The Parent PLUS Student Loan Program Preys on Low-Income Families and Should Be Shut Down

When Congress finally passes the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), it will include some changes to the Parent PLUS student loan program.  The Senate version and the House version both put a cap on the amount of money parents can borrow for their children's college education through Parent PLUS.

Currently, students' parents can borrow all the money they need to pay for their children's college education through Parent PLUS loans. The House-approved version of the BBB limits the amount parents can borrow to $50,000 total. The Senate caps the amount at $65,000 per dependent.

Three years ago, I argued in a blog essay that the Parent PLUS program is a predatory scheme that saddles low-income families with unmanageable debt. I'm reposting that essay below.

* * * 

 Years ago, I was strolling along a lakeside hiking trail in a Dallas-area park. As I was walking across a wooden bridge, I looked down to see a ball of wriggling snakes below me.

It was a big cluster--about the size of a beachball. It was a scary sight, and I didn't stick around long enough to determine whether the snakes were poisonous. I just hurried on my way.

The Department of Education's Parent PLUS program is like a big ball of snakes. The program has become so predatory, so large, and so politically charged that we don't want to even try to untangle it.  We just want to hurry along without thinking about it.

Parent PLUS is a federal program that lends money to parents to help them pay for their children's education. Although Congress supposedly intended the program to help affluent families, six out of ten parent borrowers are from low-income households.  And, as Matt Krupnick reported for Newsweek, at 140 schools, 80 percent of parent borrowers are in low-income homes.

Parent PLUS default rates are high. According to a Newsweek analysis, nearly ten percent of parents at 1000 colleges defaulted or were seriously late with payments within just two years of their child left college. At some schools, Parent PLUS default rates ran as high as 30 and even 40 percent.

And borrowing costs are high: "6.28 percent for the 2021-2022 academic year plus an upfront fee of 4.22 percent" (as reported by Newsweek).

In 2019-2020, parents took out Parent PLUS loans on behalf of three-quarters of a million students, and the loan amounts averaged about $16,000. 

But the average Parent PLUS loan at some colleges is much larger. At Spelman College, an HBCU in Atlanta, the median Parent PLUS loan was $85,000 for parents whose children graduated or left school between 2017 and 2019.

Other schools with high Parent PLUS loan amounts include New York University (almost $67,000) and Loyola Marymount in Los Angeles ($60,000). The median loan amount is also high at several art and music schools: Berklee College of Music in Boston, Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, and Savannah College of Art and Design in Georgia.

Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, and other news media have shown that some colleges are taking advantage of their students' parents by encouraging them to take out loans in addition to the federal loans and Pell grants that students receive on their own.

This is predatory behavior. And parents who take out Parent PLUS loans will find it is almost impossible to discharge these loans in bankruptcy.

Congress needs to shut down the Parent PLUS program. Or at the very least, Congress should amend the Bankruptcy Code to allow financially distressed parents to discharge these loans in bankruptcy.

But Congress will probably take no action. It sees the Parent PLUS program as a big ball of snakes, and no politician has the guts to close down this pernicious scam against low-income parents.

Social Security is Not Going Away, But It Will Become Worthless

Inflation is the ally of political extremism, the antithesis of order.

Adam Ferguson

When Money Dies

According to a recent government report, Social Security's trust funds will be entirely depleted by 2034, just nine years from now. What does that mean?

Anil Suri, a Merril Lynch analyst, said that Social Security's predicted insolvency doesn't mean the government will stop issuing Social Security checks. However, recipients could see their benefits decreased by 20 percent.

This is bad news for retired or soon-to-be-retired Americans. Approximately 40 percent of older Americans rely on their Social Security checks for almost all of their income.  A 20 percent cut in benefits would be disastrous for these people--plunging them into poverty. Indeed, most retired Americans rely on their Social Security checks to help meet basic expenses, even if they have other sources of income.

I am 76 and receive monthly Social Security checks, but I'm not worried about a possible benefit reduction. Why?

First, there are several things Congress can do to shore up the Social Security trust fund, such as raising the age for full benefits or increasing payroll contributions for people who are in the workforce. I'm confident that Congress will take action to stabilize the Social Security trust fund.

Moreover, it's politically impossible for Congress to reduce Social Security benefits because so many Americans depend on them. Everyone recognizes that Social Security is the third rail in national politics. There are lots of budget items that will be slashed before Social Security benefits are cut.

Slashed benefits don't concern. What worries me is inflation.

The Federal government's national debt is $36 trillion, and interest on that debt is almost $1 trillion annually. Congress isn't even trying to balance the budget. Indeed, it will probably authorize an increased deficit as part of the Big Beautiful Bill.

Our government has financed our unbalanced budget with treasury bonds at reasonably low interest rates. The U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency, and the United States has historically been regarded as a safe place to park money.

If the world loses confidence in the dollar, interest rates on treasury bonds will go up--perhaps dramatically. Inflation will rear its ugly head, and the dollar's buying power will shrink.

George Will wrote recently that the national debt makes a fiscal crisis inevitable. I agree.

