Donald Trump

Trump’s “for every new regulation 2 have to go”

Published by Papa Giorgio

The reason for bringing two older posts (2022 and 2021) together and combining them with this Forbes article about Trump’s promise is simple… the Republican base wants less government interference – that is me, the GOP base. The Democrat base wants increased government interference in our daily lives.

Why this “adding of the FORBES article” as a preface of these other posts?

I was asked on the way out of a gathering by a family friend over this past weekend “why I [she] should vote for Trump?” I believe the question COULD HAVE BEEN asked for varying reasons, and as I write a couple of them, keep in mind the opposite could be true:

  • She is a diehard Democrat who is honestly is trying to understand the opposing view of almost half of the voting public. (Alternatively, she thinks that there is no foundation or good reason to vote for Trump and is trying to show the superiority of being “anti-racist” [in modern parlance] or progressive to the point that her vision of caring for the downtrodden is a way to “show up” [so-to-speak] the other side by being on the side of angels.);
  • She is a life-long Democrat who sees the attacks on things such as free-speech and gender and is dismayed on how quickly the political culture of her party has changed and is struggling with where her vote should land. (Alternatively, she supports these agendas, whether in good faith or not [based on false agendas and political propaganda] and is dismayed by the Republican Party — which is defined with these ideas in mind:

sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted (S.I.X.H.I.R.B.)

HILLARY’S version:

  • “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he [Trump] has lifted them up.”

  • Etc, etc.

I think, as human beings – me included – are as complicated as the day is long and we battle many influences and experiences and habits… it would be in some measure a combination of all of the above and much more. I carry many prejudices and experiences that I try to temper with faith, accountability, and checking myself through reading and discussion [putting my viewpoint out in the public to be peer reviewed – sorta].

The largest difference I can point out between her political and economic viewpoint vs. my demographic of religiously conservatarianism is that she thinks mankind and men/women in general are good people… and I believe they are corrupted and fallen in the real sense of original sin.

These two opposite views come out in different senses, say, economics by way of example. Keynsian Economics, the guiding principle founder of much of the Democrat Party’s direction of their economic planning:

John Maynard Keynes hailed the Soviet Union in a 1936 radio interview as,

“engaged in a vast administrative task of making a completely new set of social and economic institutions work smoothly and successfully.”

And in a preface he wrote to the 1936 German edition of his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Keynes stated that his economic theory,

“is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state” than to “conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.” (this quote and the above is from James Bovard’s book Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen, pp. 14,20,21)

Another Keynes quote lets the individual in on the result of his theories, which most nations use (i.e., central banking; e.g., the Federal Reserve Bank):

“By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some . . .. The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.”  (Partially quoted from Money Mischief: Episodes in Monetary History, by Noble Prize holder in economics, Milton Friedman.)

This last quote is what happens with Keynesian economics!  An unseen taxation of citizens, on top of normal taxation.

Versus

According to Adam Smith, it is when the businessman “intends only his own gain” that he contributes— via the process of competition— to promote the social good “more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.” Smith added: “I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”

Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (New York: Modern Library, 1937), p. 423; from, Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (New York, NY: basic Books, 2007), 57.

I can imagine no man who will look with more horror on the End than a conscientious revolution­ary who has, in a sense sincerely, been justifying cruelties and injustices inflicted on millions of his contemporaries by the benefits which he hopes to confer on future generations: generations who, as one terrible moment now reveals to him, were never going to exist. Then he will see the massacres, the faked trials, the deportations, to be all ineffaceably real, an essential part, his part, in the drama that has just ended: while the future Utopia had never been anything but a fantasy.

C.S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night, p. 131.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

  1. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, p. 292.

My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause [the French Revolution], but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter of January 3, 1793, The Portable Thomas Jefferson, ed. Merrill D. Peterson (New York: Penguin Books, 1975), p. 465; from, Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (New York, NY: basic Books, 2007), 29.

Simply put, one side thinks mankind can qualitatively guide by elitism our economy and lives, whereas the other side does not. “The larger the government the smaller the individual.”

So, with this unnecessarily long introduction, let us get into the FORBES article:

Bookending four years of its infamous one-in, two-out requirement for issuing significant new regulations, the Trump administration quietly just released its status roundup called “Regulatory Reform Results for Fiscal Year 2020.”

According to the administration, agencies in the 2020 fiscal year issued 145 deregulatory actions and 45 significant regulatory actions, for an out-to-in ratio of 3.2 to one.

Of those deregulatory actions, 58 were deemed “significant” by agencies and the administration. Comparing significant-in to significant-out still gives a ratio of 1.3 to one.

[….]

The overall ratio for the entire four-year stretch is 2.5 to one. And since rules considered non-significant may be used to offset significant rules added per E.O. 13,771, the ratios are actually better, as each year’s respective roundup at the White House shows.  

We are not engaging here the debates over whether the cuts in regulations are genuinely highly significant or overblown. Employing different methodologies, the Council of Economic Advisers for its part estimated far more savings from a separate set of Trump-era reforms than the OMB’s year-end reports have claimed. 

But nor does this survey address the warning signs of Trump’s own regulatory actions taken, sometimes of the sort that do not appear in White House Office of Management and Budget compilations. Examples include antitrust regulation, regulation of online content (or the pursuit of it), federal guidance on artificial intelligence, trade restrictions and more. These are capable of swamping regulatory savings.

Note also that E.O. 13771 did not apply to non-significant rules added (although in the year-end updates and in the new Unified Agenda editions, these “Regulatory” actions were also identified). Nor did the Trump order apply to rules mandated by Congress as opposed to ones driven by agency discretion; nor to rules from the so-called independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In any event, the leading edge of the one-in, two-out has been the claimed capping of spending rather than the ratio of cuts to additions. Criticisms notwithstanding, other presidents have not implemented a program as ambitious as Trump’s.

We know the generation of new regulations dropped significantly under Trump. But in terms of rollbacks, it would naturally become harder for an administration acting alone (with no help from Congress) to pick the “significant deregulatory action” fruit over time capable of generating rapid rule and cost rollbacks. Major rollbacks like those involving Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States rules entail years of public consultation, writing, and legal challenges. 

