cynical strategic planning that current passes for politics in the House. By throwing in the I.R.S. cut, he gets to show the same extremists who deposed his predecessor that he can play rough with the White House. The move will presumably get some House Democrats to vote against the bill, and then Republicans can run misleading attack ads saying those Democrats oppose aid to Israel, as many members are already anticipating.
“The new Republican speaker has chosen to put a poison pill” in the aid bill, Representative Ritchie Torres, Democrat of New York, told Axios. “The politicizing of Israel in a time of war is nothing short of disgraceful.”
And then, assuming the bill does pass the House, Mr. Johnson will then get a seat at the table to negotiate with the Senate and the White House on the final legislation. If the House can’t pass anything, it will have less leverage in determining the final amount of aid.
If Mr. Johnson has substantive objections to helping Ukraine and Israel that justify the legislative impediments he is constructing, he should state what they are. There is room for a debate over conditions that could be imposed on military aid for Israel, including a detailed plan to protect civilians in the Gaza campaign, or, as my colleague Thomas Friedman has suggested, an agreement not to construct one new settlement in the West Bank outside existing settlement blocs and to rebuild the Palestinian Authority and the two-state solution at the expense of Hamas.
But that would require a serious discussion with serious people. And Mr. Johnson has now shown that he has no place in that room.

The Worst Yet: Phucking biden Pardons The Murderer of Two FBI Agents!!

I hope those agents still have buddies alive who know what needs to ****ing be done here!! ****ing democrats should all burn in hell! >

Your thoughts of Mitch McConnell denying Merrick Garland of even having interviews for Scotus let alone a vote?

In the lates Mitch McConnell thread about him falling I am having a back and forth with a poster who really likes Mitch. My own thoughts is he has abused his position on occasion and the most egreious was not bringing Merrick Garland, Obama's nominee for a scotus seat and a very good jurist, to the Senate for Senate interviews, questioning in front of Grassley's Judiciary Committe, or to a vote. The other poster seems to think there are no "rules" or outlines in the Constitutioin for the Senate that they have to advise and consent. I say the text below from the Constituiton would tell any jurist that it is the Senate's duty to advise and consent. And to advise the president the Senate has to interview and question the nominee and vote in committe and maybe on the Senate floor to pass the nomination. Read below if you want but what are your thoughts about Mitch telling the REpub senators not to have a meeting to interview Garland and not to question and vote on Garland and his reasoning is that Feb. of 2024 was too close to the Pres Election. I look forward to reading your thoughts.

The president has the power to nominate supreme court justices. It is also stated that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate" Now back then recesses might be a month or two long so a strict reading of the Constitution should agree with a rather quick process to fill a scotus vacancy. I dont think anyone can argue that. There is no logical way on Earth that it would or should take 9 months for the Senate to interview and confirm a scotus nominee.

And just before the recess nomination part of Article Section 2 it states that He being the president "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,"

So the US Constitution states that the Senate's job is to advise and consent on the nominations of the president of people to the Supreme Court. So to do that job the Senate has to perform some sort of advise and consent as in voting for the nominee. Mitch McConnell held back and did neither of those things with the help of Grassley who was Judiciary Comm Chair. It was a terrible stain on them but of course they do not care that they evaded their duties.

But Mitch M stonewalled the process and the process of the rules of the Senate are they are supposed to confirm or deny the appointment, once again not doing their job and even blocking procedure.

So who you have on ignore ??

One of my favorite posters is Franisdaman. I agree with most of his takes. Sadly, I gotta put him on "the list" for spamming the board with his every thought.
I know I know, "but they're so lengthy". Well yeah, when you respond to yourself 75 times per attempt it takes on the look of something that it isn't.

Who have you got on your ignore list ??

JuJu Watkins goes 0-10 from the field and has 2 pts in first half vs. Minnesota

USC jumped out to a 20-5 lead and led by 12 at the half, despite Watkins' failing to score from the field. Yes, USC is good. Lots of size and talent besides Watkins, but after seeing them play for the first time, I wasn't overly impressed. But they are 18-1 and on a 15-game winning streak . . .

Watkins ended up 7-24 from the floor, 1-8 from three for 20 points. She didn't remind me of Caitlin Clark in any way whatsoever, FWIW.