That's what scares me: not a smaller Social Security check but a worthless check due to inflation. If inflation gets out of control, millions of Americans will suffer, especially older Americans whose Social Security checks are their sole source of income.

"Hangin' on to What I Got": Buck Owens' Advice for Hard Times

 Well, if a dollar bill is not worth a dime

And if the whole world goes to pot, 

Well, I'm a tellin' you that I'm a happy man

And I'm a hangin' on to what I got.

Hangin' on to What I Got

Buck Owens

Elon Musk dislikes President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," arguing that it will contribute to the growing federal deficit and the nation's $36 trillion national debt. 

Musk is probably right, but whatcha gonna do? The Democrats oppose the BBB, but they won't consent to any budget cuts that would harm their shrinking and perpetually unhappy political base.

Meanwhile, hard-pressed Americans need a tax break, and I favor helping 'em out.

Let's face it: It's too late for the politicians to balance the federal budget or reduce our $36 trillion national debt. Nor will the Trump administration be able to halt inflation or curb interest rates. As Merle Haggard put it, our country is "rolling down hill like a snowball headed for hell," and the average American has no power to change the trajectory of our impending economic meltdown.

Hard times are coming to Flyover Country. Most of us will become poorer in the coming years, especially older Americans living on fixed incomes.

Perhaps all the little folk can do is take Buck Owens' advice and try to hang on to what we've got--our families, our jobs, and our homes.

This is a good time for Americans to get introduced to the music of hard times, a subgenre of country music dubbed the Bakersfield Sound. The leading lights of the Bakersfield Sound--Buck Owens, Merle Haggard, Woody Guthrie, Wynne Stewart, Tommy Collins, and Wanda Jackson--all saw hard times during the Great Depression, and they expressed their arduous life journeys in their heartfelt songs. 

You can hear that music today by listening to Dwight Yoakam's Bakersfield Beat on Sirius radio. I predict that the audience for the Bakersfield Sound will expand as our national economy collapses.  The Bakersfield Sound is the music of hard times, and hard times are just around the corner.

The Grapes of Wrath: Hangin' On to What I Got

Is the Democratic Party Suicidal? Warning Signs are Everywhere

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, people with suicidal ideations usually display warning signs.

For example, they may be overcome by sadness or rage, filled with hopelessness, or consumed by anger. Often, they withdraw from friends, make plans to die, or take extreme risks.

NIMH's checklist is for suicidal individuals, but these warning signs might also apply to moribund organizations. The Democratic Party, stunned and depressed by the election of Donald Trump, is showing distinct signs that it is contemplating self-destruction.

First, the Democrats are alienating their core constituency, just as suicidal individuals withdraw from their friends. The Democrats used to be the party of the Big Tent, made up of blue-collar workers, Catholics, labor unions, and ethnic Americans--particularly Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics. The Democrats also had a strong following among suburban women, who tend to be more liberal than their husbands.

But the Dems alienated all these groups. Its maniacal attachment to transgender sports turned off suburban women who don't like the idea of their soccer-playing daughters showering together with boys in the school gym. 

The Biden administration alienated traditional Catholics when the news got out that the FBI considered them to be potential domestic terrorists.

Hispanics didn't like being labeled as Latinx, as leftists and Democratic operatives often do.

American Jews, once considered to be the bedrock of the Democratic Party, were horrified by the Democratic Party's high tolerance for antisemitism.

Suicidal individuals sometimes display fits of rage, and the Democrats also indulge in irrational bouts of anger. I can't count the number of times that Democratic politicians have spewed forth profanity-laced tirades against their political opponents. Foul-mouthed Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (no relation to Davey) has become the new face of the Democratic Party, and her colleagues have adopted her potty-mouth rhetorical style.

Finally, NIMH noted that suicidal individuals oftentimes engage in risky behavior, and again, this warning sign applies to Democratic politicians. Senator Alex Padilla and several other Democratic pols have been physically restrained for bizarre antics, and a couple of Democrats have been arrested for interfering with federal deportation operations.

What's ahead for the Democratic Party? I think it is fast becoming a self-destructive fringe group. Democratic leaders have given up all hope of becoming the majority political party in the United States. They now seek to seize political power through sowing chaos. In other words, they have become institutionally suicidal.

 

10 Best Songs About Texas Cities: The Authoritative List

I love lists of best things, although I usually disagree with the list compilers' recommendations. Over the last few days, I perused several lists, and all were flawed.

Inside Hook posted a list of "72 Books Every Man Should Read." I scanned it twice and realized I hadn't read any of them. Nor do I plan to. That list is no good to me.

Food and Wine published a list of the top ten barbecue restaurants, but only two were in Texas, so that list is bogus. 

And today, the New York Times presented a list of the 21st century's 10 best movies, and The Guard, starring Brendan Gleeson and Don Cheadle, wasn't on it. So you know that list is total bullshit.

Not long ago, I compiled a list of the ten best songs about Texas, and today, I'm releasing my list of the ten best songs about Texas towns.