So, for the record and for posterity, Table 1 below presents the inventory of the significant regulatory actions eliminated by the Trump administration per E.O. 13,771, broken down by agency as derived from the administration’s fiscal year 2020 chart. Table 2 presents the significant regulations added….

So, was it as “successful” as Trump said or hoped it to be.

No.

Sounds like a politician or contractor to me – no surprise there.

Was it successful in shrinking control over the American business man/woman?

Yes….

which leads into why we should all want to shrink the role of government in our every-day lives:

TWO OLDER POSTS

Here are the two articles mentioned in the below audio by Armstrong and Getty (Hour 1 Thursday, and Hour 3 – same day):

  • America’s Welfare State Is on Borrowed Time — Biden has fully embraced the mad goal of giving 98% of the population lavish benefits at no cost. (WALL STREET JOURNAL | THE RED LINE [no pay wall])
  • Democrats Are Killing the American Dream — Joe Biden’s American Families Plan replaces individual striving with middle class entitlements. (WALL STREET JOURNAL | BLACK REPUBLICAN)

REASON.COM has been on fire as of late:

Since the start of the Covid crisis, the American economy has been turned on its head. Times are good for the big guys — Big Business and Big Government. But what about for the small business owner, the personification of the American dream? Carol Roth discusses Crony Corporatism/Capitalism and is the author of, “The War on Small Business: How the Government Used the Pandemic to Crush the Backbone of America“

UPDATED my “BAM! What Is Crony Capitalism“ with this Prager U video.

Mr. Wonderful Strikes Again | Kevin O’Leary vs. New York

Published by Papa Giorgio

CNN Host Gets OWNED by Kevin O’Leary (See also TIMCAST’S take on this)

“Shark Tank” co-star Kevin O’Leary said Monday he will “never” invest in the “Mega-loser state” of New York following a judge’s ruling in former President Donald Trump’s civil trial.

KANEKOA THE GREAT

Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary condemns AG Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron’s corrupt and baseless ruling against Donald Trump

“I would NEVER invest in New York now! And I’m not the only one saying that!”

“This $4 billion data center I’m talking about – not a chance I would put that in New York! Zero probability! Never!”

“I’m shocked at this. I can’t even understand or fathom the decision at all. There’s no rationale for it.”

“Every investor is worried because where is the victim? Who lost money? What does this say about the legal bar in New York? Aren’t they going to question this judge?”

“$355 million as a penalty plus interest at 9%, and there’s no victim?”

O’Leary said Governor Kathy Hochul’s “words fall on deaf ears to everybody. There’s nothing she can say to justify this decision.”

“This is a New York problem now.”

RED STATE notes this portion of the dialogue:

Neil Cavuto asked about what Gov. Kathy Hochul said about this decision not affecting other businesses. 

“Every investor is worried because where is the victim? Who lost money? This is some arbitrary decision by a judge. What does this say about the bar, legal bar in New York? Aren’t they going to question this judge? What is this??

$355 million as a penalty plus interest at 9%, and there’s no victim?

Her words fall on deaf ears, there’s nothing she can say that will justify this decision.”

CHARLES PAYNE BONUS!

Charles Payne delivers a powerful takedown of New York Democrats over political persecution of Trump and the impact on NY City:

 

 

Michael Rapaport Says Media Lied About Trump’s Charlottesville Statement

Published by Papa Giorgio

Actor Michael Rapaport has admitted that he helped spread the left’s Trump Charlottesville “very fine people” hoax, saying he was “wrong” to have promoted the lie.

  • “One thing about the Charlottesville — that I ranted about, and I was wrong. When you see the full quote, that wasn’t what he said.” (BREITBART | RIGHT SCOOP | DAILY CALLER)

And so I combine that with more — below, this should be married to my larger post:

LANGUAGE WARNING!

DOJ Says Biden Too Senile To Stand Trial, WH Objects

Published by Papa Giorgio

AN UPDATED EXAMPLE:

  • Biden denied mental incompetence. “I know what the hell I’m doing,” he proclaimed at the event. His memory is fine. The windmills of his mind are spinning in good order. His confusion of the president of Egypt with the president of Mexico tended to belie his assertion. (POWERLINE | RED STATE | TWITCHY [Techno-Fog])

It’s not conspiracy to ask questions about Biden’s “mistakes” (more at RIGHT SCOOP):

Here is a challenge regarding this video from a comment on my site’s Facebook Page:

SUE F. SAID

  • Like Trump is any better, Trump has days where he believes that he beat Obama in 2016. They’re both old & mentally declining…check yourself!

I respond (with an EXTRA addition here, at the end). For those unaware, POST MILLENNIAL’s headline and sub-title explain:

BREAKING: Biden’s DOJ says evidence shows President ‘willfully’ withheld classified docs—but he will not be prosecuted: The special counsel’s report said Biden’s memory “was significantly limited” during the 2023 interviews with Hur

SUE F., I wish to note that the DOJ has agreed with me and not with you. What do I mean? Here is a Tweet and a pic of the official report:

  • they [DOJ] said he [Biden] was too old and decrepit [memory loss] in 2015 for a jury to think he could have knowingly and willingly done these actions [kept top secret documents].