Anyway, playing at home, USC never was able to put the Gophers away, winning 82-69. Minnesota outscored USC the last 3.5 quarters. I hope the travel and a great effort from the Hawkeyes can lead to a great upset on Sunday. We'll see.

BTW: The attendance at USC was reported as 5,243--only about 10,000 short of the standard crowd at Carver. Based on the evidence, it doesn't look like Watkins is a big draw, even at home.

Mulvey

I was probably as critical as anyone with respect to Mulvey his first few years with the program. He seemed perpetually lost and lacked the skills/physicality to play down low.

This year he's performed really well in limited minutes. He might be the best rebounder on a team that regularly gets crushed on the boards. I understand why he's not playing with Freeman because Fran wants offensive spacing for him down low. For the life of me I can't understand why he isn't the first guy off the bench backing up him up though.

Someone explain to me why he can't see the floor.

The Cult of the Bully

Sam Harris
Feb 05, 2025



Does the world still need good people, or are we all free to become monsters now?

It may seem priggish to say it, given the current “vibe shift,” but we really can’t give up on personal integrity just yet. The day we celebrate our children for their selfishness and cruelty will be the point of no return.

Clearly, we need systems and institutions that can withstand the intrusions of a charismatic psychopath. We also need ones that can resist when otherwise normal people behave like psychopaths (e.g. on social media). However, if we want to live in good societies—where most games are positive-sum and decency is the norm—there is no substitute for having a sufficient number of people who are actually good, or struggling to be so.

It is, therefore, ominous that our political culture now celebrates figures who are obviously unethical—liars, bullies, and conmen—many of whom see no reason to even pretend to harbor deeper values or virtues. Whatever your politics, President Trump has said and done a thousand things that should make it impossible to admire him as a person—and he will commit further atrocities this week. Elon Musk has achieved a similarly vile orbit—lying with abandon, making common cause with racists and lunatics, and pointlessly defaming ordinary people—it seems, just for the fun of it. Both men are conspicuous for the degree to which they still resemble children, having retained a juvenile sense of entitlement, recklessness, and self-absorption. Both are already cautionary tales about the corrupting influences of fame, wealth, and power—even as they continue to achieve new heights.

Narcissism is one key to understanding both Trump and Musk. One can’t say that they suffer from narcissism, exactly—as they have become its high priests. Neither man ever apologizes for the mistakes he makes or the harms he causes. Each luxuriates in a moral weightlessness conferred by the adulation (and short attention span) of the crowd. Did Trump attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election, while falsely claiming that it had been stolen from him? Did Musk just get exposed as a fraud by some of his most ardent fans? No one cares or remembers, because there are fresh antics and outrages to contemplate today. For all their flaws, the chaos that these men bring into the world, hour by hour, is at least interesting.

Of course, their fans love them, in part, because the chaos is also transgressive. In different ways, Trump and Musk prove that it is okay to be terribly flawed—and to aspire to no ethical standards whatsoever—because you can always be washed clean by the attention of others. In this way, each man has become a kind of savior for people who don’t want to be judged. It is a mutual absolution and intoxication.

For those who are unconcerned about this phenomenon, it seems worth asking, what would it take to startle you? What could Trump or Musk do to make you suddenly feel that something essential to the health of our politics, or our society, has been broken?

And if it really is all about the price of eggs, how expensive would a dozen eggs have to be for you to realize that Trump 2.0 has been a terrible mistake?

Super Bowl: I’ll be watching the game and ads only

No interest in the so-called “entertainment” pre-game and halftime. Mostly garbage, save for Trombone Shorty.

FU NFL for this unappealing lineup.