1. Dallas from a DC 9 at Night, written by Jimmie Dale Gilmore, is the stand-alone best song about a Texas city. I lived in Dallas for six years and love the town (great hamburgers), but Jimmie Dale perfectly captures a distinct coldness in the Dallasites. Here's a sample:

Dallas is a rich man with a death wish in his eyes
A steel and concrete soul with a warm-hearted love disguise
A rich man who tends to believe in his own lies
Dallas is a rich man with a death wish in his eyes

2. San Antonio Rose, the signature song of Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys, captures the magic of Texas Swing music during the 1930s when the people of Texas danced to forget about the miseries of the Great Depression. Patsy Cline's version is probably the most famous, but the song has been recorded by a host of artists, including Pat Boone, Clint Eastwood, and Bing Crosby. The lyrics have a mystical quality:

Deep within my heart lies a melody
A song of old San Antone
Where in dreams I live with a memory
Beneath the stars all alone

3. 11 Months and 29 Days, a Johnny Paycheck tune, tells the tale of a guy who gets arrested in Austin and sentenced to a year in the Huntsville penitentiary. His advice to his friends is timeless:

Keep the Lone Star cold
And the dance floor hot while I'm gone
Keep the Lone Star cold
And the dance floor hot while I'm gone, hey now
Keep your hands off my woman
I ain't gonna be gone that long

4. Telephone Road, an ode to Houston's honky tonk district, may be my favorite Texas song. Back in the day, Telephone Road was where the refinery workers went to dance and drink beer. During my sad sojourn at the University of Houston, I often ate lunch at a Telephone Road hamburger joint or Mexican restaurant. Nothing like a plate of enchiladas and a Modelo to cheer you up after being waterboarded at a faculty meeting.

Steve Earle's lyrics capture the vitality of Houston's blue-collar culture:

Come on, come on
Come on, let's go
This ain't Louisiana
Your mama won't know
Come on, come on
Come on, let's go
Here everybody's rockin'
Out on Telephone Road

5. El Paso, one of Marty Robbins's famous ballads, is about a cowboy who gets in a gunfight over "Wicked Felina," whom he loves unaccountably. The cowboy shoots his rival, rides off into the Badlands of New Mexico, and then returns to El Paso to die from a bullet from a posse member's rifle. All ends well, however, because Felina finds him and he dies in her arms.

A sample from Marty Robbins's baroque and bathetic lyrics:

From out of nowhere, Felina has found me kissing my cheek as she kneels by my side 
Cradled by two loving arms that I'll die for. One little kiss and Felina, goodbye

6. Corpus Christi Bay, a profound song written by Robert Earle Keane, is a story about a young oil rig worker who can't stop drinking. He carouses with his brother for a time, but his brother wises up after his wife and children leave him. Several people have covered this song, but perhaps Johnny Rodriguez sings it best. Here is a snippet from the song's depressing story:

[My brother] came to Corpus just this weekend.
It was good to see him here.
He said he finally gave up drinking.  

Then he ordered me a beer

If I could live my life all over
It wouldn't matter anyway.
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay

7. Amarillo by Morning, a song about what a man gives up to be a rodeo bull rider, is most widely known as a George Strait song. I love this song, which is a cautionary tale about misplaced priorities:

Amarillo by mornin'
Up from San Antone
Everything that I got
It's just what I've got on
When that Sun is high
In that Texas sky
I'll be buckin' at the county fair
Amarillo by mornin'
Amarillo, I'll be there

8. Home in San Antone is on my list because San Antonio, the oldest Texas city, deserves two top-10 songs. Although others have sung it, Home in San Antone is a Bob Wills song articulating the genial patriotism most Texans feel for their communities. These lyrics assure us that we'll be okay, even if we're broke, so long as we own a little piece of San Antonio real estate:

Haven't got a worry, haven't got a care
Haven't got a thing to call my own
Tho' I'm out of money, I'm a millionaire.
I still have my home in San Antone.

When I greet my neighbor with a howdy all,
I'm wealthy as a king upon a throne.
You can have your mansion or a cottage small
I'll just take my home in San Antone

9. Cross the Brazos at Waco, like Marty Robbins's El Paso, is a song about a gunman who tries to give up a violent life to be with his sweetheart, but repents too late. He promises his darling that he'll ride from Waco to San Antonio and arrive at dawn, which is impossible since the towns are a hundred miles apart:

Cross the Brazos at Waco
Ride hard,and I'll make it by dawn
Cross the Brazos at Waco.
I'm safe when I reach San Antone

10. Fort Worth Blues, by Steve Earle, is the last song on my Top 10 list. 

Amsterdam was always good for grieving,
 And London never fails to leave me blue.
Paris never was my kinda town,
So I walked around
With the Ft. Worth Blues

Did Steve Earle really mean it when he said Paris was never his kind of town? Maybe he was referring to Paris, Texas.

If so, I agree with him. I suffered a stroke in April 2023 at the Whataburger in Paris, Texas. Very disagreeable event, but if you have to have a stroke, the Paris, Texas Whataburger store is the right place to have it.

 

Congress Might Do Away With Grad PLUS: Killing the Colleges' Cash-Cow Graduate Programs

 The U.S. House of Representatives passed President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill,  but it was tweaked a bit in the Senate. A final bill will be crafted through the reconciliation process, but it seems inevitable that Congress will scuttle Grad PLUS, an unsubsidized federal loan program with no borrowing limit.

The Senate version of the Big, Beautiful Bill caps federal loans for professional degrees (primarily law and medicine) at $200,000 and other graduate degrees at $100,000. This is a student-loan reform that is long overdue.

Once the colleges realized that there was no borrowing limit on grad-school loans, they jacked up graduate-school tuition rates and rolled out new graduate programs to lure in more suckers. MBA programs popped up like crabgrass on the campus quad, and mediocre MBA programs were often as expensive as the prestigious programs offered by Harvard and other elite schools.

Of course, the universities deny the charge that they raised tuition prices to take advantage of limitless student borrowing, but that's academic bullshit. The universities have never accepted the responsibility of keeping their costs down.

Sandy Baum, a nationally recognized student loan scholar, acknowledged that there is evidence that Grad Plus contributed to an increase in high-cost graduate degrees. Baum also admitted that the federal government's "infinite borrowing" policy is "not optimal," and has resulted in graduate students racking up hundreds of dollars in student debt to get a master's degree in fields like creative writing (as reported in Inside Higher Ed).

College leaders are alarmed at the prospect that Congress will kill the cash cows that are placidly grazing in the business schools and liberal arts departments. They claim that putting a cap on grad-school borrowing will prevent low-income students from getting medical and law degrees and other valuable post-graduate credentials.

More bullshit. There is no good reason for graduate school tuition to be as high as it is, especially for programs that don't enable their graduates to get a higher salary.

Here's one example that illustrates my point. In 2017, Inside Higher Ed published an article on the high cost of getting a master's degree in data journalism from Columbia University. According to Columbia's own estimate, a student would pay $147,000 for this degree, including $106,000 in tuition and fees. And that was seven years ago.

Is a Columbia master's degree in journalism worth the cost? Probably not. Charlie J. Johnson, an editor for the Chicago Tribune at the time, was quoted in the Inside Higher Ed article as tweeting that “[a] $100,000 master’s degree in journalism is a stupid thing.”

Suppose Congress does away with the Grad Plus loan and puts a reasonable cap on graduate student loans. In that case, it will kill the universities' cash cows--high-priced graduate degrees that are wildly overpriced and often worthless. 

However, I'm not holding my breath.  At this very moment, the higher education industry's lobbyists are creeping around Capitol Hill, smoozing our national legislators, claiming that limitless student loans for grad school must be perpetuated.  

These sleazeballs lobbyists will argue that the present gravy train must not be derailed because socioeconomically disadvantaged students desperately need a worthless graduate degree or professional degree, no matter what it costs.

I predict that the Grad PLUS program will be retired. Nevertheless, the federal student loan program will continue to underwrite wildly overpriced graduate programs that will leave graduates with mountains of student debt--debt that they cannot discharge in bankruptcy.

Will Congress Kill Cash-Cow Graduate Programs?

Savage v Educational Credit Management Corp.: How $37,000 in student loans ballooned into a $250,000 debt

Paul Savage took out $37,000 in student loans to get a degree in human resources management from Temple University, which he obtained in 1997. Later that year, he consolidated the loans at an 8 percent interest rate, but he never made a single payment on the debt. 

Twenty-five years later, Savage tried to discharge his student loan debt in a Georgia bankruptcy court. By this time, his outstanding loan balance had ballooned to approximately $250,000.

Educational Credit Management Corporation, perhaps the U.S. Department of Education's most ruthless debt collector, opposed Savage's attempt to discharge his massive student loan obligation. It argued that Savage was eligible for REPAYE, a 20-year income-based repayment plan. Based on his low income, Savage's required monthly loan payment would be zero.

Furthermore, ECMC argued that Savage failed to make a good-faith effort to repay his debt, which barred him from bankruptcy relief.

Bankruptcy Judge Sage Sigler rejected ECMC's arguments and discharged Mr. Savage's student debt. Judge Sigler's reasoning was as follows:

First, the judge ruled that Savage had managed his loans in good faith. Although he failed to make any payments for over 25 years, Savage had either been enrolled in an income-based repayment plan or a government-approved deferment program and had never been in default. In addition. Savage had made good faith efforts to maximize his income, despite his average annual earnings over the years being only $14,000.

At the time of his bankruptcy filing, Savage was 57 years old. If he were forced into a 20-year income-based repayment plan that required him to make no payments, interest would accrue over the next two decades, increasing his total student loan debt to $1 million.

In short, Judge Sigler ruled that repaying his student loans would impose an undue hardship on Mr. Savage, and thus, he was entitled to bankruptcy relief.

Implications

Paul Savage was fortunate to have Judge Sigler presiding over his bankruptcy case. Many bankruptcy judges have refused to discharge student loan debt, even in cases with facts more dire than those presented by Savage.

ECMC has repeatedly argued that student loan borrowers who qualify for income-based repayment plans are ineligible for bankruptcy relief if their monthly payments are de minimis. Fortunately, many bankruptcy judges have begun to reject that argument for the same reasons Judge Sigler did.

It's nuts for the federal government, acting through private debt collectors, to oppose student-loan bankruptcy relief for people like Paul Savage. Democratic politicians seeking ways to support their young constituents should advocate for legislation that affords bankruptcy relief to overburdened debtors who have handled their student loans in good faith.

 Congress hasn't acted because many congressional legislators view the higher education industry as their core constituency, not college students. The higher education industry is content with the status quo, which allows colleges to charge outrageous tuition prices, knowing that students and their parents will borrow the money to pay the bill.

Bankruptcy Judge Sage Siegler

Two Men Shot at Utah 'No Kings' Rally: This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

Earlier this month, anti-Trump protesters held a 'No Kings' rally in Salt Lake City.  Like other 'No Kings' rallies held around the country, the Salt Lake City event was "mostly," "mainly," and " broadly" peaceful. 

Unfortunately, two people attending the rally got shot. Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, a 39-year-old father of two children, was killed, and Arturo Gamboa, age 24, was wounded.

Gamboa was carrying a rifle when the shooting started, although he didn't fire it.  Nevertheless, he was arrested on suspicion of murder.

What the hell happened? According to news reports, an armed "peacekeeper" at the 'No Kings' event saw Gamboa with the rifle, considered him to be a threat, and shot at him. Gamboa was wounded, but Mr. Ah Loo, an innocent bystander, was killed by an errant bullet.

Gamboa was later released from jail after prosecutors said that they couldn't determine whether to file charges until they had evaluated more evidence. According to some reports, Gamboa's rifle was not loaded, and Gamboa did not point the weapon at anyone.

What can we learn from this senseless tragedy? Two things. 

First, people organizing mass rallies who feel the need for armed security should only hire bonded, licensed, and insured professionals who are trained in the use of firearms.

Second, event organizers should purchase liability insurance. It seems likely that Mr. Ah Loo's family will file a lawsuit against the 'No Kings' organization.

Third, no one attending a mass rally should openly carry a firearm, whether or not the weapon is loaded.

Several states now permit adults to openly carry firearms without requiring them to take a gun safety course. Utah is one of those states.

Open Carry laws are bad public policy. If no one at Salt Lake City's 'No Kings' event had been carrying a gun, Mr. Ah Loo's children would still have a father.

Arturo Gamboa Photo credit: Scott G. Winterton, Deseret News

Governor Newsom Overplays His Hand: The 9th Circuit Lets the Federalized Guard Remain in Los Angeles

 As Blue State governors now know, President Trump is serious about deporting criminal aliens from the U.S. 

Earlier this month, federal agents were thwarted in their deportation efforts by rioters in Los Angeles who threw rocks at ICE agents, blocked highways, looted businesses, and vandalized federal buildings. In response, Trump federalized the California National Guard to protect federal agents and federal property.

Predictably, Governor Gavin Newsom sued the Trump administration and got a restraining order barring Trump from calling out the Guard. Judge CharlesBreyer, a federal district judge, ruled that Trump's mobilization order violated federal law and that Trump had not federalized the Guard "through" Governor Newsom as he was legally required to do.

Newsom v. Trump: The 9th Circuit Lets the Guard Remain in LA

Trump immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Yesterday, a three-judge panel issued a stay against Judge Breyer's order, allowing the California National Guard to remain in Los Angeles under President Trump's command--at least for the present.

Governor Newsom advanced two main arguments to support his position that Trump had illegally federalized the California National Guard. First, he maintained that Trump had not notified him before issuing the deployment order, rendering it unlawful.

The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, pointing out that Trump's mobilization order was issued to the California Adjutant General "through Governor Newsom." The court also ruled that President Trump was not required to obtain Governor Newsom's consent before federalizing the troops and deploying them to Los Angeles.

Second, Governor Newsom argued that Trump hadn't satisfied the statutory requirement for federalizing the Guard. Specifically, Newsom's lawyers maintained that the unrest in Los Angeles was not severe enough to justify calling out the National Guard.

Judge Breyer bought Newsom's argument, but the Ninth Circuit disagreed. Citing a 19th-century judicial precedent, a three-judge panel ruled  "that the President's determination that an exigency exists [should] be given significant deference.

 The panel went on to summarize the chaotic events on June 6 and 7:

There is evidence that . . . protesters threw objects at ICE vehicles trying to complete a law enforcement operation, pinned down several FPS officers defending federal property by throwing concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects, and used large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram in an attempt to breach the parking garage of a federal building. Plaintiffs’ own submissions state that some protesters threw objects, including Molotov cocktails, and vandalized property. [Internal punctuation omitted.]

These events, in the Ninth Circuit's view, justified Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard.

Implications

Governor Newsom's lawsuit to kick the federalized National Guard out of Los Angeles backfired on him. Thanks to the Ninth Circuit's preliminary opinion, we now know that President Trump can mobilize the Guard to protect federal officers and guard federal property without consulting a governor and without a governor's permission. Moreover, the courts are required to give the President's mobilization decision considerable deference.

Progressive municipalities across the United States proudly call themselves sanctuary cities, vowing not to cooperate with federal deportation efforts. In some instances, local officials have impeded federal officers. The Ninth Circuit decision may prompt Blue City mayors to reconsider their stance. 

If mayors and governors allow anti-ICE protests to get out of control, as Governor Newsom did, Trump will federalize the Guard. The Mayors of Chicago, Denver, and Boston should take note.

Los Angeles Anti-ICE riot. Image credit: New York Post

Kristi Noem's Security Team Throws Senator Alex Padillla in the Briar Patch

Please don't throw me in that briar patch.

Joel Chandler Harris

Surely you remember Joel Chandler Harris's Uncle Remus tales about Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox. The two characters are mortal enemies, and Brer Fox spends his days scheming to capture Brer Rabbit.

One day, Brer Fox succeeds, and he contemplates the ways he might kill the little bunny: burning, hanging, or drowning?

 Brer Rabbit, seemingly terrified, expresses no fear about any fate but one: "Please," he begs, "don't throw me in that briar patch."

Of course, that's precisely what Brer Fox does,  and Brer Rabbit gleefully escapes from captivity.  "I was born and bred in the briar patch," Brer Rabbit jeers as he makes his escape.

Democratic politicians are behaving just like Brer Rabbit.  Several have blatantly misbehaved in the hope that they'll be forcibly restrained, thereby providing them with a photo opportunity. They want their base to see them being put in handcuffs for opposing President Trump's efforts to deport illegal migrants.

Senator Alex Padilla is the most prominent grandstander.  Last week, Padilla interrupted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a Los Angeles press conference, knowing full well that the Secretary of Homeland Security is protected by a security team. Padilla was forcibly restrained and handcuffed. 

There are two interpretations of this teapot tempest. Padilla said he was simply attempting to ask Secretary Noem a question. A conservative commentator said that Padilla "storm[ed] in like a maniac" and that the Senator wanted to be restrained.

Fortunately for Senator Padilla, someone from his office recorded a portion of the incident — a true Kodak moment.

Hoping to milk this melodrama for all it was worth, Padilla tearfully recounted the event on the floor of the U.S. Senate a few days ago. Boo hoo!

I've got no sympathy for Senator Padilla or any other Democratic politician who gets restrained or arrested for interfering with federal efforts to remove criminal aliens from the United States. 

Like Brer Rabbit, these clowns want to be thrown in the briar patch. I would be happy to see them spend some time in jail.

Please don't throw me in that briar patch!

90-second book review: Jesus Wept is a To Do List for Pope Leo XIV

Seeing things with the eyes of Christ inspires the Church's pastoral care for the faithful who are living together, or are only married civilly, or are divorced and remarried. 

Pope Francis

Amoris Laetitia, October 1, 2015

Jesus Wept: Seven Popes And The Battle for the Soul of the Catholic Church was released early this year before the death of Pope Francis. Authored by Philip Shenon, an award-winning investigative reporter, the book chronicles the papacies of the seven popes that preceded Pope Leo XIV, from Pius XII to Pope Francis. 

Shenon's book began by focusing on Vatican II and the primary issues facing the Catholic Church when the Council of Cardinals began its deliberations in 1962.  First, should Catholic priests and deacons be permitted to marry? Second, should the Church allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion? Third, should the ban on birth control be lifted?

A commission created by Pope Paul VI during the Vatican II proceedings recommended that the Church permit married couples to avail themselves of artificial birth control, but Pope Paul rejected its recommendations. In 1968, he issued Humanae Vitae, which proclaimed all contraceptives to be contrary to the Catholic faith.

Regarding the question of whether priests should be permitted to marry, the Church has not budged; priests must remain celibate. However, married men can be ordained as deacons, and married Episcopal priests who enter the Catholic Church through the Anglican Rite process can become Catholic priests. 

Nor has the Church retreated from the position that divorced Catholics who remarry are barred from the sacraments. Shenon wrote that Pope Francis made the annulment process easier (p. 504), but he's wrong about that. In many dioceses, divorced Catholics must go through a modern-day Inquisition when seeking an annulment, and the outcome is uncertain. In other dioceses, an annulment is merely a financial transaction; a marriage can be nullified simply by prayerfully writing a check.

Millions of Catholics and lapsed Catholics are looking to Pope Leo to reject the Church's heartless and clueless positions on these three burning issues:

• First, priests should be permitted to marry.

• Second, married Catholics should be able to avail themselves of contraceptives without being branded as sinners.

• Third, divorced Catholics who remarry should be able to receive Communion, as Pope Francis suggested in his Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia — a document that he did not have the courage to operationalize.

The Big Lebowski Riots of 2025: Revolt of the Weenies

 Leftists argue that the anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles are "largely peaceful," while the Trump team insists that the demonstrations are riots--a breakdown of law and order.

After watching an hour or so of video of the LA shenanigans today, I'm on the fence. On the one hand, I saw plenty of recorded video of vandalism, looting, blocked highways, and burning cars. Call me old-fashioned, but that stuff looks like a riot.

On the other hand, I viewed footage of thousands of people aimlessly milling around, using their cell phones to record thousands of other people who were aimlessly milling around. 

What are they going to do with all those home movies? Show 'em to their grandkids? I have a vision of grumpy old codgers sitting around their TVs fifty years from now inflicting these videos on their grandkids. 

Who are these morose wanderers?

To my surprise, a good percentage of the demonstrators are older people with gray hair and sagging bellies. Are they retired, taking a day off from playing bingo at their neighborhood senior center? 

 In addition, many protesters are working-age Angelinos, people who should be toiling at jobs on a summer weekday. Are they unemployed? Did they take a sick day to wave anti-ICE signs around?

Finally, I saw a minority of protesters, mostly teenagers or young adults, loitering on the sidewalks and streets. These are the youthful bellyachers most likely to throw rocks and set cars on fire.

No doubt some of them will be committing mischief after nightfall.  Today, however, the young demonstrators appeared to be a crowd of loafers who were essentially harmless.

Regardless of age, a majority of the complainers strolling around downtown LA appeared to be lethargic, passive, and bored. I saw one frizzy-haired, thirtish woman try to get an angry chant going, but her efforts came to nothing. Too friggin' hot to get riled up.

An image flashed in my mind of the Big Lebowski--the dude bowling in his pajamas with fellow losers Walter and Donny. By and large, the LA riot is a revolt of the weenies. 

So, Governor Newsom, California's Weenie in Chief, may be right. We don't need the Marines to put down this sad affair. We simply need to remind this assemblage of malcontents to stay hydrated and use lots of sunscreen.

Hey, dude. Let's go bowling.

Mainly Peaceful? Mostly Peaceful? Largely Peaceful? Are Folks Rioting in the City of Angels?

 Anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles have gone on for almost a week.  As Matt Taibbi pointed out in a recent blog, the legacy media have characterized these demonstrations as "mostly peaceful." Still, commentators avoid using that exact phrase because a CNN reporter was mocked for using it while standing before a burning building during the Minneapolis riot in 2020.

President Trump thinks the ruckus in Los Angeles is a riot, and he called out the National Guard and the Marines. Governor Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass claim they have the protests under control and that Trump is overreacting.

Nevertheless, Mayor Bass imposed a curfew on downtown LA yesterday, acknowledging incidents of vandalism and looting. Protesters have set vehicles on fire and pelted local police with rocks and broken pieces of concrete. The anti-ICI crowd has stopped traffic on the 101 freeway. And then there are those Molotov cocktails.

I'd call that a riot. 

Whether President Trump should intervene to stop the rioting is another matter. Calling out 4,000 National Guard soldiers and a Marine battalion is a serious business, and most folks would rather local authorities deal with the civil unrest if they are capable of doing so.

Federal Judge Charles Breyer will rule on Governor Newsom's request for an injunction against federal intervention within the next few days.

My position from Flyover Country is to support President Trump. Violence, arson, and looting got entirely out of hand during the George Floyd riots of 2020--especially in Minneapolis and Seattle. Who wants a repeat of that season of discontent?

Today, Governor Greg Abbott mobilized the Texas National Guard in anticipation of planned anti-ICE demonstrations in San Antonio. That makes sense as well.  

The last thing this nation needs is for urban rioting to spread to other cities. Governor Newsom contends that the military presence in LA foments more violence. I don't think that's true.

What's a little rioting among friends?

The Los Angeles Anti-ICE Riots: Do They Signal the Collapse of the American Project?

Protesters rioted over the weekend in Los Angeles, burning cars, blocking roadways, and attacking local police.

President Trump activated 2,000 National Guard troops to stop the rampage. Later, he dispatched an additional 2,000 soldiers along with 700 Marines assigned to guard government buildings.

Not surprisingly, the State of California sued the Trump administration, claiming the National Guard mobilization is unlawful. President Trump hinted that California Governor Gavin Newsom should be arrested, and Newsom publicly dared the Feds to do it.

How serious are these Los Angeles demonstrations? The legacy press has characterized them as “largely peaceful,” and some outlets pointedly avoid calling them riots. Governor Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass assure the public that state and local law enforcement agencies have the situation well in hand. They contend that the presence of federal troops has increased tensions in Los Angeles and added to the violence.

Other commentators see the riots from a darker perspective. David French, writing in the New York Times, decried President Trump's intervention as a sign that "America is no longer a stable country." Leighton Woodhouse, reporting for The Free Press, concluded his essay on the recent turmoil by observing that Los Angeles “felt like a bomb ready to explode.”

I’m unsure what to make of the anti-ICE protests. On the one hand, the recent demonstrations are just another episode in America’s long history of civil unrest: the Whiskey Rebellion in the late eighteenth century, the Philadelphia Bible riots of 1844, and the Bonus Army protests following World War I.

All these uprisings were quelled by the military. More recently, troops were called out to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock and to quell violence that erupted after the deaths of Martin Luther King and George Floyd.