Are they dropping the same charges against Trump for the same reasons? No. You want to know why? Because he [Trump] has a good grasp on reality and a good memory. Trump doesn’t “Spins Yarns That Often Unravel” – as the New York Times says of Biden. Like,

  • Taught Classes At The University Of Pennsylvania;
  • Visited Ground Zero Day After 9/11;
  • Half his House ‘Almost Collapsed’ After a Fire;
  • House Burn Down with My Wife In It — She Got Out Safely;
  • Claims He Convinced Strom Thurmond To Support The Civil Rights Act;
  • He Began Career as Civil Rights Activist;
  • Saw Pittsburgh Bridge Collapse;
  • Ended Cancer;
  • Appointed To The [U.S. Naval] Academy In 1965;
  • Son Died in Iraq;
  • He Formed the Quad Alliance;
  • Born in the Same Hospital Where His Grandfather Died;
  • Was ‘Involved’ in Civil Rights Movement;
  • Went to a Black Church as a Teen;
  • Biden Says He Attended HBCU;
  • Biden Claims He Has Cancer (“That’s why I and so damn many other people I grew up [with] have cancer”);
  • Wrote Law Review Articles About Right to Privacy (claimed he had written “a number of law review articles” about the right to privacy referenced in the now-overturned Roe v. Wade decision)
  • Was A ‘Full Professor’ At The University Of Pennsylvania;
  • Grandfather Died In The Hospital I Was Born In Six Days Before He Was Born;
  • Offered A Job by An Idaho Lumber Company;
  • Used To Drive An 18-Wheeler;
  • Visited Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue After The 2018 Massacre;
  • Chatted With an Amtrak Conductor in His Seventh Year As Vice President, When The Guy Retired 15 Years Before;
  • Detained By South African Authorities While Trying To Visit Nelson Mandela In Prison In The 1970s.

Etc., Etc., Etc. I left out the many political lies because all politicians try to spin the economy, inflation, debt, etc. I chose those because they are lies that show cognitive dissonance. Even after staff telling him to zip it this stuff never happened, he told some again months down the road.

  • Prosecutors Decline To Charge ‘Elderly’ Biden Over ‘Poor Memory’ (FEDERALIST)
  • Hur’s Report: Biden Ready For Memory Care (POWERLINE)
  • Special Counsel Finds Biden Is Too Damn Old to Be Charged in Classified Docs Scandal (PJ-MEDIA)
  • Biden Lawyers Demand Revisions to Hur Report, Claim Descriptions of His ‘Limited Recall’ Are Inflammatory (RED STATE)
  • WH Lawyers Sent Special Counsel This Letter Asking Him to Revise the ‘Biden’s Senile’ Section (TWITCHY)
  • BREAKING: White House demanded Special Counsel CHANGE his report over Biden’s mental fitness (RIGHT SCOOP)
  • ‘Well-Meaning Elderly Man’: Republicans Seize On Biden Memory Issues Detailed In Hur Report (WASHINGTON TIMES)

SUE F. COUNTERS:

  • I’m not part of your brainwashed propaganda group here, the weak minded grasp on to leaders like you & Trump. Trumps mind has been mentally declining due to the stress of losing his trials & millions, but he thanks people like you for paying his legal fees. A billionaire panhandling the weak for jingle… you just gotta love it! Be sure to donate to him…

I RESPOND:

  • Perfect ad hominem attack. I would expect no different from either an atheist activist or a progressive one.

EXTRA!

Just a little leaven to deflate SUE F.’S argument:

Well, at least President Biden is “a president for everybody, whether you live in a red state or a green state.” (POST MILL X)

Trump Is the Bulwark Against This Different Kind of Nuts

Published by Papa Giorgio

I will forever remember this conversation when in Illinois with my wife’s father, mother, and brother as we were out there to see my youngest son graduate from the NAVY.. In one of our politically leaning conversation that bordered on common sense/#science vs. illogic, I mentioned that I am all for a time where there was some middle-ground in politics where both parties had some similar goals. But that this was an impossible task today for varied reasons. When my mother-in-law asked what a reason was, I mentioned that the Democrats — as a political whole — believe that gender’s can change and that men can give-birth and menstruate. This is an example of a “meeting in the middle” deal breaker.

My father-in-law said that only now do we have language advanced enough to define these conditions/genders. I simply pointed out that it is not an advancement but a diminution of language. And the previous VERY LEFT LEANING public is waking up to the fact a bit that biology is real. At least some of them. As these videos [and article] note.

Bill Maher Makes Guest Go Silent by Explaining the Real Reason Voters Want Trump

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” shares a DM clip of Bill Maher trying to get Adam Schiff, Stephen A. Smith and Seth MacFarlane to understand why people vote for Donald Trump on “Real Time with Bill Maher”.

Joe Rogan Goes Off on Why He’s No Longer a Liberal

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” shares a DM clip of Joe Rogan telling Bobby Lee why he is done with the Left and no longer considers himself to be a liberal.

The WASHIGTON TIMES notes the recent sit down with Martin Short where Bill Maher notes that what the Left is doing “is a different kind of nuts.” The Times continues:

That’s how comedian Bill Maher recently framed some of the current dynamics surrounding gender ideology and the “my truth, your truth” mantra increasingly eclipsing public sanity.

Mr. Maher, on a recent episode of his “Club Random” podcast, explained why some people are watching what’s happening on the secular left and essentially recoiling. 

“There’s people on the left who think that biology is just a theory. It’s that kind of stuff — ‘Men can have babies’ kind of stuff, that makes people go: ‘Trump is nuts, that’s true, we know that, but this is a different kind of nuts that’s closer to my house because my kids are coming home from school, and they’re like ‘Am I queer?’ … because like it’s great that we could like, let kids come out and be themselves when they are, but it’s gotten a little like entrapment with the FBI,” he said.

Mr. Maher likened what sometimes happens with kids and gender ideology to what can unfold when FBI officers suggest a crime to miscreants in an effort to get them to act on it. While these potential delinquents might not have acted on their own, the creatively crafted prompting could be enough to push them over the edge into criminality. 

Kids, he said, can be easily twisted into confusion in a similar way, and he said many parents are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the ways in which gender issues are being presented in schools.

“It’s like, ‘We’re not against homosexuality, but when every book is, you know, ‘Bobby Can Wear a Dress,’ the kid gets it in his head,” Mr. Maher said. “And it’s a confusing time.”

[….]

What Mr. Maher is essentially calling out — that “different kind of nuts” — is being fueled by the most toxic attribute plaguing our culture: a carcinogenic detachment from reality and truth and our obsession with the whims of the self.

Mr. Maher has arguably been wrong about a great many issues over the years, yet his reversal and march toward common sense is becoming more pronounced, particularly when it comes to the confusion being foisted upon children. 

[….]

While America is still mostly battling issues surrounding biological men competing in sports, Europe is facing more sweeping chaos. Scotland’s ruling party is weighing a proposal that would imprison parents who refuse to transition their children, a chilling turn in a series of bombastic events surrounding gender.

It’s no surprise the chaos here in the U.S. coincides with shifting tides, as worldview expert George Barna recently revealed just 4% of Americans now hold a biblical worldview. Naturally, fewer people now align with God’s perspective on matters of gender. 

But as Mr. Maher’s reaction shows, even an atheist can see that punishing loving parents, foisting confusion on children, deceiving parents, and convincing kids to lie to their moms and dads violates everything good and right in the world. 

It’s possible to treat people with dignity while telling the truth — and it’s absolutely essential to protect parental rights from an onslaught of bedlam. It’s far past time people speak up unless they want to see this “different kind of nuts” become a new kind of normal.

Trump Is the Bulwark Against Different Kind of Nuts

Bill Maher nails it on the extremeness of his Party. I disagree with his conclusion on climate change, but his point is salient. I have to say I am a Martin Short fan, and one should watch the entire episode.

AS AN ASIDE, a friend wrote the following after hearing Bill Maher’s point regarding Obama in the above video:

Ehhh I disagree with more than just climate change. For one, Barry was abso-fucking-lutely [will substitute effe/effing for the rest] a buffoon. “ISIS is not Islamic.” “They’re JV. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. “If I had a son, he’d look like Treyvon.” “Eh uhhhh aahhh uhh eeeeeeeeeh uhhhhhhhhhh.”

Second, I don’t know if it’s willful ignorance or just actual ignorance, but this escalation on the Left is 100% Barry’s doing. As bad as colleges were before, it was Barry appointing that bitch (I can’t remember her name, I’m sure you know who I’m talking about though,) to head of the collegiate system that basically turned universities into full blown Leftist indoctrination centers (significantly more so than before). It was under her that silence and cancel culture propagated, and the already rampant and extreme Left-wing rhetoric became even more zealous and violent. It’s not a coincidence that under Barry, college students started rioting to prevent speakers that countered Leftism from appearing on campus. Never happened, at least with such frequency or to such undeserving guests, under any other president.

Next, why the effe would he think GenZ would push the Democrats towards moderation instead of further extremism? What effing mechanisms in either the Democrat party, Leftist ideology, or the broad culture as it is, exist to do that considering it’s been going this way since the effing 60s!(There is some, but Maher isn’t aware of it and would be against it if he was) It started with the Boomers, got 100 times worse with GenX, doubled down with Millennials thanks to social media, and has gone full retard with GenZ, and everyone who wasn’t a full retard liberal was warning it was happening. How dumb do you have to be to just assume kids are going to know where the line should be drawn when a) you’ve encouraged ever increasing extremism for decades and b) the very nature of your ideology drives toward it. Leftism will always push towards authoritarianism. Whether it’s utilizing the eugenics of the Nazis, the Utopianism of the Soviets, or the climate change and gender theory of the Democrats. There’s no real fundamental difference. The latest is just extremely goofier.

Also and I wouldn’t really expect Maher to realize this, but Trump is largely beloved on the right. Even initial skeptics like us have come around to a degree, and it’s not primarily due to his anti-woke rhetoric. That’s just the sprinkling of dill on the MAGA sandwich. The actual meat and mustard is the America first agenda that prioritizes the prosperity of the individual as well as the country overall as opposed to the authoritarianism, social striation, and warped ideological dogma of the Left.

Lastly, as much as I love Martin Short, I have to point out, again ignorance. Either willful or general. Things eventually do swing back, but not automatically. Oftentimes, it must be done deliberately, and that usually means war. After a certain point of extremism, it takes a cataclysm to force things back to moderation.

This election will be a good determinate as to where we are, and we’ll know for sure once GenZ reaches full adulthood. Not to be all doom and gloom, but it doesn’t look good. It never came with GenX, it came way too late with Millennials. GenZ has the best chance to get it while still in that 24-30 age range thanks to internet culture and nerdom finally striking back against the creeping Leftism on the cultural front. However, just because GenZ has the best chance doesn’t mean they’ll take it. Memes and a firsthand account of cultural degradation and the indignation that it has ignited are at least something, but I don’t know if it’ll be enough.

Mamet Interviews on UnHeard | Why Trump Will Win in 2024

Published by Papa Giorgio

David Mamet: Why Trump will win in 2024 (28:01 – 36:20)

00:00 – 00:45 – Introduction
00:45 – 05:58 – When did David Mamet realise he was destined for the storytelling business, and how has the industry changed?
05:58 – 10:40 – The politicisation of the screenwriting industry
10:40 – 17:43 – David Mamet on being politically outspoken in a liberal industry
17:43 – 22:40 – The role of the mainstream media
22:40 – 23:28 – “Nobody cares about diversity”
23:28 – 28:01 – Does David Mamet feel any differently about being an American Jew in light of recent events?
28:01 – 36:20 – Will Donald Trump win in 2024?
36:20 – 38:44 – Does Mamet believe in banning speech?
38:44 – 42:28 – The future of Hollywood
42:28 – 43:06 – Concluding thoughts

Diplomacy is Back | Biden

Published by Papa Giorgio

Listen, I am not saying crazy Islamic fundamentalists would not have eventually made a move – even under Trump. But Republican administration foreign policy views are typically more realistic regarding the Middle East and Africa, and the spread of Islamo-Fascism. Under Biden one of the first things he did was remove the Houthis from the terrorist listing. And ignored [for the most part] Iran’s involvement in the hundred[+] attacks on bases in the Middle East and it took a record number of drone and missile strikes to garner a reaction [defensive] to these Iran backed terrorists.

The Biden administration has a skewed view of foreign policy that has created MORE unrest in a volatile area for evil opportunists “to pounce.” As well as a VERY porous border that is another opportunist wedge to get terrorists across the border who are creating cells in the country that will surely “pounce” when ordered.

Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., examines increased tensions in the Middle East after the U.S. struck Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen.

Remember, this was an “attack” [not preemptive, but retaliatory] with supported from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands. For the record.

And the night of the attack on Houthi terrorists [Iranian proxies] led to this exchange that is a rarity on news channels that are not FOX:

Will Trump’s 2nd Term Be a Dictatorship? Victor Davis Hanson Responds

Published by Papa Giorgio

Victor Davis Hanson critiques [destroys] the Democrat and mainstream media’s narrative regarding Trump’s 2nd term as a dictatorship. Must listen to response.

Santa Cruz’s “Okay” Skate Symbol (A #MAGA Hoax)

Published by Papa Giorgio

ORIGINALLY POSTED IN 2017

ROLL THE TAPE PLEASE:

Of course the left thinks this “okay” symbol is racist, like everything is now “racist” (milk, the term “athletic,” criticizing the IRS, saying that Barack Obama lied, wanting lower taxes, Star Wars, your baby, craft beer, being white, lunch bags, etc., etc. — TOWNHALL | TWITTER [Tucker Carlson] | WASHINGTON TIMES | NATIONAL REVIEW | ZERO HEDGE [Tucker Carlson]).

See, of course, my previous posts on the “okay” symbol, here and here. I assume that “racist things” and the list of things caused by “Global Warming” will compete with each other.

Of course, if you are not familiar with the original graphic from SANTA CRUZ, it made #3 in the TOP 50 GREATEST SKATE LOGOS.

I was happened upon DICTIONARY.COM’s definition of the “Okay” symbol — and can you guess what I found? And the reason for Savory Agent’s version of the Santa Cruz Symbol? Here is the WRONG DEFINITION description first:

Important context: While the OK hand emoji 👌 has many harmless meanings, it was co-opted as a white supremacist symbol in the late 2010s. One should now be mindful of context when using or coming across this emoji.

This is just factually wrong. The “okay” symbol as a white supremacist symbol was first a hoax by 4Chan dating to 2017, and, the media made such a stink about it [thinking  it was true] that after the media freakout, white supremacist groups adopted it.

Here is WIKIPEDIA’S noting of it:

In 2017, users on the message-board site 4chan aimed to convince the media and other people that the OK gesture was being used as a white power symbol as a joke. According to The Boston Globe, users on 4chan’s /pol/ (“Politically Incorrect”) board were instructed in February 2017 to “flood Twitter and other social media websites…claiming that the OK hand sign is a symbol of white supremacy,” as part of a campaign dubbed “Operation O-KKK”.

The satirical association of the gesture with white supremacy derived from the assertion that the three upheld fingers resemble a ‘W’ and the circle made with the thumb and forefinger resemble the head of a ‘P’, together standing for “White Power.” While some members of the alt-right used the symbol after the launch of the 4chan campaign, it initially remained ambiguous whether or not it was being used to communicate genuine adherence to white supremacy, or with deliberately ironic motives.

In September 2019 the ADL revised their earlier position and added the OK gesture to its “Hate on Display” database. The listing notes that the usage of the OK hand gesture is sometimes benign, but that it is intended as a symbol of hate in some contexts, as some white supremacists have begun using the OK symbol “as a sincere expression of White Supremacy”. White supremacists have acknowledged using the symbol as a gesture of White Power. As a result of white supremacists’ co-opting the symbol….

Dennis Prager says it often, “everything the Left touches it ruins.” The Mainstream Media and Democrats [the Left] had their grubby hands/paws/mitts all over this story as factual — and because of the perceived power play seen in using this politically — they even ruined the “okay symbol.”

Here is the ADL’s dealing with it — take note the “circle game” was ruined as well by the Democrats and Media:

In 2017, the “okay” hand gesture acquired a new and different significance thanks to a hoax by members of the website 4chan to falsely promote the gesture as a hate symbol, claiming that the gesture represented the letters “wp,” for “white power.” The “okay” gesture hoax was merely the latest in a series of similar 4chan hoaxes using various innocuous symbols; in each case, the hoaxers hoped that the media and liberals would overreact by condemning a common image as white supremacist.

In the case of the “okay” gesture, the hoax was so successful the symbol became a popular trolling tactic on the part of right-leaning individuals, who would often post photos to social media of themselves posing while making the “okay” gesture.

Ironically, some white supremacists themselves soon also participated in such trolling tactics, lending an actual credence to those who labeled the trolling gesture as racist in nature. By 2019, at least some white supremacists seem to have abandoned the ironic or satiric intent behind the original trolling campaign and used the symbol as a sincere expression of white supremacy, such as when Australian white supremacist Brenton Tarrant flashed the symbol during a March 2019 courtroom appearance soon after his arrest for allegedly murdering 50 people in a shooting spree at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

The overwhelming usage of the “okay” hand gesture today is still its traditional purpose as a gesture signifying assent or approval. As a result, someone who uses the symbol cannot be assumed to be using the symbol in either a trolling or, especially, white supremacist context unless other contextual evidence exists to support the contention. Since 2017, many people have been falsely accused of being racist or white supremacist for using the “okay” gesture in its traditional and innocuous sense.

Other, similar-seeming hand gestures have also been mistakenly assumed to have white supremacist connotations as a result of the “okay” hoax. One of these is the so-called “Circle Game,” in which people attempt to trick each other into looking at an okay-like hand gesture made somewhere below the waist. Another is the hand sign of the Three Percenter movement, a wing of the anti-government extremist militia movement. Three Percenters, who are right-wing extremists but are not typically white supremacists, often make a hand gesture to symbolize their movement that uses the outstretched middle, ring, and pinky fingers to represent a Roman numeral “3.” This gesture, from certain angles, can often resemble an “okay” hand gesture and has been misinterpreted by some as a white supremacist symbol.

But hey…. our dictionaries. Lol.

You know who get’s it right? BLOG EMOJIPEDIA!

  • The myth of the OK gesture as a secret symbol of white supremacy begins in 2017 as a deliberate effort on 4chan to spread the sign as such. It was chosen in part due to its use by the controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos and some white nationalists in support of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election. Its creators also claimed that the fingers of the OK gesture represent a W for white and the ring a P for power, as illustrated below. (read it all, it’s good)

I rarely say anything positive about VOX, but the link in the bullet point above surprised me. Bravo.

The “OK Sign” Hoax | Joe Rogan & Tim Pool

Israel Declared War… Day 1

Published by Papa Giorgio

Hamas Fires 5,000 rockets Into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Israel declares ‘state of war’ — More than 100 Israelis are dead and 900 Israelis have been injured in the Hamas rocket and terror assault from Beersheba to Jerusalem, the Health Ministry said.

Israel Declared War…

“Since this morning, the State of Israel has been at war. Our first objective is to clear out the hostile forces that infiltrated our territory and restore the security and quiet to the communities that have been attacked.

The second objective, at the same time, is to exact an immense price from the enemy, within the Gaza Strip as well. The third objective is to reinforce other fronts so that nobody should mistakenly join this war.

We are at war. In war, one needs to be level-headed. I call on all citizens of Israel to unite in order to achieve our highest goal – victory in the war.”

— Benjamin Netanyahu

  • POWERLINE | ADVICE TO ISRAEL [UPDATED]
  • RED STATE | BREAKING: Hamas Fires 5,000 Rockets Into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Israel Declares ‘State of War’
  • RIGHT SCOOP | BREAKING: Benjamin Netanyahu announces Israel is at WAR after Hamas infiltrates Israel
  • RED STATE | WATCH: Horrifying Videos Out of Israel, as Biden Administration Delivers Shockingly Grotesque 
  • RIGHT SCOOP | Hamas terrorist group releases disturbing video showing Israeli women they have captured
  • JERUSALEM POST | Israel at War: IDF Confirms That Hamas Has Israeli Hostages
  • NATIONAL REVIEW | Israel at War: What We Know about the Barbaric Hamas Attacks

Rape Is The Norm In Illegal Immigration | “Rape Trees”

Published by Papa Giorgio

So the real question after going through this post is:

  • “Do you [government officials] dissuade or encourage illegal immigration?(deportation back to your country, build walls, etc. | VS. | cut razor wire to allow into country, invite to swarm the border, reverse previous policies shown to dissuade people making the trip up to our border, etc.)”

In other words, do you encourage more rape? Put another way: do you sacrificially offer more women up to the rapists? Or do you dissuade this offering?

JUST AN UPDATE TO THE BELOW:

Just read this DAILY WIRE story this morning, and thought of this post:

Migrant women are reportedly being raped on the Mexican side of the southern border as they wait and seek to enter the U.S.

Sexual violence has ticked up in the border cities of Reynosa and Matamoros, both of which are across the border at the southern tip of Texas, Reuters reported.

Both border cities are major destinations for migrants who make the treacherous journey north in hopes of coming to America.

The two cities have seen record criminal investigations into the rape of foreign nationals this year, state data stretching back to 2014 shows. Eight sexual assault survivors and more than a dozen local aid workers also confirmed the rise in sexual violence to Reuters.

The sexual attacks are often perpetrated by human smugglers who demand cash from migrants. The details are graphic.

One woman, Carolina, said she arrived in Reynosa on a commercial bus with her 13-year-old son, but she was quickly kidnapped and brought to a house where she and other migrants were raped. At dawn one morning in late May, she was pulled out of the stash house by the men and raped on a broken-down bus.

“It’s the saddest, most horrible thing that can happen to a person,” she told Reuters.

She was released when her family paid a $3,100 ransom, and she was interviewed by Reuters after she had arrived in Chicago.

Another woman from Ecuador said she was also held hostage in Reynosa, and her captors allowed a drug dealer to rape her in exchange for a white powder he gave them, possibly cocaine. She escaped through a window one night holding her Christ child figurine as her kidnappers were sleeping.

She was interviewed by Reuters after she arrived in New Jersey and said, “I still have nightmares.”

Rape is also reportedly one of the torture tactics used by smugglers to get migrants to pay them more money……

END OF UPDATE

(As an aside, the “rape culture” Democrats always mention is being created at the border and the trip up here by their invitation to come, illegally.)

Just wanted to excerpt a portion of a larger post where I detail three lies by the media and Democrats about President Trump. Before that excerpt however, I want to add a more recent story regarding a portion of what will follow:

JUST THE NEWS reports on Senator Ted Cruz’s above mention of “rape trees”:

Mexican cartels are moving millions of people into the U.S. over the border, and “rape trees” are a reminder that the Biden administration isn’t doing enough to stop them, Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said during a news conference with a group of Republican senators who visited the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We heard multiple reports of something, I’ll be candid, I had never heard of before until today — something called a rape tree, which are trees where the traffickers would violently rape young women and then hang their undergarments in the tree as a trophy,” Cruz said on Friday.

According to an Amnesty International report, about 60% of the women and girls who make the trek to the U.S.-Mexico border are raped.

Cartels reportedly charge thousands of dollars to bring someone through Mexico to the U.S. illegally. Republican senators have noted that migrants who cannot afford to pay the fee end up working for the cartel to repay the debt once they enter the U.S.

“How do you think the young women pay off their 5, 6, 7, 8 thousand dollar human trafficking fee?” asked Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson. “I think we all know,” he said, referring to the “rape tree.”

I mentioned this way back in November of 2016, as well as the Amnesty International report… here is the excerpt.

EXCERPT

OKAY… I will now post three responses to items of discussion that my guess is those who are very distraught over Trump’s win and view either him or a large segment of the population who voted for him as racist or bigoted, or mean to disabled persons, is more complicated than these labels. First up is this:

Is Mexico Sending Rapists?

When I ask people to offer me an example of Trump’s “racism,” I get a reference to this example most often:

  • “The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems…. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you…. They’re sending people that have lots of problems…. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” ~ Donald J. Trump

Before I add information that I doubt a millennial has heard because either they or their friends are quick to label Trump as being bigoted or racist for saying this, and moving on without further reflection, I want to note that all Republican politicians said to round up illegals in America would be an impossible task. Trump has evolved on his statement that many understood as rounding up 11-million (actually, there are 30-million). ALSO, every Republican politician noted that the Constitution would not allow for the banning of all Muslims coming to our country. Again, our Constitution forbids this. It allows for banning all persons from a country, but not a religious or sectarian belief. He [Trump] has backed away from this as well, as all of us knew he would. In fact, this was removed from his site. Trump is not a politician, but his team is counseling him well.

…Continuing.

Okay. What of Trump’s statement? It surely sounds bigoted at best.

I will shock the reader.

I think that is the most pro-woman statement in a long time by a politician regarding real — violent — crime against women.

Let me explain.

This is from the HUFFINGTON POST:

As the number of Central American women and girls crossing into the U.S. continues to spike, so is the staggering amount of sexual violence waged against these migrants who are in search of a better life.

According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report…

[….]

Through May, the number of unaccompanied girls younger than 18 caught at the US-Mexico border increased by 77 percent.

But while many of these girls are fleeing their homes because of fears of being sexually assaulted, according to the UNHCR, they are still meeting that same fate on their journey to freedom…

For clarity in the sources for the HUFFPO article, for those that are of the impatient and research non-oriented generation:

✦ 60% Amnesty International Report (PDF)
✦ 80% Is rape the price to pay for migrant women chasing the American Dream? (FUSION)

(UPDATED EDITORIAL BY RPT) To be clear, these rapes are happening by residents who live in towns and districts these migrants are passing through. Other rapes are happening by Coyotajes, as well as many by the men making the trip as well. We know that many Honduren gang-members make the trek, and so, a high percentage of these men (criminals) do in fact cross our border into our nation. Where American women of all ethnic background are subjected to assault. Since we know illegals commit crimes at double the rate of native-born… rape is also part of these increased stats.

NEW STORY

80% of C. American Illegals Raped on Trip to US, Still Dems Encourage Them to Come

…“According to a stunning Fusion investigation, 80 percent of women and girls crossing into the U.S. by way of Mexico are raped during their journey. That’s up from a previous estimate of 60 percent, according to an Amnesty International report,” the well-known news outlet continued….

So, many of the men they travel with are rapping them. Many of the Coyotajes as well take advantage of them. There are what are now being called “RAPE TREES,” which you can learn more about on a previous post of mine, here. Here is how a conversation using this understanding went in the real world:

  • The above exchange was discussed a bit wrong, like Trump, the main idea is lost in the presentation. Gavin McInness made it sound as if the rapes were happening at the border when in actuality they are happening during the entire trip. And the girl thought he meant Coyotes, the real animal. Not Coyotajes. (That was very funny BTW, and why I ended the video like I did.)

What would be the most compassionate step to take? I would say, to control our border. That would help the migrant woman AS WELL AS our own mothers, daughters, and wives. Many from these countries that are experiencing these horrible circumstances are experiencing it because of their government models they have chosen. But this is neither here-nor-there.

The bottom line is that Trump, while not explaining this well at all, was actually making a statement about policy that in the end will protect women. There is this as well dealing with drugs and violence aspect of the comment:

A fresh wave of crime from the infamously violent MS-13 gang in the District of Columbia is being driven by the heavy recruitment of young illegal immigrants.

A surge of minors crossing the U.S. southern border is helping the notorious gang boost their ranks and instigate a new string of violent attacks in the city, reported The Washington Times. Over the past few years a wave of illegal migrant children crossed the U.S. border, and MS-13 appears to be targeting them for recruitment.

“They are certainly susceptible,” Ed Ryan, gang prevention coordinator in Fairfax County, Virginia, told The Washington Times. “They are new, they have very little family, they don’t know the language very well. They are looking for someone who looks like them, talks like them.”

Experts say violence from MS-13, which originally started in California, historically occurs in waves. Currently MS-13, on orders from El Salvador, is ramping up efforts in cities across the U.S. to reestablish their dominance on the streets, reports The Washington Times….

This is just a very short clip of a longer audio (here: ) of John and Ken discussing Mollie Tibbetts and her murderer, Christian Bahena-Rivera. According to the DAILY CALLER, he was employed by a Republican small business owner…

  • “He worked on Yarrabee Farms, which is owned by the family of GOP official Craig Lang, who was a former 2018 Republican candidate for state secretary of agriculture, according to reports by the Des Moines Register.”

…who may have illegally had him in their employ? However, he was an example of the DACA young… so did he have his temporary papers? I have no idea. Nor would I know if he immigrated legally if he would have passed all the checks/balances.

As an side…

Is this man a racist or bigot? He was the co-founder of the United Farm Workers union, and spoke out against the racist organization, La Raza, as well as calling workers who crossed the border “illegal immigrants” and “wetbacks.”

“In the mid 1970s, he conducted the ‘Illegals Campaign’ to identify and report illegal workers, ‘an effort he deemed second in importance only to the boycott’ (of produce from non-unionized farms), according to Pawel. She quotes a memo from Chavez that said, “If we can get the illegals out of California, we will win the strike overnight.”

…“Cesar Chavez opposed illegal immigration,” Levin said during a Wednesday appearance on Fox News’ Hannity. 

After saying that the premise that “compassion is an open border” is a “new idea” that has been pushed in recent times, Levin said that “a nation has a right to secure its border” and its citizens have a right to know who is coming into their country. 

Chavez, who was also against ethnic organizations like La Raza, would tell illegal immigrants to get out of the country, especially because they lowered the wages of American workers. And he was often far from compassionate in handling illegal immigrants….

(NATIONAL REVIEW, BREITBART and the HUFFINGTON POST)

Steven Calabresi Now Says Trump Excluded from the 14th

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is a large “Sploosh” as a Part Three to the question of Trump’s ability to be on the ballot for the 2024 election. In my Part Two  dated Sept 7th, based on a great couple readings that: “I see nothing in the 14th Amendment including the President or Vice President in the outcome. In fact, I see language excluding them.” (Also Part One is worth reading through as well.)