The Army’s Special Treatment of Capt. Rebecca Lobach

Favoritism Inevitably Draws Scrutiny: The Army’s Special Treatment of Capt. Rebecca Lobach Fuels Speculation and Dishonors all Who Perished in the Recent DC Air Collision.​


On Saturday the U.S. Army released the name of the second pilot—reported to have been pilot in command—of the Blackhawk helicopter that collided with American Airlines flight 5342 over the Potomac River, killing 67 people. This was a marked departure from Army policy that states “Names, city, and state of deceased will be withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification.” This was the standard process used to identify the other two members of the Army’s flight crew, Chief Warrant Officer Andrew Eaves, and Staff Sgt. Ryan O'Hara. It is the same process used to identify soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan—a process I followed as a military public affairs officer for over 20 years. Army public affairs officials followed the same procedures to publicly identify soldiers who died in not-too-distant helicopter crashes in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alaska. Yet, in an unusual deviation, the Army selectively withheld Capt. Rebecca M. Lobach’s identity for an additional two days. When her name was finally released over the weekend, the Army included a family statement of eulogy that praised Lobach and requested privacy. Army officials claim that violating its own rules was done to respect Lobach’s family’s wishes, but that decision casts an unnecessary shadow over her service and memory.

Working a casualty release is a difficult task. I remember each one that had to be done when deployed to Afghanistan as public affairs director for the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division. Each time while combing through a fallen soldier’s deployment photo and service record, there was a painful awareness that I was handling information that would soon devastate this fellow paratrooper’s loved ones back home in the U.S. The entire brigade would be placed under an internet blackout to ensure the news did not leak out before the family was notified in person. This practice is taken seriously, and rightly so. Much of its dignity comes from its predictability and equal application. No matter the rank or position of a deceased soldier, the notification process is supposed to be the same for all—and was until now.

The crash over the Potomac is a very unusual tragedy for many reasons that are being unraveled by investigators. The Army’s special treatment of Capt. Lobach adds to that complexity. The information shared by the Army and Lobach’s friends indicate that she was a stellar soldier. However, stellar soldiers do not ask for special consideration—they demand equal treatment to prove that they are one among a team. Yet we now see a movement to essentially canonize Lobach as a hero while civilian remains are still being recovered from the submerged and fragmented passenger jet that her aircraft knocked from the sky. Army officials rushed to defend a single pilot among a flight crew of three and 64 dead civilians. This treatment echoes a 2015 Army study warning that male soldiers are driven instinctively to protect female colleagues over mission completion. In this instance, we see that tendency strangely playing out in a way that reflects allegiance to intersectional theories and bandwagon effect as much as complementarian instinct.

Over the weekend, several Army public affairs officers and Pentagon reporters expressed heartbreak over Lobach’s passing, implying she was uniquely victimized above the 66 others killed. In contrast, they were largely silent when the identities of the other soldiers and jet passengers were released. Some narratives even suggested that the president was to blame for the Army’s deviation from standard protocol. Army officials surely knew the risk of this event becoming politicized and encouraged it through their unprecedented actions.

Beyond violating military regulations, the Army strategically released Lobach’s identification on a Saturday—a classic public relations tactic used to bury news. Meanwhile, it appears her social media history was erased, despite the insistence that she was an admirable public servant. The inclusion of a family eulogy in the Army’s announcement further signaled that her passing was somehow more profound than the rest. Why? The Army’s actions invite speculation. The best way to honor Capt. Lobach as a soldier would have been to treat her like any other. Instead, by attempting to craft a heroic top gun narrative around her, Army officials took a path that increased concerns about the circumstances of the crash. This is a textbook example of the "celebration parallax"—as if the Army intends to prove that women receive no special treatment by giving one woman special treatment.

Early evidence suggests that cockpit mistakes contributed to the collision. Yet, in no prior case have I seen an airline or government agency publicly promote a downed pilot as a hero within 96 hours of an accident. Something is very different about this case.

The point of this essay is not to ascribe blame. Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board will get to the bottom of what is likely a complex set of factors that passed 67 lives into eternity. Rather than rushing to offer one pilot as above question in that investigative process, Army officials should focus on following their own regulations, addressing systemic safety issues in Army aviation, and prioritizing public service over institutional image protection. Now is the time for introspection and hard questions—not attempting a flags of our fathers public relations play.