The Nation survived all these disturbances. Indeed, we are about to celebrate America’s 250th birthday.

Somehow, however, the LA riots seem different from past disturbances. The people burning cars and throwing rocks at the police are opposed to the very idea of national borders or an orderly immigration process. They don’t want anyone deported, not even foreign rapists and human traffickers.

The rioters also have allies in the legacy media and the Democratic Party. No mainstream commentator advocates violence, but many are rabidly opposed to President Trump’s efforts to secure our country’s southern border.

Perhaps the anti-ICE protests are the latest example of a national tradition of summertime urban riots that subside as the weather turns cooler in the autumn.

Or perhaps, the Los Angeles riot signals a general breakdown of allegiance to traditional American values, patriotism, and the notion that the territory within our borders deserves to be defended and cherished. In other words, the protesters shutting down the LA freeways are saying that they reject the American Project in the broadest sense.

We should know one way or the other within the coming months.

Marines in Los Angeles Image credit: Reuters

 

 

 

America's Irish Republican Army: The Symbiotic Relationship Beween the Democratic Party and Anti-Trump Terrorism

Americans, by and large, have little interest in history, and this is particularly true of the nation's educated elites, including those in Congress, the media, and academia.

This is unfortunate because we can learn from studying historical events. For example, there are clear parallels between the terrorism that Ireland experienced in the last half of the twentieth century and the rising tide of leftist terrorism that roils the United States today.

The Irish Republican Army was made up of various factions that committed acts of terror in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, including bombings, ambushes, and political assassinations. These groups acted independently, but all were committed to ending British rule in Northern Ireland. Likewise, various independent groups and some lone individuals are fomenting terrorism in the United States today, but all are intent on undermining American society.

Over the past few years, America has seen a rise in terrorism, mainly from the left. The George Floyd riots in 2020, violent anti-Israel protests at American universities, two attempted assassinations against Donald Trump,  and, most recently, violent attacks against law enforcement officers trying to deport criminal aliens--all this is terrorism.

Americans forget that the Irish Republican Army had a political ally: Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin purported to be completely independent from the IRA, but as a PBS Frontline report noted, "The relationship between Sinn Féin and the IRA, historically, has been symbiotic."

Indeed, PBS observed:

Sinn Féin was very much an auxiliary of the Irish Republican Army. They were there for propaganda purposes, they were there to raise the funds, [and] they were there to speak on behalf of the IRA . . . .

Moreover, PBS reported, Sinn Féin "wasn't in the business of electioneering, it was in the business of propagandizing." 

Today, the Democratic Party is a de facto auxiliary of domestic terrorism.  I'm not suggesting that Democratic senators are making Molotov cocktails in their legislative offices or that legacy journalists are buying gasoline for Antifa. Still, Democrats are using political influence, media propaganda, and lawfare to attack governmental efforts to combat terrorism in this country. 

From my Flyover Country perspective, the Democrats aren't even trying to regain the majority in Congress. Insane support for transgender athletes, wild-eyed references to Trump as a Nazi, and mindless opposition to deporting criminal aliens are not the tactics of a mainstream American political Party.

In short. The Democratic Party is the present-day equivalent of Sinn Féin. Just as Sinn Féin was dedicated to ending British rule in Northern Ireland, the Progressive Dems are intent on destroying our democracy--the very thing they accuse President Trump of doing.

Russia attacks Ukraine with 407 drones and 45 missiles, but only 3 Ukrainians are killed?

 A few days ago, Ukraine launched a major drone attack on Russia, destroying over 40 strategic bombers. Last night, Russia retaliated, hitting Ukrainian cities with 407 attack drones and 45 missiles, "one of the war's largest air attacks." According to the Ukrainian military, the Russians only killed three people. That's one fatality for every 150 projectiles.

The Ukrainian narrative is about as plausible as Jake Tapper's book on President Biden's dementia. After three years of warfare, does anyone believe Ukraine's reports that only a handful of Ukrainian civilians are getting killed from aerial bombardments?  

And what about the military casualty figures? Westerners estimate that 250,000  Russian soldiers have been killed during the three years of warfare, compared to only 60,000 Ukrainians. Can that be true?

The Western media, by and large, has been content to accept the Ukrainian spin on the war. The reality is that millions of Ukrainians have fled the country to escape the conflict, and incalculable damage has been done to Ukraine's infrastructure. Ukraine's reports on its military casualties are not credible; surely as many Ukrainian soldiers have been killed as Russians.

Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State during President Trump's first presidential term, visited Odessa late last month, reportedly stirring up trouble. While attending the "Black Sea Security Forum," he urged the West not to accede to Russia's claims on Crimea. To recognize Crimea as a part of Russia, he darkly warned, "would be a mistake of epic proportions."

That's nuts. If the U.S. keeps backing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in his delusional quest to throw Russia out of Crimea, we will eventually stumble into a nuclear war. 

Mr. Pompeo may be willing to risk sending America's young people to war to get Russia out of Crimea. I am not, and neither, I hope, are the American people.