The guy who popularized the article noted by the #NeverTrumpers and the Left is the co-founder of The Federalist Society, Steven Calabresi. And when he came out in support of by a couple Federalist legal scholars [as well as some Leftist scholars], the Left and said #NeverTrumpers were quick to memorialize it:

THE NATIONAL PULSE nails it with this link fested post!

Steven Calabresi – the law professor who co-founded the conservative Federalist Society legal organization – has conceded that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not in fact bar former President Donald Trump from the presidential ballot, despite claiming in a much-hyped op-ed from August that this was the case.

The Northwestern University law professor had been an outspoken proponent of the legal theory that Trump was barred from running for office on the grounds that he incited an insurrection on January 6th, 2021 – in violation of a Civil War era constitutional provision. It’s an initially floated by law professors William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, with Calabresi quickly popularizing it.

[….]

The three men were originally in agreement that “an officer of the United States” included individuals elected as either President or Vice-President. However, Calabresi now says he believes that the President and Vice-President are not, due to “a technicality in the drafting of the disqualification clause of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment”, “officers” – that term being reserved for positions appointed by the President, rather than the President himself.

Additionally he concedes the events of January 6th do not constitute an ‘insurrection’. Calabresi credits former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey with changing his mind.

New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan has already rejected calls to disqualify Trump, via the 14th Amendment, from the state’s ballot.

The VOLOKH CONSPIRACY notes the change of mind: “Calabresi now agrees with Tillman that the President is not an “Officer of the United States.” And YAHOO NEWS also notes that last week professor Calabresi made an about-face

  • In a letter to The Wall Street Journal, he said he had been persuaded by an opinion article in that newspaper that the provision — Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — did not apply to Trump.

So I wanted to help out the #NeverTrumpers and pre-empt their correcting themselves:

Here is the WALL STREET JOURNAL “quick clip” by Professor Calabresi:

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s op-ed “Was Trump ‘an Officer of the United States’?” (Sept. 8) has caused me to change my mind about an argument that I have had with Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman for 25 years. Mr. Mukasey is right: Looked at in the context of the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment, the president is neither an “officer of the United States,” nor, obviously, a “member of Congress.” That must be why the Constitution prescribes a separate oath for the president.

As a result, former President Donald Trump isn’t covered by the Disqualification Clause, and he is eligible to be on the ballot in the 2024 presidential election. I am correcting the public record on this important issue by sending you this letter.

Prof. Steven G. Calabresi

Northwestern Law School

VOLOKH continues:

  • Last week, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. He contended that the President is not an “Officer of the United States.” Many of Mukasey’s arguments track a 2021 article that Seth and I wrote in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty. Long-time readers may remember that Tillman persuaded Mukasey on this issue back in 2015. (This issue also came up with the Mar-A-Lago raid.)

Here is key point from that WALL STREET JOURNAL article:

Was Trump ‘an Officer of the United States’?

A careful look at the 14th Amendment’s Insurrection Clause shows that it doesn’t apply to him.

….A good deal of attention has focused thus far on whether the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was an “insurrection or rebellion” and, if so, whether Mr. Trump “engaged” in it. Those questions, however, need not be answered until two preliminary questions of law are addressed: Is the presidency an “office . . . under the United States,” and was the presidential oath Mr. Trump swore on Jan. 20, 2016, to support the Constitution taken “as an officer of the United States”?

The latter question is easier. The use of the term “officer of the United States” in other constitutional provisions shows that it refers only to appointed officials, not to elected ones. In U.S. v. Mouat (1888), the Supreme Court ruled that “unless a person in the service of the government . . . holds his place by virtue of an appointment . . ., he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States.” Chief Justice John Roberts reiterated the point in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010): “The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’ ”

Article VI of the Constitution provides that senators and representatives “and all executive and judicial Officers . . . of the United States” take an oath to support the Constitution. But the presidential oath is separately provided for at the end of Article II, Section 1, which would be superfluous if the president’s oath were required by the general language in Article VI. Mr. Trump took an oath as president pursuant to Article II, not as an officer pursuant to Article VI. Because the Insurrection Clause applies only to those who have taken an oath “as an officer of the United States,” he can’t be barred by that clause from serving in any capacity.

As for the former question, the language disqualifying a rebel from holding “any office . . . under the United States” follows the language disqualifying the rebel from office as “Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President.” If “any office . . . under the United States” is broad enough to cover the president, it is certainly broad enough to cover senators, representatives and perhaps electors. Such a reading would make reference to those specific offices superfluous.

[….]

As for the former question, the language disqualifying a rebel from holding “any office . . . under the United States” follows the language disqualifying the rebel from office as “Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President.” If “any office . . . under the United States” is broad enough to cover the president, it is certainly broad enough to cover senators, representatives and perhaps electors. Such a reading would make reference to those specific offices superfluous.

Is it plausible that the authors of the 14th Amendment specified senators, representatives and electors but meant to include the presidency and vice presidency under the general term “any office . . . under the United States”? Note that the term is “any office,” not “any other office,” which implies that the positions listed before it aren’t “offices under the United States,” because they are elected not appointed.

But that conclusion is uncertain. The phrase “office under the United States” appears four other times in the body of the Constitution, at least two of which—one barring officeholders from accepting a foreign title or emolument, and one barring anyone impeached and convicted from holding such an office—may well apply to an elected official, including the president. Also, if a holder of an “office under the United States” meant the same thing as “Officer of the United States,” why weren’t the same words used to specify it?

That may be puzzling, but as applied to Mr. Trump it is irrelevant, because—again—he didn’t take and thus didn’t violate an oath as an “Officer of the United States,” and so cannot be barred by the 14th Amendment from seeking re-election.

Even a criminal conviction wouldn’t bar him from seeking and winning the presidency. The Constitution specifies only that a person seeking that office be at least 35, a natural-born citizen and a 14-year U.S. resident. If Mr. Trump is to be kept from office, it will have to be done the old-fashioned way, the way it was done in 2020—by defeating him in an election.

Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general, 2007-09, and as a U.S. district judge, 1988-2006.