If the Army wanted to lessen the grief suffered by Capt. Lobach’s family, it used the worst tactics possible. Those who deliberately hid, and are hiding, information from public view activated the Streisand Effect, drawing further attention to what they want to hide. Unfortunately, such malpractice is characteristic of the Army’s public affairs apparatus at top levels. This is the same field that resisted recent guidance from the acting Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (ATSD) to implement a social media pause. It is the same group that failed to address false rumors about the paternity of Master Sgt. Matthew Livelsberger’s daughter after his tragic suicide in front of Trump Tower on January 1st. It is the same military career field that ignored an admonition from then Secretary of the Army Mark Esper that the Army is the slowest branch to respond to press inquiries. The Army’s public affairs code of "Maximum Disclosure, Minimum Delay" is often cited but never enforced. This is a well-known problem that refuses to self-correct. It will demand attention from the Pentagon’s new leadership to force a solution.

Regulations lose legitimacy when selectively enforced. Lobach’s family is not the first to request privacy, but they are the first to receive such overt preferential treatment in recent military history. This sets a precedent that will make the jobs of commanders, public affairs officers, and casualty notification officers more difficult going forward.

I feel tremendous sympathy for the family of each soul on both aircraft and cannot begin to imagine the pain each one feels. That pain was not lightened for any of them by the Army’s agenda-based actions since. I call on top public affairs officials across the Army to remember your oaths, and put them into practice.

  • Like
Reactions: NoWokeBloke

The Americans

How many have ever watched this show?

Years ago, during Vietnam, my dad said many of the MIA’s were in Russia. They lived in designed communities to grow Russian spies, teaching the kids how to be American.

I listened. I wondered as I got older, that the reason he told me those things was that no one would believe them anyway. (Honestly I don’t know how the intelligence community viewed it at the time, but now I think they felt it was okay, for the reason I stated. They wanted the younger generation to be aware of possibilities).

Just like the military brass felt we should study about National Liberation Fronts. It was so we would be able to recognize it when we were confronted with it.

The sad thing today, and evidence of how far we have shifted to the Hitler and Mussolini forms of facism, shows me why they wanted us to learn about these things, so history would not be repeated.

Yet, here we are today. There is no SDS, no far left wing party doing the things they did in the ‘60’s. No Green Peace blowing up stuff.

Instead we have Christian fascists, following blindly people that would destroy everything this country was founded on. Lemmings that do what the red hats tell them to do.

People that barely know the history of this country. People that don’t understand why we have Episcopal churches instead of Anglican churches. People that disrespect certain churches because they’re inclusive.

This is not what the country was founded on. It’s true, getting destroyed from the inside. It’s a known political ploy by Putin, the way to destroy the US is from the inside.

All are witnessing as we speak. But some seem to really think it’s cool because they can get their white man power back.

That’s all for now.

Protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation

Trump put an end to chemical and surgical transgender treatment for children. I have been pushing this for quite some time. I believe we will find that the suicide rate does not increase for this population even though their transgender treatment is taken away. I guess time will tell whether transgender care actually does decrease suicidality or whether I am right that it was an activist driven scam.

I can't wait to see the research that results from this executive order.

Jodi Huisentruit went missing in 1995. Friend hopes a $25K reward uncovers her remains

Nearly 28 years after Jodi Huisentruit's disappearance, a $25,000 reward is being offered for information that leads to the recovery of the remains of the former Mason City morning television news anchor, according to a news release.

Huisentruit disappeared early on the morning of June 27, 1995, on her way to work at KIMT-TV in Mason City. Though the case has remained in the public eye, no arrests or charges have been made in connection to the case.

Jodi Huisentruit


Licensed private investigator Steve Ridge offered the reward as a private citizen. Ridge says the reward offer has the blessing of Huisentruit’s sister, JoAnn Nathe.

“I speak with JoAnn on a regular basis, and we have decided the timing is right to seek information on where Jodi’s body was discarded,” Ridge said. “This reward does not require an arrest or conviction — but simply the recovery of Jodi’s remains,” Ridge added.

More:Today marks 27 years in the Jodi Huisentruit case. Here's what to know about her 1995 disappearance

Ridge believes that someone out there knows what happened to Jodi. It could easily be someone who bears no guilt or involvement but has knowledge they've been reluctant to share before, he said. He hopes that this reward would encourage someone to come forward.

“I am now extremely confident that multiple people know what happened to Jodi. Eventually, someone may decide to talk,” Ridge said in a news release. “We hope to encourage that possibility."

ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT